Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An interpretive study of a voluntary organization serving Chinese immigrants in Vancouver, Canada Guo, Shibao 2002

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_2002-750205.pdf [ 22.24MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0055576.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0055576-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0055576-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0055576-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0055576-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0055576-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0055576-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

AN INTERPRETIVE STUDY OF A VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION SERVING CHINESE IMMIGRANTS IN VANCOUVER, CANADA by Shibao Guo B.A., Shandong Teachers' University, China, 1986 M.Phil., University of Nottingham, the UK, 1993 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Educational Studies) We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA July 2002 © Shibao Guo, 2002 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT Community initiated voluntary associations play a valuable role in immigrant societies, such as multicultural Canada. They are, however, not always seen as benign, self-motivated, or altruistic institutions. Where immigrants are all too frequently viewed as a drain on societal resources, ethnic organizations are also viewed as threatening national unity, diluting Canadian identity, and promoting ghettoization and separatism. This study explores, in detail, the way in which one ethnic organization, S U C C E S S , was founded in 1973 for exactly the opposite reasons. The failure of the government and mainstream organizations to provide accessible social services for Chinese immigrants led to its initiation. The central guiding question in this research is: how did a community initiated voluntary organization such as S U C C E S S respond to changing needs of an ethnic community in a multicultural society? The study traces the evolution of S U C C E S S in its first 25 years. This investigation utilizes a 'collage' of literature pertaining to multiculturalism, minority group rights and democratic citizenship, research on social services for immigrants, the role of immigrant serving organizations, and their relationship with the state. Data draws on multiple sources and triangulation: document analysis; interviews with the Executive, Board members, and Program Directors; site visits; as well as participant observation as a volunteer. Since interviews with clientele were not included, this study is unable to make claims about the nature of their views of this organization. This research has extended existing arguments regarding the roles of ethnic organizations and their relationship with the state. It demonstrates that S U C C E S S plays a significant role in promoting immigrant integration. Moreover, the study challenges the view of liberal universalism and provides an alternative model to interpret citizenship, minority group rights, and democracy. The findings from this study have important implications for both researchers and policy makers. First, it contributes to the theoretical literature on the role of ethnic organizations, to the history of Chinese immigrants in British Columbia, and to a better relationship between ethnic organizations and the state. Second, it helps policy makers in Canada reassess their past policies on immigration and ethnic organizations and plan for the future. Third, it provides guidelines for community organization in Vancouver and Canada. n TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ii TABLE OF CONTENTS iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vi DEDICATION vii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 Identifying the Problem 1 Purpose of the Study 3 Theoretical Approach to the Study 3 Defining Ethnicity 4 Research Questions 5 Significance of the Study 6 Organization of the Thesis 7 Background Information 7 CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE 10 Multiculturalism 10 Minority Group Rights and Multicultural Citizenship 14 Immigrant and Social Services 23 The Role of Immigrant Serving Organizations and the State 29 Summary 38 CHAPTER 3: HISTORICAL, SOCIAL, AND POLITICAL CONTEXT 41 History of Chinese Immigrants in Canada 41 Canadian Immigration Policy: Postwar to 1998 53 Emigration from Hong Kong 61 Summary 62 CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 63 Discussion of Theoretical Framework 63 Research Design 65 Methods of Data Collection 69 Data Analysis and Interpretation 76 Criteria of Trustworthiness 78 Profile of the Investigator and the Participant 79 Summary 81 CHAPTER 5: THE FOUNDATION OF SUCCESS 82 Social and Political Climate in Canada Before the Founding of SUCCESS 82 Riots in Hong Kong in 1967: Political Uncertainty 83 Pender YWCA: Predecessors of SUCCESS 84 Purposes for Founding SUCCESS 87 in Founding Philosophy . 91 The Founding Process 92 Choosing a Name 95 Choosing a Location 95 Clientele 96 Resistance from the Mainstream 97 Summary 98 CHAPTER 6: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SUCCESS 100 Stage One: Founding and Establishing Stage of SUCCESS, 1973 to 1979 100 Stage Two: Developing and Maturing Stage of SUCCESS, 1979 to 1989 110 Stage Three: Expansion and Transformation of SUCCESS, 1989 to 1998 126 Summary 142 CHAPTER 7: PROGRAMS AND SERVICES . 144 Community Airport Newcomers Network - CANN 144 Language Training and Settlement Services 152 Family and Youth Counselling 164 Small Business Development and Training 174 Employment Training and Services 181 Group and Community Services 191 Richmond Office 198 Tri-City Office 206 Summary 215 CHAPTER 8: FINANCES AND ADMINISTRATION 217 Finance and Asset Management 217 Fundraising 219 Administration and Building Development 231 Summary 233 CHAPTER 9: SUCCESS IN CONTEXT OF OTHER COMMUNITIES 234 Differences from Other Ethnic Chinese Organizations 234 Relationship with Other Ethnic Chinese Organizations 238 Speaking for the Chinese Community 240 Relationship with Mainstream Organizations 241 Relationship with Three Levels of Government 242 Membership and Volunteer Development 244 SUCCESS Leaders 246 SUCCESS Now and Then 252 A Broadened Mandate 255 Driving Forces Behind the Change 258 Broadened Mandate vs. Its Original One 261 SUCCESS and Monopoly 262 The Place of Ethnic Specific Organizations 263 Social Contributions 263 What Made SUCCESS So Successful 266 SUCCESS Model 269 A Unique Organization With a Three-Pronged Focus 273 iv Diversified Funding 276 Difficult Period of Time in the History of SUCCESS 279 Criticism 280 Issues/Challenges 283 Future 285 Summary '. 