40204484 multiverse

8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

1/20

Canadian International Council

What Are We? From a Multicultural to a Multiversal CanadaAuthor(s): Robert LathamSource: International Journal, Vol. 63, No. 1, Diasporas: What It Now Means to Be Canadian(Winter, 2007/2008), pp. 23-41Published by: Canadian International CouncilStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484.

Accessed: 08/04/2013 14:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian International Councilis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

International Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.192.108.45 on Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:45:11 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cichttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/40204484?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cic

8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

2/20

R o b e r t

a t h a m

hat

r e

w e

From

a multicultural

o a multiversalCanada

Samuel

Huntington's

most recent

book,

Who Are We?

The

Challenges

to

America's

National

Identity,

contends that the future of American

democ-

racy

rests on

the

prospect

of

defending

the

Anglo-Protestant

culture that

has been centre

stage

in

US

political

history.

Many

commentators have

rightly

questioned

the

premises

of this

book.

Rather

than

join

in,

let me

point

your

attention to

Huntington's

use of the

pronoun

who. f s a choice

that leaves

little

option

but to do

exactly

as

Huntington

wants: to make the

issue of an

overarching

ethnonational

identity

the

principal problem.

The

title of this

essay

is Whatare we? The

simple

substitution of what

or

who

makes the

principal

problem

our

understanding

of how what we call

Canada is

organized

in

sociopolitical

and ethical terms.

Huntington's

for-

mulation

takes this for

granted:

the

core

issue

at

play

for

him is

whether the

right

who WASP ethnocultural

identity

can remain central

enough

to

support

his

what the American liberal

republic.

Robert Latham is director of the York Centre of International and Security Studies at

York

University.

The

author

acknowledges

the

support

of

the

International

Development

Research

Centre to conduct this work.

|

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007/08 |

23

|

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

3/20

I

Robert Latham

|

I have purposefully left in the pronoun we, not to sneak in a who

but to

emphasize

two

things.

First,

that when

considering

ourselves

as a

collectivity

within

the national social

space

and

political

community

that is

called

Canada,

we do

so

in

terms of the

question

of what we are as

a

Canadian

society

rather

than who

we are

as Canadians.

A

second

-

and

far

more controversial reason

I

keep

the we s to

question

the

possibility

of

some kind

of

unified,

comprehensive

understanding

of we at all.

Indeed,

a

what

an

be conceived in a

highly

pluralized

and

fragmented

fashion

-

an

option

not

easily

available

in

answers to the

question

who we

are.

It

may be the case that understandings of what we are splinter along the axes

of

a series of two

Canadas hat not

only

include

the

one associated

with

the

worlds of

Francophone

and

Anglophone

or First Nations and

European

settlers,

but also the one that

distinguishes people

and

communities that

are

open

to the

very

question

of what we are?

embracing

difference

in

an

essentially cosmopolitan

world view from another Canada that is

dosed

to

this

question

and which

seeks

to

protect

itself

against

difference

and

cosmopolitanism.

Focusing

on a what s

hardly

unusual. Political

theorists,

at least

from

Hobbes onward,have done this ostensibly because principles and logics of

social

organization provide

a

powerful

justification

for

making

claims

about

how best to

order a

polity.

This

tendency

is far from

just

theoretical

or

aca-

demic:

in

Canada and

elsewhere,

those

responsible

for

policy

and

political

organization justify

action

based on claims about the nature of social life.

Among

the

most

central

understandings

of the nature of Canadian

society

is that it

comprises many

cultures and this

thereby justifies

policies

and

laws

associated with

multiculturalism.

I will

argue

that the

concept

of mul-

ticulturalism

actually

does

not

answer the

question

of what

Canada

s,

and

as a result we need to consider policies that are better suited to a more accu-

rate

understanding

of

the nature of

Canadian

society. My

overall

goal

is

to

suggest

that we

can move

beyond

a multicultural frame

and consider the

nature of the

social life

in

the

territory

we call

Canada

in

all its

complexity,

taking

account of

our far

greater

awareness of the

complex

interweave of

forms of

life

operating

at

varying

scales from

neighbourhoods

to transbor-

der

networks.

I

believe

we can use this

very open

conception

of the social

space

we associate

and

identify

as

Canada as a basis to

build effective

poli-

cy.

This

suggests

the

possibility

of

not

just

adjusting

or

amending

our

understanding and assumptions about multiculturalism, but working with

a

different

understanding

and set of

assumptions.

My point

is not to

reject

|

24

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

4/20

I

What are we?

|

multiculturalismper se, even if it has flaws, but to move beyond it in a pos-

itive sense.

If

effective

and

just

policy

is a more

likely

outcome when

based

on a more accurate model

and

understanding

of

society,

then it

behooves

us to

pursue

that

greater

accuracy.

I

also want to

suggest

that what I call

multiversal

society

is

something

to

be

actively supported

and advanced

by

civil

society

and

government.

The

existence

and

recognition

of that form of

society

can be a

good

in itself. To

this

end,

I will

argue,

there are basic

policies

and

commitments,

such as the

advancement

of

multiple

citizenship

in

Canada

and

worldwide,

which can

make a huge differenceto the development of a multiversal society (theway

that

single

national

citizenship

itself has been so critical to the

formation

of

nation-states).

The reason

to take this task

on now is that

it

is dear that

many

people

in

countries

like Canada are

increasingly

anxious

about the difference

pro-

duced

by widening

immigration

and transnationalism

and

intensifying

energies

in the assertion

of

rights

in

many

realms

from

religion

to sexuali-

ty.

It is also

more

readily apparent

that

the

categories

we have used

to model

difference

such as ethnic

culture

or

majority/minority

group

are too

limiting: individualsareincreasingly understandingthemselves in far more

complex

and

intersecting

ways, involving,

for

example:

class, locale,

con-

sumption,

political

orientation,

sexual

preference,

and

religious

affiliation.

Rather than

be content

with

using

models from an earlier

period

of

politi-

cal

development

to contend

with the

politics

of difference

in

the

21st cen-

tury,

Canada

can

innovatively

get

ahead of

the

curve

and rethink itself as an

open,

transnational

society.

