-->
Showing posts with label Diana Morrow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diana Morrow. Show all posts

Monday, June 7, 2021

Something New

 We feature each fortnight Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books.

“FROM THE CENTRE – A Writer’s Life” by Patricia Grace (Penguin Books, $NZ40); “KATE EDGER – The Life of a Pioneering Feminist” by Diana Morrow (Otago University Press, $NZ40) 


 

 

            Since she first began writing for publication, Patricia Grace has produced seven novels, five collections of short stories (plus two omnibus editions of them), seven books for children and a work of non-fiction. She was the first Maori woman to have a collection of short stories published, and she has, for half a century now, been a major voice in Maori cultural and literary matters as well as winning many literary awards. But putting it that way is a little limiting. Patricia Grace is a major voice in New Zealand cultural and literary matters, read by a wide public.

            What is her appeal? Much of it has to do with her insistence on dealing with ordinary people in ordinary real-life situations – unpretentious people facing problems that a wide readership can recognise. She emphasises this a number of times in From the Centre – A Writer’s Life. Many of her plots for novels or short-stories have their origins in things that happened to her extended family, things she has heard talked about and things she has experienced. Then there is her style. Her novels are concise. She often describes landscapes and seascapes lyrically, but her prose is colloquial and matter-of-fact – no nonsense and always getting to the point of things.

            And of course, she has an important overriding theme – the lives of Maori in the present age.

            From the Centre – A Writer’s Life is as much about Patricia Grace’s formation as a person as it is about her career as a writer. The first fourteen chapters – nearly half the book – deal with her childhood and adolescent years. She begins by introducing her turangawaewae, a much-loved home at stony-shored Hongoeka Bay, some of which is owned by her iwi Ngati Toa, though it has often been threatened by plans for government takeover.

Patricia Grace’s father was Maori but her mother was Irish Catholic, and the family followed her mother’s religion. When she won scholarships she went to Catholic primary and secondary schools, where she was taught by nuns. When she met and was wooed by Kerehi Waiariki Grace (whom she affectionately calls Dick) they were married at St Mary of the Angels in Wellington. On the whole, the education she got served her well, even if some of the schools’ culture was daunting. She remarks:

            “Through our schooling, managed and controlled as it was by engendering fear of sin, hell, the Almighty and the strap, we were given as good and full an education as our teachers knew how. Repressive as it was, I wanted to be there, loved learning and having the textbooks in front of me. The nuns devoted themselves to our learning. No area of the curriculum was neglected.” (p.97)

Later, she speaks of the encouragement the nuns gave her about her writing.

Often it was awkward for her to be the only Maori in a classroom of Pakeha or in a sports team (as a schoolgirl she was very athletic). She tells anecdotes of a priest calling her “a bad influence” for no reason at all, and of a Pakeha man who, as she now understands, was trying to make sexual advances when she was a young teenager. These events threw her into deep depression. But at school, the prejudices she dealt with came from fellow schoolgirls, not from teachers. She was once attacked by two Pakeha girls while walking home from school. The nuns smartly sorted out a gang of catty girls who wouldn’t invite her to a birthday party.

Patricia Grace is aware of her Irish heritage and her Irish aunties, but she is Maori by culture, custom and inheritance. One disability she freely notes. When she went to teachers’ training college, she “began to feel the disadvantage of not speaking te reo” herself (p.154), unlike Maori students who came from more rural areas. Even if she has been a major advocate for the teaching of te reo, and has insisted that her books for children be published in Maori language editions, she admits that even at her present age “my ability in the Maori language is limited.” (p.287)

Outside school and formal education, the most influential things in her childhood were her love of reading, encouraged by her father even when he was away at war with the Maori Battalion, and the free and unsupervised games she enjoyed, cycling, swimming, fishing, sliding down mudslides and generally benefitting from the health of an outdoor life, even if the familiy were sometimes in straitened circumstances.

Oddly enough, the most joyful sections of From the Centre – A Writer’s Life are not about writing, but about her teaching experience when she and her husband taught in small schools up in far Northland. The schools were badly underfunded and lacking in resources, but there were fewer pupils in each class and it was possible to get to know each pupil well. Later she (and her children) were to find that larger urban schools were more impersonal and alienating.

