La diversité est au centre de toute définition du Canada. Mais est-ce que différents types de relations avec les symboles nationaux peuvent coexister au sein d’une même unité nationale? Ces divers assemblages symboliques ont-ils des effets différents sur les attitudes et le comportement des citoyens? Cet article utilise des données d’enquête pour permettre d’identifier des tendances dans l’attitude des Canadiens à l’égard de dix-huit symboles nationaux. Les résultats indiquent l’existence de quatre "toiles" symboliques nationales distinctes. Les deux premiers types sont définis par des clivages sociodémographiques conventionnels, tandis que la différence entre les deux autres est définie par une dimensions idéologique allant de gauche à droite. De plus, une analyse plus approfondie démontre que l’appartenance à ces groupes est prédictive du choix du vote.
2.2 Abstract
Diversity is at the core of any definition of Canada. But can different types of rela- tionships among national symbols co-exist within the same national unit? And do these various symbolic assemblages have different effects on citizens’ attitudes and behaviour? This paper uses survey data to uncover patterns in Canadians’ attitudes towards eighteen national symbols. The results indicate the existence of four distinct national symbolic ‘webs’. The first two types are defined by conventional sociode- mographic cleavage, while the difference between the two others is defined by the left-right ideological spectrum. In addition, further analysis shows that membership in these web-types is predictive of vote choice.
2.3 Introduction
National symbols matter. As components of what Billig (1995) calls banal nation- alism, these symbols have significant psychological and social effects (Butz, 2009). First, national symbols play an important function in inter-group dynamics in that they demarcate the boundaries between groups (Geisler,2005). Second, an increas- ing body of empirical evidence shows that national symbols can have powerful ef- fects on citizens’ political attitudes (Finell et al., 2012; Finell and Zogmaister, 2015) and even on their voting behaviour (Ehrlinger et al.,2011). This article empirically tests the possibility that these two known effects might operate heterogeneously within a single national context. We ask: can different types of relationships among national symbols co-exist within the same national unit? And do different symbolic assemblages have different effects on citizens’ attitudes and behaviours?
These questions are grounded in a psychological or ideological (instead of territo- rial) conception of the boundaries that national symbols draw (Armstrong, 1982;
Butz, 2009). Many scholars in the field share the view that socially-constructed na- tional identities and relevant symbols are constantly negotiated between groups and thus constantly redefined over time (seeOzkirimli,2017). As a result, new symbols and traditions can be deliberately invented, just as old ones can be maintained or abandoned (Hobsbawm and Ranger,1983). The creation, maintenance, or abandon- ment of national symbols serves to integrate individuals and groups into a larger homogeneous nation (Kohn et al., 1944). Indeed, assemblages of national symbols contribute to the creation of a common “narrative” (Anderson, 1983, 209), or a “co- herent mythology and symbolism” among a people (Smith, 1991b, 42). Yet some evidence suggests that the acceptance of symbols and traditions by a people might be a more complex phenomenon than is commonly thought.
Smith(1991a) clearly outlines the constraints that exist on the invention of new tra- ditions and symbols. Citizens will not accept symbols that do not match existing conceptions of the nation and its history. The failure of the Czechoslovakian state is an example of the limits of reinventing a national identity (seeHeimann,2009).1 To varying degrees, many countries have experienced such symbolic mixing and devel- opment throughout their histories. Canada represents an especially interesting case in which to examine symbolic nation-building dynamics.
Indeed, the country has always had a fraught relationship with nationalism. Some have gone so far as to argue that the term Canadian nationalism is an oxymoron (Trudeau, 1968). And even those who don’t believe in this statement still maintain that nationalism in the country is not strong enough to stand on its own (Campbell and Christian, 1996). There are multiple reasons for this state of affairs. In a nut- shell, Canada is an immigrant nation founded, quite recently, on native land over an enormous territory by two linguistically distinct colonial groups—the English and French. If we add to this a hegemonic threat from a powerful American neighbour, a Quebec separatist movement, strong regional resentment in the West, and Aborig- inal claims, Canada’s difficulty in finding shared symbols to define the nation seems unsurprising.2 Yet over the last several decades, Canadian elites have made efforts
to develop a common sense of belonging in the nation by establishing symbols, like a new flag and anthem, to replace those that had been imposed by the British Crown. Most notable, perhaps, are former prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau’s efforts to create a more homogeneous Canadian identity based on individual rights through the enactment of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (seeLaforest,1995). Taken to- gether, these characteristics make Canada a good case study for examining the role of national symbols in defining groups and assessing the impact of symbols on po- litical behaviour. The relatively recent introduction of a set of new national symbols allows us to test how the way that citizens internalize these symbols might affect their sense of pride in their country.
The recent literature on symbolic nationalism suggests quite clearly that the group- demarcation function of national symbols might operate heterogeneously in a given population. For example, Butz(2009) argues that different individuals and groups associate the same symbols with strikingly different ideological concepts, memo- ries, beliefs, emotions, and values. Similarly, Finell and Zogmaister(2015) raise the possibility that important differences exist in how people internalize national sym- bols and the meanings they convey. There are therefore reasons to expect different relationships between national symbols and the pride they induce across different groups of citizens. Given that these patterns represent different conceptions of coun- try, we should also expect them to have an independent effect on citizens’ political choices. This article tests these hypotheses in the Canadian context.
2We should note, however, that some scholars indeed find this surprising. Billig(1995), for in-
stance, mentions that newly established nations and those that experienced internal threats are more inclined to experience intense displays of nationalist sentiments, not less.
This article makes use of a survey measuring Canadians’ attitudes towards eighteen different national symbols. We use a latent class analysis to identify statistically dis- tinct relationships between Canadians and these symbols. Four such relationships are found. A descriptive analysis shows that the relationship between citizens and symbols is characterized primarily by positioning on a left-right ideological contin- uum. This finding goes against the suggestion that sociodemographic factors, like region, are the primary predictors of variation in the connection between people and their national symbols. Moreover, different relationships to national symbols are shown to have statistically significant effects on vote choice, even when sociodemo- graphics and left-right ideology are taken into consideration. Ultimately, this paper offers further evidence that national symbols matter. It contributes to the current literature in two ways. First, it shows empirically that national symbols can serve to distinguish between different groups within a single country. Second, it demon- strates that these latent groups—or types of national symbolic webs3—have substantial
impacts on political behaviour that go beyond what beyond what can be explained traditional sociodemographic and left-right ideological cleavages.
The following section presents the Canadian context and the cultural backgrounds of the eighteen symbols used in this study. Descriptions of the survey data and the latent class analysis method follow before we turn to the results and their interpre- tation.