NETWORK MOSAIC MULTICULTURALISM: POLITICS OF MULTICULTURALISM, TRANSNATIONAL IMMIGRATION
PRACTICES AND A NEW CANADIAN SPACE OF FLOWS IDENTITY
By
MEGAN SWAN
Integrated Studies Project
submitted to Dr. Gloria Filax
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts � Integrated Studies
Athabasca, Alberta
March 2008
1
Network Mosaic Multiculturalism: Politics of Multiculturalism, Transnational
Immigration Practices and a New Canadian Space of Flows Identity Our ability to understand fundamental aspects of our world will depend on our ability to
acknowledge and understand the social, political, economic, and epistemic consequences of our own social location. Paula M. L Moya (2002: 43)
The push to accommodate diversity, including diversities that have yet to develop, turns
the contract into an open-ended conversation into which voices can enter at anytime. Simone Chambers (2001, quoted in Kernerman 2005:86)
Introduction
This work will explore how flexible spaces have supported multiculturalism in
Canada and how multiculturalism could be understood in new ways by utilizing the
characteristics of the Information Age. The Information Age has facilitated an increase
in and diversification of connections in transnational spaces, which are, in turn, working
to inform emerging flexible spaces for Canadian identity. I use the term �flexible spaces�
to describe the historically ambiguous and continuously adaptive multicultural policy
designed to meet the changing needs of the Canadian economy (Abu-Laban & Gabriel
2002). The Information Age refers to the proliferation and development of Information
and Communication Technologies (ICTs) that are reshaping the structure of the global
economy, society and culture (Castells 2000). Transnational immigration practices are
the result of the paradigm shift (Robinson 2005) from �the dualism inherent in the classic
models of migration�the assumption that migrants move through bipolar spaces in a
progressive time frame�to non-binary theoretical perspectives that are not predicated on
2
modernist assumptions about space and time� (Kearney 1995, cited in Espiritu & Tran
2002: 367). In turn, the term �transnational spaces� I use to refer to the networks,
connections and spaces in between that are fostered and nourished by transnational
(im)migrants to maintain contact with multiple places with which they may identify or
have a sense of belonging. Often, new Canadians hold different values, beliefs, norms,
and worldviews that have been shaped by both their parents and grandparents. As well,
due to the flexibility arising from the Information Age, new Canadians maintain their
connection with transnational spaces in order to fulfill a sense of belonging in a
community within Canada.
Multicultural practice has long been a goal in theory and policy for Canadian
society. As a result the younger generation of working Canadians tend to source part of
their Canadian identity from the mosaic multicultural ideal stemmed in the politics of
previous generations (Adams 2007). However there is still much work to be done within
Canadian multicultural policy as subtle racism towards and marginalization of �visible
minorities�, or non-white Canadians, is deeply embedded in Canadian society. Canada�s
celebration of diversity and tolerance of the Other, by definition only maintains
superficial cross-cultural dialogue and understanding. Our unwillingness to discuss or
accept the reality that �immigration� is a �euphemistic expression for racist labour and
citizenship policies� which has �become a major election platform� (Bannerji 2000: 4),
impedes our ability to break down the superficial version of Canadian multiculturalism.
Thus, the discourse of multiculturalism in Canada needs to be updated not only in light of
the expansion, creation, and use of transnational networks, but also to be inclusive of an
authentic multicultural and multidisciplinary approach to combat racism.
3
The Information Age or the dramatic impact of ICTs on global society has
influenced the definition of multiculturalism in Canada. This has changed the
experience, goals and identity of the more recent waves of immigrants and their
offspring. The new technologies have allowed groups and individuals to exchange ideas,
images, culture, symbolism, and emotional and financial support with other parts of the
world with relative ease. These transnational practices and exchanges develop for a
variety of reasons and motivations. The degree to which the transnational practices in
turn shape second-generation young working Canadians is an important consideration
that will be explored as an indicator of where multiculturalism ideals could lead us.
As the development of transnational networks has shaped the experience, interests
and identity of immigrants in Canadian society, it seems that this new transnational
immigrant and their children embody a de-territorialisation of multiculturalism as a
source of Canadian identity. That is to suggest that many new Canadians are gaining a
sense of their identity not only from Canadian spaces, but also from within their countries
of emigration, international and virtual spaces. Manual Castells� (2000) theories of the
�space of flows� vs. the �space of places� and Deleuze & Guattari�s (1987) theories of re-
vs. de-territorialization will be used to explore how multiculturalism is operating in
Canada. In particular my work will explore how the next generation of Canadians are
defining multicultural Canadian identity and how/whether governmental institutions need
to speed up the process of recognizing the changing spaces of Canada�s multiculturalism.
The second-generation Canadians of these more recent waves of immigrants and
their non-immigrant peers are also helping re-shape multiculturalism in Canada. It is this
younger generation of working Canadians that are most in tune with the multicultural
4
ideal, and most fully identify with it (Adams 2007, Anderson & Valpy 2004). Both
immigrant and diasporic communities are by the nature of their de-territorialized identity
providing new kinds of flexible spaces in which multiculturalism needs to operate. It is
essential therefore to update our conception of multiculturalism as a source of Canadian
identity to better understand ideal future directions of Canadian policy goals.
In order to update multiculturalism in Canada it is necessary to first appreciate the
historical objectives of Canada�s institutionalization of the multiculturalism ideal. The
discussion will begin therefore with a brief history of the policy of multiculturalism. This
will allow for an integrated understanding of from where our current sense of
multiculturalism stems. This understanding will enable us to recognize some of the
flawed assumptions and inauthentic motivations which should be acknowledged and
accepted in order to move on. By building on what we have learned, we can legitimate
our sense of pride in a new multicultural space that is not afraid of opening the Canadian
Conversation1 further by discussing the hopes and fears involved in multicultural
existence. Canada is admired globally for its stance on multiculturalism. It could be
even more admired by bringing the discourse to another level.
Further, as Canadians learn that Canadian identity is the product of the politics
and �diversity management� of previous generations (Mackey 2002, Kernerman 2005) we
will be better equipped to develop open-minded policy for the future. Thus the second
1 The �Canadian Conversation� is a term that Kernerman (2005) introduces to encompass the many scholars (i.e. Charles Taylor, Will Kymlicka, Joseph Carens, Simone Chambers, Michael Ignatieff, James Tully, Jeremy Webber, Ian Angus, Joel Bakan, Himani Bannerji, Richard Day, Yasmeen Abu-Laban and Christina Gabriel, Eva Mackey, and Sherene Razack) who participate in the debate in Canadian policy, politics and government initiatives regarding �Multicultural Nationalism�. I capitalize the term in order to emphasize its active nature, as an ongoing discourse not just within academic and political realms, but also among the general public, media and students. In addition, as Simone Chambers reminds us, the Canadian Conversation, in order to truly accommodate diversity, must be open-ended and it is in fact one of the things that makes Canadian multicultural nationalism unique.
5
section of the discussion will focus on the construction of multiculturalism as a source of
Canadian identity. In general it seems that it takes a few generations for Canadians to
internalize the spirit of past �diversity management strategies�, and this might stem from
the �strategy� vs. truly organic nature of past government initiatives. This idea will be
explored by deconstructing multiculturalism as a source of Canadian identity designed by
previous politics. A deeper understanding of this process could lead to a less reactionary
approach to �diversity management� and give rise instead to a holistic, genuine and
flowing space for multiculturalism to flourish in Canada.
