Multiculturalism in Canada: Context and Current Status

VICTORIA M. ESSES and R. C. GARDNER. University of Western Ontario

Abstract

We introduce this special issue of the Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science on

“Ethnic Relations in a Multicultural Society” by setting the stage for the articles to
follow. First, we describe the changing ethnic composition of Canada and we outline
Canada’s policy of multiculturalism. Next, we discuss the current state of ethnic identity
and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the articles in
this issue.

Canada is a country of diversity. In addition to Aboriginal people and the founding

British and French groups, there is a wide variety of ethnic groups represented in the
Canadian population, including large numbers of German, Italian, Dutch, Ukrainian,
Chinese, Black and Indo-Pakistani people, among others (Kelly, 1995; Renaud &
Badets, 1993). Close to 10% of the adult population of Canada are visible minorities,
with this figure expected to double in the next twenty years (Kelly, 1995). The
psychological study of ethnic relations has much to contribute toward understanding
and promoting positive relations among the varied ethnic groups now calling
themselves Canadian.

Ethnic relations in Canada are particularly important to address at this time for several
reasons. First, there is growing concern about strained ethnic relations in Canada,
including awareness of the poor treatment of Native people, rising tensions between
French and English Canadians, and prejudice toward visible minorities, who are
increasingly represented in the Canadian population (Cannon, 1995; Gwyn, 1995). In
addition, because of the increasing ethnic and cultural diversity in Canada, there are
now ethnic groups with very different cultural and religious backgrounds and practices
who must try to get along in this country (Logan, 1991; Weinfeld, 1994). These diverse
ethnic groups are not expected to assimilate to one set of “Canadian” practices but,
instead, under a policy of multiculturalism, they are encouraged to maintain their unique
cultural backgrounds, while sharing in the Canadian experience (Berry, 1984). This may
be a difficult task, given that cultural and value differences have been cited as a
potential source of conflict among groups (e.g. Berry & Kalin, 1995; Esses, Haddock &
Zanna, 1993). Moreover, some ethnic groups bring with them histories of conflict in
their countries of origin, and it is imperative that these histories do not become part of
the Canadian fabric (Gwyn, 1995; Weinfeld, 1994). Finally, exacerbating this situation
is the fact that the current economic situation in Canada is characterised by financial
restraint and competition over scarce resources. These conditions may lead individuals
to question the benefits of Canada’s policy of multiculturalism and tolerance of ethnic
difference. In particular, tolerance of diversity and support for multiculturalism may be
seen as luxuries that we cannot afford in these times (Gwyn, 1995).

In this context, up-to-date research on ethnic relations in Canada is essential. The

psychological perspective makes an especially valuable contribution in this regard
because of its ability to generate testable research questions, which are addressed
through empirical research. In understanding ethnic relations in Canada, these questions
must address issues of ethnic identity as well as intergroup ethnic attitudes. Canadian
psychologists recognize the equal importance of these two issues, and have focused on
studying ethnic relations from the vantage of both majority and minority group
members. The research described in this issue of the Canadian Journal of Behavioural
Science attests to this comprehensive approach.

In this article, we are pleased to introduce this special issue on “Ethnic Relations in a
Multicultural Society” by setting the stage for the empirical articles to follow. First, to
highlight the Canadian setting, we describe the changing ethnographies of Canada and
outline Canada’s policy of multiculturalism. Next, we discuss the current state of ethnic
identity and ethnic attitudes in Canada. Finally, we provide a brief overview of the
articles in this issue.

The Changing Ethnographies of Canada

The 1991 census of Canada indicated that the founding British and French groups are
still the largest single ethnic groups in Canada, representing 28% and 23% of the
population, respectively. An additional 18% of the population is made up of individuals
of mixed British and French or British/French in combination with other ethnic
backgrounds. However, close to a third (31%) of the population claim other ethnic
backgrounds. Increasing ethnic diversity in Canada, as represented in these other ethnic
backgrounds, is largely attributable to changing patterns in origins of immigrants to
Canada over the last few decades (Badets, 1989; Logan, 1991; Priest, 1990).

