STUDENT LED TUTORIAL: Is the Political Culture of Canada Becoming Americanized

STUDENT LED TUTORIAL: Is the Political Culture of Canada Becoming Americanized?

By: Kosta Kalogiros

“Socialism as Nationalism: Why the Alleged Americanization of Canadian Political Culture Is a Fraud. (NO x)

By: Anthony A. Peacock

Summary of Article

Nationalism = Socialism

Nationalism has become tantamount with the word socialism due to the policy preferences of Canada’s socialist community.
Our nationalism lies within a community that prefers public over private-enterprise.

Nationalist Characterizations of Canadian-American relations

Canadian public enterprise distinguishes Canada from America based on Canada’s implied communitarian--collectivist nature.
Canadians themselves are culturally diverse from Americans.
Americans and Canadians differ on ideological and cultural grounds such as our bilingualism and our multiculturalism.

“The proposition, supported by those I will refer to in this chapter as Canadian nationalists, that Canada’s political culture is distinguishable from it American counterpart by our greater collectivism or our greater use of public enterprise, is, I submit, a fraud.” - Peacock

According to this quote, Anthony A. Peacock is arguing that all these assertions by Canadian nationalist is to make us (Canadians) believe that we are distinguishable from Americans are fraudulent.

Why Nationalist Characterizations are Fraudulent

x Canadian public enterprise distinguishes Canada from America based on Canada’s implied communitarian--collectivist nature.

o This characterization only masks the noncollevtivist nature of Canada.

o It is not unusual to see regions going against each other due to the public enterprise.

o The public enterprise undermines the base structure of a community by putting decisions that should be made by the communities, into the hands of the government.

x Canadians themselves are culturally diverse from Americans.

o Differences between Canadians and Americans are ephemeral, not essential. (they are short lasting)

o “the identity shared by Canadians and Americans runs deeper than economics or politics, extending to the very faith that gives purpose and meaning to all who live in the Western World.” – George Grant

o Canadians and Americans prefer the same music, the same television, the same food, the same sports, same vacation destinations etc. Basically restating George Grants point that Canadians, Americans and most member of the Western World are extremely similar.

x Americans and Canadians differ on ideological and cultural grounds such as our bilingualism and our multiculturalism.

o Canada is not bilingual or bicultural because majority of French speakers live in Quebec while English speakers populate the rest of the country.

o Canadians whose bilingualism does not involve French hold no argument because they can also be found all over the United States.

o In 1986 it was shown that Canada is more homogeneous than the United States.

Canada’s Welfare State

Canada’s public enterprise does not make Canada more communitarian than the United States. In fact the Canadian welfare state makes Canada less community oriented because, according to David Bercuson and Barry Cooper, real communities have all but disappeared from Canada.

With the United States using free-market capitalism, the people need a stronger sense of community in order to make sure institutions prosper. It’s this theory of individuality as a foundation to community building that the nationalists of Canada choose to overlook.

The nationalists have done a great job of convincing that these characteristics make our two nations different that when the majority of Canadians begin to slide away from the welfare state it is labeled “Americanization” when it is really just the realization that the previous bureaucratic system “costs more and more to provide less and less.”

When reading this article many may assume that Peacock is not arguing whether Canada is being Americanized or not, but that he is in fact only arguing that the reasons Canadians are given the notion of being Americanized are misleading and false; that we are persuaded to believe these ideas by university professors, the government and the media. These arguments are all relevant and true, however, he does, in a sense, argue that we are not being Americanized because Canada at one point was like America before its social democratic ideologies. One can believe that he is not arguing that we are not being Americanized, but that he is arguing that we are becoming what we are because Canadians are striving for the same goals as Americans; the technological dream.

Glossary

-A-

Antediluvian: extremely old.

Assimilate: to make alike; incorporate or absorb.

Astute: showing shrewdness.

Augmenting: to make something greater.

Augur: to predict, based on signs or omens.

-B-

-C-

Canard: false; misleading.

Collectivism: see socialism.

Communitarian: a member or supporter of a small collectivist community.

Constituencies: the body of voters or residents of a district represented by an elected official.

-D-

Despotism: absolute power or authority.

Disingenuous: not straight forward.

Dogma: a principle or belief.

-E-

Emaciation: to make or become extremely thin.

Ephemeral: lasting for a limited time; short lived.

Evocations: the act of suggestion.

-F-

-G-

-H-

Homogenization: to make things the same or similar in nature.

-I-

Indoctrination: instruction in a body of principles.

Intransigence: refusing to moderate a position.

-J-

-K-

-L-

-M-

Mantra: a religious formula; a charm; a prayer.

-N-

Nationalism: devotion to the interests and culture of one’s nation; patriotism.

Machination: the act of plotting.

-O-

-P-

-Q-

Protectionism: the policy of imposing duties or quotas on imports in order to protect home industries from competition.

