The Racial Subtext in Canada's Immigration Discourse
Peter S. Li
University of Saskatchewan and
Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration
A version of this paper was presented at a plenary session of the Fifth International Metropolis Conference, November 13-17, 2000, Vancouver.
The Racial Subtext in Canada's Immigration Discourse
Abstract
The articulation of race has become subtle and elusive in democratic societies because racism conflicts with principles of equality and non-discrimination. This paper examines Canada's immigration discourse and argues that a racial subtext can be discerned from the discourse by examining its vocabulary, syntax, structure and implied rationale. The study shows that codified concepts and an implied logic are used to convey racial messages that appear not "race"-based. The discourse is further facilitated by opinion polls and academic studies which reify the notion of "race" and legitimize its everyday use as a harmless concept. The study also suggests that it is the discourse itself, and not implied differences of "race", which fragments Canada into opposites between "non-white" immigrants and native-born Canadians.
In this paper, I examine the articulation of race in Canada's immigration discourse, and argue that racial messages are often articulated subtly in a democratic society such that their nature, form and effect are elusive. The use of a racial subtext, that is, the hiding of racial signification in a benign discourse and conveying it in a coded language, represents a sophisticated way of articulating "race" in a democratic society that makes such articulation socially acceptable. The analysis also illustrates how a public policy debate can, perhaps unwittingly, contribute to divisions of socially constructed "racial" groups by giving credence to racial assumptions that are camouflaged in what appears to be a neutral language of a public discourse.
Although the articulation of racism in a democratic society can be elusive, racism is essentially a social feature which recognizes the social significance of classifying people into immutable racial groups based on real or imagined congenital features. The term "racialization" is often used to highlight the social process of attributing social significance to phenotypical features of people and designating those so signified as "racial" (see Li, 1998, pp. 115-117; Miles, 1989; Satzewich, 1998, pp. 34-39). One result of racialization is to provide a normative coherence for people to organize and to interpret at least some of their experiences. At the more extreme level, racialization can easily provide the grounds for unequal treatment, as well as the rationale for justifying inequality.
There is an apparent contradiction between the premise of racialization and the tenet of democracy, since the former implies the signification of primordial features, while the latter negates it and regards all human beings as equals. To address this paradox, Henry and her colleagues coin the term "democratic racism" to highlight how racism can be justified in a democratic society in racial myths and stereotypes without requiring its followers to denounce the principles of democracy (Henry et al., 2000, pp. 19-25). In practice, as Li (1994) argues, the significance of race in a democratic society can be articulated in a codified language which sanctifies what otherwise would be unholy racial messages, and transforms them into noble citizen concerns that become acceptable and even appealing to majority members. In other words, racist discourse assumes a gentle appearance in order to claim its legitimacy in a democratic society. More succinctly, Zong (1997) adopts the term "new racism" to highlight its oblique and covert nature from its conventional blatant manifestation.
In this paper, I adopt the notion of a "discourse" to study Canada's immigration debate. The deconstruction of the discourse reveals that there is racial subtext hidden in it. The racial messages of the subtext are articulated unambiguously although the subtext itself tends to be opaque. Uncovering the racial subtext requires deconstructing the vocabulary, the assumptions and the rationale of the discourse.
Racism and Racial Discourse
There is little doubt that racism involves an ideology that advocates a hierarchy of superiority premised upon what is believed to be genetically and culturally constituted "races", although academics disagree over whether social practice and structural inequality should be included in the concept (see, e.g., Banton, 1977; Bonilla-Silva, 1996; Henry et al., 2000, pp. 5-6; Miles, 1989; Li, 1999, p. 4; Satzewich, 1998, pp. 34-39). Thus, racism presupposes the signification of "race" as congenital and logical grounds for categorizing people into naturally constituted immutable groups. Since there is no scientific basis that can justify using superficial features such as skin colour to construct a defensible "racial" taxonomy, racial signification has to be socially constructed (Bolaria and Li, 1988, pp. 14-25; Miles, 1989, pp. 41-50; Rex, 1983, pp. 1-5).
The reason that racism can be articulated in an elusive and covert manner in a democratic society is precisely because the construction of race is not scientifically grounded, and the absence of a scientific standard provides flexibility in racial signification. Thus, it is not so much the fundamental nature of racism has changed under liberal democracy as the manner by which racial messages are articulated and race is constructed that gives the impression that racism has taken on a new form.
The mutational appearance of racism makes it difficult to detect in a democratic society. In particular, the traditional approach to study racism as blatantly expressed individual prejudice is ill equipped to track the changing forms of racism, since old measurement tools can easily become obsolete when race is articulated covertly and subtly.1
Bonilla-Silva (1996) is critical of the idealist perspective of racism that confines racism to the realm of social psychology. In this tradition, racism is viewed as individual prejudicial attitudes which collectively reflect the level of racism in society. Standard questions, such as those similar to the ones used in the Bogardus Social Distance Scale (Bogardus, 1925, 1968), have been repeatedly adopted in opinion polls to gauge a country's level of "racism", which is assumed to be static (Owen et al., 1981). Typically, such measurements yield results that show "racism" declines over time (Bonilla-Silva, 1996). In reality, the articulation of race and racism may have changed, and survey questions which at one time may be able to detect respondents' blatant racist dispositions may, at another time, fail to capture those respondents who hold such beliefs but are reluctant to express them to a pollster due to a heightened awareness that explicit racial remarks are politically and socially inopportune. In short, as the political climate changes and racial discourse assumes an opaque appearance, respondents may learn to verbalize racial tolerance and to adopt a benign language to articulate racial messages without appearing racist to themselves and to others.
