UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Multiculturalism and archives 1993

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata


ubc_1993_fall_chan_heather.pdf [ 4.78MB ]
JSON: 1.0086211.json
JSON-LD: 1.0086211+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0086211.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0086211+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0086211+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0086211+rdf-ntriples.txt

Full Text

MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVES By HEATHER CHAN B.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIES in THE FACULTY OF ARTS School of Library, Archival, and Information Studies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1993 © Heather Chan, 1993 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. (Signature  Department of AO^• The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date ..7FTT, 2_01, Icr) DE-6 (2/88) ii ABSTRACT This thesis examines the implications of multiculturalism for the management of archival material generated by private individuals, groups, and organizations in Canada. The study begins with an analysis of the history and nature of the concept multiculturalism to identify the principles and purposes underlying both the social movement and the public policy of multiculturalism. The implications of these principles and purposes upon the institutional management of archives of private origin are then discussed within the context of archival theory. Finally, the results of a survey conducted to determine how Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial archival repositories are interpreting the concept and implementing the policy of multiculturalism are analysed to show the effect of multiculturalism on current archival methodology. The study shows that, in an attempt to respect the multicultural policy, the majority of Canadian archival institutions at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels are implementing practices which are contrary to archival principles. This thesis concludes that cultural group affiliation is a non-identifiable entity which cannot govern the institutional management of private archives, and demonstrates that the social goals of multiculturalism and archives are both attainable if archival principles dictate archival practices. TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT^ LIST OF TABLES^ iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS INTRODUCTION^ 1 CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA^ 5 CHAPTER 2. MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL THEORY^ 40 CHAPTER 3. MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICE^ 67 CONCLUSION^ 90 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY^ 101 APPENDIX I. QUESTIONNAIRE 108 APPENDIX II. STATISTICS CANADA LIST OF ETHNIC ORIGINS^ 113 iii iv LIST OF TABLES A. Summary of Interpretations and Implementations ofMulticulturalism^ 79 B. Position of Surveyed Institutions Regarding "Canadian" and"American" Cultural Groups^ 85 VACKNOWLEDGMENTS I have accumulated many debts to individuals andinstitutions. I wish to record here my gratitude, in the hopethat such recognition will partially compensate for the time andconsideration which this study has received. I wish to thank therepresentatives of the federal, provincial, and territorialarchival repositories for their participation in the survey. I amindebted to Mary Sue Stephenson for her assistance in formulatingthe survey, and to my advisor, Luciana Duranti, for herthoughtful criticism and assistance throughout. I am especiallygrateful to my parents Ray and Mary Jane Goldsworthy, my sisterRachel, and above all, my husband Neil, for their support andencouragement. INTRODUCTION This thesis explores the relationship between multiculturalism and archives in Canada. It provides an analysis of the idea of multiculturalism, and discusses how the aims underlying the multicultural policy may be accomplished in the institutional management of archival fonds of private origin. Multiculturalism raises two fundamental issues for the management of private archival material. The first is caused by a duality within the multicultural principle, and the second by a duality within the role of government archival repositories. The concept of multiculturalism is based on the two global socio-scientific principles of human existence: the principle of the biological unity of the human species, and the principle of the cultural diversity among groups within the species.1 The principle of biological unity in human rights principles takes the form of individual rights while the principle of cultural diversity is manifested in collective rights. These individual and collective rights are the underlying rationale of multiculturalism as it exists in Canada today. The political and legal manifestations of the Canadian multicultural ideal are currently designed to ensure that the uniqueness of cultural groups is preserved and that their 1 Evelyn Kallen, "Multiculturalism, Minorities, andMotherhood: A Social Scientific Critique of Section 27," inMulticulturalism and the Charter: kLegal Perspective, Canadian Human Rights Foundation (Toronto: Carswell, 1987), 125. 1 participation in Canadian society is facilitated. The public policy of multiculturalism, consequently, is comprised of two options for those charged with implementing it. It is justifiable to use cultural group affiliation as a factor in the decision- making process in an effort to compensate members of cultural groups for the disadvantaged status accorded them by society. Alternatively, it is permissible to make all decisions and take all actions on the basis of merit, without regard to cultural group affiliation. Because both these views aim to fulfill the goal of multiculturalism yet work towards this goal from opposite directions, there are two legitimate but mutually exclusive options which may be utilized by archivists to respect the principle of multiculturalism. The most appropriate choice must be made within the context of the principles and methodologies of archival science. The second issue raised by multiculturalism relates to the dual role of Canadian government archival repositories. These repositories are public institutions and as such are charged with implementing government policies. At the same time, they are cultural agencies entrusted with the responsibility of acquiring and preserving a documentary heritage which reflects the nature of the community within their jurisdiction and which constitutes evidence of its societal relationships. These two roles may conflict when archival material of private origin is acquired, controlled and communicated. Specifically, the government 2 multicultural policy may advocate the establishment of archival programs which are specific to cultural groups, but archival principles may dictate otherwise. Which role should take precedence if each requires a different course of action? The two issues identified above arise within the context of archival theory and have not been addressed in archival literature. However, archival institutions have had to cope with the multicultural policy for a number of years already, and have made choices about how best to implement it. It is worthwhile to consider how they have been responding to multiculturalism, namely, which interpretation of multiculturalism has been utilized by Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial archival institutions, what the rationale was for choosing that interpretation, and how it is put into effect. This thesis addresses all the above questions, and others which arise as corollaries, in an effort both to understand the relationship between multiculturalism and archival fonds of private origin, and to explore its implications for archival institutions. Despite the importance of such a relationship, multiculturalism has not been considered before from the perspective of archival science. The present study begins with an analysis of the history and nature of multiculturalism in Canada. The entrenchment of multicultural principles in the legal system and the administrative infrastructures established to further multicultural goals are chronicled in Chapter One at the federal, 3 provincial, and territorial levels. Chapter Two outlines the nature of archives, and considers the implications of multiculturalism within the context of archival science. An analysis of the results of a national survey of federal, provincial, and territorial archival repositories comprises Chapter Three: in the absence of any information about the implementation of multiculturalism in archival institutions, the survey was conducted to determine how these institutions are responding to multiculturalism in actuality and to identify trends in the management of private archives by public institutions. 4 CHAPTER 1 OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF MULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA The cultural diversity of Canada has been, and continues to be, a challenge to Canadian popular attitudes and public policy. Despite arguments put forward by politicians to the contrary, assimilationist theories have historically prevailed in response to this cultural diversity.' However, many social, economic, and political factors have worked to undermine both the stereotypical assumptions and the social respectability of racism inherent in Canada's assimilationist approach to cultural diversity. A result of these challenges to both popular attitudes and public policy was the introduction by the federal government in 1971 of a policy of cultural pluralism, otherwise known as multiculturalism. The aim of this policy, to achieve national unity in cultural diversity, was to be supported by a federal government infrastructure designed to implement programs eliminating discrimination while facilitating cultural retention, and by laws designed to ensure general adherence to the aims of the policy. 1^For example,^see Minister of State(Multiculturalism), Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1978), 1. 5 The federal policy of multiculturalism was the government's official response to the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. This Commission was established on July 19, 1963 by Prime Minister Lester Pearson, in response to increasing friction in French- English relations. Its mandate was to recommend ways in which a more equal partnership could be developed between French- speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The ultimate objective of such recommendations was to change Canada's tension-wrought dualism into harmonious national unity, thereby formulating a Canadian identity which respected the cultural rights of both French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians, and which represented a bicultural and bilingual society. The Commission considered the role of the non-French, non-Anglo-Saxon groups in this national identity only insofar as these groups related to the French-English situation. While the terms of reference deal withquestions of those of ethnic origin other thanBritish or French, they do so in relation tothe basic problem of bilingualism andbiculturalism, from which they areinseparable, and in the context of thecoexistence of the Francophone and Anglophonecommunities. Also, the terms of reference donot call for an exhaustive study of theposition of those of non-British, non-French origin, but rather of the way they have takentheir place within the two societies that have 6 provided Canada's social structures and institutions .2 Although the terms of reference of the Commission were drafted with respect to the pre-eminence of the French and British components of Canadian society, they did accord some recognition to the non-Anglo-Saxon and non-French groups. The Commission was directed to "inquire and report upon the existing state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canada and to recommend what steps should be taken to develop Canadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnership between the two founding races, taking into account the contribution made by the other ethnic groups to the cultural enrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken to safeguard that contribution."3 The dichotomy of the "founding races" and the "other ethnic groups" as expressed in the terms of reference was explored and justified by the Commission. The Commission differentiated between the "founding races" and the "other ethnic groups" on the basis of language.4 While acknowledging 2 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970), 3. 3 Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,General Introduction (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967), xxi. 4 The Commission defined the term "race" as a national group and did not attach any biological significance to its usage: "ethnic origin" referred to biological affiliation. "Founding race" was used by the Commission to refer to those people who founded Confederation, that is, the British and the French. The phrase "other ethnic groups" was defined by 7 that ethnic origin may account for cultural influence, the Commission contended that the extent and the nature of that influence were nebulous. Language, on the other hand, was a clearly identifiable entity which allowed the Commission to quantify groups, and since the Commission "...must make recommendations based on easily discernible realities, [the Commission] concludes that it must give much more importance to language than to ethnic origin." 5 Therefore, the Commission stated that "Canadians who are of neither French nor British origin" were accounted for in their inquiry in two ways, either as part of the "other ethnic groups" or as part of the "other founding races." Thus, those individuals who had not fully integrated into either English- or French-speaking groups, that is, those who continued to live according to the customs of their place of origin and spoke a language other than English or French, were considered by the Commission as the Commission, for the purposes of its work, as identification with a group and the will of a group to exist, the presence or absence of a common language being irrelevant to the group's sense of peoplehood. Ibid., xxii, xxiii. A "cultural group" was a "...significant group of individuals united by a common tongue and sharing the same customs, habits, and experiences." Ibid., xxxi. No attempt is made in this chapter to examine critically these definitions. Each usage of the term "race", "ethnic origin", "ethnic group", and "cultural group" in this chapter appears in quotation marks, and carries the meaning attributed to it by the Commission. 5 Ibid., xxii. a one of the "other ethnic groups." Alternatively, Canadians who were of neither British nor French origin, but who had integrated into English-speaking or French-speaking society, were included, for the purposes of the Commission's inquiry, in the category of "founding races." By the terms of reference the Commission was directed specifically to "report on the role of public and private organizations, including the mass communications media, in promoting bilingualism, better cultural relations and a more widespread appreciation of the basically bicultural character of our country and of the subsequent contribution made by the other cultures; and to recommend what should be done to improve that role."7 Objections were raised by members of the "other ethnic groups" in response to the Commission's goal of fostering the formation of a bilingual and bicultural nation. By asking the Commission, in effect, "If two cultures are accepted, why not many?" members of the "other ethnic groups" rejected the underlying premise of the bicultural and bilingual goal that historically there were only two groups responsible for the 6 Ibid., xxv. Aboriginal peoples were outside the parameters of the Commission's study. These groups wereneither included within the category of "founding races,"since "founding race" was defined as people of French or British origin, nor considered part of the category of the"other ethnic groups," since implicit in the Commission'sdefinition of "other ethnic group" was the notion that themembers of these groups arrived in Canada either during or after Confederation. 7 Book IV, 6. 9 development of the nation.8 Formal government recognition of the notion of two "founding races" - these groups believed - failed to acknowledge the participation of "ethnic groups" other than the French and British in the economic, social, and political development of the country. The concept of "two founding races" - a concept expressed throughout the Commission's report - was interpreted by many people to imply that the Commission envisioned the granting of special privileges to these two groups. "They pictured a kind of hereditary aristocracy composed of two founding peoples, perpetuating itself from father to son, and a lower order comprised of ethnic groups, forever excluded from spheres of influence." To the members of the "other ethnic groups" lobbying the Commission, the idea of bilingualism and biculturalism relegated all other languages and cultures to a second-class status in Canada.-1-0 These objections were communicated to the Commission by briefs from various organizations and individuals, and were voiced at the twenty-three regional public hearings held by the Commission. These groups pressed the Commission to 8 Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada, 9. 9 General Introduction, xxii. 10 Evelyn Kallen, "Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality," Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (Spring 1982): 57. 1 0 consider the contribution of non-French and non-British groups in its assessments of, and recommendations for a post- colonial Canadian identity. The groups were successful in their campaign to include the contributions of the "other ethnic groups" in the public agenda, for in 1966 the decision was made to dedicate one volume of the Commission's report to the contributions made by the "other ethnic groups" to the development of Canada. The volume was the fourth volume of the Commission's report, entitled Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Qther Ethnic Groups." Book IV examines the history of the "other ethnic groups" in Canada. For this purpose, in addition to drawing upon studies of both a general and specific nature which had been completed prior to, and independently of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Commission conducted its own research into historic settlement patterns, the economic, social, and political structures of these settlements, and the maintenance of language and culture. 11 A total of six volumes was produced by theCommission in its inquiry into bilingualism andbiculturalism: Royal Commission on Bilingualism andBiculturalism, Book 1: The Official Languages (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967; idem, Book II: Education (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1968); idem, Book III: The Work World (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969); idem, Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969); idem, BoqX V: The Federal Capital (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970); idem, Book VI: Voluntary Associations (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970). 1 1 Through these studies, Book IV attempted to document the contribution made by non-French and non-British groups to the development of the country, thereby acknowledging that, although the French and British played leading roles in the economic, social, and political development of Canada, the "other ethnic groups" could not be equated with "bridesmaids at the wedding, charming but not essential."12 Indeed, Book IV has been lauded as "...the first modern public recognition of the possibility of cultural rights for minorities and the limits to Anglo-conformity and gallicization..."13 It is possible to see, through the course of the Commission's work, the gradual extension of the notion of cultural pluralism to include non-French and non-British groups. As Jean Burnet - a research director for the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism - points out, in the early stages of the work of the Commission, prior to the publication of Book IV, non-French and non-British groups participated in Canadian society in one of two mutually exclusive ways: either they assimilated into the mainstream culture, or they retained their distinctiveness and 12 Jean Burnet attributes this analogy to anunidentified essayist; in Jean Burnet, "Taking into Accountthe Other Ethnic Groups and the Royal Commission onBilingualism and Biculturalism," in Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, Contributions in Sociology, no. 75, ed. James Frideres (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 16. 13 Robert F. Harney, "Ethnic Archival and Library Materials in Canada: Problems of Bibliographic Control andPreservation," Ethnic Forum 2 (Fall 1982): 12. 