The last section of the discussion will explore some of the transnational practices
and spaces that exist within many Canadian immigrant communities. These practices can
take on many forms such as social, political, economic and cultural exchanges through
countless transnational networks/spaces/flows. In addition, the practices may be more
symbolic or emotional in nature, especially among the second generation. The benefits
of these daily transnational exchanges will be an increasingly relevant topic in Canada, as
our economy and source of population growth are ever more dependent on new
Canadians. Understanding the motivations that drive the ebb and flow of transnational
immigration practices is fundamental to accurately reviving multicultural theory and
policy goals in Canada.
I will integrate Foucault�s theory of power/knowledge exercised through
governmentality to examine the articulation of Canadian national identity,
multiculturalism, and transnational immigration practices. For Foucault, power is best
understood through an analytical approach that works to reveal the various forms of
power working in a given social situation. Power is everywhere, moves and flows; it is
6
not possessed (Hunt & Wickman 1994: 15). The flexible space in which the Canadian
government continuously updates its stance on who is an ideal Canadian in order to feed
the Canadian economy is an excellent example of power flowing back and forth between
the new Canadians that are needed and the government who must prepare Canadian
society for acceptance of �visible minorities�.
Foucault�s theory of power/knowledge posits that �knowledge is a major resource
of power� (13). In other words, power produces knowledge that serves in the interest of
that power, and �that power and knowledge directly imply one another� (Ibid: 12). His
theory of governmentality �occupies the spaces between power and domination�, and
involves the �conduct of conduct� (Kernerman 2005: 100). Governmentality is the
rational application of techniques that are designed to shape, channel and guide the
conduct of others; to the point at which individuals, groups and populations come to
regulate their own behaviour and the behaviour of others (Ibid.). Thus, concepts like
power/knowledge and governmentality will aid in our understanding of the flexible and
ambiguous nature of multicultural politics in Canada allowing the government to
propagate in society an adaptive �tolerance� towards the new faces of each immigration
wave. This nuanced understanding will be integrated with evidence about the spatial
restructuring of culture and identity formation flows via the Information Age, which I
believe in turn can serve to revitalize multicultural theory and practice in Canada.
The Canadian Multicultural Space
The vast majority of Canadians identify in some way with multiculturalism. To
what degree, and in what form varies greatly across generations and social categories.
7
For example, Focus Canada, a quarterly omnibus survey of a random sample of two
thousand Canadians recently found that eight in ten young (between the ages of 15 and
24) Canadians agreed with the statement: �Other cultures have a lot to teach us. Contact
with them is enriching for us.� (Adams 2007: 38). In 2003, 85 percent of Canadians said
that multiculturalism was important to Canadian identity. In 2006, when we were asked
what makes us proud to be Canadian, multiculturalism was second in line after
democracy as the most cited answer (Ibid: 20). According to Will Kymlicka, �Canadians
are distinctive in the way that they have incorporated Canada�s policy of accommodating
diversity into their sense of national identity� (quoted in Adams 2007: 21).
However, evidence of the fragility of Canadians so-called tolerance of diversity
has proven to surface easily after various global events, most recently the climate of fear
rising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The quick, deep fractures that fester throughout
Canadian society with the advent of a clash of cultures outside our borders are a true
testament to the power dynamics that exist within the notion of �tolerance�. The person
or society doing the tolerating always has the power to relinquish this tolerance, and
assumes that the person being tolerated should hold gratitude for this �gift of tolerance�
(Modood 2007, Parekh 2000). �Tolerance actually reproduces dominance (by those in
power to tolerate), because asking for tolerance implies the possibility of intolerance�
(Mackey 2002:16).
In other words, given the direction of demographics in Canada, we need the
conversation to move beyond a pride in tolerance of diversity to a pride in respect for
diversity (Gutmann 1994) or as Taylor (1994) would assert an authentic recognition of
diverse identities. For Taylor this would entail a deep appreciation for all cultures, given
8
the claim that �all human cultures that have animated whole societies over some
considerable stretch of time have something important to say to all human beings� (1994:
66). I would also add the same respect is required for all the veritable
hybrid/multiple/post-diasporic/melange combinations of human cultures. This demand
for recognition should be explicit precisely because our identity is formed by recognition,
and to not recognize someone, is to do harm (Taylor 1994).
The 2006 Canadian Census indicates many interesting trends in the multicultural
landscape of Canada. The vast majority of new Canadians are coming from �Asian�
countries; currently the top three are China, India and the Philippines (Chui et. al. 2007).
These newcomers on average are younger in comparison to the Canadian-born population
(Ibid.) and are more likely to hold university degrees; for example in 2004, 45 percent of
the newcomers in comparison with 23 percent of the total Canadian population (Adams
2007: 62). Of the 6.2 million foreign-born Canadians 95 percent of them live in urban
areas. Two-thirds of this group live in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver (Chui et. al.
2007). The number one reason cited for choosing these three cities was to join social
support networks of family and friends (Ibid.), or in other words to relocate within pre-
existing transnational social networks.
New Canadians who recently arrived, between 2001 and 2006, were responsible
for two-thirds of the overall population growth of the country (Ibid.). The total
population growth was 5.4 percent and was the highest among all the G8 nations during
the same period (Mahoney 2007). It is estimated at this rate that by 2030 immigration
would be entirely responsible for population growth in Canada (Ibid.). In comparison to
other immigrant friendly nations, Canada is in the middle with 19.8 percent of our
9
population being foreign-born, versus Australia at 22 percent and the United States at
12.5 percent (Chui et. al. 2007). In sum, our country will increasingly rely on
immigration for population growth and in turn economic growth. The new Canadian
faces are young, educated and urban and thus continue to enrich Canada�s major social,
economic and cultural spaces. There is no doubt that the conversations and issues
surrounding multiculturalism in Canada will only be increasingly complex and therefore
important to facilitate for change and policy solutions.
The Institutionalization of Multiculturalism
The reality that Canada is extremely dependent on immigration for economic and
population growth is certainly not new for Canadian policy strategists to incorporate. It
has been suggested that immigration policy, from its inception, has been closely tied to
both the labour market and also implicitly and explicitly to a vision of who is an �ideal�
citizen (Abu-Laban & Gabriel 2002:37). This category of the ideal Canadian has
broadened significantly over the last century along with our conception of what diversity
entails.
The institutionalization of difference has always been an integral part of Canada�s
nation-building project (Mackey 2007). Nation-building is a dual process that requires
the management of populations and the creation of a national identity (Ibid: 23). A key
feature of Canada�s nation-building design has always included flexibility and ambiguity
(Ibid: 18). A prime example of this flexibility was the birth of multiculturalism as an
official government policy in the late 1960s and 1970s in response to increasing
immigration from non-white and non-Christian countries (Kymlicka 1995: 177). In
10
1967, the explicitly racial and ethnic discriminative core of Canada�s immigration policy
was removed and replaced with an implicitly discriminatory �point system� (Abu-Laban
& Gabriel 2002:43). This was the beginning of an official government policy towards
tolerance of multiculturalism in Canada.
Prime Minister Trudeau�s institutionalization of multiculturalism in 1971 was an
attempt to diffuse the bilateral rifts between French and English Canada, divert the
demands of the Aboriginal Peoples and appease the growing unrest of various ethnic
minorities (Mackey 2007, Fleras & Elliott 2002). The ingenuity of Trudeau�s
multiculturalism was that �he established a Canada that endorsed diversity in principle
without actually changing in any fundamental way how power and resources were
distributed� (Fleras & Elliott 2002: 56). It is this inauthentic root of the policy that is
inadequate and inhibits Canadians� ability to truly respect/recognize/value all peoples and
cultures as equal.
