DRAFT
Re-Appraising Immigration and Identities:
A Synthesis and Directions for Future Research
Evangelia Tastsoglou, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Criminology
Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 3C3
Research Affiliate, Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research
on Immigration and Integration (PCERII)
Evangelia.Tastsoglou@stmarys.ca
Commissioned by the Department of Canadian Heritage for the Ethnocultural, Racial,
Religious, and Linguistic Diversity and Identity Seminar
Halifax, Nova Scotia
November 1-2, 2001
Available on-line in English and French at www.metropolis.net
The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect
those of the Department of Canadian Heritage.
2
Table of Contents
Introduction
3
Ethnocultural and Racial Minority Canadians: Ethnicity and Race
4
Models of Immigrant Incorporation: From Assimilation to Integration to Civic
Engagement and Citizenship as Practice to Post-National Citizenship
8
Canadian Immigration, Settlement, and Multicultural Policies and Practices
and Ethnocultural Groups
15
Contemporary Canadian Research on Immigration and Ethnocultural and
Racial Identities
29
Ethnocultural and Racial Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
32
The Immigration Process and Linguistic Minorities
36
Linguistic Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
38
The Immigration Process and Religious Minorities
39
Religious Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
41
Conclusions
43
Bibliography
45
3
Introduction
This literature overview1 examines the impact of the immigration process on the identity
of ethnocultural, racial, religious, and linguistic minority Canadians. The immigration
process refers to that of landing (as immigrant or refugee) and settling in Canada.
Although the beginning point (i.e. landing in Canada) is well-defined, the end point may
vary with each individual and group (Tastsoglou 1997a). However, settlement is not
synonymous with adaptation, integration, civic engagement, and (social) citizenship with
its concomitant identity formation; all of these are processes that may go on for life
(Sintonen 1993). While all Canadians, whether immigrants, minorities or official
majorities, are constantly being touched by on-going immigration which changes the
fabric of Canadian society every day, this paper focuses only on those minority
Canadians who have actually been through the immigration process.2 Canadian-born
children (or children brought to Canada at a very young age) of those immigrant
minority Canadians have been excluded for the most part from this research, as their
knowledge of the process comes mainly from their parents. In addition, immigrants’
children have their own unique identity problems, stemming from living with two
cultures—and possibly more (Ralston 2000; Tirone and Pedlar 2000; Tonks and
Paranjpe 1999a, 1999b; Rumbaut 1994; Kurian 1991)—that warrant an altogether
separate investigation. As we go through the different streams of academic literature
focusing on identity change subsequent to the immigration of ethnocultural, racial,
religious and linguistic groups to Canada, we find that the boundaries are both blurred
and mobile. Indeed, these categories are social constructions and the identities based
thereupon may vary over time and as they are combined with the historical trajectories
of such minority groups in Canada and the lives of real people. For reasons of
conceptual clarity, the various sections of this paper review, synthesize and interpret the
relevant research in each of the categories of minority Canadians, outline areas for
further research, and identify policy gaps.
Identity may be defined “as the distinctive character belonging to any given individual, or
shared by all members of a particular social category or group” (Rummens 2000). The
concept is other-referenced, relational and comparative, as it emphasizes sameness
with others in a group and, therefore, difference from outsiders. It is also contextual, as
sameness or difference are assessed in specific contexts of social relations, at specific
historical times. As social contexts and group relations change, so do identities. In that
sense, identities are socially constructed and subject to ongoing negotiation and
1 I wish to thank Nadia Stuewer for her invaluable research assistance in this project.
2 There is some attempt in US literature to differentiate between a migrant orientation and an ethnic minority one
(Hein 1994) and, indirectly, between stages in the immigration process. The migrant orientation prioritizes the
ethnic community and problems related to migration. The minority orientation prioritizes relations with US society
and problems caused by US institutions. One major distinction between the two orientations has to do with whether
immigrants (specifically Hmong refugees) attribute inequality to their status as newcomers in a host society or to
their status as minorities in a racial and ethnic hierarchy. Since only a single study exists and additional research is
needed, I do not uphold this technical distinction in this paper. Subjects of this research are considered those
“minority Canadians” who are also immigrants.
4
reconstruction. The identities dealt with in this paper are all group identities, though
particular research findings may focus more specifically on the identities of individuals
as members of specific groups. There is a tension, of course, between individual and
collective identity, and individuals often deviate from collectively prescribed roles, or
combine multiple identities. However, collective or group identities are always a point of
reference in the construction of individual self-image (Taboada-Leonetti 1981). It is
because of this link that research findings on the identities of individuals as specific
group members are examined herein. The main assumption is that the social process of
immigration has an impact on the identities of specific categories of minority Canadians
and, therefore. This paper therefore sets out to investigate and document, through
existing Canadian literature, changes in the identities of ethnocultural, racial, religious
and linguistic minority Canadians associated with the immigration process.
Ethnocultural and Racial Minority Canadians: Ethnicity and Race
“Mother, in Ethiopia you were white and here you are black.”
—A young Ethiopian girl writing to her mother (Tirosh Ben-Ari and Ben-David 1999)
The expression “ethnocultural minorities” refers to ethnic minorities. The addition of the
term “culture” in everyday language is utilized for emphasis and in order to make the
distinction with racial minorities. Although there are different theoretical approaches to
ethnicity and race, both concepts are products of people traveling/migrating and coming
into contact with others, under specific conditions. The first conception of ethnicity is a
voluntaristic and to an extent primordial one, emphasizing the ethnic group’s selfdefinition that is presumably traced to common ancestry. According to Weber, ethnicity
is based on the belief of a common identity that is in turn based on descent, language,
religion, tradition and other common experiences (in addition to observable physical
traits for racial groups) and providing a basis for a group to develop closures or
boundaries from others (Weber 1968). According to van den Berghe (1987, 1985),
ethnicity forms a special basis for sociality, irreducible to any other, and is an extension
of kinship, based on a putative shared ancestry (also, Glickman 1985). Another view
that we follow closely in this paper is a more structuralist one, in which ethnicity and
race are “consequences of unequal relationships produced and maintained by
differential power between a dominant and a subordinate group” (Li 1990 and 1999), or
in which race and ethnicity are relational concepts themselves encapsulating unequal
relations (R. Ng 1993, 1987; Anthias 1992; Satzewich 1990; Stasiulis 1990; di Leonardo
1984).
“Race,” broadly speaking, refers to real (or imagined) phenotypical differences among
groups of individuals, differences that have been socially (and, from a genetic point of
view, arbitrarily) singled out, associated with negative qualities, and historically utilized
as rationalizations of discrimination against the bearers of these qualities—i.e., the
racial or, more accurately, “racialized” groups (Bolaria and Li 1988; Miles 1982).
Conversely, an “ethnic” group is characterized by held-in-common behaviours and
cultural traits that are constructed as different and originating in a different country than
5
where they are observed. Such behaviours and traits can presumably be traced to a
common ancestry. Most importantly however, these differences have historically been
treated as inferior and used as tools for, and rationalizations of, ethnic discrimination. In
the very least, ethnic group members share a “consciousness of a kind” and possibly
interact with one another “in meaningful ways beyond the elementary family”
(Vallee 1988:131). In a broad definition, ethnic groups include racial groups as well,
since race is one of the markers that has been used to separate groups. In a narrower
definition, ethnic and racial groups are quite different and cannot be put together
because such collapsing assumes that the experiences of non-European groups are
similar to those of white European immigrants (Feagin and Feagin 1993). Both race and
ethnicity are social constructions (van den Berghe 1984; Rex 1983; Wilson 1973), with
shifting boundaries and changing content over time whereby, in the past, ethnic groups
such as Jews and the Irish were seen as racial groups (Ignatiev 1995; Gilman 1991).
Their boundaries are also ambiguous in the sense that both physical and cultural traits
are paired with social and/or genetic attributes, such as intellectual, moral, or
behavioural characteristics (Li 1999; Miles 1982).
I start from the premise that ethnicity, (unequal) "ethnic relations," race and unequal
race relations or "racialization" arise, broadly speaking, in the context of capitalist
development (Satzewich 1990). Nevertheless, I want to emphasize that no matter what
specific approach one takes within this framework—i.e. structuralist Marxist, with the
emphasis on how race and racism assisted capitalist development (Bolaria and Li 1988;
Miles 1980, 1982, 1984, 1987, 1988; Phizacklea and Miles 1980), or a Marxist agency
approach, with the emphasis on economic divisions within the working class and how
such divisions brought about racialization (Calliste 1988, 1987; Boswell 1986; Bonacich
1976)—one also needs to examine the other side of ethnicity and race production, or
those assigned "the difference that matters" (Cassin 1981). I am referring to the ethnic
group itself and its response/contribution to the making of ethnicity and race at a
specific historical time and place. Thus, ethnicity (in the broader sense) continues to
unfold or is constantly "emergent" (Yancey et al. 1976). There is an entire stream of
literature that takes a social constructionist approach to ethnicity and race (Nagel 1994,
1986; Isajiw 1993, 1990; Swyripa 1993; Bhachu 1991; Breton et al. 1990; Roosens
1989; Yancey et al. 1976). I argue that such a constructionist approach contradicts
neither the Marxist structuralist nor the Marxist "agency" (with which it is the closest)
approaches; on the contrary, it supplements them (Tastsoglou 1997b).
A different approach, though significantly based on the Marxist “racialization” and social
constructionist perspectives, is provided by the feminist intersectional theorizing on
ethnicity and race (Calliste 1996; Ralston 1996; R. Ng 1993, 1987; Walby 1992;
Mohanty 1991). An ongoing debate on the relationship between race and class already
exists within the Marxist framework of understanding racism, the different tendencies
varying according to the degrees of priority given to class (Stasiulis 1990;
Solomos 1986). Such tendencies would for the most part ignore “one or more of the
simultaneous and interlocking axes of racial, class, and gender power within a matrix of
domination” (Stasiulis 1999:348). This problem was first identified within the women’s
6
movements globally and by North American Black and women of colour writings on the
need for integrative analyses and politics based upon the non-separability of race,
class, gender and other social relations. According to this kind of theorizing, “the social
reality of women and men, and the dynamics of their social, cultural, economic, and
political contexts [are] multipl[ied], simultaneously, and interactively determined by
various significant axes of social organization” (Stasiulis 1999:347). Ethnicity and race,
and the identities based thereupon, are therefore intertwined with and shaped by class,
gender and possibly other significant axes of social organization interacting with one
another (M. Das Gupta 1997; Tastsoglou 1997b; Swyripa 1993). In order to avoid the
pitfalls of “race essentialism” and “cultural essentialism,” Daiva Stasiulis points to the
direction of “relational conceptualizations of intersectionality” whereby intersecting
racial, class and gender domination produce different effects on people depending on
the particular context (e.g. national, religious, ethnic, historical etc.). Intersectional
identities are becoming even more complex as a result of increasing transnationalism,
facilitated by the new communication technologies.
An important analytical dimension that needs to be introduced at this point is the
distinction between ethnicity (we use the term here in a broad sense as including race
as well) and ethnic identity. According to Isajiw (1993), "ethnicity"3 refers, on the larger
social level, to the "ethnic group" and, on the individual level, to "ethnic identity." Both
levels include "objective" (i.e. directly observable) and "subjective" (i.e., needing
contextual interpretation) dimensions, as two ends of a continuum. On the ethnic group
level, the objective, external manifestations of ethnicity refer to ethnic institutional
structures providing ethnic communities with various degrees of “institutional
completeness” (Breton 1964), and to a cultural "script" (the "ethnic script") providing
individuals with a blueprint for behaviour. The ethnic script, largely symbolic in
character, is constructed from the larger "tool kit" of culture, including history, cultural
practices and other symbolic paraphernalia, with a dynamic interplay taking place
between larger social structures and internal group choices (Nagel 1994:161-65, Breton
1992:12-13). Breton (1992) emphasizes the cultural-symbolic character of the ethnic
community and identifies five cultural-symbolic dimensions, including the "myth of
origin" and the "projet de société." Cohen (1985) makes a persuasive argument that a
community is also symbolically constructed, while Smith (1988) underscores the vital
role of myths and symbols in ethnicity, or what he calls the "myth-symbol complex." On
the ethnic group level, the "subjective" dimensions of ethnicity include the ethnic group
"boundaries" (Barth 1970). The latter are a "constructed" product, negotiated between
the power-holding, policy-making and influence-exerting bodies of the receiving society
"ascribing" "differences" that serve as borders excluding others, and the ethnic group
members themselves, raising their own social-psychological boundaries of selfinclusion, the "boundaries from within" (Isajiw 1993:412). This "internal boundary" is
developed to an extent in response to the ascriptive "boundary from without," but it
3 According to sociologist John de Vries, an ethnic group is said to exist if four characteristic conditions are met:
1) a marker of ethnicity (inherited from one’s parents); 2) a social structure or group organization; 3) ethnicity must
be recognized by ethnic group members (i.e. ethnic identity); and 4) the common ethnicity must be recognized by
others (1990:232-33).
7
refers more specifically to the criteria of group membership and the body of membership
legitimations established by the ethnic community itself. It is the community's own
perception of why its members belong together.
On the individual level (i.e. the ethnic identity level), ethnicity is a social-psychological
process which provides an individual with a sense of identity:
Ethnic identity can be defined as a manner in which persons, on account of their
ethnic origin, locate themselves psychologically in relation to one or more social
systems and in which they perceive others as locating them in relation to those
systems" (Isajiw 1993:412).
Ethnic identity is not only a psychological phenomenon, but also a social one, in the
sense that psychological states of mind express themselves in directly or indirectly
observable behaviour patterns that can be studied sociologically. Thus, the directly
observable, "objective," "external" manifestations of ethnic identity may be speaking an
ethnic language; practising ethnic traditions; and participating in ethnic personal
networks (e.g. family and friendships), in ethnic institutional organizations (e.g.
churches, schools, enterprises), in ethnic voluntary associations (e.g. clubs, "societies"),
and in functions (e.g. picnics, rallies, dances) sponsored by ethnic organizations (Isajiw
1993:413, 1990:34-91). The "subjective" dimensions of ethnic identity, on the other
hand, refer to its "internal aspects," i.e., cognitive, moral, and affective or cathectic, all of
which are interconnected with the "external" behaviours and in different concrete
combinations with them, depending on the particular ethnic group and generation
involved (Isajiw 1993:413-14, 1990:72-88). Some literature suggests, however, that
disjunctures between behavioural (external) and attitudinal (internal) indicators of ethnic
identification are also possible (Weinfeld 1981).
Other sociologists (Driedger 1996; Dashefsky 1987, 1975) have used different
conceptualizatons of ethnic identity, some of which cut across the macro- and microsociological levels, and others across the disciplines of sociology and psychology.
Dashefsky identifies four theoretical orientations to ethnicity/ethnic identity along two
axes, a macro/micro axis, and a sociology/psychology axis, as follows: sociocultural,
group dynamicist, interactionist, and psychoanalytic behaviourist. Driedger, on the other
hand, identifies six “ethnic identification factors” cutting across ethnicity/ethnic identity:
territory, ethnic institutions, ethnic culture, historical symbols, ideology, and charismatic
leadership (Driedger 1996:133-37, 1989:143-48). These factors constitute an ethnic
community. By shifting the weight from the making of ethnicity to its content, from
ethnicity and race as relations to ethnicity and race as fixed entities, Driedger’s and
Isajiw’s approaches allow for various measurement indices of the degree of ethnic
identification on identity scales (e.g. attitudinal, behavioural) in various groups at a
specific time and place. While Anderson’s study (1972) of ethnoreligious identity of nine
groups in rural Saskatchewan pioneered this field in Canada, Driedger (1975, 1987)
was the first to develop an Ethnic Cultural Identity index. Other sociologists (O’Bryan
et al 1976; Breton et al. 1990; Isajiw and Driedger 1987; Berry et al. 1977) followed with
8
similarly inspired studies of ethnocultural, ethnoreligious and symbolic ethnic
identification. Although such studies have yielded rich, measurable, comparative data
on ethnic groups, as well as complex classifications of the kinds of ethnocultural identity
along various axes of pluralism and assimilation, they treat ethnicity as a voluntaristic,
reified feature of society despite their assertion that it constantly changes. By doing so,
they lose sight of its relationally intersectional and constructed character in the context
of unequal yet contested relations of power.
To make an important analytical distinction between the much misused and debated
term “culture” and ethnicity, we need to clarify the fact that although culture, like
ethnicity and race, is not a fixed entity, it refers, overall, to “a way of life that a group of
people develops in order to adapt to a set of external and pre-existing conditions”
(Li 1999:10). Therefore, it is different from ethnicity which, according to labour and
social historians, refers to “the world views, traditions, and practices brought by
immigrants to Canada and dynamically reproduced and transformed within the
Canadian context” (Stasiulis 1990:276). We must also take note of the fact that, in our
days especially, “people,” “culture” and “nation” do not necessarily correspond (Bhatia
and Ram 2001; Li 1999, 1990).
The term “racial minority Canadians,” since it is a socially constructed term, as we
explained above, we take in the context of this paper to refer to the contemporary legal
term “visible minorities.” Members of “visible minorities” in Canada are defined as
“persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in
colour” (Employment Equity Act 1995). A wide range of groups—racial, religious and
national-origin groups—are included within the rubric “ethnic,” especially in crossnational and historical contexts. Besides the narrow sense of ethnicity described above,
we also use the term “ethnicity” in a wider sense as including race, given the ambiguity
between cultural and physical characteristics and the arbitrariness in the selection of
phenotypical traits, despite some arguments to the contrary (Goldscheider 1995:3). In
doing so, we do not intend to minimize the specificity of the historical discrimination that
specific racial groups have suffered, only to underscore the socially constructed
character of such categories and the blurred lines separating them.
Models of Immigrant Incorporation: From Assimilation to Integration to
Civic Engagement and Citizenship as Practice to Post-National Citizenship
In this section, I examine ideal models of immigrant incorporation in society. Some of
these models (e.g. assimilation) have inspired (or have been outcomes of) specific
immigration and settlement policies globally,4 while others are more theoretical models
suggested in the literature (e.g. integration as racialized parity). Finally, some of these
4 Models of immigrant incorporation are differentiated from naturalization or citizenship policies and practices
(cf. Castles and Miller 1998:238-43). Although the latter may have an important effect on immigrant identities,
we consider the process of “becoming a part of” society—i.e. immigrant incorporation—broader and far more
influential on the identity (re)construction of immigrant minorities. As international research has shown, legal
citizenship does not necessarily lead to full incorporation (cf. Ip et al. 1997).
9
models have not been designed for immigrants specifically, but are the result of new
geo-political developments, such as the EU integration process (e.g. post-national
citizenship) along with trends such as globalization and transnationalism. All of the
models examined are the result of increasing population movements, i.e. migration, and
all involve identity-shaping processes for ethnocultural, racial, religious and linguistic
minority Canadians.
When ethnicity is seen in terms of its content and on the level of ethnic identity
(individual level), it is logical to inquire what factors help to maintain such an identity and
what forces compel it to change. This is the question raised by sociologists when they
study assimilation and pluralism—a question of how ethnic identity is either weakened
or reinforced (Li 1990) or how, we might add, it is re-shaped. A long tradition, in
American sociology especially, inspired by the works of classical sociologists, Max
Weber, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim and Ferdinand Toennies, studied ethnicity in these
terms. The “Chicago School” sociologists did not only study urban sociology but also
race and ethnic relations, and some brilliant early works have come out of that tradition
(Park 1928, 1922; Thomas and Znaniecki, 1918-1920) including those Chicago School
members transplanted to Canada as well as their students (Hughes and Hughes 1952;
Hughes 1943; Miner 1939; Dawson 1936).
Leo Driedger (1996) has created a conceptual model in an attempt to both compare/
contrast some of the more contemporary theories of ethnic change and persistence,
and to synthesize them in order to understand the factors that contribute to ethnic
change and persistence. By combining a “conformity-pluralism” continuum with a
“voluntary-involuntary” continuum, Driedger’s five-cell model (with the fifth cell in the
middle) allows for various degrees of integration among people from divergent ethnic
groups, taking into account individual circumstances and choices, ethnic group
formation and the demands of the larger society. This model represents Driedger’s
classification of existing theories (e.g. assimilation, amalgamation, pluralism) of, broadly
speaking, immigrant integration and demonstrates what kind of integration is likely to
take place under given conditions.