Despite relatively frequent changes in Canada’s immigration policy over time, the
percentage of the population made up of immigrants has remained relatively stable over
the last few decades, with the current level being approximately 16% (Badets, 1989,
1993; Logan, 1991). What has changed, however, is the proportion of immigrants
coming from different source countries. In the early part of this century, most
immigrants to Canada came from European and North American source countries
(Logan, 1991). Beginning in the early 1960s and continuing to the present, however, a
major shift has occurred such that these source countries have been increasingly
replaced by Asian and Middle Eastern, and to a lesser extent Caribbean, Central
American, South American and African countries (Badets, 1989, 1993; Logan, 1991).
Thus, the birthplace of immigrants to Canada has expanded considerably.

According to the 1991 census of Canada (Badets, 1993), European-born immigrants still
make up the largest percentage of immigrants living in Canada (54%), followed by
these born in Asia and the Middle East (25%). However, if one looks at immigrants who
have arrived since 1961, it is evident that the representation of European-borns has
declined considerably. Whereas European-borns made up 90% of immigrants who
arrived before 1961, they constituted only 25% of immigrants who arrived between
1981 and 1991 (Badets, 1993). In contrast, the percentage of Asian and Middle Eastern
immigrants to Canada has risen markedly. Whereas Asian and Middle Eastern
immigrants comprised only 3% of immigrants who came to Canada before 1961, they
made up 48% of immigrants who arrived between 1981 and 1991 (Badets, 1993). In a
listing of the top 10 reported countries of birth for immigrants who arrived in Canada
between 1981 and 1991, 6 countries fell into the Asian and Middle Eastern category:
Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China, India, Vietnam, Philippines, and Lebanon
(Badets, 1993).

As a result of these changes, the ethnic composition of Canada is becoming increasingly

diverse. Of particular importance is the rise in the proportion of visible minorities who,
as we will describe shortly, may be especially likely to be the targets of prejudice and
discrimination (Moreau, 1991; see also Berry & Kalin, 1995). Visible minorities, as
designated in the Employment Equity Act of Canada, are “persons, other than
Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”
(Employment and Immigration Canada, 1987, p. B-3). Ten groups are officially
designated as visible minorities in Canada – Blacks, Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese,
Koreans, Latin Americans, other Pacific Islanders, Indo-Pakistanis (or South Asians).,
South east Asians, and west Asians and Arabs. In 1991, these visible minorities
represented close to 10% of the adult population of Canada double the 1981 percentage.
The majority of these individuals were immigrants to Canada, with over a third having
arrived between 1981-1991 (Kelly, 1995).

In the next 20 years, the representation of visible minorities in Canada is expected to

continue to rise so that by the year 2016, it is estimated that visible minorities will likely
comprise close to 20% of the adult population and 25% of children (projections based
on trends in immigration, fertility and mortality; Kelly, 1995; Statistics Canada, 1995b).
In addition, within the population of visible minorities, the growth rate of specific
groups is expected to differ, leading to increased diversification. In 1991, Chinese,
Blacks, and Indo-Pakistanis accounted for the largest percentage of visible minorities in
Canada (Kelly, 1995). However, the west Asian and Arab community in Canada is
expected to show the fastest future growth rate, whereas Blacks and indo-Pakistanis are
expected to show the slowest-growth rates (Kelly, 1995). This is likely to have
implications for how Canada’s policy of multiculturalism will be played out in the
future.

In addition to visible minorities, many of whom are immigrants are immigrants to

Canada, it is important to consider the population of Aboriginal people in Canada, who
have historically been targets of prejudice and discrimination (Moreau, 1991; see also
Berry, 1981; Berry, Kalin & Taylor, 1977; Mackie, 1974). Aboriginal people are a
separate designated group under the Employment Equity Act of Canada, and include
North American Indians, Inuits, and Métis (Employment and Immigration Canada,
1987; Statistics Canada, 1995a). In 1991, 4% of the Canadian population reported
Aboriginal ancestry, more then double the 1981 percentage due to higher than average
birth rates and reinstatements based on Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian Act
(Statistics Canada, 1984; Statistics Canada, 1995a). It is estimated that the percentage of
the population with reported Aboriginal ancestry will increase by another ½% in the
next 20 years, so that by the year 2016 it will reach 4.5% (projections based on trends in
fertility, mortality, and reinstatements based on Bill C-31 amendments to the Indian
Act; statistics Canada, 1995a).

