Mapping the Social Participation of South Asians and Mainstream/Dominant Canadians: a Comparative Study

Home , Asian Canadians, South Asian Canadians, Ukrainian Canadians

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2013-10-18 Mapping the Social Participation of South Asians and Mainstream/Dominant Canadians: A Comparative Study

Ranu, Koyel

Ranu, K. (2013). Mapping the Social Participation of South Asians and Mainstream/Dominant Canadians: A Comparative Study (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/26831 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/1154 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Mapping the Social Participation of South Asians and Mainstream/Dominant Canadians:

A Comparative Study

Koyel Ranu

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY

CALGARY, ALBERTA

OCTOBER, 2013

Abstract

This research studies how actively South Asian immigrants in Canada are engaged in the social participation process and their underlying motivations. Social participation of South Asians in

Canada is compared with Canadians of British lineage and East Indians in their homeland

(India), and reasons behind any differences in levels of social participation are examined. In this endeavour, the circular relationship between social participation and social capital is investigated and the formulations of the concepts are problematized and critiqued. To ensure that concepts and indicators are contextually examined instead of being applied universally, both quantitative

(inferential statistics) and qualitative methods (interviewing, narrative analysis, and critical discourse analysis of interview transcripts) are used in the research. General Social Survey, cycle

17, is used in the quantitative analysis. Results from qualitative interviews demonstrate that the initial settlement process of South Asian immigrants deeply impacts their social participation process in Canada. The settlement process is found to be influenced by gender, household income, educational background, continuing perspectives of life as developed in their country of origin, general cognitive discourse on the western way of life, and the exercise of an active choice of living in co-ethnic neighbourhoods. Receptivity by social groups and networks and perception of immigrants by mainstream/dominant ethnic groups is also seen to influence a sense of belonging, development of the “Canadian identity”, subsequent settlement, and social participation processes in Canada. Quantitative analysis indicates that ethnic background, interaction in networks of similar income, same sex networks, and networks speaking the same mother tongue negatively impact social participation processes, while sense of social obligation and helping others positively influence social participation. For Indians in their homeland, traditional cultural practices and collective and normative expectations influence the motivations

ii behind social participation, but signs of change such as more individualistic lifestyle choices were also apparent.

iii Acknowledgements

First and foremost I want to express my indebtedness and gratitude to my supervisor, Dr.

Lloyd Wong, for his valuable guidance, support, and encouragement throughout the tenure of my research. It is a privilege to be associated with an excellent teacher, researcher, and above all, a wonderful human being during my stay here in University of Calgary.

From the bottom of my heart I would like to thank Dr. Jim Frideres and Dr. Amal Madibbo for their positive and instrumental guidance, suggestions, and critique. Doing a doctoral study is an ever-learning process and I cannot possibly adequately express how much I have learned from their style of work and recommendations.

A special thanks to Charlie Victorino, analyst at the Prairie Research Data Centre, Calgary for his constant cooperation and helpful advice along the way.

I would like to mention those who are integral to my life and whose endless, unconditional support, and encouragement have eased the dynamics of being a PhD student. The cooperation and reassuring presence of Priyanka Paul, Anurita Majumdar, Paramita Roy,

Aniruddha Roy, Sangeeta Kar, Trista Hurley-Waxali, Ashok Banerjee, Deb Banerjee,

Bratendu Bagchi, Aruna Bagchi, and Saumyajit Ray deserve a special mention.

Finally, I must acknowledge the reinforcing support I can always count on in my husband, Dr.

Subhasish Bandyopadhyay who has been my companion in the truest sense of the word and for being there in the darkest hours. My parents Dr. B.C. Ranu and Supriya Ranu have always been my inspiration and I take this opportunity to thank them for being in my life.

iv Dedication

Dedicated to my Husband, my parents and my brother

v Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iv Dedication ...... v Table of Contents ...... vi

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Research questions ...... 4

CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 6 Theoretical Perspectives ...... 6 Social Capital—definitions and implications ...... 8 Social capital and social participation ...... 11 Problems in traditional conceptualizations of social capital ...... 14 Social participation and characteristics of groups ...... 18 Empirical review ...... 20 Social participation: membership, engagement and volunteering activities ...... 20 Immigrants and social participation ...... 25 Volunteering—one aspect of social participation—who volunteers and why? ...... 28 Trust ...... 34 Critique of existing measures of social capital ...... 38

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 40 Research Design ...... 40 Stage one: quantitative analysis ...... 45 Stage two: qualitative analysis ...... 46 Sample ...... 51 Measurement ...... 56 Ethical approval, anonymity, and confidentiality of data ...... 60 Data analysis and interpretation ...... 61

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS FROM QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS— ...... 64

DELINEATING SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AS ENGAGED UPON IN ETHNO-RACIAL COMMUNITIES ...... 64

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS—AREAS AND FACTORS EFFECTING SOCIAL PARTICIPATION ...... 84 The concentric circles of social participation ...... 84 The focal point of social participation—the neighbourhood ...... 85 Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups—South Asians ..97 Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups—Indians in India and the “cultural club” ...... 104 Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups— mainstream/dominant Canadians ...... 109

vi Factors affecting social participation—age and marital status ...... 111 Factors affecting social participation—bonding levels and identification points ...... 118 Calcutta: tradition and neighbourhoods ...... 121 Motivations behind active social participation—areas, channels, and common grounds131 Variations in social participation ...... 159 Self-reported reasons behind friendship and factors behind inclusive social participation ...... 167 Self-reported factors crucial to social participation ...... 174

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS—BARRIERS TO SOCIAL PARTICIPATION ...... 180 Structural barriers to social participation—experience and perception of difference .180 Structural barriers to social participation: social exclusion ...... 190 Response to the structural barrier of exclusion: The choice of “blending in” or ethnic retention ...... 204

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION ...... 220

REFERENCES ...... 234

APPENDIX-I ...... 250

APPENDIX-II ...... 251

APPENDIX-III...... 257

vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

This research seeks to answer the questions of how and why social participation1 is engaged in among ethnic groups and is related to ethnic and inter-ethnic social capital. Existing literature suggests that the concept of social participation is closely linked to the concept of social capital; the former is often conceptualized as crucial to the formation of social capital, as well as being furthered by the latter. Put another way, social participation and social capital are thought to have a circular relationship. Therefore, as a point of departure, this research attempts a detailed look into this circular relationship, in addition to examining where and why particular ethnic groups engage in the process of social participation. To answer the question of why social participation is engaged in by ethnic groups this research seeks to find and specify motivations and determinants of social participation among ethnic groups, in particular South Asians and mainstream/dominant Canadians (of British lineage), as well as Indians in a city of India. Since the concept of ethnic groups and ethnicity is closely tied to the concept of being an immigrant in this country (native Canadians being Aboriginals only) the period of immigration and immigrant status become particularly pertinent concepts in this analysis.

Recently, social capital has become an immensely complex concept, being the content of heated discussions in academic circles and government policies. Social capital is found to have considerable potential to lead to economic growth (Fukuyama, 1995; Knack and Keefer, 1997), decrease levels of social problems, (Rosenfeld et al, 2001) and increas civic political participation (Kawachi and Kennedy, 1999). While Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988), and

Putnam (1995) have contributed to the formulation of the concept, definitions of social capital

1 In this thesis, the term “social participation” is used and considered synonymous with the terms “civic participation” and “civic engagement”. 1

conceptually presume the active gear (purposive actions that direct community members toward participating in democracy building) (Krishna, 2002: 439). Social participation is normally inferred through membership in associations, feelings of trust in a community, and volunteering activities (Krishna, 2002). The circular relationship of the concepts of social participation and social capital appears to be problematic when social capital is also formulated by quantity of memberships in organizations, various connections an individual has at their disposal, also on presuming that membership in associations and voluntarism generates more networks by itself.

The general idea is that a certain level of social capital (conceived through networks, bonding, and associations) is always necessary before social participation can be engaged in, which leads to building and strengthening of social capital. Supposedly, social capital provides not only the glue (which binds community members together into collective action) but also the gear. Based on the backdrop of the formulations of these closely related concepts, this dissertation seeks to further the understanding of how social participation produces social capital. The chief focus is on finding what the different forms of social participation emanate from, and builds on different forms of social capital.

This dissertation draws upon existing conceptualizations of social capital and critiques the concept to explore how social participation leads to social capital. In particular, this analysis focuses on South Asians in Canada in comparison with mainstream/dominant Canadians of

British lineage to examine whether and why the modes of social participation differ based on membership in these two ethnic groups. In addition, to tap into any diasporic linkage, this analysis also compares how South Asians in a Canadian city (Toronto) and Indians in a metropolitan city of India (Calcutta) are similar or different in the modes and motivations of social participation.

The many definitions of social capital have contributed to increasing difficulties in measuring the concept, as well as illuminating how social capital is actually formed in groups and communities.

The importance of social capital is often invoked in policy evaluation studies of economic performances and life satisfaction of ethnic groups and immigrants (Dasgupta, 2002;

Granovetter, 1971, 1985; Lin, 1999a 1999b). Therefore, this study seeks to contribute to the social capital literature through attempting to measure how ethno-racial minorities in Canada are engaged in the social participation process and what motivations are behind their social participation that builds their social capital. South Asians in Canada are chosen as a particular group of interest; they are vastly different in their ethno-cultural representation from the dominant Canadian culture, and thus will enable me to assess how differences in values and culture can contribute to forming ethnic and inter-ethnic social capital.

Summarily speaking, the traditional conceptualization of social capital has presumed the social component of the concept. The presumption could be a possible consequence of the empiricist methodology in which the formation of social capital is often assumed and measured through quantification of memberships in clubs, associations, and organizations, rather than studying how it is actually formed in real life situations. Therefore, though the issue of concern in this research is social participation, social capital also forms a chief focus in understanding the process of social participation since both concepts share a circular relationship. In short, social participation builds on social capital (to be shown later), but the process does not start from a zero-sum distribution since the existence of certain networks is always necessary as a threshold and arena of social participation. That is, social participation builds on social capital but goes beyond the arena where it takes place. Like the proverbial chicken-and-egg circumstance, there is no prior point to pinpoint which one comes first. A working point of departure is to study how

individuals begin to build networks once they arrive in a new country or in their existing situations as far as they can remember. The qualitative part of this thesis focuses on how immigrants build networks starting with the most proximal one—the neighbourhood—while the quantitative part measures the effect of each variable on social participation.

Research questions

Based on the literature review, the issues of social capital, social participation, civic engagement/participation, community, and immigration are found to be tied together. Despite the crucial role of networks and connections of civic engagement, the understanding of the actual process of social participation, specifically South Asian immigrants in Canada, remains unclear.

Existing literature provides several suggestions on the influence of family traditions, cultural tendencies, and structural barriers on social participation, but even these answers are fragmentary. This research is interested in finding answers to the following broad questions:

1. How is social participation engaged in among ethno-racial communities?

2. What are the variations of social participation in different ethno-racial organizations?

3. Why do differences exist among ethno-racial groups as far as voluntary activities and

civic engagement are concerned?

4. What motivates ethno-racial groups to be actively involved in volunteering activities and

other forms of civic engagement in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations?

5. In the case of social participation by ethno-racial groups, does trust of others initiate the

participation process?

6. Which structural and organizational factors act as barriers to social participation in ethno-

racial communities?

Research questions 1, 2, 4, and 5 are tested through hypotheses in the quantitative part of the study. The qualitative part is more concerned with research questions 3 and 6 and was interested to find answers to questions 1, 4, and 5.

Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical and empirical review of literature on social participation, social capital, problems in traditional conceptualization of social capital, social participation and characteristics of groups, membership, engagement and volunteering activities, trust, and also provides a critique of existing measures of social capital. The methodology is discussed in

Chapter 3. Chapter 4 delineates the quantitative findings while chapter 5 and 6 discusses findings from the qualitative analysis of this research. Chapter 7 provides the conclusion of this research, followed by Appendices and References.

CHAPTER 2: A REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Theoretical Perspectives

The concept of social capital derives from a family of capital theories; therefore, revisiting their chronological and processual development is helpful in understanding social capital as a sociological concept. The purpose is not to provide a description of the historical exegesis of the concepts, but rather to outline classic sources to obtain clues to the various mechanisms through which social structures influence social action. The notion of capital and their exhaustive application and genesis can be found in Marx (1933/1894, 1995/1867, 1885, 1885, 1894) and

Brewer (1984), where capital is conceptualized both as a surplus that is generated from a means of production and appropriated by the bourgeoisie, or the capitalists, and an investment that is made by the capitalists in a labour market situation. Lin (2001) draws on this aspect of capital as both surplus and investment in a process to clarify genealogy of concepts including human capital, cultural capital, economic capital, and social capital, and points to how these concepts are closely linked together as the dominant class holds the power to control the flow and appropriation of the forms of capital.

In this context, the concept of embeddedness is crucial to understanding social capital and its specific components. The resulting typology of social capital, as embedded through its specific components, is often used to situate and contextualise empirical research, particularly with respect to immigrants and ethnic groups. Immigrant or foreign-born communities represent situational arenas of studying whether and how contextual factors influence economic and social action. Social participation forms one of the processes and components of social capital; in this

aspect social capital theory differs from its various sources, as well as clarification of situations where social participation is constrained and/or promoted.

To go back to the concepts of capital in classical theory, human capital theory, as espoused by Johnson (1960), Schultz (1961), and Becker (1964/1993), conceives of capital as investment in education with certain expected returns in the form of earnings and/or prestige. According to

Friedman and Krackhardt (1997: 318), “Human capital theory argues that education is an investment in a person’s stock of human capital and this investment is made with the expectation that it will produce higher income”. Earnings as returns from investment in human capital are viewed as a surplus value that is used to support leisure activities and other lifestyle choices. In the logic of functionalist theory, human capital theory suggests that a highly educated person can expect to earn a higher income because they have valuable assets in terms of knowledge and skills, and deemed to be a more productive and endowed person than others in society (Jones,

1985; Nakhaie, 1994; Porter, 1985; Sakamoto, 1988). The concept of human capital is therefore closely linked with financial capital. The premise of the current theories of capital is different from classical theories of capital as in contemporary times it is possible not only for the bourgeoisie to invest and receive returns from forms of capital but also for the dominated classes to do so.

The premise behind social capital theory is thus quite simple: people invest in social relationships and networks with certain expected returns. Individuals are said to have access to social capital when they belong to a group or network with certain norms of social obligation

(Coleman, 1988, 1990; Putnam, 1993). The idea behind social capital largely emanates from the expectation—rather than the frequency in actual circumstance—that other members in the network respond with help and support in times of need or crisis. Expectations are based on

mutually reinforcing exchange principles of common support, fairness, and reciprocity. Thus, members who belong to a group or social network perceive that being together is beneficial to each other in the long run. In a nutshell, social expectations are based on the fact that everybody is in similar situations. The phenomenon of being bounded by common ideas of “looking after each other” is defined and laid out under the concept of social capital (Dasgupta & Serageldin,

2000; Portes, 1998).

Social Capital—definitions and implications

Four types of economically relevant expectations are embedded in the concept of social capital. First, value interjection can be traced to Durkheimian roots and to a certain extent,

Weberian roots, in emphasizing the moral character of economic transactions as learned during processes of socialization (Parsons, 1937; Parsons & Smelser, 1956). Value interjection is the component of social capital that induces individuals to behave in a certain way other than greed.

Certain expectations of behaviour and obligations emanate from value interjection as developed through social participation and belonging to a group or association.

The second source of social capital, reciprocity transactions, is rooted in the works of Georg

Simmel (1908, 1955) and embedded in the dynamics of group interaction. Exchange theorists have written elaborately on the subject as they discuss social life as a consistent series of exchange of favours, information, and approvals. Social capital arising from reciprocity transactions is based on acknowledged or known previous good deeds as determined by norms of reciprocity and expectations. The analogy of capital as investing in relationships for tangible or intangible returns is most apparent in this conceptualization of social capital.

The third component of social capital is bounded solidarity and focuses on situational factors that can lead to principles of group behaviour different from any socialization or value

interjection. Solidarity arises out of perceived or existing threats to the group, any adversities faced thus far, and acknowledgment of similar situational contexts based on group membership.

To go back to Marx, early examples would be forming a class-for-itself or development of proletarian consciousness. Formation of social capital occurs through a show of mutual support and norms guiding such social behaviour.

Finally, enforceable trust is the fourth source of social capital, and is traced to Weberian roots of formal and substantive rationality in market transactions (Weber, 1922, 1947). Formal rationality deals with transactions based on universalistic norms and open exchange, while substantive rationality involves particularistic obligations favouring monopoly of a group. Both forms of rationality have implications in forming trust within and between groups, with substantive rationality creating group differences in how trust is understood and recreated through social actions and behaviours.

Lin (2001) provides a comprehensive summary of the commonalities in conceptualizations of social capital and how it helps the flow of information for various activities and opportunities, exerts influence on the agents (supervisors or recruiters in a labour market situation), provides certifications in the form of social credentials (membership to clubs, associations, and organizations like alumni networks or those with high social prestige), reinforces sense of identity, and provides recognition. To examine how all these returns are received from investments in social capital it is essential to examine various definitions of the concept. Quite similar to the concept of financial capital, social capital is not generated in a zero-sum social situation, however, it is closely related to the process of social participation. Some literature points to a circular relationship that binds social participation and social capital: higher levels of social participation build on stronger levels of social capital (Krishna & Shradder, 1999, 2000),

stronger levels of social capital also enhance levels of social participation (Dasgupta, 2002;

Woolcock, 2001). Even then, without some level of social participation the building of social capital becomes impossible and this is precisely where the interplay of the two concepts becomes important.

Social capital is defined by Bourdieu (1985), one of the early proponents theorizing about the concept, as “…the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition” (Bourdieu 1985: 248). Coleman (1988) defines social capital as a “…social structure [that] facilitates certain actions of actors within the structure” (Coleman, 1988: 598).

Putnam (1993) adds to the measurement of the concept; he defines social capital as a set of horizontal associations in a network of people who have determining effects on the productivity of the community. Associations include networks of civic engagement and social norms. Two assumptions by Putnam underlie this concept of social capital: a) that networks and norms are empirically associated; and b) they have important economic consequences.

The definitions by three chief theorists of social capital differ in their conceptualization; whereby it is conceptualized as structure (Coleman, 1988), norms (Putnam, 1993), expectations, and networks (Bourdieu, 1985). In all of these definitions the common ingredient and associations is active agency (Putnam, 1993); as not just any set of social norms constitute social capital, the norms that build on social capital are supposed to lead to social participation as envisaged as co-operation within the group, commitments to each other, and holding trustful and reciprocal feelings toward the community.

Lin (2001) warns against making blanket assumptions on either the denser networks yielding greater returns or less dense networks being more useful. Lin calls for the need to delineate what

circumstances and situations, a denser or less dense network (sometimes conceptualized as

“weak” networks [Granovetter, 1974]) might generate a better return and engagement in social participation. The functional aspect of social capital as particularly visible in Coleman’s theorization is that social capital is identified when and if it yields any positive consequences.

This conceptualization of social capital, in terms of its effectiveness, gets into a tautology that can be avoided if the concept is measured in terms of conditional factors. This research attempts to look into the conditional factors during the qualitative stage of data analysis.

Social capital and social participation

According to Krishna (2002), social capital is the agency and the “gear” (Krishna, 2002) that facilitates social participation; “…whether high social capital leads to high, low or no participation in democracy may also be affected by the nature and capacity of a mediating agency” Krishna (2002: 439). Put simply, social participation refers to the involvement of individuals in a community or society that can occur through the mediating agency of impersonal networks and relationships, as well as through formal and informal organizations. Involvement can take place in both public and private settings, such as schools, hospitals, ethnic communities, shops, neighbourhood, workplace, and other regional and national communities.

As mentioned earlier, this analysis is broadly interested in the question: what factors motivate people to engage in social participation? The reasons could lie in allegiance or loyalty to specific identities or groups, in altruistic interests, or even instrumental reasons of meeting new people and forging new connections crucial to one’s existence in a community. Moreover, social participation may not be motivated until an individual feels integrated within a community.

Although integration can occur or be strengthened in the process of involvement in social participation, a certain level of integration or sense of belonging is essential before one can

actually start to get involved in social participation. In classical theory, Homans (1950: 37-40) talks of how sentiments and shared emotions—particularly affection, respect, sympathy, and liking for each other—form the basis of social interaction.

In this context, my research attempts to examine how ethno-racial minorities are engaged in the social participation process that is crucial to forming resource-rich social capital (Lin,

1999b). Specifically, do ethno-racial minorities participate in their own ethnic communities, in the mainstream/dominant community, or in both? The focus is on South Asians as an ethnic group distinct from other ethnic groups in overall culture, work ethic, linguistics, adaptive capacities, and social capital. Their distinctiveness from other ethnic groups could provide a unique focus on how social participation is engendered in a different cultural context and how heterogeneous and homogenous bonds are formed.

As Breton (2003) suggests, the limited evidence indicates that ethnic minorities expect to find the social capital they need in relationships and organizations of the dominant/mainstream society; however, groups differ in their degree of perceived similarity and propensity to forge relationships with organizations of the dominant society and therefore become involved in social participation within their own communities. As is often the case for non-whites, Arabs, and non-

Christians, barriers to integration often compel them to look for connections and relationships in their own communities. Certain levels of exclusion from mainstream/dominant social networks often compel minority groups to look for social participation opportunities within their own minority communities.

Social capital can be formed at two levels: macro and micro. The macro level includes large organizations, institutions, relationships and structures, political participation, and so on. The structures provide an arena for individuals to participate and form the social capital as such, and

enhance normative harmony and community standards. The micro level refers to the, “Potential contribution that horizontal organizations and social networks make to development” (Krishna &

Shradder, 1999: 10). These include values, trust, and feelings of reciprocity toward community members, composition, and practices of the community or group. The macro and micro aspects are not disjointed parts of society, but have encompassing influences on each other. For example, the legal apparatus, as well as political participation (macro) in a society is based on values and feelings of trust (micro) wherein individuals believe in the sanctity of certain goals and norms

(to elect the “right” leader who could bring forth improvement or change) and act accordingly.

The perceived importance of political participation varies from country to country, and when immigrants come from backgrounds vastly different from Canada they are more likely to apply their home-grown standards of trust and belief at the macro levels and act accordingly. In this context immigrants often try to blend with both worlds, but blending in also depends on their receptivity of new values, new customs of their host country, and their own cultural adaptability.

Therefore, in addition to studying social participation patterns of ethno-racial groups in Canada and comparing the trends with European ethnic groups, this research asks immigrants from a specific ethno-racial background what they understand by social participation, how do they visualise it and how do they become engaged. Finally, this thesis examines how similar or different these practices are from their counterparts in the sending country. In short, it is essential to study if there are differences in knowledge and understanding of avenues of social participation, as well as differences in the cultural disposition to do so.

Problems in traditional conceptualizations of social capital

It is generally believed that studies in social capital and social participation (as mentioned in the previous section) present complementary findings and have some overlapping and discrete zones (Grootaert, 1998; Knack and Keefer, 1997; Lin, 1999; Narayan & Pritchett, 1997; Portney

& Berry, 1998; Sampson et al, 1997; Uslaner & Conley, 2003). As well, trust and reciprocity are presumed to exist by virtue of membership in associations without looking into how and if members actually trust each other and share a sense of reciprocation.

In addition, the disagreement in meanings and definitions of social capital and lack of evidence of how it is formed, leads to the need to contextualize how, when, and where social capital is formed. It is also imperative to know the activities, purposes, and values that bind together members to a group. Although the quantitative part of the research does not present an opportunity to look into this issue due to limitations in the dataset, in the qualitative part particular focus is paid to how trust and reciprocity are formed and what binds members in a community.

To draw on the common points of differing and complementary research, social capital is understood in my research to be an interlocking and mutually reinforcing set of values, norms of behaviour, civic engagement, and cooperative behaviour that constitute a virtuous circle. Ideally speaking, to gain the benefits of social capital members of a group or community should have social connections with key informants and be involved in social participation. This is most acute for immigrants whose only chance to meet new people and forge new connections are dependent on their social participation and civic engagement in the new society. Conversely however, some immigrants rely on their familial ties as a strong resource of social capital to start with, which

often determine their locations of social participation and civic engagement (being strongly co- ethnic as opposed to inter-ethnic) (Breton, 2003; Hou & Picot, 2003)

Social capital studies in the US and Canada focus on different variables as a proxy for social capital than do developing countries. A common assumption in studies for the US and Canada, derived chiefly from a tradition left by Putnam (1995), is that the parent, child, neighbourhood, and school relationships are a primary form of social capital; these indicators have several limitations in their application to different settings and other contexts, as will be discussed in the later segments.

To start with the methodological limitations, Costa and Kahn (2003a), using measures of associational activity, find a decline in social capital in the US (from 1860-1972) that is qualitatively quite similar to what Putnam (1995) claimed; however, their explanations are different. They conclude that the decline in social capital produced outside the home, such as volunteering, is explained to a large extent by the rise in female labour force participation in the last four decades (1950-2000). In addition, this study concludes that declines in social capital produced inside the home (with other family members), such as frequency of socializing, is strongly related to increases in neighbourhood heterogeneity. Thus, social capital is assumed to be built only by the frequency of socializing that forms bridges between heterogeneous groups.

Costa and Kahn’s (2003) conclusion assumes that social participation between homogeneous groups does not lead to social capital per se, or is not beneficial to an individual so as to be called

“capital”. The assumption that only heterogeneous groups can be beneficial to an individual’s well-being is not only restricted thinking pertaining to a more western notion of social capital, it also obviates other forms and areas of social participation that could take place and respective different forms of social capital that could develop from it. Moreover, scholarly interest in the

development of social capital is primarily due to the interest in studying collective beneficial and tangible outcomes of individuals within networks.

Heterogeneity in networks entails unfamiliarity with others and a consequent sense of general distrust. To see how trust contributes to development of social capital, an interesting example of related research on formation of social capital is that of Brehm and Rahn (1997), who deployed the General Social Survey data from 1972-1994 to study the reciprocal interaction of community involvement and trust in others on an individual level. The researchers envisaged that the individual’s level of trust is apparent in confidence in democratic institutions, assuming there are circular relationships between greater confidence, greater social participation, and greater interpersonal trust. They found a stronger causal relationship of community participation leading to trust than trust leading to community participation. Even then it is curious what results this model would bring in countries and situations that lack reported feelings of interpersonal trust.

For example, it could be reasonably assumed that countries with high levels of corruption would have lower amounts of confidence in government institutions and therefore, lower levels of interpersonal trust. Would we say that citizens of those countries have experienced erosion in social participation over the years and are now going through a decline of social capital? The answer to this question is not as easy as immigrants to Canada often complain about lower avenues of social participation than their country of origin, even though they experience higher levels of confidence in government institutions (Breton, 2003; Hou & Picot, 2003).

The findings are indicative of the empirical importance of Dasgupta’s (2002) argument that social capital should be modeled as a network rather than on an endogenous or exogenous relationship between variables. Based on the review of literature on social capital and social

participation, this analysis seeks to find the factors associated with higher levels of social participation in a comparative analysis, rather than presuming their direction and significance.

Based on the aforementioned contrasting, and sometimes complementary, research findings, my analysis steps back from a grand theory approach of social capital to focus more on the mundane, but potentially promising task of analyzing specific social components that influence individual behaviour. The implication is not that social capital as an organizing idea should be abandoned altogether; rather, evidence in favour of social capital should be derived from specific claims about social influences on individuals. The discussion of social capital can then move away from generalities to specific mechanisms, as well as facilitate a more comprehensive understanding of issues of endogeneity and exchangeability.

A majority of social capital studies are largely quantitative and include the application of several statistical ‘weights’ and control variables; however, the simulation rarely mirrors how individuals make decisions and prioritise strategies in social participation and formation of social capital. There is no conflict in the understanding that social capital is formed by social participation. The problems lie in measuring the concepts, in understanding the contexts of being involved in social participation, the background and agency of the individuals themselves (e.g. ethno-racial status or European ethnicity), and assessing the structural influences the concepts are subject to (control solidarity and defensive structuring are defined in upcoming sections). The quantitative studies assume the existence of active agency of the individuals in the survey data; aggregating their commonalities instead of examining the development of social capital through social participation of life events and locational standpoints.

Social participation and characteristics of groups

Existing literature points to a debate about whether group heterogeneity affects the levels of social participation and social capital. One view states that all else being the same, the more homogeneous a neighbourhood, the more likely it is to have more homogenous networks and associations and higher levels of civic engagement (Portney & Berry, 1998). Sampson et al.

(1997) show that close-knit neighbourhoods are less stratified in terms of income and immigrant population.

On the other hand, Narayan and Pritchett’s (1997) study of Tanzanian villages and

Grootaert’s (1998) study of Indonesian villages found that internal heterogeneity led to better levels of social capital. In Narayan and Pritchett’s study heterogeneity was understood in terms of difference in related social norms and characteristics of several dimensions relevant to that group’s contribution to social capital. In their study, a household-level index of social capital was created by multiplying numbers of associational memberships with internal heterogeneity of associations and their range of activities. The household index was found to be positively and consistently related with household economic welfare, leading the researchers to conclude that more heterogeneous associations lead to higher levels of social capital. Clearly, there exists conflicting evidence on if and how heterogeneity works for the development of social capital. It appears that the relationship between heterogeneity and social capital varies by context and situation. This thesis attempts to study whether a higher level of homogeneity in communities and associations leads to higher levels of social participation, through which social capital is formed and further developed, and was one of the points of interest when studying South Asian responses (using a household index) in the qualitative part of the study.

The debate of which group or community characteristics influence higher social participation goes beyond the homogeneity/heterogeneity criterion to horizontally/vertically bound networks.

In their widely cited work, Putnam et al. (1993) consider horizontally organized networks to assist social capital as opposed to vertical relationships, which are thought to inhibit the growth of resource-rich or good social capital: “Intense horizontal interactions…are an essential form of social capital….A vertical network, no matter how dense and no matter how important to its participants, cannot sustain social trust and cooperation” (Putnam et al., 1993: 173-174). Later,

Putnam even suggested specifying and shortening the list of horizontal networks that assist in forming social capital. While it is difficult to determine how, in practice, networks are vertically or horizontally organized, an opposing viewpoint claims that horizontal networks do not necessarily lead to stronger levels of social capital. To illustrate, Knack and Keefer (1997) studied indicators of trust, civic norms, and associational activity from the World Values Surveys for a sample of 29 market economies over a three-year period (1980-1982) and concluded that although trust and civic cooperation are associated with strong economic performance, there is no relationship between associational activity and trust. Based on Knack and Keefer’s (1997) empirical review, studying the relationship between associational activity and trust consequently forms a point of concern in the qualitative part of the study.

Variations in levels of social participation and social capital within the immigrant population also exist; for example, in his study in Canada, Breton (2003) concludes that Jews, irrespective of their immigrant status were found to have resource-rich inter and intra-ethnic social capital and are found to be more involved in social participation. In contrast, the Chinese community were found to have lesser levels of resource-rich social capital and to be less involved in civic engagement. The possibility of ethnic or cultural tendencies influencing civic engagement,

volunteering activities, membership in associations, and trust in others cannot be ruled out. The issue of differences in social participation by ethnic groups is studied through a national level sample in the quantitative part of this study.

Empirical review

Social participation: membership, engagement and volunteering activities

It remains questionable whether people participate just by being a member of a community or organization. Though it is usual to measure social participation by quantification of membership in organizations (Putnam, 2000); membership by itself does not ensure agency and activity by a member in the functioning of that organization. In contrast to small groups where there is greater pressure on the individual to conform to social expectations and show allegiance to community goals, in large organizations and collectivities, the obligation to participate rests largely on voluntary actions (Hewitt, 1989: 136). Consequently, choosing organizations or clubs, being involved in them, the degree of relationships made in the association, and community ties is dependent on individual choice and agency; in other words, social participation is goal oriented behaviour (Breton, 2003).

Even when it is well-documented that social capital is formed, furthered, and strengthened by social participation, other forms of capital also contribute to the formation of social capital; those forms being cultural capital, human capital, and economic capital. Individuals deploy and depend upon whatever resources they have at their disposal to deal with social issues and take advantage of opportunities that match their aspirations and their concept of self. Thus, individuals become involved in a group when they realize that doing so enables them to pursue their material and non-material goals. Moreover, individuals become involved when they believe that their

participation will further the pursuit of their goals. It is clear that social capital, as indicated through expectations and confidence of group confirmation, acts as a crucial threshold for inducing and initiating social participation in a community (Dasgupta & Serageldin, 2000;

Krishna & Shradder, 2000).

As previously noted, social capital furthers social participation. Social expectations, a component of social capital, emanate from a perception or realization that everybody else is in a similar situation. Predicated on this fact, immigrants are more likely to trust and have a network of expectations with other immigrants than with mainstream/dominant counterparts (Breton,

2003). Seigel (1970) refers to this mechanism of formation of trust as “defensive structuring”; whereby in situations of threat, hostility, exclusion, or restrictions in social environment, minorities use their ethnic identity to develop mechanisms to gain social control and to form socio-political organizations that permit the mobilization and coordination of individual efforts for collective action. Seigel (1970) illustrates with the example of Black Muslims in the US, who in the attempt to distinguish themselves from other American Blacks, develop a social identity through meaningful symbols. Conscious training to control aggressive behaviour and to practice self-control is given to Black Muslims, who are expected to distinguish themselves from non- members through their settlement patterns, values, and activities. For example, in the Muslim ideology, it is believed that the black man is vastly different from the white man, “…therefore live in a way that is appropriate to that superiority”, by abstaining from vices taught by the white man such as tobacco, alcohol, gambling, gluttony, father-absent families, eating certain foods, and the like (Seigel, 1970: 17). Strong group consciousness also attributes power to a select group of individuals whose wisdom and influence extends into every matter of daily life.

The analytical circular relationship of social capital and social participation is even more visible in the condition of “control solidarity”; whereby members of the minority group strive to form common access to opportunities to gain control of resources through common efforts (Alba

& Nee, 2003; Breton, 2003). An example of control solidarity is exemplified by how Eastern

European Jews facing considerable exclusion and racialization in the USA, applied their entrepreneurial drive and other industrial skills to distinguish themselves with rapid upward mobility and strong group consciousness (Alba & Nee, 2003: 124). In this example, social participation is engaged in with a conscious goal to build on strong co-ethnic social capital, which is presupposed to lead to economic capital.

Beyond theoretical speculation, in actuality rational choices for immigrants consist in looking for, and availing of, social capital or networks, connections, and trust wherever possible in a new country. The social capital networks could be within their boundaries of ethnic collectivities and beyond, depending on whether they have integrated into the new society or subject to partial exclusion.

Thus, the sense of social obligation is crucial to processes of social participation and forming social capital. Social obligation that motivates individuals to participate in activities of the larger social structure differs among ethnic groups and according to specific situations. The Social

Fabric Study (Breton et al., 2004) examines four major elements of the social covenant through which people experience what they can expect from society: sense of fairness, recognition, trust, and belonging. Breton’s study also evaluates the three factors salient to social expectations of people: contributions, their sense of indebtedness, and social obligation. Data used in the analysis are based on a Canada-wide survey conducted in 1997 involving 2,014 participants and supplemented by in-depth interviews conducted with sixty-four Canadians from two small towns

and two large cities in Quebec and Ontario. The authors also provide historical context and secondary data that the basic research findings are based on. It was found that only 18% feel a strong obligation to help others of their ethnic, cultural, or racial background compared to 88% for family, 59% for close friends, 30% for people in the same situations in life, and 36% for a person in need (Breton, 2003: 7). The obligation to help co-ethnics, however, was found to be highest among visible minorities and “other” ethnic groups (34% and 38%, respectively) and the lowest among those of Western European origin (9%). Social obligation was also found to be higher among immigrants from other parts of the world (35%) than from the US, the UK,

Europe, or Canadian-born participants (16%). Further, the obligation to help anyone in need was found to be equally strong among all other ethnic categories (about 38%) with the exception of

East Europeans and Canadians (26% and 29%, respectively). This obligation to help anyone in need was also found to be higher among those born in “other” countries (44%) than among those born in Canada (36%), the US, UK, or Europe (34%) (See Breton, 2003). Breton concludes that these patterns show: (a) most members of ethno-cultural communities do not turn to their own ethnic community to acquire social capital; and (b) the propensity to seek social capital among co-ethnics tends to be high among ethnic enclaves or immigrants/ethnic minorities who encounter hostility, exclusion, lack of integration, or other structural barriers to full participation in the dominant/mainstream society.

The above results suggest that ethnic groups differ in allegiance to their group and in their motivation to help those in need. Although the development of social capital and social participation has largely been based on membership in associations/organizations and average number of hours volunteered, social participation entails more motivation and active engagement than passive membership and obligatory volunteering. Moreover, when ethnic allegiance is an

influential reason of social participation among immigrants and ethno-racial minorities, any analysis of how social capital is formed should focus on cultural attributes that influence location of social participation in the larger society. According to Matsuo and Fong (2007: 4) civic participation is influenced by an individual’s locational standpoint in society; higher levels of civic participation is observed among the highest strata in the society individuals tend to be well- educated, better connected socially, and have higher incomes. Using the New Economy and

Immigrant Adaptation RDD Survey, Matsuo and Fong (2007) were interested to find if there is any relationship between the socio-economic background of Chinese, East Indian, and “other” immigrants and their participation in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations. Their findings indicate that East Indian or South Asian immigrants participate in ethnic organizations more than Chinese or other visible minority groups. Matsuo and Fong (2007) use the term “East Indians” and

“South Asians” interchangeably. They found that almost 74% of East Indian immigrants are involved in only one ethnic organization.

Other research also corroborate the fact that social participation might be affected by income and other factors by explaining that people in these strata have the tools needed to facilitate their involvement (Bekkers, 2005; Grabb & Curtis, 1992; Verba, Scholzman, & Brady, 1995). When studying social participation of immigrants, it is therefore crucial to understand the differential access immigrants might have to other forms of capital as well as whether immigrants and ethno- racial minorities possess relatively less resource-rich social capital and how such trends take shape.

Immigrants and social participation

The important question of social participation by immigrants is: In what situations and in what contexts are there high degrees of social participation? Before people can be expected to participate in community events, access to knowledge about the events becomes a prerogative that is often wrongly assumed. Moreover, propensity to acquiring membership in ethnic organizations could vary within ethnic groups and weaken by generation (Breton, 2003), making these factors significant determinants of who is active in social participation. Unfortunately, few studies on volunteering and social participation illuminate whether such activities occur inside or outside of ethnic collectivities. Recognizing the possibility that there could be different qualities of social capital based on different levels of inter-ethnic networks an individual has access to, social participation as motivated by ethnic allegiance in ethnic and/or non-ethnic organizations should also form an important focus of attention.

Further, although immigrants form a considerable portion of ethnic minorities, there exist significant differences between the first, 1.5, second, and the third generations in their propensity to engage in civic engagement. Breton (2003) comments on the immigrant population in this context as:

Their integration over generations allows them to find social capital in networks and

organizations of the larger society. There are no doubt several reasons for this, but three can

be readily identified: 1) the wish to integrate in the larger society; 2) the individualistic

culture of a market-oriented society; 3) the actual experience of integration. (Breton, 2003:

19-20)

Based on Breton’s (2003) discussion of the immigrant experience it is expected that differences in culture and way of life may be reduced over generations as immigrants become

more assimilated and adaptive to the dominant/mainstream culture. For immigrants adjustment to the new society is dependent on their adaptive capacity and the degree of difference with the dominant culture. Mwarigha (2002) states that in a new country, there are three stages in immigrant settlement. In the first stage, new immigrants are concerned with the more immediate needs of food, shelter, orientation to the city, language interpretation, and language instruction.

In the intermediate stage the needs of immigrants comprise of access to various Canadian systems and institutions, such as municipal services, legal services, long-term housing, health services, and employment-specific language instruction. In the last stage, assuming the immigrant has adapted to the new country, immigrants “strive to become equal participants in

Canada’s economic, cultural, social, and political life” (Mwarigha, 2002: 9).

Immigrants choosing more co-ethnic neighbourhoods have direct implications for social participation and social capital formation. Ethnic neighbourhoods are often called “ethnic enclaves”, the term is often considered imprecise and fluid (Qadeer, 1999), but broadly speaking, refers to neighbourhoods that have a high percentage of minority populations (Hou & Picot,

2003) and creates a “social and symbolic centrality” for a minority group and its members, as well as for the dominant society (Buzzeli, 2000). The multiculturalism policy in Canada encourages the preservation and maintenance of one’s own cultural lineage and expression; the existence of ethnic enclaves is often thought to be in aligned with the policy by those who live in it. Ethnic enclaves, especially in Toronto, have existed since the first half of the twentieth century and have “represented a refuge where new immigrants could escape the foreign environment” (Hou & Picot, 2003: 2). According to Galster, Metzger, and Waite (1999) positive features of an ethnic enclave might encourage: (a) social capital formation, (b) a denser network of job-sharing information, and (c) acknowledgement and valuation of foreign educational

credentials by ethnic employers. Thus, ethnic enclaves help to develop and maintain a strong co- ethnic bond or what is known as “bonding” social capital. Ethnic resources that help form bonding social capital include population size, community orientation, mutual support within an ethnic group (in the form of pooling of capital, labour, and information), sense of shared history, and perception of common culture.

Logically speaking, there are limitations to which individuals can assimilate into a new culture. Immigrants from countries similar to Canada in linguistic, economic, political, cultural, and religious aspects are found to integrate and adapt to Canadian society easier than from countries that are considerably different linguistically, religiously, culturally, politically, and economically (Wanner, 1999). For example, an immigrant from England or France would adapt and integrate better with the dominant Canadian society than those from China or India.

Literature about the immigrant experience in Canada claims that although the political and ideological identity of Canada, as manifested through the multicultural policy, has supported the maintenance of ethnic identities and cultural groups, a certain degree of assimilation is often required for integration into Canadian society. Assimilationist tendencies are expected in language capabilities, the legal system, and general work ethic in the labour market. Even though cultural retention is promised, certain ethnic and religious practices are not encouraged in the new society (Fleras & Elliott, 2002; Gordon, 1964; Jiobu, 1988; Lieberson, 1963; Yinger, 1985).

To succeed economically and live well in the new society assimilation is found to be a necessary precondition. Consequently, although there is not a direct onus on the immigrant to assimilate into Canadian society, circumstantial conditions could make assimilation appear as a viable strategy for survival. That retention of ethnic identity and culture could negatively influence

social participation and socio-economic mobility for first generation immigrants is already documented (Porter, 1965; Wiley, 1967).

It is generally believed that the longer immigrants reside in the host country, the more assimilated and integrated they become due to cultural osmosis that occurs in the process of interaction with the host society and its institutions through everyday living (Jiobu, 1988: 98;

Kalbach & Kalbach, 1995a, 1995b; Reitz, 1980). As successive generations of immigrants become more assimilated, new forms of networking come into play, whereby, subsequent generations tend to identify more with the host country than their country of origin.

Consequently, those who make a conscious effort to maintain connections with their culture of origin through religious affiliation or retention of native language have difficulty attaining socio- economic integration. Kalbach and Kalbach (1995a: 8) conclude that, “The implication of this may be that in the process of acculturation and secularization, disaffiliation from one’s traditional church, rather than religious conversion may be the assimilative path of least resistance”.

Volunteering—one aspect of social participation—who volunteers and why?

Volunteering is an ingredient of social participation and this analysis is interested in finding the reasons behind volunteering activities and variations among ethnic groups. Volunteering in developed countries is deemed a major dimension of social participation. The relevance of this question in the differences in volunteering activities or in civic participation (going with

Putnam’s terminology) based on ethnic background or gender has been well documented (Mattis et al., 2004; Wilson & Musick, 2003). Wilson and Musick (2003) tested the popular assumption that volunteering by women can influence getting a job or if people volunteer with the expectation that the activity will be economically viable in the long run. Using The National

Longitudinal Survey of the Labor Market Experience of Young Women, the researchers conclude that volunteering can have a positive influence on paid employment, including those already employed. Mattis et al. (2004), studying African American Men, conclude that men aged 17-40 years were less likely to report membership or volunteering in political and social organizations than the more mature age group; however, everyday racism encountered by the men was found to be a significant predictor of the likelihood of the involvement of men in political and social justice organizations. Mattis et al. (2004) used cross-sectional data that measured volunteerism with a single Yes/No response question to ask if individuals are involved in any voluntary activities. Hours volunteered were measured by asking how many hours does an individual spend volunteering each year, assuming an individual continues or has continued with their current rate of volunteering, which does not rule out overmeasuring volunteering activities. Nonetheless, their work remains commendable, especially how they distinguish factors that lead to volunteering activities are different from factors that lead to involvement in social and political organizations.

The existence of differences in proportions of volunteering and social participation among social groups, leads to the basic question: why do people volunteer and why do certain ethnic communities volunteer more than others? To answer the first question, research has often led to confusing answers that combine reasons and goals for volunteering activities; often goals for volunteering involve making new connections and forming resource rich social capital; however, debate exists if this is typically the prime reason for volunteering and social participation. If forming new contacts and obtaining job training opportunities were the reasons behind volunteering, then the manifest rewards would be motivating for any rational person, irrespective of ethnic background. The 2010 Canadian survey of giving, volunteering, and participating states

that 57% of employees who volunteered in Canada reported that employer support for their volunteering was considerably effective to sustain their volunteering activities, and 54% of employees aged 15-24 years said that one of their chief motivations behind volunteering was to improve their job opportunities (Hurst, 2012).

In recent years research has focused on volunteering activities and social participation of ethnic minorities in Canada, but these have treated the largely heterogeneous category of immigrants as a homogenous concept. Thomas (2012) takes this factor into account when he says:

Newcomers differ widely from each other and encounter a variety of conditions

depending on when and where they arrive in Canada. The characteristics of different

immigrant cohorts may account for their variations in propensity to give and

volunteer as well as in the amounts they donate and the causes they support.

(Thomas, 2012: 55)

Based on the 2010 Canadian survey of giving, volunteering, and participating, Thomas (2012) finds that immigrants on average donate more than the Canadian-born ($554 compared to $409, respectively) but such donations are largely explained by higher proportions of religious affiliations and activities among immigrants than Canadian-born. Thomas (2012) qualifies this characteristic of immigrants giving as those religious institutions often function as social centres for immigrants to connect with people from their own background. Thomas (2012) also notes that immigrants are more likely to volunteer out of religious reasons than Canadian-born and less likely to report that they or someone they know were affected by the cause. Put another way, when it comes to volunteering, immigrants in Canada rely more on what their ethnic counterparts are doing than being moved by their own individual motivations. Immigrants are also found to be

slightly more likely to say that they don’t have enough time for volunteering, that they do not possess information on how to be involved, and more likely to mention their dissatisfaction with a previous experience of volunteering. Immigrants were, however, less likely to mention that they are not interested in volunteering. The findings indicate that motivations by immigrants to volunteer are not lacking; rather, there is a lack in infrastructural resources to sustain volunteering efforts.

Infrastructural support of public policy and employer support are not seen to significantly influence volunteering activities. Even though lack of time and availability of employer support are often cited as reasons affecting volunteering activities (Hurst, 2012; Thomas, 2012), availability of time does not necessarily create a conducive situation for volunteering. Gauthier

& Smeeding (2003: 253) are of the opinion that even when individuals retire and likely have relatively higher amounts of time at their disposal, existing evidence does not indicate that,

“Very old adults prefer productive activities (in a market productivity sense) over nonproductive ones”. Analyzing self-reported use of time through diaries, across a cross-national sample, the researchers conclude that, “At older ages people do not appear to be devoting more time to volunteer work than at younger ages” (Gauthier & Smeeding, 2003: 264). The use of diary data is an interesting deviation from a questionnaire survey, it enables recording precise time periods invested in social actions and behaviour, and might eliminate the Hawthorne effect2. Gauthier and Smeeding (2003: 264) also find differences in socializing activities based on ethnic background, with Dutch adults devoting the most time (two hours per day among women aged

55-64) and Austrians and Italians the least time (0.8 hours per day).

2 Hawthorne effect refers to a form of reactivity when research participants improve or modify an aspect of their behaviour in response to the fact that they are being studied. 31

To examine how volunteering differs among ethnic groups in the US, reasons for volunteering by African-Americans are broadly put forth in three categories: (1) volunteering to compensate for racism encountered in mainstream culture; (2) volunteering emerging out of a shared history of oppression and destiny, and a concomitant racial solidarity; and (3) volunteering due to existence of community or cultural norms that support involvement in such activities (Mattis et al., 2004). If ethnic identity is comprised of a shared cultural ethos and meaning (Jedweb, 2003), then differences in social participation of ethnic communities can be explored with a particular focus on cultural norms that support these activities. Situational context is also relevant here; defensive structuring is clearly seen to influence volunteering. In this context, it would be interesting to see to what extent is volunteering a consequence of sentiment. Or, to what extent, volunteering or any other social participatory activity is a consequence of individual empathetic understanding or altruistic motivation? This question is particularly pertinent to the view that suggests volunteering activities by ethno-racial minorities are often engaged in out of a shared history of oppression or to compensate for racism as encountered from the mainstream population.

