Multiculturalism and ethnic pluralism in sociology: an analysis of the fragmentation position discourse.

Wong, Lloyd

INTRODUCTION

The two quotations (above) come from front page articles in the Calgary Sun (summer, 2006) that highlighted sociologist Mahfooz Kanwar's views of official Canadian multiculturalism policy shortly after the arrests in Toronto of eighteen people, including five youths, in an alleged bomb plot. These two newspaper articles subsequently appeared on the web sites of several conservative anti-immigration and anti-multiculturalism organizations to give credence to their cause, as many of the public debates about immigration and multiculturalism are entwined. However, it is safe to say that many Canadian sociologists, over the past several decades, have been supportive of cultural and ethnic diversity in Canada and supportive of official multiculturalism policy, as has the general Canadian population. Public opinion polls in recent years have consistently found that the vast majority of Canadians (75%) approve of multiculturalism in Canada. However, there is a growing minority which does not. Thus, one would also expect to find in the academic sociological literature, in Canada and elsewhere, a clear critique of ethnic pluralism or multiculturalism (1) that approximates the views of Kanwar. Earlier work by Roberts and Clifton (1990, 122) stated that multiculturalism is problematic for integration in Canada, although this statement, like others that articulate the same postulation, was not evidence-based.

In the post-9/11 era, public discourse on anti-multiculturalism has grown, largely because it has been fuelled by the Madrid bombings in 2004, the London bombings in the summer of 2005, and in Canada by the alleged terrorist plot in 2006. Similarly, academic sociological discourse that is anti-multiculturalism has also increased since 9/11. This discourse has produced the term "post-multiculturalism" that suggests the need to move beyond current policies of multiculturalism and different approaches to the processes of immigrant and ethnic integration. The term "post--multiculturalism" was popularized in Europe by Vertovec (n.d.), who meant it to be a call for alternatives to multiculturalism that includes a search for new models that foster social cohesion and promote assimilation and a common identity. It would be erroneous to attribute the rise of "post-multiculturalism" discourse specifically to the aforementioned terrorist events, since some post-multiculturalism public discourse had been articulated in the 1990s. Much of the discourse was rooted in a view that multiculturalism was "everywhere" and that there was "too much" of it. This view was particularly evident in the "anti-multiculturalism" and "anti-immigration" movements in Europe. A central aspect of "post-multiculturalism" discourse is based on the perception and claim that multiculturalism is not working, or perhaps has not worked, and is segregating (rather than integrating) diverse "racial," ethnic, and religious groups. In other words, the perception and claim is that multiculturalism policy and the reality of cultural pluralism contribute to a fragmentation of society and make social cohesion difficult if not impossible.

This article provides an overview and analysis of some of this sociological discourse that views multiculturalism as a force of societal fragmentation. It begins with a contextualization of multiculturalism (or ethnic/cultural pluralism) in terms of sociological theory. This allows for different conceptualizations of multiculturalism vis-a-vis the bases of social cohesion. A brief description of the sociological literature search methodology follows, together with the findings of what the sub-themes of the fragmentation perspective are. This is followed, in turn, by a highlighting of the ideas of some of the major sociologists in Canada and Europe who have adopted some form of the fragmentation perspective on multiculturalism over the past three to four decades. These sociologists include John Porter, Reginald Bibby, Michel Wieviorka, Bruno Latour, and Tahir Abbas. There is not only a description of the fragmentation position on multiculturalism of each of them, but also a brief application of a "sociology of knowledge" approach to their work. The article ends with a discussion and conclusion that considers what the implications of this discourse might be.

ETHNIC PLURALISM AND SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

The sociological literature on the meaning of ethnic and cultural pluralism is muddled and is often situated or framed within national perspectives. Recently Hartmann and Gerteis' work (2005) provided a lucid approach to mapping multiculturalism sociologically in terms of social cohesion. Their model is adopted here to provide a framework in which to position the sociological critiques of multiculturalism that focus on fragmentation. Hartmann and Gerteis suggest that there are two approaches to conceptualizing multiculturalism. The first approach is a one-dimensional conceptualization that is a narrow and binary approach to social order where the two extremes encompass notions of unity and fragmentation (see fig.l).

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

In order to move beyond the problematic one-dimensional framework, Hartmann and Gerteis conceptualize a framework for some visions of pluralism in American culture by providing a theoretical grid that has two dimensions and encompasses what they term "visions of difference" (222). One dimension specifies two different cultural bases for social cohesion that include: 1) substantive moral bonds and 2) procedural norms (see fig. 2). The former emphasizes shared substantive moral bonds and practices and is deemed as a "thick" form of social cohesion. The latter emphasizes that adherence to common norms and legal codes (rule of law) is all that is required, and this is deemed a "thin" form of social cohesion. The second dimension relates to the basis for association, and is segmented into the centrality off 1) individual interaction and 2) mediating groups. By combining these two dimensions they create a two-by-two table with four cells of which three cells portray their distinct "visions of difference," or what can be considered as three forms of multiculturalism: cosmopolitanism, interactive pluralism, and fragmented pluralism.

This two-dimensional framework can be further elaborated diagrammatically to illustrate the nature and strength of internal or sub-national group boundaries where the salient boundaries would normally be ethnic, cultural, and religious (see fig. 3). Fragmented pluralism is the direct opposite of assimilationism and social homogeneity, and some political projects (particularly on the right) fear what they deem the disuniting and moral relativism of this vision (Harmann and Gerteis, 230). It is precisely the fragmented pluralism vision that is the focus of this analysis, as this is the heart of the sociological critiques of multiculturalism in the English-language literature. In providing the analysis of fragmented pluralism, specific reference will be made to the Canadian sociological literature where possible. Nevertheless, a brief discussion of interactive pluralism is included in the concluding section of this article.

