Something About Hockey Fever More Energetic Opening
backpack nationalism
canadian identity & the american gypsy
anne stevenson ba msc
Over ten million Canadians tuned into the final men’s hockey game of the Salt Lake City Olympics in 2002, the highest rating for any sporting event ever in Canada.[1] The match between Canada and the United States marked not only an historical event in the world of hockey, but epitomized pervasive trends in the current construction of Canadian identity. Nationalism in popular contemporary culture – particularly among young adults – has been noticeably shifting towards one exemplified by antagonism towards our southern neighbours and flag-totting, sports-team nationalism. This newly emerging identity in the mass media has changed the way in which Canadians express their identity, and in doing so, has fundamentally altered the nature of that identity. Popular contemporary Canadian nationalism is full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Building on Barth’s notions of boundary maintenance, the construction of popular Canadian identity will be examined, including an emphasis on the role of the United States as a negative template for definition. This study will draw on a variety of sources, including television, print and electronic publishing. Following will be an analysis of how a new construction of identity has in turn affected the way in which many Canadians practice that identity. Evidence will demonstrate that prevailing trends have altered the way in which Canadians express their nationalism, and in doing so, undermined the very markers which define that identity.
Discussion of Canadian nationalism, as in most countries, is complicated by the multiple identities and affinities of its citizens. Most notably in Canada are issues related to First Nations People, French-Canadian culture, regional divides and immigrant communities. Each of these groups, as well as each individual, has a unique relation to the state and their status as a Canadian has a varying character and poignancy. For this analysis, however, discussions of ‘Canadian’ will pertain specifically to popular expressions of nationalism, as found in mass media and public celebrations. Since much of the media discussed is targeted at an approximately 17-29 age group, this paper can be viewed as pertaining specifically to this population segment, although broader trends will also be considered.
Though rarely framed as such, Canadian nationalism lends itself well to the methods of analysis used for ethnic groups. Ethnicity has generally been described by anthropologists as populations which share common culture and values, composes a field of interaction and communication, is identified by both itself and others as distinct, and is biologically self-perpetuating.[2] Aside from issues of reproduction (the link between lineage and nationality being especially ambiguous), Canadian nationalism satisfies these descriptors. Although the exact meaning of ‘Canadian values’ is contentious, it can be generalized that virtually all citizens conceive of a greater national character. Extensive social and communication networks exist throughout the country allowing for contact and exchange. Canadians are recognized internationally as a distinct population, and a majority of its inhabitants would identify as such.
Canadian identity, however, has changed drastically during its existence. At its very inception, Canadian nationalism was inextricably tied to loyalty to Britain. The proud proclamation of the country’s first Prime Minister gives a most striking example of this: “A British subject I was born, and a British subject I will die. With my utmost effort, with my last breath, will I oppose the ‘veiled treason’ which attempts by sordid means and mercenary proffers to lure our people from their allegiance.” Although the unique economic conditions of Canada no doubt played a significant role in this, [3] loyalty to Britain pervaded many aspects of Canadian identity. From the federal parliament building – “a less claustrophobic but no less rowdy clone of Westminster”[4] – to many societal norms, the strength of early Canadian identity was as strong as its ability to mimic that of Britain.
These notions of loyalty to Britain are almost wholly alien in contemporary expressions of Canadian nationalism. Starting shortly after the First World War, trade relations with Britain became less vital to Canada as commerce with the United States grew in its importance. [5] Along with the economic shift away from Britain came a cultural one as well; few Canadians continue to regard British markers as important to identity. In 1997, only 8% of Canadians responded correctly that the Queen was the Head of State, and only 11% named the Governor General.[6] When asked which system Canada’s governmental structure resembled, only 53% named the UK.[7] That Canadian identity is now independent of British cultural reference is well articulated by popular Canadian writer, Will Ferguson: “The Canadian sense of self is [not] so frail and delicate a bud that the only thing [protecting it] is an English lady in a funny hat…We are not…British. Or French. Or Void. We are something else. And the sooner we define this, the better.”[8]
This definition, however, has often eluded Canadians. The 1990s in particular posed a number of challenges to Canadian identity. Domestically, the Mohawk uprising in Oka in the very early years of the decade forced many Canadians to acknowledge the fault lines that ran beneath a supposedly united nation. The prominence of Quebec separatism throughout this time further underscored the divisive forces within Canadian society. The failure of the Meech Lake Accord was a most concrete demonstration of the lack of a common outlook. Internationally, the end of the Cold War marked a repositioning of geo-politics; the relevance of Canada’s ‘Western’ identity dissolved with the Soviet Union. Canada was also subject to the forces of emerging globalization trends. The challenges to national identity created by globalization have been widely analyzed, [9] and Canada was no exception to its effects.
The apparent tenuousness of Canadian identity has led many to conclude that it is not a particularly potent one; there have been frequent pronouncements that ‘Canadian nationalism’ is essentially an oxymoron.[10] Such sentiments were particularly visible among social scientists in the 1990s. At this time, many commentators were concerned with the lack of a cohesive national identity. An interesting progression can be noted in a series of books entitled A Passion for Identity. The books include a collection of works by various Canadian contributors, including both academics and artists, and are focused on exploring the dynamics of Canadian culture. Published first in 1986, two additional editions were released in 1992 and 1997. In the introduction to each volume, editor David Taras reflects on his changing perception of Canadian identity. When writing in 1986 he was convinced that the strength of the social bonds that kept Canada together were stronger than the forces pulling it apart. In 1992, he believed that Canada was beginning to lose its “sense of place.” By 1997, he proclaimed Canada to be “adrift in crisis,” unanchored in its identity and at a loss to define itself.[11]
Yet what was often overlooked by academics and commentators is that while the content of Canadian identity was shifting, the form of it was not; that is to say, the existence of a Canadian identity was rarely convincingly challenged. Indeed the very ubiquity of studies of ‘what it is to be Canadian’ attest to the persisting importance of that identification framework. Fredrik Barth’s consideration of ethnic groups offers considerable insight into this phenomenon. Breaking from tradition, Barth, in his introduction to a collection of essays in Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, sought to examine the mechanisms through which distinct identities are maintained despite the flow of personnel and the changing nature of cultural content. He insightfully articulates that what is consistent about ethnic groups is their boundaries, not their substance.[12] Barth’s analysis therefore focuses on the points of interaction between ethnic groups and the methods by which the borders are preserved.
