Envisaging Canada in a Disenchanted World: Refl ections on Federalism, Nationalism, and Distinctive Indigenous Identity Jean Leclair* Ah yes! his charm. Although it is capable of courage, Th e people, always ignorant and dazzled! generosity, resourcefulness, and benevolence, Th ey come to watch a scene for which they pay, the Trickster is also quite capable of blunders, To see a strange hand risk their destiny. indecision, frivolity, and trickery. Furthermore, it adores having fun at the expense of others, 1 Victor Hugo (1802-1885) meddling in situations where it is not supposed to be present, and bringing the unexpected to [Necker] was blamed by the philosophers of bear on the most carefully thought-out plans. the day for not applying, in all its extent, to In short, the Trickster is an imperfect being who commerce and fi nances the system which scoff s at system-makers (“faiseurs de système”) they wished to impose on the mind. Th e and other rigid thinkers who are indiff erent to philosophic fanaticism which proved one of the dense and fl uctuating nature of reality. the evils of the Revolution had already begun to show itself. Th ese men were desirous of I have taught law for more than twenty attributing to a few principles that absolute years. I have gradually become convinced that power which had hitherto been absorbed by jurists (like myself), political scientists, and phi- a few individuals; as if the domain of inquiry losophers who are interested in federalism and admitted of restriction or exclusion. Indigenous issues — whether they themselves 2 are of Indigenous origin or not — do not always Germaine de Staël (1766-1817) take suffi cient consideration of the Trickster in their understanding of these matters. Th eir intel- No sooner had I started looking into Aborig- lectual constructions lack asperities. No provi- inal and treaty rights issues than did I stumble sion is made for the unforeseen. Everything is upon the fi gure of the Trickster. Th e Trickster is just too smooth. Above all, these constructions a mythical fi gure in Indigenous thinking — an oft en overestimate or underestimate the capacity incorporeal being that moulds itself into diff erent of human beings to think by and for themselves. forms, be it that of a crow, a rabbit, or a fl ower — whose powers are limited by the physical form *** it embraces. Despite its remarkable powers, the Trickster is not omnipotent. It is a basic truth that any person who wishes to speak about something at a certain level of While this fi rst limitation already warmed me to gener ality must have recourse to concepts that the Trickster fi gure, another drawback furthers simplify or reify reality. Caution should therefore Constitutional Forum constitutionnel 15 be exercised, since any conceptualization neces- family. Th at said, as rational agents, we can sort sarily obscures one part of reality and magnifi es out our opinions, behaviours, and convictions. another. We need to cultivate a healthy suspicion If renouncing what we have for a long time with regards to the notions that we mobilize in believed to be true entails some painful wrench- our understanding of reality, failing which we ing, this wrenching is no less possible for that. risk convincing ourselves that empirical reality Conversely, we are always at liberty to embrace yields to our conceptual frameworks in every new practices, habits, and opinions. respect.3 In the discussion that follows, I will fi rst My sympathy for the Trickster was born of highlight the dangers inherent in submitting the a dissatisfaction with the limits of concepts such analysis of the Canadian federal phenomenon or as rights, sovereignty, the social contract, nation- the issue of Indigenous governance to a mono- alism, and cultural authenticity — all concepts cular conceptual lens that gives rise to binary upon which one stumbles constantly if one takes conclusions, a prism that does not do justice to an interest in federalism or issues pertaining to the plurality of identitary markers of the mem- Indigenous governance. Th e common denomi- bers of the Canadian political community — be nator of all of these notions is their hostility to they English Canadians, French Canadians, Que- pluralism and their imposition of a monocular beckers, Indigenous, or non-Indigenous people. vision of reality, in that they hyperbolize a sin- gle aspect of reality, thus oversimplifying the In the second part, I would like to demon- complexity of the very phenomena they are sup- strate how a federal line of thinking (“une pensée posed to explain. In truth, if these concepts are fédérale”) — I would go so far as to say a federal that powerful, it is precisely because they off er a epistemology — would conversely allow for the “total” explanation of phenomena that are highly complexity of our respective individual