That Moment in History

Journal of Canadian Studies • Revue d'etudes canadiennes That Moment in History Stephen Bocking C anadian Studies is often described as a conversation, engaged in by all who explore "our collective experience and character.111 Ideally, it transcends the partial perspectives of disciplines, and, informed by activist aspirations, bridges the divide between academia and the Canadian community. The record of this conversation and its future agenda were examined closely in the recent millennium issues (Volume 35) of the Journal ofCanadian Studies. As Robert Campbell and others explained, the themes animating Canadian Studies- the distinctiveness of the Canadian experience, the uncertain place of Canada in an era of globalization , the relevance of equality, justice, democracy and other "noble" themes to the Canada project - remain as relevant as ever. In everyday life, of course, we usually talk about more mundane matters - our own splinters of the "collective experience." But the last few months have also shown how the shared witnessing of a great and horrendous event can pull Canadians into a joint effort to make sense of unprecedented images and a changed reality. Since 11 September, academics have participated in this, contributing context and meaning on topics ranging from Afghan politics to Islam to national security. Those who study Canada have contributed their share of commentary. Just in the last few days Canadian academics have pronounced on the implications for civil liberties of anti-terrorism legislation, the rediscovered relevance of government as the purveyor of public goods, and the possible impact on architecture of new feelings of urban vulnerability. American efforts to reshape the geopolitical order into a united front against terrorism will only sharpen the challenges for Canada of defining its distinctive role in world affairs, and a distinctive experience worth reporting to the world. But there may be limits to the contribution academics can make to understanding these challenges. In daily conversation, 11 September 1111 has become the shorthand for the attacks on New York and Washington, and their aftermath. After all, we often prefer to understand history in terms of specific dates. But this preference runs counter to the familiar tendency in academic discourse to focus on larger trends - the deeper currents of change, not the rough waves of daily events. Let me provide an example from my own field, environmental history: while popular writers tend to explain the origins of environmental concerns in terms of specific events (the publication ofSilentSpringin 1962; the first voyage of Greenpeace; Earth Day on 22 April 1970), historians usually trace these concerns to less dramatic but more sweeping changes in society and politics, such as increased education, Volume 36 • No. 3 • (Automne 2001 Fall) 5 6 Editorial • Stephen Bocking greater opportunities for leisure, and an expanded role for government as the guarantor of public goods such as clean air and water. Similarly, 11 September seems likely to become a touchstone of public memory (where were you on the day...), but as a single, shocking event, it may not become a focus of sustained scholarly study. This might be a good thing: a sensible resistance to overreaction (not always evident in recent military and security policy); or simply a rational response to an apparently outrageously irrational event. But this academic reluctance to study a specific date can have other consequences . One relates directly to the ambition of Canadian Studies to speak not just to other scholars, but to the wider community. The demarcation between the popular understanding of history in terms of dates, and historians' pursuit of deeper themes, reinforces the division between the popular and the academic, impeding achievement of this ambition. Another relates to how we select the evidence we use to validate our interpretation of a changing world. Just as scientists' common assumption that all change is gradual has led to misunderstanding (in the 1980s the first data indicating an ozone "hole" over the Antarctic were dismissed as obvious errors: the atmosphere could not, it was thought, change that suddenly), the assumption that deep trends are what matters might lead us to misunderstand how historical change actually occurs. Perhaps the possibility of "defining moments," when great change might begin to reveal itself, should not be too readily dismissed. Some of the...