In light of Patrick and Josh's presentation and the weekly readings on Quebec identity, here's an interesting piece by Rachel Ariey-Jouglard that examines national identity in Quebec:
The nation is "the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time" (Anderson, 3). The existence of that nation, according to those who belong to it, is unquestionable. The nation is immutable, it has always existed and its members must impede its violation and ensure its future existence by putting it at the top of their priorities. But what is a nation exactly? This paper will to touch on some theoretical aspects of the nation through the case study of the Quebec nation. First, we will try to define a nation, in terms of the Quebec nation according to those who recognize it. We will also define terms related to the nation, such as nationalism and national identity. Then, we will look at the romanticism underlying the idea of the nation. This idea is interesting when applied to the Quebec nation, which only emerged during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s despite its roots being founded prior to then.. Then, we will look at the construction of Quebec’s national identity as defined in the 1960s - what this national identity attempts to create, and what it does create. Finally, we will study today’s notion of civic nation. The Quebec nation is currently undergoing great change, shifting towards a much more civic national identity. We will try to understand why the redefinition of the national identity is needed in the light of the multiplicity within the nation’s borders, and who benefits from such a redefinition. This will lead us to a critique of the concept of nation itself, which represses what Hardt and Negri (2000) call the multitude.
Nationalism and nation in the Quebec context
Quebec nationalism awakens in the 1960s with the Quiet Revolution (Gellner in Smith, 36). Former French-Canadians living within the borders of the province of Quebec, by considering themselves Quebeckers, wanted to break the subordination status imposed upon them by the English-Canadians. They proudly affirmed their specific culture and language (Ferretti, 69) and took control of the economy of the province through the creation of a Quebec welfare state. The government of Quebec became more than a mere government; it became equivalent to a modern interventionist state (Shöpflin, 299). The rallying cry of the newly born nation, "Maîtres chez nous," prompted by Jean Lesage and his Liberal Party, perfectly illustrates what Jan Penrose identifies as the three components of the nation: the people, the territory that these people occupy, and a mystical bond between the people and the place which merge the two other components into an "immutable whole" (Penrose 1994, 163).
A nation cannot be disassociated from nationalism. Indeed, the latter invents the former by making people with similar cultural traits who live in a similar place believe that these similarities are the most basic social bond that unites people (Gellner in Anderson, 6; Gellner, 3; Penrose 2002, 279). Moreover, nationalism develops the need for a representational state-like structure, a leadership with some degree of sovereignty who can assure the well-being of the nation (Gellner, 6). The nation and nationalism are invented, or, as Benedict Anderson prefers, imagined, because it is impossible for all members of a nation to know all the other members as well as the whole territory they belong to (Anderson, 6). However, this does not mean that the nation does not exist. Nationalism, on the contrary, "is one of the most powerful forces in the world,…the most widespread and popular ideology and movement" (Smith, 37).
The specificity of a nation defines its particular identity, an identity that stands apart from other national identities. Hardt and Negri define national identity as "a cultural, integrating identity, founded on a biological continuity of blood relations, a spatial continuity of territory, and linguistic commonality" (Hardt and Negri, 95). Although the essay will later show that Quebec national identity is not based on blood relations anymore, this description is accurate. One must remember that identity is always based on exclusion. It creates an "us" and an "Other", separating between qualified and unqualified bodies (Manning, xv). In the Quebec case, Canada is the "significant ‘Other’" who constantly plots against nationalist projects in Quebec (Juteau 2002b, 444). The next section will analyze the two components of national identity and the need of a state apparatus to protect this nation, bearing in mind the influence of the Other on the (re)definition of national identity.
The territory
The territory, for the nationalists, is much more than a mere piece of land. Indeed, it is a homeland, the home the people recognize as theirs and to which they are deeply emotionally attached. The territory’s longevity renders it natural to the eye of the people. Thus, even though the current borders of the Quebec territory were only achieved in 1927, the territory of Quebec came into being as soon as the first French settlers dwelled in New France. This territory, even if it has been greatly modified, was meant to nurture the Quebec nation. The territory becomes natural, given, intrinsically and spiritually connected to the people. This territory, however, is not only perceived as "time immemorial" (Smith in Penrose 2002, 281), it is also perceived as the guarantor of the nation’s history and future. Protecting and taking care of the land is therefore respecting and caring for the ancestors, while guaranteeing a thriving future for future generations to fulfill their dreams (Penrose 2002, 281, Salée 1995b, 263). In other words, it means securing the perpetuation of the nation (Salée 1995b, 263). Salée summarizes this idea:
Dans l’imaginaire collectif québécois, les limites frontalières du pays réel ne font aucun doute….Le territoire du Québec est un, indivisible et inaliénable. Patrie des ancêtres, sol d’une histoire à nulle autre pareille et source de promesses de lendemains prospères, il se pose en quelque sorte comme référent immuable et incorruptible de l’identité québécoise dans le temps et l’espace.
There is little doubt over the symbiotic relationship through time and space between the territory and the people, according to nationalists. It also is clear in the mind of nationalists that the control of their territory is essential. Indeed, whereas in the past, French Canadians would be subjected to the economic domination of American and English-Canadian interests (Ferreti, 80), by taking control of their territory through the Quebec state structure (Quebec 1997, 2), Quebecers could finally control their lives (Penrose 2002). Canada represents the major threat, thus becoming the dominant Other because it refuses to recognize the territory of the province as Quebec’s national territory (Winter 2007). Without such territorial control, the Quebec nation would disappear, and so would the people (Winter 2007). The people are therefore vital to the protection of their territory. They, however, are not only deeply emotionally involved with their territory, they also are attached to the other members of the nation, even though they will never know every one of them (Anderson, 7).
