Ma

AV

a

ARRA

KIMI

1

i&icicab

1

Wti

0d

International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Intercultural Relations

j ourna l ho me pag e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / i j in t re l

aori culture as a psychological asset for New Zealanders’cculturation experiences abroad�

wanui Te Huia ∗, James H. Liuictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 17 September 2010eceived in revised form 23 February 2011ccepted 7 March 2011

eywords:ndigenous acculturation

aori/New Zealanders abroadndigenous relationship development

a b s t r a c t

Qualitative research with 16 participants addressed the acculturation experiences of Maoriand Pakeha New Zealanders in Japan. Thematic analyses of interviews revealed threethemes including Te turanga a nga manuhiri: tauiwi (foreigner) as a liveable subjectposition, Nga painga atu o tawahi: positive/neutral representations of Maori outside ofNew Zealand, and Kia mau hei tiki: shared benefits of symbolic representation for Maori(indigenous people) and Pakeha (European settlers). Those participants with the most pos-itive intercultural engagement experiences did not try to identify with the host culture,but were able to relate to the host culture. Maori actively utilised indigenous frameworks(such as manuhiri/tauiwi – guest/foreigner) to successfully adapt as out-group members.Secondly, Maori were also relieved from negative stereotyping experienced within NewZealand. Finally, Maori cultural activities (kapa haka performances) and symbols acted as aprotective factor for both Maori and Pakeha abroad at both the individual and group levels.

© 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

. Introduction

Research in acculturation (Ward, Bochner, & Furnham, 2001) is a burgeoning area that has investigated the culturaldentity and acculturation strategies of migrant groups and sojourners who are a majority in their home country (Ward

Lin, 2005). However, research into the acculturation experiences of minority groups and indigenous peoples abroads conspicuous in its absence. Research into indigenous experiences largely focuses on involuntary circumstances whereultural contact is caused by non-indigenous settlement of indigenous homelands (Berry & Sam, 1997). This is a weaknessn the literature. Prior learning experience with identity negotiation and accommodation of dominant cultural practices isommonplace for indigenous peoples (and other minority groups). This learning is likely to play a central role when theycculturate in a voluntary capacity abroad. Skills adapted during learning encounters in the home country as a minority maye applied in a beneficial manner to reduce acculturation stress overseas.

.1. Minority status as a cultural and symbolic resource in acculturation

Cultural diversity and multiculturalism are increasing in postcolonial societies like New Zealand, Australia, and Canada.

hile these countries are substantially less mono-cultural than others (such as Japan or Korea), there are dominant cultures

hat exist within these societies (Ward et al., 2001). According to identity negotiation theory (Ting-Toomey, 2005), minor-ty group members who master their intercultural relationships in a country like the United States of America may have

� The paper was reviewed and accepted by the prior Editor-in-Chief, Dan Landis.∗ Corresponding author at: School of Psychology, Victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand.

E-mail address: Awanui.tehuia@vuw.ac.nz (A. Te Huia).

147-1767/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.oi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.003

A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150 141

developed psychological resources that help to manage adaptation in a new country (such as Korea). On the basis of iden-tity negotiation theory, individuals who creatively cope with challenges of identity are described as cultural transformers(Ting-Toomey, 2005). These challenges include identity security-vulnerability, inclusion-exclusion, connection-autonomy,predictability-unpredictability, and consistency-change dynamics.

In contrast, the culture of the dominant group members is often made invisible because that culture is widely under-stood by society (Black & Huygens, 2007; Liu, 2005; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008), leaving majority culture members withlittle opportunity to practice ethnic identity negotiation. Familiarity with societal constructs provides advantages for dom-inant culture members when residing in their home society. Participating in state education, health, employment requiresengagement with the dominant culture, and those who do not engage with such societal institutions are faced with negativeconsequences (Durie, 1997; Gracey & King, 2009; Robson & Harris, 2007).

In New Zealand, the arrival of Captain James Cook in 1769 instigated a large-scale migration of European (mainly British)settlers. In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi (an agreement made between Maori Chiefs and the British Crown) was estab-lished. While the Treaty of Waitangi was a novel development in the history of British colonisation driven by humanitarianideals, negative effects of colonisation on Maori have been consistent with other indigenous experiences (Human RightsCommission, 2009). Most recent national statistics show that Pakeha (New Zealand European) make up 71% of the popu-lation, Maori 15%, Asian groups 10%, and Pacific peoples 7% (Statistics New Zealand, 2006). Health and wellbeing researchhas shown that Maori reported the highest occurrence of racial discrimination (34%), followed by Asian groups (28%) andPacific peoples (25%) (Robson & Harris, 2007). Therefore, release from discrimination is likely to be beneficial to Maori whochoose to emigrate abroad.

Although New Zealand’s race relations contain conflict, the Treaty of Waitangi provides the underpinnings for a biculturalnational identity (King, 2003; Liu, 2005). Implicit association tests have shown that both Maori and Pakeha are equallylikely to view both parties as symbolically belonging to New Zealand (Sibley & Liu, 2007; Sibley, Liu, & Khan, 2008). Thesefindings contrast with results from the United States, where symbols of America are implicitly associated with Anglo-Americans (Devos & Banaji, 2005). In New Zealand, Maori culture provides symbolic unity between Maori and Pakehadespite disadvantages for Maori in terms of the distribution of material resources (Liu, 2005) and well-being (Harris et al.,2006).

1.2. Maori culture as a symbolic reserve

The most commonly used dimension for understanding cultural variation is individualism versus collectivism (Markus &Kitayama, 1991). The collectivism in cultures such as Japan is fundamentally relational, whereby the value of relationshipswithin a group is higher than categorical information about which group you belong to (Yuki, Maddux, Brewer, & Takemura,2005). A meta-analysis including 170 studies comparing cultures on individualism and collectivism scales showed thatPakeha (New Zealand Europeans) rated highly on levels of individualism (Oyserman, Coon, & Kemmelmeier, 2002). Therefore,it is likely that when Pakeha live in Japan, their styles of relating to others will be different from Japanese relational styles.This has the potential to cause acculturation stress.

