I really like your new matrix Nat :-) Your examples of each type make it really clear and easy to understand. A NZ government adopting this would have engaged with and listened to the parliament anti-mandate protesters, rather than dismissing them and turning the sprinklers on them. Could have been a much better outcome i lots of ways
Thanks Philip, I appreciate you reading and commenting. I agree, I think the way they dealt with the protestors was appalling and a decision that cost that government a lot of political capital.
Natalia, thank you for raising this topic. I think it is important.
Social cohesion gained currency with the Royal Commission's emphasis on it. That vaguely troubled me without my starting to think about why until I read your article. My first observations are these.
There may indeed be strong cohesion with negative outcomes. You gave some examples. But the most malign of modern times is the mass support the Nazi Party attained resulting in President Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor in January 1933.
The product of that social cohesion was egregiously evil.
Pursuing the Nazi example, after the start of World War II, Britain had to battle for survival as a free and independent nation. Especially after Churchill assumed leadership, the population united in a war effort which ranks amongst the finest. There was very high social cohesion. A common aim -- to defeat the enemy with almost everyone playing their part with great and small endeavour.
These examples show that social cohesion is an outcome. It is neither good nor bad in itself, just something which may occur in a given set of circumstances. Its cause may be bad as it was when Hitler's oratory created anger and fear, or good as it was when the British population united in defence of their liberty.
Social cohesion is not an end in itself, and it ought not to be sought as an end. Seeking to achieve it is to court stale conformity and subservience to the views of those seeking to achieve it.
I think this is what troubled me about the Royal Commission's report. The Commission seemed to see social cohesion as an end in itself, something which the government should actively seek.
The report fell on fertile ground, landing as it did in November 2020 when the country had endured and was still to endure the lockdowns and other authoritarian responses to the pandemic.
New Zealand is a free and democratic society. Freedom and democracy are values which are worth having.
Freedom is essential to human life and dignity. That's why the response to the pandemic had such a demoralizing impact, and effects which persist.
Democracy is the best way of ensuring that through periodic elections the people are able to hold their governments to account.
Although there are some who would jettison freedom and democracy, the vast bulk of the community see them as values. There is social cohesion around those values.
Within that framework, individuals cooperate with others who share their convictions and values. These are voluntary interactions which may result in social cohesion in respect of the associations so formed. As you point out, these may be associations for good or evil. They are to be judged according to the convictions and values they share.
In the end, however, it is the convictions and values of each individual, and how they are displayed in action, which are important. Social cohesion between those associated together is not in itself in any way a defining factor, although it may multiply the impacts for good or evil.
Hi Gary, I completely agree that cohesion is neither inherently good nor bad; its value depends on the context, motivations, and outcomes it produces. That’s why my hypothesis frames social cohesion as being either weak or strong, with the capacity to produce both positive and negative outcomes. For example, the Nazi example you provided reflects strong social cohesion working toward profoundly negative ends.
I also share your concern about viewing social cohesion as an end in itself. This is precisely the belief I’m trying to shift through my research and work in this space. Treating social cohesion as a singular aspirational goal misses the point entirely and, I’d argue, creates real problems for policymakers. When it becomes a goal without critical examination, it risks leading to exactly what you’ve described: stale conformity or blind allegiance to a central authority. This is why I advocate for a more nuanced understanding of cohesion—one that fully acknowledges its potential for both positive and negative outcomes.
Your point about the Royal Commission’s framing is very much aligned with my perspective on the RCOI definition and approach. While the Commission’s emphasis on cohesion was well-intentioned, I think it oversimplified the concept and overlooked how it can be manipulated, misapplied, or even overused. The pandemic responses you mentioned are a great example—policies implemented in the name of public safety revealed significant tensions between collective goals and individual freedoms, and I think much of the demoralization people felt stemmed from a lack of trust and transparency in those decisions.
I completely agree that freedom and democracy are essential values, and the social cohesion we strive for must be rooted in those principles. Without them, cohesion risks becoming an imposed order rather than something genuinely built through trust and mutual respect.
Thanks again for your insights—they’ve added so much depth to this conversation. I’d love to hear more about how you think we can foster cohesion without compromising the individual convictions and values you rightly emphasize.
