Alternate Routes A Journal of Critical Social Research Presentation and Editorial Policy Alternate Routes is a refereed multi-disciplinary journal published annually by graduate students in the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. Our mandate is to make Alternate Routes a forum for debate and exchange among graduate students throughout the country and beyond. We are there- fore interested in receiving papers written by graduate students (or co- authored with faculty), regardless of their university affiliation. The editorial emphasis is on the publication of critical and provocative analyses of theoretical and substantive issues which clearly have relevance for progressive political intervention. Although we welcome papers on a broad range oftopics, members ofthe editorial board work within a feminist and marxist tradition. Therefore, we encourage submissions which advance or challenge questions and contemporary issues raised by these two broadly defined perspectives. We also welcome commentaries and reviews of recent publications. Editorial Board Nicole Bennett, Wade Deisman, Christine Gervais, Valerie Howe, Dominique Masson, Anna Paletta, Alan Stanbridge, Oscar Wolfman The editors gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the Carleton University community: the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and its chairperson, Flo Andrews; the Dean of Social Science, Tom Wilkinson; the Dean ofGraduate Studies and Research, J.W. ApSimon. We also wish to thank all the anonymous reviewers. Alternate Routes: A Journal of Critical Social Research is indexed in: Sociological Abstracts; the Left Index. © 1996 Alternate Routes (Date of Issue: December, 1996) o Call For Student Papers Alternate Routes is seeking submissions for Volume 14, 1997. The editorial collective is interested in papers that address current theoreti- cal and substantive issues within the social sciences. Manuscripts will be anonymously reviewed by faculty members from academic institu- tions across the country. Please use the American Psychological Association (APA) referencing system and keep endnotes to a mini- mum. Papers should be submitted double-spaced and in triplicate. Floppy disks formatted in WordPerfect or MicrosoftWord are required for papers accepted for publication. We also welcome responses to recent publications, book reviews and discussions of work in progress. Responses to this invitation to contribute should bepostmarked no later than February 30, 1997 Alternate Routes est a la recherche d'articles pour son numerode 1997. Nous sollicitons des articles theoriques et/ou empiriques, d'origines disciplinaires variees et portant sur des sujets d'actualite en sciences sociales. Les manuscrits seront evalues de facon anonyme par des membres du corps professoral de diverses universites Canadiennes. Les textes presentes doivent se conformer au systeme de reference de 1' Association Americaine de Psychologie (APA). Veuillez soumettre trois copies de votre manuscrit (a double-interligne) et limiter le nombre de notes au minimum. La version finale du manuscrit devra nous parvenir sur disque en version Wordperfect 5.1 ou MicroSoft Word. Nous publions aussi des notes de recherche et des recensions. Les reponses a cet appel d'articles devraient etre postees au plus tard le 30 Fevrier 1997 (le cachet de la poste en faisant foi). Address to/Envoyez a: Alternate Routes Department of Sociology and Anthropology Carleton University Colonel By Drive Ottawa, Ontario CANADA K1S 5B6 ALTERNATE ROUTES A Journal of Critical Social Research Volume 1 3, 1 996 Introduction 1 Articles Sheryl N. Hamilton "Creative and Cultural Expression " but not Art: Multiculturalism Arts Funding as Cultural Management 3 Andrew Reddick Property Rights and Communication 23 Dominique Masson Language, Power, and Politics: Revisiting the Symbolic Challenge ofMovements 67 Work-in-Progress Oscar Wolfman Homophobia in/as Education 101 Joseph M. Hermer Please, Bears Don 't Talk! The Smokey Bear Performance Rules 119 O Introduction Four years to the next millenium and "deficit reduction" has become the buzzword at all levels ofgovernance, from national and multinational fora to municipalities and universities. The overwhelming prevalence and apparent acceptance of these priorities reduce the space for critical analyses. Alternate Routes resolutely remains a support of the shrinking realm of thought which reaches beyond the over-arching neo-liberal paradigm We do so, in part, by making room for analyses which call attention to, and contest the prevailing winds of policies which seem determined to strip our social and crvilnetworks oftheirs sociality and their civility. The articles in Volume 13 of Alternate Routes reveal the prevalence ofdiscourse and social construction in the designation of everything from new forms of property to individual and collective serves as late capitalism discloses its active cultural role. As Dorothy Smith says, the current concern with discourse, communication, and designation does not come from nowhere - it is consonant with the great upswelling ofmediated communi- cation telling us always what and why we are. Sheryl N. Hamilton examines how state policies on art and multiculturahsm constitute and manage Canada's 'high' sym- bolic order. She suggeststhat the art supportedbymuMculturalism programs is not so much about artistic creativity per se as much as it is about managing the display, or spectacle, of a particular construction of 'Canada's ethnic diversity.' Andrew Reddick's article unveils the interests and the privatization and commodificationbehind the euphoricallytouted achievement of the "Information Superhighway." The author argues for the need to contest privatization and press democratic access and intervention before the highway becomes a prohibi- tively expensive toll road for the few. Dominique Masson's essay on the symbolic dimension of social movements suggests that there is a need to develop a more adequate understanding both ofthe processes by which collective Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 actors construct a shared horizon ofmeaning and ofthe role that shared symbolic resources play in facilitating and legitimating action. Finally, the last two pieces are drawn from a work-in- progress seminar held at Carleton University in the fall of 1995. Oscar Wolfman focuses on homophobia as expressed or experi- enced within the Ontario highschool system His research dem- onstrates that even though policy statements provide official recognition of diversity, homophobia is reproduced in a number ofways including being taught by teachers, who both role model heterosexist behaviors and tacitly sanction heterosexist norms through the 'erasure of homosexuality.' In his piece, Joseph Hermer examines moral regulators through a case study of "the Smokey Bear rules," a set ofguidelines given to park performers directing them on how to act when in the Smokey persona. Hermer analyzes the Smokey rules as one example ofthe many governance texts which serve to order and regulate park experi- ences, creating parks as sites of "regulated wilderness." Together these discussions stimulate consideration of the multi-faced and yet limiting nature of official representations of everything from sexuality and ethnicity to wilderness. In so doing they highlight the importance of symbolic representations of phenomena as diverse as social movements and technology. As we put the final touches on Volume 13 of Alternate Routes, the collective would like to publicly thank David Robinson for his work over the years. More than anyone, it was David who was the driving force behind the journal, especially over the past two years when he was acting editor for Volumes 1 1 and 12. His hard work and dedication both to progressive political action and to the pursuit ofacademic excellence are reflected in the volumes which he edited. We wish him well and thank him for his past labours and continuing support. In all modesty, he asks that we also thank all those who work with him on past volumes, as well as those who supported the journal in other ways. Creative and Cultural Expression" but not art: Multiculturalism Arts Funding as Cultural Management Sheryl N. Hamilton Concordia University Introduction Multiculturalism arts funding sits, somewhat uncomfortably, at the intersection of a number of sometimes contradictory, but singularly Canadian, discourses—discourses of Canadian cul- tural identity and multiculturalism. First, the discourse ofCana- dian cultural identity, resting upon the mythic narratives of the quest for community and the defence of sovereignty work to generate a need for the state to intervene in the ongoing produc- tion, reproduction, and protection of "Canadian culture." Sec- ond, Canada's "multicultural nature" relies upon a different mythic narrative of sovereignty, that of the threat from within. This combines with the cultural identity myth to create the need for the state to intervene in the management ofcultural plurality. l These discourses combine to render the measure of success of Canadian multiculturahsm arts funding, not aesthetic achieve- ment, but rather, instrumental self-justification. The specific policy objectives and performance ofthe Creative and Cultural Expression Program of the Heritage Cultures and Languages Section ofthe Citizens' Participation and Multiculturahsm Sec- tor in the Department of Canadian Heritage are situated and interrogated as a case study within this particular discursive matrix. Although the stated objectives of this arts funding pro- gram are directed at the production of artistic creations, this Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 paper suggests that multiculturalism arts funding functions dis- cursively to support and generate, not "art," but rather a set of traces by which the Canadian government can "count ethnicity," rendering it visible in a manageable form to simultaneously produce and prove Canada's multicultural nature. Raymond Breton suggests that the state has a role to playnot only in managing the economic system of a nation, but also its symbolic order (Breton, 1984:127). He recognizes that the Canadian state has always played an active role in constructing the symbolic order, and while that role may have changed over time, the state has never absented itself (Breton, 1984:138). I suggest that Breton' s notion ofthe symbolic order can be usefully read as operating at two levels. First, the Canadian government has, from its inception, intervened in the production ofCanada's cultural or symbolic realm; from arts funding boards to tariffs on American magazines to creating institutions like the NFB, the Canadian government has clearly viewed the symbolic as one of its proper realms of intervention and operation. Breton is correct in his suggestion that the Canadian state has never absented itself from the symbolic order. In fact, Canadians have become quite accustomed to this intervention, and have come perhaps even to expect it. What I want to explore in this analysis is how that intervention is both produced and legitimated, using a specific instance of multiculturahsm arts policy. To do this, I read the symbolic order in a second way, as social discourse, and suggest that it is to the level ofdiscourse that one must look to understand the function, role, and meanings of multiculturahsm arts policy. 