Introduction: multiculturalism discourses in Canada.

Garcea, Joseph ; Kirova, Anna ; Wong, Lloyd 等

CONTEXT AND FOCUS

The management of ethnocultural diversity is a major governance function in most countries in the world today, and Canada is no exception. In most of these countries various approaches to diversity management have been highly scrutinized and debated in the media and in the academic literature. One of the approaches that has received extensive attention has been multiculturalism.

In Canada multiculturalism, both in terms of public philosophy and public policy, has been the subject of much debate during the past four decades. The extensiveness and intensity of the debates have increased in recent years in light of at least four major developments--the inclusion of the provision related to multiculturalism in the Constitution Act of 1982, Canada's Multiculturalism Act of 1988, Quebec's adoption of the interculturalism model for managing diversity, and the concerns for security in light of the events of September 11, 2001 and subsequent events such as the 2002 Bali bombings, the 2004 Madrid train bombings, the 2005 London bombings, the 2005 civil riots in France, and the 2006 arrests of seventeen alleged terrorists in Ontario, Canada.

It can be argued that September 11, 2001 was a formative event that demarcated a new period in diversity management, now commonly referred to as the"post 9/11" era. In this new era, multiculturalism discourses now clearly have a component that can be referred to as "anti and/or post-multiculturalism discourse." The term "post-multiculturalism" was first used in Britain a few years ago in the context of the need for alternative philosophies and models to multiculturalism that would foster social cohesion and promote assimilation and a common identity. (1) The central premise of the anti- and/or post-multiculturalism discourse is that multiculturalism is not working and that modified or radically different public philosophies or public policies and programs are needed that move beyond multiculturalism as it is presently known and constituted. (2)

A central argument contained in the anti- and/or post-multiculturalism literature is that multiculturalism is not working because it is segregating, rather than integrating, diverse racial, ethnic, and religious groups. In other words, the policy and practice of multiculturalism contributes to social and political fragmentation that makes social and political cohesion difficult, if not impossible. It is this fragmentation discourse of the anti- and/or post-muhiculturalism literature that this special issue addresses. The two central questions are: What is the nature of anti- and/or post-multiculturalism discourse in academic and media texts regarding the effects that Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy have on fragmentation and cohesion? What implications does this discourse have for the current Canadian public philosophy and public policy on multiculturalism and, ultimately, for the Canadian polity?

OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW OF THE ARTICLES

The objective of each of the articles in this issue is to examine a central aspect of the discourse on multiculturalism and, where possible, on the aspect of the discourse that relates to anti and/or post-multiculturalism in which social and political fragmentation is a theme.

Lloyd Wong provides an overview and analysis of the literature produced by leading sociologists in Canada and Europe (e.g., John Porter, Reginald Bibby, Michel Wieviorka, Bruno Latour, and Tahir Abbas) in which multiculturalism is depicted as fostering societal fragmentation. After providing an overview of the positions of these sociologists on the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism, Wong explains two important conceptual distinctions in the extant literature. The first distinction is between fragmented pluralism, which entails a separation and segregation of members of various groups, and interactive pluralism, which entails interaction and conversation between members of various groups. The second distinction is between the immutable core approach in which there is conformity to common values, language and culture, and the dynamic nucleus approach in which there is constant negotiation to produce a social compact regarding what constitutes the core and how it will evolve over time. Wong concludes that the viability of a civic pluralist multiculturalism as public policy requires a movement away from fragmented pluralism toward interactive pluralism rooted in the dynamic nucleus approach where there is an ongoing discussion, negotiation, critical collective reflection, and re-examination of what Canada is in terms of identity and how it works in terms of social processes. Wong concludes that the interactive pluralism approach can become a reality if government departments and research networks committed to enhancing social cohesion perform a leadership role in influencing public discourse, public philosophy, and public policy.