We are not only a multi cultural society. We are a te Tirit and he Whakaputanga based bicultural society founded on a covenant of relationships between sovereign peoples. Multiculturalism is part of the tanagata Tiriti cohort. A monocultural Western view will not, in my opinion, suffice. Nor will it speak to our rangatahi for our future aspirations as a te Tiriti nation
I think you raise important points. How does social cohesion, which is a somewhat universalising idea, match up with our unique context here in Aotearoa.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and he Whakaputanga are uniquely New Zealand elements of our social and political framework, and I completely agree that they represent something we are continuing to work through as a community. They set us apart in the world and shape how we think about relationships between peoples here in Aotearoa.
I also agree that multiculturalism only arises as an issue here to the extent that it does today (remembering that tikanga is not itself uniform and kotahitanga is a valuable work in progress) because of the tangata Tiriti cohort—it’s a crucial nuance that reflects how our multicultural identity can be seen as layered within a broader bicultural context. This is an important distinction.
You mentioned that neither a UN monocultural Western view nor that framework’s language will suffice for our future aspirations as a te Tiriti nation. That is a good point. I’d strongly like to understand more about what, in your opinion, might suffice. What do you think a framework or vision that truly honors te Tiriti while also addressing the multicultural realities of our society might look like? I mean, buggered if I know sport, but it looks complicated.
For me, a big part of this conversation is the desire for beneficial and respectful outcomes for all New Zealanders and for all groups within our society—especially for our rangatahi, who will carry this conversation forward in the years to come. I believe that we need a vision that respects the mana of tangata whenua while also empowering all New Zealanders to contribute meaningfully to our shared future.
Thanks for your thoughtful response—it’s always good to see your perspective here. I think you’ve touched on a key tension: how do we honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its foundational place in Aotearoa while also addressing the multicultural realities of our society? I'm also keen to know more about how people think we can address this.
I agree with you that Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga are uniquely New Zealand and shape our identity and how we think about relationships between peoples. However, I think it’s essential to acknowledge that our population today is incredibly diverse, with over 150 languages spoken and a growing number of overseas-born New Zealand citizens. While these multicultural layers exist within a broader bicultural framework, framing New Zealand solely as a Te Tiriti nation risks excluding many of those voices from the debate.
For me, the challenge is moving beyond either/or frameworks—biculturalism vs. multiculturalism, tangata whenua vs. tangata Tiriti—and instead creating a nuanced conversation that reflects the tensions and competing views within our society. This isn’t about diluting the mana of tangata whenua, but rather about recognizing that we’re a pluralistic nation with a complex mix of histories, experiences, and futures.
I’m also cautious about language that leans too heavily on universalizing frameworks, whether from the UN or elsewhere, because it risks oversimplifying our unique context. At the same time, we can’t anchor our policies and conversations solely in the historical context of 200 years ago. We need to create policies and visions that speak to 2025 and beyond—especially for our rangatahi, who are growing up in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.
Like you, I don’t have all the answers, but I think it starts with informed, respectful, and ongoing debate at all levels. Thanks again for raising these points—keep em coming :)
I disagree. New Zealand is absolutely a multicultural country, whether we like it, agree with it, or understand it, is not the point. That’s simply the reality of a nation where over 150 languages are spoken and a significant portion of the population consists of overseas-born New Zealand citizens. By framing New Zealand solely as a nation founded on a relationship between two sovereign peoples, you exclude a large portion of the population and anchor the conversation in a historical context that doesn’t fully apply in 2025.
Yes, we carry a deep historical legacy grounded in colonization and shaped by a capitalist economic model. These factors are important and create important problems we must address, but policies must address the realities of the present and the diverse, liberal democratic society we now live in—not just the context of 200 years ago.
I’m not arguing for a monocultural Western view; I’m arguing for a framework that recognizes tensions and competing perspectives. We can’t ignore the system-level discrimination that affects certain groups more than others, nor can we assume everyone will agree on one unified narrative. Navigating these realities requires informed, nuanced, and ongoing debate at all levels of society.
It’s not an easy balance, but it’s one we need to keep working on.
Teenaa koe Natalia - please be reassured no-one is excluded within te Tiriti relationship. Everyone (multi- cultural tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua) is included and deeply connected through whanauangatanga. In te ao Maaori everyone has the right to "te rakau" - to authentically participate. 😊
Kia ora Heather, I know that that is the spirit of the debate, and one I deeply agree and connect with. But the reality is that it doesn't always apply at all levels and for all peoples in New Zealand. Its inclusive as long as Māori are heard and considered first, and that is justified under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but in practice for today's context it's much more complex than that, especially when institutions are involved. I just wish to highlight that it's not that simple or straight forward.
