The Ethical and Political Considerations of Ethnic Indicators

 

Ethnic identity is a social construct which attests to a certain reality, that is, recognition of ethnic differentiation and problems of discrimination. This social construct brings to the fore the power relationships that are juxtaposed with those of socio-economic classes (Simon, 1998).

 

Over the years, some countries have developed ethnic and integration indicators to describe these social relationships, while others have avoided them. Each country's history has influenced the debate on whether or not to adopt this type of indicator. The ethical, scientific, political, and economic considerations have all influenced national attitudes towards people and their diverse origins and cultures. History has enhanced this debate, and the future should continue to do so since migratory movements are just as important and issues of inequality have not been resolved. Moreover, the advent of information technologies and easily accessible information on ethnic identity and integration introduce issues that should be debated again, especially in this type of forum.

 

Sociological issues

 

Ethnic identity is a social construct which reflects our relationships with others. By showing an interest in this notion, we contribute to the development of knowledge on humanity, and describe individual and collective identity processes that come within the scope of historical, social, and political dynamics. Identity often emerges from conflictual relationships (Simon, 1998). By not showing an interest, we deny the inequality that exists among groups.

 

Those who oppose this kind of indicator, believe that documenting inequality based on ethnic identity simply maintains inequality instead of acknowledging integration processes and social cohesion. Although people who hold this opinion do not deny existing social inequalities, they value the individual rights of vulnerable persons (the disabled, women, workers, consumers, etc) and do not see the need for ethnic identification (Skerry, 2000, p.186). These contrasting views on ethnic identification steer the debate back to the reasons behind social stratification.

 

In this debate, Patrick Simon (1998, p.8) puts forward quite clearly the paradox of "the social responsibility of researchers: is it preferable to defend the invisibility of ethnic differences when observing populations at the risk of letting discriminatory practices be overshadowed, or of constructing categories whose existence alone will eventually reinforce a designation that will stigmatise populations?"

 

Scientific issues

 

Ethnic identification allows us to depict social relationships that tend to centre around ethnicity and become problematic (Simon, 1998).

 

In the United States and Canada, scientific observation of racial and ethnic discrimination tends to be done by numeric comparison of the distribution of racial and ethnic groups in the economy (rate of unemployment), housing (proportion of homeowners) or education (graduation rate) (Simon, 4. p,7), and politics (rate of voter participation in elections). There is also a series of objective and subjective measures specific to every aspect of integration: linguistic, cultural, residential, educational, and the labour market (Piché, 1995, p.12). Discrepancies registered in one of these areas, where theoretically there is equal representation, serve as indicators to assess the extent of disparity. Consequently, a sizeable amount of statistical data on inequalities is produced and then appropriated by government authorities.

 

Although the original intention was to acquire a national planning instrument, groups working for the most powerless populations see it more as a present-day instrument that is about authority, power, and coercion. (Skerry, 2000, p.193). We may ask then, how do we reconcile political and scientific concerns with this democratic exercise?

 

Political issues

 

According to social democratic principles, social policies should lean towards reducing social inequalities at not towards diversity (Juteau, 2000). In this sense, ethnic differentiation is an effective tool to measure differences and inequalities. Nonetheless, the public instruments used to take this measure, that is the census and public service administrative files, present political concerns not only for current governments but also for ethnic groups working for their communities.

 

By definition, the census is a social planning instrument that is supposed to be objective. But for the more vulnerable groups in the United States, the census is perceived as an instrument of state authority allowing the government to have fiscal control over social spending, and the count its citizens for the purposes of taxation and military service (Skerry, 2000, p.10). When perceived in this manner, we can understand the resistance of the disadvantaged in participating in the census. The resistance and mistrust these vulnerable groups feel vis-à-vis an instrument of the state is also apparent during interactions -such as social or medical consultations-which require that personal data, including ethnic identification, be recorded. By refusing to participate in this exercise, socially disadvantaged people continue to be undercounted.

 

Groups advocating on behalf of vulnerable individuals are caught between promoting greater participation of the disadvantaged in the census and other forms of enumeration to obtain a better representation level, and giving free rein to passive resistance to avoid reawakening in the population prejudices and discrimination towards the disadvantaged.

