9.15.2005

identity

After my recent post about the banning of religious tribunals in Ontario, a great discussion about the pros and cons of the decision ensued. The discussion morphed into one about Canada's national identity - whether such a thing exists, and if so, what it is.

This is a big topic about which there is no definitive answer, but here are some random thoughts.

First, what do we mean by national identity? Is it a shared history? A shared culture? The first thing people think of when they think of the country? A collection of myths? What the country has contributed to the world?

Kyle_From_Ottawa offered Wikipedia's definition, and answered the question this way. Rob, wmtc's Resident Conservative, believes Canadians don't have a national identity.

The historian Gerald Early has said the United States' three great contributions to the world are baseball, jazz and the Constitution. I really like that. But does this constitute the US's national identity? I don't think so.

If national identity is a set of recognizable traits - a kind of free-association, the first thing that comes to mind - then the answer will always depend on who you ask. If you ask most Americans about a country other than their own, you're going to hear some ridiculous reductionism, because they know very little about the world around them. Even if you ask an American about the US, you're going to hear widely different answers, probably based on the person's politics.

Ask an American the first thing they think of when they hear the word "Germany" and they'll undoubtedly say Hitler or Nazis. They won't say Goethe or Beethoven or beer gardens or the Autobahn.

What would happen if you say the word "Israel"? Think of the words you'd hear depending on who you ask. This is why national identity can't be equated with a "most recognizable" list.

In our discussion, Rob also mentioned history, which (I believe) he feels Canada lacks, or perhaps Canadians lacks a proper understanding of their own history. (Rob, just correct me when I'm trampling on your ideas here.) I don't think history can be a good basis for deriving national identity - at least not for Americans, because Americans are so ahistorical. We are not taught much history, and what we are taught is only about the US, from a very skewed point of view.

My own knowledge of history has come from my own interests and obsessions - either with places (New York City, Ireland) or with people's movements (civil rights, American labor, women's) - or from writing research. As for what I was taught in school - and I went to a good school and was a decent student - squat.

Plus, Canada is a very young country. If identity is bound up in history, the country's relative youth must come into play.

So with all these caveats, and the general warning that I'm not sure what any of this means, here are my free-associations of the word Canada:
peaceful
universal health care
hockey
wide open space and lots of natural beauty (such as Rockies and beautiful seacoasts)
bilingual (in fact, most Americans have the impression Canada is more bilingual than it really is)
cultural diversity
very livable cities
maple leaf
maple syrup
beer
nice people who mind their own business
safe haven (underground railroad, Vietnam)
cold and snow (most Americans' first association, I'd bet)
and a bunch of famous Canadians who have become famous: Wayne Gretzsky, Joni Mitchell, Neil Young, lots of comedians, Alex Trebek, Peter Jennings, Margaret Atwood, Bill Reid, Pierre Berton, lots of hockey players... This list could go on and on. There are dozens of websites dedicated to famous Canadians, and one might say that making lists of famous Canadians is part of the national identity.
Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth. I look forward to lots of comments.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

Identity is a tricky subject, and is incredibly vague. I don't like to think of countries in terms of "identity" - largely because with many, especially Canada, it's impossible to pin it down to any one concrete thing. You can't do that with any country - but it is what a word such as "identity" suggests we do - try to capture the essence of a country into a single word or phrase. I challenge anyone to adequately do that for any country.

Rather, I like to think of it in terms of associations. What can we associate with a country? In terms of Canada, your list is a great start.

And perhaps that is what identity becomes. Not one thing - rather, a collective of associations that are inspired upon thought of the country. Its image, perhaps. Is hockey a part of the image of Canada for most people? National sport - you bet it is. Universal health care? One of the things we're most well-known for (next to hockey, of course - can you tell I'm jacked for the next NHL season?), and on and on.

If identity is one thing, then that one thing is image. The thoughts inspired when one imagines the country. And those thoughts are the associations one assigns to that image. Of course, everyone has a different view, so how does that form an identity? Those associations which are most commonly made are what form the common image of the country, which, if one wants to speak of identity, are the basis of what one could call the identity of the country.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Rob's old post comment:Canada - Mounties, hockey, polite guys who say "eh?"

But if I said Mounties, hockey, maple syrup, etc you would know what country I'm talking about. See, there is an identity. It's not that it doesn't exist, its that its not sufficient for you.

You're looking for national greatness, something along the lines of Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. I guess Terry Fox doesn't cut it. It's insufficient, you're looking for glory that only world powers are known for. It's that superpower envy thing, we're driving a Mazda while the guy next door is driving a beemer.