FROM

MULTICULTURALISM

O MULTIVERSALISM

By now many of us concerned with multiculturalism are familiar with the

criticisms

that have

been levelled

against

it from both the

left and the

right.

Criticisms

have included

the

ghettoization

of

new

immigrants;

the solidifi-

cation

of

Anglo-Canadian

culture as

a

norm;

the established

of a

culture

hierarchy;

he commodification

of

-

and fixation

on

-

culture;

the

papering

over of

crucial

class and

general

differences

and

inequalities;

and

the

pur-

suit

of a false

unity

and common

Canadian

identity.1

Rather

than focus on

1 The work

associated

with these

critiques

is far too

large

to list here. Readers

inter-

ested in critical and supportive perspectives

on

multiculturalism will

be well served

by

the

thoughtful

and

comprehensive

discussion

in

Gerald

Kernerman,

Multicultural

Nationalism:

Civilizing

Difference,

Constituting

Community (Vancouver:

UBC

Press,

2005).

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

25

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

5/20

I

Robert Latham

|

such critiques I want to make two basic points. First,even if we have con-

cerns

about the

instrumental uses and

sociopolitical

effects of multicultur-

alism as an

ideology

and a

policy,

we can still

acknowledge

that Canada is

multicultural and the commitment

to multiculturalism

put

in

place

in the

early

1970s

-

while

not to

everyone's

liking

was an innovation

in

state-

society

relations.2

Second,

while we

may

recognize

the truism that Canada is multicul-

tural,

many

of

the criticisms

argue

directly

or

suggest

indirectly

that Canada

is much

more than

just

a

multicultural social formation. It is

multiracial,

multidass, multigendered, multisexual, multilocal (from rural to urban,

from North

Toronto to Harbourfront

Toronto).

It

is

multipolitical,

multire-

ligious,

multilegal-status,

multilingual,

multihistorical

(within

lives and

across

communities),

and

multiprofessional.

It

is

multigenerational,

multi-

status

(from temporary

worker to

citizen),

and

multiscalar

(with

lives real-

ized at difference

scales,

some which

remain more or less within a

single

province,

while others

reach

regularly

across borders and

oceans).

The

list

is not

exhaustive and

perhaps expands

far out to

the horizon when

we

con-

sider all the

mixed

formations,

such as

hybrid-ethnicities

(e.g.,

Chino-

Latinos)resulting from mixed marriages or hybrid spatial forms growing

out

of a

mix

of urban and

suburban

in

the new

in-betweencities that sur-

round

many

of

Canada'surban

centres.3

2 I

am

especially

aware

here of the

concerns

of

people

in

Quebec

since

1971

about

dilution

along

the cultural axis in

the move from bi- to

multi-cultural.

See,

for exam-

ple,

Richard

J.F.

Day,

Multiculturalism

and The

History

of

Candian

Diversity

(Toronto:

University

of

Toronto

Press,

2002).

3

On mixed

marriages,

seethe recent research

by

Minelle

Mahtani,

Interrogating

the

hyphen-nation:

Canadian

Mixed

race women and

multicultural

policy,

in

Sean Hier

and B. Singh Bolaria, eds., Identity and Belonging: Rethinking Race and Ethnicity in

Canadian

Society

(Toronto:

Canadian

Scholar's

Press,

2007),

124-56.

On in-between

spaces,

see

the work of

the

city

institute

at York

University

at

www.yorku.ca.

I

26

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

6/20

I

What are we?

|

Of course, on one level, there is a cultural dimension to everything I

mentioned.4

Indeed,

it

certainly

helps simplify

matters to reduce the over-

whelming

array

of social

domains, identities,

and

spaces

to varieties of

cul-

ture. But it is

the

huge

differences and

multiplicity implied by

the seem-

ingly

infinite

everythings

n

a

society

that

I

want

to

emphasize

should

be

taken

into account

on their own terms when

thinking

about

the

nature of

Canadian

society.

A small

town,

for

instance,

has a

culture,

but it also has

an

economy,

political organization,

one or more

religious

communities,

and

a

particulargeography.

Each of these

many

factors

may

find

expression

in the town's culture but what is expressed has its own force and logic.

An

important

reason

not to be satisfied with

one

single pivot

like cul-

ture to anchor

the difference and

multiplicity

that constitutes Canada

s that

we

can

help

avoid

trying

to fit all the

complexity

and

changeability

of the life

of individuals

that

can be identified

on one level as Caribbean-Canadian

into an

overarching

concept

like Caribbean-Canadian

culture. Not

only

might

an individual

understand

his life

in

Canada

through

her

race,

but

also

her

class,

sexuality,

neighbourhood,

and

political

connections

to the

Caribbean.

She

might

also alter

these

understandings,

positions,

and relat-

ed practices throughout her life or even in the same year. The same could

be said

for a

group

within

the so-called Caribbean-Canadian

ommunity.5

And

while

legal

frameworks

such

as the Canadian

charter of

rights

and

freedoms

can

provide

protections

and

the basis for claims

along

many

vec-

4

See

Will

Kymlicka, Finding

Our

Way: Rethinking

Ethnocultural

Relations

in

Canada

(New

York: Oxford

University

Press,

1998),

chapter

5.

This

implies

that we can

address other

dimensions

of

human

experience

and

society,

sexuality,

or

race,

through

the lens of culture. To my mind this is a misguided attempt to preserve the

primacy

of

multiculturalism

as the

best

approach

for

dealing

with

social difference.

Critiques

of the

attempt

to

reduce the

complexity

of societies

and identities

to culture

have come

from

varying

quarters,

including

the critical social

theorist

Shela

Benhabib,

The

Claims of Culture:

Equality

and

Diversity

in

the Global

Era

(Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press,

2002)

as well as

the liberal

political philosopher

Brian

Barry,

Culture

and

Equality:

An

Egalitarian

Critique

of

Multiculturalism

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University

Press,

2001).

5

While

Kymlicka

reads

Neil Bissondath's

Selling

Illusions:

The Cult

of

Multiculturalism

in

Canada

(Toronto: Penguin

Books,

1994),

as

chiefly

complaining

about multiculturalism's ghettoization of immigrant groups, I read him as chiefly

complaining

about

being

forced

to live his life

through

the cultural-ethnic

category

of

Caribbean-Canadian.

