Is it Still Possible or Desirable for Canada to Sustain Policies of Cultural Protectionism and Nationalism?
P.J. Worsfold, 3/31/2007
After studying the history of Canadian broadcasting and the volumes of policy debate that have followed, I have arrived at two conclusions. First, cultural diversity and plurality are vital to a nation's well-being. Secondly, cultural activities cannot be sustained by the free-market alone.
Based on these conclusions and the fact that the broadcasting environment is only going to be more technologically advanced and more globally integrated as time passes, it is my contention that it is both possible and desirable for the bodies that govern Canadian broadcasting to sustain polices of cultural nationalism. If properly drafted and implemented, such policies will help facilitate industrial and cultural objectives both locally and globally. However, as with any act of government intervention into the public sphere, once in place, nationalist broadcasting policies must be closely scrutinized. When facilitation moves to control, nationalist policies quickly become protectionist policies, which although always possible, are never desirable or completely effective. While, government restrictions on cultural flow may have the country's best interests at heart, their effects on indigenous cultural production and consumption are questionable. Moreover, the intent of such restrictions runs counter to both the evolution of a vibrant and diverse national cultural landscape and the spirit of equitable global trade.
Stemming from the arguments presented above and with reference to a selection of influential government policies and cultural developments from the 1950s onward, this paper will explore the feasibility and the desirability of both policy driven protectionism and nationalism in more detail. As with many issues that relate to culture and national identity, the debate on broadcast policy is replete with confusion over matters of semantics and connotations. In an effort to relieve this confusion and outline the need for government intervention into the cultural sphere, I will begin by outlining the key definitions and assumptions that my argument hinges on. Next, I will introduce the concepts of cultural protectionism and cultural nationalism and discuss how government policy can implement these concepts. Following this process, I will provide a brief analysis of the historical trends in Canadian broadcast policy. This portion of my paper will outline the protectionist past of our national broadcast policy and illustrate the recent technological and economic developments that now behoove its evolution. Finally, this paper will conclude with arguments in support of cultural nationalism as the ideal means to achieve Canada's cultural objectives in today's complicated and internationally oriented broadcast landscape.
In order to give the forthcoming discussion an optimum sense of clarity, I will begin by defining culture and addressing its value. My word processor's dictionary aptly defines culture as, "the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behaviour of a particular nation or group of people" (Microsoft). Based on this definition, I shall define cultural policy as any government action or position that relates to matters of culture. More specifically, I shall define broadcast cultural policy as any government action or position that relates to the radio or television broadcast of any cultural expression. Considered on their own, these terms are easily understood, however, the challenge lies in their coalescence.
We can all agree that cultural endeavors have numerous benefits both to individuals and to society as a whole. Examples of such benefits range from job creation and nation building to spiritual growth and straightforward entertainment. A vibrant culture is a vital component of any successful and progressive society and the importance of establishing and maintaining such a culture cannot be overstated. While we know that we must diligently manage our culture, ours is a society that has prospered by applying "market economics as the legitimate form of governance" (Gasher 26) over numerous economic structures and social organizations. Thus, there exists a tendency to assume that the free-market can effectively govern anything that we set its sights on. Given this tendency and our government's history of bureaucratic bloat, one is compelled to ask, why should the government involve itself in culture?
Cowen points out that a healthy capitalist economy "generates the wealth that enables individuals to support themselves through art" (Cowen 16). Although Cowen limits his observation to art, his statement rings true for all cultural products. There is no doubt that a prosperous economy full of prosperous individuals creates the money and the time for society to consume culture. However, while the free market stimulates cultural consumption, it is less effective at engendering cultural development. As the broadcasting industry demonstrates, when left on its own, market-based cultural production tends to grow formulaic and homogeneous. In a purely free market, cultural producers, like everyone else, will likely strive to create conditions of predictability and stability within their businesses, as these conditions lend themselves to higher standards of living. Subsequently, many cultural workers will be inclined to rely on proven and more widely accepted production techniques and venture to new creative ground only when past modes of production stagnate. Although the free-market rewards diversity in the long-run, when cultural producers must rely solely on current public demand for their day-to-day existence, the high short-term risk involved in implementing new modes of production creates little incentive for diversity.
Culture develops best when cultural producers are given room to develop and evolve their ideas through a dialectic of discussion, critique and creativity. Yet, with a necessary focus on competition, efficiency, and fiscal responsibility, conditions of an ideal free market often run counter to the requirements of optimum cultural development. Particularly in their early stages, cultural activities require encouragement and stimulus from a source whose only interests are cultural. While far from perfect, with its capacity to create and fund arms-length policies and institutions, the government is well positioned to intervene and act as such a cultural steward. This is not to say however, that government intervention ought to create a bubble of artsy unaccountability. Rather, under this model, government efforts would provide a buffer intended to help cultural endevours transition and contribute successfully to the open market.