The "distinct" people
Quebec nationalists demand the recognition of their distinct status. The people, in every nation, are represented as a harmonious and homogenous group, sharing a certain common culture, language and set of practices who act with one voice, one will (Hardt and Negri, 103; Manning, xv; Hetcher, 23). Anderson speaks of a horizontal comradeship that unites all the members of the nation (Anderson, 7), a comradeship reinforced when the nation is attacked. The people would not necessarily kill but would be ready to die for the nation (Salée 1995b, 263; Anderson, 7). Being a member of the nation, for the people, is the most important belonging there can be (Malouuf, 19, Hetcher, 94). They feel a sincere love for each other, because they assure each other of the existence of a nation (Gellner, 11). To even mildly nationalists, it is essential to preserve the nation, language, and political institutions that outlive them-their culture (Manning, xv; Gellner 1997). As Arjun Appadurai underlines, the people may have short lives, but the nation has a long history (Appadurai, 163). Moreover, sharing this national identity is so important that any other kind of identity one can have-class, being part of a club, etc.-is subordinated to the national identity. In this hierarchy of identity, the national identity dominates the other identities and leads the people (Malouuf, 19). The people of the Quebec nation only recognized themselves as Quebecers in the 1960s. However, the roots of the Quebec nation, for the Quebec state and its people, can be found all throughout history since the establishment of settlers in New France. The national identity did not stay the same over the years. It has evolved to complement the changing reality. One can identify three main changes to Quebec national identity, all of them occurring in response to the Other’s actions. Butler points out that identity cannot be thought outside or beyond power relations (Butler, 30). In the 1960s, at the awakening of the Quebec nation, national identity was more ethnically defined than it is today (Juteau 2002b, 443). Indeed, only French Canadians who shared a same history and who shared the dream of achieving modernity as well as political sovereignty were included (Juteau 2002b, 443). After the defeat of the referendum in 1980, the national identity strives towards including non-Francophones in its definition. This is a result of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Canada, which placed emphasis on the rights of minorities. Indeed, Quebeckers did not want to be perceived as antidemocratic and ethnocentrist (Beauchemin 2002, 263-4). Moreover, because of the lowering birth rate of former French-Canadians and the boost of the economy, the need for immigrants increased (Beauchemin 2002, 165). The majority tried to assimilate them, which failed as the 1995 referendum showed (Juteau 2002b, 447). Since then, the Quebec national identity is constantly debated. However, most would agree to say that nationalism in the Quebec context is much more civic.
The Quebec state
The state is an integral part of the nationalist’s "dream of being free" (Anderson, 7). The attachment to the nation and its identity compels the people to proclaim the existence of their nation because its survival depends on it. Anderson believes that "the gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state" (Anderson, 7). Penrose adds some nuance to this argument when she explains that state sovereignty can take different forms. Therefore, state sovereignty would not necessarily mean the creation of a new nation-state with a seat at the United Nations. It implies a state structure, or its equivalent, with enough autonomy to follow the people’s will to keep the nation alive (Penrose 2002). This second explanation seems more accurate in the Quebec case since not all nationalists, even among the separatists, have the same view of what would be the best way to assure the survival of the nation (Laponce, 192; Winter, 495). Erin Manning acknowledges the importance of sovereignty: This language of the nation is characterized, alternately, by a desire to naturalize a cohesive sense of identity and territory through official cultural and political texts that depict the nation as a harmonious entity, and by the lawful enforcement of the discourse of state sovereignty as the guarantor of liberty, equality, and fraternity. (Erin Manning, xv)
The people have faith in the Quebec state structure, and strongly believe that the state will enhance the people’s well-being. National identity remains the most important reference in terms of identity. Even if national identity is always vaguely defined and it constantly adjusts itself to the reality in order to include more people-the more people, the stronger the nation (Schöpflin, 302) - it still is a very powerful and positive force for the people. It constructs deep emotional links between the people and the safe place. It also generates a strong attachment to the state, and a hope in it as it is the guarantor of the nation’s security. However, national identity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, much love resides among those who belong. On the other hand, exclusionary violence can be exerted over the Other, those who do not belong. Indeed, national identity creates a standardization of an overarching identity, which creates many borders and categorizations. The next section will identify the pitfalls of national identity.
Pitfalls of national identity
The distinctiveness of the nation is embedded in the exclusion of the Other, and arises from the existence of shared culture, language and practices that differs from the Other’s. (Hetcher, 23). The dominant Other, throughout Quebec’s history, has been Canada. However, as it will be shown, the scope of exclusion is much wider than one would initially think. The limits of national identity have been organized into three main groups- selective history, limits to membership, restrictive definition of identity-that will be analyzed individually.
Selective history
Ernest Renan, in 1882, proclaimed that a selective history is essential in order to forge a solid nation which will survive across the ages. Or l’essence d’une nation est que tous les individus aient beaucoup de choses en commun, et aussi que tous aient oublié bien des choses. Aucun citoyen français ne sait s’il est burgonde, alain, taïfale, visigoth ; tout citoyen français doit avoir oublié la Saint-Barthélemy, les massacres du Midi au XIII e siècle ( Renan, 353).
On the one hand, he lauds the glorification of major historical events that creates the nation. On the other, he promotes the censorship of non-glorious events, even though they are at the heart of nation-building. Quebecers are proud of the Quiet Revolution, a major historical event during which Quebec made its entrée into modernity. This period coincided with the birth of the Quebec nation, the affirmation of the Quebec province as the homeland for Quebecers, and the dawn of the welfare-and employer-state (Ferretti, 77). Yet, some authors, such as Daniel Latouche and Ralph Güntzel, are more skeptical about the extent of the "revolution" (Latouche 1974; Güntzel 2001). They deconstruct the original myth by showing how the government did not significantly become more responsible towards its people and how many workers were facing problems with the employer-state (Latouche 1974; Güntzel 2001). Moreover, the period preceding the Quiet Revolution, during which le petit peuple québécois was under the yoke of the Catholic Church and the industrial sector of its economy was under the control of foreigners-Americans or English-Canadians-is depicted as a dark age during which Quebecers became backwards (Mathieu 2002). However, most forget that it is during those years that national identity developpped in Quebec. Indeed, people living in Quebec began to envision the province as their homeland, largely as a result of the Catholic Church refusing to allow conversion to Protestantism (Hossay, 189). Moreover, it is because of the commonality of the Catholic religion that many Irish supported the French-Canadians in their various struggles towards greater state sovereignty (Hossay, 163).
