Cultural Identity as it Pertains

¶ … cultural identity as it pertains to Canadians. This paper will critically review an article entitled "Defining and Describing Culture," an exploration of how Canadians define their culture in both positive and negative terms, and how they differentiate themselves from others (Kymlicka).

This author believes that Kymlicka's chapter would have benefitted by a more in-depth comparison with countries other than the United States in order to define in a more positive way what the Canadian culture is, as opposed to what it is not. Although many Canadians may agree with Kymlicka that Canadians define their unifying factor as "not being American," a more positive and original explanation might have helped add to the discussion about the emerging Canadian identity.

Kymlicka's article combines a number of positive characteristics about Canadians: they like to be helpful, they want to be liked by others, and they want their values of openness and inclusiveness to be viewed as a uniquely Western strength. Each of the positive qualities cited by Kymlicka can be more strongly expressed as a negative, thus re-hashing the stereotype that Canadians are the 'non-Americans.' To whit:

Canadians want to be helpful. They 'resent' that Norway, for example, has stolen some of Canada's role as a world peacemaker. Canadians can define their 'helpfulness' in contrast to, as Kymlicka puts it, Americans' 'isolationism, unilateralism and excessive suspicion of international agencies like the UN or UNESCO.' Thus one can interpret Kymlicka's description of Canadians as 'non-isolationist, non-unilateralist' and 'open to international agencies.' It would have been more helpful for Kymlicka to support his contention by exploring the Norway example. What aspects do Canada and Norway have in common and why? How has their population, isolation and relative economic success allowed Canada and Norway to pursue prominent participation in international peace negotiations and bringing together disparate nations? What other countries are in a similar situation, and how do they deal with international bodies and their role in the world? At this time, Switzerland and the Netherlands seem particularly helpful examples which can contribute to the building of Canadians' internationalism, with Finland and Ireland emerging as additional, newly-rising peace brokers.

Canadians are concerned about their image in the world. Kymlicka spends some of his article addressing Canadians' wish to prominently display their flag on their backpacks" "they are told to put a Canadian flag on their backpack...they may encounter some Americans who have put Canadian flags on their backpacks, as a safeguard against anti-Americanism." As with the previous example, Kymlicka defines the Canadians' pride in the Maple Leaf as 'non-American,' in the sense that by calling themselves Canadian, they can distance themselves from negative perceptions of America. Kymlicka points out that the Mossad misused the Canadian passports in order to be better-accepted in their spying missions. Again, his argument would be helped by finding more positive ways of referring to Canadians. Are Canadians truly liked around the world? Is this an important differentiator? Perhaps the difference in like/dislike in many third-world countries is as different as Kymlicka reflects in his article.

Kymlicka is onto a good point in mentioning how Canada's social welfare system is a fairly unique benefit, springing from a uniquely Canadian attitude towards its citizens and the role of the state in the lives of its citizens. Kymlicka helps his constructive definition of Canadians by pointing out that they are almost unique in the OECD by not dismantling their social welfare benefits in the 1990's. Whether one agrees or disagrees with this definition, it is worth explaining why Canada has stood out from other OECD countries in this sense while maintaining high growth. Instead, Kymlicka reverts to the point about the United States, and the differentiation in social welfare systems -- again bolstering the image of Canada as 'not the United States.'

Kymlicka is on much stronger ground when talking about diversity within Canada. This is a more historically- and culturally-based method to explain how Canada is developing its own unique cultural elements. Although the U.S. is also culturally diverse, Kymlicka rightly points out that Canada was formed by two distinct cultures which were very different than elsewhere: the British (not colonialist) culture, and French Canadians. These two cultures preserve their differences in more than language and food; these differences extend throughout their politics and culture, from differing social welfare systems to differences in political views.