289 CHAPTER 10: ASSESSING THE SUCCESS MODEL 291 A Summary of the History of SUCCESS 291 Major Changes in SUCCESS : 293 Forces Behind the Changes 294 Multiple Roles with a Three-Pronged Focus 296 A New Generation of Community Leaders 297 The Role of Volunteers and Members , 299 SUCCESS and the State 300 Relationship with Mainstream Society 302 SUCCESS and the Local Chinese Community 304 Demographic Changes 307 Challenging Early Assumptions about Ethnic Organizations 308 The Role of Ethnicity 309 Social Contributions of SUCCESS 310 Implications for Theory 311 Implications for Practice 312 Limitations and Topics for Future Research 313 Conclusion 314 References 316 Appendix A: Letter of Initial Contact 327 Appendix B: Consent Form 328 Appendix C: Interview Guide 329 Appendix D: Participant List 330 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this dissertation is impossible without the support of many people. Here, I can only mention a few of them by name. First, I am indebted to my supervisory committee who provided academic guidance and support. I am most grateful to my research supervisor, Dr. Kogila Adam-Moodley, for her encouragement, her trust in me as a researcher, her gentle push, and for sharing her insights with me. I am also thankful to my committee members, Dr. Jean Barman and Dr. Tom Sork, for their thoughtful comments and great contributions to this work. My gratitude and appreciation also go to Dr. Jane Gaskell for her kind support and for lending me her office while she was away; to Dr. Edmund H. Dale and Dr. Liz Cooper from the University of Regina for their long-time friendship and continuous support; to Dr. Garnet Grosjean for his friendship and reading part of this dissertation, and to my colleagues at the Centre for Teaching and Academic Growth (captained by Dr. Gary Poole) for their thoughtful and kind support. I am also grateful to my research participants and people at SUCCESS. It is their vision, dedication, and compassion which inspired this work. I also want to express my heartfelt thanks to Mrs. Lilian To, the CEO of SUCCESS, for providing tremendous support along the way. Debts are also owed to my family in China: to my Mom, to my brothers and sister, to my parents in-law, for their persistent support and for their confidence in me. My son, Edmund, moved to Canada from China when this dissertation just started. His adjustment and learning process is just as remarkable as this work. Thank you for your love, joy, and inspiration, Edmund! Sorry I ignored you when I was busy with this dissertation. And to my wife Yan, who completed her doctoral dissertation a few months ago - yes, we made it!!! Thank you for travelling on this journey with me. Thank you for sharing references, for being the first reader of my work, for being my editor, and, most important of all, for your love. I could not have done it without you. vi DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife Yan Guo, a young scholar and a loving mother and wife, to my son, Edmund Ji Guo, a proud young Canadian and an inspiring learner, for their infinite love and support on this journey. vii C h a p t e r 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n A number of questions pertaining to immigrant settlement and immigrant serving organizations drove me to study this organization. Some of these questions include: How do immigrants adapt to a society very different from their own, with a different language, culture, and tradition? How do they navigate the complex paths that citizenship (all the skills required) entails? In this regard, where do they go for assistance and what role do voluntary organizations play in this process? What is the role of ethnic specific organizations as compared to mainstream organizations? What kind of relationship do immigrant serving organizations have with the state, mainstream society, and the ethnic communities they serve? I decided to look in detail about how these questions are manifested in a frequently mentioned organization such as SUCCESS. SUCCESS is known to the local Chinese in Vancouver as the Chinese Immigrant Mutual-Help Society. Its name is the abbreviated form for the United Chinese Community Enrichment Services Society. (The first'S' was added with no specific meaning.) It is a non-profit, non-partisan, and non-religious organization, serving Chinese immigrants in the Greater Vancouver area since it was founded in 1973. However, very little is known or written about it. This study attempts an examination of the historical development of SUCCESS during its first 25 years, from 1973 to 1998. Instead of adopting a conventional approach in documenting the history of the Society, an interpretive sociological approach will be attempted. My interest in this research also derives from my personal experience as a newly landed immigrant from China, with a keen interest in multiculturalism, ethnic organizations, adult education, and the history of Chinese immigrants in Canada. Further, my enrollment in a graduate course in Adult Education Program Planning Practice gave me an opportunity in a class assignment to plan a program for an organization - SUCCESS - which revealed that a fuller investigation was not only possible but necessary. Identifying the Problem It is well known that Canada has had a disreputable racist past. As Li (1998) points out, no racial or ethnic group in Canada besides the First Nations peoples has experienced the same harsh treatment as the Chinese. Since the 1880s, the Canadian government passed a number of bills to prohibit the Chinese from entering Canada and restrict the rights of those who were already in. Their unfortunate stories in Canada have been well-documented by numerous authors 1 (Anderson, 1995; Li, 1998; Tan & Roy, 1985). Policies and attitudes towards the Chinese remained very much the same until the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed and enfranchisement was accorded to them in 1947. The status of the Chinese was further ameliorated when the Trudeau government introduced the policy of Multiculturalism in 1971. Under the aegis of multiculturalism, the Chinese were encouraged to preserve and celebrate their ethnic identity while integrating into Canadian society. Furthermore, liberalized immigration policies in Canada since the late 1960s stimulated the increase of Chinese immigrants and immigrants from other non-traditional source countries, such as Africa, Asia, and South America. Consequently, the Canadian population became more ethnically diverse. However, in major Canadian cities where immigrants tended to concentrate, increased diversity has caused racial tensions and social stress (Li, 1998). With respect to the Chinese, despite their remarkable social mobility, their real and alleged differences attracted public scrutiny. The Canadian public focused their attention on the Chinese superficial foreign appearance, their linguistic profile, the alleged incompatibility of their values with Canadian traditions, the development of ethno-specific immigrant malls and concentrated ethnic businesses, and their consumer patterns (Li, 1998, 2000). In addition, some of the criticisms focused on the existence of ethnic organizations. A group of critics of multiculturalism represented by Bissoondath (1994) and Gwyn (1995) questioned the roles of such organizations. They were concerned that ethnic organizations would threaten national unity, dilute Canadian identity, and promote 'ghettoization' and separatism. Other critics raised specific questions, such as whether the state should use taxpayers' money to fund these organizations. Still others argued that all Canadians should be treated equally, and that allocating special resources to support such organizations would undermine Canadian democratic principles. Research related to ethnic organizations includes predictions of the disappearance of such organizations. This view manifested itself in the assimilation model. According to the Chicago School of Sociology (cited in Driedger, 1996; Hiebert, 1999; Pfeifer, 1999), immigrants would initially settle in inner-city neighbourhoods of metropolitan areas, establish their enclave businesses and institutions, gradually disperse outward to residences in suburban districts as educational and occupation achievements were realized, and finally abandon their own institutions and join those of the host society. This model may have reflected the settlement and adaptation process of some phases of Chinese settlement in Canada. However, it failed to provide a full account of the existence