|
Article Excerpt
INTRODUCTION
Multiculturalism has been the subject of substantial debates in Canada during the past four decades (Wilson 1993; Abu-Laban 1994; Sugunasiri 1999; Fleras and Elliot 2002). Such debates have intensified during the most recent decade largely as a result of the attention devoted by the media to, among other things, the large influx of immigrants and refugees who are members of visible minorities, the claims for and responses to what is now being termed reasonable accommodations, and the actual and potential acts of terrorism. The debates have focused primarily on what Fleras and Elliott (2002, 108) have referred to as the "dialectics of multiculturalism" regarding tive sets of positive and negative effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy (i.e., divisive vs. unifying, essentializing vs. hybridizing, marginalizing vs. inclusive, hoax vs. catalyst, and hegemony vs. counter-hegemony), the myths and fallacies of multiculturalism (Burnet 1979; Peter 1981, Fleras and Elliot 2002, 112-116), and what have been described as real and perceived contradictions related to multiculturalism (Saul 2005).
One of the central questions in such debates has been whether multiculturalism contributes either to harmony and integration or conflict and fragmentation within the Canadian polity. The question applies to the effects of both the public philosophy of multiculturalism (i.e., the normative framework that values the co-existence and perpetuation of diverse cultures) (1) and the public policy of multiculturalism (i.e., the actual policy and program initiatives undertaken by various orders of government designed to deal with the co-existence and perpetuation of diverse cultures) (Kallen 1982). (2) That question has generated a set of postulations proffered by postulators who believe that multiculturalism philosophy and policy have fragmentary effects within the Canadian polity. (3)
This article has two central objectives: first, to provide an overview and analysis of the postulations regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism philosophy and policy articulated during the past forty years in books and journal articles within the Canadian literature written in English; second, to provide some observations regarding the importance that policy makers should attach to those postulations and the type and degree of attention that they should devote to them.
This article is based on a content analysis of a select set of publications on Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy written between 1965 and 2005 largely by social scientists and a few other prominent authors and analysts. The goal was to identify some, rather than all, publications that articulated various postulations. Thus, the dozens of publications profiled in this article constitute only a representative sample of a potentially larger set of publications that articulate the various postulations. The publications were selected through a combination of a library and web-based bibliographic search and a scanning of the bibliographic references contained in the publications located through the library and web-based bibliographic search. The key words used for the searches were "Canadian multiculturalism" and "criticisms of Canadian multiculturalism" The postulations that are the focus of this article were identified through a content analysis of the select set of dozens of publications that dealt with the fragmentary effects of Canadian multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy. More specifically, they were identified by grouping comparable arguments regarding the fragmentary effects of multiculturalism public philosophy and public policy, and then producing a descriptive title and description of the postulation embodied in each group arguments.
Before providing the overview and analysis of the postulations, three important caveats and some information regarding the methodology are in order. First, the differences between some of the postulations are relatively subtle; indeed, some of the postulations are interrelated and overlapping. Nevertheless, for analytical purposes it is useful to discuss them separately. Second, the identification of the commentators who articulate those postulations is selective or exemplary, rather than comprehensive or exhaustive. Third, it should not be assumed that all of those who articulate any of the postulations are necessarily against multiculturalism either as a public philosophy or as a public policy. Indeed, as noted in a subsequent section of this artide, some of them are supportive of either or both of those, but they want to see some clarifications or correctives to those that they perceive as problematical in achieving any one or more of the desired goals.
OVERVIEW OF POSTULATIONS
Postulation 1: Multiculturalism promotes the creation of segregated racial and ethno-cultural enclaves
The first postulation is that multiculturalism policy, in combination with immigration policy, creates segregated racial and ethnocultural enclaves within local communities (Brotz 1980; Ogmundson 1992; Paquet 1988; James 1996; James and Shadd 2001; Stoffman 2002 and 2004). The postulators maintain that whereas immigration policy facilitates the concentration of the bulk of immigrants with similar racial or ethnocultural backgrounds into a few major cities and, in some cases even a few neighbourhoods therein, multiculturalism policy promotes and supports the creation of ethno-specific secular and religious institutions to serve the needs of each major ethno-cultural community. They add that some racial and ethno-cultural groups are able to achieve and maintain a substantial degree of institutional completeness that, in turn, accentuates segregation and social distances between members of those groups and members of other groups.
This postulation was cogently articulated and popularized by Neil Bissoondath who suggested that multiculturalism has the effect of "... ensuring that ethnic groups will preserve their distinctiveness in a gentle and insidious form of cultural apartheid" and will "... lead an already divided country down the path to further social divisiveness" (1994, 82-83).
Those who proffer this postulation suggest that such distancing contributes to the fragmentation of the populace and that possible negative effects include matters discussed in subsequent sections of this article. The most notable of such effects are: the diminishing of the fundamental unity of the Canadian state and society (Brotz 1980, 44); the growth of ethnocentrism and segmentation and the resurgence of racism under a different name (Paquet 1988, 10-11; Sugunarisi 1999, 57-75, 109-114); and ultimately the disintegration of the Canadian polity (Ogmundson 1992, 52).
Postulation 2: Multiculturalism creates multiple social and political identities and divided loyalties
The second postulation is that multiculturalism creates multiple social and political identities and divided loyalties. This postulation was originally articulated in the mid-1960s by John Porter who suggested that one of the key problems with Canada was its fragmented social and political structures. Such fragmentation, he argued, creates a strong emphasis on ethnic differentiation that, in turn, creates dual loyalties--one to the various groups and one to the country--that prevent the emergence of a singular Canadian identity (Porter 1965, 558).
Porter's postulation was echoed in the early 1990s by several authors who suggested that multiculturalism contributed to the emergence of multiple nationalities, divided loyalties, and the fragmentation of Canadian identity. Bibby argued that, contrary to what its proponents argue, multiculturalism does not really achieve the stated goal of "harmonious existence" (1990, 7-8). Gairdner concurred with this and went so far as to suggest that multiculturalism, along with bilingualism and immigration, contributed to the silent destruction of English Canada (Gairdner 1990, 389-420). Ogmundson argued that, contrary to what its advocates suggested, multiculturalism policy was not needed to reduce social inequalities (1992, 50-51), and added that, since Canada has a "balkanized culture and a paucity of nationalism," the federal government must concentrate on building a singular national identity and a stronger primary loyalty to the country. Many critics of multiculturalism go even...
|
