UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Multiculturalism and archives Chan, Heather 1993-09-17

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_fall_chan_heather.pdf [ 4.78MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0086211.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0086211-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0086211-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0086211-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0086211-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0086211-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0086211-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0086211-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0086211.ris

Full Text

MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVESByHEATHER CHANB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1985A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARCHIVAL STUDIESinTHE FACULTY OF ARTSSchool of Library, Archival, and Information StudiesWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAAugust 1993© Heather Chan, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature Department of AO^•The University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ..7FTT, 2_01, Icr)DE-6 (2/88)iiABSTRACTThis thesis examines the implications of multiculturalismfor the management of archival material generated by privateindividuals, groups, and organizations in Canada. The studybegins with an analysis of the history and nature of the conceptmulticulturalism to identify the principles and purposesunderlying both the social movement and the public policy ofmulticulturalism. The implications of these principles andpurposes upon the institutional management of archives of privateorigin are then discussed within the context of archival theory.Finally, the results of a survey conducted to determine howCanadian federal, provincial, and territorial archivalrepositories are interpreting the concept and implementing thepolicy of multiculturalism are analysed to show the effect ofmulticulturalism on current archival methodology.The study shows that, in an attempt to respect themulticultural policy, the majority of Canadian archivalinstitutions at the federal, provincial, and territorial levelsare implementing practices which are contrary to archivalprinciples. This thesis concludes that cultural group affiliationis a non-identifiable entity which cannot govern theinstitutional management of private archives, and demonstratesthat the social goals of multiculturalism and archives are bothattainable if archival principles dictate archival practices.TABLE OF CONTENTSABSTRACT^LIST OF TABLES ^ ivACKNOWLEDGMENTSINTRODUCTION ^ 1CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND NATURE OFMULTICULTURALISM IN CANADA ^ 5CHAPTER 2. MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL THEORY ^ 40CHAPTER 3. MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICE ^ 67CONCLUSION^ 90SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY^ 101APPENDIX I. QUESTIONNAIRE 108APPENDIX II. STATISTICS CANADA LIST OF ETHNIC ORIGINS ^ 113iiiivLIST OF TABLESA. Summary of Interpretations and Implementations ofMulticulturalism^ 79B. Position of Surveyed Institutions Regarding "Canadian" and"American" Cultural Groups ^ 85VACKNOWLEDGMENTSI 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.INTRODUCTIONThis thesis explores the relationship betweenmulticulturalism and archives in Canada. It provides an analysisof the idea of multiculturalism, and discusses how the aimsunderlying the multicultural policy may be accomplished in theinstitutional management of archival fonds of private origin.Multiculturalism raises two fundamental issues for the managementof private archival material. The first is caused by a dualitywithin the multicultural principle, and the second by a dualitywithin the role of government archival repositories.The concept of multiculturalism is based on the two globalsocio-scientific principles of human existence: the principle ofthe biological unity of the human species, and the principle ofthe cultural diversity among groups within the species.1 Theprinciple of biological unity in human rights principles takesthe form of individual rights while the principle of culturaldiversity is manifested in collective rights. These individualand collective rights are the underlying rationale ofmulticulturalism as it exists in Canada today.The political and legal manifestations of the Canadianmulticultural ideal are currently designed to ensure that theuniqueness of cultural groups is preserved and that their1 Evelyn Kallen, "Multiculturalism, Minorities, andMotherhood: A Social Scientific Critique of Section 27," inMulticulturalism and the Charter: kLegal Perspective, CanadianHuman Rights Foundation (Toronto: Carswell, 1987), 125.1participation in Canadian society is facilitated. The publicpolicy of multiculturalism, consequently, is comprised of twooptions for those charged with implementing it. It is justifiableto use cultural group affiliation as a factor in the decision-making process in an effort to compensate members of culturalgroups for the disadvantaged status accorded them by society.Alternatively, it is permissible to make all decisions and takeall actions on the basis of merit, without regard to culturalgroup affiliation.Because both these views aim to fulfill the goal ofmulticulturalism yet work towards this goal from oppositedirections, there are two legitimate but mutually exclusiveoptions which may be utilized by archivists to respect theprinciple of multiculturalism. The most appropriate choice mustbe made within the context of the principles and methodologies ofarchival science.The second issue raised by multiculturalism relates to thedual role of Canadian government archival repositories. Theserepositories are public institutions and as such are charged withimplementing government policies. At the same time, they arecultural agencies entrusted with the responsibility of acquiringand preserving a documentary heritage which reflects the natureof the community within their jurisdiction and which constitutesevidence of its societal relationships. These two roles mayconflict when archival material of private origin is acquired,controlled and communicated. Specifically, the government2multicultural policy may advocate the establishment of archivalprograms which are specific to cultural groups, but archivalprinciples may dictate otherwise. Which role should takeprecedence if each requires a different course of action?The two issues identified above arise within the context ofarchival theory and have not been addressed in archivalliterature. However, archival institutions have had to cope withthe multicultural policy for a number of years already, and havemade choices about how best to implement it. It is worthwhile toconsider how they have been responding to multiculturalism,namely, which interpretation of multiculturalism has beenutilized by Canadian federal, provincial, and territorialarchival institutions, what the rationale was for choosing thatinterpretation, and how it is put into effect.This thesis addresses all the above questions, and otherswhich arise as corollaries, in an effort both to understand therelationship between multiculturalism and archival fonds ofprivate origin, and to explore its implications for archivalinstitutions. Despite the importance of such a relationship,multiculturalism has not been considered before from theperspective of archival science.The present study begins with an analysis of the history andnature of multiculturalism in Canada. The entrenchment ofmulticultural principles in the legal system and theadministrative infrastructures established to furthermulticultural goals are chronicled in Chapter One at the federal,3provincial, and territorial levels. Chapter Two outlines thenature of archives, and considers the implications ofmulticulturalism within the context of archival science. Ananalysis of the results of a national survey of federal,provincial, and territorial archival repositories comprisesChapter Three: in the absence of any information about theimplementation of multiculturalism in archival institutions, thesurvey was conducted to determine how these institutions areresponding to multiculturalism in actuality and to identifytrends in the management of private archives by publicinstitutions.4CHAPTER 1OVERVIEW OF THE HISTORY AND NATURE OF MULTICULTURALISM INCANADAThe cultural diversity of Canada has been, and continuesto be, a challenge to Canadian popular attitudes and publicpolicy. Despite arguments put forward by politicians to thecontrary, assimilationist theories have historicallyprevailed in response to this cultural diversity.' However,many social, economic, and political factors have worked toundermine both the stereotypical assumptions and the socialrespectability of racism inherent in Canada's assimilationistapproach to cultural diversity. A result of these challengesto both popular attitudes and public policy was theintroduction by the federal government in 1971 of a policy ofcultural pluralism, otherwise known as multiculturalism. Theaim of this policy, to achieve national unity in culturaldiversity, was to be supported by a federal governmentinfrastructure designed to implement programs eliminatingdiscrimination while facilitating cultural retention, and bylaws designed to ensure general adherence to the aims of thepolicy.1^For example,^see Minister of State(Multiculturalism), Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada (Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1978), 1.5The federal policy of multiculturalism was thegovernment's official response to the recommendations made bythe Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. ThisCommission was established on July 19, 1963 by Prime MinisterLester Pearson, in response to increasing friction in French-English relations. Its mandate was to recommend ways in whicha more equal partnership could be developed between French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians. The ultimateobjective of such recommendations was to change Canada'stension-wrought dualism into harmonious national unity,thereby formulating a Canadian identity which respected thecultural rights of both French-speaking and English-speakingCanadians, and which represented a bicultural and bilingualsociety.The Commission considered the role of the non-French,non-Anglo-Saxon groups in this national identity only insofaras 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-Frenchorigin, but rather of the way they have takentheir place within the two societies that have6provided Canada's social structures andinstitutions .2Although the terms of reference of the Commission weredrafted with respect to the pre-eminence of the French andBritish components of Canadian society, they did accord somerecognition to the non-Anglo-Saxon and non-French groups. TheCommission was directed to "inquire and report upon theexisting state of bilingualism and biculturalism in Canadaand to recommend what steps should be taken to developCanadian Confederation on the basis of an equal partnershipbetween the two founding races, taking into account thecontribution made by the other ethnic groups to the culturalenrichment of Canada and the measures that should be taken tosafeguard that contribution."3The dichotomy of the "founding races" and the "otherethnic groups" as expressed in the terms of reference wasexplored and justified by the Commission. The Commissiondifferentiated between the "founding races" and the "otherethnic groups" on the basis of language.4 While acknowledging2 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 nationalgroup and did not attach any biological significance to itsusage: "ethnic origin" referred to biological affiliation."Founding race" was used by the Commission to refer to thosepeople who founded Confederation, that is, the British andthe French. The phrase "other ethnic groups" was defined by7that ethnic origin may account for cultural influence, theCommission contended that the extent and the nature of thatinfluence were nebulous. Language, on the other hand, was aclearly identifiable entity which allowed the Commission toquantify groups, and since the Commission "...must makerecommendations based on easily discernible realities, [theCommission] concludes that it must give much more importanceto language than to ethnic origin." 5 Therefore, the Commissionstated that "Canadians who are of neither French nor Britishorigin" 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 notfully integrated into either English- or French-speakinggroups, that is, those who continued to live according to thecustoms of their place of origin and spoke a language otherthan English or French, were considered by the Commission asthe Commission, for the purposes of its work, asidentification with a group and the will of a group to exist,the presence or absence of a common language being irrelevantto the group's sense of peoplehood. Ibid., xxii, xxiii. A"cultural group" was a "...significant group of individualsunited by a common tongue and sharing the same customs,habits, and experiences." Ibid., xxxi. No attempt is made inthis chapter to examine critically these definitions. Eachusage of the term "race", "ethnic origin", "ethnic group",and "cultural group" in this chapter appears in quotationmarks, and carries the meaning attributed to it by theCommission.5 Ibid., xxii.aone of the "other ethnic groups." Alternatively, Canadianswho were of neither British nor French origin, but who hadintegrated 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 directedspecifically to "report on the role of public and privateorganizations, including the mass communications media, inpromoting bilingualism, better cultural relations and a morewidespread appreciation of the basically bicultural characterof our country and of the subsequent contribution made by theother cultures; and to recommend what should be done toimprove that role."7Objections were raised by members of the "other ethnicgroups" in response to the Commission's goal of fostering theformation of a bilingual and bicultural nation. By asking theCommission, in effect, "If two cultures are accepted, why notmany?" members of the "other ethnic groups" rejected theunderlying premise of the bicultural and bilingual goal thathistorically there were only two groups responsible for the6 Ibid., xxv. Aboriginal peoples were outside theparameters of the Commission's study. These groups wereneither included within the category of "founding races,"since "founding race" was defined as people of French orBritish 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 orafter Confederation.7 Book IV, 6.9development of the nation.8 Formal government recognition ofthe 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 conceptexpressed throughout the Commission's report - wasinterpreted by many people to imply that the Commissionenvisioned the granting of special privileges to these twogroups. "They pictured a kind of hereditary aristocracycomposed of two founding peoples, perpetuating itself fromfather to son, and a lower order comprised of ethnic groups,forever excluded from spheres of influence." To the membersof the "other ethnic groups" lobbying the Commission, theidea of bilingualism and biculturalism relegated all otherlanguages and cultures to a second-class status in Canada.-1-0These objections were communicated to the Commission bybriefs from various organizations and individuals, and werevoiced at the twenty-three regional public hearings held bythe Commission. These groups pressed the Commission to8 Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada, 9.9 General Introduction, xxii.10 Evelyn Kallen, "Multiculturalism: Ideology, Policyand Reality," Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (Spring 1982):57.1 0consider the contribution of non-French and non-Britishgroups in its assessments of, and recommendations for a post-colonial Canadian identity. The groups were successful intheir campaign to include the contributions of the "otherethnic groups" in the public agenda, for in 1966 the decisionwas made to dedicate one volume of the Commission's report tothe contributions made by the "other ethnic groups" to thedevelopment of Canada. The volume was the fourth volume ofthe Commission's report, entitled Book IV: The Cultural Contribution of the Qther Ethnic Groups."Book IV examines the history of the "other ethnicgroups" in Canada. For this purpose, in addition to drawingupon studies of both a general and specific nature which hadbeen completed prior to, and independently of the RoyalCommission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, the Commissionconducted its own research into historic settlement patterns,the economic, social, and political structures of thesesettlements, 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'sPrinter, 1969); idem, BoqX V: The Federal Capital (Ottawa:Queen's Printer, 1970); idem, Book VI: Voluntary Associations (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970).1 1Through these studies, Book IV attempted to document thecontribution made by non-French and non-British groups to thedevelopment of the country, thereby acknowledging that,although the French and British played leading roles in theeconomic, social, and political development of Canada, the"other ethnic groups" could not be equated with "bridesmaidsat the wedding, charming but not essential."12 Indeed, Book IVhas been lauded as "...the first modern public recognition ofthe possibility of cultural rights for minorities and thelimits to Anglo-conformity and gallicization..."13It is possible to see, through the course of theCommission's work, the gradual extension of the notion ofcultural pluralism to include non-French and non-Britishgroups. As Jean Burnet - a research director for the RoyalCommission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism - points out, inthe early stages of the work of the Commission, prior to thepublication of Book IV, non-French and non-British groupsparticipated in Canadian society in one of two mutuallyexclusive ways: either they assimilated into the mainstreamculture, or they retained their distinctiveness and12 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 andIntergroup Relations, Contributions