Social Differentiation and Status Interrelations: The Maori-Pakeha Case

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


  • Social Differentiation and Status Interrelations: The Maori-Pakeha CaseAuthor(s): Leonard Broom and Jack P. GibbsSource: American Sociological Review, Vol. 29, No. 2 (Apr., 1964), pp. 258-265Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: .Accessed: 20/12/2014 19:33

    Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

    .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


    American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toAmerican Sociological Review.

    This content downloaded from on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:33:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


    LEONARD BROOM AND JACK P. GIBBS The University of Texas

    A strategy for studying social differentiation in ethnically diverse situations is outlined and applied to Maoris and non-Maoris in New Zealand. Four propositions are formulated on the relations between religious and occupational status differentiation, between status differentia- tion and spatial, fertility, and mortality differentiation, and between status differentiation and biological amalgamation. The propositions are restated and tested in the form of nine hypotheses on intercensal changes in New Zealand.

    THE study of social differentiation con- siders all possible types of distinctions, but treats only interrelated distinc-

    tions. To paraphrase a statement attributed to Ogburn, "If a difference is not associated with other differences, it makes no differ- ence." Research indicates that statuses and other distinctions are interrelated; 1 and the theory of status integration2 provides a basis for anticipating and interpreting rela- tions among distinctions and statuses. If the distinctions are social, as in the case of statuses, roles are associated with them, and consequently the roles associated with one status may conflict with the roles associated with another, that is, conformity to one set of roles may make it difficult or impossible to conform to the other set of roles. The theory of status integration assumes that interstatus role conflicts affect the frequency with which a status configuration is occu- pied. Thus, if the roles of status X directly conflict with those of status Y, the configura- tion XY will be occupied infrequently as a consequence of the interstatus role conflict.

    Some persons may not occupy the status configuration because they recognize the role conflict. Others may occupy it, but as a re- action to the difficulties of coping with role conflict, voluntarily move out of it, changing, for example, religion, marital status, or oc- cupation. Still others may be deprived of one or more statuses because they fail to con- form to the roles of one or both of the statuses: a married man may experience role conflict between his occupation and his marital status, and lose his wife or his job. Finally, the role conflict may be widely recognized and occupancy of the status con- figuration forbidden (regulations may for- bid the employment of women as commercial airline pilots).

    The theory of status integration does not generate predictions about which particular status configurations will be frequently or infrequently occupied; rather, the theory deals with role conflict inferentially and as- sumes that the frequency with which a status configuration is occupied indicates the degree of role conflict among the statuses in the configuration. Nevertheless, the theory does provide a basis for anticipating associa- tions among status differences. For example, if male and female roles are indeed different, males and females should not have the same occupations. If the roles of a given occu- pation do not conflict with the roles of the status male, they are likely to conflict with the female roles. Consequently, there should be a preponderance of males in that occupa- tion.

    The same argument applies to racial status, age status, marital status, and so forth. Thus the theory provides a basis for anticipating and interpreting the correlates

    *This study is indebted to the Center for Ad- vanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the University of Texas Research Institute.

    1See, for example, Leonard Broom, "Social Dif- ferentiation and Stratification," in Robert K. Merton, et al. (eds.), Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, 1959, pp. 429-441; Everett C. Hughes, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," Ameri- can Journal Sociology, 50 (March, 1945), pp. 353- 359; Gerhard Lenski, "Status Crystallization: A Non-vertical Dimension of Social Status," American Sociological Review, 19 (August, 1954), pp. 405- 413.

    2 See Jack P. Gibbs and Walter T. Martin, "A Theory of Status Integration and Its Relationship to Suicide," American Sociological Review, 23 (April, 1958), pp. 140-147.


    This content downloaded from on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:33:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


    of social differentiation. In turn, the study of social differentiation throws light on status integration because it shows in aggre- gative terms the varying distributions of populations in the social structure.


    The foregoing observations suggest a major principle: status differences are asso- ciated with other status differences and with behavior over and beyond status distinctions. This principle can be restated and tested in the form of specific propositions, four of which are presented below. As a matter of research strategy, we applied this principle to a situation where status changes and status interrelations are likely to be dynamic -the situation of acculturation and assimila- tion that characterizes relations between Maori and Pakeha (Europeans) in New Zealand.

    The Maoris, a Polynesian people, did not engage in substantial trade with Europeans or see missions until the first quarter of the nineteenth century, and New Zealand was not colonized by Europeans until the middle of the nineteenth century. The Wakefield scheme, which brought colonists to New Zealand, was an effort to ease urban unem- ployment in England and to settle displaced agricultural workers. In spite of all the good intentions of the British on the one hand and the adaptability of the Maoris on the other, colonization was accompanied by pro- longed Maori warfare, both intertribal and with the British, and by epidemics among the Maoris. By 1900 the indigenous popula- tion had declined to about 46,000, perhaps less than half its precontact size. In brief, the Maoris rapidly became a numerical minority and a subordinate population. But since the beginning of this century, the Maoris have made a demographic recovery. Between 1926 and 1956 they increased from 64,000 to 137,000, and the ratio of non- Maoris to Maoris declined from 21 in 1926 to 15 in 1956.

    The population elements that are neither Maori nor European are so small (20,624 in 1956 or 0.95 per cent of the total) as to be of no consequence. This fact simplifies anal- ysis, and data dichotomized as Maori-non- Maori or Maori-European may be freely

    interchanged. It is as if the white-nonwhite and white-Negro dichotomies in the United States were substantially the same, as if nonwhites did not include American Indians and Asians.

