Deep Cultural Diversity: A Governance Challenge

Chapter 3 Political Philosophy of Multiculturalism

Political Philosophy of Multiculturalism Diversity . . . enshrines certain kinds of factionalism as a universal good,just like liberty and equality.—Peter Wood The purpose of this chapter is not to survey the history of multiculturalism, nor to critically evaluate it, but to try to put in place a framework for strategic analysis of the Canadian scene. It aims to do this on the basis of a few distinctions and some of the learning that has been accumulated in Canada and elsewhere along the way, in order to ascertain roughly what plausible scenarios might be envisaged now that pluralism, as traditionally conceived, has given way to multiculturalism. Pluralism was for a long time an approach that pertained to three groups in Canada, defined by having either British, French or Aboriginal heritage. It would not be unfair to say that governing relations among them was difficult. Their deep cultural diversity did not lead to outright formal war or apartheid, but there was something of both in their intercultural relations. However, the significant waves of migration into Canada from all continents over especially the past fifty years have made the pluralist equation much more complex. Polyethnicity has become a reality now that more than ten million Canadians, out of a total population of around thirty million, are not from any of the three "founding peoples." Multiculturalism, as an idea and a policy, was at first an innocuous symbolic gesture that emerged as an unintended consequence of the call by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, in its final report (1969), for a refurbishment of the status of the FrenchCanadian community. This forced the Liberal government of the day to provide some greater recognition for the other minorities as well. What might have been originally nothing more than an electoral ploy, ANALYZING DIVERSITY 39 3 or a cynical attempt to get beyond the inconvenient"foundingnations" setting by shifting from a world of the few to a world of the many, then mushroomed into a public philosophy about nation-building. The media and the clerisy of opinion-moulders in these other ethnic groups played key roles in this process. The other ethnic Canadians who did not find their roots among the three "founding peoples" were bombarded with rhetoric exalting the irreducible differences between the points of view of those peoples and their own. These other Canadians were understandably bamboozled when they heard representatives of Quebec affirm the right to secede for fear of cultural cross-breeding, while representatives of English Canada demanded centralization in the name of egalitarianism and a fraternal duty to protect the rights of individuals belonging to threatened minority groups in Quebec (Robin, 1989; Buchanan, 1991). These wars did not make much sense to them, and generated considerable unease, which in turn generated lobbying. The notion of a Canadian cultural mosaic came to be more and more solidly implanted in the Canadian psyche as a much more apt metaphor, for all concerned, than the original triad was. A Framework for Strategic Analysis In the world of intercultural relations there are two playing fields. The first-order reality is the "material order," the flows of material resources generated under different technical, legal, social, political or economic arrangements.While there are no simple and unambiguous indicators of the ensuing welfare levels for the different communities, or of the economic surplus generated by certain agreed arrangements, the debates, speculations, and discords in this field are mainly about the production, allocation, and distribution of material and financial resources. Analysts chiefly search for technical-legal arrangements or rearrangements likely to maximize the overall welfare level, or the economic or financial surplus, and to ensure that it is not too unfairly distributed. The second-order reality is the "symbolic order," the images of, and the conversations about, the material order or some features derived more or less clearly from it. It underpins decisions by different social actors, not only to act in certain ways, but to value goods or agency differently. Myths and values play an important role in shaping the representations and perceptions of social actors. While the symbolic 40 DEEP CULTURALDIVERSITY order may be boldly presumed by some to be a simple mirror image of the terrain of realities, this is most unlikely.Assumptions are boldly and often wrongly asserted, and distortions, generalizations, varying emphases, and sheer fantasizing are omnipresent in the construction of these representations. Action by the different stakeholders is often triggered...