Maori values such as manaakitanga (hospitality) demonstrate an importance placed on interdependence closely resem-bling the need for relational selves. The concept of relational self defines an individual through their connections and rolerelationships with others (Brewer & Chen, 2007). The importance of interdependence in Maori culture can be seen in theMaori proverbial saying, “he tangata takahi manuhiri, he marae puehu” (Mead & Grove, 2003). This proverb explains that ifguests are not properly respected, the marae (tribal gathering place) would lose its life force, having substantial negativeimpacts to well-being. Within the concept of manaakitanga, preparations to host guests are essential for future relationships.In situations where groups are being hosted, criticisms of poor enactments of manaakitanga can last for generations follow-ing the event (Mead, 2003). The importance of maintaining positive long-term strategic relationships in Maori society is alsodemonstrated by the practice of tamaiti whangai (customary adoption), whereby children are raised outside the biologicalparental-child relationship, creating beneficial long-term relationships between families and larger groupings (Mead, 1997).

While many studies have investigated acculturation challenges of migrants transitioning from individualistic culturesto collectivistic cultures or vice versa, research experiences of collectivists migrating to collectivistic cultures is largelyunexplored. The combination of Maori who are more relationally focused and Pakeha who are typically individualistic(Harrington & Liu, 2002) leaves uncertainty about how the bicultural heritage of New Zealand will travel abroad. WhilePakeha associate Maori culture with New Zealand, there is a lack of evidence about how Maori culture impacts on Pakehabeyond a superficial level. Like other dominant groups, Pakeha typically report weaker ethnic identity than minorities, andoften define themselves in terms of the superordinate national identity. In New Zealand, however, some Pakeha who utiliseMaori culture within their self presentation acknowledge the relationship they share with Maori (McCreanor, 2005). In aninternational context, it is likely that Pakeha will utilise Maori cultural symbols as a point of distinction with the foreignhost culture and other sojourners, thus creating a positive social identity partially grounded in Maori culture. For Maori thesymbolic value of culture is likely to hold personal connections to their culture rather than holding meaning as a symbol of

nationality.

The current study will explore how Maori who migrate utilise forms of social identity negotiation adapted from experi-ences within New Zealand. The relational values of both Maori and Japanese cultures suggest that Maori will perceive lowlevels of cultural distance in Japan. Negative stereotyping and targeted discrimination are unlikely to be features of Maori

1

mt

a

2

2

Mb

P(s

2

hpw

TntrsppiPad

2

lwqpspti

cgtMhP

3

vTt

42 A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

igration experiences there. Given acceptance by Pakeha towards symbolic aspects of biculturalism (Liu, 2005), it is likelyhat Maori symbolic elements will provide support for positive acculturation experiences for both Maori and Pakeha.

As this paper is one of the first studies we know of examining the acculturation experiences of an indigenous peoplebroad, qualitative methods provide the kind of broad scope most helpful for investigation.

. Method

.1. Participants

A total of 16 participants took part in the study, 11 males, and 5 females. Nine participants identified themselves asaori and among these several reported iwi (tribal) links. The duration of years Maori participants had lived in Japan ranged

etween 1.5 and 13 years (M = 5.1 years). New Zealand Maori participants’ ages ranged from 22 to 40 years (Median = 30).The seven New Zealand European participants were asked to self identify ethnicity. These participants self identified as:

akeha; Kiwi; New Zealand; ‘Whitey’; Mixed; and European. The duration they lived in Japan ranged from 1 to 17 yearsM = 5.5 years), and their ages ranged from 27 to 41 years (Median = 35). While some participants expressed that they wereettled in Japan, all except one indicated that they intended to return to New Zealand eventually.

.2. Procedure

Interviewees were selected through qualitative snowballing techniques (Sixsmith, Boreham, & Goldring, 2003) whicheld advantages for the current research. Through snowballing, the researcher was guided to members of the expatriatearticipant group who may not have otherwise been accessible. Constraints of the method meant that the participant groupas not a representative sample. However, the group was diverse in their life experiences and backgrounds.

Interviews were held in three Japanese locations close to participants’ areas of residence. These locations were Osaka,okyo, and Takamatsu. Interviews were held in public restaurants closest to participants’ workplaces as restaurants wereeutral and were most accessible for participants during work hours. An interview schedule and was developed on topicshat related to the participants’ experiences of living in Japan, their thoughts about New Zealand, their views on symbolicepresentations of New Zealand, and their descriptions about acculturating to a new country. A semi-structured interviewchedule was employed (available from authors). The extent to which the interview schedule was followed varied acrossarticipants depending on how open they were to discussing issues of race relations with some interviews needing morerompting than others. Furthermore, comfort levels of participants discussing potentially sensitive topics of identity during

nterviews were closely monitored, and subsequently determined the extent to which it was appropriate to continue probing.articipants were gifted food parcels from the interviewer’s home town in Japan as thanks for their participation. The firstuthor who conducted interviews resided in Japan at the time the interviews were held and is of both Maori and Pakehaecent.

.3. Analysis

Interviews were transcribed then analysed using the NVivo software package. NVivo assists in the process of organisingarge quantities of qualitative information systematically. Transcripts were coded and organised in categories, consistent

ith thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Initially, categories were arranged by how the interviewee responded to auestion. These subcategories were added together as separate components of larger themes. Views of Maori and non-Maoriarticipants were analysed separately. Major thematic and content areas were identified into subcategories of groupingsuch as: Maori or Japanese cultural involvement in Japan versus New Zealand; symbolic representation of taonga (prizedossessions); functionality of language (both Japanese and Maori); responsibility to cultural maintenance; interethnic rela-ions between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand versus Japan; perceptions of in-group inclusion versus discrimination; andnternational relations between Maori and Pakeha and Japanese.