Even so, volunteering can also be a consequence of material interests. Volunteering is supposed to yield more material benefits than altruistic satisfaction alone, and forming social capital or new connections is thought to be one of them (Lin, 1995; Putnam, 2000; Wilson &

Musick, 2003). In addition to personal benefits, gaining organizational, managerial, communication, and interpersonal skills are also chief goals or motivations for volunteer activities (Hall et al., 1998). Thus, volunteering is often found to be engaged in by rational decision-making individuals who volunteer out of an expectation of rewards. Volunteer organizations want to tap into these motivations, particularly philanthropic motives, as they

strive to increase the benefits of volunteering for older adults, volunteering organizations, and the welfare state (Minkler & Holstein, 2008; Reed & Selbee, 2000). Komp, Tilburg, and

Groenou (2012), however, argue that current research is struggling to pinpoint the factors in the decision to volunteer as previous research has shown that volunteering is dependent on previous volunteering experience, educational level, health, gender, age, occupational group, and country of residence (Einolf, 2009, in press; Erlinghagen & Hank, 2006; Kim, Kang, Lee & Lee, 2007;

Van den Meer, 2006; Webb & Abzug, 2008). According to the Statistics Canada daily (April,

2012), the vast majority of Canadian volunteers (93%) responded that they are motivated by the desire to contribute to their community. In addition, 78% mentioned they wanted to make good use of their skills and experience, 59% said they were motivated by the personal cause of the organization involved, and 48% said they were involved in volunteering because their friends were involved. Particularly important is the last statistic, indicating existing social ties are conducive to bring forth greater social participation in different areas.

Nonetheless, the influence of societal attachment and societal reception for immigrants in a new country are also crucial features that require understanding. As Ryan et al. (2005: 289) suggest, “The alternative to viewing volunteerism as rational or purposive behaviour is to focus on the social relations within which volunteers are embedded”. The influence of social relations on volunteering can be mapped by the subjective perceptions of the volunteer, as well as the objective modes of networks and connections.

It is generally presumed that network connections and ties could be either strong or weak

(Granovetter, 1974; Krishna & Shradder, 1999; Lin, 2000). It is also generally believed that weak ties (Granovetter, 1974) are more influential in garnering collective social participation than strong ties (Granovetter, 1974; Hekathorn, 1993), more so among minority groups (Green et

al., 1995; Green et al., 1999). This contention would be interesting to examine because immigrants, generally with strong co-ethnic ties, tend to have lower levels of social participation in dominant/mainstream society.

In certain communities decades of racial and occupational homogeneity has led to homophily, or the tendency of individuals to interact more with persons similar to them as contrasted to interacting and exchanging with individuals from diverse backgrounds. Homophily is found to serve as a stabilizing force for membership in local networks (McPherson, Popielarz

& Drobnic, 1992). Therefore, the contexts of the immigrant experience and immigrant strategies become important issues in this research.

Trust

Eastis (1998) in his ethnographic examination of two otherwise similar choir groups in the

US, concludes that mere membership in a category of voluntary association could be a crude measure of the experience of membership. Members of both choir groups reported extensive participation, yet also report very different experiences with a mix of human, cultural, and social capital. Eastis (1998: 76) concludes that, “However, the bonds among participants are not strengthened by any values that are created in rehearsal in and of itself. The association’s core activity is carried out in a way that does little to foster trust in complex issues”. Variation of trust owes more to the characteristic of the group and the structure of relations between the members than participation, per se. In a related vein, Rose’s (1998) study in Russia also concludes that trust is not associated with all types of networks, including horizontal and heterogeneous groups.

In the Russian context of institutional revolution, some, though not all informal networks are found to be more closely associated with trust and trustworthy behaviour. Jackman and Miller

(1998: 59) go one step further after reviewing a range of empirical evidence and conclude:

“Trust is clearly not isomorphic with group membership”. The common strain running through these analyses is that the types of norms associated with networks cannot be assumed in the beginning, but should be verified for each separate social context. Combinations of indicators could probably be a better tool to gauge modes of social participation than single indicator measures, such as volunteering or membership in associations and organizations, since a universal measurement applicable to all situations does not exist.

Studying how immigrant and ethnic group social participation influences formation of social capital is promising, chiefly because it illuminates how similarity in cultures and the assimilation process contribute to the formation of social capital. Further, it enables studying how the process of forming social capital differs, or is similar to, when forming weak or strong ties with co- ethnics and different ethnics, from the social participation process in the countries immigrants come from.

To delineate policy implications of the proposed research, it is worthwhile to take into consideration the comment of Putnam (1993: 90) regarding the benefits of social participation:

“Participation in civic organizations inculcates skills of cooperation as well as a sense of shared responsibility for collective endeavors”. Putnam (1993) and other social capital theorists argue that communities and nations with high levels of civic engagement enjoy more prosperity, happiness, and higher levels of trust.

Figure 1, as shown on page 36, represents factors that affect social participation based on the discussion presented thus far. Boxes on the left are independent variables that are believed to affect social participation along with the ovals (defensive structuring and control solidarity), being contextual factors that should be taken into account. Double lines on the right indicate the channels in which social participation (the dependent variable) takes place. Ethnicity or length of

residence in the country (for immigrants) and religious participation can sometimes be synonymous with each other (for example, Jews) and, therefore, are marked in bold lined boxes.

Ethnicity or length of residence in the country can influence trust and/or loyalty/allegiance to a specific identity or group, or the values that bind members to a group/community/association.

Values can also have a direct influence on sense of social obligation, which in turn directly influences ethnicity and length of residence in the country. Sense of social obligation is also impacted by group/network characteristics, such as heterogeneity or homogeneity in a group and/or whether the group/network is structured horizontally or vertically. Social participation is further divided into participation in one’s own ethnic or co-ethnic community/groups, participation in both inter-ethnic and co-ethnic communities, or participation in mainstream/dominant ethnic community/groups (irrespective of ethnic background). It is proposed that participation in both inter-ethnic and co-ethnic communities can further participation in own co-ethnic community/groups as well as participation in mainstream/dominant ethnic community/groups.

Goal/Purpose of a Community Association Control Solidarity

Ethnicity/Length of Residence in the Country

Own/co- Size of association/organization/community one ethnic is a member of community/ group

Compulsory/Flexible Activities of a group/community/association

Community/Association/Network/Organization Both inter- ethnic and Characteristics Social co-ethnic communitie  Heterogeneity/Homogeneity Participation s  Horizontal/Vertical Networks

Values binding members to a group/community/association:

 Loyalty/allegiance to a specific identity or group Mainstream/domin ant ethnic  Trust community/groups

Sense of social obligation

Religious Participation

Defensive Structuring

Figure 1: Factors Influencing Social Participation

Critique of existing measures of social capital

The definitional variation of social capital, its forms and benefits, could be attributed to varied grounds of contextual research. Diverse and often opposite views are put forward by researchers based on what can be feasibly studied and preferred as a measure of social capital. The generally used indicator of network forms could be more facile to study and conceptualize, but measuring norms, group solidarity, and strength with membership rates may be fallacious. This is due to several reasons: first, network types supporting coordination and cooperation in one setting could encourage competition and conflict in another (e.g. groups like racial hate clubs such as the Ku

Klux Klan). Moreover, network forms do not provide any cues as to how social interaction takes place in a group and association, how core and peripheral groups are formed, who is marginalized and excluded, and who becomes privy to strong social capital in the process.

Broadly speaking, more than providing patterns and numbers of who volunteers or who is more involved in social participation, we need to look at the reasons behind these variations. This becomes especially more crucial when studying the immigrant experience in Canada.

Since the validity of social capital and later modes to measure its formation, as postulated by

Bourdieu (1985), Coleman (1988), Costa and Kahn (2003a), Grootaert (1998), Knack and Keefer

(1997), Lin (1999), Narayan and Pritchett (1997), Portney and Berry (1998), Putnam (2000),

Sampson et al. (1997), and Uslaner and Conley (2003), cannot be applied to all countries and cultures spanning the globe, the endeavour was to find an alternative to using a universal definition, measures, and assumptions of social capital. While analytical categories of social capital may be flexible enough to start with in any research endeavour, their presumed “social” aspect should be verified, rather than assumed beforehand. To this end, complementary

methodologies can aid in the meaningful assessment of norms, customs, and networks that induce social participation and build on social capital.

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

Research Design

One of the weaknesses of any analysis about social capital and social participation is with measurement issues. While one approach measures social capital by conducting a census of groups and group membership in a given society (Putnam, 2005), another approach uses survey data on levels of trust and civic engagement (Fukuyama, 1995; Inglehart, 1997). As Lillbacka

(2006: 202) points out, “… research is often conducted based on assumptions of what social capital is, rather than on a demonstration of an actual empirical correlate”. In addition, a methodological challenge to studying social participation is the difficulty, if not actual inability, to study the full range of formal and informal interactions between members of society and how it leads to social capital, per se. Studying associational membership thus, becomes a facile choice as an indicator of social capital and studying its formation.

Problems with the above-mentioned choice lie in disagreement of focus. Social capital is an aggregate concept based on individual behaviour, attitudes, and predispositions, yet it is studied and measured as a group attribute. In this context, making a quantitative variable-based analysis through statistical modeling shows some general patterns, but it does not show in rich detail how relations are actually produced through meaningful action and interaction of the actors (Abbot,

1992; Blumer, 1956; Boudon, 1987; Coleman, 1986). Moreover, considerable criticism is levelled against the quantitative variable-based analysis that critics feel leaves out intentions of the actors, who might not act according to voluntary aspects or through a rational calculation of risks and gains (Goldthorpe, 2000; Latour, 2005). It is contended, that structural relations possess the potential to enhance, obstruct, or lessen the intentional projects of social actors. Thus, social structures create possibilities and limitations for action. Likewise, action has the potential to

reproduce or transform social structures (Bourdieu, 1979, 2000; Latour, 2005). The interplay between social structure and social action implies that realism is about, “The uncovering of causal properties and the processes whereby social actions arise from the complex interaction of internally related mental dispositions, meanings, intentions, social contexts and structures”

(Ekström 1992: 107). The multi-method approach is necessary to study structural influence through large sample-based quantitative data and complementing it with an attempt to understand social actions through in-depth qualitative interviews.

This analysis calls for a comparative analysis to illuminate on how South Asians, being very different in culture and linguistics from dominant Anglo-Saxons in Canada, are involved in social participation in Canada. The traditional mode of conceptualizing social participation through formal organizations and volunteering activities could be intrinsic to western ideals, since in other parts of the world social participation is hardly reliant on these structural aids

(Couton and Gaudet, 2008; Krishna, 2002; Krishna & Shradder, 2000). Informal networks among individuals could be more significant for developing social capital in different countries; this social-structural gap has the potential to create considerable differences in how individuals decide to participate in social activities and interaction. Therefore, this analysis seeks to study the social participation process of South Asians in Canada as compared to a mainstream/dominant group in Canada and their co-ethnic counterparts in India. Toronto is chosen as a setting of data collection since Toronto is a major immigrant destination of Canada and also contains a sizeable mainstream/dominant Canadian population aware of the influx of immigrants and therefore a comparative analysis of social participation levels among the two ethno-racial groups could be made possible. Calcutta as a city in India was chosen as a research setting purely due to my familiarity levels.

Since this research endeavour attempts to study patterns of social participation in Canada and how immigrants themselves conceptualize and decide to be involved in social participation, the methodology encompasses both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Integration of research methods is a viable strategy for several reasons: to provide complementarity of findings, to enhance confirmation or corroboration of findings, to provide greater detail of analysis, and to reach more comprehensive inferences (Rossman and Wilson, 1984; Tashakkorie and Teddlie,

1998)

The debate on the relevance and use of mixed methods is based on a customary tradition of belonging to either the “qualitative” or “quantitative” approach. There are several ways to achieve the goals of social research, which are based on the ambition to understand and/or control social phenomena, identify complexity and find order therein, or correct for social injustices (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998; Ragin, 1992; Smelser, 1988). Different research questions are based on these broad purposes and are geared towards fulfilling the fundamental aim of social research—construction and reproduction of theories (Bryman, 1988; Ragin, 1992;

Stinchcombe, 1987).

It is commonly recognized that intellectual puzzles about complex social phenomena are connected to different ontological and epistemological positions that may or may not be complementary, often tell different stories, but nonetheless, provide an ongoing impetus to social research. A corollary recognition of this assumption is that different ontological positions could be furthered and researched from a competing or complementary epistemological position.

Based on this recognition, the use of mixed methods is on the rise, especially for research concerning social problems or social intervention programs (Greene et al., 2001). Thus, social capital and social participation could be studied as a structural component (macro perspective)

and from the level of agency, (micro perspective) based on how it is formed by the active agency of individuals.

In so far as social participation and involvement in social relations and organizations is not automatic, but dependent on individual choice, agency, and voluntarism, as well as predicated on access to social resources and structural constraints, deployment of mixed methods confers the following benefits (Rossman and Wilson, 1985; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998: 43):

1) Complementarity of concepts and understanding by examining overlapping and different

facets of social participation of ethnic communities and immigrants from both macro and

micro perspectives. Unlike physical capital, how social capital is formed is not easy to

measure; deploying mixed methods would confer the concept of social capital as much

needed complementarity of perspectives, if not convergence.

2) Initiation of fresh ideas or discovering paradoxes and contradictions to analyze the

concept of social capital and thereby, expanding the concept. For example, examining

when individuals have access to social capital, how they make decisions to mobilize the

capital, whether being an immigrant weakens or strengthens the drive for social

participation, trust for other ethnic communities, and so on. Moreover, a mixed method

study could provide insight about whether the same network types could be considered to

contribute to social capital for all ethnic groups and immigrants?

3) Expansion of concepts and ideas by prompting new interpretations and suggesting areas

of exploration by accommodating experiences of immigrants and ethnic communities,

and examining trends in their social participation and social capital. For example, a

pertinent goal in this context is to examine if all networks should be aggregated into a

measure of social capital or if only some specific types qualify for the measure?

In light of the benefits and pitfalls of using mixed methods in social capital studies involving ethnic communities, the suggestion of Silverman (1985: 106) might provide some direction:

“The sociologist’s role is not to adjudicate between participants’ competing versions but to understand the situated work that they do….of course, this does not imply that the sociologist should avoid generating data in multiple ways….The ‘mistake’ only arises in using data to adjudicate between accounts”.

The use of multiple methods, or triangulation, is carried out as a proxy of validation of the

“objective reality” that we want to capture, but is impossible to represent in uncontested terms.

The combination of methods in any research endeavour is done to add to the depth, rigour, complexity, and richness of the results. In more recent years, researchers have had to consider that the triangle as an icon of “valid” inquiry might attribute a certain fixed rigidity to research findings and fail to capture the postmodern contention of truth being dependent on an individual’s perspective interpreting their own reality (Richardson, 1994). Richardson (1994) proposed instead that the more appropriate icon is the prismatic and less rigid “crystal” that has symmetry and substance. Breitmayer, Ayres and Knafl (1993) are also of the opinion that metaphorical use of the triangle is undermined when the goal of combining qualitative and quantitative methods is not to have unified converged dimensions in understanding of a social phenomenon, but rather to show the “varied (crystal-like) dimensions” of a phenomenon.

Crystallization in research findings is not directed towards achieving validity of research findings via use of mixed methods, but in achieving a hermeneutic growth of understanding. In keeping with this line of thought, in this research study, the use of mixed methods is not to have a confirmation of findings, but to see the same phenomenon (social participation) from various points of departure. Moreover, the stages in the research cycle should not be seen as sequential

in nature, but as complementary to each other. It is believed that in understanding the mapping or processual development of social participation of South Asian immigrants and mainstream/dominant Canadians, the qualitative stage of the research forms the chief focus in understanding the process, while the quantitative part informs the bigger picture of trends and patterns. Jick (1979), Greene et al (1989) Tashakkori and Teddlie (1998) and Bryman (2006) are of the opinion that in using mixed-methods, an equal emphasis on both the quantitative and qualitative is often presupposed but is often not necessary owing to the focus of the research.

Triangulation or use of mixed-methods is often done to arrive at a more holistic understanding of a social phenomenon. It is particularly useful to consider Jick’s (1979: 606) comment on the issue when he says: “The surveys became more meaningful when interpreted in light of critical qualitative information just as other statistics become more meaningful when compared with content analysis and interview results”

Stage one: quantitative analysis

The quantitative part of this research seeks to understand the influence ethnicity (measured through ethnic background), length of residence (measured through immigrant status), values that bind members to a group/network (trust, loyalty, or allegiance to a group or belief system), sense of social obligation, community/group characteristics, and size of networks have on social participation in the Canadian Society. This is analysed with the GSS, cycle 17.

The following hypotheses are tested in the quantitative analysis stage of the research:

a) Levels of social participation will be lower in the South Asian Canadian group than

European-Canadian group (Breton, 2003; Granovetter, 1995; Lin, 1999b; Mattis et al.,

2004; Ryan et al., 2005; Wilson & Musick, 2003);

b) South Asian Canadians will express the need to maintain higher frequency of interaction

and contacts with their co-ethnics than mainstream/dominant Canadians (Caucasians)

(Feng & Milan, 2003; Lin, 1999a);

c) Level of generalized trust will be lower among South Asian Canadians than

mainstream/dominant (Caucasian) Canadians (Breton, 2003; Sanders & Nee, 1996;

Seigel, 1970);

d) Sense of social obligation will be higher among South Asian Canadians than

mainstream/dominant (Caucasian) Canadians (Breton, 2003);

e) Religious participation will be higher among South Asian Canadians than

mainstream/dominant Canadians (Alba & Nee, 2003; Isajiw et al., 1993; Kalbach &

Richard, 1980; Lin, 1999b; Seigel, 1970);

f) The longer the length of residence by South Asian immigrants, the higher the social

participation (Breton, 2003; Couton & Gaudet, 2008);

g) The higher the group/network heterogeneity, the lower the social participation (Portney &

Berry, 1998; Sampson et al., 1997);

h) The higher the sense of belonging, the higher the social participation (Breton, 2003); and

i) The higher the level of values binding members to a group/network, the higher the social

participation (Breton, 2003; Lin, 1999; Putnam, 2000)

Stage two: qualitative analysis

The quantitative analysis enabled by GSS is complemented by semi-structured in-depth interviews. The primary advantage of in-depth interviews is that they provide much more detailed information than what is available through other data collection methods; in this case they are used to complement the quantitative findings.

The interviews sought to answer the research questions of:

 What motivates ethno-racial groups to be actively involved in volunteering activities

and other forms of civic engagement in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations?

 What structural and organizational factors act as barriers to social participation of

ethno-racial communities?

 whether participants have access to resources and information about different forms of

social participation, such as volunteering, political participation, and information of

particular associations of interest;

 how participants visualize themselves as embedded in a social network and social

support system;

 participant’s sense of belonging;

 what participants understand about social participation, how they visualise it, and how

they become engaged; and

 how similar or different these practices are for South Asian Canadians as compared to

their counterparts in their sending country.

The interviews can be termed as “cross-cultural” since they involve collection of data across national and cultural borders. A caveat exists though; some researchers call this definition of

“cross-cultural interviews” as too limited based on fieldwork reports that have documented the

“insider-outsider” challenges of a researcher when conducting interviews within their own communities (Montero, 1977; Warren, 1976;). Mullings (1999: 340) negates the binary assumption implicit in the “insider-outsider” debates; he disagrees with the assumption that,

“being an ‘insider’ or ‘outsider’ is a fixed attribute”, and therefore, the premise of anything being cross-cultural is a fluid reality. “Positional places” is referred to by Mullings (1999: 340) as, 47

“Areas where the situated knowledges of both parties in the interview encounter, engender a level of trust and co-operation”. Lutz (1993) warrants that assumptions of shared positionalities based on ethnic background were problematic in her research that examined the experiences of

Turkish women immigrants working as social workers with Turkish communities in the

Netherlands and Germany. She concludes that immigrant social workers acting as intermediaries were assumed to be insiders as well as outsiders and were more likely to be marginalized by both groups. In this research, insider-outsider debates are acknowledged through clarification of familiar assumptions whenever possible.

The chief methodological and design concerns in cross-cultural research are generally classified under five broad headings: ensuring functional equivalence, instrumentation equivalence (Sechrest, Fay & Zaidi, 1972), equivalence in data collection methods, sampling design, and data analysis methods (Sekaran, 1983).

Functional equivalence involves studying valid cross-cultural behaviour that has developed in different cultures in response to similar problems as experienced by those social and cultural groups (Barry, 1969). This research is interested to know the arenas and motivations of social participation, and the similarities and differences between the sample groups starting with their immediate social networks. Functional equivalence, thus explores questions that do not attempt to validate pre-existing assumptions, but investigates if any differences exist in processes of social participation and what they could be.

Instrumentation equivalence ensures there is equivalence in various types of instrument development, such as idiomatic equivalence, conceptual equivalence, scaling techniques, and transferability of concepts and measures to other cultures (Sekaran, 1983). According to Sekaran

(1983), idiomatic and conceptual equivalence can be ensured with good background translations

by persons who know the languages and involved are familiar with the different cultures.

Backward and forward translations of the interviews were made in interviewing, transcribing the interviews, and while analysing the transcripts. Since my funding did not allow me to employ different researchers to do the interviews, the backward and forward translations were done by me, and therefore interviewer parameter bias cannot be ruled out.

The chief factor to consider in cross-cultural interviewing, according to Guillemin (1995: 62), is to acknowledge that a distinction exists among culture, language, and boundaries. A cultural setting does not entail that it will include speaking one language of one country, making diasporic linkages particularly interesting to study. The methods proposed to ensure cross- cultural validation include, “Several steps of translations, back translations and expert judgement”. Guillemin (1995) says that several steps of forward translations and several steps of backward translations should be conducted independently of each other and then the cross- cultural translations should be assessed and verified by an independent committee composed of multidisciplinary persons with bilingual skills. Translations should include semantic, idiomatic, conceptual, and experiential equivalence. Duyck and Brysbaert (2004) also write about the importance of lexical (representing word forms) and semantic representations (representing word meanings) in the process of backward and forward translations. Participants in Calcutta preferred their interviews to be conducted in Bengali (their native language) unless the participant was non-Bengali. Immigrants in Toronto preferred the interview to be done in English, with the exception of a few Bengali participants who, knowing that I am a Bengali, preferred the interview to be done in Bengali. The original semi-structured interview guide was translated while doing the Bengali interviews and then interview responses were transcribed and then translated semantically, idiomatically, conceptually, and lexically wherever applicable.

My familiarity with mainstream Canadians, the South Asian immigrant group, and Indians ensured discourses as obtained from the interview were not lost during translation. No scales to measure were used in the interviews so meeting equivalence in scaling techniques does not arise.

Concepts included in the study were quite generic; such as neighbourhood, friend circle, workplace, trusting others, and religious networks. I was interested to see if there were any deviations from the concepts as understood by myself and research participants to ascertain if people envisage the same concept in different ways, as originating from different cultural background.

Equivalence in data collection methods is achieved through response equivalence and timing of data collection (Sekaran, 1983). The interviews in India were done first and in the next month interviews among South Asian immigrants and mainstream Canadians were carried out simultaneously. Though response equivalence is not completely ensured by reading out the same introduction and asking the same questions, I tried to ensure that meaning, context, and organization of administering the interviews were as equivalent as possible. Due to lack of funding I couldn’t afford research assistants and all the interviews and analyses were done by me, therefore, interviewer bias cannot be ruled out.

The research takes into consideration that the term “mainstream” denotes numerical majority of an ethnic group, rather than preferences of ethnic acceptance in the Canadian social fabric.

Existing literature on social inclusion, social cohesion, and multiculturalism deal with socio- economic, ideological, and political realities of whom can be called an “immigrant” and who can be termed as “host” in the Canadian context (Bannerji, 2000; Caidi & Allard, 2005; Couton &

Gaudet, 2008; Jedweb, 2003; Li, 2003;). Social cohesion is usually thought of as holding common values and purpose in a society and having a sense of belonging regardless of diversity

and ethnic background. Though in reality social cohesion remains an ideal towards which ethnic groups and government always strives for, it remains a loosely held concept perceived and internalized at different levels by ethnic groups. In this respect, multiculturalism as an official policy in Canada does offer the privilege and space to internalize ideas of social cohesion, albeit in different manners.

Focussing on social participation and how it forms social capital, this study takes into consideration the dynamics of terminological convenience and how they relate to issues of citizenship and social inclusion in Canada. Issues of immigration contain within themselves, binary assumptions of the citizen and the alien, the core and the peripheral, the domestic and the foreign, and the “usual” and the “other”. Considering that Canada is a land of immigrants, the only indigenous people are the First Nations or Aboriginal population, this dissertation acknowledges the fact that everybody else are immigrants. Recognizing the underlying connotations and themes in issues of immigration, social cohesion, and social exclusion, this research obviates these distinctions when using the categories of the mainstream/dominant and

South Asian immigrants, and attempts to use these categories in strict observance of numerical majority with regards to distribution of ethnic groups in Canada.

Sample

Stage one of the research consists of the quantitative data analysis. The sample is the General

Social Survey—Social Engagement, 2003 (cycle 17). The dataset provides information on dimensions of social engagement, including social participation, civic participation, trust, and reciprocity. Topics covered include social contact with friends and relatives, unpaid help given and received, volunteering and charitable giving, civic engagement, political engagement, religious participation, trust, and reciprocity. Cycle 17 of the General Social Survey is the first

cycle to collect detailed information on social engagement in Canada. The final overall sample size is 25,000. The data was collected with a cross-sectional design, through Computer Assisted

Telephone Interviewing (CATI). Households without a telephone are 2% of the population, and thus are omitted. Survey estimates are adjusted or weighted to represent all persons in the target population, including those without telephones.

Data for Cycle 17 of the GSS was collected in seven independent samples (waves) from

February-December, 2003. The samples were all selected using random digit dialling (RDD).

The target population for Cycle 17 was all persons 15 years of age and older in Canada, excluding residents of the Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and full-time residents of institutions. For my proposed study, participants aged 25 and over were considered in order to ensure that they had the opportunity to complete university education, and are in a mature stage of life to make decisions and choose life strategies. The survey provides data on ethnic background of participants, occupation, income, civic participation, (volunteering, civic engagement, political participation, organizational activity), social participation, religious participation, trust, reciprocity, and life satisfaction. Based on the data, bivariate and multivariate analysis is conducted to evaluate the descriptive patterns between ethnic background, immigrant status, and social participation, with a particular focus on South Asians.

The GSS data was checked by Statistics Canada to ensure the validity, consistency, and completeness of the questionnaires. Wherever possible, automated controls were integrated into the collection mode to minimize errors and correct them with the participant’s assistance. In addition to these checks, missing responses to geographic (province of residence and census metropolitan area) and demographic (age, sex, marital status, and relation to members of household) variables were imputed in a deterministic way. Imputation is one of the very popular

ways that missing values in a survey instrument are estimated. A deterministic imputation method determines only one possible value for each missing case. In addition, the criterion validity is ascertained by comparing the measures with previous studies (Breton, 2003; Gauthier

& Smeeding, 2003; Hurst, 2012; Kalbach and Kalbach, 1995a, 1995b; Thomas, 2012;).

The general rule for selecting the sample size for in-depth interviews is that when the same stories, themes, issues, and topics emerge from the interviewees, then a sufficient sample size has been reached. Therefore, there exists no fixed or assigned numbers for such interviews. In total,

20 interviews were conducted in the Indian participant category, 20 in the South Asian immigrant category, and 14 in the mainstream/dominant Canadian category. The in-depth interviews of South Asians in Toronto were complemented by in-depth interviews of Indians in an Indian metropolitan city (Calcutta) and made it possible to determine if any similarities exist in the processes, motivations, and modes of social participation in different settings by individuals from a similar ethnic background. It might appear that South Asian is a broader group identity, within which Indians form a subgroup, but other than linguistic differences and differences in cuisine, South Asians are considered fairly homogenous as far as family values, work ethic, general cultural practices, cuisine, and general values of life are concerned. Interview findings also indicate that South Asian is often used as an overarchic identity since participants from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and India stated they would rather live in a South Asian neighbourhood, in more familiar and “similar” surroundings, because they feel a sense of belonging in these neighbourhoods than in more mainstream/dominant ones.

Since ethnic background was a major point of departure for this research, advertisements to recruit participants included criteria on ethnic background, educational qualification (some college or university education), and age (from 25-55). Occupation was not specified as a

criterion for selection, though this research was able to get a wide range of occupations. The advertisements were posted in cafeterias, public places (such as lamp posts), and bulletin boards of alumni associations (with their permission) (see Appendix III for copies of the advertisements).

The sample in stage two of data collection (in-depth interviewing) was not randomly selected. Advertisements were posted in several offices and educational institutes in Toronto and

Calcutta, as well as bus stands, public bulletin boards in community centres, cafes, neighbourhoods, and additional public spaces. Participants were also asked to inform other potential participants similar to them about the research so, if interested, friends and acquaintances could be interviewed. In this kind of snowball sample inclusion of bias in parameter estimates cannot be ruled out. The following figures describe the samples with respect to a few demographic and important variables:

Indians Mainstream/Dominant Canadians

25-34 years 13(65%) 8(57.14%)

Age 35-44 years 3(15%) 4(28.57%)

45-55 years 4(20%) 2(14.28%)

Male 12(60%) 7(50%) Gender Female 8(40%) 7(50%)

Income ($ in 0-24,999 0 2(14.28)

Canadian 25,000-49,000 3(15%) 4(28.57%)

context and 50,000-74,999 3(15%) 5(35.71%)

Rs in Indian 75,000-100,000 8(40%) 3(21.42%)

context) More than 100,000 6(30%) 0

Total 20(100%) 14(100%)

Figure 2: Distribution of socio-demographics among sample groups of Indian and Mainstream/Dominant Canadians

Male 11(55%)

Gender Female 9(45%)

25-34 years 5(25%)

Age 35-44 years 13(52%)

45-55 years 2(10%)

$0-$24,999 3(15%)

$25,000-$49,999 8(40%)

Income $50,000-$74,999 4(20%)

$75,000-$100,000 2(10%)

More than $100,000 3(15%)

0-5 years 8(40%)

Length of Residence 5-10 years 8(40%)

More than 10 years 4(20%)

India 11(55%)

Country of Origin Pakistan 2(10%)

Sri Lanka 3(15%)

Bangladesh 4(20%)

Figure 3: Distribution of socio-demographic and other variables in the sample of South Asians; N = 20

The advertisements (to recruit research participants) included my phone and email contact details. When potential participants contacted me a time, place, and date was set up to conduct an interview at their convenience. All the interviews in Toronto occurred in public places, such as a café, food court, or lounging area of a building. Among South Asian immigrants, all 20 interviews took place in cafes. Out of 14 interviews of mainstream Canadians, four occurred in apartment lounges and 10 in cafes. Out of the 20 interviews in Calcutta, 11 were carried out in

public parks while the rest were completed in cafes. All the interviews were audio-taped and then later transcribed for detailed references. Participants in Toronto were given a $25 honorarium and participants in India were given Rs. 300 for their participation.

The interviews ranged from 40-90 minutes, and included questions such as where in the city the participant lives and how long they have lived in Canada, then continued to examine the character and density of the participant’s networks beginning with the immediate one—the neighbourhood (See Appendix II for the themes and general questions posed).

Measurement

Social Participation entails involvement of individuals in a community or society that occurs through personal and impersonal networks and relationships, as well as through formal and informal organizations. Involvement takes place in both public and private settings, such as schools, hospitals, ethnic communities, shops, neighbourhood, workplace, and other regional and national communities.

For the purpose of this study, social participation is measured by eight indicators: 1) Personal networks are measured by frequency and quality of social contact with family/relatives and frequency of social contact with friends. 2) Impersonal networks are measured by social contact in workplace, and other social contacts. 3) Volunteering activities. 4) Engagement in associations and organization. 5) Engagement in co-ethnic organizations. 6) Engagement in non- ethnic organizations. 7) Engagement in both non-ethnic and ethnic organizations. 8) Political engagement, including voting activities and volunteering for a political party. Maximum likelihood factor analysis was then carried out to confirm if these indices load into one factor, since these variables were combined to compute the variable of social participation.

Ethnicity and race as encounter problems in conceptualizations and measurement in any analysis, as recognized in the theoretical section. For this study, ethnicity is defined as: the ethnic background that the participant identifies with. For the purposes of this study the response categories of Canadian and British are treated in the mainstream/dominant Canadians category.

South Asian Canadians are measured by backgrounds of East Indian, Sri Lankan, Pakistani,

Bangladeshi (Nakhaie, 1995; Wanner 1998, 1999, 2000). All other ethnic groups are categorized as “Other”.

Length of residence is measured by the variable “Period of Immigration” and is categorised into

(a) immigrants who came before 1974, (b) immigrants who came from 1975-1989, and (c) immigrants who came between 1990-2003.

Community network and characteristics, such as heterogeneity and homogeneity, and horizontal/vertical bonds is measured by several dimensions: (a) friends speaking the same language, (b) friends coming from a visibly different ethnic group, (c) friends belonging to same sex, (d) friends with similar level of education, (e) friends with similar level of income, and (f) friends of the same age group.

The scale of maintaining ties with people of different ethnic or religious background by ethnic groups is a scale created in the GSS dataset. Though this scale is not a measure of whether ethnic groups actually maintain ties with people of different ethnic or religious background, it does show the perceived and self-reported importance of doing so, and is an indicator of the will or inclination to maintain inter-ethnic ties or engage in heterogeneous networks.

Size of networks is a quantitative assessment of the linkages of individuals. It is measured by the number of close relatives, number of close friends, and weak ties; these indicators are loaded into one factor (determined by factor analysis).

Values binding members to a group/community/association is defined as loyalty or allegiance to a specific identity or group, similarity/identification based on similarity with other members in the group/network, trust, and belief systems based on faith (Breton, 2000). It is measured by: (a) level of involvement in an organization/association; (b) similarity in mother tongue with people in the organization/association; (c) whether there are people from different ethnic backgrounds in the organization/association; (d) whether other members consists only of same or different sex in the organization/association; (e) whether people in the organization/association have roughly the same education levels; (f) whether people in the organization/association have roughly similar household income; (g) whether people in the organization/association are roughly of the same age group; and (h) how important religious beliefs are to the participant.

Trust is generally considered as an ingredient of social capital and reciprocity (Putnam, 2003).

Fukuyama (1995: 27) defines trust as, “The expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest, and cooperative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members of the community”. It is measured by the dichotomous variable that is a function of the question: “Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people?”

Religious Participation is defined as participation in religious services or individual forms of worship during a particular reference period (Statistics Canada, 2012) and is measured by frequency of religious activity other than on special occasions in the past 12 months.

Sense of belonging is defined as a feeling of being connected and accepted by others in a community, group, organization, or association (Statistics Canada, 2012). It is measured by a five-point scale in the GSS 17, ranging from no opinion to very strong opinion.

Sense of social obligation is defined as the voluntary obligation to participate, in the sense that the obligation is self-imposed (Hewitt, 1989: 136). Breton (2003: 3) clarifies further: “Individuals not only choose the degree of involvement but also the relationship(s), the group(s), the organization(s) or association(s), and the community(ies) in which they will (or will not) get involved”. Sense of social obligation is measured by: (a) if neighbours help each other in the current neighbourhood;

(b) whether and how much the participant trusts a stranger on a scale of 1 to 5; (c) range of trust among neighbours; (d) help given to informal networks; (e) help received by participants from informal networks; and (f) useful help received by participant in finding work. All the indicators were examined to see if they load into one factor through maximum likelihood factor analysis.

Demographic factors are defined as socio-economic characteristics of a population that is statistically represented by age, sex, education level, income level, marital status, occupation, religion, birth rate, death rate, and so on. These are considered control variables and include age, sex and marital status. Age is measured in number of years. Sex is measured as a dummy variable with male as the reference category. Marital status is measured by categories of married (living common law or married) or single (widowed, divorced, separated, and never married).

As previous mentioned, any analysis seeking to study the building of social capital through social participation should incorporate a contextual analysis by tracing contextual individual decisions and motivations. In-depth qualitative examinations of behaviours and relationships are essential to examine broad patterns and indicators of social capital so that analysis of both the micro and macro levels, in which the resource is deployed and built upon can be made coherent.

Ethical approval, anonymity, and confidentiality of data

Statistics Canada states that it is prohibited by law to release any data that would divulge information obtained under the Statistics Act relating to any identifiable person, business, or organization without the prior knowledge or the consent in writing of that person, business, or organization. This way anonymity of participants is assured. In addition, various confidentiality rules are applied to all data released or published to prevent the disclosure of any information deemed confidential. If necessary, data is suppressed to prevent direct or residual disclosure of identifiable data. Participants in GSS 17 were interviewed using Computer Assisted Telephone

Interviewing and through their participation, informed consent was interpreted as given.

For stage two of data collection using in-depth interviews, potential participants were guaranteed confidentiality, with the assurance that only the principal investigator of the project would have access to the transcripts, and thereafter all information would be presented in an aggregate form so that the identity and responses of participants could not be traced back to individuals. Additionally, permission to use direct quotes was requested and these quotations are presented under pseudonyms chosen by the participants. For issues of anonymity participants were given an identification number for recordkeeping purposes. They were assured that their name and address would be known only by the principal investigator and not mentioned when reporting results. Informed consent was given by the participants after they read about the goal of the study and the consent forms and agreed to voluntarily participate in the study.

In addition to ensuring anonymity and confidentiality to participants, the ethical approval required in cases of research with human subjects was obtained from the Conjoint Faculties

Research Ethics Board (CFREB), as per the University of Calgary regulations.

Data analysis and interpretation

Data analysis consists of both quantitative analysis (descriptive and multivariate analysis, with the help of SPSS and STATA) and qualitative analysis of the in-depth interviews. For the quantitative analysis of the GSS dataset, first bivariate descriptive analyses were carried out to test the hypotheses presented earlier.

Multivariate analysis forms the second part of the quantitative analysis. Simple linear regression is carried out to investigate the determining influence of the independent variables on social participation while controlling for other variables. The variables are entered according to research relevance; for example, since ethnic background forms the primary variable of interest it is entered at the beginning. Research relevance is determined primarily by the focus of this study; whereby the influences of other variables on the dependent variable constitute the primary focus. In this study the influence of ethnic background on social participation is of prime importance. Unfortunately, the influence of sense of belonging and rational strategies of bridging ties with other ethnic groups through social participation have not been studied in detail before, and thus the presumed influences need to be explored. Regression coefficients are then analyzed to see how each predictor influences social participation.

Responses from in-depth interviews were studied using NVIVO software to find recurring themes and keywords. In addition, narrative analysis and critical discourse analysis were deployed to find themes. Since this study is interested in prediction and explanation, it attempts to be a mixed-method study by first predicting dominant trends, and then attempting to complement the trends with some insights gained from the interviews.

Each interview was transcribed from the audio-recordings and then treated as one ongoing narrative or story. In agreement with Scheibelhofereir (2008), “narration” is used here to refer to

a complete account a person gives or is capable of giving, while “narrative” more specifically means a sequence of events, and thus parts of a narration. In the interviews, the participant’s life history up to the date of the interview is considered to be a narration, from which the participant shared their narrative of being an immigrant or born into a country, starting specifically with questions of where they live.

Generally speaking, with in-depth interviews it is the goal of the interviewer to elicit free and open answers similar to everyday conversations (Johnson, 2002; Legard et al., 2003; Lofland &

Lofland, 1995). In-depth interviews are meant to capture the participant’s experiences, perceptions, and perspectives such that the researcher can reconstruct meanings attributed to experiences and events. In the course of the interview I asked open-ended questions, used different probes, and other techniques to obtain greater depth of answers. In-depth interviews and ethnographic interviews generally do not elicit narrations. The methodological implication of emerging narratives is that they are seen as, “A powerful means of recollection. They tend to express the personal experiences of the participant as the informant who acted and suffered then, i.e., in those former days during which she or he was embroiled in affairs as they are told throughout the course of narration” (Schütze, 1987; Schütze, 1992, p. 191).

By opening the interview with a narrative base, the onus is on the interviewee to mention what to tell and how to tell it. Thus, the interviewee’s perceived relevance to events and memories guide the interview process with minimal intervention from the interviewer. The main goal of qualitative research—to give voice to the persons who are studied—is more effectively achieved with semi-structured narrative interviews.

Narratives or stories establish crucial links between social relationships. The basic premise in narrative analysis is: Why did the individual choose to tell a story in a particular sequence? The

sequencing of events often point to the perceived importance of issues and experiences for the interviewee, reflects a tension in purported significance, and attempts at resolution of the tension

(Czarniawska, 1998). Everything anybody says is part of some story, retrospectively or introspectively. Critical discourse analysis (Fairclough & Mulderig, 2011) is also used to delineate the findings from the qualitative study in order to enable observation of commonly shared patterns, themes, and outlooks of the three sample groups interviewed.

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS FROM QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS—

DELINEATING SOCIAL PARTICIPATION AS ENGAGED UPON IN ETHNO-RACIAL

COMMUNITIES

This chapter delineates, in detail, findings from the quantitative analyses, starting with quantitative bivariate analysis and followed by multivariate analysis (regression results). When applicable, quantitative findings are compared with qualitative findings. Detailed qualitative findings follow the quantitative findings.

Beginning with bivariate analysis, several crosstabulations and mean tables were carried out as described below (See Appendix I for additional tables not mentioned here). Chi-Square tests are used as tests of significance in crosstabulations and the F score is used as the test of significance in the mean tables. The Chi-square test shows how likely it is that an observed distribution is due to chance. It is also called a “goodness of fit” statistic, because it measures how well the observed distribution of data fits with the distribution that is expected if the variables are independent. A significant Chi-square test means that the variables are probably dependent on each other in the population (Cohen et al., 1982). Chi-Square is also a function of the sample size; therefore, the significance of the Chi-square is also a function of the large GSS sample size. F test is used to determine if any significant difference exists among any of the means.

The first hypothesis predicted: levels of social participation will be lower among the South

Asian Canadian group than European-Canadian groups. Tables 1.1 and Table 1.2 show crosstabulation of the social participation (dependent variable) and volunteering activities (an indicator of social participation) according to one of the prime predictors - ethnic group. Due to reasons of data confidentiality at the Prairie Research Data Centre where the analysis was carried

out, counts at and less than 5% in any cell cannot be shown and therefore social participation is treated as a dichotomous variable in these tables. There does exist a difference in social participation levels among South Asians (91.3%) and mainstream/dominant Canadians (96.9%).

While in volunteering activities (measured as a dichotomous variable as to whether people volunteered or not), a formal area of social participation, 38% of mainstream/dominant

Canadians, as compared to only 23.6% of South Asians are involved in volunteering activities.

The two tables confirm the first hypothesis, that levels of social participation are lower among

South Asians than mainstream/dominant Canadians.

Table 1.1: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant Social Participation South Asians Canadians Other No 8.70% 3.10% 3.90% Yes 91.30% 96.90% 96.10% N 531679 3155378 10428757 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=38699.134, df=4, p<0.001 N=14115814

Table 1.2: Crosstabulation of Volunteering by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant Volunteered South Asians Canadians Other No 74.50% 61.40% 66% Yes 23.60% 38% 33.50% N 534958 3158563 10445130 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=63125.344, df=4, p<0.001 N=14138651

Table 1.3 shows mean differences in volunteering among the ethnic groups; South Asians

(Mean=2.07; SD=13.39) appear to have considerably different levels than mainstream/dominant

Canadians (mean = .9982, SD=7.821) and all other combined ethnic groups put together. Table

1.3 suggests that although South Asians might have a higher average score within volunteering

than mainstream/dominant Canadians, there exists a greater variation in volunteering in the

South Asian population itself. Tables 1.1 - 1.3 also indicate that areas of social participation are different for South Asians and mainstream/dominant Canadians since South Asians score higher in volunteering activities but lower in overall social participation.

Table 1.3: Mean Differences in Volunteering by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error of Mean

South Asians 2.0715 534958 13.39706 0.01832

Mainstream/Dominant Canadians 0.9982 3158564 7.82151 0.0044

Other 0.8537 10445130 7.17734 0.00222 Total 0.932 14138653 7.65304 0.00204 F=6601.601, df=2, p<0.001

The second hypothesis predicted: South Asian Canadians will express the need to maintain higher frequencies of interaction and contact with their co-ethnics than mainstream/dominant

Canadians. Tables 2.1 and 2.2 show the scale of the importance of maintaining ties with people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds by ethnic group, and mean differences in that scale

(mean 0 = no ties and 4 = very important). It is generally expected that the more often people participate in such networks, the greater their levels of social participation and their chances of forming inter-ethnic and resource-rich social capital. Contrary to hypothesis two, according to

Table 2.1, 15.1% of mainstream/dominant Canadians report that they “do not maintain any ties” with people of other ethnic or religious backgrounds, as compared with only 9.1% of South

Asians. More South Asians also report that it is “very important” for them to maintain ties with people of other ethnic or religious backgrounds (34%), as compared with 24.9% of mainstream/dominant Canadians. Similar levels are found among South Asians (7.7%) and mainstream/dominant Canadians (8.4%) in reporting that maintaining ties with people of

different ethnic or religious backgrounds is, “not important at all”. Findings in table 2.1 are also reflected in qualitative interviews; as immigrant participants expressed that they would prefer to interact with people of other ethnic or religious backgrounds, while mainstream/dominant

Canadians seldom expressed that preference. Despite their expressed need to interact with people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds, participants from both groups acknowledged that their social networks did not include such persons. In essence, people of different religious or ethnic backgrounds were often invisible in social networks for South Asians and mainstream/dominant Canadians. Table 2.2 shows mean differences in the scale of maintaining ties among the two ethnic groups, South Asians are seen to attribute higher importance to maintaining ties with persons from other ethnic groups in this table.

Tables 2.1 and 2.2 thus, do not confirm the second hypothesis that South Asians would express the need to maintain higher frequencies of interaction and contacts with their co-ethnics than mainstream/dominant Canadians. While the hypothesis is based on existing literature, it is possible that there has been a change among recent immigrants in the importance of maintaining ties with people of different ethnic or religious backgrounds. In addition, the phrase “people of different ethnic or religious background” could be taken literally, such as when a Hindu immigrant from India deems it to be important to maintain ties with a Muslim immigrant from

Pakistan, religious and national differences notwithstanding. Qualitative interviews point to this possibility, even though maintenance of ties to persons of different ethnic and religious backgrounds are thought to be important, the crucial difference lies in how different those ties are from one’s indigenous ethno-cultural realm, and whether they fall within the purview of a loosely based diaspora.

Table 2.1: Crosstabulation of “Scale of the importance of maintaining ties with people of different ethnic or religious background” by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant South Asians Canadians Other Do not maintain any ties 9.1% 15.1% 12.6% Scale of Not important at all 7.7% 8.4% 7.7% maintaining ties 2 26.3% 29.8% 27.8% with people of 3 22.9% 21.7% 24.5% different ethnic Very Important 34% 24.9% 27.4% or religious ties Total 435570 3040698 9885605 % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=44071.753, df=10, p<0.001 N=13361873

Table 2.2: Mean Differences in the “Scale of the importance of maintaining ties with people of different ethnic or religious background” among Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error of Mean South Asians 2.6488 435571 1.26795 .00192 Mainstream/Dominant 2.3283 3040698 1.33936 .00077 Canadians Other 2.4662 9885606 1.30559 .00042

Total 2.4408 13361875 1.31397 .00036 F=18499.331, df=2, p<0.001

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 attempt to test the third hypothesis: level of generalized trust will be lower among South Asians than mainstream/dominant Canadians. Confirming this hypothesis, table 3.1 shows that 61.5% of the mainstream/dominant Canadians believe that most people can be trusted, as compared to 50.8% of South Asians. Table 3.2 also shows a lower mean of generalized trust among South Asians (0.51) than mainstream/dominant Canadians (0.62).

