Demography, National Myths, and Political Origins: Perceiving Official Multiculturalism in Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT/RESUME Popular and academic discourses perceive Quebec's approach to pluralism, called interculturalism, as being very different from Canada's multiculturalism. is seen as fragmenting; interculturalism as dialogical and unifying. Yet the hallmark policies of both governments are, in fact, very similar in their approach to cultural pluralism. In policy terms, interculturalism and multiculturalism strike a similar balance between individual rights, the accommodation of cultural difference, and the promotion of social cohesion. Why, then, is there this divergence between perception and policy? Unpacking both, this paper fosters a accurate understanding of the terms of the multiculturalism/ interculturalism debate. It argues that in this case, demographic and historical contexts as well as national mythologizing are important in explaining popular and academic discourse than substantive policy differences. Selon les discours populaire et universitaire, l'approche du Quebec en matiere de pluralisme, appelee interculturalisme, differe grandement du multiculturalisme canadien. Le multiculturalisme est percu comme une politique de fragmentation, et l'interculturalisme comme une politique dialogique et unificatrice. Pourtant, en realite, les politiques propres a chacun de ces gouvernements en ce qui a trait au pluralisme culturel se ressemblent beaucoup. Les politiques en matiere d'interculturalisme et de multiculturalisme concilient de facon semblable les droits individuels, l'acclimatation des differences culturelles et la valorisation d'une cohesion sociale. Alors pourquoi cette divergence entre la perception et la politique? Grace a l'examen de ces deux politiques, l'article vise a mieux faire comprendre les fondements du debat entre le multiculturalisme et l'interculturalisme. L'auteure allegue que dans ce cas precis, pour expliquer les discours populaire et universitaire, il est preferable d'etudier le contexte demographique et historique, ainsi que la fabrication de mythes nationaux, plutot que la difference fondamentale entre les politiques. INTRODUCTION Canada has multiculturalism; Quebec, interculturalism. Exploring the differences between the two with a friend from Trois-Rivieres, wandering down an eclectic Montreal street, weaving in and out of French and English, he turned to me to talk closely, is interculturalism. C'est l'echange. Multiculturalism is like this, he said and, although still at my side, he turned to face away from me. It's implicit in the words. As my friend suggested, lexicology helps us understand differences between the two labels: inter, means between, among, amid (OED [Oxford English Dictionary] 1989, vol. VII, 1081), reflecting the idea of exchange, dialogue, cultural reciprocity; multi-, hints at this: more than one, several, many (OED 1989, vol. X, 75), implying a mere coexistence, a separate togetherness. This implied difference is pervasive in Quebec's popular and academic discourse on Canadian multiculturalism. Listening to Radio-Canada or reading Le Devoir quickly reveals a gentle mocking and sometimes derision of Canada's approach to cultural pluralism. comes off as politically correct, culturally relative, ghettoizing, and atomizing, all at the expense of building a common, robust political culture. In contrast, Quebec's interculturalism is presented as dialogical and integrative, a common social project. It is not at all clear, however, whether these labels, interculturalism and multiculturalism, also reflect substantive political or sociological differences. Having worked in government with multiculturalism policy in English Canada and interculturalism in Quebec, my strong sense was that the policies are not different enough to justify the lively banter that characterizes the political/intellectual/media discourse. To establish whether a gap between perception and policy exists, this paper adopts a Kymlickan vocabulary typical to the study of liberal pluralism: individual equality and autonomy, group cultural identity (national and polyethnic), and social cohesion. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".