Disentangling the debate - Kymlicka (2007) - May 26 Reading Note - Jenn Bergen

Kymlicka, W. (2007). Disentangling the debate. In J. Stein, D. Cameron, J. Ibbitson, W. Kymlicka, J. Meisel, H. Siddiqui & M. Valpy (Eds.), Uneasy partners: Multiculturalism and rights in Canada (pp.137-156). Waterloo, ON: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Main Argument

Kymlicka (2007) critiques the argument that multiculturalism may be bolstering religious groups’ efforts to curtail equal rights, and instead argues that multiculturalism in Canada reinforces - rather than erodes - equal rights.

Supporting Points

Kymlicka (2007) describes multiculturalism as having three characteristics: “as fact, as policy, as ethos” (p. 138). Multiculturalism as fact, Kymlicka describes, arises out of the physical presence of ethnocultural diversity, displaying a “breadth of … ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity” (2007, p. 138). Multiculturalism as policy refers to the set of policies that resulted in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, giving rise to a push for equitable “representation of ethnic groups within public institutions” (2007, p. 139). Multiculturalism as ethos refers to how Canadians “think about and discuss issues of diversity” (2007, p. 139).

Kymlicka first outlines the argument he is addressing – that multiculturalism reinforces the historical precedent of allowing religious groups to be exempt from certain laws supporting equity (2007, pp. 140-141). He argues that this is not the case for several reasons. First, in addressing a claim of increasing religious orthodoxy, Kymlicka proposes that it may be the case that the rise in the culture of rights post World War II, regardless of growth in religious orthodoxy, has lead to conflicts as a result of activities of non-discrimination being enacted in public institutions and society (2007, pp. 141-142). He asserts that The Multiculturalism Act was the result of the culmination of equal rights movements and activists pressuring the government to take formal action on racial and ethnic discrimination, and that this Act is rarely invoked by religious groups in place of usual claims to religious freedom (2007, pp. 145-147). 

To support his argument, Kymlicka (2007) gives examples of how The Multicultural Act in Canada has resulted in better integration of immigrants as compared to other countries (p. 150), including faster participation in national institutions and political integration (pp. 150-151). He also invokes “liberal expectancy” (p. 151) as support for his argument – an expectation that democratic values will only grow over time (p. 151). He argues that immigrant groups will be more likely to integrate successfully into a culture of rights if “people believe it will occur” (p. 153), rather than provoking religious or minority groups to make sure they are adhering to these rights.

Assessment / Critique

Kymlicka (2007) presents a powerful counterpoint to the argument that multiculturalism is potentially supporting religious groups’ claims of non-adherence to equality rights. The strength of his arguments lie in the history he gives about the act itself, how this act facilitates the integration of new immigrants, and the examples he gives of the power of the Act. He is also careful to not to conflate new immigrants with more orthodox religious groups, instead explaining that in Canada, it is more likely early settler-based white Christians who make substantial claims of religious freedom in the face of equality rights.

The weaknesses of his argument, for me, surfaced in his explanation of “liberal expectancy”, or the idea that societies will only grow to be more liberally progressive. I do not think this is always the case, and this expectation may be harmful if the erosion of equal rights in public or state institutions goes slowly unchecked. As Kymlicka himself notes, non-discrimination is just as active a process as discrimination (2007, p. 142), and I would argue that it cannot be assumed that the public will eventually endorse equal rights without enshrining those rights legally – that is, I’m not convinced that democratic liberalization is inevitable (as I think Kymlicka may be arguing).

I was left with several questions after reading this article, most notably about the difference between multiculturalism as a policy and how it is taken up by schools (or the ‘ethos’). In application, the ‘multicultural’ activities taken up in the form of festivals and celebrations in the elementary school that I attended leaned more toward the tokenising tendency of multiculturalism than toward actual practices of inclusion and active conflict resolution. However, I know that there are intentional efforts to implement anti-racist education and take issues of cross-cultural conflict as sites of learning and growth seriously in classrooms. What, then, are the best practices that are emerging in critical multicultural education, and are these practices similar to anti-racist educational efforts? If not, what are the distinctions and points of departure?