and development of ethnic organizations such as 2 SUCCESS. A second group of researchers who forecast the early demise of ethnic organizations were those who overstated the role of the state. In 1985, Tan and Roy asserted that "With the rise of the welfare state, the government now provides most of the major services the Chinese community once provided for itself (p. 18). Perhaps this statement referred to the declining roles of traditional Chinese associations such as clan associations, but the history of SUCCESS clearly challenges the legitimacy of this kind of argument regarding its role in helping Chinese immigrants. Purpose of the Study This study investigates the historical development of SUCCESS from 1973 to 1998, and the roles it played in responding to changing community needs in a multicultural society. First, the study will explore the original purposes for setting up this organization; its mandate, structure, finance, clientele, and leadership of the organization; features of its programs and services; and major changes over the years. Second, because the history of SUCCESS cannot be understood as if it is a closed entity, it must be analyzed in terms of its connections with the state and other organizations. The social forces which drove the major changes in the Society's evolution and the role of ethnicity in its historical development will be explored. Third, the study hopes to uncover the social contributions SUCCESS has made to Canadian society at large and the Chinese community in particular. Theoretical Approach to the Study Li (1998) rightfully identified a common problem pertaining to the traditional approaches in ethnic studies in Canada. He notes that primordialist views of culture usually undergirded such research. With regard to studies in the history and development of the Chinese in Canada, Li argues, the focus was primarily on the cultural adaptation of the Chinese as a racial minority coming from an ancient culture. According to him, research on Chinese voluntary associations in particular was influenced by this approach. Scholars coming from this perspective were interested in exploring how the Chinese used an ancient traditional culture as the basis for the development of various culturally unique social organizations in the receiving society. He also points out that this approach woefully ignored the social context within which the history of Chinese Canadians was constructed and the social relationship between the Chinese and the dominant majority. Having identified the problems inherent in earlier approaches to research regarding the Chinese in Canada, this study of SUCCESS is situated in the social, historical, and political 3 contexts of Canada, with reference to changing community needs and relations with mainstream society. The study will adopt an interdisciplinary approach, drawing upon historical, sociological, and political perspectives. Defining Ethnicity Owing to the significance of the concept of ethnicity in this study, it is necessary first to define the term. According to Isajiw (1985), researchers of ethnic relations in Canada and the United States rarely defined the meaning of ethnicity, and seldom gave reasons for not including it. He also argues that studies of ethnic groups needed an explicit definition of ethnicity which was denotative rather than connotative. Accordingly, this section will begin by reviewing some of those definitions available in the field. A broad view of ethnicity was taken by Max Weber (1978, cited in Driedger, 1996), one of the most well-known classical theorists who defined the term in five categories: inheritance, culture and consciousness of kind, the emergence of tribe and 'a People,' the notion of'Volk' and nationality, and religion as an ideological symbol system. In Weber's view, ethnicity provided a basis for members of an ethnic group to develop closures or boundaries within which ethnic institutions, neighbourhoods, beliefs, and cultures were developed and maintained (Li, 1999). More recent theorists viewed ethnic groups as "people of the same descent and heritage who share a common and distinctive culture passed on through generations" (Jandt, 1998, p. 13). To locate it in a North American context, Isajiw (1985, p. 12) expanded the term further as "a group or category of persons who have common ancestral origin and the same cultural traits, who have a sense of peoplehood and Gemeinschaft type of relations, who are of immigrant background and have either minority or majority status within a larger society." As can be seen clearly from the above definitions, ethnicity, for the most part, was conceived as being "ascribed or given at birth" (Li, 1999). Very often the definition of ethnicity has relied heavily on culture, or these terms were all too often treated as overlapping or coterminous. Many researchers (Li, 1999; Moodley, 1981, 1983) challenge this primordialist and essentialist emphasis of such definitions. Moodley (1983) argues against the depoliticized and static nature of ethnicity and questioned those viewing ethnicity as "having an intrinsic vitality regardless of the context" (p.321). According to Li (1999), "people of the same ethnicity do not necessarily share a common culture" (p.l 1). The example provided by Moodley (1996) in describing 'East Indians,' who came from four continents and represented three world religions (Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam) and various subjects (i.e., Ismailis, Sikhs, Protestants), rightly illustrated Li's point. In discussing what united members of an ethnic group, Moodley 4 pointed out that it was not a common culture but common exposure to manifold discrimination and common experience as 'outsiders' which united all groups. Another meaningful explanation was provided by Yancey, Ericksen, and Juliani (1976, cited in Li, 1999), who examined ethnicity in relation to structural conditions in the cities to which ethnic groups immigrated and the economic opportunities available to them there. Under such conditions, ethnicity was not fixed but constantly changing. Furthermore, ethnic mobilization was situational (Moodley, 1983). As Moodley stated, it was always in response to specific socio-cultural contexts, and arising in unique historical constellations which in turn mediated ethnic expression dialectically. She also asserted that the understanding of the waxing and waning of ethnicity should be linked with the motivational factors and underlying interests, which were differently perceived according to constantly changing needs and their ideological interpretations. Throughout this study, ethnicity refers to the shared experience of immigrants sometimes based on language, shared heritage, or identification with one another, and have a common goal to succeed in a new society. It represents a process of constant negotiation and construction of their adjustment and integration to a new environment. It will be treated as a dynamic concept rather than a static one. It is the social relational features rather than the primordial features of ethnic formations which form the basis of this study. In this study, ethnic organizations are regarded as one form of voluntary organization. The two terms have considerable overlaps. Furthermore, SUCCESS falls under both categories. Therefore, these two terms are used interchangeably throughout this study. Research Questions The central question of this study is: How did a community initiated voluntary organization such as SUCCESS respond to changing needs of an ethnic community in a multicultural society? In order to address this overall question, a number of sub-theme questions have to be answered first. These include: Context Question • What were the historical, social, and political contexts within which SUCCESS was founded? Foundation of SUCCESS • What were the original purposes for the founding of SUCCESS? 