Which Way to the Rapture?

Which Way to the Rapture? Lectures on interdisciplinary Canadian Studies offered by opponents of the field are very much like sermons on anarchism delivered by fundamentalist preachers. In the latter case we are invariably treated to a dose of predictable hysteria about the evils of Molotov cocktails and kneecapping, but we seldom catch an analytical insight into the ideas of Emma Goldman or the vision of Peter Kropotkin. In the former instance we find no exploration of interdisciplinary methods, no critique of Ivan Illich or of Fernand Braudel, no sense indeed that anything but a strict construction of the traditional curriculum will answer the needs of the university. Fundamentalist scholars, like evangelical theologians, are selective in their choice of evidence. Having already determined their conclusions before commencing their research, they set out to prove, rather than to test, their hypotheses. Last March, the editors of the Canadian Historical Review primed the fundamentalist pump with an editorial1 lamenting the fact that Canadian Studies, ''which has capitalized on our traditional preoccupation with identity, ...seems likely to add to the complexity and confusion of understanding Canada rather than to help integrate the wide range of work going forward." This is about as close as the authors come to a definition of Canadian Studies. Aside from its attempt to characterize practitioners in the field as a rather simple lot, the editorial betrays its authors' belief that the role of interdisciplinarity is to serve as the second rank of scholarship, to "integrate" the essential work being conducted by those pioneers wedded to disciplinary "standards." There is, too, the implication that by injecting complexity into the analysis, interdisciplinarians are somehow performing a disservice - a rather odd premise for serious scholars to espouse and defend. The real purpose of the CHR editorial, however, is to attack a perceived diversion of public funding from the legitimate prerogatives of the disciplines to what it condemns as politically sanctified mediocrity. Professor Alan Artibise, President of the Association for Canadjan Studies and himself a fine and wellpublished historian, has elected to answer these charges by rehearsing the facts overlooked by the editors of the CHR. I will not muddy the waters by expanding upon his argument here, but would urge readers of the Journal to look for his excellent letter of reply in the pages of the CHR. The central point to be made now is that this attack on interdisciplinary Canadian Studies has sustained a tradition of the genre by avoiding cumbersome empirical detail in the interests of piety. Unfortunately the text of the sermon deals not with the salvation of the flock, but with the dimensions of the collection plate. Hard on the heels of the CHR editorial has come The Great Brain Robbery,2 among whose authors we find, not surprisingly, one of the editors of the CHR. His partners in this exercise are also historians. The preamble to their indictment of the entire Canadian university system includes the following assertions: Journal of Canadian Studies Vol. 19, No. 3 (Automne 1984 Fall) 3 1) "This book is a polemic...." 2) "This book omits much." 3) "This book will make many people uncomfortable...." Indeed, this book is everything that these three premises suggest it will be. Its virtues - and there are some - are seriously compromised by its shortcomings. Surely the polemic is to scholarship what the pun is to humour: the lowest form of the art. The fact that such a form was chosen here begs the question about what demons possessed a group of otherwise intelligent academics to abandon the skills so admirably demonstrated in the work they have published within their own discipline. Perhaps, like many of us, they feel threatened by forces beyond their control; the institution which we share in common is quite obviously under seige from myriad sectors. But the issues raised by this self-serving polemic lean disproportionately towards the assessment of blame rather than towards the more refined task of resolution. The authors assure us, in interviews with the media, that they are merely asking questions, trying to provoke discussion. But this, as anyone who has read the book will attest, is not wholly the object. Names are named, fingers are pointed...