New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies. Vol. 47, No.

2, 2012

Interview
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication
Graham Smith
Ngāti Porou, Kai Tahu, Ngāti Kahungungu
Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiārangi
with Te Kawehau Hoskins and Alison Jones

Introduction
Graham Hingangaroa Smith is Distinguished Professor and CEO of Te Whare Wānanga o
Awanuiārangi in Whakatāne. In this edited interview with Alison Jones and Te Kawehau
Hoskins he explains his role in the original development of the idea of ‘Kaupapa Māori
theory’ in education, and his concerns about the way Kaupapa Māori is often understood
today. In his own words, the two key points are: “First, Kaupapa Māori as an idea and a
practice needs to grow and it needs to expand. It is the time for renewal. It had a vibrant
beginning in the early 1980s, but we need to think differently about it now, thirty years later,
in the new contexts that face us. And second, we need to confront those who purport to give
voice to Kaupapa Māori but who are domesticating it rather than helping to grow the radical
potential within it”.

Kaupapa Māori origins

What are the origins of the term ‘Kaupapa Māori’ now used in social science research in New
Zealand?
‘Kaupapa Māori’ in the context of education was first coined at one of the early
meetings in the development of what is now called the Kura Kaupapa Māori
schooling initiative. In 1987 I was involved, alongside others, trying to get space in
some of the schools around Auckland for Māori children coming up from the
kōhanga reo. We were engaging with the Minister of Education at the time, Russell
Marshall. He agreed to come to a meeting at the Auckland Teachers’ College, and we
brought the whānau from two kōhanga reo: Awhireinga and Natari. We discussed
the idea of setting up our own kura and the philosophy that should be used to guide
the school. It was at that meeting that the term Kaupapa Māori was first used in
relation to the philosophy that would shape the kura. Tuki Nepe first used the term.
She used it to refer publicly to what we began to call ‘Kaupapa Māori schools’ or
‘Kura Kaupapa’. I would credit Tuki with the impetus for the whole idea. I
remember at that meeting I made the claim that the term Kaupapa Māori would be
on everybody’s lips in three years. And that has happened.
My contribution was to add the word ‘theory’ to Kaupapa Māori. This was quite
deliberate. I worked on this in my PhD thesis. I debated with my supervisor, Roger
Dale, and with others about this use of ‘theory’. The phrase ‘Kaupapa Māori theory’
was my attempt not simply to try and capture the high knowledge status associated
with the word theory; it was a strategic move to open up a powerful space for Māori
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication 11

in the academy. That has been a successful strategy; the space has largely been won.
Kaupapa Māori theory, as well as related terms such as ‘Kaupapa Māori
methodology’, are now seen as legitimate phrases shaping forms of academic
inquiry.
The way I see it is simple. The field of education is filled with theories—for instance,
theories of child development, of learning, educational psychology—that have not
been useful for us as Māori. In fact, they have been damaging to us, because
underpinning those theories are deficit theories that position Māori as lacking, as
inadequate and problematic. Kaupapa Māori theory provides a space for thinking
and researching differently, to centre Māori interests and desires, and to speak back
to the dominant existing theories in education.
It is important to understand theory as a kernel of ideas that are transportable and
able to be transplanted into a range of sites of inquiry. Kaupapa Māori theorising
provided a group of theoretical elements that could be used in a range of sites,
whether it was education or health, housing, economics, architecture, Māori radio—
wherever the ideas could have a positive influence. This transportability has been
strategically successful, because you find the term Kaupapa Māori appearing in all
these areas of endeavour.
I think it is useful to understand where we are at with the idea of Kaupapa Māori
now, thirty years since its beginnings, and to identify some threats to its potential.

