{"id":373,"date":"2024-07-01T11:20:32","date_gmt":"2024-07-01T15:20:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/?page_id=373"},"modified":"2024-07-01T11:49:14","modified_gmt":"2024-07-01T15:49:14","slug":"on-the-other-hand-overview","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/carleton.ca\/philryan\/on-the-other-hand-overview\/","title":{"rendered":"On the other hand overview"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the other hand:
\nCanadian multiculturalism and its progressive critics
\nOverview<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Multicultiphobia<\/em> (2010) was a study of just one family of critiques of Canadian multiculturalism. My justification for this focus was that I wished to consider influential <\/em>critiques, and those were the conservative ones. But if one ignores progressive critiques, then whatever conversations society has about multiculturalism are dominated by conservatives and responses to them. The particular value of progressive critiques is thus ignored.<\/p>\n

On the other hand<\/em> considers this other family of critics. It is an exercise in \u201ccritical listening,\u201d seeking to both assess progressive critiques of multiculturalism and communicate them to a broader audience who may previously have ignored them. The engagement with the progressive critiques also serves as a vehicle for other objectives. One is to propose conditions for the intelligibility of social science analysis in general. Another is to reflect on the requirements for effective progressive thought and writing.<\/p>\n

Book summary<\/strong><\/h3>\n

The introduction establishes a fuzzy distinction between progressive and conservative critics, and notes the problematic nature of any such distinction. It also argues that progressives need to be \u201cconservative\u201d in the sense that they need to publicly identify which social goods must be defended.<\/p>\n

After that, Part I<\/strong> will prepare the ground for the rest of the book. Since progressives need to both work for a more just society and defend aspects of existing society from attack, they need a clear sense of current injustices, of the social goods that are under threat, and of the nature of those threats. Chapter two tries to contribute to that understanding of our reality, through a brief reading of the \u201csigns of the times.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chapter three shifts from political to conceptual groundwork, analyzing four concepts that play a major role in multiculturalism debates: state, policy, culture, and multiculturalism itself. These share an important quality: they are abstract nouns designating complex realities, and are regularly used in ways that obscure that complexity.<\/p>\n

Part II<\/strong> focuses more on the medium than the message. Chapter four considers various \u201cmysterious\u201d aspects of the writing of some progressive critics, who offer claims that involve mysterious actors, endowed with mysterious power, doing mysterious things to produce mysterious effects. Chapter five examines some underlying assumptions of various works, assumptions that are not mysterious, but are problematic and require careful scrutiny. The discursive style of a number of the critics, for example, depicts a homogeneous ethnic majority. This obscures the potential resources for political change offered by current reality.<\/p>\n

Part III<\/strong> concerns the history of Canadian multiculturalism, and the implications of that history for today. Chapter six asks why the Trudeau Sr. government introduced the policy in 1971. Three stories will be told: a simple, surface-level, narrative; an account favoured by various progressive critics, in which multiculturalism was a response to political pressures \u201cfrom below,\u201d perhaps aiming to sustain racial hierarchy; and a story linking the emergence of multiculturalism to the capitalist nature of the state. Consideration of the second story will lead to a discussion of whether we can plausibly hold that we have a \u201cwhite supremacy state\u201d in Canada.<\/p>\n

Chapter seven considers that curious hybrid, \u201cmulticulturalism within a bilingual framework.\u201d The chapter will draw on Eve Haque\u2019s depiction of the B.&B. Commission\u2019s strained effort to justify a linguistic hierarchy that treated language as a core element of culture for some Canadians, but not for others. Was the chosen policy of coast-to-coast bilingualism a fundamental injustice? A necessity dictated by realpolitik<\/em>? Or, perhaps, both?<\/p>\n

Part IV<\/strong> gives extended treatment to some key claims of the progressive critics. I call this part \u201cYes, but…,\u201d to indicate that I seek not to rebut<\/em> these claims, but to encourage us to think twice about them, and to strive for more nuance.<\/p>\n

Chapter eight considers tolerance. Yes<\/em>, it can be inadequate, unjust, even contemptuous. But<\/em> it is not necessarily so. Even a limited gritted-teeth tolerance can be a bridge to full acceptance. Debates around tolerance are of broader interest for two reasons. They foreground the problem of limits, which greatly trouble some of the progressive critics. And they demonstrate the baleful influence in multiculturalism debates of \u201cgross concepts,\u201d notions that are so inadequately specified that one cannot responsibly declare oneself \u201cfor\u201d or \u201cagainst\u201d them, without further detail. Tolerance is one such concept, \u201cdiversity\u201d \u201cdifference,\u201d and \u201crecognition\u201d are others.<\/p>\n

Chapter nine examines the argument that multiculturalism provides many Canadians with a \u201cpsychic prop\u201d and bolsters pride in Canada. Through an analysis of parliamentary multiculturalism discourse during Justin Trudeau\u2019s first mandate, we will find that, yes<\/em>, multiculturalism does do this, and that it does mask injustice. But<\/em> we will also find that it is invoked to support calls for justice.<\/p>\n

Chapter ten takes up two important questions suggested by the findings of the previous chapter. First, how should multiculturalism\u2019s capacity to mask injustice affect progressives\u2019 assessment of it? To answer this, I will argue, we must be clear about the nature of ideology in general, and understand masking-multiculturalism as one easily replaceable member of a species. The second question concerns \u201cnational pride.\u201d We know that invocations of multiculturalism can bolster this: how should progressives assess that fact, and how should they view national pride in general? I will argue that such pride can be toxic, but that it can also take progressive forms, and it is the task of progressives to figure out just what those forms are, and to promote them, in order both to challenge the influence of more toxic forms, and to create emotional support for the effort to create a more just society.<\/p>\n

The conclusion reflects on lessons related to the book\u2019s three concerns: issues arising from the progressive critiques; the nature of society and the practice of social science; and the desirable qualities of progressive thought and writing.<\/p>\n

*\u00a0 \u00a0*\u00a0 \u00a0*<\/p>\n

Contents<\/strong><\/p>\n

1<\/strong> Introduction (click image on right to read)
\n