The official policy was largely influenced by a report released by the Royal
Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism which was created by Prime Minister
Pearson in an attempt to satisfy Quebec�s growing discontent (Abu-Laban & Gabriel
2002: 107). During the Commission�s process, rising unrest from the numerous other
minority groups shaped their final prescription for an official policy of multiculturalism
within a multilingual framework (Ibid: 108). Despite the recommendations of the
Commission, Trudeau created a multicultural policy within a bilingual framework.
Ultimately multiculturalism was created as an ideological framework whose purpose was,
and arguably still is today, to �strike dissent by cooling out potentially troublesome
minorities� (Ibid: 59). Canada�s �troublesome minorities� have therefore in some
11
instances successfully exercised their power, and in turn the government has exercised its
power to influence the knowledge and discourse regarding who is Canadian, or
multicultural governmentality.
Canada�s official multiculturalism is expressed in three ways: as a government
policy since 1971, as entrenched in the Constitution Act since 1982, and as a statutory
law since 1988 with the passage of the Multiculturalism Act (Fleras & Elliott 2002: 83).
The goals of the government policy have evolved over the decades. In the 1970s the
focus was on celebrating different cultures, eliminating prejudices, fostering tolerance
and the individual adjustment to the new �mosaic�. During this period federal spending
focused on �song and dance� folklore activities, and was thus criticised for the lack of
funds directed towards anti-racism programs (Abu-Laban & Gabriel, 2002: 108). As a
result in the 1980s the focus was on managing diversity, race relations and correcting the
structural discrimination practices. The government initiatives to reduce systemic racism
were poorly funded, relied heavily on one-time conferences rather than ongoing training,
and were therefore largely unsuccessful at affecting institutional change (Ibid: 109).
Since the 1990s the focus has moved to civic multiculturalism by attempting to
create a sense of belonging through participation and inclusion. (Fleras & Elliott 2002:
63). However in actuality over the last two decades politicians emphasized
multiculturalism�s business and trade advantages both for domestic and global capitalist
interests (Abu-Laban & Gabriel 2002). Therefore, it is safe to say the current goals
could use further updating, specifically a revival of anti-racism discourse that will focus
on the real fears involved in cross-cultural communication and interaction and not on
finding a politically correct way to avoid these issues. The Canadian Conversation on
12
�managing diversity� must become more inclusive and further informed by both
multicultural and multidisciplinary input. This is well articulated by Homi Bhabha
(1989), �Where once we could believe in the comforts and continuities of Tradition,
today we must face the responsibilities of cultural Translation� (Quoted in Morley &
Robins 1995: 105). Canadian schooling must incorporate multiple cultural perspectives,
discuss cross-cultural communication and equip citizens from a young age with tools
with which to keep an open mind and learn from Others. A mindset that is key to
combating racism requires an understanding that �differences between people are neither
absolute nor eternal� and that culture is a �cumulative experience�a matter of doing as
well as being, it is fluid rather than frozen� (Hannerz 2001: 69-70). In other words,
implementation of cultural analysis as an everyday practice can enable us to create spaces
in which we learn what we share as humans (Ibid.) in hopes of broadening our minds and
working together to solve issues of racism in Canada.
The Canadian Conversation
One of the more prominent figures within the Canadian Conversation is Charles
Taylor. His contributions of the �politics of recognition� and the concept of �deep
diversity� have provided a strong theoretical framework from which to legitimate
political inclusion of all ethnic and national minority groups in Canada. The idea of
�deep diversity� follows: �To build a country for everyone, Canada would have to allow
for second-level or �deep� diversity, in which a plurality of ways of belonging would also
be acknowledged and accepted.� (Quoted in Kernerman 2005: 42) This idea essentially
finds space for both ethnic (multicultural) and national (Quebec and Aboriginal) groups
13
to define their unique way of belonging to Canada, including Quebec as a �distinct
society� (Ibid).
However, the Anglo Canadian majority will always object to �special treatment�
of any one group in Canada precisely because their sense of what makes them distinct is
unstable. Even though, arguably minority groups already receive special treatment, in
many ways this special treatment is racism. Thus racism arises from the deep-rooted
reliance on the assumption that �visible minorities� are not �from here�, and should
automatically be grateful for any treatment they do encounter simply because they were
�allowed� in the door. This is in spite of the fact that Canadian society, and in particular
Canada�s high standard of living, depends on new Canadians� labour historically, now,
and increasingly, given our aging population. In essence, the Anglo Canadian majority
does not accept the fact that power flows, albeit still unevenly, between immigrant
communities and the Canadian government, which can be understood as multicultural
governmentality.
Taylor�s (1994) �politics of recognition� stems from the notion that our identity
evolves from our interaction with various others and is completely relational, an ongoing
dialogue. An essential aspect of this dialectical relationship is recognition of our identity
by significant others (on the micro level) and society (on the macro level).
Misrecognition or no recognition of one�s or a group�s identity would therefore constitute
harm (Kernerman 2005: 96). Within liberal democracy equality of all individuals must
therefore incorporate a respect (beyond tolerance) of everyone�s specific cultural context
(Taylor 1994). In this relatively fluid conception of identity Taylor finds room for
moderate demands for group recognition in the form of collective rights sought by
14
Quebec and Aboriginal People, however his concept cannot justify demands for group
recognition that come into conflict with fundamental liberal values such as freedom of
choice (Kernerman 2005: 96).
In the Canadian context to date a major example would be Quebec�s version of
multiculturalism, sometimes referred to as interculturalism. Interculturalism occurs when
Quebec requires all citizens to learn and speak French in the public domain and accept
Quebec�s Charter of Rights. It has been argued that perhaps the only difference between
Quebec�s interculturalism and Anglo Canadian multiculturalism is the former�s openness
and honesty about their objectives (Fleras & Elliott 2002: 88). Regardless, within the
liberal democratic framework collective rights reside on a slippery slope.
Will Kymlicka�s discussion of poly-ethnic versus national minority rights also
attempts to find solutions for multiculturalism�s weakness within a liberal framework
(1995). Kymlicka makes the distinction between external protections (equality between
groups) and internal restrictions (demand from minority groups to restrict basic liberties
of its own members) to highlight the conflict within liberalism between autonomy and
tolerance. Although the tensions will intensify as we are challenged to respect cultures
whose practices are in direct disagreement with fundamental liberal ideals (Modood
2007, Phillips 2007), currently the Canadian Conversation largely agrees that tolerance
for multiculturalism stops where cultural practices are not within Canadian laws (for
example: lack of freedom of choice in terms of religion, marriage, sexual reproduction
rights and/or women�s equality). Therefore both Kymlicka and Taylor seek to find space
within Canadian multiculturalism for collective group rights under the guise that they do
not include allowance for internal restrictions that conflict with liberal values.
15
The dominant discourses that have attempted to rework multiculturalism in
Canada have yet to sort out holistic solutions in that they continue to conflate the issues
of race relations and questions of nationalist discontent. The intention of the ongoing
nation-building project is to bring unity to Canadian identity through a universal
acceptance of diversity. In reality, in what capacity, and to what extent Canadians accept
diversity varies drastically. It has been suggested that what makes Canada unique is the
openness of the conversation around disunity (Kernerman 2005). Multiculturalism in
Canada is being held back by our tightly held grip on the idea of a unified Canada that
has never existed. Therefore why not embrace our ability to live in a space of flexibility,
of fluidity, of hybrid identities and diverging views? We need to build on this powerful
ability to �let go�, in order to allow culture to make connections and flow where it will to
address the continued fragmentation and hybridization of identities within the Canadian
space. At least the conversation must be brought back to focus on race relations and an
inter-cultural dialogue which employs Canadians� comfort with flexibility while
emphasizing the action involved with creating a sense of belonging (Manji 2004).
