Content uploaded by Antoine Bilodeau
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Antoine Bilodeau on Nov 19, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
*** PRE-PUBLICATION VERSION OF ***
Bilodeau, A., and L. Turgeon. 2021. “Boundaries of the Nation(s) in a Multinational
State: Comparing Quebecers and Other Canadians’ Perspectives on National Identity.”
Nations and Nationalism 27 (2): 530-547. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12641
BOUNDARIES OF THE NATION(S) IN A MULTINATIONAL STATE:
COMPARING QUEBECERS AND OTHER CANADIANS’ PERSPECTIVES ON
NATIONAL IDENTITY
Antoine Bilodeau, Concordia University
Luc Turgeon, University of Ottawa
ABSTRACT
Drawing on the Canadian case, this study examines whether, in a multinational state, majority and
minority nations emphasize different criteria when tracing the borders of their respective national
community. It does so by comparing native-born French speakers in Quebec and native-born
English speakers in the rest of Canada from three different perspectives. We examine 1) the way
ascriptive and attainable groupings of characteristics are constructed in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada 2) the importance given to attainable and ascriptive characteristics, and 3) the implications
of ascriptive and attainable characteristics for attitudes toward immigration and generalized trust.
The findings suggest that majority-group members in Quebec and in the rest of Canada broadly
draw the boundaries of their nation in similar ways and with similar implications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant
Number: 435-2015-1106) for its financial support. The authors are solely responsible for the
analysis and interpretation of the results.
!
1!
The production and reproduction of community boundaries lie at the heart of the politics of any
community. It occupies, however, an especially prominent place in multinational states, where
these debates are not limited to inquiring whom is included within the boundaries of the political
community and whether such boundaries are, for example, “bright” or “blurred” (Alba, 2005). The
politics of multinational states also examines which nation citizens identify with, and the extent to
which different national identities are perceived as mutually exclusive or overlapping. Such distinct
national identities can contribute to processes of competitive nation-buildings as distinct or
overlapping “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1983) fight for the loyalty of citizens.
The politics of identity in multinational states has been the object of numerous studies (e.g.
MacIver, 1999; Gagnon and Tully, 2001; Seymour and Gagnon, 2012). These studies include not
only a focus on minority nationalism, but also increasingly on majority nationalism (e.g. Lecours
and Nootens, 2009; Gagnon, Lecours and Nootens, 2011). In studying public opinion, scholars
have explored the way citizens, especially those who belong to a minority nation, combine (or
reject) different forms of identification (Moreno, 2006; Henderson, 2007). Others have explored
the way different forms of identification in multinational states affect policy attitudes, especially
toward immigration (Maddens et al. 2000; Escandell and Ceobanu, 2010). However, no study has,
to our knowledge, compared the way members of majority and minority nations in multinational
states draw the boundaries of their respective political community, more specifically comparing
what criteria are used in establishing who is or isn’t a “true” member of the community.
1
In this
study, drawing on the case of Canada, we explore whether Quebecers and other Canadians define
the boundary markers of the Quebec and Canadian political communities similarly.
The question of national boundaries has been at the heart of Canadian politics since its
inception, but especially since the 1960s, as both Quebec and the rest of Canada (ROC) went
through important periods of cultural and political change (Iguarta, 2006; McRoberts, 1993).
Moreover, the political discourse in English-speaking Canada since the 1970s has often
distinguished the civic nature of Canadian nationalism from the ethnic conception that is sometimes
said to be prominent in Quebec (Ignatieff, 1993). Recently, legislative proposals in Quebec to
restrict the display of religious symbols by public employees, disproportionately affecting religious
minorities, have been presented as the product of an ethnic form of nationalism (Montpetit, 2019;
Winter, 2014).
2
Despite the importance of these debates around Quebec identity, no study has explored
whether significant differences do exist in the way Quebecers and other Canadians define the
boundaries of their respective communities. As such, the case of Canada seems ideal to explore the
!
1
Sarrasin et al. (2012) compare the attitudes of members of the German and French-speaking
communities toward the Swiss political community, but not toward their respective linguistic
community. Stareklé et al. (2010) explore the identification of minorities, including in some cases
national minorities, toward their country, but it focuses also on identification with the country
rather than their respective community.
2
In 2013, the government of the Parti Québécois introduced a Charter of Quebec Values that would
have restricted the display of religious symbols for all public employees. However, the Charter was
never implemented. In 2019, the government of the Coalition Avenir Québec adopted Bill 21,
which forbids some public employees in « positions of authority » (police officiers, judges, crown
attorney, prison guards and teachers) to display religious symbols. See Bilodeau et al. (2018); and
Turgeon et al. (2019) for studies on the topic.
!
2!
possibility that minority and majority nations of a multinational state resort to distinct boundary
markers. In this article, we focus on the importance given in both communities to ascriptive
markers of identity, such as ancestry, religion or birthplace, as opposed to attainable markers, such
as feelings of belonging, respect for the laws and institutions of the political community as well as
knowledge of the national language(s) (Wright, 2011; Simonsen, 2016).
In the next section, we review the literature on how boundary markers might be similar or
different across national communities in a multinational state. After presenting the methodology of
our study, we explore whether there are differences between the boundary markers drawn by
Quebecers and other Canadians before analyzing the attitudinal consequences of those markers.
The findings demonstrate that despite the perception of a more inclusive Canada and a more
exclusive Quebec, we observe few differences in the dynamics of boundary drawing between
Quebecers and other Canadians.
BOUNDARY MARKERS AND THE POLITICS OF MULTINATIONAL STATES
Boundary Markers and the Ethnic/Civic Dichotomy
It is commonplace to state that nations are “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1983);
nations and national identities are not so much the product of direct encounters between members
of a given political community, but rather of the “social construction of sameness” (Kunovich,
2009: 574). Nations, as such, can be viewed as resulting from the creation of “symbolic
boundaries”; in the words of Lamont and Molnar (2002: 168), “conceptual distinctions made by
social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space.”
Scholars going back to Kohn (1944) have long established a distinction between civic and
ethnic forms of national identity, the former characterized by “permeable boundaries” associated
with political affiliations and the latter associated with “impenetrable boundaries” and restricted to
those who share a common ethno-cultural affiliation (Ceobanu and Escandell, 2008). The analytical
utility of classifying a country’s identity as corresponding to a civic or ethnic form of identity has
been widely contested in the literature, especially the importance of placing the ethnic and civic
dimension along a continuum (Kuzio, 2002; Schulman, 2002). Scholars now often approach the
ethnic and civic conceptions of national identity as being non-mutually exclusive. Hjerm (1998),
for example, argues that individuals’ construction of national identity can be either civic, ethnic,
multiple (both civic and ethnic elements matter), or pluralist (neither the civic nor the ethnic
components are viewed as important).
