In the United States, the idea of a national identity is one that can be defined and described. This kind of description is different from the quality (or validity) of the identity, or the ideals it proposes to represent. For the purposes of this writing, I am simply looking at the ability to articulate a national identity, not the philosophical or cultural adequacy of the depiction. In the United States, you have bedrock founding documents like the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights. You also have a general underlying cultural narrative of ‘freedom’, and a national story that involves a war for independence. This combined with the pervasive nature of American entertainment and culture leads to a kind of American identity that the average US citizen can probably recognize and describe.
American politicians frequently campaign on the idea of an American identity that aligns with an unseen universal truth about our existence. The words of American independence declaring an individual's right to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are seen not just as political statements; but universally true philosophical ones. The late former Democratic governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, once described being an American as ‘being whoever you chose to be, for as long as you choose to do so’. This kind of political, yet philosophically backed idea framework has allowed Americans a clear vision of what it means to ‘be an American’. In years past, this vision also illuminated a clear pathway for American immigrants and their families to embrace the identity of their new citizenship. Again, the purpose of this writing is to describe the ability of this vision to be created; not its validity or its current cultural state.
For the past seven years, I've lived in another country that welcomes newcomers from across the globe in the romanticized spirit of inclusion and tolerance. America’s ally and neighbor to the north, Canada, espouses many of the same virtues described in the idealized version of America’s founding. Many Canadian politicians use notions of individual rights and freedom as cornerstones of their political rhetoric. Yet in Canada, the notion of a ‘Canadian identity’ seems to remain elusive and amorphous. Many Canadians I’ve worked with over the years have even admitted during political conversations that they are not sure what ‘being Canadian’ means. Even the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau told the New York Times in 2015 that there ‘is no core identity, no mainstream (identity) in Canada’.
Trudeau would also tell the Times that despite there being no core Canadian identity, there are shared values in Canada, like ‘openness, respect, and compassion’. He would also mention perceived Canadian commonalities like ‘a willingness to work hard’, a willingness ‘to be there for each other’, and a desire ‘to search for equality and justice’. Trudeau saw these qualities as making Canada the first ‘post-national’ state.
The problem with this conception of the nation of Canada as a post-national state is that it is untrue. A nation is a nation; and it cannot be a nation and a non-nation at the same time. This is a basic formulation of classic logic, known as the law of non contradiction. Basically this means that ‘A cannot be A and non-A at the same time’. Trudeau’s conception of a post-national state wouldn’t even apply to member nations of the European Union. Despite currency, travel, and policy intertwinement, member nations of the EU like Germany or Spain still retain a sense of national identity. They are still nations. Trudeau’s vision of a post-national state falls more into the realm of science fiction than our current reality. His description sounds more like a ‘Star Trek’ reality where human beings have evolved beyond their tribal impulses. A fantasy world where there are no national borders, no money needed to obtain food or goods; and the entire planet is geared towards the betterment of humanity as a whole.
Trudeau’s well intentioned, yet naive nod to shared values as a substitute for a kind of national identity illustrates the conundrum the absence of a national identity presents. Nature abhors a vacuum, and a vacuum of national ties that bind will be filled nonetheless. In Trudeau’s mind, Canada’s 40 million people will somehow miraculously coalesce around a set of shared, virtuous values just because they reside in the same post-national state. Yet as any student of human nature knows, aligning disparate conceptions of culture and values takes effort, not wishful thinking. Ironically, one might be able to make the argument that in order to bring about the ‘post-national identity’ vision of the Prime Minister, it is necessary to have a kind of national identity to aim towards. Because in a way, Trudeau’s description of Canada’s non-identity is a kind of national identity in itself.
Regardless, in today’s Canada, it is hard to argue that the void of a definable national identity has at least partially been filled by runaway capitalism. The middle class on downwards has been hammered by a cost of living that has outpaced wage growth. While a housing market defined primarily by the laws of the free market has resulted in soaring costs, and a shortage of suitable housing in general. The media, telecom, and food industries have become controlled by a handful of large corporate entities that control information, and set unreasonable prices for consumers. All of this has contributed to a cultural climate that is increasingly defined by an economic system that was designed to generate wealth; not define our every waking moment.
I cannot remember exactly where I saw it, but I remember watching a program about refugees coming to Canada, or a related topic. I remember seeing a Syrian man who was a refugee from the war torn country. He was speaking fondly of Canada and his new life in the greater Toronto area. One of the topics he spoke about was his working life, and the daily grind that most working people are familiar with. He described his daily routine of waking early, getting coffee at Tim Hortons, and enduring a hellish commute day after day. He was grateful for the daily punishment, as this was no doubt easier to endure than trying to survive a brutal civil war. But what was interesting to me was the way he described his new working life. With a smile he described his new way of living as the ‘Canadian way’. I couldn’t help but feel a bit sad that for this new Canadian, Canadian identity seemed to be so closely aligned with the soul crushing byproducts of runaway capitalism.
On July 1st of this year I had similar feelings as I watched the Canada Day festivities being televised from the nation’s capital, Ottawa. One of the focal points of the day's events was a citizenship ceremony for new Canadians coming from various countries around the world. I couldn’t help but wonder what kind of thoughts or feelings an immigrant to Canada would have about the identity of their new land. How would they interpret hearing two official languages (English and French) during every official ceremony? Would they have any real emotional investment in the narrative surrounding the history of indigenous people in Canada? Would the rhetoric from the Prime Minister about shared values be enough to inspire a cohesive sense of identity in their new home? Or would they see Canada as a country that welcomed them and provided them opportunity, but was lacking a clear, compelling sense of national identity.
During the ceremony in Ottawa on Canada Day, Prime Minister Trudeau mentioned that Canadians can get through the challenges the country faces by ‘staying true to their values’. Just like years ago in the New York Times, Trudeau rattled off things like ‘justice, openness, and democracy’ as values that give Canada a ‘special place in the world’. Again, the words of the Prime Minister are all well and good. Nobody could argue that they are not nice sentiments. Yet that’s all they are, words and sentiments. They are not drilled into the bedrock of the country like in the United States. Nor are they tethered to any overarching cultural system that binds Canadian citizens together.
Canada is not alone in its descent into the muddled waters of uncertain national identity. The modern, digital age is one where all of us have become siloed within our belief systems and ideas. Our minds are digitally stoked to see the differences in our fellow citizens instead of our commonalities. Throughout Western, capitalist countries we’ve seen various levels of distrust and outright disdain for national institutions. We live together online, yet we are increasingly alone, both literally and figuratively. All of this helps create a scenario where conceptions of national identity become shredded and non-existent. A cynical, lonely, overworked citizenry is not exactly in a prime position to receive and embody a national identity wrapped in vague idealistic notions.
The spirit of Justin Trudeau’s ‘values as national identity’ framework does ring true conceptually for Canada in our modern times. A time of mobility and cultural diversity is a time where some kind of universal value structure should become the ultimate glue in society. Yet the reality of Trudeau’s vision is akin to the distinction between theory and practice. What sounds good in theory, doesn’t always materialize in practice or practical reality. Or in this case, what sounds good in theory isn’t going to simply materialize out of thin air. If Canada is to become a nation bound by a universal value structure, it will require pragmatic effort and action. Otherwise the country will remain in an amorphous middle ground. A place where we all live together, yet are metaphysically separated amidst the steady, defining backdrop of unchecked capitalism.