in Sociology, no. 75, ed.James Frideres (New York: Greenwood Press, 1989), 16.13 Robert F. Harney, "Ethnic Archival and LibraryMaterials in Canada: Problems of Bibliographic Control andPreservation," Ethnic Forum 2 (Fall 1982): 12.12functioned on the periphery of Canadian society." The notionthat it was possible to participate fully in Canadian societywhile maintaining cultural distinctiveness was not widelyaccepted or acknowledged on an official level. As theCommission progressed, however, the importance of culturalidentity became apparent. Rather than taking anamalgamationist position, those responsible for producingBook IV acknowledged the viability of cultural pluralism or,in the Commission's words, integration.Integration in the broad sense, does not implythe loss of an individual's identity andoriginal characteristics or his originallanguage and culture....Integration is notsynonymous with assimilation. Assimilationimplies almost total absorption into anotherlinguistic and cultural group....Bothintegration and assimilation occur in Canada,and the individual must be free to choosewhichever process suits him, but it seems tous that those of other than French or Britishorigin clearly prefer integration.15At the conclusion of the Commission's investigationinto the cultural contribution of the "other ethnic groups,"sixteen recommendations were made for the preservation of thevarious cultures in Canada within the framework ofbilingualism and biculturalism. The recommendationsencompassed all levels of government, and can be regarded ascomprising two categories. The first category deals with the14 Burnet, 17.15 Book IV, 5.13need for legislative prohibition of discrimination on thebasis of "race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or placeof origin";16 and for the removal of existing barriers in thearea of language instruction and broadcasting. The secondcategory consists of recommendations for the financialsupport of federal, provincial, and municipal governmentagencies, and through these agencies, of cultural andresearch organizations whose policies foster the "arts andletters" 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 tothe consideration of Cabinet until 1971. The delay betweenthe submission of Book IV and the federal government'sresponse to it was due to considerable revisions being madeby Cabinet to the document, and to the concentration of thefederal government's attention upon Quebec as a result of the1970 October crisis.17There were, however, many other factors beyond thecrisis in French-English relations and the studies andtestimonies which were considered by the Commission whichdetermined Canada's direction towards multiculturalism, andinfluenced Canadian attitudes regarding cultural diversity.Cultural diversity has always been a characteristic feature16 Ibid., 228.17 John Jaworsky, "A Case Study of the Canadian FederalGovernment's Multiculturalism Policy" (M.A. thesis, CarletonUniversity, 1979), 66.14of Canadian society, with people being drawn to Canada from awide variety of geographical and cultural sources. Initially,Canada was inhabited by those people currently referred toas "aboriginals." Beginning in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies, a wave of immigration from France and the BritishIsles began. Emigration from Britain has continued to thepresent day, although emigration from France virtually ceasedafter the conquest.The arrival of the French and the British in Canada inlarge numbers, combined with the strength of theirparticipation in the economic, political, and socialdevelopment of the country relative to that of the "otherethnic groups," led to the establishment of policies whichfurthered the best interests of the French and the British.The most important objective of Canadian Confederation in1867 was to accommodate the needs of these two groups:recognition of ethnic diversity did not extend beyond thisduality.18The immigration of non-French, non-British peoples toCanada remained low until the turn of the century. In 1871,members of the "other ethnic groups" comprised only eight percent of the Canadian population; the percentage rose toalmost nine per cent in 1881, and to almost ten per cent in18 Howard Palmer, "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-CanadianViews of Multiculturalism in the Twentieth Century," in The Second Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism (Ottawa:Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1976), 84.151901.19 The reason for the slow rate of growth of thissegment of the population was the strong appeal of the UnitedStates as a destination for European emigrants at thisparticular time.However, a series of concurrent events in the late 1890sresulted in a wave of immigration to Canada which lasteduntil the advent of the First World War, and which increasedthe population by more than three million. Factors whichinitiated this phenomenon include the closing of the Americanfrontier, the strong attraction of economic prosperitysignalled by the Yukon gold rush, the completion of the firstcontinental railway, and advancements in dry land farming.Concomitant with these events was the implementation ofthe Canadian federal government's policy to promoteimmigration in order to exploit the economic resources of thecountry. Government policy relating to the welfare of theimmigrants, however, did not extend in time beyond thearrival of the immigrants at their destination.20 Left totheir 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 manycountries and cultural traditions, Canadian society expected19 Book IV, 18. Percentages were rounded to the nearestwhole number in Book IV.20 Jaworsky, 37.16them to shed their traditions in favour of the values ofCanadian 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.2IThe refusal of some immigrants - whether at the communitylevel or on an individual basis - to abandon theirtraditional way of life gave rise to fears that some groupswere not able to assimilate, which in turn led to theintroduction of various discriminatory clauses in immigrationlegislation.22 Other government policies implemented inresponse to the formation of cohesive communities include theclosing of schools in the West whose language of instructionwas not exclusively English.2321 Palmer, 85.22 For more information on Canada's immigrationpolicies, see Freda Hawkins, Canada and Immigration: PublicPolicy and Public Concern (Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversity 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), 10.17Between the years 1890 and 1914 more than three millionpeople had immigrated to Canada, but the First World warbrought a temporary halt to the arrival of new immigrants.Large scale immigration resumed in the early 19205. One ofthe reasons for the increase in immigration to Canada was, asin the late 1890s, a change in government policy in theUnited States: immigrants were forced to change theirdestination when the United States placed restrictions on thenumber of immigrants allowed to enter the United States eachyear 24With this most recent wave of non-French and non-Britishimmigrants to Canada, a new concept of assimilation emergedin response to the increasing cultural diversity. Thisphilosophy is referred to as the "melting pot," and issimilar to anglo-conformity insofar as it is based on thepremise that uniformity is essential to unity; however, afundamental difference between the two theories is the normto which the immigrants would assimilate. Advocates ofanglo-conformity saw the basis of unity as the Britishculture, whereas proponents of the melting pot envisaged theblending of elements drawn from the various groups givingrise to a new, homogeneous society.One of the reasons for the emergence of melting pot ideasin Canada in the 1920s was the development of Canadian24 Book IV, 25.18nationalism.25 Another may be the emergence of this philosophyin the United States, and at that time, American ideasenjoyed growing popularity among Canadians.28 However, themelting pot philosophy had relatively few proponents incomparison to anglo-conformity, and therefore it had noeffect on public policy, which continued to be governed bythe concept of anglo-conforrnity.The wave of immigration which began in the 1920s wasabruptly halted by government restrictions imposed during theDepression of the 1930s. Only 140,000 immigrants gained entryinto the country between the years 1932 and 1941, whilestrong resistance was presented to the immigration of non-French and non-British peoples, and even stronger to theimmigration of non-white peoples.28 Despite the virtualcessation of immigration, the 1930s witnessed a dramaticincrease in racial discrimination against non-French and non-British Canadian residents as competition for jobs escalatedthe tension among people of different national origins.Discriminatory policies were implemented by the governmentwhen it invoked the provision to deport recent immigrants whobecame 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 andReality," 51.28 Berry, Kahn, and Taylor, 6.19deportation figures which were previously low, rose sodramatically that emigration exceeded immigration by100,000.29Ironically, it was during this time of escalateddiscrimination that the idea of cultural pluralism began tobe explored in English-speaking Canada. The concept ofcultural pluralism rejects the assumption of Anglo-Saxonsuperiority espoused by the proponents of anglo-conformity,and in contrast to the ideas of both anglo-conformity and themelting pot, rejects the notion that cultural uniformity isessential to national unity. Instead, cultural pluralismenvisages the preservation of elements of cultures within thebroader framework of Canadian citizenship and economic andpolitical integration. As with the melting pot theory in the1920s, cultural pluralism in the 1930s did not extend itsinfluence to the realm of Canadian public policy, beingcountered by the discriminatory popular attitudes andgovernment measures of the 1930s.In the aftermath of the Second World War however, largescale immigration to Canada resumed as a result of conditionsin Europe. These most recent immigrants represented a widervariety of national origins, occupations, and levels ofeducation than had been seen in previous waves of immigration29 Book IV, 28. This number varies with differentsources, however the variations are relatively minor, and allnumbers support the trend of high emigration, contributedlargely by deportation.20to Canada. Although initial reaction to these immigrantsconsisted of considerable pressure to conform, economic,social and political forces began to come into play toundermine the previous rationalizations for discrimination,and to facilitate an increased acceptance of culturaldiversity.The years following the end of the Second World Warbrought economic prosperity and security, which reduced thefear of competition for jobs that had so inflamed relationsamong "ethnic groups" during the Depression. As fear ofcompetition for employment declined, there was acorresponding increase in tolerance of cultural diversity.Economic prosperity was also responsible for the increase inthe level of education in Canada, a factor which is believedto have had great impact on increasing the acceptance ofcultural diversity in the urban areas.3° These two factorscontributed to the upward socio-economic mobility of the"other ethnic groups," which in turn served to challenge theassociation of "ethnicity" with class, thereby reducingdiscriminatory stereotyping.31There were also socio-political circumstances, both insideand outside Canada, which undermined prejudice and led to the30 Palmer, 99.31 The higher level of education held by the newimmigrants prior to their arrival in Canada, in comparison toearlier immigration waves, also was a factor in reducingdiscriminatory stereotyping.21acceptance of cultural diversity, all of which are related tothe increased concern with human rights.32 Although there wassome concern expressed in Canada about the violation of humanrights prior to the Second World War, this concern wasdirected towards the philosophy of totalitarian states, andnot towards the international or domestic policies of Canada.Any reference to the violation of human rights in Canada wasrestricted to individual instances of legislative oradministrative encroachments on the rights of free peopleunder the common law: these references "were not necessarilyconsidered part of a whole plethora of civil liberties.""However, during and particularly after the Second WorldWar, interest in protecting certain rights and freedoms inCanada grew. Tarnopolsky argues that domestic events were atleast as influential as international concerns in stirringinterest in protecting human rights and fundamentalfreedoms.34 During the Second World War, the Government of32 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 CanadianBill 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 Human22Canada acquired and wielded broad powers, governing thecountry by Orders-in-Council: this manner of exercisingauthority was justified at the time by the need for secrecy,and was pursuant to the War Measures Act. The treatmentaccorded the Japanese Canadians and the alleged members of aSoviet spy ring, justified under this authority, served ascatalysts for change towards protection of human rights inCanada.The Japanese living in Canada at the time of the SecondWorld War were viewed as a potential treat to nationalsecurity, and consequently the Canadian Government wasempowered to, and did, dispossess and intern them. Moreover,upon conclusion of the war, there was the revelation by aSoviet cypher clerk of an espionage network which extendedinto high circles of the Canadian political system. TheCanadian Government's treatment of the suspected personsincluded denial of the right to habeas corpus and the rightto retain counsel.Criticism was levelled at the measures taken by theGovernment against both the Japanese and the suspectedmembers of the spy ring; and considerable apprehension wascreated by the principles represented in the government'scourse of action. It was realized that it was not justcitizens of totalitarian states who were subjected to theRights Federalism. and Minorities, ed. Allan Gotlieb(Toronto: Canadian Institute of International Affairs, 1970),55-56.23loss of fundamental rights and freedoms. Such loss waspossible in Canada, and indeed, the denial of such rightswas pursuant to Orders-in-Council. Consequently, there grew ademand for measures which would ensure that such violationswould not be repeated. This concern culminated in theadoption of the Canadian of_Rights in 1960.35Moreover, as a result of two world wars, Canada becameincreasingly involved in the international community. In1945, it became a member of the United Nations which, in1948, adopted without dissenting voice the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article Two of the Declarationstates that every person is entitled to rights "withoutdistinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language,religion, political or other opinion, nationality or socialorigin, property, birth or other status." Such apparentconflict between the purposes of international forums inwhich Canada participated, and the domestic policiespracticed, finally led Canada, in 1962, to rescind itsdiscriminatory "white only" or "white if possible"immigration policy, being the first of the three largestreceiving countries in international migration to do so.3635 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.24Thus, by the 1960s, cultural pluralism was incorporatedinto popular attitudes and public policy. Canada'sparticipation in the international community, along with thepublicity generated by the Royal Commission on Bilingualismand Biculturalism, the continual increase in immigration froma variety of countries, concern with human rights andequality, and the crisis in French-English relations, weresome of the factors which led to the creation of a federalpolicy of cultural pluralism, and a national philosophy ofunity in diversity."The federal government's multicultural policy was theofficial response to the recommendations made by the RoyalCommission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism in Book IV. Thepolicy was announced on October 8, 1971 and receivedunanimous support from all political parties.38 As announcedby Prime Minister Trudeau, it endorsed all therecommendations made by the Royal Commission in Book IV whichwere directed towards federal government agencies. However,the framework which the Prime Minister proposed differed from37 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 andCh. 