Aboriginal people thus represent a sizable percentage of the population of Canada. In

addition, their regional representation is uneven, with the largest proportional
representation in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories. In
1991, Aboriginal people represented approximately 10% of the population of Manitoba
and Saskatchewan, 23% of the population of the Yukon, and 61% of the population of
the Northwest Territories (Statistics Canada, 1995a). These are also regions in which
growth rates are expected to be highest, so that by the year 2016, Aboriginal people are
expected to represent approximately 16% of the population of Manitoba and
Saskatchewan, 24% of the population of the Yukon, and 67% of the population of the
Northwest Territories (Statistics Canada, 1995a). Thus, the Aboriginal contribution to
multiculturalism in Canada should not be underestimated.

History and Current Status of the Multiculturalism Policy of Canada

Canada’s first official policy of multiculturalism, entitled “Multiculturalism within a

Bilingual Framework” was announced by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in 1971.
This policy was developed in response to several major forces in Canadian society.
First, in proximal terms, the policy was established to address the concerns expressed by
ethnic minorities in response to the establishment of the Royal Commission on
Bilingualism and Biculturalism (Breton, 1986; Reitz & Breton, 1994). In 1963, the
Royal Commission had been appointed to make recommendations on how to develop
Canada as a nation on the basis of an equal partnership of the British and French charter
groups, while taking into account the role of other ethnic groups. The emphasis on
French equality was an indication that the Canadian authorities had begun to respond to
French claims for equal status and, in particular, the Québec independence movement.
The fact that the role of other ethnic groups in Canada was relegated to a secondary
issue led members of these groups to be concerned about their relative positions in
society. In particular, there was concern among other ethnic groups that their cultures
and contributions to Canadian society would be devalued in comparison to those of the
French and British. Pressure from these other groups led to a shift from biculturalism to
multiculturalism (Breton, 1986; Reitz & Breton, 1994). Thus, while the Official
Languages Act of 1969 legally recognized the role of both the British and French
groups in Canadian society, the multiculturalism policy of 1971 was put into place to
provide recognition of other ethnic groups (Berdichewsky, 1994; Bibby, 1990).

Second, at a more distal level, the liberalization of Canada’s immigration policy in the
1960s opened the door for recognition of multiculturalism in Canada. The 1962
immigration policy, formalized in the Immigration Act of 1967, put into place an
immigration system that did not discriminate on the basis of race, national origin,
religion, or culture and was thus less discriminatory against non-Europeans than had
previously been the case (Berdichewsky, 1994; Gwyn, 1995). This meant that
immigrants to Canada were no longer restricted primarily to those of European
background, but instead began to come from many different cultural backgrounds,
leading to an increase in the salience of ethnicity (Breton, 1986). An official policy of
multiculturalism was an obvious next step in acknowledging acceptance of this ethnic
diversity.

Third, multiculturalism was set up as a national symbol for Canadians and fulfilled the
need for a distinctive Canadian identity. The British cultural presence in Canada had
weakened with the decline of the British Empire after World War II, and an increasing
American presence led to fears of loss of identity (Breton, 1986). Thus, one goal of a
policy of multiculturalism was to establish Canada as a unique nation, unlike any other,
and to differentiate Canadians from Americans (Bibby, 1990; Breton, 1986). In
describing one of the purposes of multiculturalism, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau
stated in 1972 that “We become less like others; we become less susceptible to cultural,
social or political envelopment by others” (Bibby, 1990, p.49). By adopting
multiculturalism as part of their collective identity, a distinctive Canadian identity,
which could serve as a source of pride, was also established.

The stated purpose of the multiculturalism policy of 1971 was to encourage members of
all ethnic groups in Canada to maintain and share their language and cultural heritage
with other Canadians. This was expected to build personal and collective confidence
among members of all ethnic groups, and thus promote tolerance of diversity and
positive intergroup attitudes (Berry, 1984; Berry & Laponce, 1994; Multiculturalism
and Citizenship Canada, 1991).

The more recent “Act for the Preservation and Enhancement of Multiculturalism in
Canada” was passed in 1988, with minor organizational amendments since that time
(Multiculturalism & Citizenship Canada, 1991). Its stated objectives are to:

a) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism reflects the

cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom
of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural
heritage;
b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental
characteristic of the Canadian heritage and identity and that it provides an
invaluable resource in the shaping of Canada’s future;
c) promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of
all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian
society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation;
d) recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin
and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their
development;
e) ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the
law, while respecting and valuing their diversity;
f) encourage and assist the social, cultural, economic and political institutions of
Canada to be respectful and inclusive of Canada’s multicultural character;
g) promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between
individuals and communities of different origins;
h) foster the recognition and appreciation of the diverse cultures of Canadian
society and promote the reflection and the evolving expressions of those
cultures;
i) preserve and enhance the use of languages other than English and French, while
strengthening the status and use of the official languages of Canada; and
 j) advance multiculturalism throughout Canada with the national commitment to
the official languages of Canada. (Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada,
1990, pp. 13-15).

