The Tall Poppy Syndrome

You can’t spend much time in New Zealand before you hear about the infamous “tall poppy syndrome”. It seems to be part of the psychological fabric of this country and most would agree it has a meaningful influence on the national psyche here. The problem is that people differ, often vociferously, on just whether this a good or bad thing.

What is the tall poppy syndrome? It’s the widespread feeling that individuals who are, quite literally, outstanding, or persons that have distinguished themselves in some way, have somehow violated the social contract to remain part of the group. There is a deep mistrust of success with the implicit suspicion that it is attained through tainted means involving varied degrees of self-promotion, aggressive behavior, manipulating connections, or bending the rules. Unlike the United States with it’s myth of the ‘rugged individual’ and the self-sufficient pioneers, New Zealand has a long history of a significantly more social and egalitarian ethos. In his definitive history of New Zealand, historian Michael King quotes the late 19th century New Zealand politician and later High Commissioner to the British government,William Pember Reeves, who stated in his 19th century history of New Zealand entitled, The Long White Cloud, the following regarding the liberal reforms of the late 19th century that resulted in New Zealand being the first country in the world to grant universal suffrage not only to women but to indigenous people:

‘They were the outcome of a belief that a young democratic country, still almost free from extremes of wealth and poverty, from class hatreds and fears and the barriers these create, supplies an unequaled field for safe and rational experiment in the hope of preventing and shutting out some of the worst social evils and miseries which afflict great nations alike in the old world in the new’.

This in a nutshell summarizes the political and social underpinnings of a centralized governmental system that influences the character of New Zealand society even to this day. Of course, this was the Anglophilic, Pakeha (European) perspective in New Zealand. From the standpoint of the systematically displaced and neglected indigenous population, the Maori, this sort of egalitarianism was simply not a reality in late 19th century New Zealand-- less than 40 years after the Europeans perpetrated systematic treaty violations and widespread land grabs, often by military force.

But ironically, even in traditional Maori culture there have been values that contribute to a more communitarian and cooperative ethic than is found in more competition-based societies. The Maori concept of utu, the practice of achieving balance and reciprocity in social and political affairs, is, oddly enough, in alignment with the more egalitarian aspects of Pakeha culture and governmental institutions. Utu was often translated during the era of Maori/Pakeha conflict as “revenge”. But, to quote Michael King again:

‘it more properly means reciprocity or balanced exchange. Utu determined that relations among individuals, and between families, communities and tribes were governed by mutual obligation and an implicit keeping of social accounts: a favor bestowed which increased the mana (prestige) of the donor, required eventual favor in return from the recipient; and an insult by one, real or imagined, also activated an obligation to respond in kind’

As warfare between the Pahkea and Maori abated and violent intertribal conflicts diminished, the concept of utu became ritualized with cooperative and competitive endeavors between Maori communities throughout the country becoming the norm.

As can be seen, there are powerful traditions in New Zealand among both the Europeans and Maori that oppose the emergence of “tall poppies”. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends on who you’re talking to. There are those who argue passionately that New Zealand has low standards for excellence and simply cannot compete economically and academically with more individualistic, competetive and aggressive values found in places like the United States. For others, the vast wealth disparities and lack of social cohesion-- and even dysfunction-- that frequently afflicts community and political life in the US (like with health care!) are seen as examples of why the tall poppies are undesirable.

Of course, both sides are right. As in all things, the trick is finding a critical balance between individuality and community cohesion. In the arena of healthcare, the system in New Zealand certainly is more coperative and socially based than that of the US and has, I believe, much to teach us. On the other hand, the innovation and pockets of excellence that can be found in the US offer models for change and improvement that could benefit the delivery of healthcare here.

To me it really comes down to just what sort of tall poppies are cultivated or tolerated. If it has to do with granting someone the intellectual or artistic freedom to innovate and excel, I’m all for it. But if, as is so often the case in the US, the tall poppies are merely self-important, arrogant egomaniacs from, for example, the corporate CEO caste or the entertainment world, who actually believe that their day-to-day activities are worth millions of dollars per month to society, then I truly hope New Zealanders continue to prune those plants in the community garden quite carefully.

Every individual is unique and has talents and dreams that should be allowed to flourish, but we must also understand that we are fundamentally social beings and that we are deeply rooted in the soil of social cooperation. Indeed, without that cooperation, we would not have achieved the things we have, nor in all probability, would we be here at all.