Other scholars have also proposed alternative concepts to study national identities that bear
a strong resemblance to the ethnic-civic dichotomy. Hence, Jones and Smith (2001) contrast
ascribed/objectivist and civic/voluntarist dimensions and Wright (2011) distinguishes ascribed
from achievable traits, while Simonsen (2016) contrasts ascriptive and attainable criteria. Like
others before us, we prefer to use the language of ascriptive and attainable characteristics over that
of ethnic/civic ones to define true nationals. These labels (ascriptive and attainable) appear a better
fit to capture today’s complex reality of national identity than the “ethnic” and “civic” labels, in
part because the characteristics referred to in debates about national identities often do not
emphasize “ethnic” criteria per se, and instead broadly contrast definitions of national identities
that are more exclusive and rigid (ascriptive) and others that are more inclusive and flexible
(attainable). We will therefore use these terms in our discussion, except when “ethnic” and “civic”
are the terms used by the authors that we discuss.
!
3!
Boundary Markers in Multinational States
As mentioned in our introduction, we know little about the ways members of minority and
majority nations define the boundaries of their respective nations. In order to help fill this gap, we
propose three lines of investigation using a public opinion perspective. First, we argue that it is
necessary to examine how members of minority and majority nations draw national boundaries.
Here, our aim is to verify whether the groupings of ascriptive and attainable characteristics are the
same in minority and majority nations, especially when it comes to language. Language typically
appears as an attainable characteristic, something one can learn and acquire. As Hjerm (1998: 336,
340) argues, however, if the status of language can be seen as a neutral means of communication
and an important element to take part in the democratic process, it can also be seen as a dominant
cultural norm demarking those who belong and those who don’t; the former makes language more
an attainable characteristic and the latter makes it more an ascriptive characteristic. Whether
language is an attainable or an ascriptive characteristic is especially relevant for the case of Quebec
where the French language is central to its sense of distinctiveness. Hence, language for members
of minority nations, such as Quebec, might have more the status of an ascriptive trait than an
attainable one. More tangibly, this would mean that language in Quebec would covary more with
other ascriptive traits (such as ancestry) whereas in the rest of Canada it would covary more with
attainable traits (such as feeling of belonging). Accordingly, our first hypothesis is:
H1: In Quebec, language as an important characteristic to be a true national will covary
more strongly with ascriptive characteristics than with attainable ones, whereas in the rest
of Canada language will covary more with attainable characteristics than with ascriptive
ones.
Second, we argue that we must examine where members of minority and majority nations
draw the boundaries of their respective national communities. The task here is to assess the extent
of support for different attainable and ascriptive characteristics as condition of belonging to the
national community. The literature provides potentially conflicting expectations. Kohn (1944), for
example, argued that the predominance of “ethnic” and “civic” nationalism was the result of a
different history of state formation. In Eastern Europe, the predominance of “ethnic” forms of
nationalism was the by-product of the incorporation of many of those nations within multiethnic
empires. The fight for statehood in those nations often involved stressing the uniqueness of their
national culture, religion or language. The situation of minority nations in multinational states
today might be similar to those of certain nations in Eastern Europe more than a century ago, as
they thrive to express their unique national character in order to promote self-determination
(whether internal or external). Moreover, a growing body of literature has argued that majority
nationalisms in a number of countries often present the “state identity” along universal lines, often
implicitly to contrast their own brand of nationalism and national identity to the one that is
perceived to predominate in minority nations (Lecours and Nootens, 2009; Winter, 2007). As such,
we might expect majority nations to stress more inclusive and flexible criteria (the attainable
dimension) and minority nations to focus more on exclusive and rigid criteria of national identity
(the ascriptive dimension). In the case of Quebec, some have argued that the province has a more
exclusive and rigid ethnic definition of the nation (Ignatieff, 1993). As such, our second hypothesis
is the following:
!
4!
H2a: Quebecers will stress more the importance of ascritptive citeria of national identity
whereas other Canadians will stress more attainable ones.
Other scholars, however, have pointed out that whether ascriptive or attainable markers
predominate in minority nations might be contextually dependent, the result of unique histories of
state-formation and nationalist mobilizations. In his well-known study of Basque and Catalan
nationalism, for example, Daniele Conversi (1997) has shown that historical trajectories have led
to the predominance of different forms of nationalism in both societies (“ethnic” nationalism in the
Basque Country and “civic” nationalism in Catalonia). Moreover, some scholars have highlighted
important changes that challenge historical distinctions between a “civic” Catalan identity and an
“ethnic” Basque one (Jeram, 2013). Those changes might be the product of globalization as well
as the gradual decline, during the post-war period, of “ethnic” forms of nationalism and national
identity, as global norms around race, ethnicity and human rights shifted (Triadafilopoulos, 2010).
Moreover, in the context of multinational states, some scholars have argued that the quest for
international legitimacy by minority nations and nationalist movements has led them to stress and
promote the “civic” aspect of their nationalism, and in certain cases present themselves as even
more open to newcomers than their respective states (Barker, 2010; Jeram, 2013). As such, it might
well be the case that no significant differences exist between majority and minority nations in how
they define their respective national community. Indeed, in the Canadian case, it has been argued
that Quebec, like the rest of Canada, experienced since the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s a
transition from a more “ethnic-oriented” definition of the nation to the promotion of a more “civic-
oriented” form of national identity (Breton 1988). As such , we propose this alternative hypothesis:
H2b: Quebecers and other Canadians use similar criteria when tracing the borders of their
respective community.
Finally, we argue that in order to provide a more complete understanding of popular
perceptions of national boundaries in minority and majority nations, we must also investigate the
implications of those boundaries for social attitudes. An important body of literature, inspired by
social identity theory, has shown that national identification has an important impact on a range of
attitudes toward public policy, ranging from immigration, language policy and the distribution of
powers in federal states (Sides and Citrin, 2007; Gershon and Pantoja, 2011; Henderson et al.,
2015). However, scholars have increasingly shown that it is not solely identification toward the
nation that matters, but also how such national identity is defined. For instance, Kunovich (2009)
found that preferences for “civic” forms of national identity was associated with support for more
liberal policies toward immigration and citizenship, as well as weaker preferences for the
assimilation of immigrants and for following national interests in international politics. Others
explored the relationship between national identity and social trust (e.g. Hooghe, 2007; Reeskens
and Wright, 2013). For Miller (1995), national identity, especially when more inclusive and
flexible markers predominate, fosters solidarity and trust among citizens. For Putnam (2007), the
predominance of more inclusive and flexible forms of identity allows societies to overcome some
of the potential negative consequences of increasing ethno-cultural diversity.
