- Email: [email protected]
Ethnic identity
,nrrmor,on”l k,W”“, Printed tn the USA.
0, /,,rrKu/rura/ Krlarron,. All nghts rewrrcd
vol. 6. pp. 137.15 I, 1912
“,47-,767,X2 020137.15$03.00.0 Copjnght e 19x2 Pergamon Press Ltd
ETHNIC IDENTITY
Myth and Reality in Western Canada
J. FRIDERES
AND S. GOLDENBERG
i%e University of Calgary ABSTRACT. The paper analyzes eleven research projects which have focused on the issue of ethnic identity. Each study addresses the question of how important ethnicity is to the individual. The results suggest that ethnicity, as measured in the present studies, is of little importance to Canadians. Ethnicity. however, should be viewed as an adaptive response to the conditions governing the context for acquisition of scarce and desired goods! What is clear is that assertions of the universal and constant import of ethnicity to Canadians are not true.
A sense of common origins or common values and beliefs has long been of great concern to individuals trying to unite aggregates of people into “self defining” groups. This is a problem for Marxists in terms of class consciousness and solidarity, and it is identical to the problem facing blacks who must learn to perceive their “brotherhood” or to women in terms of “sisterhood.” The recognition of all forms of collective identity is both problematic and variable, as is the mobilization of groups based on this identity. In Canada, ethnicity (and ethnic identification) has held a revered position for politicians and academics alike. To a certain extent it has become a central component of the layman’s concept of “how Canada works.” The present analysis addresses the question of how important ethnicity is to Canadians and tries to place this issue in its proper situational or contextual perspective.
THE POLITICAL
BACKGROUND
The federal government’s policy and objectives are concerned with preserving and developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework. These objectives are institutionalized through a policy of Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. James Frideres, Department University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. 137
of Sociology,
2500
138
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
multiculturalism that embodies three dimensions: (1) support for all of Canada’s cultures and assistance for the development of those cultural groups which have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop, (2) assistance for members of all cultural groups in overcoming cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society, and (3) promotion of creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity. Multiculturalism is an important dimension of our national policy and since 1971 this concept is further developed both in importance and in budgetary terms. The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) was established in 1973 to act as an advisory body to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The stated philosophy behind such a step was the belief that ethno-cultural groups should be able to influence the decision making process by means of a continuing consultative procedure. It would then serve as an important source of information to the minister responsible for multiculturalism on opinions in Canada’s diverse cultural communities. Besides the CCCM, there are a number of additional federal cultural agencies that play a significant role in the promotion and preservation of cultural diversity in Canada. While their goals may not be as specific as those of the CCCM, their overt goal is nevertheless to contribute to the maintenance of ethnic identity and diversity. Such organizations are: Social Science Federation of Canada, Canada Council, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, National Film Board, The National Museums Corporation, and the Public Archives. Five programs (in addition to the programs of the federal cultural agencies) have been developed to implement the multicultural policy of the government and are carried out under the administration of the Citizenship Branch of the Department of Secretary of State. These programs are: Teaching of Official Languages, Canadian Ethnic Studies Ethnic Histories, Cultural Development Programs, and Multicultural Grants. The result of these “cultural” programs has reinforced our belief about the importance of ethnicity and/or ethnic identity. Major policy statements regarding immigration, language and citizenship are based, to some extent, upon our multicultural policy. All of these happenings suggest to each Canadian that ethnicity must be an important dimension of life. THE
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
There would seem to be at least four discernible theoretical positions, each with a distinct body of literature associated with it. The oldest perspective is that of the assimilationists. These authors, pre-eminent among them Gordon (1964) have long argued that ethnicity would fade and finally disappear as it became increasingly irrelevant to the newcomers absorbed in American society. Ethnicity, like other ascribed traits, would be
Ethnic Identity
139
dropped in an achievement-oriented society in which opportunity was available to all. This is primarily a structural position with a social psychological consequence. It is most clearly exemplified in the “melting pot” literature. An empirical hypothesis drawn from this position would suggest that the salience of ethnicity will decrease over time. To the extent that ethnicity continues to exist, this is interpreted as a temporary structural lag. This perspective then is basically functional and argues that ethnicity will disappear since it would serve no function in such a melting pot society (Driedger, 1980; Putnins, 1978). In recent years, the primary challenge to the assimilationist perspective has come from the conservative movement, led by Greeley (1974). The conservatives have stressed the persistence of ethnicity as an enduring structural feature of North American society, involving group solidarity and loyalty that merges into class consciousness at times. Indeed, a variant of this conservative thesis is based in what we would now describe as a conflict perspective. This position emphasizes the entrenched and institutionalized inequalities of North American stratification systems (in opposition to the alleged hidden ideological premises of Gordon’s implicitly evolving egalitarian system). It suggests, in contrast, that ethnicity is of enduring importance since it is a function of this inequality. Ethnicity is seen as a persistent collective response to inequality, and both inequality and ethnicity are treated as constants. Glazer and Moynihan’s work (1963) might be cited as an example of this variant.’ One might infer from this position the empirical expectation that ethnicity will show great stability and persistence over time within North American society. The third ideal-typical position is more explicitly conflict-based and it moves the argument, in our view, a quantum leap forward. This perspective follows the above position to its logical conclusion, suggesting that ethnic identity is an emergent and variable response to similarly variable structural features of a society. This is the position adopted by Yancy, et al. (1976) and Francis (1976) in their thesis on emergent identity and by Goldenberg in an even wider context applying to all so-called ascriptive characteristics, including kinship (1977). According to this thesis, one might predict either a rise or fall in the salience of ethnicity, depending on causative situational features. If mobilization of collective ethnic identity is perceived to be useful, it will likely come about. If ethnicity is of no apparent value, it will diminish in import over time. The case of American Jewry is a frequently cited example of such ethnicity as a variable response. The fourth perspective can be attributed to Gans (1979) and treats ethnicity as a symbolic and social psychological factor only, of no ‘See J. Reitz (1980) for a review of this position
in Canadian
society.
140
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
instrumental signifi~nce. It is a remnant, a bit of nostalgia for the old days and ethnicity is considered residual, and most likely transient. This position suggests that one will find ethnic identity only as a nostalgic loyalty now and that those who claim it will not link it to any goalrelated instrumental utility. Each of these positions carries with it a view of ethnicity as either structural, social psychological, or both. Each implies either the continuing or short-term importance of ethnicity. Each can be translated into operational terms and there are hypotheses that can be drawn out of each perspective to be tested. Our first task, however, is to ascertain the actual level of ethnic identity in Canada. We will then try to distinguish among these competing perspectives and come to some conclusion concerning their relative merits on the basis of the existing empirical literature concerning Canadian ethnicity. Before a detailed discussion of the results of these studies is presented, a brief methodological note is presented.
METHODS Eleven studies conducted in Canada measuring the salience of ethnic identity of individuals have been chosen as our data base. With two exceptions, these have been conducted totally within Western Canada. The data used in the studies identified were obtained by questionnaire or interview/ schedule using a survey research design. Two major techniques for eliciting the salience of ethnic identity were used: (1) the Twenty Statement Test (T.S.T.) (Who am I?) and (2) an open-ended question. In some cases the question simply asked the respondent which ethnic group they identified with. In other cases a list of ethnic groups’were provided and the respondent could check one or alternatively list his/her ethnic affiliation if it was not on the list. Other ethnic identity measures were also used in the studie,s. For example, a semantic differential was used in one case (Frideres, 1975); involvement in ethnic affiliations and language 1976) and intra ethnic contact retention (Backeland and Frideres, (SEER, 1975). (See Table 1 for identification of studies.) The studies being analyzed were conducted between 1974 and 1979. Sample sizes ranged from less than 100 to over 3,000. Our assessment of the actual procedures used in the data collection for the studies did not reveal any anomalies with regard to procedure or method of analysis. Hence it is unlikely that the results obtained are an artifact of procedures-either in methods or in analysis.
RESULTS The first question
to be addressed
in this review of studies concerns
the
141
Ethnic Identity
Percent
of Respondents
Claiming
TABLE 1 Ethnic Affiliations
A
Study South Asian/Interfaith, N=256
T.S.T.