Once initial coding and categorisation was complete, the codes within categories were examined for consistency withinategories and distinctiveness between categories. Some of the initial subcategories were less prominent across participantroup categories (such as the place of language and identity and responsibility for cultural continuation in New Zealand), andherefore, withdrawn from the final themes. Individual extracts were analysed to make meaningful interpretations about

aori and Pakeha acculturation experiences. Categories were then organised into final overarching themes. Participantsave been provided with pseudonyms to connect to the reader. Maori participants have been given Maori pseudonyms andakeha participants’ English pseudonyms to help the reader distinguish between the two groups.

. Results

Thematic analyses of interviews revealed three themes at the macro level. These themes were raised during inter-iews across participants multiple times without direct prompting, and discussions recurred as the interview progressed.e turanga a nga manuhiri: tauiwi (foreigner) as a liveable subject position where individuals feel comfortable in the rolehey have been assigned, Nga painga atu o tawahi: release from negative representations of Maori in New Zealand, and Kia

A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150 143

mau hei tiki: shared symbolic representation between Maori and Pakeha. While the translations of these theme labels arenot direct, the meanings conveyed in both languages are related.

The theme Te turanga a nga manuhiri, the manuhiri (guests) subject position provided Maori with a familiar framework forexpectations and was mostly prompted by questions about being accepted as a foreigner. Nga painga atu o tawahi exploredthe benefits Maori gain through being free from institutional racism, and discrimination common in New Zealand. Thethird theme Kia mau hei tiki discusses how the Maori culture has multiple representations for Maori and non-Maori NewZealanders abroad beneficial for psychological adaption.

Members belonging to the Japan based kapa haka were more forthcoming than participants overall in discussing conceptincluding identity and race relations which is evident in the results of the paper.

3.1. Te Turanga a nga Manuhiri: Tauiwi as a liveable subject position

Knowing which groups you belong to and which groups you do not are the essential elements of social identity accordingto Tajfel and Turner (1979). Maori hold a diverse range of identities in New Zealand. Durie (1994) explains that Maori whoidentify as being ‘culturally’ Maori understand their whakapapa (genealogy) and have knowledge of the Maori language andcustoms. ‘Bicultural’ individuals manage both Maori and Pakeha domains effectively, and the third position includes thosewho do not function well as either Maori or Pakeha and are described as ‘marginalised’.

For those who are familiar with the culture, Maori processes and ways of being provide frameworks for the develop-ment of new intercultural relationships. For instance, during powhiri, often connections through whakapapa are made, yetonce processes have been completed, roles are carried out that maintain distinctions between the host and the welcomedparty (Durie, 2001) rather than collapsing them into a single superordinate group. Manuhiri (guest) are given an honorarysubject position whereby extensive measures are taken to accommodate guests by the complementary relational categoryof haukainga (local people of the marae – tribal dwellings) (Mead, 2003). Maori connected with their marae would haveexperienced both the responsibilities of the host and being welcomed as a guest subject positions.

Marae protocols relating to host and guest responsibilities show strong parallels with the concept of tauiwi (foreigner)as a liveable subject position. Notions of tauiwi resonate with the Japanese term gaijin, whereby the foreigners’ societalstanding remains exactly that, foreigner, never to become a member of the Japanese ethnic in-group. There are similaritiesbetween the notion of tauiwi, and gaijin status. How participants related to others is framed by the following participant.

“I just don’t think we are Westerners, because we are the indigenous people of our country. So we’re the nativesand they’re the Westerners. I think I’m like a tauiwi here, but I don’t think I’m a Westerner. . . Westerners are a bitdifferent” [Mereana, 2 years in Japan]

A core theoretical assumption of identity negotiation suggests that predictability with culturally familiar other providespredictability and leads to trust (Ting-Toomey, 2005). The resemblance between the culturally defined term tauiwi andJapaneses gaijin subject positions were similar making the position acceptable. The position of tauiwi was also discussed incombination with maintaining a Maori identity abroad.

“In myself I feel like I’m Maori, you know, but we all put on different hats though don’t we? I know what’s expected ofme here in that role. So I perform that role. But as far as my spirituality is concerned, or how I like to express myselfas an individual I think I am, yeah, I’m Maori.” [Natana, 7+ years in Japan]

Identity of participants was diverse and varied in Maori identification. For some Maori participants, they felt the need toauthenticate their ethnic identity before claiming cultural belongingness.

“I don’t think you can [feel Maori in Japan], can you? Well I don’t know, I mean if you were really versed in your culture[then maybe], I think you need to know your language, that’s a big part of identity. [Wiremu, 4.5 years in Japan]

While varying in levels of felt authenticity and cultural competence, Maori participants were aware of what is considereda Maori cultural norm, versus a mainstream norm. Having to distinguish between what is appropriate, and what is notincreases levels of sensitivity to distinctiveness between cultures as discussed below. When asked whether participantsfelt they were being received differently in comparison to Western friends by the Japanese host culture, one participantresponded:

“Definitely. Because we have a culture. I shouldn’t say that but ah we have a very distinct culture and like Japanesehave a very distinct culture as well. So we’re very similar in that aspect, you know, very similar. . . Different things, Imean simple things, yeah? They take their shoes off when they go inside. We take our shoes off when we go inside.”[Ropata, 5 years in Japan]

The cultural distance (how similar or different one’s own culture is to another’s) (Cushner & Landis, 1996; Ebata &

Miyake, 1989) described by participants between Japanese culture and Maori culture was perceived as low which wasbeneficial to Maori in Japan. Low perceived cultural distance between Maori and Japanese is likely to be due to similarityin collectivism dimensions. Participants indicated that while a cultural identity is maintained, it is considered normal toaccommodate context dependent identities. Within collectivistic cultures (Bond, 1994; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), including