A nation’s history is always based on lack of memory (oubli) and romanticism. It distorts the reality, which entails that many historical actors, other than the main "we" and "them" are forgotten or their role becomes minimal. One can think of the Aboriginal people, the Irish and black communities as potent examples.
Limits to membership
The notion of nation, as demonstrated earlier, is inherently connected to the notion of territory. But the territory is determined by borders, natural or manmade. This means, therefore, that there always is a demarcation between those who are on the territory-and who should belong to the nation-and those who do not belong (Manning 2003). The most obvious limit to the membership of nation is the Other. The Other, that is to say "the rest of Canada", is also represented as a homogenous group who oppresses the Quebec nation. The Other is therefore excluded from any form of membership. The irony here is that without the Other, there would be no "us". Indeed, the Other is an integral part of who the "we" is since the "we" is more often than not defined in terms of opposition to the most threatening Other (Winter, 483). The two cultures are not insular; they influenced and partly defined each other. In spite of this clear, "natural" territorial and cultural demarcation between the "we" and the Other, one can easily detect the (normal) "abnormalities" to a such clear-cut model. First, there are the ones who could belong but do not because they live outside the borders of Quebec. This is the case of the French-Canadians outside Quebec who are refused membership for purely territorial reasons, although they share a close history, culture and language as the Quebecers’ (Taylor 2000). Second, there are some who live within the borders of Quebec but do not feel any attachment to the Quebec nation-this does not mean, however, that they do not want to live within the territory of Quebec, but they identify themselves with another nation, Canadian or Aboriginal. The nation, through the redefinition of national identity, constantly tries to include all of those who live on the territory within the nation so that no others will exit from the territory (Penrose 2002, 279). However, it is clear that some others within remain: most English-speaking Quebecers identify themselves primarily to the Canadian nation, most Aboriginal people with their respective nation.
The Quebec state has tried to integrate them, and, facing their resistance, they used "pressure release valves" which appeased them-or satisfied the majority of the people. Thus, in the 2007 Consultation document of the Commission sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, the co-chairs of the commission, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor clarify the mandate of the commission:
…To avoid any ambiguity [surrounding the mandate of the commission], we wish to specify that, even if our deliberations led us to re-examine Québec society’s integration model, the English-speaking minority’s particular status in Québec need not be called into question. Rights and prerogatives, e.g. the right to public services in the English language guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution must be respected. Furthermore, the National Assembly has already recognized that "there exists a Québec English-speaking community that enjoys long-established rights." Similarly, we are not contemplating reconsidering in any way whatsoever the political and legal status of the aboriginal peoples. Once again, the Québec National Assembly has recognized the existence of the nations living within Québec’s borders and their specific rights. (Quebec 2007, 3-4)
The social tensions that still occur between the minorities and the majorities, those related to the growing overt Aboriginal dissidence for instance, can and are easily discarded for the sake of the "smoothness" of national identity because those minorities do not represent a threat to the majority (Woehrling, 195).
National identity attempts to create a black and white world, which does not match with reality. Exposed in this paper are just a few examples of how reality overtakes ideologies. These phenomena, however, are not particular to the Quebec case. Indeed, all constructions of a national identity create similar problems. Canada, for example, also uses the "pressure release valves" in order to refute the need of a Quebec nation as protector of the French language. For instance, Canada recognizes French-Canadians as people from one of the two founding nations and promotes multiculturalism in order to preempt Quebec nationalism (Mathieu 2002; Winter 2007). The national identity limits the definition of identity and what the members of a nation can want and do.
Restrictive identity
The notion of national identity is restrictive in the sense that identity is defined in territorial and singular terms.. If it does accept, to some extent, other forms of belonging, it is clear that national identity will always take precedence over any other identity. Men find themselves members of different groups at the same time. With the growth of the complexity of civilization, the number of groups of which men find themselves a part generally increases. These groups are not fixed. They have changing limits, and they are changing importance. Within these pluralistic, and sometimes conflicting, kinds of group-consciousness there is generally one which is recognized by men as the supreme and most important, to which therefore, in the case of conflict of group-loyalties, he owes supreme loyalty. He identifies himself with the groups and its existence, frequently not only for the span of his life, but for the continuity of his existence beyond his span. The feeling of solidarity between the individual and the group may go, at certain time, as far as complete submergence of the individual in the group (Kohn in Hetcher, 94-5). However, growing numbers of diasporas challenge the supremacy of the homogenizing definition of national identity. Indeed, they belong to multiple nations. Choosing between one or the other is impossible. Still, this either/or choice is imposed upon them. Either they fully belong or they do not belong (Malouuf, 44). But diasporas do not face this problem alone. One could think of all the "frontiers" people, who, for a reason or another, share contradictory belongings to Canada and Quebec (Malouuf, 44-5). When he or she does not choose one identity over the other-and risk being rejected by the one he doesn’t choose-, he or she is often rejected by all of his national identities (Malouuf, 44-6). This causes a deep, unsolvable dilemma.
The restrictiveness of national identity is most evident with diasporas. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the people, who belong to the same nation, necessarily have much in common, or face the same reality as the other members of the nation. National identity creates a mould with some of the nation’s characteristics, as if they were inborn (Malouuf, 31). However, Butler inquires as to what extent identity is a normative ideal rather than a descriptive feature of experience (Butler, 16). Regarding gender, Butler shows how no one is born a woman but rather becomes one (Butler, 33). People are compelled to correspond to a unique and territorial definition of national identity which has previously been determined. Yet every person is composed of many belongings, many of them having nothing to do with a territory or a nation (Malouuf, 23-5). Each person constitutes a multitude that the nation successfully turns into an anonymous member of a greater, synthetic, homogenous people (Hardt and Negri, 103). National identity, on the one hand, creates love between those who recognize themselves in it. On the other hand, however, it creates much exclusionary violence, outside as well as within. The differences within a nation cannot be ignored anymore. It seems more and more like national identity, because it is imposed upon the people rather than coming from them, is irrelevant. The Quebec state is slowly transforming national identity towards a more inclusive, pluralistic, civic, or anti-nationalist, nationalism.
