Over the past few years, much ink has spilled regarding the failures of multiculturalism in Canada. Whether it be the reasonable accommodation of Sikhs to wear ceremonial daggers under strict guidelines or the ability for Muslim students to wear the hijab during soccer games, the national conversation regarding the ability for immigrants to integrate into Canada is vociferous, particularly if those immigrants happen to be Muslim. Many concerns of these critics were voiced by British Prime Minister David Cameron, during a much publicized speech delivered to the Munich Security Conference over a month ago.
The Problems of Multiculturalism
Linking the root of British Islamist extremism to state multicultural policies, Mr. Cameron asserted that these policies not only failed to provide a common vision of society but also tolerated the segregation of communities behaving in ways that run counter to Western values. Outlining the importance of having shared values to form the basis of a national identity, Cameron argues that multiculturalism undermines this national identity, so much so that Muslims are not aware of their duties or responsibilities that come with being British. A more effective replacement to this passive state policy is to actively promote liberal values that would look like ensuring all immigrants speak the language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in elements of a common culture and curriculum.
Practical Implications of Shared National Identity
Mr. Cameron’s concerns and remedies are certainly not new; the same concerns have been repeatedly expressed. What is absent in his account of multiculturalism is a reflection of a modern nation without some form of multicultural policies. Take Sri Lanka, the country of my birth. Upon gaining independence in 1948, the initial priority for successive Sri Lankan governments was to enact very similar policies to what Mr. Cameron espouses: namely the promotion of one common Sri Lankan identity within both the Sinhala and Tamil populations. The Sinhala Only Language Act for instance was designed to ensure that all members of the population can speak one language. During the 1970’s, state organs strived to ensure that minority populations adapted to the traditions and customs the majority Sinhalese population. While these nationalist policies were eventually reversed, these policies exacerbated the existing misunderstandings and tensions between the majority Sinhalese and minority Tamil communities. These tensions eventually led to the rise of the brutal Tamil Tigers terrorist group and a 25 year old civil war that only recently ended.
Whether it be the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Chechen rebels in Russia, or the Egyptian, Libyan and Tunisian demonstrators in the Middle East: all these groups are, in their own unique way, demanding liberation from a ‘common national identity’ that excludes those falling outside the identity from both the public square and view. Young Muslims turn away from British identity, not because of a lack of attraction to British identity, but because those articulating the ‘common British identity’ are commonly spouting xenophobic and racist virulence. In fact I would argue the more existential threat to British national identity are not Muslim extremists – who will never be English in the first place – but rather are British nationals who harass and marginalize all those not born in Mother England. Take a bow, English Defence League.
Conclusion
Contrary to Mr. Camerons opinion, state multicultural policies are not efforts to segregate communities or to build a society full of cultural differences but no unifying ideal. Multiculturalism is as Charles Taylor calls ‘a politics of recognition’: asking the state to not only tolerate the presence of diverse cultures, but to positively engage these cultures in an honest but respectful dialogue that informs all citizens - regardless of origin – of their duties and responsibilities to their country and their neighour.
First let me say, I saw you on the Agenda and I was quite impessed with what you and the other young people said.
The issue of Multiculturalism is needlessly complex. It is a result of the reality that many communities have contributed to Canada’s development, and a result of a new paradigm of nation building. Rather than ethnic nationalism and other kinds of group identities, the foundation of building Canada is civic nationalism and the rule of law.
Multiculturalism is not a goal but a result of a just society. It is the result of accepting immigrants and job applicants on their individual merits, rather than their group identities. The late professor Pat Duffy Hutcheon described multiculturalism as the “equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of biological inheritance or ancestral history.” That concept is a challenging adjustment to older Canadians and to immigrants whose cultures discriminated by class, cast, ethnicity, religion, gender, etcetera.
Multiculturalism can be undermined by the old way of thinking. Those who demand ‘equality of results’ and quotas for their group identity, are promoting a disharmonious ‘us versus them’ ethnic nationalism, and a resentment of the ‘other’.
In fact they are using many of the same arguments that Pearson and Trudeau attempted to disprove.
Thanks for the comment Joe,
I agree with much of your comment. However the challenge is how to create that just society you describe. Do we actively push multi-culturalism (quotas/equality of results) or passively wait for the needed changes to diffuse through?
While I think there are flaws with either approach, what I do agree with is that it the challenges of multi-culturalism are felt in all parts of the Canadian societal fabric. I am particularly concerned with ethnic politics, where political parties skew policies to that of particular demographics, regardless if the substance those policies reflect what it means to be Canadian.
Thanks again for the comment!
Perhaps I should have given the entire quote from Hutcheon :
The evolution of multiculturalism provides us with a fascinating study of the transformation of an idea for social reform based on the premise of equality of opportunity for individuals regardless of biological inheritance or ancestral history into its precise opposite: the idea of equality of results for ethnic groups, at the price of sacrificing hard-won individual rights.
She was saying that the equality of results approach contradicts Martin Luther King’s dream of people being assessed by the “content of their character” rather than their group identity!
The equality of results approach has a great downside. It actually contributes to disharmony. It is based on the same group identity politics that leads to discrimination, resentment, and debates about who has the better case for privileged treatment. In fact all humanity can make a case for equality of results because of disadvantages in the past. In Canada’s past, many people from the French and English community experienced barriers because of class, religion and ethnicity.
Almost all humans can go back just a few generations and list ancestors who were serfs, slaves, persecuted, … . For thousands of years slavery was legal; it was rule of the people over rule of law; it was rule of the aristocrat, the emperor, the conqueror, the czar, the warlord, the Caesar, the theocracy, …. there was no democracy to speak of until a little over 200 years ago and it has spread and improved steadily.
Adam Hochschild is twice the winner of the Lionel Gelber prize. His latest winner is Bury the Chains about the beginning of anti-slavery laws. When the movement began in England a little over 200 years ago, 3/4 of the world was in some kind of servitude. People were essentially enslaved all over the world, often by their own.
There is a good review of the book at this link by Michael O’Brien:
http://www.morgellons-disease-research.com/Morgellons-Message-Board/world-news/4561-new-president.html
Until the 60′s immigration in Canada and the U.S. was much more selective. And many of those immigrants were subject to very overt barriers. My family came from Sicily at the end of the 19th century. They were subject to overt discrimination in Toronto the Orange. Many of their friends were interned in WW11. My grandfather would have been, but for some tips from a friendly Irish cop who shopped in his little fruit store.
Once it opened up, it was on the basis that by merit, new communities who did not see themselves here in Canada – in the school teachers, in the justice system, in the politicians, in the workplace, … could still do fine. And they did. In fact because of certain cultural traditions and values, some communities outperformed the average Canadian born citizen. The percentage of some communities in elite professions is above average.
Those who argue that new Canadians should see themselves need to see themselves in major institutions like education, justice, health, politics … are actually practicing the very thinking that leads to discrimination, and it says they are different, they are stereotypable. Those who say that the schools must be culturally relevant to all the different communities, are saying the old bigots were right – these people are different – they can’t succeed in the Canadian culture.