Abstract. Globalisation, fragmentation and the emergence of identity politics challenge the myth of the homogeneous nation‐state. They also lend increasing importance to processes of national boundary construction. This article argues that the dichotomy of ethnic and civic nations which traditionally informs much of social science discourse on nations and nationalism is inadequate to analyse how nations distribute membership. The same is true of the Meineckean distinction between cultural and political nations. Both typologies fail to account for some actually existing types of national boundary construction and they suggest that, in any instance, the process of boundary construction is homogeneous, universal and generic. As a consequence of these shortcomings, the ethnickivic dichotomy needs to be revised, by disentangling different organising principles at work in defining the boundaries of ethnic and civic nations: ancestry, race, culture and territory.

The constitution and constitutional discourse have loomed large on the agenda of Canadian political science since the 1960s. Over time, political scientists have approached the constitution and its role in society from a number of angles reflecting perceived primary axes of power and dominant cleavages within Canadian society. Thus, federalism, regionalism and British-French dualism have been prominent in explorations of constitutional politics, while such questions as the relation of the constitution to class or gender have been less central.

Abstract. Over the last few decades, non-territorial forms of national self-government have attracted increasing interest in political science, especially in the guise of national cultural autonomy. National cultural autonomy is a model of self-government that was pioneered by Austrian theorists and politicians Karl Renner and Otto Bauer in the waning days of the Habsburg Empire, yet was never implemented in Austria–Hungary. This paper will examine some of the problems and possibilities that may attend a transfer of national cultural autonomy as a model of self-government into Canadian political discourse, especially as regards Quebec nationalism, Francophone communities outside Quebec, Anglophone Quebecers, self-government for Aboriginal peoples, and political values in English-speaking Canada.Résumé. Au cours des dernières décennies, les formes non territoriales d'autonomie gouvernementale nationale ont fait l'objet d'un intérêt croissant en science politique, en particulier le concept de l'autonomie culturelle nationale. L'autonomie culturelle nationale est un modèle autonomiste développé par les théoriciens et politiciens autrichiens Karl Renner et Otto Bauer lors du déclin de l'Empire habsbourgeois, mais qui ne fut jamais mis en place dans l'Empire austro-hongrois. Cet article examinera quelques-uns des problèmes et quelques-unes des possibilités qui pourraient émerger d'un transfert de ce modèle dans le discours politique canadien sur l'autonomie gouvernementale, en particulier en ce qui a trait au nationalisme québécois, aux communautés francophones situées à l'extérieur du Québec, aux Québécois anglophones, à l'autonomie gouvernementale des peuples autochtones et aux valeurs politiques du Canada anglais.

This article examines the symbolic construction of Canadian national identity by the 1993-2006 Liberal governments and the 2006-2015 Conservative governments.To do so, it employs the concept of a 'national symbolic order', which refers to the complex set of public symbols that invoke, transport, and define claims to a shared national identity. Within Canada's national symbolic order, we focus on the state's use of national symbols across two domains: Speeches from the Throne and banknotes. Our analysis shows that Canada's recent Conservative government has used both of these domains to reshape Canadian national identity in ways that accord with neo-conservative values and ideology, and that it has done so in a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive fashion. This analysis highlights the symbolic strategies employed by state actors in linking particular ideologies to their nation-building projects; these strategies span multiple political and policy spaces.

No abstract