|
Article Excerpt
PRIOR TO 1967, MORE THAN 80% OF IMMIGRANTS to Canada came from Europe. That proportion has now declined to one in five (Canadian Census, 2001). In fact, since 1979, more than half of all immigrants to Canada (54%) have come from Asia (Li, 2002). Approximately 75% of all newcomers to Canada now go to Canada's three largest urban centres (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver). Thus, current patterns of immigration are enhancing cultural diversity within Canada's largest cities, while accentuating differences in diversity between these three "capitals of immigration" and other Canadian communities. For example, in 2001 visible minorities made up more than one third (37%) of Toronto's population but only 17% of Calgary's population.
Given the shift in source countries and in immigrants' choice of resettlement communities, we might expect to see corresponding changes in Canadians' attitudes toward immigration and cultural diversity. Such attitudes are developed within the contexts of family, school and work, but also in the broader community. Hence, when examining public opinion regarding immigration and cultural diversity it is important to consider not only individual predictors but also how communities might shape opinions. However, most studies of immigration attitudes have largely ignored community-level predictors. Our paper addresses this gap by sampling public opinion within a range of quite different communities and by asking how both community and individual attributes might influence attitudes toward immigration.
Documenting individual- and community-level predictors of attitudes toward immigration and cultural diversity is an interesting scholarly exercise in its own right, but it also has important policy implications. Such knowledge can be very useful in choosing immigrants with a high potential for successful integration in a particular community, in preparing immigrants for their resettlement destinations, and in educating community members about immigrants and their needs. These issues are particularly important today, when the Canadian government is actively promoting immigration as a solution to labour market shortages in second- and third-tier Canadian communities (Krahn, Derwing and Abu-Laban, 2003).
Theories and Theoretical Perspectives
Three relatively distinct theoretical traditions provide us with directional hypotheses about core factors that shape attitudes towards immigration and cultural diversity. Scarce resources and contact theories provide insight into inter-group relationships that can influence attitudes and beliefs, while educational progressivism theory addresses the influence of learning on attitude change. Although it has not yet developed into an established theory with directional hypotheses, a fourth, community perspective, emphasizes how a range of different community characteristics might shape individuals' attitudes and beliefs.
Scarce resources theory basically views society as comprised of opposing groups, with the most powerful controlling resources and attempting to maintain their advantaged position (Smelser, 1988; Dahrendorf, 1959). Competition (or at least perceived competition) and, sometimes, conflict over scarce resources can lead to minority groups or "outsiders" (immigrants are both) being seen as a threatening "other." Thus, scarce resources theory implies that the public is frequently xenophobic, fearing that immigrants will threaten the labour force advantages of the native-born and also possibly undermine the dominant culture and "Canadian values." In short, (perceived) competition for scarce resources leads to reduced public acceptance of immigrants, especially by those who feel they have the most to lose (e.g., the unemployed or the working poor). Immigrants pose a threat to Canadian-born workers who might believe that they will face greater competition for good jobs or that, because immigrants will accept jobs that others would not take, increased immigration will lead to worsening labour conditions and lower wages.
Contact theory originates with Gordon Allport (1962), who developed a more general attitude-change theory that considers how experiences change attitudes and, in turn, how new attitudes change subsequent behaviours. From this perspective, those who have the most contact with immigrants will come to know them better, feel less threatened by them, and be more likely to accept them as part of their community. Thus, while scarce resources theory hypothesizes that greater (perceived) competition over limited resources makes the "other" more threatening, contact theory proposes that increased interaction makes the "other" more familiar and, hence, less threatening. Contact theory can also be seen as a variant of social categorization theory where, within an "us/them" dichotomy, individuals tend to attribute more favourable qualities to the "us" to which they belong. With additional contact, people shift their group boundaries so that persons previously "them" become "us." As a result, prejudice towards these previous "outsiders" tends to disappear (Malkki, 1996). Amir (1969) elaborates on this theory, suggesting that outcomes may be both positive and negative, depending on the type and conditions of contact.
A third general theory proposes that more education leads to more accepting attitudes towards immigrants because people learn to think more positively about them (Guimond, Palmer and Begin, 1989; Chandler and Yung-Mei, 2001). Essentially, (some of) the learning that takes place in high schools, colleges and, particularly, universities can counter prejudicial and xenophobic beliefs. For example, students might learn that, despite the widespread belief that immigrants take jobs away from the native-born, research shows that immigrants in fact create more jobs than they displace. Or, students might be influenced by curricula focussing on human rights and equity issues. In turn, attitudes towards immigrants and cultural diversity may become more positive. Thus, while contact theory emphasizes the positive impacts of relationships between immigrants and the native-born, and scarce resources theory focusses on the negative effects of (presumed) labour market competition over scarce resources, this third theoretical approach has a much more rational causal underpinning--it emphasizes learning. It hypothesizes that native-born Canadians can be taught to be more accepting of newcomers. While such hypotheses about the liberalizing effects of formal education are common in the attitude change literature, there is not a consensus about a label for this theoretical perspective. Following Wotherspoon's (1998: 22) approach to classifying sociological theories of education, we have chosen to call it educational progressivism theory, reflecting the optimism of liberal educational reformers like John Dewey, who believed that formal education could be harnessed to solve social problems, including xenophobia.
However, evidence of a positive correlation between educational attainment and welcoming attitudes towards immigrants does not necessarily indicate direct support for the theory. It is possible that more highly educated individuals (particularly those who choose to study in the social sciences and humanities) already had more positive attitudes toward immigrants prior to their education (Sorenson and Krahn, 1996). In other words, they chose a university program that matched their attitudes. Furthermore, it may be that the contact between diverse groups that takes place in university settings leads to changed attitudes. Or, since higher education enhances one's labour market opportunities, better-educated Canadians may feel less threatened by immigrants who might take away jobs. Another possible underlying explanation of the impact of higher education involves the concept of symbolic racism. As abhorrence to overt racism has increased, prejudice may have gone underground (Palmer, 1996; Li, 2001). Thus, university-trained people may be more attuned to being "politically correct" and thus more adept at cloaking racism behind statements ostensibly in defence of immigration.
A fourth theoretical perspective focusses on how the spatial community provides the context within which group interactions take place and attitudes and beliefs are shaped. While this approach has not been explicitly considered in previous research on immigration attitudes, and has not led to specific directional hypotheses, it has been used to study other attitudes and behaviours. For example, Krahn and Lowe (1984) found that community-level attributes affected attitudes towards unions and union membership, independent of individual-level predictors. In the criminology discipline, Agnew's (1992) general strain theory proposes that certain community characteristics (e.g., community size, rapid growth, social inequality) can generate (community-level) strain, anti-social orientations and, in turn, higher crime rates. Building on this argument, we might predict that strain (or "anomie" in Durkheim's [1960] language), itself a function of community size and/or rapid growth, could generate negative attitudes towards outsiders, particularly immigrants.
Most previous Canadian research on attitudes towards immigration and cultural diversity has been largely descriptive, and has not been shaped by theoretically derived hypotheses. Furthermore, previous studies have focussed mainly on Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and have included primarily individual-level predictors. This study examines public opinion in seven other medium-sized and (relatively) large Canadian cities, does so within a more systematic theoretical framework, and incorporates both individual- and community-level predictors.
Previous Canadian...
|