Ana! Not so much for a debate but for exploring our relationship, connecting into the spirit of te Tiriti (based on te ao Maaori values) is a great first step. But to avoid lip-service its essential as multicultural tangata Tiriti to actively incorporate them into our lives and mahi. Usually entails softening the western lens (but retaining it's strength) to see through an indigenous worldview and construct a more inclusive and authentic reality for us all in Aotearoa - i look to our rangatahi carrying the passion and aroha of our tipuna. It's such a positive reality to work toward. And we are so lucky to have this chance right here, right now - mauri ora
What a gorgeous dog! It’s a King Charles spaniel though, and I thought yours was a chihuahua?
Thank you for this thought-provoking piece (as always!).… “circling back to a hypothesis about different types of social cohesion” - I like it.
A compelling framework, and I appreciate your focus on its complexity. That said, I’d like to challenge some of your premises and nod to one of the alternatives (and I know you know it) — the ‘layered’ approach to social cohesion. It avoids the occasional pitfalls of group-based assumptions.
Most people don’t wake up, punch the air and think “Yes! Today, I’m going to get out there to represent my demographic category in the ongoing struggle for social cohesion!” Delinquent, I know. But, when advocates or institutions decide on behalf of the rest of us what our identities mean and what we care about, it’s not empowering—it’s patronising.
The layered approach to social cohesion fits the egalitarian flavour of our New Zealand polity better, I think, and respects individual dignity while encouraging genuine connection and representation:
1. Agency over Assumptions
People can decide for themselves which groups they belong to. It is not about assigning people to categories like sorting laundry. Not everyone with a particular background fits the stereotype—and some people don’t even like the category they’ve been shoved into. Latinex for Kamala? Young blacks for Kamala? Maori for te pati Maori? Let’s respect individuals’ right to say, “Thanks, but no thanks—I’ll pick my own label, or none at all.”
2. Fluid and Voluntary Layers
Social cohesion should be as adaptable as a barbecue—plenty of options, no one forcing you to eat the coleslaw. (Except for my wife, whose mission it is to get me to lose weight.) People belong to multiple layers of connection, from their family to their work, to their culture to their rugby club, to the Greens, to tree-chopping competitions, to ominous Atlas karaoke evenings (first prize is a country of their choice), to mana motuhake, to ACT (like me) or to dragon-boat racing. They navigate these layers in their own way. One identity or one label does not define any of us.
3. Representation, Not Tokenism
The drive for representation should aim higher than ticking identity boxes in a bureaucratic bingo game. A leadership group isn’t made more legitimate just because it looks like a corporate diversity poster. Competence, principles, and vision are what matter.
4. Valuing Leadership Characteristics that Work
What makes a leader worth following?Here in New Zealand, we’ve traditionally valued traits like:
• Competence: Knowing what you’re doing. Not just knowing how to lead but knowing why. The bar shouldn’t be “Can they string a press release together?” It should be, “Can they manage a crisis without setting the whole place on fire?” (Californians take note.)
• Impartiality: No dodgy favoritism for the mates, ideological fellow travellers, preferred (scariest) cartel, or whanau. Treating people equally isn’t just good manners—it’s basic leadership.
• Neutrality in the Civil Service and Judiciary: Civil servants should serve the country, not their ideology. Judges must be impartial and stand by their oaths. When neutrality slips, so does public trust—and once that’s gone, good luck putting it back together.
• Humility: Leadership is about service, not self-promotion.
• Accountability: If you mess up, own it. Don’t blame the intern, the weather, or Mercury in retrograde. New Zealanders have a low tolerance for excuses—earn back our trust by taking responsibility.
5. Patience with Democracy
Social cohesion takes time, debate, and a healthy respect for differing views. Attempts to force it by catering to a narrow selection of advocacy groups won’t fly. Democracy works when it’s a contest of ideas, not a script written by people who think they know better than the rest of us.
Your spectrum of cohesion is an interesting framework—it’s always good to challenge our assumptions. But I’d urge caution around how social cohesion is defined, and especially around how in some definitions ‘groups’ are identified and represented. A cohesive society isn’t strengthened by ‘doubleplusgood doublespeak’ language, and it’s not about the Ministry of Truth lumping people into categories. It’s about ‘us’ respecting all of us, trusting democratic processes, and keeping the coleslaw optional. Sigh.