The Act also describes a set of measures for implementing the policy.

As should be evident from this description, multiculturalism in Canada has evolved

considerably since it first became policy in 1971 (Berdichewsky, 1994; Breton, 1986).
When the policy of multiculturalism was first introduced, it was developed to meet the
needs of mainly European immigrant groups and their descendants in Canada. Thus, it
was largely put into practice through support for cultural programs and activities, and
language and heritage education. As diverse ethnic and racial minority groups
immigrated to Canada, however, new concerns arose and were voiced. As a result, the
policy of multiculturalism expanded to include the combating of prejudice and
discrimination, and the promotion of full and equal participation of ethnic minorities in
all aspects of society, including mainstream economic, cultural, and political life.
Justice and equality in all aspects of life are now emphasized (Multiculturalism and
Citizenship Canada, 1991).

The ideal of multiculturalism in Canada poses two desirable outcomes: the survival of
ethnic origin groups and their cultures, along with tolerance of this diversity and an
absence of prejudice toward ethnic minorities (Weinfeld, 1994). To determine whether
these goals have been met, we now turn our attention to two relevant issues: the current
state of ethnic identity in Canada and of ethnic attitudes in Canada.

Ethnic Identity in Canada

Has multiculturalism been successful in encouraging individuals to maintain ancestral

ethnic and cultural ties while simultaneously feeling a part of Canada? One way to look
at this issue is to examine the self-perceived ethnic identity of Canadians. In contrast to
ethnic origin, which refers to the ethnic group(s) to which one’s ancestors belonged
(Renaud & Badets, 1993), ethnic identity is a less objective, more psychological
construct. In particular, ethnic identity refers to identification of oneself as belonging to
and feeling a part of an ethnic and cultural community. This may occur on a symbolic
level (i.e. symbolic ethnic identity – feeling pride in and attachment to one’s ethnic
identity) and on a behavioural level (i.e. behavioural ethnic identity – outward
expressions of ethnicity and culture; Kalin & Berry, 1994, in press). Although the use of
the term ethnic identity varies in generality in terms of whether it is used only for ethnic
minorities or for all groups in Canada (see Berry & Laponce, 1994), in the present
context we will use it to include identification of oneself as belonging to any ethnic
group in Canada.

A national survey conducted in 1991, which included measures of symbolic ethnic

identity, found that, in general, Canadians identify most strongly with being Canadian,
rather than identifying with their ethnic origins (Angus Reid Group, 1991; Kalin &
Berry, in press). First, respondents were asked to select, from a list including the
descriptors Canadian, Hyphenated-Canadian (i.e. ethnic origin plus Canadian, such as
Greek-Canadian), Ethnic Origin only (e.g. Greek), and Provincial, the one identity
which best described how they thought of themselves. Overall, 64% of respondents
selected Canadian and 19% selected a Provincial identity. Only 13% of respondents
selected Hyphenated-Canadian and 4% selected Ethnic Origin only (Angus Reid Group,
1991; Kalin & Berry, in press). It is interesting to note that selection of a provincial
identity was especially likely to occur among French respondents in Québec where 50%
provided a provincial identity (i.e. Québécois). This likely reflects the strength of the
Québec nationalism movement (Kalin & Berry, in press).

Of course, restricting respondents to providing a single choice of descriptors may not be

the best way of assessing full ethnic identity. For example, an individual may identify
most strongly with being Canadian, and thus select the single descriptor Canadian, yet
still identify relatively strongly with an ethnic origin as well. Thus, respondents were
also asked to independently rate the degree to which they identified with each of the
descriptors. In this case, responses were not mutually exclusive – for example,
respondents could indicate that they identified strongly with all four descriptors.
Overall, 82% of respondents strongly identified with being Canadian, with individuals
born in Canada slightly more likely to show this strong identification (Canadian-born:
82%, foreign-born: 80%). Similarly, 58% of respondents strongly identified with their
province of residence, with Canadian-borns (61%) more likely to do so than foreign-
borns (48%). Again, this strong provincial identification was especially likely to exist
among French respondents in Québec. In contrast, only 26% of respondents strongly
identified with being Hyphenated-Canadians and 23% strongly identified with Ethnic
Origin only. In both of these latter cases, individuals born outside Canada were more
likely to show these strong identifications (Hyphenated-Canadian: foreign-born 37%,
Canadian-born 25%; Ethnic Origin only: foreign-born 31%, Canadian-born 22%; Angus
Reid Group, 1991; Kalin & Berry, in press).