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

METHODOLOGY AND THEMATIC FINDINGS

In the fall of 2006 an extensive search of the sociological literature in English was conducted seeking direct or indirect critiques of multiculturalism because of its alleged fragmentary characteristic. This literature search yielded forty-six articles and books. (2) What is revealing is that thirty-five were published in the 2000s or in what may be called the post-9/11 era. There was only one work in the 1960s, none in the 1970s and 1980s, and ten works in the 1990s. Thus one can conclude that there is currently a post-multiculturalism trajectory in the sociological discourse that utilizes the fragmentation critique. From a reading of summaries of these works, it is possible to identify some sub-dimensions or sub-themes of the overall fragmented pluralism theme. These sub-themes cover the nature of the fragmentation itself and, in some cases, where applicable, their implication for Canada. These sub-themes of fragmented pluralism include the following:

1. Multiculturalism leads to ethnic marginalization and ethnic stratification particularly when there is unequal distribution of power in Canadian society

2. Multiculturalism emphasizes differences, hence it is divisive and subverts social cohesion in Canada and the development of Canadian identity

3. Multiculturalism's emphasis on cultural relativism potentially leads to a clash of cultures in Canada. At a global level the notion of clash of cultures is best exemplified by the notion of"clash of civilizations" (Huntington 1993,1996)

These three sub-themes overlap with several of those found in Prins and Slijper (2002) in their summary of the themes in the public debates on multiculturalism. The third sub-theme can also be characterized as a "domestic clash of civilizations." Within these three sub-themes numerous criticisms are articulated either explicitly or implicitly in the literature. The primary focus here is on a few selected works from this literature, mostly revolving around sub-themes 2 and 3, and, where possible, of relevance to Canadian society. In this analysis, as mentioned earlier, a sociology of knowledge approach is also utilized to contextualize the works of these scholars. (3) In assessing these works it is important to contextualize their work in terms of the social setting, background, and the theoretical positions of the authors.

Ethnic Pluralism Potentially Keeps the Mosaic Vertical: John Porter

In the 1960s and 1970s John Porter was the first sociological voice critiquing multiculturalism as a form of fragmented pluralism. His book The Vertical Mosaic (1965) covered this position briefly at the end. Subsequently, he repeated this view in several journal articles written in the 1970s after multiculturalism had become official Canadian state policy.

Porter concluded The Vertical Mosaic by stating:

 It seems inescapable that the strong emphasis on ethnic
 differentiation can result only in those continuing dual loyalties
 which prevent the emergence of any clear Canadian identity.

 From the point of view of this study of social class and power, it
 is likely that the historical pattern of class and ethnicity will
 be perpetuated as long as ethnic differentiation is so highly valued
 (558).

The first part of the quote illustrates the second sub-theme of fragmented pluralism (see above) where multiculturalism's emphasis on differences is seen to be divisive, subverts social cohesion, and hence is a barrier to the development of a unified Canadian identity. The second part also illustrates the first sub-theme that suggests that multiculturalism, when practiced in inequalitarian societies, leads to ethnic marginalization and ethnic stratification. Thus Porter argued that multiculturalism has the potential to keep the mosaic vertical, thereby ensuring an ethnic stratification system.

In his article "Dilemmas and Contradictions of a Multi-Ethnic Society" (1972), Porter forecast that the decade of the 1970s in Canada would be the decade of organized minorities, in contrast to the 1960s, the decade of concern with poverty, and the 1950s, which were characterized by a naive belief in the affluent society. He thus reaffirmed the argument he had made in The Vertical Mosaic that the cost of multiculturalism would be the perpetuation of ethnic stratification. It should be noted that Porter did not deny the value of cultural diversity since he stated, "No academic would seriously dispute the desirability and responsibility of preserving culture...." Nevertheless, he thought that diversity should not be promoted via institutionalized and permanent ethnic communities (1972, 199, 201). Porter described himself as a "liberal assimilationist" clearly supporting assimilationism as a better choice than ethnic stratification resulting from ethnic pluralism. Furthermore, Porter pointed out that multicultural practices were contradictory to the upcoming post-industrial era: "There is much confusion in the current discussion of multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism.... I am not able fully to understand how biculturalism and multiculturalism have any meaning in the post-industrial world into which we are moving" (198). From this assimilationist position, Porter also critiqued the ethnicity question in the Canadian census, suggesting that it created a statistical artifact and that it also posed a dilemma for liberal social scientists.

Porter's next essay on multiculturalism was "Ethnic Pluralism in Canadian Perspective" (1975; 1979a). This work continued to articulate the dilemmas and contradictions of ethnic pluralism and the idea that cultural differences were not only divisive, but posed a risk in the development of a socially stratified society along ethnic lines. He stated: "My own view is that ethnic saliency or differentiation in social structure always creates a high risk of ethnic stratification" (Porter 1975, 289; 1979a, 122). Moreover, he predicted in 1975 that, with the coming of a post-industrial society, the next twenty-five years would see rapid social change and possibly the end of cultural differentiation (1975, 303-304).

Porter reiterated his liberal assimilationist position in his 1979 essay, entitled "Melting Pot or Mosaic: Revolution or Reversion?," that compared the developments of ethnicity and ethnicization in the United States and Canada. Here Porter arrived at the conclusion that the "melting pot" is more revolutionary than the "mosaic": "A melting pot course towards the development of a universalistic modern character and culture emphasizing common human qualities and the unity of mankind and shedding the particularisms of history continues as the revolutionary option" (1979b, 160).

When Porter was critiquing multiculturalism in the mid-1960s and early 1970s, Canada was experiencing a time of extremely strained English-French relations, Quebec nationalism, and political violence. The FLQ, a group of Quebec ultranationalists, conducted bombings of mailboxes and public monuments which culminated in the October Crisis of 1970 and the kidnapping of James Cross and the kidnapping and murder of Pierre Laporte. At the same time the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was not only inquiring into the state of the deux nations in Canada, but also responding to the voices of the "third force" of non-English and non-French in Canada and facilitating the creation of official multiculturalism. As Winter (2005) has recently demonstrated, the view that multiculturalism and binationalism are integrally related, rather than opposing, forces dates back to the B and B Commission.

