A country’s national identity inherently separates them from other cultures. Most countries have cultural indicators that differentiate them from others. Canada is a unique case because we show our national identity through negative representation. Our nationhood is built on not acting like other countries, particularly our neighbours to the south. The ironic problem that arises from defining our identity in the negative is Canadians are not building a national culture to which they can relate. We are passively marking the borders of our identity, but cannot fill it with any meaningful content. Without a defined identity, Canada becomes a non-nation. However, the 2010 Olympic Games have left in their wake a change to how Canadians view themselves. We are now defining “Canadian” actively through the performance of our Olympic athletes and the characteristics that arise from them. These two views of Canadian identity have been captured by Chester Brown and Mordecai Richler in their texts Louis Riel: A Comic-strip Biography and The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. The title characters of these works embody both the passive and active representations of our national identity. These two characters are defined negatively through comparison to other characters; but, like post Olympic Canadians, eventually build their identity through the attainment of goals. The final question when thinking about this change is whether our new way of creating national identity is going to solidify a positive Canadian culture.
Prior to the Olympic Games, the popular viewpoint of our national identity was to be an “other.” Canadians thought of themselves as “not-insert country here,” rather than having features that we can claim as our own. The main nation that our culture opposes is the United States of America, mostly because of geographical proximity and partly because of an inferiority complex. The cultural and political presence to the south became a crutch on which Canadians have leaned on to identify themselves. The most apparent, and popular representation of this idea is Molson Canadian’s “I Am Canadian” campaign .
To be fully transparent, I will admit that my initial reaction to this advertisement during its initial release was genuine pride. However, after many years that feeling has dissipated and been replaced by shame. This commercial is the epitome of the passive, negatively defined Canada. All a viewer needs to do is count the number of times the word “not” is used.
The characters Duddy Kravitz and Louis Riel exemplify what “Joe Canadian” presents, Canadian identity through negative representation. Part of Duddy’s characterization is his opposition to other characters. One such example is his scholarly brother Lennie. Duddy places himself against his older brother when speaking to his Uncle Benjy. Richler sets up this exchange by showing how Benjy admires his studious nephew, taking “pride in all of Lennie’s achievements… [including] his acceptance by the McGill University Faculty of Medicine” (Richler 62). On the next page, Benjy describes Duddy as “Some kid,” to which Duddy replies “Not like Lennie?” (Richler 63). The text places these two representations beside each other to show Duddy’s use of negative representation. His question separates himself from his brother. However, there is no active definition present in his claim. Duddy does not gain any identifying features through his negative representation. Chester Brown’s depiction of Louis Riel, much like Duddy, is passively defined through what he is not. Riel’s Métis descendent places him within numerous cultural borders. His identity is stuck between French, English and Aboriginal characteristics. The Métis culture, as portrayed by Brown, is not distinguishable from the Canadians. The celebration of Riel becoming president for the provisional government (Brown 45:6) does not hint at anything that differentiates Canadian or Métis culture. Nevertheless, Riel and his people are considered and self identify as “other” which, in itself, gives them no sense of culture. Riel, Duddy and Pre-Olympic Canadians all exemplify passivity by defining “Canadian” through negative representation.
The 2010 Olympics have shown Canadians action; both literally, through the athletics of the participants, and through the achievements of our Olympic team. The Canadian athletes depict a change in how Canadians represent themselves, which is through actively building characteristics of our identity. If we rely on negative representation as the sole indicator of Canadian identity, we cannot have a strong core. The best visual example is an empty basket; the boundaries of “outside” and “inside” are clearly defined, but that contrast does not fill the basket. There needs to be an active agent to put content in the basket. Ergo, to build a strong national identity, Canadians need to actively portray defining characteristics. One such athlete who has done such a deed for Canada is Joannie Rochette. She is the bronze medal winner for Woman’s figure skating, which she attained with an amazing short program performance (CBC does not allow embedding of their content, sorry).
Rochette’s actions to win her bronze medal were graceful and skilful. However, in my mind her real achievement is persevering through the pain of losing her mother to compete on a world stage (Iorfida para.3). Even though she was experiencing a major family crisis, she exhibited poise and determination to achieve a goal. Rochette, through her actions, presents Canadians as perseverant, which is a defined characteristic that builds our national identity.
