Flawed history of Canterbury

Press, 27 November 1982, Page 16

Flawed history of Canterbury

A New History of Canterbury. By Stevan Eldred-Grigg. John Mclndoe, Dunedin, 1982. 252 pp. $29.95.

(Reviewed by

John Wilson)

The questions which the author of this social history of Canterbury apparently intends his title to prompt prospective readers to ask are: What was the “old history of Canterbury which the present volume is meant to supersede? Is Canterbury an entity with a history of its own. distinct from that of other parts Of New Zealand? The "old" history of Canterbury is, the author suggests, political rather than social and embodies an image of Canterbury society that does not accord with the facts of provincial life except perhaps for Canterbury’s middle years, from about 1890 to 1930. The book starts with the proposition that an image of “Canterbury” was set in the early years of the province’s history by a small, self-conscious, leisured elite. This Canterbury was almost a pastoral arcadia, characterised by a strong sense of community, hierarchical, but a society in which all comers sought and found a secure independence and ample opportunities for themselves and their children to prosper and advance. In fact, Eldred-Grigg sets out to prove, Canterbury has been for much of its history a restless, divided society, marked by clear lines of cleavage and antagonism, between town and country and between different social classes, with considerable movement in and out of the province further eroding any sense of provincial community. Only for a few decades, he suggests, was the reality even approximately in accord with the image. These were the years 1890 to 1930 when political reform and economic prosperity made Canterbury indeed a community, marked by democratic participation, a unity of purpose, and sense of provincial fellowship. Only for these years, he argues, was Canterbury the orderly, stable, reasonably egalitarian place of the “old” image. The author marshals a considerable body of evidence to justify a claim that for much of its history Canterbury has been a much more divided place, and a rougher place for the poor and certain others, than the old image would have us believe. It was so between its earliest years and 1880,,was so again in the 19305, and has become so again since the recession of the 19705, which has led to a reversion to the inequalities and disorder of the colonial past, a revival of social tension and strain, and to the reemergence of pronounced class differences.

Unfortunately, though, to vindicate his second proposition — that Canterbury has a history different from those of other provinces or regions in New Zealand, the author has to'undermine to some extent his claim that Canterbury has been for most of its history a more unhappy, 'divided place than much writing about it would suggest. For he suggests that what makes the province-of Canterbury, or the “region” of which Christchurch is the centre, different is that it has been, less riven, less disturbed by geographical mobility, held steadier by sheet anchors of conservatism, than other parts of New Zealand. The author does not always resolve satisfactorily these difficulties of talking about Canterbury as a different place, and yet as one with a history marked by features which would appear to be New Zealand-wide.

The reader is likely to wonder at different points in the book, what in fact is different about Canterbury? He or she is likely to feel happier about the author’s claim that his history is “new.” It does challenge the comfortable and widely prevalent belief that Canterbury has always been a good place for almost all Cantabrians to live. He does bring into popular historical writing about Canterbury an awareness of, for example, "Maori poverty, working class life or feminist dissent.” It is useful to have the focus shifted from the events of public life and the activities. of leaders and politicians to “the'people of Canterbury themselves.”

This is, however, a more difficult task than the author has been prepared to acknowledge. He does admit the book is premature — “final pronouncements cannot be made yet about whether community existed or, if it did, how the -lines were drawn.” It is a book of wide scope based on narrow research, yet one

that aims also to provide a complete, palatable historical dish. He has tried to make a proper meal out of scraps and the unfortunate result is a book which, I fear, may nourish wrong impressions about Canterbury’s history. In the end there can be no confidence that the random, scattered information he gives about people living within certain geographic boundaries substantiate a thesis that a movement can be detected in Canterbury’s social history — from disorder and division, into an era of "community” 'and equity, then back to disorder and division - and that the province’s history is distinctive. The information in the book is fascinating and often provocative, but it is not historical evidence, the distinction being important, The book’s failings stem from failures of the author’s historical techniques and judgment. He places excessive reliance on contemporary opinion, most dangerously of all on newspaper editorials. If he wants to stress that Canterbury society was divided into clear, often antagonistic, strata, he cannot rely on statements of opinion of the day. To prove a contemporary class consciousness is not to prove the objective existence of class, historically. He offers too often as evidence an incident or practice without attempting to establish how typical was the incident or widespread the practice. He reads significance which appears undue into movements which may well be marginal, such as the eugenicists or, more recently, South Island independence groups. His generalisations sometimes take the informed reader’s breath away and his use of terms, such as "revolution” or “secret police” is disconcertingly loose. He is too often satisfied that “a casual glance at journalistic accounts” will reveal the true face of society. He compares suburbs such as Holmwood and Aranui without giving their boundaries or existence the precision necessary for such comparisons to be illuminating. He overstates: In the 1970 s “the peace of bourgeois Canterbury was shaken by Sydenham gang wars,

petrol bombs and the scream of jets carrying the vouth of the province to Australia.” Vivid, but how true? These doubts about the book’s “evidence" spill over into doubt about the book’s central arguments. Can three broad eras really be detected in Canterbury’s social history? Is Canterbury different? The whole exercise was misguided. More could be learnt from a detailed examination of one aspect of Canterbury society. A restricted, but accurate picture is more enlightening than a broad, but jumbled canvas. Like the same author’s earlier work, "A Southern Gentry," this new history of Canterbury throws' up many fruitful suggestions for the close-up. detailed examinations that will eventually tell us what Canterbury was indeed like. He alludes, for example, to the' voting of the provincial elite in Provincial Council days. How useful it would be to have their voting behaviour subjected to a Namierlike analysis. He touches on the role of the Anglican Bishop of Christchurch in Canterbury’s life (incidentally maligning the present incumbent). It could be extremely enlightening to have the roles of the holders of the office carefully examined, He suggests that during the 1970 s the phrase “middle class” began to be heard more frequently in Canterbury. I suspect this is wrong, but to have such usages precisely charted could indeed tell us much about the province. Only when this extensive preliminary research has been done will a “new”, “social” history of Canterbury which can be accepted as authoritative be possible. Eldred-Grigg has demonstrated convincingly that his ability to master material equips ? him to write such a history. But the 'material must be there. This is a jerry-built book only because there were no more than scraps of material for him to work with. All the style in the world with words — which Eldred-Grigg has ■=? cannot make up for this fundamental lack. Only sometimes does even this facility with words fail him — the idea of “defenestrating” the Christchurch Club is hugely amusing.