It's not a 'bond', it's nationalism

I'm always surprised by how 'nationalism' does not feature in the North American vocabulary. It is as if the whole critical scholarship on nations and nationalism has been almost absent from the public discourse on this continent, maybe except references to Anderson's 'imagined community' (which I personally think are more a matter of being fashionable and quoting a popular author without really understanding where the author is coming from).

I read an article the other day on the Canadian Chinese diaspora's newly discovered bond with the former homeland. I'd like to challenge this title: it's not about 'fostering a bond' - it is all about plain and simple nationalism. In the article, a radio show host talks about how the Canadian Chinese audience is no longer willing to accept any criticism of China (and in particular things like human rights violation or censorship), accusing those who voice them of being traitors and diminishing the Chinese nation.

Mr. Kwan, who admits to a new-found sense of pride himself, said he worries the sentiments being expressed will be mistaken for "ugly Chinese nationalism" instead of shows of dignity and cultural pride.

I do understand that for some people there is a difference between 'ugly' nationalism (by which they generally refer to violent xenophobia) and patriotism. And I do understand that the latter can be a source of empowerment especially for those relegated to the periphery of the West (read Eastern Europe, 'Third World' countries etc.). But the only difference between the 'ugly' and the 'good' side of nationalism (yes, patriotism does count as nationalism - you are proud of your country, of its implied territorial boundaries, of its assumed common national values, ideas, sensibilities etc.) is the visible violence it may or may not entail.

As long as culture remains a political domain, as long as collective identities are the basis of ethnic politics, as long as we identify with an amorph and unknown mass of people called the 'nation' (with whom we share nothing in common, except we happen to inhabit a common state whose boundaries were arbitrarily drawn) - as long as these things are still there, in the background of feeling proud and feeling 'part of' the nation, then we remain nationalists. We are not 'open' and 'tolerant'. We see the others in terms of 'belonging to a particular group', on a particular territory. We defend our culture against the 'invasion' of the foreign elements (and I'm not saying here we should all accept cultural imperialism, quite on the contrary). We still remain subjugated by a national label which we have to carry with us like Sisif had to carry his stone.

Pride Parade Vancouver

Photos taken at the Pride Parade, Vancouver, August 1, 2008.

Married with children

I was thinking earlier about those men who tell their girlfriends that they won't continue the relationship unless they want to have children. I was thinking how patriarchal this is. And how it objectifies those women. What does it mean, that if she doesn't want to have kids, he is no longer interesting? So, what really interests him? Her? Or her womb? And what happens if, say, down the road, after 1 year of dating and getting engaged, she suddenly gets sick and cannot bare children anymore. Will he dump her? Will he look for another woman who can give him what he truly wants - the children?

I have this friend who's on the market for a girlfriend. He'd like to marry and have kids. And he met this girl in her '30s who was planning to go for med school. "But when will you have kids then", he asked her. No wonder she never called him back. I know I wouldn't.

Where not all citizens are equal...

Back in October, I was thinking of the different labels that fix as us part of the body of the nation or outsiders to this body. Today, I was reminded of these labels, albeit in a different context. Apparently, the Canadian government tries to keep a Canadian citizen away from Canada because he is on the US no-fly list.

Senior Canadian intelligence officials warned against allowing Abousfian Abdelrazik a Canadian citizen to return home from Sudan because it could upset the Bush administration, classified documents reveal. (Globe and Mail, July 24, 2008)

I have no idea who this guy is, why he's on the no-fly list. I'm not aware of his politics, nor do I know whether he has ties in Sudan. But I am interested in this idea that a government can keep a citizen out of the country. What is the relation between citizens and states? What is the relation between governments and citizens? And how is this relation in the context of imperialistic relations? What about accountability of the government - is it in front of the imperial power (and then the principles of the Westphalian order need to be requestioned) or in front of the citizens (as liberal democracy would have it)?

Of course, my own stereotypes kick in: I'm curious if this guy is indeed treated like this because he's a naturalized Canadian. Or even a first generation Canadian from immigrant parents. Whether he has ties with Sudan - and whether these ties are in any way part of the reason why this is happening to him.