Critical theory
What is significant about the theoretical underpinnings of Kaupapa Māori?
The key underpinnings of Kaupapa Māori were transported in the first place out of
critical theory. Too many people have forgotten the critical theory aspect of Kaupapa
Māori theory. One of the key dangers, robbing Kaupapa Māori of its radical
potential, is created by this forgetting.
The roots of Kaupapa Māori in critical theory is more important than many realise.
Critical theory is a set of ideas that foreground both action and theory: the (political)
action of social transformation, and the theory, or idea, of structural analysis that
informs the action. The politics of social change, the basis of critical theory, mean
giving close attention to action focused on Māori self-development as well as to a
theoretical analysis of the social order, including the forces of capitalism and
colonisation both of which have had negative impacts on our people.
We have a lot of Māori who dismiss critical theory, who say “that is Pākehā theory”.
But critical theory, with its joining of transformative practice and structural analysis,
is an essential part. The strong kernel of the original critical theory argument about
action and reflection is eroded by people making pronouncements using Kaupapa
Māori in an ill-informed way. They do not know the language of structuralism.
The neglect of structuralism contributes to the domestication of Kaupapa Māori that
is going on. A Kaupapa Māori without critical theory becomes an opening for a
12 Graham Smith

browning of the mainstream institutions rather than a space from which to challenge
them. It becomes domesticated just like ‘taha Māori’, the ‘Māori dimension’ and ‘the
Māori voice’ became in education.
In developing the idea of Kaupapa Māori in social analysis I was looking for a term
that would encapsulate the absolute necessity of action and analysis that would be
able to give strength and direction to Kaupapa Māori. In this I was influenced by the
work of Paulo Freire, who is a critical theorist. When I first read Paulo Freire’s
Pedagogy of the Oppressed it made absolute sense to me. I only had to read it once and
I got it, because for everything he said I had a practical example from Aotearoa. It
fitted; it described exactly the sorts of things we were engaging with. His use of the
term ‘praxis’ to refer to the inseparability of action and analysis made sense for our
struggle here in New Zealand. The co-option of his words into my own work has
been quite deliberate. The word praxis is neglected these days, but it reminds us that
we cannot merely talk about Kaupapa Māori. The idea of Kaupapa Māori contains
the necessity of political action.
Another key critical theorist who influenced the development of my initial ideas
about Kaupapa Māori was the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who in turn
was influenced by a number of European intellectual traditions including the
Marxist tradition and the North American pragmatist tradition of John Dewey.
Habermas was able to re-energise people when postmodernists and others were
critiquing utopian ideals and the idea of the Big Vision. For him, it was okay to have
a utopian vision (like tino rangatiratanga)—the vision gives impetus and momentum
in struggle—but we should not just look at the aim as something against which to
measure change (‘Have we reached tino rangatiratanga yet? Why not?’). To do that
can be daunting, even depressing. What Habermas suggested was that people were
often looking in the wrong place to understand their political achievements. His
view was that people should identify and celebrate the incremental victories along
the way, rather than be disillusioned about an apparent lack of a quick Big Victory.
This is where the hard work and blisters come in—look to the daily work of
Kaupapa Māori, not only to the reiteration of the grand ideas like tino rangatiratanga
or Kaupapa Māori. I think we need to hold on to aspirations and utopian visions, but
the everyday enactment or practice is the incremental stuff that is equally if not more
crucial.
So to reiterate: Kaupapa Māori has its roots in two intellectual influences—the
validity and legitimacy of Māori language, knowledge and culture, as well as critical
social theory. And this critical tradition demands we pay attention to analysis and to
practice, to structural analysis (which includes an analysis of history, economies,
colonisation and so on) and to everyday practice, both of which inform the other.
When one of these two elements is forgotten, and the emphasis is on a form of
analysis separate from action (or vice versa), Kaupapa Māori is in danger of losing its
radical potential.
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication 13

How might we understand ‘action’ in the context of academic work?

