|
Article Excerpt
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....
|
