Last week, Jack asked that I go into more detail in my next response. So this one is twice as long. I hope that, unlike last week, I haven't entirely missed the point of the texts I am analyzing! Fortunately these two are in English and were thus far more accessible. I am highly considering removing the French-language texts from my field list, to preserve my sanity and give myself a fighting chance of succeeding.
Greer: The Patriots and the People
Fyson: Magistrates, Police and People
These two works
both reconceptualize the interactions between the state and the ordinary people
in Lower Canada in the early nineteenth century. Fyson explores the importance
of the experiences of the general public in accessing justice, while Greer
examines the actions of the masses in the 1837-8 Rebellions. Fyson and Greer
base their research on large bodies of official sources that portray non-notable
people of various walks of life, although they use these sources to somewhat
different analytical ends. Greer’s main goal is to reconstruct the Rebellions
from a bottom-up perspective, demonstrating the agency of habitants in the
Rebellion. Fyson aims to refute a model of rupture and stasis that other
historians have used to understand changes in the justice system, and state
structures more broadly, between the Conquest and Rebellions. Fyson’s ultimate
goal is to indicate a need for a new periodization of the state in Lower Canada,
premised on a fluid rather than rigid criminal justice system that experienced
substantial but diverse and unequal changes.[1]
From these texts, we can see that the state in Lower Canada was shaped as much
by the habitants or Canadiens than by the British authorities; both historians
draw out class as an important factor in determining one’s relationship with
the state and its infrastructure, portraying class as more important than
ethnicity, contrary to beliefs of various other historians who portrayed
state-society interactions as characterized by ethnic conflict.
Structurally,
Fyson’s work is organized thematically, though with some chronological movement
through individual chapters. Greer’s structure is similar to his later Mohawk Saint, examining particular
themes through a narrative of the Rebellions. This structure makes Greer’s text
more accessible to a non-specialist, and I do not feel that he loses analytical
power by engaging with a narrative. For a student working through readings for
comprehensive exams, Greer’s structure is more engaging, while Fyson’s often
feels like witnessing the progressive flogging of a dead horse, as he travels
down a spiral of the various elements of the justice system that could oppose
his argument. This is not to say that it isn’t analytically a strong work; only
that, despite his use of quite clear hooks at the end of each subsection and
chapter, it is tempting to put his text down and stop; that wasn’t a concern of
mine with Greer’s work. Another particular concern I had with Fyson’s work was
his frequent argument that if one thing occurred—for example, if Canadiens used
the justice system—that another thing—the legitimacy of the justice system, to
follow the previous example—must have
been true. While his final arguments may well be right, the logic he uses to
make these arguments does not, to me, seem solid. Greer, on the other hand, had
only one real analytical peculiarity, in his out-of-place counterfactual
hypothesizing in his conclusion.
Greer’s Marxist
approach is much more evident here than in Mohawk
Saint; through his discussion of Patriot nationalism, one can see a fairly
clear criticism of our present political system; while he is writing from the
early 1990s, his criticisms, I feel, are still valid for the early twenty-first
century. Greer argues that our present judgments of Patriot ideas of democracy
and nationalism are unfair, since we haven’t ourselves established a truly
democratic state.[2]
His characterization of Patriot nationalism as ambiguous[3]
is one that could describe most Canadian nationalisms, in Quebec and elsewhere,
for much of Canadian history.
Greer’s work is
largely a political history, but with significant elements of cultural history
in his discussion of the role of popular culture elements, such as the
charivari and maypole, in the Rebellions. This cultural element is a definite
strength of both works, although less so in Fyson’s more explicitly political
history. Greer demonstrates how the maypole became a symbol of political
struggle during the Rebellion, from its previous purpose as, possibly, a means
of honouring a community member or vesting them with authority.[4]
Patriots similarly incorporated the charivari, a visible, even theatrical means
of community response to specific acts of social deviance, into their arsenal
for the Rebellion. The charivari, a ritual not uncommon in early modern Europe,
had previously served to draw attention to objectionable marriages, shaming the
new couple and requiring them to give money to the organizers of the charivari
and to charity.[5]
In the context of the Rebellion, the Patriots repurposed this ritual to target
non-Patriots for specific offences against the Rebellion, such as refusing the
step down from the magistracy.[6]
Greer explains that, by giving direction to the anger of the masses,[7]
the charivari was a “restraining influence” that actually prevented more
serious violence.[8]
Another major
symbol that Greer discusses is Queen Victoria, crowned during the overture to
the Rebellion. Patriots used the idea of this young female queen to cast the
loyalists as being “governed by a little girl,”[9]
showing their conceptualization of “the people” as being exclusively male.[10]
In this sense, Queen Victoria becomes a symbol of the separate spheres ideology
that was gaining power as a model for gender roles during the early nineteenth
century. While most habitants knew little of their new queen, for the elite
Patriots, she became the antithesis of the Rebellion, casting it as a male space.