On the conformity side, “involuntary conformity” refers to “ideal Anglo conformity,”
i.e. the British majority, while white, West-European minorities which have frequently
amalgamated into a “Canadian” ethnic label, structured and shaped by British values,
as the Berry, Kalin and Taylor (1977) study shows, occupy the “voluntary conformity”
cell. Other minority European groups have chosen to assimilate to a degree and along
certain dimensions—structural or civic, but not necessarily cultural—as the theory of
“modified assimilation” (Rumbaut 1997; Berry 1987; Gordon 1964) suggests.5
More recent European immigrants, the French in Quebec, and the Hutterites may have
chosen to keep their distinct character, in a state of “voluntary pluralism,” as theories of
5 Modified assimilation occupies the same cell as voluntary pluralism, i.e., it is assimilation along certain (selected)
dimensions or to a certain extent of the group’s or individual’s own choosing.
10
modified and cultural pluralism in general suggest (Glazer and Moynihan 1963). In the
US, Waters confirms the optional as well as symbolic character of ethnicity for some
ancestries, mainly white, European-descent Americans (1990). Yet keeping their distinct
identities is not an option for some groups, especially visible minorities, and this results
in “involuntary pluralism.” In the US, Portes (1984) confirms the rise of Cuban ethnicity
among Cuban exiles in Miami as a result of increased interethnic competition and the
pressures of American urban life. At the centre of Driedger’s model are melting pot
theories such as Park’s assimilation theories, that claim that various ethnic groups
assimilate together into a new synthesis whenever possible. The boundaries between
the various groups are generally permeable and peaceful with the exception of the
boundary between visible minorities and other groups, which is characterized by conflict
(Driedger 1996:25-50). Although comprehensive, Driedger’s model, like any schematic
model, cannot possibly capture the totality of factors operating in ethnic change and
persistence at every historical juncture and in the group identities based thereupon. As
Eugeen Roosens stated, “there is no single, uniform process of ethnogenesis”
(1989:149); therefore, ethnic belonging and interethnic relations come in many different
shapes requiring a multitude of case studies.
Michel Page (1992) has developed a notion of integration (with implications for types of
ethnic identity) that is not unlike Driedger’s conceptual model of integration and ethnic
identity. He conceives of it as a non-linear process that depends on the position of
various ethnic groups in society, the location and wishes of individuals, and the
structure of institutions. Page developed, in fact, three ideal types of (primarily cultural)
integration: the multiple-cultural areas, the common-cultural areas and the private-public
areas. In the first, various ethnic groups “occupy a suitable portion of the cultural area
left vacant by the majority ethnic culture” (37-38). In the case of “common-cultural
areas,” minority ethnic groups do not occupy separate areas; rather, both minority and
majority groups occupy the entire space. Regarding “private-public areas,” Page argues
that no particular ethnic group can enjoy protection or autonomy.
By way of illustration, Page considers language instruction among newcomers. In a
society based on “multiple-cultural areas,” he suggests, ancestral languages would be
taught as an extra-curricular subject and largely used to foster identity among the
members of the ethnic group. In a society based on “common cultural areas,” Page
argues, ethnic groups would still be taught their mother tongue but the purpose of the
program would be not to create identity but to affirm the values of the group in question.
Other students would be encouraged to learn the ethnic language in order to help
bridge the cultural gaps. In a society based on “private-public areas,” ancestral
languages are seen as a private issue and can only be used as a facilitator to increase
access of minority children to the educational system. Depending on the specific ideal
kind of integration, fostered by the ethnic group, individual preferences and social
institutions at the particular point in time, different kinds of ethnocultural and racial
identities may emerge.
11
Theoretical models of integration or ethnic change and persistence frequently fall into a
reductionist trap by ignoring gender. Problems of integration encountered by male
immigrants are assumed to represent universal problems of immigrants. Yet significant
evidence exists to suggest that the integration process is considerably different for
women than for men. Immigrant women frequently have to overcome particularly
formidable barriers that men do not. Ralston's (1988) exploratory study focuses on the
lived experience of South Asian immigrant women in Halifax. Many of these women
worked at home looking after their families, felt isolated, and had few friends. Those in
the paid workforce experienced a "double burden" of work and family. Besides
traditional family responsibilities, these women were also responsible for the retention of
ethnic identity within their families. The identity of immigrant women, as a result, cannot
be assumed to be the same as that of ethnic, racial, linguistic and religious minority
immigrant men.
Nyakbwa and Harvey (1990) support Ralston's findings regarding the enormous stress
that immigrant women endure. For example, while appropriate employment is often key
to being a successful immigrant, many immigrant women are not able to secure that
type of employment (Miedema and Wachholz 1998; Miedema and Nason-Clark 1989;
R. Ng 1981). Changing family dynamics and familial conflicts over values occasioned by
the migration experience can create much stress. In addition, many non-white
immigrants in Canada experience systemic racism (James 1995; Henry 1994;
Satzewich 1992; Calliste 1989; Miedema and Nason-Clark 1989; Bolaria and Li 1988).
Thus, if immigrant women are doubly disadvantaged because of their gender and
status, visible minority immigrant women suffer a triple jeopardy since they must also
face the pervasive racism of Canadian society. In terms of adaptation, "their social
networks are deficient, their life satisfaction is low, and they suffer from emotional
isolation" (Nyakbwa and Harvey 1990:138). Rublee and Shaw's (1991) study suggests
that the lack of English/French language skills, day-care and social mobility hinder
immigrant women's integration into Canadian society. Their social and leisure activities
were also negatively affected, thereby compromising the women's overall well-being. As
a result, many immigrant women become isolated. Djao and Ng (1987) argue that
immigrant women's isolation, although frequently constructed as a psychological
problem, is a sociological one. They argue that isolation is structurally created by such
factors as the organization of neighbourhoods, the nature of housework, the climate,
centralized conditions of shopping and the gender segregation of the labour market. In
addition, they argue, governmental policies exacerbate the isolation of immigrant
women by rendering them legally dependent on their spouses. Such findings support
the need for looking at integration, and subsequently at ethnic identity, in gender terms
as well.
While empirical and feminist studies successfully avoid the reductionist trap, they either
do not engage the discourse of integration or they take "integration" as a concept for
granted (Miedema and Tastsoglou 2000). While the anti-racist literature better
addresses the concept of integration, the gender dimension is underplayed.
Small (1994), for example, recognizes the importance of various kinds of integration
12
(e.g. non-segregation, interaction, harmony), but he conceives of integration primarily as
"racialized parity," that is, a process of access to resources. In an effort to synthesize
feminist and anti-racist perspectives, it has been suggested (Miedema and
Tastsoglou 2000) that there is value in seeing integration as a process of
seeking/acquiring class, racialized and gender parity. As a result, ethnic identity should
also be viewed in intersectional terms, as argued above in the case of ethnicity.
Beyond the integration model, though to a large extent related with this last definition of
integration, immigrant incorporation has also been seen as enlarging opportunities for
civic engagement. The latter is defined as involvement in extra-familial activities, usually
conducted in the context of a more or less formally organized collectivity, for the
purpose of improving the quality of life for the actor(s), their families, communities, or
society more generally. These collectivities are often conceived of as non-governmental
organizations (ethno-specific, multi-ethnic, issue-oriented, locality-based, etc.), but may
involve these groups’ efforts to lobby or otherwise influence government policy and
governance. They are by no means limited to social movement organizations. Civic
engagement is often framed in local or regional terms (within a city, municipality), and
national terms (within a specific country). However, one may also conceive of civic
engagement as involving transnational networks, interest groups, and organizations
(Strategic Workshop on Immigrant Women Making ‘Place’ in Canadian Cities 2001).
Civic engagement overlaps but is different from related processes such as citizenship
and participation in social movements and mere involvement in non-political voluntary
associations. A broad conception of citizenship practices (e.g. Stasiulis and
Bakan 1997; Goldring 2001) that emphasizes practice rather than status is consistent
with this approach to civic engagement because of the focus on practice and not legal
status. Formal citizenship is not a requirement for civic engagement, although
citizenship or legal status, class and racialization may be important in shaping civic
engagement.
Civic engagement broadens the focus of participation away from electoral politics to
other spheres of engagement: in schools, churches, local residents’ associations,
women’s organizations, political solidarity groups, unions, environmental organizations,
ethnocultural associations, and so forth. While the term has been championed by
supporters of Putnam’s (1995) arguments against “bowling alone” (and about the
positive relationship between participation in voluntary associations, the accumulation of
social capital, and a series of socially desirable outcomes), it can also be used in a
more critical fashion by those interested in raising questions about factors that
encourage or limit civic engagement, and how gender, racialization, class, ethnicity, and
other social divides and processes structure opportunities for civic engagement and its
outcomes.
There is a well-established and growing, although small, body of social science
literature on immigrant civic engagement (Stasiulis 1997), which is sometimes framed in
terms of urban citizenship (Isin and Siemiatycki 1999; Siemiatycki and Isin 1998) and
13
which builds on work on the political participation of immigrants (Black 1991).6
Unfortunately, very little work in this area incorporates any kind of gender analysis.
Among the exceptions are Black’s (1997) study of minority women’s representation in
parliamentary positions, Abu-Laban’s 1997/98 PCERII research project on immigrant
women’s political participation, and several scholars’ work on immigrant women’s civic
engagement
(Tastsoglou
and
Miedema 2000;
Agnew 1996;
Ralston 1995;
T. Das Gupta 1986). The question of how civic engagement is gendered among
immigrants in the Canadian context remains dramatically understudied (for US-based
work, see Goldring 2001; Jones-Correa 1998; Hardy-Fanta 1993). The impact of civic
engagement on immigrant identities is studied even less.
A significant body of mostly international literature originating in cultural and post-colonial studies focuses directly
on the new types of identities (diasporic, transnational, cosmopolitan, post-national) produced by changing models
of immigrant incorporation, in turn produced by globalization and transnationalism as well as the development of
new geo-political entities such as the EU. To the extent that literature is empirical, it is not very Canadian-based and
only indicative of global trends. The first type of such identities is diasporic. Diasporic identities are “at once local
and global. They are networks of transnational identification encompassing ‘imagined’ and ‘encountered’
communities” (Brah 1996:196). The category of ‘diaspora’ does not simply refer to the global dispersion of migrant
populations, as some of the literature claims (Soysal 2000). Diasporic migration, in contrast to other types of
migration, is based on claims to a ‘natural right’ to return to a historic homeland (Shuval 2000) and diasporic
communities attempt to maintain (real and/or imagined) links and commitments to their homeland and identify
themselves as a collective community (Bhatia and Ram 2001). Bhachu (1996), in researching transnational Asian
women in Britain, differentiates between direct, twice and thrice migrant women, arguing that multiple migrations
are important to the ways migrants view themselves. The construction and reconstruction of their ethnicity and
diasporic identities are contextualized products of time and space occupied by these
women in the migration process....Equally important are international forces which have
a strong impact on the women’s engagement with global economies and on the cultural
patterns that are negotiated in these contexts (300-301).
Bhatia and Ram, rejecting the positivism of earlier social-psychological studies of
culture and acculturation—in which culture was seen as synonymous with nation and
apart from the self, and acculturation was seen as intentional and having an end-point—
suggest a more process-oriented concept of acculturation (and thus identity formation)
which is also socially and historically situated. Inspired by post-colonial theory, they see
the self as constituted by social, historical and political forces, including colonialism,
neo-colonialism and diasporic contexts. In a world where nation-states are intertwined
with colonial and imperialist policies, culture is no longer defined by national boundaries
(if it ever was). Bhatia and Ram consider post-colonial and transnational perspectives
as especially useful in understanding migrant identity as it pertains to non-Western,
non-European immigrants. Rather than posit migrant identity as an (intentional) positive
amalgam of cultural elements, diasporic post-colonial identities are hybrid and
borderland identities involving agonizing ruptures and ongoing negotiation and
mediation, connected to broader political and historical practices that are in turn shaped
by race, gender, sexuality and power (Bhatia and Ram 2001).
6 Labour historians and sociologists have studied the participation of women and immigrants in the labour
movement (Frager 1992; Gannage 1986) but this literature does not seem to inform present discussions of civic
engagement.
14
While transnationalism plays a central and continuous role in the construction of
diasporic identity, the latter may not be its only and necessary outcome. A transnational
approach to ethnic identity primarily suggests that immigrant ethnic identity does not get
formed simply upon arriving or settling in a particular society. Contemporary migration is
transnational par excellence, in the sense that there has been contact, knowledge,
back-and-forth movements (and possibly diasporas) before immigrants arrive in the
“host” society, especially in the case of former colonized societies, as Monisha
Das Gupta shows in her research on Indian women in the US (1997). There is a
difference between transnational ethnic identities and cosmopolitan ones: like
cosmopolitans, transnationals “think globally but their loyalties are anchored in
translocal social networks and cultural diasporas rather than the global ecumene”
(Werbner 1997). In cosmopolitanism, the self is at the centre of a series of concentric
circles that move through the various cycles of familial, ethnic and communal affiliation
to “the largest one, that of humanity as a whole” (Bhabba 1996:200).
While both transnational ethnic and diasporic identities are produced by
transnationalism, only the former still depend to an extent on the context (legal, social
and other) of the society of residence. Diasporic identities are characterized by the
‘natural right’ of return to a historic homeland (Shuval 2000), or closer emotional links to
a country other than that of residence. Diasporic, transnational and cosmopolitan
identities are all cultural hybrids. “Hybridity, much like contemporary religious
syncretism, is a collective condition perceived by actors themselves to be potentially
threatening to their sense of moral integrity, and hence subject to argument, reflection
and contestation: a highly politicised form” (Werbner 1997:12). The concept of
“hybridity” is what Bhabba (1990) calls the “third space.” Originally used to expose the
conflicts in colonial discourse, the concept of the third space or hybridity was later
extended to address “both the heterogeneous array of signs in modern life and the
various ways of dealing with difference” (Papastergiadis 1997:277).
The last type of identity resulting from globalization and transnationalism as well as from
enlightened understandings of immigrant incorporation is what has been conceptualized
as post-national identity. This form of identity corresponds to a new type of citizenship,
the post-national citizenship (Soysal 2000) which is characteristic of the EU. Citizenship
is defined here again as practice. Soysal’s argument is that citizenship in the EU is no
longer bounded by the nation-state but by both the local and the transnational levels.
Four recent developments that have significant implications for the institution of
citizenship and the notions of identity and rights are: the transformations in the
population composition of the European states, the legitimation of rights at the
transnational level, the codification of collective identities as rights, and the increasing
diffusion of sovereignty. These developments have resulted in the paradoxes of
(a) rights becoming more inclusionary as they are de-coupled from traditional notions of
citizenship and recognized as human rights, i.e. on the transnational level, while
identities are becoming more exclusionary and localized as they are increasingly limited
by immigration policies; and (b) particularistic claims being made through universalistic
15
discourses of personhood and strategies (Soysal 2000:7). Overall, globalization has a
pluralizing impact on identities, producing a variety of possibilities and making identites
more positional, more political, more plural and diverse, less fixed, unified or transhistorical (Hall 1992:309).
Canadian Immigration, Settlement, and Multicultural Policies and Practices and
Ethnocultural Groups
Immigration, settlement and multicultural policies are the institutional part of the
immigration process and, therefore, a very important part of that process. Consequently,
they, too, involve identity-shaping processes for ethnocultural, racial, religious and
linguistic minority Canadians. Immigration policies are intertwined with models of
immigrant incorporation: they are partly the outcome of particular models while partly
resulting in them. In this section I provide an overview of the academic literature on
Canadian immigration, settlement and multicultural policies and practices with special
emphasis on their interface with Canada’s immigrants, i.e. the impact such policies and
practices have had on specific immigrant communities.
Canadian immigration policies have historically been led by labour market and
demographic considerations, as well as political factors (including the international
context, pressure from developing countries, and the North-South imbalance and the
ethical implications therefrom) (Richmond 1990, 1976, 1975; Hawkins 1989). Labour
market and demographic assessments have historically been based on corporate
demand and profitability (Cashmore 1987). Racism and sexism have been interwoven
with these assessments, since they have both operated, through immigration policies, in
ways that have benefitted capital and divided the working class via the creation of a split
labour market (Bonacich 1975, 1972). Until a certain point in time (1962), Canadian
immigration policies were explicitly racist (Taylor 1991). The early pre-confederation
immigration was uncontrolled and numbers of immigrants were high. The first control
was introduced through the 1869 Immigration Act. It was still fairly mild since labour was
needed. It was intensified later on, in 1872 when “criminals and vicious classes” were
banned and in 1879 when destitutes and paupers were banned. Control has been the
characteristic principle of immigration policy ever since (Cashmore 1987). One of the
major controls introduced after 1879 was the control of countries of origin, i.e. legal
(institutional) discrimination in the selection processes of potential immigrants based on
their source countries, or what is commonly referred to in the literature as the
“institutional racism” of the immigration process.
Chinese immigration to Canada began from the west coast of the US, around 1858, with
the discovery of gold in the Fraser Valley in British Columbia. As many as 14,000
Chinese were first brought to Canada in the late 19th century to build the Canadian
Pacific Railway. Many died from malnutrition, disease, and labour accidents. Families
were not allowed in, and men were not allowed to establish relations with white women.
When the railway was completed in 1885 and Chinese labour was no longer needed,
the Chinese became unwelcome in Canada. Some did return to China; of those who
16
remained, most lived in British Columbia (Naiman 2000:259). To discourage further
Chinese immigration, the federal government imposed a progressively increasing “head
tax” starting in 1886 which, by 1904, had risen to $500, or roughly a year’s wages for
steady work. In 1923, the Chinese Immigration Act (or Chinese Exclusion Act, as it is
commonly referred to) was passed and practically ended Chinese immigration for many
years to come. In addition to the federal acts, British Columbia passed numerous antiChinese bills that aimed to curtail the political and civil rights of the Chinese in the
province. For example, as early as 1875, the Chinese were disenfranchised in British
Columbia and subsequent legislation continued to bar the Chinese from voting in
provincial and municipal elections. They were further subjected to various discriminatory
acts that made it difficult for them to follow certain lines of work, especially the higher
paying professions (Bolaria and Li 1988:100-26). The Chinese Exclusion Act was only
repealed in 1947. By the late 1950s, most of the discriminatory clauses against the
Chinese had been removed from provincial and federal statutes. Up until 1962, Chinese
immigrants to Canada were admitted on a highly restrictive basis, as compared with the
relatively free migration from Europe and the U.S. (Bolaria and Li 1988:117; Con
et al. 1988; Baureiss 1985).
From the outset, the whole Chinese question in Canada was a question of labour
exploitation. To the extent that Chinese labour was needed because no other labour
was available, it was useful and therefore accepted. But as soon as a surplus of labour
appeared, the Chinese began to be identified as a threat to Canadian society (Bolaria
and Li 1988:106). The racial background of the Chinese was conveniently used as an
excuse for discrimination. The state officially endorsed a policy which basically reduced
them to second-class citizens. Institutional racism effectively removed much of the
bargaining power of the Chinese and ensured their cheap market value, which benefited
employers and industrialists (Bolaria and Li 1988:124). Both the federal government and
British Columbia’s provincial government profited from the Chinese head tax, as it
generated large revenues (Bolaria and Li 1988:111). The impact of the decades of
lesser political, social and economic rights of the Chinese in Canada was huge, not only
on the growth and well-being of the immigrants and the second generation, but also on
the development of Chinese ethnic institutions and the very development of Chinese
ethnicity and ethnic identity in Canada (Con et al. 1988). Such developments should be
examined in the context of discrimination rather than as a transplantation of an original
“Chinese culture” into Canada. The stigmatization and isolation from the larger
Canadian community forced the Chinese to form a close-knit community with a
merchant elite taking control of most community organizations and with strict ethnic
boundaries that allowed the Chinese to live a traditional lifestyle within them, until the
middle of the 20th century (Baureiss 1985). Chinese communities are no longer
residentially segregated and based on an ethnic sub-economy, although a network of
voluntary associations are still characteristic of their structure. Prejudicial attitudes
towards Chinese reminiscent of former patterns of rejection remain, however, although
they occur under different circumstances (Creese and Peterson 1996; Johnson 1992).