identi- multifaceted.4 ties to be revealed, while unveiling at the same time the ratio of power which intervenes in the Above all, my dissatisfaction arose from the construction of a given identity. Finally, I will conception of human beings underpinning such attempt to demonstrate how this renewed under- forms of conceptualization. All too frequently, standing of federalism would allow us to grasp the way in which human beings are represented the Indigenous issue from a diff erent angle.5 oscillates between two equally repellent poles. Th e fi rst pole makes a “rational idiot” of the human being: an idiot, since he is unable to rec- 1. Th e dangers of monocular ognize that his rational choices are meaningful 6 exactly because they are confi gured by a very spe- approaches cifi c socio-cultural context, one without which the choice of A over B would be totally arbitrary. Th e critical appraisal of federalism that has been Human beings do not live in a vacuum. Th e sec- undertaken by several Quebec scholars, as well ond pole, on the other hand, considers the human as the opposition of certain Indigenous scholars being to be an “irrational idiot”: an idiot because to the authority of the Canadian government, he is incapable of extracting himself by means of provides a good example of a monocular episte- reason and willpower from the identitary corset mology. fashioned by history and socialization. I am, of course, exaggerating the two positions here, but A common characteristic of several Quebec to a lesser degree than it would appear. and Indigenous scholars is that they describe the relationship between Canada and Quebec, or In fact, nobody satisfi es either of these between Canada and the Indigenous peoples, as models. It stands to reason that we all are fash- 1) a struggle between nations characterized by ioned by socialization processes beyond our profound and absolute cultural distinctiveness; control. Th us, whether I like it or not, I was born and/or 2) as a zero-sum game between two polit- in Quebec into a francophone Roman Catholic ical communities that are mutually exclusive 16 Volume 25, Number 1, 2016 because they are equally sovereign, each bearing however, we can adhere but to one nation. Th e a watertight and indivisible political authority. latter is a totality to which one belongs and which one cannot leave, unless one leaves it completely. As we will see further on, these perspectives He who ventures beyond the symbolic national are certainly not completely devoid of truth. border and harbours multiple allegiances stands Nor do I doubt that nationalism can constitute to be excluded due to his lack of patriotism, his a remarkably powerful political lever; there is no blindness, his ignorance, or the false conscious- need to demonstrate its extraordinary capacity ness of the colonized from which he suff ers. to ensure the cohesion of a given group. But, this is not the focus of my present attention. I am Moreover, this point of view oft en repre- more interested in examining the unspoken epis- sents the nation as a natural organizing principle temological premises underpinning what I will instead of an artifi cial construct, as a subjective call methodological nationalism: in other words, transcendent entity, one that is both anterior and the point of view in terms of which the world superior to its individual members. Th e nation is entirely made up of national groups. Such an would derive its existence from a quasi-natural analysis will enable me to reveal certain norma- historic process that is independent of individual tive consequences associated with this epistemo- volition. A nation would thus be not so much the logical perspective. fruit borne from multiple, frequently confl icting interactions between its constitutive members Th us will we see, among other things, that over the course of generations, as the product the two postures evoked above both presume the of a set of socialization processes completely existence of a perfectly singular Quebec or Indi- beyond the control of individual members. Of genous identitary essence. Moreover, we will be course, nationalist writers are not oblivious to able to observe that concepts such as nation, so - the fact that such interactions do take place, but vereignty, and rights are poorly suited to the idea this does not give rise to any consequences that of compromise, overlap, or of multiple belong- seriously impact their way of thinking. In their ings. Instead, they refer to a universe of oppo- view, a person essentially remains largely deter- sitions, of confl icts, and of dichotomous distinc- mined by her cultural and social environment. tions, rendering more diffi cult the fashioning of Her capacity to think by and for herself ( i.e. her solutions which, while admitting the importance agency), is accordingly all the more diminished.