I

International

ournal |

Winter

2007-08

|

27

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

7/20

I

Robert Latham

|

tors from sexual preference to disability, charters are not proactive pro-

grammatic

policy

like the multiculturalism act.

We

can

shrug

our

heads and

say

that

taking

into

account

all this com-

plexity

and

multiplicity

is

too

much even to

begin

to

fathom,

let alone sort

out as a basis for

organizing

Canada

politically.

The first

part

of

this

objec-

tion

has

merit: it is

unreasonable to

expect

a

coherent,

structured

portrait

of

society

once we

open up

our frame to take the

full

range

of

multiplicity

into

account. But

I

would

argue

that

attempts

to

create

such

carefully

structured

portraits

are

really

attempts

to contain

social

complexity

in

some

concep-

tion that is only partialat best. Ratherthan be satisfied with these partial

portraits

(a

multicultural or a unified

Canada)

we can

just accept

that

we are

a

multiverse

made

up

not

just

of

many

identities

and

perspectives,

but also

many

specific

domains of action and

practice

from

health and education

to

the

environment,

and that all

these

many

universes

are

changeable

to

vary-

ing degrees.

If it

is true that

political

theorists and

policymakers

start

with a model

of

society

that is

typically

used as a

point

of reference for

building

a

theory

or

policy,

what

happens

if we

treat

that

model of

society

as

an

open,

variable

conception that always presents itself as ultimately impenetrable? The

question

what are

we? should be seen as a

recurring

or even

permanent

problem

to be

addressed,

rather

than a

question

to be answered

in the inter-

est of

moving

on

with

political

theorizing

or

policymaking.6

In

this sense

I

am

asking

that we

keep

the

question

what

are we?

in

constant

motion.

Thus,

multiversality

is first a claim that no

macro-conceptualization

can

realistically represent

the

basic structure of

society.

The

term

multiversal

society

represents

a

conceptual place-holder

for

a

complex, overlapping,

inconsistent

social formation

that

we are otherwise

often content

to call

society or Canada.7Multiversalism does not try to fix meaning, but to pro-

6

Despite

the effort of

theorists like Iris

Young,

Inclusion and

Democracy

(New

York:

Oxford

University

Press,

2000),

to forestall the

typical

fixity

in

theorizing,

it continues

today

in

the

work,

for

example,

of

Bhikhu

Parekh,

Rethinking

Multiculturalism:

Cultural

Diversity

and

Political

Theory

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University

Press,

2000).

7

In

this then

I

agree

with

social theorists such as

Ernesto

Laclau,

New Reflection on

the

Revolution of Our

Time

(London

and New York:

Verso,

1990),

89-92,

who con-

tend

that

the view of

society

as

an

intelligible

totality

is

essentialist and

misleading.

This does not mean that

we have to

agree

with

Margaret

Thatcher when she

quipped

there is no such thing as society, meaning to assert that we should worry less about

the

welfare of

the British

people

as a

collective.

My point

is that we can

understand

this

collective

in

all its difference

and

multiplicity

as multiversal.

I

28

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

8/20

I

What are we?

|

vide a conceptual frame for individuals and groups to navigate democratic

contestations

and life choices. A multiverse is

never

complete,

and is never

knowable or

transparent.

And

yet

I have the nerve to ask for

government

action based on such an

understanding

of Canada?

Moreover,

I am

asking people

who

are

living

under the

authority

of the unified Canadian

state,

in a

distinct,

bounded ter-

ritory

with

national

symbols,

media,

and

systems

of

infrastructure,

to

rec-

ognize

themselves

in

this

disjointed

and

potentially

confusing

way. My

will-

ingness

to ask

this of

policymakers

and

publics

is

not

only

based on the

belief that this is a more honest and comprehensive understanding of life

in Canada.

It also holds the

promise

of

opening

the

way

toward

important

social and

political

innovations that

will

establish Canadaas a

global

leader

in

rethinking

how to

help organize

life in an

increasingly

transnational 21st

century.

In that

context,

part

of the task of the state is to undertake action

that

will

facilitate

complexity

and

multiplicity.

Before

I

go

on to

suggest

some

steps

in

that

regard,

I will first

try

to

clarify why

we need the

term multiverse and what are the

advantages

of

thinking

of

Canada

in a multiversal

way. Why

bother

with

the

term multi-

verse? I think this somewhat strange and awkwardword as multicultur-

al

ikely

sounded

decades

ago

is

necessary.8

For some the word diversi-

ty

might

do,

given

that the term

multiversity

s

quite proximate

to the

term

diversity.

However,

while

diversity

and

multiversity

have similar

meanings

associated

with

difference

along

many

vectors from class

to

gen-

der,

the word

multiverse

is more

closely

related

to the world

universe,

the

point

being

that

the use of

the term multiverse

is to

convey

that there

are

many

universes

(understood

in

this context

as,

for

instance,

a domain of

activity

like

healthcare,

a discrete

public

sphere

realized

through

a

busy,

robust internet forum, a locale such as a town, or a form of community that

might

emerge

out

of a women's

rights

movement).9

Indeed,

in a multiverse

8 William

James

was the

first known user of

this term to

convey

the

need

to under-

stand

that

the world is made

of a

plurality

of

perspectives

and

subjectivities.

See

William

James,

The one and

the

many,

Pragmatism:

A

New Name

for Some Old

Ways

of

Thinking

(New

York:

Longman

Green and

Co.,1907):

49-63.

Since then the

term

has

been used

mostly

in

natural

science

to describe

a

reality

composed

of mul-

tiple

universes

and

-

in a similar fashion

-

in

science fiction.

9

The notion

of

multiple public spheres

in the same

country

is

developed by Nancy

Fraser,

Rethinking

the

public

sphere:

A contribution to the

critique

of

actually

existing

democracy,

in

Craig

Calhoun,

ed.,

Habermas and

the Public

Sphere

(Cambridge,

MA:

MIT

Press,

1992),

109-42.

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

29

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

9/20

I

Robert Latham

|

you do not just have diversityacross one universe, but diversitywithin and

across

many

overlapping

and

intersecting

universes,

so that

there are a

seemingly

infinite

variety

of

views,

life

trajectories,

and identities.