0 OpenEnded
(%)
(%)
Frideres/Goldenberg, N=213
1976
Frideres/Goldenberg, N=lOO
1976
Other (%)
Sample
10
Adults, urban, Alberta
13
33
12
Husband/wife, Alberta
4
11
15
University students, urban Alberta
2
40
12
Adults, urban, Alberta
46
6
urban,
Adults, small town Alberta
1977 408
Frideres, 1975 N=464
12
Frideres/Goldstein, N=95
Cross National Canadian Adults
16
6
30
60
Adults, urban Manitoba
30
35
Adults, urban Alberta
46
19
Adults, urban Manitoba
Adults (rural/urban)
Alberta
1974
Frideres, et al., 1977 N=323 1976
Ellishen, 1976 N=3200
aThe percentage Quebec.
C
25
SEER, 1975 N=135
Backeland/Frideres, N=114
Studies
1979
Mackie, 1977 N=665
Panting/Gibbons. N=1632
for Ten Canadian
Cross National Canadian Adults
51b
distribution
of “none”
bThe data is only for Francophones
varied
from
23% in Maritimes
to 62% in
in Quebec.
salience or import of ethnic identity for Canadians. Table 1 provides data with regard to this question. All of the studies cited have at least one open-ended question with regard to ethnic identity. The results are clear. Half of the respondents do not claim to hold ethnicity as a salient component of their identity structure. The data, in fact, show that a considerably lower percentage (than 50%) hold no salient ethnicity. Such a finding alone indicates that ethnicity is not a constant undercurrent of importance to all individuals in our society.
142
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
Reitz (1980) also suggests that ethnicity is declining in import for Canadians except for what he calls “middle class” ethnics-not linked to either economic segregation in high status jobs or migration into the middle class. While a small proportion of the respondents felt that “ethnicity” was important, this does not mean that this sector of society will not make demands, or that it is sociologically unimportant. Other methodological techniques for assessing ethnic identity have also been used such as projective and scale techniques. The results of these are listed in Table 1 under columns A and C. For example, using the technique of T.S.T., rates of ethnic identity are even lower. These data also suggest that ethnic identity is not pervasive in Canadian society nor is it as intense as some would like us to believe. On the other hand, the discrepancies pointed out in the data base do suggest that for some groups ethnicity remains an important identity dimension. Other subjective and objective measures of ethnic identity have also been utilized in the above studies. For example, one study asked whether or not the respondent felt his/ her fate was bound up with one’s ethnic group. Slightly over ten per cent responded “yes, definitely,” or “to a large extent.” Likewise, less than 1Oyo felt that one’s ethnic group was a very important part of their life. And, over 35% claimed to “never or seldom think about being ethnic” (Frideres and Goldenberg, 1977). Objective techniques have also been used by researchers in an attempt to assess the “ethnicity” of respondents. Questions such as voluntaryassociation membership in ethnic organizations, ownership of ethnic artifacts, usage of ethnic artifacts, retention of language, and use of ethnic mass media have been utilized in some of the above studies. The results obtained in the studies using this procedure show fewer than 10% of the respondents claiming to regularly use a nonofficial language, or to regularly use ethnic artifacts or the ethnic mass media.2 In the South Asian/Interfaith study (1979) it was shown that fewer than 1070 of the respondents belonged to an ethnic organization while at the same time over one-third belonged to a “community” (non-ethnic) organization. The analysis of Polish membership patterns in Toronto also supports the above conclusion (Radecki, 1979). The results of the present studies also indicated (when measured) that recent immigrants were higher users of such facilities as ethnic mass media, more likely to belong to an ethnic organization or use their mother tongue more often, but as pointed out in the Federal Government’s Green Paper on Immigration (1974) and confirmed in the above studies, after 3 to 5 years ethnicity is very much decreased. One would be hard-pressed to conclude from such results that these respondents find their ethnicity to be of great or current im‘The Frideres-Goldstein (1974) study example, Weingrod, 1979.
involved
Jewish
intra-
and inter-marriages.
See, for
Ethnic ldentitl
portance suggests ethnicity
143
to their lives, as is often claimed of Canadians. Indeed, the data some of the situational contexts or conditions under which may be of greater or lesser importance. CHANGING
ETHNICITY
In three of the studies cited above, Frideres and Goldenberg (1977, 1978) and Frideres (1975), a series of questions was asked to determine the relative import of different types of identity as well as the extent of change. One question asked respondents to indicate what dimension of identity was the most important for them. The results of the three studies indicate that family is the most important dimension of identity for a study majority of respondents. In fact, in the Goldenberg-Frideres (1978) well over 80% indicated family as the most important dimension of their identity. The above studies also showed that gender and occupation are salient aspects of identity though not nearly as important as family. What became equally clear was the fact that ethnic identity was not defined as a salient component. In the Frideres (1975) study, only 5% of the respondents felt that ethnicity was the most important aspect of their lives. The above data supports the claim that ethnicity is a less important aspect than other elements of identity, with which it can be compared. The Frideres-Goldenberg studies (1977, 1978) also assessed data on identity change. First of all, each respondent was asked to locate on a IO-point ladder where they personally stood at the present with regard to their choice of the most important identity dimension. Then they were asked where they stood 5 years ago and where they thought they would stand 5 years into the future. While this measurement technique is not specific to ethnic identity, the results were intriguing. On the average, past and future movements showed a 3-point shift. For example, if someone felt that on a IO-point scale (0 is “not important,” 10 is “very important”), their present “family identity” was 7; when asked where it was 5 years ago, they would answer “5” and felt it would be an “8” 5 years into the future. This represents a shift of 3 points. This crude measure of change did not take into consideration the sign nor the absolute position on the scale to begin with. Since the absolute positioning of the “present” (the base line point) is not the primary concern in the present paper, we focused on upward versus downward shifts. Looking specifically at those respondents who claimed that ethnicity was the “most important” identity, we found that the overall trend was a decreased importance of ethnicity. That is, a continuous reduction in importance of ethnicity was given by the respondents for the 10 year (past to future) time period covered by the respondent.
