¹ See Merton, Robert K., “Insiders and Outsiders: A Chapter in the Sociology of Knowledge,” American Journal of Sociology 78 (1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² The major articles helpful in tracing the development of Canadian political science are as follows: Ashley, W.J., What is Political Science? An Inaugural Lecture (Toronto 1888)Google Scholar; Bourinot, John George, “The Study of Political Science in Canadian Universities,” Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada for the Year 1889 VIII (Montreal 1890)Google Scholar; O.D. Skelton, “Fifty Years of Political and Economic Science in Canada,” in The Royal Society of Canada, Fifty Years Retrospect, Anniversary Volume 1882–1932 (no place, no date); Macpherson, C.B., “On the Study of Politics in Canada,” in Essays in Political Economy, ed. Innis, H.A. (Toronto 1938)Google Scholar; Dawson, R.M., “Political Science,” in “Research in the Social Sciences in Canada,” mimeo, 1939Google Scholar, archives of the Social Science Research Council of Canada; Lower, A.R.M., “The Social Sciences in Canada,” Culture III (1942)Google Scholar; Clokie, H.McD., “Canadian Contributions to Political Science,” Culture III (1942)Google Scholar; Macpherson, C.B., “The Position of Political Science,” Culture III (1942)Google Scholar; Quinn, H.F., “Political Science Instruction in Canadian Universities,” Culture IX (1948)Google Scholar; Dawson, R.M., “Political Science Teaching in Canada,” a report to the Social Science Research Council, 1950, reprinted in Newsletter: Canadian Political Science Association II, 4 (March 1973)Google Scholar; Keirstead, B.S. and Watkins, Frederick M., “Political Science in Canada,” in unesco, Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching (Paris 1950)Google Scholar; Keirstead, B.S. and Clark, S.D., “Social Sciences,” in Royal Commission Studies: A Selection of Essays Prepared for the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences (Ottawa 1951)Google Scholar; Hodgetts, J.E., “Dives and Lazarus: Three Reports on the Teaching of Political Science,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XVIII, 1 (Feb. 1952)Google Scholar; Macpherson, C.B., “L'Enseignement de la Science politique au Canada,” Revue Française de Science Politique IV, 2 (Avril-Juin 1954)Google Scholar; Macpherson, C.B., “The Social Sciences,” in The Culture of Contemporary Canada, ed. Park, Julian (Toronto 1957)Google Scholar; Mayo, Henry B., “Writing in the Social Sciences,” in Literary History of Canada, ed. Klinck, Karl F. (Toronto 1965)Google Scholar; March, R.R. and Jackson, R.J., “Aspects of the State of Political Science in Canada,” Midwest Journal of Political Science XI, 4 (Nov. 1967)Google Scholar; Smiley, D.V., “Contributions to Canadian Political Science Since the Second World War,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XXXIII, 4 (Nov. 1967)Google Scholar; Hodgetts, J.E., “Canadian Political Science: A Hybrid with a Future?” in Scholarship in Canada, 1967: Achievement and Outlook, ed. Hubbard, R.H. (Toronto 1968)Google Scholar; Mackinnon, James and Brown, David, “Political Science in the Canadian University, 1969,” in The Struggle for Canadian Universities, ed. Mathews, Robin and Steele, James (Toronto 1969)Google Scholar; Kear, A.R., “Canadian Political Science – One Man's Fancy,” mimeo, presented to the 1971Google Scholar annual meeting of the cpsa. The works by Macpherson are particularly useful.

³ Clokie, “Canadian Contributions,” 470

⁴ Lower, “Social Sciences,” 437

⁵ Macpherson, “The Social Sciences,” 185. The harmful effects of British influences in political science are discussed in Macpherson, “Study of Politics in Canada,” 156–61. See Neill, Robin, A New Theory of Value: The Canadian Economics of H.A. Innis (Toronto 1972), 13, 15, 70, 89Google Scholar for analogous problems in economics.

⁶ Bonneau, L.-P. and Corry, J.A., Quest for the Optimum, Vol. 1 (Ottawa 1972), 18Google Scholar

⁷ Lower, “Social Sciences,” 437

⁸ Toronto 1944

⁹ Toronto 1946

¹⁰ Toronto 1947

¹¹ Toronto 1947

¹² See Taylor, K.W., “The Foundation of the Canadian Political Science Association,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XXXIII, 4 (Nov. 1967).Google Scholar Technically the cpsa was a revival, rather than a new creation, as an earlier annual meeting had been held in 1913. Further meetings were disrupted by the war and the association lapsed.

