Senior officials in Ottawa advised to focus on the majority to counter populism, documents show

So the centre is moving back to social cohesion and away from social inclusion?

Social cohesion was the term preferred by the Conservative government and was reflected in their greater emphasis on integration in a variety of policy areas, including multiculturalism and citizenship.

IMO, the two are intimately related, cohesion without inclusion is at best a mirage:

Newly released documents show senior government officials were advised to “bring the focus back to the majority” — instead of on diversity values — in public communications to counter the threat of populism in Canada.

The task force deputy ministers heard this idea during meetings last year looking at what the government could do to guard against a possible rise in extremism and populism domestically.

The group was told to encourage more public conversations and debate focused on “us” rather than “us-versus-them” narratives to foster “social cohesion.”

A briefing note prepared for the senior civil servants warned that if only “marginalized populations are considered,” the result would be that “others feel as if they do not matter.”

“Social cohesion must become a new lens of policymaking. In order to achieve this, the government needs to build connections across difference, foster greater empathy and bring the focus back to the majority (i.e. the middle groups),” officials wrote in the documents.

The suggestions originated from an international expert invited to speak to the deputy minister task force on diversity and inclusiveness in October 2018.

The Canadian Press obtained a copy of the presentation and other documents to the task force under the Access to Information Act.

Polarization in Canada

Tim Dixon, co-founder of the U.K.-based think-tank More in Common, told the task force that Canada is facing the same disruptive forces playing out in other countries that can fuel polarization and division — although Canada may be more resilient to these forces due to past successes in building an inclusive national identity.

He said polarization of opinion can cause some to become resentful of minority groups perceived to be getting special benefits, such as housing or social assistance, at others’ expense. These sentiments are most common among a majority of people who fit into a “middle group” category, marked by moderate views between the extremes of “cosmopolitans with open values” and “nationalists with closed values.”

That’s why Canada was advised to “build social solidarity” by avoiding pitting the interests of one group against another in public communications. Rather, Canada should “elevate the ‘more in common’ message and demonstrate the falsehood of narratives of division,” according to Dixon’s presentation.

The documents show that after the meeting, officials discussed ways the government could incorporate the advice into federal policy. One idea put forward was possibly using Canada’s school system, with its “massive integration power,” to educate and connect people in order to build more empathy and social cohesion, according to a summary of the discussion among deputies.

Focus on ‘shared values’

When it comes to future communications, deputy ministers stressed the need to “focus on shared values rather than diversity values when framing the social cohesion narrative,” the meeting summary says.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appears to have taken this advice to heart in his political messaging leading up to the federal election this October.

During a Liberal fundraising event last month, asked about countering populist sentiment in the campaign, Trudeau stressed the need to seek common ground and compromise among Canadians.

“We’ve always learned to listen to each other, find common ground figure out a way to move forward that brings people along,” Trudeau said at the July 18 event in Victoria.

“The idea is that we are a country of diversity, a country of a broad range of views and the responsibility we have is to try to bring those views together in a forward path. We can find things that Canadians understand are that right balance — and that, for me, is the counter to populism.”

Gesturing toward a group of pipeline protesters outside the event, Trudeau quipped that none of them was carrying signs promoting messages of compromise — a point he used to highlight that many of the loudest voices are on the peripheries and do not reflect the opinions of a majority of Canadians.

Social media are amplifying some of those voices, Trudeau added — another point echoed from the discussions and research studied by the task force.

Dixon’s presentation warned government officials they need to be mindful of how social media may distort data.

“The majority of people are not involved in the debate and do not like division, but it is those on social media who are most vocal and it could give disproportionate weight to certain issues.”

Source: Senior officials in Ottawa advised to focus on the majority to counter populism, documents show

Building a more inclusive society requires a conversation about inequality: Corak

Good thoughtful discussion on building an inclusive society by Miles Corak. One of my favourite parts:

“Social inclusion” is a slippery term, and it certainly does not have a distinct meaning in the social sciences in a way that at least I, as an economist,  would feel comfortable drawing implications for public policy.

It helps me to reflect on another term that is sometimes also used to frame public policy: “assimilation”.

For example, assimilation is used in some countries to refer to policies addressed to immigrants. It frames policy discourse in a way that leads to a focus on the shortcomings of migrants. There is a sense of a clear and distinct “mainstream” to society, or to the economy, and migrants are lacking in the skills, language, or even in the attitudes, religion, and culture necessary to fit into this mainstream. They need to change.

This is overtly clear in the way that some extreme groups argue against the very presence of migrants, or accommodations toward them. If this perspective rubs many of us the wrong way it is because at some level we recoil from the underlying assumption of “assimilation”: that the mainstream is clear, fixed, socially preferred; that the task for groups defined as the “other”—be they migrants, those with low-income or without work, those with physical or mental disabilities, or those of colour—is to adjust, to adapt, to assimilate, and indeed to ultimately identify with that mainstream.

It surely does not take much second thought to recognize that barriers to assimilation may be structural, reflecting overt discrimination in access to fundamental resources that are the basis for full participation in society: access to education, health care, income security, and even to jobs for which migrants may well be perfectly qualified but never hired because of skin colour, accent, or simply the spelling of their last names.

In other words, if perspectives like this rub many of us the wrong way it is because we believe there is a reciprocal obligation, something to be negotiated, something reflecting a partnership in the building of society in which all parties are treated with equal respect, and are in turn changed by the relationship.

This has to be at the core of what we mean by “inclusion” if it is to be a helpful framework. Inclusion embodies the idea that identity is something to be continually re-negotiated as successive waves of minority groups enter into conversation with the majority.

So in this way conversation is not just an excellent metaphor for the meaning of inclusion, it is also a vital mechanism to achieve it. It is through conversation that we can respectfully negotiate the terms of a partnership, but at the same time we appreciate conversation for its own sake, are not threatened or dissatisfied by the fact that it is open-ended, indeed this is what reassures and enriches.

But if building an inclusive society through conversation is to be sincere and productive, it has to be done between partners who demonstrate mutual respect, and be capable of freely engaging; partners with a clear sense of others, but also of themselves. It seems to me that this sort of capacity or capability is also at the core of what we mean by “inclusion”.

Building a more inclusive society requires a conversation about inequality | Economics for public policy.