Do policies of multiculturalism change national identities

Political Quarterly

Volumn 79, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 404-417

  Uberoi, Varun ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cultural minorities; National identities; Policies of multiculturalism

Indexed keywords

EID: 53849112966     PISSN: 00323179     EISSN: 1467923X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-923X.2008.00942.x     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. M. Phillips, Londonistan, London, Gibson Square, 2006, p. 113.
2. Policy Exchange, Living Apart Together, London, Policy Exchange, 2007, p. 6.
3. D. Cameron, 'Bringing down the barriers to cohesion', Speech, 2007.
4. Policy Exchange, Living Apart Together, p. 90.
5. Ibid.
6. Phillips, Londonistan, p. 113;
7. K. Minogue, 'Introduction', in Patrick West, Poverty of Multiculturalism, London, Civitas, 2006, p. xv.
8. For a good study on the alleged decline of the British identity, see A. Heath and J. Roberts, 'British identity, its sources and possible implications for civic attitudes and behaviour'. Available online at: http://www.justice.gov. uk/docs/british-identity.pdf
9. L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations I, Oxford, Blackwell, 1991, pp. 27-8.
10. This point was inspired by Tariq Modood's new book when I was fortunate enough to read an early draft of it. Modood, however, uses Wittgenstein's antiessentialism as a rejoinder to those who levy an essentialist critique against ethnicity and not to explain what policies of multiculturalism are (T. Modood, Multiculturalism, Cambridge, Polity, 2007, pp. 95-7).
11. One of the best examples of this justification exists in the Cabinet document in which the measures that comprised the Canadian policy of multiculturalism were first proposed for discussion in the federal Cabinet. Hence, the Cabinet was urged to 'support all of Canada's cultures' and 'assist members of all cultural groups to overcome barriers to full integration' (see Cab-Doc-864-71, 'A multicultural society-A response to Book IV of the B &B Commission', 13 July 1971, released under the Access to Information Act).
12. Equally, the Australian Institute for Multicultural Affairs was designed to 'develop an awareness of the diverse cultures within the community and an appreciation of the contribution of these cultures'. Indeed, the Galbally Report in 1978 was clear that 'all members of our society . . . must have equal access to programmes and services' and at times 'special services and programmes are necessary to ensure equality of access and provision' (J. Jupp, From White Australia to Woomera, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 84-6).
13. In Britain, we see something less clear but similar with regards to multicultural education (see in particular the concerns of the West Indian and the Asian communities that are articulated in C. Swann, Education for All, London, Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1985, pp. 198-202).
14. Of course much more could be said about the nature and use of identity than I am able to discuss here. For a short and brilliant discussion on political identities, see A. Bilgrami, 'Notes towards the definition of identity', Daedalus, Fall, 2006.
15. For a good collection of longer essays on the subject, see R. Martin and J. Barresi, Personal Identity, Oxford, Blackwell, 2003.
16. Indeed, a bearer may have many identities and in saying this I am not saying that he will suffer from some degree of schizophrenia. Instead I am saying that each identity can summarise something about what a bearer is, and if the latter is a person (as opposed to a group), clearly they are many things: a father, a husband, a Muslim, a citizen and so on.
17. A. Smith, Nationalism, Cambridge, Polity, 2000, pp. 13-5.
18. G. Mazzini, 'To the Italians', in V. Pecora, ed., Nations and Identities, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001.
19. Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, London, HMSO, 2007.
20. For good examples, see the 1885 Electoral Franchise Act; Section 38 of the 1919 Immigration Act; 1930 Privy Council Order1930-21-15; 1953 Privy Council Order 1953-59. Details for all of these measures are contained in N. Kelley and M. Trebilcock, The Making of the Canadian Mosaic, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.
21. W. Kymlicka, 'Being Canadian', Government and Opposition, vol. 38, no. 3, p. 376.
22. Cab doc 440-70, 7 April 1970, Citizenship Policy and Legislation. RG 2, Interim Box 12, Vol. 6365, file 440-70. Emphasis added.
23. Memorandum to Cabinet, Cab Doc 864-71, 13 July 1971. Released under the Access to Information Act.