I also disagree we've forgotten pre-Trudeau history. Canadians still talk with pride about Vimy Ridge and Normandy. There's the great Canadian railway, the underground railroad for slaves, and loyalists.

James Redekop said...

You're looking for national greatness, something along the lines of Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln. I guess Terry Fox doesn't cut it.

Terry Fox is, I think, the perfect Canadian "hero". He doesn't cut the same lines as Winston Churchill or Abraham Lincoln, no -- not because he's "less heroic" or whatever, but because he's not that kind of hero: he's the small, one person doing something to help out kind of hero. Which is what makes him a perfect Canadian hero. "Glory" isn't really a Canadian concept.

Canadians still talk with pride about Vimy Ridge and Normandy. There's the great Canadian railway, the underground railroad for slaves, and loyalists.

Most of these are all examples of what I mean: helping someone else deal with adversity. It's why Canada is so well known for its role in international peacekeeping, as well.

It's hard to believe it's 25 years since Terry Fox's run.

laura k said...

I was going to mention Terry Fox, but he is not well known in the US, unfortunately. I know him only through my writing on disability.

Comments on identity are still being posted on the other thread, but I wish you guys would move here!

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Actually, now that I think of it, I said:

national folklore and a national mythology: We are lacking in this area, I'll admit.

This seems to be the key piece here. When conservatives are complaining about the lack of a national identity, this is what they're talking about.

A national mythology, you know along the lines of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and saying "I cannot tell a lie", stories of the Great Emancipator, etc. are very important to conservatives.

People in Canadian history are just that. People, not myths. We lack larger-than-life figures, and I think that's a glaring gap for conservatives (and nationalists in general).

laura k said...

A national mythology, you know along the lines of George Washington cutting down the cherry tree and saying "I cannot tell a lie", stories of the Great Emancipator, etc. are very important to conservatives.

People in Canadian history are just that. People, not myths. We lack larger-than-life figures, and I think that's a glaring gap for conservatives (and nationalists in general).


Right. That goes to what I said about conservatives complaining about newer, more honest views of history. The old history is mostly myth. The reality is more complex -and the heroes are generally tarnished, meaning they are real people, not idols.

I often wonder what conservatives are so hell-bent on conserving. Personally, I like progress.

Liam J said...

"People in Canadian history are just that. People, not myths. We lack larger-than-life figures, and I think that's a glaring gap for conservatives (and nationalists in general)."

Agreed, we really don't have a national myth. Though one could say that is part of our identity. I would also say that the geographical and ethnic diversity makes it difficult to pin us down.

In a way, our identity is really tied to how we think the rest of the world sees us, and not how we see ourselves.

laura k said...

Agreed, we really don't have a national myth. Though one could say that is part of our identity.

I think that's fair to say. It's a down-to-earth, human-sized image.

I would also say that the geographical and ethnic diversity makes it difficult to pin us down.

This is also true in the US, though largely ignored. The "typical American" is supposed to be a white person who lives in the suburbs and shops at Wal-Mart, but millions of Americans don't fit that mold.

laura k said...

Mould?

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

The "typical American" is supposed to be a white person who lives in the suburbs and shops at Wal-Mart

Well, I seem to remember Rob saying Canadian was just a bunch a regional identities.

Isn't America the same? You know the New Yorker, the Californian, and the Texan are all fairly unique cultures.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

I'm sorry if it seems we're picking on you Rob, but don't feel too down.

You managed to start a very interesting topic.

Rognar said...

It's all cool

barefoot hiker said...

Most of these are all examples of what I mean: helping someone else deal with adversity. It's why Canada is so well known for its role in international peacekeeping, as well.

Wow, nicely put, James. I think you've really put your finger on it.

barefoot hiker said...

People in Canadian history are just that. People, not myths. We lack larger-than-life figures, and I think that's a glaring gap for conservatives (and nationalists in general).

Yeah, it's funny. When Rob brought up the Founding Fathers and contrasted them to the Fathers of Confederation... it has me thinking about our respective national origins.

In the US, people took issue with a lack of say in their own government (specifically over issues of taxation), took up arms to defend their rights, and little by little, step by step, deepened the struggle until independence or utter subjugation were the only outcomes. It was a hard break. Serious issues, strong words, poetic statements of intent shouted into the wilderness. And it worked.