Just

as multiculturalism and

diversity

fail

to

convey

what is

meant

by

multiversalism,

the

terms

hybridity,pluralism,

and

cosmopolitanism

also

fall short. As indicated

above,

hybridity implies

a

mixing

and

crossing

of

various identities and dimensions of life

i.e.,

working

class

immigrants

that

otherwise hold

together

as

integral

on their own terms.

In the multi-

versal

frame,

the

point

is

to allow for

both the

hybrid

and

non-hybrid.10

On one level multiversality s, like multiculturalism,merely one partic-

ular form of or

approach

within

pluralism,

the latter

being

in this funda-

mental

sense

the

basic

assumption

that

any

given

social and

political

for-

mation should be

thought

of

in

terms of

multiplicity

and difference.

The

problem

is that

pluralism

taken

in

this sense is far too

abstract and

gener-

al to

convey

the

specific

points

about multiversalism

I

have

already

made.

Indeed,

pluralism

typically

takes

form as a

specific

theory

about

the

nature

of democratic

politics. (Historically,

n

the US

in the

1950s,

it

focused on

the role

of

interest

groups

in

politics;

in

Britain

in the first decades of the

20th century,it focused on the power of nonstate social organization. )The

ways

we

might

imagine

a

politics

of multiversalism

will

surely overlap

with

the

politics

of

pluralism.

like the other

terms,

cosmopolitanism

has

important

affinities

with

multiversalism,

given

that

I

assume that individuals

positively disposed

to

the Canadian multiverse will

be

cosmopolitans.

That

is,

they

will be

open

and

supportive

of difference and

willing

to share

social

space

with

groups

and

individuals with all sorts of identities and

ways

of

being,

if

not also

will-

ing

to

participate

n and

affiliate with their diverse universes.12

However,

it

io

I am

using

hybrid

here to

represent

social forms where there is a clear

identity

of

mixture like Latin

jazz,

Ukrainian-Portuguese,

or

gay

South Asians.

I

recognize

the

point

that

every

form

ultimately

is

hybrid

because of historical and concurrent

influ-

ences that

are not

highlighted

in

an

identified

mix. A

key

text

on

hybridity

is Homi

K.

Bhabha,

The Location of Culture

(London,

Routledge,

1994).

11

One useful

attempt

to review

the various faces of

pluralism

is

Gregor

McLennan,

Pluralism

(Minneapolis: University

of

Minnesota

Press,

1995).

12 See David A. Hollinger, Postethnic America: Beyond Multiculturalism (New York:

Basic

Books,

1995)

for a

statement of the

advantages

of

cosmopolitanism

over

plu-

ralism

and

multiculturalism.

I

30

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

10/20

I

What are we?

|

should be clear thatcosmopolitanism represents a perspective,attitude,and

set of

practices regarding

others and other worlds rather than a

framework

for

understanding

the nature of social life in Canada.

Indeed,

multiversal-

ism,

as a

very

strong

version of

pluralism,

assumes that Canadacan

include

decidedly non-cosmopolitan perspectives,

even if

these come

at the

cost of

hindering

the

development

of

policies

that

encourage

multiversity.

It should be clear

by

now that

I

believe multiversalism is a

good thing.

That belief

rests on the near truism

that

multiplicity

and

difference

across

Canada

are

necessary

for the widest

possible

development

and circulation

of ideas about the organization of social and political life through varied

approaches,

critiques,

assessments,

and

proposed

alternatives.

Democracy

may

be valued for

many

reasons

but

one

of them is the

potential

for a wide

set of

options

and

thoughtful

evaluations

regarding

public policy

and

norms to

help

make economic

life,

social

welfare,

foreign

policy,

and envi-

ronmental action

to name

a few areas better.13 he

point

is that no one

philosophy,

approach,

individual,

or

group

will

have all the wisdom

and

effective

policy

on

its

side,

even

if

they

have much of the

power

and

access.

Therefore,

as

many

relevant

perspectives

on an issue as are

present

in the

Canadian multiverse ought to contribute to collective thinking on issues

from

lawmaking

to

diplomacy

expressed through

public

debate,

consulta-

tion,

and

political

conflict.

Beyond

the

advantage

of

having

more

perspectives

on

the

nature of

political

and

social life

that can sometimes

help

us avoid bad

decisions and

mistakes

or

see them when

they happen,

a multiverse means

the existence

and

possibility

of more choices

in

the

ways

and

places

within which we

might

live our lives

from

rural to

urban,

gay

to

straight,

traditional

to

experimental,

collective

to individualistic.

Whatever

one's views on the

desirabilityand difficulty of protecting these forms, facilitating access to

them,

or

making

them more

visible,

it should be

understood that

the

posi-

tion

and

perspective

from

which one criticizes

such

desirability

and difficul-

ty

is

part

of

the multiverse.

Indeed,

one of the

advantages

of

seeing

Canada

as a multiverse

is that we need

not

agree

on a

hierarchy

of

pivots

for under-

standing

difference

in

Canada,

ncluding

nation,

culture, race, class,

sexual-

ity, religion,

rural/urban,

new/old immigrant, language,

and

disability.

13

Young,

Inclusion

and

Democracy,

142,

goes

as

far as to

argue

that

multiplicity

is

necessary

for

democracy.

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

31

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

11/20

I

Robert Latham

|

MULTIVERSALISMND COMPLEXCOEXISTENCE

I

realize that the

very

possibility

of

protecting

difference

and

facilitating

access to it

presupposes

a

liberal democratic

polity

within

which funda-

mental

rights

are

available,

along

with

space

for democratic

practices

and

expression.

But

just

as multiculturalism

helped push

the Canadian

liberal

polity

beyond

its

mostly

individualistic foundation

toward

the

development

of

group rights,

multiversalism can

push

it further

by emphasizing

specif-

ic

rights

of coexistence not

just

between

identifiable

groups

and communi-

ties,

but also within such

groups,

as well as within

and

across

spaces,

bor-

ders, and spheres of activity(from the factoryto the clinic).