These results suggest that for most Canadians, especially those born in Canada, ethnic
origins are not a strong part of identity (Kalin & Berry, in press). This is consistent with
the suggestion that ethnic origins are not particularly salient for most Canadians, and
that identification with ethnic origins tends to decline with successive generations
(Reitz, 1980; Reitz & Breton, 1994; Weinfeld, 1994). However, it is important to note
that these findings are at the level of symbolic ethnic identity, and not behavioural
ethnic identity. Although potentially related, one or the other of these two forms of
identity may be retained independently. For example, an individual may practise ethnic
traditions, but not have strong feelings of attachment to the ethnic group (Isajiw, 1990).
Thus, although many Canadians may have weak symbolic ethnic identities, it is unclear
what their behavioural ethnic identities may be. It has been suggested that behavioural
ethnic identity declines over successive generations at an even faster rate than does
symbolic ethnic identity (Reitz & Breton, 1994). However, it is also the case that ethnic
traditions and practices may be incorporated into mainstream Canadian culture and thus,
at least superficially, be retained (Weinfeld, 1994). Thus, the level of and relation
between behavioural and symbolic ethnic identities are important issues for future
research to address.

Ethnic Attitudes in Canada

Canadians take pride in their presumed tolerance of diversity and their absence of
prejudice toward ethnic minorities (Reitz & Breton, 1994). Is it, in fact, the case that
Canadians are accepting of ethnic minorities? Ethnic attitudes are quite complex and
thus, difficult to assess. They may include not only an overall evaluation of a group, but
also affective, cognitive and behavioural components (Esses et al., 1993). That is, in
assessing attitudes toward an ethnic group, one might determine general favourability
toward the group, as well as specific feelings, beliefs and behavioural intentions toward
group members.

The 1991 national survey assessed one aspect of these attitudes which may perhaps be
described as part of the affective component: perceived comfort in interacting with
members of a group. In particular, respondents were asked to indicate how comfortable
they would feel being around members of 14 ethnic groups, thinking of group members
first as immigrants to Canada and then as having been born and raised in Canada
(Angus Reid Group, 1991; Berry & Kalin, 1995).

Results revealed that comfort ratings for the various ethnic and immigrant groups were,
in absolute terms generally quite high, (i.e., reports of feeling very comfortable). In
addition, it is interesting to note that respondents indicated feeling quite comfortable
among Native Canadian Indians and did not differentiate them from groups of European
origin (Angus Reid Group, 1991; Berry & Kalin, 1995). This is somewhat surprising
given that previous studies have found substantial evidence of negative attitudes toward
Native people in Canada (Berry, 1981; Berry, Kalin & Taylor, 1977; Mackie, 1974;
Haddock, Zanna & Esses, 1994). In contrast, however, the comfort levels expressed for
many of the other groups of non-European origin were lower than those expressed for
the groups of European origin (i.e., reports of feeling less comfortable; Angus Reid
Group, 1991; Berry & Kalin, 1995). Of particular importance is that respondents
generally reported less comfort being among many of the visible minority groups
included in the list (e.g., Indo-Pakistanis, Arabs). This is grounds for concern, especially
given the predicted future increase in representation of visible minorities in Canada
(Kelly, 1995; Statistics Canada, 1995b).

Several other findings are noteworthy. First, French and British origin respondents
expressed a mutual preference for members of their own group. That is, they each
reported feeling more comfortable interacting with members of their own group than
with members of the other group (Berry & Kalin, 1995). Although the size of these
effects are not large, they perhaps reflect some degree of intergroup tension. Second,
overall, respondents generally reported feeling less comfortable with members of a
group when these group members were rated in the context of being immigrants to
Canada, rather than as born and raised in Canada (Angus Reid Group, 1991; Berry &
Kalin, 1995). Finally, French origin respondents generally provided lower comfort
ratings for all target groups (with the exception of the French target group) than did
respondents who were of British and other origins (Angus Reid Group, 1991; Berry &
Kalin, 1995).