The (De)construction of the Mosaic Myth
What is crucial to such a vision of the future is the belief that we must not merely change the narratives of our histories, but transform our sense of what it means to live, to be, in
other times and different spaces, both human and historical. Homi Bhabha (1994: 367)
Canada has always differentiated our version of multiculturalism from the
assimilation oriented policies of the United States. In Canada, we prefer to envision a
mosaic where each individual and community is encouraged to retain their culture,
16
particularly in the private sphere, and as long as it falls within Canadian laws. In the
United States the preference is to envision a �melting pot� of cultures, where ultimately
immigrants are expected to embrace American culture with open arms and identify first
and foremost as Americans. In theory the Canadian multicultural mosaic leaves more
room to develop transnational spaces and formulate multiple/hybrid/fluid identities, and
this is one of the ways in which our mosaic ideal could and should be revived.
Eva Mackey (2002) takes us all the way back to the creation of the �Mountie
Myth� in the history of development of our Canadian identity to illustrate how the nation-
building project of politics past has always relied on its ability to work within an
ambiguous and flexible agenda. The Canadian mythology that functions through the
representation of tolerance, inclusion and official multiculturalism works to form
identities but also contributes in complex ways to existing intolerance and racism today
(2002: xv). Arguably this politics of generations past has done such a thorough job of
diversity management in the name of population and economic growth that most
Canadians today really are very flexible with new ideas (Manji 2004:171). Thus in order
to develop ideas of future possibilities for Canadian multiculturalism that can utilize this
flexibility to holistically address ongoing racism effectively, it is worthwhile to take a
look at how multiculturalism was first constructed within the nation-building project.
Our heritage of tolerance was constructed over the last century by highlighting
certain events in history and ignoring others. The British cultural hegemony utilized its
power to create knowledge and discourse of flexibility, tolerance and a mosaic self-image
for Canadians (Mackey 2002). The �Canadian cultural pluralism is represented as on a
natural continuum with our history, even heritage, of tolerance�, versus Australia where
17
present multicultural policies are �represented as a clear break from an overtly racist
past� (Ibid: 24). The use of power/knowledge regarding the nation to construct a unified
nation-building identity depends on the ability to select the differences that serve its
purpose and contain these differences in ambiguous situations when they interfere with
the nation-building project (Ibid: 17).
History and tradition are always a concern of present-day politics because this is
the way in which government functions to select particular values from the past to then
mobilise them in contemporary practices (Morley & Robins 1995: 47). In Canada an
integral part of this relies on the power of whiteness to embody what is normative,
securing its dominance by seeming to be nothing in particular, and only defined in its
reference to the Other (Mackey 2002: 21-22). To this day, those people in Canada who
claim Anglo-Canadian identity exert hegemonic control over Canada�s social, cultural,
political, and economic life, and it follows that those who differ from the figure of
dominance remain marginal (Fleras & Elliott 2002: 261). Ultimately Canada has used
various Others with which it has been confronted over the generations to continuously
redefine who is a �real� Canadian. The category of �whiteness� has broadened to suit the
needs of the economy, so that currently as long as your skin and accent place you in the
Northern hemisphere you are quite likely to pass as a �real� Canadian, and avoid subtle
forms of racism with which �visible minorities� are so intimately familiar.
In other words, despite our commitment to symbolic inclusiveness, �Canada
arguably remains a white man�s world where multicultural minorities orbit around a �pale
male� centre with little choice except to scramble for spaces in a pre-existing script�
(Ibid). Mahtani (2002) conducted qualitative, open-ended interviews with various �mixed
18
race� women in Canada in the interest of �interrogating the hyphen-nation� and
contemplating their relationship to national identity. One telling response from a twenty-
nine year-old filmmaker whose mother is from Hong Kong and whose father is of
German ancestry is as follows:
I mean Canadian is very much a white definition. I mean that�s why people question me when I say I�m Canadian and they don�t see me as being white�Look at who�s in power, look at who�s running Bay Street [the financial district of Toronto]. It�s all white guys. How many people of colour are there in the House of Commons? (2002: 77)
One of the traditional Othered groups through which Canadian identity has been
defined is that of Aboriginal Peoples, depicted strategically through our �Mountie Myth�.
The �Mountie Myth� refers to painting the first British colonial encounters and
subsequent colonization of the Aboriginal People as peaceful and without violence or
conflict (Mackey 2002: 35). This narrative, taught to children nationwide, depicts the
�Indians� as childlike and immediately trusting of their red-coated British invaders. In
contrast, the Royal Mounted Police Officer (Mountie) exudes perfect confidence,
leadership, and authority, to such an extent that the �Indians� were happy to do as they
were told (Ibid.). Juxtaposed with these types of stories is mainstream Canadian
education that allocates little face time for the cultural genocide made possible by the
Indian Act of 1876 (Ibid: 33-36), or the racist internment of Japanese, German and Italian
Canadians during World War II, many of whom were born in Canada (Ibid: 51). Instead
of taking responsibility for these injurious acts, government policy has constructed
Canada as gendered and victimised by outside forces in order to appropriate an identity of
marginalisation and victimisation creating national innocence (Ibid: 12).
19
However at some point Canadians and Canadian policy will have to acknowledge
that while the nation-building project is complex, ignoring the fears that one encounters
when confronted with unknown peoples and cultures along with a lack of cross-cultural
understanding only continues to feed the long-standing racist undercurrents of Canadian
society.
An example demonstrating the racist undercurrents took place recently in Fort
Frances, Ontario in February 2008. Six white, female, high school students for
entertainment dressed up like �Indians�, listened to traditional ceremonial Aboriginal
music, held bottles of liquor and dramatised being drunk while dancing in a circle; all of
which in and of itself depicts ignorant behaviour (Latter 2008). However videotaping
the racist act and posting it on the Internet illustrates how completely ignorant these
individuals are of other cultures and difficult social problems within Canadian society.
To make matters worse, the high school principal is not willing to use the word �racism�
to discuss the matter or consider the impact on students who may be Aboriginal.
Juxtaposed with the principal�s stand are leaders of the local Aboriginal community who
are standing up to make the point that no real dialogue can emerge until we confront the
racism (Ibid.).
Throughout history, the degree and forms of tolerable differences in Canada are
defined by the ever-changing needs of the nation-building project (Mackey 2002: 70). In
Canada, immigration has always been a flexible aspect of this project. This is evidenced
by the constantly modified definition of an ideal Canadian or how multicultural policies
evolved to manage diversity. Multicultural policy constructs socio-spatial boundaries
between the identifications of �Canadian� and �not-Canadian�; for example, by the use of
20
the term �visible minority� (Mahtani 2002: 77). Appadurai (1997) observes that �at some
point, buried in the idea of the nation is the idea that there is only one identity that has the
legitimate claim.� (quoted in Mahtani 2002: 78).
Canadian identity within the nation-building project has rooted our sense of
tolerance in the construction of our innocent past. Acknowledgement and acceptance of
our far from innocent past is the first step towards reviving the Canadian Conversation.
A recent step in the right direction was Prime Minister Harper�s formal apology to
Chinese Canadians for the Head Tax and total exclusion of Chinese immigration to
Canada from 1923 to 1947. He stated, �This was a grave injustice, and one we are
morally obligated to acknowledge� (Canadian Heritage 2006). Further government
acknowledgements of past racist government actions will assist Canadians towards
possibly expanding the space in which to define our multiculturalism. Along with this
possibility must come acceptance that Canadian multiculturalism is further influenced by
an intensification of transnational, hybrid, post-diasporic and de-territorialized
communities and connections in our cultural landscapes.