Attitudinal surveys of racial prejudice may be an acceptable way to study racism if prejudice is the only form of racism and if it is unchanged over time. In reality, as Wellman (1977, p. 35) describes it, racism is "a culturally sanctioned, rational response to struggles over scarce resources." Therefore, as the structural position of subordinate groups changes or as racial dominance softens, the racial thinking of the dominant whites also changes accordingly to accommodate the new realities (Wellman, 1977, p. 38). For this reason, racism cannot be studied merely as enduring prejudicial ideas of individuals, but it has to be located in the narratives and everyday experiences of people (Essed, 1991).
It is in its ability to tackle the subtle articulation of race and racism that discourse analysis proves to be useful (Tator, Henry, and Mattis, 1998). One way to conceptualize "discourse" is to regard it as a domain of language use, in the process of knowledge construction which involves common terminologies, accepted assumptions, and a well-versed rationale that are adopted to make sense of social practices and social phenomena (see Foucault, 1972; Tator, Henry, and Mattis, 1998). A discourse implies abiding by what Foucault calls "the rules of some discursive policy" and applying "the rules of exclusion" (Foucault, 1972, pp. 216, 224). A discourse analysis of race does not imply reducing racism to only ideas engaged in a language. It is recognition of the inadequacy to study racism only as pertaining to a formal set of beliefs that upholds a racial hierarchy premised on congenial differences of people. After all, it is precisely this explicit version of racism that most citizens of a democratic society have little hesitation rejecting because such a formal ideology is too blatantly contradictory to the fundamental values of democracy. Even racial supremacists, who are relatively small in number in most democratic societies, tend to adopt a more sophisticated language to cover its racist stance in order to win a wider public support and to avoid legal prosecutions (Li, 1995). A racial discourse implies constructing the language, the terminology, and the rules, as well as setting the limits on how racial practices are to be represented and understood; in turn, it means using the defined language and the constructed knowledge to make sense of events and to influence future outcomes.
To study racial discourses involves accepting racism as an everyday phenomenon that is manifested in a benign version, often without the label of "racism". It is a version that is communicated in a coded language so that on appearance, it is not race or racism which are at stake, but in essence, it carries a message about unbridgeable differences of people premised upon values, traditions and ways of life subsumed under skin colour or other superficial features. The users of this codified language sometimes are not aware that they are engaged in a racist discourse as they themselves tend to be convinced by its rhetoric, and they can truly believe that they share the democratic values and therefore cannot be blended as "racists". From their vantage point, to do so amounts to using a heavy-handed label like "racism" to silence them, when in fact they believe they are expressing their legitimate views as citizens of a democratic society.
Racial Subtext in Canada's Immigration Discourse
Canada's immigration discourse is an outgrowth from the government's interest in involving the public in major policy decisions in recent years, although there has always been sustained public interest and media attention on immigration. However, it would be incorrect to assume that the discourse represents the government's position, although official stance on various aspects of immigration forms a part of the discourse. Participants in the discourse include politicians, government officials, academics, community groups and individual citizens, and their views are often articulated in public opinions, discussions, debates, prevailing viewpoints, and media reports pertaining to issues of immigration.
The importance of public consultation to the government was underscored by Sergio Marchi, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, in the House of Commons in 1994: "Consultation will always be the hallmark of how this government decides its policy" (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1994a). In another occasion, Marchi expanded on this point as follows:
"Government in general has to do a better job of listening to the views of groups which are directly involved with specific policy areas.In immigration, this means listening to school boards, health associations, municipalities, labour, police, community service groups, and individual Canadians.. If immigration is truly to be about nation building, then all Canadians must have a part in shaping the future." (Marchi, 1994, p. 3).
No doubt, the government considers public consultation as an indispensable component in formulating a major policy like immigration. Many methods, including opinion polls, town hall meetings, conferences, and expert consultations, have been used to seek the informed consent and cooperation of citizens and interest groups, broadly referred to as "stakeholders". In this atmosphere, individual citizens and interest groups have the unmistakable impression that they are exercising their democratic rights in expressing their views towards the desirability or undesirability of immigration, and towards how the policy should be conducted.
Canada's immigration discourse does not necessarily imply a consensus; in fact, there are many conflicting views towards various topics of immigration. But the discourse has clearly adopted certain language styles, terminologies, assumptions and indeed a rationale in articulating issues of immigration. One of such issues is the question of "diversity".
