Books, Volume 14 #4

The search for solutions to Canada's identity problems goes on. Some would now classify us as an endangered species among nations. The difficulties are myriad; solutions are numerous if simplistic. The publishing industry may well be the sole beneficiary of the constant squabbling besetting us. Analyses abound laying bare the historical, economic and ideological factors causing our national malaise. Their quantity is impressive, their quality generally less so.

William Johnson's A Canadian Myth and Richard Gwyn's Nationalism without Walls both warrant the careful and knowledgeable reader's attention--conditional on ingesting large grains of salt. Johnson is too committed to a cause that blinds him to other realities, while Gwyn practically ignores a cornerstone of the national structure and his false and optimistic assumptions were undermined by the results of the Quebec referendum.

IN 1991, JOHNSON UPSET large segments of Quebec society with the publication in French of Anglophobie: Made in Québec, wherein through a meticulous though selective analysis of French Canadian literature, he exposed Anglophobia as the "motor of Quebec nationalism." At the time, anticipating objections, he was delighted that "the sh-- [was] hitting the fan." Adamant in his opposition to systematic bias, he was blind to his own partiality. His knowledge of Quebec writing is impressive, and he quoted liberally from confirming sources to support his thesis that in intellectual, religious and political circles, les Anglais were the serpents in Quebec's Garden of Eden.

It was difficult to argue with writers such as Yves Beauchemin who maintained that Johnson had wasted his time and talent by stating the obvious: "The conquered always resent their conquerors" simply because of their power. It was natural, though not rational, that for some this revulsion should persist over generations. The result could be either resistance founded on myths over time or creeping exhaustion yielding to capitulation, collaboration and eventual assimilation. In Anglophobie, Johnson assumed the priestly function of exorcist and set out to free the youth of Quebec in particular from the mythological chains that bound them.

But there were also writers who could transcend these emotional judgements and go to the real causes of an unhappy, unhealthy society. Johnson passed them by or tossed them an occasional crumb of condescension. When it helped his case he quoted selectively, but he avoided those sources, equally reliable, that could undermine his thesis. In both Anglophobie and A Canadian Myth, the sequel, he stumbles by crossing the line of fairness that separates legitimate observation from collective accusation.

Some would now classify Canadians as an endangered species among nations. The publishing industry may well be the sole beneficiary of the constant squabbling besetting us.

In A Canadian Myth, Johnson again uses as his starting point the hatred of les Anglais present in much Quebec literature and its infectious spread into other major facets of Quebec life. Much of what he contends is unfortunately true: the terrible consequences of separation for Quebec, the deviousness of its politicians in ignoring the obvious, the maddening tendency of many Francophones to group all English-speakers as being English. His heroes are few (Trudeau stands out), his villains many (Mulroney in the front rank).

The book is an exercise in rhetoric and semantics. Although myths are not necessarily instruments of imprisonment, since they sometimes shelter the hope of eventual liberation (as Joan of Arc did for the people of occupied France in 1940), Johnson chooses the negative definition of the term. Quebec's current intellectual discourse is polluted by its myths and its "tribalist perspective." Yet Johnson himself falls prey to the same tendency by using similar terms to describe Quebec nationalism in any of its many forms. He is simply part of a much larger tribe.

In brief biographical data he states that his mother is a Franco-Ontarian and his father an Anglo-Quebecer. Surely impartiality must logically follow. Not so. To challenge his knowledge would be difficult; his understanding, however, is another matter. The South African playwright Athol Fugard recently made the distinction between intellectual and emotional ignorance. When it comes to Quebec and its aspirations, Johnson's level of empathy registers 0.

He denigrates those with whom he disagrees. Why, for instance, in a brief mention of the English-born longtime PQ member David Payne, does he include the word "ex-priest"? Prêtre-manqué has always conveyed a negative impression and its inclusion here is both unfair and irrelevant. Why, the reader might rightly ask, does Johnson not include in the brief account of his life his own lengthy but aborted sojourn among the Jesuits?