Patricia Grace was to have seven children and they are obviously important in her story. With teaching and raising a family, it was not until her late 30s that she began to write in earnest.  Her attitude to readers and reviewers is a robust one. When she is asked who her intended audience is, she replies:

“I am the first audience. I write for me and I must be the sole judge and take full responsibility for what comes about. The second audience, the one unknown to me, is whoever will read. Once I’ve finished a book or a story, my job is done. Reviews, analyses, critiques, theses are not written for me. They come after the event. What follows – the reading, discussion, dissection, opinion – is part of the next life of the book, that is, if it is to have an afterlife. I should say, though, that if Maori readers did not relate to my writing, or if they rejected it, I would not do it.” (p.200)

From the Centre gives accounts of the genesis of each of her novels, but she does not discuss them in any laborious detail, being mainly interested in how her ideas first came to her.

However, dominating the later chapters are accounts of her activism and her promotion of Maori language and culture. She was instrumental in a project to establish a wharenui and marae complex at Hongoeka Bay and was delighted that it was the younger people, rather than the elders, who insisted that they be built in traditional Maori style. She took part in the Foreshore and Seabed controversy. More than once, she was among those who rebuffed attempts to have her turangewaewae either taken over by government or falling into the hands of property developers. She petitioned the Education Department about readers that perpetuated racial stereotypes. She was forthright in preventing Maori land from being swallowed by the new Kapiti Coast motorway. All this speaks of a vigorous and committed life. The sad part is where she ends, mourning the death, by brain tumor, of her husband of 55 years.

From the Centre is a readable, accessible and very sympathetic memoir by an author proud of her achievements but modest in her expression.

 

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Diana Morrow’s Kate Edger – The Life of a Pioneering Feminist is about a woman quite unlike the one depicted in Patricia Grace’s autobiography - a woman not only of a different temperament and upbringing, but most crucially of a different era.

Kate Milligan Edger (apparently the name is pronounced Edgar) was born in 1857 and died in 1935, so her world view was forged in the nineteenth century. She is chiefly remembered as the first woman in New Zealand to earn a university degree at a time when universities were largely the province of men only. She was awarded a BA in 1877.  It was once believed that she was the first woman in the British Empire to receive a university degree, but Diana Morrow notes that a woman in Canada was awarded a BSc in 1875. Kate Edger went on to be a strong advocate for women’s enfranchisement, to have a distinguished career in education and to support many worthy and progressive social causes. But at the same time, many of her values were of a different age, and some of the causes she supported would be anathema to later second- or third-wave feminists.

Her father was a nonconformist preacher (i.e. a Protestant who was not part of the Church of England) who wavered between being Baptist or Congregationalist but who was usually the latter. He came to New Zealand as part of an idealistic scheme for co-operative farming, but it came to nothing and he moved to Auckland to be a full-time preacher. In social matters he was radical but he also followed very strict (nonconformist) Christian principles, which included an abhorrence of liquor. Kate, the fourth of his five children, lifelong had the same outlook. As Diana Morrow remarks fairly: “More than any other issue, opposition to the ‘demon drink’ has shaped popular perceptions of nonconformists as joyless, repressive Puritans. Certainly, some were self-righteous and dauntingly strait-laced, but others, like the Edgers, fostered public entertainments and cultural pursuits, partly to prove they could be enjoyed without alcohol but also out of conviction that these activities enhanced the quality of both life and religion.” (pp.37-38)

As Morrow also notes, New Zealand was ahead of most countries in opening adavanced education to (Pakeha) women on an equal footing with men. Brought up in a culturally-advanced home, Kate excelled in music and in mathematics. She had no difficulty in getting a place at Auckland University College and there was no controversy about her being awarded a degree. Quite the contrary. She was applauded in the press and fellow feminists promoted her as public proof that women were not intellectually inferior to men (an idea which had been embraced even by the likes of Charles Darwin).

Between 1878 and 1920, over three-quarters of New Zealand women graduates went on to be school-teachers. Kate Edger followed this path, taking up a position at Christchurch Girls High School. She made such an impression that at the age of only 26 she applied successfully to become the first principal of Nelson Girls College. She established an advanced curriculum for her students, who would study the arts and sciences just as boys did and would compete for the same scholarships.