You’ve got a sharp eye—it’s not my chihuahuas! This is a stock photo of a King Charles spaniel. I haven’t had a chance to download my latest chihuahua photos from our holiday in Taupō, but I’ll include them in my next article.
Now, onto the main points. I appreciate your engagement with the framework I proposed and your insights on the “layered” approach to social cohesion. You make good points about respecting individual agency and avoiding the pitfalls of group-based assumptions.
I agree that people should have the freedom to define their own identities and navigate multiple layers of connection in ways that make sense for them. Your analogy of social cohesion as a barbecue—where participation is flexible and voluntary—captures this well.
On representation, I share your skepticism about tokenism. Representation needs to go beyond optics and focus on competence, principles, and vision. That said, while the politics of representation is flawed—and I’ve seen this firsthand in government and academia—it remains necessary. Without some form of affirmative action or similar mechanisms, systemic discrimination against women and people of color continues unchecked. This has been well-documented both in New Zealand and internationally. Such measures are not a perfect solution, but they’re necessary to disrupt institutional legacies rooted in colonization and patriarchal systems.
Your caution about over-categorization and bureaucratic box-ticking is valid. This tension was central to what I grappled with in the article. While categorization can be reductive, systemic barriers that disproportionately impact certain groups can’t be ignored either. Striking this balance is a significant challenge.
Your patience-with-democracy approach also resonates. Social cohesion takes time and requires genuine debate. Efforts to force it or cater to narrow interests often backfire—this is a critical lesson for navigating today’s diverse and polarized society.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response. It’s always helpful to have your perspective in these discussions. And yes, more chihuahuas will make an appearance soon. Nat
I don’t want to put you out, but I would be interested in being pointed towards some NZ and international research that brings out systemic discrimination. Are there some good meta studies that looked at reproducibility and the extent to which the studies they amalgamated tested for alternative hypotheses? Alternative hypotheses being all the other reasons why women or POC might be grouped in the context of the ‘discrimination factor’.
I confess that as an engineer I have a degree of suspicion as to the quality of research in the soft sciences. Even something slightly firmer, like psychology, has a dreadful time with reproducibility.
In the meantime I’m investing myself, using ChatGPT.
Whoops. I see I didn’t say what ‘layered’ social cohesion is generally understood to be.
This version of ‘social cohesion’ refers to the idea that it operates at multiple levels within a society, each influencing and reinforcing the others. These layers are usually seen to include:
1/ Individual Level, where personal relationships and interactions foster a sense of belonging and trust.
2/ Community Level where local networks and community organisations support social ties and collective action.
3/ Institutional Level where there are policies and institutions that support and promote fairness and participation in societal processes.
4/ National Level where shared values, identity, and social norms bind the larger society, our “us” here in New Zealand, together.
To Gary’s point earlier, this type of social cohesion isn’t micro-managed from the top and enforced all the way down. It does involve active decisions and actions though, especially at the institutional level. If it is successful then we all are better off and we do feel ourselves to be part of the nation (even if it does include idiots and yahoos, they are still *our* idiots and yahoos).
It is difficult to take seriously an essay on 'social cohesion' that begins 'I wrote a paper for a project at Te Herenga Waka', but does not explain what Te Herenga Waka is.
My Google translates Te Herenga Waka as ''traffic restrictions', but without the waka-canoe, 'Te Herenga' by itself translates as 'the obligation'.
The search for social cohesion surely begins with using language that will be understood by as many people as possible in society. Hence the present Government's sensible requirement that precedence be given to the english names of institutions.
Hi John, thanks for your comment. Te Herenga Waka is Māori name for Victoria University of Wellington. I'm not sure that using Māori, which is an offical language of New Zealand, should be that controversial to be honest. I take the point that the more languages it includes the more accesible and inclusive it can all be, but if you would have googled Te Herenga Waka, you would have gotten Victoria University fo Wellington as first result. And that aside, did you have any views on my hypothesis of a spectrum of social cohesion?
