Cultural Protection and Diversity -- Reading Journal #2

When the term cultural protection is mentioned, two countries come immediately to my mind: Canada and France. Both countries have a fear of losing their cultural identities to americanization and, for France, anglicization.  With this fear of losing their national identity, it is interesting to see how each country is dealing with the increasing cultural diversity within their borders. Despite their shared concern for protecting their own cultures, each country has taken a radically different approach to managing diversity. I believe that each country has taken the most logical and efficient stance on managing diversity for their respective social and historical situations. In this reflection, I will discuss the style of managing diversity that each country practices, followed by why I believe it is the best option. 

After reading Eva Mackey’s (2002) article, it is evident Canada takes the multicultural approach to managing diversity. This approach allows the public expression of culture all the while not tolerating discrimination against these differences (Mackey, 2002, p.63-64). Multiculturalism works with the understanding that shared tolerance of differences will be the glue that holds a diverse society together. I believe that it is this understanding that makes multiculturalism the right approach for Canada.

Since the first encounters of the French, British and First Nations, Canada’s history has been shaped by a plurality of views and cultures. Aside from this preconditioning to diversity, Canada was also in a favourable position for adopting the multiculturalism approach. Canada was barely a century old when cultural diversity truly became an issue in the 1960s and 1970s. Because of its youth, Canada was still trying to find its identity.  Without an entrenched national identity, Canada was open to redefining itself. By adopting multiculturalism as Canada’s stance on diversity, it essentially built its own unique identity by embracing the plurality of cultures already present in the country (Mackey, 2002). To this day, Canadians will often cite multiculturalism as a defining characteristic of the Canadian identity.

Multiculturalism is the best approach to managing diversity in Canada for political reasons as well. Throughout the country’s history, cultural differences have been tangible threats to national unity. Between Quebec separatism and First Nations movements, Canada needs an approach to please all cultural communities and retain a cohesive Canada. By acknowledging the different needs and priorities of minority communities and by encouraging them to participate in the wider Canadian community, multiculturalism seems to be the perfect solution. An obvious example of how this has worked out for Canada is the status of French-Canadian culture.  I believe that multiculturalism’s flexibility is an important factor in why Quebec is still a province and why Canadians across the country have the opportunity to learn and practice French. 

While multiculturalism works for Canada, the same cannot be said for France. When new immigration laws and mass-decolonization in the post-war years increased cultural diversity in countries across the globe, France was not in the same social or historical position as Canada. For this reason, France adopted a different, more suitable approach to managing diversity for its own unique social situation.

France’s approach to diversity management is described by Laborde (2001) as republican and universalist. The republican model focuses on civic duty which includes the universalist ideal of having one common culture within the public sphere. While individuals are permitted to celebrate their cultural traditions in private, they must adopt the common French culture in public areas such as school, the workplace and in civic participation (Laborde, 2001).

Like many countries in Europe, France is an established nation with a long and tumultuous history. Unlike Canada which has always depended on immigration, the majority of France’s citizens are of French ancestry and thus share the distinct French culture.  Because of this entrenched and well-defined culture, I believe it would have been difficult for French society to accept the notion of multiculturalism. Instead, to protect the national identity and accommodate diversity, France applies the familiar values of republicanism to cultural diversity within the country.
 
Since the French Revolution over 200 years ago, French society has lived by the republican values of liberté, égalité and fraternité (Laborde, 2001, p718).   These values emphasize the importance of an efficient and productive public sphere where rational individuals may participate as equals. In order for this ideal to be upheld, personal differences such as religion and culture must be left in the private sphere. I do not believe that France’s adoption of the republican model is directly meant to stifle cultural diversity, but to create a level playing field where all individuals have equal opportunity to participate regardless of their background.

As this reflection has demonstrated, France and Canada have taken very different approaches to managing diversity within their borders. While France chose to use its traditional republican values to accommodate citizens of different backgrounds, Canada adopted a new set of values based on embracing the population’s multiculturalism. It can be debated which approach is “best” overall, but I believe that each country takes the approach that is most appropriate for their histories and their need to protect national identity.

References

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.

Laborde, Cécile. (2001). The culture(s) of the republic: nationalism and multiculturalism in French republican thought. Political Theory. 29(5), pp.716-35.

Photo Credit: http://www.crossed-flag-pins.com/Friendship-Pins/France/Flag-Pins-France-Canada.html