In this study, I undertake a discourse analysis of struggles over
representation as they were manifested in the Charlottetown referendum
campaign. I utilize transcripts taken during the campaign derived from
the CBC news programs The National, The Journal, and Sunday Report as
well as from The CTV News. The issue of (im-)partiality provides the
analytical focus for this study. Who can legitimately speak on behalf of
whom, or, to what extent do individuals have a particular voice which
places limitations on whom they can represent? On the one hand,
underlying what I call the ‘universalistic’ discourse is the premise that
human beings can act in an impartial manner so that all individuals have
the capacity to speak or act in the interests of all other individuals
regardless of the group(s) to which they belong. On the other hand, a
competing discourse based on group-difference’ maintains that all
representatives express partial voices depending on their group-based
characteristics. I argue that the universalistic discourse was hegemonic in
the transcripts but, at the same time, the group-difference discourse was
successful at articulating powerful counter-hegemonic resistance.
Ironically, the universalistic discourse was hegemonic despite widespread
assumptions of partiality on the basis of province, region, language, and
Aboriginality. This was possible because the universalistic discourse
subsumed territorial notions of partiality within itself. In contrast, I argue
that assumptions of Aboriginal partiality will likely diffuse themselves to
other categories, beginning with gender, in the future. I also describe the
strategies used by the competing discourses to undermine one another.
The universalistic discourse successfully portrayed the group-difference
discourse as an inversion to a dangerous apartheid-style society where individuals were forced to exist within group-based categories. The
group-difference discourse used the strategy of anomaly to demonstrate
that individuals were inevitably categorized in the universalistic discourse;
impartiality was a facade for a highly-partial ruling class. In examining
these strategies, I demonstrate that the group-difference discourse
justified its own position by making assumptions about the operation of
power and dominance in society. Thus, impartiality was impossible not for
the post-modern reason that inherent differences make representation
highly problematic, but because power relations hinder the ability of
representatives to act in a truly impartial manner.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:LACETR/oai:collectionscanada.gc.ca:BVAU.2429/5207 |
| Date | 05 1900 |
| Creators | Kernerman, Gerald P. |
| Source Sets | Library and Archives Canada ETDs Repository / Centre d'archives des thèses électroniques de Bibliothèque et Archives Canada |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Electronic Thesis or Dissertation |
| Relation | UBC Retrospective Theses Digitization Project [http://www.library.ubc.ca/archives/retro_theses/] |
Page generated in 0.0019 seconds