I really like your new matrix Nat :-) Your examples of each type make it really clear and easy to understand. A NZ government adopting this would have engaged with and listened to the parliament anti-mandate protesters, rather than dismissing them and turning the sprinklers on them. Could have been a much better outcome i lots of ways
Thanks Philip, I appreciate you reading and commenting. I agree, I think the way they dealt with the protestors was appalling and a decision that cost that government a lot of political capital.
Natalia, thank you for raising this topic. I think it is important.
Social cohesion gained currency with the Royal Commission's emphasis on it. That vaguely troubled me without my starting to think about why until I read your article. My first observations are these.
There may indeed be strong cohesion with negative outcomes. You gave some examples. But the most malign of modern times is the mass support the Nazi Party attained resulting in President Hindenburg's appointment of Hitler as chancellor in January 1933.
The product of that social cohesion was egregiously evil.
Pursuing the Nazi example, after the start of World War II, Britain had to battle for survival as a free and independent nation. Especially after Churchill assumed leadership, the population united in a war effort which ranks amongst the finest. There was very high social cohesion. A common aim -- to defeat the enemy with almost everyone playing their part with great and small endeavour.
These examples show that social cohesion is an outcome. It is neither good nor bad in itself, just something which may occur in a given set of circumstances. Its cause may be bad as it was when Hitler's oratory created anger and fear, or good as it was when the British population united in defence of their liberty.
Social cohesion is not an end in itself, and it ought not to be sought as an end. Seeking to achieve it is to court stale conformity and subservience to the views of those seeking to achieve it.
I think this is what troubled me about the Royal Commission's report. The Commission seemed to see social cohesion as an end in itself, something which the government should actively seek.
The report fell on fertile ground, landing as it did in November 2020 when the country had endured and was still to endure the lockdowns and other authoritarian responses to the pandemic.
New Zealand is a free and democratic society. Freedom and democracy are values which are worth having.
Freedom is essential to human life and dignity. That's why the response to the pandemic had such a demoralizing impact, and effects which persist.
Democracy is the best way of ensuring that through periodic elections the people are able to hold their governments to account.
Although there are some who would jettison freedom and democracy, the vast bulk of the community see them as values. There is social cohesion around those values.
Within that framework, individuals cooperate with others who share their convictions and values. These are voluntary interactions which may result in social cohesion in respect of the associations so formed. As you point out, these may be associations for good or evil. They are to be judged according to the convictions and values they share.
In the end, however, it is the convictions and values of each individual, and how they are displayed in action, which are important. Social cohesion between those associated together is not in itself in any way a defining factor, although it may multiply the impacts for good or evil.
Hi Gary, I completely agree that cohesion is neither inherently good nor bad; its value depends on the context, motivations, and outcomes it produces. That’s why my hypothesis frames social cohesion as being either weak or strong, with the capacity to produce both positive and negative outcomes. For example, the Nazi example you provided reflects strong social cohesion working toward profoundly negative ends.
I also share your concern about viewing social cohesion as an end in itself. This is precisely the belief I’m trying to shift through my research and work in this space. Treating social cohesion as a singular aspirational goal misses the point entirely and, I’d argue, creates real problems for policymakers. When it becomes a goal without critical examination, it risks leading to exactly what you’ve described: stale conformity or blind allegiance to a central authority. This is why I advocate for a more nuanced understanding of cohesion—one that fully acknowledges its potential for both positive and negative outcomes.
Your point about the Royal Commission’s framing is very much aligned with my perspective on the RCOI definition and approach. While the Commission’s emphasis on cohesion was well-intentioned, I think it oversimplified the concept and overlooked how it can be manipulated, misapplied, or even overused. The pandemic responses you mentioned are a great example—policies implemented in the name of public safety revealed significant tensions between collective goals and individual freedoms, and I think much of the demoralization people felt stemmed from a lack of trust and transparency in those decisions.
I completely agree that freedom and democracy are essential values, and the social cohesion we strive for must be rooted in those principles. Without them, cohesion risks becoming an imposed order rather than something genuinely built through trust and mutual respect.
Thanks again for your insights—they’ve added so much depth to this conversation. I’d love to hear more about how you think we can foster cohesion without compromising the individual convictions and values you rightly emphasize.