Our national literature also works to create our national identity through the actions of Duddy and Riel. Duddy’s goal throughout his narrative is to attain a certain stretch of land, to fulfil his grandfather’s mantra “A man without land is nobody” (Richler 48). The plans that Duddy initiates to pay for this property are not always noble or legal. They range from driving his father’s taxi (Richler 313) to stealing the inheritance of his one true friend, Virgil (Richler 362). Duddy’s actions may, in some cases, be despicable; but, it is his deeds that define his perseverance to achieve his goal. Riel functions in the same fashion as Duddy. Riel’s decisions, both diplomatic and militaristic, shape his life and the success of his objective to protect Métis land. His speech during the trial scene (Brown 228-229) depict his strong will to uphold what he believes is right. He argues on political grounds (Brown 228:5-6) to try and convince the jury of his innocence. Riel perseveres in his cause until his death. The actions of Rochette, Duddy and Riel present Canadians defining themselves through action. Their deeds, regardless of moral validity, exemplify perseverance; which, in turn, imbues Canadian identity with the same characteristic.
What I have argued is that the 2010 Olympics have changed the way we as Canadians perceive ourselves. Rather than defining ourselves as an “other,” Canadians, through the performances of our Olympic athletes, are now creating identity through action. However, this change presents a problem, one that I hope readers of this article will think about. Creating a stronger identity invites scrutiny. This fact is evident in the criticism of American policies in the world media. As we build our national identity there is a chance that Canadians can become overconfident about our culture. The question then must be asked, is our newfound identity going to make us stronger culturally or just arrogant? I will end my argument with a link to a CBC.ca article asking the public about their favourite Olympic moment.
Perusing some of these comments, we can see that that a new sense of identity is present. Whether that confidence will turn into arrogance is still to be seen, and is something to watch in the time to come.
Brown, Chester. Louis Riel: A Comic-Strip Biography. Art by Chester Brown. Montreal: Drawn & Quarterly, 2007. Print.
Iorfida, Chris. “Kim, Rochette Skate and Nation Build.” CBC.ca Olympic Coverage. CBC.ca, 28 Feb. 2010. Web. 31 Mar. 2010.
Richler, Mordecai. The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz. New York: Washington Square Press, 1959. Print.
This is a great analogy, and perspective. You raise some awesome points, and really interesting questions. In my opinion, we cannot have a strong national identity that is based on the nationalistic feelings of “post olympic Canadians.” This isn't an all encompassing identity. We need to be able to separate feelings of nationalism, and nationality. The Olympics alone do not account for the 'multicultural' society that we pride ourselves in being a part of.
ReplyDeleteFurther, basing a national identity on the achievement of goals is also not enough to form an identity. The identity of a nation is based on characteristics and experiences as much as it is on achieved attributes.
If the 2010 Olympic Winter Games are now a part of Canadian identity, it is because of the experience in itself, and is not a holistic representation of us as a nation. Moreover, even if this experience does not represent what we are not, it certainly does not represent who we are. It is, however, a contribution to our Canadian identity.
But it is not enough to say that our goals define us, or our legacies. And in the same right, it is not enough to say that the achievement of these goals can define an entire nation. I don't necessarily want to be known abroad as “Canadian? Tenacious.”
Finally, a fear of arrogance is no reason why Canadians should not attempt to develop their sense of identity. The issue is that not all of us can pride ourselves in being Olympians. We can pride ourselves in having this experience, and we can develop our identity with more major experiences like this. It is important to remember that we are a young nation, and an even younger independent nation. I think the identity is coming along.
I would argue that the Olympics have become a part of Canadian history, and as a result of this, a part of our national identity. But it isn't about the achievement of goals, or action – its about the experience.
An interesting article, one which brings up a number of strong points regarding the Canadian "defining oneself through negatives." The Molson commercial in particular displays an interesting mixture of nationalist pride and an intense inferiority complex, comparing nearly every example to why they are not American, and why the Canadian way is better.
ReplyDeleteThe article for me also raises the question, ho do we react towards the closing Olympics ceremony? Canadian "identity" was discussed (and poked fun at) by various Canadian celebrities as well as the evening concluding with a parade of mounties, bears, beavers and moose. This appears to be an attempt by the Vancouver Olympics Committee to carve out an identity which does not require a secondary crutch culture to compare against. The reaction towards the ceremony, as I understand from many Canadians, was rather hostile, with the underlying thought that Canadians were being made fun of and the entire process was rather embarrassing.
With this in mind, how does one define their nation's culture? Is it, as you said, held in the internal strength of its athletes? In the people themselves? Perhaps in the inflatable moose as they gently waft about the ice rink. Personally, I believe it to be a culmination of all the aspects, the campy closing ceremony, the people, the athletes, even the self definition through negatives. I would argue that in order to see the entire scope of the Canadian identity, one needs to look beyond individual aspects (such as the Olympics) and towards the whole.