Keywords

Cultural Identity: Introduction

Globalisation

Globalisation is one of the most complex and ‘contested’ concepts (Zajda, 2020a). Gilpin (1987), in his theory of globalisation of economies, defined globalisation as the ‘increasing interdependence of national economies in trade, finance and macroeconomic policies’ (Gilpin, 1987, p. 389). As a dominant ideology, globalisation was associated with neo-liberalism and technocratic solutions to economic reforms (Cox, 1996; Majhanovich & Malet, 2015). Castells (2006), Kobrin (1998), and Carnoy & Rhoten (2002), on the other hand, stressed the technological dimension, as result of the advances in the ICT (Information Communication Technologies) on the global economy. Apart from the multi-faceted nature of globalisation that invites contesting and competing ideological interpretations, numerous paradigms and theoretical models have also been used, ranging from structuralism to post-structuralism, to explain the phenomenon of globalisation (Zajda, 2020a).

The globalisation process is characterized by the acceptance of ‘unified global time’, the increase in the number of international corporations and institutions, the ever-increasing global forms of communication, the development of global competitions, and, above all, the acceptance of global notions of citizenship, equality, human rights, and justice (see also Featherstone, 1990, p. 6; Zajda, 2020b). Globalisation as a phenomenon, is a multi-dimensional cultural construct, reflecting the necessary interdependence and connections of all core facets of culture: the economy, politics, ideology, languages, education, consumer goods, travel, modes of communication, technology, and the people around the world. (Zajda, 2015). Santos (2002), argued that globalisation was heterogeneous, rather than homogeneous, combining universality and local diversity:

the globalisation of the last three decades, instead of conforming to the modern Western model of globalisation – that is, to a homogeneous and uniform globalisation – so keenly upheld by Leibniz as well as Marx, as much in theories of modernization as in theories of dependent development, seems to combine universality and the elimination of national borders, on the one hand, with particularity, local diversity, ethnic identity and a return to communitarian values, on the other. (Santos, 2002).

Cultural Identity

Globalisation has also contributed, among other things, to ‘the strengthening of various cultural identities: religious, national, ethnic, and geographic’ (Castells, 2006, see also Castells, 2010; Napier & Majhanovich, 2013). The construct of cultural identity is associated with a reification of culture (similar to Marx’s notion of ‘reification’), which becomes a defining feature of the dominant discourse on identity (Bauman, 1996). Reification is the process of attributing concrete form to an abstract concept. Reification was used by Marx to describe a form of ‘social consciousness in which human relations come to be identified with the physical properties of things, thereby acquiring an appearance of naturalness and inevitability’ (Burris, 1988). Using the concept of reification, Marx tried to explain why workers accepted their labour and wages exploitation as natural.

Furthermore, identity is not that ‘transparent or unproblematic’, according to Hall (1996). Hall argued that identity is always positioned in the cultural context and, as such, is dynamic, as a continuous cultural process:

Identity is not as transparent or unproblematic as we think. Perhaps instead of thinking of identity as an already accomplished fact, which the new cultural practices then represent, we should think, instead, of identity as a ‘production’, which is never complete, always in process, and always constituted within, not outside, representation. This view problematises the very authority and authenticity to which the term, ‘cultural identity’, lays claim (Hall, 1996).

It could be argued, that in terms of time, the process of re-defining and consolidation of cultural identities has been one of a continuous social, cultural, political and historical transformation. A more recent example of a geo-political transformation of cultural identities was the sudden collapse of the USSR in December 1991, and collapse of communist countries in Eastern Europe. Castells (2006) also points out that the nation-states have been weakened by various geo-political conflicts:

The instrumental processes of power, global wealth, institutions, and the Nation-State no longer represent the nation and identities built on local autonomy. This lies at the root of the management crisis currently afflicting the world. Even the most powerful countries are affected by this crisis, of which the post 9/11 United States is an example. Under such circumstances, governments resort to the State’s raison d’être, namely the ability to legitimise a monopoly of violence, as Weber put it. (Castells, 2006).

The usage of the term ‘identity’ can be traced to historical traditions in Western philosophy and intellectual thought, in particular to philosophers John Locke (1690) in his An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689) and David Hume (1739) in his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1785). Locke (1690) wrote that identity consists of:

… nothing but a participation of the same continued Life…consciousness always accompanies thinking. …in this alone consists personal Identity (Locke, 1690/2008).

