Introduction
Thus planetarised, or globalised in a strictly geographical sense, by this
uprooting at the same time as they are de-particularised by the effect of false
rupture effected by conceptualisation, these commonplaced of the great new
global vulgate that endless media repetition progressively transforms into
universal common sense manage in the end to make one forget that they have
their roots in the complex and controversial realities of a particular
historical society, now tacitly constituted as model for every other and as a
yardstick for all things.
Bourdieu and Wacqaunt (1999:
42).
The quote from Bourdieu and
Wacquant came to me part way through my first reading of Carolyn Henwood and
Stephen Stratford’s offering A Gift to the World: The Youth Justice Family
Group Conference. The sentiments
expressed in the quote neatly summarise their stance on the purpose of the FGC
forum, and the place they believe it has in New Zealand’s youth justice system In short, Henwood and Stratford’s text
represents a recent edition to the growing lexicon that is providing the ideological
fuel that has been driving the globalisation of the FGC forum since the
mid-1990s (see Richards, 2007; Tauri, 2014).
I will return to the links between the quote and the book under review
later, but first I wish to provide a brief overview of the focus and aims of
the book.
The Aims of ‘A Gift to the World’
Early on, the authors of A Gift to
the World make it clear that the book is intended as a celebration of the FGC
forum, a justice process they believe “can be a life-changing process for all
involved and for New Zealand” (Henwood and Stratford, 2014: vii). The aims of
Henwood and Stratford’s book are fairly straightforward: a) to provide a
detailed description of how FGC’s ‘work’ (as in the process and the impact of
the forums); b) give voice to the experiences of youth, their family members
and professionals involved in the process, and c) challenge a number of ‘myths’
associated with the forum, including that it is “an indigenous, Maori response
to offending”, that “ it is a soft [sentencing] option”, and that it “doesn’t
work” to reduce crime (ibid: 85).
To achieve these aims the author’s
utilise a combination of methods including analysis of FGC plans, and
interviews with participants and justice practitioners. This material was in turn used to construct
seven case studies that are employed to inform the reader of the types of
offences, offenders, victims and families an FGC forum can deal with, and the
sorts of ‘outcomes’ the process leads to.
While the case studies appear to have been purposely selected to provide
positive stories about FGC practice, nevertheless they represent one of its key
strengths by providing critics and advocates alike with detailed descriptions
of the FGC process that has till now been largely absent from the
literature.
I wish now to return briefly to
the quote from Bourdieu and Wacquant that introduced this piece, before I launch
into the substantive commentary: This
quote came to mind because the Henwood and Stratford present the FGC forum as a
gift not just for New Zealander's, but to the world. It is true the forum has been uprooted and
planitarised; transferred across and into numerous jurisdictions over the past
two decades. It has been globalised to
such an extent that advocates readily describe it as one of the most innovative
and popular justice products developed during the 20th century
(Maxwell, 2008). Policy makers and
advocates alike wax lyrical about the crime reduction potentialities of the
forum, and the ability of practitioners to create communities of concern that can
work together to find meaningful ways of restoring social harmony, whilst
holding youth offenders accountable for their behaviour (see Cary, 2000;
Consedine, 1995; Zehr, 2002).
However, in some instances
advocates, including Henwood and Stratford, make such claims largely in the
absence of empirical evidence derived from critical
engagement with population groups most often impacted
by the practice of the forum; including Maori in New Zealand, and Indigenous
peoples residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions into which it has been
transferred (Tauri, 2014). In doing so, advocates
create supposed ‘common sense’
understandings of the purpose and impact of the forum that “make one
forget that they have their roots in the complex and controversial realities of
a particular historical society” (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1999; 42). What is often written out of the history of
the FGC forum and similar interventions (such as Sentencing Circles), is the
fact that it was introduced at a time when it was commonplace for policy
workers in settler-colonial jurisdictions to respond to Indigenous justice
‘issues’ by creating and/or importing indigenised justice forums that
utilised ‘acceptable’ (meaning civilised) elements of Indigenous cultural
practice. Often shaded from view, is the
part played by interventions like the FGC in the settler-colonial states
multi-pronged strategy for blocking Indigenous attempts to attain a measure of jurisdictional
autonomy (Lee, 1997; Tauri, 2004; Victor, 2007).