Remember Ethnic Violence

The former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic was finally caught and is being brought to justice for the ethnic-cleansing crimes in the violent wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s. It took over 13 years to catch the guy, and they caught him in Belgrade. It makes you wonder though, with all this talk about how we are living in a surveillance society and how the Big Brother is always watching us...

Human Rights Watch: Bosnia: Karadzic Arrest a Blow Against Impunity. EU Should Push Now for Detention of Mladic

(New York, July 21, 2008) – The arrest of Radovan Karadzic, the former president of Republika Srpska, marks a major blow against impunity for the egregious crimes committed in the Balkans, Human Rights Watch said today. Karadzic is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, including the massacre of up to 8,000 Bosnian men and boys after the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.Despite the gravity of the alleged crimes, Karadzic was at liberty for 13 years after his initial indictment.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has twice indicted Karadzic on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. One indictment is for crimes committed in Srebrenica, where Bosnian Serb troops detained and executed thousands of men and boys. Eyewitnesses interviewed by Human Rights Watch at the time described horror as the victims were lined up in front of mass graves and shot.

Technological utopianism

I had an epiphany the other day. I do wonder sometimes what's the use of being in the academia, of teaching those complicated theories that make my students sleep or the use of creating those complex researches that nobody -- besides you and your cohort of similarly indoctrinated peers -- makes any sense of. But every once in a while something happens and all the pieces of the puzzle finally fall in their place and you see it: those abstract theories and research become utterly important. Crucial. You see the power of their explanation. And it makes sense.

That's what happens to me the other night. I listened to an enthusiastic young man talking about how the Web 2.0 - or the new social software like this blog or Facebook - are changing the face of the world. About how they are constituting a new you, a new basis for economic activity, a new framework for our actions, thoughts and behavior. He was, of course, selling something: they all do, these enthusiastic young people who feel they got the future figured out (hey, I was one of them too!). Their energy is catchy, their vision is glaring.

But there's more to their story. Behind the optimism, there must be introspection. And we have to understand what is it that we do, and who gets to benefit from our deeds. In my case, I'm wondering how we build a technological vision of a social world which hides away the inequality, the oppressiveness, the divides. I wonder how technology is shaped by our values and visions, and how it comes to exclude, to tell us who we are or whom we should be. I remember a student saying that people are in Europe are technologically backward because they do not use Facebook. They only emailed, she said, and are not even doing this all day long... I wonder how come we do not see the economic interests behind these technologically driven visions. How come we buy into them and feel empowered, when we are becoming sources of profit - like the human bodies in the Matrix, providing energy for a society that develops at our expenses and in which we do not get to participate, but only to provide. I guess we need a new Marx, one immersed in the Web 2.0. lifeworld :)

Photo credits: http://www.cyberpunkreview.com/

Are You a Canadianist?

A friend asked me about the meaning of "Canadianist". I had never come across this word before, but it sounded familiar from the various discussions on the role of intellectuals in the process of drawing the boundaries of the nation. The word itself seems to refer to those intellectuals involved in studying various aspects of the Canadian culture. Google the word, and you'll find various academic groups gladly borrowing the label.

I remembered a discussion at an academic conference. I was attending the annual editorial meeting of an academic journal. I won't name it, but it's one of those beginning with the word "Canadian". One of the members of the editorial board was lamenting the fact that the journal doesn't feature enough "Canadian" research. Given my interest in nationalism, I asked her why necessarily "Canadian"; shouldn't an academic journal feature 'quality' research, 'critical' research, 'interesting' research? Why do we need to see research as 'Canadian'? And what would make it such? Would an American scholar working in Canada produce a Canadian research? ...

Scholars of nationalism have called this perspective 'methodological nationalism': formulating a research question from the premises of an existing national space. It doesn't matter if we do not agree on what defines this space - in fact, instead of noticing the impossibility of such a space, we take it for granted and dig into it. In the above mentioned discussion, the member of the editorial board dismissed my question arguing that the Canadian academic market is dominated by the American market. And this was the end of the discussion.