Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location

1. Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location Brian Ray, University of Ottawa Valerie Preston, York University

3. Geographical Understanding of Discrimination and Discomfort • Experiences of discomfort & discrimination • Being ‘in and out of place’ • How racialization operates within place(s) • How racialization is placed • Feminist geography • Whiteness literature • Experiential constructions of whiteness • ‘White’ landscapes

4. Understanding Experiences of Discomfort/Discrimination • Psychological and sociological studies • Discomfort can arise when people made aware of being different • Discrimination experienced by group more than discrimination reported by individual • Multiple causes of discomfort and discrimination

5. Understanding Discomfort/Discrimination • Relatively little research about the spatial variation of discomfort/discrimination generally, and racist attitudes in particular • Although do know much more about spatial variation in family status, community relations (e.g., social life in cities vs. rural areas)

6. Does Geography Matter? • Are experiences of discrimination and discomfort the same in Canada’s three gateway cities, other metropolitan areas, and non-metropolitan areas?

7. Presentation Outline • Ethnic Diversity Survey • Canada’s uneven geography • Description of discrimination and discomfort • Explanations of discrimination and discomfort • Implications

8. Ethnic Diversity Survey • Post-census survey • A general population survey • Approximately 42,000 individuals • Population 15 years of age & over • Identity, social behaviours, experiences of discrimination and feelings of discomfort

9. Methodological Dilemmas • Age • Eliminated individuals under 18 and over 70 • Aboriginal status • Small number of respondents removed • Ethno-racial Background • Visible minority • European Non-Charter • European Charter

10. Uneven Geography: Visible Minorities • 71.8 percent in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver • 4.8 percent in small towns and rural areas • Highly correlated with distribution of immigrants

11. Uneven Geography: Generations

12. Economic Families Below LICO by Ethno-racial Group

13. Visible minority group everywhere: • ethnic ancestry important • ethnic group belonging strong • co-ethnics in networks – over 50% • belonging to city/town strong • European Charter: • Ethnic ancestry most impt. in M,T,V • Co-ethnics in networks: highest proportion • in biggest & smallest places • Sense of belonging to place strongest in • small places • Overall level of trust strongest in smallest • places • European non-charter: • Ethnic ancestry most impt. in M,T,V • Sense of belonging strongest in largest • places • Overall level of trust higher • in all places relative to other groups • Visible minority group: • Networks: co-ethnics decrease as • size of place decreases • Overall sense of trust increases as • size of place decreases • Trust neighbours increases as • size of place decreases

14. Discomfort in Past 5 Years

15. Discrimination in Past 5 Years

16. Type of Discrimination

17. Visible Minority Experiences of Discrimination

18. Explaining Variations in Discrimination and Discomfort • Sex • Marital Status • Children under 18 • Social class (Low-income status, • household income, education) • Visible Minority Status • Birthplace • Generation Status • Religion Social Characteristics Behaviour ResidentialCharacteristics • Language, at home and with friends • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Co-ethnics in social network • Sense of belonging to: • Ethnic group • City • Level of trust • Trust in neighbours • Tenure • Dwelling type • Where live – size of • place

19. Increase probability of • Reporting Discomfort: • Visible minority • Foreign born • Higher education • Belonging to ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • More co-ethnics in network • Living in larger cities, especially • Montréal, Toronto & Vancouver • Increase probability of • reporting discrimination: • Visible minority • Non-charter (minor) • Higher education • Belonging to ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics in network • Living in Montréal, Toronto, • Vancouver • Decrease probability of • Reporting discomfort: • European non-charter • Modest or strong sense • belong to city/town • Trust neighbours a lot • Decrease probability of • reporting discrimination: • Female • Married/common law couple • Homeownership • modest or strong sense belong city/town • strong overall trust • stronger levels of trust in • neighbours

20. Increase Probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discrimination: • Ethno-cultural/racial • background • Foreign born • Language at home • Higher education • Ethnic ancestry impt. • Strong belonging to • ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics in network • Live in Montréal, Toronto, • Vancouver • Increase Probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discomfort: • Visible minority • Foreign born • Higher education • Ethnic ancestry impt. • Strong belonging to • ethnic group • Co-ethnics in network • Living in Montréal, • Toronto, Vancouver • Decrease probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discomfort: • Language w. friends • Female • Married/common law • Attachment to city/town • Overall trust • Degree trust neighbours • Decrease Probability of • Reporting of Ethnic • Discrimination: • Language w. friends • Female • Married/common law • Attachment to city/town • Overall trust • Degree trust neighbours

21. Increase probability • of reporting Racial • Discomfort: • Higher education • Involvement in • ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics • in network • Living in larger cities, • especially Montréal, • Toronto, Vancouver • Increase probability • of reporting Racial • Discrimination: • Visible minority • Children < 18 • Higher education • Involvement in • ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics • in network • Decrease probability • of reporting Racial • Discomfort: • Ethno-cultural/ racial • background • Foreign born • Language at home • Age (slight) • Ethnic ancestry (minor) • Sense belong to city/town • Overall trust levels • Trusting neighbours • a lot • Decrease probability • of reporting Racial • Discrimination: • Language at home • Foreign born • Female • Marital status • Overall trust • Degree • trust neighbours

22. How Does Geography Matter? • Complicated geographies of discomfort & discrimination • Geographical variation in who reports discomfort & discrimination • Size and type of place seem to play a role • But in small cities, towns, rural areas must also consider size of visible minority population & generation status • Possible to avoid ethnocultural/racial difference versus a welcoming community

23. How Does Geography Matter? • Visible minority status influences experiences of discrimination and feelings of discomfort, particularly those related to race • Strongly tied to places where visible minority populations are large • Immigrant status influences experiences of discrimination and discomfort • Increases odds for ethnic discomfort/ discrimination • Reduces odds for racial discomfort/ discrimination

24. Implications

25. IMPLICATIONS • Processes of racialization are geographically variable but reporting discrimination largely due to visible minority status (racialized difference) • Impact of co-ethnic ties & involvement in ethnic institutions may pose significant challenges for effective public policy formation & delivery