The Māui Narratives: from bowdlerisation, dislocation and infantilisation to veracity, a Māori practice-led approach
In Aotearoa New Zealand, as a consequence of colonisation, generations of Māori have been alienated from both their language and culture. This project harnessed an artistic re-consideration of pūrākau (traditional stories) such that previously fractured or erased stories relating to Māui-tikitiki-a-Taranga were orchestrated into a coherent narrative network. Storytelling is not the same as reading a story aloud or reciting a piece from memory. It also differs from performed drama, although it shares certain characteristics with all of these art forms. As a storyteller I look into the eyes of the audience and we both construct a virtual world. Together the listener and the teller compose the tale. The storyteller uses voice, pause and gesture; a listener, from the first moment, absorbs, reacts and co-creates. For each, the pūrākau is unique. Its story images differ. The experience can be profound, exercising thinking and emotional transformation. In the design of 14 episodes of the Māui narrative, connections were made between imagery, sound and the resonance of traditional, oral storytelling. The resulting Māui pūrākau, functions not only to revive the beauty of te reo Māori, but also to resurface traditional values that lie embedded within these ancient stories. The presentation contributes to knowledge through three distinct points. First, it supports language revitilisation by employing ancient words, phrases and karakia that are heard. Thus, we encounter language expressed not in its neutral written form, but in relation to tone, pause, rhythm, pronunciation and context. Second, it connects the Māui narratives into a cohesive whole. In doing this it also uses whakapapa to make connections and to provide meaning and chronology both within and between the episodes. Third, it elevates the pūrākau beyond the level of simple children’s stories. The inclusion of karakia reinforces that these incantations are in fact sacred texts. Rich in ancient language they give us glimspes into ancient epistemologies. Appreciating this elevated state, we can understand how these pūrākau dealt with complex human and societal issues including abortion, rape, incest, murder, love, challenging traditional hierarchies, the power of women, and the sacredness of knowledge and ritual. Finally, the presentation considers both in theory and practice, the process of intergenerational bowdlerisation.
Best, E. (1924). Maori religion and mythology: Being an account of the cosmogony, anthropogeny, religious beliefs and rites, magic and folk lore of the Maori folk of New Zealand. Part 1. South Africa: Government Printer.
Bolt, B. (2007). The Magic is in the handling. Practice as Research: Approaches to Creative Arts Enquiry. London: Amazon. pp. 27-34.
Bolton, G. (2010) Reflective practice: Writing and professional development. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Candy, P. C. (1989). Alternative paradigms in educational research. The Australian Educational Researcher, 16(3), 1-11.
Candy, L. (2006). Practice based research: A guide. Sydney: University of Technology Creativity & Cognition Studios. CCS Report, 1, 1-19. http:// www.creativityandcognition.com
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press.
Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Maori: Tona tika, tona pono – the validity and integrity of Maori research. In M. Tolich (Ed.), Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 35-52). Auckland: Reed Publishing.
Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49-55.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process, Sydney: Allen & Unwin.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). The masterminds series. Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Gibbs, M. (2001). Toward a strategy for undertaking cross-cultural collaborative research. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 673-687.
Gray, C. (1996). Inquiry through practice: Developing appropriate research strategies. In Proceedings of No Guru, No Method? International Conference on Art and Design Research. Helsinki, Finland. Retrieved January 10, 2015, from http://carolegray.net/Papers%20PDFs/ngnm.pdf
Grey, G. (1855). Polynesian mythology and ancient traditional history of the New Zealand race, as furnished by their priests and chiefs. London, England: John Murray.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N. K
Halbert, R. (1961). Te Tini o Toi. Whakatane and District Historical Society.
Hamilton, J., & Jaaniste, L. (2010). Content, structure and orientations of the practice-led exegesis. Journal of Writing in Creative Practice, 3(1), 31.
Hiles, D. (2001). Heuristic inquiry and transpersonal research. Paper presented to CPPE London. Retrieved July 23, 2016, from http://psy.dmu. ac.uk/drhiles/HIpaper.htm
Ings, W. (2011). Managing heuristics as a method of inquiry in autobiographical graphic design theses. iJADE Journal 30.2, Blackwell Publishing.
Klein, J. (2010). What is artistic research? Berlin: Gegenworte 23, Berlin-Brandenburgische Akademie der Wissenschaften. https://media.researchcatalogue.net/rc/ master/57/85/bf/29/5785bf295ddfff55902b08051f9c1143.
Kleining, G, & Witt, H. (2000). The qualitative heuristic approach: A methodology for discovery in psychology and the social sciences. Rediscovering the method of introspection as an example. FQS. Volume 1, No. 1, Art. 13
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and methodology. Educational researcher, 16 (2), 193-205.