2 Arts Policy: Community and Sovereignty The discursive production ofCanadian cultural identity manifests in the long-familiar concerns over cultural colonization by our powerful neighbour to the South, concerns that there would be no Canadian culture without government support, concernsto main- tain the high quality ofCanadian cultural production (necessarily Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding non-commercial)—these fundamentally Canadian "worries"work together to create and legitimate a need for state intervention into the cultural realm I suggest that the discourse of Canadian cultural identity relies on needs generated from two primary mythic narratives, discursive notions which have served to struc- ture social relations. These two mythic structures are the search for community, that never ending quest to identify and name a Canadian unity, and the defence ofCanadian cultural sovereignty against external threats, primarily located in the United States. These mythic narratives are reproduced in a variety of institutional sites and are well-known to most Canadians; a few examples should suffice. The search for community is manifest in the assumed connectionbetween the support and development of Canadian art and the corresponding result of a unified national identity. For example, an arts policy paper prepared for the current Liberal government asserts a connection between the funding of the arts and the bolstering of Canadian national identity: "Thus a government policy that promotes the arts and whose primary goal is cultural, by familiarizing individuals with all the characteristics of their own society, can help strengthen their sense of belonging and of cultural identity" (Lemieux, 1994:2). A cultural activist writes: "The notion that shared cultural expression is the key to nation building is a long-standing one and one that is widely accepted" (Spensley, nd: 1). A necessary corollary to finding our own community is its defence against the threat posed by other stronger communities. The mythic narrative ofcultural sovereignty asserts that we must be ever vigilant in defending our fledgling identity. This dis- course, too, is produced and reproduced in a number ofinstitu- tional sites. For example, The Task Force on Funding ofthe Arts invokes a language ofwar and sovereignty: ... the arts He at the heart of the cultural sovereignty battle. The spirit of a nation is expressed through the creative act, and the arts, by definition, are the focus of Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 that activity. But there is little to be gained in protecting our cultural industries ifourworks ofart are moribund, or if a weakened arts infrastructure cannot supply the necessary talent and creative product. The arts are to cultural industries what research and development are to industry as a whole. Both sets of activities are essential to a country's development as a nation among its peers, in short, to the establishment of its sover- eignty. (Task Force on Funding ofthe Arts, 1986:26) Arts policy highlights the connectedness ofthese two myths: All cultural policy is an expression of government willingness to adopt and implement a set of coherent principles, objectives and means to protect and foster a country's cultural expression. The arts are the very foundation of such expression. At a time when coun- tries are becoming increasingly interdependent eco- nomically and politically, promoting cultural expres- sion by means ofa coherent cultural policy for the arts if a valuable way to emphasize and define what distin- guishes one country from another. Canada has considerable challenges in this regard. Its vast territory and small population make it difficult to produce, exchange, disseminate and communicate works of art, while its economic fragility threatens the very existence ofartistic production. Canada must also contend with the constant cultural presence of the United States in this country and influence of this presence onthe culturalidentity ofCanadians. (Lemieux, 1994:1) These mythic narratives work to generate a need, a need to produce and protect Canadian cultural identity at all times. The very construction of this need offers the Canadian state as the body most suited to its address. This is made clear in policy documentation: Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding A country must be in control ofits cultural destiny ifit is to have a policy for the promotion of the arts: A country can be said to be culturally sovereign when it has the power to make its own decisions on its cultural future and the mechanisms for doing so; that is, when it enjoys the necessary freedom to permit cultural creativity and distribution, preservation and accessibil- ity of its cultural production across its territory. This power includes the ability to adopt statutes andpolicies to create institutions and programs that will support all these activities. The omnipresent U.S. culture threat- ens Canadians' cultural identity and it is essential that we exercise sovereignty in this area ifwe are to survive as a distinct group with its own flourishing culture. (Lemieux, 1994:2) Thus, because ofthe nature ofthe problem, the Canadian state is the proper "manager" of Canadian cultural identity. It is not only in the area ofarts and cultural policy, however, where the discourses oforganic community and sovereignty play themselves out as rationales for the Canadian state's intervention into the symbolic order, but also in the institutional locale of multiculturahsm