144
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
The studies also elicited information with regard to the “circumstances” in which ethnic identity is most important, the frequency of occurrence of these circumstances and how this has changed over the past 5 years. Ethnic identity became most salient under three conditions-travel (both to homeland and outside of Canada); religious or secular holidays; and with family (kin). The frequence of occurrence for travel was very small (once in every 5 years). However, holidays were “constant” in that they occurred regularly every year. With regard to “family-kin” contacts, we discovered that this condition is no longer independent of holidays-hence holidays and kin-family contacts have remained stable over the past 5 years. On a short time scale, this data supports notions of a “circumstantial identity” as posited by Yancey and Francis. When respondents were asked how “ethnicity” was expressed, enhanced or transmitted to younger members of the family under the above conditions, the answer was directly related to Gans’ hypothesis. Answers included “we just feel ethnic,” “it’s something I can’t explain,” “a feeling.” There was no “formal training” of younger members of the family but rather a reassertion of the family’s ethnic background and a reaffirmation that it was acceptable to retain it. Circumstances seem to produce expressive identity even if there is no instrumental needs for it. Such “nostalgic identity” is likely to be much more short-lived than that produced as a means to a valued end. Indeed nostalgic identity is a frequent prerequisite to complete assimilation. On the other hand, even complete assimilation is impermanent, as witness the German Jews of the World War II era or the Spanish Jews of the era of the Inquisition, both of which groups exemplify, tragically but clearly, that ethnicity can be forced onto individuals against their will or choice. ETHNIC
IDENTITY
Identity is an elusive and complex concept, although in its most general sense, it is used to refer to an individual’s sense of who he or she is (Kando, 1977; Mead, 1925; Gergan, 1971; Lambert, 1967; Vaughan, 1972). However, individual researchers use a great variety of definitions of this concept in their research (Isajiw, 1970; Dashefsky, 1972; Parsons, 1968; Foote, 1951). The social and personal identity of an individual involves the symbolic use of some aspect of their culture to differentiate them from other individuals or groups (Taylor, 1967; Zavalloni, 1971; Comeau and Driedger, 1978). The origin of these differentiating aspects may lie within the group or it may be imposed from outside the group, i.e., labeling. It is clear that such an understanding presupposes the social structural nature of an identity. Further, allegiances can be viewed as existing
(1) on a continuum for high to low in intensity or salience to the individuals involved and (2) as arranged in some hierarchical order with regard to other groups, i.e., there may be competing allegiances. If one adopts the model proposed by Devos and Romanucci-Ross (1975) individuals may be conceptualized as finding themselves orienting primarily to: (1) the past, (2) the future, and (3) the present. Our interest is in past orientations. The fact that someone has affiliations with, or belongs to a particular ancestry or origin reflects a past orientation. Ethnic and family identity are examples of such a past orientation. At any one point in time these identities may have greater or lesser salience, i.e., the extent of identification with these three orientations may change over time. Secondly, as pointed out above, conflict may emerge among the three orientations. Where two or more of the orientations are viewed as congruent (or overlapping) they can be defined as supportive and thus little conflict among them may result. However, if internal (or exogenous) factors to the group presently receiving the individual’s orientations are not viewed as mutually supportive, then conflict will emerge, and the individual may experience this as stress. Thus, the hierarchical arrangement is not stable, and will be altered as circumstances change, e.g., marriage. Conceptualized this way, self identity is a particular and transitory arrangement of subidentities acquired in the process of learning of social roles and identification with social groups. It should be noted that although several individuals may belong to the same or similar groups, play the same or similar roles, the resultant identity organization may result in different outcomes, depending upon the specific constellation of the respective subidentities (Isrsely, 1978). In addition, we characterize these subidentities as mutually dependent as well as interpenetrable. Viewed in this perspective, identity is seen as a dynamic construct and even after it is crystallized, identities are not conceptualized as ever-enduring, constant or rigid. In short, ethnicity is seen as a set of attitudes related to a sense of ancestral identification with a segment of the world’s populations. As Van den Berghe (1969) has pointed out, we all have, whether we are willing to recognize it or not, an ethnic origin. In addition to creating a sense of common origin, ethnic identity also can establish the correctness of one’s own behavior and at the same time allow one to assess the correctness of the outsider’s behavior. In order to predict the priorities of loyalty in an individual and to determine whether his/her ethnic identity is given priority over another form of identity, one must understand the potential uses of identity by the individual. Instrumental concerns are those which are principally goal directed. On the other hand, expressive concerns are considered ends in themselves. Truly a dilemma faces the individual. On the one
146
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
hand, the individual may have to decide whether or not retaining an affiliation with a particular ethnic group is an advantage or disadvantage. The individual must decide whether it is worthwhile to him/ her to give up his group identity or to maintain it and seek to realize his goals despite the inconveniences of his ethnic status. On the other hand, the maintenance of ethnic identity can also be an expressive activity. If so, then the individual may feel that the psychological rewards of ethnic identity are well worth the costs involved, i.e., not being able to change behavior or occupation. A constant interdependent relationship is established between the two activities. What has been referred to as the “crisis” in identity occurs when one has to choose between conflicting loyalties. Gans has provided an alternative conceptualization thus far unnoticed-symbolic ethnicity. This, according to Cans, can be characterized by a nostalgic allegiance to the culture of the immigrant generation, “old country,” or traditional cultural values of some past generation. However, this “pride” or “love for” a tradition is felt without incorporating it into everyday behavior. As noted earlier, identity is not built solely by individuals from such choices. Identity of all kinds is partially chosen by individuals and partially forced upon them for their acknowledgment. Identity is a potential to be mobilized and to be recognized, accepted and legitimated only under certain conditions. Thus an ethnic organization may “force” an individual to recognize and acknowledge membership in a group hitherto unrecognized. “Passing” is the phenomenon of camouflage or of pretending to possess a racial identity as “white” when one is “truly” “black.” Circumstances may facilitate or make impossible such racial, ethnic, or class transformation. There is mobility among identities and identity elements are always in competition.
CONCLUSION It would seem that ethnicity for a majority of Canadians has little significance in defining one’s identity. It may have little relevance for the structuring of social relationships and it can, at various times and in various contexts, attain a latent stage. However, it is true that under certain kinds of circumstances, it may become important. It may substantially effect individuals’ relations to others, to their jobs, their communities and themselves. Because ours is an ethnically heterogeneous society, ethnicity tends to become fragmented or partialized. As Breton (1976) has pointed out: Only certain areas of a person’s life involve his or her ethnicity. Ethnically specified social expectations tend to be restricted to a few limited aspects of behavior such as, for example, those pertaining to the role of spouse or parent.
Ethnic 1dentit.r
147
Ethnicity becomes partialized as a result of the process of social differentiation which involves, as we have seen, a social organization based on roles. Individuals behave differently in different roles and in different contexts; they change “social
personality” from one to the other (pp. 60-61). Parenti (1969) has also pointed out that one’s experiences usually produce complementary identifications. However, in a modern ethnic heterogeneous society the system is characterized by a social structure that is highly differentiated and, as pointed out previously, consists of juxtaposed groups, following a pattern of intersecting circles (Coleman, 1970). There is substantial support then for the theoretical argument that ethnicity is not as crucial a feature of Canadian life across the country as is often claimed.3 This is particularly so for the hinterland regions of Canada. We would suggest that ethnicity will be salient where it is used defensively by charter groups seeking to protect their “preserves” from invasion (Breton, 1964). In the West, no single ethnic group can act as a total gatekeeper of any institutional structure. A more individualistic system exists rewarding individuals as they compete individually. The West is a “booming” economic area, and boom conditions encourage rapid mobility through individualistic achievement Boom conditions mean opportunities are expanding and there is a shortage of labour to In such conditions, there is no occupy the newly created positions. competitive advantage to being a member of any ethnic group. In this instance ethnic affiliation can be expected to be of reduced importance. Further, since opportunities are expanding rapidly, no single group can control access to them, thereby limiting others’ mobility on the grounds of ethnicity. On the other hand, in a shrinking economy, where choices must be made among many competitors for each position, ascriptive qualities may be relevant in making the choice, and ethnicity may be a crucial feature in such choices, along with “discrimination” by gender, age, and race. When opportunities are restricted, those in control gain the power to nominate successful applicants according to many criteria, both achieved and ascribed. A second factor related to the relative unimportance of ethnicity in the West might be the result of migration trends. Traditionally (and currently) international immigrants have initially settled in the East and then after a period of time of settling in have moved to the West (Breton, 1964). Breton points out that older cities develop a great many support systems for ethnics of all kinds and this means that institutional policies should be “The question of how many “ethnics” are required before national implemented is not a facile question. Presently it is assumed by the Federal Government that, on the basis of objective “ethno-national” identity figures, policies will be implemented. This criterion is supplemented by the extent of pressure placed on the Federal Government by ethnic interest groups.
148
J. Frideres
and S. Goldenberg
completeness is not in evidence for younger cities. The larger, older cities are able to generate “critical mass” capable of supporting ethnic institutions (Goldenberg, 1977). Much of the recent influx to the West is composed of people from Eastern Canada seeking opportunities where they abound. These Canadians are less likely to experience ethnic discrimination (though they may well experience regional discrimination) than would be true of international migrants from a very different culture from ours. We agree with Yancy et al, and Barr (1980) that ethnicity is best viewed as an emergent response to structural conditions. It is not a fixed state of affairs but rather an intermittent process. It is but one of many characteristics which may be more or less salient to, and mobilized or activated by , individuals or groups depending on other social structural conditions in the society. Ethnic consciousness is as much a variable as class consciousness and, indeed, would argue that the conditions governing the emergence of ethnicity appears very similar to those involved in the emergence of class consciousness and class action. With regard to policy implications, we find that almost all multiculturalism programs support ethnic cohesion by reinforcing ethnic culture, particularly language. However, it would seem that economic organizations are a necessary component for the survival of ethnic group cohesion, and this aspect of being ignored by current multicultural policy. Ethnicity should (and can) be viewed as an adaptive response to the conditions governing the contest for acquisition of scarce and desired goods. For too long it has been argued that in our individualistic and universalistic society ascriptive characteristics are irrelevant and not useful in a competitive system. The work of others in Canada has all very clearly pointed out that a systematic relationship does exist between ethnic affiliation and occupation, education, and income. Therefore, one might conclude that while the individualistic ideology may prevail, the actual system of stratification is usually quite different. Western Canada now, like the U.S. at an earlier period, is expanding at an enormous rate. Under these unusual circumstances, ethnicity tends to have little value to individuals.4 In Eastern Canada or in most of the United States ethnicity may resurface as a relevant identity simply because conditions there are different and less favourable. If one assumes then that the instrument of the acquisition of goal resources is a central problem faced by individuals, the major issue 4The reader
to read Chapter 6 of R. Burkey, Efhnic and Racial Groups: The Menlo Park, California, Cummings Publishing Co.. for a discussion of the ethnogenesis process of the U.S.A. I would also like to thank a reviewer who pointed out that while a statistical majority minimizes ethnicity, it does not necessarily make it less important. Dynamics
is encouraged
q” Dominance.
