Hierarchical pluralism

Examining social attachments in Canada's two national contexts

Mai B. Phan and Raymond Breton

Presented at the CRONEM annual conference Nationalism and National Identities Today: Multidisciplinary Perspectives

University of Surrey, U.K.June 12-13, 2007

Models of Diversity revisited

The multiplicity of social connections in a modern context implies the possibility of multiple identifications or attachments and the possibility of choice.

Uni-dimensional perspectives like assimilation theories presume that strengthening attachment to one implies weakening in another, competing identity.

In the bi-dimensional perspective, identification with and attachment to the ancestral group and the larger community are both possible, and possibly desirable.

Social Dominance Theory

The assimilation and pluralism theories assume that all groups have the same opportunity to participate in institutions, to be accepted in social interaction and thus become integrated in the social fabric in the same ways.

However, this assumption of equality may not be warranted in all social contexts.

Sidanius and his colleagues argue that an additional model is required, that of “social dominance” which takes into account an ethnic hierarchy in the society.

Members of groups lower in the hierarchy would be more likely :

• to integrate in the ethnic community• to persist in assigning importance to their ethnicity and • to have a relatively weak sense of belonging to the larger

society. Members with higher standing would be more likely:• to integrate in the larger society• to show a decrease in the importance they attach to their

ethnicity and• to have a relatively strong sense of belonging to the

larger society.

Exploring the data: 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey Measuring attitudinal attachments to Canada: 1. Sense of belonging to Canada2. Importance of civic* identity

(includes responses of Canadian/ Canadienne, Quebecois, Newfoundland, Acadian, French-Canadian or other regional identity)

Measuring attitudinal attachments to ethnic group: 1. Sense of belonging to ethnic ancestry group2. Importance of ethnic identity3. Importance of ethnic ancestry4. Importance of ethnic customs and traditions

All measures of attachment were dichotomized, with strong responses (4/5) scored “1” and weak/moderate responses scored “0”

Simultaneous Latent Class Analysis

Latent Class Analysis is analogous to factor analysis for categorical data, testing the underlying structure of relationships among variables

Unlike factor analysis, latent variables constructed from a set of observed, discrete variables may be characterized as multi-dimensional typologies

Categories are mutually exclusive, and latent classes can be tested for variability (or equivalence) of structures between different populations (Quebec and the Rest of Canada)

Patterns of attachment: Ethnic

"Ethnic" Attachment Pattern for Quebec and Rest of Canada

0.82

0.18

0.75 0.76

0.84

0.74

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

strong sense ofbelonging to

Canada

high importanceof Canadian

identity

strong sense ofbelonging toethnic group

high importanceof ethnicancestry

high importanceof customs and

traditions

high importanceof ethnic identity

Indicators of Attachment

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Rest of Canada

Quebec

Patterns of attachment: Mainstream

"Mainstream" Attachment Pattern for Quebec and the Rest of Canada

0.91

0.28

0.00 0.00

0.66

0.49

0.30

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

strong sense ofbelonging to

Canada

high importance ofCanadian identity

strong sense ofbelonging to ethnic

group

high importance ofethnic ancestry

high importance ofcustoms and

traditions

high importance ofethnic identity

Indicators of Attachment

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Rest of Canada

Quebec

Patterns of attachment: Pluralist

"Pluralist" Attachment Pattern for Quebec and the Rest of Canada

0.710.75 0.75

0.000.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

strong sense ofbelonging to

Canada

high importance ofCanadian identity

strong sense ofbelonging to ethnic

group

high importance ofethnic ancestry

high importance ofcustoms and

traditions

high importance ofethnic identity

Indicators of Attachment

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Rest of Canada

Quebec

Patterns of attachment: Marginalized

"Marginalized" Attachment Pattern for Quebec and the Rest of Canada

0.69

0.27

0.150.22

0.48

0.37

0.090.15

0.00

0.11

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

strong sense ofbelonging to

Canada

high importanceof Canadian

identity

strong sense ofbelonging toethnic group

high importanceof ethnicancestry

high importanceof customs and

traditions

high importanceof ethnic identity

Indicators of Attachment

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Rest of Canada

Quebec

Comparing the regional distribution of attachment types

Probabilities of Attachment Types by Region

0.16

0.24

0.39

0.21

0.26

0.21

0.28

0.24

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Attachment Types

Pro

bab

ilit

y

Rest of Canada

Quebec

For white groups, the assimilation model is supported, with rapid decrease in ‘ethnic’ attachments

Whites: Prevalence of Attachment Types by Cohort

51%

11%

34%37%

12%

21%18%

50%

17%15%

12%

48%

16%

24%

4%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pe

rce

nt

Recent immigrants (1991-2001)

Earlier Immigrants (before 1991)

2nd Generation

3rd/4th Generation

For visible minorities, there is stronger ethnic retention and less integration into the mainstream

Visible Minorities: Prevalence of Attachment Types by Cohort

62%

7% 6%

25%

55%

8%

23%

40%

23%

17%

20%

30%

35%

9%

26%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Per

cen

t

Recent immigrants (1991-2001)

Earlier Immigrants (before 1991)

2nd Generation

3rd/4th Generation

Hierarchical pluralism ? Visible minorities and whites have different patterns of

attachments across cohorts (even after controlling for income, education, sex, age, reported discrimination and friendship ties)

Few differences in distribution of attachment types among different visible minority groups

Southern European groups also show similar patterns of social attachment to visible minorities—racialization?