The latter two findings are both potentially attributable to perceptions of threat to values
and culture (Esses et al., 1993; Maio, Esses & Bell, 1994). Canadians may feel less
comfortable with recent immigrants to Canada than with second and later generation
members of ethnic minorities due to the perception that recent immigrants are more
likely to hold different values and have different cultural practices than do the rest of
Canadians (Berry & Kalin, 1995). This should be of particular concern because new
immigrants coming to Canada in the future are likely to hold an especially wide range
of religious and cultural beliefs, values and customs (Priest, 1990). In addition, French
Canadians may be more wary of ethnic minorities in general due to a perceived need to
protect French culture and identity (Berry & Kalin, 1995; Berry et al., 1977; Bourhis,
1994). The role of values and culture in ethnic relations in Canada certainly merits
further investigation, as does the nature of other components of ethnic attitudes, such as
stereotypes and behavioural intentions.

Ethnic Relations in Canada

Previous volumes on ethnic relations in Canada have covered a range of topics. For
example, Gardner and Kalin’s (1981) edited book on Canadian ethnic relations included
sections on Conceptual and Historical Background, Social Development, The Language
Issue and Intergroup Relations. Despite the laudability of its breadth, however, most
(though not all) of the research conducted at this earlier time focussed on the
perspective of majority group members.

In contrast, in addressing ethnic relations in Canada, there is now a growing awareness

that it is important to consider the perspectives of both majority and minority group
members, who have vital roles to play in Canada’s future. Similarly, issues surrounding
ethnic attitudes and ethnic identity must be taken into account. In fact, this new breadth
of perspectives may be taken as an indication of sound multicultural research.
By emphasizing both majority and minority perspectives, the special issue of the
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science serves several important functions. First, it
reflects the reality of the current ethnic composition of Canada and its expanding
diversity. As such, it provides the opportunity to broaden our understanding of ethnic
relations in Canada. In addition, the research described in this special issue will provide
the impetus for further research in the Canadian context.

This special issue consists of three sections. The first describes research directed toward
an understanding of ethnic attitudes and prejudice. In their article, Aboud and Doyle use
a laboratory approach to investigate communications between low and high prejudiced
children. They find differences in the nature of the communications of children differing
in level of prejudice and, encouragingly, they also find that the high prejudiced children
show decreases in prejudice following communications with low prejudiced children.
The articles by Kalin and by Palmer both focus on survey data, In his article, Kalin
investigates the relation between attitudes toward each of 12 ethnic and racial groups
and the presence of these groups in the community. In general, for groups of European
origin, there is a tendency for attitudes to be more favourable toward members of the
group as their presence in the community increases. For visible minority groups,
however, no clear pattern emerges. Kalin suggests several reasons for the differences
obtained. Palmer’s article also focusses on survey data, but directs attention to correlates
and possible determinants of attitudes toward immigration. He investigates these
possible determinants by examining relations both across several years of survey and
within a given survey. His findings call into question generalizations based on the
symbolic racism hypothesis and suggest that a number of factors are implicated in
attitudes toward immigration.

The second section describes research concerned with perceptions of being a target of
discrimination. There are two articles in this section and both examine the
personal/group discrimination discrepancy. In their article, Taylor, Ruggiero and Louis
discuss laboratory-based studies that investigate why members of minority groups tend
to perceive more discrimination directed at their group in general than at them
personally as members of that group. Results suggest that the discrepancy is due to the
operation of two factors, namely, a shared stereotype about the prevalence of group
discrimination, possibly fostered by media coverage and a tendency to minimize
perceptions of personal discrimination. Importantly, the authors discuss the possible
psychological benefits of the minimization of personal discrimination. Dion and
Kawakami also focus on the personal/group discrimination discrepancy, but look for
evidence of the phenomenon in survey data obtained from members of six ethnic and
racial groups. They investigate five different domains or situations (e.g., obtaining
jobs), and find evidence for the phenomenon for all groups in some situations (e.g.,
obtaining jobs), but for only some groups in other situations (e.g., obtaining loans).
They also find that sex of respondent interacts with ethnicity in determining the nature
of the discrepancy in some domains, indicating that the personal/group discrimination
discrepancy can be influenced by other factors.