1

tdactp

opiwr

wy‘isls

Hmvl

tc

44 A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

he Maori culture (Durie, 2001), the importance of strategic relationship development supports the negotiation of contextependent relational identities. The dynamic interplay between cultures makes the skills needed to move between culturesn adaptive acculturation strategy for Maori who live abroad. These skills are described as fundamental aspect of beingompetent in identity negotiation and involve the integration of “identity based knowledge, mindfulness, and interaction skillso communicate appropriately and effectively with culturally dissimilar others” (Ting-Toomey, 2005, p. 218). For instance, onearticipant explained:

“I had a lot of hats, maybe for me, being Maori, being Maori first, growing up, we all live in two worlds back home.Maori and Pakeha. So from day one, we’ve got two hats. We know how to be amongst Maori and we know how to beamongst Pakeha. Same thing with Pakeha [as with Japanese here in Japan], if you’re not doing the Pakeha things, thenthey look at you funny, and “oh you bloody Maori”, that sort of thing, right? So that’s helped me to adapt. At the sametime, like I said before, I had a lot of Polynesian circles. So I was picking up their language, adapting to their cultureand their food, I was picking up a different hat all the time and adapting.” [Anaru, 4 years in Japan]

Context dependent identities were easily accommodated for some Maori participants. Knowing how to relate to a rangef individuals across diverse situations is discussed by Brewer and Chen (2007) as a feature of the relational self. Maoriarticipants who were comfortable with shifting roles depending on the situational demands found these skills beneficial

n Japan. One participant had strong relational ties (friendship groups, and marriage) and had acculturated into the Japaneseay of life. When asked whether the participant would feel accepted by the family as belonging to that culture the participant

esponded:

R “No, never.”

Int. “Does it bother you?”

R “Not really, no, no not at all. Cause I’m Maori. I know who I am. So I know where I’m from, yeah, not at all. Youknow it’s up to them whether they accept me or not.”

Int. “So why would they not? Why would they not accept you?”

R “There’s basically no reason not to. I’m not saying I’m a good dude, but you know what I mean aye? You mean likethey won’t accept me as a Japanese?

Int. [nod]

R Because I’m not Japanese. It’s like being a Maori and not. Of course you get some cool brothers that are Pakehabrothers, you know and they’re cool, they’ll always be our bros but they’ll never be Maori, you know?” [Ropata, 5 yearsin Japan]

This participant’s response was typical in the respect that Japan has a culture that is ethnically impermeable to thoseithout bloodlines. The participant explains a categorical differences between ethnic groups exist (i.e. Pakeha and Maori),

et group difference did not hold negative connotations which is indicated through the use of relational terms such asbrothers’ or ‘bros’ (Tomlins-Jahnke & Durie, 2008). Having a balance between identity security and vulnerability is part ofdentity negotiation theory, whereby individual strive for inclusion, predictability, and consistency in intercultural relation-hips (Ting-Toomey, 2005). Maori participants were generally aware of inclusion boundaries and were able to predict theimitations of acculturation in Japan. Having a relationship as an outside group member was a comfortable acculturationtrategy and a key point of difference between groups.

Not being accepted by the dominant culture as a group member is an experience of Maori in New Zealand (Black &uygens, 2007), and the previous comment suggests that Pakeha may be outgroup members in Maori contexts too. However,ajority group members have the choice whether or not to interact with minority group members where the reverse is less

oluntary. In New Zealand, in-group/out-group negotiation and experiences of ethnic exclusion prior to departure are lessikely to be a common experience for Pakeha:

“Living here it’s really strikingly different. All those other countries that I’ve lived in apart from Japan, the only timewhen I was ever made to feel like an outsider was as a deliberate kind of insult from someone who I might haveannoyed or I’d done something I shouldn’t have, if you like, a punishment. Oh you know, in Samoan like ‘you sillypalagi (foreign) boy, pick the lock with a piece of wire’. That [term Palagi] was used as punishment. But the rest of thetime I was just kind of one of the gang. Wasn’t an issue, whereas here [in Japan] it’s an issue all the time.” [George, 5years in Japan]

Group inclusion at a national level does not correspond with group inclusion at an ethnicity level. Participants discussedo the strict boundaries Japanese held compared to postcolonial New Zealand. Another Pakeha participant discussed herontrasting experiences of inclusion and exclusion at a national level:

“My best friend here is Indian, born in New Zealand. Um she’s a New Zealander. You know, basically, if you live in NewZealand then you’re a New Zealander, whereas here you’re not [Japanese].” [Shelley, 7+ years in Japan]

A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150 145

While the comment above suggests that if you live in New Zealand you are granted title as a New Zealander, there islittle evidence to suggest that individuals from non-dominant groups are classified as purely ‘New Zealander’. Rather, thismay be a privilege associated with being members of the dominant group (Ward & Lin, 2005). Subtle differences betweenthe response sets of Maori and Pakeha participants were drawn upon when discussing available identities, to accommodatesocial identity positioning and negotiation. In a context similar to that expressed by the previous Maori participant, thefollowing Pakeha participant describes a more reactionary utilisation of a national identity to protect the self from out-grouptreatment.

I have this backlash sometimes. The “you’re Japanese, I’m not”. And then I like being here, which is fine, you know. You[Japanese] kind of treat me different, I’m not part of your group so I’m not allowed in. I don’t resent that becausefrankly why would I want to be anything other than a New Zealander, which is what I am. [George, 5 years inJapan]

Ting-Toomey’s (2005) identity negotiation theory explains that the more realistic the expectations those accultur-ating have about the new cultural environment, the more psychologically prepared they are to cope with the novelsurroundings. Not having opportunities to experience ethnic exclusion may leave individuals unprepared for exclusionarysystems.

3.2. Te Painga atu o Tawahi: release from negative representation of Maori in New Zealand

New Zealand dominant discourse has prescribed Maori with a set of attributes (often negative) which arehistorically interlinked and deep seated (McCreanor, 2005; Nairn & McCreanor, 1997). In Japan, Maori areable to escape negative references and discrimination from mainstream New Zealand society (Harris et al.,2006).