¹³ Macgibbon, D.A., “Foreword,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science I, 1 (Feb. 1935), 1Google Scholar

¹⁴ The founding of the American Political Science Association in 1903 is described as an event of tremendous significance for the development of American political science by Somit and Tanenhaus. They also note that the Political Science Quarterly was founded in 1886 as a distinctively American outlet in political science because of a dissatisfaction with dependence on foreign journals. Somit, Albert and Tanenhaus, Joseph, The Development of American Political Science: From Burgess to Behavioralism (Boston 1967), 49–50, 36Google Scholar

¹⁵ Report of the Royal Commision on Dominion-Provincial Relations (Ottawa 1940).

¹⁶ Macpherson, C.B., “After Strange Gods: Canadian Political Science 1973,” in Perspectives on the Social Sciences in Canada ed. Guinsburg, T.N. and Reuber, G.L. (Toronto 1974), 65Google Scholar

¹⁷ See the references in fn. 2.

¹⁸ See Hodgetts, “Dives and Lazarus,” for a summary of three of these reports.

¹⁹ Innis, Harold, Political Economy in the Modern State (Toronto 1946), 76.Google Scholar A year earlier Brebner, J.B. had stated that “it must be said that the salaries paid to most Canadian scholars and teachers can be described as stupid, even by comparison with the modest remuneration paid elsewhere in the English-speaking world.” Scholarship for Canada: The Function of Graduate Studies (Ottawa 1945), 45.Google Scholar This report indicates the generally undeveloped state of Canadian scholarship at the time, and specifically notes the low position of the social science faculties.

²⁰ Table compiled from data presented in Macpherson, “After Strange Gods,” 56, supplemented by the following data. The second figure for 1966–7 of 270 is taken from Scott, A., “The Recruitment and Migration of Canadian Social Scientists,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XXXIII, 4 (Nov. 1967), 496–8Google Scholar; 1968–9 figure of 425 from MacKinnon and Brown, “Political Science in the Canadian University, 1969,” 153; 1973–4 figure of 750 is an estimate by John Trent, Secretary-Treasurer of cpsa.

²¹ See Hurtubise, René and Rowat, Donald C., The University, Society and Government (Ottawa 1970)Google Scholar, plus the two volumes of supporting Studies on the University, Society and Government (Ottawa 1970).

²² The development of the social sciences in French Canada is discussed in the following: Falardeau, Jean-Charles, “Problems and First Experiments of Social Research in Quebec,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science X, 3 (Aug. 1944)Google Scholar; Maurice Tremblay and Albert Faucher, “L'Enseignement des Sciences Sociales au Canada de Langue Française,” in Royal Commission Studies: A Selection of Essays Prepared for the Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences; Bonenfant, Jean-Charles, “Les Études Politiques,” avec “Commentaire,” par Lemieux, Vincent, Recherches Sociographiques III, 1–2 (Jan.-Août 1962)Google Scholar; Falardeau, Jean-Charles, L'essor des Sciences sociales au Canada François (Quebec 1964)Google Scholar; Faucher, Albert, “La recherche en sciences sociales au Québec: sa condition universitaire,” in Timlin, Mabel F. and Faucher, Albert, The Social Sciences in Canada: Two Studies (Ottawa 1968)Google Scholar; Vincent Lemieux, “L'état de la recherche en science politique et ses perspectives multidisciplinaires,” Communication présenté au 37^ème Congrès de l'acfas, à Montréal, le 8 novembre, 1969.

²³ Lalande, Gilles, “Presidential Address,” CPSA Newsletter I, 1 (Sept. 1971)Google Scholar

²⁴ Ibid., 5. See also Claude Gousse, “Reflexions sur l'Avenir de la Sociologie au Quebéc,” and Rocher, Guy, “L'Avenir de la Sociologie au Canada,” in The Future of Sociology in Canada, ed. Loubser, Jan J. (Montreal 1970)Google Scholar, for the political role of sociology in Quebec.

²⁵ For the situation in sociology and anthropology see Curtis, James E., Connor, Desmond M., and Harp, John, “An emergent professional community: French and English sociologists and anthropologists in Canada,” Social Science Information IX, 4 (Aug. 1970).Google Scholar French-English differences in sociology are graphically described by Guy Rocher as follows: “la sociologie de langue française et la sociologie de langue anglaise… sont presque étanches l'une à l'autre. II s'agit en réalité de deux univers presque imperméables qui cohabitent dans une ignorance réciproque à peu près totale…

“Entre ces deux univers, un bon nombre d'attitudes sont différentes; les auteurs auxquels on se rallie ou autour desquels on se bat ne sont pas tout à fait les mêmes; les problèmes auxquels on s'intéresse sont différents; de plus, chacun des univers a sa structure sociale, son échelle de prestige, ses sanctions et gratifications, ses contrôles et ses solidarités, ses canaux de communication, ses rites et ses cérémonies. Ce sont done bien deux systèmes sociaux en même temps que deux cultures qui se partagent la sociologie canadienne.

