I would encourage MacCulloch to continue writing. If power groups don't like what he is writing, then they have a responsibility to respond. It does prove his case for narrow minded thinking. At the end of the day debate encourages new ideas to flow freely. Also, I would not put Peter Gluckman on your "naughty boys" list. He has always struck me as an honest advocate for science and its role in our country. Keep commenting, Robert MacCulloch, our society is better for your honesty. I'm reading Einstein's biography at the moment, and his best thinking came about when he was shunned by the establishment but his absolute commitment to non-conformity gave him room to break into whole new areas of thinking. He couldn't get a job, at least Robert has one!
I've followed MacCullogh's "Down to earth Kiwi" blog for years and one of its main values is that it presents a point of view outside the Wellington beltway. I miss it very much.
There is always a sense of regret when someone previously unknown to us dies and only then do we learn of their outstanding qualities of intellect, insight, honesty and kindness. We find ourselves wishing that we had been able to walk alongside them in their life, listening closely to their words, and observing their actions.
That is the way I feel about Robert MacCulloch's blog to which I have only now been introduced. Still, we can be grateful that Rob is still with us even if his blog has passed away.
It seems to me that Rob arrived independently at an important truth, perhaps the most important truth, about the nature of New Zealand society, which is that at its higher levels it is a coterie of privileged individuals with close personal connections spanning business, politics, the law and the media. Often the same individuals appear in different guises, as businessperson, political operator and social influencer (take Sir Robert Jones for example).
Bruce Jesson did seminal work on this phenomenon, tracing the connections between the great families of New Zealand capitalism such as the Fletchers, Todds and Spencers, as well as immensely powerful individuals, such as Brierley, Goodman and Wattie, and going right back to the foundations of colonialism on the land pillaged from Maori by men like Russell and Whitaker whose business interests were both inseparable and indistinguishable from their political interests.
The political/business networks that Jesson charted were often centered on the Northern Club, and closely linked with schools such as Kings College, Scots College, Auckland Grammar, Christ's College and a handful of others which were the Harrows and Etons of colonialist society, and arguably its École Nationale d'Administration.
One of the defining features of colonial capitalism is that it inverts the normal order of capitalism in which wealth is the road to power. In New Zealand's colonialist society, power becomes the path to wealth. From the time of Russell and Whitaker's formation of the "war party" which provoked the British to invade and seize the Maori lands, to the mass privatization of public assets that started with the Lange/Douglas government, political power has been the necessary condition for the acquisition of great wealth in New Zealand.
In normal states we would think of the accumulation of capital rather than its appropriation, but New Zealand is different. Here great wealth is not accumulated through daylight toil, it is seized in the darkness of night by battalions of politicians and speculators aided by their retainers in the law, media and academia. This is, by the way, an inherently corrupt process.
Those of us who work in remote places on the land, or toil in the cities can see little of this for ourselves but we are grateful to people like Robert MacCulloch and Bruce Jesson who have the capability, commitment and courage to bring it out into the light.
The cosy network of the New Zealand Initiative, major oligopolies and advisers within the Beehive is well captured here by Bryce. Talk about reining in the supermarkets, energy companies and near monopolies in the construction and housing sectors is almost certainly political theatre with no serious follow through intended. Links between donors to the Coalition parties and fast track projects is all too clear. The term cosyism captures this unhealthy dynamic very well. Has New Zealand regressed so much it needs the equivalent of the reforms of 1912 which addressed cronyism of the era of Dick Seddon and Joseph Ward by establishing firm rules about public service roles?
I loved Robert’s astute commentary. He will be sorely missed by me. ‘Chumocracy’, nepotism, and soft corruption are rife in this country. The hugely negative impacts from the dysfunctional behaviour we see all around us has metastasised into the bone structure of the New Zealand economy. I would argue all day long, that ‘chumocracy’ is cultural. It is an immense challenge meeting the definitional requirements of a ‘wicked’ problem. The current regime’s disingenuous politics is all the evidence required for those who want to look.
What I don't entirely understand is that Prof MacCulloch says he has been threatened with being excluded from jobs outside the university but he clearly told Michael Laws he wasn't looking for any job beyond his professorship.
He also has tenure, and he says the university has been supportive of him and his writing.
I find it hard to work out why a tenured professor would fear being offside with powerful politicians if he doesn't want anything from them.
Yeah, I share this confusion. I probably should ask him. My feeling is that it's all a lot more visceral than logical in the sense you're putting it in. My reading of it is that he feels like he's being heavied, he's pissed off with the patronage system, he doesn't feel sufficiently supported in being a dissident, so he's saying "Why do I even bother? I may as well put all of my efforts into teaching and research instead of public engagement".
That "he doesn't feel sufficiently supported" perhaps rings a bell. Although the universities are required by law to be "the critic and conscience of society," in practice, for academics to get involved in current events always seems to be seen as infra dig by university administrators in this country (administrators possibly selected from the club).