There is a prevailing view in Canada's immigration discourse that changes in immigration policy since the 1960s have produced a pattern of immigration that results in large numbers of immigrants from "non-traditional" sources of Asia and Africa to Canada, and that the sudden growth of non-white immigrants has posed a challenge for Canada to respond to "diversity". Specifically, increased "diversity" has produced tensions in major cities where immigrants tend to concentrate, based on both real and alleged differences between long-time residents of Canada and immigrants from different cultural backgrounds. Typical examples cited include the undue demands placed on the school system as a result of large numbers of immigrant children not speaking the official languages, the social segregation and urban congestion created by the development of ethno-specific immigrant malls and concentrated ethnic businesses, as well as the confrontations in established neighbourhoods where the heritage and traditional values of Canada are deemed to have been undermined by new immigrants' disregard of architectural preservation and environmental protection. It does not matter whether some or all of these problems are caused by "diversity", but as long as some citizens hold such views and feel that their lives have been adversely affected, the government feels that future policy changes have to take into account citizens' concerns and their readiness to accept "diversity".
The above viewpoint is routinely echoed in public meetings and government discussion papers. For example, a 1989 discussion paper produced by Employment and Immigration Canada and intended to "stimulate an informed and frank debate" has this to say,
"More and more in public discussions of immigration issues people are drawing attention to the fact that Canada's immigration is coming increasingly from 'non-traditional' parts of the world. Thirty years ago, more than 80 per cent of Canada's immigrants came from Europe or countries of European heritage, whereas 70 per cent now come from Asia, Africa, and Latin America, with 43 per cent coming from Asia alone.. As a result, many Canadians are concerned that the country is in danger of losing a sense of national identity.. Unfortunately, some of the opposition to immigration which has been expressed in Canada is rooted in racism and we must vigilantly ensure that this destructive force does not spread. People's fears must be confronted and misinformation must be dispelled.. Yet it would be wrong to dismiss most Canadians' concerns on these grounds. Many Canadians, who have always been proud of Canada's humanitarian and tolerant traditions, are also feeling uneasy.." (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1989, pp. 8-9).
Other problems of "diversity" have been identified, such as its adverse effects on the large urban centres which are "experiencing adjustment strains as their social services and schools endeavor to meet the diverse needs of these concentrated numbers of new immigrants" (Employment and Immigration Canada, 1989, p. 11).
The above viewpoint, its language, and its logic are rather revealing. First, terms such as "diverse" or "diversity" have been used as surrogates to refer to "non-white" immigrants. Second, the "problem of diversity" has been presented as being triggered by large numbers of immigrants from non-traditional source countries, mainly those from Asia and Africa. This line of argument is increasingly evident in government discussion papers on immigration throughout the 1990s. For example, in a 1994 discussion document circulated by the Citizenship and Immigration, it repeats under the heading of "Immigration and Diversity" the fact that large numbers of immigrants now come from Asia, and concludes that "while there may be increasing concerns about the number of immigrants coming to Canada, there is evidence to suggest that these concerns are linked as much to issues of unemployment and the economy as they are to issues of diversity" (Citizenship and Immigration, 1994b, p. 10). In other words, not only is the "problem of diversity" caused by large numbers of "non-white" immigrants concentrated in urban centres, but citizens' concerns over too many immigrants are really prompted by their uneasiness over "non-whites", as much as by issues pertaining to unemployment and the economy. Thus, citizens' concerns over "diversity" have been elevated to the same magnitude and seriousness as concerns over the economy and jobs. Over time, as the concept of "diversity" is repeatedly used in immigration discourse in the above context, it becomes a coded word to designate "non-white immigrants" and their problems they have brought to urban Canada, as well as the grounds for citizens' concerns.2
Third, the message of citizens' concerns over "diversity" is unmistakable about how a sudden increase in "diversity" over a short period of time can create tensions and divisions, since "diversity" is cast as different from, if not opposed to, Canadian values and traditions. More specifically, the concerns are premised upon the presumed truism that, unlike native-born Canadians or European immigrants who came earlier, the recent third-world type of "non-white" immigrants bring with them different values and behaviours that are incompatible with those in traditional Canada, and their large concentrated presence in Canada's cities undermines Canada's unity. In reality, the view about "diversity" causing divisiveness is not based on solid scientific findings, but premised on the mere fact that "non-white" immigrants have a different skin colour and look different from European Canadians, and on the rhetoric that immigrants must respect core Canadian values. Thus, it remains a yet-to-be confirmed claim that "non-white" immigrants possess such different cultural beliefs that they would undermine Canadian values, traditions and institutions. Yet in the immigration discourse, the linkage between "diversity" and fragmentation is unmistakable. For example, this message is reiterated in another 1994 report by Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
"A number of Canadians expressed concerns about the impact which immigration and citizenship policies are having upon the values and traditions that form the foundation of Canadian society. This is not to say that Canadians are becoming intolerant. In fact, when describing the most cherished characteristics of their society, Canadians usually mentioned tolerance among the first. Many people agreed with the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration which reported that 'Diversity is one of Canada's great strengths.'. (emphasis original) But they are also worried that their country is becoming fragmented, that it is becoming a loose collection of parts each pursuing its own agenda, rather than a cohesive entity striving for the collective good of Canada." (Citizenship and Immigration Canada, 1994c, p. 10).