Aside from the previously mentioned incompatibilities between culture and the free-market that transcend political borders, Canada has a second and unique factor that necessitates government involvement in the cultural sphere. As Meisel and van Loon observe, "being a new and post-colonial community, Canada [lacks] a strong tradition of royal, aristocratic, and even private patronage of the arts" (Meisel 279). In other words, while European nations rely on much older and more culturally ingrained models of cultural support, Canadians have no such means or tradition. Moreover, while Canada has many generous cultural patrons, the Canadian cultural landscape has never experienced American-style cultural philanthropy (279). Subsequently, in Canada, the onus for cultural support falls to the government, in some regards, by default.
Once one accepts the need for government involvement in the nation's cultural affairs, there arises a corollary to the debate, which concerns the specific objectives of government intervention into the cultural realm. It is not sufficient to say that, since culture benefits everyone and since culture cannot be sustained without help, the government ought to jump in and offer carte blanche to the cultural sphere. Due to the size, scope, and costs involved with any government initiative, a clear statement of purpose, which includes measurable objectives, must be established early on in the policy-making process. While for better or worse, the broadcast policies of Aird and Massey had nation-building as their stated purpose, such assertions of intent have bedeviled the more recent efforts of Canadian cultural policymakers. For instance, in an effort to help clarify the intent of Canadian cultural policy, in 1982, the Canada Council asked the Applebaum-Hébert Committee whether cultural policy should "pursue industrial or cultural objectives"(Canada 1982 35). Unfortunately, four years later, the Caplan- Sauvageau Report observed that the answer to this question remained "shrouded in ambiguity and confusion" (35). Lorimer and Duxbury would likely concur with the Caplan-Sauvageau Report as they argue, "a fully articulated philosophy of cultural development has never been developed in Canada" (Lorimer 269).
In their efforts to justify and define objectives for government intervention, there has been a tendency amongst cultural policymakers to pigeonhole cultural benefits according to either a "culturalist discourse" or an "economic discourse" (Gasher 14). The culturalists hold that "cultural production (is) first and foremost a cultural activity" (14), whose benefits relate primarily to the creation of a more enlightened society, while the economic perspective "defines cultural production as (a) commercial enterprise" (14), with economic benefits. This practice has led to the creation of poorly balanced policy that is susceptible to criticism from whichever side of the culturalist versus economist argument that it fails to address. If policy emanates from a cultural discourse, it "contradicts in fundamental ways the thinking which today guides and constrains government decision making" (28), while if policy is derived from an economic discourse, it raises doubt about the government's true motivations (Canada 1982 8).
Further confounding matters, many in the public feel largely excluded and detached from the creation of appropriate cultural policy. With regards to broadcast cultural policy, Peers notes that Canadians, "never made a clear choice between broadcasting as 'public service' and broadcasting as a commercial medium and predominantly the purveyor of light entertainment" (Fearn 126). With this tradition of ambiguity and confusion, it is of little wonder that so many recommendations on cultural policy fall by the wayside. In order to cease this trend, it is my contention that to be effective, modern cultural policy must be subjected to a set of criteria that acknowledge both cultural and economic requirements.
An act of government intervention into the cultural sphere can take two forms, protectionist or nationalist. These are essentially defensive or offensive courses of action. On one hand, protectionism tends to spawn reactive policies, which are focused on creating an artificial cultural environment within a nation. While on the other hand, nationalist broadcast policies proactively stimulate the creation, and facilitate the consumption of a nation's cultural products.
Ignoring the notion that the "cultural expression is vastly enriched by the free flow of ideas across borders" (Grant 3), protectionism's arbitrary restrictions freeze cultural output "like flies in amber" (3). Canada's assorted content requirements, which force private broadcasters to include a certain amount of Canadian content within their daily programming schedules, are our nation's best-known protectionist measures. Although such content restrictions were first introduced in the Broadcasting Act of 1958, Canada has a long history of broadcast protectionism. For instance, both the Aird Commission of 1929 and the Massey-Lévesque Commission of 1951 supported the move to end private national broadcasting. Rather than fostering a balanced market of commercial and public broadcast fare, these commissions suggested that the CBC, as well as its precursor the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Corporation, ought to control everything on the nation's airwaves (Media).
