Does the Canadian multiculturalism and ethnic diversity experience withstand close scrutiny in light of a major study by an American academic?

Or has Canada’s widely-admired approach to integration and inclusion been following an unworkable or socially damaging path over the past half century?

Do Canadians, of whatever ethnic or cultural origin, trust each other—or even trust themselves? And can that level of trust be the foundation of how our society moves forward in the 21st Century?

For Canadian critics who share long-held disdain for multiculturalism and diversity, the recently-published, widely-publicized study by Harvard University professor Robert Putnam clearly demonstrates that we’ve been following the wrong course.

For Jack Jedwab, executive director of the Association for Canadian Studies, many issues raised—with admitted reluctance—by Putnam have little bearing here. But his observations on the need for greater efforts toward social integration, Jedwab agrees, are genuinely valid in the Canadian context.               

“Diversity, at least in the short run, seems to bring out the turtle in all of us,” Putnam writes. His concern is that diversity, at least in United States, has become a threat to social cohesion and in a rapidly diversifying society native-born citizens become unnerved by what they view as new and different.

American media, plus opponents of diversity on both sides of the border, immediately seized on Putnam’s findings from interviews with close to 30,000 Americans and its conclusion that diversity fails in its promise of building a stronger society. Those harbouring reservations about increased ethnic diversity claim policies encouraging immigration harm America’s social fabric.

Putnam once attempted to apply his theories to Canada, but his research has little bearing on what’s happening here, Jedwab argues. His focus on levels of trust between and within ethnic and cultural groups in the U.S. is not supported by research on attitudes in Canada, says Jedwab, who has conducted his own detailed studies on Canadians’ levels of trust.

“The big paradox here, if you follow Putnam’s logic, he’s basically saying the melting pot model isn’t working anymore,” Jedwab suggests. But critics in Canada who cite the Harvard professor’s finding as mirroring Canada’s experience make a flawed comparison.

“Putnam has not conducted a study in Canada,” Jedwab points out. “Canada is not a melting pot and Putnam is arguing that the melting pot is not working. He’s not saying the multiculturalism isn‘t working.”

During a 2002 presentation of the Canadian Ethnic Diversity Study that Jedwab co-authored, Putnam managed to include four questions based on his theories, focusing heavily on the issue of trust among communities and individuals.

“But when the results (of his questions) came out, they didn’t support Putnam’s hypothesis,” says Jedwab. “He’s saying it’s where ethnic diversity persists as a phenomenon geographically that trust and civic engagement are lower.”

Putnam’s work tends to focus on attitudes of ethnic groups when they congregate in certain area – usually large cities where visible and ethnic minorities predominate.

“It’s not just that Mexicans or blacks or whites in these cities, where there’s high levels of ethnic diversity, don’t trust others,” Jedwab says. “They don’t trust people within their group either.”

But that’s where Canadian critics of multiculturalism and diversity go astray in quoting Putnam and applying his findings universally, he says. “They have no evidence of this phenomenon in Canada.”

But whether or not it has to do with xenophobia, questioning comfort levels of Canadians with diversity is hardly new.  

“People seem to feel there’s some new challenge relative to accommodating diversity. Actually, residential segregation was much stronger historically than it is today, much stronger,” Jedwab says. “For the populations of European origins—Jews, Italians, Ukrainians, Greeks—they had high levels of residential concentration...today we call them ghettos.” 

Putnam, he feels, has more relevance when exploring the issue of civic engagement—or the lack of—by ethnic communities. “That’s more relevant than trust,” he says. “People don’t trust government as much – and sometimes a dose of cynicism isn’t bad.” 

Jedwab also doesn’t dispute that when immigrants first come to Canada, they stick together. “I think that’s true and I don’t think that’s necessarily a negative thing. Initially, I think there’s something normal about groups ‘hunkering down’ (a phrase favoured by Putnam) or sticking together, working together collectively to try to deal with the challenges of adaptation.”

Where it becomes negative is when those groups become marginalized. That’s where Jedwab finds common ground with Putnam and how his findings fit the Canadian multicultural model. 

“If you look at our policy, it’s promoting things that would be described as integrationist and are consistent with what Putnam is suggesting.  He’s saying more cross-cultural understanding, eliminating obstacles and barriers to integration.”

Like every other pluralist society, whether Canada has been fully successful in some of those areas is a central question.

“We need to ask ourselves whether we’ve been successful...in the workplace especially, in affecting enough change to increase mobility opportunities,” Jedwab suggests.

In a recent talk to an employment agency, Jedwab asked what the biggest obstacle to securing employment or advancement or succeeding in self-employment was. The answer he got was “networks, before education very often,” he said. “Who you know or having the right contacts or connections and understanding how to interact is crucial.

“And that’s where I really appreciate what Putnam attempts to frame in his study,” Jedwab adds. “There are certain communities that continually come out as being more vulnerable...these are communities that are objects of Putnam’s attention. He calls it social capital, but it’s the whole issue of networking.”

So can we or can’t we all just get along?