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, 8546-48.25that recommended by the Commission. The Commission believedthat a strong relationship existed between language andculture, 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 recognizethe existence of a compelling relationship between languageand culture and proposed a policy of multiculturalism withina bilingual framework. "For although there are two officiallanguages, there is no official culture, nor does any ethnicgroup take precedence over any other. No citizen or group ofcitizens is other than Canadian, and all should be treatedfairly. "4° The Prime Minister stated thatA policy of multiculturalism within abilingual framework commends itself to thegovernment as the most suitable means of assuringthe cultural freedom of Canadians. Such a policyshould help break down discriminatory attitudesand cultural jealousies. National unity if it is tomean anything in the deeply personal sense, must befounded on confidence in one's own individualidentity; out of this can grow respect for that of39 Different conclusions have been drawn about what theCommission really recommended. For two totally differentinterpretations see Kallen, "Multiculturalism: Ideology,Policy and Reality," 53, who suggests that the Commission, inpositing an indivisible relationship between language andculture, implied in its recommendations that multiculturalismwould necessitate multilingualism; and Michael Hudson, whostates that "the keystone to the 1971 policy was'multiculturalism within a bilingual framework'- essentiallywhat the 'B and B' Commission had recommended." MichaelHudson, "Multiculturalism, Government Policy andConstitutional Enshrinement - A Comparative Study," inMulticulturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective, 63.40 Debates, 8545.26others and a willingness to share ideas, attitudesand assumptions. A vigorous policy ofmulticulturalism will help create this initialconfidence 41Four policy statements were made by the Prime Minister withrespect to the implementation of the proposed policy ofmulticulturalism within a bilingual framework. The firststatement consists of the pledge to provide financialassistance to groups in order to assist them in retainingtheir cultural identity. The second pertains to increasingthe participation of all groups in Canadian society, whereasthe third and fourth refer to increasing the opportunitiesfor exchanges among cultural groups, and assisting immigrantsto acquire at least one of the two official languages.As Freda Hawkins observes, the federal multiculturalpolicy is fundamentally about "cultural freedom, socialjustice, and human rights."42 However, the policy alsofunctions on a more pragmatic level, that is, it distributespolitical recognition among the various groups.42 For, asPrime Minister Trudeau stated in his announcement to theHouse of Commons in 1971,In the past, substantial public support has beengiven largely to the arts and cultural institutionsof English-speaking Canada... The policy I amannouncing today accepts the contention of the41 Ibid.42 Hawkins, "Canadian Multiculturalism: the PolicyExplained," in Canadian Mosaic, 11.43 Breton, 39.27other 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.44While the policy of multiculturalism received unanimoussupport in the House of Commons from all parties upon itsannouncement, the four individual policy statements werereceived by the public with less enthusiasm and varyingdegrees of acceptance. Certain critics of the multiculturalpolicy - such as H. Brotz - objected to the entiremulticultural policy, claiming that it made of Canada"...some kind of ethnic zoo where the function of the zookeeper is to collect as many varieties as possible andexhibit them once a year in some carnival where one can gofrom booth to booth sampling pizzas, won ton soup and kosherpastrami."45 Others supported the policy in principle, butwere critical of particular policy statements."The infrastructure which was developed to put theseobjectives into effect began with the creation, in 1972, ofthe new cabinet post of Minister of State responsible for44 Debates, 8545-46.45 Howard Brotz, "Multiculturalism and Canada: AModel," Canadian Public Policy 6 (Winter 1980): 44.46 For examples of criticism levelled at policystatements 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, 47-65.28multiculturalism within the Department of Secretary of State.A Multiculturalism Directorate reported through an Under-Secretary of State to the Minister of State forMulticulturalism. The mandate of the Minister and his staffwas to "communicate actively with all sectors of governmentand the public to promote an awareness of the pluralisticnature of Canadian society. 1147 The Multicultural Directoratewas responsible for administering programs which put the fourpolicy statements into effect. The programs consisted ofgrant and non-grant initiatives as outlined by the PrimeMinister in 1971.48In May 1973, the Canadian Consultative Council onMulticulturalism (CCM) was constituted as an advisory bodyto the Minister. The CCCM was established to provide thosegroups for whom the policy was created with access to thedecision-making process. The CCCM was comprised ofapproximately one hundred individuals appointed by theMinister. This advisory body was required to make annualrecommendations to the Minister on the multicultural policy;however, the elaborate structure of the CCM along with itsunwieldy size led, in 1985, to its dissolution and thecreation of a new advisory body. This new group was calledthe Canadian Multicultural Council, was comprised of a fewer47 Multiculturalism and the Government of Canada, 15.48^Debates, "Appendix Part C: Program ofImplementation," 8582-83.29number of participants, and had an expanded mandate whichincluded research.The administrative infrastructure supporting themulticultural policy evolved over the years in response tothe federal government's expanding commitment to themulticultural ideal and the corresponding increase inprograms. The development of that commitment is marked bysuch events as the creation of a Parliamentary StandingCommittee on Multiculturalism to monitor the implementationof the multicultural policy, the formation of advisory bodiesto the Minister with successively stronger mandates, and theupgrading of the Multicultural Directorate to a Sector in1985, and from a Sector to the Department of Multiculturalismand Citizenship in 1991.49The mandate of the Department is to implement programswhich will enable all Canadians to participate fully inCanadian society without discrimination. The nature of theprograms designed to achieve the multicultural ideal hasshifted over the years from an emphasis on the folkloricaspects of heritage to an emphasis on cross-culturalcommunications and race relations.An attempt to create a statutory basis for the federalmulticultural policy was made in 1984, with Bill C-48. This49 Bill C-18, an Act to formally establish theDepartment of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, was passed byboth houses of Parliament and received Royal Assent onJanuary 17, 1991.30Bill provided for a Multiculturalism Act which closelyparalleled the 1971 federal multicultural policy. Theobjectives of the Art, laid out in section 3, were toencourage contributions by all "cultural and racial groups"to Canadian society, to remove barriers to social, economic,political and cultural participation in Canadian society, tosupport the preservation and exchange of "cultural heritage,"to foster appreciation for the nation's cultural diversity,and to ensure that related government policies and programsincorporated the multicultural objectives.Although Bill C-48 died on the order paper, a legislativebase for the multicultural policy was provided four yearslater with the Canadian Multiculturalism Art. The Bill forthis Act, Bill C-93, was tabled in the House of Commons onDecember 1, 1987. After a series of public hearings, itreceived unanimous approval of Parliament on July 12, 1988,that of the Senate on July 19, and was proclaimed law on July21 of the same year. The first of its kind in the world, theCanadian Multiculturalism Art articulates the multiculturalpolicy, formulates a framework for implementing the policy,and provides a system of government accountability both toParliament and the Canadian public.The Art outlines ten policy objectives, and identifies theways in which the federal institutions should implement thepolicy. The policy objectives outlined in section 3 (1) ofthe Act are: to promote the understanding thatmulticulturalism is a fundamental and valuable characteristic31of Canadian society, which acknowledges the freedom topreserve one's cultural heritage; to remove the barriers toto full participation in Canadian society; to recognize the"culturally diverse" communities, their contribution tosociety, and the benefits of their diversity; and toimplement the policy without affecting the status of officiallanguages. Section 3 (2) of the Ant outlines the commitmentof the federal institutions to implement the policy, whilesections 4 through 6 identify methods for implementing thepolicy, focusing on the role of the Ministers of the Crown.Section 7 establishes the Canadian Multiculturalism AdvisoryCommittee to provide the Minister with advice on the policyprograms, while section 8 addresses funding. Sections 9 and10 of the Act provide for a system of accountability toParliament and to the Canadian public for the implementationof the multicultural policy.The inclusion of the multicultural policy in the statutesis significant, for it implies that the government, andtherefore the people upon whose behalf it is acting, feltenough confidence in multiculturalism to impose it on thefuture. Two years prior to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act,the underlying rationale for the multicultural policy - thedesire to ensure equality for all Canadians - was recognizedby the legal system in sections 15 and 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 15 is the Equality Rightssection of the Charter. In so far as a right can beguaranteed, this section ensures the protection of the32multicultural heritage of all Canadians.5° Subsection (1) ofsection 15 states that "every individual is equal before andunder the law and has the right to the equal protection andequal benefit of the law without discrimination and, inparticular, without discrimination based on race, national orethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental orphysical disability." Although this section purports toguarantee the equality of all Canadians, there is nogenerally accepted definition of equality in Canada; thereare however, generally accepted assumptions about equalitywhich include the recognition that all individuals are ofequal worth and dignity.5I "No one should be deniedopportunities for reasons unrelated to theirability...because [such an action] implies that the worth ofsome individuals is less than others."52However, the notion of equality does not necessarily implythat everyone should be treated the same: equality andidentical treatment are not synonymous. Indeed, in certain50 Although the rights which are listed in the varioussections of the Charter come under the title "Guarantee ofRights and Freedoms", Donald Smiley points out that rightsare not absolute as implied by the heading: every right issubject to some actual or conceivable limitation. DonaldSmiley, 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 Legalperspective, 4.52 Ibid.33circumstances, equality may very well mean treating a persondifferently because of that person's differences: as Becktonpoints out, treating a blind person and a sighted person thesame for all purposes does not constitute equality.53 Anexample of this is the landmark case of R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., where Big M Drug Mart Ltd. was charged with unlawfullycarrying on the sale of goods on a Sunday contrary to theLord's Day Act 54 The Supreme Court, in announcing itsdecision on the case, suggested that "the interests of trueequality may well require differentiation in treatment."55The line between discrimination and acknowledgingdistinctiveness is a fine one. Like the word "equality,""discrimination," when used within the context of humanrights, has no generally accepted definition in Canada.56Definitions of discrimination which are taken from the UnitedStates and Britain, and which are often quoted in Canadianlaw, include the version given by Lord Reid in Post Office v. Union of Post Office Workers: 57Discrimination implies a comparison. HereI think that the meaning could be eitherthat by reason of the discrimination the53 Ibid.54 [1985] 1 S.C.R. 29555 Ibid., 347.56 Beckton, 7.57 [1974] 1 All E.R. 229-39.34worker is worse off in some way than hewould have been had there been nodiscrimination against him or that byreason of the discrimination he is worseoff than someone else in a comparableposition against whom there has been nodiscrimination.58Another often cited definition of discrimination is thatgiven by Mr. Justice Burton in Cortner v. N.tional CashRegister Comuany.59 "Discrimination means the act of making adistinction in favour or against a person or thing based onthe group, class or category to which that person belongsrather than on individual merit.""In order for a distinction to be discriminatory, itappears that the action is in response to a trait, ratherthan in response to the individual's ability; and that theaction has a detrimental effect or is in some waydisadvantageous to the individual. Discrimination, as opposedto distinction, carries a negative connotation, and is theresult of a stereotyped or unfair assumption.61Subsection (2) of section 15 was included in the Charterto legitimize activities and programs which might otherwisebe 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 avoidthe difficulties encountered in the United States with thenotion of "reverse discrimination" - a charge which arose35does not preclude any law, program or activity that has asits object the amelioration of conditions of individuals orgroups including those who are disadvantaged because of race,national or ethnic origin, color, religion, sex, age ormental or physical disability." Therefore this section hasramifications 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." Itreads "the Charter shall be interpreted in a mannerconsistent with the preservation and enhancement of themulticultural heritage of Canadians." However, as with theCharter's use of the undefined terms "equality" and"discrimination," there is nothing to clearly indicate how"multicultural heritage" should be interpreted. In the wordsof Joseph Magnet, "[this] phrase is a political 'mirror onthe wall.' It invites those reflecting in it to see the mostflattering view of their own ideas."64In spite of the fluid definitions which surround theconcept, including that of the very term multiculturalism,cultural pluralism is replacing cultural duality in Canadianpublic policy and popular attitudes. The policy ofmulticulturalism has had a spin-off effect upon thebecause of the lack of any provisions in their equalityclause for affirmative action programs.63 Hudson, 60.64 Joseph Eliot Magnet, "Interpreting Multiculturalism,"in Multiculturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perspective,146.36provinces, although the development of policies at this levelvaries considerably from province to province." Of theAtlantic provinces, only New Brunswick and Prince EdwardIsland have programs dedicated specifically tomulticulturalism. Quebec has a multicultural policy which isimplemented by the ministre des Communautes culturelles et del'Immigration; the objectives of this agency are to preservecultural diversity, promote greater cultural tolerance, andachieve equality for all. Ontario, like Quebec, has aministry responsible for program delivery. Ontario's Ministryof Citizenship and Culture has three functional branches tofacilitate the integration and participation of thepopulation in the life of the province. Manitoba andSaskatchewan have both issued statements declaring theequality of status and guaranteed access to their facilitiesfor people of all cultures, and both have a key deliveryministry for their programs for cultural retention. Alberta'spolicies are the most developed of the western provinces, andthis province was the first in Canada to establish aDepartment of Culture and Multiculturalism. British Columbiaon the other hand, has one of the most recently developedpolicies for multiculturalism in the country. Created in1990, the policy is aimed at encouraging all segments of the65 The following summary of provincial policies is basedon William Sheridan, Canadian Multiculturalism (Library ofParliament; Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991,text-fiche), 12.37population to participate in the economic and social life ofthe province." Neither of the two Territories has yetarticulated a policy of multiculturalism.Factors which led to the adoption of a policy of culturalpluralism at the federal - and subsequently the provincial -level include continual immigration from a variety ofcountries, and political and social isolation of theimmigrant groups, leading to the maintenance of their owntraditions. Both the government's and the public's reactionto this cultural diversity have evolved from assimilation topluralism, with many factors influencing this transition. TheRoyal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was theinitial attempt to formulate Canada's cultural diversity, andthe federal government's official response to therecommendations made by the Commission was to introduce apolicy of multiculturalism. Since that announcement in 1971,an increasingly sophisticated administrative infrastructurehas been set up to support the policy, and laws specific tothe goals of the policy have been enacted. The administrativeand legal means by which the multicultural policy isimplemented are indicative of the commitment of thegovernment - and of the public, whose will the governmentrepresents - to the future of a policy of multiculturalism inCanada. Although the spirit of multiculturalism seems assured66 Ministry of Provincial Secretary, Multiculturalpolicy of the Province of British Columbia, October, 1990.38of its place within Canadian society, the public agencieswhich execute the policies face challenges as theimplications of the policies transpire. Archival repositoriesat the federal and provincial/territorial levels are doublyaffected by multiculturalism as a policy and as a movementsince they are tied to the goals of their sponsoring agencyand at the same time are responsible for preserving evidenceof societal relationships. Chapter Two discusses theconceptual implications of multiculturalism for archivistsand archival repositories at Canadian federal andprovincial/territorial archival institutions.39CHAPTER 2MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL THEORYThe most significant questions which arise when oneconsiders the political and legal manifestations ofmulticulturalism from an archival point of view are firstly, whatwould be the effect of politically determined acquisitionpolicies on society's documentary heritage, and secondly, how isthe impartiality with which archivists and archival institutionsare expected to fulfill their mandates to be reconciled withfederal and provincial policies and with subsection 2, section 15of the Charter, which legitimize affirmative action programs?While Blinkhorn states that the "relationship between archivesand society has always been determined by political and legalfactors," this statement is only valid with respect to thetraditional motives determining the establishment of archivalinstitutions, and the current reasons for preserving publicrecords.' The validity and potential effect of the implementationof government initiatives within the realm of private recordsconstitutes in fact an entirely new area of enquiry, a1 Victoria Blinkhorn, "The Records of