Deterritorialization of Culture
The concept of culture grew out of mostly German romantic ideas that people�s
distinct cultural characteristics were �rooted� in national territories according to Kearney
(1995:557). Within the era of globalization and networked societies culture is
deterritorializing: there is �a shift from two-dimensional Euclidian space with its centers
and peripheries and sharp boundaries, to a multidimensional global space with
unbounded, often discontinuous and interpenetrating sub-spaces� (549). In other words,
21
�it�s not just that increasingly, many people have no roots; it�s also that they have no
soil� (557).
In a similar vein Castells (2000) distinguishes between the �space of places� and
the �space of flows�. The �space of places� refers to the �historically rooted spatial
organization of our common experience� (408), in essence the nation-state, the
workplace, the home all located in a fixed territorial area with which we form a bond, a
sense of identity and culture. The �space of flows� refers to the �flows of capital, flows
of information, flows of technology, flows of organizational interactions, flows of
images, sounds and symbols� (442). �The space of flows is the material organization of
time-sharing social practices that work through flows� (Ibid.).
Within global capitalism the flow of capital, information and knowledge
translates into the flow of labour, migrant workers, and immigrants. The �space of
flows� is the new space of power, function and domination (Castells 2000:409). The
�space of flows� is therefore another site in which to understand power/knowledge
dynamics functioning�where capital power directs people to new places, where
migrants hold the labour power, and increasingly a deeper ability to adapt themselves in
transnational spaces, and thereby forging new identities and sense of belonging.
Although social movements and political activity are generally in the �space of places�
this is changing as well with developments on the Internet such as e-government and
networked global activism. There is much interaction between the �space of flows�
pertaining more and more to the global and the �space of places� pertaining mostly to the
local.
22
Castells (2000) summarizes the domination of the space of flows over the space
of places:
The dominant tendency is toward a horizon of networked, ahistorical space of flows. Aiming at imposing its logic over scattered, segmented places, increasingly unrelated to each other, less and less able to share cultural codes (459).
Similarly, deterritorialization refers to �the concern with how production,
consumption, communities, politics, and identities become detached from local places�
(Kearney 1995:552). Deterritorialization both locally and globally renders any notion of
bounded cultures unnecessary. This notion is compounded by the �constantly increasing
volume and velocity of global transmission of information, images, simulacra, and stuff
that is a diffusion of cultural traits gone wild� (Kearney 1995:557). Therefore a new way
of viewing cultural identity is in order. It is necessary to move away from traditional
binary understandings of here versus there, and the grounding of identity with place.
This new conception of cultural identity formation and maintenance must be �sensitive to
globalized and transnationalized identities that resist official classification by being
constituted in non-official social space such as transnational communities� (557, my
emphasis). Thus the construction of identity is moving away from the �either-or logic� to
embrace the �both-and-and [sic] logic of identities� (558).
The geophilosophers Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari invite us to move towards
an understanding of territory and power �where what is of concern is not the stability of
origins but the creative possibilities produced by interconnection and alignment�
(Manning 2003: xix). In Deleuze & Guattari�s (1987) exploration of deterritorialization
and reterritorialization they begin with the distinction between arboreal (or rooted and
hierarchical) and rhizomatic (a multiplicity and in-between spaces) forms of structures
23
(21). The rhizomatic and multiplicity characteristics of deterritorialization can be
envisioned as �A rhizome has no beginning or end; it is always in the middle, between
things, interbeing, intermezzo.� (25) Otherwise stated: �Deterritorialization simply
subverts the notion that territory and identity can be adequately policed so as to create an
entity called �home� that will indefinitely protect us from the exigencies of our
existences� (Manning 2003: xx).
Ultimately, it will be beneficial to view Canadian multiculturalism, mosaic and
identity formation through a lens characterized by a �space of flows�, multiplicity,
multiple loyalties/identities, uprooted structures, connections, networks and all the spaces
in between. Much like the possibilities of the Canadian Conversation which truly exists
in a space of flexibility and ambiguity, and Canadian identity as based on an ongoing
conversation; the rhizomatic nature of transnational spaces could as well bring new
insight into cross-cultural translation, understanding and recognition for the multicultural
mosaic of tomorrow. To realize this potential, Canadians need to further embrace
becoming comfortable with the deterritorialization of culture.
Transnational Spaces and the Network Mosaic
Transnational practices among Canadians are not new. However, the
diversification and densification of these transnational networks is an important
consideration for multicultural policy now and in the future. The restructuring of the
global economy has resulted in an influx of migration worldwide (Castells 2000: 130). In
2005, approximately three percent of the world�s population or more than 200 million
people were immigrants or refugees residing outside their countries of birth (Global
24
Commission on International Migration). The intensification of migrant labour, along
with the rapid advancement of ICTs has facilitated migrants� ability to sustain ties with
their countries of origin. These transnational communities include:
�an increasing number of people who lead dual lives�Members are at least bilingual, move easily between different cultures, frequently maintain homes in two countries, and pursue economic, political, and cultural interests that require a simultaneous presence in both.� (Ibid: 45).
The idea of a seamless web running across societies (Kibria 2002: 296) suggests a
network of transnational practices that is continually activated, deactivated and
reactivated by immigrants and non-immigrants alike to broaden their scope of self-
identification, understanding and sense of belonging within a given community. This
network image was first brought to my attention by the work of Manual Castells (2000)
as he has examined how ICTs have restructured the global economy, society and culture.
This restructuring is also occurring through the increased use and development of these
networks for transnational immigration, practices and spaces. By envisioning an
overlying web or network of transnational practices ebbing and flowing over top of the
multicultural mosaic, we can think of new ways in which multiculturalism in Canada can
be approached, that is to say in terms of a �Network Mosaic�.
Transnational immigrants �forge and sustain multi-stranded relations that link
together their societies of origin and settlement, rather than experience a rupture in their
attachments� (Louie 2006: 363). Within the process of globalization, the relationships
immigrant populations are cultivating with their homelands are being redefined. In turn
this is multiplying the channels through which identities can be negotiated (Louie 2002:
318). So far it appears that both the first and second generation immigrants experience
25
transnationalism, although in the second generation it usually works to provide dual
reference points from which to draw identity, thus taking on a more symbolic or
emotional version (Louie 2006, Wolf 2002, Louie 2002, Espiritu & Tran 2002). In
essence:
There has been an extension of the cultural repertoires and an enhancement of the resourcefulness of various groups to create new symbolic modes of affiliation and belonging, to rework and reshape the meanings of existing signs and to undermine the existing symbolic hierarchies. (Featherstone 1996, quoted in Louie 2002:318)
This identity calculus for transnational second-generation immigrants is an area of
research that requires more attention (Jones-Correa 2002, Kibria 2002). In order to better
understand the network nature of transnational practices we should be familiarized with
the types, themes and motivations involved.
Patel (2006) presents various useful themes of transnationalism: a social
morphology, a type of consciousness, as a mode of cultural production, as an avenue of
capital, as a site of political engagement, and as a reconstruction of place (151). All of
these themes work through the various types of transnational practices including social,
psychosocial, emotional, symbolic, cultural, religious, political, and of course economic
networks of interaction. Each community exercises varying degrees and combinations of
transnational practices, and these variations differ across generations as well as across the
life phases of an individual. Fouron & Glick-Schiller (2002) discuss �transnational social
fields� in terms of being networked, a domain created by social relationships not only by
those who physically travel back and forth, but more interestingly by those �persons who
remain connected even if they themselves do not move� (172). The following few
sections will work to illustrate the diverse network of transnational practices that operate
26
through and between Canadian spaces, ultimately all affecting the cultural make-up of
Canada�s multicultural mosaic.
