George Grant and the Subversion of Modernity: Art, Philosophy, Politics, Religion and Education ed. by Arthur Davis (review)

324 LETTERS IN CANADA who he was convinced had the is a phtlm,oP'hv But to me one of the ........l'v..~.~C' of war.' William Christian's SPlen~:l1a and the anC~lWirv Arthur Davis, editor. George Grant and the Subversion Art, Philosophy, and Education Inh1pl"'~lhr of Toronto Press. xvi, $60.00 paper Ever since the ,.........,.-.....,............. Fulton Anderson Grant Canada's me'agJ~e ""'.~L.u.''"'''''''-'I-'''''L.I.'''L''''_ t-"L4.I. ..................... in 1952, Grant has excited little HUMANITIES 325 Finally, in the section on education, Nita Graham's imaginative article, 'Teaching and the Spirit of the Age,' touches on this question directly, as it tries to understand the larger, but related, issue of why a thinker like Northrop Frye is so readily accepted in the academy, while one like Grant is not. One wonders whether the reason for Grant's position as a famous outsider is not simply thathe wrote non-technically about issues which the academy only acknowledges in its own jargon. Grant did not publish in university presses and he made no obvious attempt to contribute to or profit from what academics solemnly call 'the literature.' The academy's little flock does not harken to such voices. The eighteenth-century philosopher David Hume elegantly set out the nature of the conflict between what he'called 'east and 'abstruse' philosophy in 1748, as he tried to understand why the reading public had met his own abstruse book with such a frigid response: It is certain that the easy and obvious philosophy will always, with the generality of mankind, have the preference above the accurate and abstruse; ... It enters more into common life, ... and, by touching those principles which actuate men, reforms their conduct. ... On the contrary, the abstruse philosophy, being founded on a turn of mind which cannot enter into business and action, vanishes when the philosopher leaves the shade and comes into the open day ... But tms only makes the affection of academic social scientists for Grant more puzzling. Why do they of all people like him so? The explanation is probably to be found in the title: 'the subversion of modernity.' Alert social scientists see in Grant an articulate observer of such important social concerns as the eclipse of Christianity in public life, abortion,-euthanasia, the decline of education, the downfall ofliberalism, and related politically significant topics. And they recognize furthermore a philosopher' who could see beyond the academic significance ofsuch questions, relating them to one another and to the spiritual centre of life, of which so many academics seem unaware. Readers concerned with these topics or interested in Grant will share the enthusiasm that many of the contributors communicate in their careful and informative essays on Grant's religious and political thought. The collection closes with some highly readable 'Letters on Universities and Education,' selected by Grant's biographer, William Christian. The' reader who wishes to understand Grant's fundamental lack of haffi10ny with academic life might begin reading here. It is less easy to imagine an interested reader of the opening section, dealing with' Grant's views on the writer Louis-Ferdinand Celine. To them are devoted one interminable paper by George Grant, never meant for publication, and two pompous commentaries. (GRAEME HUNTER) ...