12 functioned on the periphery of Canadian society." The notion that it was possible to participate fully in Canadian society while maintaining cultural distinctiveness was not widely accepted or acknowledged on an official level. As the Commission progressed, however, the importance of cultural identity became apparent. Rather than taking an amalgamationist position, those responsible for producing Book IV acknowledged the viability of cultural pluralism or, in the Commission's words, integration. Integration in the broad sense, does not imply the loss of an individual's identity and original characteristics or his original language and culture....Integration is not synonymous with assimilation. Assimilation implies almost total absorption into another linguistic and cultural group....Both integration and assimilation occur in Canada, and the individual must be free to choose whichever process suits him, but it seems to us that those of other than French or British origin clearly prefer integration.15 At the conclusion of the Commission's investigation into the cultural contribution of the "other ethnic groups," sixteen recommendations were made for the preservation of the various cultures in Canada within the framework of bilingualism and biculturalism. The recommendations encompassed all levels of government, and can be regarded as comprising two categories. The first category deals with the 14 Burnet, 17. 15 Book IV, 5. 13 need for legislative prohibition of discrimination on the basis of "race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin";16 and for the removal of existing barriers in the area of language instruction and broadcasting. The second category consists of recommendations for the financial support of federal, provincial, and municipal government agencies, and through these agencies, of cultural and research organizations whose policies foster the "arts and letters" of the "other ethnic groups." Book IV was submitted by the Commission to the Governor- General on October 23, 1969, although it wasn't brought to the consideration of Cabinet until 1971. The delay between the submission of Book IV and the federal government's response to it was due to considerable revisions being made by Cabinet to the document, and to the concentration of the federal government's attention upon Quebec as a result of the 1970 October crisis.17 There were, however, many other factors beyond the crisis in French-English relations and the studies and testimonies which were considered by the Commission which determined Canada's direction towards multiculturalism, and influenced Canadian attitudes regarding cultural diversity. Cultural diversity has always been a characteristic feature 16 Ibid., 228. 17 John Jaworsky, "A Case Study of the Canadian FederalGovernment's Multiculturalism Policy" (M.A. thesis, CarletonUniversity, 1979), 66. 14 of Canadian society, with people being drawn to Canada from a wide variety of geographical and cultural sources. Initially, Canada was inhabited by those people currently referred to as "aboriginals." Beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a wave of immigration from France and the British Isles began. Emigration from Britain has continued to the present day, although emigration from France virtually ceased after the conquest. The arrival of the French and the British in Canada in large numbers, combined with the strength of their participation in the economic, political, and social development of the country relative to that of the "other ethnic groups," led to the establishment of policies which furthered the best interests of the French and the British. The most important objective of Canadian Confederation in 1867 was to accommodate the needs of these two groups: recognition of ethnic diversity did not extend beyond this duality.18 The immigration of non-French, non-British peoples to Canada remained low until the turn of the century. In 1871, members of the "other ethnic groups" comprised only eight per cent of the Canadian population; the percentage rose to almost nine per cent in 1881, and to almost ten per cent in 18 Howard Palmer, "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century," in The Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1976), 84. 15 1901.19 The reason for the slow rate of growth of this segment of the population was the strong appeal of the United States as a destination for European emigrants at this particular time. However, a series of concurrent events in the late 1890s resulted in a wave of immigration to Canada which lasted until the advent of the First World War, and which increased the population by more than three million. Factors which initiated this phenomenon include the closing of the American frontier, the strong attraction of economic prosperity signalled by the Yukon gold rush, the completion of the first continental railway, and advancements in dry land farming. Concomitant with these events was the implementation of the Canadian federal government's policy to promote immigration in order to exploit the economic resources of the country. Government policy relating to the welfare of the immigrants, however, did not extend in time beyond the arrival of the immigrants at their destination.20 Left to their own resources, many of the immigrants formed isolated, cohesive communities based on their common national origins, and continued to maintain their own traditions. Despite the fact that the new immigrants came from many countries and cultural traditions, Canadian society expected 19 Book IV, 18. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number in Book IV. 20 Jaworsky, 37. 16 them to shed their traditions in favour of the values of Canadian society. This approach is referred to as anglo- conformity. ...it was the obligation of new arrivalsto conform to the values and institutions ofCanadian society - which were already fixed.During this period when scarcely anyonequestioned the verities of God, King, andcountry, there was virtually no thought givento the possibility that "WASP" values mightnot be the apex of civilization which all menshould strive for.2I The refusal of some immigrants - whether at the community level or on an individual basis - to abandon their traditional way of life gave rise to fears that some groups were not able to assimilate, which in turn led to the introduction of various discriminatory clauses in immigration legislation.22 Other government policies implemented in response to the formation of cohesive communities include the closing of schools in the West whose language of instruction was not exclusively English.23 21 Palmer, 85. 22 For more information on Canada's immigrationpolicies, see Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern (Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1972). 23 John W. Berry, Rudolf Kahn, and Donald M. Taylor,Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada (Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1977), 10. 17 Between the years 1890 and 1914 more than three million people had immigrated to Canada, but the First World war brought a temporary halt to the arrival of new immigrants. Large scale immigration resumed in the early 19205. One of the reasons for the increase in immigration to Canada was, as in the late 1890s, a change in government policy in the United States: immigrants were forced to change their destination when the United States placed restrictions on the number of immigrants allowed to enter the United States each year 24 With this most recent wave of non-French and non-British immigrants to Canada, a new concept of assimilation emerged in response to the increasing cultural diversity. This philosophy is referred to as the "melting pot," and is similar to anglo-conformity insofar as it is based on the premise that uniformity is essential to unity; however, a fundamental difference between the two theories is the norm to which the immigrants would assimilate. Advocates of anglo-conformity saw the basis of unity as the British culture, whereas proponents of the melting pot envisaged the blending of elements drawn from the various groups giving rise to a new, homogeneous society. One of the reasons for the emergence of melting pot ideas in Canada in the 1920s was the development of Canadian 24 Book IV, 25. 18 nationalism.25 Another may be the emergence of this philosophy in the United States, and at that time, American ideas enjoyed growing popularity among Canadians.28 However, the melting pot philosophy had relatively few proponents in comparison to anglo-conformity, and therefore it had no effect on public policy, which continued to be governed by the concept of anglo-conforrnity. The wave of immigration which began in the 1920s was abruptly halted by government restrictions imposed during the Depression of the 1930s. Only 140,000 immigrants gained entry into the country between the years 1932 and 1941, while strong resistance was presented to the immigration of non- French and non-British peoples, and even stronger to the immigration of non-white peoples.28 Despite the virtual cessation of immigration, the 1930s witnessed a dramatic increase in racial discrimination against non-French and non- British Canadian residents as competition for jobs escalated the tension among people of different national origins. Discriminatory policies were implemented by the government when it invoked the provision to deport recent immigrants who became total public charges. During the Depression, 25 Palmer, 93. 26 Ibid. Palmer makes this suggestion tentatively, pointing out that, at this time in the United States, muchcriticism was being levelled at the melting pot theory. 27 Kallen, "Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality," 51. 28 Berry, Kahn, and Taylor, 6. 19 deportation figures which were previously low, rose so dramatically that emigration exceeded immigration by 100,000.29 Ironically, it was during this time of escalated discrimination that the idea of cultural pluralism began to be explored in English-speaking Canada. The concept of cultural pluralism rejects the assumption of Anglo-Saxon superiority espoused by the proponents of anglo-conformity, and in contrast to the ideas of both anglo-conformity and the melting pot, rejects the notion that cultural uniformity is essential to national unity. Instead, cultural pluralism envisages the preservation of elements of cultures within the broader framework of Canadian citizenship and economic and political integration. As with the melting pot theory in the 1920s, cultural pluralism in the 1930s did not extend its influence to the realm of Canadian public policy, being countered by the discriminatory popular attitudes and government measures of the 1930s. In the aftermath of the Second World War however, large scale immigration to Canada resumed as a result of conditions in Europe. These most recent immigrants represented a wider variety of national origins, occupations, and levels of education than had been seen in previous waves of immigration 29 Book IV, 28. This number varies with different sources, however the variations are relatively minor, and all numbers support the trend of high emigration, contributed largely by deportation. 20 to Canada. Although initial reaction to these immigrants consisted of considerable pressure to conform, economic, social and political forces began to come into play to undermine the previous rationalizations for discrimination, and to facilitate an increased acceptance of cultural diversity. The years following the end of the Second World War brought economic prosperity and security, which reduced the fear of competition for jobs that had so inflamed relations among "ethnic groups" during the Depression. As fear of competition for employment declined, there was a corresponding increase in tolerance of cultural diversity. Economic prosperity was also responsible for the increase in the level of education in Canada, a factor which is believed to have had great impact on increasing the acceptance of cultural diversity in the urban areas.3° These two factors contributed to the upward socio-economic mobility of the "other ethnic groups," which in turn served to challenge the association of "ethnicity" with class, thereby reducing discriminatory stereotyping.31 There were also socio-political circumstances, both inside and outside Canada, which undermined prejudice and led to the 30 Palmer, 99. 31 The higher level of education held by the new immigrants prior to their arrival in Canada, in comparison to earlier immigration waves, also was a factor in reducing discriminatory stereotyping. 21 acceptance of cultural diversity, all of which are related to the increased concern with human rights.32 Although there was some concern expressed in Canada about the violation of human rights prior to the Second World War, this concern was directed towards the philosophy of totalitarian states, and not towards the international or domestic policies of Canada. Any reference to the violation of human rights in Canada was restricted to individual instances of legislative or administrative encroachments on the rights of free people under the common law: these references "were not necessarily considered part of a whole plethora of civil liberties."" However, during and particularly after the Second World War, interest in protecting certain rights and freedoms in Canada grew. Tarnopolsky argues that domestic events were at least as influential as international concerns in stirring interest in protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms.34 During the Second World War, the Government of 32 A right may be defined as "a claim or an advantagepossessed by a person or persons, which is conferred orprotected by law, and which implies a corresponding duty onthe part of another." Walter Surma Tarnopolsky, The Canadian Bill of Rights, 2d rev. ed., Carleton Library No. 83 (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1975), 1. The terms"freedom" and "liberty" refer to "those acts which one may dowithout legal interference" in addition to those "which areassured by legal protection against outside interference."Ibid., 2. The phrase "human rights and fundamental freedoms" is replacing the traditional British term "civil liberties"in Canada. 33 Ibid., 3. 34^Tarnopolsky, "The Impact of United NationsAchievements on Canadian Laws and Practices," in Human 22 Canada acquired and wielded broad powers, governing the country by Orders-in-Council: this manner of exercising authority was justified at the time by the need for secrecy, and was pursuant to the War Measures Act. The treatment accorded the Japanese Canadians and the alleged members of a Soviet spy ring, justified under this authority, served as catalysts for change towards protection of human rights in Canada. The Japanese living in Canada at the time of the Second World War were viewed as a potential treat to national security, and consequently the Canadian Government was empowered to, and did, dispossess and intern them. Moreover, upon conclusion of the war, there was the revelation by a Soviet cypher clerk of an espionage network which extended into high circles of the Canadian political system. The Canadian Government's treatment of the suspected persons included denial of the right to habeas corpus and the right to retain counsel. Criticism was levelled at the measures taken by the Government against both the Japanese and the suspected members of the spy ring; and considerable apprehension was created by the principles represented in the government's course of action. It was realized that it was not just citizens of totalitarian states who were subjected to the Rights Federalism. and Minorities, ed. Allan Gotlieb (Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1970), 55-56. 23 loss of fundamental rights and freedoms. Such loss was possible in Canada, and indeed, the denial of such rights was pursuant to Orders-in-Council. Consequently, there grew a demand for measures which would ensure that such violations would not be repeated. This concern culminated in the adoption of the Canadian of_Rights in 1960.35 Moreover, as a result of two world wars, Canada became increasingly involved in the international community. In 1945, it became a member of the United Nations which, in 1948, adopted without dissenting voice the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article Two of the Declaration states that every person is entitled to rights "without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, nationality or social origin, property, birth or other status." Such apparent conflict between the purposes of international forums in which Canada participated, and the domestic policies practiced, finally led Canada, in 1962, to rescind its discriminatory "white only" or "white if possible" immigration policy, being the first of the three largest receiving countries in international migration to do so.36 35 For a summary of the legislative background to theCanadian Bill of Rights see Kenneth Fogarty, Equality Riglits and their Limitations in the Charter (Toronto: Carswell, 1987), 25-28; and Tarnopolsky, Canadian Bill of Rights, 11- 14. 36 The other two countries are the United States andAustralia. 24 Thus, by the 1960s, cultural pluralism was incorporated into popular attitudes and public policy. Canada's participation in the international community, along with the publicity generated by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the continual increase in immigration from a variety of countries, concern with human rights and equality, and the crisis in French-English relations, were some of the factors which led to the creation of a federal policy of cultural pluralism, and a national philosophy of unity in diversity." The federal government's multicultural policy was the official response to the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Book IV. The policy was announced on October 8, 1971 and received unanimous support from all political parties.38 As announced by Prime Minister Trudeau, it endorsed all the recommendations made by the Royal Commission in Book IV which were directed towards federal government agencies. However, the framework which the Prime Minister proposed differed from 37 Numerous sources suggest that a desire to capturethe "ethnic vote" was the crucial factor in leading to theestablishment of a multicultural policy (for example seeRaymond Breton, "The Evolution of the Canadian MulticulturalSociety: the Significance of Government Intervention," inCanadian Mosaic: Essays on Multiculturalism, ed. A.J. Fry and Ch. Forceville (Amsterdam- Free University Press, 1988), 27-42. However, as Jaworsky points out, between the years 1968and 1972, the Liberal party had a strong majority and thereis no evidence to indicate that other parties were solicitingthe "ethnic vote." Jaworsky, 56-57. 38 House of Commons, Debates, 8 October 1971, 8546-48. 25 that recommended by the Commission. The Commission believed that a strong relationship existed between language and culture, and therefore supported the goal of the bilingual, bicultural nation as articulated in its terms of reference." The federal government, on the other hand, did not recognize the existence of a compelling relationship between language and culture and proposed a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. "For although there are two official languages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnic group take precedence over any other. No citizen or group of citizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treated fairly. "4° The Prime Minister stated that A policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework commends itself to the government as the most suitable means of assuring the cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policy should help break down discriminatory attitudes and cultural jealousies. National unity if it is to mean anything in the deeply personal sense, must be founded on confidence in one's own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of 39 Different conclusions have been drawn about what the Commission really recommended. For two totally different interpretations see Kallen, "Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality," 53, who suggests that the Commission, in positing an indivisible relationship between language and culture, implied in its recommendations that multiculturalism would necessitate multilingualism; and Michael Hudson, who states that "the keystone to the 1971 policy was 'multiculturalism within a bilingual framework'- essentially what the 'B and B' Commission had recommended." Michael Hudson, "Multiculturalism, Government Policy and Constitutional Enshrinement - A Comparative Study," in Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 63. 40 Debates, 8545. 