Is There a Canadian Philosophy?: Reflections on the Canadian Identity

Chapter 1. Nationality and Universality

CHAPTER 1 G.B. Madison NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY A. Is There a Canadian Philosophy? On the occasion of its 50th anniversary in 1995, UNESCO published a volume entitled Philosophie et democratic dans le monde. This was part of a larger project intended to take stock of the current place of philosophy in education and culture, with the aim of promoting the teaching of philosophy throughout the world. The basic theme of the book was that, as its title suggests, the fate of democracy is intimately linked to that of philosophy: 'Tenseignement philosophique ... a par­ tie liee avec les processus de democratisation" (Droit 1995, 71). The book was based upon documentation accumulated by UNESCO and, in particular, upon responses to detailed questionnaires distributed to all member states of the UN as well as to various institutions and individuals (see pp. 52­63). In a number of "references"throughout the book, a few indi­ viduals discussed the status of philosophy in their own coun­ tries; the book concluded with a table summarizing the status of philosophy in various member states of the UN (59 alto­ gether). One point about the book likely to be noted by Cana­ dian readers is that nowhere in it is there any referenceto the status of philosophy in Canada. They could thus no doubt be excused if they came away with the impression that Canada, like Antarctica, was one place where philosophy, and the teaching thereof, was not to be found.! 9 IS THERE A CANADIAN PHILOSOPHY? Canada's lack of presence in this volume can perhaps be attributed to simple oversight. And yet the lack of any refer­ ence to Canada is not without a telling irony. For, when solic­ ited to do so, what indeed—if one thinks about it—could one say about philosophy in Canada, other than that, unlike the situation that prevails in most of the countries surveyed, its teaching is confined almost exclusivelyto the postsecondary level (and other technical details of this sort)? Are there any noticeable traits about the way philosophy is carried on in Canada that are distinctive to this country? One complicating factor in any such attempt to isolate the defining characteris­ tics of a distinctly Canadian philosophy is that Canadian phi­ losophers are, in large numbers, citizens of countries other than Canada (what they have in common being, one might be tempted to say, the mere fact that theyhappen tophilosophize in that geographical locale the UN recognizes as "Canada").2 What might a Canadian philosopher say to a Japanese or Ital­ ian colleague who was curious to know more about "Canadi­ an" philosophy?Is there anythinglike a distinctivelyCanadian way of doing philosophy? Indeed, does it make any sense at all to speak ofa Canadian philosophy? What would be the partic­ ular traits one could cite in order to differentiate this philoso­ phy from other "national" philosophies? As a general rule, there are a number of factors one can ap­ peal to in any attempt to characterize a "national"philosophy. First and foremost among these is a certain commonality in the topics of concern to the philosophers in question (subject matter), as well as a commonality in the way these topics are addressed (method). Another factor making for distinctive­ ness is historical continuity; practitioners of a recognizably "national" philosophy can and do appeal to a tradition they share in common. France has its Descartes and the Cartesian tradition (until recently) of clear and distinct thinking (and writing); Germany has its great idealist philosophers and its reputation for profound thinking (and equally obscure writ­ ing); Britain its empiricists (and their common­sensical, down­to­earth way of dealing with issues); India its philoso­ phers of the Absolute (with their notoriously convoluted 10 NATIONALITY AND UNIVERSALITY vocabulary); China its Confucian and Taoist thinkers (with their frustratingly untranslatable ideograms). One thing that Canada lacks in this regard is any kind of readily identifiable tradition. Unlike America, which is richly endowed with its Benjamin Franklins, Thomas Jeffersons, James Madisons, Emersons, Thoreaus, Jameses, Peirces, and Deweys, there is no such thing as a "Canadian" tradition in philosophy or any great "icons" in the history of philosophy in Canada—even though, here or there, at this or that older Canadian universi­ ty, there might linger (as in a Robertson Davies novel) a few residual traces of some outstanding Canadian interpreter of some branch or other of European philosophy. Although no recognizablynational philosophy...