Visible minority groups are over-represented in the “ethnic” attachment group

Blacks (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.06

0.01

0.02

0.010

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o t

he

Po

pu

lati

on

South Asian (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.08

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o t

he P

op

ula

tio

n

Chinese (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.08

0.02

0.02

0.05

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o t

he

Po

pu

lati

on

Latin American (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.03

0.00

0.01

0.000.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Prp

ort

ion

to

th

e P

op

ula

tio

n

“Charter” Groups show different propensities to attachments

•English are over-represented in the “mainstream” attachment group•French are over-represented in the “pluralist” attachment group

English (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.17

0.24

0.20

0.18

0.15

0.17

0.19

0.21

0.23

0.25

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o t

he

Po

pu

lati

on

French (shown relative to their proportion in the population)

0.15

0.17

0.27

0.18

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.2

0.22

0.24

0.26

0.28

0.3

Ethnic Mainstream Pluralist Marginalized

Pro

po

rtio

n t

o t

he

Po

pu

lati

on

National majorities and minorities

0.49

0.32

0.42

0.08

0.258

0.46

0.07

0.14

0.22

0.10

0.21

0.27

0.02

0.10

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Recent Immigrants (1991 orlater)

Early Immigrants (before 1991) 2nd Generation 3rd/4th Generation

Immigrant and Generational Cohort

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f 'm

ain

str

ea

m' o

ve

r 'm

arg

ina

lize

d'

Rest of Canada WhiteRest of Canada Visible MinorityQuebec WhiteQuebec Visible Minority

The probability of ‘pluralist’ social attachments is higher in Quebec than in the rest of Canada

0.09

0.240.22

0.14

0.03

0.09

0.16

0.050.05

0.12

0.29

0.07

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Recent Immigrants(1991 or later)

Early Immigrants(before 1991)

2nd Generation 3rd/4th Generation

Immigrant and Generational Cohort

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

ba

bili

ty o

f 'p

lura

list'

ov

er

'ma

rgin

aliz

ed

'

Rest of Canada WhiteRest of Canada Visible MinorityQuebec WhiteQuebec Visible Minority

Charter groups: the relationship between national identity and ethnic identity

“mainstream” for British-origin whites and “pluralist” for French-origin whites in Quebec: synonymous patterns?

The majority of whites in Quebec are native-born with French ancestry; Quebec as a French social context

Quebec’s claim as a distinct society and as a national minority heightens awareness of French culture in context of Anglo-hegemony

Retention of ‘ethnic’ attachments across cohorts is more pronounced for VM compared to whites

0.17

0.36

0.07

0.53

0.41

0.22

0.61

0.55

0.41

0.23

0.34

0.43

0.58

0.60

0.50

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Recent Immigrants (1991 or later) Early Immigrants (before 1991) 2nd Generation 3rd/4th Generation

Immigrant and Generational Cohort

Pre

dic

ted

Pro

bab

ility

of

'eth

nic

' ove

r 'm

arg

inal

ized

'

Rest of Canada White

Rest of Canada Visible Minority

Quebec White

Quebec Visible Minority

Visible minorities in Quebec

face the most difficulties integrating in the labour market and are more dependent on ethnic networks.

As a result, visible minorities as a ‘devalued’ population may be encouraged towards ‘ethnic’ attachments to a greater extent than in the rest of Canada.

On the other hand, Quebec has given greater support for ethnic language retention than the rest of Canada, which may come some way to explaining the greater likelihood of visible minorities retaining ‘ethnic’ and ‘pluralist’ attachments across generations.

Defensive structuring on the part of French-speaking Québec:

Higher level of social and institutional segregation on the basis of language and religion.

The only province with its own Ministry of Immigration and separate immigration policy

Resistance to federal multiculturalism policy: interpreted as an attempted reduction of the cultural and political status of French in Canada

However, facing demographic, economic and political pressures to accept and integrate immigrants

Quebec’s policy of Inter-culturalism: more explicit conditions on multiculturalism

recognition of French as the language of public life;

respect for liberal democratic values, including civil and political rights and equality of opportunity; and

respect for pluralism, including openness to and tolerance of others' differences.

The rate of ‘pluralist’ attachment over successive generations is the same for visible minorities and whites in Quebec

Changing modes of belonging?

‘Quebecois’ and ‘Canadian’ identities losing their ethnic connotation (as exclusively French or British)

Quebec is undergoing the challenges of diversity, immigration, nationhood and identity as Canada has faced much earlier in its history