FGC Advocacy and the Silencing of the Critical Indigenous Perspective
Like many academics, upon
receiving a new book or journal article that falls within my research interests
primary areas of research - driven as much by a concern that the material
reflect the Indigenous experience as to replenish my ego - I turn to the bibliography to see if
the authors have engaged meaningfully with the work of critical scholars. For example, when reading a text that claims
to offer an in-depth discussion of myths associated with the FGC, one can
reasonably expect to find that the authors have engaged with the work of Shad
Maruna, Chris Cunneen, Kelly Richards, to mention but a few. Similarly, it is eminently reasonable to
expect that when an author claims that their book or article on the FGC forum engages
with Maori/Indigenous ‘issues’, to find the work of Wenona Victor, Harry
Blagg, Chris Cunneen, Gloria Lee and myself, given a dismissive mention in a
footnote at the very least. Tellingly,
none of the critical Indigenous material appears to have been on the reading
list of the authors when they were contemplating writing ‘A Gift to the World’.
A ‘Gift to the World’ suffers from
one of the common weaknesses the FGC-related advocacy literature; namely that
research and critical perspectives of Indigenous scholars, practitioners and
community members is largely missing.
Instead, ‘expert’ commentary on issues of importance to Indigenous
peoples is almost entirely based on the views and experiences of middle class
justice professionals, While members of
this group have a right to be heard, one can also reasonably argue that they
have a significant stake in presenting the forum in the best possible
light.
What is largely missing ‘A Gift to
the World’ is the critical lived experiences of Maori/Pacifica professionals or
participants whose experience of the forum have been less than positive, or
that expose the mythology that sits behind many of the ‘truth claims’ of FGC
advocates, such as the belief in the ability of the forum to accommodate any
and all ‘difference’, be it based on class, gender, sexuality of ethnicity
(more on this issue below). As indicated
above, it is no longer possible to contend that materials that report the
negative experiences of Maori and Pacifica participants, or Indigenous peoples
in settler-colonial jurisdictions that have imported the forum, are rare or
difficult to source. The work of Love
(2002), Moyle (2013) and my own work (Tauri, 1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) on the New
Zealand context, and Rudin, Lee, Victor, Cunneen and others I mention above who
report on the experiences of Indigenous peoples in other jurisdictions, leaves
little room for advocates to justify ignoring these perspectives.
In failing to engage with the critical research and
literature, the authors create an interesting contradiction, in that they end
up lending weight to some of the myths they seek to discredit. For example, on page 89 they attempt to
debunk the myth that “the family group conference is an indigenous, Maori
response to offending”. Given that a lot
of my own work in the FGC forum focuses on this issue, it was heartening to see
that Henwood and Stratford were willing to tackle it head on. Unfortunately their approach to this issue
reinforces key issues identified earlier, including failing to engage
meaningfully with the extant, critical literature, and an over-reliance on the views
of justice practitioners. Furthermore, their
argument that while the FGC is not a Maori justice form, it nevertheless
“promote[s] participation… by a young Maori who has offended” by offering Maori
participants “the opportunity to have the conference in chosen familiar surroundings,
including on marae (traditional meeting area) (Ibid: 89) is severely
compromised by a lack of engagement with research that contradicts this
position.
A cursory glance at the critical literature and
government sponsored reviews of the process demonstrates that Maori whanau and
communities are rarely ‘offered’ the gift of holding FGC’s in “familiar
surroundings” (see for example, Morris and Maxwell, 1993; Maxwell,
Robertson, Kingi, Morris and Cunningham, 2004; and Tauri’s 2011 analysis of
their research in demonstrating the failure of the implementation of the FGC to
enhance Maori ability to ‘practice justice’). The failure to
critically engage with the relevant research underlines the importance of
distinguishing between what advocates and policy makers claim to be the aims of particular interventions, and the actual outcomes that result from
practice. In this instance, practice
does not match the rhetoric that the FGC is a forum that offers Maori the
opportunity to ‘lead’ the justice systems response to the offending of their own (Tauri, 2014).
Another key myth of the FGC supported
by the authors of ‘A Gift to the World’, is that the forum responds easily to
the cultural values and practices of diverse ethnic groups. On pages 15-20 the authors replicate the
oft-told myth of the forums ability to accommodate any and all ‘cultures’. In comparison, a number of Indigenous and
critical non-Indigenous scholars argue that the forum is more accurately
described as a Eurocentric, standardised youth justice process that utilises
fragments of Indigenous cultural practice others, but does little to empower us
(see Blagg, 1997, 1998; Cunneen, 1997, 2002; Lee, 1997; Moyle, 2013; Tauri,
(1998; 1999; 2004; 2014) and Victor, 2007).