5 • Whom did the organization serve? • What kind of services and programs were provided? • What was the source of the funding? • Who provided the leadership? The Role of SUCCESS • What roles did SUCCESS assume in helping immigrants with their settlement and adaptation? Changes of SUCCESS • What were the major changes encountered by SUCCESS over the years? • What were the social forces which drove these changes? The Role of Volunteers and Members • What roles did volunteers and members take in the development of SUCCESS? Social Relationship • What kind of relationship did SUCCESS have with the state and mainstream society? • What was the relationship of SUCCESS with the ethnic Chinese community? The Role of Ethnicity • What roles did ethnicity play in the development of SUCCESS? Social Contributions • How has SUCCESS contributed socially to Canadian society in general and the Chinese community in particular? Significance of the Study Although this research is the study of one ethnic organization, without any doubt, its findings will contribute to a better understanding and ultimate advancement of immigrants in the Vancouver area and Canada. First, this study, it is hoped, will make a contribution to the theoretical literature on the role of ethnic organizations, to the history of Chinese immigrants in British Columbia, and to a better relationship between ethnic organizations and the state. Second, 6 the results from this study on the impact of immigration policy changes on immigrants and ethnic organizations will help policy makers in Canada reassess their past policies and provide guidelines for making new policies in the future. Third, the findings from this study will foster community initiatives in helping immigrants in their settlement and integration, and will also be useful to other ethnic communities in Vancouver and Canada. Organization of the Thesis Following an introduction to the study in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 reviews the major literature pertaining to multiculturalism, minority group rights and citizenship, social services for immigrants, and the role of immigrant serving organizations and their relationship with the state. Chapter 3 examines the historical, social, and political contexts in which SUCCESS was founded. Chapter 4 discusses the theoretical and methodological framework underpinning the design and implementation of the investigation. The findings of the study are presented in Chapters Five to Nine. In sequence, these five chapters respectively focus on the foundation of SUCCESS, historical development of SUCCESS, programs and services, finances and administration, and SUCCESS in context of other communities. Chapter 10 draws conclusions to the study. Background Information To set the stage for the investigation, the structure of SUCCESS as of 1998 will be discussed here. This includes its objectives, membership, annual general meeting, Board of Directors, and the general responsibilities of the Executive Director. First, it is necessary to place SUCCESS in a broader national context in Canada. According to the Directory of Immigrant Serving Organizations compiled by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2000, there were 175 such organizations across Canada. Depending on the geographic location and the community they served, the size of these organizations varied. SUCCESS, the Multilingual Orientation Service Association for Immigrant Communities (MOSAIC), and the Immigrant Services Society (ISS) were the three largest in Greater Vancouver (Creese, 1998). Objectives of SUCCESS According to the Board of Directors' Manual (1996-1997) of SUCCESS, its objectives were: 1. To promote the well-being of Chinese Canadians, and to encourage their full participation in community affairs in the spirit of multiculturalism. 7 2. To assist in the settlement process of citizens and immigrants of Chinese descent in the Province of British Columbia, Canada, particularly those who have difficulties in English, by a. providing adequate information on the available public services, and facilitating the delivery of such services when necessary; b. providing direct social services; and, c. fostering the concept of mutual assistance among the Chinese community. 3. To foster and promote social awareness and community involvement through civic education, volunteer and membership development and preventive social services. 4. To reflect the needs and issues of the Chinese Canadian community to individuals, agencies and the public media, and to advocate for positive social changes. 5. To cooperate and work with other citizens and ethnic groups sharing similar objectives. 6. To seek funds from government and/or other resources for the implementation of the aforementioned objectives. Membership of SUCCESS From the day SUCCESS was founded, its founders (Ip, 1974; Leong, 1976) claimed the agency to be a citizen group. They asserted that citizens, not professional workers, should assume policy and decision-making roles at SUCCESS. According to SUCCESS By-Laws and Regulations (1996b), membership was open to all who subscribed to the Constitution and By-Laws of the Society. The membership came under three categories: ordinary members, honorary members, and life members. Ordinary members were those who attained membership by having their applications approved by the Board of Directors. Honorary members were designated by the Board of Directors. Life members were those who have made substantial contributions to the Society, or have made a cash donation in an amount not less than the minimum set by the Board of Directors. The latter two types of members did not need to apply for membership or pay for the annual membership fee. Ordinary and life members could be both individuals and corporations. In addition to the categories mentioned above, the By-Laws and Regulations of SUCCESS also allowed the Board of Directors to appoint as patrons persons who have made significant voluntary contributions to the Society. No more than two patrons were to be appointed in any one year. Annual General Meeting The Constitution and By-Laws of SUCCESS were filed with the Registrar of Societies of B.C. in Victoria, British Columbia. In order to maintain its status as a society, SUCCESS had to function according to the Societies Act, which meant that it had to hold an annual general meeting once a year after notifying all members, in writing, fourteen days before this meeting. 