Throughout this course, a main focus has been the status of multiculturalism in Canada. While multiculturalism is often viewed positively by Canadians, closer inspection shows that Canada is not nearly as accepting of diversity as it appears. Wendy Brown’s (2006) analysis of the effects of tolerance discourse supports this less-than-ideal reality. Beginning with the actual pejorative connotations of the word, tolerance discourse has actually contributed to the inequality of the distribution of power in Canadian society.
To introduce the idea of tolerance, Brown (2006) uses the Oxford English Dictionary definition. Rooted in the Latin tolerare, tolerance means to “endure”, to “license” and to “indulge” a burden (Brown, 2006, p.25-26). This definition implies that “tolerance entails suffering something one would rather not, but being positioned socially such that one can determine whether and how to suffer it, what one will allow from it,” (Brown, 2006, p.26). With a definition such as this, it is interesting to see the effects that messages of tolerance have on the overall application of multiculturalism in Canada.
When multiculturalism was first adopted in Canada, it was with the intention of bringing the diverse communities within the country together to create a unique and cohesive Canadian society (Mackey, 2002, p.56). However, this ideal needed to be taught and enforced among Canadians. This education is accomplished with government and public messages of tolerance for differences such as religion, ethnicity, and nationality. While the intentions of teaching tolerance through public discourse were noble, the efforts have had a negative effect on the public’s perception of diversity in Canada. Instead of teaching the public to view Canada as a diverse whole, tolerance imposes an “us” and “them” mentality, thereby exaggerating the divides between the various communities inhabiting the country. For example, it is my belief that established Canadians — especially those of European descent — view immigrants of various backgrounds as outsiders, even once they have their citizenship. Instead of just accepting new Canadians as equals, they are viewed as a group to be tolerated within the country.
Aside from simply creating divisions between Canadians, messages of tolerance also promote the regulation of society and the existence of inequalities in power. As the definition explains, tolerance establishes the different and unequal roles of the tolerating and the tolerated. Due to their long history in Canada, established citizens of European descent feel that they are the “true” Canadians, which entitles them to the position of tolerating everyone else. Thus, refugees, permanent residents and new Canadians are the individuals to be tolerated. Being the tolerated implies being unwanted, and this feeling furthers the divides between the various cultures instead of unifying Canadians. As a result of not feeling wholly accepted or wanted, new Canadians are often in more vulnerable positions (i.e. poorer, more likely to be under-educated and under-employed) than other Canadians (Mackey, 2002).
Being the tolerated also implies that these individuals must change their actions and attitudes in order to be accepted by the majority (i.e. Canadians of European descent). Brown (2006) uses Foucault’s idea of bio-power to explain the power dynamics that tolerance discourse contributes to the further control and regulation of society (p.42). The majority — those who govern and therefore are in a position to tolerate — establish the ideal of what their society should be and how it should function. As a result, the minority — those who are new to or different from the norm and must be tolerated — is made to feel that they must conform to the ideal in order to benefit from being an integrated part of the society. Therefore, in Canada, tolerance effectively forces new Canadians to conform to this ideal in order to gain power, thus creating a more homogenous society and diminishing the need to enforce multiculturalism.
Overall, Canadian tolerance discourse is harming, as opposed to supporting multiculturalism and the acceptance of diversity in the country. While messages of tolerance were created with good intentions, they effectively entrenched divisions among Canadians — tolerance has become the cause and cure for diversity in the country (Brown, 2006, p.45). But the question remains: what of the ideal multiculturalism for Canada? I believe that a discourse of acceptance will need to replace messages of tolerance in order for the ideal multiculturalism to emerge.
References
Brown, W. (2006). Tolerance as a Discourse of Power. In Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire (pp.25-47). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mackey, Eva. (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.
it seems that it may have been a mistake in the first place to attribute multiculturalism and tolerance. The way it seems to be explained here (and many other places i have seen) is that people who already live here (the tolerant ones) have to sacrifice our own comfort while other cultures go about their business getting used to living here. I am by no means against immigration or multiculturalism, but I do firmly believe that to really be multicultural there has to be some tolerant behaviour from all parties. After all, and not to sound like a jerk, we were here first...
ReplyDeleteThe division of the multicultural issue is one that has been overlooked for too long. Its a shame a person can't openly be opposed to the policy without being accused of being "racist" or a "bigot" considering it seems that people more then ever are questioning its place in Canada. Due to this stigma, the true feelings of many Canadians are being neglected.
ReplyDeleteI can't help but wonder however if telling people to accept multiculturism rather then tolerating it is the right way to go. To tolerate something means that you will put up with it, but by no means approve of it. However, to begin telling the population that they must accept multiculturalism seems almost force full simular to telling people they must accept traffic laws. By using more hardlined language to tell Canadians at a time when multiculturalism has never been more in question, it may be taken in a direction that suggests that their oppinions are not being taken into account.
With this in mind perhaps its time that the question of whether or not the multicultural policy should be done away with should be brought into the public eyes. In the past we have addressed such problems during elections (I'm thinking of the time we addressed if we should continue the first past the post system). By addressing the public directly in this mannor not only would we get the true oppinion of the population, but also gauge on how ready we are to terminate the policy.
What do people mean by statements such as "Canadians are no longer favourable to multiculturalism"? Do you mean a set of policies, do you mean racial diversity, do you mean public displays of "difference"?
ReplyDeleteWhite Canadians have a long history of being against racial diversity, and specifically, against the mobility and equality-seeking efforts of people of colour. So, this new phenomena hardly seems new. It might just be expressed differently.
My ancestors have been in Canada for nearly 400 years (365 years to be exact) and it still strikes me as totally ridiculous for white Canadians to claim they were here first, and thus, they should get to decide what happens here. That's utterly absurd. The first person of African descent in "Canada" was on Samuel de Champlain's ship, there were African slaves in New France throughout the 17th and especially 18th centuries; Chinese folks arrived in the middle of the 19th, as did Sikh loggers in BC; not to mention the Japanese settlers who arrived at the same time around the mid 19th century; oh, and the first Jews who arrived in Québec City in the very early 18th century, etc, etc, etc. And let's not say anything about indigenous peoples, because if it was really about who came first, then we would have a radically different governance structure, one I would favour (and one that was called for in the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples final report in 1996 - i.e., with a separate Aboriginal parliament).
So, tell me again, who was here first? Or is that fantasy built around some idea of white superiority, the same one the author seems to want us all to reflect on?