Performing biculturalism

If this book so far has underlined TP’s role as an experiment for the newly adopted state ideology of biculturalism, then the compromises in creating TP’s marae (the courtyard and complex around the Māori meeting house) further sustain this hypothesis, as the following case study demonstrates. Arguably the most prominent embodiment of TP’s commitment to biculturalism is the Museum’s commissioned marae Rongomaraeroa with the custom-made meeting house Te Hono ki Hawaiki. Located on level four, overlooking Wellington Harbour, Te Marae is both an exhibition space open to the public and a ‘living marae’ used for pōwhiri, functions and tangi. ¹ The fact that TP, the national museum, has a marae built into it indicates that the bicultural framework has visibly, tangibly and physically become part of the institution. TP’s pamphlet, Welcome to Te Marae, states that “[o]ur Marae represents the essence of Te Papa – a place where everybody can have a sense of belonging. Our kawa, the way we host people, reflects this”. I see TP’s marae as a national symbol, which sits alongside places such as the national library; “powerful ideological statements of the kind of visions of the nation and its past” ² that are manifest in the architecture, physical layout and signage. Therefore, the marae sets the scene and fixes the ‘rules’ within ‘which we speak’. ³ In other words, Te Marae is the centre stage at TP. We should acknowledge the importance of “the creation of spaces – literal and cultural – that are protected from the intrusion of state authorities and within which indigenous self-determination may be pursued”. ⁴ TP’s marae to me is one of those spaces. As we will see the marae emerges often as a symbol of, and site for, debate over biculturalism. Here, biculturalism can be discussed and defined from a Māori perspective. However, the marae kawa continues to be a contested issue among Māori and non-Māori within TP and beyond as well as between Māori staff of differing backgrounds, generations and iwi affiliations. As I demonstrate below, these debates among Māori move beyond the ‘us and them’ dynamics of the contact zone, as they constitute an intra-indigenous dynamic where Māori speak to Māori, albeit within the context of TP; this is engagement zone territory. ⁵