Within the

context

of this

essay,

I

cannot articulate

a

political

theory

of

such

rights,

only

suggest

some

simple starting

points

for

thinking

about

how one

might begin

to

approach

such a

theory, specifically

in the realm of

citizenship.

A critical first

point

is the

understanding

that to view Canada

as

a

multiverse,

highlighting

the

profusion

of social

forms and

identities,

does

not entail

displacing

the

primacy

of the state

in

political

life. On

the con-

trary,

n

the Canadian multiverse

the state's

centrality

is

more visible

as the

one set of

institutions

that is

in

effect

present

in

every

sphere

of life. The

nature of its presence can varyfrom the veryconstitutor and key agent in a

domain

such

as

education or

healthcare,

to

being

one

among

a

number of

forces

in

civic

spaces

such

as a

neighbourhood

or the media.

One

implication

of this is that

the

fear that

rights-claiming

newcomers-

immigrants

will

dissipate

the

political

coherence

of Canada

is unfounded.

Among

the

many

nation-making

activities the

state undertakes is the con-

stitution and maintenance of

borders,

territory,

national

symbols,

civic

edu-

cation,

a common

currency,

and

territory-widemilitary

force.

As one coun-

try

among

many

in

the

wider international

system,

Canada

maintains a

coherence based on these elements that belies concerns with difference and

multiplicity

as threats to

unity.

It is

only

a

challenge

like the

potential

suc-

cession of

Quebec

that

brings

the foundations of the Canadian state

into

question.

The

point

is that it is not shared

understandings, per

se,

that

make a

polity,

but

shared

institutions, activities,

symbols, space,

and

territory.

While

shared

understandings

can

emerge

around

any

of

these, or,

say,

a

humanitarian

emergency

inside

Canada,

they

are

not

prerequisite

to

politi-

cal life. We

can

think

of a

family

whose members

may

share

a home with

very difference understandings of the space and its purposes. Where spe-

cific rooms are

shared,

the

family

needs to ensure that

spaces

have multi-

ple

meanings

and

purposes (i.e.,

a

room

for

music and

meditation).

The

key

|

32

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

12/20

I

What are we?

|

to coexistence or more appropriately,complex coexistence is how they

contend with the

different frames of reference for

understanding

the rooms

and their uses

(through

intersecting, overlapping,

and

alternating use).

Multiversal

difference reinforces the

political

robustness of Canada

in

that the common

element that

joins

the

many spheres

associated with soci-

ety

is the

Canadian state.

Similarly,

transnational

processes involving

the

movement

of

people,

images,

and

goods

in

and out of Canadacan reinforce

the functional

integrity

of a state that

guards

its borders and

territory

and

regulates

movement.14

On an

experiential

level,

the

very

awareness of

transnationality (or perhaps more accurately,translocality)on the part of

someone

in

movement,

or someone

observing

someone

in

movement,

rests

on their

emplacement

in a

specific

territory

ike Canadaand

place

like

a Vancouver

or Windsor

thereby reinforcing

the

integrity

of Canada as a

place

to be transnational

or translocal

in or

from.

In

this

respect,

newcom-

ers and

those

who

repeatedly

eave

and return

are a

part

in

many

differ-

ent

ways

of the

already

existing

complex

fabric of a multiversal

Canada.

They

reinforce,

by

their

presence

and

movement,

the

distinctiveness of

the

Canadian

political

community

in

local,

national,

and international

contexts,

by raising the very questions of what is that they are part of and on what

terms.

I realize

that those

Canadians

who

reject cosmopolitanism

are all

too

likely

to be

uninterested

in

recognizing

that Canadian

dentity

rests on

any-

thing

other

than

their

self-understanding

of

what it is

-

in

national

and

local

terms.

Since

we

already

have

a multiverse

whether we like

it or not

in

places

like

Herouxville,

QC

the

question

is

what are the terms

of inter-

section

among

its

many

components.

One

key aspect

of

this

challenge

is

dealing

with

tensions

between

the

many

universes

inside Canada

hat come

in contactwith one another in physical and symbolic terms. The typicallit-

mus

test

is when

one

group,

established

in the

country

for some

time,

finds

the actions

of

newcomers

objectionable

or

repugnant,

leading

to various

forms

of social

conflict

in

terms

of

a fear of

change.

The current

debate

in

Quebec

over

reasonable

accommodation

is

exactly

this,

contending

with

tensions

arising

out

of

overlapping

universes.

When some

self-identified

14

On

the

ways

that

globalization

reinforces

states,

see

Linda

Weiss,

The

Myth

of

the

Powerless State (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Stephen Castles and

Alastair

Davidson,

Citizenship

and

Migration:

Globalization

and

the Politics of

Belonging

(London:

Macmillan,

2000).

I

International

journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

33

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

13/20

I

Robert Latham

|

majority feels they are the predominant shaper of a space and place the

question

is

why

should

they

make

exception

for others?

Why

accommodate

when

you

are the chief constitutive

power,

with

the main

capacity

to

shape

spaces

not

only

based

on

majority

numbers and

precedent,

but control

of

government

and other institutions?

Returning

to

my

previous

analogy

of the

family

home,

what

happens

when

you

have

two

families of

very

different orientations

sharing

the same

home,

but with

one

family

outnumbering

the

other,

setting

up

its life

first,

and

being

in

legal

control of the home? So

far,

iberalism has

suggested

that

minority rights to live according to one's cultural norms ought to be pro-

tected as

long

as

they

follow the

basic laws

of the land.15But no liberal

approach

solves common

public space

issues where universes

intersect. To

just

admit

there is an inherent conflict

in

such intersection

means it is left

essentially

to the courts to sort out the

logics

of harm and benefit

(which

they may

do

poorly).

It is

also

inadequate

to

call for

peaceful

coexistence

when the

grounds

for

it

are not there.

The

question

is what is the

guiding

principle

of

complex

coexistence?

A

multiversal frame

suggests

the

possibility

of

moving

beyond

the reason-

able accommodation concept that assumes minority/majority duality to

articulate

the less

presupposing

concept

of

complex

coexistence

(of

space

and

particular

forms

of

constitutive

power)

such

that the

various

domains

(or

universes)

of

practice,

institutions,

symbols,

and

meaning

overlap

and

abound, but,

in

principle,

need not interfere with one another

(the

halal

Chinese restaurantcan

be next to a Polish

one).