8 Among the many matters which would be discussed at the meeting, the election of a Board of Directors was important. Board of Directors The Board of Directors was the governing body for the organization and was legally responsible for all aspects of SUCCESS'S operation. It was usually made up of 20 or 21 members. All board members were elected at the annual general meeting and held office for a term of two years. All directors were volunteers and received no remuneration of any kind for their services on behalf of the Society. The Board consisted of a Chair, a Deputy-Chair, a Secretary, a Treasurer, five Vice-Chairs (responsible for Resource Development, Programs, Public Relations, Long-term Planning and Development, and Membership and Volunteer Development), and 11 or 12 other Board Members. The Board usually met every month. General Responsibilities of the Executive Director The Executive Director was appointed by the Board of Directors. His or her general responsibilities included: planning, participating with the Board in devising policies and procedures; developing programs and organizing services; coordinating the work of the Board and staff and acting as their liaison; employing, supervising, and training staff; preparing budgets and report; keeping the Board informed of operations and programs; working together with the Board members in preparing funding applications; and representing, interpreting and promoting the Society's services in the community. A review of the structure of SUCCESS in 1998 reveals that the Board of Directors had the ultimate responsibility for policy formulation, overall planning, and fundraising. Professional staff under the leadership of the Executive Director were responsible for program implementation, agency liaison, and community development. Another important part of this organization was the volunteers who were recruited from the members, community leaders, professionals, citizens, and clientele. They were also actively involved in the provision of services and the operation of the organization. It is clear that the Board of Directors, staff, and volunteers formed a three-tier structure with a democratic electoral system. However, it is not clear at what point the whole organization came into being, what the driving forces behind the founding of the organization were, who the major players were, and what some of the most important changes were. These will be investigated in this study. 9 Chapter 2 Review of Literature Chapter 2 reviews the literature related to the topic of this research. This chapter, consisting of four sections, will examine the literature in the areas of: 1) multiculturalism; 2) minority group rights and democratic citizenship; 3) barriers to the access of social services for immigrants; and 4) the role of the immigrant service organization and its relationship with the state. These four bodies of literature are reviewed here because they form the basis for the discussion. It is also hoped that the investigation of this chapter will inform us about existing studies, what the drawbacks are, and what kind of contributions this current research will make to the field. M u l t i c u l t u r a l i s m K.C. Li, former Chair of SUCCESS, stated that "SUCCESS was the baby of Multiculturalism." His statement suggests that the official policies of Multiculturalism inspired the founding of SUCCESS. However, it is unclear if Multiculturalism can alone justify the existence of SUCCESS. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the history and policy of multiculturalism in Canada, and the discussion around it. It is hoped that this examination will set up the context within which the organization was founded and developed. Canada was the first country to formulate an official policy for multiculturalism and to give it full legal authority (Moodley, 1995). It was formalized in 1971 by the Liberal government, in response to the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the mid-1960s, and the Official Language Act of 1969, which granted equal status to both French and English as the official languages of the Parliament and government of Canada. Thereafter, in 1972 a multicultural directorate was established within the Department of Secretary of State, and in July 1988, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed unanimously by both houses of Parliament. The main goal of the multicultural policy was to: 1) assist cultural groups with their cultural development; 2) help members of cultural groups to overcome cultural barriers to full participation in Canadian society; 3) promote creative encounters and interchange among all cultural groups in the interest of national unity; and 4) help immigrants to acquire at least one of Canada's official languages (House of Commons, 1971, p.8546). Though multicultural policy evoked enthusiasm and attracted attention of some groups in Canada, their reactions were generally mixed (Moodley, 1983, 1995). Moodley summarizes 10 some of the concerns and questions people have about the policy. First, the multicultural policy neutralizes the special claims of the French and the First Nations Canadians by putting them on an equal footing with numerous others. Native people argue that Multiculturalism does nothing to help them with their land claims and forgotten treaty rights; and French Canadians view multiculturalism as a device "to deny French-speaking minorities their full recognition," or "to reduce the importance of the French fact in Canada to that of an outsized ethnic minority" (Taylor, 1993, p. 162)* Second, ambiguities and contradictions embedded in the policy itself have given rise to much discussion. People fear that, in sustaining their respective cultures, ethnic groups will undermine national unity. Third, as Moodley (1983) points out, the Multiculturalism policy is based on a depoliticized and static definition of culture and ethnicity. The focus of multicultural policy on expressive and instrumental aspects of cultural diversity "trivialises, neutralizes, and absorbs social and economic inequalities" (p.326). Moodley maintains that ethnic mobilization is 'situational,' and that it always responds to specific socio-structural contexts. She also states that one of the flaws of multicultural policy lies in the separation of culture and language. Canadian Bilingualism defined English and French as the official languages of Canada. This policy, by deemphasizing languages of other cultural groups, helped create a cultural and linguistic hierarchy in Canada. Multiculturalism, she argues, must presuppose multilingualism. Cultural preservation without language protection becomes ephemeral and artificial, and is bound to fail. According to Moodley, "Genuine multiculturalism would have to preclude a cultural hierarchy." She suggests the jettison of the very notion of "mainstream culture," and recommended the Anglo-conformity standards to be 'multi-culturalized.' Moodley (1996) also claims that Canadian multiculturalism constitutes more rhetoric than substance, but "it fosters public tolerance. It bestows an aura of respectability to difference" (p.9). Moodley's views are largely based on the perspective of critical multiculturalism. Other critics of multiculturalism, including Neil Bissoondath (1994) and Richard Gwyn (1980, 1995), claim that multiculturalism has undermined our 'core values and traditions.' They blame multiculturalism for creating 'confusion' and 'uncertainty' about the definition of Canadian identity. "In eradicating the centre, in evoking uncertainty as to what and who is a Canadian, it [multiculturalism] has diminished all sense of Canadian values, of what is a Canadian" (Bissoondath, 1994, p.71). Bissoondath also argues that, instead of promoting integration, multiculturalism encourages ethnic 'ghettoization' and preserves ethnic 'exoticism.' "[Personalities and ways of doing things, ways of looking at the world, can be frozen in time; 11 that Canadian cultural influences pale before the exoticism of the foreign." He points out that the result of multicultural policies is ethnic 'separatism' and cultural 'apartheid' around ethnic groups. It builds up 'cultural walls' and divides the country. As he states, "The walls are high, ready-made, as solid as obsession" (p. 186). According to Bissoondath, Multiculturalism should not aim at preserving differences but at "blending them into a new vision of Canadianness, pursuing a Canada where inherent differences and inherent similarities meld easily and where no one is alienated with hyphenation[...] And every individual is Canadian, undiluted and undivided" (p.224). He states: It is desperately