Donald M. Taylor

McGill University

Our social psychological analysis of immigration has focused on a vision of Canada that is characterised by diversity with justice and harmony. The chapters that constitute the present monograph reflect how social psychologists have envisaged the immigration process. Immigration has been conceived as an integration process involving a commitment from newcomers and Canadian citizens alike (Chapter 2). This mutual accommodation process requires an in depth understanding of the attitudes of Canadians towards newcomers (Chapter 3) as well as an appreciation of the experience of newcomers themselves (Chapter 4). Finally, we have analyzed how these broadly-based accommodation processes take concrete form in what we view as a pivotal context--the family (Chapter 5).

The policy dilemma that emerges from our analysis can be spelled out simply as can the potentially catastrophic societal implications posed by the dilemma. On the one hand, policies may require newcomers to divest themselves of their heritage culture and assimilate to "Canadian" culture. Such policies would seem, on the surface, to reduce the potential for ethnic divisions and conflict. However, such homogenizing policies may rob individuals of their fundamental need for cultural identity, and rob society of progressive resources that cultures bring to society's most challenging problems. Moreover, for "visible" newcomers genuine assimilation may not be a realistic option.

On the other hand, a policy of multiculturalism may encourage newcomers to retain their heritage culture. Such a policy may well provide newcomers with a sense of identity and security, an unthreatening cultural protection that will permit them to be open to others and motivated to share with the nation their unique resources. Conversely, a multicultural policy may well encourage the very cultural divisions that form the basis of ethnic conflict.

Policies that promote either assimilation or multiculturalism each have the potential of facilitating the integration process or threatening the very human tolerance that is so characteristic of Canadian identity. What can the discipline of social psychology contribute to this fundamental political dilemma? An honest assessment would have to be that to date social psychology cannot offer definitive answers to this most fundamental policy dilemma. However, it would also be fair to conclude that thus far theory and research on immigration issues has only begun to be addressed by social psychologists, and we are fortunate to have in Canada a small cadre of scientists who have been influential in the field.

The overriding theme of this summary chapter is that there is a small influential group of social psychologists who have been focusing on issues related to immigration, that they have been able to contribute new and important dimensions to policy dilemmas, and that social psychological methodology is uniquely placed to address the fundamental questions that arise from dilemmas surrounding the immigration process.

One domain where social psychology has already made a contribution, and where it is poised to allow policy makers to make more informed decisions, is in the area of Canadian attitudes toward immigration generally, and the specific groups that comprise the immigrant category. What is clear is that Canadians are relatively tolerant, but there is a clear "pecking order" in terms of which groups Canadians prefer most and which they prefer least. Moreover, Francophone Québecers seem to be less tolerant than other Canadians on issues related to immigration. The stability of the pecking order, and differences between Canada's charter groups, masks what emerges as the real issue: why do Canadians hold the attitudes they do?

It is clear, that Canadian attitudes toward immigration levels and different ethnic groups are not a simple reflection of rational analysis, such as a threat to the employment of Canadians, or a drain on social services. Moreover, Canadian attitudes are not driven simply by demographic characteristics such as level of education and contact with immigrants, although certainly these variables are important. Finally, no simple personality characteristic, such as for example authoritarianism, can explain broadly shared attitudes.

What emerges from our social psychological analysis is the importance of ethnic stereotypes, threats to fundamental values and symbolic beliefs, and threats to national identity, all of which seem to be more influential than superficial racial or cultural differences. As well, attitudes seem to be especially influenced by context. For example, when asked about different ethnic groups in the context of attitudes between the charter groups, a more negative portrait emerges. Similarly when threats in other domains (e.g., unemployment, crime) are made salient for people, their attitudes toward ethnic groups emerge as more negative.

To date, however, our insights into Canadian attitudes have been limited to broadly based "single-shot" surveys that provide a snapshot of Canadian attitudes at one particular point in time. What is desperately needed is an in depth measure of attitudes and their underlying causes. That os, the focus needs to be on, first, a multi-dimensional measure of attitudes, and second, a thorough explanation of the different functions that may be served by Canadians' attitudes. To meet this need it would be essential to develop a research instrument that can be administered in a standard manner, using social psychological scaling techniques, and that is administered not once but systematically every two years. A commitment to such a research strategy can provide answers not only to the question of "what" Canadian attitudes are, but "why" Canadians hold the attitudes they do. It is answers to the "why" question that are crucial for policy decisions, because only when attitudes are understood can informed policy create the climate for maximizing the chances for positive attitudes to emerge.

