Munz, Peter, and W. H. Oliver. “Reeves, Sinclair and the Social Pattern.” Essay. In The Feel of Truth: Essays in New Zealand and Pacific History, 163–78. Wellington: Reed, 1969.
The writing under consideration examines the notion of social class and its evolution and applicability to society in 19th-century New Zealand. The paper focuses on the discussion of Keith Sinclair’s evaluation of William Pember Reeves’s education and labor reforms and their impact on the development of social classes in the country. In the assessment, Oliver seeks to understand the social patterns in New Zealand as well as the factors and political influences that contributed to the society’s development in a particular manner. The author is highly critical of Sinclair’s evaluation of Reeves’s political career and influence and argues that social classes played a negligible role in the development of New Zealand society. Furthermore, Oliver emphasizes the presence of abundant opportunities for social mobility in the late 1800s New Zealand, claiming that the political field was dominated by other issues. In order to support the introduced arguments, the author relies on several crucial pieces of evidence. Specifically, Oliver points out that straightforward social mobility in the country was facilitated by easy access to land. Furthermore, the abundance of labor opportunities is associated with unique urbanization patterns in the country, as well as the encouragement and availability of education. In addition, Oliver notes that the political life in the country sought to further social mobility and prevent one class from gaining excessive political and social power through various policies. The convenience of land, labor, and education in the country resulted in minimal gaps between classes and increased mobility, leading to New Zealand being characterized by unique social patterns and lack of prominent class consciousness.
Olssen, Erik. “The ‘Working Class’ in New Zealand.” The New Zealand Journal of History 8, no. 1 (1974): 44–60.
The writing at issue examines W. H. Oliver’s take on social class and social mobility in New Zealand, as well as the role of social class in the political life of the country. In addition, the difference of opinion between Oliver and Sinclair on social class and its development in New Zealand is considered. Olssen sets out to find the answer to the following question: has social class played a role in the social and political change of the country? In addition, he questions whether the citizens’ beliefs about social class contributed to those changes regardless of whether those assumptions were correct or incorrect. In the article consideration, Olssen argues that social class played an inconsequential role in the overall political structure of the country. Meanwhile, it has been more prominent in the context of urban political structure, with a particular emphasis on New Zealand’s working class. Nevertheless, Olssen concludes that despite its prominence in urban areas social class cannot be argued to have been a crucial notion in New Zealand’s history in the same manner it was in other countries. The paper relies on political evidence to show the role of social class in 19th-century New Zealand. In particular, Olssen notes that the voting patterns of farmers and working individuals established Labor as the ruling party in the country, with Liberals losing elections and never being able to regain power. Furthermore, the author insists that the egalitarian culture of the country resulted in smaller gaps between social classes, increased mobility, and lack of identification with specific classes. Overall, the writing supports the existence of class consciousness in New Zealand in the 1890s.
Contrasting the Writings
Both of the discussed writings are dedicated to the discussion of social class and its role in the society of New Zealand in the late 19th century. Oliver addresses Sinclair’s assessment of William Pember Reeves’s reforms and their impact on social stratification and mobility, while Olssen offers a critical evaluation of Oliver’s analysis. As the second paper often refers to the first, it can be argued that they share some similarities due to similar notions and facts being discussed. Both Oliver and Olssen discuss land and labor policies in the country, as well as the availability of education. However, they reach different conclusions, with Olssen insisting land was not as available as Oliver painted.10 Furthermore, Oliver focuses specifically on Reeves’s part in education and labor reforms passed in the 1890s. At the same time, Olssen considers the role of social class consciousness and citizenry participation in politics in the country’s political life. In addition, Olssen bases his arguments on numerous facts pertaining to New Zealand’s political and social spheres, utilizing a wide scope of evidence relating to those spheres. It can be stated that both authors present intriguing arguments and help better understand the political and social lives of 19th-century New Zealand. Olssen’s argument can be debated to be more convincing due to his writing focusing on numerous factors and players and more thorough consideration of the role of the country’s culture in New Zealand’s social patterns.