Women, Portuguese culture and Diaspora : Women from Goa in New Zealand and cultural adaptation

New Zealand is a nation of Migrants. Immigrants have played a significant role in the country’s economic growth and cultural development. With a population of four million people, New Zealand’s population is becoming increasingly culturally diverse. Almost one in five New Zealanders were born overseas, rising to one in three in its largest city, Auckland. Asians are the fastest growing ethnic group, increasing by around 140% since 1996. Indians account for 1.2% of the population (Statistics New Zealand, 2002). The Goan community in New Zealand is relatively small and its size is not formally recorded, however, anecdotally it appears to have grown to over 200 families in the Auckland area, with most arriving after 1996. For women who migrate, loneliness and isolation have been identified as the most ‘glaring’ experience and this is intensified by the loss of extended family networks when they migrate to a country where nuclear families are the norm (Leckie, 1995). The creation of new networks and maintenance of prior networks in new ways is crucial to the successful settlement and integration into a new country. This paper reports on how Goan, Indian women in Auckland, New Zealand used specific strategies to manage the adjustment to living in a new country. The findings reveal that participants used a variety of skills to settle in New Zealand such as cultivating a “can do” attitude, obtaining support and learning. These skills enabled them to move beyond their own culture and begin to take active part in New Zealand culture. However, this process was not immediate and the participants passed through a number of stages along a continuum of settlement and integration. These stages will be discussed below and situated within a body of literature.

Who am I? An identity crisis Identity in the new museologies and the role of the museum professional

Whilst the title of this essay suggests more than one “new museology”, it was rather a licence poétique to emphasize the two major theoretical movements that have evolved in the second half of the 20th Century[1]. As a result of the place(s)/contexts where they originated, and for clarity purposes, they have been labelled in this essay as the “Latin new museology” and the “Anglo-Saxon new museology”; however they both identify themselves by just the name of “New Museology”. Even though they both shared similar ideas on participation and inclusion, the language barriers were probably the cause for many ideas not to be fully shared by both groups. The “Latin New museology” was the outcome of a specific context that started in the 1960s (de Varine 1996); being a product of the “Second Museum Revolution”(1970s)[2], it provided new perceptions of heritage, such as “common heritage”. In 1972 ICOM organized the Santiago Round Table, which advocated for museums to engage with the communities they serve, assigning them a role of “problem solvers” within the community (Primo 1999:66). These ideas lead to the concept of the Integral Museum. The Quebec Declaration in 1984 declared that a museum’s aim should be community development and not only “the preservation of past civilisations’ material artefacts”, followed by the Oaxtepec Declaration that claimed for the relationship between territory-heritage-community to be indissoluble (Primo 1999: 69). Finally, in 1992, the Caracas Declaration argued for the museum to “take the responsibility as a social manager reflecting the community’s interests”(Primo 1999: 71). [1] There have been at least three different applications of the term ( Peter van Mensch cited in Mason: 23) [2] According to Santos Primo, this Second Museum Revolution was the result of the Santiago Round Table in Chile, 1972, and furthered by the 1st New Museology International Workshop (Quebec, 1984), Oaxtepec Meeting (Mexico, 1984) and the Caracas Meeting (Venezuela, 1992) (Santos Primo : 63-64)