Mahuika, R. (2008). Kaupapa Maori is critical and anti-colonial. MAI Review, 3 (4).
Mäkelä, M., & O’Riley, T. (2012). The art of research II: Process, results, contribution. Helsinki, Finland: Aalto University, School of Arts, Design and Architecture.
Mäkelä, M., Nimkulrat, N., Dash, D. & Nsenga, F. (2011). On reflecting and making in artistic research practice. Journal of Research Practice, 7(1). Retrieved May 23, 2019, from http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/issue/view/15
Mead, H. (2003). Tikanga Maori: Living by Maori values. Wellington: Huia Publishers.
Mengle, K., Kirkby, E., Kosegarten, H., & Appel, T. (2001). Principles of plant nutrition (5th ed.). (pp. 397-434). Springer, Dordrech.
Metge, J. (1999). Time & the art of Maori storytelling. The Journal of New Zealand Studies, 8(1).
Milroy, T. W. J. (2014). Matua rautia ngā tamariki o te Kōhanga Reo. In R. Higgins, P. Rewi and V. Olsen-Reeder (Eds.), The value of the Maori language: Te Hua o te reo Maori v.2. (pp.197-203) Wellington, New Zealand: Huia Publishers.
Moewaka Barnes, H. (2000). Kaupapa Maori: Explaining the ordinary. Auckland: Whāriki Alcohol & Public Health Research Unit. University of Auckland.
Steagall, M. M., & Ings, W. (2018). Practice-led doctoral research and the nature of immersive methods. DAT Journal, 3(2), 392-423..
Moustakas, C. (1990). Heuristic research: Design, methodology, and applications. London: Sage.
Nimkulrat, N. (2007). The role of documentation in practice-led research. Journal of Research Practice. 3(1), M6. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/ article/view/58/83
Pihama, L., Tiakiwai, S. J., & Southey, K. (2015). Kaupapa rangahau: A reader. A collection of readings from the Kaupapa Rangahau workshops series. Hamilton, Te Kotahi Research Institute.
Pihama, L. (1997). Ko Taranaki te maunga: Challenging post-colonial disturbances and postmodern fragmentation. He Pukenga Korero, 2(2), 8-15.
Pouwhare, R. (2016). He iti te manu, he nui te kōrero: The bird is small, the story is epic. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand.
Pouwhare, R. (2016a). Kai hea kai hea te pū o te mate? Reclaiming the power of pūrākau. Te Kaharoa, Special edition: Empowering Performance: Maori and Indigenous Performance Studies Symposium: 9, 1-19.
Pouwhare, R., & McNeill, H. (2018). Pūrākau: He mahi Rangahau. DAT Journal Design Art and Technology. v. 3(2), 261-290.
Rameka, L. (2012). Whakapapa: Culturally valid assessment in early childhood. Early Childhood Folio, 16(2), 33.
Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. n Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69-97). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Rust, C., Mottram, J., & Till, J. (2007). AHRC research review: Practice- led research in art, design and architecture: London: Arts and Humanities Research Council.
Sarantakos, S. (1993). Social research. Melbourne: MacMillan Education.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London, England: Ashgate.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. London, UK: Zed.
Turner, V. (with Abrahams, R. D.). (1969). The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. New York, NY: Aldine De Gruyter.
Ventling, F. D. (2017). Illuminativa: The resonance of the unseen. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland.
Walker, R. J. (1985). Cultural domination of Taha Maori: The potential for radical transformation. In J. Codd & R. Nash (Eds.). Political issues in New Zealand Education. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
Walker. R. (2005). Growing research skills at iwi level. Tihei Oriori Monograph Series. Auckland: Ngā Pae o Te Māramatanga, University of Auckland.
Ware, J. (2009). Youth development: Maui styles Kia tipu te rito o te pa harakeke; Tikanga and ahuatanga as a basis for a positive Maori youth development approach. (Unpublished master of arts thesis). Palmerston North: Te Kunenga ki Purehuroad.
Copyright (c) 2023 Robert Pouwhare
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors submitting articles for publication warrant that the work is not an infringement of any existing copyright and will indemnify the publisher against any breach of such warranty. By publishing in LINK PRAXIS Journal, the author(s) agree to the dissemination of their work through the LINK PRAXIS Journal.
By publishing in LINK PRAXIS Journal, the authors grant the Journal a Creative Commons nonexclusive worldwide license (CC-BY 4.0): Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License) for electronic dissemination of the article via the Internet, and, a nonexclusive right
to license others to reproduce, republish, transmit, and distribute the content of the journal. The authors grant the Journal the right to transfer content (without changing it), to any medium or format necessary for the purpose of preservation.
Authors agree that the Journal will not be liable for any damages, costs, or losses whatsoever arising in any circumstances from its services, including damages arising from the breakdown of technology and difficulties with access.