policy. MlJlTICULTURALISM POLICY: The Threat From Within It has been suggested that "multiculturahsm" can be interpreted in four distinct ways: as empirical fact, as a set ofcultural ideals, as policy, and as a process by which ethnic minorities achieve certain goals (Fleras, 1993:3). While all accurate, these charac- terizations do not go far enough to capture the discursive operation of multiculturahsm in Canada. McLellan and Rich- mond come closer with their suggestion that multiculturahsm ". . . can best be understood as a charter myth, an artificial creation that has restructured historical as well as existing social relations" Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 (McLellan and Richmond, 1994:679). Following McLellan and Richmond, I suggest that multiculturahsm, like Canadian cultural identity, operates through a variety of mythic narratives which generate a need, a need which is filled, in this case, by the Canadian government's intervention to manage cultural plural- ism Denise Helly defines cultural plurality as the presence in a society of persons belonging to a variety of social and cultural backgrounds (Helly, 1993: 15). Canada, from its very inception, has been an ethnically and culturally pluralist nation. Plurality may result from immigration, from the constitution of national territory through appropriation from indigenous cultures, or in the case of Canada, both. Writing generally about culturally pluralist states, Helly suggests that "... government involvement in policies concerning cultural plurality is directed towards two domains—the behaviour of immigrant populations considered deviant, marginal or conjQictual...and the particular forms of inegalitarian treatmentbythenatrvepopulation'' (Helly, 1993: 16). Deviance, marginaUty, conflict, inequity—all potential risks to the stability ofthe liberal state. Thus, Helly identifies the first myth at work in the discourse of multiculturahsm, a form of cultural sovereignty again, but in response to a risk from within. Certainly the language ofmulticulturahsm policy in Canada is not phrased in the language ofHelly's first domain, namely the control of immigrant populations, but in the language of the latter, the management of the behaviour of the "native popula- tion" towards immigrant populations. For example, early critics ofmulticulturahsm policy claimed that its primary, but unstated, purpose was to disempower Quebec nationalism In the state- ment announcing multiculturahsm policy made by then Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, on October 8, 1971, the risk clearly emanates from the possibility ofreduced "choice" on the part of immigrants due to the native population: ... I wish to emphasize the view ofthe Government that Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding a policy of multiculturalism within a bilingual frame- work is basically the conscious support of individual freedom ofchoice. We are free to be ourselves. But this cannot be left to chance. It must be fostered and pursued actively. Iffreedom of choice is in danger for some ethnic groups, it is in danger for us all. It is the policy ofthis Government to eliminate any such danger and to "safeguard" this freedom (Trudeau in Secretary of State, nd:46) The Multiculturalism Act (1988), itself^ states: 3 (1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to... (c) promote the full and equitable participation ofindividuals and communities ofall origins in the continuing evolution and shaping ofall aspects ofCanadian society and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation In fact, risk arising from the incoming population is clearly rejected: (g) promote the understanding and creativity that arises fromthe interaction between indi- viduals and communities ofdifferent origins. Multiculturalism policy operates, discursively, to address the need to manage the "mainstream"population to ensure equity for all in a culturally pluralist population. Analystshave also observed, however, that multiculturahsm policy is directed at the first domain ofHelly's analysis, namely, risk to the state arising from the immigrant population. Augie Fleras, for example, has suggested that multiculturahsm policy functions to manage diversity (Fleras, 1993:2). Fleras, in his defence ofmulticulturahsmpohcy, suggests: "Instead ofnation- building,' the goals of multiculturahsm are firmly fixed on Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 depoliticizing ethnicity as a collective phenomenon" (Fleras, 1993:6). Difference is managed through the replacing of collec- tive with individual rights, as the former are a threat to state sovereignty. "The focus ofmulticulturalism is on managing these differences in a waythat enhances the unity, identity, and integrity of Canada as a sovereign state" (Fleras, 1993:15). While the policy may function to "manage difference," this intervention is also anchored in the charter myth of Canadian cultural identity, in this instance functioning to legitimate inter- vention into, not the artistic realm, but cultural plurality. The mythic narratives ofCanadian cultural identityremain unchanged: the quest for organic community, this time composed of unity through diversity, and the defence ofCanadian sovereignty, with cultural pluralism as a uniquely Canadian 'Sveapon. " Again, these discourses serve to make cultural plurality a proper domain of management for the Canadian state. Fleras' analysis offers apt examples: "Canada resembles a ^fr handful of modern nations-state (sic) in the vanguard for con- structing a coherent and secular society, without necessarily abandoning all vestiges ofdiversity" (Fleras, 1993:2). He further suggests, 'Multiculturalism enhances a collective consciousness of ourselves as a tolerant and enlightened diversity" (Fleras, 1993:6). This organic community is also always a "managed" community. McLellan and Richmond suggest: "The Canadian example ofmulticulturahsm, with its motto of unity in diversity,' can be seen as an attempt to structure a collective identity, or national consciousness. . . " (McLellan and Richmond, 1 994 : 67 1 ). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act states: 3(1) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Government of Canada to (b) recognize and promote the understanding that multiculturahsm is a fundamental char- acteristic ofthe Canadian heritage and iden- tity and that it provides an invaluable re- Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding source in the shaping of Canada's future; These dual aspects of simultaneously organic and managed community are illustrated by the remarks offormer Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship, Jerry Weiner, when he sug- gests: When the Canadian Multiculturalism Act was passed into law in 1988, it established that our multicultural diversity is a fundamental characteristic ofour society, an essential part of what it means to be Canadian, (emphasis added; Weiner in Multiculturahsm and Citi- zenship Canada, 1990:i) The existence ofCanada as a culturally pluralist nation does not "establish" that this is integral to our national identity, rather this must be accomplished through a primary technology ofthe state, legislation. Fleras makes express the sovereign implications of this distinct Canadian identity generated by our multicultural society: #J| "... one could argue how our commitment to multiculturahsm (within a bilingual framework) is the definitive characteristic that distinguishes Canada from the United States" (Fleras, 1993:6). Thus, our multicultural identity, as evidenced through state policy, becomes an element in our armour ofcultural sovereignty. While I am not disputing the accuracy of these writers' claims, I am attempting to highlight their discursive operation. I suggest that the role of multiculturahsm as one of the hallmark discourses ofCanadian cultural identity is both a product o£ and productive o£ the Canadian state's role in the management of culture. One of the ways in which these mythic narratives of Canadian cultural sovereignty, both fromwithout and within, and organic community, come into effectivity is through the policy process. This process is located within, and constrained by, these narratives of legitimation through which the state justifies its intervention in civil society. I want to explore this process through a very unique and problematic government program, the Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 multicultural arts funding component of the Department of Canadian Heritage. My analysis suggests that what is funded under this program is not artists, nor even art, but rather, "pieces of multicultural art" which function as spectacles of identity, embedded in a process ofcultural objectification, which simulta- neously work to fix both cultural pluralism and cultural produc- tion as instrumentahties of the Canadian state, as manageable realms and realms properly managed. Creative and Cultural Expression but not Art? Justin Lewis defines art as, "a cultural practice that involves the creation of a specific and definable object.... The function ofthat object is as a self-conscious, personal, or collective expression of something" (Lewis, 1990: 5). 3 Lewis goes on to note, however, that when it comes to the funding of art, the more significant question is how a society defines artistic value (Lewis, 1990:6). The value of a work of art is not intrinsic to the artistic object £f% itself, but is found in the set of social judgements made by those in positions to evaluate it. Therefore, the value of"multicultural art" is not inherent to the artistic products, themselves, but is embedded in the evaluation process. How is multicultural art identified and valued? Established in the 1991 restructuring of the then Depart- ment of Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada, the Creative and Cultural Expression Program(CCE) ofthe Heritage Cultures and Languages Branch (HCL) ofthe Citizen's Participation and MulticulturaUsm Sector ofthe Department ofCanadian Heritage offers project funding in the areas ofwriting and publishing, arts and arts administration training, film and video production, and performing and visual arts through its grants programs. Grants are provided to support the creative expression of "artists from diverse ethnocultural or Aboriginal backgrounds" (Canadian Heritage, 1994:1). The stated objectives ofthe CCE component are: Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding to promote greater opportunity within and equal access to Canada's arts and cultural institutions for artists from diverse cultural backgrounds to encourage and foster support for the develop- ment of the creative arts as a vehicle for the expression ofheritage cultures in Canada and as a creative expression ofCanadian multiculturalism to support and promote writing and publishing, performing arts, visual arts, audio-visual and film projects that reflect and/or foster appreciation of the cultural diversity of Canadian society. (Multiculturalismand Citizenship Canada, 1991:1) Therefore, the stated objectives of funding the creative and cultural expression of artists from diverse cultural backgrounds isto improve their institutional access, to bolster multiculturalism, and to support projects that reflect or foster