While they have been most often considered as multicultural artists, diaspora performers in Canada in the 1990s also respond to the expectations of the mainstream art market. This paper looks critically at the context of diaspora performance in Canada and will question the nature of cultural transfer in contemporary performing arts.

Although theorists now question any classification based on a binary center/margin framework, it is instructive to briefly look at the legacy which multiculturalism has left to diaspora performance arts. Multiculturalism is the theoretical offspring of the assimilation policies of the mid century integration movement and the essentialist definitions of culture constructed by anthropology over the last century. Using the myth that North American society offers equal opportunity to all its members, the intent of multicultural policy was to celebrate cultural diversity. However, in practice, the value of difference was only recognized on a superficial level without dislodging the political and economic hierarchies already in place. The mechanism that made this possible was the definition of ethnicity as all embracing opposition (the "other" of current anthropological critique) to an imaginary mainstream monoculture, itself conceived of as static, universal, and egalitarian. The boundaries between "them and us" created by such essentialist thought were further solidified by exoticizing ethnicity. Multicultural performing arts were particularly suited to this purpose.

Multicultural theory confused art with a certain definition of ethnicity and by doing so found a safe haven to express difference favorably without threatening the status quo. With the truly cohesive factors such as education, self-government, and extended family often missing, and ethnicity functioning primarily on a symbolic level, new immigrants also accepted this definition. Although new immigrant professionals often shared more with their mainstream economic and educational peers than with their cultural peers of a different class, the arts served as a common bond of allegiance.

One focus of this commonality was a nostalgia for homeland. Largely this was an imagined homeland that represented a pure, timeless alternative to modern life and a Universalist ideal of lives lived. Performing artists were important players in the construction of this imagined homeland. Since their individual identities were often submerged in the timeless and idealized characterizations of their dance, or were undifferentiated from the virtuosity of their performances, performers (in particular dancers) became symbols of the idealized and imagined homeland and were sought after as role models for youth in diaspora communities. As Thakkar states, writing about diaspora students of classical Indian dance in Canada,

The image seems to raise a number of issues related to what exactly it is that is transferred along with the physical dance movements. . . . For the students, it is the least threatening and most non-imposing way to be exposed to values and life styles of their ancestral land. It is also a more successful way of absorbing emotions and perspectives of a culture that is otherwise alien to them. Playing the role of a typical Indian character in a dance interpretation of a narrative or a lyrical poem forces them to reproduce otherwise alien emotions and physical gestures. The process is not merely intellectual; it is downright physical and emotional, and therefore more immediate and compelling. At the same time it is not as threatening or confrontation as having to go to Sunday religion classes and being lectured on what the Indian way of life is and what values and behavior are considered properly 'Indian' by their elders. ("Transfer" 225)

Moreover arts of all kinds could turn ethnicity into a successful commodity. Multicultural art events usually centered on traditional performances and demonstrated the so-called "benefits of difference". Moodley (21) cites the Honorable James Fleming 's speech to the fourth Canadian Conference on Multiculturalism, in Ottawa, 1981, in which he says that art and culture are "the handmaidens of the economy, preparing the ground for trade by instilling respect and esteem." Those who profited most from the "benefits of difference" were the promoters and entrepreneurs of ethnic festivals, food fairs, etc. They sold a multicultural product that satisfied a yearning in the mainstream audience for the exotic, but the exotic coached in familiar terms. From the mainstream view, multicultural artistic events suggested that Canada was a stable, harmonious, and nonracist marketplace and a relatively risk-free place to do business.

Because art and ethnicity were interchangeable in the multicultural perspective, masterly performances were often embedded in amateur, touristic, and non-art events. Multicultural performers often had to operate in marginal areas like school auditoriums and at festivals. These marginal venues were always phrased in the host society's vocabulary- tickets were sold and the short time frames favored by the uninitiated mainstream were respected. The festival pavilion which was the locale of so many multicultural performances is an example of a marginal and temporary architectural form that suggested the circus-like environment of the early 20th century world's fairs ' cultural menageries. These locations reinforced the impenetrable difference of multicultural performance and made it difficult for performers to find genuine critique either in the host or ethnic community. Although multicultural arts have for the most part moved away from the carnival atmosphere of the 1970's and 1980's expos to theatres and other mainstream venues in the 1990s, the mainstream bias which does not differentiate professional from amateur ethno-specific productions still remains.

The conventional orchestration of many multicultural dance events seem to presume a mainstream audience who are prodigiously ignorant and an ethnic audience who are totally initiated into the subtleties of homeland (often) aristocratic traditions. Hence voluminous program notes and lengthy introductory narrations in English often precede performances in ancient, non local, or esoteric forms of the native languages. This observation does not disqualify the many well informed, critical, and cultured members of the audience. It rather reveals the underlying prejudice that because an individual has a particular racial, ethnic, or national identity, he/she is automatically an expert in the artistic achievements of his/her culture.