But here we come to a set of values that does not chime well with the values of the early 21st century. Even though she believed in enfranchisement and advanced education for women, Kate Edger also believed in the domestic ideal of women most completely fulfilling their destiny as good wives and mothers. In Diana Morrow’s words: “Her graduates would be high-minded and earnest women, selflessly devoted to their husbands and children but also concerned to extend their elevating moral influence and values into wider society. Unlike frivolous middle-class women selfishly devoted to fashions and worldly materialism, her pupils would ideally become Christians with a social conscience, active on behalf of worthy causes and helping those in need. They would be self-disciplined and hard-working, able to fulfil their own potential while benefitting others.” (pp.83-84) Women were the best upholders of seemliness and morality in the home. Therefore “If women were well suited to guard the morality of their own children, it was only one step to further assert that their natural abilities as nurturers and protectors of the young could be used to serve other people’s children.” (p.81)

Kate Edger observed this ideal herself, so that when she married the Congregationalist minister William Albert Evans in 1890, she gave up her teaching profession, moved to Wellington with her husband, and set about raising a family, eventually having three sons. And of course she was henceforth known as Kate Evans. Yet there were years when, writing for the press and doing work for the Women’s Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) she actually earned more than her husband and was the family breadwinner.

Kate and William Evans were members of the Christian Socialist organisation which called itself the Foreward Movement. They lobbied for the Society for the Protection of Women and Children, directed against domestic violence, and for equality before the law in marriage, including women’s property rights. They campaigned for the criminalisation of incest. They wanted prison reform which would focus on rehabilitation and education of prisoners rather than punishment. In sexual matters they decried the “double standard” where prostitutes were convicted while their male customers faced no sanction. Few people would now disagree with these goals. But at the same time, they were strong advocates of “purity”, a moral cleansing and spiritual awakening of the individual. And this would include the abolition of alcoholic drinks.

The WCTU was the strongest lobby in New Zealand for women’s suffrage, but its underlying assumption was that women were naturally more “pure” and moral than men, and that therefore women would vote for candidates who opposed the liquor trade. This assumption would now be condemned by feminists as a species of “essentalism” – the idea that men and women are essentially different in mind and impulses. And Kate went further than the WCTU, which openly advocated only for restrictions on the sale of liquor. She joined the more extreme New Zealand Alliance for the Abolition of the Liquor Trade, which openly wanted complete prohibition. Says Diana Morrow: “Advocates like Kate firmly believed that this one reform would cure all of society’s economic, social and spiritual ills. For both the WCTU and the New Zealand Alliance, the goal was nothing less than prohibition of everything to do with alcohol, from making to selling to importing. It was a black and white matter to drink or not to drink. Individuals could choose good over evil by giving up drink or stand idly by and watch it exploit and degrade their fellow human beings.” (p.141)

As history shows, this assessment of how society’s ills could be cured was well wide of the mark.

In later life, some of Kate’s ideas fell behind the standards that were beginning to be adopted in New Zealand. Though she rejected Dr Frederic Truby King’s eugenic ideas about “improving the race”, she supported his new Plunket Society “for the promotion of health for women and children”. In an era when more and more young women were choosing to study commercial courses to qualify them for employment, she was still promoting so-called “Domestic Science” in schools to train girls to first be good wives and mothers. She was appalled by the lack of “purity” in Ettie Rout’s campaign, during the First World War, to defeat sexually-transmitted diseases by distributing prophylactic kits to serving New Zealand soldiers. She was even more appalled in the 1920s when Marie Stopes’ books about contraception were widely circulated. But she did embrace one cause that would still be applauded. After the First World War, she drew more closely to pacifism and became a great supporter of the League of Nations Society, believing that war could be abolished by negotiations in an international council.

Kate Evans remained a respected figure in her old age, noted for her personal charity, but she had some sorrows before she died at the age of 78. Her husband had died in 1921. In the years of the Depression she knew that women were the first to be thrown out of work and greater social hardships returned. Making matters worse, one of her sons turned out to be a gambler, frittering away most of the funds she thought he had invested for her. She died respected and honoured, but already seen as somebody from a past time.

How do I assess this biography? It is clearly written. It notices carefully where Kate Edger’s commitments lay and how she acted them out. It also considers how different her values were from those that are most widely accepted now. But often, the woman and her life become smothered in the author’s explanations of the many causes she supported. Kate Edger herself becomes peripheral to accounts of how first-wave feminists in general saw things, or what the purpose of the WCTU was. Perhaps this shows the difficulty of making dramatic a life that was calm, clear of purpose, and unruffled by personal crises.