26 others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions. A vigorous policy of multiculturalism will help create this initial confidence 41 Four policy statements were made by the Prime Minister with respect to the implementation of the proposed policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. The first statement consists of the pledge to provide financial assistance to groups in order to assist them in retaining their cultural identity. The second pertains to increasing the participation of all groups in Canadian society, whereas the third and fourth refer to increasing the opportunities for exchanges among cultural groups, and assisting immigrants to acquire at least one of the two official languages. As Freda Hawkins observes, the federal multicultural policy is fundamentally about "cultural freedom, social justice, and human rights."42 However, the policy also functions on a more pragmatic level, that is, it distributes political recognition among the various groups.42 For, as Prime Minister Trudeau stated in his announcement to the House of Commons in 1971, In the past, substantial public support has been given largely to the arts and cultural institutions of English-speaking Canada... The policy I am announcing today accepts the contention of the 41 Ibid. 42 Hawkins, "Canadian Multiculturalism: the Policy Explained," in Canadian Mosaic, 11. 43 Breton, 39. 27 other cultural communities that they, too, areessential elements in Canada and deserve governmentassistance in order to contribute to regional andnational life in ways that derive from theirheritage yet are distinctly Canadian.44 While the policy of multiculturalism received unanimous support in the House of Commons from all parties upon its announcement, the four individual policy statements were received by the public with less enthusiasm and varying degrees of acceptance. Certain critics of the multicultural policy - such as H. Brotz - objected to the entire multicultural policy, claiming that it made of Canada "...some kind of ethnic zoo where the function of the zoo keeper is to collect as many varieties as possible and exhibit them once a year in some carnival where one can go from booth to booth sampling pizzas, won ton soup and kosher pastrami."45 Others supported the policy in principle, but were critical of particular policy statements." The infrastructure which was developed to put these objectives into effect began with the creation, in 1972, of the new cabinet post of Minister of State responsible for 44 Debates, 8545-46. 45 Howard Brotz, "Multiculturalism and Canada: AModel," Canadian Public Policy 6 (Winter 1980): 44. 46 For examples of criticism levelled at policy statements numbers one and four, see B.M. Bullivant,"Multiculturalism - Pluralist Orthodoxy or Ethnic Hegemony,"Canadian Ethnic Studies 13, 2 (1981): 1-22, and G. Rocher, "Multiculturalism: the Doubts of a Francophone," in The Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism, 47-65. 28 multiculturalism within the Department of Secretary of State. A Multiculturalism Directorate reported through an Under- Secretary of State to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The mandate of the Minister and his staff was to "communicate actively with all sectors of government and the public to promote an awareness of the pluralistic nature of Canadian society. 1147 The Multicultural Directorate was responsible for administering programs which put the four policy statements into effect. The programs consisted of grant and non-grant initiatives as outlined by the Prime Minister in 1971.48 In May 1973, the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCM) was constituted as an advisory body to the Minister. The CCCM was established to provide those groups for whom the policy was created with access to the decision-making process. The CCCM was comprised of approximately one hundred individuals appointed by the Minister. This advisory body was required to make annual recommendations to the Minister on the multicultural policy; however, the elaborate structure of the CCM along with its unwieldy size led, in 1985, to its dissolution and the creation of a new advisory body. This new group was called the Canadian Multicultural Council, was comprised of a fewer 47 Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada, 15. 48^Debates, "Appendix Part C: Program of Implementation," 8582-83. 29 number of participants, and had an expanded mandate which included research. The administrative infrastructure supporting the multicultural policy evolved over the years in response to the federal government's expanding commitment to the multicultural ideal and the corresponding increase in programs. The development of that commitment is marked by such events as the creation of a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Multiculturalism to monitor the implementation of the multicultural policy, the formation of advisory bodies to the Minister with successively stronger mandates, and the upgrading of the Multicultural Directorate to a Sector in 1985, and from a Sector to the Department of Multiculturalism and Citizenship in 1991.49 The mandate of the Department is to implement programs which will enable all Canadians to participate fully in Canadian society without discrimination. The nature of the programs designed to achieve the multicultural ideal has shifted over the years from an emphasis on the folkloric aspects of heritage to an emphasis on cross-cultural communications and race relations. An attempt to create a statutory basis for the federal multicultural policy was made in 1984, with Bill C-48. This 49 Bill C-18, an Act to formally establish theDepartment of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, was passed by both houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent onJanuary 17, 1991. 30 Bill provided for a Multiculturalism Act which closely paralleled the 1971 federal multicultural policy. The objectives of the Art, laid out in section 3, were to encourage contributions by all "cultural and racial groups" to Canadian society, to remove barriers to social, economic, political and cultural participation in Canadian society, to support the preservation and exchange of "cultural heritage," to foster appreciation for the nation's cultural diversity, and to ensure that related government policies and programs incorporated the multicultural objectives. Although Bill C-48 died on the order paper, a legislative base for the multicultural policy was provided four years later with the Canadian Multiculturalism Art. The Bill for this Act, Bill C-93, was tabled in the House of Commons on December 1, 1987. After a series of public hearings, it received unanimous approval of Parliament on July 12, 1988, that of the Senate on July 19, and was proclaimed law on July 21 of the same year. The first of its kind in the world, the Canadian Multiculturalism Art articulates the multicultural policy, formulates a framework for implementing the policy, and provides a system of government accountability both to Parliament and the Canadian public. The Art outlines ten policy objectives, and identifies the ways in which the federal institutions should implement the policy. The policy objectives outlined in section 3 (1) of the Act are: to promote the understanding that multiculturalism is a fundamental and valuable characteristic 31 of Canadian society, which acknowledges the freedom to preserve one's cultural heritage; to remove the barriers to to full participation in Canadian society; to recognize the "culturally diverse" communities, their contribution to society, and the benefits of their diversity; and to implement the policy without affecting the status of official languages. Section 3 (2) of the Ant outlines the commitment of the federal institutions to implement the policy, while sections 4 through 6 identify methods for implementing the policy, focusing on the role of the Ministers of the Crown. Section 7 establishes the Canadian Multiculturalism Advisory Committee to provide the Minister with advice on the policy programs, while section 8 addresses funding. Sections 9 and 10 of the Act provide for a system of accountability to Parliament and to the Canadian public for the implementation of the multicultural policy. The inclusion of the multicultural policy in the statutes is significant, for it implies that the government, and therefore the people upon whose behalf it is acting, felt enough confidence in multiculturalism to impose it on the future. Two years prior to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the underlying rationale for the multicultural policy - the desire to ensure equality for all Canadians - was recognized by the legal system in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 is the Equality Rights section of the Charter. In so far as a right can be guaranteed, this section ensures the protection of the 32 multicultural heritage of all Canadians.5° Subsection (1) of section 15 states that "every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Although this section purports to guarantee the equality of all Canadians, there is no generally accepted definition of equality in Canada; there are however, generally accepted assumptions about equality which include the recognition that all individuals are of equal worth and dignity.5I "No one should be denied opportunities for reasons unrelated to their ability...because [such an action] implies that the worth of some individuals is less than others."52 However, the notion of equality does not necessarily imply that everyone should be treated the same: equality and identical treatment are not synonymous. Indeed, in certain 50 Although the rights which are listed in the various sections of the Charter come under the title "Guarantee ofRights and Freedoms", Donald Smiley points out that rights are not absolute as implied by the heading: every right issubject to some actual or conceivable limitation. Donald Smiley, The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1981, Discussion Paper Series (Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1981), 1-6. 51 Clare F. Beckton, "Section 27 and Section 15 of theCharter," in Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal perspective, 4. 52 Ibid. 33 circumstances, equality may very well mean treating a person differently because of that person's differences: as Beckton points out, treating a blind person and a sighted person the same for all purposes does not constitute equality.53 An example of this is the landmark case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., where Big M Drug Mart Ltd. was charged with unlawfully carrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to the Lord's Day Act 54 The Supreme Court, in announcing its decision on the case, suggested that "the interests of true equality may well require differentiation in treatment."55 The line between discrimination and acknowledging distinctiveness is a fine one. Like the word "equality," "discrimination," when used within the context of human rights, has no generally accepted definition in Canada.56 Definitions of discrimination which are taken from the United States and Britain, and which are often quoted in Canadian law, include the version given by Lord Reid in Post Office v. Union of Post Office Workers: 57 Discrimination implies a comparison. Here I think that the meaning could be eitherthat by reason of the discrimination the 53 Ibid. 54 [1985] 1 S.C.R. 295 55 Ibid., 347. 56 Beckton, 7. 57 [1974] 1 All E.R. 229-39. 34 worker is worse off in some way than he would have been had there been no discrimination against him or that by reason of the discrimination he is worse off than someone else in a comparable position against whom there has been no discrimination.58 Another often cited definition of discrimination is that given by Mr. Justice Burton in Cortner v. N.tional Cash Register Comuany.59 "Discrimination means the act of making a distinction in favour or against a person or thing based on the group, class or category to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit."" In order for a distinction to be discriminatory, it appears that the action is in response to a trait, rather than in response to the individual's ability; and that the action has a detrimental effect or is in some way disadvantageous to the individual. Discrimination, as opposed to distinction, carries a negative connotation, and is the result of a stereotyped or unfair assumption.61 Subsection (2) of section 15 was included in the Charter to legitimize activities and programs which might otherwise be charged as discriminatory. 62 It states that "subsection (1) 58 [1974] 1 All E.R. 238. 59 262 N.E. 2d. (1970) 586-89. 60 Ibid., 586. 61 Beckton, 1. 62 Canada, by including subsection (2), wished to avoid the difficulties encountered in the United States with the notion of "reverse discrimination" - a charge which arose 35 does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of individuals or groups including those who are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." Therefore this section has ramifications for executing the nation's multicultural ideal, particularly when it is read in conjunction with section 27. Section 27 has no equivalent elsewhere in the world." It reads "the Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians." However, as with the Charter's use of the undefined terms "equality" and "discrimination," there is nothing to clearly indicate how "multicultural heritage" should be interpreted. In the words of Joseph Magnet, "[this] phrase is a political 'mirror on the wall.' It invites those reflecting in it to see the most flattering view of their own ideas."64 In spite of the fluid definitions which surround the concept, including that of the very term multiculturalism, cultural pluralism is replacing cultural duality in Canadian public policy and popular attitudes. The policy of multiculturalism has had a spin-off effect upon the because of the lack of any provisions in their equality clause for affirmative action programs. 63 Hudson, 60. 64 Joseph Eliot Magnet, "Interpreting Multiculturalism," in Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 146. 36 provinces, although the development of policies at this level varies considerably from province to province." Of the Atlantic provinces, only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have programs dedicated specifically to multiculturalism. Quebec has a multicultural policy which is implemented by the ministre des Communautes culturelles et de l'Immigration; the objectives of this agency are to preserve cultural diversity, promote greater cultural tolerance, and achieve equality for all. Ontario, like Quebec, has a ministry responsible for program delivery. Ontario's Ministry of Citizenship and Culture has three functional branches to facilitate the integration and participation of the population in the life of the province. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have both issued statements declaring the equality of status and guaranteed access to their facilities for people of all cultures, and both have a key delivery ministry for their programs for cultural retention. Alberta's policies are the most developed of the western provinces, and this province was the first in Canada to establish a Department of Culture and Multiculturalism. British Columbia on the other hand, has one of the most recently developed policies for multiculturalism in the country. Created in 1990, the policy is aimed at encouraging all segments of the 65 The following summary of provincial policies is basedon William Sheridan, Canadian Multiculturalism (Library of Parliament; Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991,text-fiche), 12. 37 population to participate in the economic and social life of the province." Neither of the two Territories has yet articulated a policy of multiculturalism. Factors which led to the adoption of a policy of cultural pluralism at the federal - and subsequently the provincial - level include continual immigration from a variety of countries, and political and social isolation of the immigrant groups, leading to the maintenance of their own traditions. Both the government's and the public's reaction to this cultural diversity have evolved from assimilation to pluralism, with many factors influencing this transition. The Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was the initial attempt to formulate Canada's cultural diversity, and the federal government's official response to the recommendations made by the Commission was to introduce a policy of multiculturalism. Since that announcement in 1971, an increasingly sophisticated administrative infrastructure has been set up to support the policy, and laws specific to the goals of the policy have been enacted. The administrative and legal means by which the multicultural policy is implemented are indicative of the commitment of the government - and of the public, whose will the government represents - to the future of a policy of multiculturalism in Canada. Although the spirit of multiculturalism seems assured 66 Ministry of Provincial Secretary, Multicultural policy of the Province of British Columbia, October, 1990. 38 of its place within Canadian society, the public agencies which execute the policies face challenges as the implications of the policies transpire. Archival repositories at the federal and provincial/territorial levels are doubly affected by multiculturalism as a policy and as a movement since they are tied to the goals of their sponsoring agency and at the same time are responsible for preserving evidence of societal relationships. Chapter Two discusses the conceptual implications of multiculturalism for archivists and archival repositories at Canadian federal and provincial/territorial archival institutions. 39 CHAPTER 2 MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL THEORY The most significant questions which arise when one considers the political and legal manifestations of multiculturalism from an archival point of view are firstly, what would be the effect of politically determined acquisition policies on society's documentary heritage, and secondly, how is the impartiality with which archivists and archival institutions are expected to fulfill their mandates to be reconciled with federal and provincial policies and with subsection 2, section 15 of the Charter, which legitimize affirmative action programs? While Blinkhorn states that the "relationship between archives and society has always been determined by political and legal factors," this statement is only valid with respect to the traditional motives determining the establishment of archival institutions, and the current reasons for preserving public records.' The validity and potential effect of the implementation of government initiatives within the realm of private records constitutes in fact an entirely new area of enquiry, a 1 Victoria Blinkhorn, "The Records of Visual Artists: Appraising for Acquisition and Selection" (Master of ArchivalStudies thesis, University of British Columbia, 1988), 33. 40 consequence of an unprecedented government involvement in all aspects of Canadian society. Moreover, a specific challenge for archivists is created by the fact that multiculturalism as a policy is moving in two directions at the same time in its attempt to arrive at the goal of "unity in diversity." On the one hand, the aim of the policy is to remove boundaries among the various cultural groups in order to achieve the "unity" component of the equation. On the other hand, the programs implemented under the aegis of the multicultural policy are designed to facilitate the maintenance of the distinctiveness of those groups, the "diversity" component of the equation. Because the notion of context is central to archival science, inspires its principles, and governs its methods of acquisition, preservation, and communication of archives, the challenge presented to archivists by these potentially contrasting approaches to multiculturalism lies in determining whether a cultural group can be considered as the relevant and primary context of a group of records: an affirmative answer could be construed as emphasizing that aspect of multiculturalism which advocates maintaining distinctiveness, while a negative answer could be construed as emphasizing that aspect of multiculturalism which advocates eliminating distinctions. In order to address these questions and others that arise as corollaries, it is necessary to look first at the object which 41 the multicultural policy was devised to protect the cultural and/or ethnic group. 2.1 THE CULTURAL AND/OR ETHNIC GROUP It is one primary aim of the Canadian multicultural policy to facilitate the maintenance of cultural and/or ethnic group ties. Political and legal documents associated with the policy, however, do not define the concept of cultural and or/ethnic group. Whether it is assumed that there is an agreement about the exact nature of this entity, and therefore it is deemed unnecessary to define it explicitly, or whether - as appears to be the case - a definition of it eludes us altogether, much confusion and controversy have arisen about the identity of the groups that constitute the target of multiculturalism. Arising from this uncertainty about exactly what it is that multiculturalism is dealing with, is the fact that different words have been used to mean the same thing and, conversely, the same word has been used to mean different things. For example, the primary cause of unfavourable reaction to the content of Book IV was the way in which the Commission defined and used the terms "ethnic groups" and "cultural groups."2 The Commission, in presenting its recommendations for advancing the rights of the 2 Burnet, "Taking into Account," 14. 