As such, the question that interests us, for the third step of our investigation, is whether the
implications of national boundary markers are the same for members of majority and minority
nations. But why should they not be the same? The answer here might be the role of cultural
!
5!
insecurity. As others before us have observed, a more ascriptive definition of the nation is likely to
be associated with less positive views toward immigration (Kunovich, 2009; Wright, 2011). We
expect the same here for both minority and majority nations. However, we argue that the negative
relationship between support for ascriptive characteristics and attitudes toward immigration might
be stronger when cultural insecurity prevails in a community, that is when national identity is
perceived to be threatened. Given the more acute sense of insecurity that sometimes inhabit
minority nations, we can hypothesize that the negative relationship between ascriptive
characteristics and attitudes toward immigration will be stronger in minority nations than in
majority ones. This might especially be the case in Quebec once characterized as “the worrier
nation” by Stasiulus (2013), where cultural and linguistic insecurity is said to be pervasive.
Supporting this line of reasoning, Harell et al. (2012) observe that beyond the greater level of
cultural insecurity among francophones in Canada, cultural insecurity itself is a stronger predictor
of attitudes toward immigration among francophones than among anglophones. As such, we expect
that the negative relationship between support for ascriptive characteristics and attitudes toward
immigration will be stronger in Quebec than in the rest of Canada; we extend the same argument
for generalized trust.
H3: The negative relationship between ascriptive characteristics and 1) attitudes toward
immigration and 2) generalized trust will be stronger in Quebec than in the rest of Canada.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND DATA
To conduct our investigations, we rely on an online survey conducted between July 20 and
August 22, 2017, that includes 820 respondents from Quebec and 4100 respondents from elsewhere
in Canada.
3
However, we limit our analyses to respondents born in Canada and who are of French
mother-tongue in Quebec or of English mother-tongue in the rest of Canada. With this decision,
we aim to capture how majority group members in Quebec and the rest of Canada define national
identity. Existing research demonstrates that when it comes to attitudes toward immigration, ethnic
minorities and immigrants tend to be more positively inclined than majority-group members
(Wilkes and Corrigall-Brown, 2011). Our decision to limit our study to majority group members is
consistent with studies on the topic (Bilodeau et al, 2012, Johnston et al., 2010; Meuleman et al.,
2009; Blake 2003). This leaves us with a sample of 551 respondents in Quebec and 3137 in the rest
of Canada. We now refer to these respondents as majority-group members in Quebec and in the
rest of Canada.
In studying national identity, students of public opinion have largely relied on the
International Social Survey Programme’s (ISSP) National Identity module
4
. The survey asks
whether different criteria are essential to be a “true” Canadian, American, Belgian, etc. As such,
state identity, rather than national identity per se, has been studied. In multinational states, these
two are not necessarily the same: while national identity for national minorities is often distinct
from state identity, the situation is more complex for majority groups. In a country like the United
!
3
A random sample of panelists was invited to complete the survey from a large representative
panel of over 500,000 Canadians, recruited and managed by Research Now. The survey was
conducted in both French and English. Respondents to this survey are at least 18 years of age,
Canadian citizens, and residents of their own province for at least six months.
4
The National Identity module is included in the 2003 and 2013 waves of the ISSP.
!
6!
Kingdom, the English majority group has a distinct national identity from the state identity, but in
countries like Canada and Spain, these two distinct forms of identity tend to overlap and to be
conflated among members of the majority group.
5
Accordingly, we used the questions asked in the ISSP, proposed seven of the same possible
characteristics of a “true” national, and have adapted them. When asked in Quebec, the question
explicitly specified whether the characteristics were important to be a true Quebecer, and when
asked elsewhere in Canada, the question explicitly specified whether the characteristics were
important to be a true Canadian. Table 1 presents the wording for the seven characteristics.
Henceforth, the study compares the boundaries of Quebec identity for majority-group Quebecers
and the boundaries of Canadian identity for majority-group Canadians outside of Quebec.
Table 1. Measuring the characteristics of “true” Quebecers and “true” Canadians
Some people say that the following things are important for being a true (Quebecer/Canadian).
Others say they are not important. How important do you think each of the following is? Very
important, fairly important, not very important, not important at all.
To be a Christian
To have (Quebec/Canadian) ancestry
To have been born in (Quebec/Canada)
To have lived in (Quebec/Canada) for most of one’s life
To be able to speak (French/French or English)
To feel like a (Quebecer/Canadian)
To respect (Quebec/Canadian) political institutions and laws
HOW NATIONS’ BOUNDARIES ARE DRAWN
One key finding from studies using the ISSP national identity module is the presence of
two groupings of characteristics, one centered around more exclusive and rigid ascriptive
characteristics and one centred around more inclusive and flexible attainable characteristics. We
begin our investigations by examining whether these two groupings of characteristics are
constructed in a similar fashion by majority-group members in Quebec and in the rest of Canada.
In order to do so, we conduct factor analyses (using principal component analysis and varimax
rotation) separately for Quebec and the rest of Canada, in which we included seven possible
characteristics defining true nationals. The results are presented in Table 2.
The analyses indicate that the covariance pattern is quite similar in Quebec and in the rest
of Canada: on one hand, four characteristics (ancestry, place of birth, time spent in the community,
and being Christian) form the ascriptive grouping. The alpha score suggests that the four
characteristics form a valid scale (.84 and .85 respectively in Quebec and in ROC). On the other
hand, speaking the language, feeling like a national, and respecting institutions and laws correspond
!
5
See the contributions in Lecours and Nootens (2009) as well as Gagnon, Lecours and Nootens
(2011).
!
7!
to the attainable grouping identified by existing research. The alpha score is .72 and .53 in Quebec
and in the rest of Canada respectively. Here, majority-group members in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada do not appear to differ significantly. Contrary to our expectations, language does not appear
to be considered like an ascriptive characteristic by majority-group Quebecers. Language clearly
covaries with other attainable characteristics in Quebec; it even loads more strongly with other
attainable characteristics in Quebec than it does elsewhere in Canada (.60 vs. .38)
6
. The factor
loading of language with ascriptive characteristics is weak both in Quebec and the rest of Canada
(.27 vs. .23). The important finding here is that we find no support for H1: majority-group members
in Quebec and the rest of Canada construct the two dimensions of ascriptive and attainable
characteristics in a similar fashion, and language does not appear to be an ascriptive characteristic
in Quebec
7
Table 2. Ascriptive and Attainable Dimensions in Quebec and ROC (Factor analysis)
Quebec (n=507)
ROC (n=2856)
Characteristics
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 1
Factor 2
To have ancestors in QC/CAN
.80
.13
.84
.05
To be born in QC/CAN
.85
.08
.87
.03
Having lived most of its life in QC/CAN
.80
.22
.83
.09
To be Christian
.49
-.07
.50
.03
To speak French/French or English
.27
.60
.23
.38
To feel like a QC/CAN
.17
.63
.16
.54
Respect institutions and laws of QC/CAN
.08
.64
-.02
.58
Variance
2.34
1.25
2.48
.78
Alpha
.84
.72
.85
.53*
Table reports results from factor analysis using principal component analysis with varimax rotation.
