Why Canada doesn’t need national identity
The concept is only imagined, Matthew McManus explains.
Justin Trudeau’s recent trip to India inspired a wave of commentary from across the ideological spectrum, with some critics arguing — based both on his wardrobe choices and his itinerary — that he was effectively demonstrating a lack of fidelity to Canada’s own national identity. Some connect this lack of fidelity to a deeper ignorance of, and even dismissal of, the very idea that Canada has a national identity.
It is easy to understand these kind of arguments. The idea of nationhood can help us understand who we are; not just as a people, but as individuals.
We are not islands; oftentimes our sense of self is formed in relation to those we see around us. The idea of a nation of people with whom we can personally identify — because they share our history and values — can stabilize our sense that this is where and with whom we belong. This might seem foundational to knowing who we ourselves are.
The problem with these claims is they present a romantic and sentimental vision of the nation. The nation is, as sociologist Benedict Anderson put it, an imagined community. It exists because many people believe it exists, not because there is anything like the nation in reality. And it is not entirely an innocent fantasy.
The romantic and sentimental visions of the nation given above presume that the nation is the product of a natural historical process of like-minded people coming together and establishing a state to codify and represent their history and values.
The truth is often far darker. In many cases, the state pre-existed the nation, and was heavily and even violently engaged in creating a vision of national identity. More often than not, this was based as much on who did not share our values and history, as on who did. People in the former category ended up at the receiving
The problem (is these claims) present a romantic and sentimental vision of the nation.
end of policies designed to marginalize and exclude them.
This is as true in Canada as it is anywhere else. The federal government was intensely involved in seizing Indigenous land to create a state centred on European values. Indigenous Peoples were deliberately juxtaposed against European Canadians to provide the latter with a sense of national superiority which justified the seizure of the northern half of this continent. Our national identity was forged in no small part by a state keen to contrast itself with what were then considered inferior people.
Fortunately we have moved on since. It is in this regard that Canada is exceptional and warrants praise.
We now recognize that Canada was founded by the three peoples: the French, British settlers, and Indigenous Peoples. More importantly, our post-1985 policy of liberal multiculturalism — while often deeply imperfect — enables a relatively broad social space for individuals to define their own identity in relation to a host of possibilities.
We are now exposed to a broader array of cultures and identities than ever. More often than not, this is understood in a negative way; we need to tolerate others in order to coexist peacefully to the extent possible. I would instead like to give this a positive spin.
The nation does not really exist, but individuals do. We are capable of thinking rationally about identity and, to a greater extent than any other creature, making decisions for ourselves about who we want to be.
The great philosopher Immanuel Kant once framed enlightenment as man’s emergence from the immature reverence for authority and tradition and the movement toward thinking for oneself.
We do not need and should not rely on the crutch of a national identity to know who we are.
What a multicultural country such as Canada offers is the opportunity to look at a variety of options, and for each of us to make that decision for themselves. We should see this as a blessing, and stop yearning for a romantic vision of the nation that was always based more on sentiment than a hard-eyed look at the past.