This post is written by Regina Thompson LLM (ADR), C.Med, Mediator, Advisor, Trainer, Educator, practicing in Human Rights-Workplace, Family, Child Protection, Civil, and Community.
Introduction
Geopolitics – international relations influenced by geographical factors[1] play a critical role in conflict management within the context of official multiculturalism.
The ranking of importance of nations to Canada is determined by historical relationships. Borders, alliances, economic interests, and historical tensions play a critical role in the way Canada responds to global conflict situations. An understanding of geopolitical contexts for an immigrant sourcing country in the context of official multiculturalism is, therefore, critical to understanding motivations for, and potential outcomes of conflicts in all areas of practice.
PART I: Migration and Diversity
Canadian policies related to the sourcing of immigrants have a sordid history that can be explained by the existence of the socially constructed concepts of dominance for the settler society – in this case, the English and French majorities. This phenomenon causes and fuels conflicts involving cultural others. With settler society dominance and focus on new immigrants, the original peoples of Canada were either forgotten or forced to integrate into dominant settler culture (“Anglo Conformity”).
Prior to World War II, immigration policy was aimed at supporting economic prosperity, but admittance was based on a racially drawn totem pole topped by Western Europeans, and in descending order, East, Central, and Southern Europeans ahead of Jews, Romani (referred to in the policies of the time as “Gypsies”), Asians, and lastly, Blacks.[2] Restrictive immigration legislation provided the foundation for Canadian immigration laws as they exist today.[3]
Until the end of World War II, immigrants and their children were expected to assimilate into Canadian society. This expectation was backed by the “Anglo-Conformity” ideology. That gave way to the concept of multiculturalism and Canadian citizenship was introduced in 1947. The Multiculturalism Act (“the Act”) advocates for every citizen to be treated equally by the government with the celebration of diversity. The Act also recognizes multicultural heritage and equal rights for all peoples in Canada regardless of race, colour, ethnic origin, religion, and other grounds specified in human rights law.
Remnants of the Anglo-conformist ideology persist in immigration policies because an immigrant’s ability to adapt is awarded points in the qualifying criteria for selection. This signifies the expectation that new immigrants will assimilate into the dominant culture, countering the objectives of official multiculturalism policy.
While some new immigrants to Canada may aspire to become fully assimilated into Canadian society, even some of those who believe themselves to have assimilated, remain outsiders based on entrenched dominant cultural perspectives on “othering” – the determination of who does not belong.
PART II: Diversity and the ADR Systems Design Conundrum
Presented as alternative to rigid judicial processes, ADR raises expectations of its ability to meet conflict resolution needs using methods that deviate from the standard offered by traditional judicial processes.
While ADR broadcasts flexibility, it delivers rigidity because it only mimics conflict resolution methods of the Western world within the diversity of multiculturalism. These methods, accepted as normative, present an extra layer of conflict in the dissonances they create for disputants with divergent meaning-making regimens.
According to Gary Furlong (2005), there is no magic formula that resolves all disputes because conflict situations can be so diverse, and because resolution models are not exclusive representations of “truth.”[4] Despite Furlong’s convictions, in western societies, including Canada, a singular western or northern hemispheric perspective has been most influential in the thinking that underpins ADR practices and has also been instrumental in the development of its frameworks.
In discussing historical and anthropological perspectives on conflict resolution, author S. Merry, in her essay, Mediation in Nonindustrial Societies provides that while a Eurocentric vision of mediation dominates much of North American mediation theory, the practice of involving a respected impartial third-party to mediate between those in conflict has been a strategy for many culturally diverse communities since time immemorial.[5]
Despite the above, some academics maintain that although culture is always a factor in conflict, differences in culture do not have to divide society and, therefore, cultural differences do not have to cause conflict.[6]
While such viewpoints may provide hope and opportunity to work towards inclusiveness, the existence of culturally based and other tensions need acknowledgement before enduring agreements on settlements of such conflicts can be achieved.