“Et ce qui renforce encore davantage l'étanchéité de ces deux solitudes, c'est que chacune trouve un marché international auquel s'alimenter, et dans lequel elle se situe, de sorte qu'on ne sent pas un vif besoin d'abbatre les barrières. Si l'on regarde en effet l'état de la sociologie sur le plan international, on se rendra compte que la barrière linguistique à l'intérieur du Canada n'est en fait que la continuation du mur qui, dans le monde actuel, partage deux sociologies, la sociologie de langue anglaise et la sociologie de langue française.” “L'Avenir de la Sociologie au Canada,” 25–6.

²⁶ The coexistence of divergent worlds of scholarship is revealed in three recent texts dealing with the Canadian political system. Mallory, J.R., The Structure of Canadian Government (Toronto 1971)Google Scholar and Dawson, R.M. and Ward, Norman, The Government of Canada (Toronto5th ed., rev., 1970)Google Scholar employ a historical, institutional approach for which Bagehot and Dicey are still relevant. Loon, Richard J. Van and Whittington, Michael S., The Canadian Political System (Toronto 1971)Google Scholar employ the language of systems analysis and structural functionalism, make limited use of the traditional language of parliamentary government, set themselves against an institutional approach, and vigorously exploit contemporary writings in American political science. See Cairns, Alan C., “Alternative Styles in the Study of Canadian Politics,” this journal VII, 1 (March 1974).Google Scholar

²⁷ “How familiar, and how touching, is the figure of the Ontario professor awaiting, in Ovidian exile, the call that will take him back to Toronto!” Morton, W.L., “Clio in Canada: The Interpretation of Canadian History,” in Approaches to Canadian History, ed. Berger, Carl (Toronto 1967), 48Google Scholar

²⁸ In the 1971 survey of the profession, 258 political scientists, 50 per cent of the total, were located outside of Ontario, including 74 in Quebec. Hull, W.H.N., “The 1971 Survey of the Profession,” this journal VI, 1 (March 1973), 96Google Scholar, table 1

²⁹ In a new chapter incorporated into the second edition of The Canadian Identity (Toronto, 1st ed., 1961, 2nd ed., 1972), 141, W.L. Morton caught the changing mood in his somewhat exaggerated observation: “Political science… was quite different from the same subject in the United States, and for good reason, as the political traditions and systems of the two countries are quite different. It was, however, a relatively undeveloped subject in Canada, yet a newly popular one. It was accordingly one in which foreign scholars were particularly in demand, and one in which foreign control is most evident. The result could be the introduction of an alien tradition into Canadian university teaching.”

³⁰ Although Bourinot, “Study of Political Science,” did warn his countrymen not to be seduced “by the glamour of republicanism or the social tendencies of purely democratic conditions” in the United States, 15, his references to American political science at that time were highly favourable, 3. A minor exception to the general absence of concern can be detected in Macpherson's 1938 paper “Study of Politics in Canada,” where he observes that most of the growing interest in political science had gone into the study of government “and the concrete aspects of politics,” and continues, “the influence in this direction of contemporary American scholarship is not to be overlooked,” 163. His fear was that theory would be given insufficient attention if descriptive studies were too avidly pursued.