Ethnic Idemit),
149
concerns the conditions under which group membership may be advantageous. It is our position, based on the available evidence, that ethnic identification will flourish when people believe that it can be useful in the struggle to obtain or retain valued resources. On the other hand, when people can see no net usefulness in such group memberships, they will tend to attempt to disassociate themselves from it. Such an attempt may succeed for fail, depending on the responses of others as conditions continually change. Our review of these eleven studies conducted primarily in Western Canada suggests that at the time of the studies, ethnicity was of limited importance to these Canadians. We have suggested several reasons to explain this lack of importance and to integrate such a finding into the more general literature on conditions facilitating or inhibiting the emergence of ethnic identity. All specific studies of such a variable are necessarily dated, and we might even go so far as to suggest that as the boom passes through Western Canada and the growth of opportunities slows as well, it is likely that ethnic identity will become more relevant than it now is to these Western Canadians. What is clear is that assertions of the universal and constant importance of ethnicity to Canadians are not, and probably never were, true. We are only slowly learning the implications of the realization that ethnic identity is a variable and not a constant. REFERENCES ABRAMSON,
H. Ethnic Diversity in Catholic America. New York: Wiley. 1973 BACKELAND, L. & J. FRIDERES Franc0 Manitobans and cultural loss: A fourth generation. Prairie Forum, 1976, 2, I-18. BARR, E. A contingency approach to ethnic relations: lessons from the Japanese Canadian experience. In K. Ujimoto and G. Hirabayashi (Eds.), Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada. Toronto: Butterworth, 1980. BLISHEN, B. Perceptions of national identity. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1978, 15, 128-133. BRETON, R. Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and personal relations to immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 70, 193-205. BRETON, R. The structure of relationships between ethnic collectivities. In L. Dreidger (ed.), The Canadian Mosaic. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976. COLEMAN, J. Social inventions. Social Forces, 1970, 49, 163-177. COMEAU, L. & DREIDGER, L. Ethnic opening and closing in an open system: a Canadian example. Social Forces, 1978, 57, 600-620. COMMITTEE OF SOUTH ASIANS/INTERFAITH Immigrant Profiles in Calgary, Alberta. Unpublished manuscript, Calgary, Alberta, 1979. DASHEFSKY, A. And the search goes on: the meaning of relio-ethnic identity and identification. Sociological Analysis, 1972, 33, 239-245
I50
.I. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
DEVOS, G. & ROMANUCCI-ROSS, L. (Eds.) Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1975. DRIEDGER, L. Jewish identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1980, 3, 67-88. FOOTE, N. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 14-21. FRANCIS, E.K. Interethnic Relations. New York: Elsevier, 1976. FRIDERES, J. Identity in an urban rural context. Human Resources ofAlberta, Volume II, Edmonton, Alberta, 1975. FRIDERES, J. & GOLENDBERG, S. Hyphenated Canadians: comparative analysis of ethnic, regional and national identification of Western Canadian university students. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 1977, 5, 91-100. FRIDERES, J. & GOLDENBERG, S. The situational context of ethnic identity. Unpublished manuscript, 1978, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. FRIDERES, J. AND GOLDSTEIN, J. Jewish-Gentile Intermarriage. Social Compass, 1974, 21, 69-84. FRIDERES, J., DISANTO, J., GOLDENBERG, S & J. HORNA Citizenship Acquisition in Calgary, Alberta, Volumes 1 and II. Secretary of State, Ottawa, 1977. GANS, H. Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic-group and culture in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1979, 2, I-20. GERGAN, K. The Concept ofSeIf. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. GLAZER, N & MOYNIHAN, P. Behind the Melting Pot. Cambridge, Mass.: Mass. Institute of Technology Press & Harvard University Press, 1963. GOLDENBERG, S. Kinship and Ethnicity Viewed as Adaptive Responses to Location in the Opportunity Structure. Journalof Comparative Family Studies, 1977, 8, 119-166. GORDON, M. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Immigration Policy Perspective. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1974. GREELEY, A. Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Wiley, 1974. ISAJIW, W. Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1970, 1. 26-34. ISRSELY, H. Semanticdtfferentiation of meaning:recording the content ofethnic identity of third generation Japanese Americans. Pacific Sociological Association, Spokane, Washington, 1978. KANDO, T. Social Interaction. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1977. LAMBERT. W. A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Soc,ial Issues. 1967, 23. 97-103. MACKIE, M. Ethnicity and nationality: how much do they matter to Western Canadians? Presented to CSSA, Fredericton, N.B., June, 1977. MEAD, G. The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 1925, 35, 251-273. PARENTI, M. Ethnic politics and persistence of ethnic identification. In H. Bailey and E. Katz (Eds.), Ethnic Group Politics. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. PARSONS, T. The position of identity in a general theory of action. In C. Gordon and K. Gergen (Eds.), The Selfin Social Interaction. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1968.
Ethnic Identit)
151
PONTING, R. & GIBBINS, R. Contemporary prairie perceptions of Canada’s Native People. Prairie Forum, 1977, 2, 57-81. PUTNINS, A. Ethnic identification in second generation Latvians. International Migrations, 1978, 16, 122-130. RADECKI, H. Ethnic Organizational Dynamics: The Polish Group in Canada. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1979. REITZ, J. 7’he Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson Ltd., 1980. S.E.E.R. Social Dislocation of Jasper, Alberta. Parks Canada, Ottawa, 1975. TAYLOR, D. Ethnic identity: some cross-cultural comparisons. In J. Berry and W. Lonner (Eds.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology, Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1976. VAN DEN BERGHE, P. Pluralism and the polity: a theoretical exploration. In L. Kuper and M. Smith (Eds.), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. VAUGHAN, G. Ethnic awareness and attitudes in New Zealand children. In G. Vaughan (Ed.), Racial Issues in New Zealand. Auckland: Akarana Pres, 1972. WEINGROD, A. Recent trends in Israeli ethnicity. Ethnic and Racialstudies, 1979, 2, 55-65. YANCEY, W., E. ERIKSEN & JULIANI, R. Emergent ethnicity: a review and reformulation. American Sociological Review, 43, 391-403. ZAVALLONI, M. Cognitive processes and social identity through focused introspection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 197 1, 1, 235-260.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
La prksente communication analyse onze projets de recherche qui tous traitent de l'identitg ethnique. Chacun des projets pose la question de savoir quelle es,t l'importance de l'ethnicite' pour l'individu. Les,resultats obtenus sugg\erent que l'ethnicitg, telle qu'envisagee dans les dits projets de recherche, est de peu d importance pour les Canadiens. L'ethnicitg, cependant, doit &re envisage'e comme une re/ponse favorable aux conditions, prises dans un contexte don&, pour l'acquisition de biens rares et d&i&s. Le point important B noter est qu'il est faux d'affirmer l'importance, our les Canadiens, de l'universalitg et de la Constance de 1P ethnicite/. En este ensayo se analizan once proyectos de investigaci& que tienen coma foco el tema de la identidad e'tnica. Cada estudio indaga sobre la pregunta de cual es la importancia que la etnicidad tiene para el individuo. Los resultados sugieren que la etnicidad, definida dentro de 10s estudios dados, es de poca importancia para 10s canadiences. La etnicidad, sin embargo, debe ser vista coma una respuesta adaptiva a las condiciones que gobiernan el context0 de la adquisicicn de bienes deseables y escasos. Se propone que aque/llas as aserciones que entraiian una importancia constante y universal a la etnicidad, por parte de 10s canadiences, no son verdaderas,
0, /,,rrKu/rura/ Krlarron,. All nghts rewrrcd
vol. 6. pp. 137.15 I, 1912
“,47-,767,X2 020137.15$03.00.0 Copjnght e 19x2 Pergamon Press Ltd
ETHNIC IDENTITY
Myth and Reality in Western Canada
J. FRIDERES
AND S. GOLDENBERG
i%e University of Calgary ABSTRACT. The paper analyzes eleven research projects which have focused on the issue of ethnic identity. Each study addresses the question of how important ethnicity is to the individual. The results suggest that ethnicity, as measured in the present studies, is of little importance to Canadians. Ethnicity. however, should be viewed as an adaptive response to the conditions governing the context for acquisition of scarce and desired goods! What is clear is that assertions of the universal and constant import of ethnicity to Canadians are not true.