The fundamental policy dilemma associated with assimilation and multiculturalism raises new questions when we shift our attention from Canadians to newcomers. The puzzling question is--What do newcomers want? Canadians will, when pressed, confide that they are genuinely puzzled. "They chose to come to Canada and so must be motivated to participate in Canadian life, and yet they cling desperately to their heritage culture. It doesn't make sense."

What needs to be appreciated is that a person's culture is not merely a collection of individuals with a shared interest who can use the power of their cultural numbers to press for more resources. What we are beginning to appreciate is that a culture provides each of its members with two fundamental needs. First, it provides the individual with a coherent blueprint for living. That is, it specifies what should be valued and how to attain those features that are valued by a culture. Second, it provides the individual with a framework for making a self evaluation. By comparing oneself with other members of one's group and the ideals specified by the group, individual members can assess their self worth. In short, culture provides each individual with answers to two questions that cannot be answered through any other mechanism: Who am I, and How am I doing?

Equally ambiguous is our understanding of the extent to which immigrants must confront discrimination and how they cope with rejection when it confronts them. What our social psychological analysis reveals is that traditional views of discrimination are insufficient. It is not simply the case that immigrants, especially "visible" immigrants, confront discrimination on an institutional and interpersonal basis, that they internalize the negative feedback they receive, and as a consequence suffer from low self esteem which limits them from actualizing their potential.

Instead, recent research is demonstrating how complex the relationship is between discrimination and self-esteem. For example, while the experience of discrimination is psychologically traumatic, the damage does not lie in the threats to self-esteem, but in coping with the ambiguity that discrimination produces. Moreover, we now recognize how challenging it is to analyze societal discrimination precisely because victims may cope with the devastation of discrimination by psychologically minimizing the experience. Again, social psychological methods lend themselves to the subtlety necessary to assess a social behaviour such as discrimination that is so odious that few admit to practicing discrimination and victims tend not to acknowledge its presence.

A final theme to emerge from our review is a fundamental cultural mismatch between Canadian values which tend to be "individualistic" and those of many newcomers who have been socialized into more "collectivist" societies. This fundamental cultural difference strikes at the very heart of the current struggle in Canada over individual versus collective rights. In the Canadian context the debate takes the form of a disquiet every time legislation is contemplated that places collective rights over those of the individual. Language laws in Québec and affirmative action programs are concrete forms of this fundamental dilemma. Indeed, it could be argued that Canada's multicultural policy, with its emphasis on heritage groups, represents a departure from individualism.

In the context of the present monograph what emerges is a pinpointing of one of the more problematic cultural accommodations that is required. Specifically, newcomers with their collectivist orientation are required to adjust to a society that places a premium on individual autonomy and achievement. For newcomers such an individualistic ideology can appear on the surface to be one that is completely "laissez faire," with no apparent respect for family values, no respect for elders, little respect for the property of others, and a licence for young people to have, and do, anything they wish. The result is a total breakdown in communication and understanding between those with an individualistic orientation and those who are more collective. In terms of policy, asking people to change their values is unnecessary. What is required is a mutual understanding and respect among those who differ on this fundamental value dimension.

This individual\collective distinction strikes at the very core of multicultural policy. Encouraging newcomers to retain their heritage culture is promoting a collectivist integration strategy, one that many newcomers will be quite comfortable with. As we have noted, however, many newcomers may be more individualistic than most members of their culture because they were highly motivated to come to a nation that is individualistic in orientation.

But by encouraging multiculturalism, policy makers may well be reinforcing collective values for newcomers that may not be found in other societal institutions, on the one hand, while on the other leaving individualistically oriented Canadians uncomfortable with apparently collectively oriented policies. A new awareness about the relationship of policy to individualistic and collective values needs to be addressed.

[Back] [Table of contents] [Forward]