Calgary elects a Muslim mayor

Mr Naheed Nenshi was elected Mayor of Calgary last night. The CBC News headline points out that he's the first Muslim mayor of a major Canadian city. In the (linked) webcast Mr Nenshi himself says that people in Canada can wake up and say that in Calgary "...I can be anything", and, indeed, symbolically, his victory is significant in a time when there is so much suspicion directed towards Muslims worldwide. Hopefully, it can contribute to the de-politicization of Islam in Canada. It's also interesting to note that he won in Calgary, rather than Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, which are the cities that are otherwise most famous for ethnic diversity in Canada....

The Globe and Mail explores Multiculturalism

In a series of video features, the first one available here, the major Canadian Daily discusses Multiculturalism and immigration. It's an interesting talk, and to at least some extent revolves around the same topics noted in previous posts on this blog, i.e. the dilemma of groupism, the problems of discrimination and essentialization and the challenges ahead. For those not familiar with the Canadian debate, it could be an interesting example of the public discourse. For those familiar, some of the questions and answers might contribute to further thought on the subject.

Pay special attention to Mr. Tarek Fatah. In the videos, he claims that Multiculturalism has failed in Canada, and that a shift is necessary towards a focus on race instead of culture. Some of the points he raises seem quite poignant to me, for instance the tendency for dominant groups to consider the most different practices of 'others' as cultural markers, as opposed to "eating ice cream and watching the ball game", which can result in segregation rather than integration. This observation forces us to ask how 'cultural difference' is defined, and who gets to define cultural difference.

Still, I'm not convinced that a shift to a focus on race will be the solution. Culture and ethnic heritage does matter, and the right to self-expression should not be underestimated. I feel that Mr. Fatah in this case builds something of a false dichotomy, where culture and race, which can both become grounds for objectification, discrimination, exclusion, or otherness (whatever you want to call it), somehow stand against each other. Indeed, he uses the modern connotations of race when dismissing that Ukrainians or other groups experienced discrimination when entering Canada in the early 20th century, omitting that Italians, Eastern Europeans and even French were, indeed, discussed in terms of their "racial difference" from the British. "Race", like other markers of identity, is not static.

It seems that Kymlicka's notion of building self-protection rights for individuals which allows them to retain cultural differences while not allowing groups to oppress individual members remains a potent idea. Alas, it was absent in this debate.

Scepticism towards scholars...

On the heels of the nationalist Sweden Democrat party entering the Swedish parliament, issues of immigration and multiculturalism have been given more attention in the press. DN, major Swedish daily, recently published a letter to the editor arguing that "four out of ten" respondents in a survey claim to be sceptical towards researchers and scholars studying matters of ethnic relations and integration. That those who support a populist nationalist party would be sceptical towards such research when it does not support their agenda is hardly very surprising. However, the notion that 40 % of the population (provided that the survey is valid, which I cannot speak to) also is sceptical towards the results of academic research is quite alarming, particularly for those who think that enlightment is the primary means by which to create more understanding, tolerance and respect in society.

At the very least, this might be a reminder that we who engage in this kind of research must devote some time to sharing and explaining the results of our work with a wider audience...

Beyond multiculturalism?

In two recent articles in the Globe and Mail, here and here, it is argued that the term multiculturalism might have outlived its usefulness. In the first, Malik argues that the concept has led to a thinking where people are put in "ethnic boxes" and treated exclusively according to their heritage, reduced simply to being representatives of their ethnic groups. This is critique that is fairly common now, and it's certainly been voiced in Europe as well (as has been stated on this page before), for instance in this piece on the Swedish debate site Newsmill.

The second piece argues that Canada should adopt more rigorous language testing and credentials recognition using the Australian model, which allegedly is smoother (though I have to admit that I have seen no studies on the Australian case). It also states that citizenship entails responsibilities as well as rights.

There are important points made here, but also room for raising some caveats. First, while group-think is all too common in the public (and sometimes even academic) debate, it is worthwhile remembering that Multiculturalism was introduced to counter the strong policies of assimilation that preceeded it. Therefore, any replacement of multiculturalism must include a recognition that a) ethnicity is an important marker of identity for many people and that there should be room in public space to recognize that for each individual, b) that immigration in itself often is a fundamental formative moment in the life of the migrant and that this important experience should not be neglected in the public discourse and, c) that also the dominant "mainstream" population has an ethnicity and that practices informed by this ethnicity (involuntarily) can become discriminatory against minorities.

The risk is that the critique against multiculturalism becomes a backlash, leaving the space open for assimilatory policies. It is interesting, for instance, to note that the Globe and Mail editorial feels that specifically new citizens must informed of citizen obligations, which to some extent implies that this segment of the citizenry cannot be entirely trusted with doing their duties, which leaves a lot of questions open, such as what duties? Immigrants to Canada generally do not vote to a lesser degree than the native born population, and if immigrants lack jobs or are under employed, it might have to do with the Canadian immigration policy, rather than the immigration population, which the editorial itself points out.

If it is time to move beyond multiculturalism, and it might be, then care has to be taken so that the embraced alternative does not result in further alienation of the ethnic "others"...