24. Cab-doc 53/71, 23 September 1971. Canada: The Multicultural Society, A Response to Book IV of the B and B Commission. Released under the Access to Information Act
25. Ibid.
26. See V. Uberoi, 'The Canadian Constitution and policy of multiculturalism', Political Studies, Forthcoming.
27. Department of Secretary of State, Being Canadian, undated, p. 3. Emphasis added.
28. Ibid, p. 3.
29. Letter from David Crombie to David Kilgour, 25 November 1986. DOH, Legislative base for Multi Act (B-C-93), Vol. 9.
30. I was shown this document in an interview with a senior CFG official.
31. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act 1988.
32. For criticism of the CFG's policy of multiculturalism from Quebecois intellectuals and politicians, see R. Bourassa, 'Objection to multiculturalism', Le Devoir, 17 November 1971;
33. H. Palmer, ed., Immigration and the Rise of Multiculturalism, Toronto, Copp Clark, 1975;
34. R. Levesque and A. Chaiton, 'Education in a changing society: A view from Quebec', in A. Chaiton and N. McDonald, eds, Canadian Schools and Canadian Society, Toronto, Gage, 1977;
35. A. Gagnon and R. Iacovino, Federalism, Citizenship and Quebec, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2007.
36. E. Mackey, House of Difference, Toronto, Toronto University Press, p. 30.
37. See W. Kymlicka, 'Canadian multiculturalism in historical and comparative perspective: Is Canada unique?', Forum Constitutionnel, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1. The 2003 International Social Survey Programme is one of many surveys that illustrate how the CFG's policy of accommodating diversity has become part of the Canadian identity. This is because in this survey Canadian scholars asked an extra question: "On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 means not at all important and 7 means very important, how important to being a good Canadian citizen is respect for the customs and traditions of other Canadians?' 54 per cent of respondents chose 7 whereby respect for the customs and traditions of other Canadians was 'very important' to being a good Canadian citizen; 21 per cent chose 6; and 13 per cent chose 5. To gain access to this data, which as yet has not been published, contact Wendy Watkins at the Data Collection Centre University of Carlton: http://www.carleton.ca/~ssdata
38. I am grateful to Damian Green MP who made this point in an interview that I did with him for another research project.
39. Speech at Bromley, 25 October 1963 (see E. Powell, Principles in Politics, London, Casswell, 1979, p. 87).
40. There were, as Richard Day observes, 'theorists' of the Canadian national identity, who at the turn of the twentieth century aspired to create a Canadian national identity that was amenable to cultural diversity. In the 1920s some even went on to metaphorically describe such a national identity as a 'mosaic'. Yet as Day states, these theories about the Canadian national identity were 'a marginal view in early twentieth-century Canada' (R. Day, Multiculturalism and the History of Canadian Diversity, Toronto, Toronto University Press, 2000, pp. 148-9).
41. In 1963 a Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established to 'inquire into and report upon the existing the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada . . . taking into account the contributions made by other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and to the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution' (Mackey, House of Difference, p. 63; emphasis added).
42. I am grateful to Ellie Vasta for this point.
43. See, e.g., the reports into the riots in 2001, which said: 'Whilst respect for different cultures is vital, it will also be essential to agree on some common themes of nationhood' (Home Office, Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team, London, HMSO, 2001, p. 19). 37 Some might think that this can only be accomplished if cultural majorities and minorities come to share the public culture. I agree, but note that the public culture is public, not private. It is a culture of the public domain that need not crowd out private cultures. Further more, as I have shown, those elements of the public culture, like racism, that minorities might find difficult are to some extent removed by the measures that comprise a policy of multiculturalism. In effect then, while cultural minorities may have to accept the public culture, the latter also adapts to their needs.
44. For a further discussion on this point, see V. Uberoi and I. McLean, 'Britishness: A role for the state?', Political Quarterly, Forthcoming.