Visual Artists:Appraising for Acquisition and Selection" (Master of ArchivalStudies thesis, University of British Columbia, 1988), 33.40consequence of an unprecedented government involvement in allaspects of Canadian society.Moreover, a specific challenge for archivists is created bythe fact that multiculturalism as a policy is moving in twodirections at the same time in its attempt to arrive at the goalof "unity in diversity." On the one hand, the aim of the policyis to remove boundaries among the various cultural groups inorder to achieve the "unity" component of the equation. On theother hand, the programs implemented under the aegis of themulticultural policy are designed to facilitate the maintenanceof the distinctiveness of those groups, the "diversity" componentof the equation. Because the notion of context is central toarchival science, inspires its principles, and governs itsmethods of acquisition, preservation, and communication ofarchives, the challenge presented to archivists by thesepotentially contrasting approaches to multiculturalism lies indetermining whether a cultural group can be considered as therelevant and primary context of a group of records: anaffirmative answer could be construed as emphasizing that aspectof multiculturalism which advocates maintaining distinctiveness,while a negative answer could be construed as emphasizing thataspect of multiculturalism which advocates eliminatingdistinctions.In order to address these questions and others that arise ascorollaries, it is necessary to look first at the object which41the multicultural policy was devised to protect the culturaland/or ethnic group.2.1 THE CULTURAL AND/OR ETHNIC GROUPIt is one primary aim of the Canadian multicultural policyto facilitate the maintenance of cultural and/or ethnic groupties. Political and legal documents associated with the policy,however, do not define the concept of cultural and or/ethnicgroup. Whether it is assumed that there is an agreement about theexact nature of this entity, and therefore it is deemedunnecessary to define it explicitly, or whether - as appears tobe the case - a definition of it eludes us altogether, muchconfusion and controversy have arisen about the identity of thegroups that constitute the target of multiculturalism.Arising from this uncertainty about exactly what it is thatmulticulturalism is dealing with, is the fact that differentwords have been used to mean the same thing and, conversely, thesame word has been used to mean different things. For example,the primary cause of unfavourable reaction to the content of BookIV was the way in which the Commission defined and used the terms"ethnic groups" and "cultural groups."2 The Commission, inpresenting its recommendations for advancing the rights of the2 Burnet, "Taking into Account," 14.42French-speaking population, posited a strong relationship betweenlanguage and culture, and distinguished a cultural group from anethnic group on the basis of language. However, the Commission,throughout its report, appeared to use the term cultural group asa synonym for ethnic group. This gave "ethnic groups" a claim tolinguistic rights, and was perceived as a threat to the claim ofFrench Canadians to equal partnership with the "other foundingrace. "3Nineteen years after the publication of Book IV, theCanadian Multiculturalism Act provided a statutory basis for themulticultural policy. The Preamble of the Act refers to the"diversity of Canadians as regards race, national or ethnicorigin, colour..." and in sections 3 (1) (a) and (b) to "culturalheritage" 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 orcultural groups to which the respondent or the respondent's3 For amplification, see Guy Rocher, "Multiculturalism: theDoubts of a Francophone," 47-65.43ancestors belong. Ethnic or cultural group refers to the "roots"or ancestral origin..."4Social scientists have not been more successful thanpolitical scientists in defining the object of multiculturalism.Isajiw conducted a bibliometric survey to determine the frequencywith which social scientists defined ethnicity in theirresearch.5 Out of sixty-five sociological and anthropologicalstudies dealing with ethnicity, only thirteen gave somedefinition of it, while fifty-two offered no definition at all.Harold Isaacs remarks upon the apparent difficulty ofdefining the concept by describing it asthe 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.6While it appears that most authors are reluctant to explainhow they are using certain terminology, there are some who dooffer qualifications for the terms being used. Race, religion,kinship, language, modes of livelihood, region of origin andhabitat are among the most common criteria used to define ethnic4^Statistics Canada, Ethnicity. Immigration, andCitizenshiv (Ottawa: Supply and Services, 1989), xxi.5 Wsevolod Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," Ethnicity1, 2 (July 1974): 111-24.6 Harold Isaacs, "Basic Group Identity: The Idols of theTribe," Ethnicity 1, 1 (April 1974): 15, 17.44and/or cultural groups.7 It is clear that ethnicity is sometimesdistinguished from culture, although there is no consensus on thecriteria to be used for making such distinctions.The multicultural policy addresses a concept, therefore,that is wide open to, and indeed entirely dependent upon theinterpretation of those attempting to put into effect the policy.Whether ethnicity and culture are different words referring tothe same concept or not, and despite the variety ofinterpretations attributed to each, for the sake of consistencythe words culture and cultural group will be used throughout thethesis in place of the words ethnicity and ethnic groups.8Although ethnicity and culture may indeed be different concepts,they are not recognized as such by the multicultural policy or bythose entrusted with verifying its effectiveness.8 The wordsculture and cultural group are used here to refer to that entitywhich the multicultural policy attempts to preserve.7 The complexity of this issue is beyond the scope of thisthesis to explore. For an overview see Isajiw.8 The decision to use the words culture and cultural groupsrather than ethnicity and ethnic groups is based on therecognition that a pejorative meaning has sometimes been attachedto the word "ethnic." Also, the word culture is a component ofthe word multiculturalism, and bears a greater affinity to itsconcept.9 In a national survey conducted between 1973 and 1976 toinvestigate the attitudes of Canadians towards multiculturalism,the authors state that "for the purposes of this research,multiculturalism refers to the existence of ethnic groups inCanada which derive from cultural traditions other than Britishor French..." Berry, Kahn, and Taylor, 231.45The lack of an explicit definition of the object of themulticultural policy does not preclude archival institutions fromimplementing it, sometimes taking advantage of the elusivecharacter of the term cultural group, to the point of adoptingand employing the definition which best reflects the culturalclimate of the institution's jurisdiction.But considering the nature of archival material, is itpossible to fulfill archival responsibilities in a way which isconditioned by the multicultural policy? And considering the roleof archivists and archival repositories, is it appropriate to doso? These questions can only be answered in the context of thenature of archives and of the roles of archivists and archivalinstitutions 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 DOCUMENTARYHERITAGENumerous definitions of archives have been developed in thelast one hundred years. They have usually arisen in response tothe diversity of situations with which archivists of specifictimes and places dealt. Despite the discrepancies andcontroversies on the subject within the international archivalcommunity, the definition of archives proposed by the CanadianBureau of Archivists in 1985 has become the standard definitionaccepted in Canada. It considers archives to be "the whole of46the documents of any nature that every administrative body, everyphysical or corporate entity, automatically and organicallyaccumulates by reason of its function or its activity.nioThis definition implies that a number of characteristics canbe attributed to archival material. The fact that the nature ofarchives is defined by describing a collectivity aptly portraysthe idea that there are relationships between archival documents,which, taken together, form a cohesive "whole."11 Therelationships which exist among the documents are a consequenceof the way in which they are created. Archives are made orreceived, and accumulated by a creator in the course of anactivity, automatically and organically, and because of this,there is "a structure, an articulation and a natural relationshipbetween the parts which are essential to their significance."1210 Bureau of Canadian Archivists, Towards Descriptive Standards: Report and Recommendations of the Canadian Working Group on Archival Descriptive Standards (Ottawa: Bureau ofCanadian Archivists, 1985), 7.11 The French phrase fonds d'archives, or simply the wordfonds, is used in English speaking Canada to describe thisentity. The term "archive group" used in Great Britain, and theterm "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 ofadministrative 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 asthe 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., 239.47This relationship among the parts is determined by the nature,function, and activity of the creator to whom the archivalmaterial is linked by a relationship of paternity, not ofownership. The relationships between the documents of a fondsreflect a structure which corresponds to the way in which thecreator organized its activities. Because archives are producedas a consequence of pursuing some activity, the purpose of theircreation is detached from any consideration of use other than thecreator's original intent.13 Consequently, archival documentsare impartial. They reveal the way of operating of their creator,its biases and idiosyncrasies, and also the context in which thecreator was active.Archives therefore are a complex of documents and a complexof relationships, relationships among the documents, between thedocuments and their creator, and between the documents and thesociety in which the creator acts. The responsibilities ofarchival repositories and archivists are derived from thenature of archives, but have evolved as the role played byarchives within the social matrix has developed.The first archival repositories were established to preserverecords which were vital testimony to rights and privileges ofthe power-wielding elite; they were indeed the "arsenals of law13 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), 13.48and administration. u14 Accordingly, repositories for theserecords accomplished a political and legal function.15 Thus, fromthe beginning of civilization to the end of the eighteenthcentury, archives were the documents created in the course ofaffairs which were preserved by their creators for theirexclusive use, even if at times others were allowed to consultthem. With the French Revolution, however, new principles wereestablished which became fundamental to the administration ofarchives.The ideas which developed as a result of the Revolution andwhich greatly affected the administration and use of archivalmaterials include the state's recognition of the value ofarchives to persons other than the creator. In the early years ofthe Revolution, in reaction against the ancient regime, the14 Trevor Livelton, "Some Thoughts on the Archival Functionand Method, With a Note on Their Relation to the Arsenal of theForum," (unpublished term paper, School of Library, Archival andInformation Studies, University of British Columbia, march 1988),10. Hugh Taylor points out that, as the written record supplantedthe oral action, the document became the act itself. Hugh Taylor,"'My Very Act and Deed': Some Reflections on the Role of TextualRecords in the Conduct of Affairs," American Archivist 51 (Fall1988): 459. For more information about the impact of the writtenrecord upon society, see M.T. Clanchy, "'Tenacious Letters':Archives and Memory in the Middle Ages," Archivaria 11 (Winter1980-1981): 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 DevelopmentSince the French Revolution," in A Modern Archives Reader, ed.Maygene F. Daniels and Timothy Walsh (Washington: NationalArchives and Records Service, 1984), 3-14; also Oliver W. Holmes,"History and Theory of Archival Practice," in UniversityArchives, ed. Rolland E. Stevens (Champaign, Ill. :EdwardBrothers, Inc., 1964), 1-21.49Revolutionaries destroyed large quantities of feudal records:because of the records, dispositive nature, rights and privilegesof the aristocracy were destroyed along with them. It was soonrealized, however, that records were an essential element in thefunctioning of society as a whole, and necessary to itscontinuation 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 theseventeenth century thatnothing is so sacred that the mad licentiousnessand unchecked boldness of tyrants does not profaneit. But those who stored away in places sacred tomemory the books and records from which a lateposterity might draw, as from a storehouse,information for its own erudition and that of itssuccessors, they imitate the Alexanders the Great,the Julius Caesars, the Octavian Augustuses, andthe great Constantines... If we had been completelydeprived of these precious crumbs, we should all becompelled to grope in the dark...there is nothingmore necessary for preserving patrimonies andthrones, all things public and private, than awell-constituted store of volumes and records.16As a result of the French Revolution, the state acknowledgedits responsibility for the care of its documentary heritage, notsolely as a necessary instrument of government, but also as the16 Lester K. Born, trans., "Baldassare Bonafacio and hisEssay De Archivis," American Archivist 4 (January 1941): 233-34.50property of the people.17 As such, Article 37 of the Messidordecree of 1794 proclaimed archives accessible to the public, onthe basis of the public's ownership of the records. Although theprinciple of universal access was initially formulated to providefor the legal and judicial needs of people, it later facilitatedscholarly research.The notions of public access to, and state responsibilityfor archives spread throughout Europe to those areas which camewithin the French orbit, most notably Belgium, the Netherlands,the Kingdom of Naples and various other Italian states.18 Thefeelings of intense nationalism which arose in response to Frenchdomination 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 pastwas accelerated by the increasing acceptance of the philosophy ofthe school of scientific history, which emphasized the primacyof documents in the study and interpretation of the past.18 Thislink between archives and historiography was furtherstrengthened in the early decades of the nineteenth century whenscholars replaced government officials as records keepers.2()17 Indeed, it is possible to say that archives have, in themost fundamental sense, always been the property of those whoexercise political power.18 Holmes, 15.19 Ibid., 15 - 16; Posner, 9.20 For a more detailed historical account of the delegationof responsibility for archival material see Luciana Duranti, "The51Thus, it is possible to see that as archives came to havevalue for people other than their creators, and as archivaldocuments not necessarily pertaining to political or legalmatters came to be deposited in archival institutions, thefunction of the archivist expanded beyond that of service torecords creators and, for the purpose of serving society atlarge, grew to include acquisition of archives of non-sponsoringbodies.With the growing use of archives as primary sources for thewriting of history, and with the entrance of historians into thearchival profession, it was perhaps inevitable thathistoriographical interests came to influence the acquisitionprocess, particularly with respect to private material.Understandably, appraisal criteria were developed which servedthe best interest of the historian. As Booms remarks, theappraisal function has been governed in the past by the visionarchivists have had of themselves and their profession as the"'hewers of wood and the drawers of water' for historicalresearchers."21 Cappon comments that the incentive for theacquisition policies "in fields such as urban and ethnic history,the history of women, of the Negro, and of science" stems fromhistorical study, that is, it is the interest demonstrated byOdyssey 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): 91.52researchers in those specific subjects to archivists which hasdriven the archival acquisition of private archives in thesesubject areas.22 Gerald Ham, dissatisfied with this traditional,reactive nature of archival acquisition, proposes a proactiveapproach.23 He suggests that the roles in the relationship bereversed, and that archivists drive historiography by acquiringwithin subject areas which have been overlooked.In addition to those who would suggest that acquisitionpolicies be aimed at encouraging writing on a specific subject,there are also those who would suggest that archivists take amoral stance on "racist or xenophobic behaviours."24 "Culturaland group identity" - Danielle Laberge writes - is a politicalissue, "...and it is on these grounds that one should take aposition. ..25It is precisely such subjective judgements which archivistsmust avoid giving expression to in the acquisition of privatematerial, for it is these biases which have resulted in theincomplete archival record which we are faced with today.Contemporary scholars such as Veronica Strong-Boag lament that it22 Lester J. Cappon, "The Archivist as Collector," AmericanArchivist 39 (October 1976): 429.23 F. Gerald Ham, "The Archival Edge," in Modern ArchivesReader, 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.53is impossible to write an accurate history of women because of alack of documentation in archives.26 However true and unfortunatethis may be, this situation of a lack of documentation inarchives is, in part, the result of archival institutions beingtoo closely linked with research trends or other areas ofsubjective interests.Despite the relationship which