Micheline Labelle examines the critiques provided by Quebec academics of both the Canadian multiculturalism model and the Quebec interculturalism model of diversity management. The analysis of the critics of the Canadian multiculturalism model focuses on three theses or arguments that they have articulated. The first thesis, fragmentation theory, is that Canadian multiculturalism policy has facilitated the establishment of a multicultural state, rather than a multinational state, and that this has, in turn, contributed to a society that is highly divided by a multiplicity of conflicting claims. The second thesis is that Canadian multiculturalism policy has created tension because it contradicts the Quebec interculturalism policy, negates the status of the Quebec nation, and creates an obstacle for a pluralist territorially-based Quebec citizenship. According to the authors who uphold this thesis, diversity is embedded in the Quebec nation and, therefore, it is the responsibility of the State to put in place and coordinate measures that ensure participation of all segments of society in the governance of the Res publica. The third thesis, which focuses on the normative foundations of multiculturalism, rather than on Canadian multiculturalism policy, is that the merits of multiculturalism must be examined in relation to several different normative dimensions, such as identity politics, the risks of essentialism, social cohesion and social justice, communitarian multiculturalism, and liberal multiculturalism. If, for a number of intellectuals, the federal and Quebec public policies of diversity management converge, the emerging consensus is that the two are distinct and that the interculturalism model evolved in opposition to Canadian multiculturalism. Those who argue that there is a convergence between the two policies fail to account for a number of contradictions between the two models, contradictions that are reflected in their position on official languages, in their approach to integration and in the meaning attributed to citizenship. Finally, Labelle identifies the following critiques of the Quebec interculturalism model: first, it would be based on an under-estimation by the government of Quebec of inequalities and discrimination and the tendency not to devote sufficient attention to this problem in its policy initiative; second, the Quebec state's categorization tends to ethnicize its citizens. Labelle is critical of analysts who fail to appreciate the diversity of views among Quebec intellectuals on the effects and value of both the Canadian multiculturalism model and the Quebec interculturalism model.

Karim H. Karim analyzes the multiculturalism debates in eight large-circulation English-language dailies located in seven metropolitan areas and one nationally-distributed paper for the period January 1, 2006-December 31, 2006. His analysis is organized under the following four categories: values, identity, and citizenship; societal integration and disintegration; terrorism, multiculturalism, and Muslims; and multiculturalism in other countries. He notes that criticisms related to the political expediency associated with multiculturalism policy and programs to obtain more votes from ethnic minorities, which were two major threads in press discussions of multiculturalism in the 1980s, were not significant in the 2006 research sample. Others, such as criticism of multiculturalism for weakening Canadian values and citizenship continued as a major theme. Despite the fact that criticisms of multiculturalism persisted, he notes that, compared to the 1980s, the focus of the public debate on this topic has shifted away from dismantling the policy in favour of fixing any of its problematical aspects and maintaining it.

Chedly Belkhodja examines the critiques of multiculturalism provided by Anglophone and Francophone neo-conservatives in Quebec primarily in recent editions of two journals--Argument and L'Action nationale. His analysis reveals that the current critiques echo some of the views expressed in the more distant past by conservative Quebecois nationalists. However, he suggests that the contemporary critique of multicuhuralism in Quebec has moved beyond the original argument that multicuhuralism would have an adverse effect on the national and linguistic duality, valued by those who subscribe to the "two founding nations theory" of Canada, to include concerns regarding the adverse effects on the following matters: the development of a cultural identity for all residents in the province, the construction of a cosmopolitan Quebecois community, and social integration and cohesion.

Anna Kirova examines critical discourses in the academic literature on multicultural education that point to the major flaws in multicultural education theory which have led to practices that have achieved effects opposite to the intent of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. She notes arguments in the literature that current multicultural education practices in Canada based on ethno-racial distinctions (i.e., curricula essentializing knowledge about "Other" cultures and celebrating them) have not contributed to the elimination of racism nor to the unequal treatment of minority, non-White students; nor have they led to the critical examination of the dominant White, middle-class Eurocentric culture. She also notes some of the suggestions being made in the context of the "post-multiculturalism" discourse on how to overcome these flaws in multicultural education theory and practice. She concludes with a discussion of some possible implications of the key findings of the review for multicultural education. Among other things, she notes that multicultural theory and practice makes it difficult to formulate a coherent multicultural education mission that speaks to the multiplicity of identities, fluidity of culture, negotiation of power in the cultural space, and the new politics of difference based on universal dignity and equality. She concludes with some suggestions regarding how provincial ministries of education might develop such a coherent multicultural education mission, given the identified shifts in meaning of culture, cultural difference, cultural identities, citizenship, and civic and national identities.