*Alpha score is .58 if we do not include language.
As a robustness check, we conduct a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for each of Quebec
and the rest of Canada: Table 3 presents the analyses. The left-hand side columns present the results
of the CFA with a two-factor loading solutions where each characteristic is restricted to load only
!
6
The stronger loading of language with the attainable group among Quebecers than among other
Canadians might be attributable to the different wording of the question; whereas only “Speaking
French” was mentioned in Quebec, “Speaking French or English” was mentioned elsewhere in
Canada.
7
Additional analyses indicate that the results here are not substantively different when we limit our
analyses to majority respondents (that is born in Canada and who are not members of a racial
minority group). Results not presented. This holds for the present findings and for those associated
with other findings presented later in the study. Moreover, additional analyses indicate that the
results are broadly the same when we limit the analyses to Quebec respondents whose mother
tongue is French (not presented).
!
8!
with one factor. The results support those presented in Table 2. On the one hand, being born, having
ancestors, having lived most of its life in the community and being Christian formed an ascriptive
grouping. On the other hand, feeling like a national, respecting laws and institutions and, to some
extent, speaking the language form an attainable grouping. Like in Table 2, however, it appears
that language weakly loads with the other attainable characteristics outside of Quebec.
Table 3. Ascriptive and Attainable Dimensions in Quebec and ROC (CFA)
Two-Factor
solution
Two-Factor Solution with
Language as a
Multidimensional Indicator
Ascriptive Factor
Quebec
ROC
Quebec
ROC
To have ancestors in QC/CAN
.82
.82
.82
.84
Having lived most of its life in QC/CAN
.85
.86
.84
.86
To be born in QC/CAN
.87
.90
.87
.90
To be Christian
.47
.49
.47
.49
To speak French/French or English
---
---
.17
.20
To feel like a QC/CAN
---
---
---
---
Respect institutions and laws of QC/CAN
---
---
---
---
Attainable Factor
To have ancestors in QC/CAN
---
---
---
---
To be born in QC/CAN
---
---
---
---
Having lived most of its life in QC/CAN
---
---
---
---
To be Christian
---
---
---
---
To speak French/French or English
.71
.41
.61
.36
To feel like a QC/CAN
.70
.67
.72
.64
Respect institutions and laws of QC/CAN
.64
.50
.67
.65
Number of observations
507
2856
507
2856
chi2
68.16 (.000)
266.73 (.000)
54.77 (.000)
165.94 (.000)
RMSEA
.091
.083
.084
.067
The right-hand side columns of Table 3 present the results of the CFA, but allowing the
language characteristic to load with both the ascriptive and attainable factors. We perform these
additional analyses specifically to test our hypothesis about the ambiguous status of language. The
results demonstrate that language exhibits a clear stronger loading with the attainable factor than
with the ascriptive one, and that the loading scores with both factors in Quebec strongly resemble
those in the rest of Canada. These additional findings also support those of Table 2 indicating that
language appears more as an attainable characteristic than an ascriptive one, and this holds equally
for Canada outside Quebec and for Quebec.
WHERE NATIONS’ BOUNDARIES ARE DRAWN
The second step compares where majority-group members in Quebec and in the rest of
Canada draw the line for belonging. Based on the factor analyses presented in Table 2, we built
two scales for ascriptive and attainable characteristics. Despite the weaker factor loading of
!
9!
language with attainable characteristics in the rest of Canada, we nevertheless include language
within the attainable group for ROC. Three reasons justify this decision. First, the factor loading
of language for ROC is somewhat weak with the attainable factor (.38) but is even weaker with
the ascriptive factor (.23). Second, the alpha score when including language is .53, which is still at
an acceptable level (it is .58 when language is not included). Finally, including language in the
attainable grouping allows us to have similar scales in both Quebec and ROC. Table 4 presents the
mean scores in Quebec and the rest of Canada for the seven characteristics and for the ascriptive
and attainable scales.
Table 4. Ascriptive and Attainable Characteristics in Quebec and ROC
Quebec (n=512)
(0-1, mean score)
ROC (n=2878)
(0-1, mean score)
Importance of ascriptive characteristics
To have (QC/CAN) ancestry
.48
.45
To have been born in (QC/CAN)
.54
.50
To have lived in (QC/CAN) for most of one’s life
.56
.54
To be Christian
.27
.28
Ascriptive scale
.47
.44
Importance of attainable characteristics
To be able to speak (French/French or English)
.80
.63
To feel like a (QC/CAN)
.76
.82
To respect (QC/CAN) political institutions and laws
.81
.85
Attainable scale
.78
.76
Three main findings emerge from data presented in Table 4. First, majority-group members
in Quebec and in the rest of Canada appear to prioritize attainable characteristics over ascriptive
ones. Hence, the most important characteristics for being a “true” Quebecer or Canadian are the
following: respecting political institutions and laws (.81 and .85 respectively for Quebec and ROC),
feeling like a Quebecer/Canadian (.76 / .82) and speaking the language (.80 / .63).
8
Despite some
differences, the same three characteristics are the most important ones in both communities.
Second, although of lesser importance than attainable characteristics, ascriptive traits
remain key markers of whom is a “true” Quebecer or a “true” Canadian. Indeed, if being Christian
is not seen as an important characteristic by many (.27 / .28), ancestry (.48 / .45), place of birth (.54
/ .50), and time spent in Quebec or Canada (.56 / .54) still have a substantial importance in drawing
the boundaries of national identity. It is surprising to see ascriptive characteristics exert such an
influence on defining who is a “true” national more than 45 years after the adoption of the Official
Policy of Multiculturalism in 1971.
Third, overall, majority-group members in Quebec and in the rest of Canada appear to
define the boundaries of the Quebec and Canadian political communities in similar terms. The
mean scores for the ascriptive (.47 and .44) and attainable (.78 and .76) scales are highly similar
in Quebec and in ROC. The main difference appears to be in the relative importance given to
!
