Multiculturalism or integration? Why are they seen as oppositional?

In a recent essay in the Globe and Mail, Daniel Stoffman argues that Canadian multiculturalism is more an ideology than a fact. His piece asserts that for having seemingly different official approaches to immigration, Canada (multiculturalism) and the US (melting pot), assimilation rates and political actions come across as remarkably similar. His examples include both countries acting against the cockfighting which some Hispanic communities seem to regard as essential to their culture, as well the debate on Shariah laws.


The piece in interesting insofar as it asks pertinent questions about how multiculturalism is defined, and points out that the term certainly seems to be used in a relatively vague fashion in public space.

Yet, Stoffman seems to conceptualize multiculturalism, and the cultural mosaic it aims to achieve, in a way that is not without problems. Commenting on the Minister's of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism words concerning integration as the new way to avoid creating isolated ethnic silos, Stoffman concludes:

"But if we don't want silos, then we don't want to be a mosaic either. Both
images suggest a society composed of separate groups rather than an integrated
whole. If the Minister of Multiculturalism is rejecting silos, he is also
rejecting multiculturalism. Maybe it's time the Department of Multiculturalism
was renamed the Department of Integration. "

This dichotomization of multiculturalism and integration seems to assume that cultures somehow are internally homogenous and clearly externally bounded, as well as static, unchanging. This is a very reductionist, even simplistic, view of how cultures actually work. Cultures, it seems to me, are highly dynamic, always changing in contact with others and their borders are seldom easilty drawn. Stoffman's treatment also seems to imply that integration means the radical abandonement cultural plurality, which transforms the concept from one of mutual negotiation between equal parties to one very close to assimilation.

If nothing else, the essay does bring attention to the need to clarify what is actually meant by terms like multiculturalism and integration, which see common usage in the public debate.

Confused Swedes..

Just listened to Swedish radio, which discussed the pros and cons of introducing a language test requirement for immigrants who want to become citizens. Helena Bergholtz, a Liberal MP, said that many succesful nations employ such tests and went on to claim that Canada is a country that uses language tests for such requirements. This is not true. A person who wants to become a Canadian citizen has to pass a test in civics, which probes your knowledge in Canadian history and (to some extent) politics. This is not the same as a language test and the difference is an important one, even if the test itself is written in one of the official languages. It's amazing how persistent this misconception of the Canadian procedure is among Swedes. One would think that someone would check the facts at some point.

It is also discouraging, seeing as accuracy is important when making legislative proposals, particularly in an issue of such significance as citizenship and ethnic integration, where mistakes risks aggravating ethnic relations and cause unnecessary tensions between the majority and the minorities...