Table 3.1: Crosstabulation of Trust by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant South Asians Canadians Other Generally Speaking, No 49.2% 38.5% 44.2% would you say that people can be trusted Yes 50.8% 61.5% 55.8%

N 479191 3079438 10035959

Total % 100% 100% 100%

Chi-Square=39614.490, df=4, p<0.001 N=13594588

Table 3.2: Mean Differences in Trust by Ethnic Groups

Std. Error of Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Mean South Asians .51 479190 .500 .001 Mainstream/Dominant Canadians .62 3079438 .486 .000 Other .56 10035959 .497 .000 Total 1.8152 13594587 .57 .000 F=19865.124, df=2, p<0.001

The fourth hypothesis predicted: sense of social obligation, manifested in “help given” or

“wanting to help others”, will be higher among South Asians than among mainstream/dominant

Canadians. Social obligation is measured by help given and received in formal and informal networks of an individual. Tables 4.1 - 4.7 show distribution of the sense of social obligation among South Asians and mainstream/dominant Canadians. Existing research suggests that the higher the sense of social obligation, the higher the levels of social participation. Moreover, immigrants are seen to possess a higher level of social obligation, according to the thesis of

“defensive structuring” and “control solidarity” (Breton, 2003). Therefore, it could be reasonably expected that ethnic groups with a higher sense of social obligation would also have higher distribution in social participation.

Table 4.1 shows that South Asians help more in informal networks (69.3%) than mainstream/dominant Canadians (64.8%), though the differences are small (Table 4.2). Informal networks in this research are conceptualized as networks comprising friends and family.

Table 4.1: Help Given in Informal Networks

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant Help Given in Informal Networks South Asians Canadians Other No 19.2% 26.3% 25.1% Yes 69.3% 64.8% 66.2% N 347598 2622342 8383457 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=10257.279, df=4, p<0.001 N=11353397

Table 4.2: Mean Differences in Help Given in Informal Networks

Std. Error of Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Mean South Asians 1.4213 347598 0.68764 0.00117 Mainstream/Dominant Canadians 1.4413 2622343 0.65155 0.0004 Other 1.426 8383457 0.64777 0.00022 Total 1.4294 11353398 0.64994 0.00019 F=583.778, df= 2, p<0.001

In Table 4.2 the mean differences between South Asians and mainstream/dominant

Canadians are shown to be negligible (1.4213 compared with 1.4413, respectively) as far as help given in informal networks are concerned. Table 4.3 shows the opposite picture from the previous two tables: 38.5% of South Asians report not helping anyone other than people in their informal networks as compared to 19.9% of mainstream/dominant Canadians. 11.5% of mainstream/dominant Canadians reported that they helped almost all people in their networks who were not friends or family, a proportion that is almost double that of South Asians (6.1%).

The qualitative interviews indicate that while mainstream/dominant Canadians are less likely to ask for and receive financial help from their friends and colleagues, South Asians count on financial help from informal networks and oftentimes the willingness, readiness, and precedence

of financial help determines who they call their friend. Table 4.4 shows that the mean differences of South Asians and mainstream/dominant Canadians in helping people other than family and friends is 1.3715 and 1.8883, respectively. This has implications for the kind of ties individuals form in networks and relationships, as sense of social obligation or reciprocity often determines the strength of relationships (Granovetter, 1974; Lin, 1999; Putnam, 2000).

Table 4.3: Crosstabulation of Participants that Helped People Other than Family and Friends by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant Participant Helped Others South Asians Canadians Other Did not help 38.5% 19.9% 22.6% Helped a few people 22% 20.8% 19.7%

Helped about half 16.7% 25.4% 25.1%

Helped the most 13.2% 20.4% 20.7% Helped all known people in 6.1% 11.5% 10% network N 520741 3144462 10379034 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=121234.846, df=10, p<0.001 N=14044237

Table 4.4: Mean Differences in Participants that Helped Others by Ethnic Groups

Std. Error of Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Mean South Asians 1.3715 520741 1.43562 0.00199 Mainstream/Dominant Canadians 1.8883 3144461 1.35463 0.00076 Other 1.8154 10379034 1.35721 0.00042 Total 1.8152 14044236 1.36275 0.00036

F=32268.946, df=2, p<0.001

The fifth hypothesis predicted: religious participation will be higher among South Asians than mainstream/dominant Canadians. Table 5.1 shows crosstabulation of religious participation by ethnic group. There exists little difference among South Asians and mainstream/dominant

Canadians, though South Asians are seen to have a higher proportion of religious activity with

15.4% of them in the highest point (religious activity of “at least once a week”), as compared with 13.6% of mainstream/dominant Canadians. The lower scales in religious participation represent more mainstream/dominant Canadians than South Asian immigrants, pointing to the fact that when South Asians do engage in religious participation, it is generally at a higher frequency than mainstream/dominant Canadians. This analysis was not interested in religious denominations, but in religious participation levels, so no analysis was made of the proportions of Hindus, Muslims, or Christians among the participants. Marked differences exist in having

“no religious activity”, only 1.9% of South Asians fall within this group, as compared to 11% of the mainstream/dominant Canadians. The mean differences also indicate higher religious participation by South Asians (5.2976) than mainstream/dominant Canadians (3.9205), as shown by Table 5.2.

Table 5.1: Crosstabulation of Religious Participation by Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Frequency of Religious Participation Mainstream/Dominant South Asians Other Canadians No Religious Participation 1.9% 11% 9.2% At least once a year 5.3% 18.4% 14.5% A few times a year 10% 14.6% 14.6% At least once a month 14.9% 18.2% 17.8% At least once a week 15.4% 13.6% 13.6% N 448465 2147180 7415860 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=195544.877; df=10; p<0.001 N=10011505

Table 5.2: Mean Differences in Religious Participation among Ethnic groups

Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error of Mean

South Asians 5.2976 448465 1.68456 0.00252 Mainstream/Dominant 3.9205 2147180 1.92048 0.00131 Canadians Other 4.2192 7415861 1.95145 0.00072 Total 4.2034 10011505 1.95191 0.00062

F=95025.537, df=2, p<0.001

The relationship between religious activity and social participation, irrespective of ethnic background, is shown in Table 5.3. The purpose was to see if frequency of religious activity influences social participation. According to table 5.3, “no religious activity” does restrict social participation, and 36.3% “no social participation” is explained by the former. A higher amount of religious activity also leads to a lower frequency of “no social participation” with almost the same level of social participation as religious activity engaged in once a month. The categories of

“no religious activity” and “religious activity of at least once a year” also lead to similar amounts of social participation. Figures indicate that while there is a relationship between frequency of religious activity and social participation; higher frequencies of religious activities go together with higher levels of social participation, frequency of religious activity is not the only impacting factor as far as social participation is concerned and a linear relationship between religious activity and social participation cannot be expected.

Table 5.3: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Frequency of Religious Activity Among all Ethnic Groups

Frequency of religious activities at least a few at least Social Participation No religious at least once Total once a times a once a activity a week month year year No 36.3% 7.1% 21.5% 11.1% 23.9% 100%

Yes 26.7% 9.7% 27% 15.2% 21.4% 100% N 2826054 1001692 2794941 1574849 2249345 10446881 Total % 27.1% 9.6% 26.8% 15.1% 21.5% 100% Chi-Square=25411.528, df=10, p<0.001 N=10446881

The sixth hypothesis predicted: the longer the length of residency by South Asian immigrants the higher the social participation. Tables 6.1-6.3 show if and how social participation differs by period of immigration. Recent immigrants are found to be the most involved in social participation, though differences with immigrants from earlier time periods are almost negligible.

More than immigrant status, ethnic background seems to be the most influential factor in social participation (see Tables 1.1-1.2).

Table 6.1: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Recent Immigrants who came between 1990-2003

Immigrants who Social Participation came between 1990- Other 2003 No % 7.5% 3.8%

Yes % 92.5% 96.2% N 1446670 13211844 Total % 100% 100% Chi-Square=45606.394, df=3, p<0.001 N=14658514

Table 6.2: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Immigrants who came Between 1975-1989

Immigrants who Social Participation came between Other 1975-1989 No 6.3% 4%

Yes 93.7% 96% N 939359 13719155 Total % 100% 100% Chi-Square=12012.999, df=3, p<0.001 N=14658514

Table 6.3: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Immigrants who came before 1975

Immigrants who Social Participation Other came before 1975

No 6% 4%

Yes 94% 96% N 814084 13844430 Total % 100% 100%

Chi-Square=7515.070, df=3, p<0.001 N=14658514

According to Table 7, those who own their dwelling have higher levels of social participation

(97%) as opposed to those who don’t (93.2%). The dataset did not provide any clues as to why this might be the case, but some explanations were provided in the qualitative interviews.

Apartment living or rental living arrangements were sometimes found to lead to a lesser connection level with the neighbourhood and greater perceived “alienation” from community activities than homeowners, who seemed to participate in more neighbourhood and community activities than people who lived in dwellings that they did not own. This was not the case in living situations in India, as reflected in interviews; later chapters explore this issue in detail.

Table 7: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Nature of Dwelling

Dwelling owned by a member of the Social Participation household No Yes No 6.8% 3.0%

Yes 93.2% 97% N 3856210 10678787 Total % 100% 100% Chi-Square=105072.767, df=2, p<0.001 N=14534997

The seventh hypothesis predicted: the higher the group/network heterogeneity, the lower the social participation. Tables 8.1 - 8.4 sought to measure homogeneity in friend circles and whether and how it affects social participation levels. Tables 8.1- 8.4 (having friends of the same sex, and similar levels of education, income, and age-group, respectively) indicate that not absolute homogeneity, but a dominant homogeneity (when most friends are of same gender or similar levels of education, age, and income), yields higher amounts of social participation, and therefore the seventh hypothesis is not confirmed.

Table 8.5 (when friends speak the same language) shows that absolute homogeneity works best for social participation when friends speak the same language it leads to the highest proportion for social participation. Having more friends from a visibly different ethnic group leads to lower proportions of social participation, as indicated by table 8.6.

Table 8.1: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends of the Same Sex

Friends of same sex Social Participation about none a few half most all Total

No 4% 8.5% 26.3% 29.3% 31.9% 100% Yes .9% 5.3% 33.3% 39.4% 21.1% 100%

N 143039 790812 4766075 5634354 3116909 14451189 Total % 1% 5.5% 33% 39% 21.6% 100% Chi-Square=113418.896, df=10, p<0.001 N=14451189

Table 8.2: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends of Similar Level of Education

Friends of similar level of education Social Participation none a few about half most all Total No 13.4% 19.3% 17.7% 28.9% 20.7% 100% Yes 3.4% 13.5% 21.1% 42% 19.9% 100% Total N 512558 1876525 2871756 5678925 2727812 13667576 % 3.8% 13.7% 21% 41.6% 20% 100% Chi-Square=159179.202, df=4, p<0.001 N=13667576

Table 8.3: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends with Similar Level of Income

Friends with similar level of income Social Participation Total none a few about half most all No 12.2% 23.7% 18.9% 24.7% 20.3% 100%

Yes 4.3% 18.2% 26.2% 38.2% 13.1% 100% N 589918 2363371 3326166 4848570 1710077 12838102 Total % 4.6% 18.4% 25.9% 37.8% 13.3% 100% Chi-Square=111308.774, df=4, p<0.001 N=12838102

Table 8.4: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends of the Same Age Group

Friends of same age group Social Participation none a few about half most all Total No 9.5% 16.2% 18.5% 32.6% 23.2% 100% Yes 2.4% 13.1% 20.5% 44.5% 19.4% 100% Total N 389783 1907198 2933847 6341992 2818390 14391210 % 2.7% 13.3% 20.4% 44.1% 19.6% 100% Chi-Square=125011.065; df=4; p<0.001 N=14391210

Table 8.5: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends Speaking the Same Language

Friends speaking the same language Social Participation About Total none a few most all half No 6.8% 10.7% 5.8% 15.8% 60.9% 100%

Yes 4.9% 6.3% 6.5% 21.2% 61% 100%

N 716898 940182 940278 3033561 8816241 14447160 Total % 5% 6.5% 6.5% 21% 61% 100% Chi-Square=28185.942, df=4, p<0.001 N=14447160

Table 8.6: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Friends Coming from a Visibly Different Ethnic Group

Friends coming from an ethnic group visibly Social Participation different about none a few half most all Total No 56.1% 26.2% 7.3% 4.3% 6.1% 100% Yes 45.7% 39.0% 8.1% 4.3% 3.0% 100% Total N 6631832 5531657 1155665 615813 442137 14377104 % 46.1% 38.5% 8.0% 4.3% 3.1% 100% Chi-Square=52243.924, df=4, p<0.001 N=14377104

The eighth hypothesis predicted: the higher the sense of belonging, the higher the social participation. In agreement with existing literature, sense of belonging does lead to higher amounts of social participation, as indicated by Table 9.1; however, it can also lead to similarly

high proportion of “no social participation”, so the relationship between sense of belonging and social participation does not seem to be a linear one.

Table 9: Crosstabulation of Social Participation by Sense of Belonging

Sense of Belonging Social Participation somewhat somewhat no opinion very weak weak strong very strong No 21.1% 5.0% 2.9% 4.0% 4.1% Yes 78.9% 95.0% 97.1% 96.0% 95.9% Total N 87171 606756 1380359 5321435 7198601 % 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=70828.241; df=8; p<0.001 N=14594322

The ninth hypothesis predicted: the higher the level of values binding members to a group/network, the higher the social participation (Breton, 2003; Lin, 1999; Putnam, 2000).

Level of involvement is an important value binding members to a group. Confirming this hypothesis, Table 10 shows that level of involvement in an organization impacts social participation considerably, irrespective of ethnic background. When level of involvement increased in the past year, it led to a higher proportion of social participation (55.4%), as compared to when it stayed the same in the past year (22.3%) or decreased (22.4%).

Interestingly, an increase in the level of involvement in an organization does not always lead to increased social participation; Table 10 also suggests that an increase in the level of involvement has a proportion of no social participation (83%), suggesting a curvilinear relationship between these two variables.

Table 10: Social participation by Level of Involvement in the Organization

Level of involvement in organization Social Participation Stayed the same in the past Total Increased Decreased year

No 1.2% 100% 15.8% 83%

Yes 22.3% 55.4% 22.4% 100%

Chi-Square=198529.678; df=3; p<0.001 N=14482036

Overall, the bivariate analysis indicates that social participation is impacted by ascriptive characteristics, such as ethnic background, and acquired characteristics, such as intention to maintain ties with people of different ethnic or religious background, frequency of religious activity, level of involvement in the organization, group heterogeneity levels, sense of belonging, and ownership of dwelling; however, areas of social participation are different for different ethnic groups. The qualitative interviews provide insight into this process and later chapters delineate the different areas of social participation as they pertain to ethnic groups and motivations behind social participation.

In the multivariate analysis (Table 11: simple linear regression) it is apparent that ethnic background does play a role in social participation. Being South Asian negatively impacts social participation by .806 units, as compared with being mainstream/dominant Canadian, which positively impacts social participation by .510 units, when controlling for other factors, and therefore confirms the first hypothesis; however, the regression coefficients of “South Asian” ethnic background is not statistically significant. Interestingly, being an early immigrant

(immigrants who came before 1974) and a recent immigrant (an immigrant who came between

1989-2003) impacts units of social participation (.382 and .389 units, respectively) more than for

an immigrant who came between 1975-1989 (.314 units). The dataset do not provide any information as to why this could be the case, but certain factors could play a role here. Early immigrants (those who came before 1974) consisted mostly of Europeans whose similarity with mainstream/dominant Canadians were much more aligned than later immigrants. Based on similarity and levels of familiarity, which definitely furthers social participation (discussed in detail in later chapters) the early immigrants might have faced fewer barriers and obstacles to social participation than later immigrants. Conversely, recent immigrants predominantly consisting of individuals from Asia, also face a somewhat similar situation to early immigrants

(1989-2003) in that they find more South Asians in Canada than immigrants who came between

1975-1989. Consequently, even though they might find mainstream/dominant Canadians different from themselves with little familiarity and similarity in interests, habits, customs, and normative/cultural ways of doing things, they have the alternative of turning to their diasporic counterparts when looking for support, participatory activities, or sense of belonging.

Granovetter’s (1974) work has established that weak ties enable reaching populations and audiences that are not accessible via strong ties; in this analysis weak ties also appear to be a predictor of social participation by .523 units, when controlling for other factors. Having a higher number of close relatives also elevates levels of social participation. It is possible that the presence of close relatives in a person’s social network elevates feelings of trust and normative bonding in order to participate in forms of social participation. Conversely, it is possible that being with people with similar levels of education (0.55 units) constrains social participation to particular social arenas or binds individuals to particular social circles, thereby restricting branching out to vertical levels in social circles that may be at their disposal.

In addition, sense of obligation is also found to be an important predictor of social participation. Reciprocal obligations and precedence of helping one another seems to elevate levels of social participation and connect individuals. The culture of helping each other in the neighbourhood seems to boost social participation. In the qualitative interviews, it was found that their neighbourhood is the prime social network individuals turn to after friends and family.

Oftentimes daily interactions and community participation in daily living does percolate to other spheres of social participation and can connect with other modes and forms of social participation.

Table 11: Simple Linear Regression on Social Participation by Independent Variables

Concepts Independent Variables Coefficients Std. t (B) Error Age .009 .003 2.55 Marital Status .056 .013 4.44 Socio-Demographics Sex .758 .048 15.97 *** Sense of belonging Sense of Belonging .098 .032 3.09 South Asians -.806 .199 -4.06 Ethnic Background Mainstream/Dominant Canadians .510 .049 10.45 ** Immigrants who came before 1974 .382 .188 2.03 ** Period of Immigration/ Immigrants who came from 1975-1989 .314 .103 3.04 Length of Residence in the *** Recent Immigrants (immigrants who came .389 .128 3.05 country between 1990-2003) Number of Close relatives .493 .028 17.85 Number of Close friends .305 .029 10.68 Size of networks Weak Ties .523 .026 19.88 Friends speaking the same language .108 .028 3.83 *** Community/Network Friends coming from an ethnic group visibly -.121 .039 -3.10 different Characteristics: (a) Friends of same sex -.448 .039 -11.59 Heterogeneity/Homogeneity Friends with similar level of education .055** .031 1.76

(b)Horizontal/Vertical networks Friends in similar level of income -.220 .032 -6.87 ** Friends of the same age group .131 .034 3.84 Values binding members to a Level of involvement in an .914 .040 23.13 organization/association group/community/association: Similarity in mother tongue with people in the -.160 .034 -4.75  Loyalty or allegiance organization/association ** to a specific identity People from different ethnic background in the .096 .033 2.90 organization/association or a group People of same sex in the .014 .029 0.48 organization/association **  Similarity/identificatio People of roughly the same education levels in .084 .032 2.64 the organization/association n based on similarity People of roughly the similar household income -.171 .033 -5.18 with members in the in the organization/association group/network People of roughly the same age group in the -.207 .028 -7.36  Trust organization How important are religious beliefs to the .304 .026 11.81  Belief systems based participant on faith Neighbours help each other in the current .568 .066 8.57 neighbourhood Sense of social obligation Participant has done a favour to the neighbour .645 .050 12.80 Participant trusts strangers in a scale of 1 to 5 .411 .026 15.60 ** Range of trust among neighbours .063 .031 2.06 Help given in informal networks .513 .035 14.66 ** Help received by participant from informal .050 .023 2.13 networks *** Useful help received by participant in finding .259 .081 3.21 work Dwelling owned by participant .693 .059 11.66 ** Constant .896 .387 2.32 * ** *** 2 a Dependent Variable: Social Participation; p<0.1, p<0.05, p<0.005; all other p values <0.001; R =0.3419

CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS—AREAS AND

FACTORS EFFECTING SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

The concentric circles of social participation

The first research question of this thesis asked: How is social participation engaged in among ethno-racial communities? Interviews asked how South Asian immigrants are embedded and participate in social networks, and initiate, engage, and act upon social relationships in Canada.

In addition, the comparison of social participation of South Asian immigrants in a Canadian city

(Toronto) is made with Indians in an Indian city (Calcutta) in order to see if there is any similarity in the process of social participation regarding ethnic background and whether native- born status leads to any similarities. The third research question asked: why do differences exist among ethno-racial groups in volunteering activities and civic engagement? Therefore, in the interviews it was of significant interest to find whether and how the process of social participation of South Asian immigrants differs from their mainstream/dominant Canadian counterparts (of British lineage). In the qualitative findings the manifold layers of decisions to participate in specific social areas are analyzed with respect to specific situations and circumstances. The qualitative interviews followed a narrative pattern of deconstructing the processes of how networks are formed and engaged. A related concern was to delve into the issue of recent immigrants to Canada and their lack of priority of social participation and civic engagement (Couton & Gaudet, 2008).

The interviews had questions on social participation pertaining to community interaction (as understood in terms of neighbourhood, workplace, and other), participation and engagement in clubs/associations/organizations and with friends and family, support networks, and trust. The questions were targeted to learn how daily interactions and social participation in informal

relationships take place, the strength of social relationships forged through social interactions (as manifest in receiving and giving support in crisis), the role of trust in social participation, and how the social life of immigrants is defined by life course events, labour market outcomes, and demographic dimensions (age, gender, marital status, and household income) among others (See

Interview Schedule in Appendix II).

As contrasted to immigrants, the comparison group is named mainstream/dominant

Canadians, chiefly owing to their length of residence in Canada and numerical majority when compared to South Asian immigrants. Questions in the interview started with a network or community an individual has the most immediate and regular contact, such as the neighbourhood, then moved to overlapping networks or networks/communities that are less tangible and immediate than the former.

The focal point of social participation—the neighbourhood

Social capital studies typically attempt to measure the “amount” of social capital in levels of the nation-state, at the regional level, and neighbourhood level by investigating the mechanisms and processes that form it (Putnam, 2003; Woolcock, 2003). In keeping with this tradition, the neighbourhood is a social network that is unavoidable and proximal for any person, it is also an arena where the primary social experience outside one’s immediate family is initiated and encountered.

In the qualitative interviews questions asked how the participant came to be living in their current neighbourhood and a variety of responses emerged. New immigrants (immigrants who were in the country for less than five years) were found to exercise little active agency in choosing their neighbourhoods; this experience was also corroborated by older immigrants recounting their initial years. Choosing their first neighbourhood, like other crucial information,

was primarily determined by their first person of contact or a friend in the new country. David

(male, married, immigrant from India, in Canada for only three months, 49 years, not employed at time of interview) had the following to say when asked if he has any friends:

KR: Do you have any friends here?

David: Only one friend. He’s from Chennai, he’s actually a friend of my friend who told me about this friend in Toronto. He received me in the airport.

KR: How did you find the house that you are living in?

David: Because my friend found it for me.

KR: Why did you choose to live in that area?

David: We didn’t have any idea about the area. We didn’t know anything. It is just because my friend suggested it that we went to stay in this area. But we had some idea about Toronto…that multicultural people stay here. And since we come from a tropical country, we also knew that in Toronto the climate is better than the rest of the parts of Canada.

David’s city of origin in India is Chennai (formerly known as Madras) and having a contact from the same city imparted a sense of trust in the “friend of a friend” in deciding on the first neighbourhood, as well as depending on him for important information about settling in a new country.

In the majority of the participants interviewed, South Asian immigrants retain this selection criterion later on, even after getting to know the city better. The person of first contact impacts not only the new immigrant’s first residence in Canada, but also the subsequent networks they become a part of, as immigrants are found to depend on their first contact for access to further social networks, ethnic and/or non-ethnic. Generally speaking, most of the recent immigrants spoke of how they feel isolated and stripped of their past friend circles and networks.

Consequently, they now depend on this first person of contact for information and access to

groups and networks, getting to know the city, procuring items and obtaining general knowledge about people and life in the new country (interview extracts follow later).

Susan (female, 41, married, immigrant from India, household income of $60,000-$80,000, and employed) also mentioned how a co-ethnic acquaintance she met after coming to Toronto helped her find a place to live in a predominantly South Asian neighbourhood. Kaai (37, married, male, immigrant from Pakistan, household income of $40,000-$50,000 per year, and employed) lived with his friend for the first three months in a place officially termed “Little India” in Toronto.

Kaai’s friend was his first contact in Canada and his former boss in Pakistan. Even though Kaai moved out of his first neighbourhood after only three months to another South Asian neighbourhood that has more immigrants from Pakistan, were more Muslim in character, and that he believes has better houses, Kaai is still in touch with the neighbours and friends he made in his first neighbourhood. When asked if he would have preferred a more Pakistani neighbourhood on his arrival to Canada, he replied that “Little India” had all he needed.

The characteristic of living in a predominantly South Asian neighbourhood overriding the specificities of one’s country of origin and taking comfort in the living standards provided by such overarching South Asian neighbourhoods was corroborated by S. Mohan (immigrant from

Sri Lanka, in Canada only eight months, 41 years, married, male, household income of $19,200 per year, and a student) explained how he came to live in his current neighbourhood:

KR: Why did you choose to stay in this neighbourhood?

S. Mohan: Because when I came here, one of my friend (sic) told me that several apartments were available in this area. So when I came here, I didn’t have too much money you know. So I was looking for some cheap accommodation. So I asked my friend and they said that this area is cheaper than other place. And the first thing that I liked about this place is that it’s the same community you know. It’s people from Bangladesh, India, Sri Lanka…..and they are all similar. It’s the same as our country. That’s how I chose this place.

Though S. Mohan describes the area as a predominantly South Asian neighbourhood, the area is known as “Little Bangladesh”, having a large population of immigrants from Bangladesh as well as other South Asian backgrounds. The research expectation of a commonality running through South Asian immigrants, irrespective of their exact country of origin, is corroborated by

S. Mohan’s explanation. The neighbourhoods are chosen in order to have familiar ethnic and social experiences, for cheaper levels of living standards than more “mainstream” neighbourhoods in Toronto, and to ease the transition into new social practices of settling in a new country by offering Canadian services without the mainstream/dominant Canadian cost and associated differences. While cheap economical costs are a concern for a new immigrant, living in a neighbourhood that is also co-ethnic brings forth a situation tough to resist. Consequently, for South Asian immigrants social participation in a new country starts from a location that is chosen primarily on ethnic grounds, irrespective of other interests.

With an increasing length of residence and better knowledge of the city, immigrants usually move out of their first neighbourhood to fulfill more relevant and emergent needs, such as better access to places, better access to health services, to be closer to their workplace, finding more secure areas, better commuting, or to stay close to their co-ethnic group. The findings agree with

Mwarigha’s (2002) conclusions that there are three stages in the settlement process of immigrants.

In addition to what Mwarigha (2002) states, it was found that staying with their co-ethnics, whether or not they are from the same country of origin, is a significantly high priority for South

Asian immigrants in Toronto. Consequently, even when they move to a neighbourhood with more material and tangible benefits, South Asian Canadians simply move to another Asian neighbourhood that offers them better living conditions. As Babun (male, 39, married, immigrant

from India, working as a profit and loss analyst, household income of $45,000 per year) stated, even though ideally he’d like to meet and interact with people from all ethnic backgrounds, he believes it is difficult to do so:

Babun: It pretty well depends on where you look and if you look in your neighbourhood then you’ll see that certain communities are clustered and you can’t mix with that cluster. But if you move to a little bit of rich and mediocre neighbourhood you will see that white people, Chinese people, Asian people are together. I’d love to make friends with everybody but it’s hard to…because it’s based on where you live….and how people are clustered.

KR: How does it make it easy for you to interact with Pakistanis or Bangladeshis or Nepalis?

Babun: I think mainly habits and culture. We connect along those lines…if I were to make friends with a white person I think it would be tougher to connect on various levels.

The priority of staying in an ethnic neighbourhood is also justified by the availability of multifarious “convenience”, such as dependence and security as derived from communal ties, and the much needed mental and financial support of the new socio-economic status in the new country. For example, Susan’s explanation for choosing her current neighbourhood is worth noting for her well-clarified reasons:

KR: How would you describe the neighbourhood?

Susan: Luckily this neighbourhood is South Asian based, and I chose this consciously because when we came here, we came through an agency and they initially decided for a place…a guesthouse. Then I didn’t know anybody and I only knew one person who had applied through this same agency as well. I heard from him that he used to stay in this place. And that’s why I chose this neighbourhood as my son was only 5 at that time. He neither understood English nor could speak it. So I thought that if he studies in a new environment or a new kind of school so to speak……he might face certain inconvenience. He might take time to understand things and accept things. That’s why I thought this neighbourhood would be best for me. Now, though…we are trying to move from this neighbourhood.

KR: So as I understand it, the reason you chose this neighbourhood to stay, was because you wanted to slowly adapt to a new country, as well as stay in a South Asian neighbourhood. Did you put your son in a South Asian school as well?

Susan: No. the school is a normal public school but most of the students are South Asian and that’s why teachers are also aware of the fact that English is not the first language of South Asians. I did mention to the teacher that my son couldn’t speak English and the teacher said, “Don’t worry, he would learn it fast”. And I also put him into that class because my son was really small and would have required daycare. And because I didn’t have any income at that time, I couldn’t afford to put him in a professional daycare. Several of our acquaintances who were housewives…South Asian…provided daycare assistance. So I put my son with a Bangladeshi housewife like that…and he stays with her even now, sometimes, and at that time my son wouldn’t even understand Hindi…so he could speak Bengali with that Bangladeshi woman. That is why I chose this neighbourhood as well.

With the mention of “luckily” at the beginning of the above long passage, Susan expresses her gratification of living in a South Asian neighbourhood, finding similar ethnic people, and having a cushioned launching pad for starting in a new country, as expressed through finding a daycare person speaking the same language and having a nuanced teacher in school capable of understanding her son’s linguistic difficulties.

Further, the need to live in an ethnic neighbourhood is strengthened by the convenience of ethnic stores or cheaper modes of support like daycare and a conscious desire to stay away from

“white people” (Caucasians). Mala (female, 40 years, single, and immigrant from India) has lived in the “Little Bangladesh” area of Toronto for five years. Like many others, the choice to live in this particular neighbourhood also was propelled by her primary desire to live within a familiar environment, be close to Indian stores, as well as having the convenience of the light rail transit (henceforth, subway) nearby, and convenience to work. Mala is an occasional teacher, working with the school district board of Ontario and gets a lot of work at the Crescent town school nearby. When I remarked that the neighbourhood works very well for her, she mentioned,

Mala: Yeah…I feel very comfortable in this area. It’s not very sparkling, not the typical Canadian neighbourhood, but if you go around, you will find people from Dhaka, Karachi, Pakistan…there are not many white people around me, you know!

When asked about the neighbourhood community, she responded: Mala: I feel very much at home from the day 1 I moved here. First 10 days I was living in that building there right behind you…the first ten days…then I moved to an area just 2 subway stations away, in an Italian home stay. So what used to happen there….the lady…..she had 15-20 ESL students...young students from all over the world, who came to Toronto to take ESL classes. And I was the only immigrant there. She provided food and lodging and it was very nice so I thought I will have some time to look around the city…..….but you know what…. this place is better. I get to hear my own language, get to talk to people….and most of the time I get calls from schools that’s close to this area …I like it very much….Bengali…..Bengali….I like this thing about this place, I love it. Most of the time I feel very much at home. That’s all I can say.

When asked how she made friends and landed her job as an occasional teacher, Mala replied:

Mala: Well, there was a lady called Mitra Ghosh, she was a kind of leader.

KR: Of immigrants?

Mala: Of Bengali people, in general. She is in Calcutta right now, trying to do her MA and all…with her daughter. So okay, she used to connect people. She was so helpful…through her, we are known as the “Bangali adda group” and through her, we came to know most of the people. And then of course there are other ways…..I know someone in India whose aunt is in here and then I met her…you know what, there are different branching…and then I met someone who is a very good friend through the Internet. I was looking for a place to stay and she had put up an ad in the Internet. I didn’t end up taking her room but we became very good friends.

The financial, emotional, and mental investment made in ethnic neighbourhoods provides economic returns in terms of information about the labour market, lower rent, lower cost of groceries, and overall lower living expenses than in more economically affluent mainstream/dominant neighbourhoods. The formation of ethnic social capital thus derives largely from economic capital, but is also closely linked to cultural capital as well. Susan, for example, recounts how her earlier days as an immigrant were particularly harsh and how her membership in a Buddhist organization in the neighbourhood helped her through. She is a Hindu

by religion, but the mental support provided by another religious organization helped her cope in the initial days:

Susan: Initially when we came here, just to survive… both of us were employed in labour jobs. It was fixing barbecue machines in an assembly line format, standing for hours…and then they fired us. Then I got a job in Wendy’s. I could not work there for long…partly because it is tough to adjust to a new country and new place and new way of life…and face new kind of behaviour which was really inconvenient…especially I used to hate working in Wendy’s. Fortunately I heard from someone in the neighbourhood that they needed someone in his office. They observed my way of working and then they gave me an appointment. My husband had done a management degree from India and then over here he did a PMAC degree…it’s an association….they teach purchasing management. He got into it just when we came here. That was completed last year. Now as he was studying he couldn’t get into a stable job, but he was working in a small one, not one of his standards though. I was working too….I had two jobs in this time…I had changed one. But we had an expectation that since this degree was a recognized one not only in North America but world over…so we thought that he would get a stable job…and we would get returns not only for our money but also time and effort. That we’d get a work. Unfortunately, due to recession or not, or the time…or due to some other factor…things are not working out. What is happening is that he has left his previous job. Because now he has to go for interviews and he can’t take leave every other day. He was working in night shift…and due to that it wasn’t possible to go for an interview in the morning. And now that we tried for this for all these days and we are not successful….this is creating a lot of stress right now. Hopefully this will get over.

In the Buddhist organization, we are just there to share feelings with other members and pray for them. There are different classes…and study meetings. They urge you to change yourself…and don’t think negative. Especially when I get very depressed and irritated over office politics this organization helps me a lot. They always assure that in the end, good will prevail. These words....this support, means a lot…and it is easy to say them but it is not easy to practise them. Therefore they have these study meetings, which are not compulsory at all, but I love to go to these. We discuss whether any member has good experiences or bad experiences…what kind of experiences..

Susan also stressed how being part of a religious organization does not mean an individual is only participating in religious activities. For her, religion seems to offer a level of community support that is hard to find in a new country, and in making this distinction, she is quick to point

out that even as a Hindu she doesn’t like going to temples and that ethnic familiarity offers her greater support than religious participation. Quantitatively, her membership with a religious organization would be interpreted as religious participation, however, qualitative analysis of her story goes beyond mere categorization of her activity into quantification of religious participation and suggests that the motivation to join and participate in this organization is chiefly social. When asked how she would rank the three most important organizations she is a member of (the first two being Hindu religious organizations) she had this clarification to make:

KR: If you were to rank these three associations that you visit (PBCA, Kalibari and this one) then how would you rank them in order of significance to you?

Susan: The Buddhist one that I’m a member of is the prime one. And I wouldn’t like to speak ill about the other two but it feels bad when I hear in one of the Kalibari gatherings that “new immigrants have come up and filled this country up”…I don’t like it. These people were also immigrants and new immigrants at one point of time. I don’t like this segregation among our own people. And I don’t go to PBCA that much….one reason is that it’s quite far and I didn’t have a car. But I know that they arrange many cultural programmes like dramas and all that which is good. It always feels good to be in touch with your own cultural roots. I’d rank PBCA and Kalibari equally though.

KR:What do you do in the weekends? Like going to this Buddhist organization is one of your activities. What else do you do in the weekends?

Susan: We go to visit close friends….people from Kolkata. But this Bangladeshi and Kolkata…people from Kolkata that is not a big factor for me. Being Hindu or being Muslim is not a big factor. But once you get into a group, you visit her house, you get introduced to the group and you become part of that group. Then one day I met one of my classmates in Toronto. Her friends became my friends now. Then I have some South Indian friends and some Punjabi friends. But I feel that they are different—North Indians and South Indians. Like we Bengalis would have get-togethers every now and then, in the weekends, and we would do this in turns…whether we like it or not. The thing is that you should do this...this is being in society, this is being social. This thing is ingrained in us. But North Indians and South Indians…their socializing is very much temple based.

In addition to speaking of cultural capital, such as holding dramas and other programs that these ethnic organizations are based on and the emotional support emanating from a religious organization, Susan speaks of similar values that govern social practices, such as holding get- togethers on weekends, whether one likes it or not. Having special ethnic food at these get-

togethers, similar to what Mala mentioned earlier, imparts a sense of belonging and reinforces the sense of ethnic identity. The following interview excerpt with Mala illustrates the binding nature of the neighbourhood and bringing people together on special occasions over food:

KR: Is your neighbourhood bonded?

Mala: Oh yes.

KR: What is the binding ingredient?

Mala: I’d say the cultural thing, language, the religion. Because my neighbourhood is predominantly… Islamic, so when there is any festival or celebrations, they are usually huge. E.g in the crescent town school, 90% of the kids are from muslim communities. So on Eids it is a holiday for sure, and apart from that there are huge dinners and lunches for everyone. It’s kind of a feast and the school organizes it, just to bring the community together.

The neighbourhood not only serves as the most immediate network for an immigrant, it also channels and builds on additional networks by acting as a core. As Babun says below, his first friend in Canada was his roommate whom he knew as his father’s friend before he came to

Toronto. This person was crucial to forming additional friend networks, and since Babun lives in a South Asian neighbourhood with a dominant Bangladeshi population, most of his friends also come from a Bangladeshi lineage.

KR: What do you do in the weekends?

Babun: In the weekends I pretty much …uhh…go out with my wife, go for shopping, house invitations, parties…driving around the city…that’s pretty much around it.

KR: So house invitations from friends?

Babun: Family friends…

KR: How did you find them?

Babun: Umm...through my mutual friends…so when I came here I met a friend who introduced me to others and expanded my network.

KR: Is it the only way you made friends in this country?

Babun: You know in this country when I came here in my case I knew my father’s friend was my roommate. And then what happened was ...his cousin became my friend and through that cousin of him I met all my friends.

The occurrence of the neighbourhood serving as the basis of forming further networks was reiterated by other South Asian participants. In addition to the neighbourhood, acquaintances made in co-ethnic networks also influence formation of friendships or access to other networks, many of which may be co-ethnic. To explain, these ethnic networks compensate for the lack of ability to spend and invest in social participation in more mainstream/dominant networks. The lack of ability for many South Asian participants includes the inability to drink and socialize in a bar due to religious constraints, financial priorities, inability to invest in appropriate dress, inability to invest in buying extra food to socialize with guests, and other accompaniments required for modes of socializing and social participation in mainstream Canada. Kaai, Babun, and Mehrab (immigrant from Bangladesh, male, married, 43, household income of $35,000, and employed) speaks of how religious constraints like not drinking alcohol, avoiding certain foods, and financial constraints of dining out has implications for socializing and social participation in mainstream/Canadian networks. The lack of economic strength and pre-existing social support like in the country of origin are compensated by new-formed ethnic ties in their immediate neighbourhoods, where familiarity with their own ethno-cultural practices helps to counter the sense of isolation and exclusion they feel on arrival to a new country. In this respect, the first building block to initiation of social participation and formation of networks and social capital in

Canada is often supplied by an immigrant’s neighbourhood and their first person of contact.

Reciprocity transaction, consisting of a series of exchanges, favours, information, and approval

become particularly important in the lives of individuals due to their immigrant and socio- economic status. The reciprocal understanding influencing South Asian immigrants is that living conditions should be familiar to “back home” (one’s country of origin).

For example, Mehrab explained that the ethnic make-up and maintenance of certain ethnic lineages are things that he likes about his neighbourhood:

Mehrab: The things that I liked is that people from my own community lives here. Probably I couldn’t have sustained over here had it not for this neighbourhood and the environment in which I am in. Your own language… and being able to speak in that language means a lot. Then I couldn’t have maintained the food habits that I am able to, had not I stayed in this neighbourhood. I’m also able to interact with people from my own community.

There are certain religious festivals which pull people closer. People meet on those occasions. Like Eid. When you visit others, when you give gifts to others, even if it’s for one day, it helps people to bond with each other.

In the above extract, Mehrab reaffirms how ethnic lineages are equated with religious practices and become crucial criteria for continuing to live in co-ethnic neighbourhoods. The level of familiarity of customs and ways of doing things as ingrained in norms of reciprocity, meeting during certain occasions, and gift giving customs reinstate levels of bonding with co- ethnics. In another occasion, Mehrab also spoke of how he and his friends have an implied understanding of agreeing to meet at a particular coffee shop in the neighbourhood in the evenings and inquire about those who cannot come:

Mehrab: Sometimes we meet in the weekend in each other’s house. Sometimes we come for tea breaks, in this coffee shop. Then we call each other. As to how they are doing. This happens because we all live in this area. Probably these interactions wouldn’t have happened if we didn’t live in this area.

A similar practice of meeting at a common place everyday out of sheer habit also exists in the neighbourhoods of Calcutta (to be discussed in detail in a later section). While these practices

help to reinstate the familiar and strengthen the bonds between individuals of similar ethnic backgrounds, the chief assurance provided is financial and availability of being there in moments of crisis. With the exception of two participants in the sample, all others expressed that in any kind of crisis they would go to their co-ethnic friends. When asked why participants would do so, participants responded that asking for help comes from a sense of trust and levels of bonding and/or past precedence of helping each other with information, money, emotional availability, and so on. For example, S. Mohan’s description of his weekend activities was echoed by all the other participants, except those with a high household income:

S. Mohan: People are mostly South Asians and that is binding people. Mostly people are from the Bangladeshi community, so….those people are….sometimes they hold a meeting together and they call me also and they ask me to come. And then I enjoy with them…..the party….like that.

Female participants spoke mostly of how food is exchanged between co-ethnic neighbours and friends, how emotional reliance, informational exchange for finding a job, and taking a course is chiefly dependent on their friends.

Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups—South Asians

In agreement with Matsuo and Fong (2007: 4), this research finds evidence that civic participation is influenced by an individual’s locational standpoint in society and confirms existing research that states people with high incomes have the tools needed to facilitate their involvement in civic engagement (Bekkers, 2005; Grabb & Curtis, 1992; Verba, Scholzman, &

Brady, 1995).

To clarify, socio-economic characteristics, such as education and income, are seen to go together with resources such as spare time, knowledge of organizations, and social contacts that provide individuals access to organizational participation and socializing with others (Grabb &

Curtis, 1992). According to Verba et al. (1993), such factors can explain differences in political participation among Latino, Black Americans, and Anglo-Whites in the United States.

Important exceptions in the previously-mentioned trend and corroborating Matsuo & Fong’s

(2007) assertion, South Asian immigrants of higher household income ($110,000-$400,000)

(income categories are in agreement with Myles and Hou, 2004) do not prefer to live close to their ethnic group like their ethnic counterparts of lower household incomes. These immigrants are different from the majority of their ethnic counterparts by virtue of being relatively well off with commensurate jobs corresponding to their educational qualifications, they are also found to be more familiar with the western/mainstream Canadian way of life and familiar with popular cultural discourses on Canadian life. An important difference between immigrants with higher household income and those with lower income consists of the former’s non-reliance on ethnic support in their daily living in Canada and better understanding of language and discourses capable of making social interaction with mainstream/dominant Canadians.

Immigrants belonging to a higher income group are noticeable for omitting the South Asian convenience and comfort as derived from familiarity altogether, both when explaining their choice of neighbourhood and when describing that neighbourhood. Chathu (41, female, married, immigrant from Sri Lanka, employed, and household income of $250,000 per year) does not speak of any ethnic connection that influenced her choice to live in her current neighbourhood.

Chathu lives in an upscale neighbourhood of Toronto with a mix of many ethnic groups and

would probably be identified as more “mainstream” with a predominant “white” population. The following extract explains Chathu’s criteria for selecting a neighbourhood:

KR: How do you like this area?

Chathu: It’s very nice and family oriented and very quiet.

KR: When you moved here, what were your criteria of selection for this neighbourhood?

Chathu: Oh, we had to renovate our house. So it was a question of renovation…or just buying a house. We actually were looking for some ideas to renovate the house and then we thought why not just buy a house. The first thing important was that it is close to the subway, so that both my husband and I can go to work. We don’t like to drive. And then of course because we have a large family we needed space for everybody.

Clearly, for Chathu the primary criterion of finding a neighbourhood was based on real estate prices rather than ethnic make-up. Another immigrant with a high household income, Manas

(immigrant from India, male, divorced, 47, and household income of $110,000) also does not mention the presence of any criteria of ethnic convenience as he replied to the same question as follows:

Manas: My criteria were very specific. I had a house in London, Ontario, and I sold the house. So I had all the furniture and everything. So I needed a big apartment. So in Islington, in this apartment complex, I found whatever I wanted. 3 bedroom apartment, 2 full washrooms, this is what I wanted. I wanted a dishwasher, central A.C and indoor swimming pools. So everything is there. Now that’s why I went to this place. Now in this price range, I couldn’t have got whatever I wanted…in almost all over in Toronto. So I found that I got everything together in a ….$1600 …so it was a good price range.”

Higher income immigrants accorded greater priority to general convenience, to the character of the neighbourhood, space of living unit, and low crime rates. In this respect there is a clear divide between immigrants in the sample that preferred an ethnic neighbourhood and those who did not. As mentioned earlier, the neighbourhood is the most immediate social network and has

an obvious bearing not only on levels of bonding between the participant and community, but also on other networks connected to it. The selection of neighbourhood is based on different factors by South Asian immigrants and mainstream/dominant Canadians and those factors influence consequent social participation processes. In this process, South Asian immigrants are not a homogeneous group; income differences and familiarity with language and discourses create the chief difference within this ethnic group.

Susan and Mehrab recount how they had problems understanding the popular jokes and mainstream colloquial expressions. Farhad (36 years, female, single, immigrant from

Bangladesh, student, and household income of $15,000) described how the different discourses can create a problem in interaction patterns with mainstream/dominant Canadians:

Farhad: Possibly this is due to my language problem…I hesitate a lot while speaking. Their culture is totally different than ours…they way they talk, the way they move… it’s totally different. But it’s not like I do not have any Canadian friend. I do have one or two….and they are my friends because I feel they understand me and because I’m comfortable in interacting with them. What I can’t do is that I can’t talk like that…it’s not a question of speaking English but the way language is spoken. The conversational topic is so different…..for example, dress; they know too much about Canadian culture, which I don’t. The talk about Political Parties….Canadian issues, cultural issues…which I don’t know and then it becomes difficult for me to follow their conversation.

KR: How do you think you can bridge this gap?

Farhad: What I’m trying to do right now...is that I’m trying to adapt every day. I’m watching the news every day with a particular focus on knowing the things. Previously too I would see the news, but now I do it with a purpose. Then I read magazines, and I try to know about different issues like Canadian economy and tying to read the newspaper every day. And I also try to listen to others—when others are having a conversation—just to try to know how they are saying certain things. Then I try to notice how people are dressing up and whether a dress will suit me.

100

Such conscious attempts to bridge the gap in interactional styles and ways of speaking are also mentioned by other participants (Manas, Maradona, Madhu, and Chathu), however, these attempts are seen more among higher income immigrants than the others. Further, except for the higher income immigrants, other immigrants often lack the infrastructural resources of bridging the gap between social interaction styles of their own and mainstream/dominant Canadian networks. To clarify, participants living in South Asian neighbourhoods have a significant portion of their friend circle based in the neighbourhood itself and consequently, most of their social participation is contained within their neighbourhood or encompasses other overlapping networks. Social participation within these networks remains strongly co-ethnic. Conversely, participants living in more western/Canadian neighbourhoods have little or no bonding with their neighbourhood community, where limited bonding with neighbours is understood as barely knowing their names and exchanging token greetings. Limited bonding, however, has little bearing on their social participation levels since higher income immigrants tend to participate both in co-ethnic and inter-ethnic networks. Language skills, knowledge in discourse, and interactional styles of higher immigrants do not restrict their social participation in co-ethnic networks, as it does for other South Asian Canadians.

In agreement with Qadeer (1999) and Hou and Picot (2003) majority of South Asians interviewed in this research were seen to portray an immigrant group characteristic—residing in ethnic neighbourhoods, especially in their initial years. Staying in an ethnic neighbourhood helped maintain strong co-ethnic bond or “bonding” strong capital. To illustrate, interviewees living in South Asian neighbourhoods were seen to maintain a more companionate relationship with their neighbours than mainstream/dominant Canadians situated in non-ethnic neighbourhoods. S. Mohan stated how he would go to his neighbours for any kind of problems:

101

“I shall go there and ask if there’s any problem. I would share my problems with them. I must go there if I had the worst problem….even my neighbour would do the same.” The companionate relationship entails being there with each other on special occasions and festivals as well as in times of crisis. Mehrab explained how his South Asian neighbourhood helped a particular neighbour whom he barely knew but everybody extended their support nonetheless as the understated assumption remains such:

Mehrab: A new family has come as our neighbour. One day, the man just called us and said, “I’m leaving my wife…I’m going somewhere. Please take care of her”. I was shocked to hear that. I told him, “Why are you saying this? We know you as a good man…we didn’t know that you two are having problems.” Then he said that there were some problems between husband and wife since long and that they were sustaining the relationship by a compulsion. Then I told my wife about this. The next day we saw for real that the husband has left and the wife is on her own. So my wife asked the man’s wife whether she has any problems…whether she needs anything. The neighbour’s wife said that she is okay and that she doesn’t need anything….that… the husband goes off somewhere…he gets angry at times…. and that he also comes back. The neighbour’s wife lives with a kid, so it is a problematic situation indeed.