During the time that Porter's lens was focused on a fragile Canada, the ethnic population consisted of approximately 75% who were either English or French and 23% who were other Europeans. This was the social context that undoubtedly influenced Porter's concern for a singular Canadian identity and a Canadian unity that might not be possible if there was an emphasis on ethnic differentiation that would contribute to divided and dual loyalities. Some observers, such as Buchingnani, noted: "Crudely put, it seems that Canadian nationalists like Porter have long argued that ethnic culture is intrinsically divisive and destructive of a unified Canadian identity: so, the argument goes, its perpetuation inevitably leads to less than full socio-economic participation for minority groups members" (1982, 28). Kallen (1982, 54) also noted Porter's critique of multicultural social policy as being divisive and fragmentary. She states:

 One line of argument put forward by scholars who oppose this policy
 objective (notably, the late lohn Porter ...) is that encouragement
 of ethnic diversity and cultural distinctiveness fosters
 (implicitly, if not explicitly) ethnic separation, enclavement, and
 retention of traditional values. Ethnic particularism, in turn,
 perpetuates the vertical (ethnic) mosaic by creating barriers to
 upward mobility in post-industrial society which is predicated on
 universalistic norms. In this view, government encouragement of
 ethnic diversity legitimates the proliferation of particularistic
 value differences among Canadians and thus impedes the development
 of national unity.

It should be remembered that when Porter was writing, sociological research in Canada tended to reflect majority group views on ethnicity and also had methodological and theoretical constraints on what was considered an appropriate line of social science inquiry (Buchignani 1982, 16).

Excessive Relativism Leads to Mosaic Madness: Reginald Bibby

In the 1980s there were virtually no critical academic works of multiculturalism, but in the 1990s this changed dramatically. Reginald Bibby's Mosaic Madness: Pluralism without a Cause (1990) utilized sociological language to critique official pluralism in the form of multiculturalism policy. (4) A few years later Nell Bissoondath wrote Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism (1994), which utilized a more personal and individualistic account to suggest that multiculturalism was subscribed to by unthinking individuals and created ethnic segregation and ghettoization. Only Bibby's work will be discussed here as it is more directly sociological. It should be noted that in addition to these two books and a few other academic critiques (approximately ten articles), there was also strong criticism of official multiculturalism by the Reform Party of Canada in the 1990s. In the 1991 policy manual of the Reform Party, there is explicitly stated opposition to the "... current concept of multiculturalism and hyphenated Canadianism pursued by the Government of Canada. We would end funding of the multiculturalism program and support the abolition of the Department of Multiculturalism" (cited in Kirkham 1998, 257). While not in direct response to academic or Reform Party critiques, there was a withering away of the Department of Multiculturalism under Chretien's Liberal Government in the 1990s.

Bibby's critique touches on sub-themes 2 and 3 of the fragmented pluralism position. He sees multiculturalism as entailing an overemphasis on cultural relativism and difference that is divisive, prevents moral consensus, and creates individual mosaic fragments. To him, cultural relativism and pluralism go hand-in-hand, and he uses a baseball analogy to illustrate his point:

 In Canada, pluralism articulates the pathway to group and individual
 freedom. But relativism plays the important role of providing the
 rationale for freedom of thought and behavior. If pluralism is the
 pitcher, relativism is the center-fielder. Relativism pronounces
 that it is appropriate and ideal that a culture encourages a wide
 variety of views and lifestyles. Pluralism establishes choices;
 relativism declares the choices valid (1990, 9-10).

However, he considers that cultural relativism and pluralism, while desired virtues in Canada, lack overarching societal expectations regarding the preferred outcomes of such virtues, i.e., the overarching expectation of social cohesion. Consequently, one of the unintended consequences is strain between ethnic groups. The result is having "too much of a good thing"; it would be naive to assume that this would lead to social cohesion. Bibby states:

 ... our expectation has been that fragments of the mosaic will
 somehow add up to a healthy and cohesive society. It is not at all
 clear why we should expect such an outcome. To encourage individual
 mosaic fragments may well result in the production of individual
 mosaic fragments and not much more (1990, 10).

Thus, according to Bibby, "relativism has slain moral consensus" as it has "stripped us of our ethical and moral guidelines, leaving us with no authoritative instruments with which to measure social life" (14). What we are left with then, he argues, are just the standards of our local cultural and religious domains and not anything more, which is tantamount to ethnocentrism without a common culture. He considered that multiculturalism creates ethnic separation and ethnic solidarity that takes away from broader social participation. His critique of relativism continues as a theme throughout his work, and various sections in the book have sub-titles such as "Excessive Relativism" and "Open-Minded Mindlessness." He also discusses "visionless coexistence" in Canada where he suggests that the outcome of multiculturalism policy is coexistence--no more, no less. However, the danger is that there is no sub-sequent vision, nor national goal, nor common purpose. Hence, he states: "Pluralism ceases to have a cause. The result: mosaic madness" (104).

Was it "mosaic madness" in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Certainly, the "face of Canada" had changed dramatically from the time Porter was writing. In 1965, approximately 14% of immigrants came from non-European and non-U.S, regions of the world, but by 1985, almost 70% of immigrants were coming from these regions. Consequently, Canada became much more diverse in the decade or so between Porter's and Bibby's critiques. The visible minority population in Canada doubled from approximately 5% in 1981 to almost 10% in 1991. In Canada's larger metropolitan areas, where most visible minorities are located, their population also doubled so that by 1991, approximately 26% of Toronto's and 24% of Vancouver's populations consisted of visible minorities.

In the 1980s, when Bibby was writing Mosaic Madness, Canada was a relatively tranquil country in terms of ethnic and racial conflict. While the decade began with the first Quebec Referendum (1980), the rest of the decade was void of overt ethnic and racial tensions. Multicultural policy, however, was "under siege,' as there was considerable opposition in popular discourse and in the platforms of the Reform Party and the Conservative Party (Abu-Laban and Stasiulis 1992). In terms of the implementation of multiculturalism as a policy, this decade has been referred to as "equity" multiculturalism as distinct from "ethnicity" and the "song and dance" multiculturalism of the 1970s. Equity multiculturalism meant that the focus of the policy was to manage diversity or ethnic and race relations by addressing the problem of systemic discrimination with solutions of employment equity and equality of opportunity (Fleras and Elliott 2002, 69; Kunz 2007). For Bibby, it was important at this time to be looking for a more macro-level purpose in Canadian life in the sense of a "Canadianess" where diverse peoples would engage in a national conversation. He thought that this was not happening and that people in Canada did not have any moral bonds or moral consensus (see figs. 2 and 3) and what existed was fragmented pluralism or individual mosaic fragments. For Bibby, moral consensus was necessary for a civil society.

