4.3 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Fern and the Tiki | 1/5 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fern_and_the_Tiki | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T08:55:40.676360+00:00 | kb-cron |
The Fern and the Tiki is a book by American psychologist David Ausubel, written during his Fulbright Research Fellowship in New Zealand in 1957/58. Subtitled An American View of New Zealand National Character, Social Attitudes and Race Relations, the book critically examines how New Zealanders' self-image aligned with the ideal personality traits of the country's national character at the time. Building on ideas from Ausubel's earlier research in New Zealand, and followed by a psycho-ethnological study of Māori youth, The Fern and the Tiki concludes that the perception held by many Pākehā of themselves as egalitarian New Zealanders living in a country with excellent race relations was a myth. At the time of publication, this and other criticisms in the book of child-rearing and education in the country sparked considerable controversy and left a lasting impact on how students, academics, and policymakers discuss and respond to the treatment of Māori by the predominantly Pākehā culture, as well as other social issues.
== Background and context == In 1957 Ausubel was awarded a Fulbright Research Grant to study in New Zealand. He was welcomed to Victoria University of Wellington by Professor Ernest Beaglehole, who was said to be looking for an eminent scholar to "address the disparities between Māori and Pākehā" and provide an "outsider's perspective [that] would stimulate an open and reasoned discourse on race relations". As a result, Ausubel's research resulted in several articles and books including The Fern and the Tiki and later, Māori Youth.
His first publication in New Zealand was an article in Landfall Journal entitled Race Relations in New Zealand: Māori and Pākehā—an American View. Early in the article, Ausubel asserted that in believing there was no colour bar, racial prejudice, or discrimination, and that Māori enjoy complete equality with Europeans, New Zealanders held "an unwarrantedly sanguine view of the race relations in [the] country." One piece in the local media quoted Ausubel's conclusion in the article: "There can be no escape from facing the unpalatable fact that by any reasonable or objective standard, an extra-legal colour bar does exist in New Zealand. For as long as New Zealanders persist in deluding themselves that all is well in the sphere of race relations, the only realistic prospect for the future is the emergence of a brown proletariat segregated in the urban slums and living in a state of chronic tension with their white neighbours." A later commentator noted that at the time there was surprisingly little response from a "small elite audience of intellectuals and academics that might be expected to react to a disquieting analysis of their society". Some letters in one media outlet were bemused by, or took offense at, Ausubel's comments about race relations in the country, but the same newspaper later followed with a piece stating that now the issue had been raised, it must be faced and dealt with. A Māori leader disagreed with Ausubel's claim that "racial antagonisms...[in the country]...were potentially dangerous". Ausubel continued commenting on other issues in New Zealand society, including a criticism of single-sex schools in the country. He claimed these schools were "remiss in [their] responsibilities... [by not]...developing men and women to interact normally with persons of the opposite sex." His views on education received coverage in The Birmingham Post, however Clarence Beeby, the Director of Education in New Zealand, stated there was no evidence to support Ausubel's claim that co-education was a likely cause of delinquency. A senior lecturer at Victoria University challenged "the sweeping denial" of what Ausubel said of New Zealand schools, noting that he was "an authority of international standing" whose views could only be disproved by valid research methods. Ausubel widened the debate later by suggesting that New Zealanders' attitude toward conformity reflected "over-bearing and heavy-handed authority at home and in schools...[resulting in]...an over-reliance on authority and not enough on self-discipline".