Fourth, the message on "the problem of diversity" is always presented as legitimate concerns of Canadians who support the "humanitarian and tolerant traditions" and are proud of Canada's diversity, but who nevertheless worry about Canada losing its national identity because of too many immigrants from different cultures and origins. In short, the message makes it clear that racism is unacceptable to Canada, and Canadians remain tolerant and are not being racists when they voice their concerns over too much "diversity". This is accomplished by reiterating Canada's long standing position of tolerance and anti-racism, every time Canadians pass judgment on the social worth of immigrants' "race" or "colour".
Concerns over "the problem of diversity" are often justified on the grounds that long-time Canadians are experiencing too rapid social changes within too short a time that are caused by too many "non-traditional" immigrants. Obviously, what constitutes "too many", "too rapid" and "too short" requires a normative assessment. However, there are grounds to believe that the normative judgment is socially constructed and not scientifically based. A case that illustrates this point can be found in Toronto experiences in the late 1970s when the city witnessed several incidents of non-whites being pushed off subway platforms and hit by incoming trains. These events were so racially charged that the provincial government appointed the Ontario Task Force on Human Relations to investigate. In its report, the Task Force wrote:
"With what appeared to some as unseemly haste, large numbers of black, brown and yellow skinned people suddenly appeared on the streets, the buses, and in public places. Some English-speaking residents who had not perceived the extent to which Toronto had become a multicultural entity, now discovered that they lived in a multi-racial community, and indeed, were now members of a minority themselves. Needless to say, they had difficulty adjusting to the cultural shock. These factors, and many less discernable [sic] have created an atmosphere in which overt violence is perceived to be less unacceptable by the hoodlum element which perpetrates the crimes against the visible minority." (Pitman, 1977, p. 38).
It is clear from the report that the argument about "too many" "non-white" immigrants showing up "too quickly" was used to explain the context in which violent behaviours against "non-whites" were perceived by some as "less unacceptable". The actual level of visible minorities in Canada, including immigrants and the native born, was 6.3 per cent in 1986 and 11.2 per cent in 1996 (Statistics Canada, 1998). Obviously, what the 1977 Task Force referred to as "large numbers of black, brown and yellow skinned people" in Canada in the 1970s was subjectively defined and not objectively based. The Toronto case illustrates how the notion of excessively large numbers of "non-white" immigrants in the immigration debate is often normatively constructed.
The "Race" Question in Public Polls and Media Reports
The racial message of the immigration discourse is further formalized and legitimized in opinion polls about immigration and in the media reporting of these results. Government departments frequently use public opinions to obtain citizens' views regarding social issues and policy support.3 In discussions and consultations about immigration, the government is interested to find out from Canadians the level of immigration and the type of immigrants that are acceptable to them. The media and polling companies also support public opinion surveys about immigration because the topic is sensational, controversial, and newsworthy.
It is in seeking Canadians' views on "diversity" in opinion polls that the racial subtext of the immigration discourse becomes most apparent. Certain standard questions have been routinely used in such polls as means to gauge what are often referred to as the "tolerance" level of Canadians towards "diversity". For example, in a national immigration survey conducted in January of 2000 by Ekos Research Associates for the federal government, the following question was asked: "Forgetting about the overall number of immigrants coming to Canada, of those who come would you say there are too many, too few or the right amount who are members of visible minorities?" (Ekos Research Associates, 2000, p. 6). The same question was also used in polls conducted in December of 1999, July of 1999, December of 1998, April of 1998, November of 1997, November of 1996, November of 1995, November of 1994 and February of 1994 (Ekos Research Associates, 2000, p. 6). A news report on the survey written by reporter Nahlah Ayed and released by Canadian Press on March 10, 2000 was widely printed in several major newspapers (e.g. Globe and Mail, March 11, 2000; Vancouver Sun, March 11, 2000). The report revealed that 27 per cent of the respondents in the 2000 survey indicated that there were "too many" visible minority immigrants, compared to 25 per cent who said so in 1999, and 22 per cent in 1998. Vancouver Sun used the headline "Survey finds less tolerance for immigrants" to highlight the story (Vancouver Sun, March 11, 2000). It becomes clear that the view of a numeric minority on visible minority immigrants being too numerous is elevated to the level of Canadians' tolerance of "diversity", and the minute change of percentage of this segment over time (from 25 per cent to 27 per cent) is given the scientific stature in revealing "Canadians becoming less tolerant".