Cheers,
Natalia
We are not only a multi cultural society. We are a te Tirit and he Whakaputanga based bicultural society founded on a covenant of relationships between sovereign peoples. Multiculturalism is part of the tanagata Tiriti cohort. A monocultural Western view will not, in my opinion, suffice. Nor will it speak to our rangatahi for our future aspirations as a te Tiriti nation
I think you raise important points. How does social cohesion, which is a somewhat universalising idea, match up with our unique context here in Aotearoa.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi and he Whakaputanga are uniquely New Zealand elements of our social and political framework, and I completely agree that they represent something we are continuing to work through as a community. They set us apart in the world and shape how we think about relationships between peoples here in Aotearoa.
I also agree that multiculturalism only arises as an issue here to the extent that it does today (remembering that tikanga is not itself uniform and kotahitanga is a valuable work in progress) because of the tangata Tiriti cohort—it’s a crucial nuance that reflects how our multicultural identity can be seen as layered within a broader bicultural context. This is an important distinction.
You mentioned that neither a UN monocultural Western view nor that framework’s language will suffice for our future aspirations as a te Tiriti nation. That is a good point. I’d strongly like to understand more about what, in your opinion, might suffice. What do you think a framework or vision that truly honors te Tiriti while also addressing the multicultural realities of our society might look like? I mean, buggered if I know sport, but it looks complicated.
For me, a big part of this conversation is the desire for beneficial and respectful outcomes for all New Zealanders and for all groups within our society—especially for our rangatahi, who will carry this conversation forward in the years to come. I believe that we need a vision that respects the mana of tangata whenua while also empowering all New Zealanders to contribute meaningfully to our shared future.
Hi John,
Thanks for your thoughtful response—it’s always good to see your perspective here. I think you’ve touched on a key tension: how do we honor Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its foundational place in Aotearoa while also addressing the multicultural realities of our society? I'm also keen to know more about how people think we can address this.
I agree with you that Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga are uniquely New Zealand and shape our identity and how we think about relationships between peoples. However, I think it’s essential to acknowledge that our population today is incredibly diverse, with over 150 languages spoken and a growing number of overseas-born New Zealand citizens. While these multicultural layers exist within a broader bicultural framework, framing New Zealand solely as a Te Tiriti nation risks excluding many of those voices from the debate.
For me, the challenge is moving beyond either/or frameworks—biculturalism vs. multiculturalism, tangata whenua vs. tangata Tiriti—and instead creating a nuanced conversation that reflects the tensions and competing views within our society. This isn’t about diluting the mana of tangata whenua, but rather about recognizing that we’re a pluralistic nation with a complex mix of histories, experiences, and futures.
I’m also cautious about language that leans too heavily on universalizing frameworks, whether from the UN or elsewhere, because it risks oversimplifying our unique context. At the same time, we can’t anchor our policies and conversations solely in the historical context of 200 years ago. We need to create policies and visions that speak to 2025 and beyond—especially for our rangatahi, who are growing up in an increasingly diverse and interconnected world.
Like you, I don’t have all the answers, but I think it starts with informed, respectful, and ongoing debate at all levels. Thanks again for raising these points—keep em coming :)
Ngā mihi,
Natalia
Hi Heather,
I disagree. New Zealand is absolutely a multicultural country, whether we like it, agree with it, or understand it, is not the point. That’s simply the reality of a nation where over 150 languages are spoken and a significant portion of the population consists of overseas-born New Zealand citizens. By framing New Zealand solely as a nation founded on a relationship between two sovereign peoples, you exclude a large portion of the population and anchor the conversation in a historical context that doesn’t fully apply in 2025.
Yes, we carry a deep historical legacy grounded in colonization and shaped by a capitalist economic model. These factors are important and create important problems we must address, but policies must address the realities of the present and the diverse, liberal democratic society we now live in—not just the context of 200 years ago.
I’m not arguing for a monocultural Western view; I’m arguing for a framework that recognizes tensions and competing perspectives. We can’t ignore the system-level discrimination that affects certain groups more than others, nor can we assume everyone will agree on one unified narrative. Navigating these realities requires informed, nuanced, and ongoing debate at all levels of society.
It’s not an easy balance, but it’s one we need to keep working on.
Ngā mihi,
Nat
Teenaa koe Natalia - please be reassured no-one is excluded within te Tiriti relationship. Everyone (multi- cultural tangata Tiriti and tangata whenua) is included and deeply connected through whanauangatanga. In te ao Maaori everyone has the right to "te rakau" - to authentically participate. 😊
Kia ora Heather, I know that that is the spirit of the debate, and one I deeply agree and connect with. But the reality is that it doesn't always apply at all levels and for all peoples in New Zealand. Its inclusive as long as Māori are heard and considered first, and that is justified under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but in practice for today's context it's much more complex than that, especially when institutions are involved. I just wish to highlight that it's not that simple or straight forward.
