Reading Journal #3 -- Manifestations of Multiculturalism

            Last class, we read an article by Hartmann & Gerteis (2005) in which they describe four ideal types of multiculturalism. While the article gives an excellent overview of different approaches, it really does not consider the real world manifestations of multiculturalism. As is to be expected, the real world is too complicated to fit perfectly into ideal types. In fact, in Canada alone, a combination of these ideal types can be found. From government discourse to individual perceptions of multiculturalism, there are many different perceptions of how multiculturalism is within Canada.

Multiculturalism, according to how the German Government sees it, is a failure. 

            In Canada, multiculturalism is a social policy that holds that minority communities are integral contributors to Canadian society.  According to Hartmann & Gerteis (2005), the government’s view of multiculturalism could be described as interactive pluralism (p.231). This ideal type describes multiculturalism as diverse communities that come together and cooperate to create a new whole. This perception of multiculturalism within the Government of Canada stems from the “biculturalism” approach to reconcile the French and English communities in the 1960s (Mackey, 2002, p.54). Since then, multiculturalism as the cooperation between communities for the benefit of Canada has dominated the discourse about the topic.

Traditional Indonesian dancers perform at the Tulip Festival

            Manifestations of multiculturalism in Canada are more complicated than the government’s ideal interactive pluralism. While assimilationism, also known as the melting-pot, is typically associated with the American approach to multiculturalism, I believe it is also present within Canada (Hartmann & Gerteis, 2005, p.226). To a certain extent, new Canadians are expected to conform to the rest of society. For example, during the citizenship ceremony, new Canadians must swear to uphold Canadian values and responsibilities. Despite this assimilationist aspect, multiculturalism in Canada is typically more liberal and accepting of expressing cultural diversity. However, this expression of cultural diversity is manifested to varying degrees among Canadians.

            Compromising between Canadian and cultural identities can be difficult, especially for new Canadians. Through discussions with friends and by reading about personal experiences, I believe that adult first generation Canadians view multiculturalism as an “us” and “them” situation. Hartmann & Gerteis (2005) describe this as fragmented pluralism, meaning that individuals have strong ties to their cultural community but that there is very little interaction between these unique communities (p.229). Some first generation Canadians may acquire this view because they associate more easily and frequently with churches, businesses and neighbourhoods that are closely related to the cultural community. While this may be the case with adults, second generation Canadians and young new Canadians may have a more cosmopolitan view of multiculturalism in Canada.

Toronto's Chinatown

     

       According to Hartmann & Gerteis (2005), cosmopolitan multiculturalism recognizes and tolerates cultural differences but does not attribute any special status to cultural communities (p.228). Instead, it is based on individual choice to identify with both their cultural heritage and national citizenship. I believe that most second (or more) generation Canadians identify more with this form of multiculturalism. For example, many of my friends self-identify as Scottish-Canadian, Irish-Canadian, Korean-Canadian or German-Canadian, etc.  While they are proud of their cultural heritage and often celebrate it, they do not expect special treatment within the Canadian context because of their culture.

            Finally, this raises the question of why there are so many different views of the multiculturalism in Canada. Personally, I think it has a lot to do with each person’s own experiences. For me, since I have no strong cultural heritage, I view multiculturalism as a mix between interactive pluralism — as demonstrated at multicultural celebrations — and cosmopolitanism due to the influence of my friends.  As for the generation gap between first generation Canadians and those who grew up in the country, I think it has a lot to do with each generation’s experiences in the country.

            For example, first generation Canadians may experience difficulty finding acceptance by other Canadians. This experience may further encourage the “us” and “them” perception of fragmented pluralism. The children of first generation Canadians, however, have the opportunity to socialize with fellow Canadians of all backgrounds at school. From this experience, Canadians that grow up in the country may learn to appreciate their culture all the while being encouraged to be a part of the greater Canadian society.
     
       Overall, there are many ways of perceiving multiculturalism. While the four ideal types presented by Hartmann & Gerteis (2005) provide great descriptions of the various manifestations of multiculturalism, they remain mere templates. In reality, multiculturalism is much more complex and its definition depends largely on the individuals experiencing it.

References

Hartmann, D, & Gerteis, J. (2005). Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in Sociological Terms. Sociological Theory, 23(2), pp.218-240.

Mackey, E. (2002). Managing the House of Difference: Official Multiculturalism. In The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada (pp.50-70). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Photo Credit:http://aps.indonesia-ottawa.org/picgallery/bigimage.php?cid=228&c=Tulip%20Festival%202009_155.JPG&page=1