An emphasis on action will help guard against the domestication, or the taming and
assimilation, of Kaupapa Māori ideas into the mainstream discourses in education
and elsewhere. Kaupapa Māori is in real danger of being assimilated when it is seen
as a set of words rather than a set of actions as well. Some significant gains have
been undermined by poor decision making by academics in the way they have
presented their work. Academics who positively use the term Kaupapa Māori often
do so in merely theoretical ways. In fact, I find it hard to say anything positive about
the ways Kaupapa Māori has been used in the academy. Often it has been written up
in texts outside of the notion of enactment. And I think that the co-option of
Kaupapa Māori into theoretical or metaphorical models has reduced its credibility.
You can’t write in the third person about it, you cannot write from a distance. The
prior question is, if you are going to write about Kaupapa Māori, what can you show
you have done for Māori in the real world? Show me the blisters on your hands to
gain a more authoritative right to talk or write authentically about Kaupapa Māori.
So, central to the whole Kaupapa Māori process is engagement, getting your hands
dirty in struggle. Kaupapa Māori is constantly being made and remade in practice, in
political and social settings—whether in the academy (which is only one small site),
or in Māori interest areas such as the economy, education, culture and politics.

The cultural and the political

What kind of action-and-analysis will counter the forces of domestication?
I have said that action and analysis (praxis) are at the heart of Kaupapa Māori, and
that analysis without action is dangerous. If we look more closely, we can see
another danger to its radical potential.
It is possible to identify two key Kaupapa Māori elements—a cultural element and a
political (or maybe a political–cultural) element. These are related, and both have a
praxis, or an analysis and action aspect. The cultural element involves the assertion
or reinvigoration of cultural ideas in action such as ideas of whanaungatanga,
manaakitanga and reciprocity as social capital. The political element foregrounds
economic power and historical analyses, and the related actions of economic self-
development. Both elements are crucial to the radical potential of Kaupapa Māori.
At the moment, if we look at the work of some key academics who put themselves
under the umbrella of Kaupapa Māori, we see that one element is overshadowing
the other. The culturalist movement is very strong. Look at kōhanga reo—it is in
need of renewal, why? Because it has been significantly influenced by the culturalists
who have neglected the political momentum that was originally there. This capture
causes stagnation.
In my view, we have to broaden beyond a narrow culturalist frame in a way that is
safe, that is not undoing or negating the importance of the cultural dimension. The
two movements (the cultural and the political) need to interweave. The neglect of the
political element makes it more possible for containment and limitation of Kaupapa
14 Graham Smith

Māori as an idea and as a practice that is transforming of our disproportionate levels

of social and economic underdevelopment. This is where I depart from a number of
other academic colleagues who construct Kaupapa Māori just culturally, and have
not seen the structural and economic implications of what we are talking about.

Some people maintain that ‘Kaupapa Māori’ now seems to live in the academy, away from the
people.
Part of my criticism is driven by the real day-to-day needs of our people. We cannot
afford to have academics sitting on the sidelines and commentating, or describing
(again) what is happening for Māori in deficit terms, for example, ‘learning
underachievement’, ‘health crises’ and ‘domestic violence’; people need to get in and
become politically active. That is, we need to act ourselves, address in practical terms
our own issues in our own communities, whether it is excessive drinking, violence,
or whatever. But we do not want to be setting up is a whole lot of brown social
welfare agencies (this is a danger for Whānau Ora), and re-inscribing our own
pathologies. We need to get ourselves up in terms of a critical voice and critical
action—this movement to enactment is itself and important site of struggle.
It is also the case that for Kaupapa Māori to thrive as an idea and action, people’s
hearts and minds must be won. Kaupapa Māori has to speak to pressing daily issues
for our people—food production, unemployment, access to resources and so on.
And that is where the critical structural work of Kaupapa Māori comes in to play
most strongly. This is the priority now. Lately, a focus on food security, poverty, and
health has come to surpass a focus on language and culture and even the
environment. The order used to be first our cultural identity then all these other
things, and lately there has been a reversal. We need to be flexible; I think that
Kaupapa Māori can cope with all these things. To some extent, the divisions amongst
us, as exhibited by the political emphases of the Māori Party and the Mana Party
split, reflect culturalist versus structuralist emphases. The Māori Party appears to
have been captured by culturalist ideas. It does have structuralist/economic
concerns but has seemingly (at this point in time) not articulated them strongly
enough to grab the imagination of the people.
If Kaupapa Māori is seen primarily as an assertion or reinvigoration of cultural ideas,
the domestication of Kaupapa Māori is inevitable. I am not saying that the assertion
of cultural ideas and imperatives is not important. I am saying that if those aspects of
Kaupapa Māori are the focus, and the politics and critical aspects of Kaupapa Māori
are neglected, the radical potential of Kaupapa Māori is diminished.
Political analysis and action is needed for the other important concept embedded in
Kaupapa Māori: transformation. Transformation is about assisting the self-
development project for Māori. The one thing I ask my students to do is be involved
in some transformative project. But they need to have some idea about what
transformation is. It is not about describing the status quo, or altering a few aspects
of it. It is about a transforming or a changing Kaupapa for all of us. Kaupapa Māori
is about making a difference and a change in people’s lives. If it is simply about
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication 15