An example of the gap between 'town and gown,' in that respect, can be seen in the fact that when two successive groups of advisors were organised by the first mayor of the Auckland Super City, Len Brown, neither included any university academics; nor has Auckland University Press ever published a single book on contemporary Auckland urban issues since its founding in 1966, as far as I am aware. Even 2013's Being Māori in the City: Indigenous Everyday Life in Auckland turns out to be a University of Toronto publication by a visiting Canadian scholar (!).
There are lots of books about Māori of course, but they are nearly all about tribal, traditional, rural Māori, things that happened in the 1860s, and so on: no current events if you please.
So, and this is perhaps especially true in Auckland, MacCulloch would have been very much the odd one out in terms of his engagement with current affairs, always the first one over the parapet hoping like heck that a great mass is going to follow but finding that he is the sole target of all the opponents' guns.
This is quite different to the situation in Australia and many other countries with which we would like to compare ourselves, in which the profs are commenting on current events in the media all the time.
PS: people have been saying things like this for many years. E.g., of course, Bill Pearson's 'Fretful Sleepers' in 1952, Similarly, in The Fern and the Tiki (1960), the visiting American scholar David Ausubel quotes someone who complains of NZ's "McCarthyism without a McCarthy," which went well beyond anticommunism as such: that basically anyone who rocked the boat in any way in 1950s NZ would get quietly cancelled, and that this definitely applied to academics in those days as well.
Perhaps we broke free for a generation or so with courageous and interesting scholars like Keith Sinclair and all the other freethinkers of the 1970s, but now it's back to a Sid Holland-era cultural miasma, except that we are no longer living on the sheep's back but have to be innovative--bad timing!
F#$k (That is Fark with a money play) me, that is a damning article, nice work Bryce.
I would love to have a beer with that bloke sometime.
I am sure he would enjoyed my recent substack, A Message To Nicola Willis, which I thought was pretty damning of her, but this is next level and bloody scary.
We need more people like Professor MacCulloch not fewer. This certainly gives one a jolt and pause for thought and action. ‘Cosyism’ says it all and the threats from all sides should be exposed. Thank you for drawing this to our attention and may we pass it on.
I probably overlooked the power play in my eagerness to see Orr gone. Were there really better times? Perhaps it’s always been about personal wealth and power and social media has just made us more aware. Good people have to give up the fight because other people who might view themselves as good are playing the ladder game. How bloody sad it all is.
Yes he was, he has been beating this drum for quite a long time now and it must be frustrating when having to explain to morons like Sean Plunkett who are unable to keep up.
I would encourage MacCulloch to continue writing. If power groups don't like what he is writing, then they have a responsibility to respond. It does prove his case for narrow minded thinking. At the end of the day debate encourages new ideas to flow freely. Also, I would not put Peter Gluckman on your "naughty boys" list. He has always struck me as an honest advocate for science and its role in our country. Keep commenting, Robert MacCulloch, our society is better for your honesty. I'm reading Einstein's biography at the moment, and his best thinking came about when he was shunned by the establishment but his absolute commitment to non-conformity gave him room to break into whole new areas of thinking. He couldn't get a job, at least Robert has one!
I've followed MacCullogh's "Down to earth Kiwi" blog for years and one of its main values is that it presents a point of view outside the Wellington beltway. I miss it very much.
There is always a sense of regret when someone previously unknown to us dies and only then do we learn of their outstanding qualities of intellect, insight, honesty and kindness. We find ourselves wishing that we had been able to walk alongside them in their life, listening closely to their words, and observing their actions.
That is the way I feel about Robert MacCulloch's blog to which I have only now been introduced. Still, we can be grateful that Rob is still with us even if his blog has passed away.
It seems to me that Rob arrived independently at an important truth, perhaps the most important truth, about the nature of New Zealand society, which is that at its higher levels it is a coterie of privileged individuals with close personal connections spanning business, politics, the law and the media. Often the same individuals appear in different guises, as businessperson, political operator and social influencer (take Sir Robert Jones for example).
Bruce Jesson did seminal work on this phenomenon, tracing the connections between the great families of New Zealand capitalism such as the Fletchers, Todds and Spencers, as well as immensely powerful individuals, such as Brierley, Goodman and Wattie, and going right back to the foundations of colonialism on the land pillaged from Maori by men like Russell and Whitaker whose business interests were both inseparable and indistinguishable from their political interests.
The political/business networks that Jesson charted were often centered on the Northern Club, and closely linked with schools such as Kings College, Scots College, Auckland Grammar, Christ's College and a handful of others which were the Harrows and Etons of colonialist society, and arguably its École Nationale d'Administration.
One of the defining features of colonial capitalism is that it inverts the normal order of capitalism in which wealth is the road to power. In New Zealand's colonialist society, power becomes the path to wealth. From the time of Russell and Whitaker's formation of the "war party" which provoked the British to invade and seize the Maori lands, to the mass privatization of public assets that started with the Lange/Douglas government, political power has been the necessary condition for the acquisition of great wealth in New Zealand.
In normal states we would think of the accumulation of capital rather than its appropriation, but New Zealand is different. Here great wealth is not accumulated through daylight toil, it is seized in the darkness of night by battalions of politicians and speculators aided by their retainers in the law, media and academia. This is, by the way, an inherently corrupt process.
