Introduction
Canada’s society, originally formed of French and British population has known a considerable flux of immigrants in the late 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, when the two World Wars have stopped the immigration waves; immigration continued after this period and it is still very consistent nowadays (Burayidi, 1997). This immigration waves have led to various changes and transformation in the Canadian society, meant to include and integrate the various racial or ethnical groups, by offering cultural recognition to these groups, equal opportunities to employment and the limitation or elimination of racism and ethnic conflicts. All these under the umbrella of multiculturalism, viewed either as divisive or as unifying according to various social problems theories.
Paragraphs
In 1967 the first instrument was created for addressing the needs of the increasing immigrants – The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, which recognized the existing biculturalism and bilingualism in Canada, recommending further processes for developing Canadian Confederation for assuring equal partnership of the two founding countries (France and United Kingdom), while accounting for the contributions of the other ethnic groups towards the cultural enrichment of Canada (Burayidi, 1997).
In 1971 the country adopted the multiculturalism as an official policy, recognizing the equality of all citizens and ensuring that its citizens can conserve their identities and, sustaining and encouraging all Canadians to integrate and take part in the country’s social, cultural, economic or political life and guaranteeing by law its citizens’ equal opportunity, regardless of their race or ethnicity (“Canadian Multiculturalism”).
In 1988 the country was the first to issue a “Multiculturalism Act”, answering the changing needs of the Canadian society in four main points: “(i) to assist cultural and language preservation; (ii) to reduce ethnical/racial discrimination; (iii) to promote intercultural awareness and understanding; (iv) to promote culturally sensitive institutional change at the federal level;” (Burayidi, 1997, p. 99).
Other policies and programs for supporting multiculturalism have followed meant at embracing the cultural diversity of Canada, at strengthening the cultural retention or at supporting immigrants to integrate in the country’s institution, funding various groups for reaching the above mentioned goals (Burayidi, 1997).
For benefiting of the advantages of multiculturalism, ethnic groups required the acknowledgement of their cultural heritage by asking the introduction of their languages in the schooling system. As such, the Mennonite Association recommended that their language was established as the main language in this community’s schools, and French or English would be taught additionally, arguing that biculturalism is a stepping stone to multilingualism and multiculturalism (Haque, 2012).
Burayidi (1997) also observes that Canada’s government allowed for free expression of cultural affiliation by not establishing an official culture, and moreover it allowed groups to step out of the bilingualism system, becoming marginalized from major economic and political institutions.
However, this holds a great significance, because since there is no established culture and minority groups removed their participation from the mainstream economic and political institutions, they have chosen not to speak English and/or French, opting for their own language. This implies that multiculturalism, as practiced in Canada, leads to the divisions among ethnic groups, social segregation, being is unsupportive towards the national unity, as it does not promote sharing and cooperation, but rather it encourages isolation and marginalization (Burayidi, 1997).
Bloemraad (2006) also observe that when multiculturalism is exercised towards allowing separate schools for ethnic minorities (speaking their own language as the main language) leads more to segregation than to unity. According to critics, multiculturalism encourages the ghettoization, allowing generations and generations from various ethnic groups to be locked in ethnic community (Bloemraad, 2006; Buryiardi, 1997). However, Bloemraad (2006) offers precisely Canada’s example for the antidote of ghettoization, arguing that it has instituted common institutions (such as public schools), offering all its citizens mobility chances and elaborating universal public benefits, promoting the civic nationalism that is inclusive towards the foreigners.
For answering whether Canada becomes more divisive than unifying there should be further investigated several social problems theories and perspectives, such as the symbolic interactionism, functionalist, feminist conflict perspectives.
Symbolical interactionism perspective centers the significance of the self in the social interactions, stating that individuals’ action are being governed by their conception of themselves and that people tend to confirm the sense of self in the others’ perception about them (Turner, 2013). Ford (1999) states that symbolic interactionism finds its meaning in the arbitrary designation of people, for the symbolic meanings are constructed from and through experiences. In relation to multiculturalism, the author notes that these experiences and their symbolic meanings represent precisely the place where multiculturalism begins (Ford, 1999).
Viewing themselves based on the interactions with others relate to the idea of self-identity, which emphasizes a self – centered approach, rather than a multicultural one. Being concerned about how others perceive them, individuals adopt a multicultural approach. Ford (1999) observes that as people become interested in sharing their personal stories, finding interpersonal similarities, sharing emotions or individual experiences, there is developed “a common bond of interpersonal understanding” (p. 31).
On the other hand, Turner (2013) observes that as a consequence of the social interactionism individuals tend to commit to certain identities, as they are socially defined, producing behaviors to confirm the social views and definitions of those identities.