In a recent blog entitled "Whatever Happened to Mosaic Madness" (2008), Bibby reflects on his 1990 book and his concept of mosaic madness. He states:

 My presentations [in Japan] involved my revisiting the "mosaic
 madness" of the 1990 period. I was intrigued to realize that much of
 the madness that characterized Canada then and was anticipated to
 continue and perhaps become even worse has largely dissipated. In
 2008 we find Canada characterized by a remarkable calm. My data and
 that of others such as Michael Adams document what most of us know
 experientially--that Canada today seems quite sane, complete with
 highly positive interpersonal life, an extremely positive economic
 environment, and highly content individuals. In the title of my
 first presentation, one might well ask, "Whatever Happened to Mosaic
 Madness?"

By the late 1990s, particularly in Europe, the number of critiques of multiculturalism was increasing, and by the time of the post-9/11 era the numbers increased dramatically. Nine articles in the Canadian and European literatures were published between 1990 and 1999. One of the works from the European literature is examined in the next section.

Multiculturalism is Not the Solution: Michel Wieviorka

Of the European critiques of multiculturalism, Wieviorka's 1998 work tops the list in terms of a clear theoretical explanation and dissection of the fragmentation critique. His is not only a sociological approach, but also a political philosophy and a political science approach. Wieviorka argues that a sociological approach is interested in the social processes of multicultural societies and the nature of social differentiation and cultural differences. Moreover, this sociological approach suggests it is multiculturalism itself that is problematic:

 A sociological approach, stricto sensu, will primarily be interested
 in the working of the society in which multiculturalism is found, in
 the way in which the cultural differences within it are produced,
 received or reproduced, and in the questions and tensions which this
 generates. This approach will describe multiculturalism as the
 problem rather than the response (1998, 883).

As he argues in this quote, ethnic pluralism and cultural differences are not only reproduced, but they are also in the constant process of being produced, which means that fragmentation and recomposition are a permanent probability. He argues that the tendency for cultural fragmentation is much greater than the tendency and trend toward homogenization because of the impact of the globalization of the economy and/or the internationalization of mass culture under American hegemony (891).

At the beginning of his article he provides a history of the concept of multiculturalism and then discusses multiculturalism in practice. He discusses Canada, along with Australia and Sweden, as an example of a relatively "integrated multiculturalism" (884), while the U.S. is discussed as an example of a "disintegrated multiculturalism" (886). He then discusses the tensions inherent in cultural differences that are produced by multicultural societies even when some societies are able to demonstrate tensions that may be at equilibrium. In other cases, disequilibrium is considerable with tensions reaching a breaking point:

 The tensions reach breaking point and the logic of fragmentation
 gains the upper hand, with all that this implies--some people
 assimilating into the society as a whole, others possibly opting for
 radicalization and living in a closed community (892).

In his conclusion Wieviorka cautiously answers the question embodied in the title of his article and suggests that multiculturalism is not the solution. He considers that multiculturalism is "more of a risk than a satisfactory response" and multiculturalist policies and approaches, as they stand now, are dated and that we now need to go further than multiculturalism or, in other words, toward "post-multiculturalism."

In the mid-1990s, when Wieviorka wrote this piece, France was experiencing a re-emergence of racism and increasing ethnic and immigrant unrest. For example, the controversial issue of Islamic veils and head scarves worn by Muslim women and girls in the French public school system emerged at this time and stirred heated debate. France was also coming to terms with the tension resulting from the realization of the economic need for immigrants and immigrant communities and the growing visibility in, and occupation of, French social spaces by immigrants. Thus, issues of assimilation, ethnic pluralism, and racial and ethnic fragmentation came to the forefront of French public policy and academic discourses.

In the early--and mid-1990s the "clash of civilization" or "cultural contestation" thesis and discourse had emerged (Lewis 1990; Huntington 1993, 1996) with the main premise of a fundamental conflict between the Islamic world and the West. Huntington had suggested that the fundamental source of conflict in global politics would no longer be primarily ideological or economic. He stated:

 The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of
 conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most
 powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of
 global politics will occur between nations and groups of different
 civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global
 politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle
 lines of the future (1993, 22).

Thus, the critique of multiculturalism as over-emphasizing cultural relativism and potentially leading to clashes of cultures could, by extension, be conceptualized also as a domestic clash of civilizations. The clash of civilization thesis, fraught with over-tones of Orientalism, was considered by many scholars in the mid- to late-1990s as simplistic and racist. Nevertheless, Silverman (1992) pointed out that the headscarves affair in France was symptomatic of a wider national or nation-state crises in contemporary France related to immigration, race, and ethnicity. It was at that time, and arguably still is today, a crisis of the l'etranger and citizenship in France and also other parts of Europe. In the 1990s these developments in Europe, along with the "clash of civilization theses," were a prelude of the discourse that emerged in the 2000s and of Latour's analysis of the "war of the worlds."

The literature search for the years 2000-2006 produced thirty-five works. As noted earlier, relative to earlier times, this is a growing literature, and the next two sections will briefly examine the work of Latour in 2002 and Abbas in 2005--two prominent examples of the current period.

War of the Worlds: Bruno Latour

The events of 9/11 and the subsequent Madrid and London train bombings contributed to the angst that some European sociologists experience regarding multiculturalism. Moreover, soon after 9/11, the work of Lewis and Huntington and the "clash of civilizations" thesis soared in popularity and became more widely accepted.