17
East Indians first arrived in Canada around 1900. With the abolition of slavery in 1933 it
became necessary for colonial plantations in the New World to look for a cheap and
easily controlled supply of labour elsewhere, especially in India due to its povertystricken conditions brought about through colonial control. Indentured labour was
especially advantageous due to its utmost exploitation of the worker and feasible to
obtain due to the destruction of traditional sources of livelihood and the subjugation of
the Indian economy to the British Empire. Recruitment of labour still took place through
deceptions and false promises. The indenture system was officially abolished in 1920,
yet various means were used to control the entry of “free” Indians into colonies of white
settlement. However, because of India’s status within the Empire and the presumed
equality of all residents of the Empire, an attempt was made to avoid any
embarrassment to the Imperial government, by passing regulations that appeared not to
be directed specifically against the Indians. Although the East Indian numbers were low
in Canada in the first decade of the 20th century, hostility against them was gaining in
momentum, especially in economic recession times and high unemployment. Indirect
measures were taken by the Canadian government to limit the numbers, by raising the
amount of money required for East Indians immigrants to possess from $25 to $200.
The “continuous journey” stipulation of 1908 was another measure that greatly reduced
the numbers of admissions until after World War II. Practices, like the 1914 notorious
incident of the chartered ship, Kamagata Maru, whose 376 passengers were not
allowed to land in Vancouver, reinforced the legal prohibitions (Bolaria and
Li 1988:171).
The early immigrants were primarily males because of various restrictions placed on
wives and children. These immigrants were unskilled labourers working in the lumber
industry, extractive industries, construction, farming and land clearing. They were very
desirable workers, yet often accused of working at low wages and assaulted by white
workers. Even when the restrictions on women and children were lifted in 1918, few
East Indians had the resources to bring their families to Canada. Like other Asians, East
Indians were denied the right to vote and to enter a number of occupations. They faced
discrimination not only in employment but also in daily life and mobility. It was only in
1947 that they were granted the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. Entry of
new immigrants from India was severely restricted by quotas. It was only in the 1960s,
with the change in immigration regulations favouring skilled professionals, that the
numbers of East Indian immigrants increased. Although the 1976 “Green Paper”
opened up the way for more immigrants from Third World countries and visible
minorities, the discriminatory treatment of non-white immigrants is evident in the
distribution of immigration offices in various countries, with a conspicuous scarcity of
offices in the least desirable countries or continents. Despite the shift in the
characteristics of the Indo-Pakistani population in Canada towards highly educated
professionals, this population still faces a considerable amount of racism in the labour
market and in other spheres (Bolaria and Li 1988:181).
The Japanese in Canada faced similar hostility. From 1895 onward, the B.C.
government took steps to disenfranchise the Japanese. Various measures applied to
18
the Chinese were later extended to the Japanese as well. For example, the 1897 Alien
Labour Act prohibited the employment of Chinese and Japanese on works authorized
by the government (Ujimoto 1988). Hostilities directed against the Japanese mounted,
in Vancouver, in the “worst race riot in British Columbia history” (Adachi 1976:74) when
a sudden influx of Japanese occurred in 1907. Like the Chinese and East Indians, they
encountered economic exploitation and job restrictions, and were not allowed to vote.
Their schools and housing were segregated, and they were not allowed access to many
public places. 1908-1940 was the period of controlled Japanese immigration to Canada,
initiated with the “Gentleman’s Agreement” of 1908 between the Japanese and
Canadian governments allowing for very specific categories of immigrants to move to
Canada up to certain quotas per year. High birth rates of Japanese and increased
racism against them led to a revised and more restrictive “Gentleman’s Agreement” in
1928. Despite their disenfranchisement, Japanese volunteered and participated in
World War I. Despite the occupational restrictions, they became successful
businessmen or farmers, arousing more hostility because they were “too efficient”
(Adachi 1976:149). Their success prompted new racial policies aiming at eliminating
their competition. Japanese Canadians pledged their support at the outbreak of WWII,
but the Canadian government decided to exempt them from military service
(Adachi 1976:189). After the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, all Japanese Canadians
living within a hundred miles of the Pacific Coast were detained by government order.
About 21,000 people (half of whom had been born in Canada) were transferred to
camps in other provinces and the B.C. interior. No distinction was made between
Japanese nationals, naturalized citizens and the Canadian-born nisei. Internment
permitted the state to allocate these labourers to work on agricultural and construction
projects that would otherwise have been difficult to complete because of shortage of
labour. The federal government sold their property at a fraction of its value. In 1946, the
federal government tried to deport 10,000 Japanese, but a large public outcry forced
them to back down. About 4,000 Japanese Canadians, bitter about such treatment,
decided to return to Japan (Ujimoto 1988:152; Naiman 2000:259).7 Civil rights were
gradually restored after the war8 but for a long time institutional discrimination persisted
(cf. in higher education).
Anti-Semitism has also been a persistent undercurrent in Canadian society. Most
Jewish immigrants arrived in Canada after 1880 in order to escape anti-Semitic
persecution of Eastern Europe. Although conditions were much milder in Canada, antiSemitism was widespread. Jews were prevented from entering certain occupations,
there were quotas on the numbers of Jewish students in universities, and signs
prohibiting entrance or membership to Jews were posted in various clubs, resorts and
vacation areas (Naiman 2000:261). Most importantly, Canada developed a shameful
record in the 1930s and 1940s when it came to providing sanctuary for Jewish refugees
from Europe (Abella and Troper 1982). The callous Canadian response to the plight of
German and Austrian Jews was particularly evident during the Evian Conference of
7 At the same time, German POWs were considered for stay and work in Canada (Whitaker 1987).
8 Actual settlement of reparations took place much later, in 1988 (Omatsu 1992).
19
1938, which attempted to find solutions to the refugee problem: Canadian
representatives expressed much “sympathy” but offered no places. About 400,000
refugees fled Germany alone between 1933 and 1939. Eloquent calls for Canadian
assistance in Canada were silenced by the government’s arguments of serious
unemployment, opposition of provincial governments, and the necessity of restricting
Jewish refugees “lest it might ferment an anti-Semitic problem” (quote in
Avery 1995:117). Between January and November 1938 the amount of capital required
for a Jewish family to enter Canada increased from $5,000 to $15,000. Moreover, even
gifted intellectuals, scientists, and businessmen who claimed that they had knowledge
and inventions that would enhance Canadian industrial performance were usually
rejected (Avery 1995:117). While a number of US-based and British organizations tried
to place German refugee scientists, there was no Canadian equivalent to their efforts.
Canada’s response overall was localized, fragmented, less charitable and less
enlightened (Avery 1995:118-21).
Institutional discrimination has not only been part of Canada’s immigration policies but
also of its citizenship and other immigrant-related policies. As such it has had an effect
on the identities of ethnocultural groups that have either been defined as inferior “races”
or as “other” at various times in history. A case in point are the Germans, Ukrainians,
Austrians and Hungarians, during WWI, despite their being loyal and Canadian-born or
naturalized. Unnaturalized immigrants were considered enemy aliens and arrested and
interned until 1917 when they were released to work because of the labour shortage,
although most were innocent. Germans and Ukrainians were considered disloyal by the
general population and suffered discrimination and violence. The Wartime Elections Act
deprived naturalized Canadians born in an enemy country of their vote until 1920.
Manitoba and Saskatchewan abolished minority language rights in schools for all
minorities. The Bolshevik revolution increased anti- "enemy alien" measures and there
were calls for the deportation of all "enemy aliens." The “Red Scare” turned the focus of
discrimination and hostility onto Russians, Finns and Ukrainians (Avery 1975, 1995). A
1919 Order-in-Council (PC 1203) prohibited the immigration of Germans, Austrians,
Hungarians, Bulgarians and Turks, and another (PC 1204) banned Doukhobours,
Hutterites and Mennonites. These and other restrictions were reduced by the mid1920s. As a result of their experiences, Germans became much more assimilated into
Canadian culture, often denying their heritage completely, whereas the ethnic
consciousness and community spirit of Ukrainians was strengthened. 1939 brought a
return to war measures restrictions. Germans, Italians, and Japanese were the main
victims. Mennonite and Hutterite conscientious objectors were a special "problem." Leftwing Ukrainians were considered dangerous, but nationalist Ukrainians were courted by
the government to support the war. As a result of this round of restrictions, all of the
victimized minorities (except the Hutterites) were better integrated than before the war
(Thompson 1991). Thompson’s study is one of the very few that directly examine
collective identity issues of ethnic minorities and institutional discrimination.
An important yet inarticulated consideration of immigration policies and practices has
been national security. Besides racism, or often together with racism, national security
20
has shaped admission practices and, subsequently, treatment and behaviours of
immigrant groups in Canada. Whitaker (1987) calls the security controls quasitotalitarian because those exercising them were not accountable to the citizens or
government, the controls were not publicly debated and kept secret, and the people
subject to them were given no right to appeal or even to be told why they were rejected.
An international secret police network underlay the security process. For example,
France was considered a security risk until 1948, and leftist Greeks and all
Macedonians were restricted till the late 1950s. In the late 1940s and 1950s, people
who left Communist countries were considered ipso facto high security risks, except
those found in displaced persons’ camps after the war (except Jews). In the case of
Japanese internment during WWII, national security and underlying racism factors were
interwoven. During McCarthyism, visitors to Canada were banned for political reasons
(although not as widely as in the US). NATO allies were also concerned with keeping
Communists within their countries, or controlling their travel, and Canada joined in this
trend, withholding passports and revoking citizenship in some cases. 1951 legislation
removed the right of children born to naturalized Canadians whose citizenship was
revoked to reclaim citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. A person had to have
spent two years in their country of origin and be under suspicion of treasonous activities
to have his/her citizenship revoked; in 1958 this was changed to one year. Before the
1976 Immigration Act a five-year wait was necessary before one was eligible for
citizenship, and citizenship was denied in many cases for security reasons; five years
was ample time for investigation. Alleged security risks were also deported.
Although the Cold War diminished in the 1960s and 1970s, elements of the national
security state did not. Reviews of the Immigration Act during that time did not change
the immigration security process. Until 1968 no draft dodgers from the US were allowed
(Whitaker 1987). In the 1970s, with the end of the Cold War, the visa system that
helped control immigration and visitors to Canada was largely dismantled, despite the
protest of the security establishment. Yet left-wing refugees were less welcomed than
refugees from communism. An example of this came during the 1973 coup in Chile, and
during the 1980s with Central American refugees. Canada was not as blatant in this
discrimination as the US. The Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin in 1972 were
welcomed. Indochinese refugees in the late 1970s were also welcomed with a generous
response. They were the largest group of refugees ever admitted. In the establishment
of the 1976 Act, an actual public debate was held for the first time on the issue of
immigration security. In the end, the Act was racially but not ideologically colour-blind.
There was considerable discretionary power in Section 19 (the definition of
undesirables) in its vague wording and "reasonable grounds" for belief that an individual
might do something subversive or violent. The appeal process was inadequate and
national security overrode civil liberties (Whitaker 1987).
From 1907, when it was legalized, until 1936, deportation was an economic and political
tool in the hands of the Canadian state to reduce the numbers of poor and unemployed,
thus reducing the burden of social programs; to remove foreign workers when they were
no longer needed; and to provide social and political control, removing individuals
21
involved in unrest or holding unpopular ideologies, especially those criticizing the
immigration system itself. Like the security screening process, officials were also very
secretive about the deportation process, making it difficult to piece together the story
and obtain all the evidence. Illegal deportations were common practice, discretionary
power was abused, rules were stretched and flouted, and there were no appeals. The
War Measures Act during World War I increased the opportunity for deportation.
Between 1919 and 1928 it was possible for naturalized citizens to be stripped of their
citizenship. During the 1920s and 1930s, deportation was commonly used against
Communists and other radicals. The judicial system was also complicit in the abuses on
several occasions. Bureaucrats sometimes knowingly deported people to prison or
death (Roberts 1994). The use of deportation created what was in effect a guestworker
system of labour migration, as many workers were deported when they were no longer
useful. 1934 stands as a turning point in deportation; public opinion increasingly turned
against its widespread (mis)use. In 1936 Prime Minister Mackenzie King repealed
section 98 of the Criminal Code, making deportation more difficult to carry out
(Roberts 1994).
The policies concerning domestic workers constitute another important aspect of
immigration policies. Systemic features of such policies have historically been their
racial, patriarchal and class biases. Domestic work has been a particularly racialized
form of work that is also circumscribed by class and gender criteria (AratKoc 1992:229-42; Calliste 1989:133-65). First, domestic work has been constructed as
women’s natural labour and therefore devalued on that basis. In addition, it has
historically been rejected by Canadian-born women who, protected by citizenship rights,
have had access to other occupations. As a result, it has been further devalued and
constructed as work befitting female migrant workers, who lack the choices of the
Canadian born. Further distinctions are made between European-origin and Third World
migrant women who have been super-exploited (Calliste 1989:136). Female migrant
workers of North and West European, and especially British, origin have historically
come as immigrants to Canada. It was only after World War II that supply scarcity and
post-war political conditions forced the Canadian state to admit domestics from
countries previously categorized as racially inadmissible (e.g. Eastern European
countries). Yet, the fact remained that domestics from these countries were considered
special movements and were not desirable immigrants like the British. Even with these
exceptions, racism remained a feature of the program: non-American Blacks were not
yet admissible to Canada9, even as household service workers (Daenzer 1993:32-33).
The 1950s was the era of undisguised racism and sexism in Canadian policies toward
domestic workers: (i) domestic workers were not to be included as an insurable class of
workers under the Canadian Unemployment Insurance plan; (ii) European and Blacks
previously excluded were admitted into the program, yet Black domestics were given
9 Except for Black female workers from the Caribbean who had been recruited as domestic workers in Canada from
the beginning of the 20th century. The first Caribbean Domestic Scheme consisted of the recruitment of about 100
women from Guadeloupe in 1910-11, destined to provide cheap labour in Quebec (Calliste 1989:137).
22
fewer rights and benefits than European workers10; and (iii) service-for-loan agreements
(a form of indentured labour, presumably eclipsed from the West) came into effect and
their force was felt primarily by Black domestic workers (Daenzer 1993:43-64).
The 1960s were the era when immigration policies in general became more liberalized
and less racist. Not so for domestic workers, who continued to exist outside the public
institution of work. The racist undertones of the domestic workers program were
evident. Black domestic workers from the Caribbean region in particular were recruited
into domestic work (under a quota system) in Canada, at a time when South African
people of colour were denied entry into the program, so that Canada could improve
trade relations with the Caribbean. Gender biases were evident too: women were
declared to be more desirable for unskilled work in Canada whereas immigrant men
were only to be encouraged if more enriching work was available. Women with children
were discouraged, even if they were divorced or widowed—a differentiated and racetempered notion of femininity for white and Black women (Daenzer 1993:65-86). In
1973, the previous practice of allowing domestic workers as landed immigrants was
retrograded: domestic workers were allowed to work in Canada under temporary
employment visas (“revolving door” policy) and expected to leave after a few years.
Domestic workers were eventually included for coverage under the 1971
Unemployment Insurance Act, but this inclusion did not benefit them, as they were
required to leave Canada upon completion of work contracts without benefit of return of
contributions. This system stayed in effect till 1981 when it was replaced by the Foreign
Domestic Movement (FDM) program. According to this program, foreign domestic
workers who had worked in Canada for two years could apply for landed immigrant
status without having to leave the country, provided they met certain conditions
(upgrading, demonstrating “social adaptation” through involvement and volunteer work
in community organizations, and proving “financial security” through their saving habits)
that did not apply to any other group of independent class immigrants whose
occupations
were
in
high
demand
in
Canada
(Daenzer 1993:87-108;
Arat-Koc 1992:230-234). Implicit in the assessment of applicants was the idea that
household service work is non-work leading to a further devaluation of that work in the
labour market (Macklin 1992). Revisions of the FDM in 1985 simply provided variations
of privileges and degrees of rights of employers over their domestics. Despite even
legal challenges, the policy continued until a further policy review in 1989 led to the
Live-In Caregiver Program (LCP) that replaced the FDM in 1992. The new program
specified educational and training requirements for candidates and removed some
restrictions
on
mobility
of
domestic
workers
(Daenzer 1993:109-34;
Jakubowski 1997:46-62). There was an overall relaxing of criteria for landing as a
‘compensation’ for raising the standards for initial entry (Macklin 1992)
Other institutional aspects of the immigration process do not necessarily refer to
immigration policies yet they are intertwined with these and, as such, have an impact on
10 For example, according to the Second Caribbean Domestic Scheme, any domestic found “undesirable” (e.g. who
might become pregnant during her first year or who broke her contract) was to be deported at the expense of the
Caribbean government (Calliste 1989:143).
23
various immigrant identities. I am referring here to accreditation policies dealing not with
particular ethnic groups but with occupational categories—composed, however, of
ethnic minorities—for example highly-qualified immigrant workers. Such workers cannot
obtain accreditation in Canada to practise their professions based on policies that in
turn are founded on racist, sexist and class biases. For example, in the case of foreign
medical graduates (FMGs), the 1960s and early 1970s were characterized by a
relatively “open door” policy on physician immigration due to a rising demand for
physicians. In the 1970s the increasing costs of health care delivery and the increasing
numbers of Canadian-trained medical doctors resulted in increasing restrictions on
foreign medical graduates, with a “Canadian-first” sentiment on the rise among the
public. In 1975 the federal policy favouring physician immigration was scrapped and
provinces started restricting licensing of FMGs. In Ontario alone, the numbers dropped
from 323 in 1985, to 24 from 1989 on, with the only point of entry kept open being the
PIP (pre-internship program), only accessed following highly competitive oral and
written examinations. Thus, foreign medical graduates, though accepted as immigrants
in Canada on the basis of their high educational qualifications, and despite the serious
legal challenges they have mounted to such policies (Battershill 1992), are still faced
with obstacles, quotas, or closed doors at every step. Such policies unavoidably have
an impact on the economic and labour market integration of particular groups but also
on their Canadian identification, and personal and group identities.11
In terms of the overall institutional structures of immigration policy, Canadian policy has
undergone enormous changes from the early and openly racist preferred treatment
given to British subjects until 1947. Indeed, it has constantly expanded to include other
European groups, then “preferred nationalities;” it then eliminated this regulation and
opened up immigration through the introduction of a point system in 1967 (Kubat 1993;
Knowles 1992; Hawkins 1988). Shedding the overt racism has resulted, since the
1960s, in a rise of immigration to Canada originating from non-European countries. In
addition, the Immigration Act of 1976 included a process of global planning and
stipulation for consultations before the Minister of Immigration and announced
immigration levels in Parliament for subsequent years (Dirks 1995; Knowles 1992;
Hawkins 1988). In 1985 the “restricted occupations list,” which spells out on an annual
basis the job categories Canada needs filled, was introduced; as well, the federal
government broadened the rules for “family class” immigrants in 1988 to include
extended family members, eg. cousins and aunts (Frideres 1992). The next
Immigration Act, Bill C-86, came into effect in 1993 and involved amendments to the
1976 Act (Dirks 1995); it did not include overtly12 discriminatory stipulations on the basis
of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion or sex. It contained, however, an
11 In this review, we are not considering policies on professional “migrant transients” (Bolaria 1992) and seasonal
agricultural labour (Wall 1992), i.e. the Non-Immigrant Employment Authorization Program. Although the numbers
of both groups are on the rise and they are super-exploited as a result of racism built into the policies that bring them
to Canada but deny them full resident rights, such policies are not, strictly speaking, immigration policies, though
some of these individuals may eventually become settled immigrants in Canada.
12 Jakubowski (1997) in analyzing Bill C-86 has shown how privately racist ideas can be communicated through
language that is publicly defensible as non-racist.
24
inherent class bias that favours middle and upper-middle class immigrants (through, for
example, the business immigration program or immigrants selected on the basis of
“excellence”) (Jakubowski 1997). In addition, this legislation added restrictions on how
applications of potential immigrants and refugees were processed, and gave
immigration officers greater powers. Bill C-86 was opposed by legal, church, labour and
refugee activists for eroding the protections and appeal rights of refugees (AbuLaban 1998:193). The Immigration Policy Review (IPR) process that followed in 1994
included extensive consultations with the public and resulted in a report with directions
for immigration policy for the new millenium. Thobani (2000) has demonstrated how the
framing of the discussion limited the outcome and the major faults of some of the
recommendations. In addition, the depiction of women and families were constructed as
“bad” and less desirable immigrants, by contrast to the “good” independent immigrants,
especially entrepreneurs and investors, has been criticized (Thobani 2000; AbuLaban 1998). The Legislative Review Advisory Group’s report (1997) contained 172
concrete recommendations for improving Canada’s immigration law by pointing out
some important gaps in the current legislation (e.g. raising the age of dependents,
permitting sponsors to define family wherever possible, broadening the definition of
spouse to include same-sex and common-law type relationships). Gender and class
biases continued to exist in these recommendations as well, through the “core
standards” system (Abu-Laban 1998). After a short period with an amended immigration
law, Bill C-31, the new Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, a “framework
legislation,” was passed by the House of Commons in June 2001, which introduced
important new provisions for “common-law partners,” expanded protection for families of
permanent residents and refugees, and improved safeguards for people in need of
protection (Bill C-11; “Issue Papers”; “What is New in the Proposed Immigration and
Refugee Protection Act”). It presently stands in front of the Senate.
