No abstract

Political anger in New Zealand is anger in a postcolonial society.The emotions that circulate around perceptions of injustice and inequality, and which are framed through constructions of ethnic difference, significantly colour social and political life. In New Zealand, historical processes of colonization and settlement have created conjunctions of ethnic identity which shape the law and may ultimately determine when and how human rights legislation is used in this society. The search for justice in relations between Maori and Pakeha in New Zealand involves anger, played out in a variety of social, political and legal contexts. Members of the two principal ethnic groups become angry about many of the same things but in ways whose difference reflects the differences of ethnic identity.

Emotions situate actors in relationships and shape their social interactions. Culture defines both the qualities of individual identity and the constitution of social groups with distinctive values and practices. Emotions, then, are necessarily experienced and acted upon in culturally inflected forms that define not only the conventions of their articulation through individual and collective action, but also the very words that name them. This article develops theoretical arguments to support these claims and illustrates their application in a description of differing emotional repertoires, and their consequences, in Aotearoa New Zealand. The effects of resentment and shame in an ethnic politics of rights and antidiscrimination law demonstrate that context is central to a nuanced understanding of how law and emotions connect in the practicalities of enforcing the protections of anti‐discrimination law.

No abstract

Law making can be both a technical solution and an emotional event formed through social context and geopolitical location. When a decision in the New Zealand Court of Appeal raised the question of beach ownership, government rapidly legislated to “resolve” the issue. Events around the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 brought beaches to the forefront of public attention and showed how deeply they occupy national affections. In theory, this was law making to reconcile the different beliefs and values of two ethnicized groups—indigenous Maori and settler non-Maori. In practice, a common love of place was mediated through cultural differences to produce grief, fear, and nostalgia in public life.