Ana! Not so much for a debate but for exploring our relationship, connecting into the spirit of te Tiriti (based on te ao Maaori values) is a great first step. But to avoid lip-service its essential as multicultural tangata Tiriti to actively incorporate them into our lives and mahi. Usually entails softening the western lens (but retaining it's strength) to see through an indigenous worldview and construct a more inclusive and authentic reality for us all in Aotearoa - i look to our rangatahi carrying the passion and aroha of our tipuna. It's such a positive reality to work toward. And we are so lucky to have this chance right here, right now - mauri ora
Hi Natalia
What a gorgeous dog! It’s a King Charles spaniel though, and I thought yours was a chihuahua?
Thank you for this thought-provoking piece (as always!).… “circling back to a hypothesis about different types of social cohesion” - I like it.
A compelling framework, and I appreciate your focus on its complexity. That said, I’d like to challenge some of your premises and nod to one of the alternatives (and I know you know it) — the ‘layered’ approach to social cohesion. It avoids the occasional pitfalls of group-based assumptions.
Most people don’t wake up, punch the air and think “Yes! Today, I’m going to get out there to represent my demographic category in the ongoing struggle for social cohesion!” Delinquent, I know. But, when advocates or institutions decide on behalf of the rest of us what our identities mean and what we care about, it’s not empowering—it’s patronising.
The layered approach to social cohesion fits the egalitarian flavour of our New Zealand polity better, I think, and respects individual dignity while encouraging genuine connection and representation:
1. Agency over Assumptions
People can decide for themselves which groups they belong to. It is not about assigning people to categories like sorting laundry. Not everyone with a particular background fits the stereotype—and some people don’t even like the category they’ve been shoved into. Latinex for Kamala? Young blacks for Kamala? Maori for te pati Maori? Let’s respect individuals’ right to say, “Thanks, but no thanks—I’ll pick my own label, or none at all.”
2. Fluid and Voluntary Layers
Social cohesion should be as adaptable as a barbecue—plenty of options, no one forcing you to eat the coleslaw. (Except for my wife, whose mission it is to get me to lose weight.) People belong to multiple layers of connection, from their family to their work, to their culture to their rugby club, to the Greens, to tree-chopping competitions, to ominous Atlas karaoke evenings (first prize is a country of their choice), to mana motuhake, to ACT (like me) or to dragon-boat racing. They navigate these layers in their own way. One identity or one label does not define any of us.
3. Representation, Not Tokenism
The drive for representation should aim higher than ticking identity boxes in a bureaucratic bingo game. A leadership group isn’t made more legitimate just because it looks like a corporate diversity poster. Competence, principles, and vision are what matter.
4. Valuing Leadership Characteristics that Work
What makes a leader worth following?Here in New Zealand, we’ve traditionally valued traits like:
• Competence: Knowing what you’re doing. Not just knowing how to lead but knowing why. The bar shouldn’t be “Can they string a press release together?” It should be, “Can they manage a crisis without setting the whole place on fire?” (Californians take note.)
• Impartiality: No dodgy favoritism for the mates, ideological fellow travellers, preferred (scariest) cartel, or whanau. Treating people equally isn’t just good manners—it’s basic leadership.
• Neutrality in the Civil Service and Judiciary: Civil servants should serve the country, not their ideology. Judges must be impartial and stand by their oaths. When neutrality slips, so does public trust—and once that’s gone, good luck putting it back together.
• Humility: Leadership is about service, not self-promotion.
• Accountability: If you mess up, own it. Don’t blame the intern, the weather, or Mercury in retrograde. New Zealanders have a low tolerance for excuses—earn back our trust by taking responsibility.
5. Patience with Democracy
Social cohesion takes time, debate, and a healthy respect for differing views. Attempts to force it by catering to a narrow selection of advocacy groups won’t fly. Democracy works when it’s a contest of ideas, not a script written by people who think they know better than the rest of us.