42 French-speaking population, posited a strong relationship between language and culture, and distinguished a cultural group from an ethnic group on the basis of language. However, the Commission, throughout its report, appeared to use the term cultural group as a synonym for ethnic group. This gave "ethnic groups" a claim to linguistic rights, and was perceived as a threat to the claim of French Canadians to equal partnership with the "other founding race. "3 Nineteen years after the publication of Book IV, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act provided a statutory basis for the multicultural policy. The Preamble of the Act refers to the "diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnic origin, colour..." and in sections 3 (1) (a) and (b) to "cultural heritage" and "diverse cultures" respectively. While the Act defines its use of the words "minister" and "federal institution" it does not offer any interpretation of words central to the Act itself and consequently to the policy of multiculturalism. Similarly, Statistics Canada does not define nor distinguish "ethnic groups" and "cultural groups." In the national census, Statistics Canada elicits information about the population's "ethnic origin," where ethnic origin "refers to the ethnic or cultural groups to which the respondent or the respondent's 3 For amplification, see Guy Rocher, "Multiculturalism: the Doubts of a Francophone," 47-65. 43 ancestors belong. Ethnic or cultural group refers to the "roots" or ancestral origin..."4 Social scientists have not been more successful than political scientists in defining the object of multiculturalism. Isajiw conducted a bibliometric survey to determine the frequency with which social scientists defined ethnicity in their research.5 Out of sixty-five sociological and anthropological studies dealing with ethnicity, only thirteen gave some definition of it, while fifty-two offered no definition at all. Harold Isaacs remarks upon the apparent difficulty of defining the concept by describing it as the snowman of 'ethnicity' whose footprints havebeen around us so long but which has been socuriously difficult to track down... [We are] surenow that it exists and is important, more importantthan most thought, but no one [is] sure what itlooks like, or whether it is abominable or not.6 While it appears that most authors are reluctant to explain how they are using certain terminology, there are some who do offer qualifications for the terms being used. Race, religion, kinship, language, modes of livelihood, region of origin and habitat are among the most common criteria used to define ethnic 4^Statistics Canada, Ethnicity. Immigration, and Citizenshiv (Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1989), xxi. 5 Wsevolod Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," Ethnicity 1, 2 (July 1974): 111-24. 6 Harold Isaacs, "Basic Group Identity: The Idols of theTribe," Ethnicity 1, 1 (April 1974): 15, 17. 44 and/or cultural groups.7 It is clear that ethnicity is sometimes distinguished from culture, although there is no consensus on the criteria to be used for making such distinctions. The multicultural policy addresses a concept, therefore, that is wide open to, and indeed entirely dependent upon the interpretation of those attempting to put into effect the policy. Whether ethnicity and culture are different words referring to the same concept or not, and despite the variety of interpretations attributed to each, for the sake of consistency the words culture and cultural group will be used throughout the thesis in place of the words ethnicity and ethnic groups.8 Although ethnicity and culture may indeed be different concepts, they are not recognized as such by the multicultural policy or by those entrusted with verifying its effectiveness.8 The words culture and cultural group are used here to refer to that entity which the multicultural policy attempts to preserve. 7 The complexity of this issue is beyond the scope of this thesis to explore. For an overview see Isajiw. 8 The decision to use the words culture and cultural groups rather than ethnicity and ethnic groups is based on the recognition that a pejorative meaning has sometimes been attached to the word "ethnic." Also, the word culture is a component of the word multiculturalism, and bears a greater affinity to its concept. 9 In a national survey conducted between 1973 and 1976 to investigate the attitudes of Canadians towards multiculturalism, the authors state that "for the purposes of this research, multiculturalism refers to the existence of ethnic groups in Canada which derive from cultural traditions other than British or French..." Berry, Kahn, and Taylor, 231. 45 The lack of an explicit definition of the object of the multicultural policy does not preclude archival institutions from implementing it, sometimes taking advantage of the elusive character of the term cultural group, to the point of adopting and employing the definition which best reflects the cultural climate of the institution's jurisdiction. But considering the nature of archival material, is it possible to fulfill archival responsibilities in a way which is conditioned by the multicultural policy? And considering the role of archivists and archival repositories, is it appropriate to do so? These questions can only be answered in the context of the nature of archives and of the roles of archivists and archival institutions in the formation of society's documentary heritage. 2.2 THE NATURE OF ARCHIVES AND THE ROLES OF ARCHIVISTS ANDARCHIVAL INSTITUTIONS IN FORMING SOCIETY'S DOCUMENTARYHERITAGE Numerous definitions of archives have been developed in the last one hundred years. They have usually arisen in response to the diversity of situations with which archivists of specific times and places dealt. Despite the discrepancies and controversies on the subject within the international archival community, the definition of archives proposed by the Canadian Bureau of Archivists in 1985 has become the standard definition accepted in Canada. It considers archives to be "the whole of 46 the documents of any nature that every administrative body, every physical or corporate entity, automatically and organically accumulates by reason of its function or its activity.nio This definition implies that a number of characteristics can be attributed to archival material. The fact that the nature of archives is defined by describing a collectivity aptly portrays the idea that there are relationships between archival documents, which, taken together, form a cohesive "whole."11 The relationships which exist among the documents are a consequence of the way in which they are created. Archives are made or received, and accumulated by a creator in the course of an activity, automatically and organically, and because of this, there is "a structure, an articulation and a natural relationship between the parts which are essential to their significance."12 10 Bureau of Canadian Archivists, Towards Descriptive Standards: Report and Recommendations of the Canadian Working Group on Archival Descriptive Standards (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1985), 7. 11 The French phrase fonds d'archives, or simply the word fonds, is used in English speaking Canada to describe thisentity. The term "archive group" used in Great Britain, and the term "record group" used In North America, may coincide with themeaning attributed to the word fonds, but may also refer to theartificial grouping of two or more fonds for the purpose of administrative expedience. 12 Sir Hilary Jenkinson, "The English Archivist: A NewProfession," in Selected Writings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, ed. Roger H. Ellis and Peter Walne (Glouster: Alan Sutton, 1980),238-39. This quality of archives was described by Jenkinson as the quality of "inter-relationships." Jenkinson explains thisconcept further: "A single document out of a Group of Archives isno more to be taken as expressing in and by itself all it has totell us than would a single bone separated from the skeleton ofan extinct and unknown animal." Ibid., 239. 47 This relationship among the parts is determined by the nature, function, and activity of the creator to whom the archival material is linked by a relationship of paternity, not of ownership. The relationships between the documents of a fonds reflect a structure which corresponds to the way in which the creator organized its activities. Because archives are produced as a consequence of pursuing some activity, the purpose of their creation is detached from any consideration of use other than the creator's original intent.13 Consequently, archival documents are impartial. They reveal the way of operating of their creator, its biases and idiosyncrasies, and also the context in which the creator was active. Archives therefore are a complex of documents and a complex of relationships, relationships among the documents, between the documents and their creator, and between the documents and the society in which the creator acts. The responsibilities of archival repositories and archivists are derived from the nature of archives, but have evolved as the role played by archives within the social matrix has developed. The first archival repositories were established to preserve records which were vital testimony to rights and privileges of the power-wielding elite; they were indeed the "arsenals of law 13 The Dutch archivists Muller, Feith and Fruin identifiedthis quality of archives in their 1898 treatise when they statedthat archives "are intended to remain in the custody of the bodyor official which created it." S. Muller, J.A. Feith and R.Fruin, Manual for the Arrangement and Description of Archives, trans. Arthur H. Leavitt, 2d ed. (New York: The H.W.WilsonCompany, 1940; reprint, with a Foreword by Ken Munden, 1968), 13. 48 and administration. u14 Accordingly, repositories for these records accomplished a political and legal function.15 Thus, from the beginning of civilization to the end of the eighteenth century, archives were the documents created in the course of affairs which were preserved by their creators for their exclusive use, even if at times others were allowed to consult them. With the French Revolution, however, new principles were established which became fundamental to the administration of archives. The ideas which developed as a result of the Revolution and which greatly affected the administration and use of archival materials include the state's recognition of the value of archives to persons other than the creator. In the early years of the Revolution, in reaction against the ancient regime, the 14 Trevor Livelton, "Some Thoughts on the Archival Function and Method, With a Note on Their Relation to the Arsenal of the Forum," (unpublished term paper, School of Library, Archival and Information Studies, University of British Columbia, march 1988), 10. Hugh Taylor points out that, as the written record supplanted the oral action, the document became the act itself. Hugh Taylor, "'My Very Act and Deed': Some Reflections on the Role of Textual Records in the Conduct of Affairs," American Archivist 51 (Fall 1988): 459. For more information about the impact of the written record upon society, see M.T. Clanchy, "'Tenacious Letters': Archives and Memory in the Middle Ages," Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980-1981): 115-26; and M.T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record: England. 1066-1307 (London: Arnold, 1979). 15 See Ernst Posner, "Some Aspects of Archival Development Since the French Revolution," in A Modern Archives Reader, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walsh (Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1984), 3-14; also Oliver W. Holmes, "History and Theory of Archival Practice," in University Archives, ed. Rolland E. Stevens (Champaign, Ill. :Edward Brothers, Inc., 1964), 1-21. 49 Revolutionaries destroyed large quantities of feudal records: because of the records, dispositive nature, rights and privileges of the aristocracy were destroyed along with them. It was soon realized, however, that records were an essential element in the functioning of society as a whole, and necessary to its continuation and development. This was not a completely new idea. Already Baldassare Bonafacio, citizen of the Venetian Republic, and celebrated juriconsult, college professor and president, bishop, and litterateur extraordinary, had observed in the seventeenth century that nothing is so sacred that the mad licentiousness and unchecked boldness of tyrants does not profane it. But those who stored away in places sacred to memory the books and records from which a late posterity might draw, as from a storehouse, information for its own erudition and that of its successors, they imitate the Alexanders the Great, the Julius Caesars, the Octavian Augustuses, and the great Constantines... If we had been completely deprived of these precious crumbs, we should all be compelled to grope in the dark...there is nothing more necessary for preserving patrimonies and thrones, all things public and private, than a well-constituted store of volumes and records.16 As a result of the French Revolution, the state acknowledged its responsibility for the care of its documentary heritage, not solely as a necessary instrument of government, but also as the 16 Lester K. Born, trans., "Baldassare Bonafacio and his Essay De Archivis," American Archivist 4 (January 1941): 233-34. 50 property of the people.17 As such, Article 37 of the Messidor decree of 1794 proclaimed archives accessible to the public, on the basis of the public's ownership of the records. Although the principle of universal access was initially formulated to provide for the legal and judicial needs of people, it later facilitated scholarly research. The notions of public access to, and state responsibility for archives spread throughout Europe to those areas which came within the French orbit, most notably Belgium, the Netherlands, the Kingdom of Naples and various other Italian states.18 The feelings of intense nationalism which arose in response to French domination found expression in the writing of national histories, a development which created a new demand for archival documents. This new trend of using archives to write about the nation's past was accelerated by the increasing acceptance of the philosophy of the school of scientific history, which emphasized the primacy of documents in the study and interpretation of the past.18 This link between archives and historiography was further strengthened in the early decades of the nineteenth century when scholars replaced government officials as records keepers.2() 17 Indeed, it is possible to say that archives have, in the most fundamental sense, always been the property of those who exercise political power. 18 Holmes, 15. 19 Ibid., 15 - 16; Posner, 9. 20 For a more detailed historical account of the delegation of responsibility for archival material see Luciana Duranti, "The 51 Thus, it is possible to see that as archives came to have value for people other than their creators, and as archival documents not necessarily pertaining to political or legal matters came to be deposited in archival institutions, the function of the archivist expanded beyond that of service to records creators and, for the purpose of serving society at large, grew to include acquisition of archives of non-sponsoring bodies. With the growing use of archives as primary sources for the writing of history, and with the entrance of historians into the archival profession, it was perhaps inevitable that historiographical interests came to influence the acquisition process, particularly with respect to private material. Understandably, appraisal criteria were developed which served the best interest of the historian. As Booms remarks, the appraisal function has been governed in the past by the vision archivists have had of themselves and their profession as the "'hewers of wood and the drawers of water' for historical researchers."21 Cappon comments that the incentive for the acquisition policies "in fields such as urban and ethnic history, the history of women, of the Negro, and of science" stems from historical study, that is, it is the interest demonstrated by Odyssey of Records Managers. Part 2: From the Middle Ages toModern Times" Records Management Quarterly (October 1989): 3-11. 21 Hans Booms, "Society and the Formation of a DocumentaryHeritage: Issues in the Appraisal of Archival Sources," Trans.Hermina Joldersma and Richard Klumpenhouwer, Archivaria 24 (Summer 1978): 91. 52 researchers in those specific subjects to archivists which has driven the archival acquisition of private archives in these subject areas.22 Gerald Ham, dissatisfied with this traditional, reactive nature of archival acquisition, proposes a proactive approach.23 He suggests that the roles in the relationship be reversed, and that archivists drive historiography by acquiring within subject areas which have been overlooked. In addition to those who would suggest that acquisition policies be aimed at encouraging writing on a specific subject, there are also those who would suggest that archivists take a moral stance on "racist or xenophobic behaviours."24 "Cultural and group identity" - Danielle Laberge writes - is a political issue, "...and it is on these grounds that one should take a position. ..25 It is precisely such subjective judgements which archivists must avoid giving expression to in the acquisition of private material, for it is these biases which have resulted in the incomplete archival record which we are faced with today. Contemporary scholars such as Veronica Strong-Boag lament that it 22 Lester J. Cappon, "The Archivist as Collector," AmericanArchivist 39 (October 1976): 429. 23 F. Gerald Ham, "The Archival Edge," in Modern Archives Reader, 326-35. 24 Danielle Laberge, "Information, Knowledge, and Rights: The Preservation of Archives as a Political Issue," Archivaria 25 (Winter 1987-88): 46. 25 Ibid. 53 is impossible to write an accurate history of women because of a lack of documentation in archives.26 However true and unfortunate this may be, this situation of a lack of documentation in archives is, in part, the result of archival institutions being too closely linked with research trends or other areas of subjective interests. Despite the relationship which was established between archives and historiography in the course of the nineteenth century, it has become increasingly accepted by professional archivists, if less so by professional historians, that the purpose and goal of the formation of the archival documentary heritage is to preserve documentary evidence of all aspects of the social matrix which are functional to the understanding of society, and to its continuation and development.27 But if recognition of this higher purpose is gaining ground, implementation appears less pervasive.28 Colman believes that, in 26 Veronica Strong-Boag, "Raising Clio's Consciousness:Women's History and Archives in Canada," Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 70-82. 27 This development is reflected throughout archivalliterature. For specific validation of this statement seeConsultative Group on Canadian Archives, Canadian Archives: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1980), 6. 28 This conclusion is based upon the well-established factthat archival acquisition of private material has historicallybeen very closely tied to historiographical trends and thatcultural diversity until recently has not been part of these trends; and upon statements made by scholars such as RobertHarney, who comment upon the lack of archival documentationreflecting Canada's cultural diversity. 54 the United States, a disproportionate amount of public archives has been acquired in comparison to private archives, and that the archival profession is "...skewing the study of culture by the studied preservation of unrepresentative indicators of that culture... The most pronounced case of skewing" - he writes - "is the preservation of vast holdings of government records.. .in the absence of collections which take comparable account of other aspects of culture."29 The acquisition emphasis which Colman is referring to echoes, of course, the original function of archival repositories as the "arsenals of law and administration" and reflects the tendency to document the lives of those who represent the prevailing socio-economic strata of society. The representation of the power-wielding elite in the realms of both public and private documents acquisition results therefore, not only from the traditional functions of archival institutions, but also from human nature, which has maintained a fascination with the powerful few. This preoccupation of archivists everywhere with those individuals and groups who form the diplomatic, economic, and military elites has resulted in an incomplete archival record if one agrees with Booms that such a record should represent the "societal relationships of an era in its essential features."" 29 Gould P. Colman, Letter to "The Forum: Communicationsfrom Members," American Archivist 36 (July 1973): 484. 