The third section is concerned with ethnic identity and acculturation. There are three
articles in this section. In the first, Noels and Clément investigate the relations among
indices of interethnic contact, language behaviour, ethnic identity and psychological
adjustment among French and English Canadians from high and low ethnolinguistic
vitality for each language group. Differences between the models are interpreted in
terms of different patterns of identification and adjustment required in communities
differing in ethnolinguistic vitality. In the second article, Patterson, Cameron and
Lalonde investigate women’s awareness of the intersection of race and gender with
respect to attitudes toward issues involving women of color. They also evaluate a casual
model linking race privilidge, race/gender intersection, perception of marginalization
and separatist attitude. They conclude that it is not meaningful to divide identity into
separate components, such as race and gender, but that the components intersect in such
a way as to form distinct units. In the third article, Aycan and Berry study the impact of
employment-related experiences on Turkish immigrants’ acculturation. They
demonstrate that many such immigrants have difficulty finding employment suitable to
their prior training and experience largely because of linguistic and economic factors.
They also use casual modelling procedures to evaluate a model that proposes that
employment-related experiences influence psychological health and that both
employment-related experiences and psychological health influence adaptation.

The articles in this special issue are diverse in their approach, the nature of their samples
and the questions they ask. As a result, they provide an overview of the diversity of
psychological research devoted to the study of multiculturalism in Canada. A careful
examination of these articles will allow the reader not only to gain insight into the
dynamics of the Canadian scene, but also to gain an appreciation of the ingenuity of the
research that is currently being undertaken to understand these dynamics.

Changing the Way We See the World

Did you realize that in families of Asian descent a woman typically does not shake
hands with men and younger people do not shakes hands with their elders? Are you
aware that in the Middle Eastern cultures it is considered inappropriate to sit with your
back to an adult who is present? Did you know that native Hawaiians do not touch a
child on top of the head because this area is considered sacred? These are but a few of
the cultural differences that students and teachers alike are trying to address through
multiculturalism education.

In Indiana, the number of non-English speaking students continues to increase. During

the 1994-95 school year, 20,899 language minority students were enrolled in Indiana’s
public schools according to the Indiana Department of Education. Of these, 30 percent,
or 6,293, were identified as being limited English proficient. Eighty-nine of Indiana’s
92 counties reported having language minority students enrolled. The top ten native
languages of these Indiana students (after English) included: Spanish, German (Amish),
Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Vietnamese, German, Arabic, Gujarati and Greek.

While multiculturalism education can mean different things to different people, a

generally accepted definition describes it as schooling aimed at providing all children
with an equal opportunity to learn in a culturally affirming and caring environment.
Cultural diversity education can include how race, gender and physical ability can
contribute to the different ways that people see the world.

Dr. Pat Browne, supervisor of multicultural education for Indianapolis Public Schools
(IPS), believes that parents are key to the success of encouraging respect and
appreciation for cultural diversity both in the home and the school community. Browne
trains “teams” from each IPS school consisting of the principal, a teacher, a
paraprofessional and a parent, who, in turn, provide staff development in each school on
multicultural education. She believes that much of the training her office provides is to
supplement what teachers are not getting in their college training and what textbooks
are not presenting in terms of understanding different cultural perspectives.

Those who are skeptical of what they consider an overemphasis on diversity point to
their concerns that too much emphasis on multiculturalism in education may damage
our common national identity. There is also concern that by teaching to respect the
rights of others who do things differently, we must surrender our own right to voice
disagreement, even accept or encourage practices with which we disagree.

“Multiculturalism in its purest form is a good thing, but too often it is misused and
abused”, notes Bill Smith, executive director of the Indiana Family Institute. “We can
teach our children to be tolerant without indoctrinating them. In its extreme form,
multiculturalism becomes a form of relativism where there are no universal standards by
which to measure right or wrong. We can teach respect for how other people live
without demanding acceptance of those differences.

Tinka Booe, President of the Indiana State PTA (Parent Teacher Association), notes that
the PTA promotes diversity at a variety of levels, including board leadership,
conferences, publications and resources. The national organization has developed
resource material available to member organizations to encourage understanding in a
multicultural society. One of the program kits, “In Someone Else’s Shoes: A Guide to
Inclusiveness”, offers tips on how to increase sensitivity to family and individual
differences in the community. “Some of our schools have planned and organized
International Fairs to help students and families better understand other cultures and
customs”, says Booe.