Identity became a key word in the 1950s, when Carl Rogers (1902–1987), a noted humanistic psychologist, used the term. While Eric Erickson (1902–1994), a prominent psychoanalyst, used the term to study adolescent personality/identity crises. Erikson, in Childhood and Society (1950), used a more holistic notion of ‘national identities’, which was his preferred term. Since then, there has been an incredible proliferation of the use of the term, across various disciplines and theoretical perspectives, referring to cultural identity, ethnic identity, racial identity, religious identity, sexual identity, gender identity, institutional identity, interest identity, tribal identity, passport identity (as part of the documentation identity), identity credit cards, and identity politics, to name a few.

In order to simplify the discourse of cultural identity, we propose to delineate between global and cultural perspectives of identity. A global perspective of identity was first used by Comenius (1592–1670), when he wrote that ‘we are all citizens of one world’:

We are all citizens of one world; we are all of one blood. To hate a man because he was born in another country, because he speaks a different language, or because he takes a different view on this subject or that, is a great folly. Desist I implore you, for we are all equally human…Let us have but one end in view, the welfare of humanity (Comenius, 1649/1907).

Some academics have used a similar idea in their education for sustainability graduate classes when they referred to the ‘spaceship Earth’ construct, where citizens globally need to work together, to achieve their goals, including one of saving the Earth from environmental and other disasters (Smith, 2007a, 2007b):

It was the astronauts too who brought those extraordinary pictures of the earth from space, who talked of how ‘fragile was this tiny ball of blue and green, floating through the enormity of time and space, how this was our only home, and how important it was that we should take care of it’ Thus was born the idea of Spaceship Earth (see Survival of Spaceship Earth, 1972). The film ‘Survival of Spaceship Earth’ was produced for the first ever United Nations Conference on the Human Environment. The film portrayed vividly Earth’s evolving environmental crisis, showing how uncontrolled technology, consumerism, and too much ‘progress’, were endangering life on a global scale through a set of complex and intertwined issues, collectively termed the global problematique (Smith, 2007a, 2007b, p. 25).

Dominant Discourses of Cultural Identity: An Overview

In brief, there have been the following two significant paradigm shifts since the 1950s relevant to discourses of cultural identity:

  1. 1.

    Structural functionalist

  2. 2.

    Post-structuralist

The structural-functional paradigm is a perspective in social sciences and sociology that sees society as a complex system, whose parts work together to produce a division of labour, order, stability and values-consensus (in a Durkheimian sense). It was a dominant paradigm in the late nineteenth century up to the 1970s. It asserted that our lives are guided by social structures (organisation), which define and normalise the accepted patterns of social behaviour. In terms of cultural identity, the structural-functional paradigm is known for defining and propagating the notion of a single subject, or a single identity, unlike post-structuralism, especially post-modernism which focused on multiple subjectivities and multiple cultural identities.

The second paradigm shift, which is post-structuralism, occurred in the 1960s. It was a complex paradigm, consisting of a number of perspectives, such as discourse analysis, deconstruction, post-modernism, and social and cognitive constructivism, to name a few. Some have argued that post-structuralism can be traced to the work of Michel Foucault and precedes deconstruction (Harcourt, 2007; Zajda, 1988, 2018). Discourse Analysis is a deconstructive reading and interpretation of a problem or text (the term was coined by Jacques Derrida). Discourse Analysis, relevant to analysing cultural identity, includes Jacques Derrida’s Deconstruction, Michel Foucault’s genealogy and social criticism and analysis of the uses of discourse to exercise power (see his analysis of how knowledge is created). He argued that knowledge is a power over others, the power to define others. In his view knowledge ceases to be liberation and becomes a mode of surveillance, regulation, and discipline), Julia Kristeva’s analysis of feminism and others. Discourse analysis has been taken up in a variety of social science disciplines, examining the sorts of tools and strategies people use when engaged in communication, such as the use of metaphors, choice of particular words to display affect, and how people construct their own version of an event, and how people use discourse to ‘maintain or construct their own identity’ (Zajda, 2012).