-R-

Raucous: rough sounding; harsh.

Ruminations: the act of pondering; mediation.

-S-

Socialism: a theory that advocates state ownership of industry; between capitalism and communism.

-T-

-U-

Unmitigated: unrelieved; not diminished.

-V-

Vociferously: marked my noisy outcry.

-W-

Welfare State: a social system where the state assumes primary responsibility for the welfare of its citizens.

-X-

-Y-

-Z-

Questions

With the topic being whether Canada’s political system is being Americanized or not, what do you believe being Americanized entails?
What do you think Canada’s political culture is? How is it different or similar to the United States?
Is Canada being Americanized? Why or Why not?
Do you believe that Nationalism and Socialism have now become one in the same? Defend your answer using your personal opinion or specific references to Peacock’s arguments.
“Lying behind the immediate decisions arising from our status within the [American] empire is the deeper question of the fate of any particularity in the technological age. What happens to nationalist strivings when the societies in question are given over, at the very level of faith, to the realization of the technological dream?” – George Grant, Lament for a Nation. What does happen when societies are given over to the technological dream? Do you think Canada has already realized the technological dream?
Do you believe that individualism is a necessary precondition to the building of a community?
Is our public enterprise advantageous to Canadian society or do you believe that realizing that more can be accomplished through private enterprise is a better choice for Canada’s political culture?
Taking into consideration that “America” or “Americanization” has slowly become an idea instead of something that is a direct influence or involvement of Americans themselves, is all of Western Culture slowly becoming “Americanized”?
Do you agree with Peacock in that we are being led to believe that we are different from the United States for false reasons?

STUDENT LED TUTORIAL: Reflection

By: Kosta Kalogiros

When it comes to certain topics I will not deny that I enjoy being a devil’s advocate. Whether Canada’s political culture was being Americanized or not, fell into that category of topics, however, it was not until I read Anthony A. Peacock’s article that I realized, not only can I be the devil’s advocate but now I can have the facts to back up my arguments too. His article, although controversial, got me extremely interested in the theory of, Nationalist, media, and professors convincing us we are different from the states for false reasons. I had argued against Americanization before but never from an angle as contentious as Peacock’s which just made my tutorial that much more fun.

When the tutorial began I felt I needed to get people to read the summary before bringing up any discussion. I went over it with my group and threw in some side commentary such as quotes I liked from the article. I read the summary before discussion not only to educate them on the “no” side but to get them riled up for debate. And what better way to get the group heated up than give them ideas they’ll most likely despise and disagree with. I knew most people would disagree with Peacock’s ideas for the exact reason Peacock said; they believe in what our Nationalist (Socialist as he liked to refer to them), media, and professors tell them to believe in.

The summarization of the article ended and everyone seemed a little confused about what Peacock and I were trying to say. At this point I just assured myself “they’ll get mad, right after they understand it,” and I went on explaining his ideas and how they make sense. Thus, the seed was planted, and the hate was lingering in the back of a certain select people’s minds. I wasn’t sure when they would burst but I was almost positive they would.

We then proceeded to my discussion questions and I was surprised to see that many people were agreeing with me after they understood it. Well I wasn’t surprised about some members agreeing because we share the same types of views. We strayed a bit from the actual debate of whether Canada was being Americanized and started arguing about what made Canada, Canada. A large portion of the group was still arguing about health care, bilingualism basically showing how influenced they’ve been by nationalist. I remember one of my questions being whether or not individualism is a foundation of a community. This got a lot of people involved dividing idealist and realist quickly. Idealist thinking that community is “from everyone caring about each other, its community from the beginning and community to the end.” While all the nationalist basically thinking that “it takes one’s person motivation and perseverance to get people into a community, it starts of with natural leadership.” It wasn’t until this argument that I realized I transformed half my table into a bunch of Peacocks. This transformation didn’t stop here though it continued into the class debate where, finally, the urges of hatred were starting to seep.

Mr. Melnyk opened the discussion and my creation of Peacocks and idealist full of hatred clashed together like a battle right out of the Peloponnesian Wars. I’m sure most of the class remembers when the seed of hatred I had planted in members of my tutorial burst. It came out in two words constantly repeated. “You’re wrong! You’re wrong! You’re wrong!”[i] I don’t know if I should, but I do feel proud that my tutorial fed the passion that led to what I have deemed the battle of the voices.

What I learned is that you can’t always stick to one side and block out all other opinions. It’s through the reading of articles by people like Peacock and Nesbitt-Larking that we open our minds up to whom we are and what we truly believe in. I know I probably would have been arguing health care and multiculturalism before but thanks to Peacock I realize there is a world I need to educate myself on before I let the government do the educating for me. And here I stand as always on the side on which only a select few choose to stand on. I am still a devil’s advocate, only arguing the points I choose to believe, instead of the points I was made to believe.