was established betweenarchives and historiography in the course of the nineteenthcentury, it has become increasingly accepted by professionalarchivists, if less so by professional historians, that thepurpose and goal of the formation of the archival documentaryheritage is to preserve documentary evidence of all aspects ofthe social matrix which are functional to the understanding ofsociety, and to its continuation and development.27But if recognition of this higher purpose is gaining ground,implementation appears less pervasive.28 Colman believes that, in26 Veronica Strong-Boag, "Raising Clio's Consciousness:Women's History and Archives in Canada," Archivaria 6 (Summer1978): 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 Councilof 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 thesetrends; and upon statements made by scholars such as RobertHarney, who comment upon the lack of archival documentationreflecting Canada's cultural diversity.54the United States, a disproportionate amount of public archiveshas been acquired in comparison to private archives, and that thearchival profession is "...skewing the study of culture by thestudied preservation of unrepresentative indicators of thatculture... The most pronounced case of skewing" - he writes - "isthe preservation of vast holdings of government records.. .in theabsence of collections which take comparable account of otheraspects of culture."29 The acquisition emphasis which Colman isreferring to echoes, of course, the original function of archivalrepositories as the "arsenals of law and administration" andreflects the tendency to document the lives of those whorepresent the prevailing socio-economic strata of society. Therepresentation of the power-wielding elite in the realms of bothpublic and private documents acquisition results therefore, notonly from the traditional functions of archival institutions, butalso from human nature, which has maintained a fascination withthe powerful few. This preoccupation of archivists everywherewith those individuals and groups who form the diplomatic,economic, and military elites has resulted in an incompletearchival record if one agrees with Booms that such a recordshould represent the "societal relationships of an era in itsessential 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 brewing552.3 IMPLICATIONS OF MULTICULTURALISM FOR THE ARCHIVAL RECORDIn Canada, multiculturalism is certainly one essentialsocietal feature, and, in light of the above discussion, thejustification for acquiring records which reflect themulticultural character of Canadian society at the provincial andnational levels should not lay with the "changing winds ofhistoriography,"31 nor with the desire to serve the cause ofmulticulturalism, but rather with the recognition that thetotality of Canadian society MUSt be represented in the holdingsof archival institutions.Creating and employing appraisal criteria in response togovernment initiatives may simply perpetuate the tendency ofarchival repositories to be dictated by external forces. TheConsultative Group on Canadian Archives wrote that an archivalrepository "mirrors the organization or community which createdit," and that "its holdings should reflect all aspects ofcommunity life...": affirmative action programs embedded inindustry, an omission which Ham speculates could lead futureresearchers to surmise that the brewer's art was unknown inMilwaukee. Ham, 327.31 Ham, 329.56acquisition policies may compromise the impartiality necessary toachieve this idea1.32However, it is possible to conceive of positive aspectsof such an affirmative action program from an archival pointof view. For example, in particular geographical areas where arepository's holdings do not reflect the cultural diversity ofthe jurisdiction of the institution, the implementation ofgovernment-inspired acquisition policies which specificallytarget the cultural dimension of the community would notcompromise the archival record; indeed, such an initiativewould facilitate the process of forming a documentary heritagewhich reflects all aspects of the community. In addition, thevery existence of affirmative action programs is in itself arecord of societal attitudes and relationships, and certainlyreflects government activity and concern.The issue of acquiring private archival material whichreflects the multicultural nature of a repository'sjurisdiction raises the question of whether or not thecultural dimension of man is to be considered a conceptuallyvalid "provenance."33 The answer to this question is vital,for provenance is the fundamental principle of archivalscience which governs all aspects of archival work, includingappraisal for acquisition. An analysis of the meaning of32 Consultative Group, 6.33 The question does not arise for public material, whoseprovenance is always a creating office.57provenance is justified in light of the expansion in both itsinterpretation and its applicability to archival functions.Provenance has been described as the "definitive fact ofarchival science."34 Contrary to the common assumption thatthe principle of provenance was "invented" by Natalis DeWailly in France in 1841, Maynard Britchford presents aconvincing argument that the principle was not "the suddenresult of decrees, edicts, regulations and endorsements" buthad a longer history and a more gradual introduction into thearchivist's work than the popular version of the storyallows.35In assessing De Wailly's role with respect to provenance,it might be more appropriate to say that De Wailly was thefirst to articulate and mandate the principle. His directivewas necessitated by a response to a variety of changes takingplace in the nineteenth century. The most prominent amongthese changes were the re-organization of post-revolutionarygovernments, the secularization of religious institutions andthe centralization of power which gave rise to newgovernmental functions and consequently to new types ofrecords, the exertion of bureaucratic and professional34 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), 7.55pressures for standards and regulations, and the new scholarlyclientele of archives.36De Wailly's edict required archivists "...to assemble thedifferent documents by 'fonds,' that is to say, to form acollection of all the documents which originate from a'corps,' an organization, a family or individual, and toarrange the different 'fonds' according to a certain order."37It is clear from this statement that Natalis De Waillyperceived fonds as a physical entity, and consequently theprinciple that he formulated reflected this. The equation ofthe physical grouping of records with the body that createdit, that is, with its provenance, persists today.The purpose of the principle of provenance as it wasoriginally conceived was to keep the context of the recordsintact, a goal to be achieved by grouping the recordsaccording to their source. This stipulation received itstheoretical justification from the Dutch archivists in theirmanual, and was the purpose underlying their Rule Number 8:"The various archival collections placed in a depository mustbe 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, 33.59Schellenberg reiterates this with his statement that "recordsshould be kept according to their source."39Prior to being arranged by provenance, records werearranged by subject. For example, in the Privy State Archivesin Berlin, "correspondence of the Ministry of Affairs with theMission in Brussels would be combined with old records of thePrivy Council pertaining to Brabant, and the records of theBrussels Mission itself would be thrown in for goodmeasure."40 Significant problems were inherent in attemptingto arrange records in relation to their subjects, due not onlyto the inordinate amount of time required to carry out suchwork but also to the difficulty - if not the impossibility -of retrieving information.41Once private material came to be acquired byrepositories, and the archival function developed beyond thepreservation of public records and the provision of serviceprimarily to the records creators to include appraisal foracquisition, the application of the principle of provenance39 T.R. Schellenberg, Management of Archives (Washington:National Archives and Records Administration, 1965; reprint, witha 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 thePrinciple 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 analyzingprovenance as a retrieval tool. For an introduction to their worksee David Bearman and Richard Lytle, "The Power of the Principleof Provenance," Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 14-27.60was extended to private material. In its new area ofapplication, the term provenance was extended from the realmof arrangement and description to that of appraisal foracquisition, to designate the place from which private paperswere purchased or otherwise acquired.42Initially, overwhelming volume of private records wasnot an issue, for very little survived. Indeed, theacquisition of private material focused on acquiring whateverwas available." Eventually, however, the volume of extantrecords increased, a situation which necessitated that somediscretion be exercised in acquisition. Provenance, used as anappraisal criterion, was based on the premise that, if thesource was important, then so too were the records. Accordingto Schellenberg, provenance refers to the body which createdthe records. Provenance, he writes, can be identified byanswering the question "Who? Which person, corporate body, orgovernment agency produced the unit?"44 By identifyingprovenance, the context of the records can be understood andmaintained.42 Schellenberg, Management of Archives, 45; F.B. Evans,D.F. Harrison, and E.A. Thompson, "A Basic Glossary forArchivists, Manuscript Curators, and Records Managers," AmericanArchivist 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: Universityof Chicago Press, 1956), 134.61The definition of provenance has expanded througharchivists' attempts to preserve context. Max Evans statesthat the management of archival documents is based on theassumption that context is the key to understanding, that allarchival principles stem from this fundamental concept.45 Inan attempt to do the most justice to a fonds by clarifying anddescribing the context of the records, it was inevitable thatdifferent opinions would be formed regarding what constitutesthat context. For example, French archivist Michel Ducheinconsiders context to be the administrative structure or, moreprecisely, the agency which created the records." Duchein hasformulated strict criteria which must be met by a recordcreator to qualify as an agency. These criteria are: a legalauthority or identity; an official mandate; a definedhierarchical position; a large degree of autonomy; and anorganizational chart.Peter Scott considers the most relevant context of therecords to be the function which determined their creation andtheir place in the filing system to which they belong.4745 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 andManuscripts 7,4 (April 1979): 151-65; idem, "Archives and62If a function can be interpreted as valid provenance forpublic records, one may wonder why culture could not beconsidered such for private records. If provenance in its mostfundamental sense is context, Harney's argument that thecultural 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 hisethnicity... m48The underlying purpose in treating culture as the pre-eminent context of private archival material would be toincrease the number of acquisitions which reflect the culturaldiversity of a community, that is, to legitimize the use ofculture as a criterion in the appraisal-for-acquisitionfunction.It is clear from the definitions of archives and ofprovenance that have gained general acceptance, however, thatthe fundamental idea in both of them is that documents aremost strictly linked to their creator, the activitiesgenerating them, and the other documents within the fonds, andtherefore, that the concept of provenance refers to theAdministrative Change: Some Methods and Approaches (Part 3),"Archives and Manuscripts 7, 6 (May 1980): 41-54; idem, "Archivesand 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 (September1981): 3-17.48^Harney, 27.63immediate administrative context of the records themselves,whether this is their creating body, the function thatgenerated them, or the filing system of which they are a part.The two requisites which documents must meet to be archivalare to be created by a physical or juridical person, and inthe course of an activity. That is, archives must be of anactor and of an activity. If provenance is "the basis oftheoretical and practical archival science,"49 and "one ofthe cornerstones of our profession's current principles"50then it follows that provenance must itself reflect theessence of archives: the application of the principle ofprovenance represents and indeed protects the nature ofarchives.Culture is not an actor. Although the creator of a groupof archival documents might identify closely with a particularcultural group, culture will not be an answer toSchellenberg's question of "Who? Which person, corporate body,or government agency produced the unit?1151 And culture is notan activity. It might manifest itself in activity, it mightaccount for the creator's participation in an activity, but itis not an activity in and of itself. Archivists, inmaintaining the context - the provenance - of archival49 Duchein, 66.50 Bartlett, 2.51 Schellenber g, Modern Archives, 134.64material do so in order to provide the means for researchersto understand it. Culture is manifested in archival materialas content, and cannot be construed as context, orprovenance.Insofar as the provincial/territorial and nationalarchival repositories are government institutions, they aretied to government objectives. However, it is clear that theacquisition of private material must be based on valuestandards set by the community. While these value standardsmay coincide with government initiatives, the onlyjustification for the acquisition of fonds in directconnection with the multicultural character of Canadiansociety can be that the acquisition of such fonds wouldreflect the primary nature of the community that the archivalrepository serves. When such nature has a distinctivemulticultural feature, affirmative action programs in theguise of acquisition policies may facilitate the formation ofan archival record reflecting it. However, such an affirmativeaction program may have considerable potential forjeopardizing the strictly impartial role of both archivistsand the institutions they represent. These acquisitionpolicies would reflect an effort to target direct sources ofinformation on a "subject" identified by an act ofinterpretation by the archivist. To preserve the value ofarchives as evidence, the archivist should avoid aiming atsubjects, and trust in the capacity of archives for providing65indirect evidence of the significant features of thecommunity.However, no matter how distant archivists wish to remainfrom external influences, archival institutions are by theirnature a means of preservation of culture and cannot avoidbeing an instrument of multiculturalism. How to deal withthese contrasting forces? at have archival institutions doneso far? The following chapter analyzes the results of anational survey of Canadian federal and provincial/territorialarchival institutions to see how these repositories arereacting to multiculturalism, and how the multicultural policyis being translated, if at all, into archival terms.66CHAPTER 3MULTICULTURALISM AND ARCHIVAL PRACTICEAs observed earlier, the goal of multiculturalism - "unityin diversity" - can be approached by one of two divergent paths.Premised on the pluralistic principle of respect for groupdifferences and cultural uniqueness, the multicultural policy andits legal manifestations legitimize drawing distinctions ormaking decisions on the basis of characteristics or traits in aneffort to facilitate the maintenance of cultural group ties;alternatively, insofar as the fundamental human rights of allcitizens are to be recognized and protected, each individualshould be assessed on the basis of merit, without regard tocultural or other group membership.' Archival repositoriestherefore have two legitimate, mutually exclusive options in theapproach they may take with respect to their management of thearchival record: to distinguish between the archives produced bymembers of cultural groups and those which are not; or to refrainfrom making any such distinctions. It was suggested in ChapterTwo that, from the perspective of archival theory, the policy ofmulticulturalism is better respected by not distinguishingbetween the archives of cultural group members and those archives1 Kallen, "Multiculturalism, Minorities, and Motherhood,"67125.