Canada’s refugee policies are, broadly speaking, part of the immigration process, since
successful refugee claimants become permanent residents and eventually citizens of
Canada. As a result, it is to be expected that their experiences throughout this entire
process of coming to Canada and claiming refugee status will have an impact on their
individual and collective ethnic identities. I only use paradigmatic evidence of statutory
discrimination in refugee law. Although refugee laws and policies, especially in recent
years, appear “deracialized” and neutral, particular provisions—like that of “safe
country” in Bill C-86—have, in their application, resulted in controlling the immigration of
people of colour (Jakubowski 1997:80-89). This particular provision is very much
reminiscent of the “Continuous Journey” stipulation of 1908 restricting the entry of East
Indians to Canada. Overall, although fair protection has been provided to those
refugees who gain access to the system, many barriers still prevent genuine refugees
from gaining entry to make a claim, including Bill C-84, the Refugee Deterrents and
Detention Bill (Creese 1992). As a result, Canada has not carried its fair share of
refugee asylum claims in the West (Adelman 1994:63-91). As in most contemporary
Canadian policies, Convention refugees need to meet the general criteria of
admissibility to Canada in terms of class biases of refugee policies, or the potential for
successful settlement based educational qualifications, job skills, official language
25
knowledge and so forth. Here the humanitarian intent of the laws has clearly been
tempered by socio-economic considerations. With respect to women refugees in
particular, they need to meet the same requirements as men in order to enter Canada
for resettlement (i.e. Convention refugee status plus the general criteria of admissibility).
Yet since women receive fewer educational opportunities than men due to gender
stratification in many countries, they are less likely to be accepted in Canada. The
Canadian AWR (Women at Risk) program, modelled after the UNHCR initiative,
involves very small numbers of women overall and a very small percent of the
Convention refugees accepted into Canada (Macklin 1995:220). In 1993, Canada’s
Immigration and Refugee Board issued liberal guidelines entitled “Women Refugee
Claimants Fearing Gender-Related Persecution” which broaden (in practice) the UN
definition of who is a legitimate refugee by including specifically gender-related
persecution as one of the kinds of persecution that qualify someone as a refugee.
Despite these guidelines, gaps and inconsistencies are still found in refugee law, and
problems in its interpretation leave the more vulnerable less protected (Macklin 1995).
Overall, then, we may say that refugee policies have been based not only on racial, but
also on class and gender biases as well.
Besides immigrant admission policies, the other important aspect of immigrant-related
policies are settlement ones. Historically, such policies have been underemphasized
and mentioned in passing in scholarly research (Bai 1991). Settlement policies, in a
broader sense, are policies that affect the settlement of immigrants including
employment, language acquisition, and multicultural policies. We treat multicultural
policies separately in this paper because of their historical and contemporary
significance in Canada. In the earlier part of the 20th century settlement services were
rudimentary: the federal government provided supervision in transportation, medical
inspections, reception sheds, some assistance in locating homestead land and
occasional emergency loans (Bai 1991:9). After World War II and in the 1950s, the
federal government sought cooperation with the provinces in providing settlement
services. Most provinces agreed to an equal sharing of welfare assistance and
hospitalization for immigrants and most signed Citizenship Instruction and Language
Training (CILT) agreements. CILT was oriented toward preparing immigrants for the
formal requirements of citizenship court, with the federal government paying the entire
cost of textbooks and half the cost of instruction (Bai 1991:10). Throughout the 1960s
and 1970s, the federal-provincial welfare assistance and hospitalization agreement as
well as CILT were still in effect. Manpower and Immigration was responsible for the
short-term adjustment of immigrants while the Secretary of State was for their long-term
social integration. Numerous secular, nonsecular, ethnic and nonethnic voluntary
organizations serving immigrants existed across Canada as well, while in Quebec
orientation centres offered primarily French language training for immigrants intending
to settle there (Lanphier and Lukomskyj 1994; Bai 1991:11).
By the mid 1980s there were a number of federal settlement programs and services for
immigrants, implemented with provincial and voluntary sector involvement and reflecting
the changes and thinking in immigration policy at the time: Adjustment Assistance,
26
Immigrant Settlement and Adaptation (ISAP) and Access Language Training, provided
by Employment and Immigration Canada; CILT, Community Support and Participation
(CSPP), and Heritage Cultures and Languages, provided by the Secretary of State.
Although there were gaps in services and many inefficiencies in delivery, these
programs provided for a variety of immigrant adjustment needs, including language
training with a temporary living allowance to immigrant women through the Access
Language Training program, reflecting the government’s move toward employment
equity. Access to trades and professions was generally ignored, and various barriers
were erected by trade and professional associations to restrict immigrant entry. Hawkins
argues that the settlement aspect of the immigration process lacked overall coordination
and proper funding, with consequences such as unemployment, underemployment,
occupational segregation, low income, emotional distress for immigrants, the inability to
reach immigrants outside the labour force, as well as emigration from Canada and the
loss of potential contributions to Canada’s economy (Bai 1991:11; Hawkins 1974).
Some of these criticisms are likely to be valid today as well, since the old system is still
in place in many provinces, and has been burdened by the significant devolution of
immigrant settlement services from the federal government to the provinces, through
the Settlement Renewal program that started taking shape from 1995 onwards
(Immigrant Serving Agencies of Metro Halifax-Dartmouth 1996; “Settlement Renewal: A
New Direction for Newcomer Integration”; “Consultations on Settlement Renewal,
Round II”; “Settlement Renewal Round 2"). Settlement services have been completely
transferred by the federal government to Manitoba and British Columbia through
agreements signed in 1999, while Quebec has its own comprehensive immigration and
settlement agreement with the federal government, the Canada-Quebec Accord, since
1991. The management of settlement services is shared between the federal
government and provinces which do not have specific agreements with the former,
though negotiations are underway with several provinces (Peformance Report,
Citizenship and Immigration Canada). Major current services and programs include
Language Instruction for Newcomers to Canada (LINC); Immigrant Settlement and
Adaptation Program (ISAP); Canadian Orientation Abroad; ESL for Adults and ESL for
Literacy Learners; and the Host Program (Immigrant Services, Citizenship and
Immigration Canada, in http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomer/).
27
Immigrant women in particular have historically been discriminated against in immigrant
selection and settlement policies because of patriarchal (and often racist) assumptions,
though these are less explicit in recent times. Paradigmatically, with respect to recent13
immigrant selection policies, I will refer (i) to the definition of “skill,” which is biased to
permit men to do better on assessments of “skill possession” than women; and (ii) to the
fact that the number of points given for occupational skill are based on experience in the
paid workforce. Immigrant women enter Canada with the imprint of their countries of
origin, where employment opportunities for women are likely to be fewer than those of
men. The underlying assumption is that non-paid work is not work (Fincher et al.
1994: 166-68). Throughout, settlement policies and services have been directed toward
the attachment of the family’s chief breadwinner to the labour force (Lanphier and
Lukomskyj 1994:341). I will again refer selectively to a few: (i) Language facility is one
of the key mediating variables that allows us to link gender, ethnicity and place of origin
with immigrant women’s various labour market positions (Boyd 1992). Yet, language
training has only been accessible to sponsored immigrants in Canada since 1992.
Previous policy significantly curtailed women’s access to language training by limiting
this training to those destined for the labour market while providing economic support
for attending a program of language training. Since 1992, language training has
increased opportunities for women, while becoming even less feasible due to the
elimination of subsidies and basic training allowance. (ii) Sponsorship reduces access
to income support in general. In addition, misunderstanding this requirement, some
immigrant women conclude they are ineligible for social welfare programs and as a
result they (iii) may stay in abusive situations and relationships that in fact impede their
integration in Canada (Boyd 1991, 1987). (iv) Refugee women are often encouraged to
take any job to become financially self-sufficient regardless of their previous training and
qualifications, which reduces their ability to take advantage of language training
(Fincher et al. 1994:168-69). (v) There are no programs designed explicitly to improve
the employment opportunities of immigrant women (Fincher et al. 1994:169).
(vi) Accreditation difficulties pertain to both immigrant women and men, yet place
women at an even greater disadvantage: in professional couples, if one is to sacrifice
for the other to go through the accreditation process, the person who does so is usually
the woman. A national system for reviewing educational qualifications and professional
accreditation appears to be increasingly necessary to ensure successful immigrant
labour market integration, which will greatly contribute to feeling “at home” in Canada.
(vii) The cumulative effects of the inadequacies of language training, job training, and
employment counselling place immigrant women at a disadvantage with regard to
pension programs (Fincher 1994:169). In conclusion, Canadian immigrant selection and
settlement policies, due to their patriarchal biases, have significantly homogenized
immigrant women’s14 experiences of the immigration process (Ng 1990), regardless of
13 Some of the earlier and harsher policies had to do with the exclusion or severe restriction on the migration of
women and families of certain non-European immigrant groups to Canada since such groups were not viewed as
desirable permanent residents and future citizens (e.g. Chinese, East Indian) (Agnew 1993; Con et al. 1988).
14 The term “immigrant woman” is used here not in a legal but in a common sense way, as referring to women of
colour, including women from Southern Europe and the Third World, women who do not speak English (or French)
28
immigrant women’s ethnic adherence, class and other divisions, though the latter are
important as well. As a result, such policies are also likely to significantly impact upon
their collective “immigrant” identity.
Multiculturalism was established as an official policy in Canada in 1971, shortly after the
Canadian immigration practices adopted more egalitarian immigrant selection practices.
It was enshrined in the Constitution Act as part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in 1982. After the initial formative period of 1971-1985, the Canadian
Multiculturalism Act was passed in 1988 which made the government politically
accountable to Parliament through annual reports on progress. Besides the legal
document and policies and practices that this entails in order to be implemented,
multiculturalism in Canada is a philosophy and an ideology. Multiculturalism is
interpreted within the framework of the Canadian Constitution and in the context of
Canadian laws and practices; apparent “clashes” between individual and collective
rights are resolved on a case-by-case basis. Multiculturalism has undergone changes in
emphasis and interpretation, ranging from an initial focus on the protection and support
of folkloric aspects of culture to “equal opportunity” implying employment equity to
equalize the opportunities of those historically or institutionally discriminated against. In
other words, it has been couched in an anti-racist framework (Fleras and Elliott 1992).
The newly restructured federal multiculturalism program has three main goals:
(1) identity—fostering a society in which people of all backgrounds feel a sense of
belonging and attachment to Canada; (2) civic participation—developing citizens who
are actively involved in shaping the future of their various communities and their
country; (3) social justice—building a nation that ensures fair and equitable treatment
and that respects and accommodates people of all origins (Jones 2000:121). There are
many criticisms of Multiculturalism as being regressive, decorative (a “disguised
assimilation,” policy without a “bite,” legitimizing the existing sociopolitical order),
impractical from an economic point of view, potentially leading to social disintegration,
ghettoizing minorities, irrelevant for sections of the population, and legally problematic in
terms of striking the right balance between individual and collective rights (Fleras and
Elliott 1992). Additional criticisms have been the a-political character of some
interpretations of multiculturalism (Moodley 1983) and its inability to deal with systemic
obstacles operating against the full participation of minorities (Jones 2000). I am not
assessing individual criticisms in the context of this paper. Many authors converge on
the view that evolving Multiculturalism, though it may not be going far enough, involves
an active management of “immigrant social transformations” (Frideres 1999) that has,
overall, benefitted not only immigrants but the entire Canadian society, by promoting
inclusiveness while affirming diverse group identities and cultural differences.
well or who speak it with an accent (other than Australian or American) and women who have certain, low-paying,
low-prestige jobs (Ng 1990:185).
29
Contemporary Canadian Research on Immigration
and Ethnocultural and Racial Identities
Contemporary empirical research on ethnic identity in Canada concurs for the most part
that such identity is socially constructed and thus variable, other-referenced, and always
in process. More specifically, research findings can be grouped in two categories: those
that identify (a) some of the most important factors that contribute to the making of
immigrant identities among specific ethnocultural minority groups in Canada; and (b) the
content and parameters of such identities at specific moments in time in the lives of
specific ethnic groups. The first category comprises geo-political developments in the
country of origin; ongoing negotiation of ethnic organizations with the Canadian state
about particular ethnic identities; ongoing negotiation of more recent arrivals with
already existing ethnic communities; adaptation to Canadian culture and laws (including
equality provisions); stage in life; gender; transnational networks; and ongoing
participation in community organizations.
Sorenson, in his study of ethnic/social identity of Ethiopians in Canada (1991), points
out the fluid and contested character of “Ethiopian” both in Ethiopia and in Canada.
While the immigrant population brings with it particular ethnic identities from Ethiopia
(Eritreans, Oromos, Tigrayans) which in Ethiopia are tied to specific political objectives,
the Canadian government has appeared “particularly uninterested” in recognizing these
distinct identities. As immigrants from different ethnic groups express concern over the
potential for loss of culture, voluntary organizations engage in ongoing negotiation about
Ethiopian ethnic identities. At the same time, living in Canada entails modifications to
traditional family structures and role expectations, including the role of women. The
Kurdish people in Canada, on the other hand, present a unique case of an ethnic
identity without a national basis.15 Such an identity is also contested, fluid and socially
constructed. Having been unsuccessful in creating their own national state, the Kurdish
ethnic identity in Canada is highly politicized and a response to categorization by, and
power conflicts with, outsiders. The making of a Kurdish ethnic identity in Canada
reflects a dialogue between divisions that were externally imposed by their countries of
origin, and those which are produced by internal divisions in Kurdish Canadian
communities (Peralta 1997).
When studying the mainland Chinese in Toronto, one notes that Chinese ethnicity has
emerged in Canada only: in fact, despite there being 56 ethnic groups in China, the
Chinese identify themselves by regional and occupational differentiations. Chinese
communities in Toronto are highly segmented and “mainland Chinese refugees”
(MCRs), one of the latest arrivals (since the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre), are
frowned upon by other Chinese and constructed as “third class” citizens. MCRs tend to
keep their identities as refugees hidden unless necessary to reveal them for
bureaucratic reasons, for shame of the label and fear for their families in China
15 Croatians and Macedonians, by contrast, have acquired a homeland in recent years, a change that might have
impacted the social construction of their ethnic identities in Canada (Winland 1995).
30
(Tian 1999); however, over time such identities change as a result of interaction both
with Chinese communities and other Canadians. Li and Findlay (1996) assert the
shifting and “other-referenced” character of identity, as they follow Hong Kong
immigrants to Britain and Canada. In either case identities change after migration, but in
different ways as a result of their relationship to different countries with different colonial
histories and laws. Ralston’s comparison of South Asian immigrant women in Canada,
Australia and New Zealand (1998) articulates how many immigrant women construct a
new identity for themselves and acquire more control over their lives and resources
through ongoing involvement in community organizations. Last, but not least, Wing C.
Ng’s findings on Chinese Canadians in Vancouver also support the reflection that ethnic
identity is a process of ongoing cultural construction, both for immigrants and Canadianborn Chinese (1993).
With regard to some of the white ethnocultural groups in Canada, similar observations
apply. In Sintonen’s work (1993) on the integration experiences of Finns who
immigrated to Canada in the 1920s, ethnicity varies over the life course, and by social
sphere and gender, with men keeping a stronger sense of identity as a result of staying
more in touch with their ethnic social network and being less able to use English in
manual work, compared with women working in domestic situations. Reversals in older
age toward a more Finnish social network and decreasing English proficiency were
frequent, suggesting that the immigrants’ adaptation to Canadian society was never
complete. In more recent social constructions of ethnic identity, the increased intensity
of transnational networks and the globalization of culture play an important role, as for
example among the Italians in Toronto (Harney 1996). Comparing the ethnic identity of
Solidarity wave Polish immigrants to Toronto in the 1980s with earlier ones,
Baker (1989) finds significant differences challenging the thesis that new waves of white
ethnic immigrants will revitalize ethnic communities. Matejko (1984) offers similar
evidence for the Polish case. Such differences uphold the argument of the social
construction and, over time, variability of ethnic identity across immigrant generations.
Croatian ethnic identity is another case in point illustrating the socially constructed
character of ethnicity: Croatian ethnic identity has been changing over time, especially
with the new geo-political realities introduced after independence, and continues to be
negotiated. More recent Croatian-Canadians might express ethnic and nationalist
sentiments without the inferiority complex of the older generation and without fear of
reprisals against family in the homeland, while older and settled Croatian Canadians,
now that the possibility of return exists, mostly decide to stay in Canada (Winland 1995).
Another European group whose ethnic identity construction has been shaped by
political developments in the homeland and, of course, date of immigration to Canada,
have been the Macedonian Canadians (Vasiliadis 1989).
Finally, recent, empirical, Canadian-based studies focus on factors that contribute to the
preservation of ethnocultural identities, without raising the question of how such
identities were constructed or re-defined at particular points in time. Such studies
implicitly base their view of ethnocultural identities as fixed quantities rather than
socially constructed and processual. Chekki’s study of the Virasaiva community finds
31
that such factors include an educational system which sustains language transmission
and religious training, and a family embedded in traditional culture. Without these, the
Virasaiva community is at risk of being rapidly assimilated into North American culture
(1996). Conversely, residential segregation makes the preservation of ethnic identity
more likely among Chinese immigrants in Edmonton living in Chinatown (Fang 1994).
Lalonde et al. (1992), in their study of Haitian and Indian immigrant women in Montreal,
find that the perception of group discrimination among Haitians was an important factor
contributing to their retention of ethnic identity, while Indians followed more traditional
patterns of integration where practical factors such as number of years in Canada, age
at arrival and citizenship status carried a significant weight. The authors offer no
explanation for such differences between the two groups. Moghaddam and Perrault, in
their social-psychological approach to individual and collective mobility strategies
among minority-group members (1992), report high self-esteem as an important factor
favouring cultural maintenance and collective action as a mobility strategy by visible
minorities perceiving group discrimination. Karlis and Kartakoullis (1996) emphasize
recreation as an important avenue for the preservation of ethnic identity. Gerus (1991)
talks about the importance of ethnic community organizations in maintaining ethnic
identity for Canada’s Ukrainians.
Recent empirical, Canadian-based studies continue to focus on the content and
parameters of identities in specific ethnocultural minority groups at specific times.
Cameron and Lalonde (1994), in their study of first-generation Italian immigrants, argue
that it was manifested in a distinct cluster including family, friends and other immigrants,
whereas by contrast the second generation had a more bicultural orientation. For postWorld War II German immigrants to Canada the content and parameters of identity
were defined by the processes of labelling, memory, socialization and the social
construction of family, work and associations (Werner 1996). For the first wave of
Macedonian immigrants in Toronto, the village ethnic identity survived the migration
process. For the second wave of post-1903 Macedo-Bulgarians, ethnic identity operated
on a macro-level and followed much the same pattern of adaptation as other ethnic
groups. In the post World War II wave, the macro-level Macedonian identity
disappeared for a number of reasons both in Canada and in Yugoslavia; individuals
operated more easily on a micro-level to create a network-based sub-ethnicity
(Vasiliadis 1989). The pre-Solidarity-wave Polish immigrants in Canada stayed in their
ethnic group to a large extent because they could not completely adapt to the outside
community; not so for the Solidarity-wave immigrants who made a choice to stay in their
ethnic group on the basis of voluntary multicultural engagement. The latter believed that
they could stay Polish without necessarily keeping the language (Matejko 1984). For the
immigrant Chinese of Vancouver, salient dimensions of their ethnic identity include
concern for the native place, care for family members in mainland China and Hong
Kong, the desire to promote some form of Chinese culture in Vancouver and a residual
interest in Chinese politics (W. Ng 1993). The content of the ethnic identity of preWorld War II Japanese immigrants varied by social class. Individuals with higher socioeconomic status had lower ethnic identity in terms of maintenance of primary contacts
and cultural maintenance, yet higher ethnic identity in terms of ethnic self-identification
32
and association and group rights than individuals of lower socio-economic status. The
most prominent exception was interest and involvement in Japanese culture, such as
arts, sports, and language, which was positively correlated with socio-economic status
(Nakahara 1991). Finally, for a group of older Italian immigrants, who arrived as adults
in Montreal, ethnic identification was rejected in favour of a Canadian identity defined in
utilitarian terms—not what Canada may be or might stand for, but what it allowed them
to accomplish: a decent life for their families, good relationships with their parents and
friends, and the much valued, law-abiding good citizen status (Peressini 1994).
