A couple of weeks ago I asked an international student in my orientation group about his perceptions of Canadian culture thus far. Bursting with pride, I waited for the sugary praise he was sure to dole out with respect to Toronto’s diversity and Canada’s progressive multiculturalism policy.
But instead of sweet accolades, I got a smack in the face.
“Aren’t you guys supposed to be a melting pot or something?” he flatly responded. “Seems like just a bunch of segregated neighbourhoods to me.”
Mistaking his insightfulness for ignorance, I patiently explained that he was confusing us with our homogenizing neighbours to the south. Canada’s version of multiculturalism, I explained, is best understood by way of a mosaic metaphor: each ethnic identity glittering uniquely from within the confines of a single, harmoniously blended masterpiece. He didn’t buy it. And to tell you the truth, neither do I.
It appears that the mosaic model of multiculturalism is at best a fairy tale, and at worst a party to all sorts of ugliness, including this summer’s homegrown terrorist plot.
One need not look very far to witness the splintering of Canada’s socio-political claim to fame. From campuses across the country where students move about in ethnically defined pods, to neighbourhoods in our largest cities in which one would be hard-pressed to hear a word of English or French, it is plain to see that what we thought was a mosaic is really more like a junior high schoolyard. We don’t have Trudeau’s vision of pluralism-we have teenage cliquishness.
While this lack of integration may not be true of every neighbourhood, it is widespread enough to be observed by a newcomer. And the effects of a dysfunctional multicultural identity can no longer be dismissed as wholly innocuous. Indeed, the events in Toronto and Caledonia this past summer reveal the virulent potential of a society that seems integrated but actually isn’t.
While many observers cited a lack of coherence between Canada’s mainstream culture and the values of the minority groups as a precipitating factor in the aforementioned conflicts, it appears that a more accurate characterization of the culprit hits closer to home.
For there to be a culture clash at all, an identifiable, mainstream identity must first exist. Perhaps it wasn’t incoherence that contributed to the sense of disconnection felt by the Muslim terror suspects or Native protestors, but rather a lack of something to connect to altogether.
What does being “Canadian” mean, anyway? I have a very difficult time answering that question and was grateful that my international friend did not respond to my candy-coated explanation with such a retort. And therein lies the problem with the mosaic model. It does not always follow that if you glue pieces of coloured tile to a canvas, an aesthetically harmonious image emerges. Sometimes a bunch of glass is just that.
So what is the solution? How do we go about constructing a sense of “Canadian-ness,” and will such an identity really make a difference when it comes to the political brain-teasers that are homegrown terrorism and aboriginal land claim disputes? Certainly, it would be na’ve to think that one could explain away such complex issues by pointing to a single threadbare patch in our social fabric.
Instead, what the events of this summer and my own observations warrant is the recognition that the old mosaic model is more Peter Pan than political reality. Only upon acknowledging this shortcoming will Canadians from every community be able to have a meaningful discussion about what we want in our national identity.
Canada is a country that is currently struggling through its adolescence. And while that can mean growing out of our favorite fables, it also means that our greatest potential is yet to be realized.