Transnationalism: Communities and Consciousness
As a social morphology, �transnational communities� can be defined as �social
formations spanning borders, sustained by a range of modes of social organizations,
mobility and communication� (Patal 2006: 151). This concept can be applied to most
diasporic and immigrant communities existing in Canada today. The relative ease
(satellite TV, Internet, travel, telephone) with which these communities can interact with
their place of emigration or other communities within their diaspora has provided more
complex sources from which they may draw their sense of belonging and connection
within Canadian cultural space. Transnational communities therefore become the site for
post-modern culture which Raymond Williams (1983) believes �must be elaborated out
of differential and plural identities, rather than collapsing into some false cohesion and
unity� (Morley & Robins 1995: 40). Therefore transnational communities provide
Canada with a tool-box of culture and identity potential well suited to revive the
multiculturalism of our political past. This can also be understood in terms of what Erin
Manning (2003) calls �errant politics�, which subvert �attachments that depend on the
stability of territory and identity, rewriting the national vocabulary of belonging into a
language of movement� (xxvii). Multiculturalism in Canada within the Information Age
requires an understanding of culture and identity that is �about positions and positioning
in local and global space: about contexts of bodily existence and about existence in
mediated space� (Morley & Robins 1995: 43).
27
One of the best examples of a transnational community is the Caribbean diaspora.
According to Premdas (2004) there is much to be learned from this community and its
experiences with �tolerance� in Canada. He states that there is �a wider discourse that is
indirectly engaged�it is about membership and citizenship in the new homeland of the
diaspora, its seductions and betrayals in the new frontier of a globalized deterritorialized
emergent order� (545). In essence, due to the extreme marginalization this population
experienced in Canada, a trans-Caribbean community has resulted and a new in-between
identity emerged in order to facilitate a sense of belonging. Various West Indian
nationalities who share little beyond a colonial language (English), and a history of
dislocation have come to bind this community in transnational spaces (Trotman, 2005).
The Caribbean community demonstrates a transnational community in their experience
uniting across a diverse religious and cultural framework.
Marginalization or misrecognition of immigrant minorities is a recurrent source of
friction and motivation throughout much of the transnationalism literature, although
much more work needs to be done in analyzing the Canadian context. It is likely that
denial of racism in Canada impedes our understanding. Many more concrete actions
have taken place in the U.S.A. on this issue. For example, Louie (2006) found that
transnational practices among second-generation Dominicans and Chinese living in New
York were greatly influenced by marginalization emanating from the host country,
leading to an outward gaze towards strengthening identity and self-worth (367). This
can spur action within the community to create their own space for recognition, which
can take the form of transnational space.
28
The concept of �transnational consciousness� incorporates emotional and
symbolic transnationalism. This consciousness is �marked by more than one identity and
by simultaneous links to more than one nation� (Patel 2006: 151). These links can be
maintained via cultural artefacts, language, child-rearing practices or a shared
imagination or memory similar to Benedict Anderson�s notion of �imagined
communities� (Brettell 2006, Rumbaut 2002). For Anderson (2006) nationalism or a
sense of belonging is understood through �imagined communities�, where political
communities are �imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never
know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of
each lives the image of their communion� (6), and it is �imagined as a community,
because, regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the
nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship� (7). In a multicultural
nationalism (Kernerman 2005) context and across transnational spaces this consciousness
is associated with a �fluidity of constructed styles, social institutions and everyday
practices�with the production of hybrid cultural phenomena, especially among
transnational youth, that flow from global media and communications� (Patel 2006: 151).
Thus transnational consciousness fits well with the construction of virtual spaces, with
which many young Canadians identify.
Adams and Ghose (2003) found that �when �place-transcending� technologies
facilitate the creation of ties through space and reduce the separation between here and
there, negating place, this can strengthen a sense of ethnic identity, which implies a tie
between self and place� (415). For example, there are numerous websites for Indian
nationals living outside of India. These websites are maintained for the �purpose of
29
cultural preservation and the maintenance of ethnic identity, and to support cosmopolitan,
intercontinental lifestyles and consumption habits� (415). These sites are directly linked
to sites based in India, such as online versions of Indian newspapers, businesses and
cultural sites (Ibid.), sustaining a transnational virtual space of cultural ebbs and flows.
Adams and Ghose (2003) coin the term �bridgespace� to describe the �space of
flows� for identity maintenance. In other words, �The vast, international complex of
interlinked websites used by the �Indian diaspora� and by residents of India is part of a
more variegated space of international and multicultural communication that we call
�bridgespace� �(415). Bridgespace links the Internet with other sources of media to form
�a set of connections between here and there in both a geographical and a cultural
sense� (416). This virtual space enables cultural identity to exist and flourish without a
fixed territory.
Transnational consciousness therefore can operate in different ways. In addition
to virtual spaces, it can be understood simply in terms of the interaction the second
generation maintains with their parent�s country of origin through family interaction.
That is to say it is a social field of relations that is akin to associational life and can be
particularly strong in particular phases of life (Smith 2002: 148). Or it can be understood
as the nostalgia that migrants nourish for their home country, a forever lingering
connection with the longed-for homeland that fuels their persistence in maintaining
personal and/or political ties (Fouron & Glick-Shiller 2002: 169). Essentially it is the
memory and emotional connection with an intangible element of culture and comfort, this
exists in a �space of flows� that binds (im)migrants to a sense of belonging they can work
within, between and from in order to find a sense of belonging in the �space of place�
30
community in which they come to reside. This rhizomatic consciousness is therefore
often the motivation for forming other transnational practices and spaces within a
�Canadian Network Mosaic�.
Power/Knowledge and Transnational Networks of Political Engagement
Transnational political engagement encompasses both local and global issues that
are often addressed in transnational public space via non-governmental organizations and
ethnic diaspora (Patal 2005: 151). �Long distance nationals may vote, demonstrate,
contribute money, create works of art, give birth, fight, kill and die for a homeland in
which they may never have lived� (Fouron & Glick-Schiller 2002: 175). There are
numerous examples of transnational political engagement, of which several will be
discussed because these are such good examples of where power/knowledge flows
through transnational networks to affect both local and global spaces. The power of the
diaspora to influence Canadian politics lies in their increasingly significant vote
domestically, often referred to as the �ethnic vote�. Thus once again, things that may be
politically spun or constructed as altruistic or humanitarian decisions, are in actuality
government ploys to elicit the support of various �ethnic� communities in Canada. One
example mentioned above, the Harper government�s formal apology to Chinese
Canadians, falls into this category.
Another interesting example that illustrates the power/knowledge flow with
transnational political engagement is the Armenian Diaspora�s relative success in
lobbying the Canadian government to recognize the Armenian Genocide. In response to
uncertainty surrounding a Liberal MP's private member�s bill to recognize the Armenian
31
Genocide, the Canadian Parliament appointed a special subcommittee who, in turn, asked
an Armenian not-for-profit society called the Zoryan Institute for a background report.
This organization was asked to provide a report based on their extensive research and
archival resources (1999), which they had developed over many years via transnational
connections and interactions. Ultimately in 2004 Parliament voted to recognize the
atrocity as Genocide, although the Liberal government at the time would not recognize
the bill, so it became void. Finally in April of 2006 PM Harper publicly made a
statement of Canada�s recognition of the Armenian Genocide (Global National). This
recognition has had ramifications in local and global spaces.