Ethnocultural and Racial Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
This review of Canadian-based research focusing on the impact of the immigration
process on the identities of ethnocultural and racial minority Canadians reveals the
areas where questions arise and further inquiry is needed:
(I)
Is there a decline of ethnicity within the immigrant generation, as some studies
suggest (Lehr 1991)? Other studies indicate that there may be a temporary
decline and a “return” to ethnicity even within the immigrant generation, as
immigrants age (Sintonen 1993). Additional studies are needed on this issue, as
well as some investigation of the possibility that the content of ethnic identity may
be changing over time within a single immigrant generation, as other studies
suggest (Tian 1999; Peressini 1994).
(II)
Further investigation is needed on the actual processes of how ethnic identities
of specific groups are socially negotiated and, especially, on the role of political
developments in the homeland, as several studies seem to suggest
(cf. Sorenson 1991; Winland 1995; Vasiliadis 1989) In addition, the role of
political factors and especially of global geopolitical developments in the
representation and social construction of certain group identities merits further
investigation, as the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the U.S. in the week of
September 11, 2001 reveals.
(III)
Further comparative research is needed to better understand the ethnic identity
construction process and content of various immigrant generations (or waves of
immigrants) within specific ethnic groups, as other studies suggest
(cf. Baker 1989).
(IV)
The links and intersections between ethnic identity, gender and class in specific
ethnocultural groups need to be further investigated, as they are impacted by the
immigration process (cf. Tastsoglou 1997b; Swyripa 1993; for international
research cf. Duany 1985). In general, the diversity and divisions within ethnic
communities on the basis of such and possibly other intersections (e.g. sexuality,
as suggested by US-based research, Cantu 2000) warrant extra caution by
social agencies and governments to avoid conflict that could result from ethnic
community development policies. A further focus might be on ethnic identities
33
examined in an intersectional manner, within particular occupational and
educational categories of immigrants. Limited research exists, especially on
academics (cf. Skachkova 2000 for US-based research; Tastsoglou 2000;
Hoodfar 1992) and written primarily from the perspective of critical pedagogy.
(V)
More research is needed to better understand the differences between immigrant
ethnic groups in terms of ethnic identity retention or, alternately, of adoption of
some measure of Canadian identity. What are the factors accounting for such
differences? International research points to the importance of threats to identity
experienced by migrants who have encountered radical socio-political upheaval
(Timotijevic and Breakwell 2000). What is the significance of this and other
factors around the particular circumstances of emigration and immigration on the
identities of immigrants to Canada?
(VI)
Although there is some evidence of the declining importance of ethnic identity
over the generations (Lay and Verkuyten 1999; Karumanchery 1996; Boski
1991), or of the changing content of ethnicity over the course of generations
(Isajiw 1975), more studies on various ethnic groups are needed on this subject.
(VII)
Last but not least is the conspicuous absence of historical and contemporary
research on the impact of the institutional aspects of the immigration process—
mainly immigration, settlement and multicultural policies—on collective and
individual identities of Canada’s ethnocultural, racial, linguistic and religious
immigrant minorities. Although there is significant research on how racist, and to
a lesser extent sexist, policies have economically, demographically and socially
affected specific ethnic communities, there is no particular focus on, or link to,
identities. Such research should also take into account groupings that cut across
these various identities (e.g. refugees, immigrant women, physically challenged
individuals, gays), i.e. different dimensions of social inequality within the
categories of identities researched in this paper. New Oral History approaches
with their emphasis on the subjective experience might be especially fruitful
(Freund and Quilici 1996). There is also very little on the impact on ethnocultural
identities of various settlement and social service delivery models (cf. Matsuoka
and Sorenson 1991). With respect to multicultural policies in particular, research
is needed to illustrate whether and how specific ethnocultural groups have
formed/maintained ethnocultural identities while simultaneously developing a
sense of belonging to Canada.
(VIII) The extensive body of existing research on the adaptation or integration of
particular ethnic groups should not be taken as synonymous with a relative loss
of ethnocultural identities. We simply do not know what happens to various
ethnocultural identities with increasing integration. We need additional research
on the subject to fill this gap.
34
Research on the importance and consequences of ethnic identity points out some areas
where research and policy gaps may exist:
(i)
Ethnic identity may be very important in mental health, as it may mediate the link
between discrimination and depression in terms of providing culturally
appropriate coping strategies, as Noh et al. have shown in their study of
Southeast Asian refugees (1999). Conversely, Gee (1999) argues that some loss
of ethnic identity is associated with a higher sense of well-being among foreignborn Chinese elders, especially women, in Victoria and Vancouver. However this
does not establish causality between the two variables, as ethnic identity loss is
also associated with number of years in Canada, income, English competence
and place of residence. Jamaican immigrant adolescents, after being faced with
racial prejudice for the first time after immigration to Canada, turn to an
exploration of their ethnic identity in their effort to cope (Tan 1992). Americanbased research indicates that ethnic identity is a significant predictor of selfesteem (Phinney 1997). Further research on the relationship of mental health
and ethnicity, and possibly on the instrumental and deliberate use of ethnicity by
mental health professionals and immigrants as a coping strategy, is needed.
(ii)
Ethnic identity is only one of the factors affecting preference of care among
elderly Japanese Canadian immigrants, as Matsuoka (1999, 1991) has
demonstrated; it should not be taken for granted that informal care is better and
the preferred choice of care by the elderly. A welfare state that places importance
on maintaining family ties needs to pay more attention to preferences of care
(Matsuoka 1999). Aging and ethnicity in general require further research
(Gee 1999).
(iii)
Wing C. Ng has shown that Chinese immigrant identification with Canada has
increased since the dismantling of racial barriers in the larger society (1993).
Although further research on the effect of discrimination in retaining ethnocultural
identity or adopting a Canadian ethnic identification is needed, preliminary
findings add even further practical utility to measures of combatting racism.
(iv)
Chimbos (1987) argues that social mobility for the Greek Canadian immigrant
community is not predicated on assimilation or the disappearance of ethnic
identity. Additional research is needed for specific ethnic groups and generations,
since this finding seems to contradict other research findings and especially the
“vertical mosaic” thesis (Porter 1965, 1985; Lautard and Guppy 1990). Other
studies have shown that ethnic identity affects learning and therefore, indirectly,
social mobility (cf. Ibrahim 1999).
Finally, with modern societies generally becoming increasingly diverse and sometimes
more pluralistic as a result of globalization and transnationalism, new questions arise in
the field of transnational, diasporic and post-national identities, which remains virtually
unexplored in Canada:
35
(1)
What kinds of identities and identity-shifts do multiple migrations produce? In a
contemporary globalized world of transnational population movements and large
diasporas, it is important to specify the dimensions, contexts and idioms that
constitute particular diaspora groups (Winland 1998). “This involves, among
other things, a more nuanced analysis not only of conditions of arrival...and
settlement...in Canada but also of departure...from country of origin, residence or
internment, with special attention to the spaces in between. Greater attention to
the transnational dimension of diasporan experience...could reveal, for example,
how multiple displacements (and diaspora histories) shape diasporan attitudes
and experiences in Canada” (Winland 1998:568). The implications of such a shift
in our understanding of Canada from a land of immigrants to a “node in a
postnational network of diasporas” (Appadurai, cited in Winland 1998:567) are so
enormous that they “would shake the ideological foundations of identity based on
national and territorial locus” (Winland 1998:567).
(2)
Bhatia and Ram (2001), studying traditional social-psychological theories of
acculturation from a post-colonial and transnational perspective suggest some
fascinating questions: “Can we relegate colonial history, gender and race to the
status of variables and overlook how identity is embedded in a network of
multiple and often contested cultural practices?....How does the researcher
capture the contested and hyphenated aspects of the acculturation process?
How do we understand and explain how millions of migrant children living in
diasporic contexts negotiate their sense of identity vis-a-vis the larger
mainstream...culture?” (2001:1-18).
(3)
What does the term ‘culture’ in acculturation stand for? How does the researcher
define the developmental end point (telos) of acculturation? Are there multiple
end points to this process? (Bhatia and Ram 2001)
(4)
What is the effect of new technologies, such as electronic media and increased
opportunities for fast travel, on the construction of “new and varied ‘imagined
communities,’” including diasporas, and therefore on diasporic and ethnic
identities? (Brah 1996).
(5)
What should the appropriate methodologies be for studying the global
dimensions of identities and the circulation/transformation of ethnic/cultural
meanings that are utilized in identity construction? Transnational perspectives on
identities call for a move away from localized notions of bounded
ethnic/immigrant communities (Winland 1998: 556).
(6)
How is citizenship enacted in the Canadian state? Looking beyond the
Multiculturalism Act and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, what are
the local and transnational limits of citizenship for various groups and what are
their consequences for group identity? Rather than treating local, national and
36
transnational as stages in process, we need to “incorporate them into our
theoretical framework as variables, and treat them as concurrent levels within
which the current practices of citizenship and identity should be understood”
(Soysal 2000:13). Issues of benefit distribution (i.e. social inclusion and
exclusion) are very important in this conceptualization of citizenship. What are
the consequences of social benefit distribution for group identities?
The Immigration Process and Linguistic Minority Canadians
Linguistic minorities are those who speak as mother tongue a language other than
English or French, the two official languages of Canada. Linguistic minorities are always
ethnocultural16 (including racialized) minorities and often religious minorities as well.
While there is some literature (Isajiw 1981; Reitz 1980; Driedger 1978) on language as
one of a number of ethnic identity factors (along with religion, endogamy, etc.), most of
the ethnicity literature tends to ignore issues of language, while studies of linguistic
pluralism in Canada, on the other hand, fail to consider issues of ethnicity
(de Vries 1990:231). More recently, research has focused more on this connection of
language and ethnicity (Davids 2000; Lanca et al. 1994; De Vries 1990). In addition
research is intergenerational, sometimes lumping together immigrants and subsequent
generations (Davids 2000; Lanca 1994; Lan 1992) rather than focusing on language
shift among first-generation immigrants. I will briefly outline the main theoretical
directions in the literature, pointing out gaps where further research is needed.
In one stream of literature drawing upon Edward Sapir’s theory17 (Reitz 1985),
language seems to be the pre-condition (Hertzler 1965) of ethnic solidarity, ethnicity and
ethnic identity, its loss signifying the latter’s demise (de Vries 1990). Yet language
retention is not always a prerequisite to the maintenance of an ethnic community and
ethnic identity. In some cases religion and culture may provide at least as important a
basis as language for social (and ethnic) solidarity. There is also the possibility, as
implied in some studies, that ethnicity and ethnic identity could exist without language
retention (Edwards and Chisholm 1987). In most of the sociological literature on
assimilation, however, language retention is a result (rather than a cause) of structures
that allow it; therefore structural assimilation leads to loss of language and cultural
assimilation (Reitz 1985). While most of the discussion centres around the relationship
between language retention and ethnic solidarity or ethnicity, often measured through
ethnic community participation, and while a strong correlation between the two is
established, studies reach opposite conclusions on the character of language as a
dependent or independent variable (Lieberson 1970; Vallee and Shulman 1969).
16 The term “ethnolinguistic” appears in some of the literature (Breton 1985).
17 For Sapir, language is not only a vehicle of communication, but an expression of collective social identity.
Therefore, it is a symbol of social solidarity for those who speak a language in common (Sapir 1933).
37
Reitz’ survey data on four ethnic groups of European extraction in Canada reveals that
there is a gradual language shift from the first to the third generation as well as an
intergenerational withdrawal from the ethnic community and that there is no clear
tendency for any of the four groups to leave the ethnic community more rapidly than the
others (Reitz 1985:113-15). De Vries’ data support the first conclusion (“the levelling
effect of the third generation,” in de Vries and Vallee 1980) but he finds, among the four
groups he examines, a hierarchy in terms of ethnic maintenance that includes language
retention/shift (de Vries 1990). Although there have been some voices to the opposite
(cf. Isajiw 1975), most studies support the argument of generational loss of language,
even though variations in the rate of loss exist for different ethnic groups (Kralt and
Pendakur 1991; Pendakur 1990; O’Bryan et al. 1976). Besides generation, nativity
(i.e. where one is born) and age at immigration are strongly linked to ethnic language
maintenance, especially among first-generation immigrants (de Vries 1990). The older
the age at migration, the more likely it is the immigrant will maintain his/her mother
tongue. In addition, ethnolinguistic or ethnoreligious groups in more segregated rural
enclaves have been more successful in maintaining ethnic language across
generations, as various studies have shown (Driedger 1996:113).
Since language knowledge in the Reitz study is strongly related to every aspect of
ethnic community participation and since it precedes participation chronologically, he
establishes a causal connection between the two (also, de Vries 1990). At the same
time, he shows that other important socializing experiences, including church
attendance, early religious training, and parental encouragement have no bearing in the
maintenance of ethnic community participation in the absence of language. The single
factor that seems to be important is language learning in childhood, regardless of
whether the parents had hoped for the retention of ethnic ties (1985:117-20). Reitz,
recognizing the importance of structures in maintaining language, makes a case about
the importance of separate social domains in which ethnic languages are spoken
(primarily families) only from the point of view of retaining ethnicity and ethnic identities.
This is indirectly an argument about reducing/eliminating racism as a result of which
even first-generation immigrant parents may choose not to use the ethnic language in
their home. In other words, a community environment supportive of ethnic language
retention is necessary, and even though ethnic school attendance shows little additional
effect on language retention in his study, government support for ethnic schooling
indicates societal encouragement for heritage languages and cultures and sends a
strong signal regarding the value placed on such schooling in Canada. In terms of the
structure of Reitz’s argument, it seems that language retention is both a dependent and
an independent variable, and it is this kind of ambiguity that most studies express
(Weinfeld 1994:243). Other recent studies (Lan 1992) also point to the importance of
the family as well as heritage language schooling in retaining language and ethnic
identity. As Morrow states, “any language policy aimed at creating a common linguistic
ground for national identity must also, in order to be effective, assiduously preserve
minority languages and the cultural identities those languages constitute” (1997:184).
38
Linguistic Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
What do we also need to know about the impact of the immigration process on
language retention and ethnic identity?
(1)
Are ethnic identity and language retention necessarily connected? Can there be
ethnocultural identity without linguistic competence? If so, what kind of identity
and how will it differ from group to group? To what extent can the symbolic uses
of an ethnic language, far short of fluency, play a role in reinforcing group
boundaries or enhancing identities (Weinfeld 1994)?
(2)
We need additional studies on the effects immigration can have on the language
retention of first-generation immigrants. What is the relationship between their
ethnic identity and language shift? What are some of the reasons for the shift?
Are there back-and-forth shifts (English/French and mother tongue) over one’s
lifetime, as some studies suggest (Sintonen 1993)?
(3)
What are the roles of gender and gender relations in language retention? As
women are generally more responsible for cultural maintenance/transmission, as
they are often more confined in the family as a result of traditional gender roles
(Pierce 1993), and as they feel less confident in using a new language than men
because of their more “intimate” relationship to language (Morrow 1997), one
could assume that immigrant women would tend to retain mother tongues more
so than men. Yet, recent studies point to the opposite (Davids 2000), with
Yiddish, for example, being spoken more by men than women as a result of
women’s exclusion from certain aspects of religious participation. More data are
needed on this issue.
(4)
What are the long-term benefits of second-, and possibly third-generation
(heritage) language instruction? Besides the cognitive benefits that some studies
document (Tucker 1980, Genessee and Lambert 1979, cited in Lambert and
Taylor 1984), are there other economic advantages for multilingualism in areas
such as international trade and investment opportunities? What about the
psychological benefits of increased self-confidence and positive identity
formation?
(5)
From the point of view of maintaining diversity and the Multiculturalism Act, it is
clear that the state should strengthen institutional structures that make heritage
(or non-official) language transmission, retention and use possible. Measures
should include anti-racism programs and policies but also effective heritage
language instruction which is only possible through improved access to
resources and institutions of power. As W. Denis argues in writing about
language policies and politics in Canada, languages do not exist in a social
vacuum. “They flourish or die in an institutional milieu that is either favourable or
detrimental to their survival, and this context depends on the political and
39
economic resources that particular groups control and on the underlying structure
of society” (1999:206).
(6)
We also need to know what the effects of economic globalization and increased
travel and communication possibilities will be upon ethnic languages
(Weinfeld 1994). Will they make ethnic language retention easier and how do
they compare in terms of effectiveness with heritage language instruction?
The Immigration Process and Religious Minority Canadians
The relationship between religion and ethnicity has been a subject of debate and
remains problematic. According to one interpretation, religion is one of the markers of
an ethnic group, though it might not be as salient as language or race in Canada
(de Vries 1990). Similarly, Isajiw’s report on 27 ethnic studies states that ten accepted a
subjective definition of ethnicity and of that ten, eight included religion among ethnicity’s
attributes (cited in Waugh 1991), though the author himself holds that religion cannot be
subsumed under ethnicity. This being said, religion and ethnicity have been conceived
as equally important parts of the “sacred canopy” of a people. They are often
intertwined and interacting. Many of the earlier ethnic groups in Canada started their
organizational structure by erecting a building for their community of faith
(e.g. Vasiliadis 1989; Polyzoi 1986). Religion, according to a classical sociological
definition (Berger 1967; Driedger 1989), is one of the four pillars of the “sacred canopy”
of a people, i.e. the social rendering of experience into a meaningful order, or nomos.
Nomos building is a necessity, according to Berger, that, like the sacred tent-like roof of
Jews, protects the individual or group from terror or meaninglessness. Ethnic culture, a
community and land or territory in which the group resides are the other three
(Driedger 1989), with all four components participating in a symbiotic relationship. Upon
migration, the canopy may be shaken, shattered, transformed or transported with
various degrees of change in its component parts. The history and contemporary reality
of varying ethnoreligious groups in Canada attests to that. The earlier Hutterite
immigrant experience in Canada provides an example of a sacred canopy transferred
relatively intact from Europe to the North American prairies. An agricultural people with
a distinctive Germanic culture and customs, living communally in colonies and firmly
anchored in a religious ideology formed during the Reformation in the 16 th century, the
Hutterites came to Canada to escape religious persecution. Contemporary Hutterite
colonies in Canada are tightly ordered, with the preacher at the head, social separation
of women and men, a strong religious and communal identity and a distinctive
traditional culture that evolved in North America out of the original Germanic matrix.
They have adapted successfully on the economic level by adopting the most modern
farming methods and pooling resources together. Unlike the Hutterites, the Mennonites,
another ethnoreligious group, have changed, to a large extent, their sacred canopy over
time, from segregated sectarian farmers to urban professionals (Kauffman and
Driedger 1991).
40
By contrast, with Jewish migration to Canada, the Jewish sacred canopy was
transformed from the east European urban ghetto or the shtetl where Jews were forced
to live in segregated urban communities located in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and
Winnipeg (Driedger 1996:165). The religious ideology as well as the community, were
perhaps the strongest of the sacred canopy stakes of the Jews and these were
transferred to a large extent to Canada. In terms of culture, Jewish immigrants have
come from different source countries at different points in their immigration history to
Canada and represent different cultural traditions (Ashkenazi, Sephardic) and
languages, though on a certain level they are considered to be the same ethnoreligious
group (Shaffir and Weinfeld 1981). Their ethnoreligious identity has been shaped by the
cultures of their source countries (Markus and Schwartz 1984), their experiences of
discrimination, generation (including both time of arrival to Canada as well as immigrant
or Canadian-born), the specific religious variant of Judaism they practice (orthodox,
conservative, reform), and relationships with other ethnic groups in Canada and with the
Canadian state. Further cultural and linguistic shift has taken place in Canada
(Medjuck 1993) as evidenced by high exogamy rates (Driedger 1978) and the decline of
Yiddish spoken at home (Driedger 1996). The “land” stake of the Jewish canopy was
transformed from the shtetl into one of the highest voluntary residential segregation
rates for ethnic groups in Canada (Balakrishnan and Kralt 1987; Driedger and
Church 1974). The long history of anti-semitism in Canada (Glickman 1985; Abella and
Troper 1982; Kage 1982) and overseas has also contributed to the preservation of a
sacred canopy and the cementing of a strong ethnoreligious identity among Jews in
Canada.