We know that

many

streets

in

Canadian cities from

Vancouver to Ottawa are like

this,

as various reli-

gious, political,

aesthetic, class,

racial,

and moral

sensibilities

(progressive

or

conservative)overlap

and

interweave,

along

with the

regulatory

elements

of the state guiding the provision of sidewalks and crosswalk. The members

of

various universes as a

result can

experience

the same

space differently,

focusing

on the elements

that make it theirs. When

they

want to

engage

or

experience

the other

overlapping

universes

about

them,

they

can do so

without

having

to ask others to

alter their

practices.

Multiversalism

further

suggests

that

these universes are

splinted

with all sorts of

prismatic

effects

across

generations,

genders,

classes,

philosophies,

and

types

of

presence

in

Canada

(length

and nature of

time

in

residence and

legal status).

That

is,

15 This is the position so articulately worked out by Will Kymlicka, Multicultural

Citizenship:

A

Liberal

Theory

of

Minority

Rights

(Oxford:

Oxford

University

Press,

1996).

I

34

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

14/20

I

What are we?

|

the spacesare experienceddifferentlywithinand acrossidentitygroups.

The notionthat

hey

are

a

them,

haping

pace

n

one

way

with one set of

meanings,

and we are

an

us,

haping

space

in

one

way

with

one set of

meanings,

becomes

deeplyproblematic.

One critical

ssue is the effects of what is taken

by

some to be visual

offences

(e.g.,

the miniskirtor the

hijab,

dark

kin,

or

working-class

ttire)

that s

typically

he resultof

the

unanticipated

ncounter

someonewalking

by),

where

options

for structural

eparations e.g.,

clouded

glass

or

fences)

are

few.We know that these

encounters

ypically appen

n

the interstices

betweenworlds the placesof transit,whereone'svery presencealready

assumes

all

forms of

risk,

from crime

to accidents o visual offence.16

n

small

townthe salience

of each encounter an

be

high

becauseof the lower

population

ensity.

We knowthat

the

option

o avoidchanceencounters

a

key aspect

of

public

space

is not available o

many

as

they

go

to

jobs,

clinics,

and

schools.17

multiversal

erspective

uggests

that

in encounter

one is

not

confronting

n ethnic

or

culturalbloc

bursting

with multicultur-

al

rights,

but

individuals

orting

out their

complexexperiences

of world-

making,

expression,

difference

class

and

racial),

nd theirown

episodes

of

encounteras well.Whilethisrecognitionwill noteasilyovercomenon-cos-

mopolitan

attitudes,

t does underscore

hat the

negotiation

of

transitory

encounter

s

possible

on an individual r small

group

basis,

rather han an

ethnic

bloc

basis.18

16

Mary

Louise

Pratt,

Imperial Eyes:

Travel

Writing

and Transculturation

(London:

Routledge,

1992)

uses

the term encounter

differently

but

relatedly.

She

points

to the

contact

zones

that are the

spaces

of colonial

encounters,

the

space[s]

in

which

peoples geographically and historically separated come into contact with each other

and establish

ongoing

relations,

usually

involving

conditions

of

coercion,

radical

inequality,

and

intractable conflict.

My

taking

the term encounter

out of the colonial

context is

meant to

open

the

way

toward

noncoercion,

equality,

and

nonviolent coex-

istence.

17

Much

has been

made of encounters

in cities.

See,

for

example, Ervmg

Goffman,

Encounters:

Two Studies

in

the

Sociology

of Interactions

(Indianapolis:

Bobbs-

Merrill,

1961).

While

-

as

Jane Jacobs,

The

Death and Life of American

Cities

(New

York:

Random

House,

1961) pointed

out

-

suburbs can limit

encounters,

it is not nec-

essarily

the

case that

towns limit

them,

which is one

of the reason some

Que be cois

are concerned about accommodation.

18

For some

early

reflections

on

logics

of

restrain

in

encounter,

see Edward

Ross,

Social Control

(New

York:

Johnson

Reprint

Corp.,

1901/1970).

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

35

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

15/20

I

Robert

Latham

|

TOWARDA COMMITMENTTO MULTIVERSAL ITIZENSHIP

Issues of

encounter and

complex

coexistence raise the

questions

of who

is

encountered,

why

they

are

encountered,

and on

what

basis

do

those

encountered have claims

and

rights

to be of and

in a

particular

multiverse.

Lying

at the

heart of

the

backlash associated

with

reasonable

accommoda-

tion is the

simple

query,

why

are

they

here in

my

world?

But what do

they

or we

mean

by

world?

Is it

a

specific

neighbourhood,

enclave, town,

province,

or national

territory?

n

national

terms,

there is little

opportunity

in

contemporary modernity

with

its

large

cities,

diverse labour and

popu-

lation needs, and transnational, economic, transport,and communication

structures to live

in

anything

other than a multiverse. Even

if

one lives

in

a

small

town,

the

overlaps

are

many

because of travel or

spillover

at the

edges

as suburbs come to abut rural towns and labour needs

bring

in new

residents. There is of

course,

no

shortage

of

arguments

such

as

Huntingtorfs

in

western

democracies

against

the

most

visible

and

charged

source

of

multiversity,

new

immigrants.19

They

seem to be made

as a last

gasp

of

desperation

to save a set

of traditions

generated

by

imagined

politi-

cal

nostalgia

in

Huntingtorfs

case or far less

ambitiously

by

a

nostalgia

for the local world of the everyday(in towns and neighbourhoods) taken to

be

threatened

by

dissolution and loss of

predominance.

I

would

argue

that,

once we

stop

taking

the claims

arising

in

Quebec

lately

at face

value,

a

more

accurate

way

to

read them are as

endeavours to find a secure

place

in

a sea

of

multiversity

operating

within, across,

and

beyond

local,

provincial,

and

national

boundaries

especially

because these claims

do not

come with

any

meaningful

overarching

frame for

negotiating

the world

beyond

their local

perch.

These efforts at

preservation,

thus,

can be understood as

recognition

of

multiversity

and its

force

in

shaping

Canadian social relations on

many

geographicalscales, from local to global.