There is a clear racial message that can be ascertained in the way the survey question is framed and interpreted, even though the word "race" or "non-white" is not used. First, the wording of the question indicates that pollsters and interest groups funding the survey can legitimately ask the general public to consider "race" as a factor in immigration, and to assess the social worth of "non-whites" in terms of whether there are too many or too few of them, provided a term like "race" or "colour" is avoided. The term "visible minorities" replaces a racially-charged term such as "coloured people", but the people framing the question as well as the respondents answering it are clear about what the term "visible minorities" means. Another phrase that has been used in polls to substitute "coloured people" is "people who are different from most Canadians". Pollsters sometimes use this codified phrase to ask respondents to indicate whether they think such people should be kept out of Canada (see Globe and Mail, September 14, 1992). The attractiveness of a term like "visible minorities" is that its softer appearance and its being used in the Employment Act (S.C. 1986, c. 31) make it a convenient label that can be innocently adopted to discuss the social worthiness of "race" and "non-whites" without running the risk of being branded "racist". Most Canadians would probably find it objectionable if asked to express an opinion about whether there are too many or too few "non-whites" in a situation in which they are a participant, such as a school, a corporation, or a social occasion, in part because this is too racially blatant, and in part because the principle of racial equality is clearly defined in the Charter and the Canadian tradition.4 Yet when the question about "visible minorities" is asked in a public poll, it appears to be much more acceptable, and indeed neutral, as a tool to find out how far Canadians are prepared to accept "non-whites" or "coloured races". In short, opinion polls sanctify the racial phenomenon that Canadians should find it meaningful to evaluate the "coloured" segment of the population as "too many" or "too few" purely on the basis of "race".5 The way the "colour" question is camouflaged in opinion polls reifies the notion of "race" by legitimizing the right of Canadians to pass judgments on newcomers based on their superficial features. Furthermore, Canadians' opinions on immigrants' race are not seen as a social problem that has to be addressed; rather, it is presented as a democratic choice of citizens regarding how much "diverse" elements in Canadian society they are prepared to "tolerate".
There is further evidence to suggest that pollsters and interest groups actively pursue the question about opinions regarding immigrants' "race" in opinion surveys, and then present such opinions as citizens' intolerance of "diversity" or their "cultural insecurity" that should be taken into account in policy formulation. For example, in an immigration consulting meeting organized by Citizenship and Immigration in Montebello, Quebec in March 6-7, 1994, results of a public opinion survey conducted by Ekos Research Associates were presented, and it was reported that "growing intolerance appears to have a racial dimension (since) 87% of respondents who believe that too many immigrants are drawn from visible minorities also believe that immigration levels are too high., (and that) Canadians are concerned about a 'slipping away of our values' and a loss of Canadian identity" (Public Policy Forum, 1994).6 Shortly after, in an article in The Globe and Mail on March 28, it referred to the finding in the Ekos survey that showed "most Canadians believe there are too many immigrants, especially from visible minorities", and used it to explain how "'cultural insecurity' amid change fuels resentment among a majority of Canadians towards Asian, African and Arab migrants" (Globe and Mail, March 28, 1994). It is clear from the prevailing interpretation that respondents' opinions on "race" are not considered "racist" in the immigration consultation circle, but rather, they are regarded as Canadians' genuine expression of "growing intolerance" or "cultural insecurity" based on a legitimate concern that too many "non-whites" would render Canadian values "slipping away". Furthermore, the message is clear that Canadians' reservations over too many immigrants is misunderstood when in fact they are only concerned about too many "non-white" immigrants and not immigrants per se.7 In this way, the racial message in the immigration discourse is covered up as non-racist, and indeed elevated to the level of noble concerns by citizens who only want to protect Canada's ideological tradition and the national unity.
The fact that the racial message in the immigration discourse is typically regarded as legitimate concerns of citizens also implies that polling results have a substantial influence on the outcomes of the immigration debate. Lucienne Robillard, the then Minister of Citizenship and Immigration made this point clear when she announced in 1996 the government's intention not to increase the immigration level because "the Canadian population is divided, according the last poll we had" (Globe and Mail, October 30, 1996). Often time, Canadians' reservations over admitting more immigrants and their opinions regarding too many "non-white" immigrants are treated by the media as an indication of a public "backlash", and not a problem of Canadian society that has to be addressed (Globe and Mail, October 30, 1996).8 The term "backlash" implies a public disapproval of a policy direction that produces a widely perceived undesirable social change.
The Reification of Race in Academic Research
The construction of the racial subtext in the immigration discourse has been facilitated by a long academic tradition which studies how respondents in opinion surveys place different values on people of different "race" or origin. In this tradition, prejudicial attitudes of individuals are treated as though they are free-floating ideas without a material base (Bonilla-Silva, 1996; Wellman, 1977), and the scientific inquiry is further reduced to the empirical question of explaining why some individuals are prejudicial and others not. Academics have developed various concepts to describe prejudicial attitudes, and in so doing, often make them appear as natural and legitimate, and therefore less offensive. For example, the notion of "social distance" is widely adopted in attitudinal surveys to capture the degree to which respondents are prepared to accept members of a different "race" as a close kin, fellow club members, neighbours, coworkers, or citizens (Bogardus, 1925, 1968; Owen et al., 1981). This notion and similar constructs have been used in several major attitudinal surveys in Canada (Berry and Kalin, 1995; Berry, Kalin and Taylor, 1977; Kalin and Berry, 1996).
A question on "social distance" was used in the 2000 survey conducted by Ekos Research Associates and commissioned by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. In the survey, respondents were asked to indicate how they feel about someone from a given country moving into their neighbourhood. The results, presented as a measurement of social distance, show that respondents were more positive towards those from the UK and France than those from China, Jamaica or Somalia; furthermore, the results were compared to similar findings in a 1992 survey (Ekos Research Associates, 2000). A 1991 national survey conducted by Angus Reid Group and commissioned by Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada also included a similar question which involved presenting respondents with a list of selected ethnocultural groups and asking them to indicate how comfortable they are with members of each group, ranging from "not at all comfortable with" to "very comfortable" (Angus Reid Group, 1991, pp. 49-51).9 The results, described as "comfort levels", show that those of European origin had a higher "comfort" rating than those of non-white origin---Chinese, Black, Moslem, Arab, Indo-Pakistani and Sikh (Angus Reid Group, 1991, p. 51).