³¹ Porter, John, The Vertical Mosaic (Toronto 1965), 377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² In a review article, A. Brady cited Dean McHenry's The Third Force in Canada and S.M. Lipset's Agrarian Socialism to “illustrate further the… rich contribution which American scholarship is making to an understanding of Canadian life.” He also paid tribute to the “abundant American largess” from foundations given to the Canadian Social Science Research Council and the Canadian Institute of International Affairs. “Social Studies,” University of Toronto Quarterly, XX (1950–1), 279.Google Scholar The Social Science Research Council, established in 1940, was primarily supported by American foundation money until the establishment of the Canada Council in 1957, after which this source of funds was phased out. Mabel F. Timlin, “The Social Sciences in Canada: Retrospect and Potential,” in Timlin and Faucher, The Social Sciences in Canada, 63–5. The lengthy series edited by James T. Shotwell, The Relations of Canada and the United States, and the Canadian Frontiers of Settlement series edited by W.A. Mackintosh, were both financed by American foundations. Even the Royal Society of Canada fellowships were funded by “a great American foundation” according to Brebner, J.B., who found the failure of Canadian wealth to support academic endeavours “shocking.” “Uses and Abuses of History,” Dalhousie Review XXIV, 1 (April 1944), 39.Google Scholar The Rockefeller Foundation provided substantial support to the Humanities Research Council for a survey of The Humanities in Canada (Ottawa 1947)Google Scholar, by Watson Kirkconnell and A.S.P. Woodhouse. A study by Brebner himself on the state of Canadian graduate education was undertaken with “the generous cooperation of Columbia University and the Rockefeller Foundation” in providing partial relief from academic responsibilities. Brebner, Scholarship for Canada, 3. In this study Brebner noted that “all Canadian university presidents seem to turn up in New York at least once a year to make a round of the foundations,” 69. Dependence on American charity for research into basic Canadian higher education policy continues unabated. Duff, James and Berdahl, Robert O., University Government in Canada (Toronto 1966)Google Scholar, was financed by a $50,000 grant from the Ford Foundation. The Rowat-Hurtubise Commission on the Relations between Universities and Governments was also financed by the Ford Foundation by a grant of $150,000. Henry B. Mayo, “Universities and Governments: A Preliminary Political Analysis,” in Studies on the University, Society and Government, Vol. 1, 568, 570

Extensive information on Carnegie and Rockefeller grants to mid-century in Canada is provided in Report: Royal Commission on National Development in the Arts, Letters and Sciences 1949–51 (Ottawa 1951), 436–42.

³³ “The Social Sciences,” 214.

³⁴ The public emergence of the Americanization issue can be clearly dated from the Carleton controversy, and the publication of The Struggle for Canadian Universities, ed. Mathews, and Steele, , although there were two earlier expressions of concern in 1967.Google Scholar Michael Oliver was troubled by a tendency for Canadian political scientists “to replicate American studies, or at least to accept a delimitation of problem areas that originates in the United States.” Proceedings: Annual Meeting Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (Ottawa 1967), 114–15.Google Scholar Anthony Scott, “The Recruitment and Migration of Canadian Social Scientists,” stated: “as students of a society divided up into nations, provinces, and cities, we must realize that we are depending on departments elsewhere that are conducting studies, and evolving methods for studies, of serious problems that are not our most serious problems. We are in danger of defining our fields solely by what foreign departments are doing.” 506.

³⁵ For India see Clinard, Marshall B. and Elder, Joseph W., “Sociology in India: A Study in the Sociology of Knowledge,” American Sociological Review XXX, 4 (Aug. 1965)Google Scholar, which notes Indian hostility to “ ‘Exploitation’ by Foreign Researchers,” and discusses the distinctiveness of Indian sociology. The Clinard-Elder article has been criticized by Ahmad, Imtiaz, “Note on Sociology in India,” The American Sociologist I, 5 (Nov. 1966).Google Scholar Useful material on the Indian situation is contained in the short-lived journal Contributions to Indian Sociology, 1957–1966.

³⁶ There is an admitted ambiguity here if many of the local scholars examining the domestic polity are foreign citizens, or if significant numbers of those who analyse the polity from outside are nevertheless citizens of it, such as Canadian students of Canadian issues resident in the United States.

³⁷ “After Camelot,” in The Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, ed. Horowitz, I.L. (Cambridge, Mass. 1967), 296–7.Google Scholar Italics in original.

³⁸ See Saberwal, Satish, “International Social Science: Some Political Aspects,” Economic and Political Weekly V, 27 (4 July 1970).Google Scholar This article, which links u.s. social scientists with the “politico-military establishment of their country,” 1044, includes Canadian social scientists in its indictment.

Third World countries, declared Albert O. Hirschman, “have become fair game for the model-builders and paradigm-molders, to an intolerable degree.” He notes that the social sciences have specialized in finding “iron laws or rigid models from whose working there is no escape,” and speculates whether “these theories were inspired primarily by compassion or by contempt for the under-developed world.” “The Search for Paradigms as a Hindrance to Understanding,” in The Political Economy of Development, ed. Uphoff, Norman T. and Ilchman, Warren F. (Berkeley and Los Angeles 1972), 67Google Scholar

³⁹ “On the Study of Government,” American Political Science Review XLVII, 4 (Dec. 1953), 961, cited in Crick, Bernard, “The Science of Politics in the United States,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XX, 3 (Aug. 1954), 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁰ Thomson, Dale C., “Canadian Studies in the United States: A New Frontier?” PS v, 1 (Winter 1972)Google Scholar, and Thomson, Dale C. and Swanson, Roger F., “Scholars, missionaries or counter-imperialists?” Journal of Canadian Studies V, 3 (Aug. 1970)Google Scholar