Because multicultural policy was grounded in an essentialist conception of culture, artistic traditions of different ethnicities were also visualized as static, conservative, and non-permeable. In contrast, Thakkar writes (in reference to classical Indian dance), "First, it must be realized that paradoxically enough, the 2000-year-old traditions of classical dance do not exist in their final intact form waiting to be transferred. They are themselves being created or recreated, discovered, often transferred from another time, grappling in the process with the issues of reform, change, adaptation, and innovation. There is not a sharp line in India to differentiate tradition and modernity. Traditions are revived, recreated and modernized" ("Transfer" 217). The evolving and porous nature of traditional art forms was ignored because a conservative, static, and often over simplified model of performance traditions was easier to market. This dilute version fit the consumer mentality of the tourist venues which desires a known product and a repetitive and familiar experience. To compound the problem, the essentialist notion of ethnic art and culture also prevents multicultural performances from being exposed to a critical audience outside the community. Seen as exotic, mutlicultural art traditions are thought to be too different to critique by any known mainstream standards hence art and drama critics tend to stay away from them except in the most superficial ways.

The strong showing of community economic support for cultural events, including youth instruction, as well as the extraordinarily loyal diaspora audience who can be counted to fill the seats for most of these cultural performances are also unique features. However, because in these social circumstances the performance become identified with the community, there are also constraints put on the performer to conform to certain social or political standards. For example, while an artist is applauded for achieving recognition in the mainstream art world, when he/she openly challenges the mainstream powers and critical assumptions, community support is often withdrawn.

Today the lines are drawn quite distinctly as to how far innovation might stray from community expectations. For example although explicit sexual content would be accepted in some post modern performance, it might be frowned upon by the diaspora audience. Similarly the incorporation of folk traditions or heavily popularized forms in classical choreographic or compositions might also be considered disrespectful. These lines are drawn as much because of the actual content of the performance as because these performances are felt to represent the pride and identity of the community to the mainstream. In the past, this assumption was validated by the heavy consular attendance at such performances.

Now diaspora performing artists are beginning to move outside the multicultural ghetto. Is the post modern art world with its own particular vision of meaning, context, and critical value truly hospitable to diaspora performance? What kind of compromises do these artists make to belong to the global art community of the borderlines?

Philosophically the post modern view takes issue with the hierarchical modernist canon of high art. Categories, such as art and craft, or folk, aristocratic, and popular traditions are challenged in order to avoid racial and gender discrimination which favors particular art forms/mediums. In this avant garde milieu critical evaluation is seen as politically incorrect because it suggests the elitism of the high culture bias. Although the marginal position of ethnospecific arts was used to support this case, many of the diaspora performance arts arose originally from aristocratic patronage or court contexts. These arts are also entrenched in their community's standards for high culture arts and situated by the wide chasm between popular and classical culture.

In the post-modern view, the only valid role for art is as a mediator/commentator on social relations of asymmetrical power. In a nutshell, ethnic difference can be politicized in an art environment that validates political meaning. Diaspora arts have been transformed into symbols of political struggle for collective social identities, and diaspora artists are partnered with others at the borderlines who follow diverse socio-political agendas, such as First nations artists, feminists, Afro-American and gay-lesbian groups. In many cases by politicizing ethnicity, diaspora art becomes a more valuable commodity in the avant garde art market. This is particularly true of the artist's persona which can be heroized and then commoditized. Ironically the patrons of these arts of political struggle are frequently the same people seen as the oppressors. In this system of validation, spiritualism, aesthetics, and mythology are homeless unless they take on a political value. Diaspora artists sometimes minimize these parts of their traditions in order to gain recognition. Conversely, these artists may also feel compelled to invest political meanings in the narrative features of their performances in order to win acceptance.

Much has been written about the popular infatuation with consumerism. In these scenarios, capital is global, locality and ethnicity are symbolic, the nation-state is impotent to supply protection, services, or support, and transnational corporations set the standards of allegiance to consumer products. It is also a world wherein self-interest and self-creation are paramount. Anything, including ethnicity, is fair game for sale, trade, and appropriation. Spirituality as well as art are commodities, as in the new age religions, which are largely dilutions or misrepresentations of multicultural phenomena. Ferguson writes, ". . . a salient characteristic of dominant Western culture is its denial of repetition in favor of the rhetoric of constant progress, growth and change. The vital, independent cultures of socially subordinated groups are constantly mined for new ideas with which to energize the jaded and restless mainstream of a political and economic system based on the circulation of commodities. The process depends on the delivery of continual novelty to the market while at the same time alternative cultural forms are drained of any elements which might challenge the system as a whole" (11). Stereotypical extremes portrayed in popular culture, such as movies and magazines, are easier to market to the desensitized consumer audience than more polyvalent true-to-life versions. These conditions fetishize ethnospecific performance arts and standardize their contexts. Because these popular versions (dance, in particular) are conflated with classical traditions, they create a vocabulary of images and references which the audience brings to the performance and which create a special challenge to the diaspora artist.