The civic nation as the new ideal
The civic nation is one that is based more on territory than on ethnic terms. The member becomes a citizen, with certain rights that he can expect to be respected (Juteau 2002a). For a long time, Quebec was depicted as racist because it did not, like Canada, base the definition of its nation on liberal values such as democracy, pluralism, equality, individualism, and a market-based economy (Winter, 482). However, the Quebec nation has changed significantly in recent years, and it is clearly a much more inclusive nation (Winter, 482). The new political ethic of the nation is based on human rights, equality and democracy (Taylor, 41). This does not mean, however, that the French language and the history of the Quebec nation are put aside. On the contrary, they remain central to the new definition of its national identity (Taylor, 41). This road of ‘interculturalism’ has been adopted by the Quebec state and the different political parties (Cook, 24; Gagnon and Iacovino, 2004). The Commission sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, launched by the Parti Libéral Québécois is based on this principle. Bill 195, the "Law on Quebec identity" presented to the Quebec National Assembly by Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Québécois, explicitly leans towards a more civic definition of the nation, one closer to Canada’s definition of the nation (Cook, 24). Even though this civic nation seems more inclusive, within it lies an inherent problem: it still reproduces a national identity. But national identity, as we have seen earlier, is intrinsically based on exclusion. Appadurai reflects the new type of exclusion engendered from modern nations: [The leaders of modern nations] rested their ideas of their new nations on the very edges of the paradox that modern nations were intended to be somehow open, universal, and emancipatory by virtue of their special commitment to citizenly virtue but that their nations were nonetheless, in some essential way, different from and even better than other nations (Appadurai, 162). Kropotkin’s criticism of the state becomes very useful. He observed that under the Third Republic in France the essence of the monarchical order remained; he concludes that trying to work within a system that existed historically and had a life of its own-the state apparatus-would only result in the cooptation, voluntary or not, of those Republicans. Sincere Republicans nourished the illusion that the State organisation could be utilised to operate a change in a republican sense; and here is the result. When they ought to have destroyed the old organisation, destroyed the State, and constructed a new organisation by beginning at the very basis of society…they thought to utilise "the organisation that already existed." And for not having understood that you cannot make an historical institution go in any direction you would have it, that it must go its own way, they were swallowed up by the institution. (Kropotkin 1947, 42 - emphasis added) Applied to national identity, this means that no matter how a nation is transformed, as long as it is, humanity will be divided, the violence will continue. Why try to maintain this façade of unity? Why not try to go "beyond" the ideal of a single territorial allegiance, of a single national identity? Could the nation not be this spiritual horizontal comradeship? Whose interests does it serve?
Whose interests?
According to Hardt and Negri, the nation is just "another turn of the screw", another way for the sovereign-the bourgeoisie-to fulfill its own selfish interests (Hardt and Negri, 102). Through the spirituality between the different components of the nation, the elite was and still is able to exercise a totalizing power (Hardt and Negri, 101). This means that the people are controlled, sometimes with consent, through biopolitics: the new political, bureaucratic and capitalist elite, with the help of the intelligentsia were able to convince the bulk of the population to follow them in their quest for modernity (Juteau 2002a, 203; Hardt and Negri, 109). In the case of the Quebec nation, feeding their revolution by the real frustration felt by the urban population, the capitalist bourgeoisie, unhappy with its inferior status compared to that of the Anglophone capitalist elite and the intelligentsia, pursue their own goal (Ferretti 1999). The bourgeois nationalism (Anderson 1991) was able to create and define a new identity based on entrepreneurial successes. What Quebecer is not proud of Hydro-Québec, the Cirque du Soleil, Bombardier (Arpin, 264-8)? The territory is perceived as "natural" by the people, but really, it is a great source of wealth that the elite are not ready to share with, for instance, Aboriginal people (Salée 1995b, 265). Most do not realize this bourgeois nationalism. And those who do are incapacitated by the lack of will of the population. For example, in the early 1970s, two of the three dominant unions in Quebec were denouncing the state that was only defending the interests of the capitalist class (Güntzel, 155). In 1972, the CEQ (Centrale de l’enseignement du Québec) adopted a manifesto in which they denounced the modern-capitalist-society as "an exploitive society where all the dominant classes, and their servile servant, the state, exploit men’s work and the needs of the consumers in order to increase their profits and their power" (Güntzel, 155, translated from French). However, most workers, trusting the welfare-state, were not interested by the politicization of their unions (Güntzel, 156). The totalizing power of the sovereign has shown its effect. Anderson’s horizontal comradeship looks more like a pyramidal structure dominated by the hegemony of the bourgeoisie (Güntzel, 157).
Conclusion
Nations and nationalism, however imagined, are the most powerful source of identity today. They bond a people to a specific territory as well as to each other. This bond is often described as spiritual or even God-given. The state supervises as well as insures the survival of the nation and constantly ignites nationalist consciousness in the people. The national identity links all these elements together into what appears to be an immutable whole. One must not forget, however, that nationalism is not natural. It has been constructed in response to power relations that are being downplayed. Thus, the traditionally ethnically-defined national identity of the Quebec nation has moved toward being more open, rights-based, and civic. Nevertheless, such openness is never fully realized. Indeed, the identity itself is based on the rejection or the negation of "others", and, in Quebec’s case, in opposition to Canada, the dominant Other. Although it is clear that the reality does not match this clear-cut national identity-even as it is changing-, states persist in preserving these overarching concepts. Indeed, the elite, who control the state-in Quebec’s as well as any other case-gains much power from doing so. Because states continue to ground their power on exclusionary identities, they therefore encourage and engender constant violence, whether overt or covert. This is why we must challenge the geography of nation-states. Identities are not fixed nor are they singularly defined. Instead of trying to divide humanity on these imagined nations, it will achieve much more, and will be much more secure if the principal of mutual aid as defined by Peter Kropotkin was applied.
Source:http://culturalshifts.com/archives/337
YOUR THOUGHTS?