Monday, February 17, 2014

Something New


We feature each week Nicholas Reid's reviews and comments on new and recent books

“CHANGING TIMES – NEW ZEALAND SINCE 1945” by Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow (Auckland University Press, $NZ45)

            I will reverse my usual habit and begin by passing judgment on a book before I get down to analysing it. If you are a casual visitor to this blog, this will save you time, as it is one of my abiding sins to waffle on a bit before I get to the point about some books.
Despite its dull title (“Changing Times?” Times are always changing), Jenny Carlyon’s and Diana Morrow’s survey of the last 70-odd years of New Zealand history, is a comprehensive, sober, detailed, well-researched and accessible book. Its 410 pages of text are followed by 100 pages of bibliography, endnotes and index. It has six sections of varied and interesting archival photographs. The authors’ opinions are balanced and fair and are backed up with statistical details. This is not a work for scholars so much as for the general public, as the frequent use of quotations from newspapers and popular magazines will confirm. Nevertheless, its standards are high and the authors have researched widely and judiciously. I would be happy to put this book in the hands of anybody who wants to know what has been going on in New Zealand in the last six or seven decades.
There now. That is my honest overall impression of this bulky volume, which I dawdled through happily over a couple of weeks. If Auckland University Press wish to quote from the preceding paragraph for publicity purposes, they are most welcome to do so.
 Now for some of those problems which always nag at me when I read general broad-scope histories like this one.
Unless their work is to become mere chronicle, historians have to have some controlling ideas when they set out to examine fifty-plus years in a nation’s life. Often those ideas are teleological – all the past is pressed into the service of explaining why the present is as it is. The past is perceived as being more about its (present) outcomes than about what it meant to people at the time. When it comes to this teleological approach, there are currently two very potent ideas about New Zealand. I would prefer to call them our myths.
Myth Number One: New Zealand before the 1960s was a narrow-minded, conformist, monocultural, puritanical society; an offshore farm for Britain afraid of differences, condescending towards Maori, suspicious of foreign cultures, and fixated on rugby, racing, beer, royal tours and the knitting patterns in the Woman’s Weekly. The government controlled too much and censorship was tight. Read your Sargeson. Read Bill Pearson’s Fretful Sleepers. But then along came the Maori Renaissance, and along came respect for the Treaty, and along came feminism and gay lib and 10 o’clock closing and weekend shopping and an independent nuke-free foreign policy and Polynesian and Asian immigrants and multi-channel TV and the internet and a liberalized market economy free of the old controls. So we’re now a vibrant, open, multicultural, gender-equitable, creative society. Hooray for us.
Myth Number Two: New Zealand used to be an egalitarian society, which believed in a fair go for the ordinary joker and sheila. There was no significant unemployment. The welfare state was accepted across the political spectrum. Education and health were free and there were few major political upsets (apart from that little business about the wharves in 1951). People were happy and felt secure. But along came neo-liberalism with the 4th Labour Government and its Rogernomics and a new sort of greedy, grasping individualism was born. Gone was security. Gone was egalitarianism. Instead, we entered a state of widespread unemployment, a widening gap between the rich and the poor, the failure of any major political party to speak up for working people and a crass materialism. The old consensus was broken, communities were destroyed and society was atomized. Woe for us.
Both myths have evidence to support them. Both can be validated. Put them together and you have the contradictory paradox that history so often is. Mixed causes, mixed results and outcomes that often cancel one another out.
I simplify somewhat, but these are the two myths (“discourses” if you’re in the business of pleasing academics) that dominate current debate about recent New Zealand history and certainly dominate “broad-scope” history books. Look at Jamie Belich’s double-decker history Making Peoples (1996) and Paradise Reforged (2001) and you basically get qualified approval for Myth Number One. Michael King’s Penguin History of New Zealand (2003) is somewhere in the same ball-park. New Zealand becomes more assertively itself and look how it now glows! (I will not sully this blog by taking Paul Moon’s cherry-picked New Zealand in the Twentieth Century [2011] seriously as a history book.) By contrast, an angry polemic like the left-wing journalist Chris Trotter’s No Left Turn (2007) endorses most vigorously Myth Number Two. [Look it up on this blog’s index].
So where do Jenny Carlyon and Diana Morrow stand in relation to these two myths? Of course they have to acknowledge both of them, and they do chronicle how divisive the whole neo-liberal “reform” era was. They are drawn to say:
“New Zealand has become a more socially divided country with greater extremes of poverty and wealth. As individualism has grown, so too have conflict, division and social and economic inequality.” (p.343)
Even so, this 70-odd-year history is made more in the triumphalist mould of celebrating the way New Zealand society has changed. Chapters 5 to 9 have a largely ra-ra tone as they work through New Zealand’s more independent foreign policy, the growth of outspoken protest and the lessening of censorship, changed sexual morality and the role of women and so on. The technique is more-or-less chronological, but with individual chapters organised around a particular theme.