Barth distinguishes two types of identity markers: overt signals and signs, as well as basic value orientations.[13] He notes that the choice of these idioms is often arbitrary in their relations to the ideology behind the identity being constructed, however are integral in dichotomizing one group from another.[14] This method of investigation is particularly well suited to an examination of Canadian nationalism; it has been both dynamic in its composition and relatively static in its borders. Although the relationship between the two countries has varied, America has persistently served as ‘the other’ against which Canadian identity is measured. Barth’s model of boundary maintenance is clearly demonstrated in contemporary popular nationalism.
In 1999, Molson’s released what was soon to become the iconoclastic “I am Canadian” ad campaign. A marketing review in the Globe & Mail offers a most eloquent description of the strategy: “[it] tries to build a connection between the [Molson] brand and Canadian pride, with a touch of anti-Americanism.”[15] The campaign was launched with what became known as Joe’s Rant. This commercial features actor Jeff Douglas standing at a podium with Canadian images projected on a screen behind him. He delivers the following statement:
“Hey. I'm not a lumberjack, or a fur trader, and I don't live in an igloo or eat blubber, or own a dog sled, and I don't know Jimmy, Sally or Suzy from Canada, although I'm certain they're really, really nice. I have a Prime Minister, not a President. I speak English and French, not American, and I pronounce it 'about', not 'a boot'. I can proudly sew my country's flag on my backpack. I believe in peacekeeping, not policing; diversity, not assimilation; and that the beaver is a truly proud and noble animal. A tuque is a hat, a chesterfield is a couch, and it is pronounced zed: not zee – zed!!' Canada is the second largest land mass! The first nation of hockey! And the best part of North America! My name is Joe!! And I am Canadian!”
Joe’s rant is interesting for a number of reasons and offers an excellent template for discussion on Canadian nationalism in recent years. The document is replete with examples of both signals and value orientation markers aimed at dichotomizing Canada from the United States. Overt signs of differentiation are employed repeatedly in this rant. As predicted by Barth, it is unclear why such things as winter ware, furniture and square acreage are chosen as markers of cultural distinctiveness, however they gain special significance through their selection.
Value orientation signals are also prominent in Joe’s Rant. Pride in Canada’s perceived role in international peacekeeping as well as cultural diversity is openly expressed. These two points demonstrate an understanding of a Canadian character that is fundamentally based on non-aggression and cultural acceptance. This is an essential point and will be revisited shortly.
An equally important aspect of Joe’s Rant is its treatment of the United States. The monologue is implicitly, yet absolutely clearly, directed towards Americans. As predicted by Barth, overt signals are those that are specifically distinct from the United States; diverging vocabulary and pronunciation are emphasized. The opening lines of the rant are a response to stereotypes that Canadians often feel Americans have towards them. Implied in these words is that citizens of the United States are ignorant – particularly of Canada – and especially self-centred in their understanding of the world. More direct characterizations of American value orientations are offered in the negative Canadian definition of self; Americans are considered as an international aggressor and intolerant of diversity. The centrality of Americans in Joe’s nationalist manifesto is undeniable.
Joe’s Rant was a massive advertising success. In 2001, it won the advertising industry’s Gold Quill Award, beating out the competition of 951 advertisers representing 17 countries. Many Canadian companies followed suit, recognizing that Canadian patriotism has significant currency. Evidence of the competitive edge offered by appealing to nationalism can be found in an Angus-Reid poll which examined Canadian’s e-commerce behaviour. Over 83% of respondents looked specifically for Canadian sites when browsing. Although economic factors such as tariffs and shipping & handling were noted as important determinants, 49% strongly agreed that they chose Canadian sites out of “patriotism.”[16] Obvious displays of their Canadian origin were therefore a benefit to these internet businesses.
The clothing company, AllMaple, is a business based squarely on appealing to nationalist sentiments. The store motto echoes ethnic movements of late: “For Canadians, by Canadians.”[17] Velocity FCC’s Canadian Clothing is another example. The company aims to design clothing that show Canadians are “confident, unique and, of course, proud.”[18] The apparel features prominent Canadian flags and slogans like “Proud.” Overt displays of nationalism have become the norm; with an identity based on pride in one’s country, it is only natural to display it. There has been a proliferation of “Canada Kicks Ass” paraphernalia and sewing flags to knapsacks is a very visible trend. In 2003, 68% of Canadians agreed strongly that the national flag was the most important symbol of Canadian identity; it won over national parks and hockey.[19]
Since the late 1990s, a profusion of anti-American sentiment also began to occur in the mass media, closely tied to the rise of Canadian nationalism. Granatstein, author of Yankees Go Home? argues that some form of anti-Americanism has persisted throughout the history of Canada. He traces this trend back to the earliest days of confederacy, following its course until the mid-1990s. At the time of writing in 1995, Granatstein concludes that anti-Americanism has ceased to be a potent force in Canadian society as a result of Canadians becoming increasingly like Americans with each passing day.[20]