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".
Publication and methodology Although Ausubel was back in the United States by this time, The Fern and the Tiki was published in 1960. The preface notes that Ausubel's expertise lay in his training as a psychiatrist and psychologist, specifically focused on education issues, personality development, and social relationships. For this work, he gathered data from observations, formal and informal interviews, and "specially designed personality tests." The aim of the book was "to present an objective and critical analysis of important problems facing the people of New Zealand, such as discipline, coeducation, conformity, standards of public controversy, juvenile delinquency, and the improvement of Māori-Pākehā relations". The primary focus was on Pākehā, with Māori characteristics considered only in the context of New Zealand race relations. This involved describing the attitudes and characteristics of Pākehā New Zealanders, particularly their self-perception, interactions with others, and responses to societal issues.
Ausubel's frame of reference for the book is based on his American experience and includes direct comparisons between the two cultures, and examples of the American 'visitor'—either in the third person or as Ausubel himself—encountering a self-image among New Zealanders that was "markedly at variance with the visitor's observations." He concedes that, as an outsider, his views could be problematic but argues that this perspective allows for a fresh point of view on issues resulting in "fewer blind spots than [the] hosts about the local species of sacred cows". Early in the book, he notes that adopting a critical approach requires an awareness of the influence previous writings may have had on the host country influencing how they receive and process criticism. It is suggested that "criticism crossing cultural boundaries may be considered proper if it is fair, reasoned, objective, and within the observer's realm of competence".
A key element in Ausubel's gathering of data for this work was the importance he attributed to analysing the degree that a "national character...[which]...identifies the ideal personality traits of a culture...actually corresponds to the national self-portrait". He asserts that this assists the researcher to manage understandably sensitive responses to opinions by an outsider of a nation's "cherished self-images". In the epilogue, the validity of the concept of national character is examined. Ausubel argues that it differs from national stereotypes, which he describes as "naïve overstatements that recognize no individual differences between the inhabitants of a country...[and]...reflect a notoriously biased selection of data." Consequently, national character was considered more scientific, based on "precise and systematic observation...[and]...free of prejudice and hearsay evidence." To maintain objectivity he approached the people without preconceptions, and his impressions "were derived empirically from actual experience untainted by a pre-existing national stereotype."
In the preface to the American Edition (1965), Ausubel claims that his belief "national character is primarily a product of the distinctive history, values, customs, traditions and institutions of a particular nation" differs from the commonly held psychoanalytic view that it resulted from child-rearing practices.
Ausubel concedes some "methodological limitations" involved in gathering data for the section on race relations in New Zealand. Specifically, the interviews were informal, and most of the participating Pākehā and Māori, from a wide range of backgrounds, were unaware they were being interviewed on this topic. The discussions were transcribed privately. There is an acknowledged lack of "representativeness of sampling [and] standardisation of content"; however, Ausubel maintains that it yielded "richer, more spontaneous, and less camouflaged data" than some surveys, where participants often sought to make a favourable impression on the interviewer. He concludes that "no claim [could] be made that these data reflect[ed] a definitive, adequately controlled, or representative cross-section of New Zealand opinion on race relations".
The discussion of New Zealanders' attitudes toward race relations was underpinned by the concept of colour prejudice that was relevant to the New Zealand experience. Ausubel argues that this prejudice originated during the era when European colonial powers were exploiting, enslaving, and mistreating indigenous peoples. To justify these actions, a theory emerged suggesting that people of colour possessed inferior intelligence and lower morality, making it seem inconsequential to deprive them of their "life, land, and liberty." This doctrine often softened once the political and economic objectives of colonization were realized. Influenced by democracy, missionary activity, and humanitarian ideals, it relied on the racial group in question being small enough not to threaten the dominant European population. Many still believed in the inherent superiority of white-skinned individuals, viewing "the white man's burden" as an obligation to improve the living and educational standards of the natives while ensuring continued profit from their labour. Based on this theory, Ausubel describes a "modern colour bar—a modified system of colonialism where people of colour gained varying degrees of political and legal equality but were still relegated to an inferior social and economic status through various forms of extra-legal discrimination". He suggests an historical paradigm for race relations in New Zealand that is very similar to this model. In the final chapter, Ausubel unpacks several rationalizations that have been used to justify colour prejudice in New Zealand. As a result of stereotypes about behaviour, Māori were placed at a serious disadvantage compared to Pākehā as they had to first prove they did not possess the traits commonly attributed to their race before being accepted.
Format and key ideas Three chapters of the book explore the national character of New Zealanders. Ausubel identified a "blend of British and pioneering traits...[including]...the perceived virtues of both traditions and the vices of neither". In valuing their British heritage, New Zealanders see themselves as "reserved, unsentimental, respectful of authority, mindful of discipline, and prone to understatement". Instead of "British snobbishness, arrogance, haughty condescension and patronizing airs", the national image is one of "genial friendliness and an amiable, easygoing egalitarianism". Ausubel acknowledges that some of this was valid, but claims New Zealanders show considerable sentimentality in their choice of movies, often write "maudlin" in-memoriam notices, watch "gushingly sentimental" movies and participate in very emotional farewell ceremonies. He further questions whether New Zealanders are as friendly and hospitable as their self-image proclaimed. A "strong undercurrent of hostility toward foreigners" is noted, reflected in the resentment toward Americans, with Ausubel concluding that "the tide of anti-American feeling among the rank and file of New Zealanders today is probably stronger than ever before in history." Ausubel was surprised by how personally accountable he was held by "elderly gentlemen" for the behavior of American servicemen, [who] "dated New Zealand girls during World War II while they were risking their lives in the North African campaign." Ausubel also found it perplexing how rarely New Zealanders asked him to share knowledge about his home country, instead "parading all of their distorted notions and misconceptions about the United States gleaned from the latest picture magazines and Hollywood productions."