While the ivory tower of protectionism is a derivative of fear, well-articulated nationalist policies are the product of confidence and pride. The work of the Applebaum-Hébert Committee serves as an excellent example of nationalist policymaking in action. Gasher remarks, the Committee "refused a protectionist stance, preferring to recommend pro-active strategies" (Gasher 26). The Committee acknowledged the importance of cultural production by suggesting, that "when creative activity is diminished because many artists are unable to earn a decent living, something is lost to all of us, and our entire culture fails to fulfill its promise" (Canada 1982 4). However, rather than positioning itself as the great defender of Canadian morality, Applebaum et al. placed the government in a role of cultural facilitator by arguing that "the essential task of government in cultural matters is to remove obstacles ad enlarge opportunities" (Canada 1982 75). Rather than fighting Americanized mass culture, which Canada is as much a part of as any other western nation, the Committee suggested ways for Canadians to "capitalize upon the American-dominated industrial infrastructure" (Gasher 26). Examples of successful polices modeled in this spirit include the government sponsored tax benefits and cash subsidies that have supported various Canadian television productions, music videos, and awards shows (Grant 225).
With their shared language, similar cultures, tightly integrated economies and close geographic proximity, Canada and the U.S. have a unique and complicated relationship. By evolving next to the world's largest producer of broadcast culture, Canada's broadcasting policy has long been challenged in ways many other nations are just beginning to understand (2). Whereas today's satellite and internet technologies distribute various national broadcasts globally, Canadian audiences have been happily consuming terrestrially based American broadcasts since the days of the first consumer radios. And, since that time, someone in the Canadian government has been working to protect Canadians from American broadcasts.
In the discussion that is to follow, it is not my intent to downplay the efforts of those who have endeavored to foster a diverse and creative cultural spirit in Canada. Nor do I disagree with Frye's assertion that, within global consciousness, it is "of immense importance that there should be other views [than that of the United States] of the human occupation of this continent" (Zemans 138). However, it is my position that Canadian cultural policy has been co-opted by an overly moral political agenda concerned first, with nation building and later, with strengthening and maintaining a national identity.
When Aird called the "power and penetration of American (radio) stations" the "greatest threat of all" to Canadian culture (143), he helped make America the great foil to Canada's cultural aspirations that it is today. As any leader knows, one of the best ways to unite disparate groups is to focus them on something that they are all not. If a group can agree that, they are all definitely not some other group, than they have something in common. At the time of the Aird Commission, Canada was a relatively young and developing nation challenged by the need to unite a diverse population that was spread, sometimes thinly, across a large geographic area. In short, commonality was in short supply. By introducing into the policy discourse "two recurrent topics: commercialization and Americanization" (Gasher 17) or that which would be labeled 'other' to the goals of Canadian broadcasting and morality, Aird brought to the national debate something that Canadians, or at least the Canadian elite, could rally around.
From the Aird Commission on, Canadian broadcast policy has been predicated on the need to create and maintain national unity. As, Aird famously likened a national broadcasting system to a national railway (Zemans 144), the Massey Report observed culture's capacity to "help to develop Canadian spirit without raising questions of race, religion or political convictions" (Gasher 19). Over 40 years later, politicians were singing the same refrain, with the Liberals declaring "national unity and cultural sovereignty as the goal for federal cultural institutions and policy" (Zemans 139). Zemans summarizes the longstanding character of Canadian broadcasting by suggesting that "the continual Canadian search for identity", "the question of nationhood and… the constant presence of the U.S." have been key factors "in shaping Canadian cultural policy" (139).
While the intent of Canadian cultural policy has often been noble, it is a prime illustration of how valid nationalist goals can give way to counterproductive protectionist policies. There are indeed many successful examples of successful nationalism within Canadian cultural policy. The CBC for instance, with its capacity to provide a forum for the display and discussion of Canadian culture, represents nationalist policy at its best. However, with the ongoing Canadian content debate and various government debacles such as the CRTC's handling of satellite television in the mid-1990s (Fennell), Canada's dark cloud of broadcasting protectionism lingers. Rutherford concludes that the "predominant traits of Canada's cultural industries" are "a hankering for protectionism and a fear of free trade" (Rutherford 276).
The ineffectiveness of protectionism coupled with the need for some sort of government cultural intervention is justification enough for nationalist cultural policy. However, there are also deep-seated technological and economic reasons that make the protectionist leanings of the Aird, Massey-Lévesque and Fowler reports "no longer adequate to rationalize state governance of the cultural sphere" (Gasher 28).