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 employingto achieve the goal of multiculturalism. The purpose of thepresent chapter is to reveal actual institutional arrangementswhich have developed in response to Canada's policy ofmulticulturalism, or their absence.There are a variety of ways in which archival repositoriesare able to translate into archival terms a distinction betweenarchives of creators identifiable primarily as members ofcultural groups and all the others. The two archival functions inthe course of which such a distinction may be drawn areacquisition and access. Within each of these two functions,different options may be exercised, either singularly or incombinations.An archival institution may develop an acquisition policy,either formally articulated or informally implemented, whichspecifically targets records creators belonging to specificcultural groups. Generally linked to a formal acquisition policyis the establishment of an administrative division or sectionsolely responsible for all archival functions relating toarchives of cultural groups, namely appraisal for acquisition,appraisal for selection, arrangement, description, and provisionof access.An archival institution may also apply cultural distinctionsby the way it makes the archival records known to and accessible68by the researcher, that is, by means of archival thematic guides,and by the use of access points. Thematic guides are acompilation of information at the repository or inter-repositorylevel about archival material pertaining to a particular subjector theme. In a thematic guide, the records are analyzed "inrelation to subject matter rather than provenance" for the solepurpose of the archival institution "promoting the fullestexploitation of its holdings."2 Access points are index termsderived from the description of the records which appear in cardcatalogues or automated access systems, and serving as theinitial step in identifying and locating desired fonds. The useof access points is currently an option for implementing themulticultural policy, because each archival institution hastraditionally formulated its own access points, defyingstandardization in this area. 3 That is, fonds of cultural groupsmay be distinguished from other fonds by a descriptive termcreated by the institution, such as "cultural groups,""multicultural groups," or "ethnic groups."In order to determine which, if any, of these options havebeen adopted, a survey of Canada's federal, provincial, andterritorial archival repositories was conducted. A direct survey2 Schellenberg, Modern Archives, 134.3 Canadian-wide standardization of the format - as opposedto the content - of access points will be attempted through parttwo of Rules for Archival Description, Bureau of CanadianArchivists Planning Committee on Descriptive Standards, Rules forArchival Description (Ottawa: Bureau of Canadian Archivists,1990), draft chapters 21-24, 26.69of these repositories was necessary because the interpretation ofmulticulturalism by archival institutions and the effects of themulticultural policy upon the management of the archival recordhad not been studied and reported on. Anything which has beenpublished on the subject of multiculturalism and archives existsin isolated case form and consists of the announcement of theintroduction of some action taken, addressing one or twospecific aspects of a particular program; for example, when sucha measure was implemented by the repository, and a listing ofnotable acquisitions. There is no published information whichaddresses the impact of multiculturalism upon archives from aconceptual point of view, and there are few reports frominstitutions addressing the implementation of multiculturalismfrom a practical point of view.The extant research literature on the topic, therefore, isof no assistance in determining the effect of multiculturalismupon archives. Because virtually nothing systematic is knownabout multiculturalism and its effect upon archives, it is thepurpose of the present study to identify this relationship. Thissurvey, because of the absence of archival literature on thesubject, was perforce an exploratory one. Its objectives werebroad: to determine how archival institutions are responding tomulticulturalism, and to establish whether specific trends exist.To achieve these objectives, the survey was constructed aroundfive research questions:701) Are archival repositories at the federal, provincial,and territorial levels differentiating between thearchives of members of cultural groups and those whichare not?2) If such distinctions are drawn, which archival functionsand procedures are involved?3) What is the impetus for the acquisition of fondsrelating to Canada's multicultural character at thefederal, provincial, and territorial levels: governmentmandates or recognition of an incomplete archivalrecord?4) How are those archival repositories, which represent hehighest levels of government, defining a "culturalgroup"?5) To what degree have federal, provincial, and territorialarchival repositories acquired fonds of cultural groups?3.1 THE SURVEY INSTRUMENTA questionnaire requiring a written response was developedto gather the information necessary to answer the research71questions. The population consisted of the ten provincialarchival institutions, the two territorial archival repositories,and the federal archival repository. Specifically, the samplepopulation was comprised of the Archives nationales du Quebec:Centre D'Archives De Montrea1,4 Archives of Ontario, BritishColumbia Archives and Records Service, National Archives ofCanada, Northwest Territories Archives, Prince Edward IslandPublic Archives and Records Office, Provincial Archives ofAlberta, Provincial Archives of Manitoba, Provincial Archives ofNew Brunswick, Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador,Public Archives of Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan Archives Board, andYukon Archives. Institutions at these levels were chosen becauseof their positions as agencies of their respective governments,and because of their role in the archival community as leaders inarchival development.Because of the size of the population comprising this study,all institutions at this level were requested to participate. Aletter explaining the scope, purpose, and justification of thestudy and requesting participation was sent toProvincial/Territorial Archivists or, where institutionalspecialization occurred, the archivist responsible for privateand/or multicultural archives. This introductory letteraccompanied the four page questionnaire which was designed to4 The Archives nationales du Quebec is physically comprisedof nine repositories distributed throughout the regions ofQuebec. Policies reflecting the central organization were sought.72elicit information about the institution's policies andprocedures. The letter and questionnaire were mailed to thetarget audience in May 1991: twelve of the thirteen responseswere received by June 1991. A second mailing of the letter andquestionnaire was sent at the end of June to the institutionwhich had not returned the survey: no response was received. Thetotal number of responses to the questionnaire was twelve.The questionnaire contained six core questions. Depending onthe answer supplied in response to four of these core questions,secondary questions were applicable.5The first question requested, for the purpose of backgroundinformation, the mandate and/or the acquisition policy of theinstitution. The following four questions, Questions Two throughFive, were designed to determine whether the institutiondistinguishes between the archives of members of cultural groupsand those of the remaining population, or not, and if suchdistinctions were drawn, which archival procedures were used.Therefore, Questions Two through Five asked whether there was aformal acquisition policy specific to the acquisition ofmulticultural archives; whether there was an informal acquisitionpolicy 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 ofaccess points. If the answer to any of these questions wasnegative, the respondent was asked to proceed to the next5 See Appendix I for the Questionnaire.73question. If the answer to any of these questions wasaffirmative, 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'scriteria for identifying a cultural group. In addition, the dateand nature of the initiative to determine a discrete"multicultural" context was sought in these portions of thequestionnaire.The final question of the survey, Question Six, differed informat from the preceding questions. It was presented in the formof a table and incorporated two of the research questions,namely, how a cultural group is defined, and to what extentvarious cultural groups are represented in the holdings ofarchival repositories. Anticipating generic or vague answers inresponse to Questions Two through Five about the nature of acultural group, Question Six of the survey specifically asked therespondents to identify cultural groups in the list provided. 6The list of cultural groups identified in the survey was6 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."74selected from a lengthier list compiled by Statistics Canada.7The Statistics Canada list was selected because of its breadth inscope: nationality, race, religion and language are allrepresented, thereby providing for the possibility thatdistinctions may be founded on one or more of these bases. TheStatistics Canada list was edited, however, out of considerationfor the respondent's time: the general lines along whichdistinctions might be drawn could be determined by developing anabridged version which eliminated several layers of detailpresent in the original compilation.Statistics Canada identified three main categories in itsattempt to identify the "ethnic origin" of the Canadianpopulation: "British, French, and European Origins"; "Asian,African, and Pacific Island Origins"; and "South and NorthAmerican, Black, and Other Origins." Within these categories,single entries had as many as three hierarchical levels. Forexample, within "British, French, and European Origins," is thecategory of Northern European, which in turn containsScandinavian, which itself contains five possibilities: Danish,Icelandic, Norwegian, Swedish, and Scandinavian not includedelsewhere. The amount of time required by the respondent toanalyze the list at the level of detail represented in theStatistics Canada list was not in proportion to what the questionwas attempting to determine, that is, the general criteria used7^Statistics Canada, Ethnicity. Immigration andCitizenship, 14-17. See Appendix II.75as parameters in defining a cultural group. Moreover, not onlywas this level of detail not required to achieve the objectivesof the study, but also, because the target audience was so smalland the study depended upon a high response rate, it wasessential not to jeopardize the response rate of thequestionnaire by including extraordinarily lengthy questions.Those cultural groups identified by Statistics Canada whichwere selected for inclusion in the questionnaire represented avariety of criteria upon which one may define a cultural group."Canadian" and "American" for example, provided for thepossibility that citizenship may be synonymous with culturalgroup. Likewise "Black," representing race, and "Jewish,"representing either race or religion or both, were included inthe questionnaire in the event that these qualities were equatedwith those possessed by a cultural group. "Aboriginal," "French,"and "English" were included in the survey to determine ifcultural group status was dependent on length of residency inCanada; and also, in the case of "French" and "English," to seehow Charter Group status and official language status wasinterpreted vis a vis a cultural group. The other groupsidentified on the questionnaire, namely "Western European,""Southern European," "Eastern European," "West Asian," and"Latin," "Central" and "South American" were included in thequestionnaire to acknowledge the existence of groups other thanthose mentioned above, and to provide an answer to the ancillaryquestion posed by Question Six.76In addition to indicating whether the particular group was acultural group or not, the respondents were asked to identifyfrom the list provided the cultural groups whose records had beenacquired or otherwise classified by that institution as the fondsof a member of a cultural group. This last aspect of Question Sixwas incorporated into the survey to give a general indication ofthe degree and scope of activity in the field of acquisition ofmulticultural archives.3.1 THE RESULTSTo preserve the confidentiality of the institutionssurveyed, the letters A through M have been randomly assigned toeach institution to facilitate description. Similarly, forclarification, summarizing tables have been included to portraycertain results.Of the thirteen institutions surveyed, only one repository,institution A, did not respond to the questionnaire. Of thetwelve institutions which responded to the survey, the reply ofinstitution B was inconclusive. Of the eleven repositories whoseresponses comprise this study, nine indicated that distinctionsare drawn in some way between what is considered representativeof Canada's multicultural character, and what is not.77Two institutions, C and M, do not distinguish between thearchives created by members of a cultural group and the remainingpopulation. These institutions represent regions that - withinthe Canadian context - are relatively culturally homogeneous: oneserves a region that has a strong tradition of Anglo-Saxoninfluence - yet no more so than other particular regions - whilethe second institution represents a jurisdiction with a largepopulation whose traditional and still-vital culture lies outsidethe Anglo-Saxon sphere. The position of these two institutionsare linked to what each believed was the accepted definition ofan ethnic group. Institution C felt that this definition couldnot be appropriately applied to its population. Institution M-didnot believe that it represented a population which contained anycultural groups.Those archival repositories which do differentiate betweenthat which is considered a multicultural fonds and that which isnot, represent jurisdictions which span the entire spectrum fromculturally homogeneous to culturally diverse regions. The meansby which these repositories effect the differentiation includeall the possibilities: informal acquisition policies, formalacquisition policies, administrative divisions, thematic guides,and access points. Informal acquisition policies which target thearchives of members of cultural groups are currently in place atfour of the archival repositories, institutions D,E,G and I.76Table A. Summary of Interpretation and Implementation of MulticulturalismLegend* = Information not availableN/A = Not applicableI = AcquisitionIa = Informal acquisition policylb = Formal acquisition policyII = Accessha = Access pointIIb = Thematic guideIII = Administrative divisionTNsTTTUTTONEXISTENCE OFMULTICULTURALPOLTCYDISTINCTION BETWEENARCHIVES OF CULTURALAND NON-CULTURAL GROUPSMEANS OFIMPT.RMENTATTONAC No No N/An Yes Yes TallI/F Yes YRA Ta;TIaiTTbF 'IPS Yes Tb1TITG Yes Yes Ta:TTaH No Yes TTA;TThT Yee Yee Ia.J No Yes TTbX Yes Yes Tb:IIa;TTbIIITi/--------Xekl-----------X-etl------n2L-LT-d-a-thM^ No^ No^N/A 79Although it is not clear when G and I first developed theirinformal acquisition policies, the policies were developed underthe aegis of a general institutional mandate. Institution Eimplemented its informal acquisition policy in 1963, and it didso under its broad institutional mandate. Institution Dinitially implemented its informal policy in recognition of thefact that archival documentation of the province's multiculturalhistory was not complete. Nine years later, a second informalpolicy was developed at this repository to reflect itsgovernment's strategy on multiculturalism.Fewer archival repositories have a formal acquisition policyfor multicultural archives. Institutions F, K, and L havedeveloped and implemented a formally articulated acquisitionpolicy which specifically targets these fonds in theinstitution's jurisdiction. The earliest of these acquisitionpolicies was formulated in 1982 at repository L to remedy theunderrepresentation of particular groups in the institution'sholdings, and to coincide with the priorities of the governmentthen in power. The second formally articulated acquisition policyto be developed in Canada occurred in 1988 at repository K,although an informal policy with an administrative infrastructurehad existed since 1972. The purpose underlying the development ofa formal acquisition policy at this institution appears to havebeen the logical progression from an informal to a codifiedpolicy: the original impetus for the development of an informalpolicy came from government initiatives. The most recently80developed policy was formulated in 1990 at repository F for thepurpose of ensuring a more complete archival record.Although acquisition policies either formally articulated orinformally 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 inconjunction with access tools. Institutions E, G, K, and L useaccess 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 athematic 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. Althoughthematic guides function at the repository level, repository Hindicated that a thematic guide existed for a Manuscript Groupwhich had been created to accommodate the institution'smulticultural archival materia1.8 Although it might be arguedthat an access tool at the Manuscript/Record Group level is anarchival finding aid rather than a thematic guide, the8 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 intellectualor physical, is wrought with difficulties. This institutionacknowledged the loss of archival integrity of records thusmanipulated.61institution's affirmative response to the question is includedhere since, within the context of this study, the function of thetwo is the same and the means are similar.9Similarly, institution E indicated that, although nothematic guides were developed that differentiated between thearchives produced by members of cultural groups and those whichare not, an informational booklet was developed that describes,in general terms, public and private sources of archival materialin the repository's holdings which represent the culturaldimension of the community. As with the response of repositoryH, the answer of repository E has been, for the purposes of thisstudy, considered a thematic guide because it serves todistinguish the archival sources through the archival function ofaccess.Distinctions are also made through the provision of accessby the use of general access points such as "Cultural Groups" or"Multiculturalism." Institutions E, G, H, K and L indicated thatsuch general headings were employed as a means ofdifferentiation. The general access points used are"Multicultural Groups," "Ethnic Groups," and "Minorities."Repositories E, G, K, and L also have policies, either formal orinformal, for the acquisition of multicultural archives.Institution H uses access points in conjunction with a thematicguide.9 Indeed, the artificial nature of a Manuscript Group isperhaps best reflected by an equally artificial thematic guide.82Three of the responding institutions, D, F, and K, havedeveloped an administrative division or section for multiculturalarchival material. Interestingly, institution D does not have aformal acquisition policy specific to multicultural archivalrecords but only an informal policy. Repository F complements itsadministrative structure with a formal acquisition policy.Repository K employs a formal acquisition policy, access pointsand thematic guides along with its separate administrativestructure to differentiate between multicultural and non-multicultural fonds.Likewise, there is tremendous variety in the way thearchival repositories across the country have defined "culturalgroups." The results of Questions Two through Five of thesurvey indicate that nationality, race, religion and language areall factors, in a variety of combinations, in the respondinginstitutions' definition of cultural groups. Two repositories, Cand G, equate being a member of a cultural group with being aminority, whether visible, linguistic, or cultural. A second pairof repositories, D and L, defines a cultural group along similarlines citing a sense of peoplehood as the criterion. A thirdgeneral definition given was based on a social, cultural, orreligious characteristic that the members have in common.In anticipation that the answers to questions Two throughFive would result in definitions so broad and general that littlewould be learned about specific criteria for the identificationof a cultural group, Question Six was formulated. In an attempt83to determine general trends about how a cultural group is beingdefined at archival repositories, Question Six gives examples ofgroups, the membership to which may be based on varying criteriasuch as nationality or citizenship (for example, "American" or"Canadian"), and race (for example, "Black"). In Question Six therequest for specific identification of cultural groups resultedin the following definitions of a cultural group: all groupsindicated in Question Six except the English and French; allgroups 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 indicatedexcept the English, French, Native Indian, Canadian, and Latin,Central and South American.It is interesting to note the reactions of seveninstitutions to the question posed in Question Six of whether ornot Canadians and Americans are cultural groups. Threeinstitutions responded in a consistent manner for both Americanand Canadian: institutions E and H believe that neither Americannor Canadian may be considered a cultural group. In contrast,institution G believes that both may be defined as a culturalgroup. The remaining four institutions varied in theirperceptions of Canadian and American cultural groups. InstitutionD believes "Canadian" is a cultural group, but did not indicateits position for "American." Repository L's response is oppositeto that of institution D: "American" is a cultural group, but therepository did not indicate its position about "Canadian."84Repository I does not believe that "Canadian" is a culturalgroup, but did not indicate its position with respect to"American," and repository L believes that "American" is acultural group, but did not indicate whether "Canadian" is ornot. The table below illustrates these results.Table B. Position of Surveyed Institutions Regarding "Canadian" and"American" Cultural Groups.