N It’s not until you live in a foreign country and you go back you think, oh New Zealanders think a little bit weird inthis area or that area, and their attitudes towards Maori is still like, not that good. Or just little things that I can’t evenreally put my finger on. I still get quite fed up I think with some New Zealanders. You know I still get it. I always haverun ins but I sort of think New Zealand attitudes towards Maori sometimes, yeah, just those ideas you know still kindof like frustrates me.

Int. Do you get it over here as much? Or just when you go back home?

N Back home really. [Natana, 7+ years in Japan]

Media representation of Maori in New Zealand was also a factor that was suggested as perpetuating stereotypes ornegative imagery about Maori.

“I think that the Pakeha media, always, if they can find something a little wrong with what Maori are doing, they’lldefinitely attack it and make it bigger than it is”. [Mereana, 2 years]

Being removed from New Zealand’s perceptions gave Maori the opportunity to define who they wanted to be withouthaving to ward off negative inferences. The following participants explain how identities are situation dependent and basedon individual experiences:

“As a Maori abroad, there aren’t these preconceptions about what kind of person you are. A Maori is what you presentto them, so I think it’s a big plus for Maori who go overseas” [Wiremu, 4.5 years in Japan].

“How I look depends on the person who’s looking at me. . . I mean you can argue that well, the identity that I have isone that I also, it’s like, I won’t say developed but, that’s who I feel I am, being Maori, but it’s also an identity that’sbeen put on me because of New Zealand society right? So they’ve already put you in the box. But partly, I try andpromote myself as Maori first and foremost.” [Natana, 7+ years in Japan]

Through the consistent negative media portrayal of Maori, Pakeha views of Maori become internalised by some Maori,bearing impacts on wellbeing (Reid & Robson, 2007). In Japan, negative public representations of Maori did not seem to exist.Maori were able to share their experiences and culture in a context that was not tainted by expectations or preconceptions.

Within a Japanese context, Maori culture provided a point of positive distinctiveness among New Zealanders. Rather thanMaori being perceived as a negative reference group, Maori culture provided a set of assets that could be drawn from. Maoriparticipants expressed how they viewed the change in Pakeha perceptions:

“I’ve met a few other Pakeha from New Zealand, and what’s interesting, not only Pakeha but Indian New Zealand,Chinese New Zealand, in general, if they hadn’t had some kind of intelligent exposure to Maori culture back home,

they definitely realise the role Maori play outside of New Zealand. Realising, that’s what New Zealand is, it’s Maori.We as white Pakeha, we’re not the symbol, it’s Maori. Some of them think like that right? Not all. Some of them havecome to realise, yeah, Maori people aren’t just poor guitar playing, beer drinking, war fighting, once were warriorslooking people.” [Anaru, 4 years in Japan]

1

3

Nb

mwe

ao

aHd

t(

Pp

csAM

46 A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

.3. Kia Mau Hei Tiki – benefit of Maori culture for both Maori and Pakeha

For both Maori and non-Maori, Maori culture and its symbols provided identity resources to both Maori and Pakehaew Zealanders which supported acculturation experiences. Notably, representations of symbols had different meaningsetween groups.

Maori and Pakeha agreed when coming into contact with another New Zealander, New Zealanders generally tried toake connections through people they knew in common. These rules are also consistent with customary Maori practices,here contextual information about whakapapa, and land points, are explicated as part of formal greetings during rituals of

ncounter.

“I don’t know about any other country, but being a Kiwi and being Maori, you look for those connections. You knowyou can’t just sit back and like meet someone and just say “Hi, my name is, you know blah blah blah” and then be donewith it. We actually search deeper and like you know, and you don’t really give up until all avenues are exhausted. Idon’t know what it is. It’s a pull or drag that we feel. We have to make that common thread. In Japan it’s like, what’sthe word? It’s like exaggerated, you know? That pull, that drag that need to be connected is, is like exaggerated. You’retrying extra hard to make that connection, you know? And like 90 percent of the time, you do.” [Ropata, 5 years inJapan]

Pakeha and Maori participants signalled that being in Japan provided a heightened sense of connection to Maori culturend were comfortable with the relationship. Furthermore, the relationship between New Zealanders generally was seen asne which was supportive.

“Maori culture is a big part of New Zealand and of being a Kiwi and we kind of absorb a little bit of that, and I mean,I’m not Maori and I don’t have any Maori blood or anything but I think just knowing that I am a New Zealander andthat a big part of New Zealand is the Maori culture, I think that we kind of take on. . . adopt a little bit of that, andthat’s something that we’re proud of.” [Kimberly, 6 years in Japan]

“We rely on big families, you know for support and everything, so straight away we look for support and other Kiwi’sstraight away”. [Hemi, 3 years in Japan]

There were differences in the way participants described the strengths they gained from Maori taonga (usually describeds prized possessions, in this context, participants are referring to Maori designed greenstone or bone neck adornments).owever, the common element was that wearing Maori taonga had the same effect for both groups. Maori participantsescribed representations of taonga in relation to family, religion or identity as Maori. The following participants explain:

“Sometimes I just feel like wearing it). Why do I choose those special days? My religion is Ratana, and sometimes Ijust feel like, you know, being Maori. And because I have ta moko (Maori designed tattoo) too, I feel like I have mytaonga on me already, and that’s why I don’t need to wear it all the time.” [Mereana, 2 years in Japan]

When discussing the representation of ta moko, another participant explained:

“It’s just the story of my life – I started up the top with my friends and stuff, then it goes through my family – my mumand dad.” [Matiu, 2.5 years in Japan]

Both participants mentioned personal connections they felt by wearing taonga. This is consistent with research under-aken with Maori in New Zealand indicating that having ta moko is a celebration of identity, whakapapa and belongingnessNikora, Rua, & Te Awekotuku, 2003).