Latour's focus is the "war of the worlds." He argues that it has been in existence all along in the so-called "modern age" (2002, 3-4). He considers that 9/11 served as a reminder that peace and unity have to be achieved through diplomatic efforts. He further argues that modernists made the notion of culture sacred and that this gave rise to multiculturalism of which he is highly critical: "In this combination of respect and complete indifference, we may recognize the hypocritical condescension of cultural relativism ..." (15). Latour is highly critical of multiculturalism, and he states that multiculturalism is a form of condescension of ethnocentrism. At the height of modernization, according to Latour (16), the West says that "the one world is ours, the many worlds are yours; and if your disputes are too noisy, may the world of harsh reality come in to pacify your disputes," and that this is "a peculiar offer of peace, one which had never recognized the existence of a war in the first place!" Latour looks at the rise of both "globalization" and "fragmentation" and points to a paradox:

 ... We identify precisely the deep transformation that took us
 out of modernism and the convenient solution it offered to the
 problems of unity and multiplicity. Fragmentation shatters
 mononaturalism; globalization destroys multiculturalism. On both
 sides, whether the aim is to create multiplicity or unity,
 opponents, fronts, and violent contradictions are finally
 starting to appear (24).

Latour's general message is that humanity might be able work its way out of the "war of the worlds" given the awareness that the West can no longer view minority groups as the "other" and that honest dialogue is essential.

Writing a year after the 9/11 era, Latour is critical of the West regarding its practice of using cultural relativism in a condescending way to "others" in the world and thus causing fragmentation at a global level. This analysis moves downward toward a critique of multiculturalism at the national level. Arguably ethnic tensions and hatreds have increased not just in the post-9/11 era, but over the past couple of decades of neo-liberalism. As Chua (2003) points out, the movement and exportation of free markets and democracy have not diminished ethnic and ethno-religious conflict as they were supposed to do. Rather, the dynamic of globalization and free market democracy have led to heightened situations where some ethnic groups dominate markets and contribute to ethnic tensions. This dynamic, she argues, explains the rise of anti-Americanism in recent decades. Thus the global context of Latour's work was not just 9/11 as a watershed event, but rather a global movement that has been occurring for decades.

The Retreat of Multicultural Theory, Policy and Practice: Tahir Abbas

The post-9/11 era in Europe has seen a retreat in multiculturalism at the level of theory and policy in many liberal states (Joppke 2004). This backing away from multiculturalism is due to a perception by policy makers and many academics that cultural recognition does not contribute to minority and immigrant integration. Abbas' work reflects this retreat as he critiques, using the case of British Muslims, liberal multicultural political philosophy and British multiculturalism policy. He argues that the management of diversity, through British multicultural policy, has been ineffective, and he goes so far as to support the argument made by others for a return to assimilation (2005). His critique, however, is from the left and is congruent with sub-theme 1 (above), but applied in the British context. He believes that multiculturalism leads to further ethnic segregation and stratification under already existing economic and political inequality. He states that a multicultural society

 ... is seemingly where "African immigrants clean toilets," and the
 "upper-middle-class English gents are lawyers, pilots, surgeons and
 hankers." The word multicultural no longer carries with it any
 connotation of equality or respect--if it ever did. Worse, it
 implies that all "moral obligations" have been met when a society
 is "multicultural" (156).

Abbas' argument is that in an already ethnically stratified society, multiculturalism reinforces the existing fragmentation by not addressing social inequality. He also argues that multiculturalism oppresses migrants culturally in that they are obliged to rejoin the culture of their ancestral origin and that cultures in multiculturalism are thought to narrowly correspond to existing nation-states producing cultural nationalism (156). Consequently, he argues that policy needs to move toward emphasizing "shared citizenship" and areas of "sameness." For Abbas, the political climate of the time will determine the future of multiculturalism. He asserts that in Britain the development of multiculturalism policy is closely tied to what happens with British Muslims because in the post-9/11 era they have become the test case and the gaze of the "other" (164).

It must be remembered, however, that official multiculturalism policy is relatively new in Britain, having been implemented in the late 1990s, and, like multiculturalism policy in the Netherlands, quickly became a target due in part to specific situations of ethnic and religious antagonism and terrorist events in Europe in the mid-2000s. These included, among others, the 2004 murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam, the Danish cartoons issue in 2005, the previously mentioned Madrid and London train bombings, and the "urban riots" in France in 2005. The practice of multiculturalism was increasingly associated with forms of "unhealthy" political transnationalism that made it potentially divisive and fragmentary. Thus, the context of Abbas' work is a continuation of the times that began when Latour was writing with a narrower focus on Europe "being on fire," rather than on the world "being on fire," (Chua 2003). Much of this discourse utilizes terms such as "the death of multiculturalism" (Kundnani 2002); "farewell to multiculturalism?" (Baubock 2002); "retreat of multiculturalism" (Joppke 2004); "Too Diverse" (Goodhart 2004); "re-inventing multiculturalism" (Uitermark et al. 2005). All fall into the purview of the post-multiculturalism genre in which multiculturalism itself is viewed as being problematic.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

This last section begins with a discussion of some of the sociological literature and discourse mentioned above that critiques multiculturalism as a form of "fragmented pluralism", in light of multiculturalism as a form of"interactive pluralism." (5) This is followed by a brief discussion of the policy implications that this discourse might have for Canada, while being cognizant of the possibility that academic research in Canada by sociologists has limited impact and influence on immigration related policies and programs (Richmond 2000).

The Sociological Literature on "Multiculturalism as Fragmentation"

The work of the five scholars in the previous section illustrates aspects of the fragmentation critique of multiculturalism in the sociological literature over the past three decades and the three sub-themes of the fragmentation thesis found in the literature review regarding social divisiveness, clash of cultures, and ethnic marginalization and stratification. Of these, Porter and Bibby's work represents Canadian sociological critiques of multiculturalism that touch on these three sub-themes. These critiques, together with many non-sociological critics such as Bissoondath (1994), may have led to the Canadian government commissioned reviews of Canada's multiculturalism program in the mid-1990s that included the Spicer Commission and the Brighton Report--the latter including recommendations that grappled with the fragmentation critique of multiculturalism (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002, 113). Not surprisingly, many popular non-sociological critiques utilizing the fragmentation perspective can be found today in popular journalistic form, e.g., Mlan Gregg's article in The Walrus (2006), and in scholarly studies, e.g., Stein et al.'s Uneasy Partners (2007).