Shujon (male, single, 28 years, immigrant from Bangladesh, student, partially employed, with a household income of $30,000-$40,000) mentioned how he could count on his neighbours for financial support. As compared to these strong instances of bonding in South Asian neighbourhoods, mainstream/dominant neighbourhoods are characterized by weaker relationships that are civil and polite. For example, Carl (male, single, 34 years, mainstream-

Canadian, household income of $10,000, and employed) was asked if he knew his neighbours.

He replied they just moved in and they seem friendly, though he had forgotten their names.

When asked:

KR: If you needed something, would you ask your neighbours? Say you need sugar or some tool like screwdrivers.

102

Carl: I probably wouldn’t. I have screwdrivers and stuff but if I needed something, I would ask a friend or just go get it. If I need a screwdriver, I would go buy a screwdriver and then I have it.

Carl represents the trend among mainstream/Canadian participants where bonding with one’s neighbours is based on being civil with each other and does not lead to sharing or asking for help in times of need. Carl lives in an apartment; while mainstream/dominant Canadians who live in houses do speak of knowing their neighbours and bonding levels comprise of more than simply exchanging pleasantries, social reciprocities based on ethnic background are also observed when living in a house. For example, E.S (male, single, 27 years, mainstream/dominant Canadian,

Ph.D student, and household income of $100,000-$150,000) lives with his parents in a house in a suburban neighbourhood of Toronto. E.S. spoke of how his predominantly white neighbourhood of the past now has more diversity in terms of visible minorities moving in, and that has changed the character of the neighbourhood.

KR: If you find something is happening in your neighbourhood, like there is an accident or death in some family—what do you see? Where does that household get its help from?

E.S.: Normally we see their families coming for help. That being said, my neighbourhood is really ethnically diverse, so there are many Indians and Tamils, so they seek help within themselves, but occasionally one of them would come and talk to us about me and that way we get a chance to meet them. Aside from that, they don’t mix so well.

It used to be different years back when the neighbourhood was more western….then we would have barbecues. Even I’d miss them now….that’s because the area is becoming….it’s a bit older now. So the children of my age have left home. The celebrations and get-togethers with the westerners got less infrequent.

Worth noting in the two previous interview extracts of Carl and E.S. is how ethnic background is mentioned when denoting ethnic difference. South Asian immigrants are also conscious of their ethnic background when talking about themselves or individuals from different ethnic backgrounds in providing a general introductory description of their

103

neighbourhood and neighbours. Ethnic identity, composed of cultural capital, thus acts as a facilitator not only in choosing a neighbourhood and channelizes participatory processes within the neighbourhood.

To summarize, in the South Asian discourse of a neighbourhood, food is exchanged with each other on a regular basis as Susan and Kaai mentioned, weekend get-togethers are held with one another based on norms of reciprocity, participation in community events are attended and being there for each other in personal or financial problems expected. Similar levels of bonding are also observed in Indian neighbourhoods, but in those situations the “cultural club” forms the chief hub of the activities. In the absence of a “cultural club” South Asian neighbourhood in

Canada attempt to recreate the activities related to situations “back home”. In Indian neighbourhoods and mainstream/Canadian neighbourhoods, participants spoke about how things were versus how things are today. Based on the delineation of changes in neighbourhoods, the question is whether the levels of differences in bonding within neighbourhood corresponds with the ethnic make-up of the neighbourhood, other characteristic features of the neighbourhoods, or perceived expectations of how neighbourhoods should be. The next segment deals with the above-mentioned issues in detail.

Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups—Indians in India and the “cultural club”

To explore in detail the levels of bonding in neighbourhoods in India, and if there are similarities with South Asian neighbourhoods in Toronto, let me start with the interviews carried out in India. Generally speaking, it was found that strong interpersonal interactions characterize social participation in India. Interpersonal interactions are reinforced by social infrastructural practices, such as having a “cultural club” in almost every neighbourhood that brings people

104

together in a common platform through religious festivals, community events, and also helps to resolve disputes and conflicts among people. Among South Asians in Toronto, the cultural club in every neighbourhood is not found, but South Asians transform other social arenas into a common meeting ground, these could include a neighbourhood school, a coffee shop, or a religious association, South Asians also organize cultural programs such as dramas or musical concerts. The “cultural club”, or neighbourhood club, in Calcutta is a key ingredient in binding the community together and providing support for people, even in times of financial crisis, accident, or death in the family.

Although the club is called a “cultural club”, its manifest and specific function is to hold different cultural musical functions or celebrate cultural and religious festivals, the club is the first place to gain support in times of crisis and a common meeting place for all ages of the neighbourhood, where anybody can drop in at any time. It is the hub that social participation and social groups are woven around.

Males are more connected with the activities of the club than females, the latter choosing to not participate as much, except for religious festivals, cultural ceremonies, or sports events.

Young females, however, are an exception to this tradition as they are becoming increasingly connected with their neighbourhood in recent years. Older females are found to be involved in neighbourhood activities only during religious festivals or other social/community events.

The neighbourhood club, as the primary basis of social participation, is integral to community life, however, it is declining in the upscale neighbourhoods of Calcutta. In addition,

Aparna, a female resident (married, 42 years, homemaker, and household income of Rs. 600,000 per year) of Bombay also expresses concern that she is not on talking terms with her next door neighbour and hardly has “normal” relationships with others in the neighbourhood, in spite of

105

living in the neighbourhood for the last eight years. Aparna mentions how none of the neighbours talk with each other and the lack of the old neighbourhood community feeling in that particular “upscale” and “modern” neighbourhood of Bombay. The participant was born and raised in Bombay and knows Marathi (the local dialect) and Hindi, and is well-conversant with the cultural discourse in Bombay, a cosmopolitan city with people from many ethnic backgrounds.

In laying out the contrasts of the current neighbourhood with the one where she grew up,

Aparna became nostalgic about how certain people from her old neighbourhood would still come and be with her in case of crisis, financial or otherwise, and still call her on special days of the year (New Year) and on religious occasions. To compensate her family for her current neighbourhood’s limited bonding opportunities, she got in touch with her Bengali cultural association in Bombay (Bengali being an ethno-cultural group in India and ethnic background of this participant). Though Aparna is familiar with Marathi culture and discourse, she chose to draw support from her ethnic counterparts and has made close friends within that network.

Comparable to this situation is the case of a male participant, Hellboy, (27 years, single, working in the IT industry, with a household income of Rs 22,00000 per year) who is from a North Indian state and is not a Bengali or Calcuttan, but lives in Calcutta for a high-paying job. Hellboy resides in an affluent and contemporary neighbourhood of Calcutta. When asked to describe his neighbourhood, he is unable to do so because he does not know the neighbourhood well enough even though he has stayed there for the last two years. Therefore, he is unable to determine if his neighbourhood is good or bad. In case of any emergency the only person available to help is his roommate. The participant admited that even though his roommate is listed as the emergency contact, he goes out with his colleagues and friends on weekends or leisure activities more often

106

than with his roommate. With the upward change in the socio-economic character of neighbourhoods, and what is perceived as “westernization” or “modernization”, the traditional nature of social participation and bonding is seen to be missing from these neighbourhoods.

The level of bonding of these two participants with their current neighbourhoods, which are described as more affluent and “modern”, appear to be based less on the ethnic make-up of the neighbourhood and more on individual preferences. Both Bombay and Calcutta are large cosmopolitan cities where people of different ethnic backgrounds arrive each day in search of jobs and better living, contributing a multi-ethnic character to several neighbourhoods in both cities. Though lack of bonding within the neighbourhood can be attributed to personal characteristics of a person, as well as myriad circumstances in life trajectories; in both cases the participants did express their wish to have a friendlier neighbourhood. Irrespective of this orientation, both of the participants have limited or no support from their neighbourhood, but have friends and support groups elsewhere in the city. While a roommate might be the primary support and person of contact in case of any emergency, proximity derived from living with a person does not make him a friend by default and the same could be said regarding their neighbours. Relationships are kept clearly demarcated and compartmentalized. In addition, individual motivation to have a friendlier neighbourhood fades in level of urgency once circumstances are perceived as more “modern”.

On being asked whether his lack of bonding with the neighbourhood could be attributed to his non-Bengali status, Hellboy did not answer in the affirmative. He reasoned that he has a lot of Bengali friends and has made ample friends among his colleagues that can be looked upon as testament to his acceptability in the social setting in Calcutta, irrespective of his migrant status.

107

He said that the lack of bonding with his neighbourhood has more to do with the ultra-urban nature of his neighbourhood than anything else.

The lack of neighbourhood bonding is not only experienced by non-Bengali migrants in

Calcutta, or non-Marathi persons in Bombay, but also by Bengalis living in the city. Ronney

(male, single, 27 years, MBA, employed, income of Rs. 12,0000-18,0000 per month) who was born and raised in Calcutta, said circumstances have changed. He moved to his current neighbourhood six years ago and spoke of changing times as follows:

Ronney: We are one of the oldest residents in the neighbourhood….when we came here, there was nothing here. What I think is that….people have become more professional. Where I used to be before, people used to come out to our places…we used to go to others’ places without making them an “occasion”….that has now decreased a lot. What was a ‘regular’ thing then, has now become an occasion.

KR: People have become more professional—what do you mean by this?

Ronney: People don’t have time. They are going out at 9 in the morning and returning at 10 in the night…..they don’t have the time! And I also think, the mentalities have also changed. People have become more narrow-minded. They are more self-centred.

KR: Why do you think this has become the case?

Ronney: Small things you see…..that has become a part of life. Now it has become quite normal but the change has happened. What happens now is that…..say if you have a problem, you would try to solve it yourself, rather than asking your neighbours. This was not the case before. Then, if someone required anything, they would have asked the neighbours. Now you don’t feel like that. It’s not like that people don’t talk to each other, but the amount of bonding has come down. The warmth is lacking.

Ronney is narrating a typology of neighbourhoods; the one that used to be, the “traditional one”, where people would regularly visit each other without announcing it beforehand, when people could depend on each other for small and big problems in life, and where mutual dependence strengthened bonds between neighbours. In contemporary neighbourhoods, with the increase in time attributed to one’s occupation, time dedicated to neighbours is scaled down, and

108

is often perceived as a loss in bonding with each other. In addition, several young participants in

India also reported that they are unable to dedicate any of their time to the quintessential

“cultural club” in their neighbourhoods (which still exists) or in partaking in any of the neighbourhood activities like when they were younger or as their parents used to do. In spite of the familiarity that is gained by being one of the oldest residents in the neighbourhood, Ronney and his family do not feel as connected to their neighbourhood even though infrastructurally, people still live in close quarters or proximity.

Differences in social participation levels among ethno-racial groups— mainstream/dominant Canadians

Whether rise of individuality and lack of dependence on others is responsible for decreasing levels of bonding in neighbourhood communities are factors worth examining in greater detail in future research. For the time being, let’s put our attention to how mainstream/dominant

Canadians report their experiences of neighbourhood bonding. As mentioned earlier, E.S. reported a changing characteristic of neighbourhoods with lessened social participation and bonding, quite similar to Ronney, though he attributed the reasons to the changing diversity in ethnic make-up of his neighbourhood. Comparing Ronney’s narration with Carl living in

Toronto:

Carl: I grew up in a small city in Manitoba which is completely different than Toronto. I grew up in a suburban kind of town, like Oshawa and I grew up in a suburbia like big houses and yards and nobody walking on the street, just some persons working on their lawn, very quiet compared to here. Not a lot of traffic, not a lot of stuff happening. Definitely there’s more… within the walking distance in this neighbourhood. In the earlier one, there was nothing in the walking distance; you would have to take your car to go anywhere. You could have had a bike but it’s not so pleasant biking in –40 degree Celsius. And so basically you are always dependent on cars and people who could drive around like when I was small I had to ask people to drive me anywhere that I would have liked to go. Also here you have certain anonymity while in the small town you don’t. Everywhere that you go, you run around somebody who knows you,

109

you have a history with, and they will ask you about how things are, so you can’t escape them. People know you... Whereas here you can walk down the street and nobody really knows who you are and that could be liberating because you don’t have to always explain yourself to everybody. So it’s very different. And it is also funny as people from Brandon wouldn’t even think of living here as they would find the traffic too busy and the people too insane. And they would be put off with the idea that people don’t talk to you anywhere you go. They would find the idea to be too unfriendly. But it’s not like that, people have their own business and they just can’t go on saying Hi to everybody in the street. But if you actually talk to people they are quite friendly.

While Carl implied that mutual dependence and a history of living together for years brings a level of bonding that is not there in his current neighbourhood, he also offered a qualifier in this comparison—on his current neighbourhood in Toronto, “the big city”—of how people could be just as friendly, but there are less instances to interact with them and interactions with other people or neighbours is based more on mutual preference, active agency, and choice than mutual dependence. Existing research has already found that lower social capital (that social participation forms a part of) is a result of city life: large community size tends to decrease community involvement, group membership, etc. (Aizelwood & Pendakur, 2005).

Based on the interviews it appears that a person’s bonding with the neighbourhood is dependent on several factors: infrastructural support (such as presence of a neighbourhood

“cultural club” and/or a history of living together for many years), mutual dependence on each other, homogeneity of neighbourhoods in ethno-cultural aspects, as well as size of the city where someone lives (big city versus small town). The presence of one or even all of the factors does not guarantee a close bonding between people and the neighbourhood, but works in combination.

So, what counts for the strong neighbourhood bonding in South Asian neighbourhoods in

Toronto? Is it a sense of shared background that brings people together? Is it an ethno-cultural tradition of neighbourly duties? Furthermore, do living situations in proximity alone, such as

110

living in an apartment or a house or a student dormitory guarantee close relationship with neighbours? Before answers to these questions become clearer, let us look into the responses of

Neel (male, 29, single, household income of Rs. 60,000 per month, Ph.D student), who has stayed in a student dormitory (hostel) of the Jadavpur area in Calcutta for the last five years. He is not from Calcutta, but from an industrial town in West Bengal, India, where people from various parts of India come to work. On being asked how he would describe the neighbourhood where he is currently staying, he stated categorically:

Neel: The thing is… I have made a few friends, and got acquainted with some senior students too. In that sense I can’t call this a neighbourhood… as what happens in a neighbourhood is that people stay there long term. I have been here only for 5 or 6 years…..I think… where these guys would be, that place is important for me—these guys in the hostel. They matter, this place Jadavpur doesn’t matter to me.

Two things are important in this perspective: The way Neel uses “common sense” to explain what could be called a neighbourhood (“what happens…”), namely a place where people stay long term and there’s less of a change in demographics, and the fact that even though one might stay in a place for a few years, (five to six years), that is not a sufficient condition to form a community feeling. This perspective is also in agreement with two other participants in Calcutta, who, in spite of staying in their current neighbourhood for more than two years, report a low level of community bonding and think that things will definitely get better with more years of living together.

Factors affecting social participation—age and marital status

To return to the first research question of how social participation is engaged in among ethno-racial communities, recurrent themes involved age and marital status. To illustrate, a common factor in participants who reported less of a community feeling after living a few years

111

in the neighbourhood (two to six years) is that they are single, young, and male. From interviews in all three groups (South Asian Canadians, mainstream/dominant Canadians, Indians), it appears that marital status does have a bearing on bonding with neighbours. Participants clarified how their marital status and having children, ease their acceptance and interaction in the neighbourhood through common activities. Activities like kids playing together or calling on married friends with their spouses often excludes single and never-married persons. For example, when asked how she makes friends, Aparna stated:

Aparna: Through acquaintances….my daughter’s friends, their families….I get to know them…then there’s some social interaction, though those remain mostly acquaintances. I’ve lost touch with most of my friends from school…however, I met Mrs Bubbly Paul..the friend who is always there for me, through the club and now we’re good friends through 7-8 years…she has two daughters, just like me.

In the above extract, Aparna states how as a mother certain social participatory activities of being in touch are taken for granted. The emphasis that the friend who is always there for her is also someone like her, a mother with two daughters, points to the fact that marital status and parenthood creates the realization of having a common circumstance and going through similar situations in life. This realization of having similar circumstances based on marital status is also observed in the case of a non-Bengali single male participant in Calcutta, who said the reason he doesn’t have any relationship with his neighbours could be accorded to being a bachelor and non-Bengali. Helen, a mainstream/dominant Canadian participant (female, 34 years, homemaker, and household income of $75,000-$80,000), explained how being married with children can ease access and entry into particular social networks:

Helen: I think it’s because they have kids….as opposed to having male friends with whom we were single or we were going out and that’s different than …..now that I have kids. And now I stay at home. And most people who are at home now are women. So I look into people in different times of the day and who are into similar situations.

112

This finding is in agreement with Couton & Gaudet (2008: 28) as they state, “Research has demonstrated that living with children aged 6 years and over is one of the most influential correlated of higher social participation. This remains true despite the fact that parents experience important stress related to life-balance issues”.

It was also found in this research that bonding with neighbours is not only dependent on marital status and age of individuals, but also depends on individual preferences imparted on the demographic make-up of the neighbourhood. Neel grew up and lived for 20 years in his hometown neighbourhood, but he doesn’t feel connected to his community because it is too

“business oriented” and “people lack the motive to pursue education”. Consequently, he feels he has little to share about his daily life. In the same vein, Mala, of Toronto, opined how she likes her current neighbourhood because it is predominantly a South Asian neighbourhood of new immigrants and there are no white persons. Sense of belonging with a particular demographic make-up of a neighbourhood influences whether individuals use their active agency to participate in activities in the neighbourhood or compartmentalize their activities with friends from other networks or interest-based clubs and associations.

Interviews with East Indians in Calcutta and mainstream/dominant Canadians in Toronto indicate that the notion of neighbourhood has evolved in levels of bonding, preference, to interact with each other, and with respect to living arrangements, such as houses and apartments.

Even though apartment living entails a living arrangement in very close quarters and the opportunity to interact with numerous households and individuals, it allows for minimal arenas of interaction with others in contrast to living in houses. Findings from the qualitative interviews indicate that for any kind of neighbourhood bonding to exist, mutual levels of interests, sharing,

113

communication, and even existence of channels of communication and interaction are important preconditions.

Margaret Mitchell (female, 47 years, single, mainstream/dominant Canadian, employed, and annual household income of $60,000) lives in an apartment in an upscale, midtown Toronto neighbourhood. She explained the difference of living in an apartment versus previously living in a house:

Margaret: [….] I don’t mean that people over here are less friendly. There are just fewer things here for people to….I mean what are they going to do together? I mean in the old neighbourhood before there was an old lady who lived next door and I always shovelled her snow in the driveway or one of the other people in the street, we practically competed you know who can shovel the old lady’s driveway and stuff like that. And we would always talk because we were outside, raking leaves and things like that, whereas here because it’s an apartment building I say hello to people and I see that I recognize some people and they recognize me so they are very friendly. I mean I’m not going to invite myself to their apartment or something but I feel like there’s not the same opportunity to interact.

KR: Do you know your neighbours by their name?

Margaret: In this building? Well a guy who lives across from me… he introduced himself one day because we realized that we are on the elevator and that we are walking and going to the same end of the hall. And I do happen to know someone else from my floor, but that is just a coincidence because she works at my office so it’s just a fluke. But other than that, I don’t know. I haven’t even seen my next door neighbour for over two months.

Margaret points to the fact that in an apartment the areas of interacting with neighbours are limited as are opportunities of learning about them. Not knowing the neighbour or knowing them only a little (such as their names and exchanging token greetings) is a regular feature in the majority of the current neighbourhoods in Toronto and in recently developed neighbourhoods in

Calcutta. With the anonymity and individuality offered by big city living, avenues of interaction are limited in the neighbourhood. While it does not indicate that individuals have stopped interacting and participating in social networks altogether, it does show the axes of social

114

participation may have shifted elsewhere, with a level of remoteness at the most immediate social network.

Summarily speaking, in lieu of family and friends, the first concentric circle in which South

Asian immigrants interact is their neighbourhood. Interaction and social participation in the mainstream/dominant Canadian life is dependent on resources such as cognitive familiarity with popular discourse, economic capabilities, and perception or understanding of how they are viewed by the mainstream/dominant Canadian networks. Since South Asian Canadians tend to form friends with their neighbours or with other alumni networks found in Canada, networks tend to be more dependent on what is known by their neighbours, than on originating from extracurricular interests or other motivations.

To illustrate, for Mala, Susan, S. Mohan, Kaai, Shujon, and many others, ethnic background is an important precondition to interact and form relationships and friendships with people beyond their neighbourhood. Higher income immigrants are an important exception in this regard. As David explains below, however, even when the conscious onus is just making friends, looking for other South Asians often becomes the unstated motivation of friendship and membership into clubs and associations. When asked how David would make more friends other than the “friend of a friend” he already has as his only source of information and support system, he replied:

David: I don’t know…but I have some ideas. I think I’ll go to some temple, public gathering…community sectors… you know where people come in a regular basis…so even…you know…even I went to a temple you know…the Murugan temple in Scarborough…but I didn’t see any people you know...only one or two people. Even with Indians on the streets…in the beginning I used to get excited if I saw some Indians on the streets and tried to talk to them but they don’t talk as much…they don’t want to.

115

In the above extract, even though David said he would like to make friends, he didn’t mention doing it based on interest-based activities; rather he mentioned how seeing Indians in the street or in the temple made him hopeful of making some contacts and friends in the new country. Looking for co-ethnics by South Asian Canadians is contrasted to social participation efforts of mainstream/dominant Canadians, as well as native Indians; where social participation

(excepting those that happen in their neighbourhood) emanates out of extra-curricular interests and conscious motivations to contribute to the goals and purposes of other networks. The strong co-ethnic character in South Asian circles of social participation is mostly interspersed with loosely bonded inter-ethnic circles through volunteer work, professional organizations, and/or neighbourhood non-ethnic community activities (geared towards well-being of the neighbourhood, such as keeping it clean or safety programmes) in later years. Suma (female, married, immigrant from India, 40 years, employed, and household income $24,000-$36,000 annually) mentions how she avoids any ethnic distinction when making friends. Suma participates in volunteering activities in her neighbourhood and also has friends from various ethnic backgrounds, but later in the interview commented on the fact that she has hardly any support despite knowing so many people:

Suma: It is actually…. an association within my community which actually… helps to develop the community. So we meet every month for about 2-3 hours. And we discuss and we do things some community things like we look out for each other. And we try to make the neighbourhood a better place. Like one group might make sure that there is no garbage anywhere, that the garbage is cleaned. One day we did a community dinner.

My part was the bicycle thing. Like clearing up all broken bicycles in the area. We are trying to install more bicycle wires so that people can park them safely. Because they end up locked up in the fences. And we are requesting the city to arrange for more bicycle storage things.

KR: Why are you involved in this?

116

Suma: Well I thought that…I have…I used to have two jobs when I used to live in Etobicoke. Half of the day I used to volunteer in school and then half of the day I used to work. So I thought I have enough time when I get back home at 3:30 or 4:30. I would work from 8:30. And I thought I would do something for the community where I live. So that’s the intention behind joining this community.

KR: What do you do in the weekends?

Suma: Right now, because I moved in downtown it’s been different. In the winters, I like to stay inside and in the summer I decide to go out. I go to Malls, to the Lakeshore where I take a long walk, other than that…..I watch movies, that’s the only thing that I do. It it’s too cold, I don’t go anywhere, I’m just at grocery shopping, I get in there and I get back home. And do cooking and eat and watch movies on dvd. I watch telugu and hindi movies.

KR: Do you have friends from your own ethnic community?

Suma: I have friends from India but I’m not against making friends with anybody else. Well I met some Telugu people but I don’t have much connection with them right now. Other than like my colleagues, I don’t have much friends here. One person is from Guyana and the other person is from Trinidad.

KR: Do you have any white Canadian friends?

Suma: I know many people. I talk to them. But I wouldn’t call them my friends.

The long interview extract is given to delineate the networks Suma participates in, the ethnic characteristics and purposes of those networks, and the kind of bonding she has with other members in those networks. Kaai also spoke of how, apart from his co-ethnic friends, his relationship bonding with his colleagues remains very loose owing to his inability of having non- halal food and inability to participate in conversations of investing in shares because those are restricted by his religious standards, therefore he doesn’t have any “white Canadian friends” or friends from the dominant/mainstream Canadian background.

KR: Do you have any white Canadian friends?

Kaai: No. There are people in my workplace, but they are more like acquaintances. Actually there is this Canadian lady who we used to work together. And whenever she comes to Toronto, we usually meet for lunch or dinner….but she doesn’t work

117

with me anymore. And I wouldn’t term her as a friend…..she is more like a cordial acquaintance.

Friendship means you know….you are always with the person in his good times or bad times….no not that kind of relationship.

As explained in later sections, social participation, such as volunteering, canvassing, or joining particular interest-based associations and organizations forms one of the very outer concentric circles for South Asian immigrants in general; even when it does happen, bonding levels are quite weak with members in these formal and non-ethnic organizations.

For Indians in India the “cultural club” forms the core of the concentric circles of social participation; the core being the container of all the neighbourhood activities and participation areas. Though friendship is often formed within neighbourhoods where individuals tend to spend more years, friendship is also made based on interest, rather than on associational convenience, as in the case of South Asian immigrants. It could be possible that Indians and mainstream/dominant Canadians, who are the ethnic majorities in these particular contexts, are able to form strong relationships beyond their neighbourhood as they feel less of a need to only be connected with their co-ethnic counterparts. This research finds that friends made through various interests and motivations in life form equally important areas of social participation in a more complementary fashion for mainstream/dominant Canadians, as compared to the neighbourhood being an all-encompassing container of social participation among the majority of South Asian Canadians.

Factors affecting social participation—bonding levels and identification points

The fourth research question asked about motivations behind civic engagement and social participation in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations. In the quantitative section hypotheses (b),

118

(h), and (i) sought to find answers to the above-mentioned research question. The interviews indicate that social participation is increased by level of bonding and values attached to several identification points, such as ethnic background, particular city, religious beliefs, etc. Since bonding in a network or group also suggests the existence of social capital, the question of whether social capital leads to social participation, or vice versa, becomes particularly pertinent.

Moreover, to come back to the question of what forms of social participation lead to what forms of social capital, it is essential to revisit theorizations on social capital and social structure.

Going with Krishna and Shradder’s (1999) terminology, the neighbourhood can be termed as a micro network where social participation takes place. Krishna and Shradder (1999) start their discussion with reference to Putnam’s (1993) discussion on the potential of horizontal networks’ to build social capital and opine that trust has the possibility to form higher levels of social capital in vertically shape networks. Krishna and Shradder (1999) draw attention to the fact that existing empirical evidence does not necessarily establish that horizontally connected networks or horizontal associations have higher levels of social capital. In developing their own social capital assessment tool, Krishna and Shradder (1999: 9-10) divide social capital into macro level

(institutional context in which organizations operate, such as formal relationships and structures) and micro level (“potential contribution that horizontal organizations and social networks make to development” [Krishna and Shradder, 1999: 10]). Neighbourhood activities are generally based on improvement and maintenance of relations among households, in a community, infrastructural improvement of the neighbourhood, and concerns with safety and security of the neighbourhood community. Conceptually, micro level networks are formed by values, trust, and feelings of reciprocity towards community members and composition and practices of the community or group. This section discusses how bonding in neighbourhoods develop in

119

concentric circles, where each circle is based on broad identification reference points and each circle is more inclusive and stronger than the next outer circle. Ethnic make-up of a neighbourhood forms one such broad identification point. Other demographic characteristics, such as socio-economic status, predominant marital status of residents, educational background, and nature of occupation (occupations that require residents to spend the majority of their day in their workplace) also have an important bearing on engagement in neighbourhood activities and in forming effective circles in developing social capital.

While understandably, South Asian neighbourhoods seem to work well for most South Asian immigrants, non-South Asian neighbourhoods have weak levels of bonding for South Asian immigrants with the exception of those with a high household income (more than $100,000 per year). The same process of greater bonding was observed in cases where mainstream/dominant

Canadians stay in more homogenously mainstream/dominant Canadian neighbourhoods in contrast to South Asian neighbourhoods. This statement needs to be qualified, however; levels of bonding differ even in a homogenous mainstream/dominant Canadian neighbourhood, as when one is living in an apartment versus in a house, or in a small or a big city. The process of identification correlates with levels of familiarity that depend on the size of the city, ethnic background, cultural background, religious orientation, length of residence in the neighbourhood, and socio-demographical factors of the neighbourhood such as being young and single or older and married/common-law. In particular, ethnic background and religious orientation are factors that strongly bind people together with inclusive forces and being exclusive factors in keeping others out of a community. In explicating how these factors create levels of bonding I start with neighbourhoods in Calcutta, as a majority still conform to the traditional make-up of South Asian neighbourhoods.

120

Calcutta: tradition and neighbourhoods

To recount, the traditional make-up of neighbourhoods in Calcutta, like any other Indian city, is quite bonded; where neighbours look out for each other, provide support at multiple levels

(personal, material, and financial), and feelings of expectation and reciprocal norms are strong.

In addition to the impersonal bonds, the presence of the “neighbourhood cultural club” is almost a ubiquitous feature of Calcutta’s neighbourhoods. Although all residents of the neighbourhood are deemed as members of the club, the activities are primarily carried on by males in their twenties, and females generally only participate during religious festivals or sporting events.

Many participants expressed that once they got jobs they had little time to be involved in the activities of the neighbourhood club so new members in their high teens or early twenties become more active in the club. Normally, the neighbourhood club in Calcutta becomes active during the festivals, otherwise it is involved in community activities such as looking after senior citizens who live alone (i.e. don’t have children living with them), taking people to the hospital when sick, arranging blood donation camps, and other charitable works. The club usually has a financial fund created by community residents so loans and financial help can be provided when someone falls sick or needs money in a dire circumstance. Summarily stated, the neighbourhood is one of the primary resources of support and social relationships in Calcutta.

The neighbourhood club is instrumental in gathering people for non-religious causes, including community-oriented activities, arranging blood donation camps, sit-and-draw competitions for children, annual “sports day” where the youth participate in various events, and so on. Sometimes, these clubs also have their own ambulances that are used when people fall sick. In addition, these clubs also help when a household needs help during sickness, such as getting rare medicines and visits to the hospital.

121

When asked why people feel the need to help each other without any apparent material exchange or gain for them, responses indicate that the motivation to be there for each other comes from years of living in the same neighbourhood and experiencing life situations together over a period of time. Most of the participants recall that their parents moved into these neighbourhoods at a young age and, they themselves were born into the neighbourhood. The homogeneity and history of certain neighbourhoods in Calcutta also derives from a shared history of similar conditions, when people had to migrate under similar circumstances and at virtually the same time (due to the Partition of India in 1947 people had to migrate from

Bangladesh), similar to how immigrants in South Asian neighbourhoods report getting acquainted with friends in their neighbourhood. For example, Mili, (female, 27, never married, income of Rs. 70,000, Ph.D student in Calcutta) explained the bond present in the neighbourhood where she lives:

Mili: Actually, my Dad and his friends…..my mom and dad both were from Bangladesh….I mean my grandfather came to India during 1947-48… during the Partition, and that is why in this neighbourhood and in the entire Tollygunge area….this kind of…I mean people who have come from Bangladesh….those kind are predominant. And they had this mentality…to help each other. They had come to a new country as refugees, had to leave everything behind, so everybody wanted to help everybody. Everybody wanted to be unified and stand together and since childhood, all my dad’s friends were like family. What I see among my friends, I don’t see among my Dad’s friends…I mean the interaction level is not so deep.

I think in dad’s times, everybody’s problems were so similar that nobody had anything different to do or anything different to hide…..now there is an attitude that I won’t let you know how I got around to doing certain things….and then…when I have so much why should I adjust? This attitude is there…..probably not among everybody but it is there among certain people”.

As the above excerpt shows, the solidarity level and the attitude of non-competitiveness among the participant’s father’s friends and community is based on being in the same situation

122

and the proximity that comes with living with each other in the same regional area of Calcutta.

The shared values that follow from being in such a situation makes neighbours want to ensure that they are there for each other in situations of crisis, much like family members.

The change in the situation today is partially attributed to a less common background among neighbours and less time available for socializing owing to hectic job schedules. Mili later stated in her interview that there has been a change in values in the neighbourhood with new neighbours coming in and that has also impacted the level of trust in the neighbourhood.

Overall, the club is the hub of social activities that residents in the neighbourhood derive information from, depend on, and build on community living. The club is a common gathering point of residents and also the place where new residents meet and get acquainted with older residents in the neighbourhood. With such an all-pervasive presence, it is of little surprise to learn that the club sometimes is also involved in conflict resolution through initiating informal discussions between conflicting parties. The neighbourhood thus contains within itself, a significant portion of social participation that an individual is embedded and active within.

As mentioned in the previous section, an agreed-upon perception by immigrants in Toronto is that in their experience, the bonds in a non-South Asian neighbourhood are not as close-knit as they had enjoyed in their home country. Even then, participants living in South Asian neighbourhoods with modest income levels report having greater care, concern, and support from their neighbours compared to British Canadians and South Asian immigrants with higher income status. Mala explained how in spite of not getting the traditional infrastructural neighbourhood support in a new country, she is able to see the initiative and drive to provide the same support within her neighbourhood community:

KR: Do you know your neighbours?

123

Mala: Not that well…you can say these circles of friends are my neighbours in Toronto. Previously, there used to be a couple in the apartment beside me—a Sri Lankan couple, the husband used to say Hi and Hellos to me. Now…I don’t know anyone…not even who stays in the apartment in front of mine. Only I know the families of the kids I tutor, in this building….the parents are acquaintances….they ask me how I am, to visit them in festivals and other occasions, gives me some food if they’ve cooked something, because they say I stay alone…they are Bangladeshi people….they are very nice.

KR: If you see that anybody in your neighbourhood has any problem, where do you see them getting help?

Mala: The community that we have, it’s really good. It’s very close, very bonded. Though I’m not an active member of it—there is a thing called crescent town centre—there are many clubs in there—there’s a gym, there’s assistance for tax and other things. With my circle of friends, it’s a tacit understanding that we are always there for each other. For example, if someone is having a baby I always tell them that they can call me anytime for any kind of assistance—that could be going over and cooking for her…I do it. Or if the baby is sick or anything I told her that my phone is on…any time, middle of the night she can call…I’m always there. And the crescent town community center is there always, for any kind of help— like looking for jobs or resume writing…

The crescent town school is also holding seminars or other information sessions now and then…about how to settle down in a new country…because this is an immigrant area….about tax systems, there’re seminars about schools...

Despite the absence of traditional neighbourhood bonding, Mala described a situation where a corresponding association of the “neighbourhood cultural club” is found in South Asian neighbourhoods. In the above instance, the “Crescent Town School” operates in disseminating information and other modes of help, like holding meetings for residents in the area and other unification moves. In another Muslim dominated South Asian neighbourhood, the local mosque offers similar kinds of community works. Necessary, immediate, and collective assistance is offered by most South Asian neighbourhoods, in addition to offering viable strategies to new immigrants attempting to cope with social networks in a new country. Through these channels of support, interaction between immigrants is heightened and feelings of reciprocity are established.

124

Apart from being available in crisis situations, community activities in neighbourhoods of

Calcutta are mostly centered around religion, where religious festivals are a significant contributor in bringing people together from all walks of life. The celebrations of religious occasions is usually quite social and are not confined to members of particular religions, but are targeted to involve an ethnically South Asian audience irrespective of religious denomination. In the South Asian neighbourhood as described by Mala, Muslim religious occasions are found to be a chief binding ingredient in the South Asian neighbourhood and Hindus also attend them despite not being of the same religion:

KR: Would you say that your neighbourhood is a bonded one?

Mala: Oh yes…

KR: What is the binding ingredient?

Mala: I’d say the cultural thing, language, the religion. Because my neighbourhood is predominantly…Islamic, so when there is any festival or celebrations, they are usually huge…e.g. in the crescent town school, 90% of the kids are from Muslim communities. So on Eid it is a holiday for sure, and apart from that there are huge dinners and lunches for everyone. It’s kind of a feast and the school organizes it, just to bring the community together. I think most of the binding happens because of the religion, because they all come from the same region and same background.

KR: So in case of Bengalis from Bangladesh, religion is a binding factor. Is it the same for Bengalis from Calcutta?

Mala: Not at all. The city (Calcutta) is the binding factor. The culture is the binding factor…the theatre, the music, the songs, the durgapujo.

KR: Durgapujo is a religious activity…

Mala: Yes…but it’s social too.

Though Mala is Hindu by religion, and says one of the primary binding ingredients in her current neighbourhood is the Islam religion, she does not report feeling different in the neighbourhood because of it. For her, religion is a social and connective factor, much like music

125

and language. Reitz et al. (2009: 697) seem to agree in their study on impact of race and religion on the social integration of Canada as they conclude:

Our analysis suggests that the racial status of recent immigrant groups has a much

greater impact on their social integration than does their religion, and that the degree

of their commitment to religious beliefs has significance mainly because of its

relation to ethnic community ties, and in a similar way for most religious groups. The

specific religious beliefs, such as among Muslims for example, themselves appear to

be relatively unimportant in determining social relations.

Reitz et al. (2009) conclude that religious beliefs bind co-ethnics together because of their similar ethno-cultural past, rather than on the basis of religious beliefs alone. It is true that religion as an affiliative factor holds an appeal for immigrants due to its connection with specific ancestry (e.g. being Hindu with being Indian, being Buddhist with being Sinhalese, and so on).

While this study does not deal with factors of social integration and impact of race and religion,

Reitz et al. (2009) is relevant in the context of how religion impacts social relations among immigrants and influences social participation in groups and networks.

It is expected that immigrants bring their social customs from their home country and rely on these customs to find and maintain co-ethnic relationships and networks. Interestingly, in spite of identifying religion as a binding ingredient in her neighbourhood community, Mala speaks of the city (she comes from Calcutta) and its characteristic culture in how it binds her and other

Bengalis in Toronto, making them distinct from Bengalis of Bangladesh. Ethnic and cultural belonging is seen to operate on gradual inclusive levels, where each level corresponds to minute specifics of one’s ethnic and cultural identity.

126

In contrast to these neighbourhoods where a South Asian immigrant has support from their ethnic group in their daily living, those living in non-South Asian neighbourhoods draw on support from ethnic groups and obtain ethnic friends from across the city, as Aslan (immigrant from Pakistan, male, married, 44, income of $20,400) mentioned. Aslan recounted an incident that happened ten days prior to the interview, when his pregnant wife was undergoing labour pain late at night. He had asked his non-South Asian neighbour if he could leave his two other children with her for a few hours so he could take his wife to the hospital. His neighbour refused, because she had to go to work early the next day. Therefore, Aslan had to take his children in the taxi, who were almost asleep at that time, on his way to the hospital. In relating this incident,

Aslan emphasized how this situation would have been different if he were in Pakistan:

Aslan: She knew me. We say Hi and Hellos now and then. She knew my wife and that she was pregnant. But if it were in Pakistan, people would have gone with me in the hospital. They would have offered me a car; they would have offered me everything. Those South Asian friends, they called me. And after 24 hours, when my wife came home, 3 of them stayed…one is from Bangladesh, one is from India, and one is from Pakistan. Because you know… my wife is not supposed to take normal food because she had the baby; she is supposed to take some soft food, without any spice. They kept bringing all the food for one week. See…this is friendship. Nothing is stopping them.

Aslan not only draws a distinction between his neighbours in his home country and new country, but also uses the old adage of “a friend in need, is a friend indeed” to describe the level of friendship he has with his co-ethnics, where the willingness to provide support and care does not depend on one’s particular life situation. Worth noting is the fact that Aslan makes it a point to specify that his friends are not only from Pakistan but from other countries on the Indian sub- continent. Aslan also mentioned that if he were staying in a South Asian neighbourhood he would have had more support from his neighbours than he has right now.

127

When talking about social expectations, Breton (2003) suggests that they emanate from the realization of being in the same situation. Aslan’s expectation of receiving particular forms of help is based on his expectation of how neighbours should be and on the fact that in a new country immigrants are bound by norms of reciprocity. Aslan expressed a sense of confusion and recognition owing to a lack of knowledge of how things are done in other ethnic neighbourhoods and results in a sense of confusion and indignation. In addition, the lack of knowledge of how things are done can also build mistrust among neighbours about the availability of support in the future. Earlier, E.S, a mainstream/dominant Canadian, mentioned how lack of knowledge of other ethnic groups might buttress feelings of mutual intolerance and distrust among different ethnic groups. This same feeling is also reported by Pheluda (male, 44, married, Bengali, faculty in a University in Calcutta, and income of Rs. 420,000 per year), who expressed manifest dislike to the recent influx of non-Bengalis in his old and traditional neighbourhood of Calcutta.

Differences in culture are perceived as problematic as well as antagonistic to one’s own cultural values:

Pheluda: Lots of new people have come into the neighbourhood and most of them are non-Bengalis. This has been a problem in our neighbourhood.

KR: Why?

Pheluda: Because they have been importing with them a kind of culture which is in direct conflict with our taste, values and culture. And my personal opinion has been that the tradition of North Calcutta is being disrupted by this kind of culture. Or to say it in a bit more crude term—it’s been polluting our culture. Their lifestyle, their attitude, their behaviours…..these are influencing the kids…the next generation.

Even if this non-Bengali community are Indians …umm let’s see a bit deeper; most of these non-Bengalis are businessmen and business often required taking unfair means. And I feel non-Bengalis lack taste in culture. That’s what I feel. Like they might speak Bengali but that Bengali is not our Bengali. The food that they take, didn’t used to be there before. “Laddu” never used to be there in our neighbourhood. Now it’s a common sweet. How is it coming? Through them. And these I feel is hurting the traditional culture in North Calcutta. They would 128

come stuttering in motorcycles and tease a girl in front of everybody…..in front of a temple even. This never used to be there in our neighbourhood.

To reiterate, differences in culture and ethnic background are often equated synonymously, where difference is thought to be polluting one’s own culture and spaces. Both Canada and India are multi-ethnic and multicultural countries where homogeneity in culture and practice is not encouraged. Even then, a superiority complex of one’s own culture can impede the very basis of cordial social relations and processes of social participation. Strong identification processes with one’s own ethnic background and culture can lead to exclusionary practices, whereby familiarity and conformity with one’s own culture is regarded as the primary basis of social participation.

Expectations of conformity by minorities are based on ethno-cultural practices of the overarchic ethnic group. As E.S., a mainstream/dominant Canadian participant mentioned (interview extract given earlier), his neighbourhood has become largely South Asian in recent years; the clash of cultures is due to the expectation that new migrants should conform to older ethno-cultural practices (i.e., mainstream/dominant Canadian). The new migrants expect that the current ethnic minority group (i.e., the mainstream/dominant Canadians) should be inclusive and accepting of

South Asians. The resentment towards new migrants, as narrated by E.S. and Pheluda are not isolated instances; resentment towards new migrants in the neighbourhood is expressed by all of the South Asian immigrants who lived in mainstream/dominant neighbourhoods and was observed among Calcuttans who had new migrants coming into their neighbourhoods. The resentment is usually manifest in less intermixing, social participation, and social bonding in the neighbourhood.

129

Based on the previously mentioned cases, the pertinent question becomes: do South Asian immigrants expect, in a somewhat uncustomary way by Canadian parlance, more from their neighbours than mainstream/dominant Canadians do from their neighbours? The tendency of

South Asian immigrants is to evaluate neighbours in Toronto by using reference points of their residual practices and customs of social participation from their home country. Reitz et al. (2009:

702) opine:

Cultural diversity can be a positive force in intergroup relations, of course, by

bringing new ideas and perspectives, and providing incentives for the rapid

integration of new groups. However, immigrant newcomers who bring values that

depart or appear to depart very substantially from those of the host society may lead

to the creation of social boundaries that are difficult to transcend.

The following sections discuss the above statement in detail and whether social boundaries are built and created by immigrants or if other processes and parties are also involved in the process. The sixth research question asked which structural and organizational factors act as barriers to social participation of ethno-racial communities. The interviews indicate that a lag exists between immigrant expectations and reality in social participation processes in their neighbourhood and their day-to-day encounters of social life in Canada. The next chapter discusses in detail how barriers of social structural differences lead to such gap in perception, expectation, and experience of the Canadian life for South Asian immigrants. Before the barriers are discussed however, it is essential to revisit the motivations behind social participation as pertains to the separate and common areas and channels of them.

130

Motivations behind active social participation—areas, channels, and common grounds

This section specifically addresses the research question: what motivates ethno-racial groups to be actively involved in volunteering activities and other forms of civic engagement in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations and looks into areas of social participation in detail. Since this thesis is interested to know how social participation leads to social capital, the interviews concentrated on certain concerns—what they do on weekends, how and where they initiate and activate socializing with others when they have the time, and whether and how these activities differ based on ethnic background. Another concern is to learn how immigrants find new networks in their new society and become members of formal organizations based on their interests and convenience.

Questions in the interview were interested to find both formal and informal areas of social participation. Hypothesis (h) expected that the higher the sense of belonging, the higher the social participation (Breton, 2003), while hypothesis (i) expected that the higher the level of values binding members to a group/network, the higher the social participation (Breton, 2003;

Lin, 1999; Putnam, 2000). While qualitative interviews are not capable of hypothesis testing, they are directed to determine if a sense of belonging and values binding members to a group or network influence higher levels of social participation in formal and informal areas.

Formal areas of social participation are identified as memberships in clubs, associations, or organizations. In India, it is very common to be a member of the local neighbourhood club, charity organizations, and school or college alumni association. Except for charity organizations, membership in any other organization or association is chiefly established to stay in touch with friends or stay updated about information on events and achievements in already existing networks (such as alumni associations or workplace unions). The overall consensus of the

131

participants interviewed in India were that these memberships are used so that they can maintain social ties through a common medium even when they might not be members of educational institutes or be capable of social participation in a more active way. Sometimes people join the charity or social work associations, commonly known as “Non-governmental organizations”

(NGOs), on the basis of existing social ties, such as when a friend suggests it to them.

Participation in formal areas of social participation happens either before or after an individual’s hours of work. Thus, existing relationships or previously held values often lead to social participation in networks even when there might not be strong loyalties to the goals of an organization/association.

In lieu of the usual “neighbourhood club” in the Canadian context, I was curious to see whether immigrants join local or neighbourhood clubs or organizations, and if they do, whether it is done according to their interests or their convenience, as the latter applies more in the Indian setting. Added to this research, I was interested to see how memberships in clubs and organizations impact social ties with others in those same clubs or organizations. In other words, this research was interested to see if Putnam’s contention—that membership in formal organizations means greater social capital—holds, by looking into the quality of the social ties an individual makes in organizations and the stated significance of these organizations in their lives.

Quite a few immigrants are members of religious organizations, ethnic associations and workplace associations. Before we run into commonalities in their stories, however, I’ll start with a few individual stories. The objective of the qualitative part of this research was less to draw a typology of what kind of individuals join what kind of organization, but rather to understand their motivation, interests, and beliefs before they take time to participate in more formal social networks. Hypothesis (e) expected that religious participation would be higher

132

among South Asian Canadians than mainstream/dominant Canadians (Alba & Nee, 2003; Isajiw et al., 1993; Kalbach & Richard, 1980; Lin, 1999b; Seigel, 1970). Complementary to this hypothesis the qualitative interviews tried to determine if any difference exists by ethnic group in terms of influence of religion on social participation.

To go back to the story of Susan, she mentioned several times in the interview that she is not happy with the decision to immigrate to Canada and misses her culture and country of birth, even after four and a half years in Canada. She is a member of the Bengali ethnic association of

Toronto that chiefly observes the religious festivals of Bengalis, is a member of a Bengali temple, and a Buddhist organization. Solely on the basis of this information, Susan could be termed as quite a religious person who joined an association expecting it to fulfill her religious needs.

As the interview proceeded, however, it became apparent that labelling Susan as a religious person who joins associations based on that need would be an over-generalization. For Susan, the most significant association close to her heart is the Buddhist organization, which is chiefly

Japanese in its ethnic character and orientation. Susan has never been to Japan, nor does she have

Japanese friends or any interest in Japanese culture. Her social activities on the weekend consist of the usual house parties with her co-ethnic friends, going to “Kalibari” (a Hindu religious place), and attending PBCA (an association of Bengalis living abroad) association events.

Joining and attending the Buddhist organization’s prayer meetings forms one of her weekend activities and is carried on solely by her, in addition to her household chores and familial duties.

As to her motivation, she said:

Susan: I used to like Buddhism since long…I studied a lot of Buddhist books, but my main interest is in this organization is that… they do this thing—which we always hear but we don’t apply—that is, you first take action and then prayers

133

will be there as it is, but taking some action is necessary…and think positive. I can always complain that this is not working out and that isn’t working out but the question is what are you doing yourself to change the circumstances? They stress on taking action after a thoughtful decision…

KR: So are you saying that this organization provides some sort of mental support to you?

