Identity crisis?

Some interesting comments to my previous post about whether NZ has a national voice and national soul, and what might define it. I think those that try to define our "national voice" or "national soul" tend to try to pick on "defining moments": the All Blacks winning the 1987 World Cup, the Anzacs being mown down at Gallipoli, Ed Hillary on top of the world, nuclear-free ships, the Land March, the Hikoi of Hope.

However, I think that it's more about us finding the ways that we're different and the same as the rest of the world. There's a Steinlager ad on at the moment that says "What you say no to will always define you", and there's a certain amount of truth in that. I think that conscientious objecters standing up for pacifism and refusing to kill in the name of politics was defining (what was less defining was the way they were dealt with). I think the protests against the South Africa tour may have been defining - people standing up for what they believed in and saying that there is only one class of citizen in NZ and it doesn't matter what colour your skin is.

I think that NZ art and literature is slowly defining us, especially people like Colin McCahon - I remember spending a lot of time in front of his glorious (and enormous) Gate III when I was at University, soaking it up. I think that Parihaka may have been defining. Douglas Lilburn definitely was: I might not like all of his music, but it is certainly a distinctively NZ voice. I think that the three-tikanga structure of the Anglican Church in NZ is defining: nowhere else in the world is something like that done, and yes it does work (most of the time), meaning that everyone has a voice. I think that the Playcentre movement is defining young NZ in the way we encourage our littlies to learn through messy play with encouragement from adults and parents. I also think that some of our scientists and lawyers have made definitions for us too in the way that they have helped show the world something of NZ's uniqueness (particularly in its flora and fauna). I think that Peter Jackson has created some further definition in putting NZ film-making at the top of the world.

And I'm doing it too: picking up moments, snapshots. But I guess what I'm edging towards is that where we've done something different from the rest of the world, that has changed us as a nation. Tearing up a hill in the face of enemy fire and getting mown down (like at Gallipoli) was what everyone was doing in WWI. Standing up and saying "no" was not what everyone was doing, and that's why I think that NZ saying no to GW Bush's so-called "War on Terror" may be something that defines us going forward. I don't know. It will be interesting to see.

We do have a kind of national identity, but it's a bit fragile and unclear at times. Sometimes it's clearer than others (like when it got a bloody nose at the last Rugby World Cup!) but there are moments when I can look (or listen) and know that "this is distinctively NZ". As those begin to stack up, I think our identity will become clearer.

Pachyderm