The Croatian diaspora is another example of significant transnational political
engagement. Winland (2006) found that Croatian independence resulted in an
intensification of transnational links and a movement to reclaim and redefine Croatian
origins and affiliations. The diaspora has been referred to as the �third pillar of the
Croatian national budget� and to have �bankrolled the revolution� (266). Additionally,
Abdelhady (2006) found that Lebanese communities in Montreal, New York City and
Paris shared a common global identity built on a network of transnational ties. This
community is �politically engaged with their host societies, with the homeland and with
the diasporic community (both Lebanese and Arab), and this engagement is increasingly
linked with modern technology� (Brettell 2006: 332). Yet another example would be
Jewish Canadians who exercise their right to vote in Israeli elections by traveling to
Israeli soil via flights chartered by the various political parties (Schoenfeld et al. 2006:
282).
32
Economic transnationalism and political transnationalism are closely tied. Thanks
to global capitalism there is a circular flow of monies moving publicly and privately
through various transnational networks. Some examples mentioned above would be
diasporic financial support of the politics in the homeland in the Croatian case, or the
homeland buying diasporic votes in the Israeli case. These are two small examples of a
gigantic transnational remittances market. The World Bank has estimated that the
market was worth around $250 Billion U.S. in 2007, although this figure would not
include informal means of money transfer (Casciani 2007), it is still second only to oil
sales worldwide (Rumbaut 2002: 45). Needless to say, the vast transnational economic
networks that feed the global economy are a significant aspect of transnational
immigration. There are several other types of economic transnationalism, for example,
transnational entrepreneurs (Portes. et. al. 2002) and transnational elites. However this
subject is too vast for this discussion. What is most important is to acknowledge the
relationship financial support flows hold in maintaining all other forms of transnational
networks including political and socio-cultural transnational networks.
Transnationalism: A (Re)construction of Place
The last theme that is very relevant to multicultural policy in Canada is
transnationalism as a (re)construction of �place� or locality. This �involves the
transference and re-grounding of practices and meanings derived from specific
geographical and historical points of origin� (Patel 2006: 151). In essence it completes
the networked �space of flows� and ties it back to the �space of place�. The diverse and
dense connections of transnational spaces work to inform new cultural
33
hybrid/multiple/fluid/flexible community spaces in Canada. The idea that (im)migrants
bring some of their culture with them is not novel. However the deepening degree to
which this is taking place is worth attention. In other words, no matter what
circumstances have resulted in new Canadians� movement across borders, �the
overwhelming majority remain linked, in one way or another, real or imagined,
objectively or subjectively, to their native land� (Rumbaut 2002: 44).
Furthermore, although it is only a small percent of new Canadians for whom
transnational ties play a daily, sustained, integral role in their lives; the activities of this
minority are important in creating and maintaining transnational networks that the
remaining majority access less habitually (Kasinitz et al. 2002: 119). The abilities
(im)migrants have developed to translate, dislocate, deterritorialize, reterritorialize,
remake, and reunite cultures are the material practices that have strong potential to
revitalize multicultural theory, practice and policy in Canada. A new Network Mosaic
has the potential to be inclusive of an authentic and proactive approach to reviving the
Canadian Conversation, with a willingness to confront racism and positively embrace all
the hopes and fears involved in cross-cultural communication and understanding.
Conclusion
Within the Canadian nation-building project, flexible spaces have continuously
supported multiculturalism. These flexible spaces have allowed the changing needs of
the economy and population growth demands to shape and reshape who is considered an
ideal Canadian, and who therefore could be included in a �tolerable� multiculturalism.
Canada�s historic roots are embedded in multiplicities and have therefore allowed
34
flexibility and ambiguity in Canada to flourish. The ability to adapt to the changing face
of new Canadians was never without flaws, many of which Canadians are still unwilling
to address today. However, by continuing to acknowledge our racist past and the less
than humanitarian motivations behind our �diversity management� policies Canadians are
taking steps in the right direction.
The Information Age has resulted in many new trends for the global economy,
politics and culture. The spatial restructuring of society into a network allows the flows
of power/knowledge to exchange hands more readily and make multicultural
governmentality in Canada a deep-seated reality. Yet Canadian unwillingness to discuss
messy issues like racism, our understanding of tolerance as silence, and our self-
monitoring of politically correct approaches and dialogue impedes our ability to liven and
enlighten the Canadian Conversation of multiculturalism.
We need to turn to the younger generation of working Canadians, transnational
immigrants and their second generation, in order to shed new light on network-mosaic
multiculturalism. The politics of generations past have done such a thorough job of
diversity management that most Canadians today and in particular the younger
generations, are equipped to further embrace our ability to live in a space of flexibility, of
fluidity, and of hybrid identities. The historically unstable Canadian identity, an identity
sourced in an ongoing dialogue mirrors the notion of deterritorialized culture.
Ultimately, we will increasingly rely on viewing Canadian identity formation in terms of
�space of flows�, multiplicity, multiple loyalties/identities, uprooted structures,
connections, networks and all the spaces in between.
35
Further, not only do these younger cohorts embody the multicultural ideals of the
diversity management politics of generations past, they also identify with the
characteristics of the network society, as they grew up in the Information Age. Flexible,
rhizomatic, hybrid, multiple, dynamic, fluid and deterritorialized �space of flows�
characterise this generation who have learned to thrive within flexible spaces in terms of
their careers, style, politics, entertainment, travels, relationships and identity.
Transnational practice/space/flow networks overlap and enhance the multicultural
mosaic ideal presenting a perfect opportunity to revive multicultural theory and policy in
light of the expertise and comfort Canadian immigrants and non-immigrants alike have
with flexible spaces. Thus, working against the reified dominant narratives of nation
building and a narrow sense of Canadian national identity that privileges some and
marginalizes others, Canadian multicultural policy can take lessons from the
deterritorialized, rhizomatic and �space of flows� sense of belonging of savvy immigrant
citizens and build policy and practice around a Canadian Network Mosaic
Multiculturalism. This �network mosaic� takes seriously the idea that existing Canadians
have much to learn from new immigrants about flexibility, about multiple ties and hybrid
identity, while remembering that the Canadian cultural landscape is a unique space; open
to an ongoing discussion on what it means to identify as Canadian.
Lastly, in order for a Canadian Network Mosaic Multiculturalism to fully thrive,
much more research is required on transnational practices, motivations and
marginalization in the Canadian context. Canadian curricula demands updating in order
to be more inclusive of discussions embracing the hopes and fears implicated in racism,
cross-cultural communication, and cultural translation. A good starting point in this
36
process would be to honestly revisit the Canadian historical narrative, interrogating the
seductions and betrayals involved in the immigration experience. From this interrogation
a shift is necessary to establish a holistic, multicultural and multidisciplinary
understanding of culture that is neither absolute nor eternal. This understanding should
inspire a Canadian cultural landscape primed for hybrid, rhizomatic, fluid, multiple and
flowing spaces from which to draw new perspective and common ground.
37
References
Abdelhady, Dalia. 2006. �Beyond Home/Host Networks: Forms of Solidarity Among Lebanese Immigrants in a Global Era.� Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 13(3): 427-453.
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen, and Christina Gabriel. 2002. Selling Diversity: Immigration,
Multiculturalism, Employment Equity, and Globalization. Peterborough, ON: Broadview Press.