Susan: Mental support, yes…very much. Although we are here for 4 and half years but still we are not stable…we have to face a lot of hurdles along the way. In this… in this new country, in adapting, this organization provides a lot of mental support. I know this organization since a year and a half…..not when I came here. If I knew about them at that time it would have helped me, no doubt. The good thing about them is that …If I’m going through a bad phase in life...I needn’t say why or what but all the other members will pray for me. They say that actively if we pray for others then my prayer would be more successful…I don’t know whether it happens or not—that is debatable but the things I like is that everybody patiently concentrates on the praying. Not only that, you are meeting a lot of people and people advise you on things—like if someone has a good connection or tells you to go this place and do this to get something solved…like getting a guidance and that is a big support. That’s why I go.

Although Susan mentioned later on that she is not able to attend this organization every weekend, it is most significant to her because of the support it provides, which it appears she is unable to achieve from anywhere else, in spite of being closely rooted to her ethnic organization and having a group of friends belonging to her own ethnic and religious groups. Susan highlights the non-judgemental nature of the organization and its ability to provide comfort when an immigrant family like hers is trying to gain a foothold in the Canadian labour market. She asserts this keeps her going for continued participation in the organization. Moreover, Susan’s reasons for her membership in PBCA and other Hindu religious organizations is more out of a social expectation and habitual customs than an active interest and agency, which is more so the case regarding her membership in the Buddhist organization.

Interestingly, although Susan is committed to this organization she does not have any friends within the Buddhist organization. The acquaintances that she meets every week are limited to her

134

participation hours and relationships are not extended beyond the walls of the organization.

Social participation occurs along non-ethnic channels and is seen to contribute to the well-being of a person; however, development of social capital through this channel of social participation remains very slim. Extrapolation of this slim range, as is done in quantitative studies that strive to measure the “amount” of social capital, would paint a largely inaccurate picture on the level of social capital and social participation process of immigrants. Quantifying memberships to clubs and associations as indicators of social capital, as espoused by Putnam (1993), has serious limitations as based on cases like Susan’s. Without going into the argument of whether Susan represents a generalizable trend among South Asian immigrants, it is worthwhile just to revisit

Bourdieu’s (1985) conceptualization of social capital: “The volume of the social capital possessed by a given agent…depends on the size of the network of connections he can effectively mobilize and on the volume by each of those to whom he is connected” (Bourdieu,

1985: 6). Social capital refers to social networks and the idea of mobilization of resources embedded in those networks is critical here. Portes (1998: 6), another chief theorist clarifying the concept of social capital, agrees with Bourdieu: “The consensus is growing in the literature that social capital stands for the ability of actors to secure benefits by virtue of membership in social networks or other social resources”. Formation of acquaintances and friendships is absent in

Susan’s case despite her receiving some form of mental support regarding her family’s financial and occupational struggle in Canada, although that support comes in the form of prayer groups rather than specific individuals.

This research finds evidence that immigrants and mainstream/dominant Canadians join organizations due to specific reasons that exist owing to ethnic expectations. Farhad (female, divorced, 37, immigrant from Bangladesh, income of $25,000) has professional, conscious, goal-

135

oriented reasons for her membership in clubs. Farhad has been taking courses in library science and in her personal life she is recently divorced. By her own admission, she is trying to “get back with life” and get re-connected with people, when she was with her husband she had voluntarily removed herself from most social contact. Farhad mentioned how difficult it is to get a job in the

Canadian job market and she hopes that her Canadian degree in library science will help her.

Farhad said she joined a professional club, Canadian Library Association, at the suggestion of her college professors in order to gain some professional networking and get a job. She has only attended the club once; most of the information, such as jobs or notifications on events, is online, consequently, even though she is a member and tries to be active, the online activities do not present much opportunity to meet other members and do things together. When asked whether she is a member of any other groups, associations, or clubs, she replied in the negative, however, she added:

Farhad: I have changed a lot though. I am trying, I’m trying to get into networks and get into groups. Previously, my lifestyle was different. I really isolated myself. Now….say where I work…..previously I would just work and get back home. I wouldn’t talk much with my colleagues or go from work to somewhere…somewhere to eat. Now I talk to my colleagues and try to do some activities together. This way I also stay updated, I get to meet and know people. Recently I have joined Facebook and it has helped me a lot. I became a member of Facebook to do more networking and I have got many friends and also met people in my profession. I recently got very lonely after my separation and this has helped me a lot. I have made some good friends. And another thing—it is difficult to contact people who are in my profession and find jobs. But Facebook has made this easier. I could talk to these people in my profession….many such people have helped me. For example the part time job that I’m doing now, the reference for this job has been given by a friend in Facebook. I didn’t know that he was in the same college as mine. So when I got this job, I contacted him, met with him and told him what I had wanted and he gave me a referral.

Today I’m going for a movie and that too I’m going with a friend I made in Facebook. Previously I used to say “No” to these kinds of suggestions, chiefly because of a family problem that I was going through.

I actually had a lot of friends and came in touch with so many individuals when I was a kid….my father had to go through many transfers in his job. But I lost

136

touch with them due to this family problem that I had and now I would like to be in touch with them and I search for them in Facebook.

Four details are worthy to note in the above narrative. First, Farhad puts considerable effort in trying to establish the fact that being away from everybody was not in her nature and that she normally prefers a higher level of social participation in general. She laments that she is not able to be in touch with her childhood friends and acquaintances so she joined the online social networking website, Facebook, to reconnect with people she knew. Her motivation to join a social networking website in this context is to get back the connections and support system she once had.

Second, based on Farhad’s narrative it is clear that it takes effort to create and build social relationships, as when she mentioned how, before she was separated from her husband, she would not respond to plans to eat out after work with her friends or colleagues. The reason was to spend as much quality time as she could with her husband. Marital status and familial duties can constrain an individual’s choice and time to spend on social engagements, as well as define the areas for it.

Third, the online nature of any social participation has real time implications and can go beyond being a virtual reality. To clarify, Facebook has not only found Farhad lost contacts, but has also established new ones, such as acquaintances who could give her references for jobs and friends to go to movies with her.

Fourth, Farhad explains how it is possible to engage more actively in social participation now that she is divorced and “lonely”. Farhad’s contention leads to an obvious question; does a more fulfilling or active family time obviates the need for a more active social participation?

137

Moreover, would a married female immigrant of similar age and socio-economic status participate and draw upon social participation activities as Farhad does?

In trying to address the first question stated in the previous paragraph, let’s go back to

Susan’s story. When asked what she does on the weekend, she replies: “I’m very lazy… I love staying at home, watching movies. If the weather is nice we might go out as a family. We three are quite close. I read books, listen to music.” In fact, several immigrants who are married and have children reported staying with the family and only grocery shopping on the weekends. This is the usual routine for all of the married and single South Asian immigrants interviewed (except the two second generation female immigrants) unless they have house parties to attend or have it in their own homes. Most of the parties involve friends from their own ethnic community. The only exception found to this way of socializing consists of three participants (Maradona, Manas, and Chathu) who mention having friends of ethnic backgrounds other than South Asian and interacting with them on the weekend. A commonality shared by these participants was their household income ($110,000 to $400,000 per year).

Decisions to socialize are also based on a gender influenced scale, that is, it was apparent from interviews that many of the spouses of male South Asian immigrants had little say in the decision-making process to immigrate to Canada. The decisions were definitely not made in an atomistic way, but was more influenced and conditioned by membership within the household and community. In a similar fashion, married female immigrants are also directed to particular networks of social participation based on the conditioning of how life will be in an immigrated country. Most of these females are dependent on the married families of their spouse for weekend get-togethers where they had to form friendships or interact with people they deemed as acquaintances. Being disconnected from their friends and country of origin, married females are

138

left with little choice but to befriend anyone they find in their social networks and not necessarily who they like or who share their perspective and interests (the most reasons stated by participants when asked what factors are crucial to being friends with anyone). For male immigrants, their networks are formed through neighbourhood, workplace, and friends they might find in the new country, for non-working married females, it is solely dependent on who their husbands befriend and like.

For married working females, by virtue of being exposed to more social networks than just their husband’s, such as professional networks, the chances of forming and getting involved in additional social participatory activities are higher. Even then, among the married working South

Asian females, the tendency remains to restrict social participatory activities in their workplace as much as possible, as was apparent from the interviews, except one participant. Rather, as

Priya (female, married, 33, immigrant from Sri Lanka, income of $60,000-$84,000, and employed) mentioned, she tries to look for friends in the same city through social networking websites in addition to participating in her husband’s networks. When asked why they do not engage in groups and networks formed in the workplace, most of the married female participants mention lack of time, lack of interest, and having little commonality with people; these reasons, however, were not put as criteria when they thought of engaging in their husband’s groups and networks, as the latter often signifies the only mode of connection with their ethno-cultural lineage. According to Itzigsohn and Giorguli-Saucedo (2005), immigrants often try to re- establish links to their country of origin, which is slow and dependent on prior links to their country of origin, the chief goal of this process, termed as “resource-dependent transnationalism”, is building ethnic institutions and linkages. Shanthi, for example, spoke of

139

how her entire network of friends is formed from reconnecting with old friends; in this she is not alone as 18 out of 20 participants interviewed had the same story to share:

KR: Think about your friends in Canada. What do you do in the weekends?

Shanthi: Weekends…we party. With relatives and friends, friends from university school, I have met so many of them there and still I know some are there whom I haven’t met. I met some on them on the street, school friends. The one that I told you about—the friend that lives close to our future apartment? I met her over here, in Toronto, in the streets. And I met her after 16 years or 17 years…after we passed out of 12th grade.

KR: You said you made some friends over here, how did you make these friends?

Shanthi: I met them on the streets like I went to drop my nephew to his Karate class one day and I met one of my friends there. I went there with my sister-in- law. And my friends also went there to put her kid to the class. And some of my old friends I contacted and they came to my place. You don’t just make friends with people you don’t know.

KR: So these people…. you had met them in Sri Lanka, in schools and college, right?

Shanthi: Yes.

Shanthi’s assertion that one does not make friends with strangers is coloured by the perception that there is a particular age of making friendships and that one cannot make friends with just anyone in a new country. This kind of bonding social capital reinforces relationships, but also helps to maintain exclusivity of social participation along axes of ethnic boundaries.

Consequently, relationships and networks can be transnational, but they develop on pre-existing ethnic lines. Therefore, social participation emanates from and reinforces already existing social capital instead of developing new forms of social capital in these circumstances.

Participation in ethnic networks and attempts to maintain transnational linkages may also emanate from a negative experience of incorporation in the new country, and is termed as

“reactive transnationalism” (Itzigsohn & Giorguli-Saucedo, 2005). The negative experiences

140

may be a consequence of frustration with occupational careers, the social status attained in the new country, be a consequence of discrimination faced by immigrants, or a negative perception of them in the receiving society that influenced them to retain identification with their country of origin.

The following excerpt is from an interview with Susan, she mentioned she has faced discrimination in Canada and their struggle in the initial months when they had to work jobs that were far removed from their occupational skills. When probed further, she replied:

KR: So you talked about discrimination in the beginning…how do you face it?

Susan: Subtly…and even now I face it. There is this conception that we are a bit…...actually they know that we are educated and we are Indians. But as I said, knowing something and accepting it are different things. They know that people who come from India are educated, they are decent, they know how to dress but they are not ready to acknowledge and accept it. When there is a decision making or a key strategy…..like where I work and sit that is in the President’s office in my company… and my supervisor pretty much uses my ideas and enforces them. But he never acknowledges that. When he needs something, he would come and ask me.

But I’ve accepted this. I’ve come to this place with my choice. I hope these people are able to get over this discriminating thing. They are sweet superficially but the discrimination is there.

Without arguing whether the above perception could be proof of facing discrimination, the point is that this perception is the chief reason put forth by Susan for not interacting in her workplace much or in more mainstream/dominant Canadian networks. This, coupled with the fact that the decision to immigrate to Canada was her husband’s and that her informal social participations are chiefly confined to interacting with people from her ethno-cultural background, restricts her range of social participation.

Maintenance of ethnic relations and linkages do not always exclude inter-ethnic social participation or results as a reaction to negative experiences in the new country. Apart from those

141

who maintained “reactive transnationalism”, both working and non-working married female participants are found among South Asians who maintain ethnic linkages, and found friends that did not preclude the possibility of only belonging to their husband’s social networks. Single female participants among the South Asians drew on workplace and other interest-based groups to be involved in social participation, in addition to maintaining bonds with friends from their educational and professional institutions in Canada and elsewhere. Their reasons behind friendships and social relationships are stated as a match of individual interest levels and mental wavelength, irrespective of ethnic background.

All the participants in the three sample groups agreed that factors, such as having a match in interests and activities, similar general perspectives on life, a certain level of trust, and a common background are preconditions to making friends and having a close social relationship with another person. As contrasted to South Asian Canadian females, married female participants in

India mentioned making friends is not limited to the pool of availability of ethnic linkages, they are in a more socially advantageous position as far as exercise of choice and agency in forming bonds with groups and networks. Gender played on a different axis as far as participants in India was concerned.

While for South Asian female immigrants the deciding factor in social participation and formation of social relationships is their marital status and perception of their receptivity in the new country, for female participants in India their distinction with their male counterparts exists in the female’s interests in sports and outdoor activities. As mentioned in earlier sections, the neighbourhood cultural club is the hub of social participation in communities in India. Several sports and outdoor activities are arranged by the neighbourhood club throughout the year.

142

Absence of females in these activities was noted by the male participants themselves as well as the female participants in India.

In addition, a theme often repeated in the interviews in Calcutta was that female participants regretted losing touch with friends and reminiscencing of days spent in childhood when there was bonding and a variety in social participation, as compared to limited social participation in contemporary times. While sports and outdoor activities are not perceived as major events of social participation in India, they are crucial occasions of meeting one’s neighbours amidst a general atmosphere of gaiety and camaraderie. When asked about their reasons for restricted social participation, most of the females expressed lack of energy and time to be involved in sports or to be “out” there. Some mentioned these events are mostly participated in by young males in the neighbourhood; while females can also participate it is not normally the case. For females in the Indian setting, age seems to play an important role in what passes as “normal” social participation and what does not, and female participants seemed to go by the expected convention of sports and outdoor activities as male activities. They are, however, involved more actively when a religious event/festival is organized by the neighbourhood club, this participation is reported to be due to the social and traditional aspects of such events, rather than to express their religious need to be involved in the activities. Since formal areas of social participation in India are based more on infrastructural availability and support (as arranged by neighbourhood clubs or office events), females rely on these supports like their male counterparts, however, they must also follow the cultural conventions of what is expected from them, in addition to whether other females in the area/network also participate in the activities.

For informal areas of social participation, such as going to a mall, movie theatre, or keeping in

143

touch with relatives, the onus is more on individual preference and strength of relationships with other persons, groups, and networks.

Engagement in informal social participation by South Asians is mostly done in a collective fashion where families meet families based on bonding, regardless of individual preferences.

This is the ethnic social expectation whereby time is invested in preparing and sharing food or engaging in activities involving a group, irrespective of common age and individual tastes. For immigrants in Canada, these occasions become reassuring bonding times in a new country; however, the preference to spend the weekend solely with their families is noticed primarily among females interviewed in Calcutta, both married and single, much like South Asian

Canadian females in Canada. Mili for example, says that she doesn’t feel bored on the weekends even though most of her close friends have left the city to pursue careers. Mili and her sister have activities together, provided their work schedules match. If not, she says she prefers to stay home and interact with her parents, “My home is a very favourite place of mine… I love to go back home after work”. When asked whether her social life is mostly spent within her immediate and extended relatives, Mili replied, “More or less so….still I do have some friends who are not there in the city, then I have my relatives…..we also go out together as one big family. But this is mostly dependent on special holidays, as we also think that people might want to relax that day in their homes instead of going out…..even I do this sometimes”. Whether staying at home is a personal choice as exercised by South Asian women is a subject of further research. Existing literature speaks of limited participation of immigrant women due to their limited networks, being excluded from institutionalized affiliations in the receiving country (Hagan, 1998), as well as immigrant men being more active than women (Curtis, Baer & Grabb, 2001; Matsuo & Fong,

144

2007; Schofer & Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001). Other research concludes that ethnic and immigrant organizations favour the participation of immigrant men while excluding women.

Participation within family or ethnic networks is considered as participation in horizontal networks and as micro level networks (Couton & Gaudet, 2008; Krishna & Shradder, 1999). As mentioned previously, micro level networks contribute to the development of social ties (Krishna

& Shradder, 1999: 10) and includes values, trust, feelings of reciprocity, sense of belonging towards community members, composition, and practices of the community or group. Even then, not all forms of social participation and activities lead to social capital. The definition of social participation as an aspect of social capital is found to be narrower than the general definition of social participation as community participation (Breton, 2003; Lindstrom, 2003). That is, social participation and activities, such as visiting a theatre, an art exhibition, church service, sports event, or night club/entertainment, or writing a letter to the editor of a newspaper/journal, though embedded in social relationships, are thought to be solitary activities that do not comprise the transmission of the norms and values of society, and as such cannot be assumed to be the kind of social participation that leads to the formation of social capital (Lindstrom, 2003). Moreover, the above activities might be what Woolcock (2001) refers to as ‘‘bonding’’ social capital; social capital that binds members of an already existing and well-defined social group even tighter together (Granovetter, 1974; Woolcock, 2001). Therefore, it follows logically that the lack of

‘‘bridging’’ social capital can lead to strong ethnic networks with impenetrable boundaries.

Among South Asians, the preference to stay indoors on weekends and spend time with family may also derive from stronger family bonding. Interestingly, single or married mainstream/dominant Canadian women do not opt for staying home or only spending time with

145

their family as weekend activities, rather they prefer to socialize with their friends or with other families. Bridging social capital is deployed in these situations, as when socializing with colleagues at work or with members of interest-based groups. The trend of social participation in micro networks and having more bonding capital is seen to occur more often among South Asian females than any others.

For example, males interviewed in Calcutta tend to divide their time between family and friends, though single males are seen to interact more with friends, the majority of whom are colleagues from work. Their membership in various clubs, associations, and other groups, intertwine little with the activities people engage in on the weekend with the single exception of the neighbourhood club, which, as stated earlier, often forms the hub of social activities one engages upon in the weekend. The presence of a neighbourhood club in Toronto is not a common feature; however, community events and activities are held in almost all neighbourhoods, though participation of South Asian immigrants is almost absent, with the exception of one participant with a high household income (over $400,000) and living in a non- ethnic neighbourhood. Immigrants living in a predominantly South Asian neighbourhood are seen to participate in local neighbourhood clubs and associations when South Asian in character, activities, and membership base. Although this behavioural characteristic of South Asian immigrants could be termed as “reactive transnationalism” (Itzigsohn & Giorguli-Saucedo,

2005), this is not typical immigrant behaviour and could very well be unique to South Asians.

Immigrants to Canada differ in how they engage in their co-ethnic networks and this research confirms Matsuo and Fong’s (2007) point that East Indian or South Asian immigrants participate in ethnic organizations more than Chinese or other visible minority groups.

146

Compared to South Asian immigrants and Indians in Calcutta, more Canadians of the mainstream/dominant ethnic group are seen to be members of professional groups, sport clubs, and interest groups pertaining to comedy clubs, and so on. E.S. who is a research student like

Mili in Calcutta responded as follows:

KR: Are you a member of any groups or associations?

E.S: In the university yes, I’m part of the biomedical engineering students association. It’s kind of a group to share information and provide some information on trainings so that students do well. I’m also part of the graduate wing called “leaders of tomorrow” and I am also a member of chi pi, a student group. And I also go rowing…that’s an extra thing.

KR: If you were to rank these clubs, in terms of their significance to you, how would you do it?

E.S: Professionally it has to be leaders of tomorrow, it has got to be more significant because that one actually helps you to learn about yourself and be technically sound and how to learn skills. Just opens your mind in how society works, and how to lodge yourself into a space. As for extracurricular activities, I go for rowing because you are in a group of 30 people and you get to know them really well. Because you have to spend time with them, you interact, and you have to share.

KR: Why are you involved with these groups?

E.S: Uhh….character building and meeting with people normally. As well, sometimes it’s also just an interest in the subject.

E.S. joined these groups in the last year and a half. Amidst his busy schedule as a research scholar who attends University even on the weekends, he spends approximately five hours per week pursuing his interests. His motivations are quite specific and instrumental, he believes more membership will bring him in contact with more interesting people that share his professional and personal interests, and this will give him a more enriching social experience.

E.S. has also made friends through additional relationships in his life.

147

While immigrants generally seek old and/or lost contacts and maintain existing ones, mainstream/dominant Canadians seek new friends and new contacts, and are less likely to be in close contact with friends from school, college, or University. CDW (mainstream/dominant

Canadian male, single, 25, Ph.D. student, income of $50,000) whose hometown is in Ottawa has a common opinion with many in his group. Many mainstream/dominant Canadian participants commented on how “things change” between friends and acquaintances over the years and consequently the level of intimacy and mental matching may not remain the same. Friends from school, college, and University may be called “friends” but the connection is quite weak. An excerpt from the interview with CDW illustrates:

KR: You mentioned that sometimes you move out of close relationships. What things change?

CDW: Well sometimes you know…it tends to be of circumstances...and also the types of lifestyle, the general lifestyle that I am now, than when I was in high school verses when I am in the University. It’s not that the personalities change so much, but that we tend to…our goals in life change so the types of people you associated with might not converge with the types of interests that you are having now versus what you might have found common in those days. I made new friends that tend to have more in common these days with my life and that could be the people I meet in the Internet than connecting with people I knew in those days.

For dominant/mainstream Canadians, when people change over time it is reason enough to make new friends. For mainstream/dominant Canadians commonality in educational background and interests are not necessarily strong enough to sustain relationships beyond limited years or maintain and enhance social participation. Certain qualities such as ethnic background and marital status offer accessibility to social networks and provide social acceptance to what is considered “normal”. That marital status affects access and sense of belonging to social networks is affirmed by participants in all three samples. In this respect, being married offers considerable

148

advantages and access to more arenas of social participation than those who choose to remain single longer. Thus, generational and locational aspects of a person significantly influence access and participation levels in networks and groups.

As much as obviating from this generally accepted trend excludes individuals who are not married by a certain point in time, it also creates a situation of whether the minority or the

“other” forms their own niches. Lennex spoke about how his networks of friends and groups are more or less “homogenously built” based on their life situations and interests:

Lennex: Clearly, we share a taste for drinking, perhaps some recreational substance…chasing young girls. And enjoying chatting, you know? I think the commonality among all of us is that, that type of behaviour is a stress release. Typically that occurs in a Friday…Friday evening or Saturday.

The other commonality is that my friends and acquaintances here… is that we all tend to be married and divorced. They have… too… have gone through different relationships. I don’t think I have had any relationships with people who are married and have children and are staying with their wife and kids. So I’m not friends with the core family unit types.

KR: Why is it that?

Lennex: Because they would bore me to tears. I dislike children. I don’t dislike children, but I dislike people who would focus and organize their lives and world and work around raising children. That bores me.

In the extract Lennex speaks about how homogenous his friendship circle is and how exclusive the walls are kept, owing to differences that possibly are quite difficult to bridge.

Values based on group membership, such as family or alumni networks, have lesser influence on social participation by mainstream/dominant Canadians.

On the other hand, for Indians and South Asians, attempts to rekindle old friendships are more frequent. Even after people have left educational and other institutions, social activities in

India are chiefly engaged in with friends made in these institutions. Associations are joined

149

based on if friends are also joining them. Apart from collective interest-based activities in civic engagement, participation in interest-based clubs (such as rowing clubs and professional associations) is limited in India. Among the Indians interviewed, purposive joining of clubs, associations, and groups to extend networks (professional, interest-based, or otherwise) or to make friends is not found. Among South Asian immigrants participation in sports-related activities is rare, as contrasted to mainstream/dominant Canadians. Only two South Asian participants of the 20 interviewed are involved in sports related activities, as compared to five participants out of 14 interviewed in the mainstream/dominant category. Couton and Gaudet

(2008: 30) found the same in their research and conclude, after analysis of GSS cycle 12 that,

“Participation in sports-related activities for instance was reported to be much lower for recent immigrants”.

For South Asian immigrants, holding onto old friendships provide familiar reassurance in social relationships. In addition, making new friends is dependent on understanding mainstream/dominant Canadian cultural expectations and active participation in clubs, groups, and organizations. Generally speaking, when choosing organizations and clubs to be involved in individuals do so with the expectation that participation will enable them to pursue material goals and satisfy other goals. The need to be close to their culture and lineage is quite high among immigrants as compared to mainstream/dominant Canadians and Indians residing in Calcutta

(some interviewees among the latter group, however, expressed a heightened need to maintain close connections to their culture when staying outside of Calcutta). Moreover, immigrants of lower household incomes (equal or less than $60,000 per year) felt it was imperative to be in touch with other immigrants like them, irrespective of whether they came from the same country.

150

Predicated on this fact, immigrants are found to be more likely to trust and have a network of expectations with other immigrants than their mainstream/dominant counterparts (Breton, 2003).

Role of trust in social participation

The interviews are also meant to find answers to the fifth research question: Does trust of others initiate the social participation process? Specifically, hypothesis (c) expected that the level of generalized trust will be lower among South Asian Canadians than mainstream/dominant

Canadians (Breton, 2003; Sanders & Nee, 1996; Seigel, 1970). This section examines if and how trust of others initiates the social participation process and why the level of generalized trust is lower among South Asian Canadians than mainstream/dominant Canadians. The quantitative analysis confirmed the third hypothesis - generalized trust is lower among South Asian

Canadians than mainstream/dominant Canadians (see tables 3.1 and 3.2).

Trust is defined by Fukuyama as:

…the expectation that arises within a community of regular, honest and co-

operative behaviour, based on commonly shared norms, on the part of other members

of the community…these communities do not require extensive contractual and legal

regulation of their relations because prior moral consensus gives members of the

group a basis for mutual trust. (Fukuyama, 1995: 26)

Trust is conceptualized as a constituent of social capital, as trust begets more trust and ensures social participation and normative reciprocity.

According to Brehm and Rahn (1997), who employed General Social Survey data to study the reciprocal interaction of community involvement and trust in others, there is a stronger causal relationship between community participation and trust than the converse. Portes (1998) is of the opinion that trust in a community acts as an obligatory resource, not through law or violence,

151

rather through of the power of the community on the individual. Based on this viewpoint, generalized trust has the power to elicit social participation from its members, irrespective of their bonding to the group or community. Putnam (1998) says that through norms and trust the community goals are established. Putnam’s latest work (2000) shifts attention from trust to reciprocity, whereby he acknowledges that people might have high trust levels yet be socially inactive or anti-social. Overall, trustworthiness is thought to improve social life and this is precisely why the issue of trust is taken as a point of concern in this research study.

For South Asian immigrants, trust in their ethnic community is manifested in financial dependence and support, whereby the majority of the 20 participants interviewed, barring two, replied that they would rather go to their friends in situations of financial crisis than a bank. The trust embedded in the ethnic community is not all-pervasive, however, especially when it comes to working situations pertaining to new immigrants. As Shujon (male, single, 26, immigrant from

Bangladesh, postgraduate student, income of $30,000-$40,000 per year) mentioned, working illegally in ethnic businesses also meant that trust is limited to keeping certain malpractices within the community; “and then I saw many friends who would have to work under the rates. If the rate per hour was $8, they were paid under the table by $4 or $5. And it was a lot of hard work. I didn’t like this part.” Normally, these jobs would be advertised word-of-mouth with the expectation that news of the illegal payment and support to students would not go beyond the community.

Generally speaking, these jobs would be obtained through participation in South Asian groups and networks, such as ethnic businesses, ethnic clubs, and other places where participants like Shujon go to meet co-ethnics of similar background in those areas. The ethnic niches or enclaves are documented in existing literature with examples ranging from restaurant work and

152

garment factories to police and fire departments of the New York and Miami civil services

(Bailey & Waldinger, 1991; Doeringer & Moss 1986; Stepick, 1989; Waldinger, 1996; Waters,

1994). Portes (1998) explains:

…as in the case of enclaves, mobility opportunities through niches are

entirely network-driven. Members find jobs for others, teach them the necessary

skills, and supervise their performance. The power of network chains is such that

entry level openings are frequently filled by contacting kin and friends in remote

foreign locations rather than by tapping other available local workers. (Portes, 1998:

13)

One of the research questions was whether social networks generate the level of trust necessary for a regular social life or if widespread generalized trust enables development of social networks in the first place. To broadly answer the question, it is a circular process. Ethnic networks are able to elicit a certain level of trust from its members, irrespective of past experiences of social participation. With respect to non-ethnic groups, associations, and networks, the initial threshold of trust is dependent on the personal characteristics of an individual, as well as the general reputation of the groups/associations/networks. The development of subsequent trust, owing to social participation in such networks depends more on the nature of social activity, frequency of activity, purpose, and background of an organization.

Moreover, the understanding of the word “trust” varies for South Asians as discovered in the interviews. For the majority of the South Asian Canadian and Indian participants “trust” is understood as a deeper feeling, something that enables dependence on other persons with responsibilities, actions, and words, rather than having a sense of “generalized trust” deals with whether one trusts people in general with issues of safety (Ram 2010; Kaariainen & Siren, 2011).

153

Sturgin and Smith (2010) suggest that the apparent differences in the understanding of trust exist across question formats and groups, and derive at least in part from heterogeneity in interpreting questions on trust.

Thus, imparting of trust operates on different levels; while commonality in ethnic background might bring on unquestioned trust as manifest in acquiring jobs (in case of Shujon) or financial support, heightened ethnic activity might not be sufficient to trust others in non- obligatory situations, such as asking for referrals or discussion of personal problems. In agreement with Eastis (1998), this research finds that measuring membership in associations and groups for levels of trust is a fallacious way to represent variations of trust in social relationships and whether it facilitates, or is facilitated by, social participation.

Rationally, immigrants should be as participative in social activities as mainstream/dominant

Canadians. Going to the cinema and being members of associations, groups, and networks are all common human tendencies, as is trusting others and being bounded in obligatory relationships based on reciprocal and normative expectations. Variations in these human tendencies exist when one ethnic group might be bounded by institutional completeness and integration, whereby all their social participation is confined within their own ethnic community (Breton, 1964). Even then, Breton (1964: 194) qualifies: “Of course, in contemporary North American cities very few, if any, ethnic communities showing full institutional completeness can be found”. Even within ethnic communities, such as that of South Asians that have a reasonable amount of institutional completeness, accruing trust of others is only able to elicit minimal to moderate levels of participation in groups and communities.

The question of trust of others seldom depends on class, caste, age, or gender among

Indians, but goes more with personal subjective likings. Only one participant of the 20

154

interviewed in Calcutta mentioned that he does not trust people from upper classes as they are thought to be “complicated” persons. When probed further he categorically expressed that his distrust of people from upper classes emanates from his political ideology. Two participants among 20 interviewed in Calcutta admitted that they do not trust persons from other ethnic backgrounds, one of them stating it in an overarchic category of “North Indians” while the other participants admits to not liking “Muslims”.

Among the South Asians interviewed in Toronto, three participants out of 20 stated they do not like people from other ethnic groups. One of them who is male, immigrant from India, and belonging to a high income category with a household income of more than $110,000 per year, stated that even though he does not like or trust Muslims, he has Muslim friends; the other participant is also male, an immigrant from Pakistan who mentioned that he does not trust or like people from Afghanistan as, “they are a mismatch to the Canadian social scene” and are “too loud”. The third participant is also a male immigrant from India, and mentioned that he does not trust people from Afghanistan or China as he feels that people from these ethnic backgrounds have a superiority complex and look down or other ethnic minorities in Canada. The third participant is married to a person with a Nepali background and he mentions this fact to point out that he does not distrust any person based only on ethnic background, but that his beliefs are based on what he has observed so far.

Among the mainstream/dominant Canadians interviewed, only one person out of 20 mentioned that he does not trust French Canadians. This person spent his childhood in Montreal from the age of eight and came to Toronto in his 20s. In spite of spending a significant portion of time in French Canada and having significant associational contact with people with French backgrounds he still does not trust French Canadians.

155

In my research trust is seen to operate more on the initial threshold level than associational activity as espoused by social capital theorists (Putnam, 1998). This dissertation research finds evidence to support Fukuyama’s (1995) contention that trust thrives on a prior moral consensus and beliefs about others. Among the interview groups of Indians, South Asian immigrants, and mainstream/dominant Canadians, participants were found to engage in social participation in both formal and informal groups and networks based on prior levels of trust. When meeting and making new friends, development of trust is seen to form based on a match in outlook in life as manifest in general behaviour towards others, personal and emotional support in times of crisis, and if the participant feels “comfortable” around the other person. Once a level of trust is established in a newly made friendship, a person has access to other groups and networks; whether the person joins those groups and networks based on such ties is dependent on several factors, such as participant’s degree of subscription of ideas to the broader purpose of the group or community, strength of ties with the person recommending to join the groups/communities, and the reputation of the association itself.

In summary, trust is found to be a facilitator of social participation and is dependent for its development on many other factors, such as a shared history, normative expectation, ethnic background, and so on. Trust is enhanced by additional social participation in formal and informal social relationships; however, social participation in relationships, groups, and networks is seldom found to be engaged in from a point of zero-minimal trust. As Breton (2003: 13) explains: “Trust may not come about as easily among strangers than among acquaintances or among those who share a common identity, characteristics and values. Thus we could expect that shared ethnicity would be a basis for the emergence of trust among individuals”. In the case of groups who are not ethnic minorities in a social situation, levels of trust are found to be higher

156

among particular relationships in society, such as friends and family, and dependent on perceptions of a person rather than based on identification with the ethnic group. To illustrate,

Helen (32 years, female, married, mainstream/dominant Canadian, income of $50,000-$60,000) said that she would rather trust people and be deceived than not trust people. However, she provides certain qualifiers as to how she might make exceptions to trusting everybody and anybody:

KR: How much do you trust others?

Helen: I’m immediately….I trust people and I mean…yeah sometimes I have reservations against people…I mean when somebody is walking up to me in the street, and fits a stereotype then I might be hesitant but generally when I’m introduced to someone, I give all my trust and when it goes bad and when I feel it doesn’t deserves it then it goes away, but I feel that when I have a choice I trust everybody.

KR: So you’re saying that you go by instinct?

Helen: Ahh…with certain persons yes. But I’d have to say how many times my instincts are useless…I have been wrong in trusting people too many times…

KR: And that hasn’t kept you off from trusting others?

Helen: No…I’d say that’s just my personality. I have had people tell me don’t do that and I don’t know not to do that…if I do that, it would change who I am. And I don’t think…it’s not a bad thing…it’s consequence is that things haven’t been that way, and sometimes I do get hurt but it’s also there…I will always trust the other person, but probably I’d also realize later on whom to do it and who shouldn’t be worthy of it.

Almost the same reasoning of when to trust someone is echoed by CDW:

CDW: I try to trust a person. I tend to take a lot of time in conversation with people. I do take a lot of time to really,… take a certain familiarity that comes with things, that is feel like I am really talking to say or do things. I don’t take trust in the way that I have to do things in a certain way or take things in a certain way. These things take time.

KR: Do you have process for trusting a person?

CDW: Of course, like when you see how people react in a certain situation. I have really a good idea on how a person has inside, how their values are. I listen to conversations, and a lot of people project them in a certain way and try to

157

show an image while they are talking to people. Oftentimes, that is a little bit or very different from who they are. So many times I just look at people and try to see how they react to a certain thing than what they say in conversation. I try to realize whether they are somebody you can count on and then how far you can count on.

I think it would be wrong not to understand that there are certain actions that are ….that are…. certain classes tend to be principled in a different way. You won’t find investors or bankers engaged in petty theft, right? And to ignore those differences …I think… it would be naïve. By the same token I try to give people the benefit of doubt. At the same time, if for example if I see someone has been to a petty crime, moving my expensive stereo, I’d probably naturally be more suspicious of them, than someone from more higher, more well off demographics. It’s sometimes hard to tell who is and who is not, there are certainly aspects of somebody’s parents and their demeanour which could be pretty suspicious or not.

CDW and Helen relate how they draw on their knowledge of who can be trusted based on body language and how that person treats others. Background factors, such as class, family background, and behavioural patterns of fitting into a stereotype are also taken into consideration. A similar opinion is expressed by Mili in India (25 years, Ph.D student, income of

Rs, 60,000) who said that she trusts others but it also depends on those people:

It depends on those individuals…..if I see and feel that I can trust them I would trust them….sometimes I wouldn’t say or do anything that would harm myself. The first impressions matter…and then the interactions with them would show who could be trusted…I mean friendships happen like that. I’d trust my close friends easily but even then there could be some people whom you wouldn’t know easily. So far, nothing like that has happened, but I wouldn’t know what could lie ahead.

South Asian immigrants said their neighbourhood is close-knit and they would trust

people in their neighbourhood, as well as their friends and families. In response to other

questions many participants replied how people from other ethnic backgrounds might not be

trusted or how people from their co-ethnic background could be trusted more than others. For

example, Babun replied in response to a question of how much diversity is in his friend circle

and network with a description of the demographics and then an explanation of why it is so:

158

that one cannot trust people from Afghanistan. Kaai also spoke of how he cannot trust people

from Afghanistan. Manas spoke of how he is averse to Muslims. Mala spoke of how she

chose her current neighbourhood because it does not have many “white people”. S. Mohan

spoke of how he feels comfortable since his neighbourhood has more South Asians than any

other neighbourhood. For immigrants the starting point of whom to trust begins with ethnic

background rather than popular stereotypes of behavioural patterns, interaction with others, or

personal disposition.

Variations in social participation

The second research question asked: What are the variations in social participation among ethno-racial communities? Variations in social participation exist owing to differences in motivation, existence of structural barriers, and how it is understood differently by ethno-racial communities. While doing the interviews a recurrent theme arose that social participation primarily takes place in informal networks for South Asian Canadians. South Asian Canadians are also vocal about how social participation is understood in a very different way in their ethno- cultural discourse than in the mainstream/dominant Canadian discourse.

To illustrate, South Asian participants spoke of how the sense of being surrounded by people everywhere and having small, weak, or strong ties with almost everyone encountered in the street, at the grocer’s, in the neighbourhood, or in the transit system is something recounted and missed by them while in Canada. The comparative feeling of being isolated or alone is striking to their experiences of living in a new country, in addition to making sense of accepted modes of social conduct and etiquette while engaging in social interaction in Canada. In South Asian culture, where culture is understood as a way of life, it is normally expected that a defined and cordial social relation will exist with almost everyone met in daily living; this expectation is the

159

highlight of social interaction and social participation according to South Asian immigrants. The following extract as provided by Mala (female, 40, single, immigrant from India) illustrates:

KR: How far do you think social participation here is different from social participation from the country you came from?

Mala: It’s very different. People who are there…are there, in India. You’d meet people everywhere, you’d talk to your neighbours…you’d call people. However, because you are in a different country, these calling and being in touch, the attempt to do so is even more over here. We are away from our country…we don’t have our families here with us…this is a new country, this is an unknown place and so the friends are all we have. So here people make an effort to maintain contacts and be in touch. It’s more prominent…the social life. In India you might not talk to a person for months and it wouldn’t matter if you don’t make an effort. You will have a social life anyways. But here the effort has to be there. It is there. Here every weekend we meet with each other, over potluck, over this and that.

Mala recounts the essence of spontaneity in relationships that she finds missing in the

Canadian setting. As was mentioned specifically by Kaai and Mehraab before; South Asians avoid formality and formal settings in social interactions, this could explain their greater participation in informal networks and relationships. In a new country South Asian immigrants look for similar levels of spontaneity and informal relationships with co-ethnics so their social engagement in Canada is primarily focused towards this goal. In lieu of the familiar home- grown version of social participation that is more collective and community-oriented, in the

Canadian setting the burden is on immigrants to maintain social relationships in agreement with their culture of normative reciprocity.

Being surrounded by people should not be mistaken with the mere coincidence of living in more populated countries before coming to Canada. As David clarified in the extract below, it is the difference in warmth and familiarity in social participation that strikes a difference of living in Canada as compared to India:

160

KR: How do you think social participation over here is similar or is different from than in India?

David: Here people say Hi and Hellos more often and in India people don’t do that but they are more informal. And people don’t expect those kind of proper greetings or anything but here that is of prime concern—whether you greet a person well. Here everyone expresses themselves in the formal way.

Babun goes into the comparative specifics of what there is in social relationships in India that he misses in Canada:

KR: How far so you think social participation over here is different or similar to the social participation in India?

Babun: India is imbibing western culture so it’s getting pretty much the same. So it’s all about what you do, what you wear, how many houses you have and what’s your wife doing, how many kids…and that’s pretty much it. When I was in India I belonged to a middle class family and all my activities were pretty much mediocre. But when I came to Canada, it’s a more affluent class that I move into. The discussion level is much more materialistic….like in terms of intellectual content, like academics, politics and so on, Kolkata was much more progressive. But here we hardly discuss about politics …it’s more like what do you want to do in life, how can you develop your future and stuff like that…how did you develop your assets and stuff like that.

Babun emphasizes how processes of westernization melt away ethno-cultural differences in social participation processes in India and Canada. In spite of social forces the topical differences in conversation channels the differences in social interaction, whereby an individual chooses to stay away from certain social situations that differ from those observed in their country of origin based on perceived limits. Certain value systems and perceived familiarity can also lead to limiting social participation in informal co-ethnic settings as Farhad explained:

Farhad: Here there is a boundary in social interaction and a time limit. This thing is not there in my country. If I would like, I would go to somebody’s place anytime. I wouldn’t have to call or tell them beforehand. Here you have to think and inform about it beforehand—like you have to take prior appointments; these things differ. In Bangladesh you are very free in social interaction. You can do whatever you like.

161

And another thing is that here they are more involved in outdoor activities, in groups. Like they might form a group and go for hiking. In Bangladesh in social life there are less of outdoor activities—it’s family get-togethers or occasional programmes. And here you have to go to bars and parties to socialize….in Bangladesh it is not like that. By religion, we are not supposed to drink alcoholic drinks.

Farhad reiterates the informal aspect of social interaction and social participation in South

Asian cultures. Of the 20 South Asians interviewed, this viewpoint was echoed by 16 participants. Farhad mentioned how differences in social participation is embedded in engaging in outdoor activities in mainstream/dominant Canadian culture, which might not be understood or participated in by people in her country out of sheer habit. In addition, religious restrictions forbid immigrants of Bangladesh and Pakistan (also mentioned by Kaai, immigrant from

Pakistan) to engage in some very Canadian practices like going to the bar and drinking and thereby creating limits to social participation in the Canadian context. Further, in South Asian countries it is customary to offer to pay for the whole group than to just pay for their own when eating out together and participants seem to have problems adjusting to the opposite practice in mainstream/dominant Canadian settings.

In the list of differences in Canadian and South Asian social and normative expectations,

S.Mohan, an immigrant from Sri Lanka, added how “free mixing” of boys and girls in the

Canadian setting is absent in his country of origin. Further, the work culture in Canada is also thought of as restrictive of social interaction and bonding with others as Kaai explained:

Kaai: Over there, in any social event we are more flexible than in Canada. We are arranging more time for ourselves. Here, it’s very hard especially with the climate and the discipline at work. Like my friend… if I’m in Pakistan…and he is coming from Canada after 5 years, I will just let my boss know and he would allow me to take the day off. Over here…tough luck. Unless it’s a family member whom you have to take from the airport or drop, you are not allowed to do that. So over here it’s much more discipline at work and people don’t relax…and one person is working there in the family and the others are there…but either

162

relaxing or doing their work. Plus the job over there is secure. Over here the job security is equal to zero.

Kaai delineates certain contrasts between mainstream/dominant Canadian values and social systems and South Asian values that are taken for granted. The almost binary nature of these values presents an either/or choice to immigrants who are not willing to navigate between both worlds and so must choose one system of social participation over another.

The work culture in Canada, the competitiveness, and job insecurity makes immigrants fall back on the informal social participation processes with their co-ethnics rather than invest their effort, time, and energy in the more mainstream/dominant Canadian networks. The difference with mainstream/dominant Canadian networks translates into a distance that offers little justification to engage in “their” networks.

Interesting accounts were provided by Samita (female, 34 years, single, second generation

South Asian Canadian of Indian lineage, Ph.D student, income of $50,000-$60,000) who lived in

India from the age of 8-16 years. It is interesting to see how she compared the two countries as she was born in Canada and by virtue of her second generation status she is expected to have less control of normative expectations from her ethnic counterparts (Breton, 2003):

KR:You have an interesting situation. You have been out of the country and have been living in India for 8 years. And you were born here. Tell me how you observed things such as people, the social interaction are similar or different in these two countries.

Samita: I think they are really different. I think things are warmer in terms of natural environment and people’s behaviour. I just feel that the tropical weather, the soil, the weather makes things similar. That’s something that I noticed but I never really analyzed that before.

In terms of Canada and India again I would find some similarities in my family or my cultural participation. I think there is cultural diversity in both the countries. I think in terms of individuality the countries differ. India is more collective and Canada is more individualistic. I think in this case the weather

163

does play a major difference because it does challenge social interaction. I mean you cannot control the weather and it’s difficult to enjoy the city life in a cold weather.

I find that people in India, when we were staying there, found us to be more private. At least that’s the complaint we were getting that we were aloof. I guess they were saying this as they were not able to intrude into our private space. But we tried to connect with the community as much we could, without giving too many details of our lives.

KR: Are you in touch with your friends from India?

Samita: I am, I speak with some of them and then I’m in touch with them through online contact. I’m able to meet up with them there which is really nice. I’m in touch with many of them. I would mention one thing. While I was there, I wasn’t too friends with them. But after 15 years we are friends now. May be through memory and nostalgia and how differences finally dissolved. But I didn’t really have a lot of friends. I felt very alienated. Because to them, I spoke a different language and acted differently. I had accents. It’s not that I did them deliberately, but to them, I was different. The language was a barrier to them. The fact that I came from a different country, was very, very….unusual to them. I used to be judged for things that I wasn’t responsible for. Things like ideas on fairness and justice and how diverse people should be. But personal opinions really went against collective actions, at least in the classroom. I just felt that I was more individualistic, even with the things that happen or are commonplace. My style as an individual went against shared collective belief systems. I feel I was marginalized because I was judged negatively and I wasn’t interested in making amends.

The conflict between the collective and the individualistic, between personal space and public sharing, becomes apparent in the above extract where we see the reverse mechanism of migrating from Canada to India and trying to adjust to the overarching Indian society with

Canadian values. The clash and difference felt is almost on the same level with other South

Asian participants as Samita speaks of isolation, being judged for her values and behaviour, and the collective acting on her sense of individuality. Samita also mentioned how weather controls social behaviour, a point also experienced and mentioned by four other immigrants—Suma

(female, 45, married, immigrant from India, social worker, with a household income of $40,000-

164

$50,000) Mehrab, Mala, and S. Mohan mention how they feel even more isolated and alienated during the Canadian winter.

In agreement with Samita, Israh also highlighted the collective cultural orientation of South

Asians when making comparative observances with respect to social life in Canada, Kenya, and

India:

Israh: And I knew that my mom, within the South Asian community in Kenya, is a very close-knit community. Hindus, Muslims didn’t matter. And she would tell me that on Diwali, her neighbours, her Hindu neighbours would come and give mithai. All the neighbours…didn’t matter Hindus and Muslims...everybody would get mithai. And when it was eid, my family and other Muslims would reciprocate and bring sweets to the Hindu households. That kind of hospitality and that kind of sense of community, I don’t think it exists here. It’s a very individualistic society here where everyone kind of thinks for their own selves. And if you have nothing to offer other people… then why bother? Unless you are new immigrant and that’s still new and fresh in people’s minds that they have to gather around each other, I don’t think it exists among second generation of South Asians, because it’s very, very rare. Because they are brought up on the “me-culture”….all about me.

Israh highlights how the collective feeling inherent in a community-oriented culture is lost among second generation South Asians because they are brought up in a more individualistic culture, as prevalent in Canadian society. Through this statement Israh not only specifies the ethno-cultural differences among two ethnic groups (South Asians and mainstream/dominant

Canadians) but also how ethnic differences are leveled with successive generations among immigrants in agreement with straight-line theory of assimilation. It appears that the role of ethno-culture collectivity and cultural compulsion impacts an individual’s choice and agency in social participation in addition to a natural propensity to interact with co-ethnics.