While Maori participants generally referred to examples of strengths taonga gave them at more of an individual level,akeha discussed taonga as being representative of identity at national level. When asked how wearing taonga made Pakehaarticipants feel in a Japanese context, responses included:

“Like a New Zealander” [Shelley, 7+ years in Japan]

“. . . it makes me feel good cause it like shows an identity, people come over and they’re like ‘oh what’s this?’ and Italk about it.” [Mark, 3 years in Japan]

“I have a bone carving, I’ve had it since I was this big, there are certain things about Maori culture which have justperforated right through everything right? And that’s like the little bone carvings, it’s like that little badge that says -I’m from New Zealand.” [Frank, 1 year in Japan]

Consistent with the ‘optimal distinctiveness’ theory of Brewer (1996), Pakeha participants sought belongingness as aitizens of New Zealand, and differentiation from being classified by others as simply a Western foreigner. Maori culturalymbols provided the foundation for optimal distinctiveness irrespective of whether participants identified as Maori or not.

mong New Zealand sojourners, there was a sense of pride in Maori culture. Pakeha commonly commented on the place ofaori taonga, commenting:

“My Grandmother gave me a greenstone for my 21st but I’d never worn it, I’d kept it but I’d never thought of wearingit back home, but you come over here and you’re like “I am a Kiwi” and you start thinking about what it means to

A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150 147

be a Kiwi, and because Maori culture is there, that’s something that we identify with as well. [Kimberly, 6 years inJapan]

“I think [taonga are] part of our culture that is shown. . . it’s just one of those things that you look at people who docome from overseas, you know generally people have. . . like in my house I’ve got a few tikis (neck adornments) [sic]and I’ve got like a map of New Zealand. . .” [Mark, 3 years in Japan]

“I’d like to think that the people who bought [taonga overseas] recognised that this is from New Zealand. . .” [George,5 years in Japan]

Maori cultural involvement was noted as a foundation for weaving Maori and Pakeha together in a Japanese context.

“Having that culture group [kapa haka], that already migrates us together, like when we come to Tokyo, it’s like oh, allthe other Kiwi’s know, they come and watch and it kind of brings that sense of belonging” [Mereana, 2 years in Japan]

Physical distance between members of the kapa haka and associated costs with being part of the group were not significantbarriers to member’s participation in the group, as the psychological benefits gained were discussed as being substantiallygreater than the sacrifice. Maintaining Maori cultural connections while in Japan was described as important for theiracculturation.

While there is a sense of unity and national identity for Pakeha that is underpinned by the Maori culture in Japan, furthereducation is needed with regards to intercultural understanding. Pakeha may have been exposed to Maori culture at a surfacelevel, however, customs and protocols at an in-depth level are not general knowledge to New Zealanders as expressed by theparticipant below. The following example demonstrates different levels of understanding about Maori customary practicesand appropriate usages of culture.

“It was kind of hard cause you had these Kiwis, who had kind of seen a kind of karanga (ceremonial call of welcomeset aside for occasions of significance) before but they don’t really know what it’s like. So they say, “oh can we havethat lady who kind of does that high pitched thing and can she kind of do it while all the guests are coming in?”, “Youmean a karanga? For a fanfare? I don’t think so”. It’s not a fanfare, and then you try to explain it, and then “oh can youbring a stick thingee and do the thing” it’s like “you mean a taiaha (a long weapon of hard wood carved at one end)?You mean a wero (a challenge during a ritual of encounter)?” [laugh], you feel like just going. . . It’s like yeah, that justreally cracks me up, that just really bothers me sometimes, but all you can do is just explain, and then once you justexplain it properly, then they go “oooh””. [Natana, 7+ years in Japan]

Without discounting the mutual benefits of the Maori culture for both Maori and Pakeha, Pakeha applications of culturalpractices (demonstrated above) show that further learning by Pakeha about Maori culture needs to be nurtured if symbolicbiculturalism is to be made more meaningful.

4. Discussion

The lived experiences of New Zealanders as sojourners are diverse yet interconnected. From a psychological perspectiveindividuals are provided with skills and frameworks that help to interpret cultural norms based on prior learning. Fig. 1illustrates the main themes of this study.

4.1. Te Turanga a nga Manuhiri

Maori responses indicated an understanding of their place as manuhiri (guest) in a foreign land. Insight into Maori languagedefinitions of identity are examined in the term tuakiri (identity) (Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori, 1996; Williams, 1957). Theterm can be defragmented in two parts tua referring to an external element to the self, and kiri meaning skin. Mead (2003)explains that the ‘external elements’ of tua refer to land points, the combined meaning expresses the notion of individualsbelonging to land, signifying the importance of land to individuals’ identities. Within Maori customary concepts individualsbelong to a turangawaewae which literally translates to a “place where one has rights of residence and belonging throughkinship and whakapapa” (Moorfield, 2005). Land has a whakapapa (genealogy) and is an identity aspect that distinguishesthe individual as a member of a particular group within Maori society (Mead, 2003).

While great importance is placed on an individual’s turangawaewae, Maori also place value on voyaging into new realms.In the contemporary context of sojourning experiences, there is a common understanding that while individuals may ventureto foreign lands, this land does not become their turangawaewae (Mead, 2003), as sojourners cannot claim genealogical linksirrespective of how long they stay, or how well they adapt and participate in a given culture.

The results of this study incorporate this perspective through explaining that while Maori participants were capable of

becoming entrenched in the host society (for example through behavioural adaptations, marriage, friends, language), theyretained a distinctly Maori identity. When experiencing social exclusion, the impact was not lasting and did not lead tonegative evaluations of the host culture. Results showed that Maori respondents expected host culture exclusion in certainsituations, relating intergroup relations to situations experienced in New Zealand between Maori and Pakeha.

148 A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

iaer

gboct

4

etwp

2aKept

4

skTlaTv

Fig. 1. Acculturation processes of Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders.

