Like Any Good Wife

Abstract

The relationships between Canada and other nations, and especially those with Britain and United States, have repeatedly been described through gendered imagery by academics, journalists, popular writers, and cartoonists, and sometimes by politicians themselves. It would indeed be surprising if Canada proved to be exception to rule that countries are imagined and personified by their citizens as figures with strong masculine or feminine attributes. As scholars working in a number of fields have emphasized, political elites seek to construct images of themselves and their nation as strong, masculine, and adult.1 Canadian nationalist writers, however, have often been disappointed by what they see as a failure on part of their leaders to achieve a sufficiently high standing in world. A common response is to sardonically depict Canada in a feminine or juvenile male role.Nor is this gendered discourse merely a convenient shorthand, embodying abstract situations in concrete terms that will readily be understood by masses.2 Instead, assumptions about gender have always profoundly shaped nationalist aspirations. Their power was perhaps at its height during early and middle years of Cold War. This article examines interplay between realities of Canadian foreign policy and gendered representations, focusing on period from 1945 to 1975, and especially on two decades when Lester Pearson and John Diefenbaker dominated political scene. The 1950s were period of Canada's greatest success in international affairs, and by end of decade call for an ever stronger, more independent, and manly stance on world stage had become a characteristic feature of Canadian nationalist writing. Both Pearson and Diefenbaker did their best to meet such demands, at least on level of rhetoric. However, they could not evade fact that American power placed Canada in a subordinate position. By late 1960s country's diplomats, once figures viewed with an admiration bordering on reverence, were increasingly seen as obsolete and irrelevant in the era of sit-in.3 Pearson's diplomatic skill during 1956 Suez crisis and Diefenbaker's landslide 1958 election victory had marked two men as outstanding Canadian public figures of their time. But in 1960s Diefenbaker was labeled as an indecisive fumbler, while Pearson seemed like a mere shadow of his earlier confident self. Both had apparently failed test of national leadership. Rather than being a unifying source of pride and strength for nation, foreign policy gave rise to angry, divisive debates. During early 1970s, Canadian diplomacy was target of sharp and exceptionally bitter criticism from younger generation of nationalist writers.A persistent and obviously very deeply felt subtext running through journalism and popular writing of this period was need to forge an indisputably masculine national identity. It had not always been so: from Confederation to time of Second World War, images of a feminine Canada were successfully combined with other representations of country as a vigorous young man. In 19th and early 20th centuries, Canadians drew on rich political iconography of British empire, which included both strong male symbols like John Bull and British lion and powerful, but nurturing, figures of Britannia and great white mother, Queen Victoria. At this time, Canada was often envisioned as daughter of mother Britain. In political cartoons, she was a demure young lady who politely but firmly rejected attentions of her cousin Jonathan. This feminine persona was not incompatible with an independent stance: Canada could deny her powerful American suitor, and Rudyard Kipling had her declare to Britain, Daughter am I in my mother's house/But mistress in my own.4However, when Canadian autonomy was under discussion, nation was usually represented as Britain's son, now grown to verge of manhood. …