A sense of common origins or common values and beliefs has long been of great concern to individuals trying to unite aggregates of people into “self defining” groups. This is a problem for Marxists in terms of class consciousness and solidarity, and it is identical to the problem facing blacks who must learn to perceive their “brotherhood” or to women in terms of “sisterhood.” The recognition of all forms of collective identity is both problematic and variable, as is the mobilization of groups based on this identity. In Canada, ethnicity (and ethnic identification) has held a revered position for politicians and academics alike. To a certain extent it has become a central component of the layman’s concept of “how Canada works.” The present analysis addresses the question of how important ethnicity is to Canadians and tries to place this issue in its proper situational or contextual perspective.
THE POLITICAL
BACKGROUND
The federal government’s policy and objectives are concerned with preserving and developing Canadian identity, strengthening citizenship participation and encouraging cultural diversification within a bilingual framework. These objectives are institutionalized through a policy of Requests for reprints should be sent to Dr. James Frideres, Department University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N 1N4. 137
of Sociology,
2500
138
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
multiculturalism that embodies three dimensions: (1) support for all of Canada’s cultures and assistance for the development of those cultural groups which have demonstrated a desire and effort to continue to develop, (2) assistance for members of all cultural groups in overcoming cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society, and (3) promotion of creative encounters and interchange among all Canadian cultural groups in the interest of national unity. Multiculturalism is an important dimension of our national policy and since 1971 this concept is further developed both in importance and in budgetary terms. The Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM) was established in 1973 to act as an advisory body to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The stated philosophy behind such a step was the belief that ethno-cultural groups should be able to influence the decision making process by means of a continuing consultative procedure. It would then serve as an important source of information to the minister responsible for multiculturalism on opinions in Canada’s diverse cultural communities. Besides the CCCM, there are a number of additional federal cultural agencies that play a significant role in the promotion and preservation of cultural diversity in Canada. While their goals may not be as specific as those of the CCCM, their overt goal is nevertheless to contribute to the maintenance of ethnic identity and diversity. Such organizations are: Social Science Federation of Canada, Canada Council, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, National Film Board, The National Museums Corporation, and the Public Archives. Five programs (in addition to the programs of the federal cultural agencies) have been developed to implement the multicultural policy of the government and are carried out under the administration of the Citizenship Branch of the Department of Secretary of State. These programs are: Teaching of Official Languages, Canadian Ethnic Studies Ethnic Histories, Cultural Development Programs, and Multicultural Grants. The result of these “cultural” programs has reinforced our belief about the importance of ethnicity and/or ethnic identity. Major policy statements regarding immigration, language and citizenship are based, to some extent, upon our multicultural policy. All of these happenings suggest to each Canadian that ethnicity must be an important dimension of life. THE
ACADEMIC
BACKGROUND
There would seem to be at least four discernible theoretical positions, each with a distinct body of literature associated with it. The oldest perspective is that of the assimilationists. These authors, pre-eminent among them Gordon (1964) have long argued that ethnicity would fade and finally disappear as it became increasingly irrelevant to the newcomers absorbed in American society. Ethnicity, like other ascribed traits, would be
Ethnic Identity
139
dropped in an achievement-oriented society in which opportunity was available to all. This is primarily a structural position with a social psychological consequence. It is most clearly exemplified in the “melting pot” literature. An empirical hypothesis drawn from this position would suggest that the salience of ethnicity will decrease over time. To the extent that ethnicity continues to exist, this is interpreted as a temporary structural lag. This perspective then is basically functional and argues that ethnicity will disappear since it would serve no function in such a melting pot society (Driedger, 1980; Putnins, 1978). In recent years, the primary challenge to the assimilationist perspective has come from the conservative movement, led by Greeley (1974). The conservatives have stressed the persistence of ethnicity as an enduring structural feature of North American society, involving group solidarity and loyalty that merges into class consciousness at times. Indeed, a variant of this conservative thesis is based in what we would now describe as a conflict perspective. This position emphasizes the entrenched and institutionalized inequalities of North American stratification systems (in opposition to the alleged hidden ideological premises of Gordon’s implicitly evolving egalitarian system). It suggests, in contrast, that ethnicity is of enduring importance since it is a function of this inequality. Ethnicity is seen as a persistent collective response to inequality, and both inequality and ethnicity are treated as constants. Glazer and Moynihan’s work (1963) might be cited as an example of this variant.’ One might infer from this position the empirical expectation that ethnicity will show great stability and persistence over time within North American society. The third ideal-typical position is more explicitly conflict-based and it moves the argument, in our view, a quantum leap forward. This perspective follows the above position to its logical conclusion, suggesting that ethnic identity is an emergent and variable response to similarly variable structural features of a society. This is the position adopted by Yancy, et al. (1976) and Francis (1976) in their thesis on emergent identity and by Goldenberg in an even wider context applying to all so-called ascriptive characteristics, including kinship (1977). According to this thesis, one might predict either a rise or fall in the salience of ethnicity, depending on causative situational features. If mobilization of collective ethnic identity is perceived to be useful, it will likely come about. If ethnicity is of no apparent value, it will diminish in import over time. The case of American Jewry is a frequently cited example of such ethnicity as a variable response. The fourth perspective can be attributed to Gans (1979) and treats ethnicity as a symbolic and social psychological factor only, of no ‘See J. Reitz (1980) for a review of this position
in Canadian
society.
140
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
instrumental signifi~nce. It is a remnant, a bit of nostalgia for the old days and ethnicity is considered residual, and most likely transient. This position suggests that one will find ethnic identity only as a nostalgic loyalty now and that those who claim it will not link it to any goalrelated instrumental utility. Each of these positions carries with it a view of ethnicity as either structural, social psychological, or both. Each implies either the continuing or short-term importance of ethnicity. Each can be translated into operational terms and there are hypotheses that can be drawn out of each perspective to be tested. Our first task, however, is to ascertain the actual level of ethnic identity in Canada. We will then try to distinguish among these competing perspectives and come to some conclusion concerning their relative merits on the basis of the existing empirical literature concerning Canadian ethnicity. Before a detailed discussion of the results of these studies is presented, a brief methodological note is presented.
METHODS Eleven studies conducted in Canada measuring the salience of ethnic identity of individuals have been chosen as our data base. With two exceptions, these have been conducted totally within Western Canada. The data used in the studies identified were obtained by questionnaire or interview/ schedule using a survey research design. Two major techniques for eliciting the salience of ethnic identity were used: (1) the Twenty Statement Test (T.S.T.) (Who am I?) and (2) an open-ended question. In some cases the question simply asked the respondent which ethnic group they identified with. In other cases a list of ethnic groups’were provided and the respondent could check one or alternatively list his/her ethnic affiliation if it was not on the list. Other ethnic identity measures were also used in the studie,s. For example, a semantic differential was used in one case (Frideres, 1975); involvement in ethnic affiliations and language 1976) and intra ethnic contact retention (Backeland and Frideres, (SEER, 1975). (See Table 1 for identification of studies.) The studies being analyzed were conducted between 1974 and 1979. Sample sizes ranged from less than 100 to over 3,000. Our assessment of the actual procedures used in the data collection for the studies did not reveal any anomalies with regard to procedure or method of analysis. Hence it is unlikely that the results obtained are an artifact of procedures-either in methods or in analysis.
RESULTS The first question
to be addressed
in this review of studies concerns
the
141
Ethnic Identity
Percent
of Respondents
Claiming
TABLE 1 Ethnic Affiliations
A
Study South Asian/Interfaith, N=256
T.S.T.
0 OpenEnded
(%)
(%)
Frideres/Goldenberg, N=213
1976
Frideres/Goldenberg, N=lOO
1976
Other (%)
Sample
10
Adults, urban, Alberta
13
33
12
Husband/wife, Alberta
4
11
15
University students, urban Alberta
2
40
12
Adults, urban, Alberta
46
6
urban,
Adults, small town Alberta
1977 408
Frideres, 1975 N=464
12
Frideres/Goldstein, N=95
Cross National Canadian Adults
16
6
30
60
Adults, urban Manitoba
30
35
Adults, urban Alberta
46
19
Adults, urban Manitoba
Adults (rural/urban)
Alberta
1974
Frideres, et al., 1977 N=323 1976
Ellishen, 1976 N=3200
aThe percentage Quebec.