^"CANADIAN" IS A^"AMERICAN" IS ATNSTITUTToN^CULTURAL GROUP CULTURAL GROUPYRS^DTO NOT ANSWRNO NOYRS^ YRSNO NOk•DTD NOT AN$WRR^ NOAs a corollary to Question Six, the respondents were askedto indicate groups whose records have been acquired or classifiedby the institution as a multicultural fonds. This was requestedin order to give an indication of the scope of "multicultural"archival holdings in Canada, and as a suggestion of therelationship between the cultural diversity or cultural85homogeneity of the institution's jurisdiction and the archivalholdings. Four of the respondents had apparent difficulty inunderstanding what was being requested of them in this portion ofthe questionnaire, leaving seven viable responses.10 These sevenresponses suggest that there is a relationship between thecultural diversity or cultural homogeneity of the institution'sjurisdiction and the archival holdings. The responses supplied bythe institutions in culturally diverse regions suggest that theholdings reflect a certain degree of diversity, whileinstitutions representing a culturally homogeneous society tendto reflect this homogeneity in their holdings.3.3 EMERGING TRENDSThe results of the survey suggest that the majority ofarchival institutions representing the highest levels of thepolitical-juridical system are working towards the multiculturalgoal by emphasizing the diversity among the people of Canadarather than the commonality. Nine of the institutionsconstituting the sample population of the survey distinguishbetween the archives of members of cultural groups and all the10 See Question Six on Questionnaire, Appendix I. Part ofthe problem appears to have been an unfamiliarity with the wordfonds. This component of Question Six was mistakenly premised onthe assumption that archivists working at provincial/territorialarchival institutions would be familiar with this term.86others. However, the degree to which such differentiationpervades the management of archival material, and thecodification of the distinctions, vary considerably. The mostcommon method by which a differentiation is made between thearchives of members of cultural groups and the others is anacquisition policy: seven institutions use acquisition policiesto distinguish multicultural fonds. Perhaps not surprisingly, aninformal acquisition policy is the most prevalent procedure usedto distinguish multicultural fonds, being in place at fourinstitutions, whereas formal acquisition policies are in place atthree institutions. The second most frequent means ofdistinction is access, and is currently employed by sixinstitutions: within the function of providing access, bothaccess points and thematic guides are employed equally, beingutilized by five institutions. The least common approach used todifferentiate the archives of members of cultural groups from theothers is an administrative separation of responsibility forthese fonds: this method is used by three institutions.From the responses received, it is not possible to determinethe relationship between acquisition of multicultural archivesand government initiatives. Although all jurisdictions which havea multicultural policy also have an archival repository whichdistinguishes the archives of cultural groups from the remainderof its holdings, only two repositories indicated that governmentinitiatives were associated with the acquisition policy; yet theintroduction of such a policy coincided with the recognition of87an incomplete archival record. Three institutions referred totheir institutional mandates as the impetus for acquiringmulticultural fonds, which does not, however, indicate the cause.One institution alone gave as its reason an incomplete archivalrecord.Just as there is a variety of methods which are used todifferentiate the archives of cultural groups, there isconsiderable variety in the way in which "cultural group" isdefined by the archival repositories: language, race, religion,and nationality, in a variety of combinations, are cited as thecriteria.Perhaps the most salient finding of this survey is thedichotomy which is seen to exist between the archives of culturalgroups and those of the remaining population. However fraughtwith difficulties this dichotomy may be, it is clear that themajority of archival institutions at the federal, provincial andterritorial levels choose the path to the multicultural goalwhich distinguishes a portion of the Canadian population from thethe remainder. The variety of approaches which have been takento give expression to this dichotomy may be accounted for, inpart, by the sheer geographic size of the country and the self-contained nature of its regions which may preclude theapplication of consistent, global, archival policies. The varietyof archival practices also reflects the tendency of the publicpolicy to provide public institutions with considerable latitudein interpreting the policy itself and devising the means to88achieve its end. Moreover, it represents the exploratory stageof the relationship between multiculturalism and archives inwhich archivists now find themselves.89CONCLUSIONThere is a meaningful relationship between the publicpolicy of multiculturalism and the institutional management ofarchives of private origin. It has been the purpose of this studyto explore this relationship from the perspectives of archivaltheory and practice, and its implications for archivalinstitutions. Such exploration has been conducted by examiningliterature in the fields of archival science, political science,law, sociology and anthropology, and by acquiring data directlyfrom Canadian public archival institutions at the federal andprovincial/territorial levels.The existence of this relationship between multiculturalpolicy and archives is due to the acceptance of multiculturalismas a characteristic of Canadian society. Explored briefly in the1930s, the principle of multiculturalism, by the 1960s, hadbecome incorporated into popular attitudes and public policy.Numerous factors contributed to the development in Canada of anational philosophy of unity in diversity. Continual increases inimmigration from a variety of countries, active participation inthe international community, and concern with human rights wereelements out of which the principle of multiculturalism emerged.These creating forces of multiculturalism continue to existtoday. The legislative actions and administrative infrastructures90established to further the multicultural purpose indicate thatmulticulturalism is an integral part of society which is likelyto be carried well into the future of the country.Because multiculturalism is a characteristic aspect ofCanadian identity, archival repositories are doubly effected byit, whether it is in the form of policy or movement, because theyare tied to the goals and mission of their sponsoring body, andare responsible for preserving evidence of societalrelationships. The role of public archival repositories hasextended beyond preservation of the records of their sponsoringgovernment body for its own use to include the acquisition ofrecords from private sources for use by society in general. Thishistoric development is manifested today within governmentarchival repositories at the federal and provincial/territoriallevels 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 privatearchives. Because public archives are records which have beencreated by a government office in the course of its activities,and preserved for some future purpose, public archival materialis evidence of policies, the administrative infrastructureestablished to support them, and the activities undertaken by thegovernment to achieve them. In contrast to other public policiessuch as freedom of information, that of multiculturalism does notpose any challenge to the management of public archival materialwhich is unique to this policy.91However, multiculturalism does have implications for themanagement of private archival material. As a public policy,multiculturalism might undermine the role of federal andprovincial/territorial archival institutions as cultural agenciesvis A vis their role as government agencies. The fulfillment ofthe responsibilities attributed to a public archival repositoryby its role as a government repository might be in conflict withthose dictated by its other role. Which role should takeprecedence in the management of private archives?A second challenge is posed by the multicultural policy toarchival practices: how to contribute to the achievement of thegoal of unity in diversity. The route to this goal may take oneof two paths: to allow cultural group affiliation to influence adecision in an effort to facilitate the maintenance of thedistinctiveness of these groups, or to refrain from makingdecisions based on cultural group affiliation. This givesarchivists the choice to differentiate between the archivesproduced by members of cultural groups and those generated by theremaining population, that is, to acquire and provide access tothe archival records of cultural groups in a manner which setsthese records apart from the other private archives. When theaims of the multicultural policy are considered within thecontext of the principles of archival science, which is the mostappropriate course of action: to differentiate between thearchives produced by cultural group members and those which arenot? Or, to refrain from making any such distinctions?92In order to explore the relationship betweenmulticulturalism and archives to its fullest extent, it wasnecessary to include within the parameters of this study anaccount of how federal and provincial/territorial archivalrepositories are reacting to multiculturalism in actuality.Archival practices which may be employed to implementmulticulturalism consist of establishing an administrativedivision to manage the fonds of cultural groups, creatinginstitutional policies specific to the acquisition of fonds ofcultural groups, and using thematic guides and access pointswhich use the notion of cultural group as ways for distinguishingthese records from all others. Which interpretation ofmulticulturalism are these institutions employing, and how isthis interpretation manifested in archival methodology?Despite the relationship which exists betweenmulticulturalism and the management of private archives, thesequestions have not been asked nor has the relationship beenexplored in any meaningful way. A significant body of literaturehas been written about multiculturalism in various fields.However, within the archival profession, discussions ofmulticulturalism and archives have been limited to historians'comment on the paucity of archival records of cultural groups inarchival repositories, and to archivists' reports of acquisitionsof the archives of members of cultural groups. No attempt hasbeen made to consider the impact of multiculturalism uponarchives from a conceptual point of view, and few reports have93have been made by institutions addressing the implementation ofmulticulturalism from a practical point of view.To explore the impact of multiculturalism on public archivalinstitutions, it was necessary to understand first the principlesand objectives of multiculturalism. A look at the definitions,terms of reference, and recommendations of the Royal Commissionon Bilingualism and Biculturalism provided the basis forexamining the federal government's policy of multiculturalism,which was the government's official response to therecommendations of the Commission. Although the Royal Commissionrecommended policies which would facilitate the emergence of anofficially bilingual and bicultural society, the federalgovernment responded to the Commission's recommendations with apolicy of multiculturalism within a bilingual framework. Theentrenchment of this policy, the administrative infrastructuredeveloped to ensure observance of its principles, and thelegislative actions taken to ensure adherence to its aims gavesubstance to the multicultural idea. From this examination it wasestablished that multiculturalism is a characteristic of Canadiansociety which, in consideration of the strength of its historicaldevelopment and the pervasiveness of its current manifestations,has an enormous influence on the total archival record ofCanadian society, and therefore demands the most carefulconsideration by the archival profession.Such consideration requires an analysis of the existingoptions for the implementation of the multicultural principle and94its incorporation in archival policies. Those options wereexamined within the context of archival theory. An exploration ofthe nature of archives, and of the roles of archivists andarchival institutions in forming society's documentary heritageprovided the necessary theoretical context within which toexamine the interplay between multiculturalism and archives.In order to answer the question of which interpretation ofmulticulturalism, when employed by archivists, best harmonizesthe spirit of the multicultural ideal with archival principles,an analysis of those principles was made, and specifically of theprinciple of provenance. Provenance is the context by whicharchival records are understood. Throughout the course ofarchival history, the principle of provenance has proven to beflexible in adapting to the changes in records creation andmaintenance, and has provided archivists with the methodology forthe management of the archival record. Because the contexts ofrecords creation and maintenance have changed over time, thedefinition of provenance has expanded accordingly. The principleof provenance, as originally articulated, dictated that thearchival material produced by one source be maintained separatelyfrom that of another source. By preserving the physical integrityof each archival fonds, the context of the records was preserved:grouping records by their source provided the context withinwhich they could be understood.Although the original meaning of the concept of provenancepersists today, the concept itself has expanded and now includes95the abstract notion of the agency or administrative structurewithin which the archives are produced, the function whichdetermines the creation of the records, and the system by whichthey are maintained. Because provenance has proven to beexpansive in accounting for context, and because cultural groupaffiliation must be valid provenance if archivists employ aninterpretation of multiculturalism which would result indifferentiating private archives on the basis of cultural groupaffiliation, the validity of cultural group affiliation asprovenance was tested.The result of this examination indicated that cultural groupaffiliation cannot be construed as valid provenance. The natureof archives is such that a document, in order to be archival,must be created by a physical or juridical person and also mustbe produced in the course of an activity, as a byproduct of it.Because the principle of provenance derives from the nature ofarchives, it has to be interpreted in a way which is consistentwith such nature. When reduced to their essence, archivaldocuments are always of an actor and an activity. This is thestandard against which all proposed definitions of provenancemust be measured, for provenance ultimately and fundamentallyprotects the nature of archives. Cultural group affiliationcannot be considered valid provenance because it is notconsistent with the nature of archives: it does not fulfill therole of true provenance to present the context of actor andactivity.96Furthermore, although legally sanctioned by section 15,subsection 2 of the Charter, affirmative action programs are indirect conflict with the role of the archivist to acquirearchival