Post-modernism, by rejecting the idea of a unitary subject, advanced the concept of multiple identities, and subjectivities, relevant to current discourses of cultural identities. It referred to new departures in the arts, in literature, and in architecture that had their origins in ‘the 1950s and early 1960s, gained momentum in the course of the 1960s, and became a dominant factor in the 1970s’ (Bertens, 2019). Postmodernism was very popular in the 1980s and 1990s, and attracted scholars like Peter McLaren (1995), who used his neo-Marxist critique to analyse the impact of cultural imperialism, as a dominant ideology, on the construction of identity.

We would like to stress that one of central and unresolved problems in the process of globalisation and identity, within a post-structuralist context, is the unresolved tension, and ambivalence ‘between cultural homogenization and cultural heterogenization’ (Appadurai, 1990, p. 295, italics mine), or the on-going dialectic between globalism and localism, between faith and reason, between tradition and modernity, and between totalitarianism and democracy (Zajda, 2015).

Global Cultural Identities

Since the 1980s, two parallel social, political, economic and technology-driven forces have impacted on the world. On one hand, the ubiquitous processes of globalisation affecting everything are occurring and, on the other, the transformation and reaffirmation of nation-building, and cultural identities, both locally and globally, are taking place. Castells (2010) believes that globalisation, with its cultural homogenisation, was a potential threat to local cultures and to specific identities. This is due to globalisation perceived to be generating a global, cosmopolitan culture, and cultural homogenisation. At the same time, due to dominant political and religious ideologies, some nations wanted to preserve their historically-defined identities, based on language, nationality, ethnicity, religion, territory, and other relevant identity-defining characteristics. This has resulted in the local and global cultural identity dichotomy.

One of the most powerful forces of globalisation shaping cultural identities is the ubiquitous presence of information technology and the mass media. Every facet of culture and identity is defined by mass media, and propelled by information technology. Global marketing of socially desirable commodities, such as clothing, fashion and global brands, perfumes, toys, and the entertaining industry, to name a few, has affected cultural identity. Global marketing affecting the formation of one’s cultural identity has manufactured a new consumerist and materialistic culture, of ‘commodification of the self “(Zajda, 1988).

In one major comparative and cross-national investigation, testing the relationship between globalization and national identity, using 149 national samples across 74 countries, Ariely (2012) wished to discover whether country level of globalisation impacts on ethnic identity and whether globalisation moderates between patriotism and ethnic identity. He concludes that globalisation does not reduce national identity, but it does reduce their sense of ethnic identity:

While the impact of globalization does not erode people’s national identification or their sense of nationalism’ it seems that it does reduce their ethnic conceptions of membership in the nation (Ariely, 2012, p. 477).

Another study tested the nexus between country level of globalisation and its impact on ethnic identity and whether globalisation moderates between patriotism and ethnic identity. (Ariely, 2019). It was demonstrated that ethnic identity levels were lower in the more globalized than the less globalized countries:

Although ethnic identity levels are lower in the more globalized than the less globalized countries, globalization has no differential effect on the strong and positive link between patriotism and ethnic identity (Ariely, 2019).

The complexity of globalisation, and its varied cultural, social and economic influences, together with the multidimensionality of national identity, are likely to produce ‘the conflicting theoretical perspectives and inconsistency of the empirical findings’ (Ariely, 2019).

National Identity

National identity represents a specific cultural community, whose members are united by common historical memories, values, beliefs, customs, conventions, habits, languages and practices, myths, symbols and traditions. It denotes such elements as ‘historic territory, legal-political community, legal political equality of members, and common civic culture and ideology’ (Smith, 1991, p. 11). According to Smith (1991), ‘the underlying sentiments and aspirations that nationalist ideology, nationalist language and symbols evoke’ relate to the three main concepts: territory, history and community (Smith, 1991, p. 78; see also Smith, 1995, 2002). Smith (2007a, 2007b) in his analysis of the impact of globalisation on cultural identity argued that global culture not only cannot replace national culture but that national identity possesses the capacity to withstand the forces of globalisation (Smith, 2007a, 2007b, p. 30). From Smith’s (2007a, 2007b) analysis of cultural identity dynamics, according to Ariely (2019), globalisation not only fails to create global identity but intensifies national feelings.

