The Past Speaks

I thought I would bring people’s attention to the launch of a book that will take place next week at the Canadian Historical Association. (12.30 pm, Tuesday, 26 May 2009, Congress Book Fair, Carleton University).  The book is an edited collection called Contesting Clio’s Craft. (I contributed a chapter). The book looks at a number of methodological issues confronting Canadian historians. I think that it’s an important book because it advances the debate over the future of the Canadian historical profession beyond the rather childish struggle between Jack Granatstein and the social historians that raged in the 1990s.

Most historians of Canada concentrate on the twentieth century. As a result, the annual conference of the Canadian Historical Association (CHA) is normally dominated by papers on the period after 1914. It is therefore gratifying to see a significant number of papers on pre-Confederation history. Here are the panels that to which I am going to listen. Most of these panels will be taking place on the first day of the conference, Monday, 26 May.

830-1000  “Authority and Political Culture in Upper Canada/Ontario”

2.1 Neil Ferry, Nipissing University, “Partaking Plentifully of the Fruits which their Hands have Earned: Conflict, Accommodation and Popular Liberalism among Skilled Workers in Ontario, 1848-1876”
2.2 Laura Joanna Smith, University of Toronto “Rebel Ireland Abroad: Irish Violence in British North America”
Reconsidered 2.3 Rebecca Beausaert, York University “Bad Girls in the Country: Assessing the ‘Girl Problem’ in Oxford County,
Ontario, 1870-1914”
2.4 Michelle Vosburgh, Brock University “Meritorious Officers” and “Occupants in Good Faith”: Negotiations of Authority and Autonomy in the Canada West Crown Lands Department and its Policies”

1030-1200: Roundtable on Liberalism and Hegemony (although it isn’t evident from the title, this paper focuses on the 19th century)

1330-1500 “Religion, Educational Authority, and the State in British North America”

Bruce, Curtis,  “Comment sanctifier la journée: Religious Authority and Common Schooling in the Lower Canadian 1830s”
17.2 Anthony Di Mascio, University of Ottawa “The Authority of Public Opinion and the Making of Educational Legislation in Upper Canada, 1793-1832”
17.3 Paul John Reale, University of Chicago “The Making of an Imperial System of Education in Upper Canada, 1791-1871”

I’m also looking forward to Chris Tait, Department of National Defence “The Politics of Holidaymaking in Canada: Wilfrid Laurier, Imperialism, and the 24th of May”

I’ve been making my decisions about which panels I will be going to at the upcoming meeting of the Canadian Historical Association. I’m looking forward to the panel on Authority and Political Culture in Upper Canada/Ontario. The panel I’m most interested in is the roundtable on Liberalism and Hegemony: Debating the Canadian Liberal Revolution. The panellists are: Janet Ajzenstat, McMaster University, Sarah Carter, University of Alberta, Nancy Christie, Trent University, Jean‐Marie Fecteau, Université du
Québec à Montréal, and Martin Pâquet, Université Laval.

For the uninitiated, the term “Canadian liberal revolution” refers to the theory that British North America experienced a liberal revolution in the first half of the 19th century. (The leading proponent of this theory is Professor Ian McKay of Queen’s University). This liberal revolution saw the dismantling of feudal and communal institutions such as the seigneurial system, the rise of a more individualistic conception of property, and the victory of (classical) liberal political movements.
I’m very interested in the whole concept of a liberal revolution, although frankly I think the proponents of this theory overstate liberalism’s victories and underestimate the extent to which pre-liberal and collectivist modes of political thought persisted in British North America. Historian Jerry Bannister has made this point very effectively, arguing that what distinguished British North America from the hyper-liberal, hyper-individualistic United States was a strong Tory collectivist tradition.

I’ve never accepted the view advanced by Ajzenstat and McKay that the ideology that motivated Canadian Confederation was an individualist or classical liberal one. Far from it! In fact, I showed in a recent journal article that the ideology that drove Canadian Confederation was interventionist Toryism, an ideology that ran completely counter to the main tenets of classical liberalism as handed down by Adam Smith.

There is one curious thing about this panel: Michel Ducharme, who recently edited a collection of essays debating whether the Canadian liberal revolution actually existed, was not invited to participate even though he will be present at the CHA.