describing what is going on, or just making it more ‘Māori-friendly’, it is simply

contributing to reproducing the status quo. And the status quo ain’t working.

Theory and practice

Many students of Kaupapa Māori seem to recoil from the idea of theory, seeing it as
alienating in some way…
A tendency amongst some who work with Kaupapa Māori is a neglect of theory.
Kaupapa Māori is a movement towards theory, generally; it is not a movement away.
Some have misinterpreted the whole Kaupapa Māori initiative as a retrenchment to
our own cultural or ‘traditional’ position, and a move away from especially
European theoretical tools and ideas. But in order to sustain and evolve our own
cultural positioning, we need to know what we have moved away from, and we
need to understand what has already been contributed in the theoretical domain,
and in the academy. We need to identify those parts that are enjoined with this
struggle, and are not necessarily against it. So my message to new people getting
involved with Kaupapa Māori is to understand theory and engage with Western
ideas with an open mind. Take the lessons that we can learn from there as part of our
revolution.
Kaupapa Māori is a way of countering the negative theories and theoretical
paradigms out there, like deficit theory, self-esteem theory, some psychological
theories, and the capture of science. We need to understand those to know what has
happened to us. We have to name these theories—it is a way of understanding the
ideas—and package them up and develop counter-theory and a counter-hegemonic
movement. We are struggling for our own right to think for ourselves.
Amongst some Māori there has been a reticence about the term ‘theory’, which is
sometimes seen as in opposition to practice. Some of our own communities have
constructed theory in negative, anti-intellectual ways. Praxis in Kaupapa Māori is
about dealing with the anti-intellectualism, and moving people towards theoretical
analysis. Movement towards theory is about being open to ideas generally. We can
still be selective about the theories we want to engage with, obviously—we want
theory that helps us with our aspirations. Not all theory is useful to us; some has
been damaging, as previously mentioned.

What are some good examples of Kaupapa Māori in practice?

My work with Kaupapa Māori theory in practice at the wānanga has been an attempt
to understand those key elements of Kaupapa Māori that are the essential
transforming components. It has also been to understand why Kaupapa Māori as a
transforming strategy has captured people’s imagination, and has mobilised people
to do things for themselves such as in the kōhanga, kura and the wānanga. I started
my theoretical work on Kaupapa Māori in the conventional academy as a means to
support the community struggle to establish Kura Kaupapa Māori. I was focused on
tackling the problems associated with establishment by arguing the validity and
legitimacy of Māori language, knowledge and culture as well as the theoretical
16 Graham Smith