The nation is "the most universally legitimate value in the political life of our time" (Anderson, 3). The existence of that nation, according to those who belong to it, is unquestionable. The nation is immutable, it has always existed and its members must impede its violation and ensure its future existence by putting it at the top of their priorities. But what is a nation exactly? This paper will to touch on some theoretical aspects of the nation through the case study of the Quebec nation. First, we will try to define a nation, in terms of the Quebec nation according to those who recognize it. We will also define terms related to the nation, such as nationalism and national identity. Then, we will look at the romanticism underlying the idea of the nation. This idea is interesting when applied to the Quebec nation, which only emerged during the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s despite its roots being founded prior to then.. Then, we will look at the construction of Quebec’s national identity as defined in the 1960s - what this national identity attempts to create, and what it does create. Finally, we will study today’s notion of civic nation. The Quebec nation is currently undergoing great change, shifting towards a much more civic national identity. We will try to understand why the redefinition of the national identity is needed in the light of the multiplicity within the nation’s borders, and who benefits from such a redefinition. This will lead us to a critique of the concept of nation itself, which represses what Hardt and Negri (2000) call the multitude.
Nationalism and nation in the Quebec context
Quebec nationalism awakens in the 1960s with the Quiet Revolution (Gellner in Smith, 36). Former French-Canadians living within the borders of the province of Quebec, by considering themselves Quebeckers, wanted to break the subordination status imposed upon them by the English-Canadians. They proudly affirmed their specific culture and language (Ferretti, 69) and took control of the economy of the province through the creation of a Quebec welfare state. The government of Quebec became more than a mere government; it became equivalent to a modern interventionist state (Shöpflin, 299). The rallying cry of the newly born nation, "Maîtres chez nous," prompted by Jean Lesage and his Liberal Party, perfectly illustrates what Jan Penrose identifies as the three components of the nation: the people, the territory that these people occupy, and a mystical bond between the people and the place which merge the two other components into an "immutable whole" (Penrose 1994, 163).
A nation cannot be disassociated from nationalism. Indeed, the latter invents the former by making people with similar cultural traits who live in a similar place believe that these similarities are the most basic social bond that unites people (Gellner in Anderson, 6; Gellner, 3; Penrose 2002, 279). Moreover, nationalism develops the need for a representational state-like structure, a leadership with some degree of sovereignty who can assure the well-being of the nation (Gellner, 6). The nation and nationalism are invented, or, as Benedict Anderson prefers, imagined, because it is impossible for all members of a nation to know all the other members as well as the whole territory they belong to (Anderson, 6). However, this does not mean that the nation does not exist. Nationalism, on the contrary, "is one of the most powerful forces in the world,…the most widespread and popular ideology and movement" (Smith, 37).
The specificity of a nation defines its particular identity, an identity that stands apart from other national identities. Hardt and Negri define national identity as "a cultural, integrating identity, founded on a biological continuity of blood relations, a spatial continuity of territory, and linguistic commonality" (Hardt and Negri, 95). Although the essay will later show that Quebec national identity is not based on blood relations anymore, this description is accurate. One must remember that identity is always based on exclusion. It creates an "us" and an "Other", separating between qualified and unqualified bodies (Manning, xv). In the Quebec case, Canada is the "significant ‘Other’" who constantly plots against nationalist projects in Quebec (Juteau 2002b, 444). The next section will analyze the two components of national identity and the need of a state apparatus to protect this nation, bearing in mind the influence of the Other on the (re)definition of national identity.
The territory
The territory, for the nationalists, is much more than a mere piece of land. Indeed, it is a homeland, the home the people recognize as theirs and to which they are deeply emotionally attached. The territory’s longevity renders it natural to the eye of the people. Thus, even though the current borders of the Quebec territory were only achieved in 1927, the territory of Quebec came into being as soon as the first French settlers dwelled in New France. This territory, even if it has been greatly modified, was meant to nurture the Quebec nation. The territory becomes natural, given, intrinsically and spiritually connected to the people. This territory, however, is not only perceived as "time immemorial" (Smith in Penrose 2002, 281), it is also perceived as the guarantor of the nation’s history and future. Protecting and taking care of the land is therefore respecting and caring for the ancestors, while guaranteeing a thriving future for future generations to fulfill their dreams (Penrose 2002, 281, Salée 1995b, 263). In other words, it means securing the perpetuation of the nation (Salée 1995b, 263). Salée summarizes this idea:
Dans l’imaginaire collectif québécois, les limites frontalières du pays réel ne font aucun doute….Le territoire du Québec est un, indivisible et inaliénable. Patrie des ancêtres, sol d’une histoire à nulle autre pareille et source de promesses de lendemains prospères, il se pose en quelque sorte comme référent immuable et incorruptible de l’identité québécoise dans le temps et l’espace.
There is little doubt over the symbiotic relationship through time and space between the territory and the people, according to nationalists. It also is clear in the mind of nationalists that the control of their territory is essential. Indeed, whereas in the past, French Canadians would be subjected to the economic domination of American and English-Canadian interests (Ferreti, 80), by taking control of their territory through the Quebec state structure (Quebec 1997, 2), Quebecers could finally control their lives (Penrose 2002). Canada represents the major threat, thus becoming the dominant Other because it refuses to recognize the territory of the province as Quebec’s national territory (Winter 2007). Without such territorial control, the Quebec nation would disappear, and so would the people (Winter 2007). The people are therefore vital to the protection of their territory. They, however, are not only deeply emotionally involved with their territory, they also are attached to the other members of the nation, even though they will never know every one of them (Anderson, 7).