 

Political circles also have an interest in not encouraging improved census-taking among disadvantaged populations since it could create a shift in political representation. In the United States,  it is estimated that close to 1 million people have been missed by the census. Roughly 5% of Hispanics living in the United States (Skerry, 2000, p.152) have not been counted. Making adjustments to the census would change socio-demographic representation and would undoubtedly have political consequences affecting popular representation.

 

In addition to the census, other indicators are used to indicate governmental integration policies. In Québec, since Bill 101 has imposed the French language on children whose parents were not educated in english in Canada, the children of immigrants enrolled in public schools are required to attend French school. By comparing language spoken at home with language spoken in public-schools, public institutions, or workplaces -the government can assess the impact of its language-transfer policy on individual immigrants and the various generations of immigrants. Although this appraisal may shed some light on how identity can change over the years and over generations, this change is nonetheless distorted by social and economic phenomena such as globalisation. "How do we interpret  an indicator that gives the percentage of manpower by time worked in French in the private sector in Montréal" when every North American economic sector is greatly influenced by the American market? (Piché, 2001, p.4). And along the same lines, how do we make allowances for linguistic environment in a multiethnic school or an ethnic business to accurately assess a person's opportunity to live in the language of the host society? If we do not take these elements into consideration when interpreting data on integration, those who continue to uphold the prejudicial view that immigrants do not make an effort to integrate would then be proven right, when in fact, immigrants are integrating into a first level integration network, that of the works world.

 

How do we reconcile the soundness of the initial rationale for developing instruments that can document inequalities with the fears caused by their pernicious effects on individuals when these instruments are used or interpreted?

 

Economic issues

 

The economic issues surrounding ethnic identification are twofold: on the one hand, ethnic identification is perceived by the disadvantaged as a measure for potential reprisals against them and, on the other, as an additional marker of social disadvantage.

 

In the United States, minority leaders are worried about efforts made to improve the count among vulnerable groups, since this would produce more accurate numbers of people on welfare. According to these leaders, the information linking ethnic identity, area of residence, and reported income could serve as surveillance instruments for social welfare agencies (Skerry, 2000, p.143). In some areas of the United States, the rate of non-response among Spanish-speaking people attains 20%. A census adjustment for this group, similar to adjustments for other groups, would change budget allocations. (Skerry, 2000, p.66).

 

 

How can we ensure, beyond providing anonymity, that  individuals that they will be protected against the effects related to the ethnic identification procedures required for data collection during surveys or the administration of public institution? How can we acquire their trust so that we can emphasize the macro-economic benefits they would gain by participating in the census or other data collection operations used for budget allocation?

 

 

Social responsibility of ethnic identification

 

The position adopted by several researchers is to develop ethnic identification and integration indicators that are as objective as possible for both the census and public service administrative records. Note that scientific debate is centred mostly on the categories of ethnic identification used in the census. The categories included in administrative records are often based on those found in the census, although they are not applied as rigorously.

 

Although we do not wish to list all the details of the scientific debate surrounding ethnic identification categories, note that there are two approaches to determining these categories:

·        national classification, which determines ethnic  identity according to the person's country of birth and the ethnic origin of his or her ancestors over two or three generations;

·        self-identification based on a hierarchical process of ethnic identification (Simon, 1998 #1).

Although the first approach may be more objective, the second is determined by the social inequalities with which they identify.

 

For many, ethnic identity, even when crossed with spheres of social and economic life (education, work, and housing), is not sufficient to show  inequalities regarding participation and social exclusion. Integration indicators established by number of years in the host country, functional knowledge of the languages of the host country and professional under-qualification ( difference between training/experience and the position occupied/ salary) are more revealing of the inequality experienced by immigrants or people associated with a minority ethnic identity (Gravel et Battaglini, 2000).

 

Beyond this highly complex scientific debate on the reliability and validity of categories (Boyd, 1990) and the ethnic identification process, numerous concerns persist in relation to this type of information being collected on a national and individual basis. So what is the responsibility of researchers regarding issues of  confidentiality and transparency that surround the compilation of these records and the use of the data which they contain? What guidelines should we follow to disseminate results to the public or even to decision makers?