Perhaps the most pervasive and constraining aspect of popular culture transferred to the post modern art world is the corporate paradigm. It describes an individual who is startlingly innovative, adaptive, quick to respond, and full of transferable skills. This model overlaid on the eurocentric emphasis on the individuality of the artist valorizes innovation above all other qualities in performing and visual arts. If innovation away from tradition rather than interpretation within a tradition is a key factor in assessing an artist's acceptability and even quality, then "being on the cutting edge" becomes a critical category valued in itself as a funding niche for the contemporary artist in any discipline. Just what this means in practice is another story. For example, one juror told an applicant for funding that wearing flowers in the hair, a costuming practice of traditional Indian dance, mitigated against the innovativeness of this company's new choreography.

In terms of diaspora performance new choreography generally emphasizes fusion with western traditions and rephrases orchestration in the host country's vernacular (i.e., venue, length or performance, stage effects, ticketing are all dictated by western view). But, the real monetary incentives at the gate still remain in place for mainstream arts rather than ethnospecific or avant garde fusion pieces. So, even when they are accepted by the mainstream funders for their fusion work, diaspora artists may find that there is a two tiered price structure at the gate which is a response to what the audience is willing to pay for non-western performance. Conversely, when western artists perform in non-western traditions they may find the same two-tiered structure. Some argue that new artistic directions always carry a lower pricetag in the art marketplace until these expressions prove themselves a viable investment for promoters, funders, and audience, and it is the responsibility of government arts councils to support new directions or emerging artists despite an economic and political climate that marginalizes arts in general. Notwithstanding, since our society valorizes economic recognition, a consistently lower pricing for diaspora, non-mainstream, and fusion pieces preserves sites of exclusion to artists on the margins.

There appears to be a crisis of meaning for all post modern performing artists which also impacts fusion work. It reflects the breakdown of shared assumptions in our dynamic transnational societies, and the deterritorialization of performers and audience alike. Because each audience member's response is unique and individual, performers can neither assume a specific ethnic or national identity dictates a level of understanding or appreciation for an ancestral tradition, nor can they assume a particular vocabulary will impact all viewers with the same value. With such an individualized and subjective transnational audience, many artists consider only politicized personal trajectories are readable subject. Traditions expressive of aristocratic or religious mythology, or devotional and ritual experience, characteristic of some diaspora arts, are larger than these personal narratives, but have no where to go as they become fragmented, deterritorialized, and refashioned into individual experience. Because deep knowledge of these unfamiliar traditions can only be gained by a lengthy and arduous training process, and since it is only the committed and unique performers who are willing to invest the time to understand these unfamiliar traditions, most western artists with only superficial exposure to ancient forms and styles can do little justice to the formal integrity and spiritual intent of these traditions. Although there is pressure on diaspora artists to accelerate dramatic changes of form and content at the expense of tradition, is there also an awareness of the slower, more subtle, but equally creative process of evolving new work through a tradition? Is new necessarily better? And is new necessarily totally different?

The resolution of the socio-economic and artistic dilemmas confronting diaspora performers ultimately addresses basic issues surrounding difference in our society in general. First, we can question whether a balanced and genuine bicultural exchange can take place in an artistic environment that valorizes the new within the familiar, and allows little time for performing artists to perfect deep training in unfamiliar traditions. Second, we have to determine if such bicultural fusion is a valuable final goal for performing artists who want to express difference in a heterogeneous society (i.e., must we please all of the people all of the time?) Some artists already accept the challenge of building a vocabulary of shared experience for a diverse audience. In my view, some of the most successful of these performances use both irony and humor to bridge the gap between the individual and the universal. In these rich settings, members of the audience are left to make personal comparisons between cultures and/or historical contexts. However, according to Pudom (1995), it is necessary to go beyond a bicultural fusion of two balanced contributions to the creation of new single cultural entity at the borderline. The shape of this single entity can only be fashioned once both the mainstream and diaspora audience expect difference as part of programming and accept different classical traditions on a level playing field. This does not mean that all performances must include all players but rather that there is a variety of choices considered of equal validity with which to negotiate an artistic vocabulary.