⁴¹ Lyons, Gene M., “Globalizing the Social Sciences,” PS VI, 1 (Winter 1973), 7Google Scholar

⁴² Shils, Edward, “Tradition, Ecology, and Institution in the History of Sociology,” Daedalus (Fall 1970), 777, 790Google Scholar

⁴³ Bonneau and Corry, Quest for the Optimum, 18

⁴⁴ Shils’ general comment on the effect of institutionalization in sociology is equally applicable to political science: “Once sociology reduced the freedom of its exponents to believe what they wished and to call sociology whatever they liked to think sociology ought to be, American influence was bound to increase.” “Tradition, Ecology, and Institution,” 790–1

⁴⁵ Interim Report of the Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism: Colleges and Universities in Ontario (Toronto 1973), 13–14

⁴⁶ “The 1971 Survey of the Profession,” Table 4. “Not stated” has been excluded from the calculation. See also “Report of the Committee on Canadian Content,” submitted to the cpsa annual meeting, August 1973.

⁴⁷ Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Non-Canadian Influence in Alberta Post-Secondary Education, Arnold F. Moir, Chairman (no place, no date), 92

⁴⁸ See Waterman, A.M.C., “The Canadian Identity and Canadian Universities,” University Affairs (Feb. 1963)Google Scholar, for a helpful discussion.

⁴⁹ Merton, “Insiders and Outsiders,” 13

⁵⁰ Ibid., 14; italics in original

⁵¹ “The Social Sciences in Canada: Retrospect and Potential,” in Timlin and Faucher, The Social Sciences in Canada, 41–2. The caut policy statement on professorial appointments is a helpful summing up: “The principal criterion to be used in engaging a professor must continue to be his competence in the broad sense of his capacity to carry out the functions for which he was engaged. Competence thus includes not only his promise and ability as teacher and scholar, but also those qualities which affect his performance within the Canadian university community. In areas where a familiarity with things Canadian is important, as for example in Canadian history or government or literature, then competence requires that knowledge.” From the text of a Canadian Association of University Teachers Position Paper adopted by the Executive and Finance Committee, 27 June 1969. From Critical Issues in Canadian Society, ed. Boydell, Craig L. et al. (Toronto 1971), 422Google Scholar

⁵² “What are we teaching? The nationalization of political science,” Canadian Forum (June 1971), 4

⁵³ Used for explanatory purposes from Bourinot, John B., Our Intellectual Strength and Weakness (Montreal 1893) 46–8Google Scholar (repr. Toronto 1973) to Butler, Michael and Shugarman, David, “Canadian nationalism, Americanization and scholarly values,” Journal of Canadian Studies v, 3 (August 1970), 12–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁴ Ellen and Wood, Neal, “Canada and the American science of politics,” in Close the 49th Parallel etc: The Americanization of Canada, ed. Lumsden, Ian (Toronto 1970), 183Google Scholar

⁵⁵ “The nationalization of political science,” 5

⁵⁶ “Towards a Class Analysis of Canada,” Papers Presented to the 44th Annual Meeting of the CPSA (Montreal 1972), 4, 10. Ian Lumsden, who writes in the same vein, claims: “The revitalization of Canadian studies must entail resistance to the compartmentalization and professionalization of academic pursuits that have accompanied the Americanization of Canadian universities… It is worth emphasizing that the most brilliant work that has emanated from dependent countries in history and the social sciences has invariably been inter-disciplinary in its scope and methodology. It is not by chance that Canada's most distinguished economist and political scientist, Harold Innis and C.B. Macpherson respectively, have been political economists.” “Academic Underdevelopment in a Dependent Country,” in a newspaper pamphlet, “Whom do our Universities Serve?” ed. Abrahams, C.A. and Levesque, R.C., and distributed at the Learned Societies in Montreal, 1972.Google Scholar The papers were originally read at a symposium held at Bishop's University, 11 Nov. 1971.

⁵⁷ “International Relations as a Canadian Academic Discipline,” Journal of Canadian Studies VIII, 1 (Feb. 1973) 49; see also 54–5

⁵⁸ “After Strange Gods,” 66–7

⁵⁹ Ibid., 64, 68, 71

⁶⁰ Ibid., 67. Macpherson is also bemused by and opposed to the increasing fragmentation within the discipline. See his comments on the recent cpsa classification system for research interests which was taken from the apsa, and which included 8 categories and 64 subcategories, in contrast to the much smaller number which would have sufficed 20 years earlier. Ibid., 56–7

⁶¹ The same arguments have been applied to sociology. See Gurstein, Michael, “Towards the nationalization of Canadian sociology,” Journal of Canadian Studies VII, 3 (August 1972)Google Scholar, for a left-wing critique of the Americanization of sociology in Canada, coupled with an argument for “a ‘contextualized’ Canadian social science, theoretically and technically appropriate to Canadian problems and aspirations.” 51.