Smith, according to Guibernau (2004), has produced ‘the most comprehensive analysis of the cultural components of national identity to date’. Guibernau (2004, p. 136). On the other hand, Guibernau (2004), responding critically to Smith (2002) argued that national identity is also a modern phenomenon of a ‘fluid and dynamic nature’:

…one by means of which a community sharing a particular set of characteristics is led to the subjective belief that its members are ancestrally related. Belief in a shared culture, history, traditions, symbols, kinship, language, religion, territory, founding moment, and destiny have been invoked, with varying intensity at different times and places, by peoples claiming to share a particular national identity. Generally, national identity is applied to citizens of a nation-state. There are other cases, however, where national identity is shared among individuals belonging to a nation without a state of their own… (Guibernau, 2004, p.134).

National identity, according to Guibernau (2001) refers to ‘the set of attributes and beliefs shared by those who belong to the same nation’, and that ‘the political aspect of national identity’, when applied to the nation-state and nation-building, ‘focuses upon those state’s strategies, often referred to as ‘nation-building’, designed to cultivate a ‘cohesive, loyal and up to a point, homogeneous citizenry’ (Guibernau, 2001, pp. 242–68). The state’s strategies for building a single national identity, to unite its citizens by shared core values, include, among others, the promotion of preferred image of the ‘nation’, communicating a desirable set of symbols and rituals to reinforce a sense of solidarity and community, and ‘the advancement of citizenship involving a well-defined set of civil and legal rights, political rights and duties as well as socio-economic rights’ (Guibernau, 2004, p.140).

Exploring other types of identities, Wang Zhuojun (2014) suggested that national identity is a combination of institutional identity, interest identity, cultural identity and non-national community identity, and that any national identity crisis lies in the ineffectiveness of nation states’ governance. This is partly true. There are other mitigating factors relevant to national identity crisis, such as the nature of geo-politics, religious conflicts, and unstable capitalist economies legitimizing social inequality. The construction of national identity in the global age, requires a number of social, economic and political reforms, including reforming the political system, accelerating equitable economic transformation, grounded in equality and social justice, and promoting the idea of national culture, in order to ‘strengthen value integration and enrich the cultural significance of national identity’ (Wang Zhuojun, 2014).

However, globalization’s effects on national identity are problematic and widely critiqued by numerous researchers (Hobsbawm, 1992; Kaldor, 2004; Roudometof, 2014). Some researchers argue that globalisation affects national identity in different ways:

While some regard globalization as undermining national identity and increasing cosmopolitanism, others argue that it works in the opposite direction, possibly even reinforcing national feelings in the form of a backlash—or that it impacts different segments in society in dissimilar ways (Ariely, 2019).

The problematic nature of globalisation, and its varied cultural, social and economic influences, together with the multidimensionality of national identity (Pryke, 2009; Halikiopoulou & Vasilopoulou, 2011; Holton, 2011) are likely to produce ‘the conflicting theoretical perspectives and inconsistency of the empirical findings’ (Ariely, 2019).

The Role of Language in Defining and Shaping Cultural Identity

A cultural perspective of identity refers to local identities, defined by a particular culture, language, religion, values and location (Zajda, 2018). Within many local communities there is a widespread consensus on what characterises their local identity (Terlouw, 2017). Sebba & Tate (2002) used the language as a medium of communication to explain how ‘identities of British Caribbeans manifest and reproduce themselves through everyday discourse’:

…identities are texts of social practice based on the identifications made in interactions between spemedium used (the language or language variety used in an utterance) we attempt to illustrate how global diasporic discourses of identity are reproduced at the local level. We argue that the ‘global’ and ‘local’ identities of British Caribbeans manifest and reproduce themselves through everyday discourse, and are constructed through identifications in which the choice of language and the choice of words interact and are both significant (Sebba & Tate, 2002).

The choice of official language in several former USSR states signals how language relates to cultural identity. The Baltic States, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have all declared Latvian, Lithuanian and Estonian respectively as the official language of their post USSR nation eliminating Russian as a possible official language. In some cases, citizenship is contingent upon being fluent in the official language leaving Russian speakers who have resided in these states since before the dissolution of the USSR virtually stateless. This reflects the power of language in the construction of a national cultural identity. Belarus in contrast which identifies more with the Russian culture and traditions has designated both Belarussian and Russian as official languages.