Taking the case of Canada, which is committed to multiculturalism and celebrates the cultural diversity, the ethnic groups that form this multicultural society tend to isolate themselves from the society, as it was previously explained in this essay. The Canadian society, therefore, acknowledges and promotes the awareness and understanding of cultural diversity, proposing like this social models and definitions for the various identities that construct this society. By creating these definitions of separated identities as a strategy for promoting multiculturalism, the symbolic interactionism perspective confirms that multiculturalism becomes more divisive than unifying in Canada.
The functionalist perspective states that society works based on an interconnected system, whose parts are integrated and work in harmony for maintaining social balance for the whole (Mooney, Knox & Schacht, 2007). According to this perspective, the multiculturalism exercised through allowing minorities to be trapped in the ghettoization phenomenon, acts against the principle of “unite all class, and all groups – whether majority or minority – around some singular ideas of national political culture” (Favel, 1998 in Vertovec, 2001, p. 5).
Burayidi (1997) observes that addressing immigrants in a uniform manner relates to functionalist perspective, which serves a monoculturalist perspective, as it emphasizes the natural interests over immigrants’ needs.
According to the functionalist perspective, which militates for the social unity through the participation and active involvement of all social or ethnic groups to the consolidation of the national unity, the multiculturalism exercised in Canada is dysfunctional (Mooney, Knox & Schact, 2007), hence, more divisive than unifying.
In the discussion regarding the multiculturalism in Canada the feminist perspective envisions the monocultural versus the multicultural approach towards the role of women in certain communities. While the communities centered on conserving their cultural heritage, isolating from the multicultural society and the rights and benefits that it proposes are more likely to maintain the patriarchal control and various traditional forms of transposing women into the shadow element behind her man, including domestic violence, the communities that seek to adjust to multiculturalism negotiate the woman’s role in society, making women equal social partners (Volpp, 2001). Because Canada is guaranteeing the social equality for all its citizens, the feminist perspective identifies a shared value – the women’s emancipation, which indicates that from this perspective, the multiculturalism is more unifying than divisive.
The conflict theory states that within a society the change is imminent and therefore a state of conflict between old and new, or between different social groups is permanent (Andreson & Taylor, 2011). In the context of multicultural societies, there is a conflict between creating a unified nation, through shared cultural/national identity, shared language, shared calendar, shared school curriculum, etc., and respecting the ethnic, isolated or marginalized ethnic groups (Mahajan, 2010). Canada ‘s multiculturalism disengages its population from a shared official culture, and lately it even allows for minority groups to use their own languages as their main language, making like this the official languages (English and French), which were previously mandatory, just optional. The conflict theory supports the fact that Canada’s multiculturalism is more divisive than unifying.
Conclusion
The policies created for supporting immigrants and for developing an integrated society, where various social and ethnic groups celebrate their differences actually underline a ghettoized society, because ethnic identities isolate themselves for the rest of the society for preserving their cultural heritage, without accepting the interaction with other ethnic or with the mainstream Canadian population. The symbolic interactionism perspective indicates that multiculturalism is more divisive than unifying because it defines various identities to which individuals commit, which is unsupportive for the national unity. From a functionalist perspective this situation is more divisive than unifying, as multiculturalism does not sustain the social unity. Conflict theory also finds multiculturalism more divisive than unifying, only feminist perspective finds that multiculturalism is unifying, as it gathers individuals who share the common value of emancipating the woman. In conclusion, Canada is the land of multiculturalism at the cost of a unified society.
References
Anderson, M., L. & Taylor, H., F. (2011) Sociology: the essentials, 7th eds. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Bloemraad, I. (2006) Becoming citizen. London: University of California Press.
Burayidi, M., A. (1997) Multiculturalism in a cross – national perspective. Maryland: University Press of America, Inc.
Canadian multiculturalism: an inclusive citizenship. (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/multiculturalism/citizenship.asp.
Ford, T. (1999) Becoming multicultural: personal and social construction through critical teaching. New York: Falmer Press.
Haque, E. (2012) Multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mahajan, G. (2010) “Responding to identity conflicts: multiculturalism and the pursuit of peaceful co-existence” Peace Prints: South Asian Journal of Peacebuilding. No. 3, vol. 2, pp. 1- 10.
Mooney, Knox & Schacht (2007) “The three main sociological perspectives” Understanding Social Problems. 5th eds.
Turner, J., H. (2013) Contemporary sociological theory. Riverside: University of California.
Vertovec, S. (2001) Transnational challenges of the “new” multiculturalism. Oxfrod: University of Oxford.
Volpp, L. (2001) “Feminism versus multiculturalism” Columbia Law Review. Vol. 101, n0. 5, pp. 1181 – 1218.