⁶² The influence of Macpherson's thought on this group would be an intriguing study in intellectual history. Along with Harold Innis and John Porter he is one of the few Canadian social scientists for whom they have any respect. He asserted the need for a class analysis of Canadian politics as early as 1942, in “The Position of Political Science,” and he has both advocated and employed Marxist categories in his own work. See Democracy in Alberta (Toronto 1953). In that book he suggested that Canadian independence from the United States might become a staple of Canadian politics. He has consistently advocated the development of theory appropriate to the Canadian situation. He continues to support the political economy approach, and he is now one of the most vigorous Canadian opponents of the behavioural approach in political science.

⁶³ Resnick, “Towards a Class Analysis,” 1–3, 37. Marxism has played a minimal role in social science and historical analysis in Canada. This partly reflects the absence of European emigré scholars coming to Canada in the interwar years, and the weakness of Marxism both academically and politically in the two countries with which Canadian contacts were most profound, Great Britain and the United States. Until the 1960s the power of the clergy acted as a barrier in Quebec, and there was minimal transfer of partisan ideologies or radical thought from France. A possibly deeper explanation rests on the late development of urban industrial capitalism, the absence of a large proletariat, and the absence of a strong left-wing party launching Marxist critiques of society. The political weakness of the Communist party reduced the impact and visibility of party-connected Marxist theorists, such as S.B. Ryerson, whose influence on the academic community was further minimized by their lack of university affiliations. Given this historical context, the contemporary viability of a Marxist school of analysis in Canada is an open question. The likelihood is greater in Quebec with the radicalization of the Quebec labour movement, the sympathy of Catholic communities for total doctrines, the existence of a youthful radical faculty with far greater linguistic access to European political thought than is the case in English Canada, and the activist orientation of faculty in a pamphleteering society. See Johnson, Leo A., “The development of class in Canada in the twentieth century,” in Capitalism and the National Question in Canada, ed. Teeple, Gary (Toronto 1972), 142–5Google Scholar, for a controversial discussion of the weakness of left-wing theorizing in Canada. I am grateful to Professor Norman Penner of York University for helpful comments on the subject matter of this footnote.

⁶⁴ “Towards a Class Analysis,” 37

⁶⁵ “Towards the nationalization of Canadian sociology,” 58

⁶⁶ No up-to-date information is available on the distribution of attitudes to behaviouralism in Canada. In their 1965 study March and Jackson found that the “vast majority” of their informants lacked firm positions on behaviouralism. “Aspects of the State of Political Science in Canada,” 450

⁶⁷ “Canadian nationalism, Americanization and scholarly values,” 18. For a general criticism of the Butler-Shugarman article see Crowley, Terence A., “Anti-Americanism and the degeneration of Canadian scholarship: a rejoinder,” Journal of Canadian Studies VI, 2 (May 1971)Google Scholar

⁶⁸ “The nationalization of political science,” 4

⁶⁹ Wood and Wood, “Canada and the American Science of Politics,” 192–5, and Smith, “The nationalization of political science,” 4–5.

⁷⁰ In The Influence of the United States on Canadian Development, ed. Preston, Richard A. (Durham, N.C. 1972)Google Scholar

⁷¹ “Approximately one-half (i.e. thirteen) of the twenty-seven political science departments responding to our questionnaire listed ‘Canadian politics’ as their strongest major subfield. When this datum is combined with the fact that Canadian politics is the area in which the greatest amount of dissertation research has been and still is carried on and also is the area in which the majority of articles appearing in the principal Canadian political science journal still are written, it is difficult to accept the validity of the ‘neglect of Canadian institutions’ charge.” “The American Impact,” 78

⁷² Ibid., 87

⁷³ Ibid., 78

⁷⁴ Ibid., 88

⁷⁵ Ibid., 80

⁷⁶ Ibid., 95

⁷⁷ Hull, “The 1971 Survey of the Profession,” Tables IV, V, VII, IX; “not stated” has been excluded from the calculations

⁷⁸ See also the review by McRae, Kenneth in this journal VII, 1 (March 1974), 167–9Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Kornberg and Tharp, “The American Impact,” 65, table 4