Johnson seriously misreads history at times. Anti-conscription riots in Quebec in 1917 resulted in the deaths of five people and the wounding of seventy others. Conceding the grievousness of the incidents, Johnson minimizes their significance when compared to the mass slaughter ("literally thousands") of recalcitrant French citizens for their opposition to the war being fought on their own soil. There is absolutely no evidence of mass executions for desertion or opposition to the war in France. Some soldiers were put to death (133 between August 1914 and February 1918, a far cry from thousands). Civilians may have been punished but they were not shot.

A Canadian Myth tells only a partial story and it fails to analyse clearly the convoluted relationship between victim and villain.

GWYN'S NATIONALISM WITHOUT WALLS ADDS to the debate but pays a heavy price for having been published just after the October referendum. Since it is based on the presumption of a comfortable No vote, the close result seriously undermined its whole structure.

Although Gwyn lacks Johnson's messianic fervor, the two share common idols and villains. Both are inveterate Trudeauites for whom the archenemy is Mulroney. For Johnson, the Baie-Comeau bogeyman's kowtowing to Quebec nationalists was his most grievous fault. For Gwyn, Mulroney sold out the country and brought it into the vortex of free trade, which ensures our permanent branch-plant status with policies guided by Wall Street and Madison Avenue.

Gwyn's strength lies in collectively treating topics that demand simultaneous attention but are normally handled separately. His annoyance is directed at "totally constipated" Canadian politicians frozen into inaction by fear of being labelled racist or sexist by the forces of political correctness. Gwyn flaunts his belonging to the "pale, patriarchal, penis people" and bemoans the "boneless non-judgmentalism" of contemporary liberalism. Neoconservatives, much as he abhors them, have taken up the challenge and we are treated to the ironic display of a liberal hiding his acceptance of many conservative ideas behind the façade of attacking neoconservatism.

He resembles a mellowed-out Pat Buchanan in attacking multiculturalism ("multiple monoculturalism"), employment equity and lax immigration policies. "We should," he argues, "quickly change the crazy policies that have made us the kind of caring, sharing, yielding and almost bankrupt people that we are." He is irritated by the obsession with rights with no corresponding sense of responsibilities on the part of those claiming them. His annoyance spills over into bad taste when he conjures up the image of Mounties parading in kilts, wearing turbans or yarmulkes.

Can anyone be a member of any nation, or must states place restrictions on immigration and the use of minority languages to strengthen the boundaries of national identity?

As external walls crumble (free trade), internal walls are erected feeding the frenzy for rights (aboriginal, Quebec), where self-centeredness leads to the abdication of any sense of responsibility on a larger communal scale. Gwyn also bemoans the widening economic gap between the haves and the have-nots.

Gwyn's Achilles heel has always been his misunderstanding of Quebec. Given the time of publication, his treatment here is too shallow and dismissive, and it is the book's major flaw. He was wrong (as were so many other pundits) in assuming that most French Québécois would vote No in the referendum. He showed no interest in the reasons why many--most as it turned out--might vote Yes.

He stresses from the start his and the country's lack of interest in Quebec. This seems strange for a writer who is so committed to the survival of Canada and admits that separation would lead to assimilation by the United States. His concession of Quebec's symbolic recognition as a "distinct society" with no force in law is completely inadequate. Regrettably, it is too much for large parts of the rest of Canada and not enough for Quebec nationalists. More recently, Gwyn conceded that distinct society is a dead end and that sovereignty-association is the only way out.[FN 1]

GIVEN ALL THESE CAVEATS, BOTH BOOKS are worth the read. However, both Johnson and Gwyn would do well to consult with an open mind British political theorist David Miller's recent On Nationality, which both asks and answers some tough questions. One of these questions should be enough to illustrate the book's force: can anyone be a member of any nation, or must states place restrictions on immigration and the use of minority languages to strengthen the boundaries of national identity?

Miller argues that seeing nationality as an essential part of one's personal identity is not in itself irrational. Nations, he maintains, are "ethical communities" whose members are bound by special ties of duty and obligation that do not necessarily extend beyond the boundaries of the national group. Persons representing a distinct national community on a given piece of territory have a reasonable claim to self-determination. There is, however, an uneasiness about how to reconcile those special feelings of camaraderie associated with one's compatriots with the wider duties owed to the whole of humanity.

Perhaps a close scrutiny of this book would help us all in finding a way of dealing with the North American tar baby that is Canada.