 

The risks  of ethnic identification

 

In Europe after the Second World War, many countries refused to include ethnic identification categories on their demographic management and public service instruments. Although post-war assimilation objectives are now obsolete, public authorities "naturally induce cultural attitudes and behaviours" to determine a person's identity. "But for an immigrant, the word 'identity' refers to identity cards, certificates, and identity control rather than cultural values" (Costa-Lascoux, 1994, p.263). While present-day discrimination persists despite the lessons of history, the need to remedy this situation is increasingly urgent so that inequalities linked to discrimination can be documented.

 

The United States and Canada, both of which have used ethnic identification categories for a long time, have also seen this type of information used for discriminatory purposes. Skerry (2000, p.34) recalls that in 1940, despite the war in Europe, data identifying Japanese people living in the United States were used to draw up a list of their addresses. These people were then sent to internment camps and temporarily dispossessed of their belongings so that the U.S. could defend itself against internal attacks by the enemy of the hour. We know that this was also done in Canada at the same time.

 

To guard against such situations, Skerry recommends the creation of an advisory committee on ethics which would be independent of and external to the governmental authorities who manage these instruments of ethnic identification. In this era of information technologies, and because of the dangers surrounding computer security, are ethics committees and measures safeguarding confidentiality and restricting access to ethnic identification data adequate? What precautions should researchers and decision makers take to ensure that people are protected? What kind of social and political environment should they advocate to debate the advantages and disadvantages of ethnic identification?

 

 

Sylvie Gravel et Mary Farrell

29 October 2001

 

Boyd, M. 1990.

Évaluation des questions portant sur les caractéristiques ethniques et culturelles dans l'enquête sociale générale. Centre pour la mesure des origines ethniques. Statistiques Canada.

 

Costa-Lacoux, J. 1994.

Les silences des indicateurs de l'intégration. Actes du séminaire sur les indicateurs d'intégration des immigrants. Centre d'études ethniques de l'Université de Montréal et le ministère des Affaires internationales, de l'immigration et des Communautés culturelles. Montréal ; p : 259-274.

 

Felligini I.P. 1993.

Les défis que pose la mesure de l'origine ethnique : science, politique et réalité. Statisyique Canada et Economics and Statistics Administration Bureau of the Census.

 

Juteau, D. 2000.

Profils de la différenciation socaile au Canada : pour en comprendre la dynamique et en réduire les écarts. Canadian Public Policy - Analyse de politiques, XXVI supplement/ no spécial 2 : S107-S121.

 

Piché, V. 2001.

Vers un indicateur de réceptivité sociale. Communication présentée au Colloque « Les enjeux démographiques de l'intégration des immigrants » dans le cadre des États généraux sur la situation et l'avenir de la langue française au Québec, Université de Montréal.

Piché, V. Bélanger, L . 1995.

Une revue des études québécoises sur les facteurs d'intégration des immigrants. Collection Notes et documents  no.5., Direction des communications du ministère des Affaires internationales, de l'immigration et des Communautés culturelles.

 

Simon , P. 1997.

La représentation statistique de l'immigration. Peut-on comptabiliser l'ethnicité ?.  Anciennes et nouvelles minorités, J.-L. Rallu, Y.Courbage, V.Piché (ed) Pari, John Libbey/INED, pages 11-30.

 

Simon, P. 1997.

La statistique des origines « Race et ethnicité dans les recensements aux États-Unis, Canada et Grande-Bretagne. Sociétés Contemporaines, 26 :11-44.

 

Simon, P. 1998.

Classements scientifiques et identités ethniques. Recherche Sociale, 147 : 16-31.

 

Simon, P. 1998.

Nationalité et origine dans la statistique française ; les catégories ambiguës. Population, 53-3 :541-568.

 

Simon , P. 1999.

Vers des « statistiques ethniques ? ». Plein Droit, no.41-41 : 32-35.

 

Skerry, P. 2000.

Counting the Census ? Race, Group Identity, and the Evasion of Politics. Brookings Institution Press. Washington.