underpinning to these cultural elements. I think we have now done that bit, and I
have since moved to engage in the struggle to fully realise the potential of the
wānanga generally, and Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi in particular. While
wānanga are widely understood to be part of the New Zealand tertiary system, we
try to ensure that this wānanga is not just seen as a set of buildings, and a group of
staff and students that equate to institutional income, and subsequently largely
disconnected from the community. The wānanga is the community; it represents the
dreams and aspirations of Māori community/iwi. It exists in a dialectical
relationship with its iwi foundations. We are engaged in educating whole families,
whole marae. We offer programmes from graduate degree level work to marae
enhancement courses. We ask what communities and iwi need, and try and cater for
them. If they need whakairo (carving) training, then we can help. If they need
wharepaku (toilets) then we bring a building programme in. We can respond to their
language, cultural and knowledge needs as well as vocational interests and so on.
We engage with all forms of knowledge—Western forms and Māori forms. It’s not
either/or. There are multiple elements that fit within the framework of Māori
development. We work with our communities in a very visceral, located way; we
have accountabilities to our communities that are real, and that we experience every
day. Even when we are getting our morning coffee down the road we get feedback!
I do not want to drive a wedge between the wānanga and the mainstream university
institutions; I think all sites are important. But I am arguing for more recognition for
the contribution of the wānanga to Māori education in its very broadest sense. Most
people have got no idea about the significant contribution of wānanga to New
Zealand education. There are many pathways to the development of Māori
aspirations. Universities are still a crucial part of the Māori struggle, given that Māori
are not a homogenous group, and there are learning options only available in the
universities and polytechnics. At Awanuiārangi we offer learning that is often not
available elsewhere, but we may also offer it in a culturally different pedagogical
form. We are charged by the Education Amendment Act (1990) to offer “the
application of knowledge regarding ahuatanga Māori (Maori tradition) according to
tikanga Māori (Maori custom).” (Education Act 1989, Section 162:4,b, iv. Amended
July 23, 1990).
The best examples of Kaupapa Māori practice lead to transforming outcomes that
allow Māori still to be Māori, and also enable successful participation in all aspects of
New Zealand life. In a situation where there is intense competition in the education
sector for meagre resources we need to be careful about how Kaupapa Māori
approaches are open to co-option by dominant interests. We do not want people
saying to government that they are using a Kaupapa Māori approach in education
and gaining funds for training Pākehā—something which actually benefits the
Pākehā, funding them to clean up their act. Taha Māori policy was such an approach.
Our approach is clear and unequivocal: it is focused on addressing Māori aspirations
first and foremost.
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication 17

Kaupapa Māori and neoliberalism

What about the criticism that Kaupapa Māori has become part of the neoliberal agenda?
There has been some criticism of Māori positioning in the post-Treaty settlement
period. More and more iwi are coming into settlement monies. They have developed
a range of strategies to build their iwi economic sustainability. Some simply copy
dominant capitalist formations to create wealth, yet others are trying new and
innovative approaches. The big difference is that Māori/iwi are making the decisions
ourselves, as opposed to others who hold power over us making those decisions for
us. Some have said we are becoming brown capitalists, others that we are becoming
part of the neoliberal political agenda. I do not think we are just talking about
capitalism in the same form. We are developing our own internal critique that will
shape those aspirations. There are some very good critiques out there amongst iwi
that offer counter-narratives to capitalism, for instance, the development of local
sustainable economies. But ultimately, our aspiration for self-development is the
opportunity of doing what we need to do for ourselves. Part of the wānanga’s job is
to help create and develop that critical voice within our communities so that we are
taking care of things ourselves, but hopefully in a critically informed way. It is easy
to think that we are simply going to reproduce the dominant Pākehā economically
stratified society, but for most Māori that is the last thing we want to do!
Neoliberalism as it developed from the early 1980s in New Zealand has enabled
some Māori gains. The schooling initiative Tomorrow’s Schools opened a space for
Kura Kaupapa Māori. When Tomorrow’s Schools came along in 1989 we saw the
opportunity to leap in and develop the schools. In many ways, neoliberalism has
been instrumental in the rise of Kaupapa Māori, because Kaupapa Māori developed
in speaking back to neoliberalism. In gaining from neoliberal philosophy and
politics, as well as in our critique of it, Kaupapa Māori has possibly been
strengthened. It is important to say that, in my view, an ideological alliance has not
occurred.
Māori are simultaneously individual and also collective. We are often generalised as
a collective by outside commentators. The fundamental principles related to the
notion of the possessive individual, which is the basis of neoliberal economics, is
contradicted by Māori responsibilities to the collective, to whānau, hapū, iwi and so
on. It is about Māori ourselves understanding what space we are in, and what our
individual and collective responsibilities are within these different spaces. In a
Treaty claim we are collective, and then with the money pot on the table,
colonisation kicks in and various ones may be suddenly overtaken by individualistic
thinking! The point is, the distinction is in many ways arbitrary, and one can only
generalise these typologies, but this contradiction is definitely at play for many
Māori. This is the changing context for Māori. People are evolving culturally (some
might say have succumbed to colonisation). The cultural context in which we find
ourselves today is changing, and we are trying to make our way in this new space, in
a complex post-Treaty settlement environment.
18 Graham Smith