This type of research is sometimes justified on the grounds that the normative hierarchy of racial groups unraveled in attitudinal surveys actually reflects the status hierarchy of racial groups in society, and that documenting racist attitudes is one necessary step towards eliminating them. In reality, this type of research accepts the premise that "race" is a valid scientific construct, and supports its continuous usage as a meaningful concept by systematically asking respondents to place value judgment on people based on "colour". In his critique of research which reifies "race", Miles (1982, pp. 34-38) argues that such research gives primacy to "race" as though it is an active agent in and of itself, when in fact "race" is a consequence of social construction. At the very least, social scientists have been insensitive in systematically encouraging the articulation of "racial" differences by conditioning respondents to choose preferences based on "race", "origin" or "skin colour", and then by attributing a pseudo-scientific label such as "comfort level" or "social distance" to beautify and to legitimize such choices. Over time, as these questions on "racial" preferences are repeatedly asked by academics in studies, the legitimacy of asking such questions is engraved in the minds of people in that their frequent recurrence in survey questionnaires becomes, ipso facto, a justification of their social merit and scientific validity. When these academic tools are increasingly popularized in opinion polls and in the immigration discourse, the public articulation of "racial" preferences itself and the means by which such preferences are articulated also become entrenched and institutionalized.
Conclusion
A democratic society like Canada has a legal framework to uphold the democratic principles of equality and non-discrimination. This is evident in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, the Multiculturalism Act and the Employment Equity Act. At the same time, Canadian society has also recognized the social significance of "race" in its everyday life. In short, while a society like Canada has formally sanctioned the blatant form of racism and racial discrimination, it tolerates, and at times, promotes a softer version that maintains racial distinctions as natural and as immutable differences of people. In so doing, a codified version of racist discourse is being propagated and people accept this type of discourse as legitimate and not racist. Ironically, it is the readiness of the majority of people to reject the more extreme position of racism that makes the softer version so much more palatable and so natural.
This paper suggests that there is a racial subtext in Canada's immigration discourse. The discourse develops a vocabulary, adopts certain assumptions and endorses a rationale to advance a framework of understanding the "diversity problem" in immigration. In such a framework, codified concepts such as "diversity" is used to substitute "non-white immigrants", especially those from Asia or Africa. The notion of "diversity" has become a meaningful concept in the immigration discourse. It provides a simplistic but convenient "explanation" as to why some Canadians oppose a higher level of immigration. The dominant and widely accepted explanation is that Canadians are afraid of losing their traditions and values when they are confronted with too much "diversity" within too short a time. Hence, Canadians' opposition to more immigrants, especially "visible minority" immigrants, is not premised upon racism, but based on concerns about national unity and social cohesion. In short, typical Canadians are seen as under siege by too much "diversity" and they are worried that Canada's heritage and cultural cohesion are being washed away by too many immigrants who are too different from them. Thus in the immigration discourse, the discussion of "race" or "skin colour" is central but codified, and the discourse often reiterates Canada's support of tolerance and opposition to racism in order to justify how citizens' concerns over "diversity" are noble and not racist.
An aspect of Canada's immigration discourse involves constructing the problem of "diversity" in opinion polls and media report. In such a construction, Canadians are systematically asked to indicate whether they think that there are too many "visible minority" immigrants, and in doing so, in fact are placing a social value on "race". Thus, a coded language is used to cover up a blatant discussion of "skin colour". The discourse reifies "race" by recognizing the legitimacy of evaluating superficial physical differences of people, and by casting "non-white immigrants" and "Canadians" as opposites based on socially constructed immutable differences. Over time, the discourse makes it socially acceptable to consider immigrants on racial grounds; in turn, physical and cultural characteristics of "non-white" immigrants become socially significant, since they represent convenient markers by which they can be distinguished and problematized.
In the immigration discourse, racial messages expressed in opinion polls are sanctified in that they are seen as citizens' democratic choices and legitimate concerns. The discourse provides a rationale to justify such views. As these views are repeatedly sought in opinion polls, they assume a legitimate and indeed a respectable position in the immigration discourse. In time, the discourse mitigates racial messages, and makes them respectable.
The construction of a racial subtext in the immigration discourse has also been facilitated by the academic tradition which develops many of the tools and concepts that enable the "race" question being asked subtly in opinion polls without making it appearing offensive. In effect, such academic research reifies "race" by encouraging the public to evaluate the desirability of people based on "skin colour" and by covering up such "race-based" evaluations with pseudo-scientific constructs.