What all five of the works reviewed have in common is a lack of a clear meaning or definition of what constitutes societal "fragmentation." These works point to social divergence, conflict and tension, and examples thereof, as illustrative of fragmentation. In many respects, these works take a one-dimensional and binary approach to multiculturalism (see fig. 1). For example, Bibby (1990, 14) argues that cultural relativism erases agreement on the norms that are essential to social life. Antecedent to this is Bibby's assumption that multiculturalism inevitably leads to relativism. As Satzewich and Liodakis (2007, 134) illustrated, using examples from Canadian law, this is not necessarily the case. Further, in response to Bibby's argument, one could also ask why agreement on procedural norms, such as rule of law and democracy, is not sufficient and does not meet the essence of social life. If it is sufficient, then social cohesion is not at risk and the "fragmentation" is simply at the level of differential values. One can then ask the question whether it is necessary for Canadians to have a set of common values, as the evidence is clear that Canadians diverge on many social issues and values, (6) which is certainly deemed acceptable in a democracy. What was assumed here is that these five works fall under the fragmented pluralism vision (noted earlier) in which multiculturalism is viewed as disuniting and problematic. If this fragmented pluralism is really problematic, then the alternative visions are assimilationism, cosmopolitanism, or interactive pluralism.

According to Jedwab (2005, 96), recent polling shows that more Canadians agree that multiculturalism helps, rather than hinders, integration. Yet only one-half of Canadians believe that multicultural policy helps people of various backgrounds and religions to fully integrate into Canadian society. If fragmented pluralism is problematic, as the sociological discourse surrounding this critique of multiculturalism suggests, then how does a society move toward an interactive pluralism that involves some substantive moral bonds as the basis for social cohesion and integration? Fragmented pluralism represents a "thin" citizenship, while interactive pluralism represents a "thick" citizenship. What are the conditions necessary for interactive pluralism to exist? It would require a context where particularism and universalism are recognized simultaneously. This would be a new strategic approach to multiculturalism requiring a new political logic that makes it possible to "effect a new and radical reconfiguration of the particular and the universal, of liberty and equality with difference" (Hall 2000, 236). For example, with regard to Britain, Madood (2005) argues for an extension and strengthening of multicultural policy so that there is a "politics of equal respect" that is inclusive of British Muslims in a shared multicultural Britishness. A new approach also entails the backing away from culturally essentializing ethnic and immigrant communities and recognizing that communities and their cultures are not static, but are undergoing cultural translation. Li (1999, 165-166) points out that one cannot assume: 1) that ethnicity and race are essentially primordial in nature; 2) that ethnic culture primarily determines how ethnic groups relate to each other; or 3) that ethnic groups are distinct and culturally homogeneous. Hall points out that cultures revise their own systems of reference, norms, and values in negotiations (2000, 226). This new strategic approach also entails recognizing that diversity and difference does not mean fragmentation and lack of social cohesion. Here Hall draws upon Derrida's work on differance:

 This is not the binary form of difference, between what is
 absolutely the same, and what is absolutely "Other." It is
 a "weave" of similarities and differences that refuse to
 separate into fixed binary oppositions (216).

Moreover, he points out that differance does not prevent any system or society from stabilizing or reaching social cohesion or, as he puts it, "a fully sutured totality" (216). The current state of most multiculturalism policies, such as those in Canada, is what Hall describes as "pluralist multiculturalism," which entails enfranchising the differences among groups along cultural lines and also according different grouprights to different communities within a communitarian political order (210). This is the kind of multiculturalism that the critics have called fragmented pluralism. To move to the interactive pluralism vision, there needs to be a civic component to pluralist multiculturalism.

Soutphommasane (2005, 412) describes civic pluralist multiculturalism as a form of multicultural citizenship which is grounded in a shared civic culture, but this civic culture is constantly exposed to critical collective reflection and re-examination. A move in this direction of interactive and civic pluralism was advocated by Bibby (1991) when he advocated the necessity of making "... it possible for Canadians of diverse backgrounds to interact with each other in order to speak openly about their differences and concerns, to reflect on their values and dreams, to evaluate the merits of their respective ideas and lifestyles." By interacting with each other, the national Canadian conversation, as advocated by Kymlicka (1998, 175), might emerge over time and this could lead to a shared identity.

Policy Implications for Canada

It is easy to say that interaction and conversation need to occur and that when they occur, there is interactive pluralism. However, for this to actually occur, there are certain ground rules and presuppositions that would need to be affirmed and accepted by everyone. Although it should not be thought of as a contested political battlefield, there is an element of negotiation and contestation that would be involved. With the waning of assimilationism, there were increasing numbers of immigrants who demanded that the "reigning formula" be adapted in order to accommodate them, as opposed to the other way around (Taylor 2001, 187). This has contributed to a debate about the nature of integration in many multicultural countries. The Metropolis Project in Canada has summed up this debate succinctly in an overview for one of its knowledge transfer sessions (2003) by referring to two major approaches to frame integration. These two approaches are referred to as 1) immutable core and 2) dynamic nucleus, with the former being basically the assimilationism position and the latter being interactive pluralism. With an immutable core, there is conformity to common values, language, and culture; with the dynamic nucleus, there is constant negotiation about what constitutes the core so that there is a social compact that sees the core as dynamic and evolving over time (Metropolis 2003). (7) Metropolis outlined these two approaches as a way of framing the debate and posed it as a question in terms of which one of these approaches is preferable. The expectation of conformity is based on the belief that many cultural differences are unbridgeable and irreconcilable with the core values of democracy and liberalism. Thus, many academics adopt the principle of conformity to an immutable core as the benchmark of integration and do not interrogate the relationship between diversity and integration (Li 2003, 328).