Those of us who work in remote places on the land, or toil in the cities can see little of this for ourselves but we are grateful to people like Robert MacCulloch and Bruce Jesson who have the capability, commitment and courage to bring it out into the light.
The cosy network of the New Zealand Initiative, major oligopolies and advisers within the Beehive is well captured here by Bryce. Talk about reining in the supermarkets, energy companies and near monopolies in the construction and housing sectors is almost certainly political theatre with no serious follow through intended. Links between donors to the Coalition parties and fast track projects is all too clear. The term cosyism captures this unhealthy dynamic very well. Has New Zealand regressed so much it needs the equivalent of the reforms of 1912 which addressed cronyism of the era of Dick Seddon and Joseph Ward by establishing firm rules about public service roles?
I loved Robert’s astute commentary. He will be sorely missed by me. ‘Chumocracy’, nepotism, and soft corruption are rife in this country. The hugely negative impacts from the dysfunctional behaviour we see all around us has metastasised into the bone structure of the New Zealand economy. I would argue all day long, that ‘chumocracy’ is cultural. It is an immense challenge meeting the definitional requirements of a ‘wicked’ problem. The current regime’s disingenuous politics is all the evidence required for those who want to look.
What I don't entirely understand is that Prof MacCulloch says he has been threatened with being excluded from jobs outside the university but he clearly told Michael Laws he wasn't looking for any job beyond his professorship.
He also has tenure, and he says the university has been supportive of him and his writing.
I find it hard to work out why a tenured professor would fear being offside with powerful politicians if he doesn't want anything from them.
Yeah, I share this confusion. I probably should ask him. My feeling is that it's all a lot more visceral than logical in the sense you're putting it in. My reading of it is that he feels like he's being heavied, he's pissed off with the patronage system, he doesn't feel sufficiently supported in being a dissident, so he's saying "Why do I even bother? I may as well put all of my efforts into teaching and research instead of public engagement".
That "he doesn't feel sufficiently supported" perhaps rings a bell. Although the universities are required by law to be "the critic and conscience of society," in practice, for academics to get involved in current events always seems to be seen as infra dig by university administrators in this country (administrators possibly selected from the club).
An example of the gap between 'town and gown,' in that respect, can be seen in the fact that when two successive groups of advisors were organised by the first mayor of the Auckland Super City, Len Brown, neither included any university academics; nor has Auckland University Press ever published a single book on contemporary Auckland urban issues since its founding in 1966, as far as I am aware. Even 2013's Being Māori in the City: Indigenous Everyday Life in Auckland turns out to be a University of Toronto publication by a visiting Canadian scholar (!).
There are lots of books about Māori of course, but they are nearly all about tribal, traditional, rural Māori, things that happened in the 1860s, and so on: no current events if you please.
So, and this is perhaps especially true in Auckland, MacCulloch would have been very much the odd one out in terms of his engagement with current affairs, always the first one over the parapet hoping like heck that a great mass is going to follow but finding that he is the sole target of all the opponents' guns.
This is quite different to the situation in Australia and many other countries with which we would like to compare ourselves, in which the profs are commenting on current events in the media all the time.
PS: people have been saying things like this for many years. E.g., of course, Bill Pearson's 'Fretful Sleepers' in 1952, Similarly, in The Fern and the Tiki (1960), the visiting American scholar David Ausubel quotes someone who complains of NZ's "McCarthyism without a McCarthy," which went well beyond anticommunism as such: that basically anyone who rocked the boat in any way in 1950s NZ would get quietly cancelled, and that this definitely applied to academics in those days as well.
Perhaps we broke free for a generation or so with courageous and interesting scholars like Keith Sinclair and all the other freethinkers of the 1970s, but now it's back to a Sid Holland-era cultural miasma, except that we are no longer living on the sheep's back but have to be innovative--bad timing!
Is Auckland University reluctant to encourage profs to engage on current events and issues in light of Siouxsie Wiles' case against it?
More: https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2021/11/03/ingenio-critic-and-conscience.html .
Yeah, looks like some suit belatedly looked up the Education Act in that instance: https://www.hrnz.org.nz/news/article/decision-in-dr-siouxsie-wiles-employment-case.
Thanks, Bryce. That makes sense.
F#$k (That is Fark with a money play) me, that is a damning article, nice work Bryce.
I would love to have a beer with that bloke sometime.
I am sure he would enjoyed my recent substack, A Message To Nicola Willis, which I thought was pretty damning of her, but this is next level and bloody scary.
very disturbing .
We need more people like Professor MacCulloch not fewer. This certainly gives one a jolt and pause for thought and action. ‘Cosyism’ says it all and the threats from all sides should be exposed. Thank you for drawing this to our attention and may we pass it on.
I probably overlooked the power play in my eagerness to see Orr gone. Were there really better times? Perhaps it’s always been about personal wealth and power and social media has just made us more aware. Good people have to give up the fight because other people who might view themselves as good are playing the ladder game. How bloody sad it all is.
I heard him on the Platform. He's unhinged!
Yes he was, he has been beating this drum for quite a long time now and it must be frustrating when having to explain to morons like Sean Plunkett who are unable to keep up.