material with impartiality, because archivists wouldhave to make decisions on the basis of a group's disadvantagedstatus.The element of impartiality, articulated by Sir HilaryJenkinson fifty years ago, is gaining credence as professionalarchivists recognize biases of previous archival practices andthe detrimental effect these have had on the archival record. Itis impossible to fulfill the archivist's responsibility topreserve an archival heritage which represents the entire pictureof society if this activity is motivated by conscious biases.Even if the objective of targeting for acquisition thearchives of members of specific cultural groups is to rectify thelack of representation in archival holdings, such an action wouldundermine the value of the holdings as evidence of socialreality. If the fundamental archival principles are respected,then the multicultural feature of communities will be indirectlybut consistently and appropriately represented in archivalholdings without destroying their truthfulness and theirimpartiality.To take this position might be difficult for an archivalinstitution whose sponsor has a multicultural policy whichemphasizes the distinctiveness of cultural groups. This raises afundamental question regarding the extent to which federal and97provincial/territorial archival institutions should function asan administrative arm of their respective sponsoring bodies,rather than as cultural agencies. With respect to privatearchival material, to whom does the government archivalinstitution owe its allegiance - its administration or society?Clearly it must be society, because a government exists to servethe people. Its value to society is the primary reason whyprivate material is acquired by government repositories;consequently cultural purposes are paramount in itspreservation.Beyond these points of principle, there is a very pragmaticconsideration working against that interpretation ofmulticulturalism which advocates drawing distinctions betweenarchives produced by members of cultural groups and those whichare not. If archival repositories choose to segregate privatearchives on the basis of cultural group affiliation, then itstands to reason that a functional definition of cultural groupmust be created. However, such a definition has not beenformulated in the primary documents created to implementmulticulturalism, nor in any of the fields where thisimplementation may be expected to occur. It is not possible forarchivists to directly target for acquisition the archives ofmembers of cultural groups in the absence of a clear definitionof what constitutes a cultural group, and manage themaccordingly.98However, the results of the national survey, conducted forthe purposes of this study indicate that the majority of thepublic archival institutions at the two highest levels ofadministration are drawing distinctions between the archives ofculturally distinct groups and those which are not, in an effortto respect the policy of multiculturalism. This approach iscurrently taken by nine of the eleven institutions studied by thesurvey. The archival function most affected by this approach isacquisition, while access is the second most affected function.The survey also indicates that although distinctions aredrawn between material identified by the fact of being generatedby a specific cultural group and all the rest, the criteria fordrawing them are inconsistent. A cultural group is being definedby 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 surveyabout the pre-eminence of one role played by archivalinstitutions over the other role. Whether these institutions areresponding to multiculturalism by aligning themselves with thepolicies of their sponsoring agencies or acting independently ofsuch policies was not clear from the responses.The confusion and inconsistency with which multiculturalismis being implemented in Canadian federal, provincial, andterritorial archival repositories may be explained in part by theprofession's traditional lack of codified standards andconsistent policies. In addition, the multicultural policy99itself is vague with respect to the entity that it was created topreserve.This uncertainty about the nature or identity of a culturalgroup serves to point out the impossibility of treating archivesin Canada in direct relation to the multicultural policy.Moreover, when multiculturalism is examined within the context ofarchival theory, and an analysis is made of the assumptionsunderlying the treatment of cultural group affiliation as thegoverning concept in the management of private archives, then itis evident that dividing private archives into categories basedon "cultural provenance" is both theoretically and pragmaticallytoo simplistic to portray the complexity of the relationshipbetween the records creator, the cultural group, and Canadiansociety.The multicultural ideal of Canadian society can certainly berespected in a manner which does not undermine the archivalprinciples of provenance and impartiality, and does not defysuccessful implementation. By interpreting multiculturalism as aprinciple whereby assessments are made on the basis of meritwithout regard to cultural group membership, and by maintainingarchival principles as the foundation of archival practice, thesocial goals of both multiculturalism and archives will beachieved.100SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHYBarr, Debra. "Protecting Provenance: Response to the Report ofthe Working Group on Description at the Fonds Level."Archivaria 28 (Summer 1989): 141-45.. "The Fonds Concept in the Working Group on ArchivalStandards Reports." Archivaria 25 (Winter 1987-88): 163-70.Bartlett, Nancy. "The Provenance of 'Respect Des Fonds'." BentleyLibrary, unpublished paper, 1988.Bearman, David and Richard Lytle. "The Power of the Principle ofProvenance." Archivaria 21 (Winter 1985-1986): 14-27.Beckton, Clare F. "Section 27 and Section 15 of the Charter." InMulticulturalism 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 ofWashington 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 ofArchival 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 DocumentaryHeritage: 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." InMulticulturalism and Intergroup Relations, ed. JamesS.Frideres, 149-57.Contributions in Sociology, no. 75. NewYork: Greenwood Press, 1989.101102^• "The Evolution of Canadian Multicultural Society: TheSignificance of Government Intervention." In Canadian Mosaic, 27-42.^• "The Vesting of Ethnic Interests In StateInstitutions." In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations,35-56.Britchford, Maynard. "The Provenance of Provenance, or ProvenanceNow More Than Ever." Unpublished paper, September 23,1988.British Columbia. Ministry of Povincial Secretary. MulticulturalPolicy of the Province of British Columbia October,1990.Brotz, Howard. "Multiculturalism and Canada: A Model." CanadianPublic Policy 6 (Winter 1980): 41-46.Bureau of Canadian Archivists. Towards Descriptive Standards: Report and Recommendations of the Canadian Working Groupon Archival Descriptive Standards Ottawa: Burueau ofCanadian Archivists, 1985.Burnet, Jean. "Taking into Account the Other Ethnic Groups andthe Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism."In Multiculturalism and Intergroup Relations, 9-17.^• The Policy of Multiculturalism within a BilingualFramework." 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). Multiculturalismand the Government of Canada. Ottawa: Supply and ServicesCanada, 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 Ethnic103Groups. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1970.Book V: The Federal Calpital. Ottawa: Queen's Printer,1970.. Book VI: Voluntary Associations Ottawa: Queen'sPrinter, 1970.. Statistics Canada Ethnicity. Immigration and Citizenship. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1989.Cappon, Lester J. "The Archivist as Collector." AmericanArchivist 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 theMiddle 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 HumantitiesResearch 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 forArchivists, 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 theCharter: 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-SubjectRepositories." American Archivist 43 (Winter 1980): 57-63.Hodson, J.H. The Administration of Archives Oxford: PergamonPress, 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 andConstitutional Enshrinement - A Comparative Study." InMulticulturalism and the Charter: A Legal Perpective,59-122.104Isajiw, Wsevolod W. "Olga inTechnological Society."Quest for Identity, ed.McClelland and Stewart,Wonderland: Ethnicity in aIn 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'sPopulations." 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: ThePreservation of Archives as a Political Issue." Archivaria25 (Winter 1987-88): 44-49.Magnet, Joseph Eliot. "Interpreting Multiculturalism." InMulticulturalism 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 byArthur 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." Archivaria7 (Winter 1978): 104-9.Newman, William M. "Theoretical Perspectives for the Analysisof Social Pluralism." In The Canadian Ethnic Mosaic: A Questfor Identity, 40-54.Palmer, Howard. "Reluctant Hosts: Anglo-Canadian Views ofMulticulturalism in the Twentieth Century." In The SecondCanadian 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 ofChicago Press, 1956.. The Management of Archives Washington: NationalArchives and Records Administration, 1965; reprint with aForeword by Jane F. Smith, New York: Columbia UniversityPress, 1988.Sheridan, William. Canadian Multiculturalism. Library ofParliament; Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services, 1991.Text-fiche.Smiley, Donald. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,1981. Toronto: Ontario Economic Council, 1981.106107Smith, Colin. "A Case for Abandonment of 'Respect'." Archives andManuscripts (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: CanadianInstitute of International Affairs, 1970.Taylor, Hugh. "'My Very Act and Deed': Some Reflections on theRole of Textual Records in the Conduct of Affairs." AmericanArchivist 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 StephenRicher, 164-200. Scarborough: Prentice-Hall, 1975.Zielinska, Marie F. "Multiculturalism in Canada: A Review of theFirst Decade." Ethnic Forum 2 (Fall 1982): 84-88.108APPENDIX ICOVER LETTERAs a student in the Master of Archival Studies program atthe University of British Columbia, I am writing a thesisentitled Multiculturalism and Archives. The thesis will examinethe way in which the Canadian national andprovincial/territorial archival institutions are translating theaims of government multicultural policies into archival terms.The political and legal manifestations of the multiculturalideal are currently designed to ensure that the distinctivenessof cultures/ethnic groups is preserved, while at the same timefacilitating the integration and participation of these groups inCanadian society. One aim of the thesis therefore, is todetermine if distinctions are drawn by archival institutionsbetween the records produced by ethnic groups and those of non-ethnic groups in terms of the way in which the records areacquired by the institution, and accessed by the researcher.Enclosed please find a copy of a questionnaire which hasbeen created to elicit information relevant to the thesis. Eachinstitution's policy will be analyzed and discussed within thecontext of the political and legal multicultural climate of theinstitution's jurisdiction. The length of time required tocomplete the form will vary depending on the degree to which theinstitution's policies have been formalized, and the degree ofthe respondent's familiarity with the institution's holdings;however I anticipate that the time required to complete thequestionnaire will not exceed one hour.The benefits of this study to you include the completion ofa national study which will help make known the variousapproaches which have been taken with respect tomulticulturalism, and which may be useful to consider in policyplanning and development. In addition, the study may providedirection for reconciling the political, legal, and sociologicalinterpretations of multiculturalism with archival theory andpractice.Please complete the survey and return it either by mail inthe self-addressed, stamped envelope provided, or fax to (604)278-5187 by July 8, 1991. Because of the scope of the study, aresponse from each of the thirteen institutions is essential tothe 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 telephonecontacts at two week intervals. If you have any questions aboutthe study, please do not hesitate to contact me at home (604)276-8757 or at work (Mondays and Tuesdays) (604) 736-8561. Inaddition, Dr. Luciana Duranti, thesis supervisor, may becontacted at (604) 822-2587. I appreciate your cooperation, andthank you in advance for your response.APPENDIX IQUESTIONNAIRENAME OFINSTITUTIONNAME OFRESPONDENT1.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 theacquisition of ethnic records? Yes^NoIf you answered "yes" to question 2, please answer questions2a - 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 isnot included in the acquisition policy, please describe.1092e. Is there an administrative separation of responsibilityfor ethnic records from the responsibility of othermanuscript material (for example, a multicultural divisionor section)? Yes^No3. Is there an informal policy regarding the acquisition ofethnic records? Yes^NoIf you answered "yes" to question 3, please answer questions3a - 3d below; if you answered *no" to question 3 pleaseproceed to question 4.3a.When was the informal policy initiated?^3b.What was the rationale behind implementation of thepolicy?3c. Please include a statement reflecting or summarizing theaim of the informal policy.3d. Please describe your institution's definition of anethnic group.4. Is access to the records of ethnic groups provided by athematic guide? Yes^NoIf you answered oyes* to question 4, please describe yourinstitution's criteria for classifying particular groups as"ethnic"; if your institution's definition of an ethnicgroup appears in response to a previous question, it neednot be reiterated here.1105. Are the records of ethnic groups made available to researchersby use of a general access point (heading) such as "ethnicgroups" or "multiculturalism"? Yes^NoIf you answered "yes" to question 5, please give the accesspoint(s) used, and describe your institution's criteriafor classifying particular groups under this heading; ifyour institution's definition of an ethnic group appears inresponse to a previous question, it need not be reiteratedhere.6. Below is a list of ethnic groups which has been selected froma lengthier list of ethnic categories compiled by StatisticsCanada.' Please indicate by circling the appropriate response inthe second column which of these groups your institutionconsiders ethnic; and in the third column please indicate bycircling the appropriate response those groups whose records havebeen acquired or classified by your institution as an ethnicfonds.=up^ ethnic?^ Record:?Aboriginal:Inuit Yes /^No Yes /^NoMetis Yes /^No Yes / NoNorth American Indian Yes /^NO Yes / NoOther Yes / No Yes / NoAmerican Yes /^No Yes / NoBlack Yes /^No Yes / NoCanadian Yes /^No Yes / NoEastern European:Ukranian Yes /^No Yes / NoRussian Yes /^No Yes / NoPolish Yes I^No Yes / NoOther Yes 1^No Yes / No1 Canada. Statistics Canada. Ethnicity. Immigration andCitizenship. Ottawa: Supply and Services Canada, 1989.GroupEast/ Southeast Asian:Ethnic? Records?Chinese Yes / No Yes / NoJapanese Yes / No Yes / NoOther Yes / No Yes / NoBnglish Yes / No Yes / NoFrench Yes / No Yes / NOIrish Yes / No Yes / NoJewish Yes / No Yes / NoLatin. Central, and South/ No Yes / NoAmerican^YesScottish Yes /^No Yes / NoSouth Asian Yes /^No Yes / NoSouthern European:Italian Yes /^No Yes / NoGreek Yes /^No Yes / NoOther Yes /^No Yes / NoWelsh Yes /^No Yes / NoWest Asian:Iranian Yes^j^No Yes / NoIsraeli Yes /^No Yes / NoOther Yes /^No Yes / NoWestern European:Dutch Yes /^No Yes / NOGerman Yes /^No Yes / NoOther Yes /^No Yes / NO112113APPENDIX IISTATISTICS CANADA LIST OF ETHNIC ORIGINSFigure 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 -ScandinavianFigure 28Southern Europeanorigins_1_ _L_ _L_ _1_Balkans Cypriots Greek Italian Maltese Portuguese Spanish- Albanian -^Cypriot, n.i.e.- Bulgar - Greek- Croatian CypriotMacedonian - Turkish- Serbian^Cypriot- Slovenian- Yugoslav, n. e.Figure 2ANorthern EuropeanoriginsFigure 2CEastern Europeanorigins_L_ I ^_L_ _L_Balticorigins- Estonian- Latvian- LithuanianByelo-russian CzechCzecho-slovakianHungarianMagyar, Polish Romanian Russian Slovak Ukrainian114Note n.1 e = not included elsewherePacificIslandsoriginsIndo-ChineseoriginsFigure 3ABurmeseCambodianLaotianThai— Vietnamese— Other African, n.i.e.— Fijian— Other Pacific Islanders— PolynesianFigure 3. Asian, African and Pacific Islands Origins (Single Origins)ASIAN, AFRICAN ANDPACIFIC ISLANDS ORIGINS(single origins)115— Armenian^ — Arab. n.i.e.— Iranian — Egyptian— Israeli — Lebanese— Turk^ — Palestinian— SyrianSouth Asianorigins— Bangladeshi, n.i.e.^ Chinese— Bengali^ Japanese— East Indian, n.i.e. — Korean— Gujarati — Filipino— Pakistani, n.i.e.^ — Indo-Chinese— Punjabi^ — IndonesianSinghalese — MalaySri Lankan (Ceylonese), rile.^— Other Asian. n.i.e.— TamilNote: n.i.e.^not included elsewhere.For more details. see Figure 3A. West AsianoriginsAraboriginsAfricanoriginsEast`SouthEast Asianorigins'Figure 4. South and North American, Black and Other Origins (Single Origins)SOUTH AND NORTH AMERICAN,BLACK AND OTHER ORIGINS(single origins) Latin, Centraland SouthAmerican originsCaribbeanoriginsAboriginalpeoples— Argentinian— Cuban^ — Inuit— Brazilian^ — Haitian — Metis— Chilean — Jamaican — North American IndianEcuadorian — Other Caribbean, n.i.e.^ — Other AboriginalMexican^ — Other West Indian, n.i.e.— Other Latin/Central/^ — Puerto RicanSouth American origins— PeruvianBlackoriginsOtherorigins— African Black^ American— Black^ — Australian/New Zealander— Black American — Canadian— Canadian Black^ — Other, n.i.e.— Other Black— West Indian Black116Note: n.i.e. = not included elsewhere.

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0086211/manifest

Comment

Related Items