30 Booms, 102. An example of an incomplete archival record- that is, an archival record which does not represent theessential features of a community - is the situation in Milwaukeewhere none of the state's finding aids mentions the brewing 55 2.3 IMPLICATIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM FOR THE ARCHIVAL RECORD In Canada, multiculturalism is certainly one essential societal feature, and, in light of the above discussion, the justification for acquiring records which reflect the multicultural character of Canadian society at the provincial and national levels should not lay with the "changing winds of historiography,"31 nor with the desire to serve the cause of multiculturalism, but rather with the recognition that the totality of Canadian society MUSt be represented in the holdings of archival institutions. Creating and employing appraisal criteria in response to government initiatives may simply perpetuate the tendency of archival repositories to be dictated by external forces. The Consultative Group on Canadian Archives wrote that an archival repository "mirrors the organization or community which created it," and that "its holdings should reflect all aspects of community life...": affirmative action programs embedded in industry, an omission which Ham speculates could lead future researchers to surmise that the brewer's art was unknown in Milwaukee. Ham, 327. 31 Ham, 329. 56 acquisition policies may compromise the impartiality necessary to achieve this idea1.32 However, it is possible to conceive of positive aspects of such an affirmative action program from an archival point of view. For example, in particular geographical areas where a repository's holdings do not reflect the cultural diversity of the jurisdiction of the institution, the implementation of government-inspired acquisition policies which specifically target the cultural dimension of the community would not compromise the archival record; indeed, such an initiative would facilitate the process of forming a documentary heritage which reflects all aspects of the community. In addition, the very existence of affirmative action programs is in itself a record of societal attitudes and relationships, and certainly reflects government activity and concern. The issue of acquiring private archival material which reflects the multicultural nature of a repository's jurisdiction raises the question of whether or not the cultural dimension of man is to be considered a conceptually valid "provenance."33 The answer to this question is vital, for provenance is the fundamental principle of archival science which governs all aspects of archival work, including appraisal for acquisition. An analysis of the meaning of 32 Consultative Group, 6. 33 The question does not arise for public material, whose provenance is always a creating office. 57 provenance is justified in light of the expansion in both its interpretation and its applicability to archival functions. Provenance has been described as the "definitive fact of archival science."34 Contrary to the common assumption that the principle of provenance was "invented" by Natalis De Wailly in France in 1841, Maynard Britchford presents a convincing argument that the principle was not "the sudden result of decrees, edicts, regulations and endorsements" but had a longer history and a more gradual introduction into the archivist's work than the popular version of the story allows.35 In assessing De Wailly's role with respect to provenance, it might be more appropriate to say that De Wailly was the first to articulate and mandate the principle. His directive was necessitated by a response to a variety of changes taking place in the nineteenth century. The most prominent among these changes were the re-organization of post-revolutionary governments, the secularization of religious institutions and the centralization of power which gave rise to new governmental functions and consequently to new types of records, the exertion of bureaucratic and professional 34 Michel Duchein, "Theoretical Principles and PracticalProblems of Respect des Fonds in Archival Science," Archivaria 16 (Summer 1989): 66. 35 Maynard Britchford, "The Provenance of Provenance, orProvenance - Now More Than Ever," (unpublished paper, n.p., September 23, 1988), 7. 55 pressures for standards and regulations, and the new scholarly clientele of archives.36 De Wailly's edict required archivists "...to assemble the different documents by 'fonds,' that is to say, to form a collection of all the documents which originate from a 'corps,' an organization, a family or individual, and to arrange the different 'fonds' according to a certain order."37 It is clear from this statement that Natalis De Wailly perceived fonds as a physical entity, and consequently the principle that he formulated reflected this. The equation of the physical grouping of records with the body that created it, that is, with its provenance, persists today. The purpose of the principle of provenance as it was originally conceived was to keep the context of the records intact, a goal to be achieved by grouping the records according to their source. This stipulation received its theoretical justification from the Dutch archivists in their manual, and was the purpose underlying their Rule Number 8: "The various archival collections placed in a depository must be kept carefully separate...."38 Several decades later, 36 Ibid. 37 As quoted in Nancy Bartlett, "The Provenance of 'Respectdes Fonds'," (unpublished paper, Bentley Library, 1988), 2. 38 Muller, Feith and Fruin, 33. 59 Schellenberg reiterates this with his statement that "records should be kept according to their source."39 Prior to being arranged by provenance, records were arranged by subject. For example, in the Privy State Archives in Berlin, "correspondence of the Ministry of Affairs with the Mission in Brussels would be combined with old records of the Privy Council pertaining to Brabant, and the records of the Brussels Mission itself would be thrown in for good measure."40 Significant problems were inherent in attempting to arrange records in relation to their subjects, due not only to the inordinate amount of time required to carry out such work but also to the difficulty - if not the impossibility - of retrieving information.41 Once private material came to be acquired by repositories, and the archival function developed beyond the preservation of public records and the provision of service primarily to the records creators to include appraisal for acquisition, the application of the principle of provenance 39 T.R. Schellenberg, Management of Archives (Washington: National Archives and Records Administration, 1965; reprint, with a Foreword by Jane F. Smith, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 90 (page references are to reprint edition). 40 Ernst Posner, "Max Lehman and the Genesis of the Principle of Provenance," in Archives and the Public Interest, ed. K. Munden, (Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1965), 40. 41 In recent years Bearman and Lytle have been analyzing provenance as a retrieval tool. For an introduction to their work see David Bearman and Richard Lytle, "The Power of the Principle of Provenance," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 14-27. 60 was extended to private material. In its new area of application, the term provenance was extended from the realm of arrangement and description to that of appraisal for acquisition, to designate the place from which private papers were purchased or otherwise acquired.42 Initially, overwhelming volume of private records was not an issue, for very little survived. Indeed, the acquisition of private material focused on acquiring whatever was available." Eventually, however, the volume of extant records increased, a situation which necessitated that some discretion be exercised in acquisition. Provenance, used as an appraisal criterion, was based on the premise that, if the source was important, then so too were the records. According to Schellenberg, provenance refers to the body which created the records. Provenance, he writes, can be identified by answering the question "Who? Which person, corporate body, or government agency produced the unit?"44 By identifying provenance, the context of the records can be understood and maintained. 42 Schellenberg, Management of Archives, 45; F.B. Evans, D.F. Harrison, and E.A. Thompson, "A Basic Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers," American Archivist 37 (July 1974): 427. 43 For more information see Richard C. Berner, Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Ana ysis (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983). 44 T.R.Schellenberg, Modern Archives (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 134. 61 The definition of provenance has expanded through archivists' attempts to preserve context. Max Evans states that the management of archival documents is based on the assumption that context is the key to understanding, that all archival principles stem from this fundamental concept.45 In an attempt to do the most justice to a fonds by clarifying and describing the context of the records, it was inevitable that different opinions would be formed regarding what constitutes that context. For example, French archivist Michel Duchein considers context to be the administrative structure or, more precisely, the agency which created the records." Duchein has formulated strict criteria which must be met by a record creator to qualify as an agency. These criteria are: a legal authority or identity; an official mandate; a defined hierarchical position; a large degree of autonomy; and an organizational chart. Peter Scott considers the most relevant context of the records to be the function which determined their creation and their place in the filing system to which they belong.47 45 Max J. Evans, "Authority Control: An Alternative to theRecord Group Concept," American Archivist 49 (Summer 1986): 250. 46 Michel Duchein, "Theoretical Principles." 47 Scott's proposal is expressed comprehensively in thefollowing five articles: Peter J. Scott and G. Finlay, "Archivesand Administrative Change: Some Methods and Approaches (Part 1),"Archives and Manuscripts 7, 3 (August 1978): 115-27; Peter J. Scott, C.D. Smith and G. Finlay, "Archives and AdministrativeChange: Some Methods and Approaches (Part 2)," Archives and Manuscripts 7,4 (April 1979): 151-65; idem, "Archives and 62 If a function can be interpreted as valid provenance for public records, one may wonder why culture could not be considered such for private records. If provenance in its most fundamental sense is context, Harney's argument that the cultural group is valid provenance is worthy of consideration, particularly so if, as he points out, "...the primary loyalty, the sense maker of the patterns of [the records creator's] life, the source of his social networks has been his ethnicity... m48 The underlying purpose in treating culture as the pre- eminent context of private archival material would be to increase the number of acquisitions which reflect the cultural diversity of a community, that is, to legitimize the use of culture as a criterion in the appraisal-for-acquisition function. It is clear from the definitions of archives and of provenance that have gained general acceptance, however, that the fundamental idea in both of them is that documents are most strictly linked to their creator, the activities generating them, and the other documents within the fonds, and therefore, that the concept of provenance refers to the Administrative Change: Some Methods and Approaches (Part 3),"Archives and Manuscripts 7, 6 (May 1980): 41-54; idem, "Archives and Administrative Change: Some Methods and Approaches (Part 4),"Archives and Manuscripts 8, 2 (December 1980): 51-69; Peter J. Scott, "Archives and Administrative Change: Some Methods andApproaches (Part 5)," Archives and Manuscripts 9, 1 (September 1981): 3-17. 48^Harney, 27. 63 immediate administrative context of the records themselves, whether this is their creating body, the function that generated them, or the filing system of which they are a part. The two requisites which documents must meet to be archival are to be created by a physical or juridical person, and in the course of an activity. That is, archives must be of an actor and of an activity. If provenance is "the basis of theoretical and practical archival science,"49 and "one of the cornerstones of our profession's current principles"50 then it follows that provenance must itself reflect the essence of archives: the application of the principle of provenance represents and indeed protects the nature of archives. Culture is not an actor. Although the creator of a group of archival documents might identify closely with a particular cultural group, culture will not be an answer to Schellenberg's question of "Who? Which person, corporate body, or government agency produced the unit?1151 And culture is not an activity. It might manifest itself in activity, it might account for the creator's participation in an activity, but it is not an activity in and of itself. Archivists, in maintaining the context - the provenance - of archival 49 Duchein, 66. 50 Bartlett, 2. 51 Schellenber g, Modern Archives, 134. 64 material do so in order to provide the means for researchers to understand it. Culture is manifested in archival material as content, and cannot be construed as context, or provenance. Insofar as the provincial/territorial and national archival repositories are government institutions, they are tied to government objectives. However, it is clear that the acquisition of private material must be based on value standards set by the community. While these value standards may coincide with government initiatives, the only justification for the acquisition of fonds in direct connection with the multicultural character of Canadian society can be that the acquisition of such fonds would reflect the primary nature of the community that the archival repository serves. When such nature has a distinctive multicultural feature, affirmative action programs in the guise of acquisition policies may facilitate the formation of an archival record reflecting it. However, such an affirmative action program may have considerable potential for jeopardizing the strictly impartial role of both archivists and the institutions they represent. These acquisition policies would reflect an effort to target direct sources of information on a "subject" identified by an act of interpretation by the archivist. To preserve the value of archives as evidence, the archivist should avoid aiming at subjects, and trust in the capacity of archives for providing 65 indirect evidence of the significant features of the community. However, no matter how distant archivists wish to remain from external influences, archival institutions are by their nature a means of preservation of culture and cannot avoid being an instrument of multiculturalism. How to deal with these contrasting forces? at have archival institutions done so far? The following chapter analyzes the results of a national survey of Canadian federal and provincial/territorial archival institutions to see how these repositories are reacting to multiculturalism, and how the multicultural policy is being translated, if at all, into archival terms. 66 CHAPTER 3 MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICE As observed earlier, the goal of multiculturalism - "unity in diversity" - can be approached by one of two divergent paths. Premised on the pluralistic principle of respect for group differences and cultural uniqueness, the multicultural policy and its legal manifestations legitimize drawing distinctions or making decisions on the basis of characteristics or traits in an effort to facilitate the maintenance of cultural group ties; alternatively, insofar as the fundamental human rights of all citizens are to be recognized and protected, each individual should be assessed on the basis of merit, without regard to cultural or other group membership.' Archival repositories therefore have two legitimate, mutually exclusive options in the approach they may take with respect to their management of the archival record: to distinguish between the archives produced by members of cultural groups and those which are not; or to refrain from making any such distinctions. It was suggested in Chapter Two that, from the perspective of archival theory, the policy of multiculturalism is better respected by not distinguishing between the archives of cultural group members and those archives 1 Kallen, "Multiculturalism, Minorities, and Motherhood," 67 125. which cannot be associated with a specific cultural group. However, one wonders which means, in actuality, Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial archival institutions are employing to achieve the goal of multiculturalism. The purpose of the present chapter is to reveal actual institutional arrangements which have developed in response to Canada's policy of multiculturalism, or their absence. There are a variety of ways in which archival repositories are able to translate into archival terms a distinction between archives of creators identifiable primarily as members of cultural groups and all the others. The two archival functions in the course of which such a distinction may be drawn are acquisition and access. Within each of these two functions, different options may be exercised, either singularly or in combinations. An archival institution may develop an acquisition policy, either formally articulated or informally implemented, which specifically targets records creators belonging to specific cultural groups. Generally linked to a formal acquisition policy is the establishment of an administrative division or section solely responsible for all archival functions relating to archives of cultural groups, namely appraisal for acquisition, appraisal for selection, arrangement, description, and provision of access. An archival institution may also apply cultural distinctions by the way it makes the archival records known to and accessible 68 by the researcher, that is, by means of archival thematic guides, and by the use of access points. Thematic guides are a compilation of information at the repository or inter-repository level about archival material pertaining to a particular subject or theme. In a thematic guide, the records are analyzed "in relation to subject matter rather than provenance" for the sole purpose of the archival institution "promoting the fullest exploitation of its holdings." 2 Access points are index terms derived from the description of the records which appear in card catalogues or automated access systems, and serving as the initial step in identifying and locating desired fonds. The use of access points is currently an option for implementing the multicultural policy, because each archival institution has traditionally formulated its own access points, defying standardization in this area. 3 That is, fonds of cultural groups may be distinguished from other fonds by a descriptive term created by the institution, such as "cultural groups," "multicultural groups," or "ethnic groups." In order to determine which, if any, of these options have been adopted, a survey of Canada's federal, provincial, and territorial archival repositories was conducted. A direct survey 2 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 134. 3 Canadian-wide standardization of the format - as opposed to the content - of access points will be attempted through part two of Rules for Archival Description, Bureau of Canadian Archivists Planning Committee on Descriptive Standards, Rules for Archival Description (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists, 1990), draft chapters 21-24, 26. 69 of these repositories was necessary because the interpretation of multiculturalism by archival institutions and the effects of the multicultural policy upon the management of the archival record had not been studied and reported on. Anything which has been published on the subject of multiculturalism and archives exists in isolated case form and consists of the announcement of the introduction of some action taken, addressing one or two specific aspects of a particular program; for example, when such a measure was implemented by the repository, and a listing of notable acquisitions. There is no published information which addresses the impact of multiculturalism upon archives from a conceptual point of view, and there are few reports from institutions addressing the implementation of multiculturalism from a practical point of view. The extant research literature on the topic, therefore, is of no assistance in determining the effect of multiculturalism upon archives. Because virtually nothing systematic is known about multiculturalism and its effect upon archives, it is the purpose of the present study to identify this relationship. This survey, because of the absence of archival literature on the subject, was perforce an exploratory one. Its objectives were broad: to determine how archival institutions are responding to multiculturalism, and to establish whether specific trends exist. To achieve these objectives, the survey was constructed around five research questions: 70 1) Are archival repositories at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels differentiating between the archives of members of cultural groups and those which are not? 2) If such distinctions are drawn, which archival functions and procedures are involved? 