In Canada, a number of people who were worried about absorption into that same country, and the mutual barriers they were erecting to one another's trade that were needlessly crippling one and all, got together in Charlottetown, drank a lot, schmoozed, sang and danced to fiddle music, did a lot of backslapping and gladhanding, and put together a basic agreement. Slowly, totteringly, they spent a few years working out the details, sent the proposal to London, got it green lighted, and things went from there. Nothing huge, but it was the quiet founding of a nation and, in fact, the blueprint for how Britain dealt with and emancipated its colonies for the next hundred years. Maybe it's not a ripping good read that keeps you turning pages into the night, but it's had a huge impact on the lives of millions of people in dozens of very different countries. Why shouldn't we be proud of that, or at least point to it as a facet of our culture, just because it wouldn't make a script Mel Gibson would want to invest in? And I think that's the point in a nut shell. Rob is, it seems to me, the kind of person who has no time for history or culture that isn't celebrated by Hollywood, butter-flavoured, 70' wide and 30' high.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

Rob is, it seems to me, the kind of person who has no time for history or culture that isn't celebrated by Hollywood, butter-flavoured, 70' wide and 30' high.

I'll move in to shield Rob here....

That's not it at all. You're confusing romanticism about history with laziness. In fact, generally conservatives get in a huff about hollywood style portrayls of history.

I can understand the desire. The fact that I don't weight it with the same importance doesn't mean that its irrelevant.

Marnie said...

I was trying to sum up Canada a few years back, and a little incident in my neighbourhood gave me a good image: when it snows and nobody's been out to shovel yet, so you're walking on that bit of trampled snow in the middle of the sidewalk, and you see somebody coming towards you ... you'll step aside to let them have the path, and they'll do the same thing. Snow, self-effacement, and consideration of others' needs -- that's Canada right there, for me.

I agree that our geography and diversity make it hard to pin down an identity. I have the same problem with Toronto. "Everyone hates Toronto," right? We're supposed to be, what, cold? Busy? Selfish? Greedy? Maybe that's true for some finance types in the downtown core, but that's not what I see every day. We're just a collection of neighbourhoods, each with its own flavour, the way Canada (the US, perhaps every country) is a collection of cities and regions. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but darned if I can put my finger on what "the whole" looks like.

Wrye said...

Rob's point of view is not at all uncommon, and does draw on a well-established school of thought in Canada. I do disagree with it, though.

The thing about our identity is that it's hard to put a finger on: but I assure you, if you're overseas and among a group of people from different countries, the differences between us and Americans--AND everybody else-- become clearer, if harder to articulate.

One component is a Canadian sense of--humility isn't exactly the right word, but maybe "smallness" or "proportion". Perhaps this anaolgy will help. Think about American literature versus Canadian literature. In American Lit, yuou're more likely to see stories of man's triumphs over the environment. In Canadian literature, it's the environment that triumphs over man. In our bones, we have never forgotten that you can travel twenty miles out of most of our cities and vanish forever. You can die out there before you even reach the edge of cell-phone coverage.

Or consider the Canadian film "Last Night". As Roger Ebert put it,

On a talk show in Toronto, I was asked to define the difference between American and Canadian films, and said I could not. Another guest was Wayne Clarkson, the former director of the Toronto Film Festival. He said he could, and cited this film. "Sandra Oh goes into a grocery story to find a bottle of wine for dinner," he said.

"The store has been looted, but she finds two bottles still on the shelf. She takes them down, evaluates them, chooses one, and puts the other one politely back on the shelf. That's how you know it's a Canadian film."


thoughts?

James Redekop said...

Consider how Canadians view their "heros", compared to Americans. People like Washington and Lincoln are practically deified (just look at the Lincoln Memorial: it's a Roman temple!), and legends grow up around them ("I cannot tell a lie", born in a log cabin, etc).

Apart from his role as the first Prime Minister and a Father of Confederation, what's the best known fact about Sir John A. MacDonald? Probably that he was an alcoholic. He's rather more humanized than comperable US historical figures.

Anonymous said...

It's funny when I think about national identity. When I was very young, I had the strong belief that the United States was the moral high ground; the Vietnam war pretty much beat that out of me, but I kept a grudging respect for that country as one that at least _tries_ to keep the moral high ground until around the time I moved west of the Mississippi River. These days, if I think of any identity for the United States, it's a line from the SciFi book _Bill the Galactic Hero_; "it's always 'Bowb your buddy' week!"

I don't think I ever identified any particular mythic figures with the United States; Abraham Lincoln came close, but was dulled by having grandparents in Illinois, where Lincoln worship is pretty much the state religion.

What I think of when I (as an unwashed American) talk about Canada is that it's now the high moral ground, and that mainly because when the matter of same-sex marriage came up, you turned, as you almost always do, to the side of the angels. It's either that or trolleys, trolleybusses, and the old Canadian Northern electrification under Mount Royal.

