Criticizing the Cultural Mosaic

In many western countries the promotion of cultural acceptance has become intertwined with the strong encouragement of groups and communities to maintain and cultivate their differences. Terminology such as the “Cultural Mosaic” in Canada, celebrates this mentality. The concept of the Cultural Mosaic, in which each culture remains distinct, and the pushing of individuals to maintain their “uniqueness” have become synonymous with the concept of multiculturalism, when in fact they are not.

There are many criticisms of the Cultural Mosaic, including the fact that it fosters the stereotypical view of cultures as immutable and irrevocably different. It does not acknowledge the intersectionality of modes of identification and sees each culture as a fixed island, separate from all other islands, rather than fluid and oftentimes blurring into each other in the global context. Oftentimes, rather than helping immigrants feel at home and part of the identity of the country they are in, the Cultural Mosaic view leads to the concept of “to other the other” and the “ghettoization” of cultural communities and individuals (Benessaieh, 2010; Kamboureli, 1996; Parekh, 1997; Schaub, 2002).

Before I go on, and before you comment, be aware that I write this as a first generation Canadian. Additionally, this was part of my doctoral study and included in-depth interviews with other first generation Canadians. Here is the LINK to the entire study, which includes complete references.

I am aware that most people will never read the entire study, so I decided to write this condensed article in order to allow the information to be more mainstream-accessible, as it has impacted many immigrants and continues to impact many others.

Human beings learn and develop within their role in any given community and external influences, over time, are adopted as personal characteristics. It thus goes to reason that altering our exposure to culture will over time lead to an altered cognitive state (Kurt, 2020; Vygotsky, 2012). The more an individual is exposed to a new culture, the more their cognition is altered. We simply will not remain static, in a simplified cultural bubble.

Because of the various extents to which people alter post immigration their acculturation is defined in more than one way.

To start with, the term acculturation, when referring to an immigrant, simply means any and all changes that may occur in an immigrant’s values and beliefs due to their first hand contact with a new culture (Smokowski, 2018). Acculturation can lead to the formation of a number of different cultural identities, among them:

Unicultural: The person chooses to define themselves as that of one specific culture. For example, being a Polish immigrant in Canada, I would choose to define myself as either just Polish or just Canadian.

Bi-cultural: The person defines themselves as a combination of two cultures. For example, if I defined myself as a Polish-Canadian.

Multi-cultural: The person defines themselves as a combination of three or more cultures. For example, my parents immigrated through Germany, so I would be multi-cultural if I defined myself as a Polish-German-Canadian.

Trans-cultural: The person does not define their identity as that of any particular culture(s). They take on aspects of any culture, based on a self-definition of what a positive aspect is, rather than a particular pre-occupation with any specific culture as a whole. They see their values as intersecting nationality, profession, social status, gender, age and family positionality. This is in fact how both I, and the majority of my participants saw ourselves. This does not mean that we keep zero connection with our cultural roots. It simply means that we are not pre-occupied by them. Abu-Rayya’s 2009 study on young immigrants in France found that 16% of them defined themselves simply as European or World citizens.

(Choney et.al., 1995; E. Berry, 1997; Kim and Shammas, 2019; Stoessel et al., 2014; Wagner, 2016)

There are multiple factors that can influence whether an immigrant defines themselves as uni-, bi-, multi- or trans-cultural. However, one simple factor is time. Most studies have found significant changes in cultural identification over time.

(Oh et al., 2002; Shim & Schwartz, 2007; Choi & Thomas, 2009; Gong et al., 2003)

We all know that time affects all. It affects our maturity and thus our perceptions, our memory, our needs, wants and as they say, time even heals wounds.

So, you can see how it can be aggravating to immigrants such as myself, who have been in Canada since elementary school, to get invited to make perogis at a multi-cultural fair. It is even more annoying when a person for some reason assumes that my friends must all be Polish, simply based on my last name, and then acts surprised when they find out that my social circle is what one might call ‘mainstream’.

FYI. Cuisine is very multicultural in most countries these days. A Japanese person might make better perogis than a Polish person, and in the same vein a Polish person might prefer sushi over perogis. And when it comes to friends, I would hope that all people, regardless of nationality, choose their friends based on individual characteristics that they admire, and not country of descent. So, please, stop acting ignorant and stereotyping with the misguided intent of being ‘culturally sensitive’.

North America’s perception of ‘multiculturalism’ is often based on the perception that culture is a static thing, with strict borders separating one culture from another. This type of multiculturalism stereotypes cultures and ethnicities by stating, “We are this because we are North American and you are this other thing because you are not.” In my personal opinion based on my discussions with study participants, this feels like a misguided type of patriotism which fails to consider that what is North American may be the result of current economics and politics and as those change over time, so may the definition of a North American. For example, social values in Canada have changed significantly over the last fifty years, with the Canadian Identity becoming tied to openness and multiculturalism only over time. Up until 1948 Japanese-Canadians were not even allowed to vote. In fact, Aboriginal people were not granted the vote until 1960 (Government of Canada, 2012). Yet in 2022, Canadians considered Indigenous Peoples as one of the most important aspects of the Canadian identity (Parkin, 2022).

No culture is static. As my study participants pointed out, the cultures in their countries of origin also develop and change over time and differences in values and mores can be as much generational as they are cultural.

Many of my participants discussed the fact that their country of origin is not the same as it used to be, nor is it the same throughout. Annie*, an immigrant from Iran talked about the fact that she is extremely different from many Iranians in Iran, not because she moved away from her Iranian norms but because she disagrees with the historical changes in norms in Iran over the last fifty years, and in this way became different from other Iranians. For example, Annie explained that “We allow our sons to choose their faith, as Iranians used to be able to do, (though, that is no longer the case).”

Culture can also be vastly different between locations within a country. To put this in perspective, think of how different a left leaning person from Manhattan might be from a right leaning person from Kentucky? Culture is a compilation of beliefs and attitudes, which would most likely be vastly different between two such Americans. Not only that, but even their fashions and staple food choices would be different. Think of how you might react if you were from New York and visiting Spain, and suddenly a Spanish person asked you to join a multicultural fair and make fried chicken to represent the US as a whole, because the only people they know from the US are southerners who eat fried chicken and so assume that all Americans must.

Similarly, a person from a small coastal town in Spain might be fundamentally different than someone from a large, landlocked city such as Madrid. Even their pronunciation, diet and clothing might differ. And a right wing Spaniard may have a fundamentally different outlook on life than a left wing one.

While immigrant self identities will change over time in the new country, not all immigrants will come to define themselves as transcultural. Some may retain a uni-cultural identity while others may come to feel distinctly bi-cultural. There are numerous socio-economic, personal and cultural factors that contribute to what a person will come to define themselves as culturally post-immigration that there just isn’t enough space to discuss here. However, I do want to touch on the intersectionality of influences on behavior and choices. For example, many articles discuss both home culture and level of acculturation in a new country as affecting immigrant choices. However, are choices always necessarily based on culture and acculturation? For example, because of the devaluation of credentials from their home country when they immigrate, many immigrants experience underemployment, unemployment and downward social mobility. Financial strain is known to have a detrimental impact on what choices a person makes in all aspects of life, regardless of what cultural background a person is from (Guo, 2013; Krahn et al., 2000, Stoll and Johnson,2007).

When it comes to their personal growth in the new country, based on my discussions with the study participants, immigrants often face pressures from their ethnocultural and religious communities to not accept new ways of thinking and being. North America’s current “celebration of differences” then adds to the pressure for newcomers to remain static, while they are simultaneously trying to integrate into a new way of life. This is a conundrum in the form of ‘grow but don’t change’ and ‘be a part of our society, but don’t be like us.’

Immigrants face life questions, doubts and confusion in life just like anyone. However, the immigrant’s doubts often have more intersectionality to them, making them more difficult to answer. These doubts can grow and cause a lot of internal anxiety if mainstream society does not support the immigrants in their personal level of acculturation — whether they move towards a bi-cultural, multi-cultural or transcultural self-identity.

Both our society and policy makers need to move away from static views of culture, which do little besides stereotyping cultures. Rather than focusing on promoting immigrants’ retaining their roots, we should focus on simply assisting immigrants in growing as persons. Each immigrant has the right to decide to what degree they will change and acculturate and that decision will not be based on what either unresearched, woke fads or governments promote, but rather on the financial and social opportunities that an immigrant is given.

As individuals we can all start by simply getting to know people as singular and distinctive humans, rather than starting out by wondering where they are from and building a mental picture of their clothing, diet, moral and societal beliefs and even socio-economic circumstances from locational stereotypes. These stereotypes and these Cultural Mosaics do nothing but tokenize for our own, personal benefit; they allow us to feel “accepting” without actually putting work into knowing the individual.

We need to see and appreciate the complexities, rather than pushing for simplifications. An immigrant feels gaslit when they are proud of their growth but are told that they shouldn’t grow because it means they are assimilating. As immigrants we are pushed to stay in one spot, whether we want to or not. Sometimes, in their quest to preserve the over-advertised Cultural Mosaic North Americans place pressure on us to maintain a persona of ‘uniqueness’. At times we feel like the token, multi-cultural friends, and worse yet, like that is all people want us to be.

LINK to full, published study and APA list of references.