Adams, Michael. 2007. Unlikely Utopia: The Surprising Triumph of Canadian
Pluralism. Canada: Penguin. Adams, Paul, and Rina Ghose. 2003. �India.com: the construction of a space between.�
Progress in Human Geography 27(4):414-437. Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities. New York: Verso. Anderson, Erin, and Michael Valpy. 2004. The New Canada. Toronto: McClelland &
Stewart Ltd. Bannerji, Himani. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation. Toronto: Canadian Scholars�
Press Inc. Bhabha, Homi K. 1994. The Location of Culture. London and New York: Routledge. Brettell, Caroline B. 2006. �Introduction: Global Spaces/Local Places:
Transnationalism, Diaspora, and the Meaning of Home.� Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 13 (3): 327-334.
Canadian Heritage. �Prime Minister Harper offers full apology for Chinese Head Tax.�
June 22, 2006, http://pch.gc.ca/newsroom/index_e.cfm?fuseaction=displayDocument&DocIDCd=CS060471.
Casciani, Dominic. �A hidden world of money transfers.� BBC News, August 23, 2007,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6955779.stm. Castells, Manuel. 2004. The Power of Identity, 2nd ed. Vol. 2 of The Information Age:
Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Castells, Manuel. 2000. The Rise of the Network Society, 2nd ed. Vol. 1 of The
Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
38
Chui, Tina, Kelly Tran, and Helene Maheux. 2007. Immigration in Canada: A Portrait of the Foreign-born Population, 2006 Census: Findings. Social and Aboriginal Statistics Division, Statistics Canada, http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/analysis/immcit/index.cfm.
Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and
Schizophrenia. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Espiritu, Yen Le, and Thom Tran. 2002. �Vietnam My Country�: Vietnamese Americans
and Transnationalism. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 367-398. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada, 2nd Ed. Toronto: Nelson Thomson Learning.
Fouron, George E., and Nina Glick-Schiller. 2002. The Generation of Identity: Redefining the Second Generation Within a Transnational Social Field. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 168-208. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Global Commission on International Migration. 2005. �Migration at a Glance.�
GCIM.org, Global Commission on International Migration Press Kit, http://www.gcim.org/attachements/Migration%20at%20a%20glance.pdf.
Global National. �Harper affirms Canadian position on Armenian Genocide.�
GlobalNational.com, April 19, 2006, http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=a5f2efe0-1811-4d1c-a6a9-55198d792e40.
Hannerz, Ulf. 2001. Thinking About Culture in a Global Ecumene. In Culture in the
Communication Age, edited by James Lull, 54-71. London and New York: Routledge.
Hoerder, Dirk, Yvonne Hebert, and Irina Schmitt, Eds. 2006. Negotiating Transcultural Lives: Belongings and Social Capital among Youth in Comparative Perspective. Toronto: University Toronto Press.
Hunt, Alan, and Gary Wickham. 1994. Foucault and Law: Towards a Sociology of Law as Governance. London: Pluto Press.
Jones-Correa, Michael. 2002. The Study of Transnationalism Among the Children of Immigrants: Where We Are and Where We Should Be Headed. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 221-242. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
39
Kasinitz, Philip, Mary C. Waters, John H. Mollenkopf, and Merih Anil. 2002.
Transnationalism and the Children of Immigrants in Contemporary New York. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 96-122. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kearney, M. 1995. �The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and
Transnationalism.� Annual Review of Anthropology 24:547-565. Kernerman, Gerald. 2005. Multicultural Nationalism: Civilizing Difference,
Constituting Community. Vancouver: UBC Press. Kibria, Nazli. 2002. Of Blood, Belonging, and Homeland Trips: Transnationalism and
Identity Among Second Generation Chinese and Korean Americans. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 295-311. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kymlicka, Will. 1995. Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights.
Oxford: Clarendon Press. Latter, Heather. 2008. �Fort High, board try to defuse video outcry.� Fort Frances
Times and Rainy Lake Herald, February 20th, front pg. Louie, Andrea. 2002. Creating Histories for the Present: Second-Generation
(Re)definitions of Chinese American Culture. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 312-340. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Louie, Vivian. 2006. �Growing Up Ethnic in Transnational Worlds: Identities Among
Second-Generation Chinese and Dominicans.� Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 13(3):363-394.
Mackey, Eva. 2002. The House of Difference: Cultural Politics and National Identity in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Mahoney, Jill. 2007. �All Immigration by 2030.� Globe and Mail, March 14th, front pg.
Mahtani, Minelle. 2002. �Interrogating the Hyphen-Nation: Canadian Multicultural Policy and �Mixed Race� Identities.� Social Identities 8(1):67-90.
Manji, Irshad. 2004. Belonging in a Multicultural Context. In Multiculturalism and Immigration in Canada: An Introductory Reader, edited by Elspeth Cameron, 167-172. Toronto: Canadian Scholars� Press Inc.
40
Manning, Erin. 2003. Ephemeral Territories: Representing Nation, Home, and Identity in Canada. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Modood, Tariq. 2007. Multiculturalism. Malden, MA and Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Morley, David, and Kevin Robins. 1995. Spaces of Identity: Global Media, Electronic Landscapes and Cultural Boundaries. New York: Routledge.
Moya, Paula M. L. 2002. Postmodernism, �Realism�, and the Politics of Identity: Cherrie Moraga and Chicana Feminism. In Learning from Experience: Minority Identities, Multicultural Struggles, 23-57. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Patel, Dhira. 2006. The Maple-Neem Nexus: Transnational Links of South Asian Canadians. In Transnational Identities and Practices in Canada, edited by Vic Satzewich & Lloyd Wong, 150-163. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Parekh, Bhikhu. 2000. Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political
Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Phillips, Anne. 2007. Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton and Oxford:
Princeton University Press. Portes, Alejandro, Guarnizo Luis Eduardo, and William J. Haller. 2002. �Transnational
Entrepreneurs: An Alternative Form of Immigration Economic Adaptation.� American Sociological Review 67(2):278-298.
Premdas, Ralph R. 2004. �Diaspora and its discontents: A Caribbean fragment in
Toronto in quest of cultural recognition and political empowerment.� Ethnic and Racial Studies 27(4):544-564.
Robinson, Rudi. 2005. �Beyond the State-Bounded Immigration Incorporation Regime,
Transnational Migrant Communities: Their Potential Contribution to Canada�s Leadership Role and Influence in a Globalized World.� Ottawa: The North-South Institute. (http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/pdf/transmigration_document_july_22.pdf).
Rumbaut, Ruben G. 2002. Severed or Sustained Attachments? Language, Identity, and
Imagined Communities in the Post-Immigrant Generation. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 43-95. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Schoenfeld, Stuart, William Shaffir, and Morton Weinfeld. 2006. Canadian Jewry and
Transnationalism: Israel, Anti-Semitism, and the Jewish Diaspora. In
41
Transnational Identities and Practices in Canada, edited by Vic Satzewich & Lloyd Wong, 278-295. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Smith, Robert C. 2002. Life Course, Generation, and Social Location as Factors
Shaping Second-Generation Transnational Life. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 145-167. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Taylor, Charles, K. Anthony Appiah, Jurgen Habermas, Steven C. Rockefeller, Michael
Walzer, and Susan Wolf. 1994. Multiculturalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Trotman, David V. 2005. �Transforming Caribbean and Canadian Identity.� Atlantic
Studies 2(2): 177-198. Wolf, Diane L. 2002. There�s No Place Like � Home �: Emotional Transnationalism and
the Struggle of Second Generation Filipinos. In The Changing Face of Home: The Transnational Lives of the Second Generation, edited by Peggy Levitt & Mary C. Waters, 255-294. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Zoryan Institute of Canada Inc. 1999. �Report to the Canadian Parliament on the
Armenian Genocide�, Zoryan Institute, http://www.zoryaninstitute.org/.