ALL broad-scope histories that I know become more cautious in their statements the nearer they approach the present time. It is much harder to categorise and generalise about the present than it is about the past. (This should, of course, remind us that most of the generalisations we make about the past are simplifications missing out much nuance.) Wisely, Carlyon and Morrow choose to fade out on a chapter, “A Plaited Rope”, concerning patterns of immigration to New Zealand in recent decades and the huge impact this has had on the country’s ethnic composition. (Auckland is now about 20% Asian – the country as a whole is now 9% Asian). Such a chapter can rely more on hard statistical data than a chapter on political trends would, and is therefore more likely to contain durable statements. They then proceed to a somewhat disappointing coda (“The ‘Earthly Paradise’ Transformed”) which tries to draw conclusions from the whole history they have controlled, but ends lamely with the cliché of quoting Allen Curnow’s line about “Something different, / Something nobody counted on.”
So much for the book’s mythology.
Now for an awkward fact about all broad-scope histories, including Changing Times. Whether your thing is trade unions or patterns of lesbian relationships or architecture or international diplomacy, if you have a good knowledge of some specialized area of history you will always feel that the broad-scope book treats it superficially. Even in 2014, with the growing “No Religion” response in the census, the majority of New Zealanders still declare adherence to some form of religion. Yet Changing Times – in common with most general histories of New Zealand – skips over this one with hardly a mention. There’s a very general statement about the churches on Page 158 with reference to Lloyd Geering’s trial for heresy by the Presbyterian Church. Thereafter references to the churches are made only in relation to whether they did or did not support various secular causes. So much for the inner spiritual life of New Zealanders. Surprisingly, too, the references to literature and the arts are rather cursory. Whenever they are mentioned, it is a quick once-over-lightly which looks as if it has been cribbed from literary textbooks rather than from the authors’ own reading of the literature in question. Even more surprising, we get very little about how the mass media (especially television) changed New Zealanders’ lives. In fine, the authors are very good on politics and “issues” and material facts of life in New Zealand, but are rather shakier on how New Zealanders have thought and created.
Or am I simply, and perhaps over-emphatically, saying that one book cannot be expected to cover everything?
I am amused by the odd slip (Betty Friedan apparently wrote a book called The Feminist Mystique, according to Page 213) and by the odd outbreak of primness (on Page 166, the author’s quote only the bowdlerized version of a provocative statement made by the young Tim Shadbolt). I think there are some paradoxes the authors could have examined more closely – such as the way anti-Vietnam War protests were at once “anti-American”, yet very closely modeled on American protests, showing the pervasiveness of the new dominant culture. I would also challenge some specific statements, such as the remark on Page 110 (in the context of a “nationalist” school of New Zealand architecture) that “The need to emphasise a separate identity diminished as that identity grew increasingly secure”. Really? How secure is New Zealand’s “national” identity even now, when the making of an expensive, derivative and purely Hollywood-esque cycle of fantasy films is regarded as some sort of national achievement?
But what a cur I would be if I did not also salute the author’s shrewdness over a number of matters.
“In New Zealand as in America and elsewhere, youth pop culture became… commercialised and conformist in its non-conformity.” (p.156)
Check.
“[Bill Sutch] had several le Carre-esque rendezvous with a Russian diplomat in unlikely locations.” (p.181)
Check.
“Many Maori perceived multiculturalism as a means of sidestepping their special status as tangata whenua under the banner of unified racial diversity.” (p.261)
Check.
“[David Lange’s] personal identification with the anti-nuclear cause… helped to ease his government’s monetarist path.” (p.291)
Check.
Might I also add that the two women who wrote this book are remarkably even-handed (in Chapter 7) about the way the New Zealand “women’s movement” self-destructed in its split between reformists and radical-lesbian separatists? There is no glossing of the fact that the movement involved as much vituperation and nasty invective as any oppressive phallocentric patriarchal bunch of chauvinists has ever displayed. The authors are also to be commended for pinpointing the 1967 amendment to the Maori Affairs Act as the moment when Maori radicalism really took off.
I have my own myths about New Zealand just as you have yours. I’m old enough to remember most of the decades that this book covers, and of course I see many things in a perspective different from the retrospective one offered in this book. (I still laugh wryly over how the 4th Labour government conned much of the electorate into believing they were merely “corporatising” government-owned enterprises when in fact they were preparing to privatise them and flog them off.) I also experience the common Schadenfreude that history books provide of realizing how moth-eaten and tawdry many passionately-held positions really were.
I quarrel with bits of Changing Times, but it’s still a handy overview, well-documented and worth reading.