The Idea Of Multiculturalism In Canada

Multiculturalism
Every adult knows the stereotypes about people from other cities, countries, and even continents. Undoubtedly, it is impossible to deny a cultural and environmental influence on the development of an individual; however, one cannot exclude the fact that biases play a huge role in a perception of the world. These prejudices often build walls on the way of communication with each other as a single human race living on the Earth and not as a lot of small warring tribes. In contrast to national development that divides people, there is placed the concept of multiculturalism.
Nowadays, the subjects of this idea are one of the most discussed, resonant, and truly urgent. At the same time, it has become one of the most amorphous and
confusing themes. Its vagueness begins with questions about the content and inattentiveness of the idea. Multiculturalism is a complex of various evolutionary processes which reveal many cultures as opposed to a single national belief. This idea casts doubt on the existence of a social identity. The concept of multiculturalism is usually used in two basic values.
The first meaning of multiculturalism is the phenomenon of ethnic fragmentation of a society; in other words, it can be defined more precisely as the theory that is directed against culture as a national aspect. Therefore, it is not autonomy within a certain community, but its fragmentation. The second meaning of multiculturalism is the political ideology, which is largely based on the liberal thought about a “cultural diversity.” It advocates ethnic, racial, and subcultural preferences in the economic, political, and cultural spheres of public life. The main purpose is to eliminate discrimination and achieve equality of different kinds of minorities with another majority.
The word “multiculturalism” has a difficult history.
It was used in different contexts and initially served an exclusively instrumental function. The definition appeared for the first time in the late 1960-s in Canada; a decade later, it became the official term for the new government policy (Burnet & Driedger, 2011). It proclaimed the goal to make the state more responsive to the needs of the citizens of all social groups. Unofficially, it was believed that the government was forced to introduce it to avoid political confrontation and further polarization of the Canadian society.
Later, the slogan of multiculturalism was adopted by Australia; the state decided to put the end to futile policy of immigrant assimilation and discrimination of people of color. Australia tried to become more comfortable for all its residents regardless of their origin and language. The main difference between multiculturalism of Canada and Australia is that the first is mainly focused on the preservation and promotion of ethnic communities; the Australian concept is a free choice for individuals of their identity and social
integration.
Sweden chose the same method and united multiculturalism policies towards immigrants and traditional minorities. In all these three cases, the term is widely understood as something that combines the fight against discrimination, ethnic support of non-governmental organizations, the introduction of school education in the languages of immigrants and minorities, and even tolerance promoting.
The concept of multiculturalism emerged in the United States in the early 1970-s as a new direction of public debates, not a government initiative (Murray, 2015). It can be defined more accurately as the combination of ethnic and cultural values and interpretations in the perspective of social equality. The black community activists, immigrant minorities, were the first who fought against racial discrimination. They used the government support for a revival of ethnic slogans demanding a public recognition of cultural diversity. The discussion of these issues was supported by the academic community; this approach was acceptable for certain anti-racist movements and the government.
American multiculturalism is often called disintegrated. It means that unlike the Canadian concept, American problems of equality were separated from ethnic and cultural issues. Roughly speaking, for politicians, academics, and media, culturalization and a reduction of social issues to cultural and behavioral ones became a ploy that allows for avoiding of tricky questions. Thus, a complex system of social contradictions converts into a direct confrontation of “own” and “other people's.” In certain situations, the integration of foreigners involves the separation on ethnic and religious grounds, the support for ethnically oriented and educational programs and organizations.
In other Western countries, multiculturalism joins all of the same scenario development theories. The presentation of this idea as a government policy is a compromise strategy that avoids two extremes: an exclusion of migrants from a society and their forced assimilation. The concept as a descriptive term has many social situations, strategies of representation, and the technology of power which differs in a large number of parameters. For example, it includes the promotion or inhibition of ethnicity by the state in private and public spheres.
The main thesis of multiculturalism is to deny the common cultural standard; however, it allows many levels (from individual to global) of the term use. It can be a socialization of an individual under the influence of different cultural environments, a right of an individual to self-identification, and selection of life strategies. But, in practice, all this potential diversity is reduced to one perspective that is called multiculturalism. There dominates the idea that rejects the existence of a common society and recognizes only a conglomerate of communities. The basis of the ideology and policy of multiculturalism forms the opinion that cultural minority communities deserve respect and recognition within the host nation. Thus, it is a multicultural society which includes two or more communities. Such a society is composed of several well-established groups; each has more or less specific understanding about good and evil and has its own special history, structure, traditions, needs, and aspirations. Moreover, the dominant versions of multiculturalism have much more common with the historically old nationalists and ethnocentric discourse. It turns into a rhetorical updating of old practices and problems. In particular, the politically correct word “culture” replaces ethnicity as it replaced a “race.” Thus, multiculturalism becomes a new form of nationalism. The most obvious examples of adaptation of new words to the traditional nationalist idea can be considered as conservative multiculturalism.
It is believed that this thought is a product of liberal ideology and generally develops in the liberalism frameworks. This view requires clarification: the essentialist assumptions that allow the use of multiculturalist rhetorics to be very far from liberalism. It is a strategy which is followed by the activists of ethnic minorities. Their version of multiculturalism includes non-interference of the state and a host society into the ethnic community and providing them with privileges and additional resources for the sake of protecting the identity as the compensation for past inequalities. Conservative multiculturalism insists on a social exclusion of minorities from the majority in order to preserve the ethnic identity of both. Liberalism also is not perfect. Some supporters of this thought can be distinguished into the influential movement which is based on a communism direction of liberal theory. It is ready to reconsider the principles of individual freedom and autonomy in the name of social justice and the protection of group identity. Many political philosophers, the followers of this trend, focus on the problems of ethnicity and collective rights of cultural groups. The efforts of these authors revived the debates about
multiculturalism. Human life always has the contact with other people. An individual cannot exist by themselves as they always close to a society. Also, people belong to some cultural groups, and its affiliation is a necessary element of their identity. The lack of public recognition of the identity means a humiliation of dignity of these people. The liberal state is not “neutral” in the ideological and cultural means. Consequently, for the approval of dignity of all members of society, the state should recognize an equal value of various groups. It should entail respect for the rules and practices of these groups, the adoption of measures for their protection, preservation, and the unequal treatment of different group members. Thus, it is the obvious fact that multiculturalism cannot have only one value. A lot of people claim to different interpretations and the use of this term. However, if one moves away from the complex theory that is used by researchers, it is possible to look at the practice and how multiculturalism works in everyday life for average citizens.