    Propositions and Hypotheses. New Zealand census reports and vital statistics publica- tions make it possible to compare Maoris and non-Maoris on religion, occupation-in- dustry, spatial distribution, fertility, and mortality at five points in time: 1926, 1936, 1945, 1951, and 1956. (Prior to 1926 only a few characteristics of the Maori popula- tion were reported in census publications.) The data for these five years form a dia- chronic series, but treating New Zealand as though it were a different society at each point in time provides a basis for testing the principle in question. Further tests should consider comparisons between differ- ent countries, since the principle is intended to apply both diachronically and synchronic- ally. Diachronic comparisons are currently more feasible in international research be- cause census data are more often comparable over time in one country than they are between countries.

    The initial step in the test of the prin- ciple was to restate it in terms of specific propositions and to test these propositions in the form of hypotheses. The propositions and related hypotheses are as follows:

    Proposition I. Differentiation of achieved statuses is directly associated with spa- tial differentiation.

    Hypothesis 1. Religious differentiation of Ma- oris and non-Maoris varies directly with their spatial differentiation.

    Hypothesis 2. Occupation-industry differentia- tion of Maoris and non-Maoris varies di- rectly with their spatial differentiation.

    Proposition II. Differentiation of a given achieved status is directly associated with differentiation of all other achieved statuses.

    Hypothesis 3. Religious differentiation of Ma- oris and non-Maoris varies directly with their occupation-industry differentiation.

    Proposition III. Differentiation of achieved statuses is directly associated with fer- tility and mortality differentials.

    Hypothesis 4. Religious differentiation of Ma- oris and non-Maoris varies directly with fertility differences.

    This content downloaded from on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:33:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions


    Hypothesis 5. Occupation-industry differentia- tion of Maoris and non-Maoris varies di- rectly with fertility differences.

    Hypothesis 6. Religious differentiation of Ma- oris and non-Maoris varies directly with in- fant mortality differences.

    Hypothesis 7. Occupation-industry differentia- tion of Maoris and non-Maoris varies di- rectly with infant mortality differences.

    Proposition IV. Differentiation of achieved statuses is inversely associated with bio- logical amalgamation.

    Hypothesis 8. Religious differentiation of Ma- oris and non-Maoris varies inversely with their biological amalgamation.

    Hypothesis 9. Occupation-industry differentia- tion of Maoris and non-Maoris varies in- versely with their biological amalgamation.


    Religious Differentiation. Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of Maoris and non-Maoris among the major New Zealand religious professions in 1956. The Maoris,


    ZEALAND, 1956 a

    Percentage Distribution

    (Y) Major Religious (X) Non- (jX-YI)

    Profession Maori Maori Difference

    Church of England 38.57 41.73 3.16 Roman Catholic' 19.22 16.35 2.87 Ratana 16.37 0.05 16.32 Methodist 9.14 8.57 0.57 Latter Day Saints 8.58 0.19 8.39 Ringatu 4.37 0.00 4.37 Presbyterian 2.67 27.24 24.57 Brethren 0.69 1.23 0.54 Protestant, undefined 0.17 2.71 2.54 Baptist 0.13 1.91 1.78 Missions 0.09 0.02 0.07

    Total 100.00 100.00 65.18

    like the Pakeha, are highly represented in the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church, but a substantial propor- tion of Maoris adhere to the chief nativistic variants of Christianity-Ratana and Ring- atu-and these two religions have almost no Pakeha adherents. The reverse is true for Presbyterians, almost entirely a Euro- pean denomination. Presbyterians are con- centrated in the South Island, where there are few Maoris but many Europeans of Scotch ancestry. The Mormon church ap- pears to be an unusual case; through mis- sionary efforts over recent decades, it has gained many Maori adherents but few non- Maori.

    If the differences between the percentage of Maoris and the percentage of non-Maoris in each religious category (last column, Table 1) are summed and divided by two (E X-YJ/2) the quotient is the percentage of Maoris who would have to change reli- gions for the Maori distribution to be iden- tical with that of the non-Maoris.3 This measure has been applied to all of the kinds of differentiation examined in this paper.

    Column 1 of Table 4 shows a declining trend in the measure of religious differentia- tion from 1926 to 1956.4 Except during the economic depression of the 1930's, each cen- sus recorded a decline in the religious differ- entiation between Maoris and non-Maoris. In view of the fact that Mormon missionary activities during the 30 years were a differ- entiating influence, the overall decline in religious differentiation is impressive.

    Differentiation by Occupation and Indus- try. Our experience is that the problem of comparability in census data is nowhere greater than with occupations and industries, and historical comparisons of Maoris and

    a Source: New Zealand, Population Census, 1956, Vol. 8, pp. 16 and 54, and Vol. 3, pp. 13-14. Each of the religious professions shown accounts for more than one per cent of either the Maoris or the non-Maoris stating a religious profession at any one of the five census years: 1926, 1936, 1945, 1951, and 1956. The figures exclude persons with other religious professions or with no religion, and per- sons with an unstated or unspecified religion. In this and subsequent tables "Maoris" include per- sons enumerated as "half-castes."

    b Including Catholic undefined.

    3This measure has been described and is called an "index of dissimilarity" in Otis Dudley Duncan and Beverly Duncan, "Residential Distribution and Occupational Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, 60 (March, 1955), pp. 493-503.

    4Religious professions are reported in great de- tail in the New Zealand census reports. (See New Zealand Population Census, 1956, Vol. 3, Table 2, and Vol. 8, Table 14.) The major professions are not the same for each census year, i.e., some are dropped from the list and others added. To compare the same professions over time, we included all professions of more than one per cent Maori or non-Maori in any census year.

    This content downloaded from on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 19:33:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions




View more >