To revisit a point raised by Breton (2003), social participation is not only dependent on social relations, but on the quality of those relations. For South Asians the social relations “back home” are embedded in a stronger base, one that ensures spontaneity and informal relations, are

165

determined by collective expectations of reciprocity. In a new country, they also expect to look, find, and develop similar bonds in social relations, preferably with their co-ethnics. Even with non-coethnics South Asians look for similar levels of spontaneity as their conceptualizations and perceptions of social relations are embedded in their ethno-cultural background, failing this they are limited to social interaction and social participation in their own ethnic group. Individuals engage in social relations with certain expectations that doing so will help them achieve certain goals such as friendship, fulfillment of similar interests, and general well-being. Moreover, there is the understated expectation that doing so will generate some support from these social relations or groups.

The social participation of individuals could be within their own ethnic community, in a different ethnic community, or in both. The social location of an individual determines their choices, as do feelings of mutual trust and sense of obligation. For immigrants, in addition to these factors, perception and acceptance in a new country also plays a role in creating boundaries along ethnic lines or successful meshing of social participation processes along inter-ethnic lines.

Though sense of social obligation was not categorically expressed as a factor to consider, with respect to social participation by immigrant and non-immigrant participants, it is found to colour the South Asian immigrant’s sense of bonding with others, expectations of support received from them, and consequent social participation.

The reasons for social participation by South Asian Canadians are heavily dependent on ethnic affinity. Any amount and level of social participation does not guarantee strong social support for South Asian immigrants except when it is done with respect to their co-ethnics. A related crucial question is social participation in co-ethnic networks and relationships motivated by primary goals of garnering as much social support as possible in a new country. This brings

166

us to the next section where self-reported reasons for developing friendships and factors behind inclusive social participation are discussed.

Self-reported reasons behind friendship and factors behind inclusive social participation

In the preceding sections it was laid out how ethnic affinity and living in ethnic neighbourhoods influence friendship patterns among immigrants, mainstream/dominant

Canadians, and Indians in Calcutta. The fourth research question asked: What motivates ethno- racial groups to be involved in volunteering and other forms of civic engagement? Reasons behind volunteering were discussed in previous sections and this section specifically discusses self-reported reasons behind friendship. When participants were specifically asked about the criteria for selecting friends, barring a miniscule number (to be illustrated later), the majority did not list ethnic background, gender, marital status, or age as criteria, even though they are found to belong to fairly homogenous friend circles according to these markers. The most common reasons for befriending others are stated as mutual match in perspectives, interests, and perspectives towards life, apart from associational familiarity in educational institutions or workplaces.

Among participants in India, manifest reasons for befriending people were circumstantial association, such as being from the same neighbourhood, spending years together in the same educational institution, being from the same place of work, or being from the same charity organization or associational club. Participants from Calcutta were also seen to preserve old ties with friends and lamented loss of friendly ties when they moved away to pursue work.

Generally, friendships made in workplaces were comprised of strong bonds where professional, financial, and personal problems were discussed, in addition to spending time together on the weekend. Participants also reasoned that based on the strength of relationships with their

167

colleagues and the amount of time spent in workplaces, which often ranged from 12-14 hours, they did not have the time or inclination to look for friendship elsewhere. This was unlike the situation in Toronto for both mainstream/dominant Canadians and South Asian immigrants alike, where relationships with colleagues in the workplace were kept limited to a more professional level. Hours spent at work in Toronto also tended to be less than in India.

As mentioned before, a common response among the three interview groups was that friends are chosen based on mutual interests, similar outlook/perspectives in life, sharing a tempo-spatial expanse, and trustworthiness of the person. Trust is found to be ascertained through associational behaviour over time, behaviour towards others, and general attitude in life.

The reasons stated by immigrants for befriending people are almost the same as the reasons mentioned by Indians interviewed in Calcutta. Even so, having friends in Canada is found to be dependent on availability of other South Asian immigrant families in known networks, such as neighbourhood or ethnic organizations; for female immigrants, having friends is significantly affected by the husband’s friends and networks. For example, among the 11 South Asian women interviewed, nine women admitted that they had no “real” friends in Canada as “friends” and

“acquaintances” (spouses of their husband’s friends, and/or other ethnic counterparts) have become synonymous in the Canadian context. Only three out of nine women interviewed are homemakers. Women engaged in paid employment outside the home befriend mostly South

Asian women. Their stated reasons are that friendships with other South Asian women come with the advantage of socializing in an ethnic environment on the weekends and being in a cordial and reciprocal relationship with other women in their ethnic group.

Among the exceptions to the trend are the two South Asian women who mentioned having their own friend circles that did not overlap with the husband’s networks and groups, one is a

168

homemaker (Madhu) and the other is a lawyer (Chathu). Madhu replied that most of her friends, people whom she can count on, do not come from her own ethnic group; they belong to two parenting clubs that she is a member of and they are bound by a drive for natural products, chemical free homes, and healthy cooking. Madhu made these friends initially through several parenting websites and consequent virtual meetings brought her closer to them, whereby they found that they were compatible beyond specific matches of their interests. For Chathu, being a member of a professional association of lawyers enables her to find some good friends from other ethnic groups and they help her in making sense of life in Canada and provide her with emotional and physical support in her daily living.

As mentioned before, Madhu and Chathu are exceptions to the trend of South Asian women only belonging to ethnic and religious clubs or organizations and deriving all their friends from these networks. The overarching trend can be illustrated by Susan who mentioned that while her membership in ethnic networks and associations do not obviate the process of finding likeminded friends and getting the much needed social and cultural support, such relationships based only on ethnic similarity involve an expectation of reciprocal agreement more than emotional and mental compatibility:

KR: When you are selecting friends, what are the criteria that you go for?

Susan: Generally I don’t like many complications. I try to make friends with people who don’t make 5 kinds of meanings out of a sentence…I like straightforward people. Also, I don’t think I have much choice in this regard. I’ve come to a foreign country, and I don’t have a very big friend circle. The people that are up for available as friends are from my own community and that pool is pretty limited. So…

My husband tries to maintain a distance. For example, the people who came with us have a big friend circle right now but since we maintain a barrier we do not that much increase in friends. They want consciously to increase this.

KR: Why do you maintain this barrier?

169

Susan: The reason is that more than benefitting from friends, it’s losing stuff. You are wasting time, you are having small and baseless talks, and you are also spending money. Expenses are a concern in this foreign country. There’s food and meaningless talks. And competition…like this person has bought a house, why couldn’t you? They got this fancy car and why couldn’t you? Things like that. It’s better to stay away from all these.

Also my profession is one of the reasons I think. There are many who do second jobs. For example, someone teaches Indian songs. She knows music and she is teaching this cultural thing over here and that is very good because that’s what she likes to do. Rabindrasangeet wouldn’t be taught and sung by Punjabis. So she has to network. She has to do some things so that people know about her and come to her to learn. But my profession is not like that.

Susan validates what Mehrab, Babun, Kaai, Shanthi, Balarka, and many other South Asian immigrants mention about weekend gatherings held as a norm in South Asian social networks.

Though it brings people together who are similar culturally and ethnically and provides the comfort of familiar social surroundings in a different country, it does not necessarily entail strong bonds of friendship. Even then, ethnic networks are able to elicit compelling social participation from its members, irrespective of their mental subscriptions. While mainstream/dominant Canadians mentioned having different friend circles for different sets of social activities, for South Asian immigrants social activities are engaged upon with one whole collective group.

Susan also mentioned how immigrants, in spite of having helpful co-ethnic networks, can get competitive and jealous of each other as they gain a foothold in the new country; this was also supported by Mehrab and Balarka. Susan mentioned that although she goes to picnics, attends religious and cultural festivals, and meets her ethnic friends almost every weekend, she maintains a conscious barrier with them. She said she is more likely to trust her non-Bengali friends when asking for referrals or emotional support. When asked why, she replied:

170

Susan: Because those who are my non-Bengali friends…I don’t have a give-and- take relationship with them. They are just my friends. I like them and that’s why they are friends. So whatever they will do they will do it from their heart. But our Bengali friends are …I would say somewhat prone to be jealous. Probably because all of us came together or somewhat in a similar time frame so everybody has gone through the same struggle…and that’s why we are friends…we have this same experience. But if someone goes ahead, others will not like it. That’s why I don’t confide in my Bengali friends or entrust them with giving me reference for a job.

Based on the narratives mentioned so far and the existing literature (Dasgupta, 2000; Putnam,

2003) it is not surprising to find that active social participation in ethnic networks leads to development of strong social capital. Reciprocal expectations, however, can sometimes impede development of spontaneous and meaningful relationships as mentioned in the above extract.

Related to choosing friends among their co-ethnics, and denials of such practices, a few participants mentioned their dislike for certain ethnic groups. Kaai, an immigrant from Pakistan, expressed his dislike of Afghanis, according to him; they are “too loud and undisciplined” and therefore do not form good neighbours or friends. In the same vein Babun opined that Afghani and Middle-eastern persons tend to look down upon South Asians, as he can make that out from their “facial expressions”; therefore, Babun tends to stay away from people of these ethnic backgrounds. Manas said that he has friends from many ethnic backgrounds, such as Russians,

Muslims, and Ukrainian friends. He mentioned that he does not have any prejudice against people from different castes and he asserted how he provided support at his brother’s wedding when he married a person from another caste and that their parents were against the match. Even with this outlook, Manas declared how he doesn’t like Muslims, when I asked him:

KR: Do you trust people from other class?

Manas: I don’t trust Muslim people very much.

171

KR: Why?

Manas: When I look around the world, I see all the terrorist activities, all the militant activities are started by Muslim people. I don’t find any other religions there. By statistical observation I arrived at this conclusion and I’m an aggressive philosopher. Most of the Muslim people who are here are from Pakistan. Like Zahir. People from Pakistan have something in-built in them that they are anti-Indian. Which I don’t like. So Muslim people from Pakistan….I find them obsessed. I don’t find any connection with them. Muslim people from other nations, like people from Lebanon, I have a good connection with them, no problem. Because they are not in that standpoint—like India vs Pakistan. But consciously, I can’t form a connection with a Muslim person either based in or from Pakistan, because I have observed that they have an in-built thing in them, the anti-Indian philosophy, which they might not readily divulge or show..

KR: Have you felt like this once you came here or have you felt the same since you were in India?

Manas: I have felt the same since I was in India. But …may be….I have an in- built thing in me….part of that also plays. But I wasn’t too much against Muslims in India…it also built up since I came here.

Stereotyping and prejudices play a role when choosing friends and despite the common allegation of mainstream/dominant Canadians avoiding to interact with visible minority immigrants, the interviews suggest that South Asian immigrants also have preferred ethnic groups to socialize with, apart from their own.

As compared to South Asians, mainstream/dominant Canadians are less likely to engage in active social participation of a limited ethnic pool. For mainstream/dominant Canadians the choice of befriending a person and engaging in formal and informal relationships in various networks is dependent on coordination of their mutual interests, trust, and perspectives in life.

Old contacts and forms of relationships also need to hold up to the standard of having some relevance to contemporary lives, as Carl seems to delineate below:

KR: When you choose friends, do you have any subconscious criteria when you do it?

172

Carl: I would probably go by instinct, but obviously, there are some criteria in your mind, generally… such as a friend should be such that you can have conversation with, that seems fairly like you are on the same page. If the person shows that he doesn’t treat others people very well then I might not want to be friends with them any more. That’s one of the reasons when I stop being friends with people; or may be when their interests just kind of change. Generally speaking when you have some form of mutual interests on the same level, ability to have a conversation, and similar understanding on perspectives. So yeah there are actually a few things there but I’m fairly open to anyone.

For South Asian immigrants the threat of losing touch with one’s culture and lineage introduces a selective urgency of choosing their co-ethnics and overrides mutual interests in life.

Although choosing co-ethnics is not presented as a primary reason when selecting their friends, it is clear that ethnic background is an important precondition and predictor of social engagement.

Susan, Madhu, and Balarka represent the general trend when they mention how emotional bonding and attachment is often not present in these relationships. Nevertheless, these weak bonds are important providers of other forms of social support, including financial. For Indians interviewed in Calcutta, it is an important precondition when they visit other cities in India and stay there for a brief period. By their own admission, they came out of the need to interact with their co-ethnics, as soon as they returned to their home city any level of bonding formed with co- ethnics weakened over time.

In this aspect, this situation corresponds with Lin’s (1999, b) assertion that a high form of ethnic activity and participation in ethnic networks may lead to a higher form of social capital, but not necessarily to higher returns of resources and well-being. If quantified by statistical analysis, the majority of social participation by South Asians immigrants will likely be found to contribute to ethnic social capital. If such bonds always translate to forms of emotional bonding remains for further debate and research. To emphasise, in the words of Krishna (2002), ethnic networks often provide the glue of social participation. As to the gears (things that direct

173

community members towards participation) of social participation, it is more often than not, community proximity and ethnic expectation of South Asians that drives participation in social networks. Nevertheless, this research asked participants what factors are crucial to social participation for more specific and definite answers.

Self-reported factors crucial to social participation

Connecting back to the first research question, participants were asked what they think are crucial factors in social participation. While South Asian immigrants emphasized the criteria of having a shared background, commonality, and acceptance by the participating networks or groups, mainstream/dominant Canadians stressed the nature of activities for determining their choice for participation in groups and networks. Concerns were also expressed about monetary abilities to participate, as Babun explained how immigrants might be busy with finding a job, rather than trying to network. The most common reasons cited to garner adequate social participation in groups and networks were factors of sound communication between groups and individuals, ability to accommodate others, and personally requesting people to come together

(which they believe adds a more personal touch than just sending a notice to people to overcome), in addition to re-affirming a certain level of familiarity and touching on comfort points. A match with interests in life also has significant implications for enhanced participation in networks. To illustrate, Akash in Calcutta (male, single, 29 years, Ph.D student, income of Rs.

25,000) originates from an underdeveloped village in West Bengal (the state where Calcutta is located). According to him, he always attempts to attend events that deal with developmental issues and improving chances of educational opportunities of rural students, since these issues affected his early career, and therefore is close to his heart.

174

Another factor cited that maximizes social participation in a group or community, as mentioned by South Asian immigrant is an event should be inclusive for everybody and relevant for everybody. Further, people should be able to understand what they can derive from an event, as Farhad explained:

KR: What factors do you think are important for everybody to come and participate?

Farhad: What I feel is most important is that patriotism—in that people should love their own country. There should be a common feeling. Other than that, output is very important. Like what is the output of a programme—like what would people get out of an event? That is important for everybody to come out and participate. Organization is also very important---if an event is organized nicely, people are more likely to come out and participate.

As indicated in the above extract, Farhad mentions having a common feeling and love for the immigrant’s country of origin as an inviting factor in community events and participation. Also, the stated objective of an event can serve as manifest motivation behind social participation.

Having a common background is mentioned as an essential point by other immigrants interviewed; this need to have a common background is also mentioned by mainstream/dominant

Canadian Neila (female, single, 31, working in social research, with a household income of

$60,000 per year):

KR: Which factors do you think are crucial for everybody to come out and participate in a group or community?

Neila: Truthfully and honestly it’s interesting…you don’t know. Usually it’s the affinity for things that makes people go out and do things together. It’s familiar, it’s something they know, it’s something they are affiliated with any way. Here in Toronto when I ask people about their social activities they typically reach out in their social activities through their cultural or ethnic community.

There has to be an affinity whether it’s social or cultural or moral or religious….it just has to be there.

175

Commonality in purpose and history is also important outside the purview of ethnic background, as Carl (mainstream/dominant Canadian) mentioned:

KR: What factors do you think, should be there for everybody to come out and participate?

Carl: I know there are things like tenant meetings and we always try to do them out and think why we should go to tenants meeting. If I felt angered about an issue or if it didn’t seem fun or doesn’t seem much purpose then I might not attend it.…..to attract people you need some shared commonality to attract people. Like in Brandon, there were people who didn’t even move out of the area for generations. They knew everybody and they already had a history.

Carl originates from Brandon, a small city in Manitoba and currently lives in Toronto.

According to him, the change in social participation among Canadians today has more to do with lifestyle choices than a division pertaining to small city and big city. Apart from having a shared history and a commonality in purpose, social participation has become mostly compartmentalized. People may not be interested in being involved in a big overarchic community activity due to their busy schedule and family life, but get involved according to specific interests and purposes in life.

As contrasted to the value of attending formal get-togethers for a stated purpose, several immigrants like Kaai, Balarka, Mehrab, and Babun said that they would rather not go to purposive ethnic get-togethers as they tend to be “too formal” and lack the warmth they normally look for in an ethnic setting. To illustrate, Kaai said:

Kaai: The reason why I’m never part of any Pakistani community is because there are too many community functions, and they are very formal…like there is an invitation, there is a speech and then they say dinner is ready. I’m more an open kind of a person….I like get-togethers where you could just chat and there are no reservations or limitations on anything. These communities operate in a very formal way.

I just don’t want to be like them….it’s a get-together so let it be just that.

176

In the above extract the word “formal” is used in context of social etiquette and behaviour.

Findings indicate that participation in informal groups and networks is found to be high among

South Asian immigrants as compared to mainstream/dominant Canadians. In addition, Kaai and others also show a clear preference to participate in social events or get-togethers that are less rigid and formal with respect to structure and sequencing of events.

Other factors crucial to social participation include social accommodation and inclusion of other ethnic groups; these issues are put forward by South Asian immigrants and by mainstream/dominant Canadians alike, as Alexandra (female, single, 27 years, mainstream/dominant Canadian, employed, income of $40,000-$60,000) delineated:

KR: What factors do you think are very crucial for everybody to come out and participate in a group or community?

Alexandra: So… I guess people have to be represented fairly and equitably. Although it is hard to do… like... always, we might talk about holidays and things like that but you will probably leave someone out as there are too many little holidays. I think it’s nice for people to go and experience other cultures too. I guess then it’s also for the other culture to welcome people. So one has to be in place for everyone to come out and have shared interests. And understand the things of being Canadian, like when celebrating Canada day, it’s not for one culture. People who are living in the country and benefitting from the government of the country and benefitting from the education system, benefiting from the health care…. so I think you would have to recognize that you are Canadian in the way…so if you have the benefits of this country then you need to have some sort of connection to it.

As seen in the above extract the expectation of a mainstream/dominant Canadian participant is: immigrants should come forward and participate based on an exchange program where they receive citizenship rights and related benefits, and thereby should pay back through offering their time and motivations in social participation. Many immigrants also connect issues of safety, health care, and security with their sense of citizenship and belonging to Canada, and would participate in a mainstream/dominant Canadian activity that involves issues of health, safety, or

177

general betterment of life. Immigrants are also seen to trust “official” events and activities more than other events, as Shanthi, Mehrab, and Babun mentioned. Participants point to the fact that the issue of trust in a foreign country is reinforced when community or group events have a specific name, purpose, and traceable lineage. Trust, as an issue related to social participation, is also mentioned by Aslan who replied to the same question as follows: “I think trust for each other should be there. And wish to help each other without looking into the colour or religion or background of a person.”

Participants who live in non-South Asian neighbourhoods did not report as much participation in their community activities as compared to those who live in South Asian neighbourhoods, with the exception of two participants, Maradona and Chathu, both with high household incomes. The lack of ethnic commonality in background may create a sense of exclusion and alienation, even though participants did not mention these as reasons of non- participation. Reasons for non-participation primarily include not being informed of community events, or not feeling related to causes or purposes of community events. South Asian immigrants are found to be more involved in informal networks and relationships than formal ones, as compared to both their Indian and mainstream/dominant Canadian counterparts. Indians in Calcutta are also seen to be members of alumni associations and institutional associations more so than interest-based clubs, groups, and associations. It appears to be a general value of

South Asians that membership in clubs, groups, and associations are often made based on personal influences (joining charitable organizations because a friend or a relative has asked the participant to do so) and sense of belonging with specific parts of the historical past (like old neighbourhood communities or old school associations).

178

As to why South Asians prefer social participation in informal networks; a majority of the participants agree that their perception of the community in their social surroundings is crucial to their sense of belonging and motivates them to participate in groups and networks. Participants spoke of how the sense of being surrounded by people everywhere, encountering known and familiar faces, and having small, weak, or strong ties with almost everyone encountered in the street, at the grocers, in the neighbourhood, and in the commuting system is something that is missing in Canada. The comparative feeling of being isolated or alone is striking to their experiences of living in a new country, in addition to making sense of accepted modes of social conduct and etiquette while being engaged in social interaction in Canada. In South Asian culture, where culture is understood as a way of life, it is normally expected that a defined and cordial social relation will exist with almost everyone in daily living; this expectation forms the highlight of social interaction and social participation according to South Asian immigrants. The topical differences in social participation as rhetoric channelizes the differences in social interaction whereby an individual chooses to stay away from certain social situations that differ from those observed in their country of origin based on perceived limits.

179

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS FROM QUALITATIVE INTERVIEWS—BARRIERS TO

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

Structural barriers to social participation—experience and perception of difference

Based on the interviews, it appears that social expectations of immigrants are based on the degree of difference between their country of origin and the immigrated country. Wanner (1999) contends that immigrants from countries that are similar to Canada in linguistic, economic, political, cultural and religious aspects are found to integrate and adapt to Canadian society easier than those who are considerably different linguistically, religiously, culturally, politically, and economically. The capability to integrate into Canadian society, however, is not based on rigid categorizations of the country of origin, but rather on a continuum of the degree of identification to a cultural community (Pendakur & Pendakur, 2002). Pendakur and Pendakur

(2002: 151) contend that the “measurable attributes that place individuals on this continuum include, among other things, immigrant status, mother tongue, ethnic background, and language ability”. Interview excerpts presented thus far of Susan, Mala, David, Mehrab, Balarka, Madhu,

Farhad, Kaai, Babun, Chathu, and Mehrab point to Pendakur and Pendakur’s assertion of how immigrant status, language (mother tongue), knowledge of mainstream/dominant discourse

(language ability), and ethnic background can create perceived differences of barriers to social participation in networks of other ethnic groups. The match between expectations and reality is embedded in issues of degree of difference between the immigrants and mainstream/dominant social networks, as well as how much immigrants want to retain and maintain their ethnic identity and cultural practices, which might not blend with those of the mainstream/dominant society.

180

In the interviews with immigrants the match between social expectation and reality was treated as a broad issue and kept sufficiently vague to garner as much information as possible without sensitizing the participant to the political correctness of things. The participant was asked to speak about their expectations of social life in Canada; the reality encountered, and if there was any difference between the two.

It was found that alienation and a sense of heightened individualism in a new country were prime factors that almost all immigrant participants struggle with. The change in social conditions, along with infrastructural changes, such as weather, workplace activities, and traffic accentuated the different settings of two countries. New immigrants, such as David, who has been in Canada for two and a half months and reported isolation, alienation, and a lack of bonding with the social setting in the new country:

David: People are very busy over here…very busy. Here I see everyone running. It’s not like that back home. Everybody will pass you but not like this. Another thing is that after 6 or 7 pm here you won’t find anybody on the streets...it’s quite empty…it’s because everybody has cars and they go by and go home. But in India not everybody has cars. The public transport is good and everybody uses public transport so many people are on the streets. The reasons for this over here could be the climate. Because of this cold climate many people cannot be on the streets.

Also… here people mind their own business…they are not bothered by anything and do not bother or interfere others. But in India if something happens to you on the streets people will gather around you and will help you. But here people don’t do that. But one thing I’ll say here people will come and say Hello...even if they do not know you. So they are polite over here than in India. In India people might not be polite or say Hi or Hello. But in India people will come and help you physically. But here I don’t find physical help. But people here will say “take care” …I don’t know why they say that.”

In the above passage, David compared the differences in support systems in two countries and spoke of missing the general feeling of being surrounded by people. The reality of receiving the polite behaviour but not the customary care and support he would receive in his home

181

country are overwhelming contrasts that new immigrants try to make sense of based on norms formed “back home”.

David also reported feelings of exclusion, though he does not recognize and term them as such:

KR: Have you ever felt excluded?

David: No…no no...but I always think…another difference I see in Canadian people—is that here everyone is talking about “I’ll sue you”…I never heard that thing but here everywhere people are saying this. I don’t know people are using the word so much…

This is also one of the differences between India and Canada…there…. in India if you make a mistake then people will apologize...but in Canada they won’t forgive you. That is why I’m afraid to talk to people.

KR: You are afraid to talk to people?

David: Yes…see…. they even judge the body movements…how I move, how I walk. If I go to a shop then people will not allow me sometimes.

David expressed the feeling that he is being judged in differential standards in the new country and this feeling obviously impacts the way he tries to interact with mainstream networks.

Whether this feeling of being judged is simply perceived as such or is a “true fact” remains open to debate and variable interpretations, but the different way of social interaction and behaviour presents a challenge to new immigrants, nonetheless. Based on the interviews, it was found that the level of being overwhelmed and the ability to cope with different customs of social interaction varies with level of education, socio-economic status, and familiarity with western discourse in general.

To clarify, Chathu, whose mother tongue is Tamil, like David, does not report the difference in people, in linguistic capabilities, or different accents, as David or Aslan do, but in how certain things struck her as different:

182

Chathu: It was little things that strike…like getting the right pronunciation. Like people would say “few-el” (fuel) and I would say “foo-al” (Fuel), or this …and was….and little things like that…and that here in Canada you constantly talk about the weather. It was such a thing to say….and I was surprised at the weather too. And just the way you greet people…like “hi…how are you”… you really don’t need to explain how you really are. You are just expected to say I’m fine and how are you and pass on, right? And you know…you get to know these things. And I really wondered…..about how dynamic the North American society is here and how long are you supposed to work and so…I was anxious about whether I would be up-to-date with things. But I suppose it’s essentially the same. If you want to work hard it’s up to you. That’s what I found. I think it’s just sometimes easier to see it if you…yourself are under a lot of pressure. Because my husband was already working, I had somebody to ask.

Chathu was educated in a convent school in Sri Lanka that has a more western way of education and is familiar with discourses of English literature and colloquial customs. By observing how people pronounce certain words and what they mean by customary greetings, she was also able to grasp the dynamics of social interactional behaviour in Canada. In addition, she had her husband to check on accepted forms of behaviour in Canada. Many immigrants are not privy to social etiquette or the customary nature of social interaction in Canada, creating an initial barrier in developing informal relationships with the mainstream/dominant Canadians groups and networks; thereby strengthening the desire of immigrants to look for social interaction and social relationships exclusively with their co-ethnics.

Chathu also spoke about the ease of social interaction, mutual support, and norms of reciprocity in Sri Lankan society as contrasted to individualism, active agency, and conscious choice in social interaction and social participation in Canada. To clarify, contrasted to the

Canadian setting, each relationship in South Asian tradition comes with a set of expected roles, duties, and responsibilities. As Chathu explained, in the South Asian cultural discourse, people are supposed to be friends with their immediate neighbours, colleagues in the workplace, and peers in educational institutions, regardless of likes and dislikes.

183

In Calcutta, Anirban (male, 28, single, Ph.D student, income of Rs 25,000 per month) talks of how he felt compelled to attend neighbourhood meetings, even though he might not like it. His non-attendance would be viewed as “doesn’t want to take any responsibility” and this reputation is clearly unsettling concerning cultural customs. Chathu talked of the same norms of reciprocity when she said:

Chathu: Sri Lanka’s society is actually structured differently. There are neighbours available to do different things. So you won’t necessarily have to……like kids here actually go to an old age home or senior citizens home and actually spend time with them and talk with the people. That is not so much…….that is not done so much that way there. If you want to talk you could do it voluntarily, but you don’t need to make an effort. Like spending time with people, you have to do it here. I suppose that’s what I do to. I have been told, that if you have a pet then you get to know your neighbours better with the dog running and all that. And I don’t have kids either. So those are the key things that help you to know your neighbours better and all that.

In the above passage, Chathu talked of several gears of social participation, such as having a dog or a child, so that conversations about them are likely to be initiated with neighbours and gradually develop. For Chathu, that is of bigger concern than for Mala or David, since she lives in a neighbourhood that is much less ethnically homogenous and interaction and relationships with neighbours is not a presupposed reality that is expected to get solidified with time. Chathu also takes time to volunteer in the neighbourhood. She said she would like to do it for senior citizens in a more formal and regular way later. In addition to pursuing her interest of helping people volunteering offers additional advantages: “for immigrants it’s a great way of understanding the component of life in that particular society, in that community and then getting to know the neighbours and things like that, but also, learn how the system works.”

As Gaudet and Reed (2004) state, support, participation, and volunteering are more likely to be related to life events or life course phases, than availability of time or goal-oriented reasons of

184

networking in these modes of social participation. Even though the majority of South Asian immigrants interviewed have time to volunteer since many are not employed, only participants like Chathu, (i.e. those in a higher socio-economic status) are involved in volunteering, participation in non-ethnic community activities, and inter-ethnic social participation.

For a majority of South Asian immigrants any kind of bonding translates into norms of reciprocity in their countries of origin. Their perception that similar experience might not happen—that any bonding would not necessarily translate into norms of reciprocity in Canada— influences the level of ties formed with other ethnic groups. Even though almost all participants expressed that they would like to have friends from all ethnic groups, most of them acknowledge that the majority of their social ties are with other South Asians. When asked why most of their friends are South Asian, the usual response was defensive, stating that they have no idea why this is the case in spite of their best intentions. They also tend to overstate relationships where acquaintances formed in libraries or subways are stated as friendship even though the participants admitted rarely seeing these other ethnic “friends” or depending on them for emotional or personal support. Most of these acquaintances from other ethnic backgrounds are weak relationships; they interact sporadically through chatting on the web or exchanging greetings once a year at Christmas or New Year’s. Interaction with mainstream Canadian networks are found more among the immigrants whose education include familiarity with the western way of life, living in non-ethnic neighbourhoods, and participating in non-ethnic networks. Manas said the following when asked about any differences in expectations and reality:

Manas: In the beginning, people wouldn’t even understand whatever I was saying. They would ask, “Could you please repeat?” I have a huge East Indian accent. Culturally….yes… initially…it took me some time to observe people and

185

understand how I should act in the gestures….it took some time. Like in India, we are not that westernized still. Like in the morning, we would say “Good Morning” at the most. But here people would meet and start talking, “Hi. How are you? How was yesterday?” So to adjust to these things, it took me around 6 months. When you go somewhere…some conventions, road conventions, driving conventions….it took time to adjust but at a point of time….I come from an educated segment in India so I had the onus on…. that it’s on me, that I would have to observe and understand and learn. If somebody comes suddenly….who do not have much education and all, immigrants…they might have different perspective. They might not be able to understand why things are like this. I rather oriented myself to learn the differences to fill in the gaps. That’s why you know…homogeneously you merge with North American customs and things. I don’t feel uncomfortable anymore. It took me 6 months to understand and absorb everything.

KR: Anything else that you had to adjust with?

Manas: Cultural difference mainly. I once called an employee….who was a female and who didn’t used to work much actually…I called her “lazy”. Immediately my supervisor called me aside and told me that “Manas, in this country you don’t call anyone lazy. You should say ‘I wish you were a bit more pro-active’. So these types of things I had to adjust. That’s a very good example of cultural difference. In India we flatly say whatever comes to our mind. Here you maintain a kind of polish in whatever we say.

Manas delineates the process in which social interaction and adjusting to social interactions in Canada is made possible, and how the adjustment is determined by ability to align with customs, rhetoric, and discourse of a new culture. Immigrants do not come from a social vacuum; absorption of new customs and normative behaviour is dependent on the grasping power, desire to adapt and learn new social interactional behaviour, and of course the socio- economic and educational background of the immigrant in the country of origin. In confirmation with existing literature, it was found in this research that the cultural osmosis facilitating adaptation and assimilation of South Asian immigrants to mainstream/dominant discourse is enabled by the process of interaction with the host society and institutions through everyday living (Jiobu, 1988: 98; Kalbach and Kalbach, 1995a, 1995b ; Reitz, 1980). The opportunity to interact with mainstream/dominant networks becomes a privilege whereby the immigrant learns

186

the ways of the new society and how to blend in and fill in the gaps between expectation and reality. The background and determination of an individual are important factors in the process of filling in the gap between expectation and reality, and to make the extra effort to engage in non-ethnic social participation. Immigrants who have lived longer in their new country are better able to fill in this gap of expectation and reality and blend in with both ethnic and cultural discourses of their country of origin and their immigrated country.

For example, in contrast to David, who came from the same region (the Tamil state) of India as Madhu (female, 34, married, homemaker, income 75,000 per year, and former professional), the latter has a different picture to offer. Madhu lived in US for three years before she moved to

Toronto with her husband. At the time of interview, she had lived in Toronto for two years. An immigrant woman usually has less access to groups and networks than immigrant men (Matsuo

& Fong, 2007). I was curious if the Tamil background presents any commonality in their experiences, whether Madhu has fewer networks than David, and if she is a member of more or less ethnic networks.

As a mother, Madhu is a member of a lot of mothering groups, all of which were online. The members of these groups also meet in person on a regular basis and she has made friends with some of them, who have British Canadian, Ukrainian, American, and Finnish backgrounds. In addition, she has access to, and support of, her co-ethnic networks. On being asked whether she notices any difference in values and behaviour when interacting with her co-ethnics and non- coethnics, she replied,

Madhu: Most of the non-Indian people, they live day to day and they don’t think long term…which is good and bad……we Indians generally think long term….sometimes I think we Indians should loosen up a bit…but we can learn from them and they can learn from us.

187

As seen in the above quote, Madhu seems to be interacting and navigating between different planes of behaviour in accordance with her ethnic background; and therein could lie the reason for successful initiation and maintenance of inter-ethnic networks. When asked about her memories of adaptation and expectation in moving to a new country and new city, Madhu asserted that apart from finding a job, they did not meet with any difficulties that would challenge their expectations with the place. Moreover, Madhu mentioned that their stay in the US somewhat prepared them for their stay in Canada due to the many social and infrastructural similarities of the two countries.

Though from the same ethnic, cultural, and linguistic background, Madhu and David have different experiences concerning the gap between expectation and reality pertaining to Canadian social life. While this difference could certainly be attributed to personality and individual differences, successful navigation of social participation by Madhu in inter-ethnic networks speaks of how her language abilities and willingness to interact with people from other ethnic backgrounds play a crucial role. To start with, Madhu did not report any difficulties in speaking the language or understanding the Canadian accent, as David did. Second, Madhu was educated in a convent school in India and was aware of the popular stories, rhymes, literature, and music that a western education is able to impart, and so she is able to hold conversations with

Canadians.

Being a homemaker, Madhu could be expected to have little inter-ethnic social capital, if one goes by the expected trend (Couton and Gaudot, 2008; Matsuo and Fong, 2007). Madhu, however, is able to have more active social participation owing to her particular life situation, skills, and level of access required to participate. Madhu does not live in an ethnic neighbourhood and she has differing levels of normative and reciprocal expectations when

188

interacting with South Asians and non-South Asians. Later in the interview, she mentioned that she feels more comfortable interacting with non-South Asian friends than her Tamil friends and acquaintances, whom she said, are more judgemental towards her, owing to normative expectations of social interaction. Interestingly, the same statement was also made by Susan who mentioned how her co-ethnic counterparts are always judging her life choices and activities; consequently she is more comfortable in her interactions with non-coethnic friends. Expectations of accepted and normal behaviour colour any social interaction; thus social participation is not free from ethno-cultural delimitations of familiar frameworks and references. The gap or match between expectation and ability to fulfill such expectations underlie any mode of social participation. People who are successful in having intra-ethnic networks are seen to deploy different social interactional tactics. They also are not found to have the same social expectations as they have with their co-ethnics while interacting with people from other ethnic backgrounds.

Although the ability to interact and socially participate in mainstream/dominant Canadian networks does not necessarily fall within the social duties of immigrants, a successful adaptation and settlement process of immigrants preclude social inclusion in the Canadian social structure, whereby ethnic boundaries are dropped and a free-flowing of ideas and reciprocal exchanges are made possible and inter-ethnic trust is developed. While strong co-ethnic social participation and social capital provides comfort and familiarity to immigrants and mainstream/dominant

Canadians, it excludes other ethnic groups in bridging social relationships. Social exclusion reduces social capital through lowering levels of trust required for a growing economy and a well-functioning integrated society. Conversely, social inclusion leads to better social capital, better integration with the wider society, and to better well-being of individuals.

189

To summarize the findings mentioned so far, it is found that interaction with mainstream/dominant Canadian networks is dependent on an initial threshold where the immigrant finds themself. The choice of neighbourhood, social activities, arenas of social participation, educational background, and levels of difference in linguistic and cognitive discourse have a bearing on that threshold. In addition, feelings of trust, feelings of racialization and exclusion, and socio-economic levels all play a role in perceiving barriers to social participation in mainstream/dominant networks by South Asian Canadians.

The next section deals with the barriers to interaction in mainstream/dominant Canadian networks as perpetuated by feelings of exclusion and the conditions that impede or facilitate interaction.

Structural barriers to social participation: social exclusion

The fact that barriers to social participation exist for immigrants based on differences with the host society is well-documented (Bonacich, 1972; Lanphier, 1997; Sanders & Nee, 1996;

Seigel, 1970). By interviewing South Asian immigrants this research attempts to find out if barriers are found in their daily living, and if and how they attempt to overcome them. A related concern is to determine which immigrants do not experience the identified factors as barriers and why.

To start with, it is of particular interest how the basic component of social interaction— language— influences interaction with others. Fitch and Sanders (2005) point to a connection between language and social interaction (Fitch & Sanders, 2005) Findings indicate that in addition to fluency in the English language, a more significant factor affecting social interaction is familiarity with linguistic and cognitive discourse. Most of the South Asian immigrants interviewed are first generation immigrants and received their primary and undergraduate

190

education in their home country then migrated to Canada at an older age. Since they are familiar with English and are presented with a colonial discourse in their everyday life it could be expected that they would have little difficulty in having meaningful communication with their dominant Canadian counterparts.

It was found that the ability to read, write, and speak a language is not always tantamount to having strong communication skills with indigenous speakers, even when ruling out personal characteristics of the participant. The history of British colonization has equipped the British with a legacy that is colonial, but archaic. To clarify, a language contains within itself popular stories, references, a shared sense of understanding of certain words and phrases, and colloquial ways of saying and doing things, all of which can create ease or unfamiliarity depending on sustained experience conversing in that language. To illustrate, Mehrab’s explanation on how language can create a barrier between mainstream networks and South Asian immigrants could be considered:

Mehrab: I think it’s not about knowing how to speak English. It is also about how do you use certain words, when do you use certain words. I don’t know things to say in certain situations, and ideas and expressions are different by each culture, you cannot translate them in languages.

KR: Do you feel like this in your office?

Mehrab: Little things, yes. Technically my language skills are good, I don’t have problems. But sometimes I feel that yes I could have used that expression when the other person said this and things like that. I can’t remember specifically right now. But it’s like our humour doesn’t match with their humour. I might not know certain phrases because I didn’t grow up listening to them so in the beginning it would take me a while to get them or get jokes. Therefore the gap in communication remains.

191

Compared to Chathu, who was educated in Sri Lanka and banked upon her listening and observing power in understanding Canadian accents and conversational dynamics, Mehrab, who had his education in Bengali in Bangladesh and has most of his friends and acquaintances in his neighbourhood, finds it difficult to make a bridge and start communicating with his mainstream/dominant Canadian counterparts, in spite of attempts to do so. The difficulties are not only limited to constraints in colloquial discourse, but also in levels of familiarity and ease with the mainstream/dominant Canadian culture:

Mehrab: I think I have a formal relationship with the mainstream Canadian; with white Canadians. Sometimes I go to their parties like Christmas and Halloween with my family. But I feel things are very formal over there. Even when you are eating together. Like I have to be alert whether I am making any errors in any manners or etiquette. I feel I lack the freedom to do things. Also I don’t really know a lot about the mainstream people. Like I don’t know what they do in their leisure times. Consequently I don’t tell them to come to my place when they are free. And they also don’t tell me to go their place in leisure times.

Since the standards and expectations of social interaction differ, there is a distinct lack of social belongingness when Mehrab chooses to participate in mainstream/dominant Canadian social settings. Differences in level of expected formality and etiquette affect levels of comfort in doing things together. When an immigrant lacks the ease of interaction with mainstream/dominant Canadians, this further influences communication between the two ethnic groups as the immigrant chooses to disassociate from such arenas of social participation. Susan related to this feeling of how language can add to the initial feelings of confusion:

Susan: I knew the English but the English over here and the English we learnt were quite different and I used to be afraid….and I couldn’t understand their talk and they couldn’t understand mine. The accent itself is too different. Then…. we say “garbage”, and they say “Trash”. Then small things………I used to think what do they mean? What do they want to say? This whole thing made me so confused…

My son has learnt the accent…and communication is improved for children of immigrants. Another thing I’ve noticed—when we were in our country, somebody would share a joke and we would be able to get it. The reference point 192

was common. It could be some childhood poetry or literature or music…but I would be able to understand that it was a joke. But over here, when people joke over here, and draws reference to something, a lot of time just goes by to understand the reference and to get the joke….and many times I don’t even understand it to be a joke.

That day we were going out of our apartment. A group of white boys said something to us…that is they said something rude. Teenage guys…you know the cut…they are rough and rude. So we didn’t understand what exactly they said but we could understand from their facial expressions and tone that it wasn’t something pleasant. My son told us that they said how dare we are using their lift? They were shouting among us….me and my husband can often understand when people are speaking against us but we might not understand what they are saying….we might not understand certain words. But my son got it….he is 10 right now.

Susan and her husband depend on their son for drawing and learning the references to cultural discourse, accents, and language. Her family’s social life remains limited to her ethnic counterparts, even though they come into contact with the mainstream/dominant/ Canadian life in their daily living through their workplace and education (her husband’s and son’s). The perceived difference creates a wall between “them” and “us” whereby possibilities of building bridges are not conceptualized owing to “cultural differences”. Although inability to communicate and participate in Canadian networks is attributed to language in the above instances, there’s more to language than grammar and syntax in creating a barrier to successful inter-ethnic social participation.

Cultural differences by themselves do not create walls between ethnic group but perceived levels of difference play a key role. There exists cultural differences among Indians, between people from Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka but they are more likely to be friends with each other than with individuals from Europe or even East Asia. The medium of language between a

Sri Lankan and an Indian remains English. But the perceived commonality of a shared

193

understanding in food, habits, and customs creates a bond that excludes possibilities of bonding and networking with other ethnic groups.

Babun for example, in spite of coming from India, has more friends from Bangladesh and

Pakistan than Indians. He lives in “Little Bangladesh”, a South Asian community with a

Bangladeshi predominance among residents. He gets to speak his native language in the community, which he thinks is a privilege. In addition to numerous Bangladeshis and Pakistani friends, he also has some acquaintances and friends in the Nepali community because his wife is from Nepal. They do a lot of socializing (like celebrating the Nepali New Year) with the Nepali community and have house parties on the weekends with acquaintances and friends from the

Nepali, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi communities. On learning that I am from Calcutta, Babun was keen to maintain contact beyond the interview. He said that he would like to meet and have more “Calcutta people” in his network as he knows very few people from Calcutta in Toronto.

Most of his friends come from other ethnic backgrounds and most of his friends are based on acquaintances made in his neighbourhood. Thereafter, to clarify, I asked:

KR: Would you like to have friends from your own ethnic lineage than people from Bangladesh or Pakistan?

Babun: I’d love that, yes…but I’d also like to have a mix in my friend circle….I’m not inclined towards having people from the same community because I want to have different cultures and experience everything. And that way you can also have different occasions and celebrations of festivals and stuff.

KR: Would you like to be friends with more mainstream Canadians…

Babun: It pretty well depends on where you look and if you look in your neighbourhood then you’ll see that certain communities are clustered and you can’t mix with that cluster. But if you move to a…. little bit rich or mediocre neighbourhood you will see that white people, Chinese people, Asian people are together. I’d love to make friends with everybody but it’s hard to…because it’s based on where you live….and how people are clustered.

194

KR: Why do you think you have more friends from Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Nepali community than other ethnic groups?

Babun: I think it’s mainly due to habits and culture. We connect along with those lines…if I were to make friends with a white person… I think it would be tougher to connect on various levels.

KR: What do you mean by culture?

Babun: I believe if I were to make friendship with a person from any community I need to know the culture….because there are certain details in every one…I need to know the references the person is making in a conversation. There’s a verbal issue, expressions, facial expressions then body language….a lot of things are affected by culture. You need to know what they mean and why do they behave like that…so these are the points that affect any interaction and that’s how these are affected by culture.

Babun talks about how familiarity with any culture obviates any ambiguities in communication and shared understanding. While a common culture does not necessarily guarantee people will like each other or develop social relationships, it rules out steps to second guess gestures and meaning. It provides a common framework where expectations are clearer and behavioural references are easily understood.

Babun also talks about an important factor of social participation in Canada—the clusters— that underscore any form of social participation. Clusters of ethnic groups characterise living arrangements and percolates down to other areas of social participation, where continuities of ethnic clusters colour the social life of individuals. Support for these findings can be found in

Matsuo and Fong (2007: 5) when they opine, “…foreign university education and lower English skills may encourage membership in ethnic organizations. Participation in associations organized by one’s ethnic group is believed to compensate for disruptions that immigration often brings”.

Predicated on Babun’s explanation of how people interact in clusters, it suffices to say that people from the same part of the world socialize together in spite of their assertions that ethnic

195

background is not a factor when choosing friends. Babun asserts that people interact in clusters and it is even more difficult to participate in more mainstream/dominant Canadian networks when one lives in an ethnic neighbourhood.

In comparison, the converse picture is also confirmed—it was extremely rare to find South

Asian immigrants with friends or regular acquaintances that are mainstream/dominant

Canadians. Ross (male, 35, Caucasian Canadian, single, employed, income of $40,000) had the following to say when asked about diversity among his friends:

KR: Tell me about your friend circle. How diverse is this group in terms of age, gender, occupation, religion?

Ross: Gender is quite split…..say it’s 60% males and 40% females. Everybody is social….and mostly people are in hospitality or entertainment occupations. Most people are also working from 9 to 5. Politically, we are quite levelled I think. Ethnically we are mostly Caucasians…say about 20% are other ethnicities---Asians, some…black people, African or I don’t know whether they are Africans…I mean they are Black.

KR: Do you get to meet people from other ethnicities in your daily life?

Ross: Generally, I would say no. because …let’s say I’m socializing with my friends and their friends and generally most of my friends are from restaurants or the hospitality sections in hotels, …it’s 95% Caucasians.

Ross mentions how he has a few friends from various ethnic backgrounds; however this probably has less to do with ethnic background as a selection criterion, as Ross is seen to be confused in determining some of his friend’s racial background (Black) with their broad ethnic identity (African). Moreover, Ross illuminates on another interesting trend, of incorporating colleagues in the friend circle and socializing with them on a more regular basis, found more commonly among Canadians of mainstream/dominant ethnic background than among South

Asians. Later in the interview, Ross mentioned that the practice of ethnic groups living close to each other constrains the process of Canadian integration. He reasons how living close to each

196

other enables the comforting feeling of living close to family and friends; however, he feels this hardly brings people of different ethnic backgrounds close to each other:

Ross: You know people keep to themselves, keep in pockets in the city. Even in downtown, you will have Chinatown, you will have little Korea, little Italy, and little Portugal. I mean federally we are divided into Quebecois and the English, but ……..even a Greek town is there in downtown. And in the north there is a Jewish neighbourhood and if you move to the west and there is a high Ukrainian, Tamil and South Asian neighbourhoods. In the Scarborough and a little further west is….proportionately a Black dominant population is. So you see there’s a lot of self-segregation where people live in different places as they want to feel comfortable. This is like living close to your own family and friends and most of them migrate to the same neighbourhood.

KR: Do you think it could lead to conflict when different people live with each other?

Ross: Conflict? I don’t think so. I think Torontians are accepting for the most part…and it’s a very multicultural city ….I don’t think it would cause conflict. I think the actual majority conflicts are between different ethnicities….like between teenagers….and it’s a passionate age and the different conflicts and disagreements which they generally get from the old….like when the Arabs first came over, the Tamils didn’t like it….in the Scarborough area the Tamils and the Sri Lankans didn’t like it….and the kids got involved in conflict. They grew up here. They hear about everyone, they hear about the conflict from the old in the family. The teenagers are every malleable and I think most of the conflict comes from them…as they are very passionate about things. That’s what I have seen. Generally it doesn’t happen too much between adults.

In the above quote, Ross corroborates the presence of fights among ethnic youth gangs that

Toronto witnesses each day, but he explains them as a consequence of young age coupled with associated aggressiveness rather than ethnic differences or background. Even then ethnic neighbourhoods form a usual pattern in Toronto, having implications beyond neighbourhood living as people tend to also experience social participation in clusters.