Kyle_From_Ottawa said...

There is definitely something different though in recent years.

Canadian and U.S. culture is diverging, and most of us aren't concerned. We used to always try to get the Americans attention, and feel neglected. But in recent years, and especially since 'Dubya', we no longer really care what the Americans think of us anymore. In a sort of ironic that the same people who whined that we lacked a culture are now nearly having apoplexy that we aren't clinging to the leg of good ol' Uncle Sam. It's a profound shift, and it makes some people uneasy. The world is reorganizing and shifting allegiances again, something that doesn't happen often.

Still, I'm not so sure if it's because Canada is so much waddling off in its own direction, or that the U.S. shifted course and we didn't follow.

Speaking of which, I wonder if it's time to retire that term "leader of the free world". Dubya may be leading, but Canada is hardly the only one not following.

barefoot hiker said...

Speaking of which, I wonder if it's time to retire that term "leader of the free world". Dubya may be leading, but Canada is hardly the only one not following.

That's because Canadians are no longer free. How do I know this? Because Americans are free (carved in stone somewhere, I think), and anyone not reading from their playbook has lost the way. :)

The Free World just gets smaller all the time!

teflonjedi said...

We lack larger-than-life figures

I think we do have them...but they're tied up in sports, more often than not.

Living down here in Boston, I hear folks talking from time to time of "The Man Who Stopped Bobby Orr"...meaning Ken Dryden of course. They curse his name, but with a certain reverence. This is from non-Canadians, of course...but I think that we have heroes in the hockey arena that we don't have anywhere else. (Sorry, pun intended) Just think about the '72 series against the Soviets, or the 1987 Canada Cup ("Gretzky to Lemieux...Lemieux...scores!"). The hockey heroes are treated a little differently than the rest.

And yes, I too am showing the signs of "lack of hockey" syndrome...

Liam J said...

Let's not forget heroes like Terry Fox, Banting, Bethune.....

laura k said...

There are few expressions I hate more than "leader of the free world". Bleh. The President of the United States is the President of the United States. Period.

I vote yes to retiring it.

laura k said...

Well, I seem to remember Rob saying Canadian was just a bunch a regional identities.

Isn't America the same? You know the New Yorker, the Californian, and the Texan are all fairly unique cultures.


Yes indeedy. There is no "typical" American. Lifestyles and cultures vary widely.

I would always get frustrated at the huge differences between state laws. Even in one country, geography can be destiny. (As an abortion-rights activist, I was especially aware of this.)

I always felt like, is this one country or isn't it? If living in Utah is like living in a different country from New York, then what binds us all together?

laura k said...

when it snows and nobody's been out to shovel yet, so you're walking on that bit of trampled snow in the middle of the sidewalk, and you see somebody coming towards you ... you'll step aside to let them have the path, and they'll do the same thing. Snow, self-effacement, and consideration of others' needs -- that's Canada right there, for me.

Marnie, that is lovely. Truly. I'm quoting you, unless you tell me not to.

I have the same problem with Toronto. "Everyone hates Toronto," right? We're supposed to be, what, cold? Busy? Selfish? Greedy? Maybe that's true for some finance types in the downtown core, but that's not what I see every day. We're just a collection of neighbourhoods, each with its own flavour, the way Canada (the US, perhaps every country) is a collection of cities and regions. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts, but darned if I can put my finger on what "the whole" looks like.

New York City is the exact same. The stereotyped New Yorker exists, there are the Wall Street sharks, but the city is a collection of neighborhoods, many of them like small towns.

I guess when you look deeply enough at anything, easy definitions are elusive.

laura k said...

Still, I'm not so sure if it's because Canada is so much waddling off in its own direction, or that the U.S. shifted course and we didn't follow.

I vote for the latter, although Canada may be waddling, too, for all I know.

There, all caught up. :)

James Redekop said...

"The store has been looted, but she finds two bottles still on the shelf. She takes them down, evaluates them, chooses one, and puts the other one politely back on the shelf. That's how you know it's a Canadian film."

That sounds about right... Though the story surrounding that might be a little stranger. Remember, "Canadian film" includes Videodrome, Dead Ringers, Tales from the Gimli Hospital, Highway 66, Ginger Snaps, etc.

About 10 years ago, Toronto rock musician Nash the Slash did the soundtrack for a Canadian vampire film called Blood and Donuts -- which has to be the perfect name for a Canadian vampire film.

James Redekop said...

Oh, and I forgot that other famous ultra-low-budget Canadian vampire movie: Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter