Pakeha Attitudes toward the Symbolic and Resource-Specific Aspects of Bicultural Policy in New Zealand: The Legitimizing Role of Collective Guilt for Historical Injustices

A culture-specific model integrating research on collective guilt and the perception of historical injustices, within the context of Duckitt's (2001) more universal dual process model of ideology and prejudice, is proposed. As expected, a majority of self-identified Pakeha (New Zealanders of European descent) sampled from the New Zealand population supported the symbolic principles of bicultural policy (66% support, 5% opposition) but opposed its resource-specific aspects, such as affirmative action policies (21% support, 37% opposition). Pakeha opposition toward the symbolic aspects of Maori-Pakeha intergroup relations was predicted directly by motivations for intergroup dominance and superiority (high Social Dominance Orientation); whereas the relationship between Social Dominance Orientation and opposition to resource-based issues, such as support for Maori claims to the foreshore, was notably weaker and fully mediated by both the refutation of responsibility for and absence of collective guilt for historical injustices, which it is argued functioned as a legitimizing myth justifying social inequality in this context. This model illuminates the role of group-based motivational goals (competitively-driven dominance and superiority, threat-driven control and conformity) and legitimizing myths (in this instance the refutation of responsibility for historical injustices) theorized to underlie Pakeha opposition toward different aspects of bicultural policy at a time when debate surrounding the legitimacy of Maori claims to the areas of the foreshore and seabed was beginning to intensify in early 2004. ********** There has been considerable debate regarding how bicultural policy, in particular the allocation of resource rights, should be implemented in contemporary New Zealand (NZ) society (see King, 2003, for an historical review). In NZ, biculturalism reflects the ideal of a partnership between Maori (the indigenous peoples of NZ) and Pakeha (1) (NZers of European descent) that is deemed fair and equitable by both parties (Ritchie, 1992). This ideal is often justified with reference to the Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 (Orange, 1992). Of course, how one defines terms such as fair and equitable is in itself the subject of considerable debate (Billig, 1991; Billig, Condor, Edwards, Gane, Middleton, & Radley, 1988). This is particularly true with regards to the interpretation of the finer points of the Treaty concerning Maori claims for reparation for historical injustices, resource rights and titles (e.g., Nairn & McCreanor, 1990, 1991, 1997; Tuffin, Praat, & Frewin, 2004). This issue has been under the spotlight in recent times due to Maori calls for Pakeha to recognize the legitimacy of Maori claims to areas of the foreshore (the land between the high and low tide), to which Maori have argued they are legally entitled under common law. From a psychological perspective, one key line of enquiry for research examining this issue is the development of models allowing us to identify both the underlying motives, and understand their relation to, individual differences in Pakeha opposition or support for different aspects of bicultural policy. The present research seeks to develop a culture-specific model predicting individual differences in Pakeha attitudes toward Maori-Pakeha intergroup relations and different aspects of bicultural policy. In order to do so, we firstly outline Sibley and Liu's (2004) culture-specific research distinguishing between Pakeha attitudes toward the symbolic and resource-specific aspects of bicultural policy. We then seek to explain individual differences in support/opposition for these two aspects of biculturalism using Duckitt's (2001) dual process model of the cognitive and motivational processes underlying intergroup attitudes. Finally, we review research on the concept of collective guilt for historical injustices (Steele, 1990; Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998), and argue that the refutation of collective responsibility and the absence of guilt for historical injustices against Maori may serve to legitimize opposition to resource allocations benefiting Maori, especially those that are framed in terms of reparation. …