If

we

thus can

assume modern

life is

multiversal,

and

perhaps

becom-

ing

more so with

time,

we

should

at

least

explore

what it

means to have an

obligation

to

ensure

fairness

and

justice

to

everyone

who is

part

of it and to

think

through

on what

terms those new

to

it

become a

part

of it

(on

the

assumption

that

each newcomer

is

a

test of what we

are).

Some readers

may

believe

I

am

placing

too

much

emphasis

on

immigrants

and

diasporas

19 For a thoughtful discussion of the fear of immigration in liberal democracies, see

Roxanne

Lynn Doty,

Anti-immigrantism

in

Western

Democracies

(New

York:

Routledge, 2003).

I

36

I

International

journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

16/20

I

What are we?

|

when I have argued strongly for a far broader view of difference but I

chose to focus on

this issue-area because of

the

currently

charged

environ-

ment around

it in Canada and other

developed

democracies and because

the movement

of

people

in

and out

of national

spaces

should

challenge

societies

to think

continually

about

what

they

are.

We

might

start

by

reiterating

that,

as

pointed

out

above,

multiversity

is

in

part

about

the

multiplicity

of

geographical

scales

from local to

global

that

constitute

and intersect

through

Canada.

People

understand and relate to

Canada

through

a

diversity

of these scales.

Some,

at face

value,

are

anchoredmostly in the local and provincial,and even so it is likelythat such

locality

is

actually

translocal

as

they frequently

move across the border of

the United

States

(from

vacations

and

shopping

to

visiting

relatives down

south).

Others

have translocal

links

to

places

in

France,

the

Caribbean,

South

Asia,

and

so on.

They

remain connected

-

and

thought

of

as

part

of

a

diaspora

for

various

reasons,

including

work, business,

and education

similarly

to those

who are linked

to the US.

If,

in a

multiversity,

an

individual can

have various

types

of ties and

relations

across,

within,

and

beyond

the

border,

and that

person

and

the rest

of us consider those ties as good or Canada,as argued above, then we

should

facilitate

multiple

forms

of

presence

in,

and connection

to,

Canada.

Certainly

multiple

forms

are

already

enabled,

from tourist to citizen.

However,

exclusive,

single-nation

citizenship

remains the frame

against

which

all other

forms

of status

are understood

as

exceptions, including

multiple

citizenship.

In

addition,

many

of these other

forms have

profound

insecurities

associated

with them.

Recent research

is

showing

that

many

relative

newcomers

to Canada

are

here under

various forms of

precarious

status,

whether

they

are or had

been

students,

temporary

workers,

or

refugee claimants.20The implication, therefore, is that there is opportunity

for

stronger

support

for the

multi-scalar

and

a multiversal

approach

to

status

more

generally

in Canada.

I

believe

that

a

simple

way

to

move toward

this

support

is for Canada

explicitly

to

treat and

support

what can

be termed multiversal

citizenship

as

the

primary

frame

against

which all

other forms

of status

are understood.

A multiversal

citizen

has

citizenship

in one or more

territorial states

and

20 See the paper by Luin Goldring, Carolina Berinstein, and Judith Bernhard,

Institutionalizing

precarious

immigration

status

in

Canada,

available

at

www.atwork.settlement.org.

I

International

ournal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

37

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

17/20

I

Robert Latham

|

secure status in any state in which they are resident. While this view of cit-

izenship may

be

jarring

to our ears which are so accustomed to

the

hard,

exclusive

citizenship

associated with nation-states it should not be over-

looked that

more

fluid,

overlapping

forms of

membership

existed

in

empires

both

ancient

(Roman)

and modern

(British).

Now that human

rights-based,

non-imperial,

transterritorial orms of

belonging

and

mem-

bership

are

possible

(with contemporary developments

in

global

norms,

rights,

institutions,

communications,

and

travel),

it

ought

not

be

labeled as

unfeasible

by

states

protective

of their exclusive forms of

belonging.

Along those lines, the Canadian government clearly has, in recent

decades,

been liberal

toward

multiple citizenship,

a

core dimension

of

mul-

tiversal

citizenship.

Efforts

in

the

mid-1990s

in

parliament

to contest mul-

tiple

citizenship, by

forcing

those with Canadian

citizenship

to

express pri-

mary

allegiance

to

Canada,

were

not successful.21This

liberality

created

public

controversy

when

Lebanese-Canadianswere aided

in

their effort to

flee an Israeli

invasion

in

2006. On the other

hand,

the Canadian state has

strengthened

the

residency

requirement

making

the attainment of a sec-

ond,

Canadian,

citizenship

more

difficult.22

n

addition,

in

the

post-9/11

securitycontextmany multiple citizens from the Middle East and south and

central

Asia have

found out that

they

not

only

may

not receive

protections

as

Canadians but

they

can be treated

as

dangerous

suspects

who

can be

more

easily

deported

than

Canadian-only

citizens

(who

would

in

effect

become

stateless).23

Rather than

treat the risks

associated

with

multiple

cit-

izenship

in

the

current

environment as a reason to

avoid

it,

we

might

con-

sider

strengthening

the

protections

associated

with

having

it.

21

See

the

discussion

in

Donald

Galloway,

The

dilemmas of Canadian

citizenship

law,

in

T.

Alexander Aleinikoff

and

Douglas Klusmeyer,

eds.,

From

Migrants

to

Citizens:

Membership

in

a

Changing

World.

(Washington,

DC:

Carnegie

Endowment

for

International

Peace),

82-118.

22

Lloyd

Wong,

Home

away

from

home?

Transnationalism and the Canadian

citizenship

regime,

in

Paul

Kennedy

&

Victor

Roudometof, eds.,

Communities

Across

Borders: New

Immigrants

and

Transnational Cultures

(London,

Routledge,

2002),

169-181.

23

Daiva Stasiulis

and

Darryl

Ross,

Security,

flexible

sovereignty,

and the

perils

of

multiple citizenship, Citizenship Studies 10, no. 3 (July 2006): 329-48; and Audrey

Macklin,

The

securitization of

dual

citizenship,

forthcoming

in

Thomas

Faist, ed.,

Dual

Citizenship

in

Global

Perspective

(New

York:

Palgrave

Macmillan,

2008).