an appreciation of Canadian cultural diversity. This policy rests upon three problematic assumptions. First, ^9 art is reduced to an instrumentahty ofthe policy process. This is most clear in the second objective — "to encourage and foster support for the development ofthe creative arts as a vehicle for the expression ofheritage cultures in Canada and as a creative expression ofCanadian multiculturaUsm" Art is conceived as a 'Vehicle" for multiculturahsm (policy). In this respect, funding is directed towards art objects and arts structures, rather than towards artists. The overall objective isnot to fund quality art, but rather to promote multiculturahsm as a part ofCanadian artistic and cultural life and to foster appreciation of cultural diversity. The individual art project identified as worthy of funding is merely an instrument in, and of, this process. Second, I suggest that the interaction between the require- ment that only artists who are from "diverse ethnocultural or Aboriginal backgrounds" and the third objective of the CCE Program imposes a functional test ofvalue on artistic creation. Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Individual artistic projects are funded on the basis ofwhetherthey "reflect and/or foster appreciation of the cultural diversity of Canadian society. " These work together to suggest that not all art produced by "artists of diverse ethnocultural or Aboriginal backgrounds" would necessarily meet this standard. Second, and more significantly, it reminds us that the criteria for art produced by these artists is not artistic merit or aesthetic value, but whether the art serves the policy function prescribed in the objectives. Finally, and related to the other two assumptions, the CCE objectives and the Program as a whole assume that there is, and should be, a distinction between art which reflects and develops Canadian cultural diversity and that which does not, namely, between "multicultural art" and "art." Some adininistrative prac- tices within the program also support these assumptions. Unlike the Canada Council and provincial arts boards, the CCE Program is not at arm' s length from the government, and the final approval for all grants rests with the Minister of Canadian Heritage. ^) Although a peer review process is used, jury members are aware that they are making recommendations only. They are always also aware of the policy objectives of the Program when evaluating individual applications, and are not therefore, evaluating projects solely on "artistic merit.'* 4 I suggest that the three assumptions and the institutional practices in support ofthem work to produce a result that what is funded by this arts funding program is not, in fact, art, but something else. Peter Li has recently argued cogently that multiculturalism arts policy continues to be problematic, result- ing in a bifurcation of the art world and the reinforcement of dominant cultural hegemony. Li states: ... the arts belong to a cultural domain which is sub- jected to the influence ofthe state. As a major patron of arts and culture, the state provides the financial support and infrastructural conditions for the develop- ment and maintenance of dominant arts. In a Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding multicultural society like Canada, the state also main- tains a separate policy toward the promotion and preservation ofminority cultures and arts. In so doing, the Canadian state, through its role as the major sponsor and patron of arts and minority cultures, creates the unequal infrastructural conditions which are conducive to developing two types of art and culture. In this sense, dominant arts and subordinate minority cultures are at least partly perpetuated by state intervention. (Li, 1994:366-7) While Li's arguments are persuasive, I suggest that his analysis replicates the assumptions underpinning the objectives of the CCE Program First, Li assumes that the purpose of the CCE Program is to fund multicultural art according to a differential, but nonetheless, aesthetic standard. For example, he writes: "Since 1971, Canada has maintained a federal multicultural policy to assist and promote the art and culture of visible minorities" (Li, 1994:376). His (arguably valid) complaint is with €0 the separateness of the program through which minority art is funded (Li, 1994:377). He does not consider the possibility that the objective is not "to assist and promote the art and culture of visible minorities," but rather to fund art and cultural objects, produced by visible minorities, providing they function to illus- trate and foster the cultural diversity of Canada. In short, Li is assuming that first and foremost the program functions to fund art. Second, Li's linking of aesthetic standards to cultural he- gemony tends towards an instrumentahty also reflected in the Program While he correctly suggests "... cultural domination involves not only imposing the aesthetic standards ofthe domi- nant group, but also creating the institutional framework for reproducing minority art, culture and heritage in forms and manners that are consistent with maintaining the hegemony ofthe dominant group" (Li, 1994:369), the use of hegemony theory Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 tends to reproduce the demarcation between art produced by ""ethnic" artists and that produced by "mainstream" artists. It relies upon a fixed notion ofidentity and an instrumental relation between ethnicity and artistic expression. Li suggests that when artists of colour produce art that is reflective of the dominant aesthetic, they have clearly been hegemonized (Li, 1994:370, 382). I suggest