The "distinct" people
Quebec nationalists demand the recognition of their distinct status. The people, in every nation, are represented as a harmonious and homogenous group, sharing a certain common culture, language and set of practices who act with one voice, one will (Hardt and Negri, 103; Manning, xv; Hetcher, 23). Anderson speaks of a horizontal comradeship that unites all the members of the nation (Anderson, 7), a comradeship reinforced when the nation is attacked. The people would not necessarily kill but would be ready to die for the nation (Salée 1995b, 263; Anderson, 7). Being a member of the nation, for the people, is the most important belonging there can be (Malouuf, 19, Hetcher, 94). They feel a sincere love for each other, because they assure each other of the existence of a nation (Gellner, 11). To even mildly nationalists, it is essential to preserve the nation, language, and political institutions that outlive them-their culture (Manning, xv; Gellner 1997). As Arjun Appadurai underlines, the people may have short lives, but the nation has a long history (Appadurai, 163). Moreover, sharing this national identity is so important that any other kind of identity one can have-class, being part of a club, etc.-is subordinated to the national identity. In this hierarchy of identity, the national identity dominates the other identities and leads the people (Malouuf, 19). The people of the Quebec nation only recognized themselves as Quebecers in the 1960s. However, the roots of the Quebec nation, for the Quebec state and its people, can be found all throughout history since the establishment of settlers in New France. The national identity did not stay the same over the years. It has evolved to complement the changing reality. One can identify three main changes to Quebec national identity, all of them occurring in response to the Other’s actions. Butler points out that identity cannot be thought outside or beyond power relations (Butler, 30). In the 1960s, at the awakening of the Quebec nation, national identity was more ethnically defined than it is today (Juteau 2002b, 443). Indeed, only French Canadians who shared a same history and who shared the dream of achieving modernity as well as political sovereignty were included (Juteau 2002b, 443). After the defeat of the referendum in 1980, the national identity strives towards including non-Francophones in its definition. This is a result of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by Canada, which placed emphasis on the rights of minorities. Indeed, Quebeckers did not want to be perceived as antidemocratic and ethnocentrist (Beauchemin 2002, 263-4). Moreover, because of the lowering birth rate of former French-Canadians and the boost of the economy, the need for immigrants increased (Beauchemin 2002, 165). The majority tried to assimilate them, which failed as the 1995 referendum showed (Juteau 2002b, 447). Since then, the Quebec national identity is constantly debated. However, most would agree to say that nationalism in the Quebec context is much more civic.
The Quebec state
The state is an integral part of the nationalist’s "dream of being free" (Anderson, 7). The attachment to the nation and its identity compels the people to proclaim the existence of their nation because its survival depends on it. Anderson believes that "the gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state" (Anderson, 7). Penrose adds some nuance to this argument when she explains that state sovereignty can take different forms. Therefore, state sovereignty would not necessarily mean the creation of a new nation-state with a seat at the United Nations. It implies a state structure, or its equivalent, with enough autonomy to follow the people’s will to keep the nation alive (Penrose 2002). This second explanation seems more accurate in the Quebec case since not all nationalists, even among the separatists, have the same view of what would be the best way to assure the survival of the nation (Laponce, 192; Winter, 495). Erin Manning acknowledges the importance of sovereignty: This language of the nation is characterized, alternately, by a desire to naturalize a cohesive sense of identity and territory through official cultural and political texts that depict the nation as a harmonious entity, and by the lawful enforcement of the discourse of state sovereignty as the guarantor of liberty, equality, and fraternity. (Erin Manning, xv)
The people have faith in the Quebec state structure, and strongly believe that the state will enhance the people’s well-being. National identity remains the most important reference in terms of identity. Even if national identity is always vaguely defined and it constantly adjusts itself to the reality in order to include more people-the more people, the stronger the nation (Schöpflin, 302) - it still is a very powerful and positive force for the people. It constructs deep emotional links between the people and the safe place. It also generates a strong attachment to the state, and a hope in it as it is the guarantor of the nation’s security. However, national identity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, much love resides among those who belong. On the other hand, exclusionary violence can be exerted over the Other, those who do not belong. Indeed, national identity creates a standardization of an overarching identity, which creates many borders and categorizations. The next section will identify the pitfalls of national identity.
Pitfalls of national identity
The distinctiveness of the nation is embedded in the exclusion of the Other, and arises from the existence of shared culture, language and practices that differs from the Other’s. (Hetcher, 23). The dominant Other, throughout Quebec’s history, has been Canada. However, as it will be shown, the scope of exclusion is much wider than one would initially think. The limits of national identity have been organized into three main groups- selective history, limits to membership, restrictive definition of identity-that will be analyzed individually.
Selective history
Ernest Renan, in 1882, proclaimed that a selective history is essential in order to forge a solid nation which will survive across the ages. Or l’essence d’une nation est que tous les individus aient beaucoup de choses en commun, et aussi que tous aient oublié bien des choses. Aucun citoyen français ne sait s’il est burgonde, alain, taïfale, visigoth ; tout citoyen français doit avoir oublié la Saint-Barthélemy, les massacres du Midi au XIII e siècle ( Renan, 353).
On the one hand, he lauds the glorification of major historical events that creates the nation. On the other, he promotes the censorship of non-glorious events, even though they are at the heart of nation-building. Quebecers are proud of the Quiet Revolution, a major historical event during which Quebec made its entrée into modernity. This period coincided with the birth of the Quebec nation, the affirmation of the Quebec province as the homeland for Quebecers, and the dawn of the welfare-and employer-state (Ferretti, 77). Yet, some authors, such as Daniel Latouche and Ralph Güntzel, are more skeptical about the extent of the "revolution" (Latouche 1974; Güntzel 2001). They deconstruct the original myth by showing how the government did not significantly become more responsible towards its people and how many workers were facing problems with the employer-state (Latouche 1974; Güntzel 2001). Moreover, the period preceding the Quiet Revolution, during which le petit peuple québécois was under the yoke of the Catholic Church and the industrial sector of its economy was under the control of foreigners-Americans or English-Canadians-is depicted as a dark age during which Quebecers became backwards (Mathieu 2002). However, most forget that it is during those years that national identity developpped in Quebec. Indeed, people living in Quebec began to envision the province as their homeland, largely as a result of the Catholic Church refusing to allow conversion to Protestantism (Hossay, 189). Moreover, it is because of the commonality of the Catholic religion that many Irish supported the French-Canadians in their various struggles towards greater state sovereignty (Hossay, 163).