C
25
SEER, 1975 N=135
Backeland/Frideres, N=114
Studies
1979
Mackie, 1977 N=665
Panting/Gibbons. N=1632
for Ten Canadian
Cross National Canadian Adults
51b
distribution
of “none”
bThe data is only for Francophones
varied
from
23% in Maritimes
to 62% in
in Quebec.
salience or import of ethnic identity for Canadians. Table 1 provides data with regard to this question. All of the studies cited have at least one open-ended question with regard to ethnic identity. The results are clear. Half of the respondents do not claim to hold ethnicity as a salient component of their identity structure. The data, in fact, show that a considerably lower percentage (than 50%) hold no salient ethnicity. Such a finding alone indicates that ethnicity is not a constant undercurrent of importance to all individuals in our society.
142
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
Reitz (1980) also suggests that ethnicity is declining in import for Canadians except for what he calls “middle class” ethnics-not linked to either economic segregation in high status jobs or migration into the middle class. While a small proportion of the respondents felt that “ethnicity” was important, this does not mean that this sector of society will not make demands, or that it is sociologically unimportant. Other methodological techniques for assessing ethnic identity have also been used such as projective and scale techniques. The results of these are listed in Table 1 under columns A and C. For example, using the technique of T.S.T., rates of ethnic identity are even lower. These data also suggest that ethnic identity is not pervasive in Canadian society nor is it as intense as some would like us to believe. On the other hand, the discrepancies pointed out in the data base do suggest that for some groups ethnicity remains an important identity dimension. Other subjective and objective measures of ethnic identity have also been utilized in the above studies. For example, one study asked whether or not the respondent felt his/ her fate was bound up with one’s ethnic group. Slightly over ten per cent responded “yes, definitely,” or “to a large extent.” Likewise, less than 1Oyo felt that one’s ethnic group was a very important part of their life. And, over 35% claimed to “never or seldom think about being ethnic” (Frideres and Goldenberg, 1977). Objective techniques have also been used by researchers in an attempt to assess the “ethnicity” of respondents. Questions such as voluntaryassociation membership in ethnic organizations, ownership of ethnic artifacts, usage of ethnic artifacts, retention of language, and use of ethnic mass media have been utilized in some of the above studies. The results obtained in the studies using this procedure show fewer than 10% of the respondents claiming to regularly use a nonofficial language, or to regularly use ethnic artifacts or the ethnic mass media.2 In the South Asian/Interfaith study (1979) it was shown that fewer than 1070 of the respondents belonged to an ethnic organization while at the same time over one-third belonged to a “community” (non-ethnic) organization. The analysis of Polish membership patterns in Toronto also supports the above conclusion (Radecki, 1979). The results of the present studies also indicated (when measured) that recent immigrants were higher users of such facilities as ethnic mass media, more likely to belong to an ethnic organization or use their mother tongue more often, but as pointed out in the Federal Government’s Green Paper on Immigration (1974) and confirmed in the above studies, after 3 to 5 years ethnicity is very much decreased. One would be hard-pressed to conclude from such results that these respondents find their ethnicity to be of great or current im‘The Frideres-Goldstein (1974) study example, Weingrod, 1979.
involved
Jewish
intra-
and inter-marriages.
See, for
Ethnic ldentitl
portance suggests ethnicity
143
to their lives, as is often claimed of Canadians. Indeed, the data some of the situational contexts or conditions under which may be of greater or lesser importance. CHANGING
ETHNICITY
In three of the studies cited above, Frideres and Goldenberg (1977, 1978) and Frideres (1975), a series of questions was asked to determine the relative import of different types of identity as well as the extent of change. One question asked respondents to indicate what dimension of identity was the most important for them. The results of the three studies indicate that family is the most important dimension of identity for a study majority of respondents. In fact, in the Goldenberg-Frideres (1978) well over 80% indicated family as the most important dimension of their identity. The above studies also showed that gender and occupation are salient aspects of identity though not nearly as important as family. What became equally clear was the fact that ethnic identity was not defined as a salient component. In the Frideres (1975) study, only 5% of the respondents felt that ethnicity was the most important aspect of their lives. The above data supports the claim that ethnicity is a less important aspect than other elements of identity, with which it can be compared. The Frideres-Goldenberg studies (1977, 1978) also assessed data on identity change. First of all, each respondent was asked to locate on a IO-point ladder where they personally stood at the present with regard to their choice of the most important identity dimension. Then they were asked where they stood 5 years ago and where they thought they would stand 5 years into the future. While this measurement technique is not specific to ethnic identity, the results were intriguing. On the average, past and future movements showed a 3-point shift. For example, if someone felt that on a IO-point scale (0 is “not important,” 10 is “very important”), their present “family identity” was 7; when asked where it was 5 years ago, they would answer “5” and felt it would be an “8” 5 years into the future. This represents a shift of 3 points. This crude measure of change did not take into consideration the sign nor the absolute position on the scale to begin with. Since the absolute positioning of the “present” (the base line point) is not the primary concern in the present paper, we focused on upward versus downward shifts. Looking specifically at those respondents who claimed that ethnicity was the “most important” identity, we found that the overall trend was a decreased importance of ethnicity. That is, a continuous reduction in importance of ethnicity was given by the respondents for the 10 year (past to future) time period covered by the respondent.
144
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
The studies also elicited information with regard to the “circumstances” in which ethnic identity is most important, the frequency of occurrence of these circumstances and how this has changed over the past 5 years. Ethnic identity became most salient under three conditions-travel (both to homeland and outside of Canada); religious or secular holidays; and with family (kin). The frequence of occurrence for travel was very small (once in every 5 years). However, holidays were “constant” in that they occurred regularly every year. With regard to “family-kin” contacts, we discovered that this condition is no longer independent of holidays-hence holidays and kin-family contacts have remained stable over the past 5 years. On a short time scale, this data supports notions of a “circumstantial identity” as posited by Yancey and Francis. When respondents were asked how “ethnicity” was expressed, enhanced or transmitted to younger members of the family under the above conditions, the answer was directly related to Gans’ hypothesis. Answers included “we just feel ethnic,” “it’s something I can’t explain,” “a feeling.” There was no “formal training” of younger members of the family but rather a reassertion of the family’s ethnic background and a reaffirmation that it was acceptable to retain it. Circumstances seem to produce expressive identity even if there is no instrumental needs for it. Such “nostalgic identity” is likely to be much more short-lived than that produced as a means to a valued end. Indeed nostalgic identity is a frequent prerequisite to complete assimilation. On the other hand, even complete assimilation is impermanent, as witness the German Jews of the World War II era or the Spanish Jews of the era of the Inquisition, both of which groups exemplify, tragically but clearly, that ethnicity can be forced onto individuals against their will or choice. ETHNIC
IDENTITY
Identity is an elusive and complex concept, although in its most general sense, it is used to refer to an individual’s sense of who he or she is (Kando, 1977; Mead, 1925; Gergan, 1971; Lambert, 1967; Vaughan, 1972). However, individual researchers use a great variety of definitions of this concept in their research (Isajiw, 1970; Dashefsky, 1972; Parsons, 1968; Foote, 1951). The social and personal identity of an individual involves the symbolic use of some aspect of their culture to differentiate them from other individuals or groups (Taylor, 1967; Zavalloni, 1971; Comeau and Driedger, 1978). The origin of these differentiating aspects may lie within the group or it may be imposed from outside the group, i.e., labeling. It is clear that such an understanding presupposes the social structural nature of an identity. Further, allegiances can be viewed as existing
