Livestream at the Marae Gate
Your Year 11 Religious Studies class of 28 is at the gate of a local marae for a pōwhiri, the first visit for most students. In the pre-visit briefing the kaiārahi set out the kawa: manuhiri wait at the gate until called; women lead the karanga; no photography or filming during the pōwhiri; shoes off inside the wharenui; nobody sits at the front of the paepae. Ten minutes before the call, a student, Jordan, asks you privately whether they can livestream the pōwhiri on TikTok. Jordan has about 4,000 followers and says a cousin in hospital in Auckland wants to watch. Two other students have already filmed and posted a clip of the gateway. The marae chair, who negotiated the visit with the school, is standing nearby. You are not Māori, and the school's partnership agreement says tikanga decisions sit with the marae. The bus leaves at 2pm.
1. Identify the main competing considerations and state what you would do, with reasons.
Read the worked answer
Decision: stop the filming now, and hand the request to the marae chair before the karanga begins.
The competing considerations are:
- Kawa and tapu. A pōwhiri is not a performance with an audience. The karanga and whaikōrero are a formal exchange between tangata whenua and manuhiri that carries tapu, particularly where the dead are acknowledged. Who is present, and how, is part of the ritual, not an optional extra.
- Authority. Under the partnership agreement, tikanga decisions sit with the marae. You are not the right-holder, so you cannot grant consent, however good your intentions. Granting it would quietly take authority that is not yours.
- Manaakitanga. The sick cousin is a genuine value, not an inconvenience. A good answer honours it without overriding kawa.
- Precedent and duty of care. Footage is already online. Saying nothing means the marae's kawa is breached by default and the relationship with the iwi is damaged for next year's class.
So: ask the two students to remove the posted clip and apologise to the chair; put Jordan's request to the chair directly and accept a 'no' as final. If the answer is yes, set conditions - fixed camera at the back, no karanga or hongi close-ups, nothing inside the wharenui. If no, offer an alternative, such as a short greeting recorded after the pōwhiri with the chair's agreement. Consent belongs to the marae; your job is to protect the relationship.
2. A colleague says: 'It's just a livestream. Nobody is hurt, and the kids learn tikanga by doing it.' Explain why this is an outsider (etic) judgement, what an insider (emic) account would add, and whether the colleague is completely wrong.
Read the worked answer
The colleague's reasoning is etic in two ways. First, it measures harm only in visible, physical terms - did anyone get hurt? - which is a utilitarian test imported from outside the tradition, not one the marae would apply. Second, 'learning by doing' treats the pōwhiri as an experience for the students, whereas from inside it is primarily an encounter between manuhiri, tangata whenua and their ancestors. The students are guests in it, not the point of it.
An emic account adds that the karanga is a call-and-response, often naming the dead, and that broadcasting it live removes the hosts' control over who is present at that moment. It converts a reciprocal relationship into content. Harm in this frame includes harm to mana and to the school–iwi relationship, not only harm to individuals.
Is the colleague completely wrong? No. Outsider analysis is legitimate and necessary in Religious Studies - you cannot simply report insider views - and filming genuinely can help students learn, and some marae do permit it. The error is not being an outsider; it is evaluating before describing accurately, and assuming that because you cannot see the harm, there is none.
3. Jordan later says: 'So the school will let us learn about tapu but won't let us do anything Māori?' How would you answer, and what does this show about the difference between studying a worldview and practising it?
Read the worked answer
This is a fair challenge and should not be brushed off.
First, 'doing anything Māori' is not one thing. The class does participate: they are called onto the marae, they hongi, they eat, they may learn a waiata if the marae offers one. What is restricted is one action in one tapu context, where the host has not given permission. That is not a ban on Māori things; it is a limit set by the people whose kawa it is.
Second, participation in someone else's ritual is not a right you acquire by studying it. Consent and role matter. A class visiting a mosque may observe salah but would not join the front row; a class at a synagogue would not be invited to lead prayer.
Third, there is a real distinction between studying a worldview - descriptive, analytical, permitted to outsiders - and practising it, which belongs to insiders. NCEA Religious Studies sits mostly on the first side, and that is not a demotion; the discipline depends on it. Being analytical does not mean being neutral about people's mana - only about truth claims. You can take a clear position that the marae's kawa should be respected while still not deciding whether its account of the world is true.