Postmodernism and the Treaty

Lucy Rogers on the truth not being a matter of opinion

Photo by Kishan Modi on Unsplash

I attended the hīkoi over the Harbour Bridge in Auckland against David Seymour’s Treaty principles bill, which proposes a referendum on the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. I was holding a sign saying “THE MEANING OF A DOCUMENT IS NOT DECIDED BY MAJORITY VOTE.” I wanted to record some brief reflections resulting from today.

A Green Party member agreed with me that truth is not determined by majority vote

I was interviewed briefly by someone affiliated with the Green Party about why I was there. When I said that truth was not determined by a majority vote he strongly agreed. This came as a surprise to me because whether or not the Green Party would describe itself in such terms it has embraced a postmodern worldview (as has the Act Party).

Postmodernism is fraught with logical problems

Postmodernism is a worldview which denies either that truth exists or that it is knowable, and often denies that objective morality exists. It is riddled with obvious inconsistencies: “truth does not exist” is self-defeating, as is “truth is not knowable.” That is to say nothing of the inconsistencies of postmodernism as it is applied to various social issues of the day, which number in the thousands.

Postmodernism is inconsistent with indigenous rights

However, it occurred to me in my conversation with the Green Party man today that another issue with postmodernism is that it is inconsistent with indigenous rights. Firstly, it denies that the Treaty of Waitangi has an objective meaning. If truth does not exist, then what the Treaty means is a matter of opinion. Secondly, it denies that violations of the Treaty are objectively morally wrong.

Postmodernism is also inconsistent with human rights in general

I add in passing that for similar reasons, postmodernism erodes respect for human rights in general. As with indigenous rights, “human rights” cease to have a moral dimension. Furthermore, human rights legislation, like the Treaty of Waitangi, ceases to have an objective meaning. This reduces statutory interpretation to a mere power play and discourages sincere judicial attempts to discern authorial intent. The implications for liberty are obvious.

Judaeo-Christian values are the true foundation for indigenous rights

Sadly for reasons I need not explore here some Māori perceive Christianity as the religion of the coloniser and the tool of empire. In fact, it is the Judaeo-Christian insistence on objective truth and objective morality which provides the framework for indigenous rights, not postmodernism. That is to say nothing of the doctrine of the image of God, which historically grounded the concept of human equality.

This is reflected in the historic role of Christianity in the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi

It was Christian missionaries who established the trust necessary with Māori to sign the Treaty, Christians who lobbied the Queen to sign the Treaty in the first place to protect Māori from exploitation, Christians who drafted the Treaty, Christians like Henry Williams who translated the Treaty, and Christians like James Stephen in the Foreign Office who were responsible for developing Britain’s policy in relation to the Treaty. Today I stood proudly in that tradition.