No one is pure in any struggle. Why should we expect Māori to be so? To me, it is
important for Māori to know our limitations and recognise our capacities involved in
the struggle, and not to over-claim. Owning up to limited capacities, and owning up
to where we are compromising, does not diminish the struggle; it is part of the
struggle. This is what I call the politics of truth. It is liberating once you understand
it. We are all compromised in some way, it does not matter who you are. A good
critical perspective can mediate these tendencies. Those who might argue that
Kaupapa Māori is part of the neoliberal agenda are not part of the frontline struggle,
or have an extremely narrow understanding of critical politics.
Universities remain a critical site of struggle for Māori but, unfortunately, significant
numbers of Māori scholars participate in reproducing our cultural oppression and
economic exploitation. We need more of our Māori scholars to stand up and engage
critically. Too many are domesticated by the system and the institutional
domesticating machinery, such as PBRF. I have commented elsewhere in my
writings about what I have labelled privatised academic behaviour. This is work that
is developed by individual academics outside of collective political responsibility,
conscience or consciousness. This type of work is primarily motivated by self-
serving academic outcomes for promotion, institutional advancement and Pākehā
peer recognition. These elements become problematic when individuals co-opt the
privilege of Māori to develop their own, personal privatised interests—some of
which are ultimately contributing to the colonising of other Māori.

Pākehā and Kaupapa Māori

Is Kaupapa Māori the exclusive realm of Māori?
In terms of Pākehā involvement with Kaupapa Māori, there are risks. Many Māori
activists do not encourage Pākehā involvement in the theoretical work of critiquing
and reflecting on aupapa Māori. There is good reason for this mistrust. Generally,
Pākehā people have a problematic history with respect to ongoing colonisation. I am
drawn to Freire’s comment here—let the oppressors first free themselves before they
free others. I understand where this question is coming from, and I have no problem
with working with or respecting the contribution of Pākehā colleagues. I have been
well taught by many Pākehā colleagues for whom I have great admiration and
respect. But that's the point, they have taught me to get on with job of doing it for
ourselves—they have done their work and now we must apply those teachings for
ourselves. Our first task is to engage with ourselves first and foremost to critically
challenge ourselves.
I think there are many ways to approach the question of outsiders’ engagement. The
more confident and mature you become with your own analysis and practice, the
more confidence you have with engaging with the rest of the world. This happens
not only with Kaupapa Māori theory. People in any new area of thought and
endeavour tend to be rather defensive, and not as open initially. When they have
developed their ideas and internally critiqued these over a long period of time, the
confidence to work with others increases. Some individuals are more advanced than
Kaupapa Māori: The dangers of domestication 19

others in this work—but there is still significant mistrust among some Māori scholars
about the distractions associated with protecting Pākehā colleagues’ sensitivities
from critique.
This is not a black and white issue; it is about people, it is about relationships. There
are boundaries, but sometimes the ideas are more important than the feelings of
individuals. I am certainly of the opinion that Kaupapa Māori theory, as a big ‘game
changer’ idea with respect to Māori development, is bigger than any of us as
individuals. I want Māori to have a legitimate part to play in New Zealand life today
and in the future. I want those Māori scholars who make sacrifices around career,
who do the groundwork intellectually and in other ways, to be respected for their
ideas and contribution. Notwithstanding there are many people struggling in a
range of sites to create a space for Māori—and this includes some Pākehā and other
indigenous peoples. So this is not an exclusive place for Māori, but there are some
expectations and rules that apply.