8
Mean scores on a 0 to 1 scale where 1 means it is a very important characteristic and 0 means it
is not important at all.
!
10!
language. As expected, majority-group members in Quebec give greater importance to language
than their counterpart in the rest of Canada. This might not come as a surprise considering the place
that French has occupied in the building of Quebec identity throughout its history and given its
continuous salience in today’s politics. Another interpretation, however, is that it might be the by-
product of differences in the wording of the question since “Speaking French” is mentioned in
Quebec and “Speaking French or English” is mentioned elsewhere in Canada. Because the question
in the rest of Canada identified both English and French, the item might have appeared of lesser
importance to English-speaking Canadians. Beyond this point, however, the general picture is one
in which majority-group members in Quebec and the rest of Canada draw the boundaries of their
respective national identity in broadly similar ways. Contrary to what some might argue and
contrary to H2a, majority-group members in Quebec do not attribute greater importance than their
Canadian counterpart do to ascriptive criteria; or, conversely, do not give less importance to
attainable ones. This is consistent with H2b according to which criteria used to define national
identities in Quebec and the rest of Canada are broadly similar.
As other scholars before us have claimed, the attainable and ascriptive dimensions should
not be considered as mutually exclusive. Respondents can mention attainable or ascriptive
characteristics, but they can also mention both types or even neither type (Hjerm, 1998). Our
analyses support this claim. As presented in Table 5, a small proportion of respondents define the
boundaries of Quebec or Canada mainly in ascriptive terms (4% and 3%).
9
Similarly, only 6% and
7% of respondents in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada do not use either ascriptive or attainable
characteristics to define “true” members of the nation, a conception Hjerm called the pluralist
identity. In contrast, a substantial proportion defines the boundaries mainly in attainable terms
(43% and 45% respectively). The most frequent type, however, is when respondents mention both
attainable and ascriptive characteristics (47% vs. 45%). This raises an important question: when
both ascriptive and attainable criteria are mentioned, is one set of criteria more important than the
other? One possibility is that when respondents mention both ascriptive and attainable
characteristics, the former trumps the latter and that attainable characteristics might be mentioned
as socially desirable responses to soften-up the ascriptive characteristics also expressed. One way
to answer this question is by investigating the implications of ascriptive and attainable
characteristics for other social attitudes.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF BOUNDARY NATION DRAWING FOR SOCIAL
ATTITUDES
The final step of the analysis examines the relationship between, on one hand, the way
majority-group members in Quebec and the rest of Canada define the boundaries of the nation and,
on the other hand, attitudes toward immigration and generalized trust. Given the more pervasive
sense of cultural insecurity in Quebec than in the rest of Canada, we expect to observe a stronger
negative relationship between support for ascriptive traits and attitudes toward immigration in
Quebec than in the rest of Canada; the same is expected for generalized trust.
!
9
The typology was built using the middle of the scale (.50 on 0 to 1 scales) to distinguish
respondents.
!
11!
Table 5. Profiles of National Identities in Quebec and the Rest of Canada
Ascriptive
Characteristics
Attainable Characteristics
Weak
(0-.499)
Strong
(.5-1)
Weak
(0-.499)
“Pluralist”
QC = 6%
ROC = 7%
“Civic”
QC=43%
ROC = 45%
Strong
(.5-1)
“Ethnic”
QC = 4%
ROC = 3%
“Multiple Identities”
QC = 47%
ROC = 45%
We perform multivariate analyses in which we include as predictors the scales of support
for attainable and ascriptive characteristics as well as socio-demographic characteristics of
respondents. Because it is well documented that the strength of one’s national identity correlates
with attitudes toward immigration (Sides and Citrin, 2007; Sniderman, Hagendoorn et al., 2004;
Citrin et al., 2012), we also include a variable measuring the strength of national feelings (toward
Quebec for Quebecers and toward Canada for other Canadians). Finally, we include a variable
indicating whether respondents are from Quebec or from elsewhere in Canada as well as two
interaction variables to measure the potential distinctive impact of attainable and ascriptive
definitions in Quebec (attainable scale x Quebec, and ascriptive scale x Quebec).
We measure attitudes toward immigration with an index of six questions about different
aspects of immigration. In Quebec, the questions explicitly specified the impact of immigration on
Quebec whereas elsewhere in Canada they specified Canada instead of Quebec (see the Appendix).
The alpha score for the scale is .83 in Quebec and .90 in the rest of Canada. The data indicates that
majority-group members in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada express broadly similar views toward
immigration with respective mean scores of .50 and .54 (on a 0 to 1 scale where 1 means very
positive views). This finding is consistent with a study by Bilodeau et al. (2012).
10
We measure
generalized trust with the standard question asking respondents whether most people can be trusted
or whether we need to be careful in dealing with people. Generalized trust appears lower in Quebec
than in the rest of Canada, with 23% of respondents in Quebec and 39% elsewhere in Canada
expressing the view that “most people can be trusted”, a finding also consistent with other studies
(Kazemipur, 2006; Breton, 2004).
The analysis reported in Table 6 indicates that respondents with a stronger ascriptive
conception of national identity express more negative attitudes toward immigration. This finding
is consistent with what others observed (Kunovich, 2009). Contrary to our expectations, the
relationship is not stronger in Quebec. If anything, the relationship is weaker in Quebec; the
interaction variable here is significant and negative, thus weakening the net effect for Quebec.
!
10
However, Bilodeau et al. (2012) also show in the same study that Quebecers have less positive
attitudes toward “racial minorities”. Unfortunately, the survey used for this project did not include
any question about views toward ethno-cultural and religious diversity.
!
12!
However, the effect is only marginally smaller in Quebec and the same substantive conclusion
holds for ROC and for Quebec.
Table 6. Boundaries of the Nations and Their Implications
Attitudes Toward
Immigration (0-1)
Generalized Trust
(0-1)
B
SE
B
SE
Attainable Scale (0-1)
-0.01
(0.04)
1.00*
(0.41)
Attainable Scale x Quebec (0-1)
0.04
(0.06)
0.39
(0.81)
Ascriptive Scale (0-1)
-0.46***
(0.02)
-1.55***
(0.23)
Ascriptive Scale x Quebec (0-1)
0.15***
(0.05)
1.33*
(0.65)
Quebec
-0.10c
(0.06)
-1.55*
(0.65)
Visible Minority
0.03c
(0.02)
0.28
(0.27)
Year of birth (ref. cat. Before 1957)
1957 to 1972
-0.05***
(0.01)
-0.31*
(0.15)
1973 to 1990
-0.00
(0.02)
-0.45**
(0.16)
1991 to 1999
-0.01
(0.02)
-0.57**
(0.22)
Woman
0.00
(0.01)
-0.02
(0.12)
Highest educ. degree completed
(ref. cat. High School)
College
-0.00
(0.01)
0.41**
(0.14)
University
0.05***
(0.01)
0.56***
(0.15)
Unemployed
0.00
(0.03)
-0.07
(0.27)
Household Income (1-10)
-0.00
(0.00)
0.05*
(0.02)
Strength of feelings toward
Canada/Quebec (0-10)
0.01***
(0.00)
0.05c
(0.03)
Constant
0.66***
(0.03)
-1.23**
(0.42)
Observations
2899
2790
Adjusted R2 / Pseudo R2
0.34
0.08
Unstandardized B coefficients. Standard errors in parentheses.
