some thoughts on newfoundland nationalism

"...[N]ational heritage [is] a kind of ideological fossil created retroactively by the ruling ideology in order to blur its present antagonism." - Slavoj Zizek

There is definitely some weight to this idea. If I recall correctly most of the literature on the genesis of nationalism as an ideological phenomenon indicates it tends to form as economic development in a given society progresses from a primarily "feudal"/heavily agricultural/subsistence economic arrangement into modernity, and it almost always originates among the educated (read: well-off) classes. This is why I would suspect we didn't see the meaningful appearance of [political] nationalist sentiment in Newfoundland until the late 1960s/early 1970s; it was only then that the province had enough people well-off enough to give a shit about 'standing up for Newfoundland' (I don't think the Anti-Confederate campaign in the late 1940s was ever fundamentally motivated by nationalism [although it was obviously present, ideologically] - it was primarily a question of economic and political power for the business/political class in St. John's and the pulp-and-paper corporate fiefdoms of Grand Falls and Corner Brook. Confederation meant a loss of control by local [commercial, political, clerical] elites over taxation, economic regulation, etc etc etc.)

More importantly I think this particular idea - nationalism as ideology being a retroactive construction in order to mask a present social antagonism - is a good way to begin an analysis of the way nationalism has played a role in provincial politics since the beginning of the Williams administration. Presumably anyone reading this would be familiar with the way the provincial government has been shutting down political opposition (not just the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, but wider media scrutiny and citizen dissent) by appealing to the Nation - recall the Premier answering Yvonne Jones' questions about the Abitibi expropriation (or the legal dealings with Quebec, or [political issue of the day]...) by implying she was a traitor!

The real question in this situation is to try and determine what social antagonisms nationalist ideology in its present manifestation is blurring. While I'm sure there are many, a few in particular grab my immediate attention - the 'conflict' between 'rural' and 'urban' Newfoundland ('rural' being primarily working-class, "traditional" economy of fishing, agriculture, manual labour, etc. with 'urban' being primarily the oil/gas industry, finance and commerce, etc.), and, as always, the broader class antagonism in this province that is beyond being pinned down to a matter of geographical location; I'm sure any of the unions who've run afoul of the provincial government could testify to this point.

Here I don't think it's hard to see why nationalism works so well as an ideology in the 'Zizekian' sense - what better way to override the actual antagonism between 'have' and 'have not' (to use the popular terminology) than to have us live within a conceptual framework where we are all 'Newfoundlanders and Labradorians', all of us united as a 'nation' with an illustrious historical narrative united against the Other[s] (the federal government, Big Oil/Pulp and Paper/Greenpeace, Quebec, etc). The provincial government here especially likes to make a full identification with nationalist ideology; the House of Assembly is where we are politically represented, and the governing party has an extraordinarily strong mandate (they control roughly 90% of the seats) with an extraordinarily strong executive branch - which leaves us with the bizarre political configuration where the Premier [on his own or through his cabinet] can effectively (if the opinion polls are to be believed) declare that "Le Nation, c'est l'Etat.. et l'Etat, c'est moi."

Obviously this is a very rough sketch of an ideological critique of the present political climate in this province. I think it's a good foundation at least, and if nothing else, some food for thought. But I definitely would consider it as something worth a bit of concerted research.

An addendum

The earlier entry really didn’t sit well with me after I posted it – it felt sloppy and even a little intellectually dirty – and sure enough, within moments University of Calgary PhD candidate Herb Simms took me (back) to school on, well, everything.

When the markets collapsed in the 30s governments responded with protectionism which made the situation far far worse. People also tend to forget the last 6+ years of a bull market made people a lot of money. Markets correct, that's life. While free trade is certainly no panacea for the current market situation, reactionary protectionism will certainly make it worse.

Also comparing banking deregulation-such as the revoking of the Glasman Stengal act done as Clinton left office-to opening up more markets is the worst kind of a red-herring. Apples and oranges.

The idea of a viral pandemic in capitalism is a position, not a fact. Many espousing such an idea don't like what they call capitalism when everyone is making money, they don't like it when people are losing money. They are simply antagonistic to what they see as an exploitive system. This is seems to be the far more ideological position; it never changes. However, so far the alternatives to people making their own investment and purchasing choices suck.

Free market, like democracy is an ideal never really actualized in reality and means many things to different people. So it is hard to take much of the hysterical criticism seriously.

I hadn’t meant to suggest protectionism was a solution – I only hold mercantilist positions ironically. That said, the idea I was working with – the vacuous notion of “fair trade” – reveals itself to be so nebulous it borders on meaninglessness after it's given 30 seconds of thought. Who knew! I guess this is what I get for trying to pass for a wishy-washy pseudo-leftist by critiquing APEC trade policy before my morning irish coffee.

And yes, upon further consideration equating financial deregulation with lowering trade barriers is blatantly disingenuous and I’m actually really embarrassed it happened. Open mouth, insert foot, etc. They’re not even close to the same thing; one pertains to the regulatory framework governing activity within one particular market the other relates to the actual creation of a market to regulate (or not, whatever floats your boat). It was low-hanging fruit and I took it, yuck.

Using ‘ideological’ in the vulgate sense that is being bandied about by CBC/CTV pundits is another mistake. It’s true that my personal perspective – I’d self-identify as a ‘critic’ of capitalism but in all honesty ‘antagonistic’ fits just as well – is ideological, but only inasmuch as anyone’s perspective on social phenomena is ideological. Neo-liberal thought is only a component element in the diverse branches of thought within the fundamental ideology of capitalism and everything associated with it. And obviously I’ve spent too much time in an ideological echo chamber – the only real way to gain any semblance of ‘objective truth’ about any situation is to have a dialogue and debate between conflicting ideological viewpoints.

In this sense, my issues with free trade and all related points of contention is less with Neo-liberalism vs. Protectionism in policy decisions and more with the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism and all that jazz. Which is probably worth an elucidation but that will be in another post I think, this is kind of long.

But your last point is probably the most spot on – it is hard to take hysterical criticism of anything seriously. I suppose then that I should take this opportunity to stop the hysterics and start thinking/writing more analytically and reasonably.

And I guess also stopping by the department to talk with Herb Simms more often, apparently!