Much like Ross, is the situation of Marie (female, 25, single, mainstream/dominant

Canadian, employed, income of $25,000-$30,000), who also has very few friends from other ethnic backgrounds. Marie works as a restaurant manager in downtown Toronto. She moved from Newfoundland to Toronto a few years ago and her friend circle consists mostly of people from work, a few common friends of her brothers, and some friends from her childhood that she

197

has kept in touch with. Going with her narration, most of Marie’s friends are from her own ethnic group, about 80% are female. She mentioned having a few friends from Israel, some from

Italy and France and, “very few Asian or oriental persons….maybe one or two friends, but they are very casual friends”. She says the reason behind having a majority of co-ethnic friends is because she seldom finds oriental or Asian people in her profession or within the networks she participates. Ethnic groups are described as being inaccessible to each other, living in parallel compartments. This living and socializing situation often makes immigrants and mainstream/dominant Canadians seem invisible to each other; whereby each group exists in their own networks and relationships and do not find the other groups as existing in their social surroundings.

Even when South Asian Canadians meet mainstream/dominant Canadians in their everyday life, social participation is constrained. To take the example of Kaai, who works in a Canadian company and is in contact with the mainstream/dominant Canadian community, his interaction with the latter is chiefly limited to work related matters and does not percolate to personal, informal relationships, as it would for other mainstream/dominant Canadians. Kaai identifies

“cultural difference” as the main barrier to interact and participate in more inter-ethnic networks.

His religion constrains certain practices that are considered normal in social parlance—drinking, touching women in certain ways (kissing them on the cheek), talking about investments, and eating non-halal meat.

For immigrants like Kaai, the choice of participation in social life oftentimes remains binary—of exclusive allegiance to one’s cultural and religious roots—or to adopt and assimilate to the new identity, which even with the multicultural promise, remains western and unilateral

198

for them. Related to the possibility of adopting new cultural customs, the possibility of being avoided by one’s own co-ethnics also exists if one tries to move too close to the “other” side.

Balarka, (male, married, 50 years old, immigrant from India, employed, income of

$35,000-$40,000) had this to say:

Balarka: I have tried mixing in with the people over here. I have tried going at bars, trying to watch ice hockey. But I don’t understand these things… It’s not something that I’m familiar with or that I have seen from the childhood and it’s not possible for me to start drinking at this age or be passionate about ice hockey at this age.

The chief reason given by Balarka is of an older age when a person becomes less likely to be influenced of integrating into other cultures into their personality, as well as lack of familiarity with the more western way of doing things. Balarka was the director of a premier institute in

India. When asked how much of Canadian living, in general, matched with his expectations,

Balarka spoke of many mismatches, including the understandable frustration of non-recognition of his educational credentials in Canada, in spite of them being recognized when granted status as an immigrant. He spoke of discrimination, exclusion, and racism; claiming these factors were barriers to interacting with the mainstream and having an equitable status with them. In addition to the above extract, in which Balarka underscores the difference in popular cultural practices between the mainstream/dominant Canadians and South Asian immigrants, he speaks of alienation and grief that colours the everyday life of the South Asian immigrant. The long extract below showcases why Balarka believes discrimination exists and how it creates a divide in the

Canadian society:

KR: Have you ever seen anybody excluded from anything?

Balarka: See…..I had heard this from my brother-in-law—that if you want to survive here then you would have to be doubly good than the residents over here. And he was the chief of surgery in the “Sick kids” hospital. He was well

199

placed and still he would say that. He has 5 brothers in this country. And not everybody is doing well. His eldest brother came here from Belgium, he was a teacher. His youngest brother was an engineer, but he cannot be an engineer here. He has an independent business. Now….whether I have felt that? It’s immaterial whether I have felt that way. I have. But I have also seen others to feel excluded. I have seen others to feel humiliated. I have seen my Pakistani colleague to cry inconsolably. I’m saying this based on the immigrants I have seen. Here the system is not foolproof. Now, I have other options than staying in this country. I can always go back. Probably that’s why I can’t digest these things and I am arrogant. But for others the situation is not like that. The fight is based on whether you are determined to stay in this soil. Then it makes sense.

Whenever we immigrants get together, we are going through a sea of grief and sharing our stressful situations.

KR: So you are saying exclusion exists among immigrants…

Balarka: It certainly exists when you are doing the jobs…

KR: Okay. Do you think it exists pertaining to anything else?

Balarka: Basically, immigrants are a bit docile here. But racism is here. It is there latently. Absolutely. Some people have accepted that it won’t do if you can’t accept multiculturalism or multi-linguism. But there is always the difference between us and them. Like… you know what happens? Whenever there is an immigrant, coloured immigrant who enters the job of security guards, he is always given the night duty. I have had people older than me by 7 or 10 years who had to do this. The discrimination is there. It is not pointed to your eye, but you will feel it at every step. Not that I keep looking for it. And I also feel they do not make as much discrimination with the Black population as with us. They have been living together beside each other since long. There is a Calcutta characteristic here. Like the average taxi driver in Calcutta would be Punjabi. The plumber would be Bihari. You would also see the same here. The average taxi driver here is Pakistani. Security Guards are always South Asian. Nannies are almost always Filipinos.

People who stay in Ghettos, like Bangladeshis they also don’t gel well with the mainstream society here. I wouldn’t go into a deep analysis in that direction as that wouldn’t be too pleasant.

But I would say one thing. Canadian society is tolerant in the sense that it accommodates a lot of people who come from other parts of the world and who had to flee their country in face of a global militancy. Once they become citizens, nobody is going to do a background check. I have seen how people coming from Afghanistan and Iran live. What they go through. But the social system over here is only taking in and absorbing people. It doesn’t pause to think and rethink whether it can accommodate them according to their skills and status. The mainstream Canadians are afraid of one thing—that who would pull up the

200

heavy things, who would work night shifts? That’s why they are taking in the immigrants.

They had changed the immigration policy and the first affected was the retail sector. And they predicted that in the coming years, a huge amount of people would come as immigrants. I think two kinds of people come here as immigrants—one is who would like to maintain their own identity and self respect and maintain their profession in which they are skilled. The second kind is those who would mould, change, dress crazily and will completely lose it while others would be surprised at their makeover. I don’t think educated people would go for the second choice.

KR: Do you think immigrants have an onus on themselves to blend with the mainstream?

Balarka: Even when you want to, do you think you can really blend? I have seen the second generation trying to blend in, but they actually don’t. Let me give you some example. Among the white people, the person who comes from Italy, is able to maintain the Italian culture among his family. Spanish Canadian is able to do this, the British Canadian is able to maintain his food habit too. In that case, I don’t think I should be able to maintain my food habit. And also, maintaining your own culture is not a precondition that you wouldn’t learn from others or that you won’t respect other culture.

You were asking me whether the immigrants have a responsibility to blend with the mainstream. I think the mainstream also has a responsibility to accept us, which they do not practice. I know of a doctor who was a heart surgeon in Calcutta. When he came here he was told to clear this exam and that exam, to have this paper and that paper. Now he is told that he cannot operate but he has to assist other surgeons. What would you call these? This is like walking with your eyes closed. They refuse to believe that they are doing this.

The long narrative is given to demonstrate claims of discrimination as experienced by immigrants, what they pertain to, and how they are deemed as barriers to integrating with the mainstream. For Balarka, the choice is very much binary and mutually exclusive—of leaving one’s culture or looking “funny” in an attempt to look “Canadian”—and he believes this doesn’t actually help in blending with the mainstream. Later in the interview Balarka uses an example of a character from a well-known Bengali movie and states that when someone attempts to blend with the mainstream, they remain “neither ours nor theirs”. The narratives of

Balarka and Kaai merge into this binary of being like “them” or “being us” and how the choice

201

affects future perception and interaction with their co-ethnics. Though none of them have specifically mentioned whether they are avoided by their co-ethnic counterparts in their choice to “assimilate” to a more mainstream/dominant Canadian aspect, the common understanding is that immigrants cannot cover both grounds and in trying to do so they become “neither theirs, nor ours”. Moreover, interviews with Balarka, Babun, Mala, and two other immigrants point to a history of narration and orientation by older immigrants that has a bearing on the new immigrant’s predisposition to distrust and awareness of difference with mainstream/dominant

Canadians.

In addition to perceived cultural differences from mainstream/dominant Canadians, other factors, such as perceived discrimination or differential treatment, combine to create an antagonistic sense of identities for immigrants. A majority of immigrants interviewed spoke of discrimination or differential treatment encountered in their job search, workplace, or getting their educational credentials recognized. Finding a job is an important precondition of getting settled in

Canada and also puts the idea of “worth” of an immigrant to the test. In the process of finding a job and gaining equivalent status in the new country, perceived discrimination and exclusion from the labour market furthers the feeling of alienation encountered in a new country. Before their new

Canadian identity is crystallized, immigrants often encounter the difference between their own culture and the mainstream/dominant culture in antagonistic binary perspectives. As Balarka states, even though multiculturalism promises maintenance of ethnic cultural practices and lineage, blending with the mainstream requires knowledge of the mainstream/dominant cultural discourse and strategic use of that knowledge in interactions that sometimes stand in binary opposition to their own culture. Consequently, for South Asian immigrants the interaction with co-ethnics and mainstream/dominant Canadians is rarely seen to operate on complementary channels. Balarka

202

asserts that if an Italian can practice and maintain their Italian identity on Canadian soil, then

Indians should also do it. The fact remains that cultural differences between an Italian and a mainstream/dominant Canadian and that between a South Asian and a mainstream/dominant

Canadian is not equidistant and often that distance becomes difficult to bridge. For example, when

I asked Balarka:

KR: Do you have friends in the mainstream community?

Balarka: I have acquaintances, white people, in my office. They are not friends, but acquaintances. But even with them, there is this thing—you will feel that they are doing a big favour by tolerating you. For example, with regards to giving a notice, I had said that “I had given intimation to a notice that something should be done.” My supervisor said, “Why are you using the word intimation?” I said, “Because I feel like it.” He said, “But why? What’s this word intimation? I have never heard about it.” I said, “Probably because nobody ever taught you that. You should get a dictionary and verify it.”

But I would say one thing. This would probably happen in the same level in our country. I mean at the level of security guards, you can’t expect much education. Now I’m coming from a higher level from India and am trying to enter this lower level in Canada. It has become a double-edged sword for me. I belong neither there nor here, I’m not able to adjust anywhere.

In the above example the conflict between two cultural perspectives is manifest in the choice and use of words. A word such as “intimation” is considered archaic in popular English discourse in Canada, while a colonial history of British education in India has established a more formal usage of the English language. While differences like these make immigrants appear strange with respect to the usual practices in Canada, pointing out the difference is perceived by the immigrant as discriminating against the immigrant’s status. The resultant bitterness restricts development of trust between the two ethnic groups and limits interaction.

In addition, the interaction of socio-economic status and educational background of the immigrant is crucial in determining integration with the mainstream/dominant Canadian networks.

203

As Balarka points out, he would probably have a different experience of interaction if he were with

Canadians of a higher educational level. South Asian immigrants of higher incomes and with a western educational background also report fewer problems interacting within mainstream/dominant Canadian networks and relationships.

Response to the structural barrier of exclusion: The choice of “blending in” or ethnic retention

Existing literature points to the direction that the higher the sense of belonging, the higher the social participation (Breton, 2003). The sense of exclusion and perceived difference of South

Asian Canadians by mainstream/dominant Canadians does not contribute to a sense of belonging.

While participants spoke of feelings of exclusion or difference, my next question addresses how they respond to these feelings and experiences of exclusion. A pertinent question is whether assimilation should be a necessary precondition for integration in a multicultural society.

Assimilation or “blending with the mainstream” is put up as one of the binary choices of adopting a “foreign” culture or holding onto their lineage; a choice that is continuously being addressed by the immigrant in daily living. Immigrants who refuse to make mutually exclusive choices of belonging to either duality are also found in the interviews. One such participant is Madhu, who thinks blending in is a necessary precondition to surviving and integrating with Canadian society.

Madhu is a female immigrant of 33 from India, a married mother with a child, and has friends from both mainstream and her ethnic (Tamil) background. On the issue of blending, she is firm on its need in order to make life smooth:

Madhu: I think you should blend in some way…because only then you’d be able to connect with the other person because there’s no point in trying to stick out like the sore thumb... “I’d love to mingle with the society but I don’t know how”- --there are people like that. There are also people who don’t like to blend…I

204

don’t know whether they realize it. Sometimes they do things that will never blend them in…

KR: Like..?

Madhu: People who would wear their ethnic dress or wear a big bindi with a formal dress saying I don’t want to give up my culture…you are not giving up your culture...you are blending in. you can go to an Indian institution wear it….it’s still beautiful. You shouldn’t stand out separately….but people do things like that…like wearing an anklet to work….so every time somebody walks it will make a noise or something so you will stick out like a sore thumb. Just wearing perfect clothes will help you to blend in. And not speaking Indian language will also help…everybody has to understand…suppose they are in a big crowd…and I’ve noticed Indians do this…they do this in any language like Hindi or Malayalam or Telugu…..when there’s a bigger group you’ve to think of everybody, just not your own people….

And then talk to people….if a non-Indian smiles at you, smile back. Be open….don’t decide that “oh they are different people…they talk like that…they think like that”. It’s just a matter of what we eat and it’s not a matter of what colour of skin others are…be nice to people…be very good friends.

Many of my Indian friends…If I tell them about my online friend or something…they will say “ahh how can you become friends with them?” they are just not open…they should give others a chance. They have these reservations before they even meet people. And I also noticed this thing among a certain group of Indian people that they say that “oh they are white people...oh they are black people’…I’d say don’t classify people like that…there are good and bad people in every culture.

Madhu’s comments illustrate the process of blending in and negotiation as perceived by immigrants. The process of blending in starts with the premise of being non-distinct or not being the “the sour thumb”, and includes adjustments like wearing “perfect clothes” or more western clothes, excluding the ethnic markers such as the “bindi” or the anklet, speaking English, and so on; it involves losing ethnic markers in public that would make one distinct from others. In the above narrative, Madhu also reveals a subtle exclusionary practice in common with her co-ethnic friends, whereby conscious choices to blend and interact with westerners is frowned upon by her co-ethnic counterparts. The subtle disapproving standpoint was also mentioned by Susan and is

205

therefore an indicator of a conscious maintenance of walls to social participation along ethnic boundaries.

Interestingly, although both Madhu and Susan spoke of a subtle censure from their co-ethnics when an immigrant attempts to being like “them” (mainstream/dominant Canadians), both of them successfully balance maintenance of their social participation in both ethnic and non-ethnic networks and relationships. Thus, while Madhu attends religious and ethnic festivals and spends ethnic holidays with her friends, she also meets friends she made in a parenting club two or three times a week, the friends coming mostly from British and European ethnic backgrounds.

The choice to be like “them” is possible when immigrants have knowledge of popular western discourse, western dressing, food habits, and an interest in learning about “them”. The more an immigrant lacks these aspects, the less “blended” or “integrated” they become; the less blended, the more “held back” the person is perceived as, not only by mainstream Canadians but also by some immigrants. The same behavioral and social participation practices, such as “being like them” have different meanings for South Asian immigrants. While immigrants like Balarka believe it is not possible to blend with the mainstream, there are immigrants like Maradona

(male, married, 44, immigrant from India, employed, income of $400,000) who believe that blending in is not only necessary, but a commitment to the new society. Maradona also stressed the fact that blending in can never be balanced between belonging to two ethnic worlds; one has to make an exclusive choice. In this respect, Balarka and Maradona both are validating the same argument, albeit through the expression of different perspectives.

To illustrate, Maradona came to Canada as a student and went on to become the CEO of a premier company in Toronto. In many respects, Maradona is different from the majority of South

Asian immigrants who immigrate to Canada at an older age and face difficulties in getting their

206

credentials recognized and finding a job. Maradona does not perceive how his condition as a landed immigrant is in significant contrast to mainstream/dominant Canadian counterparts. He stated that once he left his country he left all of it and he and his wife never use the phrase “back home” in their daily living. It is an interesting exception to note that all the other immigrants use this term when stating their diasporic connections or signify their country of origin, even though they might identify themselves as Canadian citizens or permanent landed immigrants. Not using the term “back home” signifies how the concept of “home” no longer applies to the years of growing up and ethnic identity of an immigrant’s country of origin, rather their established sense of home is in their immigrated country. The following excerpt illumines the process that

Maradona uses to blend in by practicing mainstream/dominant Canadian customs and avoiding practices that hold back, such as visiting a religious place on the weekend.

KR: Which factor do you think is crucial for your sense of belongingness?

Maradona: I think when I came here, I left all that part. I didn’t cling to it. I tried to understand this Canadian society, tried to blend in it. I remember when I came here as a student, I didn’t have much money. And I didn’t understand anything about ice hockey, or the NHL. I was a fan of football, what they call as soccer over here and I had a little bit of interest in cricket…not much, just a little. But when I was student, I would just go to these sports bar and try to listen to people. Just listen. And watch. I knew nothing about the game but it helped a lot in understanding it by talking about it to people. So you see, you have to know about the people.

I’ve seen my friends who are tagging along their ethnic practices in Canada. That way, they can never mix with the mainstream. And I’d like to say this on record that I think melting pot ideology would work better here, than multiculturalism which would only create divisions among people.

KR: How would multiculturalism create divisions?

Maradona: Well, if people keep practising their own ethnic stuff and build these boundaries around them—that we can’t do this and we can’t do that, then you can never integrate or melt away those differences.

KR: And differences create divisions?

207

Maradona: Of course! If you are different, you keep practising the same ethnic or religious stuff over and over again, then how would you blend with the mainstream? Why would they even talk to you? Or what would they talk to you about?

And South Asians…I’ve seen a very strange thing with them. I have a Pakistani girl working under me…and one day in a restaurant, I saw someone asking her where she was from. You know what she said? She said that she is from Pakistan but her ancestors came from Persia. Just tell me the need to trace lineage up to Persia! Why make yourself sound so far and different from these people?

In the last sentence, Maradona, emphasizes how it is futile in being too distinct and different from others. Difference is thought to breed distrust and divisions from mainstream/dominant

Canadians. Maradona’s attempts to understand and blend with mainstream/dominant Canadians involve acculturation. Existing literature on immigrant experiences in Canada contend that although the political and ideological identity of Canada has supported the maintenance of ethnic identities and cultural groups, a certain degree of assimilation is often required for integration into Canadian society. The assimilationist tendencies are expected in language or linguistic capabilities, the legal system, as well as a general work ethic in the labour market. Existing literature contends that even though cultural retention is promised, certain ethnic and religious practices are not encouraged in the new society (Gordon, 1964; Jiobu, 1988; Lieberson, 1963;

Yinger, 1985). To do well economically and live well in the new society, assimilation is found to be a necessary precondition. Consequently, although there is not a direct onus on the immigrant to assimilate into Canadian society, circumstantial conditions could make assimilation appear as a viable strategy for survival.

Several investigations reveal that retention of ethnic identity and culture could negatively affect upward socio-economic mobility, particularly for first generation immigrants (Porter,

1965; Wiley, 1967). Specifically, language retention and an affiliation with an ethnic church

208

could reduce upward social mobility for the ethnic group (Kalbach & Richard, 1980:81). Ethnic church affiliation is inferred to be a double-edged sword, in spite of being a source of security and support for the ethnic individual, it also acts as a constraint against, “A more rapid integration and assimilation into the new society” (Isajiw et al., 1993; Kalbach & Richard, 1980:

86). My research is not directed towards determining if participants had upward socio-economic mobility by virtue of their assimilated identities. Assimilation is seen to have a bearing on the process of social participation and development of social capital as well as being associated with people who achieved upward socio-economic mobility, like Maradona and Chathu. Clearly, although multiculturalism is encouraged as an ideology and practicing philosophy in the

Canadian scene, it does not appear to be a feasible choice when integration and participation in more mainstream/dominant Canadian networks are sought.

Recent research addresses the issue of the tensions of multiculturalism and social integration;

Jedwab (2003) and others assert that since individuals are complex and have multiple attachments and perspectives, in democratic societies it should not be surprising when citizens hold multiple identities. Caidi and Allard (2005: 311) further opine that “An imposed homogeneity for the sake of a false notion of sameness may in fact be what encourages social alienation, isolation, and exclusion”.

The pressure to blend in is also seen to be working in India in a similar fashion. Migrants admit that when in a different city they attempt to not stand out, but to blend in. Simultaneously, however, migrant individuals are found to look out for their co-ethnics when in a different city and state in India. They are also found to practice their indigenous culture more than they normally would in their indigenous setting, according to their own admittance. ABCD (Indian

209

male, 29 years, from Calcutta) has to stay in Bombay to pursue his MBA degree and the following excerpt illumines an aspect of why migrants seek out co-ethnics:

KR: How much is your own culture important to you?

ABCD: Not in case of official interaction. But what I can say is that…. I can comfortably stay in 100% Bengali dominated social situation, but if there were not a single Bengali around, then probably it would be a bit more uncomfortable. When I was in Bombay…what I saw is that when I am in Calcutta, I don’t make a difference between who is a Bengali and who is not. But, when I’m outside Calcutta, I’ve got introduced to people just because they were Bengali. And we talked and met and had some kind of social interaction….and because they were Bengalis I had maintained some relationships with them…which wouldn’t have been the case if I had known them in Calcutta. If I’m outside Calcutta, then I miss talking in Bengali, having Bengali friends… then… having some common friends who are very important to me, and having some kind of conversations…these are important to me.

Like… I’ll give you one example. If someone comes to meet my friend X,, he talks with X and probably X will introduce him to me, we will say Hi and Hellos and that’s it…probably I won’t see the person again in my life. But if it were in Bombay, and I found some Bengali person then conversation will start with where did you used to live in Calcutta, how long you are in Bombay and then probably exchange phone number and I would also talk and be in touch with the person after this meeting is over. So there is a difference.

But I will say one thing. Those interactions with Bengalis were not that deep. Like I have come from Bombay and I am still in touch with my Non-Bengali friends in Bombay, through email or chat….but I’m not in touch with the Bengalis that I met in Bombay. But while in Bombay we would go for lunches together, and go to places together. I guess I just didn’t feel the urge to keep in touch.

ABCD is relating a situation in which being away from his co-ethnics makes him miss his ethnic culture. His ethnic culture then takes on a greater importance than the usual reasons of a match in interests and perspectives when making friends in Bombay. Once ABCD was in his familiar indigenous setting he admitted that his ethnic culture takes a backseat in his daily interactions with others. This confession of a milder importance in his own ethnic culture when actually in that setting is reflected, albeit in a different way, among all the interviewees of

210

Calcutta. All of them say that ethnic culture is not an important criteria in case of social interaction and having a majority or all their friends from their same ethnic group was a mere coincidence. The same argument is also present in most of the mainstream/dominant Canadian interviewees, who emphasize that they have no bias against befriending individuals belonging to different ethnic groups and cultures. It would appear that the conscious choice of picking co- ethnic friends is exercised by migrants and immigrants, but this fact comes with a restriction—it is influenced by the different ethnicity-coded channels of social interaction existing in Canadian society.

While the tendency towards having an exclusive social activity with one’s ethnic group could be expected of any migrant or immigrant, existing literature suggests that the difference in ethnic culture and exclusion is lessened in second generation immigrants (Jiobu, 1988: 98; Kalbach &

Kalbach, 1995a, 1995b; Reitz, 1980). Among my interviewees, Israh is a second generation

Muslim immigrant who was born in Canada (female, 26, single, employed, income of $50,000-

$60,000) and lives with her East Indian mother and Jewish stepfather. In the course of the interview it appeared that Israh has more South Asian friends than mainstream/dominant

Canadians and other ethnicities. Israh maintained this has more to do with her work in South

Asian arts and literature than anything. I asked her:

KR: Do you think South Asians or any immigrant population should blend more with the overarchical mainstream/dominant Canadian identity?

Israh: As in clothing?

KR: Just be like Canadians…

Israh: Well I think the problem is that by doing that… that’s also a double edged sword…because if you do that, you lose the identity that you came with and your children, and their children’s children will not have that foundation, and the values would be lost and they would feel ashamed of being associated with the culture, which…. I… something that I know a lot of people suffer with. You know

211

friends of mine say that their parents were proud and be Indian and because they would be discriminated against they would try and be even more westernized. Umm…. and then that just creates shame in the children and the children don’t think their identity is cool and then they don’t want to be identified as South Asians…they associate shame with being South Asians and I think that’s very, very dangerous, especially when Canada, in it’s ideal form is supposed to be this multicultural society where everyone is accepted and everyone’s ethnicity and background is valued. So I feel like it’s actually opposite of what Canada should be. That said, when it comes to Canadian law, yes...yes…okay you have your right to marry in your tradition of course and you have your family rights and all that kind of stuff, but when it comes to human rights, when it comes to how you treat people, uhh…for example when they are trying to implement sharia law in Toronto. I think that’s an absolute …uhh...travesty ….literally to be able to do that in a country that prides itself on freedom and uhh…equality between men and women...and I think that’s a violation of Canadian charter and it’s a violation of Canadian law. So when it comes to law…when it comes to human rights, when it comes to law, yes, we should be Canadian. But when it comes to identifying with your culture and being proud of where you come from and dressing if you wanna wear sari, then wear a sari…if you wanna wear a bindi, then wear a bindi. If you …if you..you know….if you wanna wear a turban, then wear a turban. But I also think that’s a tricky issue because when it gets to safety rights….like if you are working on a site and then you are wearing a turban and then you also have to wear a helmet, things….like that….these are like little details which have to be worked down on an individual basis as opposed to a general rule. Those are obviously exceptions….but for the most part, I think there’s no shame associated with being south Asian or being African…you know…or being from the Philippines or wherever you come from.

Two points are worthy of attention here, apart from Israh’s clarifying explanation of how multiculturalism should be. First, she touches on the issue that when second generation children are discriminated against they try to be more Westernized, or to put it another way, attempt to

“blend in”. Herein, ethnic or cultural differences are thought to cause discrimination as perceived by South Asian children in making sense of their daily living and “blending in” is thought to be a strategic response to the discrimination. Second, Israh brings up the issue of “shame” as experienced by second generation immigrants in espousing their identity. The feeling of shame points to a hierarchy of identities; identity as derived from ethnic lineage and the identity that one derives from a sense of belonging. Earlier in the interview she mentioned that she used to be

212

embarrassed about her ethnic background; as a teenager she would go to the mosque in her weekly visit with her parents, wearing a salwar kameez and then being ridiculed by others. I asked her where that shame came from:

KR: You said that you were embarrassed when you used to go to the mosque…

Israh: Yes that happened when I was 13...

KR: Why would you feel embarrassed?

Israh: Umm… I think initially I wasn’t but through the process of being ridiculed by people…I felt that way. I felt that way because you know…Indian girls…a lot of Indian girls have hairy arms. While growing up I didn’t do my arms. I was like 12…13...I didn’t want to start waxing my arms when I was 12 years old. Umm…and there was this…people were just relentless in their teasing…so …God….because I had dark hair….and girls who had blonde hair didn’t show up at all. Because my hair was black…that was a great deal…right. One time I came to school and I remember I had mehendi on my hands….and I was like… I was happy about it because mehendi is beautiful …it’s part of your culture, it’s celebratory and you know everyone looks at each other’s hands and know what the design is…and I remember this girl coming up to me and said “eww….look at your hand…looks like you had marker all over your hand”…you know…when that …built from very young age and you start believing that it’s true and you start having shames, culture shames. Only when I started working in South Asian community and participative working in south Asian community that I started to feel a pride and ownership of my community and I wanted to get back. And I started to feel you know…now it’s funny because now South Asian cultures have been popularized and it’s cool to wear bindi and it’s cool to wear henna and it’s cool to wear sari. Right? whereas there’s bitterness associated with…my….people in my community and people that I know, including myself saying, 10 years ago you were making fun of us! Now that it is trendy or stylish, all of a sudden we are cool? I mean our culture’s not a fad. So I think there’s also that other part. There’s this superficial understanding of culture or there is a repression of other elements of cultures…or they just wanna basically take whatever they think is interesting or cool and popularize it and everything else that is not as cool or interesting to them is basically discarded which is a superficial way of understanding a culture.

Israh is talking about how certain cultural practices can gain or lose in popular preference at different times. Further, more tangible forms of cultural practices, such as wearing mehendi or dressing in salwar-kameez, makes it facile in recognizing a person as the “other”; whether or not the “other” becomes exotic depends on popularization of certain discourses by external

213

influences, such as the media. The perception of difference and seeing the “other” obviously has a bearing on exclusionary practices and building walls around ethnic collectivities.

When the same question was asked to Lennex (male, divorced, 54 years, mainstream/dominant Canadian, employed, income of $96,000 per year), he also seems to provide proof to Israh’s contention of liking and “tolerating” more tangible forms of other cultures as proof of multiculturalism in Canada:

KR: In one of your earlier responses, you mentioned that the Chinese do not assimilate. How do you think they should assimilate?

Lennex: Umm….I have seen immigrants assimilating to this country. Now, I believe everybody should speak English. I truly believe that there should be some criteria that say that if you are coming to this country then there should be a certain level of fluency. I went to Montréal and I learnt to speak French. My office is located in an area that is predominantly Chinese. I find them rude, pushy, and ill-mannered. Now, there’s a particular demographic that lives in that area. You know, I was raised in a certain way that …perhaps I don’t have a lot of tolerance for rudeness or for things that I don’t like. So I recognize the fact of certain, taste is clearly a bit more subjective, shaped by my upbringing. But guess what, I think all over the world you can find pleasant people that you can interact with…so yeah…

KR: Do you think immigrants or different ethnic groups should assimilate to have a common Canadian identity?

Lennex: It’s a very interesting question. I think Pierre Trudeau ruined this country with his human rights, for the following reasons. One of my great friends at work is a Sikh. I do not think that the Sikh has the right to wear the turban if it is endangering him or if he is in the armed forces, for whatever reasons. Or if he is riding a motorcycle and doesn’t want to wear a helmet. I do think that Canada as a country….if we had a stronger sense of what is homogenously Canadian….I have a joke that I tell—that the only thing that Canadians have as common in coast to coast is hockey night Canada, the taste for poorly brewed commercial beer and the inability to make a correct political decision. But I think that there are….Canada is used by the immigrant communities, as a safe place to remove their families. Let’s put it this way. I think that moving into a new place should be…it should be…you should not move here to import the dysfunctional society that is the reason for you moving here. So I think that there are different types of immigrants, certainly. Depending on affluence and education. But the ones that come here, for example, because they are fleeing war crimes, persecution in Sudan or something, you know…and they insist on importing their culture with them that has produced the dysfunctional state at home that they are fleeing from—and I

214

disagree with that. And I think that…why… I believe… that makes Canada what is…it’s much more interesting when we have got diverse food and diverse spiritual beliefs, and I place it in that matter because I believe religion is one of the most destructive force on the planet. People imposing their religious beliefs on other people… that should be illegal.

I hate to concede anything to the French with their concept of secularism and the public sectors…I think it’s a good….good…. you know. And you know what if I analyze my motives I should say that in some senses that Canada in my mind …it is…even though we beat the French today in the battle of Abraham and they never forget it, really it is a western culture. It is a western,. Anglo-Saxon culture. And within that, the fact that different groups contribute and make life more interesting in terms of food, in terms of background, in terms of music,….all of that stuff….uhh…when people turn around and then sort of criticize the hand that feeds them,….then it is a little too much for me.

I believe everybody should be free to worship whatever they want. But I believe that the idea I have been trenching that all of the mosaic and cultural things that we try to bring in to...specially in Toronto…all the political correctness…. guess you would know. If you go to India, you would do things the Indian way. If you go to France, you would do things the French way. We are one of the few countries….and in America people assimilate you know. We refer to Canada as a cultural mosaic and people refer to the US as a melting pot. So…and I think…when you know that...sometimes it stimulates tension…because when you have groups that are not assimilating….it clearly….when people are faced with a strange difference that can be a basis for discordant tension. So I think that more of a homogenous case of a. ..a …collective Canadian identity and then at this point clearly that is going to reflect a lot of different places and different thinking etcetera. But I think that would be a good point.

Earlier in the interview, Lennex says that he has a “reasonable, subjective comfortableness” with other cultures and can also “like the food in small doses”; this assertion, coupled with the above extract speaks of a level of “tolerance” that has a threshold as far as accepting and living with immigrants on Canadian soil is concerned. Lennex is descriptive and succinct enough in speaking about that threshold of tolerance, as compared with other immigrants interviewed who seem to be aware of a threshold, though did not speak of it in more concrete terms. Worth noting is that the use of tolerance as an idea points to a sense of a privileged position, a sense of a superiority complex or hierarchical content, that allows others to exist, in fitting in with the

215

existing status quo. Moreover, the notion of tolerance comes hand in hand with a defined sense of boundary, within which new entrants to a community or nation are accepted.

The expectation of certain mainstream/dominant Canadians from visible minorities, such as

South Asians, is that the latter stay as invisible as possible and removed from their visible distinctions from the former. Refusal to do so brings censure, ridicule, and sometimes discrimination, as a result ethnic enclaves do not remain contained as living arrangements, but creep into social interaction patterns and social participation processes as the South Asian immigrants explain. The elusive concept of the Canadian identity remains open to multiple interpretations as ethnic groups try to grasp it and grapple with the emergent reality and conform to standards of expected behaviour according to Canadian identity. In the process, adjustments are made on both sides as mainstream/dominant Canadians attempt to adjust their level of tolerance when faced with the influx of immigrants from non-European and ever greater contrasting backgrounds, while immigrants adjust to negotiating their level of cultural expression and striking a balance therein.

Ethnic and cultural similarity doesn’t necessarily make people of similar backgrounds friendlier, but it does fulfill the first precondition to be friends—having similar ethno-cultural understanding and expectations—even though one might not consciously announce this to others beforehand. Consequently, despite stated intentions of having inter-ethnic social participation, processes of social participation might occur in different channels that almost run parallel to each other with overlaps occurring with active agency and/or predicated on socio-economic status.

Israh mentions that her close friends are the ones she went to University with, though she is rarely in touch with them currently as they are finishing up their University courses. Most of her friends tend to be South Asian, as she works at a South Asian magazine and is actively involved

216

in the South Asian Arts community. In Israh’s situation, although she did make a lot of friends at

University, she talks about clustering that happened in the all girls University residence.

In addition to difficulties in language and levels of communication, an important precondition to informal social participation in mainstream/dominant Canadian groups and networks is the socio-economic status of the immigrant. Many immigrants, especially recent immigrants who have been in Canada for less than five years, are found to struggle with settlement practices and finding suitable jobs commensurate with their skills, education, and financial need. For example, when I asked Babun:

KR: What do you think are the important factors so that everybody come forward and participates in a group or community?

Babun: There should be time, the willingness and to some extent monetary factors are also important.

KR: Why monetary?

Babun: Well I mean you know…a lot of people come here and then they don’t get jobs…so it might not be possible for them to walk up to an association and help somebody….it wouldn’t make sense to them as they would rather like to spend their time in trying to get a job and this idea of helping others might not appeal to them at this point of time…so you know I’d say monetary factor is important at the level of 10% but other factors like time and willingness…they play a major role.

Mehrab and Kaai also point to the same direction when they mention how socializing involves additional expenses to life in Canada thereby confirming findings of Grabb and Curtis

(1992), Verba, Schlozman & Brady (1995), Bekkers (2005) and Matsuo and Fong (2007), in that people active in social participation or civic engagement know the tools needed to facilitate their involvement.

An important aspect determining participation in mainstream/dominant Canadian groups and networks is cultural determination of prescribed behaviours and how much they are rooted in the

217

immigrant. As Kaai explained before, certain mainstream/dominant Canadian practices stand in direct conflict with his ethno-cultural practices. Moreover, distrust might develop into mismatches in cultural values and the resultant social behaviours. This research finds that ethno- religious diversity is seen to affect social participation with mainstream/dominant Canadians in two ways. First, it affects development of commonality in values, commitments, and social relations among individuals and groups, where commonalities are prone to be influenced by religious commitments and other aspects of group culture of an ethnic group. Reitz et al. (2009:

7) warrant that, “Immigrant newcomers who bring values that depart or appear to depart very substantially from those of the host society may lead to the creation of social boundaries that are difficult to transcend”. The considerable difference of South Asian cultures from the mainstream/dominant Canadian culture are often found difficult to bridge, as pointed out by participants earlier (Kaai, Balarka, S. Mohan, Mala). Second, ethno-religious differences may lead to feelings of being too visible a minority in the Canadian social setting and develop resentment among individuals through strengthening feelings of injustice, racialization, and inequities.

The barriers to participation in informal mainstream/dominant Canadian networks and relationships are more apparent from the interviews than quantitative analysis. In addition, South

Asian immigrants are less likely to be engaged in more formal modes of social participation, such as volunteering or being members of interest based clubs, sports clubs, and other associations, unlike their mainstream/dominant Canadian counterparts. In the quantitative analysis table 1.2 shows that only 0.9% of South Asian immigrants are involved in volunteering activities as compared to 8.2% of mainstream/dominant Canadians. Among those interviewed, out of 20 South Asian immigrants, only four were found to volunteer. Two belonged to a higher

218

socio-economic status with household incomes of $250,000 (female) and $400,000 (male), respectively, and they volunteered in caregiving associations for senior citizens. The other two participants were second generation immigrants and were involved in volunteering, though in

South Asian cultural associations. Therefore, this research finds evidence to agree with Couton and Gaudet’s conclusion (2008: 22): “For many recent immigrants, social engagement is understandably not a high priority”. Vatz-Laarousi (2005) says that it is not a surprise that some immigrants are suspicious of volunteering as free labour, as they find it difficult to secure paid work commensurate with their educational qualifications. However these researchers also point out that differences in aggregate levels of immigrant and non-immigrant social engagement are reduced as immigrant levels rise with time spent in Canada.

In summary, involvement and engagement in social life for South Asian immigrants happen along specific channels of formal and informal networks that run parallel to each other.

Moreover, even when an immigrant chooses to interact with mainstream/dominant Canadian networks it is done to supplement ethnic networks. The channels of social participation and interaction differ by ethnic background; however overlaps also happen along ethnic boundaries, predicated chiefly by an individual’s agency and choice as well as access to other forms of capital.

219

CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSION

This research tested nine hypotheses. In addition, this research was interested to learn how and why social participation is engaged upon among ethnic groups and this is related to formation of ethnic and inter-ethnic social capital. This thesis also found out how social participation builds on social capital as influenced by social structural restrictions, infrastructural support, trust, strength of ties, situational context, and ethno-cultural factors. Finally, evaluation of the concept of social capital was also an objective to delineate if certain social components are presumed in social research and if the concept should be delimited to specific situations and countries, as opposed to postulated as a catch-22 concept. The first research question was: How is social participation engaged upon in ethno-racial communities? Overall, the findings indicate ethnic background does play an important role in shaping, channelling, and containing social participation and developing subsequent social capital. Further, social participation does not happen from a zero-sum balance of social capital; therefore, the theorized circular relationship between social participation and social capital needs to be explored and evaluated in further social research.

As it appears in this research, ethnic background is understood by the participants as a shared ethnic and cultural background. To illustrate, among South Asian participants, being South

Asian mattered to them more and was more of a reference point for sense of belonging than if another South Asian immigrant actually came from the same country of origin. Thus, an immigrant from Pakistan thinks themselves to be in a similar condition and situation and of similar background as an immigrant from India; similarly mainstream/dominant Canadians perceive other Caucasians born in Canada as similar to themselves. To put it simply, being

South Asian and being Caucasian in Canada act as convergence points for a shared sense of

220

ethnic background. For Indians based in Calcutta, ethnic background had a greater influence and being “Bengali” did shape social interactions and social participation; the Bengali participants expressed this realization when mentioning living and spending time outside Calcutta, in a non-

Bengali social environment. Premised on these observations, the qualitative findings correspond with the academic confusion in measuring “ethnicity” as a concept in terms of range and scope

(Jedwab, 2003; Nakhaie, 1995: 9). Despite the academic confusion with the scope of the analytical concept, in the case of social participation, ethnic background offers a common platform of norms, expectations, reciprocity, and spontaneity, and creates an informal and comfortable setting for the individual. While quantitative analysis categorically shows ethnic background to be an important predictor of social participation, the qualitative analysis shows how a level of bonding is already presupposed in social participation when someone comes face- to-face with people of similar ethnic background in groups and networks.

The other two specific research questions were: What are the variations of social participation in different types of ethno-racial organizations and why do these differences exist among ethno-racial groups as far as voluntary activities and civic engagement are concerned?

Do the variations exist due to cultural and ideological differences regarding social participation?

Qualifying the fact that ethnic background is an important predictor of social participation, a quantitative finding shows that a higher proportion of mainstream/dominant Canadians than

South Asians report they do not maintain ties with people of different ethnic and religious backgrounds; this finding was in agreement with the second hypothesis (South Asians would express the need to maintain higher frequencies of interaction and contacts with their co-ethnics than mainstream/dominant Canadians). In the qualitative analysis the participants often asserted the “invisibility” of the other. The concept of invisibility of others within social networks or

221

channels of social participation corresponds to visible differences of the participant’s ethnic background. South Asian immigrants specifically mentioned how they are different from

“white” Canadians, while mainstream/dominant Canadians used markers of non-European and non-white background as different from their “ethnic” background, despite asserting that they themselves did not have any ethnic background. Thus, although mainstream/dominant

Canadians are not found to be aware and conscious of their ethnic background, they are aware of who are people of “other” ethnicities based on visible ethno-racial differences. The resultant feature of social participation in Canada, therefore, is found to be based upon clusters that converge with a shared sense of ethnic identity; this has implications for the question of whether multiculturalism helps promote understanding diversity in the Canadian population or does it maintain boundaries along ethnic lines.

Without going into the conceptual ambiguities of the definition of multiculturalism or suggestions of how it should apply to the Canadian setting, the findings indicate that multiculturalism is conceptualized differently by different ethnic groups and as a result maintains ethnic barriers of social boundaries in social participation. The maintenance of ethnic walls has a bearing on the long term goals of social cohesion and integration in Canada, but it is not within the scope of this research to make a detailed comment on how issues of multiculturalism may help to maintain those walls. In actuality, qualitative findings indicate that while South Asians employ the concept of multiculturalism to maintain and assert their ethno- cultural way of life and limit social movement and participation corresponding to ethnic lineages, mainstream/dominant Canadians use the concept of multiculturalism in the context of

“tolerating” immigrants of other or different cultures. Thus, while South Asians use the concept of diversity and multiculturalism to maintain their ethnic lineages and cultures and justify their

222

identity as new Canadians, mainstream/dominant Canadians use it to make allowance for the new and considerably different ethnic groups that strive to form a part of the new society. A hierarchical tension of being “Canadian” and who is the “real” Canadian is apparent in responses by both the mainstream/dominant Canadians and South Asians, this tension colours social participation processes with people from different ethnic backgrounds.

Another crucial research question asked: What structural and organizational factors act as barriers to social participation of ethno-racial communities? While part of the question was answered in the preceding paragraphs, certain qualifications apply regarding the creation of boundaries/barriers to social participation. To illustrate, even though ethnic background is seen to create boundaries in social participation, overlaps are also created along these boundaries. The overlaps of boundaries happen largely through active choice and agency of individuals and is influenced by knowledge and discourse about other cultures (the mainstream/dominant culture for immigrants); having the financial means to exploit the infrastructural support and areas of social participation as envisaged in membership in sports and recreational clubs, volunteering activities, going to pubs, and receptivity and beliefs about other ethnic groups. Thus, social participation, as dependent on agency and choice, is also determined by whether an immigrant is successful at navigating between the private world of ethnic allegiance and ethnic participation and the public world of being “Canadian”; an identity that asks for some kind of blending in to the dominant paradigmatic western way of life, regardless of multicultural assurances.

An important research question was what motivates ethno-racial groups to be actively involved in volunteering activities and other forms of civic engagement in ethnic and non-ethnic organizations. Ethnic background, sense of belonging emanating from identification with one’s ethnic background, identification with particular socio-demographic characteristics, such as

223

marital status and age, identification with one’s city and alumni networks are found to be important motivations of civic engagement. In addition, social obligation and trust are also found to be important factors that initiates and furthers social participation. However, the influence of all these factors on social participation requires further understanding as to how they could play into particular life choices of an individual. As mentioned previously, social participation is based on social relations and premised upon the quality of those relations. While bridging social capital can initiate social participation, sustenance of social participatory processes is dependent on both tangible and intangible benefits derived from social relationships, such as feelings of well-being, feeling of being bonded, and so on. The components of social capital, that is, norms of reciprocity and norms of expectations, play an active role in initiating social participation. Norms of reciprocity and expectations are derived from a sense of shared background (understood in terms of ethnic lineage or coming from the same city, place, profession, or academic institution) and individuals are more likely to interact and bond based on shared components of social capital. Therefore, social capital does precede social participation in the celebrated question of whether a circular relationship exists between social capital and social participation. The quality of social capital (positive or negative, strong or weak), however, is dependent on further social participation, range of social participation along ethnic or inter-ethnic lines, and the frequency and strength of social interaction embedded in the social participation.

For South Asians the social relations of “back home” are embedded on a stronger level that ensures spontaneity and informal interactions that are determined by collective expectations of reciprocity. In a new country South Asians also look for the “same” out of sheer habit and what counts as “normal”. The expectation of what signifies as the “normal” or average level of

224

bonding guides areas of formal and informal social participation in the majority of groups, networks, and social relations in Canada. Even for mainstream/dominant Canadians social interaction and participation is dependent on certain normative expectations, such as perception of to what extent individuals and groups are similar, refraining from financial obligations, and participation in “Canadian” modes of engagement (e.g., community events, volunteering activities, attendance in church/clubs/associations, going to public places together, fundraisers, pubs, and so on).

For South Asians the crucial factor that influences areas and modes of social participation and forming consequent bonds in a new country are norms of reciprocity, including financial and emotional support given and received in times of distress. Norms of reciprocity are chiefly borne out of the context and history of being an immigrant and the ethno-cultural expectations of social interaction is a major determinant of social participation. Length of residence in Canada also shapes the social participation process and has implications for inter-ethnic social participation. Thus the experience of being a South Asian in Canada and being connected with individuals and groups should be based on a relational understanding of length of immigration and differences in culture with the mainstream/dominant ethno-cultural group. The situation of

South Asian immigrants in Canada represents that of an ethnic minority in a country whose dominant ethnic culture is quite different from their own. Regardless of the allegations or perceptions and whether the difference could lead to discrimination or not, that difference creates an active urge to maintain one’s own culture and contribute to activities that are geared towards that goal. In this aspect, this research finds support for the fact that ethnic background provides the gear of social participation and the emergent social capital (Krishna, 2002). For groups situated in the dominant position ethnic allegiances do not govern the routes of social

225

participation, as based on interviews with mainstream/dominant Canadians and Indians in

Calcutta. When Indians go to a city with a different ethnic make-up, however, they are seen to engage in groups and networks based on the need to maintain their ethno-cultural roots. In social participation individuals are seen to tap into the resources of familiarity and commonality of cultural background when situated in unfamiliar environments.

As compared to South Asians, for mainstream/dominant Canadians the level of bonding with others (or, the bonding social capital) is dependent on infrastructural support of social participation, perception of others, and active individual exercise of choice and agency.

Interestingly, for Indians in Calcutta social participation is also largely based on infrastructural support (such as being members and participants in the neighbourhood club, being from the same professional/academic institution, being members of any NGO ([non-governmental organizations that engages in social work]) as well as perception and trusting other individuals in these areas of infrastructural support for social participation. While Putnam’s (2003) contention that membership in clubs, organizations, and associations leads to formation of social capital does not seem to stand ground with respect to South Asians in Toronto, it does offer support for social participation with respect to mainstream/dominant Canadians and Indians in

Calcutta, where both bridging and bonding social capital form by virtue of membership in organizations/associations/groups. It follows, therefore, that social capital furthering social participation and forming variable levels of consequent social capital cannot be universally applied to every situation and group of people. The contention seems to work well when differences perceived by a group within the larger society is considerably less. Membership in associations (a way to quantify and measure social capital) on their own, does not ensure social participation (the process by which social capital is developed) though the former does facilitate

226

the latter. Qualitative findings show that visiting certain social areas (such as neighbourhood community events, association events, get-togethers, sports events, bar, etc) has a prescribed course of actions and behaviours, during which individuals engage in social activities and form ties with others. Therefore the quality of ties and bonds formed in these events cannot be presumed by quantification of membership in associations/organizations/clubs/communities.

The ambiguity of the definitions of social capital was discussed at the beginning of this dissertation. One of the goals of this research was re-evaluation and re-examination of the concept of social capital. Although a universal definition of social capital pertaining to all situations, populations, and groups of people can be difficult to achieve, a comprehensive point of departure in analyses dealing with social participation and social capital could do well to start from Bourdieu’s (1985: 248) definition of social capital as: “…the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance or recognition.” Individuals act on the expectation of gaining access to resources, based on the precedent or promise of access and the level of bonding achieved in the process is dependent on matching the levels of expectations and whether and how they are fulfilled.