sad, though, when after many years they see Canada as only that [a place to run to in an emergency]; and it is even sadder when their children continue to see Canada with the eyes of foreigners. Multiculturalism, with its emphasis on the importance of holding on to the former or ancestral homeland, with its insistence that There is more important than Here, serves to encourage such attitudes, (p. 133) In response to these attacks, Kymlicka (1998) argues that critics of the multiculturalism policy are 'misinformed,' and that defenders of multiculturalism, either academics or bureaucrats, have not done a good job in articulating the policy. He contends that multiculturalism is a "coherent, defensible, and indeed successful approach" to the integration of ethnic groups in Canada, and he supports his argument by the following points. First, naturalization rates have increased since the adoption of Multiculturalism in 1971, and immigrants from non-traditional source countries are most likely to be naturalized. They want to identify with Canada, formalize their membership in Canadian society, and participate in the political life of the country. Second, ethnic groups participate actively in the political life of Canada. Before 1971 ethnic groups were underrepresented in Parliament, but today the number of MPs representing ethnic groups almost reflect their percentage of the population. It is important to note that they participate within the traditional national parties instead of forming separate ethnic-based ones. There are indicators to suggest that immigrants quickly absorb and accept Canada's basic liberal-democratic values and constitutional principles even if their original societies were non-liberal or non-democratic. Third, the demand for classes in English and French as second languages (ESL, FSL) has never been higher. Kymlicka maintains that there may be a lack of accessible and appropriate ESL/FSL classes, but it is absurd to believe that there is a general decrease in the immigrants' desire to learn an official language. Fourth, intermarriage rates have consistently increased since 1971. Kymlicka points out that "it is not the business of the government either to encourage or to discourage intermarriage," the increased intermarriage rates suggest that "Canadian people are more accepting of diversity" and "more willing to accept members of other ethnic groups as co-12 workers, neighbours, or friends" (p.20). Official language acquisition and intermarriage rates are two indicators of societal integration. Kymlicka believes that "Canadians do a better job of respecting ethnic diversity while promoting societal integration than citizens of any other country" (p.22). He maintains that Bissoondath's (1994) argument that multiculturalism has increased 'ghettoism' and decreased the rate of integration of immigrants is flawed and bizarre. In commenting on Bissoondath's claim that multiculturalism encourages separatism, Kymlicka (1998) contends that it is "an immensely ambitious and arduous project" to maintain a separate societal culture in Canada. It requires "creating and sustaining a set of public institutions that will enable a minority group to participate in the modern world in its own language," as well as "the use of, and control over, a variety of political powers and institutions" (p.34). Unlike the Quebecois who have the basic conditions for sustaining a separate societal culture, it is almost impossible for immigrant groups to achieve such a goal. It is neither desirable nor feasible. Some special programs such as mother-tongue literacy programs for adult immigrants, bilingual education programs, and Black-focused schools appear to involve some degree of institutional separateness, but in fact they are transitional. They are based on a recognition that integration is a long and often painful process that may take more than one generation. These special institutions and programs are necessary to ease the process of initial integration, and facilitate greater participation in mainstream institutions. Reviewing multiculturalism policies and programs, Kymlicka claims that in practice multiculturalism is "a response to the pressures that Canada exerts on immigrants to integrate into common institutions," and is "a framework for debating and developing the terms of integration" (p.40). With regard to integration, Kymlicka (1998) points out that it is usually a long, difficult, and often painful process, and that it does not happen overnight. Sometimes special institutions and programs are required to help immigrants ease this process. These include certain services in an immigrant's mother tongue, and special support for immigrant organizations that assist in the settlement and integration process. These institutions are not any unjust privileges for immigrants, nor do they promote ethnic separatism. They function as a transition and they are honest attempts to accommodate diversity and distinctive problems facing particular ethnocultural groups. The ultimate goal is to facilitate greater participation in and integration into mainstream society. He continues to explain that most multiculturalism policies are integrative in both their intentions and results. These policies have proved to be "worthy, appropriate, and successful attempts" to accommodate diversity and promote fairer terms of integration in Canada (p.42). 13 Symbolically, multiculturalism also expresses our explicit denouncement to our historical ethnocentric practices (e.g. assimilation, racial exclusion, and cultural oppression). It is also a way to affirm that "immigrants had made a vital contribution to Canadian life, and that their distinctive identities were a defining feature of Canadian society that must be reasonably accommodated" (p.54). Kymlicka's strong defense of Multiculturalism is not flawless. He fails to take us beyond actually existing multiculturalism as state policy (Day, 2000). "[RJather than critically addressing the colonial remainder in the history of Canadian diversity, this brand of multiculturalism rather perversely finds pride in its reproduction" (p.216). Day accuses Kymlicka of perpetuating the status quo by reaffirming the power of 'we' as "a silent, Invisible Self group that chooses to give, or not to give, gifts of recognition and self-government to noisy, Visible Others" (p.216). Despite being 'recognized,' the Others are once again being placed in an inferior position. In sum, the above discussion has made it clear that Multiculturalism has both proponents and opponents. For some, it can be hailed as an explicit denouncement to our ethnocentric past, as well as an alternative way to accommodate diversity and promote fairer terms of integration. For others, it can be accused of encouraging ethnic 'ghettoization,' preserving ethnic 'exoticism,' and undermining our 'core values and traditions.' People on the left (Moodley, 1983, 1995; Kymlicka, 1998; Taylor, 1993, 1994a; Day, 2000) are not satisfied with it because it trivializes, neutralizes, and absorbs social and economic inequalities, and perpetuates the status quo. Minority Group Rights and Multicultural Citizenship The success of contemporary Western societies has partially been attributed to their adherence to liberal principles. Liberals cherish the beliefs in universal equality. However, Canada as a multiethnic society is becoming more and more multicultural as well. Will the universal liberalism still accommodate the development of this post-modern society? This section will review works on liberalism, minority group rights, and its relationship with democratic citizenship. Procedural and Substantive Liberalism Taylor (1993, 1994a) summarizes Dworkin's distinction between two kinds of moral commitment: procedural and substantive. The former is about our commitment to deal fairly and equally with each other, regardless of how we conceive our ends; whereas the latter one relates to our views about the ends of life, about what constitutes a good life. Walzer (1994) labels these two kinds of liberalism Liberalism 1 and Liberalism 2 respectively. Liberalism 1 is committed to individual rights and to a rigorously neutral state, and Liberalism 2 allows for a state committed 14 to the survival and flourishing of a particular nation, culture, or religion as long as the basic rights of citizens are protected. For Walzer, Liberalism 2 is more democratic than Liberalism 1. According to Tamir (1995), governments cannot be culturally neutral, and in fact all states are culturally biased. Liberalism 1, or procedural liberalism, claims that "a liberal society must remain neutral on the good life, and restrict itself to ensuring that however they see things, citizens deal fairly with each other and the state deals equally with all" (Taylor, 1994a, p.57). Taylor challenges this liberal procedural neutrality. He fears that this construal of government's role cannot accommodate certain political claims which citizens concerned to advance a common good might legitimately want to make. He argues that political neutrality prevents citizens from pursuing certain legitimate collective goals through their political institutions (Weinstock, 1994). Taylor also maintains that single-principle neutral liberalism cannot suffice, and that it has to allow space for other goods to succeed. He notes that the reality of plural societies may require us to modify procedural liberalism (Appiah, 1994). Taylor (1994b, p.253) states: Neutral liberalism as a total principle seems to me here a formula for paralysis; or else for hypocrisy, if one tried to occlude the real reasons. It is at this point that it begins to appear more than costly; in truth, inapplicable. Walzer (1994) contends that he would choose Liberalism 1 from within Liberalism 2, which means that the choice is not governed by an absolute commitment to state neutrality and individual rights, nor by the deep dislike of particularist identities. Instead, it is governed by "the social condition and the actual life choice" of people (p. 103). Taylor (1993, 1994a) used the clash between the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and Quebec's collective goal as a good example to illustrate this conflict between procedural and substantive liberalism. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, endorsed by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government in 1982, promotes the rights of individuals in a variety of ways, and defends against discriminatory treatment of its citizens on a number of irrelevant grounds such as race or gender. The Charter also recognizes linguistic and aboriginal rights. However, it is highly suspicious of collective goals, and it promotes uniform citizenship (Taylor, 1993). For example, the Quebec language legislation (Bill 101) regulates the types of schools to which parents can send their children, and the kind of language for commercial signs. These restrictions placed on Quebeckers by the Quebec government in the name of collective goal, that is the survival of French culture in Quebec, violate these basic provisions of the Charter. They also put federation in jeopardy. 15 For Taylor, the liberal neutrality fails to accommodate Quebeckers and First Nations Canadians of their ways of being Canadians. To build a country for everyone, Taylor proposes "deep diversity" which is capable of integrating two models of liberalism, open to multiple conceptions of citizenship, and acknowledges and accepts a "plurality of ways of belongs" (p.183). Taylor's proposal of deep diversity sounds appealing. However, it also invites criticism. Day (2000) points out that Taylor's recognition based on the principles of non-procedural liberal pluralism is "not equal, reciprocal, and freely given, but a partial and grudgingly bestowed gift from a canonical Self group to a series of problematic Others" (p.217). In Taylor's text, Day detects a distinction between the 'we' who are giving the gifts of recognition, and the 'they' who are demanding them. Until the state unconditionally acknowledges the worth of its Others as such, these Others will be incapable of providing reciprocal recognition. Minority Group Rights There are many different kinds of ethno-cultural groups within the larger Canadian society, and these groups have different histories, needs, aspirations, and identities, and face different kinds of challenges (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000). Kymlicka and Norman group them into four categories: 1). national minorities (stateless nations and indigenous peoples); 2). immigrant minorities (with citizenship, with or without rights to become citizens, and refugees); 3). religious groups (isolationist and non-isolationist); and 4). sui generis groups (African Americans, Roma/Gypsies, and Russians from former Soviet states). Kymlicka (1995, 1998) highlights the differences between national minorities and immigrant minorities, which are directly relevant to this research. He defines national minorities as "historically settled, territorially concentrated, and previously self-governing cultures whose territory has become incorporated into a large state" (p.30). He regards aboriginal peoples and French Canadians as two national minority groups in Canada, who see themselves as nations within Canada. However, they are not satisfied with their status; they are seeking various forms of self-government and demanding special recognition to maintain their status as culturally distinct and self-governing societies within the larger state. Immigrant or ethnic minorities differ from national minorities, who were involuntarily incorporated into the Canadian state. The decision of many immigrants to leave their original homelands and settle in a new society was more or less voluntary. They wish to integrate into mainstream society. Although they want some recognition and accommodation of their ethnocultural distinctiveness, their goals differ from that of national minorities. They are not 16 seeking self-government; instead they want to modify the institutions and laws of mainstream society to make them more accommodating of cultural differences. In Canada, ironically, one of the major mechanisms for accommodating cultural differences is "the protection of civil and political rights of individuals" (Kymlicka, 1995, p.26). However, as alluded to earlier, these rights are highly suspicious of collective goals. They are insufficient to meet the needs of ethnic groups. These common rights need to be supplemented by specific 'group rights' that recognize and accommodate particular ethnocultural practices and identities. Kymlicka and Norman (2000) define rights of ethnocultural minorities or minority rights in short as "a wide range of public policies, legal rights, and constitutional provisions sought by ethnic groups for the accommodation of their cultural differences" (p.2). Minority rights are beyond the common provisions of civil and political rights of individual citizenship in a liberal democratic society, and the adoption of any minority rights is to recognize and accommodate the distinctive identities and needs of ethnocultural groups. The heterogeneous nature of ethnocultural groups demands different kinds of special accommodation. Kymlicka (1995) puts group-specific rights into three categories: self-government, polyethnic, and