Nationalism is often stigmatized by beautiful souls. He is accused of sowing division and flirting with racism. For Pierre Elliott Trudeau, for example, the independence of Quebec, fueled by nationalism, would have been “a crime against the history of humankind”.
In the same way, the Spanish writer of Peruvian origin Mario Vargas Llosa, in 2017, described the Catalan separatists as “fanatics” and said they were driven by a “destructive and ferocious passion”.
Nationalism, for these intellectuals, is war and regression from all points of view. Neither Trudeau nor Vargas Llosa, however, pleaded for the renunciation of Canada and Spain of their sovereignty for the benefit of the great global whole. It is always, we see, the nationalism of others that we denounce.
More subtle thinkers, recognizing the necessity and near-universality of nationalism, refined the thinking. This is the case of the American philosopher Hans Kohn (1891-1971), according to whom there are two kinds of nationalism. There would be, on the one hand, the good civic nationalism, that of England, the United States and Canada, focused on law and rights and, therefore, based on reason and individual freedom. Bad ethnic nationalism, on the other hand, would emphasize the sharing of a language and a culture and, therefore, would carry a certain exclusivism.
It is this classic and dominant thesis that history professor Emmanuel Lapierre seeks to refute in The cultural duel of nations (Boréal, 2023, 208 pages), a solid essay which offers an original treatment to a hackneyed question.
Inspired in particular by the German philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder (1744-1803), but also by Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) and the Quebec essayist Jean Bouthillette (1929-2015), Lapierre puts forward the thesis that “nationalism consists of the will to exist of a people” and that “the ethnic dimension of nationalism nourishes the desire to live of all nations, particularly that of small nations and peoples without a State”. It is important to clarify that the term “ethnic” here refers to a cultural and not racial reality.
The nation, explains Lapierre, is essentially an “immaterial entity composed of the consciousness that a people has of itself, of a language and of the culture that its members share, as well as the will to maintain them”. In a world where colonization and migratory movements bring distinct peoples into contact, the phenomenon of the “cultural duel of nations” is born.
Every people, Lapierre insists, wants to protect their language and culture. This is to be rejoiced since, in this era where globalization taking the face of the Anglosphere tends to impose a monoculture on the entire planet, “the ethnic dimension of nationalism constitutes the best guarantor of cultural diversity throughout the world.” scale of humanity,” writes Lapierre. According to UNESCO, notes the essayist, 50% to 90% of the 6,000 languages spoken in the world are threatened with disappearance by the end of the century.
Nations, therefore, want to exist and not simply survive. However, explains Lapierre, existence presupposes freedom and recognition. Dominant nations, however, often in the name of good civic nationalism, oppose the desire of dominated nations to exist by attacking their language and symbols.
In the 19th centurye century, for example, England crushed the revolt of Wales and argued that the Welsh language was an obstacle to the progress of the members of that nation. In Quebec, Durham sings the same refrain to us. At the beginning of the 20the century, in a United States which claims to follow the melting pot model, President Theodore Roosevelt proclaims that it is absolutely necessary to speak English and adhere to American culture to be a worthy citizen. In Quebec, Lapierre also recalls, we are trying to erase indigenous cultures, while resisting the erasure of our own culture.
The cultural duel of nations takes place on the political terrain, but also in minds. The citizen of the dominated nation wants to preserve his culture, but is sometimes tempted by the arguments of the dominant nation, which promises him benefits in exchange for his denial of himself. The Innu becomes French-speaking to escape their reserve just as the Quebecer wallows in English to escape his. Colonization, in other words, is also mental.
Only political independence, Lapierre concludes, really makes it possible to “modify the unfavorable balance of power” for dominated nations. Quebec and the indigenous nations here, allies before the Conquest of 1760, should understand this in order to “achieve their independence together”. I volunteer. And you ?
Columnist (Presence Info, Game), essayist and poet, Louis Cornellier teaches literature at college.