⁸⁰ Ibid., 95

⁸¹ This assumption runs through their article. For example, recent recruits from American graduate schools are described as having had training “more congruent with the direction in which political science, as a discipline, appears to be moving.” Further, the apprehensions of Canadian colleagues reflect reactions to “substantive and procedural changes in the conduct of teaching, research and interpersonal relations that really are functions of the rapid growth and expansion of certain disciplines.” When recruits from American graduate schools arrive, not surprisingly having taken their scholarly models from Lasswell, Easton, Deutsch, Russett, Almond and Verba rather than Canadian models (or European, Asian, or any other) they are simply agents of modernization. Ibid., 90–3

⁸² Ibid., 96

⁸³ Ibid., especially 90–4

⁸⁴ An analogous problem was faced by Innis when he introduced his Beit lectures on imperial economic history at Oxford. “We are immediately faced with the very great, perhaps insuperable, obstacle of attempting in this University, located so near a centre which has been the heart of an economic empire, to appraise economic considerations by the use of tools that are in themselves products of economic considerations.” Innis, Harold A., Empire and Communications, rev. Innis, Mary Q. (Toronto 1972), 3Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Non-Canadian Influence in Alberta Post-Secondary Education, 3, 55

⁸⁶ Mack, Raymond W., “Theoretical and Substantive Biases in Sociological Research,” in Interdisciplinary Relationships in the Social Sciences, ed. Sherif, Muzafer and Sherif, Carolyn W. (Chicago 1969), 53.Google Scholar For the comments of a Canadian sociologist on certain American features of sociology in the United States see Clark, S.D., The Developing Canadian Community (2nd ed. Toronto 1968)Google Scholar, chaps, xviii and xix.

⁸⁷ Sociology, ed. Smelser, Neil J. and Davis, James A. (Englewood Cliffs N.J. 1969), 116.Google Scholar The history of sociology in the United States reveals “that it has always been in large degree a barometer of the dominant political, social, and intellectual currents of the larger society.” Ibid., 109. Guy Rocher has recently noted the remarkable American ignorance of contemporary French sociology, to the extent that even the publications of prominent French sociologists are unavailable in major American universities. “L'Avenir de la Sociologie au Canada,” 26–7

⁸⁸ “That today's psychology is ‘culture bound’ needs little illustration. On a superficial level, it may be noted that there are now more psychologists in the United States than there are in the whole of the rest of the world, that psychological publications are overwhelmingly in the English language, that few of the writers of these can read with ease any language other than their own, and that still fewer can actually communicate in another language. ‘Parochial’ might be a more appropriate word for this than ‘culture bound'; twentieth-century psychology reflects predominantly the interests and prejudices of one national group.” Robert B. MacLeod, “Phenomenology and Cross-cultural Research,” in Sherif and Sherif, eds., Inter-disciplinary Relationships, 178. See Campbell, Donald T., “A Cooperative Multinational Opinion Sample Exchange,” Journal of Social Issues XXIV, 2 (1968)Google Scholar, for a proposal to lessen the undesirable effects of American dominance in social psychology. See also Perspectives in Personality Theory ed. David, Henry P. and von Bracken, Helmut (New York 1957)Google Scholar, especially chapters by Gordon W. Allport, Robert B. MacLeod, and David C. McClelland.

⁸⁹ “The Rise of a Science of Politics,” in Approaches to the Study of Political Science, ed. Haas, Michael and Kariel, Henry S. (Scranton, Pa. 1970), 33Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Kenneth N. Vines, “Judicial Behavior Research,” in ibid., 139. Jacob's, Herbert review of Comparative Judicial Behavior: Cross-Cultural Studies of Political Decision-Making in the East and West, ed. Schubert, Glendon and Danelski, David J. (New York 1969)Google Scholar, notes the weakness of this study which applies concepts primarily formulated in American studies to the judiciaries of non-American polities. American Political Science Review LXVI, 4 (Dec. 1972), 1394–5Google Scholar

⁹¹ “Towards Empirical Democratic Theory,” Comparative Politics (April 1972), 419

⁹² “Political Science and Political Culture,” The Western Political Quarterly XXI, 4 (Dec. 1968), 552

⁹³ “political Science in the United States in Wartime,” American Political Science Review XLI, 5 (Oct. 1947), 978–9

⁹⁴ Political Development: Essays in Heuristic Theory (Boston 1970), 237

⁹⁵ The Study of Political Science Today (London 1971), 32

⁹⁶ Shils, “Tradition, Ecology, and Institution,” 790

⁹⁷ Political Development, 238

⁹⁸ March and Jackson, “Aspects of the State of Political Science in Canada,” 438–9, 441. It should be noted that an unknown number of the respondents were Americans teaching in Canada. Their data on graduate school ranking probably exaggerates Canadian-American similarities. Foreign universities, which at that time constituted one-third of the sources of phds in Canada, were excluded. “Because overseas doctorates are generally research degrees, we felt that it would not be as meaningful to compare them with North American degrees which combine course work with research,” 438. Thus one of the marked Canadian-American differences in graduate work, going overseas for the doctorate, was eliminated from their comparison.