the problem is not necessarily in a multiplicity of aesthetics, but rather with the discursive production of "multicultural art" — "multicultural art," which is, I suggest, a very different notion than the art ofartists ofcolour—as a clearly identifiable object which can be identified, evaluated, and funded. Li's analysis, while useful and cogent, starts from the assumption that the CCE Program has as its primary objective and function to fund artistic creation. I suggest that the curious combination of assumptions, objectives, and practices work to produce and support something very different than artistic crea- tion. I argue that situated as it is at the intersection ofdiscourses ^^ of arts policy and of multiculturahsm that the CCE Program in fact constitutes a means by which cultural pluralism is fixed, identified, counted, and used to simultaneously demonstrate the need for, and success o£ multiculturahsm policy. In its task of managing ethnic diversity, the state faces the dilemma of objectifying or concretizing ethnicity. In fact, the production of "statistics" on ethnicity is provided for in the Canadian Multiculturahsm Act: 3(2) It is further declared to be the policy of the Government ofCanada that all federal institutions shall (d) collect statistical data in order to enable the development ofpolicies, programs and prac- tices that are sensitive and responsive to the multicultural reality of Canada... Notwithstanding the above provisions, numerous scholars have noted the problems associated with the accurate reporting of Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding ethnicity in statistics given the fluid nature of personal identity. There is no consensus about how best to identify ethnicity, either among policy-makers or academics (McLellan and Richmond, 1994:673). One ofthe ways through which ethnicity is manifest, how- ever, is through culture. ... what distinguishes each nation or ethnic group is its culture, whichprovides the "content" ofgroup identity and individuality. And ifculture is pressed into service to distinguish one bounded collectivity from another, it too mustbebounded: that is, culture mustbe analyzable and identifiable, such and such a trait' belongingto this nation or originating in that region. (Handler, 1988:15- 16) Others, too, recognize that culture is notoriously difficult to measure, but that it reproduces itself symbolically, in the creation ofart (Li, 1994:367; Blau, 1994:7-8). Art, then, can be seen as a trait of culture and of ethnicity. Within this context of attempting to measure ethnicity, products of cultural expression become what McLellan and Richmond refer to as"spectaclesto symbolize identity" (McLellan andRichmond, 1994:673). They assert that culture becomes a set of"... objects to be scrutinized, identified, revitalized and con- sumed in a process that Handler... calls 'cultural objectification"' (McLellan and Richmond, 1994:674). Drawing upon anthropo- logical work in appropriating cultural objectification, Handler is attempting to encapsulate the process ofviewing culture as an object, or thing, naturally composed ofcertain identifiable traits (Handler, 1988:14). I would add to McLellan and Richmond's list above that cultural objects can also be counted as proofofethnicity. In this way, identity can be fixed. Representation can be owned, located, quantified, and reproduced in bounded terms. Although his specific example is Quebec's winter carnival, Handler's point © © Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 applies to multiculturalism arts policy, when he suggests that cultural objects ... are as much social- scientific as nationalistic, for they are researched—and often organized and legitimated — by professional social scientists or by amateur scholars who take the work ofprofessionals as their model. And politicians and governments intent on "nation build- ing" routinely draw on scientific, objectifying analyses ofnational culture, either because they believe in them or because they understand the legitimating value of "an appeal to social scientific expertise." (Handler, 1988:14) McLellan and Richmond apply Handler's analysis directly to multiculturalism policy and argue that, "cultural objectification, as a self-conscious representation of authenticity, distinguishes the ethnic and/or religious group, providing the content' for group identification and analysis as a component ofthe diversity that is conceptualized as multiculturahsm" (McLellan and Rich- mond, 1994:674). Multiculturahsm policy relies upon cultural objectification to function. One of the most dramatic indicators of this process of cultural objectification can be found in two recent promotional showpieces ofthe work ofthe CCE Program: a comprehensive catalogue offunded film and video projects and a comprehensive bibliography of all funded writing and publishing projects (Multiculturahsm and Citizenship Canada, 1993a, 1993b). These glossy catalogues are basically "lists" ofthe achievements ofthe Program They are indexed by ethnocultural group, in addition to title, author, and subject and each project is described briefly. These catalogues bear witness to the success ofthe Program, but also, at the same time, the need for the Program and for multiculturahsm policy. In the collections, individual projects are removed from their literary or artistic context, and become spectacles of identity, which through the process of cultural Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding objectification, trace cultural pluralism As material traces ofthe diversity ofCanadian society and culture, these catalogues simul- taneously reinforce the ongoing