OLS regression for attitudes toward immigration; binomial logit regression for generalized trust.
c p<.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001
In contrast, respondents expressing a stronger attainable conception of national identity do
not provide more positive attitudes toward immigration, nor is the effect significantly different in
Quebec than in the rest of Canada. Figure 1 presents the predicted scores of attitudes toward
immigration by varying the ascriptive and attainable scores (and the interaction term for Quebec),
and by holding all other variables in the model at the sample mean.
11
Mentioning ascriptive
characteristics makes one less positive toward immigration; mentioning attainable ones, however,
does not compensate in making one more positive. This is important because almost half of the
respondents in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada identify both attainable and ascriptive
characteristics to define a “true” member of the nation. This raises the question as to how salient
these attainable characteristics really are in the way respondents define national identity and as to
whether they might, at least to some degree, reflect socially desirable responses. Another key
!
11
Predictive scores obtained using Margins’ command in Stata 15.
!
13!
finding is that stronger national feelings (towards Quebec/Canada) are associated with more
positive opinions about immigration, a finding that corroborates that of Citrin et al (2012). Hence,
this supports the relatively unique positive relationship between national identity and immigration
in Canada.
With regards to generalized trust, the analyses in Table 6 indicate that ascriptive and
attainable scales are significantly related in opposite directions with our dependent variable. As
shown on Figure 2, the more important attainable characteristics are for respondents, the more
likely they are to express trust in others. On the opposite, the more important ascriptive
characteristics are for respondents, the less likely they are to express trust in others. This last
finding, however, holds only outside Quebec. In Quebec, we observe that the interaction term
neutralizes the effect of the main variable.
12
This once again contradicts our expectations (H3); the
negative relationship between support for ascriptive traits and generalized trust is not stronger in
Quebec.
13
!
12
The reason why the net effect for Quebec is null is puzzling. One possibility would be that there
is a ‘floor’ effect; the level of generalized trust being quite low in Quebec and much lower than in
the rest of Canada, there is little room for it to be even lower for people with a more ascriptive
definition of who belongs to the nation. It is not possible, however, to verify the validity of this
explanation.
13
Even though language clearly covaries with other attainable characteristics in Quebecers and in
the rest of Canada, the unique situation of French in Quebec could make the ramifications of
support for language different than they are in the rest of Canada. Accordingly, we performed
additional analyses to compare the ramifications of language specifically. The results indicate that
greater importance given specifically to language is associated with more negative attitudes toward
immigration, but the result is small in magnitude and not different in Quebec than in the rest of
Canada. In comparison, there is no significant relationship between the importance given to
language and generalized trust neither for Quebec nor for the rest of Canada. Results not presented.
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attitude toward immigration (0-1)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Ascriptive score (0-1)
Ascriptive Markers
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attitude toward immigration (0-1)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Attainable Markers
Figure 1. Boundary Markers and Attitudes Toward Immigration
Rest of Canada Quebec
!
14!
In a final set of analyses, we verify the presence of interaction effects between the ascriptive
and attainable scales. We are specifically interested in examining whether the effect of mentioning
attainable characteristics is different for those with a low or high support for ascriptive
characteristics. We performed additional analyses testing for such interaction effects as well as for
Quebec again. Figures 3 and 4 report the effect of the attainable scale for respondents with low
(.33) and high ascriptive scores (.67) separately for Quebec and the rest of Canada, respectively on
attitudes toward immigration and generalized trust. In terms of attitudes toward immigration, the
results indicate no significant interaction effect between the attainable and ascriptive scales; Figure
3 indicates that the effect of the attainable scale is broadly similar for respondents with a low
ascriptive score and those with a high score. Whether the ascriptive score is low or high,
mentioning attainable characteristics is not associated with more positive views of immigration.
This further supports the view that attainable responses play no significant role in explaining views
toward immigration. Attainable responses appear of little significance and/or could be interpreted
like socially desirable responses. The same finding holds for generalized trust. We note no
significant interaction effect between the attainable and ascriptive scales. Higher attainable scores
increase generalized trust, and this holds equally strongly for those with low and high ascriptive
scores.
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Generalized trust (%)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Ascriptive score (0-1)
Ascriptive Markers
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Generalized trust (%)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Attainable Markers
Figure 2. Boundary Markers and Generalized Trust
Rest of Canada Quebec
!
15!
CONCLUSION
The main objective of this study was to explore whether conceptions of national identity in
a multinational state differs among members of a minority nation and those of the majority nation.
While an important body of literature has explored variations in the predominance of ascriptive
and attainable forms of national identification using a cross-national perspective (Kunovich, 2009;
Wrigth, 2011), to our knowledge our study is the first to examine whether, in a multinational state,
majority and minority nations emphasize different criteria when tracing the borders of their
respective national community. The study investigated the imagined boundaries of minority and
majority nations, here Quebec and Canada, using three perspectives. Comparing native French-
speakers in Quebecers and native English-speakers in the rest of Canada, we examined 1) the way
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attitudes toward immigration (0-1)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Quebec
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attitudes toward immigration (0-1)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Rest of Canada
Figure 3. Effect of Attainable Markers on Attitudes Toward Immigration
among those with Low and High Ascriptive Scores
Low ascriptive High ascriptive
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Generalized trust (%)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Quebec
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Generalized trust (%)
0.2 .4 .6 .8 1
Attainable score (0-1)
Rest of Canada
Figure 4. Effect of Attainable Markers on Generalized Trust
among those with Low and High Ascriptive Scores
Low ascriptive High ascriptive
!
16!
ascriptive and attainable groupings of characteristics were constructed, 2) the importance for
attainable and ascriptive characteristics to be seen as a ‘true’ member of the nation, and 3) the
implications of ascriptive and attainable characteristics for attitudes toward immigration and
generalized trust. In light of the importance of language politics in Canada, we paid specific
attention to the role of language in both societies.
