Canadian Pluralism

The world has most certainly changed, notably in the last half-century. Human beings have always been migratory, turning from one geography toward another. Originally out of curiosity, out of a need to find a more yielding territory, from a need to escape wars and political instability, to discover in essence a more palatable environment in which to live out their lives and bear their young.

In the past, migration took place within a discrete geography; people crossing borders, real or imagined, recognized or casual, from one territory to another. Where they might be accepted, absorbed and find their future homes. There would be some differences, of ethnicity, of traditions and culture, but given the consanguinity of adjoining territories, perhaps not dreadfully jarring.

In the modern world, migration has expanded from continent to continent, and the vast differences in ethnic, religious, cultural and traditional backgrounds have been more notable, the difficulties in adjusting to new locations more pronounced. Ultimately, however, where people migrate to new countries and new beginnings they eventually accept the social atmosphere of the welcoming society while retaining vestiges of their original culture.

The result, over time, is a homogeneous society, a pluralistic society that accepts and relishes slight differences - at its most ideal. At the dysfunctional end, if the immigrant group does not find acceptance, and does not feel a need to integrate into the main society, a disconnect results with the immigrant society living outside the norms of the adopting country's mores.

Under privilege and resentment result. Two solitudes. Neither fully recognizing the other as equals, neither valuing the other, nor wishing to adapt to the other's needs. France's banlieues comprised of non-integrating Muslim communities living impoverished and violent lives are a result, much as the underprivileged Turkish population of Germany is, and as the Muslim population of the Netherlands, as examples.

This unwillingness to accept the welcoming society's values and mores in favour of retaining values and mores relevant to the country of origin, and of importance to the religion imported with the immigrants, sets them apart and disadvantages them. Because the indigenous population sees the immigrants as being different, inferior, unworthwhile, incapable of blending into the larger society.

Each rejects the other, and resentment results. The host country suffers, unable or unwilling to find a place of equality and opportunity for the immigrants. The immigrants feel set aside, their children lacking equal educational opportunities, and meaningful and well-paying employment eludes them. This type of migration has benefited no one; not the immigrants nor the welcoming country where the newcomers become a social and welfare burden.

In Canada, we congratulate ourselves as a multicultural nation, celebrating our differences, and claiming to accept one another as equals. And traditionally this has most certainly been the case. Canadians, whatever their original heritage, are equal under the law. Equally protected as to their individual rights, and equally advantaged, to education, health care, legal protections, and employment.

Canadians result from a multiplicity of origins, cultures, religions, melding to produce a people sharing core values, belief in equality under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, eager to promote inter- and intra-cultural dialogue. Canadians celebrate the grace of cultural harmony, built on mutual respect, buttressed by acceptance of an over-riding obligation to others. This is the traditional Canada of past generations.

But we're now in danger of fracturing into distinct cultural, religious groups, setting aside that which should bind us together as Canadians. Simply because, in fact, multiculturalism, while offering immigrants the blessing of Canadian society to continue practising a way of life they somehow felt obliged to leave behind, does not impress upon them the need to become fully Canadian. This is a rather new phenomenon, dating from the last several decades.

Hyphenating one's Canadianism serves only to minimize one's obligations as a Canadian. Placing an ethnic derivation before Canadian citizenship undercuts the demonstrable order of nationhood; belonging, citizenship, patriotism, if you will. Whereas a pluralist society, one comprised of people of various background derivations, all dedicated to the common good of the country whose geography they share, represents a socially healthier aggregate.

Dedicated to the advancement of the country, the welfare of its entire population. The truth of the matter is, citizens of a country, no matter their origin, should share a common vision, common values, the commonality of citizenship at its fullest. Apartness, separation as a result of adhering to social and religious and cultural mores foreign to the country simply does not serve the best interests of the country, nor its people.

The ideal of multiculturalism is just that, an ideal. At its best, it encourages immigrants to honour their ethnicity, their original culture and traditions, their religion. But not at the cost of fully accepting Canadian values and social priorities and inclusion. Moderately recognizing one's background, while embracing Canadian citizenship is the preferred result. Gradual and full assimilation should be the end result.

Multiculturalism, as it's currently practised, does not reflect the need to become fully Canadian. As it currently stands, it's a recipe for malfunction, for a fractured society with opposite, not apposite interests.