This finding departs from literature which suggests that the most adaptive acculturation strategy is integration, wherendividuals identify strongly with their own distinct culture as well as the dominant host culture. Contrary to this suggestion,nalysis of participants’ responses in the present study suggests that those participants with the most positive interculturalngagement experiences were those who did not try to identify with the host culture, but rather those who were able toelate to the host culture as an out-group member.

This relational strategy fits well within contexts of Maori encounters, where there are two goals of interactions: The firstoal is creating connections and cohesion between groups, yet the second goal is to is to affirm the distinction in identitiesetween groups (Durie, 2001). Similar to findings by Rata, Liu, and Hanke (2008), Maori in the present study were supportivef accepting points of difference between cultures without perceiving that one group was morally inferior to the other. Byontrast, Pakeha tend to have an inclination to unconsciously assimilate Maori identity into the dominant culture, withinhe positive naivety of preserving harmony irrespective of its homogenising effects (Tuffin, 2008).

.2. Te Painga atu o Tawahi: release from negative representation of Maori in New Zealand

The absence of institutional racism and discrimination of Maori in Japan permitted individuals in the present study toxpress themselves as Maori with either neutrality and/or positive distinction. For Maori who do not identify strongly withheir culture, the absence of negative imagery about the Maori culture from the dominant culture was also rewarding. Resultsere consistent with research from Australia that one of the main reasons for Maori leaving New Zealand was perceivedrejudice from Pakeha, and mainstream negativity about Maori issues (Te Puni Kokiri, 2007).

The increase of foreigners in Japan is a relatively recent phenomenon which began only in the late 1980s (Ishikawa & Liaw,009). Research regarding migration to Japan describes Japan’s immigration regulations as ‘highly restrictive’ and holdingn ethnocentric ideology (Ishikawa & Liaw, 2009). While ethnic discrimination does occur in Japan, groups such as Brazilian,orean, Chinese, rather than Maori, are target negative reference groups. Participants in this study were in a high socioconomic group with most having gained a tertiary qualification in New Zealand. The economic and educational situation ofarticipants combined with identity enhancing practices (such as kapa haka) and social support are factors which are likelyo have impacted on positive acculturation of Maori in Japan.

.3. Kia Mau Hei Tiki – benefit of Maori culture for both Maori and Pakeha

Maori culture provided a psychological protection for Maori who identified with their culture. Cultural symbolic repre-entations and cultural support networks supported New Zealanders living overseas. For those participants belonging to theapa haka group the support network and connections to the Maori culture had the effect of reducing acculturation stress.hese findings are similar to the experiences of Maori who belong to kapa haka in Australia (Te Puni Kokiri, 2007), and

ikely other parts of the world. Kapa haka provided a space where Maori cultural norms are practiced and respected withinn international environment, enabling Maori to feel a balanced level of identity security in an unfamiliar environment.hese factors are likely to have contributed to their ability practice identity negotiation without an overbearing level ofulnerability (Ting-Toomey, 2005).

A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150 149

Research has well established that Maori values beliefs, language and culture continue to influence Maori social identityand wellbeing (Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Durie, 1997; Gee, Stephens, Higgins, & Liu, 2003). However, this studyprovides insights into how Maori culture impacts positively on the wellbeing of Pakeha New Zealanders. Maori cultureprovides a point of difference from other foreigners which is meaningful and significant to both Maori and Pakeha NewZealanders. Pakeha reflected on what it means to ‘be Kiwi’ in connection to the relationship held with Maori and the Maoriculture. In this sense, the power held between Maori and Pakeha in a New Zealand context changed in an international envi-ronment where identity of the majority group was influenced by the indigenous minority. However, a better understandingof appropriate uses of Maori cultural practices would certainly be beneficial for all concerned.

The current study sought to investigate the acculturation experiences of New Zealanders sojourning in Japan. Morespecifically, this study aimed to provide an indigenous perspective of acculturation, and to explore the strengths that cultureprovides spiritually and psychologically during the acculturation process. The responses of both Maori and Pakeha NewZealanders were explored, and found that Maori participants tended to describe their acculturation experiences as beingless stressful than their Pakeha counterparts. This result also resonates with Ting-Toomey’s (2005) suggestion that minoritygroup members (in this case Maori) may adapt well to intercultural situations due to their practice in becoming ‘culturaltransformers’. However, a point of disjuncture from Ting-Toomey’s conclusions can be seen in the findings of the presentstudy. Maori participants suggested that it was not their ability to ‘transform’ to the foreign cultural context that facilitatedtheir positive acculturation experiences, but rather their ability to position themselves strongly within their ethnic identitywhich enabled them to forge an intercultural relationship, as connected outsiders. The findings of the present study furtherilluminate the processes through which having a strong cultural identity facilitates intercultural interactions and offersinsights into how positive acculturation experiences can be promoted.

Acknowledgements

Kau ake nga mihi ki nga kaiuiui, mei kore ake koutou i tenei rangahau. We are especially thankful to all participants whogenerously shared their time and their thoughts which provided the foundation for this research. Thanks also to Arama Ratawho provided thoughtful and constructive feedback.

References

Berry, J., Phinney, J., Sam, D., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant youth: Acculturation, identity, and adaption. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55,303–332.

Berry, J., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaption. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Volume3: Social behavior and applications. London: Allyn and Bacon.

Black, R., & Huygens, I. (2007). Pakeha culture and psychology. In I. Evans, J. Rucklidge, & M. O’Driscoll (Eds.), Professional practice of psychology in AotearoaNew Zealand. Wellington: The New Zealand Psychological Society Inc.

