Canada has long been searching for an identity: a unifying structure that encompasses it's vast geography. The diversity that seems to be the defining feature of Canada makes it difficult to establish any definite identity. If , in examination, we treat a nation the same as an individual , I argue there are many benefits to lacking a defined specific sense of identity.
As is often done when attempting to define a Canadian identity, I will revert to drawing attention to our Southern neighbour, the United States.
The United States has a clear and strong idenity: The Land of the Brave and Home of the Free. Yet, it seems that the U.S. is not popular on the international front. In their attempt (and success) to clearly establish a sense of "who they are", the United States has succeed in alienating the rest of the world. The U.S. is not aware of how the world relates to them or how they relate to the world.
Canada, on the other hand, seems to be viewed positively throughout the world. Many Canadian travellers will attest to how they are treated more than fairly when abroad. Between a large immigrant population, a multi-cultural policy mandate, and strong ties to peace keeping and diplomacy, Canada is viewed as a positive force throughout the world. (Note how any claims to an identity have a connection to the international stage, and not a specifically Canadian context.) Yet, we do not seem to be able to claim a unique identity on our home front.
I argue that it is a lack of identity, and an acceptance of plurality that allows the Canadian experience, either at home or abroad, to be positive, effectual, and rich. For example, the Canadian traveller whom is more likely to be welcomed abroad will have a richer experience in a different cultural setting than the American. By defying any singular unifying structure to base a unique identity upon, the Canadian experience, as one of multi-cultural diversity, is open to so much that exists in the world. By welcoming and celebrating the diversity of the world, Canada accepts the continually changing face of the nation and accepts change and growth. It seems that the cost of being able to access the diversity of the world, is upholding diversity in our own country, which makes it impossible to establish a clearly defined and unique Canadian identity.
If the individual gave up the modern quest to define and articulate a clear unique idea of self, the individual would then be open to more of what the world has to offer. If the individual, like Canada, welcomes and celebrates the diversity of the world, they would be able to live a positive, effectual, and rich existence. Both an individuals idea of self as well the any sense of a Canadian identiy should accept its plurality and temporal progression.
*(This is a rather meaty posts. I thought I would share it with you as a follow up to my previous post "Alienating Individuality". Once again, I admit that this is a project that continually remains in progress.)
4 comments:
Basically you are saying "It's Not Me. It's you". If the individual gives up the self ("Me"), and accepts the other ("You"), they are able to have a less alienated (and therefore better?) experience in and of the world.
Just a note:
I thorougly enjoyed your entry, save for one small item. You write: For example, the Canadian traveller whom is more likely to be welcomed abroad will have a richer experience in a different cultural setting than the American.
My problem is with the use of the word "whom." Whom is an objective pronoun. You may want to consider using who, as who is a subjective pronoun. In this case, try replacing whom with an objective pronoun (him,her,them), and you'll see that doing so doesn't quite work. If, however, you try using a subjective pronoun, (he, she, they), your sentence still works.
There are many benefits to lacking a defined specific sense of identity. For one, you don't have fundamentalists flying airplanes into your buildings. But I have found that the more I speak to people from Asia and Europe (to those who have never been to Canada), the more I find that they generally look upon our home with a great deal of indifference -- which is much different than looking on us positively. That we lack a cultural identity has ramifications for our image: there is none. Foreigners don't know that Canadians are peacekeepers and not peacemakers (though our diminishing contributions to UN missions would even compromise that mantra). Foreigners don't care about the politics of a country that is off the international stage. The recent Canadian election (which saw the most substantial power shift in the last two decades) didn't receive as much international press as the election of a female anti-American to the Presidency in Chile, which happened a few days prior to our election. I thought that was very telling. And when I did see coverage of the Canadian election over here (in Asia) every single story ended with discussing how Stephen Harper is writing a book about hockey, simply because our love of that sport is the only bit of "identity" the international community can relate to.
I'm not going to attempt to argue what Canada's identity is, but there are negative ramifications for not having a national identity. We need to begin to understand that those exist. Still, acknowledging that fact will bring us no closer to attaining one, and I suspect we WILL develop a national identity over time as the country gets older (we're still a relatively "young" country - the USA is twice as old as us). The US is not popular in some places, yet is popular elsewhere. Poll numbers were released during Bush's most recent trip to India that he has something like a 60% approval rating in that country. The difference is, a foreign country can look on America's culture and politics and say "I like that" or "I don't". That is something I think Canadians should aspire to, and we do that by continuing to have a positive impact in whatever field we choose to pursue.
It's true though; a lack of identity does allow the Canadian experience. People aren't going to spit on you if they don't know what you think. It's important to note that as Canada's presence internationally has diminished, so too has immigration to our country. The biggest boom we ever saw was following the World Wars, when Canadians were seen as the great liberators. We had an identity. When Trudeau was shining that smile on the world stage people came to Canada in droves. We had an identity. And even though we would now welcome up to 250,000 new immigrants a year, lately we haven't exceeded 220,000 people saying "Make me a new Canadian." We don't have an identity.
My last point highlighted something I didn't believe initially: sometimes Canadians have an identity and sometimes we don't. An identity is something that ebbs and flows. It means we have the capacity to determine in this instant if we as Canadians want an identity, and if so, we can determine what that identity will be. That gives me hope.
First, It is important to note the thesis of my blog was not to comment on Canadian identity, but to use the concept of a national identity to comment on individual identity ("If , in examination, we treat a nation the same as an individual , I argue there are many benefits to lacking a defined specific sense of identity.")
Second, I should draw attention to the fact that Karl's concerns about the negative ramifications of Canada's lack of identity is merely in how we are viewed. Relating this to the individual's identity, I believe that the individual should not be concerned with what others think of them: The individual should be true to themselves and not aim to be some other person because others wish them to be.
The lack of identity and acceptance of plurality allows the individual to explore the freedom of possibile worlds and identities. Nothing is presupposed or assumed. The individual is free of the confines of language and labels.
That was the point of my blog.
Post a Comment