Why Don't They Just Say So?: The International Division of Labour, Profits, Resources, and Suffering

The nation and the state penetrate all of the studies that Labour/Le Travail has asked me to review. In 1970, Charles Pentland took a step back from contemporary debates over the question of the independence of Canadian foreign policy to caution that the nation-state is a passing phenomenon in human history.¹ States are currently the primary tools through which the international division of labour, profits, resources, and suffering is organized. Who mediates the relationships that form between populations divided by states and nations? The challenge of this essay is to see how intellectuals position themselves and their subjects in relation to the nation and the state. What opportunities for transnational relationships do they close down and open up for the populations they study?

Nation-states facilitate the penetration of capital into local economies and control domestic populations. The fundamental contradiction of the American empire is that it claims to be expanding its form of capitalism in the name of freedom and democracy while forcing those who would choose another path to accept "freedom" at gunpoint. In constructing their identities as participants of empires, English- and French-Canadians have long experience in dealing with the contradictions inherent in both of colonizing and being colonized. These contradictions are also discursive openings through which states and nations are vulnerable. How can they be used to challenge unjust systems of domination?

All of the writers under review are critical of Canadian foreign policy. Beyond that, they frame their studies in very different ways. Following Pentland, I am asking who speaks for the nation through the state. We should not view either nations or states as fully formed entities. They have been formed in the context of global historical struggles for power. In relation to foreign policy, I also want to know who is at the receiving end of Canadian utterances, decisions, and actions. Abroad, with whom is "Canada" speaking? What openings exist to enlarge the dialogue? If the state is an obstacle to transnational communication, can it be undermined? If the nation is a conceptual roadblock to intercultural dialogue, can it be transcended? Without understanding the possibilities and obstacles to dialogue across the divisions of class, race, and gender in the context of the international division of labour, demands for an altruistic foreign policy are as noble as they are meaningless.

Teigrob goes the furthest in helping us to see the barriers to meaningful transnational dialogue. He analyzes the (mostly) English-speaking postwar media commentators across the political spectrum with great sensitivity. He follows them as they position themselves in relation to the emerging Cold War world order. What is most disconcerting for my review is the extent to which the objects of Canadian foreign policies were necessarily excluded from the public discourse. Commentators from the left and right had their own objectives in defining their position in the world. Actual foreign populations with their own internal divisions would have taken over the discourse from the commentators had they been allowed to intrude on their own terms. Teigrob outlines the problem. In complete contrast, Yves Engler marshals a wealth of evidence to show that the state consistently represents Canada's business elite. However, his work is analytically weak. Having divided Canadians into an elite and a misinformed public, Engler believes that only education stands in the way of an altruistic, "citizen...