The "stakeholders" of the immigration discourse -- academics, journalists, pollsters, policy makers, and individual citizens - participate in the construction of a racial subtext which ultimately transforms the racial messages into "valid concerns" and "scientific findings", and transforms what would otherwise be unacceptable racially-based opinions into acceptable voices in a legitimate public debate. Over time, a vicious circle is formed: as the "race" problem is constructed, "racial" differences become self-evident grounds of "social fragmentation" and "racial tension", and the concern over "race" assumes a valid voice to be reckoned with in policy consideration. In the final analysis, it is the discourse itself, and not superficial racial differences of immigrants and Canadians, that fragments Canada and its people.
Endnotes
- Wellman (1977, p. 6) makes the same point about the changing manifestation of racism in America and its elusive appearance as follows: ". it has become increasingly obvious in recent years that many American attitudes about racist issues are not expressed in obvious ways, do not reflect hostility, and are not always misjudgments of the problems. These kinds of attitudes, however, cannot be detected or adequately interpreted as long as racial feelings are conceptualized as prejudice."
- In June and July of 1994, the Democracy Education Network organized 58 study circles in six Canadian cities as a part of the federal government's consultation on the immigration policy. Its summary report states that one of the four concerns expressed by participants has to do with "integration and settlement" and "the dilemmas of diversity" (Democracy Education Network, 1994, p. 2).
- Government funded opinion polls are routinely conducted, but the results are not always released publicly. For example, in an internal report written for Citizenship and Immigration Canada, the author states that the report is based on surveys collected by Ekos in November, 1996, Environics in December 1996, and Angus Reid in February, 1997, which include "questions asked specifically on behalf of CIC (Citizenship and Immigration)" (Palmer, 1997, p. 1). In a news story reported by Toronto Star on August 19, 1996, the paper said it had to use the Access to Information Act in order to obtain results of a public opinion poll on immigration commissioned by the federal government (Toronto Star, August 19, 1996).
- Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" (S.C. 1982, c. 11).
5 It is sometimes pointed out that Canada has a right to choose its immigrants, and Canadians have a say in exercising this right. Advocates of immigration restriction also point out that Canadians do experience problems caused by immigrants coming from a different background; an often cited problem has to do with public schools being overwhelmed by immigrant children not speaking the official languages, resulting in non-immigrant parents worrying about declining educational quality (see Globe and Mail, February 4, 1994). My argument is not about whether Canada has a right to choose its immigrants or not, or whether there are problems of adjustment for immigrants and Canadian society. The simple fact remains that the Charter guarantees the equality of rights and non-discrimination for all, and the choice of preferred immigrants cannot be based on "race" or "colour" in violation of the Charter, in the same way that immigrant selection cannot be based on "gender". In asking respondents to indicate their "racial preference" of immigrants and in giving a "racial preference" as the answer, Canadians are in fact using "race" or "colour" as a criterion in choosing their preferred immigrants.
6 Michael Valpy, a well-known columnist, was sympathetic to the dominant interpretation of "cultural insecurity" in the immigration discourse. He wrote: "Ekos found that opposition to high immigration levels does not rest primarily on economic insecurity - the traditional blue-collar fears of immigrants-are-taking-our-jobs. Rather it rests most of all on cultural insecurity. The cultural fear is a product of resurging anxieties - particularly anglophone anxieties - about eroding Canadian identity. It is about the lack of sufficient Canadian homogeneous tribalness to form national consensuses on public policy direction" (Globe and Mail, March 11, 1994, p. A2). Some readers expressed different views, but these opposition voices were ineffective to influence the dominant perspective in the immigration discourse. For example, a reader wrote: "I expected Canadians to regard freedom, honesty, hard work, personal accountability and tolerance as their most cherished values. I am not aware of any immigrant group not subscribing to these ideals. However, I am definitely aware of the millions who cheat on taxes, engage in UT and welfare fraud, expect 42 weeks government handout after 10 weeks employment, indulge in cross-border shopping with false customs declarations.. and intolerant to and unwilling to respect the culture of aboriginals (the 'true' Canadians), and these millions are mostly members of Mr. Valpy's 'old Canada'" (Globe and Mail, March 22, 1994). Such opposition voices are largely ignored in the immigration discourse.
7 The corollary of this argument is that some Canadians are concerned over too many "non-white" immigrants and that they would probably not have said that there are too many immigrants if these immigrants were "white".
8 Alan Li, President of the Chinese-Canadian National Council, argued for the need to regard negative public opinions on immigration as a social problem in itself: "Unless the government takes a more proactive stance on immigration, public perceptions will not change. These are misconceptions that the government hasn't taken steps to correct" (Globe and Mail, October 30, 1996, p. A6).
9 The wording of the question is as follows: "I would like you to think of recent immigrants to Canada. These are persons who were born and raised outside of Canada. How comfortable would you feel being around individuals from the following groups of immigrants.. How about." (Angus Reid Group, 1991).
References
Angus Reid Group. (1991). Multiculturalism and Canadians: Attitude Study 1991. Submitted to Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada.
Banton, Michael. (1977). The Idea of Race. London: Tavistock.
Berry, J.W., & Kalin, Rudolf. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 27(3), 301-320.
Berry, John.W., Kalin, Rudolf, & Taylor, Donald M. (1977). Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Bolaria, B. Singh, & Li, Peter S. (1988). Racial Oppression in Canada (2nd ed.). Toronto: Garamond Press.
