Hi!
My name is Laura and I am a fourth year English Literature Major. I am nearing the end of my degree, which I have stretched out over many years, as I have also been busy working as a contemporary dance artist with a Vancouver based contemporary dance company. I am excited about the content of the course as I feel it will help me think through some of my own questions concerning national identity and the mythos that accompanies the construction of such an identity. On an academic and artistic level, I am interested in the politics of identity and of representation. As a Canadian citizen, I am keenly aware, and deeply troubled by the way in which the national mythos entails the exclusion of certain stories and histories that have been violently occluded in the construction of a national story which serves the interests of those in power. I am therefore really looking forward to this course in its emphasis on giving voice to an indigenous perspective and legacy of story telling, so often excluded from the canon of western literature.
In thinking about the politics of identity, and particularly in the context of this course- of national identity- I am inspired by the work of Vancouver born visual artist, Ken Lum. One of his pieces called “Mounties and Indians,” from his series “Portrait Logos,” interrogates the construction of a national iconography through the perpetuation of cultural stereotypes. His work addresses constructions of “Canadian-ness,” emblematized through the symbol of the mountie, and the way in which these constructions are also steeped in particular representations of indigeneity as “authentic vs. non-authentic.”
Mounties & Indians, 1989. Colour print, pressed paper vinyl Film letters on plexiglas. 204 x 124.5 cm. Collection of the Winnipeg Art Gallery .
I have attached a link to an article by Lum, entitled “Canadian Identity Debates are Broken. Let’s fix them.” The article (while not specifically discussing Canadian literature) addresses questions which I feel are in line with the concerns of this course. Lum investigates the problematics of the question, “What makes Canadian art Canadian?” and “Who speaks for Canadian culture?” He writes, “both questions are vexing… because of the presuppositions inherent in the questions. Both perpetuate a logic premised on the binaries of inclusion/exclusion and qualified/unqualified.” In my opinion, Lum’s article provides a helpful framework in which to situate our discussions of Canadian literature.
Looking forward to getting started on this course with all of you!
Works cited:
“Ken Lum.” WAG: Winnipeg Art Gallery. Web. 15 May. 2015. http://wag.ca/art/collections/canadian-art/display,contemporary/52799
Lum, Ken. “Canadian Identity Debates are Broken. Let’s fix them.” Canadian Art (2013): n. pag. Web. 15 May. 2015. http://canadianart.ca/features/2013/05/09/ken-lum-who-speaks-for-canadian-culture/
Hello Laura, and welcome to our course of studies. This is a great introduction, I too admire Ken Kum’s work – thank you for the link; a most interesting and sensitive read. I am looking forward to our work together this semester. Thanks, Erika
Hi Laura
Thank you for your introduction and the Ken Lum link. I enjoyed his discussion on “identity-as-landscape” and the inclusion of this “garrison mentality”. Particularly in the paragraph that he discusses multiculturalism and identity, beginning, “[t]his narrative is complicated by the multi-ethnic … ” I thought about the concept of integration. Maybe it is also part of a “national mythos” as you say, because even when I think about the area of Greater Vancouver, it seems that integration is not really possible? Or maybe not possible because there is no real definition of what an integrated multicultural society would look like. Especially with immigration and rural ethnic developments on the rise in surrounding areas.
What do you think?
Thanks, Nadya
Hey Nadya,
First of all, I want to apologize for taking so long to reply to your comment. I really appreciated your feedback, and for taking the time to read the Ken Lum article. In response to your thoughts about multiculturalism as a part of the ‘Canadian national mythos,’ I do feel that the narrative of a harmonious multicultural society, is one that the Canadian state embraces as part of their national story, (and was enshrined in Canadian policy in 1971 as part of the Multiculturalism Policy of Canada). But as you were saying who really defines what an “integrated multicultural society would look like?” In this case, it is the Canadian government, and therefore how can this particular understanding of multiculturalism be a neutral one, when it clearly reflects the ideologies of the Canadian state? It makes me wonder who is actually being served in this narrative of multiculturalism? And to what extent do the policies of the Canada’s Multiculturalism policy reflect the lived realities of recent immigrations and minority populations?
Thanks again for your comments!
Laura