3) What is the impetus for the acquisition of fonds relating to Canada's multicultural character at the federal, provincial, and territorial levels: government mandates or recognition of an incomplete archival record? 4) How are those archival repositories, which represent he highest levels of government, defining a "cultural group"? 5) To what degree have federal, provincial, and territorial archival repositories acquired fonds of cultural groups? 3.1 THE SURVEY INSTRUMENT A questionnaire requiring a written response was developed to gather the information necessary to answer the research 71 questions. The population consisted of the ten provincial archival institutions, the two territorial archival repositories, and the federal archival repository. Specifically, the sample population was comprised of the Archives nationales du Quebec: Centre D'Archives De Montrea1,4 Archives of Ontario, British Columbia Archives and Records Service, National Archives of Canada, Northwest Territories Archives, Prince Edward Island Public Archives and Records Office, Provincial Archives of Alberta, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Provincial Archives of New Brunswick, Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador, Public Archives of Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan Archives Board, and Yukon Archives. Institutions at these levels were chosen because of their positions as agencies of their respective governments, and because of their role in the archival community as leaders in archival development. Because of the size of the population comprising this study, all institutions at this level were requested to participate. A letter explaining the scope, purpose, and justification of the study and requesting participation was sent to Provincial/Territorial Archivists or, where institutional specialization occurred, the archivist responsible for private and/or multicultural archives. This introductory letter accompanied the four page questionnaire which was designed to 4 The Archives nationales du Quebec is physically comprisedof nine repositories distributed throughout the regions of Quebec. Policies reflecting the central organization were sought. 72 elicit information about the institution's policies and procedures. The letter and questionnaire were mailed to the target audience in May 1991: twelve of the thirteen responses were received by June 1991. A second mailing of the letter and questionnaire was sent at the end of June to the institution which had not returned the survey: no response was received. The total number of responses to the questionnaire was twelve. The questionnaire contained six core questions. Depending on the answer supplied in response to four of these core questions, secondary questions were applicable.5 The first question requested, for the purpose of background information, the mandate and/or the acquisition policy of the institution. The following four questions, Questions Two through Five, were designed to determine whether the institution distinguishes between the archives of members of cultural groups and those of the remaining population, or not, and if such distinctions were drawn, which archival procedures were used. Therefore, Questions Two through Five asked whether there was a formal acquisition policy specific to the acquisition of multicultural archives; whether there was an informal acquisition policy specific to the acquisition of multicultural archives; whether access to such archives was provided by a thematic guide; and whether access to such archives was provided by means of access points. If the answer to any of these questions was negative, the respondent was asked to proceed to the next 5 See Appendix I for the Questionnaire. 73 question. If the answer to any of these questions was affirmative, the respondent was asked a sub-set of secondary, more detailed questions. In each sub-set of secondary questions, the opportunity was provided to describe the institution's criteria for identifying a cultural group. In addition, the date and nature of the initiative to determine a discrete "multicultural" context was sought in these portions of the questionnaire. The final question of the survey, Question Six, differed in format from the preceding questions. It was presented in the form of a table and incorporated two of the research questions, namely, how a cultural group is defined, and to what extent various cultural groups are represented in the holdings of archival repositories. Anticipating generic or vague answers in response to Questions Two through Five about the nature of a cultural group, Question Six of the survey specifically asked the respondents to identify cultural groups in the list provided. 6 The list of cultural groups identified in the survey was 6 In the survey, the term "ethnic group" was used ratherthan "cultural group" because the former phrase is more familiarto archivists through popular usage. The Canadian archivalcommunity has traditionally referred to "ethnic archives,"although this term is being replaced by "multicultural archives."This shift is due to the pejorative connotations associated withthe word "ethnic," and in no way alters the nature of the groupto which the archivist or archival institution is makingreference: witness the change at the National Archives of Canadafrom "Ethnic Archives Program" to "Multicultural ArchivesProgram." 74 selected from a lengthier list compiled by Statistics Canada.7 The Statistics Canada list was selected because of its breadth in scope: nationality, race, religion and language are all represented, thereby providing for the possibility that distinctions may be founded on one or more of these bases. The Statistics Canada list was edited, however, out of consideration for the respondent's time: the general lines along which distinctions might be drawn could be determined by developing an abridged version which eliminated several layers of detail present in the original compilation. Statistics Canada identified three main categories in its attempt to identify the "ethnic origin" of the Canadian population: "British, French, and European Origins"; "Asian, African, and Pacific Island Origins"; and "South and North American, Black, and Other Origins." Within these categories, single entries had as many as three hierarchical levels. For example, within "British, French, and European Origins," is the category of Northern European, which in turn contains Scandinavian, which itself contains five possibilities: Danish, Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Scandinavian not included elsewhere. The amount of time required by the respondent to analyze the list at the level of detail represented in the Statistics Canada list was not in proportion to what the question was attempting to determine, that is, the general criteria used 7^Statistics Canada, Ethnicity. Immigration and Citizenship, 14-17. See Appendix II. 75 as parameters in defining a cultural group. Moreover, not only was this level of detail not required to achieve the objectives of the study, but also, because the target audience was so small and the study depended upon a high response rate, it was essential not to jeopardize the response rate of the questionnaire by including extraordinarily lengthy questions. Those cultural groups identified by Statistics Canada which were selected for inclusion in the questionnaire represented a variety of criteria upon which one may define a cultural group. "Canadian" and "American" for example, provided for the possibility that citizenship may be synonymous with cultural group. Likewise "Black," representing race, and "Jewish," representing either race or religion or both, were included in the questionnaire in the event that these qualities were equated with those possessed by a cultural group. "Aboriginal," "French," and "English" were included in the survey to determine if cultural group status was dependent on length of residency in Canada; and also, in the case of "French" and "English," to see how Charter Group status and official language status was interpreted vis a vis a cultural group. The other groups identified on the questionnaire, namely "Western European," "Southern European," "Eastern European," "West Asian," and "Latin," "Central" and "South American" were included in the questionnaire to acknowledge the existence of groups other than those mentioned above, and to provide an answer to the ancillary question posed by Question Six. 76 In addition to indicating whether the particular group was a cultural group or not, the respondents were asked to identify from the list provided the cultural groups whose records had been acquired or otherwise classified by that institution as the fonds of a member of a cultural group. This last aspect of Question Six was incorporated into the survey to give a general indication of the degree and scope of activity in the field of acquisition of multicultural archives. 3.1 THE RESULTS To preserve the confidentiality of the institutions surveyed, the letters A through M have been randomly assigned to each institution to facilitate description. Similarly, for clarification, summarizing tables have been included to portray certain results. Of the thirteen institutions surveyed, only one repository, institution A, did not respond to the questionnaire. Of the twelve institutions which responded to the survey, the reply of institution B was inconclusive. Of the eleven repositories whose responses comprise this study, nine indicated that distinctions are drawn in some way between what is considered representative of Canada's multicultural character, and what is not. 77 Two institutions, C and M, do not distinguish between the archives created by members of a cultural group and the remaining population. These institutions represent regions that - within the Canadian context - are relatively culturally homogeneous: one serves a region that has a strong tradition of Anglo-Saxon influence - yet no more so than other particular regions - while the second institution represents a jurisdiction with a large population whose traditional and still-vital culture lies outside the Anglo-Saxon sphere. The position of these two institutions are linked to what each believed was the accepted definition of an ethnic group. Institution C felt that this definition could not be appropriately applied to its population. Institution M-did not believe that it represented a population which contained any cultural groups. Those archival repositories which do differentiate between that which is considered a multicultural fonds and that which is not, represent jurisdictions which span the entire spectrum from culturally homogeneous to culturally diverse regions. The means by which these repositories effect the differentiation include all the possibilities: informal acquisition policies, formal acquisition policies, administrative divisions, thematic guides, and access points. Informal acquisition policies which target the archives of members of cultural groups are currently in place at four of the archival repositories, institutions D,E,G and I. 76 Table A. Summary of Interpretation and Implementation of Multiculturalism Legend * = Information not available N/A = Not applicable I = Acquisition Ia = Informal acquisition policy lb = Formal acquisition policy II = Access ha = Access point IIb = Thematic guide III = Administrative division TNsTTTUTTON EXISTENCE OF MULTICULTURAL POLTCY DISTINCTION BETWEEN ARCHIVES OF CULTURAL AND NON-CULTURAL GROUPS MEANS OF IMPT.RMENTATTON A C No No N/A n Yes Yes TallI/ F Yes YRA Ta;TIaiTTb F 'IPS Yes Tb1TIT G Yes Yes Ta:TTa H No Yes TTA;TTh T Yee Yee Ia. J No Yes TTb X Yes Yes Tb:IIa;TTbIIIT i/--------Xekl-----------X-etl------n2L-LT-d-a-th M^ No^ No^N/A 79 Although it is not clear when G and I first developed their informal acquisition policies, the policies were developed under the aegis of a general institutional mandate. Institution E implemented its informal acquisition policy in 1963, and it did so under its broad institutional mandate. Institution D initially implemented its informal policy in recognition of the fact that archival documentation of the province's multicultural history was not complete. Nine years later, a second informal policy was developed at this repository to reflect its government's strategy on multiculturalism. Fewer archival repositories have a formal acquisition policy for multicultural archives. Institutions F, K, and L have developed and implemented a formally articulated acquisition policy which specifically targets these fonds in the institution's jurisdiction. The earliest of these acquisition policies was formulated in 1982 at repository L to remedy the underrepresentation of particular groups in the institution's holdings, and to coincide with the priorities of the government then in power. The second formally articulated acquisition policy to be developed in Canada occurred in 1988 at repository K, although an informal policy with an administrative infrastructure had existed since 1972. The purpose underlying the development of a formal acquisition policy at this institution appears to have been the logical progression from an informal to a codified policy: the original impetus for the development of an informal policy came from government initiatives. The most recently 80 developed policy was formulated in 1990 at repository F for the purpose of ensuring a more complete archival record. Although acquisition policies either formally articulated or informally implemented are utilized by institutions D, E, F, G, I, K, and L to differentiate between multicultural and non- multicultural fonds, acquisition policies may also be used in conjunction with access tools. Institutions E, G, K, and L use access tools and acquisition policies. Of the nine institutions which draw distinctions, E, H, J, K and L use thematic guides. At repository J, the use of a thematic guide is the only means by which a distinction is made; in contrast, the thematic guide is also used by institutions E, K, and L to complement a full range of measures. Although thematic guides function at the repository level, repository H indicated that a thematic guide existed for a Manuscript Group which had been created to accommodate the institution's multicultural archival materia1.8 Although it might be argued that an access tool at the Manuscript/Record Group level is an archival finding aid rather than a thematic guide, the 8 A Manuscript Group - or the public record equivalent"Record Group" - is the intellectual and/or physical amalgamationof various fonds based on a perceived commonality. TheManuscript/Record Group system is implemented for administrativeexpedience and in no way reflects the nature of archivalmaterial. Because of the cohesive nature of a fonds and therelationship of paternity which exists between archival recordsand their creator, an artificial grouping, whether intellectual or physical, is wrought with difficulties. This institutionacknowledged the loss of archival integrity of records thus manipulated. 61 institution's affirmative response to the question is included here since, within the context of this study, the function of the two is the same and the means are similar.9 Similarly, institution E indicated that, although no thematic guides were developed that differentiated between the archives produced by members of cultural groups and those which are not, an informational booklet was developed that describes, in general terms, public and private sources of archival material in the repository's holdings which represent the cultural dimension of the community. As with the response of repository H, the answer of repository E has been, for the purposes of this study, considered a thematic guide because it serves to distinguish the archival sources through the archival function of access. Distinctions are also made through the provision of access by the use of general access points such as "Cultural Groups" or "Multiculturalism." Institutions E, G, H, K and L indicated that such general headings were employed as a means of differentiation. The general access points used are "Multicultural Groups," "Ethnic Groups," and "Minorities." Repositories E, G, K, and L also have policies, either formal or informal, for the acquisition of multicultural archives. Institution H uses access points in conjunction with a thematic guide. 9 Indeed, the artificial nature of a Manuscript Group is perhaps best reflected by an equally artificial thematic guide. 82 Three of the responding institutions, D, F, and K, have developed an administrative division or section for multicultural archival material. Interestingly, institution D does not have a formal acquisition policy specific to multicultural archival records but only an informal policy. Repository F complements its administrative structure with a formal acquisition policy. Repository K employs a formal acquisition policy, access points and thematic guides along with its separate administrative structure to differentiate between multicultural and non- multicultural fonds. Likewise, there is tremendous variety in the way the archival repositories across the country have defined "cultural groups." The results of Questions Two through Five of the survey indicate that nationality, race, religion and language are all factors, in a variety of combinations, in the responding institutions' definition of cultural groups. Two repositories, C and G, equate being a member of a cultural group with being a minority, whether visible, linguistic, or cultural. A second pair of repositories, D and L, defines a cultural group along similar lines citing a sense of peoplehood as the criterion. A third general definition given was based on a social, cultural, or religious characteristic that the members have in common. In anticipation that the answers to questions Two through Five would result in definitions so broad and general that little would be learned about specific criteria for the identification of a cultural group, Question Six was formulated. In an attempt 83 to determine general trends about how a cultural group is being defined at archival repositories, Question Six gives examples of groups, the membership to which may be based on varying criteria such as nationality or citizenship (for example, "American" or "Canadian"), and race (for example, "Black"). In Question Six the request for specific identification of cultural groups resulted in the following definitions of a cultural group: all groups indicated in Question Six except the English and French; all groups indicated except the English, French, and Native Indian; all groups indicated except the English, French, Native Indian, Scottish, Irish and Welsh; and lastly, all groups indicated except the English, French, Native Indian, Canadian, and Latin, Central and South American. It is interesting to note the reactions of seven institutions to the question posed in Question Six of whether or not Canadians and Americans are cultural groups. Three institutions responded in a consistent manner for both American and Canadian: institutions E and H believe that neither American nor Canadian may be considered a cultural group. In contrast, institution G believes that both may be defined as a cultural group. The remaining four institutions varied in their perceptions of Canadian and American cultural groups. Institution D believes "Canadian" is a cultural group, but did not indicate its position for "American." Repository L's response is opposite to that of institution D: "American" is a cultural group, but the repository did not indicate its position about "Canadian." 84 Repository I does not believe that "Canadian" is a cultural group, but did not indicate its position with respect to "American," and repository L believes that "American" is a cultural group, but did not indicate whether "Canadian" is or not. The table below illustrates these results. Table B. Position of Surveyed Institutions Regarding "Canadian" and "American" Cultural Groups. ^ "CANADIAN" IS A^"AMERICAN" IS A TNSTITUTToN^CULTURAL GROUP CULTURAL GROUP YRS^DTO NOT ANSWR NO NO YRS^ YRS NO NO k• DTD NOT AN$WRR^ NO As a corollary to Question Six, the respondents were asked to indicate groups whose records have been acquired or classified by the institution as a multicultural fonds. This was requested in order to give an indication of the scope of "multicultural" archival holdings in Canada, and as a suggestion of the relationship between the cultural diversity or cultural 85 homogeneity of the institution's jurisdiction and the archival holdings. Four of the respondents had apparent difficulty in understanding what was being requested of them in this portion of the questionnaire, leaving seven viable responses.10 These seven responses suggest that there is a relationship between the cultural diversity or cultural homogeneity of the institution's jurisdiction and the archival holdings. The responses supplied by the institutions in culturally diverse regions suggest that the holdings reflect a certain degree of diversity, while institutions representing a culturally homogeneous society tend to reflect this homogeneity in their holdings. 