In conclusion, I would argue that the immutable core approach represents the "old reigning formula" (referred to by Taylor 2001), and that the viability of multiculturalism as social and public policy requires a vision of interactive pluralism. This can only occur under a dynamic nucleus approach where there is ongoing discussion, negotiation, critical collective reflection, and a re-examination of what Canada is in terms of identity and how it works in terms of social processes. This, then, would allow movement away from a fragmented pluralism vision and cultural essentialism that is held by many critics of multiculturalism, including many influential sociologists whose ideas have been discussed in this article. The dynamic nucleus approach would ensure civic pluralist multiculturalism and integrative pluralism. The persistent challenge would be to negotiate issues related to the "dynamic nucleus" in a civil and respectful manner that does not create conflict that would hamper social and political cohesion. Current Canadian public-policy discourse now uses catchwords and phrases such as "two-way street," "inclusive citizenship," and "identity" (Metropolis 2007; Kunz 2007). Thus, the fundamental question is whether an interactive pluralism can become a reality in Canada or whether it remains merely on paper. The Metropolis Project and Canadian Heritage could certainly take a leadership role and provide the forum for this to happen--if they have the political will.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Dr. Anna Kirova and Dr. Joe Garcea for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article. As well, thanks to Paul Lawton for his research on the literature. I gratefully acknowledge the funding for the research for this paper and the entire project from Canadian Heritage and the Prairie Metropolis Centre.

NOTES

(1.) The term "ethnic pluralism" is utilized in this paper as being synonymous with the term "cultural pluralism and multiculturalism" Li (1999, 148) points out that "multiculturalism" while a nebulous concept, has also been adopted by academics for various analytical interpretations, and thus has added more confusion to the term.

(2.) Examples of search terms include "post," "anti," "critique," "problem" "fragmentation" combined with "multiculturalism," "pluralism," "cultural pluralism," "ethnic pluralism," "diversity." Of the 46 articles, 18 were specifically on European countries, 16 on Canada, 5 on other countries (mostly the United States and Australia), and 7 were not country specific, but more theoretical in nature.

(3.) More specifically, a classical sociology of knowledge approach is used here: the production of knowledge is shaped by social structures and the social locations of individuals (who are producing the knowledge) within those structures (Mannheim 1936, 282; Meja and Stehr 1999).

(4.) A crude discourse analysis of the words in the title of this book suggests that the mosaic or multiculturalism is pathological and deviant ("madness" and "pluralism [as in rebel] without a cause") although Bibby may not have meant it to be interpreted this way.

(5.) These obviously include such values as those concerning abortion, capital punishment, gun control, the welfare state, same-sex marriage, and many others. Satzewich and Liodakus (2007, 133) point out that those critics of multiculturalism who appeal to the "national" character of Canada are usually vague in describing what constitutes Canadian culture, by which they usually mean the Anglo-tradition, and are also vague in defining what Canadian values are.

(6.) See figs. 2 and 3. The other visions of assimilationism and cosmopolitanism, while important, are not the focus here. Assimilationism would involve the "strategy of privatization" of cultural differences and conflict (Barry 2001, chap. 2) and is part of the recent liberal critique of multiculturalism. Cosmopolitanism remains an important conceptualization and recent work by Delanty and He (2008), for example, link critical cosmopolitanism to Asian and European transnationalism.

(7.) These two approaches were described by Metropolis as follows:

 The first approach revolves around the belief that a strong
 immutable core--often defined as national identity--is essential
 for the successful integration of newcomers. Indeed, this approach
 maintains that integration is only possible when newcomers and
 those in the "host" society understand and adhere to the
 component parts of the core.... In this first approach, an
 exclusive national identity, or immutable core, is strongly
 articulated through shared values, a shared language, shared
 ethnicity and culture, or, in the most extreme form, racial or
 religious homogeneity. Newcomers must accept and conform to this
 core and its articulations to be granted citizenship....
 Proponents of this approach fear that a country with a weak sense
 of national identity is prone to fractures and fault-lines....
 They may also believe that immigration-fuelled diversity challenges
 a stable national identity and may threaten the core values of
 the "host" society.

 The other approach revolves around the belief that the core can,
 and indeed must, evolve by including citizens and newcomers in
 ongoing discussion on the construction of the national identity.
 This, proponents suggest, ensures support for shared
 responsibilities, values and goals.... The composition of a
 national identity is viewed as an on-going process that engages
 newcomers and fosters a sense of shared citizenship ... and acts
 as the dynamic nucleus that holds a diverse citizenry together.
 Proponents of this approach maintain that the social compact is
 renewed and reinforced when national identity is allowed to evolve
 through discussions between newcomers and "host" societies that
 allow them to redefine and re-articulate the values and
 responsibilities that comprise their shared citizenship
 (Metropolis 2003).

WORKS CITED

Abbas, Tahir. 2005. Recent Developments in British Multicultural Theory, Policy, and Practice: The Case of British Muslims. Citizenship Studies 9.2: 153-166.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Daiva Stasiulis. 1992. Ethnic Pluralism under Siege: Popular and Partisan Opposition to Multiculturalism. Canadian Public Policy 18.4: 365-386.

Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Christina Gabriel. 2002. Selling Diversity: Immigration, Multiculturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Barry, Brian. 2001. Culture and Equality. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Baubock, Rainer. 2002. Farewell to Multiculturalism? Sharing Values and Identities in Societies of Immigration. Journal of International Migration and Integration 3.1: 1-16.

Bibby, Reginald. 1990. Mosaic Madness: Pluralism without a Cause. Toronto: Stoddart.

--. 1991. Toward Dignifying Diversity. Globe and Mail, October 9. http://www.reginaldbibby.com/fromthearchives.html

--. 2008. Whatever Happened to Mosaic Madness? Bibby's Blog--Research, Reflections, and Rants, March 1. http://reginaldbibby.blogspot.com/

Bissoondath, Neil. 1994. Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada. Toronto: Penguin.

Buchignani, Norman. 1982. Canadian Ethnic Research and Multiculturalism. Journal of Canadian Studies 17.1: 16-34.

Chua, Amy. 2003. World on Fire: How Exporting Free Murket Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability. New York: Anchor Bonks.

Corbella, Licia. 2006a. Dangerous Disconnect. Calgary Sun, June 11.

--. 2006b. Sociology Prof Warns Multiculturalism Creates "Nations within Nation." Calgary Sun, June 19.

