Publication - OKB5azEUNHSRyl0fzQNcRd0ZsYD2

The article is titled “ How Mark Carney and King Charles understand the power of performance.” It was originally published on May 25, 2025 and is authored by Christophe Premat, Associate Professor, Canadian and Cultural Studies, Stockholm University.

As Mark Carney prepares to welcome King Charles to read the Speech from the Throne in Canadian Parliament this week, it’s clear Canada’s newly elected prime minister understands the power of symbolism in the face of geopolitical tensions.
He said as much when announcing the King’s visit: “This historic honour matches the weight of our times.”
The King’s visit will be steeped in spectacle and pageantry aimed at highlighting Canadian sovereignty — a vivid example of the power of performance and political theatre.
It comes on the heels of Carney’s own display of performance savvy in his brief but charged Oval Office meeting with United States President Donald Trump that ended up being much more than a rhetorical skirmish.
It crystallized a deeper shift in the North American relationship — one marked less by deference and more by divergence. At the heart of the recent encounter was a symbolic clash over power, identity and the limits of spectacle in politics.
Performance of resistance
Prior to Carney’s trip to Washington, D.C., the American president renewed his assertions that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state, an idea he had provocatively evoked in the past. Carney firmly rejected the idea, stating:
“As you know from real estate, there are some places that are never for sale …. Having met with the owners of Canada over the course of the campaign in the last several months, it’s not for sale. Won’t be for sale — ever.”
The line made headlines around the world. But beyond the rhetorical flourish was something more significant: a performance of resistance and a refusal with symbolic weight.
Performance as power
To understand the symbolic tone of the May 6 meeting between Trump and Carney, it’s critical to be begin with the U.S. president’s well-documented negotiation techniques.
A key element of his approach involves escalating tensions ahead of formal engagements and raising the stakes publicly to gain leverage before entering a room. This strategy, often described by behavioural researchers “anchoring high,” functions not just as a tactic, but as performance: pressure is applied in advance to frame the terms of interaction.
Trump was relatively well-mannered during the meeting with Carney, which was widely interpreted as a diplomatic gesture. But it could have also been part of a feigned politeness strategy — one that subtly reinforces the narrative of cultural proximity between the U.S. and Canada.
By emphasizing shared values and mutual respect, this rhetorical posture could have masked a deeper assertion: that Canada’s distinctiveness is negotiable, and that integration is both natural and desirable.
That means Trump’s politeness may have not been a sign of deference, but a tool for soft domination, framing unity as inevitable while downplaying asymmetries of power.
Carney’s reply: Dignity as defiance
Carney’s comeback was more than a witty remark — it was a deliberate act of rhetorical resistance. Known for his calm and technical communication style, Carney rarely engages in political theatre. But this time, he chose to respond with a phrase that carried national significance.
“Canada is not for sale” wasn’t just a clever real estate metaphor. It was a clear message: Canada would not be treated as a commodity, a junior partner or part of someone else’s political performance.
In doing so, Carney defused the main threat behind Trump’s suggestion — the idea that Canada’s identity, independence or place in the world could be casually folded into a U.S.-centric vision of continental unity.
His response reaffirmed Canada’s agency and sent a signal that, even in the face of larger political pressure, dignity and sovereignty could still be asserted with clarity and confidence.
Implications for the future
What made the moment particularly revealing was the imbalance of power that shaped not only the meeting itself, but the way it was framed publicly.
Despite Carney’s assertive remark, the broader setting exposed the limits of Canada’s voice in the face of American dominance. As journalists turned their attention to Trump’s agenda and tone, Carney struggled to make his message fully heard.
The structure of the encounter — with the U.S. president commanding the spotlight — reinforced the asymmetry: Canada was present, but not central.
The implications of this moment go beyond Carney or Trump. It reflects a broader cooling — or rather a reframing — of the Canada–U.S. relationship.
On climate, Canada now positions itself as a leader in carbon pricing and green innovation. On trade, it courts Europe and Asia with increasing confidence. And on democratic norms, Canadian institutions have taken a stand that contrasts starkly with the erosion seen in the U.S. under Trump.
This is not a severing of ties, but a quiet repositioning — a recognition that the North American alliance is no longer grounded in seamless alignment, but in negotiation, tension and difference.
A battle over narratives
Ultimately, the Oval Office meeting was not just a dispute over economics or trade. It was a struggle over narrative — about who gets to define what Canada is and who it belongs to.
Trump’s rhetorical power lies in turning every relationship into a hierarchy; Carney’s reply reminded audiences that even within unequal relationships, dignity can be asserted and claimed.
“Canada is not for sale” was not a policy argument. It was a symbolic refusal, a subtle but potent moment of resistance. And in today’s world of performative politics, symbolism often matters as much as the rule of law.
Performative politics refers to political gestures or statements that are meant more to communicate values, signal allegiance or shape public perception than to enact concrete policy. These performances can shape national identity, influence international relations, and reframe public debate.
In this context, Carney’s statement functioned as a performance of sovereignty and moral clarity, meant to resonate beyond the Oval Office. Even though King Charles is not a political leader, his presence in the House of Commons this week will be another important example of the power of performance.

How Mark Carney and King Charles understand the power of performance

May 28, 2025 • My Project Name

Read Article

About My Project Name

https://www.mygroup.com