Search Results
Abstract
This chapter puts Canada’s multiculturalism to the test by examining the politics of application. After all, it’s one thing to pay lip service to the ideals of multiculturalism; it may be quite another to put these principles into practice in ways workable, necessary, and fair. Unlike the discussion in chapter 4 on the application of multiculturalism as a Canadian practice, chapter content is directed at debating the concept of institutional inclusiveness in terms of what it means, how it’s expressed, and those barriers that preclude its expression. The chapter also deconstructs the concept of inclusiveness, compares the subset of inclusion (fitting into the system) to that of inclusivity (refitting the system), and demonstrates their mutually reinforcing relationship. A discussion of multicultural education and anti-racism schooling draws attention to the challenges of transitioning multicultural principles into institutional practices. The controversy over Black-focus schools in Toronto provides a detailed look at how the politics of inclusiveness play out.
Abstract
Chapter 7 puts multiculturalism under the microscope by assessing how it is played out the level of positive and critical attitudes, costs and benefits, and successes and failures. The chapter makes it abundantly clear. When it comes to assessing an official multiculturalism, it’s not a case of either/or but one of both/and since it’s impossible to have benefits without costs, successes without failures, and attitudes without criticism. The chapter also delves into why criticism of Canadian multiculturalism that prevails outside academic circles (Chazan et al. 2011; Duchesne 2017) has made little headway in gaining political traction or stoking public appeal. An evaluation of Canadian attitudes toward multiculturalism draws on a series of national surveys. To date, survey data suggest Canadians are generally supportive of an official multiculturalism, at least in principle if not always in practice; nevertheless, this support is conditional and comes with strings attached. The chapter also acknowledges that Canadians are largely uninformed about the logic of an official multiculturalism relying, instead, on dated assumptions, caricaturized versions, and uncritical applications adopted from the European theatre. Not surprisingly, criticism of multiculturalism tends to be sufficiently polarized along partisan lines as to preclude any balanced assessment (Duchesne 2017; also ).
Abstract
Chapter 8 examines the fraught relationship between multiculturalism and the politics of culturalism. Debates over the nature and scope of culturalism implicit within multiculturalism discourses attest to the complexities in assessing whether cultures matter, including how and why, where and when (also Henrich 2020). The chapter acknowledges how the culturalism in multiculturalism tends to frame culture and cultural differences in ways misleading, contrary to human rights, and at odds with the more complex and fluid realities of a world in disarray. It also demonstrates how reference to culturalism may undermine women’s gender equality rights, especially in those multicultural jurisdictions that endorse the principle of group specific cultural rights. The chapter concludes with an extended look at the controversies that shape the cultural appropriation debate. Any assessment as to the in/appropriateness of cultural appropriation depends on the frame of reference employed. But conceptualizing cultural appropriation as a form of microaggression provides one option in responding to “who has the final say”.
Abstract
The ninth chapter looks at the complexities of accommodating religious diversity in a multicultural and secular Canada. Moves to accommodate religious diversities in a Canada that claims to be secular are shown to be riddled with ambiguities, in part because of (a) conflicting notions over the relational status of religion in a nominally secular Canada, (b) ongoing disputes over the concept of reasonable accommodation within the context of balancing competing rights (Narain 2018) and (c) the place of religious diversities and faith-based minorities in the public domain. To the extent that multicultural domains are under pressure to incorporate religious pluralism into a predominantly secular context, debates tend to focus on accommodating multi-religiosity in ways that are respectful, advance genuine equality, and promote social cohesion. Discursive shifts in how we think, talk, and do religiosity in a postsecular world offer the possibility of a reset in the relationship between multicultural Canada and public religion.
Abstract
This chapter acknowledges the necessity for rethinking multiculturalism in a rapidly changing, increasingly diverse, highly mobile, and networked world. In conceding the possibility that, after 50 years of multiculturalism, it may be time to move on, the chapter demonstrates how an official multiculturalism may be tottering on the brink of a legitimacy crisis in terms of identity (what it is) and confidence (what should it be doing). Such an observation raises the question of whether multiculturalism as diversity governance remains a viable option for living together differently in a world of “posts”, “trans”, and “isms”. It also prompts the issue of whether multiculturalism can be recalibrated to engage those realities and expectations that few foresaw a half century ago (Kymlicka 2014). Or is it time for a “hard reset” along more fundamental lines based on the idea and the ideals of postmulticulturalism. In that we no longer live in a multicultural world but in a postmulticultural world of emerging realities and evolving demands, this chapter explores the possibility of a new governance mindset that builds on the positives of an official multiculturalism yet moves positively forward toward a multiculturalism 2.0.
Abstract
Chapter 11 demonstrates the worth of applying a postmulticultural lens in advancing a multicultural governance for the times. Just as Canada is arguably more grounded in a postmulticultural world rather than multicultural one, so too is Canada as a nation-state increasingly more self-conscious of its postnational status because of shifting notions in how we see, think, and talk about Canada and being Canadian. The chapter capitalizes on this trajectory by speculating on the future of Canadian multiculturalism against the backdrop of postnational/postmulticultural nexus. The crux of the chapter addresses a governance dilemma: “What is the point of an official multiculturalism as a bounded and place-based model of diversity governance and national citizenship when migrant notions of identity and belonging are increasingly untethered from the boundedness of static identities and homogenous national spaces” ()? Responses vary: some point to the growing irrelevance of an official multiculturalism in an increasingly unbounded world; others believe a world of mobility ups the ante for a grounded multiculturalism as an anchor of stability; still others (Latham 2007) promote the value of drawing on yet moving positively beyond multiculturalism by incorporating a different package of governance assumptions and conceptual tools. The chapter re-assesses the value of Canada’s official multiculturalism by offering a new set of principles with which to live by consistent with the evolving realities and emergent demands of a postmulticultural world.