TITLE: 26 YEARS LATER Reappraising Multiculturalism AUTHOR: AUGIE FLERAS ABSTRACT: Professor of Sociology-University of Waterloo-currently in New Zealand, specializes in Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada and New Zealand. His most recently published books(with Jean Leonard Elliott) include- Unequal Relations: An Introduction to Race & Ethnic Dynamics, 1991; Multiculturalism in Canada: the Challenge of Diversity, 1992; Social Problems in Canada: Issues and Challenges, 1995 (with E.D. Nelson). ARTICLE:

Twenty six years ago, on October 8, 1971, Canada was officially proclaimed a multicultural society - a proclamation that gleaned remarkably little publicity at the time but whose significance for better or worse has been immeasurable. From its inception at a Liberal Party rally in Winnipeg and subsequent all-party agreement in Parliament, federal (or official) multiculturalism has revolved around three objectives: ethnic identity, social equality, and national interests. An initial emphasis on “celebrating differences” eventually gave way to a concern over “managing diversity” during the 1980’s, with current trends aimed at fostering citizenship and belonging. Even today, notwithstanding developments in Australia and New Zealand to a lesser extent, Canada remains the world’s first and only official multiculturalism following passage of the Multicultural Act in 1988 and its entrenchment in the Constitution Act of 1982.

Despite its centrality in bolstering Canada’s reputation as a relatively open and tolerant society, few government initiatives have proven more susceptible to myths and misconceptions than multiculturalism. Contrary to popular belief, federal multiculturalism never sought to promote “minorities” or celebrate “differences”. Official multiculturalism was charged primarily with creating a unified and ‘distinct society’ through the incorporation of differences as legitimate and integral without diminishing either the inter-connectedness of the parts or the individuality of the constituent components in the process. Nor could multiculturalism be construed as an excuse for condoning an ‘anything goes’ approach. The early architects made it abundantly clear that diversity was tolerable as long as differences conformed with core values, respected individual rights, and upheld the laws of the land. While individuals were given the right to identity with the cultural tradition of their choice, the same option was not extended to ethnocultural groups for fear of establishing separate communities with competing power bases. In short, multiculturalism originated as a politically disingenous act to achieve political goals (“de-politicize” ethnicity) in as electorally expedient a manner as possible. That political dimension prevails into the present - for better or for worse.

Multiculturalism has fallen on hard times in recent years, in part because of fiscal restraints, in other part because of shifting political priorities. Although its profile pales by comparison with sovereigntist agendas, it would be premature to discard multiculturalism from Canada’s society-building aspirations. Multiculturalism does not pose a threat to Canadian survival, despite claims to the contrary. The identity politics of the First Nations and the Quebecois are likely to see to that first. Multicultural minorities are not threatening to partition Canada, much less hold its sovereignty to ransom - an observation inadvertently conceded by the former Quebec Premier with his intemperate reference to the “ethnic vote” as responsible for

the outcome of the 1995 referendum. Put bluntly,

multiculturalism is neither divisive nor separatist. Pluralism is divisive only when shorn of common vision or shared purpose. With multiculturalism, a commitment to “agree to disagree“ within reasonable limits is promulgated that bodes well for navigating the slippery shoals of a post-assimilationist Canada.

How do we assess twenty six years of multiculturalism? Has it proven of benefit to Canada or has it detracted our Canada’s society-building potential? What criteria can justify a response? There is no question of a gap between lofty ideals and the realities of implementation in a country that has aspired to multicultural goals but without wholesale success. Yet even this slippage between platitudes and practice cannot detract from the moral authority of multiculturalism in fostering a platform for articulating minority grievances at odds with official policy. Official multiculturalism not only legitimated a political ideal of “unity-within-diversity”. It also established political space for diversity to flourish while equipping minority women and men with the levers of power for progressive social change. It is too easy (and simplistic) to deplore the manipulation of multiculturalism as a device to distract, appease, or co-opt - even as racial and ethnic minorities have astutely seized on the utility and appeal of multicultural “rights” (rather than mainstream obligations) as a basis for rethinking conventions pertaining to equality and entitlement (i.e. who gets what, and why). Nevertheless, such co-optation has proven a dangerous game for power-holders since the powerless have a habit of inverting the tools for controlling them to fashion the means for their empowerment. Multiculturalism may be coercive or palliative in other words; it also is responsive and reflexive with a double-edged capacity to empower or transform.

What is required in any evaluation is a sense of perspective or proportion. Multiculturalism is neither the source nor solution to many of Canada’s entrenched problems. It is neither the evil that many demonize it to be, nor the quintessential Canadian good extolled by others. Instead of thinking in terms of specific accomplishments or practical goals, multiculturalism is properly envisaged as a bold, if somewhat flawed social experiment in society building. In contrast with the assimilationist silences of the past, multiculturalism offers a “paradigm shift” for re-imagining how substantive issues related to minority-society relations can be conceived, constructed, expressed, challenged, or transformed. By cobbling together a social consensus conductive to accommodating diversity, multiculturalism has reaffirmed Canada’s reputation as pacesetter in the management of diversity. Canada may not be perfect by any stretch of the imagination: But with multiculturalism in the foreground, it may well claim to be one of world’s least imperfect countries.

This article was originally published in Cross Cultures Magazine in Volume 7 - Issue 1 - 1997. Unauthorized copying, distribution or other usage without express written permission of the publisher is prohibited.