Social participation does not always happen with instrumental ends of gains or losses in mind. Gain in instrumental and tangible benefits, such as networking for jobs, and other forms of help for successful living can direct social participation in more formal areas, such as associations, organizations, community events, and in volunteering activities in Canada.

Engagement/participation in more informal areas is done to gain benefits of intangible resources, such as feelings of well-being, fulfillment of mental and emotional interests, investment in friendship, and so on. Thus, South Asians are seen to engage more in informal areas, such as

227

get-togethers over the weekend, meeting friends and co-ethnic acquaintances for coffee, calling co-ethnic friends and family over the weekend and sharing updates on living, or meeting friends and family in observance of some festival or occasion.

As compared to the above findings, the qualitative analysis of this research supports that for

South Asian immigrants in Toronto and Indians based in Calcutta, social participation, even in formal areas, is done with a feeling of reciprocal obligation, but without any expectation of tangible benefit. Among South Asians the cultural expectation is to engage in social networks and groups out of ethnic loyalty or shared background, engaging in social participation for instrumental returns is a somewhat unfamiliar concept. The concept of volunteering in India and other South Asian countries is quite different in terms of purpose and reach than is practised in

Canada. For South Asians, volunteering “back home” normally consists of social work, such as blood donation camps or organizing community events. The multifarious avenues of volunteering and the scope of networking in Canada are conceptually unknown to immigrants.

Further, immigrants often lack the time to engage in volunteering as they look for jobs or find ways to upgrade their educational credentials in the Canadian context. Since volunteering activities in Canada are not specifically premised on co-ethnic networks/goals immigrants often do not perceive any social obligation to become engaged. Thus, this research finds support for

Breton’s (2003) contention of ethnic allegiance and sense of social obligation driving social participation among South Asian immigrants.

Related to the research question of what are the motivations of civic engagement or social participation, another important research question was whether trust of others initiates the social participation process. Trust is seen to be an important predictor of social capital and therefore this research question also binds into the question of whether and how social capital leads to

228

social participation. The quantitative analysis confirmed the third hypothesis—that generalized trust is found lower among South Asian Canadians than mainstream/dominant Canadians.

However, it was found in this research, while doing the qualitative data collection, that trust is understood differently by South Asians than the notion of “generalized trust” associated with notions of safety. The notion of trust is also kept different from confidence in government organizations and infrastructural support. Majority of the South Asian immigrants interviewed showed a high level of confidence in government organizations and infrastructural support and a high sense of satisfaction with regards to general notions of safety. It could be possible that semantic differences in how trust is understood by ethno-racial groups could point to its lower or higher levels within such groups. In answering the research question of whether trust initiates social participation, it was seen to be a circular process, with however, some qualifications. In case of ethnic networks, trust initiates social participation as ethnic background serves as a common platform of unquestioned trust. However, in case of non-ethnic networks, the initial threshold of trust is seen to be dependent on the personal characteristics of an individual as well as the general reputation of a group/association/network. Subsequent nature of social participation, frequency of social participation in a network/group/organization, purpose of that group/association/network and the background of such network/group/association organization determines further development of trust therein. Summarily speaking, although trust can initiate social participation in informal areas and in formal ethnic networks and can also facilitate social participation, trust is dependent on many factors such as a shared history, normative expectation and sense of belonging and so on.

It was expected at the outset of this research that second generation immigrants would be more involved in both ethnic and non-ethnic networks. A representative sample of second

229

generation immigrants could not be reached for this research, however, two interviews were conducted with second-generation immigrants and the participants pointed to their social participation in both non-ethnic and ethnic networks. They were found to be more aligned with social participation in their ethnic networks, even though they were brought up and educated in

Canada. One participant contended that this was more a chance occurrence than a conscious decision, while another said that by virtue of her profession she has more contact and interaction in her own ethnic community. Regardless of the fact that they were born and raised in Canada and were familiar with the dominant cultural paradigm, these participants reported segregation in social participation and being ridiculed, censured, or avoided in their teenage years because of their South Asian lineage.

When placed in an overarching framework social participation and formation of social capital in Canada is cumulatively caused and is multi-dimensional in nature; however, rather than taking the cumulative causation as additive points, we need to consider locational standpoints in terms of both individuals and groups as central to a research analysis that deals with social participation and social capital. The components of social participation and social capital such as habitual normative reciprocity, trust, and civic engagement may be very different based on gender, ethnic background, belief of perception by the wider community, generational differences, as well as household income, and can have different trajectories of social participation with very different consequences. Thus, in answering the research question on whether trust of others initiates the social participation process, in the case ethno-racial groups the answer is multi-layered rather than a straight and brief one-liner.

Moreover, considering any ethnic group as a single homogenous category might allude to patterns among them, but does not help in understanding why differential social participation

230

exists among them; this is particularly true for immigrants whose social life may be affected by life course events, labour market, and other demographic dimensions such as marital status, age, and gender.

Further, networks can also shape social participation processes. To specifically address the research questions of why do differences exist among ethno-racial groups as far as voluntary activities and civic engagement are concerned and whether these differences are due to cultural and ideological differences regarding social participation, the answer lies in the primary networks an individual is introduced to. Whether they get introduced to ethnic networks on their arrival in Canada or if they find networks of different ethnicities do determine level and trajectory of social participation. The kinds of networks they get introduced to also determine whether this could lead to segregation of the immigrant group in their new destination or segregation of the mainstream/dominant Canadian in their ethnic networks without realization.

Consequently, difference in ethnic backgrounds often leads to otherizing those ethnic backgrounds and thereby the onus of social participation in mainstream/dominant Canadian networks through blending into them is placed on the other. While social participation based on familiarity in cultures and understanding might lead to dense networks or bonding social capital they also have the potential to limit both the immigrant’s and dominant Canadian’s opportunities of access to ties and resources in non-ethnic networks.

In deconstructing the concept of social capital and studying social participation a recurring message is that social relations drive opportunities for personal well-being and is derived from other growth-enhancing resources, such as information for jobs, clubs, and support groups. The nature and extent of social interaction lies at the heart of understanding the prospects of the development of groups in any given society and possibilities of social cohesion among them.

231

Moreover, social participation is impacted by quantifiable frequency levels in an organization

(such as attendance and participatory log of activities) and also specific choices taken under particular situations in which individuals decide whether or not to interact and form bonds with individuals outside an organization. In addition, social participation is seen to thrive on common normative practices rather than simply being an instrumental process of building on social capital. In agreement with Couton and Gaudet (2008), this research finds that routine, ongoing, habitual practices matter more for social participation than moral principles or commitment to formal membership in networks. Therefore, rather than starting from analytical categories of membership leading to social participation, social participation studies need to go beyond the quantifying and equating models of volunteering and membership in groups/networks to studying and examining practices of social participation as seen among specific groups or categories of individuals. Social participation is based more on connections with people, ideologies, and emotions than rationalized motivations based on formal ways of participating.

When studying social participation and formation of social capital, studying group characteristics is crucial. The specifics of what goes on with respect to South Asians needs further research to look into community participation and participation processes in networks, associations, and groups. To illustrate, this research found evidence of the changing nature of neighbourhoods in having lesser bonding than yesteryears. Future research could look into whether rise of individuality and lack of dependence on others is responsible for decreasing levels of bonding in neighbourhood communities are factors worth examining in greater detail in future research. Moreover, South Asian women were found to prefer to stay at home in weekends as opposed to engaging in outdoor activities. This was also observed among women interviewed in India. Whether the choice of South Asian women to stay home and spend time

232

with their family on the weekends is influenced by their ethnic culture requires further research.

In addition, ethnic background leading to exclusionary practices, such as evidenced in this research—of whether disapproval of co-ethnics influences social participation of an individual in inter-ethnic social participation is subject to further research.

233

REFERENCES

Abbot, A. 1992. “What do Cases do? Some Notes on Activity in Sociological Analysis. In Ragin, C.C. and Becker, H.S. (eds) What is a Case? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 53-82.

Agamben, Giorgio. 2005. State of Exception. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.

Akbari, Ather H. 1999. “Immigrant ‘Quality’ in Canada: More direct Evidence of Human Capital Content, 1956-1994”. International Migration Review, 38: 156-175.

Alba, R. (1990). Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Alba, R & V. Nee. 2003. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Anderson, A.B & Frideres, J.S. 1981. Ethnicity in Canada. Toronto: Butterworths.

Arat-Koc, S. 2005. “The Disciplinary Boundaries of Canadian Identity After September 11: Civilizational Identity,Multiculturalism, And the Challenge of Anti-Imperialist Feminism”. Social Justice, 32 (4): 32-49.

Arrow, Kenneth A.1999. “Observations on Social Capital”, in P. Dasgupta and I. Sergeldin (eds.) Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, Washington, The World Bank, pp. 3-5.

Bailey T, Waldinger R. 1991. “Primary, Secondary, and Enclave Labor markets: A Training System Approach”. American Sociological Review, 56: 432–45.

Bannerji, H. 2000. The Dark Side of the Nation: Essays on Multiculturalism, Nationalism and Gender. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Barry, H. 1969. “Cross-cultural research with matched pairs of societies.” Journal of Social Psychology, 79: 25-33.

Becker, Gary S. 1964/1993. Human Capital. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bekkers, Rene. 2005. “Participation in Voluntary Associations: Relations with Resources, Personality, and Political Values.” Political Psychology, 26(3): 439-454.

Berman, Sheri. 1997. “Civil Society and the Collapse of the Weimar Republic.” World Politics, 49 (April): 401-429.

Berman, Sheri. 1997a. “Civil Society and Political Institutionalization”. American Behavioural Scientist, 40 (5): 562-574.

234

Blumer, Herbert. 1956. “Sociological Analysis and the ‘Variable’”, American Sociological Review, 21(6): 683-690.

Bonacich, Edna. 1972. “A Theory of Ethnic Antagonism: The Split Labour Market”. American Sociological Review, 37: 547-559.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1979. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harward University Press; London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1985. “The Forms of Capital” in J.G. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, New York, Greenwood Press, pp. 241-258.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1990. The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 2002. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Jean-Claude Passeron. 1970. Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc J.D Wacquant. 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Boudon, R. 1987. “The Individualistic Tradition in Sociology” in Alexander, J.C., Giesen, B., Munch, R and Smelser, N.J. (eds) The Micro-Macro Link. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Boyd, M. 1999. “Canadian, Eh? Ethnic Origin Shifts in the Canadian Census”. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 31 (3): 1-19.

Boxman, EA.W., Paul M. DeGraaf, and Hendrick D Flap. 1991. “The Impact of Social and Human Capital on the Income Attainment of Dutch Managers”. Social networks, 13: 51-73.

Brehm, John and Wendy Rahn. 1997. “Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital.” American Journal of Political Science, 41 (3), 999-1023.

Breitmayer, Bonnie, Lioness Ayres and Kathleen A. Knafl. 1993. “Triangulation in Qualitative Research”. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25 (3): 237-243.

Breton, R. 1979. “Ethnic Stratification viewed from three theoretical perspectives” in J. Curtis and B. Scott (ed). Social Stratification: Canada, pp. 270-294.

235

Breton, R. 1984. “The Production and Allocation of Symbolic Resources: An Analysis of the Linguistic and Ethnocultural Fields in Canada”. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 21(2): 123-177.

Breton, R. 2003. “Social Capital and the Civic Participation of Immigrants and Members of Ethno-Cultural Groups”. Paper Presented at the Conference on the Opportunities and Challenges of Diversity: A Role for Social Capital?, Montreal, November, 2003.

Breton, R; Hartmann, N.J; J.L. Rennards; P. Reed. 2004. A Fragile Social Fabric: fairness, trust and commitment in Canada. Montreal, Que.: McGill-Queen's University Press

Brown, M.K. 1999. Race, Money and the American Welfare State. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Bryman, Alan. 1988. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London and New York: Routledge.

Bryman, Alan. 2006. “Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done?” Qualitative Research, 6, 97-113.

Boyd, Monica. 1992. “Gender, Visible Minority and Immigrant Earnings Inequality: Reassessing an employment equity premise.” in Sociology, Carleton University.

Buzzelli, Michael. 2000. “Toronto’s postwar Little Italy: Landscape change and ethnic relations”. The Canadian Geographer, 44(3): 298-305.

Canadian Heritage. 2004. Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Retrieved July 4, 2010 from http://www2.pch.gc.ca/cs-kc/pch/armul-ramul/19992000_e.pdf

Caidi, Nadia. Danielle Allard. 2005. “Social Inclusion of Newcomers to Canada: An information problem?”, Library & Information Science Research, 27: 302-324.

Cheong, Pauline Hope; Rosalind Edwards; Harry Goulboune; John Solomos. 2007. “Immigration, Social Cohesion and Social Capital: A Critical Review, Critical Social Policy, 27: 24-49.

Cohen et al. 1982. “Applied Multiple regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, London, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Coleman, James, S. 1988. “Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital”. American Journal of Sociology, 94: S95-S121.

Coleman, James. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

236

Coser, Lewsi. 1956. The Functions of Social Conflict. Glencoe: The Free Press. Decima Research.

Costa, D. and M. Kahn. 2003a. “Understanding the American Decline in Social Capital, 1952- 1998”, Kyklos, LVI.

Costa, D. and M. Kahn. 2003b. “Cowards and Heroes: Group Loyalty in the American Civil War”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 2, 519-548.

Couton, Philippe. Stephanie Gaudet. 2008. “Rethinking Social Participation: The Case of Immigrants in Canada”. International Migration and Integration, 9: 21-44.

Czarniawska, Barbara. 1998. A Narrative Approach to Organization Studies. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.

Dasgupta, P. 2000. “Economic Progress and the Idea of Social Capital,” in Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, P. Dasgupta and I. Seragilden eds., Washington DC: World Bank.

Dasgupta, P., 2002. Social Capital and Economic Performance: Analytics. Mimeo, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.

Dasgupta, P. and I. Serageldin. 2000. Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, Washington DC: The World Bank.

Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln. (1998). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.

Doeringer P, Moss P. 1986. “Capitalism and kinship: do institutions matter in the labor market?” Industrial Labor Relations, 40: 48-59.

Duyck, W. and Brysbaert, M. 2004. “Forward and Backward Number Translation Requires Conceptual Mediation in Both Balanced and Unbalanced Bilinguals”. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 30 (5): 889–906.

Eastis, Carla M. 1998. “Organizational Diversity and the Production of Social Capital.” American Behavioral Scientist, 42(1): 66-77.

Einolf, C. J. 2009. “Will the boomers volunteer during retirement? Comparing the baby boom, silent, and long civic cohorts”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 181-199.

Einolf, C. J. in press. “Gender differences in the correlates of volunteering and charitable giving.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Retrieved from http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/28/0899764010385949.full.pdf

237

Ekström, Mats. 1992. “Causal Explanation of Social Action: The Contribution of Max Weber and of Critical Realism to a Generative View of Causal Explanation in Social Science”. Acta Sociologica, 35: 107-122.

Erlinghagen, M., & Hank, K. 2006. “The participation of older Europeans in volunteer work.” Ageing and Society, 26(4), 567-584. Fairclough, Norman; Mulderig, Jane and Ruth Modak. 2011. “Critical Discourse Analysis” in Teun A Van Dijk (ed) Discourse Analysis: A Multidisciplinary Introduction. Sage Publications Ltd. Thousand Oaks, Calif.

Feng, H & Milan, A. 2002. “Neighborhood Ethnic Transition and its socio-economic connections”. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28 (3): 387-402.

Fitch, Kristine L. & Robert E. Sanders (eds). 2005. Handbook of Language and Social Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., New Jersey.

Fleras, A and J.L. Elliott. 2002. Engaging Diversity: Multiculturalism in Canada. Scarborough, Ont. : Nelson Thomson Learning.

Frideres, James S. 1992. “Changing Dimensions of Ethnicity in Canada,” in Deconstructing a Nation: Immigration, Multiculturalism and Racism in 90’s Canada. Vic Satzewich, (ed.). Halifax, Nova Scotia: Fernwood Publishing.

Friedman, Raymond A and David Krackhardt. 1997. “Social Capital and Career Mobility: A Structural theory of Lower Returns to Education for Asian Employees”. Journal of Applied behavioral Science, 33(3): 316-334.

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Trust. New York: Free Press.

Fukuyama, F. 2001. “Social Capital, civil society and development”, Third World Quarterly, 22 (1): 7-20.

Galster, Geoge, Kurt Metzger and Ruth Waite. 1999. “Neighbourhood opportunity structure and immigrants’ socioeconomic advancement”, Journal of Housing Research, 10: 95-127.

Gaudet, Stephanie & Reed, P. 2004. “Responsabilite, don et benevolat.” Lien social et Politiques, 1: 59-67.

Gauthier, A. H., & Smeeding, T. M. 2003. “Time use of older adults: Cross-national differences.” Research on Aging, 25(3), 247-274.

Geschwender, James A. and Neil Guppy. 1994. “Ethnicity, Educational Attainment, and Earned Income Among Canadian-born Men and Women”. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 27(1): 67-83.

Gilens, M. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

238

Glaeser, E.L., Laibson, D., Scheingman, J.A and Soutter, C. L. 2000. “Measuring Trust”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115: 811-846.

Glazer, N. 1993. “Is Assimilation Dead?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 530: 122-136.

Godron, Milton M. 1964. Assimiliation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins. New York: Oxford University Press. Goicoechea, Eugenia Ramirez. 2005. “Immigrants Contesting Ethnic Exclusion: structures and Practices of Identity.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29.3: 654-669.

Goldthorpe, John H. 2000. On Sociology. Numbers, Narratives, and the Integration of Research and Theory. Oxford: University Press.

Grabb, Edward G & James E. Curtis. 1992. “Voluntary Association Activity in English Canada, French Canada and the United States: A Multivariate Analysis”. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 17(4): 371-388.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1971. “The Strength of Weak Ties”. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6):1360-1380.

Granovetter, Mark. 1985. “Social Structures and Economic Action: The Problem of Embeddedness.” American Journal of Sociology, 91 (3): 481-510. Green, Gary P., Leann M. Tigges, and Irene Browne. 1995. “Social Resources, Job Search, and Poverty in Atlanta.” Research in Community Sociology, 5:161–182.

Greene, J., Benjamin, L. and Goodyear, L. 2001. “The Merits of Mixing Methods in Evaluation’, Evaluation 7(1): 25–44.

Grootaert, Christian. 1998. “Social Capital, Household Welfare and Poverty in Indonesia.” World Bank, photocopy.

Guillemin, F. 1995. “Cross-cultural Adaptation and Validation of Health Status Measures”. Scand J. Rheumatol, 24: 61-63.

Hall, Michael, Tamara Knighton, Paul Reed, Patrick Bussiere, Don Macrae, and Paddy Bowen. 1998. Caring Canadians, Involved Canadians: Highlights from the 1997 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

Hartmann, Douglas and Joseph Gartis. 2005. “Dealing with Diversity: Mapping Multiculturalism in Sociological Terms”. Sociological Theory, 23(2): 218-240.

Hekathorn, D.D. 1993. “Collective Action and Group Heterogeneity: Voluntary Provision Versus Selective Incentives”. American Sociological Review, 58: 329-350.

239

Helmes-Hayes, Rick and James Curtis (eds.). 1998. The Vertical Mosaic Revisited. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Hewitt, John P. 1989. Dilemmas of the American Self. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Herberg, Edward N. 1990. “The Ethno-Racial Socio-economic Hierarchy in Canada: Theory and Analysis of the New Vertical Mosaic”. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 31(3-4): 207-221.

Holstein, J & J.F. Gubrium. 2003. Inside Interviewing: New Lenses, New Concerns. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications.

Hou, Feng and Garnett Picot. 2003. “Visible minority neighbourhood enclaves and labour market outcomes of immigrants.” Ottawa: Business and Labour Market Analysis Division, Statistics Canada.

Hurst, Matt. 2012. “Employer Support of Volunteering”. Canadian Social Trends. No. 92. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008-X.

Ibáñez, Ana Maria, Kathy Lindert and Michael Woolcock. 2002. “Social Capital in Guatemala: A Mixed Methods Analysis”. World Bank, Guatemala Poverty Assessment Programme, Technical Paper no. 12.

Isajiw, W.W. 1990. “Ethnic-Identity Retention.” Pp. 34-91 in Breton R, Isajiw, W., Kalbach W and Reitz, J.G. 1990. Ethnic Idenitity and Equality. Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City. Toronto: Universities of Toronto Press.

Isajiw, Wsevolod W., Aysan Sev’er, and Leo Driedger. 1993. “Ethnic Identity and Social Mobility: A test of the ‘drawback model’”. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 18 (2): 177- 196.

Isajiw, W.W. 1999. Understanding Diversity, Toronto, Thompson Educational Publishing, Inc.

Isajiw, W.W. 1985. “Definition of Ethnicity” in R.M. Bienvenue and J.E Goldstein (eds), Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Canada, Toronto, Butterworths, pp. 5-17.

Jackman, Robert W. and Ross A. Miller. 1998. “Social Capital and Politics”. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 47-73.

Itzigsohn, J & S. Giorguli Saucedo. 2002. “Immigrant Incorporation and Sociocultural Transnationalism”. International Migration Review, 36 (3): 766-798.

Jansen, Clifford. 1981. Educational and Social Mobility of Immigrants: A Pilot Study Focusing on Italians in Vancouver. York University, Toronto, Institute for Behavioural Research.

240

Jedwab, Jack. 2003. “Coming to our census: The need for continued enquiry into Canadian Ethnic Origins”. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35(1): 33-4.

Jedwab, Jack. 2003. “Social Confusion: the decline of “cohesionism” in Canada and its lessons for the study of citizenship.” Canadian Diversity, 2: 81-83.

Jick, Todd D. “Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action”. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 602-611.

Jiobu, Robert, M. 1988. Ethnicity and Assimilation. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

Johnson, Harry G. 1960. “The Political Economy of Opulence.” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 26:552–564.

Johnson, J. M. 2002. “In-depth interviewing”. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of Interview research: Context and method (pp. 103–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Johnston R. and S. Soroka. 2001. “Social capital in a multicultural society: The case of Canada.” pp 30-44 in P. Dekker and E. Uslaner (eds.), Social Capital and Participation in Everyday Life. London: Routledge.

Kaariainen, Juha; Siren, Reino. 2011. “Trust in the Police, Generalized Trust and Reporting Crime”. European Journal of Criminology, 8(1): 65-81.

Kalbach, Madeline and Warren E. Kalbach. 1999a. “Becoming Canadian: Problems of an Emerging Identity”. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 31(2): 1-16.

Kalbach, Madeline and Warren E. Kalbach. 1999b. “Persistence of Ethnicity and Inequality Among Canadian Immigrants”. Canadian Studies in Population, 26(1): 83-105.

Kalbach, Madeline A. and Warren E Kalbach, 1995a. “Ethnic Diversity and Persistence as Factors in Socioeconomic Inequality: A Challenge for the Twenty-First Century,” paper presented at the Federation of Canadian Demographers Symposium, Toward ,XXIst Century: Emerging Socio-Demographic Trends and Policy Issues in Canada. St. Paul University, Ottawa, Ontario, October 23-25, 1995.

Kalbach, Madeline A. and Warren E. Kalbach.1995b. “The Importance of Ethnic-Connectedness for Canada's Post-War Immigrants”. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 37(2): 16-33.

Kalbach, Warren E. 2000. “Ethnic Diversity: Canada's Changing Cultural Mosaic," in Madeline A Kalbach and Warren E. Kalbach (eds.) Perspectives on Ethnicity in Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Harcourt Canada Ltd. 59-72.

241

Kalbach, Warren E. & Madeline A. Richard. 1980. “Differential Effects of Ethno-Religious Structure on Linguistic Trends and Economic Achievements of Ukrainian Canadians,” in Changing Realities: Social Trends among Ukrainian Canadians, W.R. Petryshyn (ed). Edmonton: The Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies, 78-96.

Kalbach, Warren and Madeline A Richard. 1991a. “Ethnic Religious Identification and Generation as Correlates of Acculturation and Socio-Economic Attainment” in Ethnicity, Structured Inequality and the State in Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany. Robin Ostrow, Jurgen Fijalkowski, Y. Michael Bodeman, Hans Merken (eds.). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang. 29-48.

Kawachi, Kennedy, & R. Glass. 1999. “Social capital, and self-related health: A contextual analysis”. American Journal of Epidemiology, 89 (8): 1187–1193.

Kim, J., Kang, J.-H., Lee, M.-A., & Lee, Y. 2007. “Volunteering among older people in Korea”. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 62B(1), 69-73.

Knack, S. and Keefer, P. 1997. “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross- Country Investigation”. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 1251-1288.

Krishna, A., and E. Shradder. 1999. Social capital assessment tool. Conference on social capital and poverty reduction. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Krishna, A., and E. Shradder. 2000. Cross-cultural measures of social capital: A tool and results from India And Panama. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

Krishna, A. 2001. Moving from the stock of social capital to the flow of benefits: The role of agency. World Development 29(6): 925-943. Krishna, Anirudh. 2002. “Enhancing Political Participation in Democracies: What is the Role of Social Capital?”. Comparative Political Studies, 35: 437-460.

Lanphier, M. 1997. “Devolution in post-multicultural society”. Refuge, 15 (6): 1-5.

Latour, Bruno. 2005. Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press: New York.

Lazarsfeld, P. F. 1944. “The controversy over detailed interviews—an offer for negotiation”. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 8, (Bobbs-Merrill reprint series in the social sciences, pp. 38–60, published by the College Division).

Legard, R., Keegan, J., &. Ward, K. 2003. “In-depth interviews”. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice (pp. 138–168). Thousand Oaks, CA/London: Sage.

Li, Peter, S.

242

a 1999. “Race and Ethnicity”, in Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, pp. 3-20. b 1999. “The Multiculturalism Debate” in P.S. Li (ed.), Race and Ethnic Relations in Canada, Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 148-177. c 2000. “Earning disparities between Immigrants and native-born Canadians”. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, Vol. 37(3): 289-311. d 2003 “Social Inclusion of Visible Minorities and Newcomers: The articulation of “race” and “racial” difference in Canadian Society”. Paper Presented at the Building a Social Inclusion Research Agenda Conference, Ottawa, ON. Retrieved July 1 from http://www.ccsd.ca/events/inclusion/papers/peter_li.pdf.

Lian, Jason; Z Matthews; David Ralph. 1991. “Does the Vertical Mosaic Still Exist? Ethnicity and income in Canada”. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology. Vol. 35, (4); pp 461-482.

Lieberman, R.C. 1998. Shifting the Color Line: Race and the American Welfare State. Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press.

Lieberson. 1963. Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Lillbacka, Ralf. 2006. “Measuring Social Capital”. Acta Sociologica, 49(2): 201-220.

Lin, N. a 1999. “Inequality in Social Capital”. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6): 785-795. b 1999. “Social networks and Status Attainment”. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 467- 487. c 2001. “Building a Network Theory of Social Capital” in N. Lin, K. Cook, and R.S.Burt, Social Capital: Theory and Research, Hawthorne, N.Y Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 3-30.

Lofland, J., & Lofland L. H. 1995. “Analyzing social settings”. Introduction for qualitative social scientific research (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Logan, J., Alba, R. and McNulty, T. 1994. “Ethnic economies in metropolitan regions: Miami and beyond”. Social Forces, 72(3): 691-724.

Lutz, H., 1993. “In between or bridging cultural gaps: migrant women from Turkey as mediators”. New Community, 19, 485-492.

Matsuo, T. 2007. "Organizing Against Diversity?: Immigrant Participation in Ethnic and Non- Ethnic Organizations" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological

243

Association, TBA, New York, New York City. Retrieved July 1, 2010 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p183851_index.html.

Mattis, Jacqueline; William Pierce Beckham; Benjamin A. Saunders; Jarvis E. Williams; D’Yal McAllister; Valerie Myers; Damon Knight; Donald Rencher; Charles Dixon. 2004. “Who Will Volunteer? Religiosity, Everyday Racism, and Social Participation Among African American Men”. Journal of Adult Development, 11(4): 261-272. McPherson, J.M., P. Popielarz, and S. Drobnic. 1992. “Social Networks and Organizational Dynamics.” American Sociological Review, 57: 153-170.

Minkler, M., & Holstein, M. 2008. “From civil rights to . . . civic engagement? Concerns of two older critical gerontologists about a “new social movement” and what it portends.” Journal of Aging Studies, 22(2), 196-204.

Montero, D. 1977. “Research among Racial and Cultural Minorities: An Overview”. Journal of Social Issues, 33: 1–10

Mullings, Beverly. 1999. “Insider or outsider, both or neither: some dilemmas of interviewing in a cross-cultural setting”. Geoforum, 30(4): 337-350.

Murphy, Raymond. 1988. Social Closure: The Theory of Monopolization and Exclusion. New York: Oxford University Press.

Myles, John. and Feng, Hou. 2004. “Changing Colours: Spatial Assimilation and New Racial Minority Immigrants”. Canadian Journal of Sociology 29(1): 29-58.

Nakhaie, R. 1995. “Ownership and authority position of the Canadian Ethnic Groups”. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 20(2):167-192.

Nakhaie, R. 1999. Debates on social Inequality: Class, gender and Ethnicity in Canada. Toronto, Harcourt Bruce Canada.

Narayan, Deepa and Lant Pritchett. 1997. Cents and Sociability: Household Income and Social Capital in Rural Tanzania. World Bank, photocopy.

Ostrom, E., 2000. “Social Capital: A Fad or Fundamental Concept?,” in Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspective, P. Dasgupta and I. Seragilden eds., Washington DC: World Bank.

Parsons, Talcott. 1937. The Structure of Social Action. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parsons, Talcott, and Neil J. Smelser. 1956. Economy and Society. New York: Free Press.

244

Pineo, Peter C. and John Porter. 1985. “Ethnic Origin and Occupational Attainment” in M. Boyd (eds.), Ascription and Achievement: Studies in Mobility and Status Attainment in Canada, Ottawa, Ont., Carleton University Press, pp 357-391.

Porter, John. 1965. “The Vertical Mosaic: An analysis of social class and power in Canada”. University of Toronto Press; Toronto.

Portes, A. 1995. “Children of Immigrations: Segmented Assimilation and its Determinants.” Pp. 248-279 in The Economic Sociology of Immigration, edited by A. Portes. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology”. Annual Review of Sociology, 24:1-24.

Portes, Alejandro. 2000. “The Two Meanings of Social Capital”. Sociological Forum, 15(1) 1- 12.

Portes, A. and M. Zhou. 1993. “The New Second Generation: Segmented Assimilation and its Variants”. Annals of the American Academy of Political Science, 530: 74-96.

Portney , Kent E. and Jeffrey M. Berry. 1997. “Mobilizing Minority Communities: Social Capital and Participation in Urban Neighbourhoods.” American Behavioural Scientist, 40 (5): 632-644.

Putnam R.D. 1993. “The Prosperous Community-Social Capital and Public Life”. The American Prospect, n. 13, pp. 35-42.

Putnam, Robert D., Leonardi, Robert and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital”. Journal of Democracy, 6(1):65-78.

Putnam, Robert D. 1996. “The Strange Disappearance of Civic America.” The American Prospect, Winter, 34-38.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Qadeer, Mohammad. 1999. The Bases of Chinese and South Asian Merchants' Entrepreneurship and Ethnic Enclaves, Toronto, Canada. Toronto: Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement, pp. 1-36.

Quadagno, J. 1994. The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

245

Ragin, Charles. (1992). "Introduction: Cases of 'What is a Case?'" Pp. 1-17 in Charles C. Ragin and Howard S. Becker (eds.), What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Ram, Rati. 2010. “Social Capital and Happiness: Additional Cross-Country Evidence”. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11(4): 409-418.

Reed, P. B., & Selbee, K. 2000. “Distinguishing characteristics of active volunteers in Canada”. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29, 571-592.

Reitz, Jeffrey G. 1998. “Warmth of the Welcome: The Social Causes of Economic Success for Immigrants in Different Nations and Cities, Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press.

Reitz, Jeffrey G. 1980. The Survival of Ethnic Groups. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Reitz, Jeffrey G. 1990. “Ethnic Concentrations in Labour Markets and Their Implications for Ethnic Inequality.” Pp 135-195 in Breton, R., Isajiw, W., Kalbach, W and Reitz, J.G. 1990. Ethnic Identity and Inequality. Varieties of Experience in a Canadian City. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Reitz, Jeffrey G. and Raymond Breton. 1994. The Illusion of Difference: Realities of Ethnicity in Canada and the United States. Toronto: The C.D. Howe Institute.

Reitz, Jeffrey G. Rupa Banerjee. Mai Phan. Jordan Thompson. 2009. “Race, Religion, and the Social Integration of New Immigrant Minorities in Canada.” International Migration Review, 43 (4): 695-726.

Reynolds, Tracey. 2010. “Editorial Introduction: Young People, Social Capital and Ethnic Identity.” Ethnic and Racial Studies, 33(5): 749-760.

Richardson, L. 1994. “Writing: A Method of Inquiry”, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research, pp. 516–29. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Roberts, J.M. 2004. “What’s ‘Social’ about ‘Social Capital’?”. British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 6: 471-493.

Rose, Richard. 1998. “Getting Things Done in an Anti-Modern Society: Social Capital and Networks in Russia”. Social Capital Initiative Working Paper No. 6. The World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Rossman, G & Wilson, B. L. 1985. “Numbers and Words. Combining Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in a Single Large-Scale Evaluation Study”. Evaluation Review, 9 (5): 627- 643.

246

Rubin, D. B. 1987. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Rubin, D. B. 1996. “Multiple Imputation after 18+ years”. JASA, 91 (343): 473-489.

Rubin, D. B. and Schenker, N. 1986. “Multiple imputation for interval estimation from simple random samples with ignorable nonresponse”. JASA, 81: 366-374.

Ryan, Vernon D.; Kerry A Agnitsch; Lijhun Zhao; Rehan Mullick. 2005. “Making Sense of Voluntary Participation: A Theoretical Synthesis”. Rural Sociology, 70 (3): 287-313.

Sakamoto, Arthur. 1988. “Labour Market Structure, Human Capital and earnings in Metropolitan Areas”, Social Forces, 67(1): 86-107.

Sampson, Robert J., S.W. Raudenbush and F. Earls. 1997. “Neighbourhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science, 277, August 15, 918-924.

Sanders, J, Victor, N, & Sernau, S. 2002. “Asian Immigrants’ Reliance on Social Ties in a Multiethnic Labor Market”. Social Forces, 81(1): 281-314.

Scheibelhofer, Elisabeth. 2008. “Combining Narration-Based Interviews with Topical Interviews: Methodological Reflections on Research Practices”. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11(5): 413-416.

Schultz, Theodore W. 1961. “Investment in Human Capital.” The American Economic Review, LI(1):1–17.

Schütze, F. 1987. Das narrative Interview in Interaktionsfeldstudien: Erzähltheoretische Grundlagen. Teil I: Merkmale von Alltagserzählungen und was wir mit ihrer Hilfe erkennen können

Schütze, F. 1992. Pressure and guilt: War experiences of a young German soldier and their biographical implications (part 1). International Sociology, 7(2), 187–208.

Sechrest, L.; Fay, T. L.; and Zaidi, S. M. H. 1972. “Problems of Translation in Cross-cultural Research.” Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 41-56.

Seigel, Bernard J. 1970. “Defensive structuring and environmental stress.” American Journal of Sociology, 76: 11-32.

Sekaran, Uma. 1983. “Methodological and Theoretical Issues and Advancement in Cross- Cultural Research.” Journal of International Business Studies, 14 (2): 61-73.

Silverman, David (ed.) 2004. Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice. (2nd Edition). London: Sage.

247

Simmel, Georg. (1902) 1964. “The Metropolis and Mental Life” Pp. 409-24 in The Sociology of Georg Simmel, edited and translated by Kurt H. Wolff. New York: Free Press.

Simmel, Georg. (1908) 1955. Conflict and the Web of Group Afiliations. New York: Free Press.

Smelser, Neil. 1988. The Handbook of Sociology. Newbury Park, California: Sage.

Statistics Canada. 2012. “Volunteering in Canada.” The Daily. April 16. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-001-X.

Stinchcombe, Arthur L. 1987. Constructing Social Theories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sturgis, Patrick; Smith, Patton. 2010. “Assessing the Validity of Generalized Trust Questions: What Kind of Trust are we measuring?” International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1): 74-92.

Smith, Sandra S. 2000. “Mobilizing Social Resources: Race, Ethnic, and Gender Differences in Social Capital and Persisting Wage Inequalities”. The Sociological Quarterly, 41(4): 509-537.

Stepick A. 1989. “Miami’s two informal sectors. In The Informal Economy: Studies in Advanced and Less Developed Countries”, ed. A Portes, M Castells, LA Benton, pp. 111-134. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Stolle, Dietlind. 1998. “Making Associations Work: Group Characteristics, Membership and Generalized Trust”. Paper Presented at the 1998 meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, September 3-6.

Stolle, Dietlind and Thomas R. Rochon. 1998. “Are All Associations Alike?: Membership Diversity, Associational Type, and the Creation of Social Capital”. American Behavioural Scientist, 42: 47-65.

Tashakkori, Abbas and Charles Teddlie. 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Thomas, Derrick. 2012. “Giving and Volunteering among Canada’s Immigrants”. Canadian Social Trends. No. 92. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 11-008-X.

Van der Meer, M. 2006. “Productivity among older people in The Netherlands: Variations by gender and the socio-spatial context in 2002-03”. Ageing and Society, 26(6), 901-923.

Verba, Sidney, Kay L. Schlozman and Henry E. Brady. 1995. “Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Political Science, 23: 453-497.

248

Waldinger R. 1996. Still the Promised City? African-Americans and New Immigrants in Post-Industrial New York. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Wanner, Richard. A a 1998. “Prejudice, Profit, or Productivity: Explaining Returns to Human Capital Among Male Immigrants to Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies, 30(3) 24-55. b 1999. “Expansion and Ascription: Trends in Educational Opportunity in Canada, 1920- 1994. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36(3): 313-343. c 2000. “A Matter of Degrees: Twentieth Century Trends in Occupational Status returns”. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 37(3): 313-343.

Warren, C.A.B. 1976. “Women among men: females in the male homosexual community.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 5 (2): 157-169.

Waters, M. 1990. Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waters M. 1994. West Indian immigrants, African Americans, and whites in the workplace: different perspectives on American race relations. Presented at Meet. American. Sociological Association, Los Angeles.

Webb, N. J., & Abzug, R. 2008. “Do occupational group members vary in volunteering activity?” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37, 689-708.

Weber, Max. (1922) 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Free Press.

Weinfeld, Morton. 1994. “Ethnic Assimilation and the Retention of Ethnic Cultures” in Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape, J.W. Berry and J.W. Laponce (ed.) Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wilson, John & Marc Musick. 2003. “Doing Well by Doing Good: Volunteering and Occupational Achievement among American Women”. The Sociological Quarterly, 44: 433-450.

Wiley, Norton F. 1967. “The Ethnic Mobility Trap and Stratification Theory”. Social Problems, 15: 147- 159.

Yinger, Milton J. 1985. “Ethnicity”. Annual Review of Sociology, 11: 151- 180.

249

APPENDIX-I

Table 12.1: Mean Differences in Help received by Participant by Ethnic Groups

Std. Error of Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Mean South Asians 2.3413 522063 0.92202 0.00128 Mainstream/Dominant Canadians 2.4192 3150090 0.93764 0.00053 Other 2.4093 10393298 0.93083 0.00029 Total 2.409 14065451 0.93214 0.00025 F=1566.900, df=2, p<0.001

Table 12.2: Crosstabulation of Useful Help received by participant by ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mainstream/Dominant Useful Help Received South Asians Canadians Other No 10.5% 13.7% 8.9% Yes 89.5% 86.3% 91.1% N 77473 425552 1568643 Total % 100% 100% 100% Chi-Square=8683.812, df=2, P<0.001 N=2071668

Table 12.3: Mean differences in Useful Help received by Participants in Ethnic Groups

Ethnic Groups Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error of Mean

South Asians 0.8954 77473 0.30608 0.0011 Mainstream/Dominant 0.8627 425552 0.34419 0.00053 Canadians Other 0.9108 1568643 0.28496 0.00023 Total 0.9004 2071668 0.2995 0.00021 F=4360.236, df=2, p<0.001

250

APPENDIX-II

Semi structured Interview Guide

Socio-demographic questions:

Id number # ______

Pseudonym ______

Sex: Male _____ Female _____

Household income: ______

Place of residence: ______State:______Country______

Marital Status: Never-married ___ Divorced/widowed____ Married/Common-law____

Currently employed: Yes__ No___

Occupation: ______

Education: ______

Date of Birth: MM __ __/DD __ __/ YY __ __

1. A. Structural Social Capital

I would like to ask you some questions about how you feel about your neighbourhood and the city in general, and how you take part in community activities. By community, I mean a social, religious, occupational, or other group sharing common characteristics or interests.

i) How long have you lived in your current neighbourhood? ii) Why did you choose to live in this neighbourhood? What were your criteria for selection? iii) How would you describe your neighbourhood? iv) Are you member of any groups/associations/clubs?

251

v) How many of such clubs belong to (a) your neighbourhood? (b) your workplace (c) interest groups vi) How far is participation in those community/neighbourhood/group events compulsory? 1. B. Organizational density and characteristics i) Are members in this group mostly of the same religion?

Of same gender?

Of same caste?

Of same ethnic lineage?

Of same occupation?

Of same age group?

Of similar political viewpoint/affiliation?

Of similar educational level? ii) Why are you involved with this group? iii) How diverse would you call this group/s? iv) How active are you in this group? For example, do you consider yourself to be active in the group, such as by attending meetings or volunteering your time in other ways, or are you relatively inactive? Are you a leader in the group? v) Describe some of the activities of such groups/organization.

1.C. Network and Mutual Support Organizations Now I’ll ask you certain questions that will be about your support system, or who do you turn in to in moments of crisis/need.

i) If there were a problem that affected you or your household, who would you turn to

in that situation?

252

ii) If someone in the community suffered some unfortunate incident, such as, a death in

the family, who do you think they could turn to for help and support in this situation?

iii) If your neighbour suffered a financial crisis/loss, who do you think would help

him/her in such situations?

iv) Could you describe your relationship with the government? Have you had experience

in trying to get government assistance? What was your experience? Which level of

government do you find most cooperative (local, district, national)? Has the

government made particular requests of your organization?

v) Have you ever done volunteering work? Where? For how long did you do it?

2. Exclusion

i) Differences often exist between people living in the same neighbourhood/group. Do

you have any differences in your neighbourhood and/or group?

If Yes,

ii) Why do you think such differences exist?

If No,

a) what do you think is the binding ingredient in your neighbourhood/group?

b) Do you foresee any differences/divisions arising in the future? Why? iii) Do you think these differences create problems in the group?

a) How these problems are usually handled?

iv) Are there any services or groups where you or members of your household are

occasionally denied service or have only limited opportunity to use? Why?

253

v) Do you think that there are other households in your community/neighbourhood that have

such access problems? What is the proportion of such people?

vi) Have you thought of any steps to gain access to such communities/ groups? Please

describe. vii) Overall, how would you describe the spirit of participation in these

groups/neighbourhood?

viii) Which factors, do you think, are very important for anybody participating in these

groups and organization?

ix) How much influence do you think, you have towards the community/group? Please

describe in detail.

x) Do you feel sufficiently informed about other organizations’ programs and activities?

What are your sources of information?

3. Trust and Cooperation

i) Do you think that in your neighbourhood people generally trust each other?

ii) Do you think that in the groups of which you are a member, generally trust each

other?

iii) Has this level of trust over the years gone down or has it improved?

iv) Do you trust others? Why or why not?

v) If you suddenly had to go away for a day or two, whom would you entrust to take

care of your children and/or pets?

vi) If two people in your neighbourhood had a serious altercation between themselves,

how do you think that altercation could be resolved?

254

vii) In your neighbourhood, do you feel you are more likely to trust a person you have

met/fairly known than others?

viii) In your close circle of friends and acquaintances, what proportion belongs to a

different ethnic category than yourself?

ix) Do you believe people from other ethnic group could be trusted? Why or why not?

x) Do you believe people from other class than you could be trusted? Why or why not?

xi) Which group in your immediate social surrounding, (friends, family, and colleagues)

do you believe, will not take advantage of you or your household even when the

situation arises?

xii) Which group in your immediate social surrounding, (friends, family, and colleagues)

do you believe, will always deliver the promise they make? Probe: What is your basis

for such thought?)

4. Social Participation i) How would you characterize the quality of participation in your community/group? (Probe, in terms of…

…attendance at meetings, both internal to the organization and externally with other organizations? …participation in decision-making within the organization? …dissemination of relevant information prior to the decision? …informal opportunities to discuss the decision? …consultation processes with base organizations or with the community? …broad debate, including opposition positions, and honesty? …dissemination of the results of the decision-making process? …the number of women, young people, poor people who work in the organization and who occupy positions of responsibility in the organization? …whether any groups within the community feel excluded from the organization? What groups are they? …the level of participation of more prosperous families (elites) in the organization? …whether elites are sympathetic, supportive, interfering, adversarial, or negative influences?)

255

ii) How far do you think, you are a part of this society? For example, how far do you believe

you belong here?

iii) Which factors, do you think, is crucial to your sense of belongingness or otherwise?

iv) What is your idea of being a Canadian? What is Canadian identity?

v) Do you think for Canadian integration, ethnic groups should have the same Canadian

identity? That they should blend with the mainstream?

vi) Do you think multiculturalism is a good official policy as compared to melting pot

ideology as practised in the U.S?

vii) How have you made some friends in this country?

viii) How is your social life dependent on having friends?

ix) How far is your social life dependent on your participation in

groups/community/association/clubs?

x) Is most of your social life within in your ethnic group or does it go across other ethnic

groups too? Please describe.

xi) How important is your ethnic culture in your social life?

[For Immigrants]

xii) How far is social participation here different from the country you were born/your

diasporic country?

256

Appendix –III Participants Needed for Research Interview on Experience of Social Participation in Calcutta Hello! I’m a doctoral graduate student in the Department of Sociology at theUniversity of Calgary and I’m conducting research here in Calcutta. For my research project, I’m looking for people to participate in an interview and tell me about their experiences of social participation in Calcutta. If you are:  Of Indian citizenship  Over 25 years of age,  Have a college/university degree,  Can speak English, Hindi or Bengali  Interested in talking about your experience of social life in Calcutta, You can be my interviewee! The interviews will last roughly around 1 hour to 1½ hours. You will receive a honorarium of Rs. 300 for your contribution. This research project is funded by University of Calgary. There is no known harm, physical or mental, of participation in this interview. If you are interested to participate in this research project, please contact me: Ms. Koyel Ranu Phone: 9432494856 Email: [email protected]

9432494856 9432494856 9432494856 9432494856 9432494856 9432494856

9432494856

Ms. KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected]

Phone: Email: [email protected] Ms. KoyelMs. Ranu 257

ParticipantsNeeded for Research Interview on Immigrant Experience in Toronto

Hello! I’m a doctoral graduate student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Calgary, and I am conducting research in Toronto. For my research project, I’m looking for people to participate in an interview and tell me about their immigrant experiences of social participation in Canada. If you are:  An immigrant from either India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka/Bangladesh/Nepal/Bhutan  Over 25 years of age,  Have a college/university degree,  Can speak English, Hindi or Bengali,  Interested in talking about your experience of social life in Canada You can be my interviewee! The interviews will last roughly around 1 hour to 1½ hours. You will receive a honorarium of $25 for your contribution. This research project is funded by University of Calgary. There is no known harm, physical or mental, of participation in this interview. If you are interested to participate in this research project, please contact me: Ms. Koyel Ranu Phone: 647-202-4257 Email: [email protected]

4257 4257 4257 4257 4257 4257 4257 4257

------

202 202 202 202 202 202 202 202

------

Ms. KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected]

258

Participants Needed for Research Interview on Experience of Social Participation in Toronto

Hello! I’m a doctoral graduate student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Calgary and I’m conducting research here in Toronto. For my research project, I’m looking for people to participate in an interview and tell me about their experiences of social participation in Canada. If you are:  Caucasian and of British lineage  Over 25 years of age,  Have a college/university degree,  Can speak English,  Interested in talking about your experience of social life in Canada, You can be my interviewee! The interviews will last roughly around 1 hour to 1½ hours. You will receive a honorarium of $25 for your contribution. This research project is funded by University of Calgary. There is no known harm, physical or mental, of participation in this interview. If you are interested to participate in this research project, please contact me:

Ms. Koyel Ranu

Phone: 647-202-4257 Email: [email protected]

4257

4257 4257 4257 4257 4257

4257

- - - -

202

202 202 202 202

202

- - - - -

647 647 647 647 647

647

Ms. KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: 647 Email: [email protected]

Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] KoyelMs. Ranu Phone: Email: [email protected] Ms. KoyelMs. Ranu

259