Phyllis Dalley and Michael Begley examine the French-Canadian education literature produced between 1995 and 2005 that deals with the multiculturalism and interculturalism models of education. The two central objectives are: first, to compare and contrast the multiculturalism and interculturalism models of education profiled within that literature, and, second, to highlight the discourse therein regarding the type and degree of fragmentation and cohesion fostered by these two models. They note the major arguments against the multiculturalism model and explain the arguments made in support of the interculturalism model for fostering social cohesion. They note that, increasingly, the interculturalism model is displacing the multiculturalism model. The authors also note that in the francophone literature produced in Quebec, intercultural education is presented as a model that is more inclusive than multicultural education both because it is better at mediating and reconciling cultural differences and because it contributes to the negotiation and production of a common culture. For their part, however, the authors suggest that intercultural education contributes to only two of the three elements that are essential for social cohesion. By neglecting the question of the equality of opportunity and means to access knowledge of language and thus to become active participants in the dialogues and the negotiations regarding common spaces, intercultural education, like multiculrural education, reproduces social inequalities and the resulting fragmentation.

Joseph Garcea provides an overview and analysis of ten postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy articulated during the past forty years within the Canadian literature written in English. The ten postulations can be grouped into the following four general themes: multiculturalism segregates the people of Canada; multiculturalism is problematical for Canadian, Quebecois, and Aboriginal culture, identity, and nationalism projects; multiculturalism perpetuates conflicts between and within groups; and multiculturalism hinders equity and equality in society and the economy. He suggests that policy analysts and policy makers should do the following: examine which of these postulations, if any, point to real problems and which point to perceived problems, assess the tractability of various problems, and select the appropriate policy reforms to deal with the tractable problems. He concludes that, in dealing with these postulations, it is imperative that neither the efficacy nor the morality of the Canadian management of diversity be adversely affected.

Kamal Dib, Ian Donaldson, and Brittany Turcotte argue that common spaces in Canada are the vehicle through which a multicultural, multi-racial, multi-religious population develops synergies that are strong enough to lead to a collective national identity. Common spaces are defined as locations in time and space where visible and religious minorities and other Canadians meet and interact; such spaces are the foundation for creating and enhancing a strong Canadian identity. The authors provide statistical data showing that experience of common spaces contributes to the development of a strong sense of being Canadian, and results in a common economic, social, and cultural demographic infrastructure leading to a shared sense of belonging. The authors acknowledge that the Canadian model of multiculturalism is not without its difficulties, but conclude that it is working and has many successes that support this claim. Nevertheless, the authors acknowledge that multicultural common space, as highlighted in their article, has not always been a space of welcome to or belonging for visible minorities, that there have been and continue to be challenges especially for visible minorities whose experiences of discrimination, restrictions, and exclusion from Canadian society have not changed dramatically over time. They identify the major challenges of contemporary Canada as social inclusion/exclusion, demographic changes, racism and discrimination, religious diversity, and security in a pluralistic society. These challenges are faced by all levels of government that see their role as one of removing barriers to full participation by all Canadians, while fostering common multicultural spaces for these Canadians to come together. The need for them to promote common multicultural spaces is amplified by the reality of constantly changing demographics, immigration patterns, and sub-national identities.

INSIGHTS ON MULTICULTURAL1SM DISCOURSES AND THE MANAGEMENT OF DIVERSITY

This special issue reviews and analyzes, from various theoretical and disciplinary stand-points, both multiculturalism and the so-called post-multiculturalism discourses that structure both knowledge and social practice in managing ethno-cultural diversity in Canada. Both multiculturalism and post-multiculturalism are examples of relatively new and complex social-theoretical discourses that combine discourses of culture, identity, ethnicity, race, diversity, social justice, citizenship, inclusion, exclusion, belonging, and knowledge, to list a few. However, these two main discourses--multiculturalism and post-multiculturalism--do not only include the other discourses noted above, but they are defined by them as well as in relationship to one another. Moreover, changes in one of these discourses influences changes in the others.

Thus, this issue also demonstrates how these discourses combine under particular social conditions and do not just reflect or represent social entities and relations; they construct or constitute them (Fairclough 1992, 4).

