The genesis for this review includes two observations and two wellgrounded suspicions. The first observation is that mainstream CPS literature is heavily weighted to a consideration of some 'identities'~regions, Quebec, provinces, cultural0linguistic0ethnic groups! over others~gendered, racialized and class-based identifications, indigenous nationalist0 nation-based 'identities'!. Second, CPS literature is notable in that while discussions of ethnicity0culture figure prominently in a number of areas, discussions of 'race', racialization and racism remain conspicuously absent. Consequently, the first suspicion is that while a focus on 'identity' inclusions may lead one to focus on the variability of CPS approaches to 'identity', a contemplation of exclusions urges us to consider how dominant CPS narratives are coherent enough to have a particular narrowing effect. The corollary suspicion is that the ubiquity of the absence of 'race' suggests that discourses of 'identity' in CPS sift 'race' out.In tandem with the breadth of the conceptual work that 'identity' is supposed to do, the consistent analytic submerging of 'race' in CPS has important consequences for the integrity of the field. The different dimensions of 'identity' that Brubaker and Cooper reference are interrelated yet arguably distinct; consequently, there is a conceptual and analytic danger when they are collapsed upon each other. Our understanding of "who" is directly tied to how we draw correlations, identify moments of transition and change, assess political significance, understand political motivations, conceptualize the exercise of power, and make sense of unanticipated actions and consequences. Consequently, a lack of clarity0 transparency around the level of analysis we adopt when we speak about 'identity' jeopardizes our analytic rigour. Moreover, clarity0transparency around our level of analysis allows us to identify which dimensions of 'identity' are consistently being ignored and how a particular analytic focus might contribute to the erasure of 'race'. The consequences of the analytic submerging of 'race' are extreme, ultimately erasing a particular class of political subjects, a particular technology of political power, as well as the material history of the Canadian state and the discipline's implication in it. The erasure of 'race' further limits how we conceptualize other forms of domination and resistance, given that 'race' exists in complex and constant interplay with other structuring forms of identification. As Thompson rightly suggests, disciplinary lag, "whereby political science becomes disconnected from the society it purports to analyze," gives us reason for concern~2008: 536!.This review broadly surveys and maps how CPS has considered and shaped the logic of 'identity' within three main disciplinary dimensions: the institutional, societal0citizenship and governance dimensions. As Kernerman states in the context of multicultural nationalism, the operating logic of a field "defines the broad objective of the conversation and se...

In light of theCanadian Journal of Political Science(CJPS) self-reflexive “50thAnniversary” issue on the state of Canadian political science (CPS), this article maps the discipline's engagement with intersectional anti-oppression scholarship. Analyzing abstracts inCJPSand theCanadian Political Science Review,we argue while these journals—and mainstream CPS more generally—tackle questions of diversity, there remains a gap between conversations recognized in these particular forums and the incorporation of what we term an intersectional anti-oppression lens. In its deconstruction of systems of power and privilege, we explore analytic and pedagogical possibilities this lens presents for mainstream CPS.

No abstract

In this piece, we ask, what are the risks of a pedagogy and politics that begins and ends with privilege? What does it mean to declare privilege when embedded in institutions of the settler colonial state? These questions are raised through an ongoing project where we interview provincial public sector workers on Treaty 6, 7 and 8 (Alberta, Canada) and Coast Salish Territories (British Columbia, Canada) about their implications in settler colonialism through public sector work. In the project, we articulate the interdisciplinary framework of settler colonial socialization to consider the space between individuals and structures – the meso-space where settlers are made by learning how to take up the work of settler colonialism. For these reasons, in our research we ask, “what do the pedagogical processes of settler colonial socialization tell us about how systemic colonial violence is sustained, and how it might be disrupted or refused in public sector work?” In this paper, we narrow our focus to the declarations of privilege that many of our interview participants are making. We reflect on these declarations and consider whether focusing on settler complicity and Indigenous refusals can better support a decolonial politics for settlers working in the public sector. We argue that declarations of privilege risk reproducing settler-centric logics that maintain settler colonialism, settler jurisdiction, and settler certainty, and we reflect on how to orient participants (and ourselves) towards the material realization of relational accountability and towards imagining otherwise.

In 2002, Maher Arar, a dual Canadian and Syrian citizen, was detained and accused by American authorities of being a member of al Qa’ida. He was deported to Jordan and, ultimately, Syria, where he was imprisoned and subjected to torture for one year. In 2007, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology and 10.5 million dollars (Canadian) in compensation. Drawing on contemporary theoretical accounts of multiculturalism, security, and the state, and utilizing parliamentary debates and American and Canadian print media accounts between 2002 and 2007, we examine the statements of public officials in Canada and the United States to show how the story of Arar, from his deportation to the apology, has been framed in contradictory ways. These contradictions spin on three main dualisms: Arar’s guilt versus innocence; Arar’s status as a Syrian versus Canadian; and the rule of law versus exception. It is argued that these contradictions are of tremendous theoretical significance for understanding the contemporary Canadian state as one in which multiculturalism and liberalism co-exist with racialization and exception. En 2002, Maher Arar, un citoyen ayant la double nationalité canadienne et syrienne, fut détenu et accusé par les autorités états-uniennes de faire partie d’al Qa’ida. Il fut déporté en Jordanie, puis en Syrie, où il fut emprisonné et torturé pendant un an. En 2007, le Premier ministre Stephen Harper présenta des excuses officielles accompagnées d’une compensation de 10,5 millions de dollars. Dans cet article, à partir de théories contemporaines sur le multiculturalisme, la sécurité et l’État, et en référence aux débats parlementaires de même qu’aux média écrits entre 2002 et 2007, nous examinons comment les discours officiels publics se contredisent, aussi bien au Canada qu’aux États-Unis, et ce depuis la déportation d’Arar jusqu’aux excuses publiques qui lui ont été présentées. Ces contradictions découlent de trois formes de dualisme : d’abord, la culpabilité d’Arar par opposition à son innocence, ensuite son double statut de citoyen canadien, mais aussi syrien, et enfin, la règle de droit en concurrence avec la règle d’exception. Cet article montre que ces contradictions sont très importantes sur le plan théorique pour comprendre comment, dans l’État canadien contemporain, libéralisme et multiculturalisme coexistent avec un phénomène de ‘racialisation’ et de rejet de la différence.