Fractured Paradise: Why Identity Politics is Tearing New Zealand Apart
We now inhabit a cultural landscape where division is not a flaw in the system - it is the operating principle.
The Fracturing of a Nation
There was a time, not so long ago, when New Zealanders were broadly bound together by the idea of citizenship. Not a perfect unity or a utopia of agreement, but a shared belief - fragile, evolving, and sometimes contradictory, that despite our differences we were participants in a collective egalitarian project. A belief that though our origins differed and our ancestors arrived on different craft, our destination could be the same.
It was never perfect. The legacy of colonisation, injustice, and cultural erasure, particularly for Māori, still casts a long shadow. Many efforts to recognise, restore, and rebalance those wrongs are not only justified; they were overdue. But somewhere along the road to reconciliation, we took a detour. We lost our way.
Today, we are without a shared vision of what this country could be if we realised our deep potential, and without a collective strategy to achieve that vision. The very idea of a united, pluralistic nation now seems to some quaint, to others offensive, and to many, dangerous.
We now inhabit a cultural landscape where division is not a flaw in the system - it is the operating principle.
Our political class no longer seeks to bridge divides, but to exploit them - courting base instincts and biases over national cohesion. Our media, once entrusted with impartiality, now traffics in grievance, clickbait, and the theatre of moral absolutism. Our universities, once realms of open inquiry, increasingly resemble seminaries of ideology, where students are immersed in critical theory but immunised against critical thought.
And presiding over it all, social media - the algorithmic arms dealer in our culture war, amplifying every division by nudging each engagement toward tribal outrage. Nuance is dying. Reason is retreating. In its place: a permanent state of digitally enhanced hysteria.
We are no longer a people disagreeing within a shared frame of reference. We are factions inhabiting incompatible realities - each convinced of its moral purity, and each taught to see the other not as fellow citizens, but as obstacles to progress.
It’s tempting to dismiss this creeping division as another imported virus - a cultural pathology shipped in from American campuses and spread through social media. But while it’s virulence isn’t simply organic (a connected and concerning issue worthy of it’s own analysis) even its most absurd tenets have taken root here in God's own, infecting minds across the spectrum.
At one end, we hear that words are violence, while actual violence is reframed as a valid form of protest. The inversion is now so complete that speech is treated as assault, while assault is excused as expression - so long as it serves the right cause. Virtue signaling is mistaken for virtue and social currency, and protest for purpose - no matter how incoherent, performative, or destructive it becomes.
At the other end, populist reactionaries trumpet free speech while calling to ban books, ideas, or entire identities - a contradiction made all the more ironic by their justified outrage over the scourge of cancel culture.
Different flavours, same authoritarian rhythm. The ideological extremes may loathe each other, but they are united in one thing: a desire to control what may be said, and by whom.
The result? New Zealand is fast becoming less a country and more a clash of moral tribes, each claiming the microphone, but none willing to listen to anything but the reverberations of their own echo-chambers.
The Rise of Identity Over Unity
In place of a shared national identity, we are now urged - daily, urgently, and with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, to define ourselves by increasingly narrow, immutable categories: our race, our gender, our orientation, our class, our curated grievances. Are you coloniser or colonised? Oppressor or oppressed? The 'evil' rich or the 'virtuous' poor? Your moral worth is no longer measured by your conduct or contribution, but by your coordinates on an ever-expanding moral map.
Once, identity was a starting point. Today, it is the end point. And a weapon.
Deviate, question, or express an inconvenient truth, and you’re no longer just wrong - you’re dangerous. You risk being ‘othered’ and ostracised, often by the very people who claim “othering” as their central grievance. The theology of tolerance permits no heresy, and seems curiously blind to its own hypocrisy.
Step out of line or put your head above the parapet and you’re phobic, bigoted, extremist, a fascist, or a communist - depending on which tribe you’ve offended. Yes, some people genuinely are those things. But our labels have become so broad, so lazy, that the real extremists are given perfect camouflage to hide in plain sight, or worse, blindly celebrated by the party faithful.
It is as though Martin Luther King's dream is being run in reverse.
And so, we fragment. We turn inward. We turn on each other.
The Politics of Division, Disguised as Justice
This obsession with identity often wears the noble robes of justice and inclusion. It claims to correct historical wrongs, empower the marginalised, and elevate silenced voices.
On the surface, who could disagree?
But dig deeper and contradictions abound. This is not unity through mutual recognition. It is power through division. This is not representation. It is reduction.
People are no longer seen as individuals with complex histories, ideas, and values - but as avatars of their ancestry, gender, or grievances. We risk ceasing to relate as citizens, and instead merely interact as categories.
The result is not harmony. It is paranoia and division. It’s not enlightenment - it’s the suppression of reason and critical thinking.
We speak less 'with' one another and more 'over' and 'at' one another. What passes for discourse is too often a performance of moral signaling and tribal loyalty. And nowhere is this more visible, or more toxic, than online.
Why Do We Crave Identity?
To understand this shift, we have to acknowledge a simple truth: identity answers a deep need.
We are relational beings. We need to know who we are, where we come from, and where we belong. In a world where faith is fading, institutions feel hollow, and tradition is derided, identity offers a substitute: a story, a cause, a place to stand.
For the ignored or marginalised, it can offer genuine affirmation. But for many, it also becomes a crutch. A source of unearned status. A license to absolve responsibility and redirect blame.
The tragedy is that identity politics thrives because it feeds a genuine hunger. But it is a false fulfilment. A short-term fix.
Tribalism satisfies the heart, but starves the soul.
Real meaning is found not in the battles we inherit, but in the bridges we build. Not in the labels we wear, but the lives we lead.
The New Zealand Lens: An Increasingly Relentless 'Us' and 'Them'
Even the Treaty of Waitangi, our founding document, once a symbol of mutual obligation, is increasingly wielded not as a bridge but as a boundary. Less a covenant for shared nationhood, and more a wedge to define competing claims.
Yes, identity does matter. History matters. Culture and ancestry matter. But when identity becomes a weapon, a litmus test, or a moral credential - we lose the possibility of solidarity.
We are told identity politics creates safe spaces. In reality, it creates silos.
It promises inclusion. What it delivers is tribalism, an ancient impulse in modern clothing. The very thing we once aspired to transcend.
It infantilises minorities by casting them always as victims, never as agents. It breeds resentment among majorities, telling them their success is stolen and their presence unwelcome. And it ensures that both sides stop seeing each other as human, and instead as demographic obstacles.
Without a shared identity, we are becoming an ever-more fractured collection of warring factions. A country in name only.
Rebuilding the Centre
New Zealand cannot afford to become a federation of echo chambers. One law for each demographic. One truth for each ideology. One future for each tribe.
We must reclaim the idea of shared nationhood. Not a flattening of difference, but a transcendence of it. A pluralistic place where diversity is real but not weaponised. A republic of solidarity, not sameness.
If we continue slicing ourselves thinner and thinner in the pursuit of ever-purer identity and virtue - there will soon be nothing left but fragments and friction.
This is not a recipe for building our nation up.
It’s a recipe for burning it down.
If you’re already subscribed and would like to support my work, but aren’t ready for a paid subscription…