(1) on a continuum for high to low in intensity or salience to the individuals involved and (2) as arranged in some hierarchical order with regard to other groups, i.e., there may be competing allegiances. If one adopts the model proposed by Devos and Romanucci-Ross (1975) individuals may be conceptualized as finding themselves orienting primarily to: (1) the past, (2) the future, and (3) the present. Our interest is in past orientations. The fact that someone has affiliations with, or belongs to a particular ancestry or origin reflects a past orientation. Ethnic and family identity are examples of such a past orientation. At any one point in time these identities may have greater or lesser salience, i.e., the extent of identification with these three orientations may change over time. Secondly, as pointed out above, conflict may emerge among the three orientations. Where two or more of the orientations are viewed as congruent (or overlapping) they can be defined as supportive and thus little conflict among them may result. However, if internal (or exogenous) factors to the group presently receiving the individual’s orientations are not viewed as mutually supportive, then conflict will emerge, and the individual may experience this as stress. Thus, the hierarchical arrangement is not stable, and will be altered as circumstances change, e.g., marriage. Conceptualized this way, self identity is a particular and transitory arrangement of subidentities acquired in the process of learning of social roles and identification with social groups. It should be noted that although several individuals may belong to the same or similar groups, play the same or similar roles, the resultant identity organization may result in different outcomes, depending upon the specific constellation of the respective subidentities (Isrsely, 1978). In addition, we characterize these subidentities as mutually dependent as well as interpenetrable. Viewed in this perspective, identity is seen as a dynamic construct and even after it is crystallized, identities are not conceptualized as ever-enduring, constant or rigid. In short, ethnicity is seen as a set of attitudes related to a sense of ancestral identification with a segment of the world’s populations. As Van den Berghe (1969) has pointed out, we all have, whether we are willing to recognize it or not, an ethnic origin. In addition to creating a sense of common origin, ethnic identity also can establish the correctness of one’s own behavior and at the same time allow one to assess the correctness of the outsider’s behavior. In order to predict the priorities of loyalty in an individual and to determine whether his/her ethnic identity is given priority over another form of identity, one must understand the potential uses of identity by the individual. Instrumental concerns are those which are principally goal directed. On the other hand, expressive concerns are considered ends in themselves. Truly a dilemma faces the individual. On the one
146
J. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
hand, the individual may have to decide whether or not retaining an affiliation with a particular ethnic group is an advantage or disadvantage. The individual must decide whether it is worthwhile to him/ her to give up his group identity or to maintain it and seek to realize his goals despite the inconveniences of his ethnic status. On the other hand, the maintenance of ethnic identity can also be an expressive activity. If so, then the individual may feel that the psychological rewards of ethnic identity are well worth the costs involved, i.e., not being able to change behavior or occupation. A constant interdependent relationship is established between the two activities. What has been referred to as the “crisis” in identity occurs when one has to choose between conflicting loyalties. Gans has provided an alternative conceptualization thus far unnoticed-symbolic ethnicity. This, according to Cans, can be characterized by a nostalgic allegiance to the culture of the immigrant generation, “old country,” or traditional cultural values of some past generation. However, this “pride” or “love for” a tradition is felt without incorporating it into everyday behavior. As noted earlier, identity is not built solely by individuals from such choices. Identity of all kinds is partially chosen by individuals and partially forced upon them for their acknowledgment. Identity is a potential to be mobilized and to be recognized, accepted and legitimated only under certain conditions. Thus an ethnic organization may “force” an individual to recognize and acknowledge membership in a group hitherto unrecognized. “Passing” is the phenomenon of camouflage or of pretending to possess a racial identity as “white” when one is “truly” “black.” Circumstances may facilitate or make impossible such racial, ethnic, or class transformation. There is mobility among identities and identity elements are always in competition.
CONCLUSION It would seem that ethnicity for a majority of Canadians has little significance in defining one’s identity. It may have little relevance for the structuring of social relationships and it can, at various times and in various contexts, attain a latent stage. However, it is true that under certain kinds of circumstances, it may become important. It may substantially effect individuals’ relations to others, to their jobs, their communities and themselves. Because ours is an ethnically heterogeneous society, ethnicity tends to become fragmented or partialized. As Breton (1976) has pointed out: Only certain areas of a person’s life involve his or her ethnicity. Ethnically specified social expectations tend to be restricted to a few limited aspects of behavior such as, for example, those pertaining to the role of spouse or parent.
Ethnic 1dentit.r
147
Ethnicity becomes partialized as a result of the process of social differentiation which involves, as we have seen, a social organization based on roles. Individuals behave differently in different roles and in different contexts; they change “social
personality” from one to the other (pp. 60-61). Parenti (1969) has also pointed out that one’s experiences usually produce complementary identifications. However, in a modern ethnic heterogeneous society the system is characterized by a social structure that is highly differentiated and, as pointed out previously, consists of juxtaposed groups, following a pattern of intersecting circles (Coleman, 1970). There is substantial support then for the theoretical argument that ethnicity is not as crucial a feature of Canadian life across the country as is often claimed.3 This is particularly so for the hinterland regions of Canada. We would suggest that ethnicity will be salient where it is used defensively by charter groups seeking to protect their “preserves” from invasion (Breton, 1964). In the West, no single ethnic group can act as a total gatekeeper of any institutional structure. A more individualistic system exists rewarding individuals as they compete individually. The West is a “booming” economic area, and boom conditions encourage rapid mobility through individualistic achievement Boom conditions mean opportunities are expanding and there is a shortage of labour to In such conditions, there is no occupy the newly created positions. competitive advantage to being a member of any ethnic group. In this instance ethnic affiliation can be expected to be of reduced importance. Further, since opportunities are expanding rapidly, no single group can control access to them, thereby limiting others’ mobility on the grounds of ethnicity. On the other hand, in a shrinking economy, where choices must be made among many competitors for each position, ascriptive qualities may be relevant in making the choice, and ethnicity may be a crucial feature in such choices, along with “discrimination” by gender, age, and race. When opportunities are restricted, those in control gain the power to nominate successful applicants according to many criteria, both achieved and ascribed. A second factor related to the relative unimportance of ethnicity in the West might be the result of migration trends. Traditionally (and currently) international immigrants have initially settled in the East and then after a period of time of settling in have moved to the West (Breton, 1964). Breton points out that older cities develop a great many support systems for ethnics of all kinds and this means that institutional policies should be “The question of how many “ethnics” are required before national implemented is not a facile question. Presently it is assumed by the Federal Government that, on the basis of objective “ethno-national” identity figures, policies will be implemented. This criterion is supplemented by the extent of pressure placed on the Federal Government by ethnic interest groups.
148
J. Frideres
and S. Goldenberg
completeness is not in evidence for younger cities. The larger, older cities are able to generate “critical mass” capable of supporting ethnic institutions (Goldenberg, 1977). Much of the recent influx to the West is composed of people from Eastern Canada seeking opportunities where they abound. These Canadians are less likely to experience ethnic discrimination (though they may well experience regional discrimination) than would be true of international migrants from a very different culture from ours. We agree with Yancy et al, and Barr (1980) that ethnicity is best viewed as an emergent response to structural conditions. It is not a fixed state of affairs but rather an intermittent process. It is but one of many characteristics which may be more or less salient to, and mobilized or activated by , individuals or groups depending on other social structural conditions in the society. Ethnic consciousness is as much a variable as class consciousness and, indeed, would argue that the conditions governing the emergence of ethnicity appears very similar to those involved in the emergence of class consciousness and class action. With regard to policy implications, we find that almost all multiculturalism programs support ethnic cohesion by reinforcing ethnic culture, particularly language. However, it would seem that economic organizations are a necessary component for the survival of ethnic group cohesion, and this aspect of being ignored by current multicultural policy. Ethnicity should (and can) be viewed as an adaptive response to the conditions governing the contest for acquisition of scarce and desired goods. For too long it has been argued that in our individualistic and universalistic society ascriptive characteristics are irrelevant and not useful in a competitive system. The work of others in Canada has all very clearly pointed out that a systematic relationship does exist between ethnic affiliation and occupation, education, and income. Therefore, one might conclude that while the individualistic ideology may prevail, the actual system of stratification is usually quite different. Western Canada now, like the U.S. at an earlier period, is expanding at an enormous rate. Under these unusual circumstances, ethnicity tends to have little value to individuals.4 In Eastern Canada or in most of the United States ethnicity may resurface as a relevant identity simply because conditions there are different and less favourable. If one assumes then that the instrument of the acquisition of goal resources is a central problem faced by individuals, the major issue 4The reader
to read Chapter 6 of R. Burkey, Efhnic and Racial Groups: The Menlo Park, California, Cummings Publishing Co.. for a discussion of the ethnogenesis process of the U.S.A. I would also like to thank a reviewer who pointed out that while a statistical majority minimizes ethnicity, it does not necessarily make it less important. Dynamics
is encouraged
q” Dominance.