need for state management ofthe cultural realm and act as a quantitative measure ofthe success of that management. Conclusion Multicultural art, to receive funding under the CCE Program, must first and foremost function to reflect and foster an apprecia- tion ofthe cultural diversity ofCanadian society. This has nothing necessarily to do with an art object's value as art, but has everything to do with managing culture, both in the sense ofarts and cultural production and in the sense ofthe culturally plural- istic nature ofCanadian society. I do not mean to suggest through my argument that an impressive range ofdiverse, daring, and high quality art is not being produced through the funding initiatives ofthe CCE Program; in fact, it is. I am suggesting, however, that any success in this regard is ancillary to the discursive processes &% at work in the primary policy objectives. The CCE program serves as an example ofhow the Cana- dian state intervenes to manage both cultural production and cultural pluralism; this management being simultaneously made necessary by, and legitimized through, the mythic narratives of the quest for Canadian community and the defence ofCanadian cultural sovereignty, both fromwithout and within. These mythic narratives are reproduced in the three assumptions reflected in the CCE Program—that art can and should function as a technol- ogy ofthe state's management ofculture; that "multicultural art" should be valued according to how effectively it functions as an instrument of creating Canadian cultural identity and defending Canadian sovereignty; and finally that "multicultural art" is something otherthan "art. "Withinthe CCEProgram, multicultural art functions discursively not as art, but rather as a technology of the Canadian state in its ongoing management of Canadian culture. ^^ Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 NOTES 1. 1 am not asserting any claims as to the truth or falsity of these rhetorics, myths, and discourses, rather I am concerned with their effectivity. 2. My analysis is indebted to the work of Martin Allor and Michelle Gagnon in L 'Etat de Culture: Genealogie Discursive Des Politiques Culturelles Quebecoises (1994) and their suggestion of a framework for the application of a Foucauldian notion of social discourse to the realm of cultural policy. 3. While certainly not daring, I am treating this definition, for the purposes of this article, as adequate. 4. The analysis of the administrative practices is grounded in my experi- ence in administering the Arts Apprenticeship Program of CCE from 1994-1995. References Allor, M. and M. Gagnon 1994 L Etat de Culture: Genealogie Discursive Des Politiques Culturelles Quebecoises. Montreal: Groupe de Recherche Sur La Citoyennete Culturelle. Blau, RM. 1994 'The Paradox of Multiculturalism" unpublished paper. Breton, R. 1984 'The Production and allocation of symbolic resources: an analysis of the linguistic and ethnocultural fields in Canada." Review ofCanadian Sociology and Anthropology . 21(2): 123- 144. Canadian Heritage 1994 Arts Apprenticeship: Criteria. Ottawa: Department of Canadian Heritage. Department of the Secretary of State no date Multiculturalism and the Government ofCanada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Fleras, A. 1993 "Multiculturalism and Society-Building: Blending What is Necessary, Fair and Just, and Workable in Canada's Post- Multicultural Society," unpublished paper. Hamilton/Multiculturalism Arts Funding Handler, R. 1988 Nationalism and the Politics ofCulture in Quebec. Madison, Wis. : The University of Wisconsin Press. Helly, D. 1993 'The Political Regulation of Cultural Plurality: Foundations and Principles." Canadian Ethnic Studies. XXV(2): 15-35. Lemieux, R 1993 The Arts and Canada 's Cultural Policy. Ottawa: Research Branch, Library of Parliament. Lewis, J. 1990 Art, Culture and Enterprise: The Politics ofArt and the Cultural Industries. New York and London: Routledge. Li, PS. 1994 "A world apart: The multicultural world of visible minorities and the art world of Canada." Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropology. 3 1(4): 365-391. McLellan, J. and A. H. Richmond 1994 "Multiculturalism in crisis: a postmodern perspective on Canada." Ethnic and Racial Studies. 17(4): 662-683. Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada %jj no date Multiculturalism: What is it Really About? Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 1990 The Canadian Multiculturalism Act: A Guidefor Canadians. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 1991 Heritage Cultures and Languages Program—Creative and Cultural Expression: Guidefor Applicants. Ottawa: Programs Branch, Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada. 1993a Sharing Our Citizenship: Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada The Department and Its Programs. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. 1993b Recent Publications Supported by Multiculturalism and Citizen- ship Canada. Ottawa: Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada. 1993c Film, Video and Audio Projects Supported by Multiculturalism and Citizenship Canada. Ottawa: Multiculturalism and Citizen- ship Canada. Secretary of State no date Multiculturalism and the Government ofCanada. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. Alternate Routes, Volume 13, 1996 Spensley, P. no date "Multiculturalism on Stage: Reinforcing Separateness?" unpub- lished paper. Task Force on Funding of the Arts 1 986 Funding ofthe Arts in Canada to the year 2000: The Report of the Task Force on Funding ofthe Arts. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada. ^9%