Last updated on December 31, 2013
This is a post about the emphasis on “culture” and nationalism, and about what it means when the state does the former and pushes the latter.
I have been mulling the contents of this post for a long time — I have been thinking about some of the arguments I am about to in some form or other since I was in college in the late 90s — but I am not sure my point will be the most coherent and clearly argued. But bear with me, first because I think the general point I am about to make is seriously under-appreciated, and because my best posts are usually those that were the most difficult to write.
As you may already know, I grew up in Quebec, where every public policy debate is subordinate to the so-called question nationale (i.e., whether Quebec should secede from the rest of Canada). Consequently, a lot of my thinking on what the state does — and how it does it — has been conditioned by that one example. I realize that one should not generalize from a sample wherein n = 1, but having lived in four other countries (the US, Belgium, Madagascar, and Italy), I do have a bit of a basis for comparison. And before anything else, you may want to read this Economist article on identity politics in Quebec.
Culture and Nationalism
First, let me state that I start from the assumption that the objective of the state is to increase its power by increasing its revenue. A less strict version of this assumption — and one which will essentially lead to the same conclusions — is this: the objective of the state is to maintain its power by maintaining its revenue.
But then, why does the state emphasize cultural arguments and promote nationalism? For two reasons. First, emphasizing culture and promoting nationalism increases people’s willingness to pay taxes. Few people enjoy giving up some of their income to the state, but this might perhaps be tweaked by emphasizing the importance of culture and by promoting nationalism. “Sure, you don’t like giving up part of your income, but it’s an Us-vs.-Them World, and we need you to do your part.” That is the marginal argument for the state promoting nationalism: at the margin, nationalistic policies increase willingness to pay taxes to increase or maintain the state’s power.
Second, emphasizing culture and promoting nationalism means that people are less likely to emigrate. Growing up in Quebec, I have met too many a person who would say something like “I would love to go [study/work] in [the rest of Canada/the US], but my English is not that good.” And indeed, how can one’s English be good when one cannot go to elementary or secondary school in English if neither of one’s parents did not also attend school in English themselves (a measure designed to assimilate immigrants into speaking French and to maintain the presence of French in Quebec). How can one’s English be good when one gets at most three hours of English classes per week, and only starting in the fourth grade at that? That is the infra-marginal argument for the state promoting nationalism: nationalistic policies ensure that people are actually there to pay taxes to increase or maintain the state’s power.
Ultimately, this emphasis on culture and the promotion of nationalism create the equivalent of a prison for a state’s subjects. When people are constantly bombarded by the message that who they are and where they live is so much superior to the rest of the world, people are less likely to go elsewhere to see if life is any better there, they are more likely to stay, and they are more likely to buy into the state’s activities.
There are many reasons to dislike nationalism — four years ago, Ilya Somin summarized many of those reasons in a post titled “Against Nationalism” over at the Volokh Conspiracy — but I don’t recall ever seeing the argument I am making here being made elsewhere. If you do, please leave a reference or hyperlink in the comments.
It’s an interesting idea to explore, and who knows, there might be something there, but I find the examples unconvincing.
It looks like living in the US has informed your views as much as living in Quebec. The view that the State is intent on increasing its revenues and power is quite common in the American public, but I’m yet to live in another country (I’ve lived in four too) where this view is so widely held. State officials surely fall for the same human (living thing?) bias of appropriating resources for themselves and the bureaucracy isn’t checked much by the risk of bankruptcy, but I’m unconvinced by the links and mechanisms proposed here. (I might add that this goal of infinite growth is openly held by businesses but not by governments.)
If there’s a reliable measure of nationalism, it would be interesting to start with a look at the potential correlation with the level of taxes. One can think of countries with high levels of nationalism and relatively low levels of taxes. Is Norway really more nationalist than Russia? In fact, this question may well have been studied already, if not settled.
The capture of the population is even less convincing to me. Québécois students who blame their level of English for staying in Québec might be looking for an excuse for their lack of will. They could just take tests like TOEFL and let the system decide if their level of English is sufficient. I come from the countryside with parents (families!) who don’t speak English, went through the education system and yet I studied and worked in English full time for a decade. In Québec, it’s culturally accepted and even promoted in higher education to study abroad. Québec universities have a well-known program for studying abroad and some universities make exchange programs a core part of their branding.
Once “the right to exist” for Québec as a French-speaking nation is accepted, one can expect a mix of policies preserving and promoting French, while ensuring a sufficient level of English to engage with neighbours and the rest of the world. It seems that Quebec is looking for balance across changing governments, not promoting some nationalism and ignorance of English to willingly prevent its population from moving out.
By the way, since 2006 English is taught starting in Grade 1 in Québec. Starting in Grade 4 probably goes back to the 80s if not earlier. If French speakers have difficulties with English, the world over, it might be related to the differences between the languages.
On the topic of capturing taxpayers, I would add that nationalism is rarely compatible with open immigration. Wouldn’t it make sense for States intent on growing their tax base to promote immigration?
Anyway, hope to contribute to your reflexion on this topic. You contributed to mine.
My mom is a an anglophone Candian from Northern Ontario, and I grew up in Syracuse. For what it’s worth, I didn’t understand Quebecois nationalism at all until I read The Hockey Sweater. More broadly, I think that points to the emotional meaning of nationalism as opposed to the empirical value.
I have actually read the argument of the state using language & culture to decrease citizens’ outside options before, but for the life of me I can’t recall where. Certainly, there has been work on places like Nigeria and Sri Lanka where the argument is that a disproportionately powerful minority uses language to cement in the minority’s hold on the state apparatus. This is not a state vs society argument, but rather a model in which groups compete to maximize their share of the state’s spoils.