Seite - 171 - in Media – Migration – Integration - European and North American Perspectives

Augie Fleras | Ethnic and Aboriginal Media in Canada 171 widespread acceptance, confusion continues. Both critics and supporter are prone to interpret multiculturalism in the literal sense of many cultures coexisting in harmony side by side. For some the idea of celebrating differences and promoting ethnic diverse communities is doable and worth- while; for others, however, such diversity poses problems of cohesiveness. Having outlived its usefulness in an era of politicized diversity, multi- culturalism is perceived as a recipe for divisiveness and danger, and counter- productive to the safety and success of society. In reality, the rationale behind Canada’s Multiculturalism model is inclusive in logic and intent. According to an inclusive multiculturalism, a Canada of many cultures is possible as long as peoples cultural differences don’t get in the way of equal citizenship or full participation. A social climate is fostered that tolerates cultural differences as long as this commitment does not preclude belonging, equality, and involvement. To the extent that cultural differences are tolerated under Canada’s multiculturalism, these differences cannot break the law, violate individual rights, or contravene core constitutional values (Fleras 2003). Canada’s official multiculturalism reflects its modernist roots in promoting liberal universalism. That is, people should be treated the same as a matter of course regardless of their differences because everyone is equal before the law. Our commonalities as freewheeling and morally autonomous individuals are more important - at least for purposes of recognition or reward - than that which divides us as members of racially distinct groups. Insofar as cultural differences exist, they are largely superficial, tend to get in the way, and should rarely be deployed as a basis for reward or recognition even for progressive reasons. The conclusion seems inescapable: Canada’s multiculturalism model is not about celebrating diversity but removing disadvantage, not about separation and isolation but about interaction and integration, not about exclusion but about inclusion, not about differences but about tolerance, not about a one way process of absorption but a two way process of integration (you adjust, we adapt/you adapt, we adjust). Admittedly, differences are not entirely dismissed. They may have to be taken into account under extenuating circumstances; after all, a commitment to formal equality does not necessarily guarantee against exclusion or exploitation. However valid or valuable at times, these differences must conform with what is permissible in Canada with respect to laws, values, and rights. Yet another multicultural inversion is inescapable: If its goal is on removing disadvantage, promoting tolerance, and fostering integration and inclusion, Multiculturalism is more about the ‘we’ rather than the ‘them’. The focus is not about changing the ‘other’ but about ensuring ‘reasonable accommodation’ at the level of structures/institutions and individuals/mindsets.