I employ the term ‘standardised’ to describe the FGC forum with intent,
for it is one of the great self-deceptions of justice practitioners and policy
makers in settler-colonial jurisdictions is that justice forums derived from western criminal justice and
criminological paradigms, can work for
everyone or anyone regardless of ‘race’, differences in social or
historical context (Tauri, 2009).
To add gravitas to their portrayal
of the cultural flexibility of the forum, Henwood and Stratford (2014: 20) cite
Judge Fred McElrea who claims that “[t]he family group conference model is
receptive to different cultural influences and can accommodate indigenous,
European, and immigrant cultures with little
difficulty”. Unfortunately for Henwood,
Stratford and Judge McElrea, critical literature that exposes the diversity of Maori experiences (and of
Indigenous peoples in other settler-colonial jurisdictions), says
otherwise. For example, what are we to
make of the Judge’s comment in light of the experiences of Maori social work
practitioners and whanau participants surveyed by Paora Moyle (2014;
forthcoming) for her Masters and Doctoral research, who state that:
The family
group conference is about as restorative as it is culturally sensitive... in
the same way Pākehā [European] social workers believe they are competent enough
to work with our people... Pākehā think they’re the natural ordinary community
against which all other ethnicities are measured (participant 19).
In the FGC we were talking about how
‘Pākeha’ the caregiver training was when most kids in care are Māori. The social worker said, “our training teaches
all prospective parents how to be culturally sensitive... culture is important
to us (to child protection) but the health and wellbeing of a child must come
first.” Like, being Māori is secondary,
an add-on, or a choice!
And
finally participant 21, a kaumatua (respected elder) who pointedly stated that:
CYF (Child Youth & Family) said I
couldn’t attend the FGC because I wasn’t whānau [family]. But the whānau wanted a tikanga [philosophy] process
and I was the kaumatua. Then the next week CYFs ring and ask me to attend a
different FGC... talk about ‘dial a kaumatua.’
The material drawn from Moyle’s
research demonstrates that the FGC forum does not always meet our specific
cultural and social needs. In
particular, it highlights that in some instances justice officials actively
work against whanau in ways that contradict claims that the forum responds to
the needs of all ethnic groups with ‘little difficulty’.
A Gift to the World?
If, as Henwood and Stratford infer
in the title of their book, the FGC forum is New Zealand's ‘gift to the world’,
then it would be a good idea to find out how it is being experienced ‘out
there’. And, being a critical Indigenous
scholar and given the propensity for RJ
advocates to over egg the ‘Maoriness’ of the forum (see Richards, 2007), by ‘the
world’ I am referring to indigenous individuals, communities and organisations
residing in settler-colonial jurisdictions, and not members of the judiciary or
government agencies, or FGC/RJ advocates motivated at least in part to ensure
the forum is marketed as positively as possible (Tauri, 2014).
For example, engaging with the
critical work of the Stolo First Nation criminologist Dr Wenona Victor (2007)
or the Cree scholar Gloria Lee (1999), reveals a world in which the cross-jurisdictional
transfer of the forum is experienced less as a gift, and more as the imposition
of a Eurocentric, standardised crime control process that impedes the
development of Indigenous-led initiatives (Tauri, 2011). Furthermore, engaging with the work of Kelly
Richards (2007) reveals that the transfer of the FGC forum from New Zealand and
Australia out to ‘the world’, was made possible in large part because policy
makers and RJ advocates purposely exaggerated the Maori/Indigenous basis to the
forum, especially to jurisdictions such as as the U.S and Canada that were also
experiencing high level of Indigenous over-representation in the criminal
justice system (see also Tauri, 2005; 2014).
If the authors of ‘A Gift to the World’ took time to engage
with the critical research of Indigenous and our critical, non-Indigenous
collaborators, they would find a world in which the FGC is a gift of the Trojan
Horse variety. They would find a world
where once you dig through the thick veil of rhetoric about the cultural
appropriateness of forums like the FGC, there lies a different reality. They will find a situation where the forum is
being experienced by some participants as an orientalised, state-dominated
processes that has been imposed on Indigenous peoples, and impedes their
attempts to develop responses to social harm based on their own cultural
contexts (Tauri, 2004, Victor, 2007).
Overall, the lack of attention
given by the authors’ of ‘A Gift to the World’ to the range of experiences of
Indigenous peoples of the FGC forum, detracts from the powerful stories revealed
through the case studies. In particular,
the lack of attention to the negative impact the cross-jurisdictional transfer
of the FGC has had on Indigenous people around the world, provokes me to
conclude this commentary by paraphrasing a well known Indigenous dictum that underlines
why Indigenous peoples should be wary of works that glorify the FGC forum: ‘Indigenous peoples everywhere, beware RJ
advocates bearing gifts’.