A nation’s history is always based on lack of memory (oubli) and romanticism. It distorts the reality, which entails that many historical actors, other than the main "we" and "them" are forgotten or their role becomes minimal. One can think of the Aboriginal people, the Irish and black communities as potent examples.
Limits to membership
The notion of nation, as demonstrated earlier, is inherently connected to the notion of territory. But the territory is determined by borders, natural or manmade. This means, therefore, that there always is a demarcation between those who are on the territory-and who should belong to the nation-and those who do not belong (Manning 2003). The most obvious limit to the membership of nation is the Other. The Other, that is to say "the rest of Canada", is also represented as a homogenous group who oppresses the Quebec nation. The Other is therefore excluded from any form of membership. The irony here is that without the Other, there would be no "us". Indeed, the Other is an integral part of who the "we" is since the "we" is more often than not defined in terms of opposition to the most threatening Other (Winter, 483). The two cultures are not insular; they influenced and partly defined each other. In spite of this clear, "natural" territorial and cultural demarcation between the "we" and the Other, one can easily detect the (normal) "abnormalities" to a such clear-cut model. First, there are the ones who could belong but do not because they live outside the borders of Quebec. This is the case of the French-Canadians outside Quebec who are refused membership for purely territorial reasons, although they share a close history, culture and language as the Quebecers’ (Taylor 2000). Second, there are some who live within the borders of Quebec but do not feel any attachment to the Quebec nation-this does not mean, however, that they do not want to live within the territory of Quebec, but they identify themselves with another nation, Canadian or Aboriginal. The nation, through the redefinition of national identity, constantly tries to include all of those who live on the territory within the nation so that no others will exit from the territory (Penrose 2002, 279). However, it is clear that some others within remain: most English-speaking Quebecers identify themselves primarily to the Canadian nation, most Aboriginal people with their respective nation.
The Quebec state has tried to integrate them, and, facing their resistance, they used "pressure release valves" which appeased them-or satisfied the majority of the people. Thus, in the 2007 Consultation document of the Commission sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, the co-chairs of the commission, Gérard Bouchard and Charles Taylor clarify the mandate of the commission:
…To avoid any ambiguity [surrounding the mandate of the commission], we wish to specify that, even if our deliberations led us to re-examine Québec society’s integration model, the English-speaking minority’s particular status in Québec need not be called into question. Rights and prerogatives, e.g. the right to public services in the English language guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution must be respected. Furthermore, the National Assembly has already recognized that "there exists a Québec English-speaking community that enjoys long-established rights." Similarly, we are not contemplating reconsidering in any way whatsoever the political and legal status of the aboriginal peoples. Once again, the Québec National Assembly has recognized the existence of the nations living within Québec’s borders and their specific rights. (Quebec 2007, 3-4)
The social tensions that still occur between the minorities and the majorities, those related to the growing overt Aboriginal dissidence for instance, can and are easily discarded for the sake of the "smoothness" of national identity because those minorities do not represent a threat to the majority (Woehrling, 195).
National identity attempts to create a black and white world, which does not match with reality. Exposed in this paper are just a few examples of how reality overtakes ideologies. These phenomena, however, are not particular to the Quebec case. Indeed, all constructions of a national identity create similar problems. Canada, for example, also uses the "pressure release valves" in order to refute the need of a Quebec nation as protector of the French language. For instance, Canada recognizes French-Canadians as people from one of the two founding nations and promotes multiculturalism in order to preempt Quebec nationalism (Mathieu 2002; Winter 2007). The national identity limits the definition of identity and what the members of a nation can want and do.
Restrictive identity
The notion of national identity is restrictive in the sense that identity is defined in territorial and singular terms.. If it does accept, to some extent, other forms of belonging, it is clear that national identity will always take precedence over any other identity. Men find themselves members of different groups at the same time. With the growth of the complexity of civilization, the number of groups of which men find themselves a part generally increases. These groups are not fixed. They have changing limits, and they are changing importance. Within these pluralistic, and sometimes conflicting, kinds of group-consciousness there is generally one which is recognized by men as the supreme and most important, to which therefore, in the case of conflict of group-loyalties, he owes supreme loyalty. He identifies himself with the groups and its existence, frequently not only for the span of his life, but for the continuity of his existence beyond his span. The feeling of solidarity between the individual and the group may go, at certain time, as far as complete submergence of the individual in the group (Kohn in Hetcher, 94-5). However, growing numbers of diasporas challenge the supremacy of the homogenizing definition of national identity. Indeed, they belong to multiple nations. Choosing between one or the other is impossible. Still, this either/or choice is imposed upon them. Either they fully belong or they do not belong (Malouuf, 44). But diasporas do not face this problem alone. One could think of all the "frontiers" people, who, for a reason or another, share contradictory belongings to Canada and Quebec (Malouuf, 44-5). When he or she does not choose one identity over the other-and risk being rejected by the one he doesn’t choose-, he or she is often rejected by all of his national identities (Malouuf, 44-6). This causes a deep, unsolvable dilemma.
The restrictiveness of national identity is most evident with diasporas. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the people, who belong to the same nation, necessarily have much in common, or face the same reality as the other members of the nation. National identity creates a mould with some of the nation’s characteristics, as if they were inborn (Malouuf, 31). However, Butler inquires as to what extent identity is a normative ideal rather than a descriptive feature of experience (Butler, 16). Regarding gender, Butler shows how no one is born a woman but rather becomes one (Butler, 33). People are compelled to correspond to a unique and territorial definition of national identity which has previously been determined. Yet every person is composed of many belongings, many of them having nothing to do with a territory or a nation (Malouuf, 23-5). Each person constitutes a multitude that the nation successfully turns into an anonymous member of a greater, synthetic, homogenous people (Hardt and Negri, 103). National identity, on the one hand, creates love between those who recognize themselves in it. On the other hand, however, it creates much exclusionary violence, outside as well as within. The differences within a nation cannot be ignored anymore. It seems more and more like national identity, because it is imposed upon the people rather than coming from them, is irrelevant. The Quebec state is slowly transforming national identity towards a more inclusive, pluralistic, civic, or anti-nationalist, nationalism.