A significant minority religion in Canada is Islam. Although Islamic identity is perceived
more in ethnic terms in Canada, it is primarily a religious identity, blended with the
various ethnic identities of Muslims (Gibb and Rothenberg 2000; Waugh 1991). The
ethnoreligious identities of Muslims in Canada are shaped by the cultures and traditions
of their source countries, the ongoing relationships of Muslim communities with their
home countries, their relationship with the Canadian state and its laws, including
multicultural policies and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that places
limits on certain ethnoreligious practices, and even the geopolitical situation in the
Middle East (Buckridan 1994; Waugh 1991). As such, Muslim identities are flexible and
adaptable, as other religious identities and “sacred canopies” have been
(McLellan 1993; Krawchuck 1991). In addition, research findings from the Palestinian
and Ethiopian Harari communities in Toronto suggest that overall there may be a
process of religious homogenization of Islamic ethnoreligious identities upon migrating
to Canada. Despite the tension from trying to retain a sense of connection to a specific
place and culture, Muslim women in Toronto, especially Harari women, choose to join
the greater Muslim “family” where Islam is taught and understood in global terms (Gibb
and Rothenberg 2000). Wearing the hijab in particular is symbolic of this shift in
emphasis away from ethnicity to the prioritization of religious identity and the
understanding of ummah (Islamic community) in its widest terms.
41
Religious Minorities: Research and Policy Issues
While we agree with Rummens’ finding that “religious identity remains an especially
underdeveloped research area and yet is particularly salient among several newcomer
immigrant and refugee groups” (2000:22), and emphasize the need for more research
on religious identities and the impact of the migration process on them, we make the
following specific recommendations on the basis of our literature review:
(1)
Building upon Ernst Troeltsch’s theory of the process of secularization of
religious groups as they become established churches, Dawson had concluded
that religion or sectarianism in the western prairie was an important means of
maintaining traditional ethnic enclaves for, at least, a period of time
(Driedger 1996:169-76). More contemporary, though American, studies suggest
that as ethnoreligious groups become older, more established and not
replenished by new immigrants as before, they tend to lose the “ethnic” character
and become more ecumenical in their religious practice (Ebaugh and
Chafetz 2000:402, echoed in Bowlby 2001:18). Although there have been some
recent studies in Canada on how, for example, the recreation of traditional
religious institutions enables Vietnamese and Japanese Buddhists to reinforce
ethnic and nationalistic commitments (McLellan 1993), additional studies are
needed in Canada on religion’s instrumental use by ethnic groups to
build/reproduce their identity as well as their ethnic communities (through, for
example, the physical appearance of places of worship, ethnoreligious
ceremonies, celebration of events important in the home country, observance of
ethnic customs by congregations, domestic observance of ethnoreligious
practices, social functions; see Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000:386-96).
(2)
While there has been a discussion on religion as rising or declining as a medium
of identity among ethnic groups, and especially among the third generation, with
studies documenting both sides of the argument (chiefly Isajiw’s study of
Japanese Canadians 1975, and Mullins’ study of Japanese Buddhists in Canada,
cited in Waugh 1991), and while Gibb and Rothenberg (2000) note an increase in
the significance of Islam18 among many Harari and Palestinian immigrant women
in Toronto, the question remains unresolved. This may simply be due to the
paucity of identity studies in general and questions of the role of religion in
Canadian identity (Waugh 1991:87). Comparative studies of male and female
immigrants are needed on this issue as well. In addition, religious beliefs and
practices should not be viewed as static but fluid, flexible and adaptable to
changing generational, local, national and global realities (McLellan 1993).
Consequently, the question should not be raised in terms of rising or declining
role of religion in identity, but in terms of what exactly such a role may be for
different religions in the identities of religious and ethnic minority Canadians.
18 American studies also point to the increased significance of religion upon immigration to the US (cited in Ebaugh
and Chafetz, 2000:18).
42
Under what conditions and in what ways is religion important for ethnoreligious
minority Canadians?
(3)
There are hardly any studies directly on the importance of religious beliefs and
practice among the immigrant generation and their variance over time. Are there
differences on the basis of social class as some studies suggest
(Buckridan 1994), on the basis of gender, as Ebaugh and Chafetz argue
(2000:396-400) or specific ethnic origin of immigrants? Longitudinal studies on
this issue would yield valuable data on the impact of the immigration process on
the religious identities of minority Canadians. Understanding, for example, the
role of Islam on gender constructions of Muslim women, might lead to various
improvements in cultural sensitivity and awareness for the health care system
(Gastaldo et al. 1998). As Ebaugh and Chafetz warn, “any analysis of new
immigrants that ignores the role of religion is probably incomplete and skewed”
(2000:17).
(4)
What is the impact of Canadian secular multicultural ideology, policy and practice
on ethnoreligious groups that tend to view the state and the world in religious
terms? Is it necessarily limiting religious practice? This question has been raised
in connection to Islam in the West in particular and there has been no conclusive
answer, since there are those who see no conflict between Islam and the modern
nation-state and those who do (Waugh 1991:78-79). More empirical studies on
the relationship between specific minority religions and the Canadian state are
needed in order to follow their changing border and understand their mutual
historical and current impact.
(5)
What is the role of gender in constructing/reproducing ethnoreligious identity?
How do women, through their traditional roles of cooking, maintaining culture and
ethnic traditions, social networks, community volunteer work, social work and
charity help construct ethnic and religious communities and identities? What is
the role of immigrant women in particular? There are some studies addressing
this question (in Canada: Tastsoglou 1997b; Swyripa 1993; Polyzoi 1986; in the
US: Ebaugh and Chafetz 2000) but more research is needed. How do women
attempt to reconcile their religious beliefs with gender roles prescribed for them
by patriarchal religions? A significant literature that addresses the relationship of
Judaism to feminism (Canadian Woman Studies 1996; Dahan 1992;
Klepfisz 1986; Joseph 1981; Greenberg 1978; Hyman 1978; Weissman 1978;)
needs to be expanded to other ethnoreligious communities.
(6)
Finally, is there in Canada, as in the U.S., an overall trend toward more panethnic or pan-religious congregations, as the different faith communities become
more ethnically diverse? There is evidence that this is the case for Islam, but to
what extent can we speak of a general trend? What would the implications of
such a phenomenon be for ethnocultural communities and identities? Would
there be tensions among the different ethnic groups, as U.S. research suggests,
43
and what outcomes would likely come from these tensions? (Ebaugh and
Chafetz 2000).
Conclusions
In sum, the findings of this review of Canadian-based research on the impact of the
immigration process on the identities of ethnocultural, racial, linguistic and religious
minority Canadians have revealed areas where further inquiry is needed.
More specific research is necessary pertaining to Canada’s different ethnic, racial,
religious and linguistic minority groups and to the impact of the immigration process on
their identities. Gender and class are also cross-cutting issues that need to be
investigated further and, ideally, included as components in every analysis and study.
The links and intersections between ethnic identity, gender and class in specific
ethnocultural groups need to be further investigated, as they are impacted by the
immigration process. Are there differences on the basis of social class, gender, or
specific ethnic origin of immigrants? The role of gender and gender relations in
language retention and in constructing/reproducing ethnoreligious identity also need to
be investigated further.
In terms of ethnic identities, the following are areas requiring further research: how the
actual processes of how ethnic identities of specific groups are socially negotiated; how
the content of ethnic identity changes over time within a single immigrant generation
and over generations; and how political developments in the homeland affect the
development of identity. Further research is needed, comparing the ethnic identity
construction process and content of various immigrant generations (or waves of
immigrants) within specific ethnic groups. More research also is needed to better
understand the differences between immigrant ethnic groups in ethnic identity retention
or adoption of some measure of Canadian identity. What are the factors accounting for
such differences? How do the particular circumstances of emigration and immigration
affect the identities of immigrants to Canada?
Research on the importance and consequences of ethnic identity points out some areas
where research and policy gaps may exist: More research on the relationship of mental
health and ethnicity, and aging and ethnicity, in particular, preference of care is needed.
Further research on the effect of discrimination in retaining ethnocultural identity or
adopting a Canadian ethnic identification is needed, and on social mobility for specific
ethnic groups and generations.
With modern societies becoming in general increasingly diverse and sometimes more
pluralistic, new questions, as a result of globalization and transnationalism, arise in the
field of transnational, diasporic and post-national identities that remain virtually
unexplored in Canada. What kinds of identities and identity-shifts do multiple migrations
produce? In a contemporary globalized world of transnational population movements
and large diasporas, it is important to specify the dimensions, contexts and idioms that
44
constitute particular diaspora groups. What is the effect of new technologies, such as
electronic media and increased opportunities for fast travel, on the construction of
diasporas, and therefore the effect on diasporic and ethnic identities? What should the
appropriate methodologies be for studying the global dimensions of identities and the
circulation/transformation of ethnic/cultural meanings that are utilized in identity
construction? How is citizenship enacted in the Canadian state? Looking beyond the
Multiculturalism Act and the Charter, what are the local and transnational limits of
citizenship for various groups and what are their consequences for group identity? What
are the consequences of social benefit distribution for group identities?
What do we further need to know with respect to the impact of the immigration process
on language retention and ethnic identity? Are ethnic identity and language retention
necessarily connected? Can there be ethnocultural identity without linguistic
competence? If so, what kind of identity? How will it differ from group to group? To what
extent can the symbolic uses of an ethnic language play a role in enhancing identities?
We need additional studies on the effects of immigration on language retention of firstgeneration immigrants. What is the relationship between their ethnic identity and
language shift? What are some of the reasons for the shift? Are there back-and-forth
shifts over the lifetime? What are the long-term benefits of heritage language
instruction? What are the effects of economic globalization and increased travel and
communication possibilities on ethnic languages?
We again emphasize the need for more research on religious identities and the impact of the migration
process on them. More studies are needed on religion’s instrumental use by ethnic groups to build/reproduce their
identity as well as their ethnic communities. Consequently, the question should not be raised in terms of the rising or
declining role of religion in identity, but in terms of what exactly such a role may be for different religions in the
identities of religious and ethnic minority Canadians. Under what conditions and in what ways is religion important
for ethnoreligious minority Canadians? There are hardly any studies directly focusing on the importance of religious
beliefs and practice among the immigrant generation and their variance over time. What is the impact of Canadian
secular multicultural ideology, policy and practice on ethnoreligious groups that tend to view the state and the world
in religious terms? Does it limit religious practice? Finally, is there an overall trend toward more pan-ethnic or panreligious congregations, as the different faith communities become more ethnically diverse? What would the
implications of such a phenomenon be for ethnocultural communities and identities?
45
Bibliography
Abella, Irving, and Harold Troper. (1982). None is Too Many. Toronto: Lester and Orpen
Dennys.
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. (1997/98). “Gender and Immigrant Political Participation in Comparative
Perspective.” Ongoing Project. Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration
and Integration.
Abu-Laban, Yasmeen. (1998). “Welcome/STAY OUT: The Contradiction of Canadian
Integration and Immigration Policies at the Millenium.” Canadian Ethnic Studies,
XXX(3): 90-211.
Adachi, Ken. (1976). The Enemy that Never Was. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Adelman, Howard. (1994). “Justice, Immigration and Refugees.” In H. Adelman, Allan
Borowski, Meyer Burstein and Lois Foster (eds.), Immigration and Refugee Policy.
Australia and Canada Compared. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, I: 63-91.
Agnew, Vijay. (1996). Resisting Discrimination: Women from Asia, Africa and the Caribbean
and the Women’s Movement in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Agnew, Vijay. (1993). “Feminism and South Asian Immigrant Women in Canada.” In Milton
Israel and N. K. Wagle (eds.), Ethnicity, Identity, Migration: The South Asian Context.
Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre for South Asian Studies, 142-64.
Anthias, Floya. (1992). “Connecting ‘Race’ and Ethnic Phenomena.” Sociology, 26: 421-38.
Arat-Koc, Sedef. (1992). “Immigration Policies, Migrant Domestic Workers and the Definition
of Citizenship in Canada.” In Vic Satzewich (ed.), Deconstructing a Nation:
Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in ‘90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood and
Social Research Unit, Department of Sociology, University of Saskatchewan, 229-42.
Avery, Donald H. (1995). Reluctant Host: Canada’s Response to Immigrant Workers,
1896-1994. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.
Avery Donald H. (1975). “Continental European Immigrant Workers in Canada 1896-1919:
From “Stalwart Peasants’ to Radical Proletariat.” Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 12(1): 53-64.
Bai, David H. (1991). “Canadian Immigration Policy: Twentieth-Century Initiatives in
Admission and Settlement.” Migration World, XIX(3): 9-13.
46
Baker, Richard P. (1989). “The Adaptation and Ethnicity of Polish Immigrants in Toronto: The
Solidarity Wave.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 21(3): 74-90.
Balakrishnan, T. R., and John Kralt. (1987). “Segregation of Visible Minorities in Toronto,
Montreal and Vancouver.” In L. Driedger (ed.), Ethnic Canada: Identities and
Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman, 138-57.
Banton, Michael. (1983). Racial and Ethnic Competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Barth, Fredrik (ed.). (1970). Ethnic Groups and Boundaries. The Social Organization of Culture
Difference. Bergen-Oslo, Norway: Universitets Forlaget.
Battershill, Charles. (1992). “Migrant Doctors in a Multicultural Society: Policies, Barriers, and
Equity.” In Vic Satzewich, Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and
Racism in ‘90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood and Social Research Unit, Department of
Sociology, University of Saskatchewan, 243-60.
Baureiss, Gunter. (1985). “Discrimination and Response: The Chinese in Canada.” In
R. Bienvenue and J. Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada. 2nd ed.
Toronto: Butterworths, 241-61.
Ben-Ari, Adital Tirosh, and Amith Ben-David. (1999). “The Experience of Being Different:
Narratives of Blacks in a Predominantly White Culture.” Arete, 23(1): 40-52. Winter.
Berger, Peter L. (1967). The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion.
Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday and Company.
Berry, J. W., R. Kalin, and D. M. Taylor. (1977). Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in
Canada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services.
Berry, John W. (1987). “Finding Identity: Separation, Integration, Assimilation, or Marginality?”
In L. Driedger (ed.), Ethnic Canada. Identities and Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark
Pitman Ltd, 223-39.
Bill C-11. (2001). Ottawa: House of Commons.
http://www.cic.gc.ca (accessed on Oct. 12, 2001)
Bill C-11. (2001). “Issue Papers.”
http://www.cic.gc.ca, (accessed on Oct. 12, 2001)
Bill C-11. (2001). “What Is New in the Proposed Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.”
http://www.cic.gc.ca, (accessed on Oct. 12, 2001)
47
Bhabba, Homi. (1990). “The Third Space.” In Jonathan Rutherford (ed.), Identity, Community,
Culture, Difference. London: Lawrence and Wishart, 207-21.
Bhabba, Homi. (1996). “Unpacking My Library... Again.” In Iain Chambers and Lidia
Curti (eds.), The Post-Colonial Question: Common Skies, Divided Horizons. New York:
Routledge, 199-211.
Bhachu, Parminder. (1991). “Ethnicity Constructed and Reconstructed: The Role of Sikh
Women in Cultural Elaboration and Educational Decision-Making in Britain.” Gender
and Education 3: 45-60.
Bhachu, Parminder. (1996). “The Multiple Landscapes of Transnational Asian Women in the
Diaspora.” In Vered Amit-Talai and Caroline Knowles (eds.), Re-Situating Identities:
The Politics of Race, Ethnicity and Culture. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview Press,
283-303.
Bhatia, Sunil, and Anjali Ram. (2001). “Rethinking ‘Acculturation’ in Relation to Diasporic
Cultures and Postcolonial Identities.” Human Development, 44(1): 1-18.
Black, Jerome. (1991). “Ethnic Minorities and Mass Politics in Canada: Some Observations in
the Toronto Setting.” International Journal of Canadian Studies, 3: 129-51.
Black, Jerome. (1997). “Minority Women in the 35th Parliament.” Canadian Parliamentary
Review (Spring): 17-22.
Bolaria, B. Singh. (1992). From Immigrant Settlers to Migrant Transients: Foreign Professionals
in Canada.” In Vic Satzewich, Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism
and Racism in ‘90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood and Social Research Unit, Department of
Sociology, University of Saskatchewan, 211-27.
Bolaria, B. Singh, and Peter S. Li. (1988). Racial Oppression in Canada. 2nd edition. Toronto:
Garamond.
Bonacich, Edna. (1972). “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labour Market.” American
Sociological Review, 37: 547-59.
Bonacich, Edna. (1975). “Abolition, the Extension of Slavery, and the Position of Free Blacks: A
Study of Split Labour Markets in the United States, 1830-1836." American Journal of
Sociology 81: 601-62.
Bonacich, Edna. (1976). “Advanced Capitalism and Black/White Race Relations in the
United States: A Split Labor Market Interpretation.” American Sociological Review,
41: 34-51. February.
48
Boski, Pawel. (1991). “Remaining a Pole or Becoming a Canadian: National Self-Identity
Among Polish Immigrants to Canada.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
21(1): 41-77.
Boswell, Terry E. (1986). “A Split Labor Market Analysis of Discrimination against Chinese
Immigrants, 1850-1882.” American Sociological Review, 51: 352-71.
Bowlby, Paul W. R. (2001). Between Memory and Present Aspirations: Canadian Identities and
Religious Diversity. Paper prepared for the Department of Canadian Heritage,
Multiculturalism Program and the Canadian Ethnic Studies Association (CESA)
Conference (Halifax, November 2001).
Boyd, Monica. (1987). “Les immigrantes au Canada. Profils et politiques.” Immigration
Research Working Paper No. 2. Ottawa: Employment and Immigration Canada.
Boyd, Monica. (1991). “Migrating Discrimination: Feminist Issues in Canadian Immigration
Policies and Practices.” Working Paper No 6, London, Ontario: The Centre for Women’s
Studies and Feminist Research, University of Western Ontario.
Boyd, Monica. (1992). “Adding Gender: Immigration Trends and Language Fluency Issues in
Canada and the United States.” In B. Chiswick and P. Miller (eds.), Immigration,
Language and Ethnicity: Canada and the United States. Washington: American
Enterprise Institute.
Brah, Atvar. (1996). Cartographies of Diaspora: Contesting Identities. New York: Routledge.
Breton, Raymond. (1964). “Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and the Personal
Relations of Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology, 70: 193-205.
Breton, Raymond. (1985). “Stratification and Conflict Between Ethnolinguistic Communities
with Different Social Structures.” In R. Bienvenue, and J. E. Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity
and Ethnic Relations in Canada. 2nd ed., Toronto: Butterworths, 45-59.
Breton, Raymond. (1992). “Collective Dimensions of the Cultural Transformation of Ethnic
Communities and the Larger Society.” In J. Burnet, Danielle Juteau, Enoch Padolsky,
Anthony Rasporich, and Antoine Sirois (eds.), Migration and the Transformation of
Cultures. Toronto: Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 3-21.
Breton, Raymond, Wsevolod W. Isajiw, Warren E. Kalbach, and Jeffrey G. Reitz (eds.). (1990).
Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Buckridan, Rakib. (1994). “Trinidad Muslims in Canada: A Community in Transition.”
Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Ottawa.
49
Calliste, Agnes. (1987). “Sleeping Car Porters in Canada: An Ethnically Submerged Split Labour Market.”
Canadian Ethnic Studies, XIX: 1-15.
Calliste, Agnes. (1988). “Blacks on Canadian Railways.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, XX: 36-52.
Calliste, Agnes. (1989). "Canada's Immigration Policy and Domestics from the Caribbean: The
Second Domestic Scheme." Socialist Studies, 5: 133-65.
Calliste, Agnes. (1996). “Antiracism Organizing and Resistance in Nursing: African Canadian
Women.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 33(3): 361-90.
Cameron, J. E., and R. N. Lalonde. (1994). “Self, Ethnicity, and Group Membership in Two
Generations of Italian Canadians.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
20(5): 514-20. October.
Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Canada’s Immigration Law. Ottawa.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/immlaw.htm (accessed on Oct. 12, 2001)
Canada. Department of Justice Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (1982).
Ottawa.
http://canada.justice.gc.ca/loireg/charte/const_en.html.
Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Immigrant Services. Ottawa.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/newcomer/
Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Performance Report (For the Period Ending
March 31, 1999).
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pub/dpr99e/dpr-07e.html (accessed October 16, 2001).
Canada. Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Settlement Renewal: A New Direction for
Newcomer Integration. Ottawa.
Canada. Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada. (1997). Not Just Numbers:
A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration. Final Report. Ottawa.
Canada. (1988). Multiculturalism Act. 1988.
http://www.pch.gc.ca/multi/policy/act_e.shtml (accessed October 10, 2001)
Canadian Woman Studies. 1996. Special Issue on Jewish Women in Canada. 16(4).
Cantu, Lionel Jr. (2000). “Border Crossings: Mexican Men and the Sexuality of Migration.”
Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 60(8),
3148-A. February.
Cashmore, Ernest. (1987). “The Social Organization of Canadian Immigration Law.” Canadian
Journal of Sociology, 3(4): 409-29. Fall.
50
Cassin, Marguerite and Alison I. Griffith. (1981). “Class and Ethnicity: Producing the Difference
that Counts.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, XIII: 109-29.
Castles, Stephen and Mark J. Miller. (1998). The Age of Migration. 2nd edition. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Chekki, Dan. A. (1996). “Cultural Dynamics and Futuristic Scenarios of the Virasaiva
Community in North America.” Research in Community Sociology 6: 295-310.
Chimbos, Peter D. (1987). “Occupational Distribution and Social Mobility of Greek-Canadian
Immigrants.” Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, 14(102): 131-43. Spring-Summer.
Cohen, A. P. (1985). The Symbolic Construction of Community. London, England: Tavistock
Publications.
Con, Harry, Ronald J. Con, Graham Johnson, Edgar Wickberg, and William E. Willmott (edited
by Edgar Wickberg). (1988). From China to Canada. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart,
in association with the Multiculturalism Program, Department of the Secretary of State
and the Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services, Canada.
Consultations on Settlement Renewal: Finding a New Direction for Newcomer Integration.
Round II. Ottawa: Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
Creese, Gillian. (1992). “The Politics of Refugees in Canada.” In Vic Satzewich (ed.),
Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in ‘90s Canada.
Halifax: Fernwood and Social Research Unit, Department of Sociology, University of
Saskatchewan, 123-43.
Creese, Gillian, and Laurie Peterson. (1996). “Making the News, Racializing Chinese
Canadians.” Studies in Political Economy, 51(Fall): 117-45.
Daenzer, Patricia. (1993). Regulating Class Privilege. Immigrant Servants in Canada,
1940s-1990s. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Dahan, Carole. (1992). “Spheres of Identity: Feminism and Difference. Notes by a Sephardic
Jewess.” Fireweed, Spring: 46-50.
Das Gupta, Monisha. (1997). “‘What is Indian about You?’: A Gendered, Transnational
Approach to Ethnicity.” Gender and Society, 11(5): 572-96.
Das Gupta, Tania. (1986). Learning from Our History: Community Development by Immigrant
Women in Ontario 1958-1986. A Tool for Action. Toronto: Cross Cultural
Communication Centre.
51
Dashefsky, Arnold. (1975a). Ethnic Identity in Society. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Dashefsky, Arnold. (1975b). “Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Ethnic Identity.” Ethnicity
2: 1-15.
Dashefsky, Arnold. (1987). “Theoretical Frameworks in the Study of Ethnic Identity.” In
L. Driedger (ed.), Ethnic Canada. Identities and Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark
Pitman, 172-80.
Davids, Leo. (2000). “Yiddish and Hebrew in Canada: The Current Situation.” Canadian Ethnic
Studies, 32 (2): 95-04.
Dawson, C. A. (1936). Group Settlement: Ethnic Communities in Western Canada. Toronto:
McMillan of Canada.
Denis, Wilfrid. (1999). “Language Policy in Canada.” In P. S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic
Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 178-216.
De Vries, John. (1990). “Language and Ethnicity: Canadian Aspects.” In P. S. Li (ed.), Race and
Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 231-50.
De Vries, John, and Frank Vallee. (1980). Language Use in Canada. Ottawa: Ministry of Supply
and Services.
Dirks, Gerald E. (1995). Controversy and Complexity: Canadian Immigration Policy During the
1980s. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Djao, Angela W., and Roxana Ng. (1987). “Structured Isolation: Immigrant Women in
Saskatchewan.” In Kathleen Storrie (ed.), Women, Isolated and Bonding: The Ecology of
Gender. Toronto: Methuen, 141-58.
di Leonardo, Michaela. (1984). The Varieties of Ethnic Experience. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell
University Press.
Driedger, Leo. (1975). “In Search of Cultural Identity Factors: A Comparison of Ethnic Minority
Students in Manitoba.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 12: 150-62.
Driedger, Leo. (1978). The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic: A Quest for Identity. Toronto: McClelland
and Stewart.
Driedger, Leo. (1987). Ethnic Canada: Identities and Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman.
Driedger, Leo. (1989). The Ethnic Factor. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
52
Driedger, Leo. (1996). Multi-Ethnic Canada. Identities and Inequalities. Toronto: Oxford
University Press.
Driedger, Leo and Glenn Church. (1974). “Residential Segregation and Institutional
Completeness: A Comparison of Ethnic Minorities.” Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 11: 30-52.
Duany, Jorge. (1985). “Ethnicity in the Spanish Caribbean: Notes on the Consolidation of Creole
Identity in Cuba and Puerto Rico, 1762-1868.” Ethnic Groups, 6(2-3), 99-123.
Ebaugh, Helen Rose and Janet Saltzman Chafetz. (2000). Religion and the New Immigrants.
Continuities and Adaptations in Immigrant Congregations. New York: Altamira Press.
Edwards, John and Joan Chisholm. (1987). “Language, Multiculturalism and Identity: A
Canadian Study.” Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 8(5): 391-408.
Employment Equity Act, “Interpretation” (1995).
http://info.load-otea.hrdc-drhc.gc.ca/~weeweb/billc64e.htm (accessed on April 16, 2001).
Fang, Qing J. (1994). “The Relationship Between Residential Segregation and Ethnic
Assimilation: A Case Study of The Chinese in Edmonton.” M.A. Thesis. University of
Alberta, Edmonton.
Feagin, Joe R., and Clairece Booher Feagin. (1993). Racial and Ethnic Relations. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Fincher, Ruth, Lois Foster, Wenona Giles, and Valerie Preston. (1994). “Gender and Migration
Policy.” In Howard Adelman, Allan Borowski, Meyer Burstein and Lois Foster (eds.),
Immigration and Refugee Policy. Australia and Canada Compared. Vol. I. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 149-84.
Fleras, Augie, and Jean Leonard Elliott. (1992). Multiculturalism in Canada. The Challenge of
Diversity. Scarborough, ON: Nelson.
Frager, Ruth. (1992). Sweatshop Strife: Class, Ethnicity, and Gender in the Jewish Labour
Movement in Toronto, 1900-1939. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Freund, Alexander, and Laura Quilici. (1996). “Using Oral History to Explore Subjectivity in the
Narratives of German and Italian Women in Vancouver, 1947-1961.” In Anne Laperriere,
Varpu Lindstrom, and Tamara Palmer-Seiler (eds.), Immigration and Ethnicity in
Canada. Montreal: Association for Canadian Studies, 49-59.
53
Frideres, James S. (1992). “Changing Dimensions of Ethnicity in Canada.” In Vic Satzewich,
Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in ‘90s Canada.
Halifax: Fernwood and Social Research Unit, Department of Sociology, University of
Saskatchewan, 47-67.
Frideres, James S. (1999). “Managing Immigrant Social Transformations.” In Shiva Halli and
Leo Driedger (eds.), Immigrant Canada. Demographic, Economic and Social Challenges.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 70-90.
Gannage, Charlene. (1986). Double Day, Double Bind: Women Garment Workers. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Gastaldo, Denise, J. Lima, F. Chakir, N. Bendris, and B. Vissandjee. (1998). “Reproductive and
Sexual Care for Arab Muslim Women Living in Quebec (Canada): Looking at Religion,
Gender and Immigration to Have a Better Understanding of Health.” Paper presented at
the International Sociological Association Conference (Montreal, August).
Gee, Ellen M. (1999). “Ethnic Identity among Foreign-Born Chinese Canadian Elders.”
Canadian Journal on Aging, 18(4): 415-29.
Gerus, Oleh W. (1991). “Consolidating the Community: The Ukrainian Self-Reliance League.”
In L. Luciuk and S. Hryniuk, eds., Canada’s Ukrainians. Negotiating an Identity.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 157-86.
Gibb, Camilla, and Celia Rothenberg. (2000). “Believing Women: Harari and Palestinian
Women at Home and in the Canadian Diaspora.” Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs,
20(2): 243-59. October.
Gilman, Sandler L. (1991). The Jew’s Body. New York: Routledge.
Glazer, Nathan, and Daniel P. Moynihan. (1963). Beyond the Melting Pot. Cambridge,
M.A.: MIT Press.
Glickman, Yaacov. (1985). “Anti-Semitism and Jewish Social Cohesion in Canada.” In R. M.
Bienvenue and J. E. Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto:
Butterworths, 263-84.
Goldring, Luin. (2001). “The Gender and Geography of Citizenship in Mexico-U.S.
Transnational Spaces.” Identities, 7(4): 501-37.
Goldscheider, Calvin. (1995). Population, Ethnicity and Nation-Building. Boulder: Westview
Press.
Gordon, Milton M. (1964). Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.
54
Greenberg, Blu. (1978). “Judaism and Feminism.” In E. Koltun (ed.), The Jewish Woman.
NY: Schocken Books, 179-91.
Hall, Stuart. (1992). “The Question of Cultural Identity.” In Stuart Hall, David Held, and Tony
McGrew (eds.), Modernity and Its Futures. Oxford: Polity Press, in association with
Blackwell Publishers and the Open University, 274-316.
Hardy-Fanta, Carol. (1993). Latina Politics, Latino Politics: Gender, Culture and Political
Participation in Boston. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Harney, Nicholas D. (1996). “Italy is Enough: Ethnicity, Community and Ambiguity Among
Italians in Toronto.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Toronto.
Hawkins, Freda. (1974). “Canadian Immigration Policy and Management.” International
Migration Review, 8(2) (Summer): 141-53.
Hawkins, Freda. (1988). Canada and Immigration. Public Policy and Public Concern. Montreal:
McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hawkins, Freda. (1989). Critical Years in Immigration: Canada and Australia Compared.
Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Henry, Frances. (1994). The Caribbean Diaspora in Toronto: Learning to Live with Racism.
Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Hein, Jeremy. (1994). “From Migrant to Minority: Hmong Refugees and the Social Construction
of Identity in the United States.” Sociological Inquiry 64(3): 281-306.
Hertzler, Joyce O. (1965). A Sociology of Language. New York: Random House.
Hoodfar, Homa. (1992). “Feminist Anthropology and Critical Pedagogy: The Anthropology of
Classrooms’ Excluded Voices.” Canadian Journal of Education 17(3): 303-20.
Hughes, Everett C. (1943). French Canada in Transition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hughes, Everett, and Helen M. Hughes. (1952). Where Peoples Meet: Racial and Ethnic
Frontiers. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hyman, Paula. (1978). “The Other Half: Women in the Jewish Tradition.” In E. Koltun (ed.),
The Jewish Woman. NY: Schocken, 105-13.
Ibrahim, Awad El Karim. (1999). “Becoming Black: Rap and Hip-Hop, Race, Gender, Identity,
and the Politics of ESL Learning.” TESOL Quarterly. 33(3): 349-69. Autumn.
Ignatiev, Noel. (1995). How the Irish Became White. New York: Routledge.
55
Immigrant Serving Agencies of Metro Halifax-Dartmouth. (1996). “Settlement Renewal: A
Response from the Immigrant Serving Agencies of Metro Halifax-Dartmouth.” Halifax,
January.
Ip, David, Christine Inglis, and Chung Tong Wu. (1997). “Concepts of Citizenship and Identity
Among Recent Asian Immigrants in Australia.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal
6(3-4): 363-84.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1975). “The Process of Maintenance of Ethnic Identity: The Canadian
Context.” In P. Migus (ed.), Sounds Canadian: Languages and Cultures in Multi-Ethnic
Society. Toronto: Peter Martin, 128-38.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1981). “Ethnic Identity Retention.” Research Paper No. 125. Toronto:
Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1990). “Ethnic-Identity Retention” In R. Breton, W. W. Isajiw, W. E.
Kalbach, and J. C. Reitz (eds.), Ethnic Identity and Equality: Varieties of Experience in a
Canadian City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 34-91.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1991). “The Changing Community.” In L. Luciuk and S. Hryniuk, (eds.),
Canada’s Ukrainians. Negotiating an Identity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press,
254-68.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1993). “Definition and Dimensions of Ethnicity: A Theoretical
Framework.” Statistics Canada and U.S. Bureau of the Census (eds.), Challenges of
Measuring an Ethnic World: Science, Politics and Reality. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 407-27.
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. and Leo Driedger. (1987). “Ethnic Identity: Resource or Drawback for
Social Mobility.” Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings
(Chicago, August 17-21).
Isin, Engin, and Myer Siemiatycki. (1999). “Fate and Faith: Claiming Urban Citizenship in
Immigrant Toronto.” CERIS Working Paper Series #08-1999.
Jakubowski, Lisa Marie. (1997). Immigration and the Legalization of Racism. Halifax:
Fernwood.
James, Carl E. (1995). Exploring Race, Ethnicity and Culture. Toronto: Thompson Educational
Publishing.
Johnson, Graham E. “Ethnic and Racial Communities in Canada and Problems of Adaptation:
Chinese Canadians in the Contemporary Period.” Ethnic Groups, 9: 151-74.
56
Jones-Correa, Michael. (1998). Between Two Nations: The Political Predicament of Latinos in
New York City. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Jones, Beryl Mae. (2000). “Multiculturalism and Citizenship: The Status of ‘Visible Minorities’
in Canada.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, XXXII(1): 111-25.
Joseph, Norma Baumel. (1981). “Personal Reflections on Jewish Feminism.” In M. Weinfeld,
W. Shaffir, and I. Cotler (eds.), The Canadian Jewish Mosaic. John Wiley & Sons,
205-19.
Kage, Joseph. (1982). “Able and Willing to Work: Jewish Immigration and Occupational
Patterns in Canada.” In M. Weinfeld, W. Shaffir, and I. Cotler (eds.), The Canadian
Jewish Mosaic. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd, 27-89.
Karlis, George and Nikos Kartakoullis. (1996). “Recreation and the Preservation of Ethnic
Cultural Identity in Multicultural Canada.” Journal of Business and Society
9(1-2): 153-61.
Karumanchery, Leeno L. (1996). “Ethnic Identity Retention: A Cross-Generational Analysis of
Malayalees in Toronto.” M.A. Thesis. University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Kauffman, J. Howard, and Leo Driedger. (1991). The Mennonite Mosaic: Identity and
Modernization. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press.
Klepfisz, Irena. (1986). “Secular Jewish Identity: Yidishkayat in America.” In The Tribe of Dina.
A Jewish Women’s Anthology. Montpellier. VT: Sinister Wisdom Books, 30-48.
Knowles, Valerie. (1992). Strangers at Our Gates. Canadian Immigration and Immigration
Policy, 1540-1990. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Kralt, John, and Ravi Pendakur. (1991). “Ethnicity, Immigration and Language Transfer.”
Ottawa: Multiculturalism Sector, Multiculturalism and Citizenship.
Krawchuck, Andrii. (1991). “Between a Rock and a Hard Place: Francophone Missionaries
Among Ukrainian Catholics.” In Lubomyr Luciuk and Stella Hryniuk (eds.), Canada’s
Ukrainians: Negotiating an Identity. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 206-17.
Kubat, Daniel (ed.). (1993). Politics of Migration Policies: Settlement and Integration. New
York: Centre for Migration Studies.
Kurian, George. (1991). “Socialization of South Asian Immigrant Youth.” In Satya P. Sharma,
Alexander M. Ervin and Dierdre Meintel, (eds.), Immigrants and Refugees in Canada:
A National Perspective on Ethnicity, Multiculturalism and Cross-Cultural Adjustment.
Saskatoon: Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Saskatchewan,
47-57.
57
Lalonde, R. N., D. M. Taylor and F. M. Moghaddam. (1992). “The Process of Social
Identification for Visible Immigrant Women in a Multicultural Context.” The Journal of
Cross-cultural Psychology, 23(1): 25-39.
Lambert, Wallace, and Donald Taylor. (1984). “Language in the Education of Ethnic Minority
Children in Canada.” In R. Samuda, J. W. Berry, and M. Laferriere (eds.),
Multiculturalism in Canada: Social and Educational Perspectives. Toronto: Allyn and
Bacon, 201-15.
Lan, Kim S. (1992). “Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Chinese Heritage Language Schools
in Calgary.” Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Calgary.
Lanca, Margaret, Christine Alksnis, Neil J. Roese, and Robert C. Gardner. (1994). “Effects of a
Language Choice on Acculturation: A Study of Portuguese Immigrants in a Multicultural
Setting.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13(3): 315-30.
Lanphier, Michael, and Oleh Lukomskyj. (1994). “Settlement Policy in Australia and Canada.”
In Howard Adelman, Allan Borowski, Meyer Burstein and Lois Foster (eds.),
Immigration and Refugee Policy. Australia and Canada Compared. Vol. II. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press, 337-71.
Lautard, Hugh, and Neil Guppy. (1990). “The Vertical Mosaic Revisited: Occupational
Differentials Among Canadian Ethnic Groups.” In Peter S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic
Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 189-208.
Lehr, John C. (1991). “Peopling the Prairies with Ukrainians.” In L. Luciuk and S. Hryniuk
(eds.), Canada’s Ukrainians. Negotiating an Identity. Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 30-52.
Li, F. L. N., and A. M. Findlay (1996). “Placing Identity: Interviews with Hong Kong Chinese
Immigrants in Britain and Canada.” International Journal of Population Geography,
2: 361-77.
Li, Peter S. (1990). “Race and Ethnicity.” In Peter S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in
Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 3-17.
Li, Peter S. (1999). “Race and Ethnicity.” In Peter S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in
Canada. 2nd ed., Toronto: Oxford University Press, 3-20.
Lieberson, Stanley. (1970). Language and Ethnic Relations in Canada. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
Macklin, Audrey. (1992). “Foreign Domestic Worker: Surrogate Housewife or Mail Order
Servant?” McGill Law Journal, 37(3): 681-760.
58
Macklin, Audrey. (1995). “Refugee Women and the Imperative of Categories.” Human Rights
Quarterly, 17: 213-77.
Markus, Roberta L, and Donald V. Schwartz. (1984). “Soviet Jewish Emigres in Toronto: Ethnic
Self-Identity and Issues of Integration.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 26(2): 71-88.
Matejko, A. (1984). “Le changement d’identité ethnique: L’impact des nouveaux arrivants sur
les canadiens-polonais.” Recherches sociologiques 15(2-3): 241-66.
Matsuoka, Atsuko K. (1999). “Preferred Care in Later Life Among Japanese Canadians.”
Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 7(1/2): 127-48.
Matsuoka, Atsuko K. (1991). Preferred Care in Later Life and Ethnic Elderly: Generational
Differences among Japanese-Canadian Elderly. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
Toronto
Matsuoka, Atsuko, and John Sorenson. (1991). “Ethnic Identity and Social Service Delivery:
Some Models Examined in Relation to Immigrants and Refugees from Ethiopia.”
Canadian Social Work Review, 8(2): 255-68. Summer.
McLellan, Janet. (1993). Many Petals of the Lotus: Redefinitions of Buddhist Identity in Toronto.
Ph.D. Dissertation. York University, Toronto.
Medjuck, Sheva. (1993). “Jewish Survival in Small Communities in Canada.” In Robert. J.
Brym, William Shaffir, and Morton Weinfeld (eds.), The Jews in Canada. Toronto:
Oxford University Press.
Miedema, Baukje, and Nancy Nason-Clark. (1989). “Second Class Status: An Analysis of the
Lived Experiences of Immigrant Women in Fredericton.” Canadian Ethnic Studies,
XXI: 63-72.