The Balkan States provide another salient example. When Yugoslavia existed as a federation of the states Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro and Macedonia, the official languages were Serbo-Croatian, Slovenian and Macedonian and the languages appeared on the Yugoslavian banknotes in both Cyrillic and Roman alphabets. Once Yugoslavia dissolved, the new states declared their official languages as Slovenian, Croatian, Serbian, Bosnian, Macedonian and even in some cases Montenegrin although the language is essentially Serbian and written in Cyrillic. Serbo-Croatian is no longer an accepted language even though except for the Cyrillic and Roman alphabets used (connected to the traditions of the Orthodox or Roman Catholic religions), they are almost identical languages. It is no longer permissible to recognize a language such as Serbo-Croatian related to what is now regarded as two separate cultures and ethnic identities. Bosnian, too has replaced Serbo-Croatian to reflect the Muslim culture in Bosnia Herzegovina. Under globalisation, even very small nations promote their ethnic identity through language while embracing the economic benefits that globalisation can provide. For example, Croatia is a member of the European Union but has chosen the Kuna as its currency, the Kuna being a traditional Croatian monetary unit dating to before the establishment of Yugoslavia.

Cultural Identity in the Global Era: Language and Identity

Language is intrinsically connected to personal, national, and ethnic identity. The case of Canada provides a powerful example of the nexus between language and identity. Ever since the founding of Canada as a nation in 1867 and even prior to that in the Canada Act of 1791, English and French language rights have been acknowledged. As Magnet (1998) has noted “Canada’s Constitution was born in the attempt to unite two powerful language communities—two nations—in a single state” (p. 188). It is fair to say that Canadian identity for its citizens involves being a member of a bi-lingual state. Although most Canadians are not in fact bilingual English and French speakers, nevertheless, Canadians accept a bilingual Canada as part of their national reality. A 2012 report from the Office of the Commissioner for Official Languages shows that 72% of Canadians favour bilingualism, and a 2016 Neilsen poll showed that 86% of Canadians believe that the Prime Minister should be bi-lingual. In the latter part of the twentieth century Canadian governments spent a considerable amount of time grappling with issues of bilingualism and forging policies to address concerns.

The province of Quebec where the largest number of francophones reside has been justifiably concerned about guaranteeing French language rights. Once about one third the population of Canada, francophones saw their numbers fall with declining birth rates and a rise in immigration to Canada. Those immigrants who settled in Quebec often favoured English over French as the official language to be learned, and also wanted to have their children educated in English rather than French. The power of English in a globalized world posed a threat to the maintenance of a solid population of French speakers in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Speaking about the importance of language as part of one’s place in the world, Thomas Ricento (2006) observed:

Language is something most of us take for granted most of the time; it is usually when we discover that our language (or language variety) is different from and perhaps less valued than, the language of others, or that our options are somehow limited either because we don’t speak/understand a language or language variety…that we begin to pay attention to languages (p. 21).

Immigrants to Quebec recognized that part of succeeding in a globalized world would entail knowing English while Quebecers saw the growth of English in their “nation” as a threat to their basic identity especially given their geographical position surrounded by a huge mass of Anglophones in the rest of Canada and in the USA. Hence in the 60s and 70s successive Quebec governments passed a series of Bills to protect their language rights. Bill 63, “La loi pour promouvoir la langue française au Québec” was a mild response to the language issue and merely encouraged the teaching of French in English medium schools and provided for French classes for immigrants but did not make the language classes mandatory. Francophone Quebecers were alarmed that this law would actually hasten the demise of French. The next Quebec provincial government brought in a stricter law in 1974, Bill 22 (La loi sur la langue officielle) which declared French the official language of Quebec and required among other stipulations that corporations housed in Quebec have a French name, advertise primarily in French and demonstrate their ability to carry on business in French. However, in education, an English language section was still permitted. Still dissatisfied with the legal protections for the French language, and concerned at the prospect of losing their language to English, Quebecers turned to the nationalist Parti Québécois whose goal ultimately became separation from Canada making Quebec a separate state altogether. They enacted Bill 101 in 1977, “La Charte de la langue française” which strengthened provisions of the previous Bill 22 and extended requirements for the use of the French language to every aspect of life in Quebec (see Hudon, 1985a, 1985b; Majhanovich, 2007).