At the International School of Indiana in Indianapolis, the term multicultural is an

everyday occurrence. Here, students in grades pre-K through third choose to pursue
their academics in either French or Spanish. In the fourth grade, half of their subjects
are conducted in English and the other half are in French or Spanish, depending on the
foreign language tract that they have chosen. According to Headmaster Alain Weber,
the goal is for children to be bi-lingual, bi-cultural and achieve academic excellence.
Ultimately, they should be better prepared to live, work and interact in a culturally
diverse world, he notes.
“This is not simply a language school,” emphasizes Weber. “This is first an academy.
However, we also believe that, by studying in another language, children acquire a
greater awareness about other cultures. In the process, they explore and learn more
about their own heritage.”

While the range of viewpoints regarding culturally competent education is varied, most
educators agree that preparing our youth for the 21st Century requires a recognition and
understanding of the demographic changes underway in this country. Indications are
that we can expect a very different workforce by the turn of the century in terms of
gender, race and ethnicity. Equipping our children with the knowledge, skills and
understandings to succeed in a culturally diverse world is, ultimately, what multicultural
education is all about.

Multiculturalism in Australia

“We cannot continue pursuing the failures of multiculturalism”.

“To treat all Australians equally, and in doing so, abolish divisive and discriminatory
policies such as those related to aboriginal and multicultural affairs.”

“We must always remember the sacrifice of so many Australians who fought to save
our country from outsiders who would have taken it.”

“We must not allow our country to be taken from within.”

Multiculturalism has two aspects, one is descriptive, that is, multiculturalism says that
Australia is and has always been populated by people from diverse cultural
backgrounds.

There were many different communities, cultures and languages in Australia while the
indigenous peoples roamed this land for 60.000 years, and then, following colonisation
and settlement this diversity has continued. There have been periods when significant
numbers of different peoples migrated to Australia, for example, the Goldrush and Post
WWII. History also tells us that on the first fleet, there were people from about thirty
different ethnic groups and that migration in various forms has continued for many
more than two hundred years.
Since the 18th century colonization, there has been a strong British influence, through
the English language, in Australia’s institutions, in their legal structures, in their
Parliamentary democracy, in valuing individual rights and other principles which have
become the core values in the Australian society. These core values are the fundamental
overarching principles which all Australians accept and share as the essential pillars of
what makes them a single nation. Immigrants are required to respect these institutions
and principles which are basic to Australian society and, in respecting and accepting
these principles, then Australia and Australians will reciprocate by encouraging the
equal participation of immigrants in their society.

The recognition that Australia’s core values as a nation are of British heritage is a fact
which does not ignore the rich diversity that makes up this British heritage, nor the
socially enriching value of cultural diversity in Australian’s lifestyles, in their religion,
in their food preferences and so on.

Even under the Assimilationist and White Australia policies and practices, which
advocated cultural imperialism and oppression in the name of the overarching principles
of their British heritage, there was a rich diversity of Australian peoples whose roots
were embedded in different ethnic backgrounds (English, Cornish, Scots, Irish, German
and others), heritages, cultures, traditions, religions and food preferences.

This cultural diversity, underpinned by the core values and principles which all
Australians share, have always been there and have always been woven together to form
the living tapestry which is Australia, its identity, its icons and its way of life.

Multiculturalism says Australia is culturally and ethnically diverse and shares some
basic fundamental principles and core values, one of which has become the recognition,
sharing, valuing and celebrating their cultural diversity. This is the second aspect of
multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism is about all people sharing the core values and principles of the society
and at the same time allowing individuals and groups the opportunity to have different
approaches to religion, lifestyles, family structures, food preferences. This diversity is
socially enriching because it permits and facilitates diverse social interactions, sharing
traditions, choice and grafting. Multiculturalism produces hybrid vigour; without it, the
tree of life, the Australian way of life, may die.

The policy of multiculturalism recognizes the socially enriching value of diversity, it

also insists that all Australians, of whatever origin, accept the overarching principles
and institutions which make us one nation. Prime Minister Hawke. July 8, 1988.

Multiculturalism is about diversity, not division. It is about interaction, not isolation. It

is about cultural and ethnic differences set within a framework of shared fundamental
values which enable them to co-exist on a complementary rather than competitive basis.
Malcom Fraser. 1981.