Contrary to our expectations, our analyses indicate that native French-speakers in Quebec
and native English-speakers in the rest of Canada do not differ significantly in the way they define
the boundaries of their respective nation, and this holds for all three of the perspectives we
examined. First, the groupings of ascriptive and attainable characteristics appear very similar in
Quebec and the rest of Canada, even when we look specifically at language. While Hjerm (1998)
questioned whether language could be a criterion for exclusion similar to other ascriptive traits,
our analyses suggest that, for the minority and majority nations in Canada, this does not appear to
be the case. Second, although respondents in Quebec give slightly greater importance to language
in defining “true” Quebecers, overall, the criteria that predominate strongly resemble those used
by other Canadians. Our study thus lends no support to the perception that a more rigid and
exclusive (ascriptive) form of national identity would be more prevalent in Quebec than in the rest
of Canada. Quebecers, like other Canadians, favour a national identity that is predominantly
defined in attainable terms. From this perspective, our analysis is in line with that of others before
us who, from a historical perspective, claimed that the definition of national identity in Quebec,
like in the rest of Canada, has evolved toward a more open and inclusive one (Breton, 1988).
Finally, we observe that when Quebecers and other Canadians identify ascriptive markers of
national identity, they tend to be more negative toward immigration and to be more distrustful of
people; and there is no evidence that those relationships are stronger in Quebec. The general
cultural and linguistic insecurity that is often said to be prevailing in Quebec (Stasiulis, 2013) does
not appear to result in more prominent consequences associated with an ascriptive definition of the
nation.
Despite the contribution of this study in highlighting that in the aggregate minority and
majority nations, here Quebec and the rest of Canada, may define the characteristics of national
identity in similar ways, important questions remain without answers. One such unresolved matter
concerns which identity matters most for individuals and its implication for the meaning of national
identity. Indeed, the politics of multinational states is often about divided or conflicted loyalties
where people can identify more with one nation than the other (Henderson, 2007). This raises the
question as to whether the boundaries of national identity (for minority and majority) depend on
the salience of that identity for individuals. In Quebec, the majority of the population identifies as
Quebecer before identifying as Canadian. Are the boundaries of the Quebec identity and their
implications similar for those who identify as Quebecer first than for those who identity as
Canadian first? This is a question we could not address in this study and that remains open for
future research.
In conclusion, even though studies indicate a transformation of national identity toward a
more attainable definition and a gradual loss of legitimacy of ascriptive forms of national
attachment in Canada and in many other places (Tridafilopoulos, 2010), including in minority
nations such as Quebec (Barker, 2010), our study indicates that far from having completely
vanished, understandings of national identities grounded in ascriptive terms continue to cohabit
with attainable ones and to shape public opinion. Moreover, our analyses indicate that when it
comes to attitudes toward immigration, only ascriptive characteristics mattered. Whether
!
17!
Canadians mentioned any attainable characteristic did not correlate with more positive views of
immigration, raising some questions as to what those attainable characteristics really mean or
imply, at least when it comes to immigration, and as to whether they, to some degree, reflect
socially desirable responses. Accordingly, the fact that close to half of Quebecers and other
Canadians in our study proposed a definition of national identity that still emphasizes ascriptive
traits in a country that has sometimes been described as the world’s first “postnational country”
(Foran, 2017); and that support for such a conception of national identity still negatively shapes
attitudes toward immigration, is a surprising finding
.
!
18!
Appendix. Construction of variables
Attainable
characteristic
scale
0 to 1 scale index indicating the importance of the following three
characteristics: language, feeling of belonging, and respecting laws and
institutions.
Ascriptive
characteristic
scale
0 to 1 scale index indicating the importance of the following four
characteristics: being Christian, to be born in, to have spent most of its life
in, to have ancestors in.
Attitudes toward
immigration
0 to 1 scale index composed of answers to six questions, where 1 means
very positive attitude and 0 means very negative attitude
Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with the
following statements:
- Immigrants increase crime rates in QC/CANADA
- Immigrants take jobs away from people who were born in
QC/CANADA Quebec/Canada’s culture is threatened by immigrants
- Government spends too much money assisting immigrants
- Immigrants are good for the economy
- Immigrants enrich society by bringing new ideas
Generalized trust
Indicate whether respondents indicate that (1) most people can be trusted
or (0) we are never too careful when dealing with people
Visible Minority
Respondent is member of a visible minority (1) or not (0) as defined by
Statistics Canada
Strength of
feelings toward
(Canada/Quebec)
Feelings toward Canada/Quebec on a 0 to 10 scale where 10 means very
positive and 0 means very negative.
Income
Household income on a 1 to 10 scale.
Unemployed
1= respondent is unemployed; 0 = others
Woman
1 = woman; 0 = man
Education
Highest degree completed.
!
19!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alba, R. (2005). Bright vs. blurred boundaries: Second-generation assimilation and exclusion in
France, Germany, and the United States. Ethnic and racial studies, 28(1), 20-49.
Anderson, B. (1983). Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism.
Verso Books.
Barker, F. (2010). Learning to be a majority: Negotiating immigration, integration and national
membership in Quebec. Political Science, 62(1), 11-36.
Bilodeau, A., Turgeon, L., & Karakoç, E. (2012). Small worlds of diversity: views toward
immigration and racial minorities in Canadian provinces. Canadian Journal of Political
Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 45(3), 579-605.
Bilodeau, A., Turgeon, L., White, S., & Henderson, A. (2018). Strange bedfellows? Attitudes
toward minority and majority religious symbols in the public sphere. Politics and
Religion, 11(2), 309-333.
Blake, Donald E. 2003. “Environmental Determinants of Racial Attitudes among White
Canadians.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36(3): 491–503.
Breton, C., Cutler, F., Lachance, S., & Mierke-Zatwarnicki, A. (2017). Telephone versus online
survey modes for election studies: Comparing Canadian public opinion and vote choice in
the 2015 federal election. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de
science politique, 50(4), 1005-1036.
Breton, R. 1988. From ethnic to civic nationalism : English Canada and Quebec. Ethnic and Racial
Studies,11 (1) : 85-102.
Breton, Raymond. 2004. Fragile Social Fabric?: Fairness, Trust, and Commitment in Canada.
McGill-Queen’s Press. McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2008). East is West? National feelings and anti-immigrant
sentiment in Europe. Social Science Research, 37(4), 1147-1170.
Citrin, J., Johnston, R., & Wright, M. (2012). Do patriotism and multiculturalism collide?
Competing perspectives from Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of Political
Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 45(3), 531-552.
Conversi, D. (1997). The Basques, the Catalans and Spain: Alternative routes to nationalist
mobilisation. University of Nevada Press.