The civic nation as the new ideal
The civic nation is one that is based more on territory than on ethnic terms. The member becomes a citizen, with certain rights that he can expect to be respected (Juteau 2002a). For a long time, Quebec was depicted as racist because it did not, like Canada, base the definition of its nation on liberal values such as democracy, pluralism, equality, individualism, and a market-based economy (Winter, 482). However, the Quebec nation has changed significantly in recent years, and it is clearly a much more inclusive nation (Winter, 482). The new political ethic of the nation is based on human rights, equality and democracy (Taylor, 41). This does not mean, however, that the French language and the history of the Quebec nation are put aside. On the contrary, they remain central to the new definition of its national identity (Taylor, 41). This road of ‘interculturalism’ has been adopted by the Quebec state and the different political parties (Cook, 24; Gagnon and Iacovino, 2004). The Commission sur les pratiques d’accommodements reliées aux différences culturelles, launched by the Parti Libéral Québécois is based on this principle. Bill 195, the "Law on Quebec identity" presented to the Quebec National Assembly by Pauline Marois, leader of the Parti Québécois, explicitly leans towards a more civic definition of the nation, one closer to Canada’s definition of the nation (Cook, 24). Even though this civic nation seems more inclusive, within it lies an inherent problem: it still reproduces a national identity. But national identity, as we have seen earlier, is intrinsically based on exclusion. Appadurai reflects the new type of exclusion engendered from modern nations: [The leaders of modern nations] rested their ideas of their new nations on the very edges of the paradox that modern nations were intended to be somehow open, universal, and emancipatory by virtue of their special commitment to citizenly virtue but that their nations were nonetheless, in some essential way, different from and even better than other nations (Appadurai, 162). Kropotkin’s criticism of the state becomes very useful. He observed that under the Third Republic in France the essence of the monarchical order remained; he concludes that trying to work within a system that existed historically and had a life of its own-the state apparatus-would only result in the cooptation, voluntary or not, of those Republicans. Sincere Republicans nourished the illusion that the State organisation could be utilised to operate a change in a republican sense; and here is the result. When they ought to have destroyed the old organisation, destroyed the State, and constructed a new organisation by beginning at the very basis of society…they thought to utilise "the organisation that already existed." And for not having understood that you cannot make an historical institution go in any direction you would have it, that it must go its own way, they were swallowed up by the institution. (Kropotkin 1947, 42 - emphasis added) Applied to national identity, this means that no matter how a nation is transformed, as long as it is, humanity will be divided, the violence will continue. Why try to maintain this façade of unity? Why not try to go "beyond" the ideal of a single territorial allegiance, of a single national identity? Could the nation not be this spiritual horizontal comradeship? Whose interests does it serve?
Whose interests?
According to Hardt and Negri, the nation is just "another turn of the screw", another way for the sovereign-the bourgeoisie-to fulfill its own selfish interests (Hardt and Negri, 102). Through the spirituality between the different components of the nation, the elite was and still is able to exercise a totalizing power (Hardt and Negri, 101). This means that the people are controlled, sometimes with consent, through biopolitics: the new political, bureaucratic and capitalist elite, with the help of the intelligentsia were able to convince the bulk of the population to follow them in their quest for modernity (Juteau 2002a, 203; Hardt and Negri, 109). In the case of the Quebec nation, feeding their revolution by the real frustration felt by the urban population, the capitalist bourgeoisie, unhappy with its inferior status compared to that of the Anglophone capitalist elite and the intelligentsia, pursue their own goal (Ferretti 1999). The bourgeois nationalism (Anderson 1991) was able to create and define a new identity based on entrepreneurial successes. What Quebecer is not proud of Hydro-Québec, the Cirque du Soleil, Bombardier (Arpin, 264-8)? The territory is perceived as "natural" by the people, but really, it is a great source of wealth that the elite are not ready to share with, for instance, Aboriginal people (Salée 1995b, 265). Most do not realize this bourgeois nationalism. And those who do are incapacitated by the lack of will of the population. For example, in the early 1970s, two of the three dominant unions in Quebec were denouncing the state that was only defending the interests of the capitalist class (Güntzel, 155). In 1972, the CEQ (Centrale de l’enseignement du Québec) adopted a manifesto in which they denounced the modern-capitalist-society as "an exploitive society where all the dominant classes, and their servile servant, the state, exploit men’s work and the needs of the consumers in order to increase their profits and their power" (Güntzel, 155, translated from French). However, most workers, trusting the welfare-state, were not interested by the politicization of their unions (Güntzel, 156). The totalizing power of the sovereign has shown its effect. Anderson’s horizontal comradeship looks more like a pyramidal structure dominated by the hegemony of the bourgeoisie (Güntzel, 157).
Conclusion
Nations and nationalism, however imagined, are the most powerful source of identity today. They bond a people to a specific territory as well as to each other. This bond is often described as spiritual or even God-given. The state supervises as well as insures the survival of the nation and constantly ignites nationalist consciousness in the people. The national identity links all these elements together into what appears to be an immutable whole. One must not forget, however, that nationalism is not natural. It has been constructed in response to power relations that are being downplayed. Thus, the traditionally ethnically-defined national identity of the Quebec nation has moved toward being more open, rights-based, and civic. Nevertheless, such openness is never fully realized. Indeed, the identity itself is based on the rejection or the negation of "others", and, in Quebec’s case, in opposition to Canada, the dominant Other. Although it is clear that the reality does not match this clear-cut national identity-even as it is changing-, states persist in preserving these overarching concepts. Indeed, the elite, who control the state-in Quebec’s as well as any other case-gains much power from doing so. Because states continue to ground their power on exclusionary identities, they therefore encourage and engender constant violence, whether overt or covert. This is why we must challenge the geography of nation-states. Identities are not fixed nor are they singularly defined. Instead of trying to divide humanity on these imagined nations, it will achieve much more, and will be much more secure if the principal of mutual aid as defined by Peter Kropotkin was applied.
Source:http://culturalshifts.com/archives/337
YOUR THOUGHTS?
No comments:
Post a Comment