Thoughts About N.Z.’s Culture

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 32068, 16 August 1969, Page 4

Thoughts About N.Z.’s Culture

ThePaOernQf New Zealand Culture. Edited by A. L. McLeod. Orford University Press. 301 pp. 15 plates. Index. Apparently designed as a reference book for international audiences, this volume devotes one chapter apiece to literature, social institutions, politics, education, mass communications, science, religion, art, music, theatre, and Maori culture. The editor, a professor in America who has also edited • The Pattern of Australian Culture,” is to be commended for selecting a group of contributors which will meet with the approval of most New Zealanders, and for providing a most enlightened introduction. The American production of the book is also excellent, and the binding suitable for library use. Unfortunately, there the congratulations stop. While it is inevitable that every reader will find fault with a compressed summary of hiF own particular interest, the book as a whole has several serious defects. The most obvious of these is that much of the material is already out of date; the volume seems to have been a long time in production. The historical approach does to a degree lessen the impact of this; but, on the other hand, the emergence and apparent success of several new cultural journals in the past few years suggest that the present decade might be crucial to the maturing of our culture. The failure of other ventures is also significant especially in the field of -nass communications. New Zealand culture has had such a protracted infancy that a survey of its history can only be depressing unless it is accompanied by an optimistic view of the symptoms

of developing maturity. But the attempts of most contributors at diagnosing these are rendered futile by obsolescence. One can only be dispirited when J. C. Reid writes of “Poetry Yearbook” as a living thing. Although all chapters are basically historical, one can distinguish two subordinate methods: the statistical and

the generalised. Most writers are aware of the perils of undiluted statistics, but J.. J. Mol’s article on religion is seriously weakened by them. He is reluctant to make any statement without supporting

it with census figures or other survey results, and immediately qualifies these with cautions about their probable unreliability.. He pays very little attention to anything not involving the four major sects, and does not mention either the influence or the methods ofthe evangelicals. Professor Geering is not even named, although the controversy he stimulated must have -been one of the most keenlyfollowed in our religious history, and surely an important indication of what New Zealanders think about religion. The more generalised approach, typified in Professor Melvin’s “Education,” certainly makes very interesting reading, and generally reflects New Zealand attitudes in a very convincing manner, but without any ultimate support. His survey does have occasional lapses (he gives a “typical” secondary school course which includes maths only as an option), but these are few in number and more than compensated by the very wide vision and the absorbing style. The best contributions blend the statistical into generalisation. As might be expected, Austin Mitchell on “Politics” is entertaining and penetrating, although it may be doubted whether overseas

audiences will get a balanced impression. 'Theatre” by Bruce Mason is similar in style, but controlled by the awareness that many of his readers will be uniformed. It is worth questioning What these writers mean by “culture,” and whether their Use of the term is not flexible tenough to include activities which give some kind of cultural satisfaction to New Zealanders, alhough they may not seem cultural to foreigners. Professor Tomory devotes a lot of space to evaluating New Zealand art according to international criteria. He begins in an apologetic tone, but finds a willing scapegoat in the Kelliher Art Prize and settles into a systematic coverage of all the visual arts except photography. He does not mention the reception of international exhibitions, even though the furore over Duchamp could explain a lot of his embarrassment. Apart from this, the most conspicuous omission is Peter Mclntyre; no matter how bad Tomory thinks his work is (and critics do allow him considerable technical ability), he cannot successfully evade the fact that New Zealanders like it. And, however regrettable this may be to Tomory, it is an important fact about our culture. Similarly, there is no mention of Barry Crump or the

name “Whim Wham.” Ngaio Marsh receives a generous appraisal as a producer and for her autobiography, but the detective novels are only referred to as an afterthought. Almost every chapter on the arts has this kind of attitude; culture is not what New Zealanders have, but what they should have. And so a deep gulf emerges between the social and the artistic. Writers on the arts import their notion of “culture” and wistfully search for traces in our country. These they find: but it is absurd to pretend that Mc-Cahon-gazing or Harry-sing-ing constitutes a pattern -in our society. The writers on non-artistic subjects have a more straightforward task, but could teach a useful lesson to the aesthetes. Their method is simply to look at the populace, observe its patterns, and write about them. This is inevitably more mundane, but the results are at least genuine. Finally, a word of caution about the index. This is best disregarded; the few items that are listed are erratic and unreliable. Typical is the reference to Louis Johnson, which takes the reader to a casual mention of “Poetry Yearbook,” but omits the main reference earlier to his poetry. The same happens to Ngaio Marsh.