Collectively, the articles in this volume provide some interesting and important insights regarding discourses on the effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy on fragmentation in Canada. First, the articles reveal that discourses on the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism have been persistent and pervasive for more than forty years, since the issue of multiculturalism was broached by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Such discourses have prevailed in the media, the academic literature, and the popular literature. Second, they reveal that critics of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy argue that they are disuniting and problematic because they profile and perpetuate differences and foster cultural relativism that could potentially lead to a clash of cultures or civilizations. Third, they reveal that the fundamental nature of the discourses has not changed substantially over that period. However, there is some evidence to suggest that in more recent years there has been a greater emphasis placed on articulating the potential of interculturalism as a more efficacious approach than multiculturalism in managing diversity by producing a shared citizenship and fostering social cohesion. This is particularly true of discourses produced by Quebecois authors. Fourth, they reveal that the discourses regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism are based largely on postulations and assumptions, rather than on facts substantiated by data. This is equally true of the arguments articulated by opponents and proponents of multiculturalism. The lack of facts or data results from the common problem in establishing causality in public policy analysis. Fifth, they reveal that the multiculturalism discourses fail to devote sufficient attention to the fact that cultural differences in Canada are not all mutually exclusive. Trends in post-multiculturalism discourses indicate that, increasingly, cultural differences are overlapping or interrelated in various ways, not only as a result of cross-cultural relations and marriages, but, also, as a result of shifts in defining cultural and racial identities. Thus, it appears that the "tiles" of the Canadian cultural mosaic are not as distinctly different as they were in the past; increasingly, common or shared elements or characteristics are beginning to appear. The metaphor of the cultural mosaic may have to be replaced with other metaphors such as "cultural tapestry" or "jazz" in which a "weave" of various strands of similarities and differences produces an assortment of cultural patterns and identities (Derrida, as cited in Hall 2000, 216). Thus, a national identity can be syncretic, allowing for the expression of the complex multiple identities of individuals. Finally, they also reveal that generally insufficient attention is devoted to the important task of determining whether there is a singular and clear public philosophy or public policy, as is often suggested either implicitly or explicitly both by its proponents and critics, or whether it is a multiplicity of amorphous and ambiguous public philosophies and public policies. The articles in this volume raise and broach those questions, but they also encounter the challenge of providing definitive answers.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR MINIMIZING FRAGMENTATION

Collectively the articles also provide some potentially useful suggestions on what must be done by the governments, the school systems, the media, and various types of analysts to advance the agenda for improving diversity management in Canada in such a way that social and political fragmentation is reduced, rather than increased. They point to at least three key tasks.

The first task is the creation of common public cultural spaces that offer opportunities for discussions, debates, and negotiations among groups with multiple, and even contradictory, cultural identities as part of the effort of producing a shared national identity. Toward that end school authorities should make every effort to develop critical civics curricula that will foster a shared civic identity, intercultural understanding, and social and political cohesion.

The second task is for policy makers to make the management of cultural diversity a positive and constructive endeavour in moving toward not only greater social and political cohesion, but also a more harmonious co-existence. For that purpose, it is imperative that civil and respectful discussions and debates are conducted. After all, fighting for the common good ill an uncivil and disrespectful manner is often the basis of social and political fragmentation that could include minor philosophical debates at one end of the spectrum and wars within and beyond the boundaries of the country at the other.

The third task is to ascertain whether it would be more productive to focus the public discourse on diversity management writ large to include a wide range of potential strategies, rather than devoting so much attention to multiculturalism writ small (i.e., as a particular philosophy, policy, or program). After all, the latter is but one of the many possible strategies that include, but are not limited to, various types of culturalism (e.g., inonocuhuralism, biculturalism, triculturalisms, interculturalism) and various versions of nationalism (mononationalism, binationalism, trinationalism, and multinationalism). Thus, it is imperative to avoid the danger of expending so much energy on criticizing and defending various vague conceptualizations of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy, and not devoting sufficient attention to the constructive mission of finding the best ways to manage diversity within the polity.