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. (1996). Rethinking racism: Toward a structural interpretation. American Sociological Review, 62(June), 465-80.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308.
Bogardus, Emory S. (1968). Comparing racial distance in Ethiopia, South Africa, and the United States. Sociology and Social Research, 52(January), 149-56.
Citizenship and Immigration. (1994a). Speaking Notes for the Honourable Sergio Marchi, P.C., M.P., Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Tabling of the Strategy and the Immigration and Citizenship Plan, House of Commons, November 1, 1994.
Citizenship and Immigration. (1994b). Canada and Immigration: A Discussion Paper.
Citizenship and Immigration. (1994c). Into the 21st Century: A Strategy for Immigration and Citizenship. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
Democracy Education Network. (1994). Talking About Immigration: The Study Circles of the Future of Immigration Policy.
Employment and Immigration. (1989). Immigration to Canada: Issues for discussion. IM 061/11/89.
Ekos Research Associates. (2000). National Immigration Survey. Presentation to the Hon. Elinor Caplan, P.C. M.P., Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
Essed, Philomena. (1991). Understanding Everyday Racism. Newbury Park, Ca.: Sage Publications.
Foucault, Michel. (1972). The Archaeology of Knowledge and the Discourse on Language. New York : Pantheon Books.
Globe and Mail. (March 11, 2000). Poll shows opposition to minorities rising, p. A. 8.
Globe and Mail. (October 30, 1996). Immigration levels reflect backlash, pp. A1, A6.
Globe and Mail. (March 28, 1994). Canadians should shake off their insecurity RACISM / As reports tell of a diminishing West, East Asia is booming. That's one reason Canada is intolerant of visible minorities, p. A13.
Globe and Mail. (March 22, 1994). Canadian values, p. A26.
Globe and Mail. (March 11, 1994). Streets a fear of losing the old Canada, p. A2.
Globe and Mail. (February 4, 1994). How many immigrants should Canada admit? p. A23.
Globe and Mail. (September 14, 1992). Poll showed hostility to immigrants, p. A4.
Henry, Frances, Carol Tator, Winston Mattis, and Tim Rees. (2000). The Colour of Democracy: Racism in Canadian Society. Toronto: Harcourt Canada.
Kalin, Rudolf, & Berry, J.W. (1996). Interethnic attitudes in Canada: Ethnocentrism, consensual hierarchy and reciprocity. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28(4), 253-261.
Li, Peter S. (1999). Race and ethnicity. In Peter S. Li (Ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada (pp. 3-20). Toronto: Oxford University Press.
Li, Peter S. (1998). The Market Value and Social Value of Race. In Vic Satzewich (Ed.), Racism and Social Inequality in Canada (pp. 115-130). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Li, Peter S. (1995). Racial supremacism under social democracy. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 27(1),1-17.
Li, Peter S. (1994). Unneighbourly houses or unwelcome Chinese: The social construction of race in the battle over 'Monster homes' in Vancouver, Canada. International Journal of Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies, 1(1), 14-33.
Marchi, Sergio. (1994). Speaking Points for an address by The Honourable Sergio March, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Canada 2005 Conference, Ottawa, September 12, 1994.
Miles, Robert. (1989). Racism. London: Routledge.
Miles, Robert. (1982). Racism and Migrant Labour. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Owen, Carolyn A., Howard C. Eisner, and Thomas R. McFaul. (1981). A half-century of social distance research: National replication of the Bogardus Studies. Sociology and Social Research, 66(October), 80-99.
Palmer, Howard. (1997). Canadians' Attitudes Towards Immigration: November and December 1996, and February 1997 Surveys. Report prepared for Program Support, Strategic Policy, Planning and Research Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Pitman, Walter. (1977). Now Is Not Too Late. Report submitted to the Council of Metropolitan Toronto by Task Force on Human Relations.
Public Policy Forum. (1994). Developing a Ten-Year Strategic Framework For Canadian Citizenship and Immigration Policy and Programs: Finding the Right Consultative Process.
Rex, John. (1983). Race Relations in Sociological Theory. London: Routledge.
Satzewich, Vic. (1998). Race, racism and racialization: Contested concepts. In Vic Satzewich (Ed.), Racism and Social Inequality in Canada (pp. 25-45). Toronto: Thompson Educational Publishing.
Statistics Canada. (February 17, 1998). The Daily.
Statutes of Canada. (1988). Multiculturalism Act. C. 31.
Statutes of Canada. (1986). Employment Equity Act. C. 31.
Statutes of Canada. (1982). Canada Act. C. 11.
Tator, Carol, Frances Henry, and Winston Mattis. (1998). Challenging Racism in the Arts: Case Studies of Controversy and Conflict. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Toronto Star, (August 19, 1996). Immigration levels concern about 60%, p. A1.
Vancouver Sun, (March 11, 2000). Survey finds less tolerance for immigrants, p. A 11.
Wellman, David, T. (1977). Portraits of White Racism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zong, Li. (1997). New racism, cultural diversity and the search for a national identity. In Andrew Cardoza and Louis Musto (Eds.), The Battle Over Multiculturalism: Does it Help or Hinder Canadian Unity? (pp. 115-126). Ottawa: Pearson-Shoyama Institute.