Miedema, Baukje, and Evangelia Tastsoglou. (2000). “‘But Where Are You From, Originally?’
Immigrant Women and Integration in the Maritimes.” Atlantis. A Women’s Studies
Journal 24(2): 82-91.
Miedema, Baukje, and Sandra Wachholz. (1998). A Complex Web: Access to Justice for Abused
Immigrant Women In New Brunswick. Ottawa: Research Directorate Status of Women
Canada.
Miles, Robert. (1980). “Class, Race and Ethnicity: A Critique of Cox’s Theory.” Ethnic and
Racial Studies, 3(2): 169-87.
Miles, Robert. (1982). Racism and Migrant Labour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
59
Miles, Robert. (1984). “Marxism Versus the Sociology of ‘Race Relations’?” Ethnic and Racial
Studies, 7(2): 217-37.
Miles, Robert. (1987). Capitalism and Unfree Labour. London: Tavistock.
Miles, Robert. (1988). “Racism, Marxism and British Politics.” Economy and Society,
17(3): 428-60.
Miner, Horace. (1939). St. Denis: A French-Canadian Parish. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Moghaddam, Fathali M., and Stephane Perrault. (1992). “Individual and Collective Mobility
Strategies Among Minority Group Members.” The Journal of Social Psychology,
132(3): 343-57.
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. (1991). “Under Western Eyes: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial
Discourses.” In C. T. Mohanty, A. Russo, and L. Torres (eds.), Third World Women and
the Politics of Feminism. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 51-80.
Moodley, Kogila. (1983). “Canadian Multiculturalism as Ideology.” Ethnic and Racial Studies,
6(3): 320-31. July.
Morrow, Nancy. (1997). “Language and Identity: Women’s Autobiographies of the American
Immigrant Experience.” Language and Communication, 17(3): 177-85.
Nagel, Joane. (1986). “The Political Construction of Ethnicity.” In Susan Olzak and Joane
Competitive Ethnic Relations. London: Academic Press, 93-112.
Nagel (eds.),
Nagel, Joane. (1994). “Constructing Ethnicity: Creating and Recreating Ethnic Identity and
Culture.” Social Problems, 41: 152-76.
Naiman, Joanne. (2000). How Societies Work. 2nd ed., Toronto: Irwin Publishing.
Nakahara, Yoko U. (1991). “Ethnic Identity Among Japanese Canadians in Edmonton: The Case
of Pre-World War II Immigrants and their Descendents.” Edmonton: Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Alberta.
Ng, Roxana. (1981). "Constituting Ethnic Phenomenon: An Account from the Perspective of
Immigrant Women." Canadian Ethnic Studies, 8(1): 97-108.
Ng, Roxana. (1987). “Sexism, Racism, Nationalism.” In Jesse Vorst, et al. (eds.), Race, Class,
Gender: Bonds and Barriers. Winnipeg: Society for Socialist Studies, 10-25.
60
Ng, Roxana. (1990). "Immigrant Women and Institutionalized Racism." In Sandra Burt, Lorraine
Code, and Lindsay Dorney (eds.), Changing Patterns. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart,
184-203.
Ng, Roxana. (1993). “Racism, Sexism and Nation-Building in Canada.” In W. Chrichlow and
C. McCarthy (eds.), Race, Identity and Representation in Education. New York:
Routledge, 50-59.
Ng, Roxana, and Alma Estable. (1987). "Immigrant Women in the Labor Force: An Overview of
Present Knowledge and Research Gaps." Resources for Feminist Research, 16(1): 29-33.
Ng, Wing C. (1993). “Ethnicity and Community: Southern Chinese Immigrants and Descendants
in Vancouver, 1945-1980.” Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver.
Noh, Samuel, Morton Beiser, Violet Kaspar, Feng Hou, and Joanna Rummens. (1999).
“Perceived Racial Discrimination, Depression, and Coping: A Study of Southeast Asian
Refugees in Canada.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(3): 193-207. September.
Nyakbwa, Kabahenda, and Carol D. H. Harvey. (1990). "Adaptation to Canada: The Case of
Black Immigrant Women." In Vanajan Dhruvarian, ed., Women and Well-being.
Kingston: McGill-Queen's Press, 139-49.
O’Bryan, K. G., Jeffrey G. Reitz, and O. Kuplowska. (1976). Non-Official Languages: A Study
in Canadian Multiculturalism. Ottawa: Department of the Secretary of State.
Omatsu, Maryka. (1992). Bittersweet Passage. Redress and the Japanese Canadian Experience.
Toronto: Between the Lines.
Page, Michel. (1992). "Three Conceptions of Integration in a Canadian Pluri-Ethnic Society."
Canadian Ethnic Studies, 24(3): 5-50.
Papastergiadis, Nikos. (1997). “Tracing Hybridity in Theory.” In Pnina Werbner and Tariq
Modood (eds.), Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the Politics of
Anti-Racism. Atlantic Heights, N.J.: Zed Books, 257-81.
Park, Robert. (1922). The Immigrant Press and Its Control. New York: Harper.
Park, Robert. (1928). “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” American Journal of
Sociology, 33: 881-93.
Pendakur, Ravi. (1990). “Speaking in Tongues: Heritage Language Maintenance and Transfer in
Canada.” Ottawa: Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada. November.
61
Peralta, Judith B. (1997). “The Kurds in Canada: A Question of Ethnic Identity.” M.A. Thesis,
Carleton University, Ottawa.
Peressini, Mauro. (1994). “Attachement utilitaire et refus du jeu ethnique. Le rapport au pays
d’accueil dans les récits de vie d’un groupe d’immigrants italo-montréalais.” Revue
internationale d’action communautaire / International Review of Community
Development. 31(71): 47-61. Spring.
Phinney, Jean S., Cindy Lou Cantu and Dawn A. Kurtz. (1997). “Ethnic and American Identity’s
Predictors of Self-Esteem Among African American, Latino, and White Adolescents.”
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 26(2): 165-85. April.
Phizacklea, Annie and Robert Miles. (1980). Labour and Racism. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Pierce, Bonny N. (1993). “Language Learning, Social Identity, and Immigrant Women.”
Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Toronto.
Polyzoi, Eleoussa. (1986). “Greek Immigrant Women from Asia Minor in Prewar Toronto: The
Formative Years.” In J. Burnet (ed.), Looking Into My Sister’s Eyes. Toronto:
Multicultural History Society of Ontario, 107-24.
Porter, John. (1965). The Vertical Mosaic. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Porter, John. (1985). “Canada: The Societal Context of Occupational Allocation.” In Monica
Boyd, John Goyder, Frank E. Jones, Hugh A. McRoberts, Peter C. Pineo, and John
Porter (eds.), Ascription and Achievement: Studies in Mobility and Status Attainment in
Canada. Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 29-65.
Portes, Alejandro. (1984). “The Rise of Ethnicity: Determinants of Ethnic Perceptions among
Cuban Exiles in Miami.” American Sociological Review, 49: 383-97.
Putnam, Robert. (1995). “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of
Democracy, 6(1): 65-78. January.
Ralston, Helen. (1988). “Ethnicity, Class and Gender Among South Asian Women in Metro
Halifax: An Exploratory Study.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, XX: 63-83.
Ralston, Helen. (1995). “Organizational Empowerment Among South Asian Immigrant Women
in Canada.” International Journal of Canadian Studies, 11: 121-46.
Ralston, Helen. (1996). The Lived Experience of South Asian Immigrant Women in Atlantic
Canada. Lewiston/Queenston/Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press.
62
Ralston, Helen. (1998). “South Asian Immigrant Women Organize for Social Change in the
Diaspora: A Comparative Study.” Asian and Pacific Migration Journal, 7(4): 453-82.
Ralston, Helen. (2000). “Mothers and Daughters in the Diaspora: A Comparative Study of
Identity Construction Among Women of South Asian Origin in Canada and Australia.”
Working Paper presented at the 5th International Metropolis Conference (Vancouver,
November 13-17).
Reitz, Jeffrey G. (1980). The Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.
Reitz, Jeffrey G. (1985). “Language and Ethnic Community Survival.” In R. Bienvenue and J. E.
Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada. 2nd ed., Toronto:
Butterworths, 105-23.
Rex, John. (1983). Race Relations in Sociological Theory. 2nd ed., London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Richmond, Anthony H. (1975). “Canadian Immigration: Recent Developments and Future
Prospects.” International Migration, 13(4): 163-82.
Richmond, Anthony H. (1976). “Immigration, Population and the Canadian Future.”
Sociological Focus, 9(2): 125-36. April.
Richmond, Anthony H. (1990). “Race Relations and Immigration: A Comparative Perspective.”
International Journal of Comparative Sociology, XXXI(3-4): 156-76.
Roberts, Barbara. (1994). “Shovelling Out the ‘Mutinous’: Political Deportation from Canada
Before 1936.” In Gerald Tulchinsky (ed.), Immigration in Canada: Historical
Perspectives. Toronto: Long Clark Longman Ltd, 265-96.
Roosens, Eugeen. (1989). Creating Ethnicity: The Process of Ethnogenesis. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Rublee, Cindy B., and Susan M Shaw. (1991). "Constraints on the Leisure and Community
Participation of Immigrant Women: Implications for Community Involvement." Society
and Leisure, 14(1):133-50.
Rumbaut, Ruben G. (1994). “The Crucible Within: Ethnic Identity, Self-Esteem, and Segmented
Assimilation Among Children of Immigrants.” International Migration Review,
28(4): 748-94. Winter.
Rumbaut, Ruben G. (1997). “Assimilation and Its Discontents: Between Rhetoric and Reality.”
International Migration Review, 31(4)(120): 923-60.
63
Rummens, Joanna (Anneke). (2000). “Canadian Identities Database (CID): An Interdisciplinary
Reference Database of Canadian Research on Identity.” Commissioned by Canadian
Heritage (Multiculturalism).
Sapir, Edward. (1933). “Language” Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. New York: The
Macmillan Company, IX: 155-68.
Satzewich, Vic. (1990). “The Political Economy of Race and Ethnicity.” In P. S. Li (ed.), Race
and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press, 251-68.
Satzewich Vic (ed.). (1992). Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and
Racism in '90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing and Social Research Unit, Dept.
of Sociology, University of Saskatchewan.
“Settlement Renewal Round 2.” (1996). Consultation Document. Halifax, Nova Scotia, June.
Shaffir, William, and Morton Weinfeld. (1981). “Canada and the Jews: An Introduction.” In
M. Weinfeld, W. Shaffir, and I. Cotter (eds.), The Canadian Jewish Mosaic. Toronto:
John Wiley and Sons, 7-20.
Shuval, Judith T. (2000). “Diaspora Migration: Definitional Ambiguities and a Theoretical
Paradigm.” International Migration, 38(5): 41-57.
Siemiatycki, Myer, and Engin F. Isin. (1998). “Immigration, Diversity and Urban Citizenship in
Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 20(1/2): 73-102.
Sintonen, Teppo. (1993). “Life Course and Ethnicity: experiences of Canadian Finns who
Immigrated to Canada in the 1920s.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 25(3): 76-89.
Skachkova, Penka Stoyanova. (2000). “The Ethnic Teaches Back: Identity Formation and
Academic Status of Foreign-Born Women Academics in the US.” Dissertation Abstracts
International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences, 61(1): July 380-A.
Small, Stephen. (1994). Racialized Barriers. London: Routledge.
Sollors, Werner. (1995). “Who is Ethnic?” In B. Ashcroft, G. Griffiths, and H. Tiffin (eds.), The
Post-Colonial Studies Reader. New York: Routledge, 219-22.
Solomos, John. (1986). “Varieties of Marxist Conceptions of ‘Race,’ Class and the State:
A Critical Analysis.” In J. Rex and D. Mason (eds.), Theories of Race and Ethnic
Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 84-109.
Sorenson, John. (1991). “Politics of Social Identity: ‘Ethiopians’ in Canada.” Journal of Ethnic
Studies, 19(1): 67-86. Spring.
64
Soysal, Yasemin Nuho_lu. (2000). “Citizenship and Identity: Living in Diasporas in Post-War
Europe?” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 23(1): 1-15.
Stasiulis, Daiva. (1990). “Theorizing Connections: Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Class.” In
P. S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press,
269-305.
Stasiulis, Daiva. (1997). “Participation by Immigrants, Ethnocultural/Visible Minorities in the
Canadian Political Process.” Paper presented at the Second National Metropolis
Conference. (Montréal, November).
Stasiulis, Daiva. (1999). “Feminist Intersectional Theorizing.” In P. S. Li, ed., Race and Ethnic
Relations in Canada. 2nd ed., Toronto: Oxford University Press, 347-97.
Stasiulis, Daiva, and Abigail B. Bakan. 1997. “Negotiating Citizenship: The Case of Domestic
Workers in Canada.” Feminist Review, 57: 112-39.
Strategic Workshop on Immigrant Women Making ‘Place’ in Canadian Cities. (2001). “PolicyRelevant Research on Immigration and Settlement—Relevant for Whom?” Presented at
the Fifth National Metropolis Conference (Ottawa, Oct. 16-20).
Swyripa, Frances. (1993). Wedded to the Cause: Ukrainian-Canadian Women and Ethnic
Identity 1891-1991. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Taboada-Leonetti, Isabelle. (1981). “Identité individuelle, identité collective : Problèmes posés
par l’introduction du concept d’identité en sociologie. Quelques propositions théoriques à
partir de trois recherches sur l’immigration.” Social Science Information, 20(1): 137-167.
February.
Tan, Sicily. (1992). “Jamaican Adolescents and Immigration.” M.A. Thesis, University of
Toronto.
Tastsoglou, Evangelia. (1997a). “The Margin at the Centre: Greek Immigrant Women in
Ontario.” Canadian Ethnic Studies, 29(1): 119-60.
Tastsoglou, Evangelia. (1997b). “Immigrant Women and the Social Construction of Ethnicity:
Three Generations of Greek Immigrant Women in Ontario.” In M. Texler-Segal and
V. Demos (eds.), Advances in Gender Research. JAI Press, 2: 227-54.
Tastsoglou, Evangelia. (2000). “Mapping the Unknowable: The Challenges and Rewards of
Cultural, Political and Pedagogical Border Crossing.” In George J. Sefa Dei and Agnes
Calliste (eds.), Power, Knowledge and Anti-Racism Education. Halifax: Fernwood
Publishing, 98-121.
65
Tastsoglou, Evangelia, and Baukje Miedema. (2000). “Immigrant Women Organizing for
Change: Integration and Community Development by Immigrant Women in the
Maritimes.” Final Report to the Prairie Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration
and Integration.
(http://www.pcerii.metropolis.net/frameset_e.html)
Taylor, K. W. (1991). “Racism in Canadian Immigration Policy.” Canadian Ethnic Studies,
XXIII(1): 1-20.
Thobani, Sunera. (2000). “Closing Ranks: Racism and Sexism in Canada’s Immigration Policy.”
Race and Class. 42(1): 35-55.
Thomas, William I., and Florian Znaniecki. (1918-20). The Polish Peasant in Europe and
America. Volumes I-IV. Boston: The Gorham Press.
Thompson, John Herd. (1991). Ethnic Minorities During Two World Wars. Booklet No. 19.
Ottawa: Historical Association.
Tian, Guang. (1999). Chinese-Canadians, Canadian-Chinese: Coping and Adapting in North
America. Queenston, Ont.: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Timotijevic, L., and G. M. Breakwell. (2000). “Migration and Threat to Identity.” Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10(5): 355-72. September-October.
Tirone, Susan, and Alison Pedlar. (2000). “Understanding the Leisure Experiences of a Minority
Ethnic Group: South Asian Teens and Young Adults in Canada.” Loisir et société/Society
and Leisure, 23(1): 145-69. Spring.
Tonks, Randal G. and Anand C. Paranjpe. (1999a). “Two Sides of Acculturation: Attitudes
Toward Multiculturalism and National Identity Amongst Immigrant and Canadian Born
Youth.” Paper presented at the Third National Metropolis Conference, 15 January 1999,
Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, B.C.
Tonks, Randal G. and Anand C. Paranjpe. (1999b). Am I a Canadian, an Ethnic, or an EthnicCanadian?: Dilemmas of Second Generation Immigrant Youth. Vancouver Centre of
Excellence for Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis Working
Paper Series #99-16. June.
Ujimoto, Victor K. (1988). “Racism, Discrimination and Internment: Japanese in Canada.” In
Bolaria B. Singh and Peter S. Li (eds.), Racial Oppression in Canada. 2nd ed., Toronto:
Garamond Press, 126-60.
Vallee,
Frank G. (1988). “Inequality and Identity in Multi-Ethnic Societies.” In
Dennis P. Forcese and Stephen Richer (eds.), Issues in Canadian Society: An
Introduction to Sociology. Scarborough, Ont.: Prentice-Hall, 129-50.
66
Vallee, Frank G., and Norman Shulman. (1969). “The Viability of French Groupings Outside
Quebec.” In M. Wade (ed.), Regionalism in the Canadian Community. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
van den Berghe, Pierre L. (1984). “Race: Perspective Two.” In E. E. Cashmore (ed.), Dictionary
of Race and Ethnic Relations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 216-18.
van den Berghe, Pierre L. (1985). “Race and Ethnicity: A Sociobiological Perspective.” In R. M.
Bienvenue and J. E. Goldstein (eds.), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada. Toronto:
Butterworths, 19-30.
van den Berghe, Pierre. (1987). “Ethnicity and Class: Bases of Sociality.” In L. Driedger (ed.),
Ethnic Canada. Identities and Inequalities. Toronto: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd, 242-55.
Vasiliadis, Peter. (1989). Whose Are You? Identity and Ethnicity Among the Toronto
Macedonians. NY: AMS Press.
Walby, Sylvia. (1992). “Woman and Nation.” In A. Smith (ed.), Ethnicity and Nationalism. New
York: E. J. Brill, 81-100.
Wall, Ellen. (1992). “Personal Labour Relations and Ethnicity in Ontario Agriculture.” In Vic
Satzewich (ed.), Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in
‘90s Canada. Halifax: Fernwood and Social Research Unit, Department of Sociology,
University of Saskatchewan, 261-75.
Waters, Mary. (1990). Ethnic Options. Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press.
Waugh, Earle H. (1991). “North America and the Adaptation of the Muslim Tradition: Religion,
Ethnicity and the Family.” In E. H. Waugh, S. McIrvin Abu-Laban, and Regula
Burckhardt Qureshi (eds.), Muslim Families in North America. Edmonton: The
University of Alberta Press, 68-95.
Weber, Max. (1968). Economy and Society. Volume 1. New York: Badminster.
Weinfeld, Morton. (1981). “Myth and Reality in the Canadian Mosaic: ‘Affective Ethnicity.’”
Canadian Ethnic Studies, XIII(3): 80-100.
Weinfeld, Morton. (1994). “Ethnic Assimilation and the Retention of Ethnic Cultures.” In J. W.
Berry and J. A. Laponce (eds.), Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research
Landscape. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 238-66.
Weissman, Deborah. (1978). “Bais Yaakov: A Historical Model for Jewish Feminists.” In
E. Koltun (ed.), The Jewish Woman. New York: Schocken, 139-48.
67
Werbner, Pnina. (1997). “Introduction: The Dialectics of Cultural Hybridity.” In Pnina Werbner,
and Tariq Modood (eds.), Debating Cultural Hybridity: Multi-Cultural Identities and the
Politics of Anti-Racism. Atlantic Heights, N.J.: Zed Books, 1-28.
Werner, Hans P. (1996). “Relatives and Strangers: The Identity of Post World War II Ethnic
German Immigrants.” M.A. Thesis, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg.
Whitaker, Reg. (1987). Double Standard: The Secret History of Canadian Immigration. Toronto:
Lester and Orpen Dennys.
Wilson, William J. (1973). Power, Racism and Privilege. New York: Free Press.
Winland, Daphne N. (1995). “‘We Are Now an Actual Nation’: The Impact of National
Independence on the Croatian Diaspora in Canada.” Diaspora, 4(1): 3-29. Spring.
Winland, Daphne. (1998). “‘Our Home and Native Land’? Canadian Ethnic Scholarship and the
Challenge of Transnationalism.” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology,
35(4): 555-77.
Yancey, William L., Eugene P. Ericksen, and Richard N. Juliani. (1976). “Emergent Ethnicity: A
Review and Reformulation.” American Sociological Review, 41: 391-403.