Doing Canadian Political Thought

Doing Canadian Political Thought Two themes run through this special issue oftheJournal ofCanadian Studies, both typical ofthe discipline known as Canadian political thought. The first seeks to understand the Canadian political identity. How are we to describe thiscountry? What is the Canadian political wayoflife? Is it worthy ofour allegiance? The usual assumption among students of Canadian political thought is that from some early period the political institutions and way oflife in the colonies that became Canada were shaped by the prevailing political philosophies ofthe modern world. Understanding the Canada of today requires study ofthe political ideas in Canada's past in thecontextofmodem political thought. The articles in this issueby PeterJ. Smith, Rainer Knopff, Bryce Weber, and H.D. Forbes contribute to the first theme. The second pursues an understanding ofnot Canada but the field ofCanadian political thought itself. Philosophers and theorists have always reflected on the business oftheorizing, and so ithas proved in this Canadiandiscipline. Thearticles in this issue by Jeremy Rayner and D.A. West are written on the meta-level. Both raise questions about the assumption ofscholarly objectivity that characterizes the work ofscholars likeSmith, WeberandKnopff. They force us to consider whether writing about Canada's past isn't sometimes - or always - a form of political myth-making. Scholars pursuing the first theme attempt to discover Canada. Scholars pursuing the second often find themselves suggesting that Canada must be invented. The Discovery ofCanada The academics engaged in Canadian political thought are almost exclusively political scientists, and in most cases political theorists. In many ways their work resembles thatofhistorians. Like historians they study the official documents, and the political statements, speeches, and letters ofthe past. But political scientists do notseedescription ofthedocuments in their period as the primary undertaking. Nor arethey usually content to show the influenceofdocumentson laterevents, or totrace thedevelopmentofpolitical ideas. It isn't their taskto tell Canada's story. Whatthey are searching for is anexpositionofpolitical ideas that will illuminate the perennial question: who are we? Peter J. Smith's "Fitting the Loyalists In" begins with the idea that the United Empire Loyalists were a crucial force in the making ofour political culture. It is a premise familiar from the work ofLouis Hartz and Gad Horowitz, but Smith finds in Loyalist thought noneofthe "toryism"thatHartzand Horowitzassociate with those who fled the American Revolution.' Whereas Horowitz maintains that the Loyalists were imbued with tory notions aboutthevalueoflimiting political individualism in the name ofthe common good, Smith suggests, on the contrary, that the Loyalists wereproponents ofa commercial ideology thatelevates individualismat theexpense of the common good. A generation of Canadians has been reared on the idea, stemming from Hartz andHorowitz, thatCanada, unlike theUnited States, is a nation characterizedby its readiness to use the powerofthestate for public good. This makes Journal ofCanadian Studies Vol. 26, No. 2 (Eri 1991 Summer) 5 itallthe morevital to study Smith's reasons for claiming that there was no"tory touch" in Canada's past. The care with which Smith examines statements from the revolutionary period is one ofthestrengths ofthearticle. Heproceedson theassumption that itis possible todescribe Loyalistarguments in terms the Loyalists would themselves recognize. In similar fashion Rainer Knopffsees it as his task to depict Laurier as the man was understoodin his period. Muchofthe interestofKnopffs article lies intheskill with whichhedescribes Laurier's audience. He convinces us indeed thatLaurier's argument comes to light only through an appreciation of his attempt to persuade one particular group ofnineteenth-century Canadians of the worth ofhis views. Part of Smith's reevaluation of the crucial years of the nineteenth century involves the argument that the political thought of North America, including the individualistphilosophyoftheLoyalists, owes littletoLockeand Lockean liberalism. Knopff, incontrast, holds that the individualismatthe heartoftheCanadian political way oflife derives from Locke. In Knopffs view Lockean liberalism has been the dominantand continuing influence in NorthAmerica. What is atissue between Smith and Knopffis somethingmore than aquarrel aboutinfluencesand thehistory ofideas. They disagree on the theoretical level. The question is whether liberalism can encompass an idea ofthe common good. Smith defines the commongood in terms of a tacit, prior, communal set of political assumptions that prescribe limits on individual aspirations. This conception ofthe common good is what he fails to find in Loyalist thought. Knopfffollows Laurier in defining the...