The Federal Government needed to respond to the rising concerns in Quebec if it was to prevent dissolution of the country. A massive initiative, the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, begun in 1963 and carried out over 7 years aimed at establishing recognition of the basic cultural dualism of Canada (Laing, 1985, p. 216). A preliminary report in 1965 was followed by 6 other volumes. This massive publication resulted in changes to federal and provincial language policy, led to changes in French education across the country, and the creation of the Federal Department of Multiculturalism and the Official Languages Act (1969) (See Yalden, 1985, p. 1560).

The importance of language as essential to the identity and culture of Canadians is reflected in its Canadian Charter of rights and Freedoms which was created and adopted in 1982 when the constitution was patriated from the UK. Of the 34 clauses outlining the basic rights of Canadian citizens, eight or almost one quarter are concerned with language rights—mainly focusing on French and English rights, but also referring to legal or customary rights or privileges with respect to any language that is not English or French (Clause 22). The French and English languages remain signal elements of the Canadian identity supported through ongoing policies. For example, the Official Languages Act of 1969 was expanded in 1987 to bring it into line with the clauses of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In 2005 further amendments were made to require “federal institutions to take positive measures to support the development of official language communities and to foster the full recognition and use of French and English in Canadian society” (Government of Canada, 2019a). Canada has managed so far to remain together notwithstanding several failed attempts by Quebec governments to secede from Canada through referenda in 1990 and 1992 where the vote to secede was narrowly defeated. In the interim, tensions have abated partially because of the Federal Government’s efforts and policies to reassure Quebec of its linguistic rights and to declare it a “nation” within the Canadian confederation. No doubt the overall power of globalization has also led to the realization among all Canadians that we are better off together in a globalized world than striving to succeed as small weak entities facing global powers.

However, Canada is not just a nation made up of two founding language groups, but is made up of, in addition to the descendants of the French and English colonists, the many aboriginal First Nations and of successive waves of immigrant groups from all over the world. There is no mention other than obliquely in Clause 22 to language rights of first nations groups. Clause 27 alone makes reference to the multicultural heritage of Canada (This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians). With its preoccupation with keeping harmony between Canada’s so-called founding nations, the Canadian government has until recently neglected to attend to the linguistic and cultural rights of Canada’s original inhabitants. Sadly, there is considerable evidence that until the 1970s government policies were dedicated to assimilation of indigenous people through the eradication of cultural (and by extension linguistic), spiritual and economic foundations of First Nations societies (Hill, 2004). The infamous residential school system where generations of native children were educated in the ways of the dominant culture, and were severely punished if they dared to speak their native language or practice cultural rituals has left an indelible mark on Canada’s native populations which to this day still afflicts its descendants.

In the twenty-first century Canada is finally turning its attention to address the wrongs committed for over a century against its first nations people. In 2007, the “Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement” began implementation. (Government of Canada (2019b). The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was set up to permit those directly or indirectly affected by the legacy of residential schools to share their stories and experiences. Over the next 6 years Commission members travelled all over Canada and heard from 6500 witnesses. The final report was presented in 2015 and contained 94 “calls to action”. Language and Culture issues figure prominently in the “calls to action” including an appeal to the federal government to enact an Aboriginal Languages Act that affirms that “Aboriginal languages are a fundamental and valued element of Canadian Culture and society, and there is an urgency to preserve them.” The clauses related to language and culture and the recommendations in them from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report are in many ways parallel those related to the French-English issues in the Official Languages Act and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the recommendation of the creation of an Office of the Commissioner of Indigenous Languages (parallel to the Commissioner of Official Languages). In this case the Commissioner will work with 3 distinctions-based directors, one each for First Nations, Inuit and Métis languages. As of 2019, Bill C-91, An Act respecting Indigenous Languages received Royal assent. In effect, clauses 13, 14 and 15 in the calls to action that dealt with issues of language and culture are being addressed and the recommendations implemented.