Though cast as an attempt to protect women,[11]
this had a definite relevance for the outcome of the Rebellion, as it failed to
garner the widespread practical support of women, a potentially critical force.
Fyson’s
symbolism was more physical than archetypal or perfomative; the only instance
where an analysis of symbols takes the forefront is in his discussion of
courthouses and other locations of justice. Fyson examines motifs of majesty
and terror in the architecture of justice, considering whether the justice
system made a symbolic imposition in addition to a practical one.[12]
Fyson argues that urban architectural settings of justice were designed to
express institutional power and British symbolism.[13]
He argues against a possibility that such symbolism may have alienated Canadien
users of the justice system, noting that it was the bureaucracy of justice
rather than its physical geography that would be foreign to them.[14]
There is
certainly an extent of interplay between these two texts. Fyson speaks to Greer,
from several years later. Ideologically he seems aligned with Greer, though they
disagree on quite specific points of analysis. While Greer claims that legal
institutions during this period were limited in their scope and power,[15]
Fyson quite convincingly counters that charge throughout his work by showing
Canadien engagement with the justice system. Greer does concede that habitants
were experienced at engaging with and resisting the state;[16]
it seems that his focus on the people almost make the state and its infrastructure
too marginal in this analysis.
From my
perspective, as a student who works from an (intentionally fluidly and vaguely
defined) anti-oppressive stance, the relatively limited consideration of
intersectionality in these works is a significant shortcoming. Class and
ethnicity—which both historians characterize as English and French, with
minimal mention of other ethnic groups—are the thrust of both texts; issues of
race and gender are typically sectioned into small, dedicated parts of each
text, with less critical analysis of issues of masculinity and femininity than
I would like. The notable exceptions to this are Greer’s chapter on Queen
Victoria, and Fyson’s scattered mentions of violence against women. The
assumption throughout both texts is that the Canadien/habitant is always white
and is male, unless otherwise specified; the “state” is, aside from the queen,
a white, male entity. Perhaps wanting every analysis to be cognizant and
critical of the intersections of gender, race, and class throughout is overly
demanding or even impossible, but this is what I see as a priority for
historians working in our current society, regardless of their period of study.
In my view, this means of analyzing the experiences of marginalized members of
society is reinforcing the hegemonic nature of academia.
One pertinent
question that comes through, particularly in Fyson’s work, concerns the
applicability of using theoretical models in history. Fyson essentially
ruptures theories about rupture and stasis, but without necessarily proposing a
new theoretical model. Could his refuting of this argument the seed of a new
model unto itself, rather than a rejection of such theory altogether? Conceivably,
Fyson’s argument that the rupture/stasis model is inappropriate could be an
anti-rupture/stasis springboard for criticisms of other elements of the state. It
appears that he is skeptical of theory, concluding with an assertion that theoretical
models are, in this case, irrelevant if people achieved their desired ends from
the justice system.[17]
According to Fyson, the everyday experiences of the justice system are too
ambiguous and diverse for any particular model.[18]
Does this mean that models are, as a whole, too imperfect to be applicable to
history? Are they useful for framing an analysis, even if the eventual
conclusion is that the frame itself is inadequate?
I have attempted
here to focus on the commonalities between these texts. There are other
elements that merit further analysis, however, such as Greer’s discussion of
anti-feudalism as a mechanism for gaining support for the Rebellion, rather
than a cause of the Rebellion itself. How does this relationship between
classes, and understanding of social class, emerge in Fyson’s analysis of the
justice system? This class element, and the split between urban and rural
experiences, certainly are other venues of comparison. Greer and Fyson both
portray an interplay, rather than a conflict, between classes. Similarly, a
useful discussion could be had regarding possible differences in conceptions of
nationalism, depending on social location. The role of the parish as a site of
conflict, control, and social engagement is another potential juncture between
these monographs. Overall, Fyson and Greer both analyze the impact of small
changes and the often anonymous actors in history, rather than the leaders or
major events, showing a need for a more holistic and inclusive interpretation
of the state and society in Lower Canada.
No comments:
Post a Comment