Le Matuamoepo: competing 'spirits of governing' and the management of New Zealand-based Samoan youth offender cases

Abstract

This thesis considers the 'spirits of governing' that currently frame youth justice approaches to Samoan youth offending in New Zealand, today. It claims that, in the current management of Samoan youth offending cases, three main spirits of governing are in play. These are the spirits of neo-liberal risk management cultural appropriateness, and faaSamoa. All three spirits operate simultaneously, in multilayered and intersecting ways. Gaining insight into this complexity is critical to building an understanding of the points of tension that may arise in the operationalisation of 'culturally appropriate' youth justice policies in the case of Samoan youth offenders. To highlight the complex character of these spirits of governing and their relationships, the thesis first describes each spirit of governing and then considers how they compete, intersect and/or diverge through a close analysis of seven youth justice cases. Analysis of each of the seven cases is based on interviews with a Samoan youth offender, a family representative, their CYFS social worker, police youth aid officer, Youth Court youth advocate and a community intervention programme worker. The key sites of government examined in this work are those of the family, the Youth Court, the youth justice family group conference and a community intervention programme service. The thesis reveals that to gain nuanced understanding of the complexities of managing a Samoan youth offender case, it is not simply a question of knowing what 'spirits of governing' are at play, one also needs to examine how they play. I contend that these three 'spirits' have specific relationships with each other. In youth justice, neo-liberalism opened up space for cultural appropriateness which, in turn allowed for the circulation of the faaSamoa. These three 'spirits', however, can not be reduced to each other because of their differing understanding of governmental strategies, techniques and subjects. In particular, they differ on their understanding of the role of families, of collaboration and of cultural expertise. Consequently, for example, while these three 'spirits of governing' 'agree' on the value of cultural appropriateness, they do not 'agree' on how it should be defined and measured. Too often when politically sensitive programmes or policies, such as those involving ethnic-specific cases, do not work, the response from politicians and programme personnel alike is to couch their failures in overly simplistic terms. This work seeks to indicate the importance of developing culturally nuanced models of analysis that can engage in the complexities of governing across cultural divides, in the improvement of practice in the field and in the development of a sociology capable of enhancing cross-cultural understanding.