News
Our Own Stories: the building blocks of New Zealand’s national identity
21 November 2007
| Byline: | Sandra Gorter (BA, MA (Hons), Hons Dip London School of Journalism) |
|---|---|
| Source: | Humanities Research Network |
A paper given at Transformations '07: Composing the nation: ideas, peoples, histories, languages, cultures, economies, the Congress of Te Whāinga Aronui The Council for the Humanities (VUW, Wellington, 27-28 August 2007).
I will not attempt a definition of what a 'national identity' may be here, only that it is comprised of stories: history, personal stories, and myths and legends, that all in some way strike a cord of recognition and tell us something about ourselves. Literature, and myths and legends form the biggest apparent part of a concept of a national identity, but these are strongest when linked to historical facts. When a story has an apparent footing in historical fact it gains a quality of immediacy and solidity - be this real or imagined.
My work involves the collection of personal stories, also known as oral histories. Without historical fact, the myths and legends that contribute to a national identity lack substance. The personal stories I have gathered have two themes in common: a framework of fact, with the infill to this framework being personal experience and the interpretation of fact from the point of view of that person's experience.
I have found that the value of these personal histories lies not so much in the relation of identifiable historical facts - even though they are the substance that hold the stories together, but that their true value lies in the infill or subtext just described. This subtext consists of; how the facts of the stories are related, what information is communicated, and the information they choose to exclude. I have found that there is as much genuine historical information in what a person chooses to exclude, as there is in what they choose to tell. The framework is always the personal experience of historical events, the infill or subtext to this framework is a combination of what the teller believes the interviewer wants to hear, and what the teller would like an audience to believe.
In this regard I have always sought to relate the stories as the tellers want them told. To reinterpret these stories in terms of other historical perspectives or theories would diminish or eliminate the subtext which is I believe, where the true value of the story lies. Elements of national identity are to be found in the attitudes and expectations of a storyteller - whether the story being told is history or literature. Elements the general audience can identify with such as: 'Kiwi ingenuity', 'the intimacy bred of isolation', 'a hard working, honest people', 'independent spirit', 'socially aware community', 'a pragmatic people', 'Kiwis aspire to be the very best order to compete on a world stage'... etc, are all components of the New Zealand national identity. There are many more.
I have found that the people who share their personal histories with me all make an attempt to conform to a number of aspirations such as those listed above. The tellers of the stories believe that other New Zealanders can identify with these elements, and see them (whether truthfully or not), as being part of their own individual identity. Facts that appear to conflict with these qualities are 'forgotten', or omitted, serving to reinforce the value of the qualities of 'New Zealand-ness' in the mind of the person, and, their perception of the value of these qualities to a prospective audience.
Sometimes it can be easier to identify qualities valued by a society or a nation, by their absence rather than their presence in a story. For example, there are few stories of the human couriers who secreted Jewish children out of Nazi Germany. Why? Because the Jews paid in cash and paid dearly, for the chance that their children might live. Paying for a life in this way is abhorrent to the New Zealand ideal and so those who accepted payment for this service don't often tell their stories, or choose not to tell this aspect of their story. Those who do tell, go to a lot of trouble to downplay their role in the saving of these children, thereby secreting either the shame of their circumstantial need to accept payment for saving a life, or, avoiding the extremely difficult task of contextualising their actions as contextualising such actions is all too easily seen as justification, or seeking an excuse, for a reprehensible action. Without the context the story would not only be historically inaccurate, the expected interpretation of an audience that did not know the context, would be unfair to the person telling their story: far easier for the story teller to say nothing at all. Thus such stories largely go untold.
Which brings me to another aspect of the work I am currently engaged in: the people I have interviewed for their experience in World War Two and earlier, universally downplay any notion of heroism regarding their experience. Like other omissions, the fact that this aspect of their experience is downplayed is an indicator to something deeper. Unlike other societies in which personal promotion is an unremarkable part of life such as in America, in New Zealand, interdependence or belonging to a group (society, community, family or partnership), is recognised as a valuable social necessity, most noticeably in rural New Zealand. This is almost certainly a product of low population density where, when the necessity to rely on another person arises, there are few choices as to who that person might be; thus recognisably increasing the value of membership of a group to the individual. This phenomenon has been described as the intimacy born of New Zealand's isolation.
The downplaying of heroism is just one example of how omissions can be valuable indicators of the subtext behind a story. That subtext, more often than not, contains the key to what our national identity may be; or, what the national social expectations are, to which the teller is attempting to conform.
To this end, I believe that there are two very pressing issues for those interested in New Zealand identity. They are: the need to gather uniquely New Zealand stories while the tellers are still alive, and, the dissemination of these stories and the values they encapsulate, in a format that successfully competes for a New Zealand audience against international competition.
A challenge that needs to be met in New Zealand is; that our own culture not be overwhelmed and obliterated by other cultures with a more powerful presence in the media. By media, I mean all forms of media: music, film, television, the internet, and paper-based literature. All these media favour cultural influences that provide an economic advantage. Thus as evidenced in our national television 'news' for example, if a story about a cat caught up a tree in Ohio can be downloaded from the internet for a few cents, such a story often receives preferential treatment in a New Zealand newsroom to a story that tells of a significant New Zealand achievement. Why? Because the New Zealand story has a greater cost component in the gathering, compilation and editing of that story. Only when a story is very significantly more newsworthy, will the cost factor diminish sufficiently to allow that story to be told on our national 'news'.
This is an important reason why government should continue to subsidise television in particular, and to support academic and commercial arts in New Zealand. That is: by reducing the significance of economic factors of stories, culturally based decisions can be made on a more level playing field when they are up against economically based decisions. This is essential if we are to retain a national identity of our own.
As discussed, the modern context requires that we achieve a compromise between economic reality and the need to disseminate stories of our own. Journalism styles emphasis the dramatic, the unusual and the interesting. Histories or our own stories do, inherently have the components that make tabloid journalism so popular: such as shock, drama, and intrigue etc. History and our own stories often have that added essential component that can be missing in tabloid journalism: believability. The compromise between the need to include elements of excitement, and ensuring the inclusion of strong historical facts is I believe, the challenge that New Zealand writers must meet if our stories are to be told. This is the case whether they be 'news' stories, literature, or history if we expect to compete with cheap downloads off the internet. This is easily done because history does have elements of interest, intrigue and excitement. It simply needs a good writer to identify and tell these stories in an interesting and newsworthy way.
Music, television, the internet, film, literature, art, and academic investigation all encapsulate the many aspects of our national identity. Without the dissemination of New Zealand work through these media, a New Zealand national identity will still exist, but who will know it is there?
In order to capture a national identity New Zealand needs first of all, to gather its own stories, especially those from older people while they are still alive. Secondly, we need to disseminate our stories in a format that successfully competes with, or accommodates, competing influences from other nations. Then we may have a better idea of what that our national identity might be.