Escandell, X., & Ceobanu, A. M. (2010). Nationalisms and anti-immigrant sentiment in
Spain. South European Society and Politics, 15(2), 157-179.
Foran, Charles. 2017. The Canada experiment: is this the world’s first ‘postnational’ country? The
Guardian (January 4th): https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/04/the-canada-
experiment-is-this-the-worlds-first-postnational-country (Last accessed April 26th 2019)
Gagnon, A. G., Lecours, A & Nootens, G. (Eds.). (2011). Contemporary majority nationalism.
McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Gagnon, A. G., & Tully, J. (Eds.). (2001). Multinational democracies. Cambridge University Press.
!
20!
Gershon, S. A., & Pantoja, A. D. (2011). Patriotism and language loyalties: Comparing Latino and
Anglo attitudes toward English-only legislation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 34(9), 1522-
1542.
Harell, A., Soroka, S., Iyengar, S., & Valentino, N. (2012). The impact of economic and cultural
cues on support for immigration in Canada and the United States. Canadian Journal of
Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 45(3), 499-530.
Henderson, A. (2007). Hierarchies of Belonging: national identity and political culture in Scotland
and Quebec. McGill-Queen's Press-MQUP.
Henderson, A., Jeffery, C., & Liñeira, R. (2015). National identity or national interest? Scottish,
English and Welsh attitudes to the constitutional debate. The Political Quarterly, 86(2),
265-274.
Hjerm, M. (1998). National identities, national pride and xenophobia: A comparison of four
Western countries. Acta Sociologica, 41(4), 335-347.
Hooghe, M. (2007). Social capital and diversity generalized trust, social cohesion and regimes of
diversity. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science
politique, 40(3), 709-732.
Igartua, J. E. (2011). The other quiet revolution: National identities in English Canada, 1945-71.
UBC Press.
Ignatieff, M. (1994). Blood and belonging: Journeys into the new nationalism. Macmillan.
Jeram, S. (2013). Immigrants and the Basque nation: diversity as a new marker of identity. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 36(11), 1770-1788.
Johnston, Richard, Keith Banting, Will Kymlicka and Stuart Soroka. 2010. “National Identity and
Support for the Welfare State.” Canadian Journal Political Science 43: 349–77.
Jones, F. L., & Smith, P. (2001). Diversity and commonality in national identities: An exploratory
analysis of cross-national patterns. Journal of sociology, 37(1), 45-63.
Kazemipur, A. 2006. “A Canadian Exceptionalism? Trust and Diversity in Canadian
Cities.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 7 (2): 219.
Kohn, H. (1944). The idea of nationalism. MacMillan Company.
Kunovich, R. M. (2009). The sources and consequences of national identification. American
Sociological Review, 74(4), 573-593.
Kuzio, T. (2002). The myth of the civic state: a critical survey of Hans Kohn's framework for
understanding nationalism. Ethnic and Racial studies, 25(1), 20-39
Lamont, M., & Molnár, V. (2002). The study of boundaries in the social sciences. Annual review
of sociology, 28(1), 167-195.
Lecours, A., & Nootens, G. (Eds.). (2009). Dominant nationalism, dominant ethnicity: Identity,
federalism, and democracy (No. 15). Peter Lang.
MacIver, D. (Ed.). (1999). The Politics of Multinational States. Palgrave.
!
21!
Maddens, B., Billiet, J., & Beerten, R. (2000). National identity and the attitude towards foreigners
in multi-national states: the case of Belgium. Journal of ethnic and migration studies, 26(1),
45-60.
McRoberts, K. (1993). Quebec. Social change and political crisis, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press.
Meuleman, Bart, Eldad Davidov and Jaak Billiet. 2009. “Changing Attitudes Toward Immigration
in Europe, 2002–2007: A Dynamic Group Conflict Theory Approach.” Social Science
Research 38(2): 352–65.
Miller, D. (1995). On nationality. Clarendon Press.
Montpetit, Jonathan. 2019. “An introduction to the new Quebec nationalism and the tricks it plays
on federal leaders.” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, September 14th. Available
at: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-bill-21-election-1.5283673
Moreno, L. (2006). Scotland, Catalonia, Europeanization and the ‘Moreno Question’. Scottish
Affairs, 54(1), 1-21.
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty‐first century the
2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian political studies, 30(2), 137-174.
Reeskens, T., & Wright, M. (2013). Nationalism and the cohesive society: A multilevel analysis of
the interplay among diversity, national identity, and social capital across 27 European
societies. Comparative Political Studies, 46(2), 153-181.
Sarrasin, O., Green, E. G., Berchtold, A., & Davidov, E. (2012). Measurement equivalence across
subnational groups: an analysis of the conception of nationhood in
Switzerland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(4), 522-534.
Seymour, M. & Gagnon, Alain-G (Eds.) (2012). Multinational federalism : problems and
prospects. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Sides, J., & Citrin, J. (2007). European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests
and information. British journal of political science, 37(3), 477-504.
Simonsen, K. B. (2016). How the host nation's boundary drawing affects immigrants’
belonging. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42(7), 1153-1176.
Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predisposing factors and situational
triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American political science
review, 98(1), 35-49.
Staerklé, C., Sidanius, J., Green, E. G., & Molina, L. E. (2010). Ethnic minority ‐majority
asymmetry in national attitudes around the world: A multilevel analysis. Political
Psychology, 31(4), 491-519.
Stasiulis, D. (2013). Worrier nation: Québec's value codes for immigrants. Politikon, 40(1), 183-
209.
Triadafilopoulos, T. (2010). Global norms, domestic institutions and the transformation of
immigration policy in Canada and the US. Review of International Studies, 36(1), 169-193.
!
22!
Turgeon, L., A. Bilodeau, S. White, and A. Henderson. 2019. “A Tale of Two Liberalisms?
Understanding Support for Restrictions on Minority Religious Symbols in Quebec and the
Rest of Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 247-265.
Wilkes, Rima and Catherine Corrigall-Brown. 2011. “Explaining time trends in public opinion:
Attitudes towards immigration and immigrants.” International Journal of Comparative
Sociology 51(1-2): 79–99.
Winter, E. (2007). Neither ‘America’nor ‘Quebec’: constructing the Canadian multicultural nation.
Nations and nationalism, 13(3), 481-503.
Winter, S. (2014). Cultural politics pathology: the Charter of Québec values. Politics, Groups, and
Identities, 2(4), 681-688.
Wright, M. (2011). Diversity and the imagined community: Immigrant diversity and conceptions
of national identity. Political Psychology, 32(5), 837-862.