Delanty, Gerard, and Baogang He. 2008. Cosmopolitan Perspectives on European and Asian Transnationalism. International Sociology 23.3: 323-344.

Fleras, Augie, and Jean Elliott. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada. 2nd ed. Toronto: Nelson.

Goodhart, David. 2004. Too Diverse? Prospect 95. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/articledetails.php?id-5835

Gregg, Mlan. 2006. Identity Crisis. The Walrus 3.2: 38-47.

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

Hartmann, Douglas, and Joseph Gerteis. 2005. Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in Sociological Terms. Sociological Theory 23.2: 218-240.

Huntington, Samuel. 1993. The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs 72.3: 22-49.

--.1996. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Jedwab, lack. 2005. Neither Finding nor Losing Our Way: The Debate over Canadian Multiculturalism. Canadian Diversity 4.1: 95-102.

Joppke, Christian. 2004. The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy. British Journal of Sociology 55.2: 237-257.

Kallen, Evelyn. 1982. Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy, and Reality. Journal of Canadian Studies 17.1:5163.

Kirkham, Della, 1998. The Reform Party of Canada: Discourse on Race, Ethnicity, and Equality. In Racism and Social Inequality in Canada, ed. V. Satzewich, 243-267. Toronto: Thompson Educational.

Kundani, Arun. 2002. The Death of Multiculturalism. London: Institute of Race Relations. http://www.irr.org.uk/2002/april/ak000001.html

Kunz, Jean. 2007. Multicultural Canada in the 21st Century: Harnessing Opportunities and Managing Pressures. Cultural Diversity. http://www.policyresearch.gc.ca/page.asp?pagenm=rp_mult_bkg

Kymlicka, Will. 1998. Finding Our Way: Rethinking Ethnocultural Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Latour, Bruno. 2002. War of the Worlds: What About Peace? Chicago: Prickly Press.

Lewis, Bernard. 1990. The Roots of Muslim Rage. Atlantic Monthly 266.3: 47-60.

Li, Peter. 2003. Deconstructing Canada's Discourse of Immigrant Integration. Journal of International Migration and Integration 4.3:315-333.

--.1999. The Multicultulturalism Debate. In Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, 2nd ed., ed. P.S. Li, 148-177. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Madood, Tariq. 2005. Remaking Multiculturalism after 7/7. Open Democracy. http://www.opendemocracy.net/conflict-terrorism/multiculturalism_2879.jsp

Mannheim, Karl. 1936. Ideology and Utopia. New York: Harcourt, Brace.

Meja, Volker, and Nico Stehr. 1999. Introduction. In The Sociology of Knowledge, ed. Volker Meja and Nico Stehr, xiii-xxvi. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Metropolis. 2003. Metropolis Presents: Shared Citizenship: Immutable Core of Dynamic Nucleus? Ottawa: October 14. http://canada.metropolis.net/events/ metropolis_presents/shared-citizenship/index_e.htm

Metropolis. 2007. Metropolis Phase III (2007-2012) Annexes A-L, Memorandum of Understanding between Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and Citizenship and Immigration Canada. http://canada.metropolis.net/policypriority/citizenship_e.htm

Porter, John. 1972. Dilemmas and Contradictions of a Multi-ethnic Society. Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada 10.4: 193-205.

--. 1975. Ethnic Pluralism in Canadian Perspective. In Ethnicity, Theory and Experience, ed. N. Glazer and D. Moynihan, 267-304, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

--. 1979a. Ethnic Pluralism in Canadian Perspective. In The Measure of Canadian Society, ed. J. Porter, 103 - 138. Toronto: Gage.

--.1979b. Melting Pot or Mosaic: Revolution or Reversion? In The Measure of Canadian Society, ed. J. Porter, 139-162. Toronto: Gage.

--. 1965. The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Prins, Baukje, and Boris Slijper. 2002. Multicultural Society under Attack. Journal of International Migration and Integration 3.3-4: 313-328.

Richmond, Anthony H. 2000. Immigration and Policy Research in Canada: Pure or Applied? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 26.1: 109-125.

Roberts, Lance, and Rodney Clifton. 1990. Multiculturalism in Canada: A Sociological Perspective. In Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, 1st ed., ed. P.S. Li, 120-147. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Satzewich, Vic, and Nikolaos Liodakis. 2007. Race and Ethnicity in Canada: A Critical Introduction. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Silverman, Maxim, 1992. Deconstructing the Nation: Immigration, Racism, and Citizenship in Modern France. London: Routedge.

Soutphommasane, Tim. 2005. Grounding Multicultural Citizenship: From Minority Rights to Civic Pluralism. Journal of Intercultural Studies 26.4:401-416.

Stein, Janice, David Cameron, John Ibbitson, Will Kymlicka, John Meisel, Haroon Siddiqui, and Michael Valpy, eds. 2007. Uneasy Partners. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Taylor, Charles. 2001. Democracy, Inclusive and Exclusive. In Meaning and Modernity: Religion, Polity, and the Self, ed. R. Madsen, W. Sullivan, A. Swidler, and S. Tipton, 181-194. Berkeley: University of California Press.

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

Uitermark, Justis, Ugo Rossi, and HenkVan Houtum. 2005. Re-inventing Multiculturalism: Urban Citizenship and the Negotiation of Ethnic Diversity in Amsterdam. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29.3: 622-640.

Wieviorka, Michel. 1998. Is Multiculturalism the Solution? Ethnic and Racial Studies 21.5:881-910.

Winter, Elke. 2005. Debating Binationalism and Multiculturalism in Canada: Toward a Sociology of Ethnic Pluralism. Ph.D. diss., York University. In Dissertations & Theses: Full Text. http://www.proquest.com/Publication number AAT NR11642

LLOYD WONG is 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.

Fig. 2. A two-dimensional framework.

Dimension 2 Dimension 1
 Basis for Social Cohesion

Basis for Association Substantive Moral Bonds Procedural Norms
Individual in Society Assimilationism Cosmopolitanism
Mediating Groups I Interactive Pluralism Fragmented Pluralism

Source: Adapted with permission from Hartmann and Gerteis, 224, fig. 2.