References
Blagg, H
(1997) A Just Measure of Shame?
Aboriginal Youth and Conferencing in Australia, British Journal of
Criminology, 37(4): 481-501.
Blagg, H
(1998) Restorative Visions and Restorative Justice Practices: Conferencing,
Ceremony and Reconciliation in Australia, Current Issues in Criminal Justice,
10(1): 5-14.
Bourdieu, P and Wacquant, L (1999)
On the Cunning of Imperialist Reason, Theory,
Culture and Society, 16(1): 41-58.
Cary, M (2000) Restorative Justice –
A New Approach with Historical Roots: Corrections Retrospective 1959-1999. St Paul: Minnesota Department of
Corrections.
Consedine, J
(1995) Restorative Justice: Healing the Effects of Crime. Wellington: Ploughshare Publishing.
Cunneen, C
(1997) Community Conferencing and the Fiction of Indigenous Control. The Australian New Zealand Journal of
Criminology, 30: 292-311.
Cunneen, C
(2002) Restorative Justice and the Politics of Decolonisation, in E. Weitekamp
and H. Kerner (Eds.), Restorative Justice: Theoretical Foundations. Devon: Willan Publishing: 32-49.
Henwood, C and Stratford, S (2014) A Gift to the
World: New Zealand’s Family Group Conference. Wellington: Henwood Trust.
Lee, G
(1997) The Newest Old Gem: Family Group Conferencing, Justice as Healing,
2(2): 1-3.
Love, C (2002) Maori Perspectives on
Collaboration and Colonisation in Contemporary Aotearoa/New Zealand Child and
Family Welfare Policies and Practices, paper presented at the Policy and
Partnerships Conference, Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo.
Maxwell, G. (2008) Crossing Cultural
Boundaries: Implementing Restorative Justice in International and Indigenous
Contexts, Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11: 81-95.
Maxwell, G,
Robertson, J, Kingi, V, Morris, A and Cunningham, C (2004) Achieving
Effective Outcomes in Youth Justice.
Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Morris, A. and Maxwell, G. (1993)
Juvenile Justice in New Zealand: A New Paradigm, Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 26(1): 72-90.
Moyle, P (2013) From Family Group Conferencing to Whanau Ora: Maori Social Workers Talk about their Experiences, unpublished Masters thesis, Massey University.
Moyle, P and Tauri, J (2015) Indigenous Peoples and the Mystifications of the Restorative Justice Movement, unpublished paper.
Richards,
K (2007) ‘Rewriting History’: Towards a Genealogy of ‘restorative justice’,
unpublished PhD thesis. Penrith: University of Western Sydney.
Rudin, J (2003) Pushing Back – A Response to the Drive for
the Standardisation of Restorative Justice Programmes in Canada, paper
presented to The 6th International Conference on Restorative
Justice, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, 2 October.
Tauri, J (1998) Family Group
Conferencing: A Case-Study of the Indigenisation of New Zealand’s Justice
System, Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 10(2): 168-182.
Tauri, J
(1999) Explaining Recent Innovations in New Zealand’s Criminal Justice System:
Empowering Maori or Biculturalising the State, Australian New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 32(2): 153-167.
Tauri, J
(2004) Conferencing, Indigenisation and Orientalism: A Critical Commentary
on Recent State Responses to Indigenous Offending (key note address), paper
presented at Qwi: Qwelstom Gathering: ‘Bringing Justice Back to the People”,
Mission, B.C, 22-24 March.
Tauri J
(2009) An Indigenous Commentary on the Standardisation of Restorative Justice, Indigenous Policy Journal, 20(3),
online.
Tauri, J (2011) Indigenous Perspectives
(reconfigured chapter), in R. Walters and T. Bradley (Eds.), Introduction to Criminological Thought
(2nd ed.). Auckland: Pearson
Longman: 187-210.
Tauri, J
(2014) Criminal Justice: A Colonial Project in Settler-Colonialism? African
Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies, 8(1): 20-37.
Victor, W (2007) Indigenous Justice:
Clearing Space and Place for Indigenous Epistemologies, research paper for
the National Centre for Indigenous peoples Governance.
Zehr, H (2002) The Little Book of Restorative Justice. Scottsdale (PA): Good Books.