Your spectrum of cohesion is an interesting framework—it’s always good to challenge our assumptions. But I’d urge caution around how social cohesion is defined, and especially around how in some definitions ‘groups’ are identified and represented. A cohesive society isn’t strengthened by ‘doubleplusgood doublespeak’ language, and it’s not about the Ministry of Truth lumping people into categories. It’s about ‘us’ respecting all of us, trusting democratic processes, and keeping the coleslaw optional. Sigh.
John
Hi John,
You’ve got a sharp eye—it’s not my chihuahuas! This is a stock photo of a King Charles spaniel. I haven’t had a chance to download my latest chihuahua photos from our holiday in Taupō, but I’ll include them in my next article.
Now, onto the main points. I appreciate your engagement with the framework I proposed and your insights on the “layered” approach to social cohesion. You make good points about respecting individual agency and avoiding the pitfalls of group-based assumptions.
I agree that people should have the freedom to define their own identities and navigate multiple layers of connection in ways that make sense for them. Your analogy of social cohesion as a barbecue—where participation is flexible and voluntary—captures this well.
On representation, I share your skepticism about tokenism. Representation needs to go beyond optics and focus on competence, principles, and vision. That said, while the politics of representation is flawed—and I’ve seen this firsthand in government and academia—it remains necessary. Without some form of affirmative action or similar mechanisms, systemic discrimination against women and people of color continues unchecked. This has been well-documented both in New Zealand and internationally. Such measures are not a perfect solution, but they’re necessary to disrupt institutional legacies rooted in colonization and patriarchal systems.
Your caution about over-categorization and bureaucratic box-ticking is valid. This tension was central to what I grappled with in the article. While categorization can be reductive, systemic barriers that disproportionately impact certain groups can’t be ignored either. Striking this balance is a significant challenge.
Your patience-with-democracy approach also resonates. Social cohesion takes time and requires genuine debate. Efforts to force it or cater to narrow interests often backfire—this is a critical lesson for navigating today’s diverse and polarized society.
Thanks again for your thoughtful response. It’s always helpful to have your perspective in these discussions. And yes, more chihuahuas will make an appearance soon. Nat
Hi Natalia
I don’t want to put you out, but I would be interested in being pointed towards some NZ and international research that brings out systemic discrimination. Are there some good meta studies that looked at reproducibility and the extent to which the studies they amalgamated tested for alternative hypotheses? Alternative hypotheses being all the other reasons why women or POC might be grouped in the context of the ‘discrimination factor’.
I confess that as an engineer I have a degree of suspicion as to the quality of research in the soft sciences. Even something slightly firmer, like psychology, has a dreadful time with reproducibility.
In the meantime I’m investing myself, using ChatGPT.
John
Whoops. I see I didn’t say what ‘layered’ social cohesion is generally understood to be.
This version of ‘social cohesion’ refers to the idea that it operates at multiple levels within a society, each influencing and reinforcing the others. These layers are usually seen to include:
1/ Individual Level, where personal relationships and interactions foster a sense of belonging and trust.
2/ Community Level where local networks and community organisations support social ties and collective action.
3/ Institutional Level where there are policies and institutions that support and promote fairness and participation in societal processes.
4/ National Level where shared values, identity, and social norms bind the larger society, our “us” here in New Zealand, together.
To Gary’s point earlier, this type of social cohesion isn’t micro-managed from the top and enforced all the way down. It does involve active decisions and actions though, especially at the institutional level. If it is successful then we all are better off and we do feel ourselves to be part of the nation (even if it does include idiots and yahoos, they are still *our* idiots and yahoos).
It is difficult to take seriously an essay on 'social cohesion' that begins 'I wrote a paper for a project at Te Herenga Waka', but does not explain what Te Herenga Waka is.
My Google translates Te Herenga Waka as ''traffic restrictions', but without the waka-canoe, 'Te Herenga' by itself translates as 'the obligation'.
The search for social cohesion surely begins with using language that will be understood by as many people as possible in society. Hence the present Government's sensible requirement that precedence be given to the english names of institutions.
Hi John, thanks for your comment. Te Herenga Waka is Māori name for Victoria University of Wellington. I'm not sure that using Māori, which is an offical language of New Zealand, should be that controversial to be honest. I take the point that the more languages it includes the more accesible and inclusive it can all be, but if you would have googled Te Herenga Waka, you would have gotten Victoria University fo Wellington as first result. And that aside, did you have any views on my hypothesis of a spectrum of social cohesion?
Exactly! Well said indeed.