Loose Threads

Before starting this review, I was aware of conservative critiques of multiculturalism: claims that it erodes national identity, promotes cultural relativism, or turns once pleasant communities into immigrant ghettos. In his 2010 book, Multicultiphobia, Phil Ryan, a professor at Carleton University’s School of Public Policy and Administration, analyzed and rebutted such criticisms. But I really didn’t know about the commentary at the other end of the political spectrum that he examines in his latest work, On the Other Hand: Canadian Multiculturalism and Its Progressive Critics.

Progressives in the media usually celebrate diversity rather than besmirch it, while high-profile conservatives have effectively simplified their talking points and spread them widely through just about every outlet available. As a result, public discourse tends to highlight progressives who praise multiculturalism and conservatives who criticize it, leaving little room for other viewpoints like the ones Ryan examines.

Ryan notes that many countries are experiencing what the Indian essayist Pankaj Mishra calls an “age of anger,” and he describes it as driven by an “increasing awareness that our current form of globalization has not protected the interests of the working and middle classes in the developed world.” The political elite’s inaction has “created space for demagogues to advance xenophobic and misleading diagnoses of citizens’ problems.” While right-wing populism has gained ground in countries like the United Kingdom, Hungary, and the United States, Ryan observes that Canada has so far avoided this trend. Public opinion surveys find that most Canadians support multiculturalism and immigration, and even conservative media outlets tend to be relatively calm about it.

Yet all is not well here. Racism remains a persistent problem across the country, and Ryan cites twenty-four recent incidents of discrimination to prove his point. How are we to make sense of the inconsistency between Canadians embracing multiculturalism on one hand and the incessant ethnoracial inequity on the other?

Progressive critics would argue that such racism is baked into the system and that multiculturalism props up white supremacy by embedding and then obscuring inequalities. Consider politicians who promote Canada as a beacon of diversity while passing laws that exploit non-white temporary foreign workers. These critics also claim multiculturalism fosters shallow tolerance: enjoying ethnic foods, for example, without embracing the people behind them, a kind of “song and dance” acceptance that still views non-majority groups as the other.

Ryan acknowledges the validity of some progressive critiques and does not aim to fully rebut them. Rather, he seeks a deeper understanding of multiculturalism and society, approaching the topic with admirable humility. “Claims can be challenged,” he writes. “This book is not meant to be the last word on anything: it is just one more contribution to an ongoing conversation concerning what Canada and multiculturalism are and where they should be headed.”

Ryan’s main issue with progressive critics of multiculturalism is the vagueness of their language, particularly their “mysterious claims.” Such assertions involve vague “actors” with undefined “power” taking ambiguous “actions” to produce ill-defined “effects.” In 2007, for example, the sociologist Sunera Thobani wrote:

Exactly who, Ryan asks, has done this constituting and constructing? And what does it mean that people have been constituted and constructed this way? Does it mean some people have been influenced to view these groups as such? If so, who are the people who have been influenced? All of society? A particular group? And how has this persuasion been accomplished?

This example highlights the inexact writing often found in progressive criticism. Such arguments risk being interpreted by readers to fit their pre-existing beliefs: supporters are reinforced, skeptics remain unconvinced, and no meaningful understanding or change occurs. When writers make claims about the actions of the state, social systems, or collective groups, Ryan believes, they should strive to “translate” their arguments into statements concerning actual human beings who have specific powers and are acting on the basis of believable motives. “If one’s claims cannot be translated so as to make visible the actions of plausible human agents,” he argues, “one is not analysing, but mystifying.”

To practise what he preaches, Ryan devotes a lengthy chapter to explicating his use of four terms: “the state,” “policy,” “culture,” and “multiculturalism.” These are all abstract concepts that reference complex social systems, and the words themselves mean different things to different people. Without clarification, readers may quickly default to their own biased understanding of these words, leading to a simplistic or misguided interpretation of Ryan’s later argument. Nonetheless, Ryan’s prose is surprisingly straightforward. “The state is not a unified organism,” he explains at one point. “Nor is it omniscient or infallible. Power relations within the state do not obey the simple downward logic of an organization chart, nor do state actors hold all the cards in relations with civil society.” Despite writing for a largely academic audience and being a social scientist himself, he avoids the use of highly technical language that might alienate general readers.

Ryan not only critiques the clarity of progressive arguments but also tests their credibility and coherence, demonstrating his own in the process. For instance, York University’s Eve Haque sides with Jacques Derrida’s critique of conditional hospitality: welcoming newcomers so long as they abide by the laws of the host country, making that country “master” over the newcomer in what Haque refers to as “racist hospitality.” Unconditional hospitality, by contrast, means welcoming migrants without demanding lawful behaviour from them. Ryan, thankfully, tears this notion to shreds, perhaps most persuasively when he says, “The simplest reply to those who attack limits to tolerance is that one can believe in tolerance without limit or one can believe in human rights. Not both.” The problem isn’t the existence of limits, which are necessary to condemn intolerable behaviour, but the creation of limits that unfairly target certain groups.

The book’s title, On the Other Hand, encapsulates Ryan’s determined push for nuance. Throughout, his approach to argument pulls first in one direction and then in a somewhat opposed one. By doing this, he helps create a richer understanding of society and the subject at hand. He acknowledges, for example, that national pride can be toxic and can lead some of us to ignore the human rights abuses in our country’s history and present. But an appreciation of our collective identity as Canadians, our democratic freedoms, and all that our country has achieved is an important foundation from which to address injustice. Expecting flawlessness from one’s country as a condition for valuing it is like demanding perfection from your romantic partner or your child before showing them affection. Loving the ideals of Canada can lead us to collectively push to make those ideals a reality.

Ryan is a generous writer. He’s never dismissive of progressive critics, whom he sees as a necessary counterbalance to overly idealized depictions of diversity. He just wants more subtlety in their arguments — not one-sided descriptions of things that ignore or confuse aspects of society that ought to be sustained and defended. If we are to challenge aspects of multiculturalism from a progressive standpoint, he adds, we ought to accompany that challenge with “reflection on what we want multiculturalism to become.”

With lucid and logical writing, Ryan has made a persuasive contribution to the ongoing debate about multiculturalism in Canada. And his case for clear, credible, and coherent argumentation should be required reading for anyone who wants to weigh in on important issues in our society. Too frequently, our public discourse oversimplifies consequential matters into uncompromising categories of right and wrong, leading to division rather than actual debate around real solutions to our problems. On the Other Hand exemplifies the circumspect, thoughtful approach our discussions need.