Lament for a Nation
 |
|
| Author | George Grant |
|---|---|
| Country | Canada |
| Language | English |
| Genre | Political philosophy |
| Publisher | McGill-Queen's University Press |
|
Publication date
|
1965 |
| Pages | 112 |
| ISBN | |
| OCLC | 31777790 |
Lament for a Nation is a 1965 essay of political philosophy by Canadian philosopher George Grant. The essay examined the political fate of Prime Minister John Diefenbaker's Progressive Conservative government in light of its refusal to allow nuclear arms on Canadian soil and the Liberal Party's political acceptance of the warheads. Its influence and importance in Canadian intellectual history cannot be denied, the book immediately became a best seller and "inspired a surge of nationalist feeling" in Canada, evident in its recognition as one of The Literary Review of Canada's 100 most important Canadian books in 2005.
Although grounded in the particular examination of Diefenbaker's fate in the 1963 federal election, the analysis transcended Canadian politics, studying Canadian and American national foundations, Conservatism in Britain and North America, Canada's dual nature as a French and English nation, the fate of Western Enlightenment, and the philosophical analysis of citizenship in modern democracies.
According to Grant, Diefenbaker's position against the Bomarc was defeated by the Central Canadian establishment, who conspired with the Liberal Party to bring down Diefenbaker and diminish Canadian sovereignty. This was his lament; he felt there was an emerging Americanization of Canadians and Canadian culture due to the inability of Canadians to live outside of the hegemony of American liberal capitalism - and the technology that emanates from that system. He saw a trend occurring in Canada from one of nationalism to continentalism.
Grant suggested that the absorption of Canada into the United States was due in part to the idea of human progress as an inevitable force of a homogenizing nature, which occurs through the power of government, corporations, and technology. He notes that the idea of progress is often associated with improvement, that it is assumed that evolution will always be a positive change. He asserts that necessity and good are not the same thing and in his conclusion he ponders the good that can result from the erasure of boundaries between the two countries, such as increased access to material goods and more significantly the freedom offered by liberalism. Grant also argued that the media was used to enforce power structures rather than to convey factual data following the practice of empire.
...
Wikipedia