I

38

I

International

Journal

|

Autumn

2007

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

18/20

I

What are we?

|

On whatbasis wouldI ask for multiversal itizenship o be established

as

the

primary

ramefor

citizenship

when the

vast

majority

f Canadians

have

single

citizenship

and

many

of this

majority

re troubled

by

alterna-

tive

framings)?24

he easiestanswersare

probably

he

least

compelling:

hat

stronger

upport

or multiversal

itizenship

can

enrichthe Canadianmul-

tiverse

by

making

multiscalar ives

easier,

which is a

good

in

itself,

as

argued

above;

nd that

single citizenship,

n

a

multiverse,

s

but

one

type

of

status

among

many,

even

if it

is

predominant

n a nationalbasis.

In

other

words,

single-state

citizens are mulitiversalcitizens.

Beyond

these two

answersare othernotablereasons. One is thatany single citizen,or her

children

and

family,

are

potentialmultiple

citizens.

Creating

n

environ-

ment where

multiple

citizenship

s takento be the norm

strengthens

he

possibility

of

that

option

for those

with

single

citizenship

who

otherwise

might

fear oss

of Canadian

itizenship).

Another eason s that a commit-

ment

to

multiversity

manifest n real terms

in

part

throughstrong

sup-

port

for

multiple

citizenship

can

expand

he

meaning

of Canadian ivic

identity

hat

s consistentwith

ts historic dentification s a

country

dvanc-

ing

multiculturalism nd

acceptinghigh

levels

of

immigration.

Finally, robablyhe mostimportant eason s thatnormalizingmulti-

versal

citizenship

can

potentially

pen

the

way

to a more secure statusfor

those individuals

with

precarious

tatus

n

Canada.

The idea is that all res-

idents,

regardless

f the nature

of their

status,

can be

thought

of as mutiver-

sal citizens

f

they

are

n

Canada

in that

heyalready

ave

citizenship

rom

somewhere

else and

are

potential

citizens

of Canada.

n

other

words,

if

multiversal

itizenship

s the

norm,

then securestatusshould

be extended

to those

who are

currently

ere

with

precarious

tatus.

This extensioncan

take

various

ormsfroma

proposed

US-styleamnesty

o the redefinition f

formsof securestatusshortofpermanent esidenceor fullcitizenship.The

possibility

f

receiving

Canadian

itizenship

houldbe a normative

oal

for

all

people

who reside

n

Canada,

o matter

whattheircurrent tatus.

Ultimately,

he establishment

of norms

of multiversal

citizenship

require

nternational

rotections

nd

commitments o

multiple

citizenship

worldwide.

n

effect,

here

shouldcome

into

being

an

international

egime

24

When

thinking

about

multiple

citizenship,

it is

important

not

only

to consider

immigrants inside Canada but the nearly three million Canadians abroad. See Kenny

Zhang,

' Mission

invisible':

Rethinking

the Canadian

diaspora,

Canada-Asia

Commentary

46

(September

2007).

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|

39

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

19/20

I

Robert Latham

|

for multiple citizenship. Such a regime should establish the parametersfor

one state

extending

citizenship

to

the citizens of another

state;

articulate

protections

and

rights

for citizens of

one

country

who are

present

and resid-

ing

in

another

country

without

citizenship

or

permanent

residence

in

that

country;

and

strengthen

the channels and

rights

for interstate

protection

of

citizens who are detained

in

other countries even if

they

are citizens of the

country

detaining

them

-

beyond

those derived from the Vienna

conven-

tion on

consular

relations.

An

international

regime

for

multiple citizenship

could

help place

understandings and developments of citizenship within the context of the

multiscalar

connections between societies and

peoples

and

thereby poten-

tially

take it

out

of

the frame of exclusive state formation/5 It could also

help

contend with

notions of exclusive

loyalties by

institutionalizing

the

possi-

bility

of

multi-allegiances.

I

am not

suggesting

that the

construction

of this

regime

will

be

easy.

In

fact,

it will

take

considerable

leadership.

This is an ideal

opportunity

for the

Canadian

state to re-establish itself as a

primary

actor in

the

international

arena. Difficult

issues include how to contend with

competing

claims

by

individuals and governments across jurisdictions; prevent states from

using

the

regime

as a

basis

for

establishing

even

greater

control over bor-

ders and human

movement;

and

determine the effects the

regime

should

have on the

openness

of borders.

Luckily,

we

already

have some

precedent

in

international

instruments,

such as the

1997 European

convention on cit-

izenship.

And there

clearly

is

precedent

for the

Canadian state's exercise of

international

leadership

in

areas such as

the international ban on land-

mines and the

development

of

multilateral

peacekeeping.

Each of these

areas also had

difficulties

that

seemed

insurmountable at first. This leader-

ship role could expandCanadiancivil identity beyondwhat would be gained

by

a

domestic

commitment to

multiversalism.

25 For a cogent, thorough exploration of the exclusive state formation frame, see

Rogers

Bru

baker,

Citizenship

and

Nationhood

in

France and

Germany

(Cambridge:

Harvard

University

Press,

1992).

I

40

I

International

Journal

|

Winter

2007-08

|


8/11/2019 40204484 Multiverse

20/20

I

What are we?

|

CONCLUSION

I

am not able

to

explore

here

proposals

for domestic action

advancing

mul-

tiversalism or

for international action

advancing

a

multiple citizenship

regime.

Even without such

proposals,

readers will

likely

see that

I

am ask-

ing

a

great

deal of Canadians:

to

reframe

an

important

part

of Canadian

civic

identity

regarding

difference

in Canada

(multiculturalism);

o confront

head-on

yet

one more divide that between

cosmopolitans

and non-cos-

mopolitans

beyond

language,

race,

and

ethnicity;

to rethink the

meaning

of

citizenship

and

place

it within a

very

transnational

frame;

and to take

responsibility for leading other countries in sorting through the very diffi-

cult

realm of

multiple citizenship.

My

optimism

that this

call will not be

completely ignored

rests on

the

Canadian

history

of

political

and social

innovation.

|

International

Journal |

Winter

2007-08

|

41

|

40204484 multiverse

Documents