special representation rights. According to Kymlicka, self-government rights demand some form of'political autonomy' or 'territorial jurisdiction.' These rights, he declares, involve "devolving political power to a political unit substantially controlled by the members of the national minority, and substantially corresponding to their historical homeland or territory" (p.30). Polyethnic rights are intended to "help ethnic group and religious minorities express their cultural particularity and pride" (p.31). Again, Kymlicka points out that these minority groups favour promoting integration into the larger society, not for self-government. Group representation rights, he argues, are rights demanded by national minorities, ethnic groups, and non-ethnic social groups. They are regarded as "a response to some systemic disadvantage or barrier in the political process which makes it impossible for the group's views and interests to be effectively represented" (p.32). The former two kinds are not seen as temporary, but as inherent and permanent while the last one is viewed as a temporary form of 'affirmative action.' Kymlicka further points out that, depending on the circumstances, all three group-differentiated rights could serve two purposes: 'internal restrictions' and 'external protections.' The former is the right of a group against its own members intending to defend the group from the destabilizing impact of internal dissent. The second is the right of a group against the larger 17 society intending to protect its distinct existence and identity by limiting the impact of the decisions of the larger society. Kymlicka (1998) maintains that internal restrictions "raise the danger of individual opposition" and are inconsistent with liberal democratic values. By contrast, external protections "limit the group's invulnerability to the political decisions and economic power of the larger society" and may actually promote justice. They are "not inconsistent with liberal-democratic values" (p.63). Group rights have both critics and defenders. Critics tend to see group rights as restricting individual rights and threatening basic democratic values, whilst defenders of group rights typically see group rights as supplementing individual rights. Kymlicka maintains that group rights can promote liberal democratic values under two conditions: "uphold or promote equality between groups" and "respect the freedom of individuals within each group" (p.70). He stresses that for now most of the demands for group-specific rights made by ethnic and national groups in Canada are for external protections. Those few groups seeking state power to impose internal restrictions "have generally been rebuffed" (1995, p.42). Kymlicka supports the need for external protection, but cautions against the internal restriction which groups may exercise and impose on their members. Levy (1997), on the other hand, regards Kymlicka's classification of group rights as being too broad. He classifies cultural rights-claims and special policies for accommodating ethnic and linguistic pluralism into eight categories. These are: exemptions, assistance, self-government, external rules, internal rules, recognition/enforcement, representation, and symbolic claims. He claims that this classification is not perfect, and that it is intended for usefulness. In this context, assistance rights will be described in greater detail because these are more relevant to the theme of this research. Levy argues that "assistance rights are claims for help in overcoming obstacles to engaging in common practices" (p.29). Two common clusters of assistance rights are discussed here: language rights, and subsidies to a variety of cultural and linguistic institutions and associations. Because of language difficulties, speakers of the minority language may not be able to interact with the state or receive state protection and benefits. They may be prevented from voting, using the courts and the schools, or having access to the bureaucracy. Therefore, they need special provision to overcome this obstacle, but special provision is costly. Supporters of assistance rights argue that the costs are less important than the injustice that takes place because 18 of speakers of the minority language being denied access to the activities and services to which they are entitled. Another group of assistance rights is subsidies to a variety of cultural and linguistic institutions and associations. These could be direct subsidies or special tax credits as contributions to such associations. These special state measures are designed to help cultural groups preserve their cultural integrity and heritage to the same degree as the majority culture. Minority groups seek these rights to allow them to do things or get access to services which members of the majority culture already enjoy. They seek special provision because of culturally specific disadvantages or because the desired common activity is out of the reach of members of nondominant groups. They are supported by the argument that members of the minority culture do not have the same privilege to participate in these activities. Clearly it is a matter of equality and access. Minority Group Rights and Democratic Citizenship The rights and status of ethnocultural minorities in multi-ethnic societies, and the virtues, practices, and responsibilities of democratic citizenship have been popular topics for debate among political philosophers (Kymlicka & Norman, 2000). Tamir (1995, p.6) argues that the granting of equal rights to disempowered immigrants was insufficient to ensure equal status because the ideal of a culturally neutral state cannot be achieved, and it embodies a dangerous and oppressive illusion. Strict adherence to the principle of equal treatment tends to perpetuate oppression or disadvantage. Hence, minorities usually demand special treatment in the name of equality. Therefore, the notion of a universal citizenship had to be replaced by one of'differential citizenship.' Before addressing the debate between minority rights and democratic citizenship, it would be pertinent to review the research done in the areas of minority rights in the past two decades. Kymlicka and Norman (2000) point out that in the mid-1980s issues of ethnicity were marginalized by political philosophers, but today the question of minority rights has moved to the forefront of political theory. This partly reveals that Western liberal democracies have not been successful in meeting the challenges posed by ethnocultural diversity. Early publications on minority rights primarily focused on assessing the justice of minority rights claims. On one side of the debate, critics of minority rights argued that state institutions should be 'colour-blind,' and that granting rights to specific ethnic groups was discriminatory, and would create first- and second-class citizens. On the other side of the debate, however, defenders of minority rights maintain that difference-blind institutions claim to be 19 neutral among different ethnocultural groups, but they are in fact implicitly tilted towards "the needs, interests, and identities" of the majority group. The adoption of minority rights is intended to promote fairness and justice by correcting the disadvantages that minorities suffer within difference-blind institutions. Kymlicka and Norman (2000) boldly declare that "[mjinority rights do not constitute unfair privileges or invidious forms of discrimination, but rather compensate for unfair disadvantages, and so are consistent with, and may indeed be required by, justice" (p.4). They insist further that the initial debate over minority