3.3 EMERGING TRENDS The results of the survey suggest that the majority of archival institutions representing the highest levels of the political-juridical system are working towards the multicultural goal by emphasizing the diversity among the people of Canada rather than the commonality. Nine of the institutions constituting the sample population of the survey distinguish between the archives of members of cultural groups and all the 10 See Question Six on Questionnaire, Appendix I. Part of the problem appears to have been an unfamiliarity with the word fonds. This component of Question Six was mistakenly premised on the assumption that archivists working at provincial/territorial archival institutions would be familiar with this term. 86 others. However, the degree to which such differentiation pervades the management of archival material, and the codification of the distinctions, vary considerably. The most common method by which a differentiation is made between the archives of members of cultural groups and the others is an acquisition policy: seven institutions use acquisition policies to distinguish multicultural fonds. Perhaps not surprisingly, an informal acquisition policy is the most prevalent procedure used to distinguish multicultural fonds, being in place at four institutions, whereas formal acquisition policies are in place at three institutions. The second most frequent means of distinction is access, and is currently employed by six institutions: within the function of providing access, both access points and thematic guides are employed equally, being utilized by five institutions. The least common approach used to differentiate the archives of members of cultural groups from the others is an administrative separation of responsibility for these fonds: this method is used by three institutions. From the responses received, it is not possible to determine the relationship between acquisition of multicultural archives and government initiatives. Although all jurisdictions which have a multicultural policy also have an archival repository which distinguishes the archives of cultural groups from the remainder of its holdings, only two repositories indicated that government initiatives were associated with the acquisition policy; yet the introduction of such a policy coincided with the recognition of 87 an incomplete archival record. Three institutions referred to their institutional mandates as the impetus for acquiring multicultural fonds, which does not, however, indicate the cause. One institution alone gave as its reason an incomplete archival record. Just as there is a variety of methods which are used to differentiate the archives of cultural groups, there is considerable variety in the way in which "cultural group" is defined by the archival repositories: language, race, religion, and nationality, in a variety of combinations, are cited as the criteria. Perhaps the most salient finding of this survey is the dichotomy which is seen to exist between the archives of cultural groups and those of the remaining population. However fraught with difficulties this dichotomy may be, it is clear that the majority of archival institutions at the federal, provincial and territorial levels choose the path to the multicultural goal which distinguishes a portion of the Canadian population from the the remainder. The variety of approaches which have been taken to give expression to this dichotomy may be accounted for, in part, by the sheer geographic size of the country and the self- contained nature of its regions which may preclude the application of consistent, global, archival policies. The variety of archival practices also reflects the tendency of the public policy to provide public institutions with considerable latitude in interpreting the policy itself and devising the means to 88 achieve its end. Moreover, it represents the exploratory stage of the relationship between multiculturalism and archives in which archivists now find themselves. 89 CONCLUSION There is a meaningful relationship between the public policy of multiculturalism and the institutional management of archives of private origin. It has been the purpose of this study to explore this relationship from the perspectives of archival theory and practice, and its implications for archival institutions. Such exploration has been conducted by examining literature in the fields of archival science, political science, law, sociology and anthropology, and by acquiring data directly from Canadian public archival institutions at the federal and provincial/territorial levels. The existence of this relationship between multicultural policy and archives is due to the acceptance of multiculturalism as a characteristic of Canadian society. Explored briefly in the 1930s, the principle of multiculturalism, by the 1960s, had become incorporated into popular attitudes and public policy. Numerous factors contributed to the development in Canada of a national philosophy of unity in diversity. Continual increases in immigration from a variety of countries, active participation in the international community, and concern with human rights were elements out of which the principle of multiculturalism emerged. These creating forces of multiculturalism continue to exist today. The legislative actions and administrative infrastructures 90 established to further the multicultural purpose indicate that multiculturalism is an integral part of society which is likely to be carried well into the future of the country. Because multiculturalism is a characteristic aspect of Canadian identity, archival repositories are doubly effected by it, whether it is in the form of policy or movement, because they are tied to the goals and mission of their sponsoring body, and are responsible for preserving evidence of societal relationships. The role of public archival repositories has extended beyond preservation of the records of their sponsoring government body for its own use to include the acquisition of records from private sources for use by society in general. This historic development is manifested today within government archival repositories at the federal and provincial/territorial levels in their two generic mandates: to appraise, arrange, describe, and provide access to public archives; and to acquire, appraise, arrange, describe, and provide access to private archives. Because public archives are records which have been created by a government office in the course of its activities, and preserved for some future purpose, public archival material is evidence of policies, the administrative infrastructure established to support them, and the activities undertaken by the government to achieve them. In contrast to other public policies such as freedom of information, that of multiculturalism does not pose any challenge to the management of public archival material which is unique to this policy. 91 However, multiculturalism does have implications for the management of private archival material. As a public policy, multiculturalism might undermine the role of federal and provincial/territorial archival institutions as cultural agencies vis A vis their role as government agencies. The fulfillment of the responsibilities attributed to a public archival repository by its role as a government repository might be in conflict with those dictated by its other role. Which role should take precedence in the management of private archives? A second challenge is posed by the multicultural policy to archival practices: how to contribute to the achievement of the goal of unity in diversity. The route to this goal may take one of two paths: to allow cultural group affiliation to influence a decision in an effort to facilitate the maintenance of the distinctiveness of these groups, or to refrain from making decisions based on cultural group affiliation. This gives archivists the choice to differentiate between the archives produced by members of cultural groups and those generated by the remaining population, that is, to acquire and provide access to the archival records of cultural groups in a manner which sets these records apart from the other private archives. When the aims of the multicultural policy are considered within the context of the principles of archival science, which is the most appropriate course of action: to differentiate between the archives produced by cultural group members and those which are not? Or, to refrain from making any such distinctions? 92 In order to explore the relationship between multiculturalism and archives to its fullest extent, it was necessary to include within the parameters of this study an account of how federal and provincial/territorial archival repositories are reacting to multiculturalism in actuality. Archival practices which may be employed to implement multiculturalism consist of establishing an administrative division to manage the fonds of cultural groups, creating institutional policies specific to the acquisition of fonds of cultural groups, and using thematic guides and access points which use the notion of cultural group as ways for distinguishing these records from all others. Which interpretation of multiculturalism are these institutions employing, and how is this interpretation manifested in archival methodology? Despite the relationship which exists between multiculturalism and the management of private archives, these questions have not been asked nor has the relationship been explored in any meaningful way. A significant body of literature has been written about multiculturalism in various fields. However, within the archival profession, discussions of multiculturalism and archives have been limited to historians' comment on the paucity of archival records of cultural groups in archival repositories, and to archivists' reports of acquisitions of the archives of members of cultural groups. No attempt has been made to consider the impact of multiculturalism upon archives from a conceptual point of view, and few reports have 93 have been made by institutions addressing the implementation of multiculturalism from a practical point of view. To explore the impact of multiculturalism on public archival institutions, it was necessary to understand first the principles and objectives of multiculturalism. A look at the definitions, terms of reference, and recommendations of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism provided the basis for examining the federal government's policy of multiculturalism, which was the government's official response to the recommendations of the Commission. Although the Royal Commission recommended policies which would facilitate the emergence of an officially bilingual and bicultural society, the federal government responded to the Commission's recommendations with a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. The entrenchment of this policy, the administrative infrastructure developed to ensure observance of its principles, and the legislative actions taken to ensure adherence to its aims gave substance to the multicultural idea. From this examination it was established that multiculturalism is a characteristic of Canadian society which, in consideration of the strength of its historical development and the pervasiveness of its current manifestations, has an enormous influence on the total archival record of Canadian society, and therefore demands the most careful consideration by the archival profession. Such consideration requires an analysis of the existing options for the implementation of the multicultural principle and 94 its incorporation in archival policies. Those options were examined within the context of archival theory. An exploration of the nature of archives, and of the roles of archivists and archival institutions in forming society's documentary heritage provided the necessary theoretical context within which to examine the interplay between multiculturalism and archives. In order to answer the question of which interpretation of multiculturalism, when employed by archivists, best harmonizes the spirit of the multicultural ideal with archival principles, an analysis of those principles was made, and specifically of the principle of provenance. Provenance is the context by which archival records are understood. Throughout the course of archival history, the principle of provenance has proven to be flexible in adapting to the changes in records creation and maintenance, and has provided archivists with the methodology for the management of the archival record. Because the contexts of records creation and maintenance have changed over time, the definition of provenance has expanded accordingly. The principle of provenance, as originally articulated, dictated that the archival material produced by one source be maintained separately from that of another source. By preserving the physical integrity of each archival fonds, the context of the records was preserved: grouping records by their source provided the context within which they could be understood. Although the original meaning of the concept of provenance persists today, the concept itself has expanded and now includes 95 the abstract notion of the agency or administrative structure within which the archives are produced, the function which determines the creation of the records, and the system by which they are maintained. Because provenance has proven to be expansive in accounting for context, and because cultural group affiliation must be valid provenance if archivists employ an interpretation of multiculturalism which would result in differentiating private archives on the basis of cultural group affiliation, the validity of cultural group affiliation as provenance was tested. The result of this examination indicated that cultural group affiliation cannot be construed as valid provenance. The nature of archives is such that a document, in order to be archival, must be created by a physical or juridical person and also must be produced in the course of an activity, as a byproduct of it. Because the principle of provenance derives from the nature of archives, it has to be interpreted in a way which is consistent with such nature. When reduced to their essence, archival documents are always of an actor and an activity. This is the standard against which all proposed definitions of provenance must be measured, for provenance ultimately and fundamentally protects the nature of archives. Cultural group affiliation cannot be considered valid provenance because it is not consistent with the nature of archives: it does not fulfill the role of true provenance to present the context of actor and activity. 96 Furthermore, although legally sanctioned by section 15, subsection 2 of the Charter, affirmative action programs are in direct conflict with the role of the archivist to acquire archival material with impartiality, because archivists would have to make decisions on the basis of a group's disadvantaged status. The element of impartiality, articulated by Sir Hilary Jenkinson fifty years ago, is gaining credence as professional archivists recognize biases of previous archival practices and the detrimental effect these have had on the archival record. It is impossible to fulfill the archivist's responsibility to preserve an archival heritage which represents the entire picture of society if this activity is motivated by conscious biases. Even if the objective of targeting for acquisition the archives of members of specific cultural groups is to rectify the lack of representation in archival holdings, such an action would undermine the value of the holdings as evidence of social reality. If the fundamental archival principles are respected, then the multicultural feature of communities will be indirectly but consistently and appropriately represented in archival holdings without destroying their truthfulness and their impartiality. To take this position might be difficult for an archival institution whose sponsor has a multicultural policy which emphasizes the distinctiveness of cultural groups. This raises a fundamental question regarding the extent to which federal and 97 provincial/territorial archival institutions should function as an administrative arm of their respective sponsoring bodies, rather than as cultural agencies. With respect to private archival material, to whom does the government archival institution owe its allegiance - its administration or society? Clearly it must be society, because a government exists to serve the people. Its value to society is the primary reason why private material is acquired by government repositories; consequently cultural purposes are paramount in its preservation. Beyond these points of principle, there is a very pragmatic consideration working against that interpretation of multiculturalism which advocates drawing distinctions between archives produced by members of cultural groups and those which are not. If archival repositories choose to segregate private archives on the basis of cultural group affiliation, then it stands to reason that a functional definition of cultural group must be created. However, such a definition has not been formulated in the primary documents created to implement multiculturalism, nor in any of the fields where this implementation may be expected to occur. It is not possible for archivists to directly target for acquisition the archives of members of cultural groups in the absence of a clear definition of what constitutes a cultural group, and manage them accordingly. 98 However, the results of the national survey, conducted for the purposes of this study indicate that the majority of the public archival institutions at the two highest levels of administration are drawing distinctions between the archives of culturally distinct groups and those which are not, in an effort to respect the policy of multiculturalism. This approach is currently taken by nine of the eleven institutions studied by the survey. The archival function most affected by this approach is acquisition, while access is the second most affected function. The survey also indicates that although distinctions are drawn between material identified by the fact of being generated by a specific cultural group and all the rest, the criteria for drawing them are inconsistent. A cultural group is being defined by Canadian archival institutions on the basis of language, race, religion, and nationality, in a variety of combinations. It was not possible to draw any conclusions from the survey about the pre-eminence of one role played by archival institutions over the other role. Whether these institutions are responding to multiculturalism by aligning themselves with the policies of their sponsoring agencies or acting independently of such policies was not clear from the responses. The confusion and inconsistency with which multiculturalism is being implemented in Canadian federal, provincial, and territorial archival repositories may be explained in part by the profession's traditional lack of codified standards and consistent policies. In addition, the multicultural policy 99 itself is vague with respect to the entity that it was created to preserve. This uncertainty about the nature or identity of a cultural group serves to point out the impossibility of treating archives in Canada in direct relation to the multicultural policy. Moreover, when multiculturalism is examined within the context of archival theory, and an analysis is made of the assumptions underlying the treatment of cultural group affiliation as the governing concept in the management of private archives, then it is evident that dividing private archives into categories based on "cultural provenance" is both theoretically and pragmatically too simplistic to portray the complexity of the relationship between the records creator, the cultural group, and Canadian society. The multicultural ideal of Canadian society can certainly be respected in a manner which does not undermine the archival principles of provenance and impartiality, and does not defy successful implementation. By interpreting multiculturalism as a principle whereby assessments are made on the basis of merit without regard to cultural group membership, and by maintaining archival principles as the foundation of archival practice, the social goals of both multiculturalism and archives will be achieved. 100 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Barr, Debra. "Protecting Provenance: Response to the Report of the Working Group on Description at the Fonds Level." Archivaria 28 (Summer 1989): 141-45. . "The Fonds Concept in the Working Group on Archival Standards Reports." Archivaria 25 (Winter 1987-88): 163- 70. Bartlett, Nancy. "The Provenance of 'Respect Des Fonds'." Bentley Library, unpublished paper, 1988. Bearman, David and Richard Lytle. "The Power of the Principle of Provenance." Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 14-27. Beckton, Clare F. "Section 27 and Section 15 of the Charter." In Multiculturalism and the Charter- A Legal Perspective, Canadian Human Rights Foundation, 1-14. Toronto: Carswell, 1987. Berner, Richard C Archival Theory and Practice in the United States: A Historical Analysis. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1983. Berry, John W., Rudolf Kahn, and Donald M. Taylor. Multiculturalism and Ethnic Attitudes in Canada Ottawa, Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1977. Blinkhorn, Victoria Louise. "The Records of Visual Artists: Appraising for Acquisition and Selection." Master of Archival Studies thesis, University of British Columbia, 1988. Boekestijn, C. "Introduction." In Canadian Mosaic: Essays on Multiculturalism, ed. A.J. Fry and Ch. Forceville, 7. Amsterdam- Free University Press, 1988. Booms, Hans. "Society and the Formation of a Documentary Heritage: Issues in the Appraisal of Archival Sources." Translated by Hermina Joldersma and Richard Klumpenhouwer. Archivaria 24 (Summer 1987): 69-107. Born, Lester K. "Baldassare Bonafacio and His Essay De Archivis." American Archivist 4 (October 1941): 221-37. Breton, Raymond. "Ethnicity in the Year 2000." In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, ed. James S.Frideres, 149-57.Contributions in Sociology, no. 75. New York: Greenwood Press, 1989. 101 102 ^• "The Evolution of Canadian Multicultural Society: The Significance of Government Intervention." In Canadian Mosaic, 27-42. ^• "The Vesting of Ethnic Interests In State Institutions." In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, 35-56. Britchford, Maynard. "The Provenance of Provenance, or Provenance Now More Than Ever." Unpublished paper, September 23, 1988. British Columbia. Ministry of Povincial Secretary. Multicultural Policy of the Province of British Columbia October, 1990. Brotz, Howard. "Multiculturalism and Canada: A Model." Canadian Public Policy 6 (Winter 1980): 41-46. Bureau of Canadian Archivists. Towards Descriptive Standards: Report and Recommendations of the Canadian Working Group on Archival Descriptive Standards Ottawa: Burueau of Canadian Archivists, 1985. Burnet, Jean. "Taking into Account the Other Ethnic Groups and the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism." In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, 9-17. ^• The Policy of Multiculturalism within a Bilingual Framework." In Education of Immigrant Students: Issues and Answers, ed. Aaron Wolfgang, 205-14. Symposium Series 5. Toronto: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 1975. Canada. Department of the Secretary of State of Canada 1988-1989 Annual Report. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1989. ^• Minister of State (Multiculturalism). Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1978. . Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship. Together 1, 3 (Spring 1990). ^. Together 2, 2 (Spring 1991). ^• Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. Book I: The Official Languages Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967. . Book II. Education Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1968. . Book III: The Work World Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969.  Book IV: The Cultural Contributions of the Other Ethnic 103 Groups. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970. Book V: The Federal Calpital. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970. . Book VI: Voluntary Associations Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970. . Statistics Canada Ethnicity. Immigration and Citizenship. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1989. Cappon, Lester J. "The Archivist as Collector." American Archivist 39 (October 1976): 429-35. Clanchy, M.T. From Memory to Written Record: England. 1066-1307. London: Arnold, 1979. ^• "'Tenacious Letters': Archives and Memory in the Middle Ages." Archivaria 11 (Winter 1980-81): 115-26. Colman, Gould P. Letter to "The Forum: Communications FromMembers." American Archivist 36 (July 1973): 483-86. Consultative Group on Canadian Archives. Canadian Archives: Report to the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Ottawa: Social Sciences and Humantities Research Council of Canada, 1980. Cullen, J.S.G. "Immigration and Canada." In Multiculturalism. Bilingualism and Canadian Institutions, ed. Keith A. McLeod, 23-28. Toronto: Guidance Center, Faculty ofEducation, University of Toronto, 1979. DiSanto, Joseph E. "Nonhyphenated Canadians - Where Are You?" InMulticulturalism and Intergroup Relations, 141-48. Duchein, Michel. "Theoretical Principles and Practical Problemsof Respect Des Fonds in Archival Science." Archivaria 16 (Summer 1983): 64-82. Duranti, Luciana. "Diplomatics: New Uses for an Old Science."Archivaria 28 (Summer 1990): 7-29. . "The Odyssey of Records Managers. Part Two: From theMiddle Ages to Modern Times." Records Management Quarterly (October 1989): 3-11. Evans, Frank B. "Modern Concepts of Archives Administration andRecords Management." UNESCO Bulletin for Libraries 24 (January-February 1970): 242-47. . D.F. Harrison, and E.A. Thompson. "A Basic Glossary for Archivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers."American Archivist 37 (July 1974): 415-33. Evans, Max J. "Authority Control: An Alternative to the RecordGroup Concept." American Archivist 49 (Summer 1986): 249-61. Fogarty, Kenneth Equality Rights and their Limitations in the Charter. Toronto: Carswell, 1987. Gall, G.L."Multiculturalism and the Fundamental Freedoms: Section27 and Section 2." In Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 29-58. Glazer, Nathan. "Affirmative Discrimination: Where is it Going?"In The Background toEthnic Conflict, William Petersen, ed. Vol. 28, International Studies in Sociology and social Anthropology, K. Ishwaran, ed. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979. Grey, Julius H. "Introduction." In Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective. ix-x. Ham, Gerald F. "The Archival Edge." In A Modern Archives Reader, ed. Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walsh, 326-37.Washington: National Archives and Records Service, 1984. Harney, Robert F. "Ethnic Archival and Library Materials inCanada: Problems of Bibliographic Control and Preservation."Ethnic Forum 2 (Fall 1982): 3-31. Hart, Susan. "Archival Acquisition of Records of VoluntaryAssociations." Master of Archival Studies thesis, Universityof British Columbia, 1989. Hawkins, Freda. Canada and Immigration: Public Policy and Public Concern. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1972. . "Canadian Multiculturalism: The Policy Explained." InCanadian Mosaic: Essays on Multiculturalism, 9-24. Henry, Linda J. "Collecting Policies of Special-Subject Repositories." American Archivist 43 (Winter 1980): 57-63. Hodson, J.H. The Administration of Archives Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1972. Holmes, Oliver W. "The History and Theory of Archival Practice."In University Archives, ed. Roland E. Stephens, 1-21. Champaign III.: Edward Brothers Inc., 1965. Hudson, Michael. "Multiculturalism, Government Policy and Constitutional Enshrinement - A Comparative Study." InMulticulturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perpective,59-122. 104 Isajiw, Wsevolod W. "Olga inTechnological Society." Quest for Identity, ed. McClelland and Stewart, Wonderland: Ethnicity in a In The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic: A Leo Driedger, 29-39. Toronto: 1978. 105 ^• "Definitions of Ethnicity." Ethnicity 1, 2 (July 1984): 111-24. Isaacs, Harold. "Basic Group Identity: The Idols of the Tribe."Ethnicity 1, 1 (April 1974): 15-24. Jaworsky, John. "A Case Study of the Canadian FederalGovernment's Multiculturalism Policy." M.A. thesis, CarletonUniversity, 1979. Jenkinson, Sir Hilary."The English Archivist: A New Profession."In Selected Wrtings of Sir Hilary Jenkinson, ed. Roger H. Ellis and Peter Walne, 236-59. Glouster: Alan Sutton,1980. ^. "Shorter Communications." Journal of the Society of Archivists 1 (April 1957): 147-49. ^."Reflections of an Archivist." In Modern Archives Reader, 15-21. Kalbach, Warren E. "Growth and Distribution of Canada's Populations." In The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic: A Quest for Identity, 82-104. Kallen, Evelyn. "Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policy and Reality."Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (Spring 1982): 51-63. ^• Multiculturalism, Minorities and Motherhood: ASocial Scientific Critique of Section 27." InMulticulturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 123- 37. Labelle, Hugette. "Multiculturalism and the Government." InMulticulturalism and Intergroup Relations, 1-8. Laberge, Danielle. "Information, Knowledge, and Rights: The Preservation of Archives as a Political Issue." Archivaria 25 (Winter 1987-88): 44-49. Magnet, Joseph Eliot. "Interpreting Multiculturalism." In Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 145- 53. McLeod, Bruce N. "Human Rights and the Law." In Multiculturalism. Bilingualism and Canadian Institutions, 16-22. Muller, S., J.A. Feith, and R. Fruin. A. Manual for the Arrangement and Description pf Archives. Translated by Arthur H. Leavitt. Foreword by Ken Munden. New York: The H.Wilson Company, 1968. Munro, John. "Multiculturalism - the Policy." InMulticulturalism. Bilingualism and Canadian Institutions, 12-15. Neutell, Walter. "Gesichte Wie Es Eigentkich gewesen, or, TheNecessity of Having Ethnic Archives Programs." Archivaria 7 (Winter 1978): 104-9. Newman, William M. "Theoretical Perspectives for the Analysisof Social Pluralism." In The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic: A Quest for Identity, 40-54. Palmer, Howard. "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views ofMulticulturalism in the Twentieth Century." In The Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism, 81-118. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1976. Petersen, William. "Ethnicity in the World Today." In TheBackground to,Ethnic Qonelict,1-13. Posner, Ernst. "Max Lehman and the Genesis of the Principle ofProvenance." In Archives and the Public Interest, ed. K. Munden, 36-41. Washington: Public Affairs Press, 1965. . "Some Aspects of Archival Development Since the FrenchRevolution." In A Modern Archives Reader, 3-14. Quinn, Patrick M. "Archivists Against the Current: For a Fair andTruly Representative Record of Our Times." Provenance 5 (Spring 1987): 1-7. Rocher, Guy. "Multiculturalism: The Doubts of a Francophone." InThe Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism, 47-55. Schellenberg, Theodore R. Modern Archives Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956. . The Management of Archives Washington: National Archives and Records Administration, 1965; reprint with a Foreword by Jane F. Smith, New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. Sheridan, William. Canadian Multiculturalism. Library of Parliament; Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991.Text-fiche. Smiley, Donald. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1981. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1981. 106 107Smith, Colin. "A Case for Abandonment of 'Respect'." Archives and Manuscripts (November 1986): 154-68. . "A Case for Abandonment of 'Respect'." Archives and Manuscripts. (May 1987): 20-28. Strong-Boag, Veronica. "Raising Clio's Consciousness: Women'sHistory and Archives in Canada." Archivaria 6 (Summer 1978): 70-82. Tarnopolsky, Walter Surma The Canadian Bill of Rights. 2d rev. ed. The Carleton Library, No. 83. Toronto: McClelland andStewart, 1975. . "The Impact of United Nations Achievements on CanadianLaws and Practices." In Human Rights, Federalism, and Minorities, ed. Allan Gotlieb, 54-66. Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1970. Taylor, Hugh. "'My Very Act and Deed': Some Reflections on theRole of Textual Records in the Conduct of Affairs." American Archivist 51 (Fall 1988): 450-63. Vallee, Frank G. "Multi-Ethnic Societies: The Issues of Identityand Inequality." In Issues in Canadian Society: An Introduction to Sociology, ed. Dennis Forcese and Stephen Richer, 164-200. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1975. Zielinska, Marie F. "Multiculturalism in Canada: A Review of the First Decade." Ethnic Forum 2 (Fall 1982): 84-88. 108 APPENDIX I COVER LETTER As a student in the Master of Archival Studies program at the University of British Columbia, I am writing a thesis entitled Multiculturalism and Archives. The thesis will examine the way in which the Canadian national and provincial/territorial archival institutions are translating the aims of government multicultural policies into archival terms. The political and legal manifestations of the multicultural ideal are currently designed to ensure that the distinctiveness of cultures/ethnic groups is preserved, while at the same time facilitating the integration and participation of these groups in Canadian society. One aim of the thesis therefore, is to determine if distinctions are drawn by archival institutions between the records produced by ethnic groups and those of non- ethnic groups in terms of the way in which the records are acquired by the institution, and accessed by the researcher. Enclosed please find a copy of a questionnaire which has been created to elicit information relevant to the thesis. Each institution's policy will be analyzed and discussed within the context of the political and legal multicultural climate of the institution's jurisdiction. The length of time required to complete the form will vary depending on the degree to which the institution's policies have been formalized, and the degree of the respondent's familiarity with the institution's holdings; however I anticipate that the time required to complete the questionnaire will not exceed one hour. The benefits of this study to you include the completion of a national study which will help make known the various approaches which have been taken with respect to multiculturalism, and which may be useful to consider in policy planning and development. In addition, the study may provide direction for reconciling the political, legal, and sociological interpretations of multiculturalism with archival theory and practice. Please complete the survey and return it either by mail in the self-addressed, stamped envelope provided, or fax to (604) 278-5187 by July 8, 1991. Because of the scope of the study, a response from each of the thirteen institutions is essential to the thesis, although your participation is entirely voluntary: completion of the survey assumes consent. Follow-up on non- respondents will consist of a second mailing and two telephone contacts at two week intervals. If you have any questions about the study, please do not hesitate to contact me at home (604) 276-8757 or at work (Mondays and Tuesdays) (604) 736-8561. In addition, Dr. Luciana Duranti, thesis supervisor, may be contacted at (604) 822-2587. I appreciate your cooperation, and thank you in advance for your response. APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE NAME OF INSTITUTION NAME OF RESPONDENT 1.What is the mandate or acquisition policy of your institution? Please quote or describe in the space below, or attach. 2.Is there a formal, articulated policy specific to the acquisition of ethnic records? Yes^No If you answered "yes" to question 2, please answer questions 2a - 2e below and proceed to question 4; if you answered"no" to question 2, please proceed to question 3. 2a. When was the policy established? ^ 2b.What was the rational behind the policy's establishment? 2c. Please cite the acquisition policy, or attach. 2d. If your institution's definition of an ethnic group is not included in the acquisition policy, please describe. 109 2e. Is there an administrative separation of responsibility for ethnic records from the responsibility of other manuscript material (for example, a multicultural division or section)? Yes^No 3. Is there an informal policy regarding the acquisition of ethnic records? Yes^No If you answered "yes" to question 3, please answer questions 3a - 3d below; if you answered *no" to question 3 please proceed to question 4. 3a. When was the informal policy initiated?^ 3b. What was the rationale behind implementation of the policy? 3c. Please include a statement reflecting or summarizing the aim of the informal policy. 3d. Please describe your institution's definition of an ethnic group. 4. Is access to the records of ethnic groups provided by a thematic guide? Yes^No If you answered oyes* to question 4, please describe your institution's criteria for classifying particular groups as "ethnic"; if your institution's definition of an ethnic group appears in response to a previous question, it need not be reiterated here. 110 5. Are the records of ethnic groups made available to researchers by use of a general access point (heading) such as "ethnic groups" or "multiculturalism"? Yes^No If you answered "yes" to question 5, please give the access point(s) used, and describe your institution's criteria for classifying particular groups under this heading; if your institution's definition of an ethnic group appears in response to a previous question, it need not be reiterated here. 6. Below is a list of ethnic groups which has been selected from a lengthier list of ethnic categories compiled by Statistics Canada.' Please indicate by circling the appropriate response in the second column which of these groups your institution considers ethnic; and in the third column please indicate by circling the appropriate response those groups whose records have been acquired or classified by your institution as an ethnic fonds. =up^ ethnic?^ Record:? Aboriginal: Inuit Yes /^No Yes /^No Metis Yes /^No Yes / No North American Indian Yes /^NO Yes / No Other Yes / No Yes / No American Yes /^No Yes / No Black Yes /^No Yes / No Canadian Yes /^No Yes / No Eastern European: Ukranian Yes /^No Yes / No Russian Yes /^No Yes / No Polish Yes I^No Yes / No Other Yes 1^No Yes / No 1 Canada. Statistics Canada. Ethnicity. Immigration and Citizenship. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1989. Group East/ Southeast Asian: Ethnic? Records? Chinese Yes / No Yes / No Japanese Yes / No Yes / No Other Yes / No Yes / No Bnglish Yes / No Yes / No French Yes / No Yes / NO Irish Yes / No Yes / No Jewish Yes / No Yes / No Latin. Central, and South / No Yes / NoAmerican^Yes Scottish Yes /^No Yes / No South Asian Yes /^No Yes / No Southern European: Italian Yes /^No Yes / No Greek Yes /^No Yes / No Other Yes /^No Yes / No Welsh Yes /^No Yes / No West Asian: Iranian Yes^j^No Yes / No Israeli Yes /^No Yes / No Other Yes /^No Yes / No Western European: Dutch Yes /^No Yes / NO German Yes /^No Yes / No Other Yes /^No Yes / NO 112 113 APPENDIX II STATISTICS CANADA LIST OF ETHNIC ORIGINS Figure 2. British, French and European Origins (Single Origins) Note. n.i.e. = not included elsewhere • It should be noted that the British Only multiple responses included in the 1981 British single ongins are. in 1986. listed as a multiple ethnic response • • For a more detailed breakdown of this category. refer to Figures 2A. 2B and 2C. - Danish - Icelandic - Norwegian - Swedish - Scandinavian, n.i.e. Finnish -Scandinavian Figure 28 Southern European origins _1_ _L_ _L_ _1_ Balkans Cypriots Greek Italian Maltese Portuguese Spanish - Albanian -^Cypriot, n.i.e. - Bulgar - Greek - Croatian Cypriot Macedonian - Turkish - Serbian^Cypriot - Slovenian - Yugoslav, n. e. Figure 2A Northern European origins Figure 2C Eastern European origins _L_ I ^_L_ _L_ Baltic origins - Estonian - Latvian - Lithuanian Byelo- russian Czech Czecho- slovakian Hungarian Magyar, Polish Romanian Russian Slovak Ukrainian 114 Note n.1 e = not included elsewhere Pacific Islands origins Indo- Chinese origins Figure 3A Burmese Cambodian Laotian Thai — Vietnamese — Other African, n.i.e. — Fijian — Other Pacific Islanders — Polynesian Figure 3. Asian, African and Pacific Islands Origins (Single Origins) ASIAN, AFRICAN AND PACIFIC ISLANDS ORIGINS (single origins) 115 — Armenian^ — Arab. n.i.e. — Iranian — Egyptian — Israeli — Lebanese — Turk^ — Palestinian — Syrian South Asian origins — Bangladeshi, n.i.e.^ Chinese — Bengali^ Japanese — East Indian, n.i.e. — Korean — Gujarati — Filipino — Pakistani, n.i.e.^ — Indo-Chinese — Punjabi^ — Indonesian Singhalese — Malay Sri Lankan (Ceylonese), rile.^— Other Asian. n.i.e. — Tamil Note: n.i.e.^not included elsewhere. For more details. see Figure 3A.  West Asian origins Arab origins African origins East`South East Asian origins' Figure 4. South and North American, Black and Other Origins (Single Origins) SOUTH AND NORTH AMERICAN, BLACK AND OTHER ORIGINS (single origins)  Latin, Central and South American origins Caribbean origins Aboriginal peoples — Argentinian— Cuban^ — Inuit — Brazilian^ — Haitian — Metis — Chilean — Jamaican — North American Indian Ecuadorian — Other Caribbean, n.i.e.^ — Other Aboriginal Mexican^ — Other West Indian, n.i.e. — Other Latin/Central/^ — Puerto Rican South American origins — Peruvian Black origins Other origins — African Black^ American — Black^ — Australian/New Zealander — Black American — Canadian — Canadian Black^ — Other, n.i.e. — Other Black — West Indian Black 116 Note: n.i.e. = not included elsewhere.


Citation Scheme:


Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 3 6
City Views Downloads
Washington 2 0
Mountain View 1 1

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}


Share to:


Related Items