A Response to Neil Bissoondath’s Illusions

A Response to Neil Bissoondath sIllusions The publication of Neil Bissoondath's book Selling Illusions has heated the debate over multiculturalism. Bissoondath 's position is unmistakable: multiculturalism creates uneasiness "on many levels, transforming people into political tools and turning historical distinctions into stereotyped commodities. It encourages exoticism, highlighting the differences that divide Canadians rather than the similarities that unite them."' Though some of Bissoondath's criticism certainly holds true, these allegations are quite alarming. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that Mr. Bissoondath's own status as a "person of colour," a first generation immigrant, and a well-established writer makes his arguments particularly persuasive. Narratives like bis, however, need close scrutiny for two reasons: first, while depicting a nation nearly poisoned by multiculturalism, Bissoondath's own story, a strong case of individual agency, contradicts bis allegation of the damaging effects of multiculturalism. Second, exalted by bis identity and celebrity status, such narratives acquire a certain "homogenizing (or begemonizing) effect''; namely, they come to represent the voice of immigrants or "people of colour." If the contradiction between Bissoondath's own story of socio-cultural integration and bis bleak estimation of multiculturalism demands a critical deconstruction, as a "person of colour" and a first-generation immigrant, I feel a need to respond to his book by bringing into the debate other positions on and experiences of immigration. I am aware of the existing theoretical "artilleries" of discourses of (anti-) multiculturalism but have no intention of getting deeply involved in a scholarly debate. Rather, I wish simply to speak out as an "uninformed" individual and make my position clear. Multiculturalism means two things to me: first, a government policy, and second, an ideal about equity - the acceptance of 130 cultural differences and the negation of Eurocentrism. My attitude toward multiculturalism as policy is not entirely affirmative or negative, yet I wholeheartedly support multiculturalism as an ideal. I believe that as a state policy, multiculturalism needs to be reworked but not abandoned, and that even as a naive philosophy, multiculturalism should have a place in Canadian life. The major arguments against multiculturalism , all reinvoked by Bissoondath, are as follows: first, multiculturalism divides and gbettoizes us. Second, "multiculturalism emphasizes the past, the former or ancestral homeland, insisting there is more important than here." It bas produced a "heightened sense of ethnicity" and "divided loyalty." Third, it is in some other critics's words a colonial project imposed upon us by the state. A statist multiculturalism that encourages ethnicity and reproduces racial/ethnic stereotypes, in Bissoondath's view, keeps us "divided and therefore conquered." Fourth, a multicultural society sounds good, but does not work in practice. To achieve national unity individuals should be Canadians first. The allegation that multiculturalism ghettoizes and divides us has been repeated so frequently that it bas come to constitute our perceptions of Canadian realities (let's not forget Hitler's infamous propaganda strategy: a lie becomes a truth after being repeated a thousand times). "People say multiculturalism divides us. Maybe that's true." Such remarks have appeared quite a number of times in my conversation with friends and acquaintances . The cloud encircling multiculturalism makes me realize that discourses of (anti-)multiculturalism are very much part of the explosion of signs in postmodern society, and as a result, the line between the real and the hyperreal bas become blurred. As part of the byperreal, that multiculturalism ghettoizes baffles yet persuades many of us. Such an allegation only works at the expense of history. Indeed, anyone who has some historical knowledge of racial and ethnic relations in Canada should Revue d'etudes canadiennes know that division and ghettoization existed in Canada long before the ideal of multiculturalism was promoted and implemented as a government policy. Ghettoization and segregation were far more serious in the past; take, for instance, Chinatown and its peculiar bachelor society, and the fact that at the beginning of this century co-workers would not even sit to have lunch with a new immigrant from Italy. Historically, people were divided and ghettoized precisely because some believed that they, as members of a certain race or ethnicity, were superior to others. A hierarchy of race/ethnicity, in my understanding, is what...