Canada’s multicultural nature is an accepted fact and is a proud part of its identity. Canada’s Multiculturalism Policy adopted in 1988 affirms that “multiculturalism reflects the cultural and racial diversity of Canadian society and acknowledges the freedom of all members of Canadian society to preserve, enhance and share their cultural heritage” (Government of Canada, 2008). The policy also includes provision for the preservation and enhancement of languages other than English and French. Multiculturalism implies that immigrants to Canada will not be assimilated into the culture developed from the English and French original colonists but rather will acculturate and add to whatever constitutes Canadian culture. This vision of a multicultural Canada has proved a benefit to the country as the influence of globalization has penetrated every part of the world.

National Identity: Searching for Russia’s Historical Cultural Identity

One somewhat complex example of an evolving cultural and national identity, is the current and on-going transformation of cultural identity in the Russian Federation (RF) (see also Dijink (2014). In the RF, as a result of the nexus between nationalism, national identity, language and ideology, representation of heroes in history textbooks has ideological, cultural and pedagogical significance. Apart from preferred historical narratives and particular language used, illustrations and visual images are also used to reinforce the cult of a hero. National heroes tend to be celebrated for the important roles they played in history. This is associated, at times, with a ‘vision of national identity grounded in pride in a culture’ (Hutchins, 2016, p.14).

In their recent search for Russia’s historical cultural identity, Russian policy makers and historians are compelled to cultivate a new sense of Russian identity and consciousness. In doing so, they invariably use religion, in their attempt to re-discover the origin of the Orthodox faith in Ancient Rus, and its power to unite the people, when Prince Vladimir introduced Christianity in the kingdom of Ancient Rus in 988 AD (Zajda, 2017). The current cultural and ideological connections to religion, as a symbol of cultural identity in Russia, represent a new dimension of a return to traditional values. It could be argued that for Russia, in her search for identity in the twenty-first century, the road leads to ‘inclusive and integrative’ religion, which acts as a ‘symbol of cultural identity’:

Only culturally inclusive and integrative type of religion will be religion as a symbol of a cultural identity’.

Berman (1991), in All that is solid melts into air, drawing on Marx’s Communist Manifesto (1848), discusses the identity crisis confronting various nations during the later part of the nineteenth century:

All that is solid melts into air all that is holy is profaned, and men at last are forced to face with sober senses the real conditions of their lives… (Communist Manifesto, 1848).

The crisis of materialism and the destruction of everything holy, resulting in the ‘aura of holiness suddenly missing’, meant that there existed an existentialist crisis and identity crisis. Berman (1991) explains it: ‘We cannot understand ourselves in the present until we confront what is absent’ (Berman, 1991, p. 89). It is not surprising, that Russia, in confronting what is absent, turns to religion, the Orthodox faith, nationalism and patriotism. Not only are its foot prints traced in the Ancient Russia, but its modernist revival is now celebrated across the nation.

Conclusion

The chapter critiques dominant discourses and debates pertaining to cultural identity in the global era. It analyses current discourses related to globalisation, ideologies, cultural identity, and the state, as well as approaches to constructing national, ethnic and local identities in the global culture. One of the most powerful forces of globalisation shaping cultural identities is the ubiquitous presence of information technology and the mass media. Every facet of culture and identity is defined by the mass media, and propelled by the information technology. Global marketing of socially desirable commodities, such as clothing, fashion and global brands, perfumes, toys, and the entertainment industry, to name a few, has affected cultural identity. Global marketing affecting the formation of one’s cultural identity has manufactured a new consumerist and a global materialistic culture of ‘commodification of the self’. As the above demonstrates, the chapter examines the ambivalent and problematic relationship between the state, globalisation and the construction of cultural identity. The chapter also evaluates conceptual frameworks and methodological approaches applicable in the research covering the state, globalisation, and identity politics. In addition, the chapter demonstrates that language is intrinsically connected to personal, national, and ethnic identity. The case of Canada provides a powerful example of the nexus between language and identity, as do the examples of the Baltic States and the newly created nations from the former Yugoslavia. The Orthodox religion has played an important role in the construction of the modern Russian cultural identity. It has been argued, as demonstrated above, that in terms of time, location and culture, the process of re-defining and consolidation of cultural identities has been one of a continuous social, cultural, political and historical transformation.