Examples of factors that are now, and will in the future, contribute to the unsustainability of protectionist cultural polices could themselves fill several more essays, however, I will briefly summarize two of the most poignant factors. First, from a technological view, the decentralization and the disintermediation that characterizes today's satellite and web-enabled broadcasting landscape have made the notion of one body deciding a nation's broadcast diet impossible. It seems that the CRTC recognized this sometime ago in stating that, "containing the spread of U.S. broadcast services in Canada [was] workable in 1975 [however, it] is no longer applicable in the changed environment of 1985" (Canada 1986 26). Secondly, economically, trade liberalization has placed cultural protectionism at odds with accepted practices of international relations. While Canada must be "vigilant about its right to intervene in the cultural sector", if we want to reap the benefits of global diversity, we must be prepared to open our cultural markets to outsiders. Admittedly, culture will always be a contentions issue within international relations and it is certainly not acceptable to judge trade in culture as one would trade in other goods. However, as trade and culture grow progressively more intertwined and as more cultural productions result from international collaborations, protectionism will become impossible to sustain. The sooner nations acknowledge the need to negotiate cultural interactions, the better prepared their cultures will be to adapt to and develop from broadened global relations.
Protectionism in Canadian cultural policy has failed. Canadian content has become "not representative of Canadian tastes but of a particular class interest" (Attallah 222). The "vast majority of television viewers [have] neither sought, nor liked, nor consumed" (222) Canadian content, while on the radio, Canadian content is regularly blamed for contributing to the mediocrity of Canada's popular music scene. However, past the fact most Canadians seem to prefer "imported American entertainment" (Rutherford 270), protectionism's failure demonstrates an important truth about the relationship between culture and politics. Collins observes that, although Canadian broadcast policies have failed, Canada, as a political unit has been able to persist. Thus, Collins concludes, "polity and culture need not be congruent" (Attallah 222). In other words, while government efforts to artificially grow culture through primarily protectionist measures have failed, Canada and Canadian identity have grown and prospered. This demonstrates that not only can political ends be achieved independently of cultural conditions; the practice of binding cultural policy with political strategy is in ineffective.
As Collins' observation suggests, we are now presented with an opportunity to divest cultural policy of its political agenda and trust in culture's ability to contribute autonomously to society. I have demonstrated the importance of culture and the need for government involvement in its development and I have shown protectionism to be both undesirable and ineffective. Cultural nationalism has already met with great success in Canada. Based on this past performance and their ability to support development while respecting the need for diversity and competition, nationalist policies are a sustainable and desirable means to achieve continued the growth of Canada's unique, diverse, and vibrant culture.
Works Cited
Attallah, Paul. "Richard Collins and the Debate on Culture and Policy." Canadian Journal of Communication. 17.2 (1992): 221-263.
Canada. Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee. Report of the Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee. Ottawa: Information Services, 1982.
Canada. Task Force on Broadcasting Policy. Report of the Task Force on Broadcasting Policy. Toronto: Minister of Supply and Services, 1986.
Cowen, Tyler. In Praise of Commercial Culture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Fearn, Gordon. "The Role of Communications Policy in Modern Culture." Reflections on Cultural Policy: Past, Present and Future. Ed. E. Alderson, et al. Waterloo, Ontario: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1993. 119-135.
Fennell, Tom. "Is Canada's Broadcast Policy Lost in Space?" Maclean's. 27 May 2002. Proquest. Vancouver Public Library, Vancouver. 22 March 2007. Keywords: Protectionism Cultural Canada.
Gasher, Mike. "From Sacred Cows to White Elephants: Cultural Policy Under Siege." Canadian Issues 19 (1997): 13-30.
Grant, Peter S. Blockbusters and Trade Wars : Popular Culture in a Globalized World. Vancouver: Douglas & McIntyre, 2004.
Kostash, Myrna. "Fighting For Our Public Culture, Writers Vow To Defend Cherished 'Canadian way'." The Toronto Star 30 Nov. 1993: B 14.
Lorimer, Rowland and Nancy Duxbury. "Of Culture, the Economy, Cultural Production, and Cultural Producers: An Orientation." Canadian Journal of Communications. 19.3/4 (1994): 259-289.
Media Awareness Network. Canadian Cultural Policies Chronology 1950's. 29 March 2007
Meisel, John, and Jean van Loon. "Cultivating the Bush Garden: Cultural Policy in Canada." The Patron State: Government and the Arts in Europe, North America and Japan. Ed. Milton C. Cummings Jr. and Richard S. Katz. New York: Oxford Press, 1987. 276-310.
"Microsoft Word." Word:Mac. Version X. Microsoft Corp., 2004.
Rutherford, Paul. "Made in America: The Problem of Mass Culture in Canada." The Beaver Bites Back: American Popular Culture in Canada. Eds. Flaherty, David H. and Frank E. Manning. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1993.
Tippett, Maria. "A Mad Desire to Bring About State Control." Making Culture: English- Canadian Institutions and the Arts Before the Massey Commission. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. 63-91.
Zemans, Joyce. "The Essential Role of National Cultural Institutions." Beyond Quebec: Taking Stock of Canada. Ed. Kenneth McRoberst. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1995. 138-162.