Kaupapa Māori and the future

What revisions might we see in the future?
Kaupapa Māori theory is still very relevant and important—what else do we have
with which to speak back within the academy? What is the other counter-narrative
we can use? It is a robust idea with massive potential, and it requires constant critical
renewal and reflection. I am worried about the voices that are ill-informed, and
therefore do not understand its political roots or intention. This is what I mean by
the renewal process—returning to the political and theoretical roots of Kaupapa
Māori and reinvigorating its expression for today’s conditions. This is a task that
needs to be undertaken both within and outside of the academy. It also needs to
remain connected to the grass roots, transforming initiatives of Te Kōhanga Reo,
Kura Kaupapa Māori and wānanga.
Effective theory is able to be applied into other areas, that is, it is portable. This is, in
fact, what has happened to Kaupapa Māori. It is being applied to a range of sites. For
example, many government ministries have Kaupapa Māori units. My hope is that
people take the original idea of Kaupapa Māori as a powerful set of transforming
ideas that will make a profound difference for Māori, and furthermore, that Kaupapa
Māori strategies are firmly embedded within their struggles and applied across a
range of sites. I have never tried to ring-fence these ideas; people have to ‘own’ these
ideas and take them forward in order to generate a transforming momentum. We
need to grow new generations of Māori who genuinely understand Kaupapa Māori
and its critically informed transforming intentions.
To summarise, I would say that it is important to understand two principal aspects
of Kaupapa Māori. One is the politics of the existence of Kaupapa Māori, that is, its
ability to challenge the structures and societal context of unequal power relations,
and to continue to make appropriate space for the validity of our own ideas and
ways of being. The second element is about self-development. You always need both
aspects. But as much as it is about our struggle to project our own ways of doing
20 Graham Smith

things and our own self-development, it is simultaneously about being aware of the
politics of domestication and containment of Kaupapa Māori via ongoing
colonisation by dominant interests, which is promulgated by both Pākehā and some
Māori.
Finally, Kaupapa Māori as a concept must not be captured by academics working
solely from within academic institutions. Its transforming purpose must continue to
be driven by Māori community and iwi interests from which it has evolved. Its wider
application should reflect Māori and iwi interests and accountabilities. Furthermore,
it must avoid being captured within the disconnected and privatised academic
behaviours encouraged by dominant Pākehā academic institutions and policies.
There are four tests that I think should be applied for a practice to be called an
effective Kaupapa Māori-informed strategy. The first is the praxis test: Are both
practical and theoretical elements present? Second, the positionality test: What is the
record of the researcher/commentator that lends legitimacy to their work in this
area? Third, the criticality test: Does the commentary or analysis adequately take
account of culturalist and structuralist aspirations and political analysis? And fourth,
the transformability test: What positively changes for Māori as a result of your
engagement or your application of Kaupapa Māori?

Further reading
Smith, G.H. (1997). The development of Kaupapa Māori: Theory and praxis (Unpublished
doctoral thesis). University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Smith, G. H. (1999). Paulo Freire: Lessons in transformative praxis. In P. Roberts
(Ed.), Paulo Freire, politics and pedagogy: Reflections from Aotearoa-New Zealand
(pp. 35-42). Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Smith, G. H. (2003, December). Kaupapa Māori theory: Theorizing indigenous
transformation of education and schooling. Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE
Joint Conference, Hyatt Hotel, Auckland, New Zealand. Retrieved from
http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/pih03342.pdf#search=%22graham%20hinga
ngaroa%20smith%22

Graham Hingangaroa Smith (Ngāti Porou, Kai Tahu, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Kahungunu),
an internationally renowned Māori educationalist, is Distinguished Professor of
Education at Te Whare Wānanga o Awanuiārangi. He has been at the forefront of the
alternative Māori initiatives in the education field and beyond, and was the first
teacher of a Māori immersion Kura Kaupapa Māori school. His theoretical leadership
has informed the emergence of Māori Education Studies as a distinct entity within
the tertiary sector, and he is involved in the development of Tribal Universities. In
his former position as Pro Vice-Chancellor (Māori), he was responsible for
developing a Māori University structure within The University of Auckland.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.