Ethnic Idemit),
149
concerns the conditions under which group membership may be advantageous. It is our position, based on the available evidence, that ethnic identification will flourish when people believe that it can be useful in the struggle to obtain or retain valued resources. On the other hand, when people can see no net usefulness in such group memberships, they will tend to attempt to disassociate themselves from it. Such an attempt may succeed for fail, depending on the responses of others as conditions continually change. Our review of these eleven studies conducted primarily in Western Canada suggests that at the time of the studies, ethnicity was of limited importance to these Canadians. We have suggested several reasons to explain this lack of importance and to integrate such a finding into the more general literature on conditions facilitating or inhibiting the emergence of ethnic identity. All specific studies of such a variable are necessarily dated, and we might even go so far as to suggest that as the boom passes through Western Canada and the growth of opportunities slows as well, it is likely that ethnic identity will become more relevant than it now is to these Western Canadians. What is clear is that assertions of the universal and constant importance of ethnicity to Canadians are not, and probably never were, true. We are only slowly learning the implications of the realization that ethnic identity is a variable and not a constant. REFERENCES ABRAMSON,
H. Ethnic Diversity in Catholic America. New York: Wiley. 1973 BACKELAND, L. & J. FRIDERES Franc0 Manitobans and cultural loss: A fourth generation. Prairie Forum, 1976, 2, I-18. BARR, E. A contingency approach to ethnic relations: lessons from the Japanese Canadian experience. In K. Ujimoto and G. Hirabayashi (Eds.), Visible Minorities and Multiculturalism: Asians in Canada. Toronto: Butterworth, 1980. BLISHEN, B. Perceptions of national identity. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 1978, 15, 128-133. BRETON, R. Institutional completeness of ethnic communities and personal relations to immigrants. American Journal of Sociology, 1964, 70, 193-205. BRETON, R. The structure of relationships between ethnic collectivities. In L. Dreidger (ed.), The Canadian Mosaic. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1976. COLEMAN, J. Social inventions. Social Forces, 1970, 49, 163-177. COMEAU, L. & DREIDGER, L. Ethnic opening and closing in an open system: a Canadian example. Social Forces, 1978, 57, 600-620. COMMITTEE OF SOUTH ASIANS/INTERFAITH Immigrant Profiles in Calgary, Alberta. Unpublished manuscript, Calgary, Alberta, 1979. DASHEFSKY, A. And the search goes on: the meaning of relio-ethnic identity and identification. Sociological Analysis, 1972, 33, 239-245
I50
.I. Frideres and S. Goldenberg
DEVOS, G. & ROMANUCCI-ROSS, L. (Eds.) Ethnic Identity: Cultural Continuities and Change. Palo Alto: Mayfield, 1975. DRIEDGER, L. Jewish identity. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1980, 3, 67-88. FOOTE, N. Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 1951, 16, 14-21. FRANCIS, E.K. Interethnic Relations. New York: Elsevier, 1976. FRIDERES, J. Identity in an urban rural context. Human Resources ofAlberta, Volume II, Edmonton, Alberta, 1975. FRIDERES, J. & GOLENDBERG, S. Hyphenated Canadians: comparative analysis of ethnic, regional and national identification of Western Canadian university students. Journal of Ethnic Studies, 1977, 5, 91-100. FRIDERES, J. & GOLDENBERG, S. The situational context of ethnic identity. Unpublished manuscript, 1978, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. FRIDERES, J. AND GOLDSTEIN, J. Jewish-Gentile Intermarriage. Social Compass, 1974, 21, 69-84. FRIDERES, J., DISANTO, J., GOLDENBERG, S & J. HORNA Citizenship Acquisition in Calgary, Alberta, Volumes 1 and II. Secretary of State, Ottawa, 1977. GANS, H. Symbolic ethnicity: the future of ethnic-group and culture in America. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 1979, 2, I-20. GERGAN, K. The Concept ofSeIf. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971. GLAZER, N & MOYNIHAN, P. Behind the Melting Pot. Cambridge, Mass.: Mass. Institute of Technology Press & Harvard University Press, 1963. GOLDENBERG, S. Kinship and Ethnicity Viewed as Adaptive Responses to Location in the Opportunity Structure. Journalof Comparative Family Studies, 1977, 8, 119-166. GORDON, M. Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 1964. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Immigration Policy Perspective. Ottawa, Information Canada, 1974. GREELEY, A. Ethnicity in the United States. New York: Wiley, 1974. ISAJIW, W. Definitions of ethnicity. Ethnicity, 1970, 1. 26-34. ISRSELY, H. Semanticdtfferentiation of meaning:recording the content ofethnic identity of third generation Japanese Americans. Pacific Sociological Association, Spokane, Washington, 1978. KANDO, T. Social Interaction. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1977. LAMBERT. W. A social psychology of bilingualism. Journal of Soc,ial Issues. 1967, 23. 97-103. MACKIE, M. Ethnicity and nationality: how much do they matter to Western Canadians? Presented to CSSA, Fredericton, N.B., June, 1977. MEAD, G. The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 1925, 35, 251-273. PARENTI, M. Ethnic politics and persistence of ethnic identification. In H. Bailey and E. Katz (Eds.), Ethnic Group Politics. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill, 1969. PARSONS, T. The position of identity in a general theory of action. In C. Gordon and K. Gergen (Eds.), The Selfin Social Interaction. New York: Wiley and Sons, 1968.
Ethnic Identit)
151
PONTING, R. & GIBBINS, R. Contemporary prairie perceptions of Canada’s Native People. Prairie Forum, 1977, 2, 57-81. PUTNINS, A. Ethnic identification in second generation Latvians. International Migrations, 1978, 16, 122-130. RADECKI, H. Ethnic Organizational Dynamics: The Polish Group in Canada. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1979. REITZ, J. 7’he Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto: McGraw-Hill-Ryerson Ltd., 1980. S.E.E.R. Social Dislocation of Jasper, Alberta. Parks Canada, Ottawa, 1975. TAYLOR, D. Ethnic identity: some cross-cultural comparisons. In J. Berry and W. Lonner (Eds.), Applied Cross-Cultural Psychology, Amsterdam: Swets and Zeitlinger, 1976. VAN DEN BERGHE, P. Pluralism and the polity: a theoretical exploration. In L. Kuper and M. Smith (Eds.), Pluralism in Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. VAUGHAN, G. Ethnic awareness and attitudes in New Zealand children. In G. Vaughan (Ed.), Racial Issues in New Zealand. Auckland: Akarana Pres, 1972. WEINGROD, A. Recent trends in Israeli ethnicity. Ethnic and Racialstudies, 1979, 2, 55-65. YANCEY, W., E. ERIKSEN & JULIANI, R. Emergent ethnicity: a review and reformulation. American Sociological Review, 43, 391-403. ZAVALLONI, M. Cognitive processes and social identity through focused introspection. European Journal of Social Psychology, 197 1, 1, 235-260.
ABSTRACT
TRANSLATIONS
La prksente communication analyse onze projets de recherche qui tous traitent de l'identitg ethnique. Chacun des projets pose la question de savoir quelle es,t l'importance de l'ethnicite' pour l'individu. Les,resultats obtenus sugg\erent que l'ethnicitg, telle qu'envisagee dans les dits projets de recherche, est de peu d importance pour les Canadiens. L'ethnicitg, cependant, doit &re envisage'e comme une re/ponse favorable aux conditions, prises dans un contexte don&, pour l'acquisition de biens rares et d&i&s. Le point important B noter est qu'il est faux d'affirmer l'importance, our les Canadiens, de l'universalitg et de la Constance de 1P ethnicite/. En este ensayo se analizan once proyectos de investigaci& que tienen coma foco el tema de la identidad e'tnica. Cada estudio indaga sobre la pregunta de cual es la importancia que la etnicidad tiene para el individuo. Los resultados sugieren que la etnicidad, definida dentro de 10s estudios dados, es de poca importancia para 10s canadiences. La etnicidad, sin embargo, debe ser vista coma una respuesta adaptiva a las condiciones que gobiernan el context0 de la adquisicicn de bienes deseables y escasos. Se propone que aque/llas as aserciones que entraiian una importancia constante y universal a la etnicidad, por parte de 10s canadiences, no son verdaderas,