Bond, M. H. (1994). Into the heart of collectivism: A personal and scientific journey. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S.-C. Choi, & F. Yoon (Eds.),Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method and application (2nd edition, pp. 66–76). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.Brewer, M. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3/4), 291–303.Brewer, M., & Chen, Y. (2007). Where (who) are collectives in collectivism? Toward conceptual clarification of individualism and collectivism. Psychological

Review, 114(1), 133–151.Cushner, K., & Landis, D. (1996). The intercultural sensitizer. In D. Landis, & R. S. Bhagat (Eds.), Handbook of intercultural training (2nd edition, pp. 185–202).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 447–466.Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: Maori health development. Auckland: Oxford University Press.Durie, M. (1997). Identity, nationhood and implications for practice in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 26(2), 32–38.Durie, M. (2001). Mauri Ora. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.Ebata, K., & Miyake, Y. (1989). A mental health survey of the Vietnamese refugees in Japan. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 35, 164–172.Gee, S., Stephens, M., Higgins, T., & Liu, J. (2003). Toku reo, toku mana! Toku reo, toku tuakiri! Toku reo, toku mauri ora! [Te reo, ethnic identity and

well-being]. He Pukenga Korero, 7, 16–24.Gracey, M., & King, M. (2009). Indigenous health. Part 1. Determinants and disease patterns. The Lancet, 374(9683), 66–76.Harrington, L., & Liu, J. H. (2002). Self-enhancement and attitudes towards high achievers: A bicultural view of the independent and interdependent self.

Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 33(1), 37–55.Harris, R., Tobias, M., Jeffreys, M., Waldegrave, K., Karlsen, S., & Nazroo, J. (2006). Racism and health: The relationship between experience of racial

discrimination and health in New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 63, 1428–1441.Human Rights Commission. (2009). Tui Tui Tuituia: Race relations in 2008. Wellington: Human Rights Commission.Ishikawa, Y., & Liaw, L. (2009). The 1995–2000 interprefectural migration of foreign residents of Japan: Salient features and multivariate explanation.

Population, Space and Place, 15, 401–428.King, M. (2003). The Penguin history of New Zealand. Auckland: Penguin Books.Liu, J. H. (2005). History and identity: A system of checks and balances for Aotearoa/New Zealand. In J. H. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh, & T. Teaiwa (Eds.),

New Zealand identities: Departures and destinations (pp. 69–87). Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University Press.Markus, H., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.McCreanor, T. (2005). “Sticks and stones may break my bones. . .”: Talking Pakeha identities. In J. H. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh, & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New

Zealand identities: Departures and destinations (pp. 52–68). Wellington: Victoria University Press.Mead, H. (1997). Tamaiti Whangai: The adopted child. In Landmarks, bridges and visions. Wellington: Victoria University.Mead, H. (2003). Tikanga Maori: Living by Maori values. Wellington: Huia Publishers.

Mead, H., & Grove, N. (2003). Nga Pepeha a nga Tıpuna. Wellington: Victoria University of Wellington.Moorfield, J. (2005). Te Aka: Maori-English, English-Maori online dictionary. Auckland: Pearson Longman.Nairn, R., & McCreanor, T. (1997). Pakeha representations of race relations: Implications for mental health. New Zealand Journalism Review, 5, 26–28.Nikora, L., Rua, M., & Te Awekotuku, N. (2003). In J. Russell (Ed.), In your face: Wearing moko - Maori facial marking in today’s world. Paper presented at The

Tatau/tattoo: Embodied art and cultural exchange conference.

1

O

P

RR

RS

S

S

STTTT

TTW

W

WY

50 A. Te Huia, J.H. Liu / International Journal of Intercultural Relations 36 (2012) 140– 150

yserman, D., Coon, H., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.

urdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities.Sex Roles, 59, 377–391.

ata, A., Liu, J. H., & Hanke, K. (2008). Maori conceptualizations of intergroup forgiveness. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 18–30.eid, P., & Robson, B. (2007). Understanding health inequities. In B. Robson, & R. Harris (Eds.), Hauora: Maori standards of health IV. A study of the years

2000–2005 (pp. 3–10). Wellington: Te Ropu Rangahau Hauora a Eru Pomare.obson, B., & Harris, R. (2007). Hauora IV: Maori Standards of Health: A study of the years 2000–2005. Wellington: University of Otago.ibley, C. S., & Liu, J. H. (2007). New Zealand = bicultural? Implicit and explicit associations between ethnicity and nationhood in the New Zealand context.

European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1222–1243.ibley, C., Liu, J., & Khan, S. (2008). Who are ‘we’? Implicit associations between ethnic and national symbols for Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Psychology, 37(2), 38–49.ixsmith, J., Boneham, M., & Goldring, J. (2003). Accessing the community: Gaining insider perspectives from the outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13,

578–589.tatistics New Zealand. (2006). National ethnic population projections: 2006(base)–2026 update. Wellington: New Zealand Government.ajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.e Puni Kokiri. (2007). Maori in Australia: Nga Maori i te ao moemoea. Wellington: New Zealand Government.e Taura Whiri i te Reo Maori. (1996). Te Matatiki. Auckland: Oxford University Press.ing-Toomey, S. (2005). Identity negotiation theory: Cross cultural boundaries. In W. B. Gudykunst (Ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication.

Thousand Oakes: Sage Publishers.omlins-Jahnke, H., & Durie, A. (2008). Whanau socialisation through everyday talk: A pilot study. Wellington: Blue Skies.uffin, K. (2008). Racist discourse in New Zealand and Australia: Reviewing the last 20 years. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 591–607.ard, C., Bochner, S., & Furnham, A. (2001). Introduction and overview: Setting the scene. In C. A. Ward, S. Bochner, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The psychology of

culture shock (pp. 4–18). East Sussex: Routledge.

ard, C., & Lin, E. (2005). Immigration, acculturation and national identity in New Zealand. In J. H. Liu, T. McCreanor, T. McIntosh, & T. Teaiwa (Eds.), New

Zealand identities: Departures and destinations (pp. 155–173). Wellington: Victoria University Press.illiams, H. W. (1957). A dictionary of the Maori language. Wellington: Government Printer.

uki, M., Maddux, W., Brewer, M., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship and group-based trust. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 31, 48–62.