Diversity Is Great, But What’s A Canadian?

April 3 2008 by The Systemic Analyst.

There was a lot of buzz in the media this morning around Canada’s growing diversity. A lot of hype, but few questions and serious analyses. Our eagerness to splash statistics attesting to our changing social fabric without assessment of what these figures mean is but another example of an inability in Canada to think critically and strategically. It’s as if an issue arises and we, as a result of the lenses we are told to look through, become timid, subdued and afraid to ask any questions for fear of being perceived as against the mainstream. Prevailing mentalities in this country are so strong that we have successfully quashed any chance of engaging each other in much needed dialogue about the future of this country. Case in point - in the context of diversity why isn’t anyone asking about the future of Canadian identity?

Analysing diversity beyond how it is increased or better manifested in the workplace seems to be patently un-Canadian. We’re told that, as Canadians, we are a nice people, an accepting people. Indeed, I would venture so far as to say that we are a tolerant people. Little analysis, however, has been done as to whether this tolerance was bred from a genuine understanding for the things and people of which we are accepting or from a slow suffocation of unsavoury opinions and biases that far from having been eradicated seethe somewhere beneath the surface. It’s an ugly question and we, nice Canadians, don’t seem to be willing to entertain it.

It’s likely that we arrived at our current tolerance through a mix of both approaches, but our fear of analysing the way in which we did come to it renders us mute, unable to tackle any wider issues associated with accommodation.

Although there was much talk today about the considerable increase in visible minorities, there was startlingly little discourse on how immigration impacts a greater sense of Canadian identity and thus community. No one seemed prepared to ask how the 1,109,980 people who immigrated to Canada between 2001 and 2006 integrated into Canadian society. Sure, there is concern over discrimination of the 83.9% of those immigrants who are from “non-European countries”, but there is little consideration of what is being done by immigrants to reach out to the rest of Canada. It’s as if we have developed a mentality that the smaller group is by default a victim and, as a result, the larger group is responsible alone for accommodation - so much so that asking many questions has become unacceptable.

Another reason why questions aren’t being asked is because in recent years there hasn’t been a problem. Many Diasporas already have established communities into which new immigrants are absorbed. (Brampton is perhaps the poster-city for such settlement.) Integration becomes a non-issue; migrants are essentially just moving from country to country while remaining in the same wider community. What sort of impact does this “enclaving” have on the wider Canadian community? Does the sense of community fostered in ethnic enclaves overshadow that which should be forged as a country? Could the network maintained by ethnic communities across borders (for example a group spread across Canada, the U.S., the U.K and South Asia) impact national interests and if so, how? Are we moving towards creating a ‘global identity’ where borders don’t matter anymore? By the way, with increasing global communications and examples offered by regional supra-national bodies such the European Union where a ‘European identity’ is being forged as we speak, the latter proposition is no longer a matter of vision but reality.

If, however, we’re still talking about a ‘Canadian identity’ then the subject must be addressed head on. What does Canadian identity actually mean and what purpose does the notion serve? If it is meant to define a group of people as ‘something that we are’, then it has to include a clear articulation of what do we, as a community, stand for and represent, which inevitably connects with a wider question: what are our interests? A clear articulation of this will provide the best indication, locally and globally, of what Canada is all about. It will also serve as the best indicator of what Canada can offer to the wider world. If the notion is meant to define a group as ‘something that we are not’, then the on-going debate in Canada about how different we are (or not) from our neighbours to the south may be sufficient for everyone.

The same statistics that provide immigration numbers also point to a growing urban-rural divide in Canada which may further complicates the future of a Canadian identity. Given that 96% of Canada’s visible minorities live in cities, what might be the associations made among an increasingly bitter rural population facing ever-more education and health care cutbacks, not to mention a lack of jobs? Economic troubles typically bring with them social divisions, hatred for those who are perceived to have what the others have not. Could those rural populations, which tend to feel more “ethnically” Canadian than those in urban centres, lash out against immigrant groups as a result? Apart from the rural-urban divide, what about relations between the immigrant communities themselves? Is anything being done to bring various ethnic groups together to prevent such divisions? Do we even consider the importance of perceptions in building or undermining stability?

In a country with a population of 31,241,030 only 4.3 million feel ethnically Canadian. Another 5.7 million see themselves as ethnically Canadian, but also consider themselves as having other ethnic origins. Being ethnically Canadian, mixed or not, is on the decline, down from 11.7 million in 2001 to just over 10 million. Just under 6.2 million are foreign-born. This leaves over 21 million people (nearly 15 million of which were born here) in Canada feeling that they are ethnically something other than Canadian. I suppose part of the reason this figure is so high is due to the definition of ethnicity (i.e. how do people define themselves), but I think it is also telling about a potential lack of Canadian identity. After all, ethnicity is perhaps one of the strongest identifiers for a group of people. Our continued focus on breaking down the population by ethnic groups or visible minorities only helps entrench past ties, sometimes generations-old, with extra-national groups. Hardly the stuff national identities are made out of.

Sure, diversity is great. When cultures do come together, truly integrating and co-operating as a whole not just living side-by-side in respective communities, considerable progress can be made. With all of our focus on ethnic statistics and hiring quotas, however, it seems that Canada isn’t really succeeding in developing that wider national community necessary for really capitalizing on its diversity. Indeed, it’s as if we can’t see the need for wider integrated community (read: forest) as a result of our distraction by ethnic diversity (read: trees).

Posted in Identity | No Comments »