François Rocher is a professor at the School of Political Studies at the University of Ottawa. His research focuses on citizenship and immigration policies and on the management of ethnocultural diversity. He is preparing to publish the text “Multi-interculturalism and cultural diversity ”in a forthcoming book on the political foundations of culture by UQTR professors Aude Porcedda and Marie-Claude Lapointe. Interview by Stéphane Baillargeon.
What is multiculturalism?
It is a state ideology. It has changed a lot since October 1971, when it was announced by the government of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Initially, multiculturalism was not intended to ghettoize groups, but to recognize their differences on ethnocultural grounds, in fact on ethnic grounds. We could then have spoken of a multi-ethnic policy, that of ethnic pluralism. It is based on the presumed desire of individuals belonging to ethnic minorities to preserve their identities. During the first fifteen years, we went in this direction. It became official policy with the adoption of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act by Brian Mulroney’s conservatives in 1988. Multiculturalism was then constructed more as a fight against discrimination targeting groups marked by their origins. The term “race” is used squarely in the legislation, referring to the color of the skin. Religious phenomena are only mentioned in the preamble to the law. In the long run, it became something else, an ideal to be achieved, a public ethic of tolerance, respect, recognition of ethnocultural diversity, without however the recognition of what I would call a welcoming society.
So it is about the ideology of integration of a society which does not assert itself as such?
In Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s statement on the 50e anniversary of the policy of multiculturalism in Canada, in fact, there is no longer a society. Canada is conceived as a post-national space. The addition and amalgamation of all the differences make Canada. There is no host society in this discourse. We don’t even talk about bilingualism anymore.
Why is there no question of language as an identity marker?
Cultural pluralism is first of all simply considered in a bilingual framework. Quebec Premier Robert Bourassa will also quickly criticize multiculturalism for separating culture and language. Now, according to Justin Trudeau’s statement, the linguistic dimension has completely disappeared. There is therefore no longer any social anchoring or a reference society, and there is no longer any linguistic anchoring according to the two languages.
How to explain this paradox ? Why does the dominant Anglophone or Anglo-Saxon culture not assert itself as such, at least in English Canada?
The simple answer is that when you are dominant, even hegemonic, you don’t have to say it. It goes without saying that Anglo-Saxon culture dominates not only in Canada, but in North America. The British and then American heritage is fundamental.
Why then adopt this multiculturalist perspective in the early 1970s?
It is a legacy of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission of inquiry on bilingualism and biculturalism. The dominant political doxa in the 1960s recognized a binational Canada. Pierre Elliott Trudeau was allergic to the recognition of constituted rights granted to a community. During the work of the Commission on Ethnic Groups (Canadians of German, Ukrainian or Jewish descent, for example), it was said that the binational vision cast a shadow over their own contributions to the building of Canadian society. They wanted the recognition of an imaginary different from that of biculturalism. Trudeau Sr. killed two birds with one stone by reinforcing criticism of the commission’s report while dissociating himself from the bicultural vision.
Why are Aboriginal people not part of this multicultural perspective either?
Aboriginal people refuse to see themselves as multicultural groups. They see themselves as nations. There are also specific policies and laws that apply to First Nations.
Is there a link between multiculturalism and the so-called diversity or intersectional movement, that of claims to identity of gender, sex or race? Is there a link between multiculturalism and “wokism”?
No. Multiculturalism is part of a liberal framework. We are not in cultural relativism or extreme differentialism. We recognize differences, but in return we demand submission to the same dominant standards. Even if we do not mention Canadian society, the implicit idea is to comply with the rules of society. Multiculturalism never intended to review the stratification of social positioning. He fights discrimination, but to promote integration. What the diversity movement refuses on the other hand – and I do not use the term woke, too overused – is the presence of standards imposed by a dominant group, that of whites. The relationship of inequality is radically called into question. Theorists like Eve Haque of York University even argue that multiculturalism is part of a strategy to maintain white domination. In this reading, the source of discrimination is structural, is part of the Canadian heritage. In short, there can be no such thing as multiculturalism. woke since this movement fights against inequalities based on gender, sexual orientation, skin color, etc. Culture is not part of the sex-gender-race triad.
What are the concrete effects of this multiculturalist state ideology?
This is the question we never ask. I did some pretty thorough research. A few years ago, colleagues and I took an interest in the Arab-Muslim community in Canada only to find that while all of its members interviewed were in favor of multiculturalism, they were generally unable to name programs or say what. concretely made this policy. We come back to this idea of state ideology and ethos, of the public normative universe. It is an ethical argument in favor of inclusion, but when you look at what the federal government is doing in concrete terms with regard to multiculturalism, it is quite insignificant and very marginal, with very little impact on the way in which it operates. the Canadian state.
Quebec has developed its own ideology of a state of integration, that of interculturalism. How does it compare to multiculturalism?
There are similarities. The two ideologies are part of liberal pluralism, with common characteristics and objectives that may be similar, even if on this everyone does not share my point of view. The big difference lies in the fact that interculturalism clearly says that, given the minority status of French and Quebec society, the process of integration into living together takes place in a society that has chosen to use French. the common public language. In English Canada, no need to say that the company is organized in English.
What is the status of this policy in Quebec?
Interculturalism has no official status. There is no law on interculturalism. The definition of interculturalism even varies from publication to publication and from year to year. The symbolic hook is therefore absent in Quebec, while multiculturalism has symbolic significance in Canada.
What are the concrete consequences of this absence of a clear intercultural policy?
If we do not have a clear conception of the management of pluralism, what do we fall back on? What did the Parti Québécois and the Coalition d’avenir Québec do? They fell back on something a little nebulous called Quebec values. We need an intercultural policy to show the particularity of the Quebec approach while not denying what it has in common with Canadian policy or intercultural policies in Europe. There is a movement to which Quebec can join.
The French Republic is currently debating a lot about the integration or assimilation of new arrivals. What is the difference with the policies in Quebec and in Canada?
An assimilationist policy wants to ensure that after one or two generations we no longer see differences based on national or ethnic origin. All citizens merge and become identical by adhering to the same creed. In Canada, assimilation has worked well with immigrants of European origin. Other markers, such as skin color, are used to discriminate against people of other origins. It’s the same in France, where an Arab remains an Arab even when he is French. The liberal pluralist approach recognizes differences while refusing to make them a brake on integration. Individuals and groups who want to retain certain traits related to their heritage can. We live together while being a little different.
Which approach least favors the ghettoization of new populations?
People who join a society by immigration do not wish to reproduce here or in France what they have left. The desire for participation, for integration (not for assimilation) is found among migrants. Ghettoization comes rather from social inequalities linked to migratory status. People with an immigrant background do not try to turn in on themselves: it is rather the host society that integrates them poorly. In France, estates have been created on the outskirts of towns to park corvable labor. French society has created ghettos. Here, with all the nuances to add, there is no deliberate desire to create Arab or Italian neighborhoods. Social mobility means that when people improve their status, they tend to move from one neighborhood to another, into the suburbs. Multiculturalism does not create ghettos and does not encourage the withdrawal into oneself which would be the definition of the ghetto.