108 ● Anaru Eketone and Shayne Walker
would argue that there are few societies that are genuinely multicultural—
that is, where all participatory cultures have a degree of equality in their
values being recognized, including within government institutions and poli-
cies. Berry and Kalin’s (1995) definition suggests a dominant culture should
“allow” nondominant cultural groups to be accommodated, but only insofar
as they do not disrupt a country’s laws and customs. This leaves little room for
the possibility that a country’s laws and customs may need to change. A more
accurate term for these cosmopolitan societies would be multiethnic, rec-
ognizing the diversity of ethnicities and cultural backgrounds living within
a society. With this view, New Zealand could not claim to be multicultural
because government institutions and policies only accommodate one, or at
best two, cultural ways of being, knowing, valuing, and doing. Multicul-
turalism, as described by Berry and Kalin (1995), is a lesser form of inter-
cultural arrangement. In our view, many western societies define themselves
as being multicultural in a self-serving, self-congratulatory way, to promote
themselves as something that they are not. They may be tolerant of people of
another culture but hesitant to apply the others’ values into their own struc-
tures. Immigrants or minority ethnic groups may be welcome, but only as
long as they do not expect others to endorse or be personally influenced by the
minority values. Immigrants may participate equitably, as long as they adapt
to western approaches and assimilate or integrate into the dominant culture’s
way of doing things.
Another issue with the term multiculturalism is that it can be used as an
excuse to ignore bicultural obligations. The statement that “we are a multicul-
tural society, not a bicultural one” is usually used to uphold monoculturalism.
In other words, “We can’t learn every culture, therefore we shouldn’t learn
any.” In Berry and Kalin’s (1995) form of multiculturalism, new immigrants
are expected to acculturate into the new society; there is an expectation that
when immigrants come to a new country, they may hold onto their traditions,
but they will have to adapt their ways to fit into institutions, policies, and laws
of the land.
This power dynamic, whereby the privileged maintain their power, is what
prevents genuine multiculturalism in many countries. To some extent, it still
prevents genuine biculturalism from existing in New Zealand. Monocultur-
alism was the norm in New Zealand social work until recent decades (and
is still seen at times today); it was usually the culture of the social worker
that determined how the client was to be worked with. To participate in the
social work process, Māori clients had to adapt themselves; because the social
worker only had their own cultural viewpoint from which to work, the cli-
ent had to communicate in a way that the social worker could understand.
The monoculturalism of New Zealand’s Department of Social Welfare (the