The development of ADR models advances with some acknowledgement of Canadian pluralism; however, it still fails to integrate cultural other worldviews. Barriers to inclusive conflict management systems design, left unchallenged, would continue to fuel, and deepen conflicts between dominant and cultural minorities.
PART III: Migrating With Conflict
It is important to note that Immigrant and Refugee source countries may change over time based on global and humanitarian crises. Canada has sourced refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, the Balkans, Iraq, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia, Sudan, Myanmar, Colombia, Bhutan, etc.
On August 6, 2023, globalnews.ca reported that “the politics of northeastern Africa spilled out into a west end Toronto park.”[7] Migrants bring socio-cultural divisions rooted in the upheavals that trigger migration and they continue to adhere to ethnicity-based loyalties. Constructs derived from culture and geography inform the human mindset and, memory feeds the continuation of hostilities, some of which become conflated with conflicts presented to resolution practitioners.
PART IV: Shifting Paradigms Towards Inclusive Service Provision
In his foreword to Costantino and Merchant’s Designing Conflict Management Systems, William Ury states that dispute systems design cannot be imposed and be expected to succeed – that ideally such design emerges from the parties themselves.[8]
Ongoing conflicts around the world and the continued sourcing of refugees from regions in strife, support the position that the roots of conflict are, sometimes, embedded in memories of negative historical relationship dynamics. Conflict systems design must, therefore, factor-in disputant culture, race, geography, and geopolitical power dynamics because these are factors deeply rooted as sources and escalators of conflicts within the diversity of multiculturalism.
Folberg (2004) notes that the emergence of different models of mediation is an indication that within ADR, mediation models are striving to achieve maturity. Continuing change to any system indicates its openness to evolve and to stay relevant while it garners credibility with a broader spectrum of users.[9]
The benefits of such shifts lie in the recognition that multiculturalism is gaining globalized status in an evolving world and ADR models must strive to stay relevant.
This post is written by Regina Thompson LLM (ADR), C./Med, Mediator, Advisor, Trainer, Educator, practicing in Human Rights-Workplace, Family, Child Protection, Civil, and Community.
Reviewed and Edited by the ADRIO Newsletter Blog Committee in collaboration with Staff:
Babara Benoliel (Chair)
Ben Drory
Robyn Jacobson
Kim Parish
Tommy Lam (Staff)
The opinions expressed in the articles featured in this blog are that of the respective writers and do not represent the views of The ADR Institute of Ontario.
[1] Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words. (2023). In Dictionary.com. https://dictionary.com/browse/geopolitics
[2] Multi Culti Canada. (2023, February 22). Multi culti Canada. https://www.multiculturalcanada.ca/
[3] Multi Culti Canada (2023).
[4] Furlong, G. T. (2005). The Conflict Resolution Toolbox: models and maps for analyzing, diagnosing, and resolving conflict. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL29500846M/Conflict_Resolution_Toolbox
[5] Merry, S. E. (1982). The Social Organization of Mediation in Nonindustrial Societies: Implications for Informal Community Justice in America. Parts of this chapter were presented at the Society for Applied Anthropology, March 1979, and the American Society of Criminology, November 1979. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 17–45). https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-041502-1.50006-1
[6] LeBaron, M., & Pillay, V. (2006). Conflict across Cultures: a unique experience of bridging differences. http://ci.nii.ac.jp/ncid/BA89769159. LeBaron and Pillay express the idea that some academics claim cultural differences do not have to cause conflict.
[7] Callan, I. (2023, August 6). An Eritrean festival in Toronto turned violent. Here’s what we know. Globalnews.ca. Retrieved December 20, 2023, from https://globalnews.ca/news/9880574/toronto-earlscourt-park-festival-protest-explainer/
[8] Costantino, C. A., & Merchant, C. S. (1995). Designing Conflict Management Systems: A guide to creating productive and healthy organizations. https://openlibrary.org/books/OL800124M/Designing_conflict_management_systems
[9] Folberg, J., Milne, A., & Salem, P. (2004). Divorce and Family Mediation: Models, Techniques, and Applications. Guilford Press. The authors provide that mediation models are stiving to achieve maturity.