The politics of sexship

Canada cannot remain U.S. economic plaything

Sexship occurs when you are not just friends, but not quite dating. 

You don’t know where you’re heading, but you know there is a chemical process going on in your body that makes those awkward, not-quite-relationships intrinsically worth it. 

There is a risk, though. Are you friends, or are you dating?

Eventually, tough choices need to be made, and one person ends up voicing the game changer: emotions.

The other ends up thinking of ways to still sleep with them while simultaneously not having to commit to anything, yet still satisfying the other’s growing need to have emotional reciprocity.

The ship is fragile, a constant struggle for the “loser” in this relationship; the one who always wants growth from the relationship, but can’t find it in the distortions of seeking. 

The metaphor goes beyond the micro and the personal. Application of this illustration sheds light upon the political economy in North America. 

The metaphor of sexship applies well to foreign direct investment into Canada. 

With the rise of neo-liberalism and the North American continental free trade agreements of the late ‘80s and early ‘90s, the ship represents the Canadian state.

The sex represents foreign investors, primarily from America, Europe, China and India. But overwhelmingly concentrated from America.

Canada’s economic development has been dominated by foreign direct investment (FDI). Canada’s natural resources have been targeted by foreigners, in particular American capitalists, for generations – since Confederation, in fact.

Even the Canadian high-tech sector has been heavily targeted by American firms, placing domestic research and development in Canada among the lowest in the developed world. 

Canada is still a sovereign state, a powerful one at that, but it has a lot more potential than its continued economic underperformance would imply.

Canada is still a sovereign state, a powerful one at that, but it has a lot more potential than its continued economic underperformance would imply

Foreign direct investment has been proven time-and-again to not reproduce development in the country in which investment takes place. Foreign businesses bring in foreign firms to develop domestic resources.

From Canada’s perspective, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was particularly designed to exploit Canada for its natural resources in order to benefit the self-interest of the United States. Since it came into effect in 1994, that much has been borne out.

Look, for instance, into the permanency clause of the agreement, and you realize that American corporations are entitled to harvest Canadian resources forever. 

Canada can do better. It does not have to develop its growth on the self-interest of America. It just takes restraint to do so.

The argument does not intrinsically have to entail economic nationalism, but rather at its basis is the advocating for what makes sense based on the premise of the capitalist system.

Engaging with other people and countries that are self-interested isn’t necessarily “bad,” and even if it could be proven that it is, FDI is likely to continue.

But if Canada wants to be strong, free and independent, it needs to build its own capacity before it allows foreigners to exploit its worth.

Canada will be best served by demanding its emotions be recognized, and zipping up its pants as well.

Matt Austman studies politics at the University of Winnipeg and enjoys contemplative walks on the beach.

Published in Volume 65, Number 17 of The Uniter (January 27, 2011)

Related Reads