AREAS OF FURTHER RESEARCH

The articles contained in this volume also point, either explicitly or implicitly, to some potentially valuable areas for further research. One area for further research is the nature of the multiculturalism discourses among policy makers themselves regarding, among other things, the effects of multiculturalism on social and political fragmentation. What do governmental officials at the national, provincial and local levels say regarding such effects and the best way to manage diversity so as to minimize social and political fragmentation?

A second area of further research is the factors that shape continuity and change in multiculturalism discourses and multiculturalism philosophy and public policy. This is especially true in light of recent indications that such changes are in the offing. For example, it was recently reported in the Globe and Mail that Canada's multiculturalism plan was under scrutiny by Canadian Heritage and that the DirectorGeneral of Multiculturalism and Human Rights had stated that "... the government must 'adjust multiculturalism programming' in order to 'advance core Canadian values'" and that "....a 'clash or cultures' is highlighted as a major issue faced by immigrants today" (Freeze 2008, A1, A4). Further, according to this report, one of the main points made by the Director-General was that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act is flexible and open to modification. If there is indeed a change in policy that is forthcoming, then what groups, events, or circumstances have been shaping and will continue to shape this policy change? In answering that question, attention should be devoted to the roles of competing special interest groups, overall public opinion as gauged by polling, and the findings of academic researchers that may have some influence on policy.

A third area of research is an analysis of the similarities and differences of the discourses and the debates in Canada and other countries regarding the effects of multiculturalism on social and political fragmentation. Does Canada conform to or deviate from the tendencies observed in the rest of the world, and why?

A fourth area of further research, and the most difficult of all to conduct in a methodologically systematic and valid manner, is on whether multiculturalism fosters or inhibits social and political fragmentation. Such research could focus exclusively on Canada or also on other countries with multiculturalism policies and notable cultural differences. As part of this research agenda, some attention should be devoted to the question of whether the discourses and debates regarding the fragmenting or integrating effects of multiculturalism have more of an effect on social and political fragmentation and cohesion than any of the following: the multicultural composition of the society, the prevailing multiculturalism public philosophy, or the existing public policy. If it is found that this is, in fact, the case, then perhaps the focus should be on finding ways to minimize the incidence and intensity of these discourses and debates, rather than on whether and how to change the composition of society, the public philosophy, or the public policy.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We wish to thank the Citizenship and Multiculturalism Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the Prairie Metropolis Centre, the Atlantic Metropolis Centre, and Carleton University's School of Journalism and Faculty of Public Affairs for their contributions to this research endeavor and the publication of this special issue. We would like to also thank Julie Dompierre from Canadian Heritage for her interest and support of this research project when it was in its formative stages. Preliminary findings from this research were presented by some of the contributors at the Ninth National Metropolis Conference in Toronto on March 2, 2007. We would also like to thank the scholars who served as anonymous reviewers for various articles and, thereby, made a valuable contribution to the production of this special issue.

NOTES

(1.) See Vertovec for an example of this.

(2.) It would be incorrect to attribute all elements of anti- and/or post-multiculturalism discourse to 9/11 and subsequent violent events. Further, it would also be erroneous to assume that anti- and/or post multiculturalism discourse consists of a singular position or orientation.

WORKS CITED

Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Freeze, Colin. 2008. Heritage department takes aim at religious radicals--Multiculturalism plan under scrutiny. Globe and Mail, September 1.

Hall, Stuart. 2000. Conclusion: The Multi-cultural Question. In Un/settled Multiculturalisms: Diasporas, Entanglements, "Transruptions," ed. B. Hesse, 209-241. London: Zed Books.

Vertovec, Steven. n.d. Pre-, High-, Anti- and Post-Multiculturalism. Institute for European Studies. http://www.ies.be/activities/multicult/vertovec-ies.pdf

JOSEPH GARCEA is an associate professor in the department of Political Studies at the University of Saskatchewan. His research and publications focus on immigration, citizenship, diversity management, and multilevel governance.

ANNA KIROVA is an associate professor in the department of Elementary Education, University of Alberta, and a domain leader for the Family, Children, and Youth federal research priority area with the Prairie Metropolis Centre. Her publications are in the area of global migration and education and immigrant children's social adjustment to school.

LLOYD WONG is an associate professor of Sociology at the University of Calgary and a research affiliate and domain leader at the Prairie Metropolis Centre. His research interests include ethnicity, immigration, transnationalism, and citizenship.