⁹⁹ Shils, “Tradition, Ecology, and Institution,” 762

¹⁰⁰ Totten, Qeorge O., “1971 Annual Meeting of the Japanese Political Science Association,” PS V, 1 (Winter 1972), 64.Google Scholar The situation varies from country to country. “The impact of American writings on scientific and behavioral methods on German political science has been limited, though there have been several collections of writings by American political scientists which have appeared.” Cole, R. Taylor, “American Studies in Western Continental European Universities,” in Theory and Politics: Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag für Carl Joachim Friedrich, ed. von Beyme, Klaus (Haag 1971), 252Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ See Pfotenhauer, David, “Conceptions of Political Science in West Germany and the United States, 1960–1969,” Journal of Politics XXXIV, 2 (May 1972), 584–91Google Scholar, for the much lesser citation of foreign language sources in footnotes, and much lesser use of non-native literature by American than by German political scientists in selected American and German periodicals.

An extreme example of one way traffic is evident in Japanese-Western relationships in sociology. Japan has more academic sociologists than any country except the United States. Most Japanese sociologists read one Western language, and “Japanese scholarship… is very much in the mainstream of Western sociology… and much research of good quality is conducted.” However, since few Westerners read Japanese, and little Japanese work is translated “sociology as a world discipline has benefited too little from the extensive work of the Japanese.” Smelser and Davis, Sociology, 113

¹⁰² Somit and Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science, 165–6, and see 38 for the Americanization of graduate training

¹⁰³ Feaver, George, “Contemporary Political Thought and the American Science of Politics,” this journal I, 3 (Sept. 1968), 358.Google Scholar Somit and Tanenhaus have recently suggested that there is a growing interest in foreign scholars, partly in response to participation in the International Political Science Association. The Development of American Political Science, 195, 201–2

¹⁰⁴ See Merton, R.K., “Social Conflict over Styles of Sociological Work,” in The Sociology of Sociology, ed. Reynolds, Larry T. and Reynolds, Janice M. (New York 1970), 180Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Myrdal, Gunnar, Asian Drama (New York 1968)Google Scholar, Vol. 1, 6

¹⁰⁶ While there are differences of opinion on the degree of permissible free inquiry accorded Soviet social scientists, it is clear that the impact of the political system and its controlling social theories is pervasive, and in the past has often been brutally so. See Skilling, Gordon, “In Search of Political Science in the ussr,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XXIX, 4 (Nov. 1963)Google Scholar; Bociurkiw, Bohdan R., ‘The Post-Stalin ‘Thaw’ and Soviet Political Science,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science XXX, 1 (Feb. 1964)Google Scholar; Social Thought in the Soviet Union, ed. Simirenko, Alex (Chicago 1969)Google Scholar; and Powell, David E. and Shoup, Paul, “The Emergence of Political Science in Communist Countries,” American Political Science Review LXIV, 2 (June 1970).Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ Cook, Ramsay, Canada and the French-Canadian Question (Toronto 1966)Google Scholar; Trudel, Marcel and Jain, Geneviève, Canadian History Textbooks: A Comparative Study (Ottawa 1970)Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Abrams, Philip, The Origins of British Sociology 1834–1914 (Chicago 1968)Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ As Malinowski observed: “we might say that in the Oedipus complex there is the repressed desire to kill the father and marry the mother, while in the matrilineal society of the Trobriands the wish is to marry the sister and to kill the maternal uncle.” Malinowski, B., Sex and Repression in Savage Society (New York 1955), 76Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ See Crick, Bernard, The American Science of Politics (London 1959)Google Scholar, for “an interpretation of American political culture that seeks to show why in recent years political theory in the United States has commonly taken the form of belief in a political science” vi; italics in original.

¹¹¹ “The Politics of Higher Education: Political Science as a Case Study,” in The Post-behavioral Era, ed. Graham, George J. and Carey, George W. (New York 1972), 12Google Scholar

¹¹² Wolin, Sheldon S., “Paradigms and Political Theories,” in Politics and Experience, ed. King, Preston and Parekh, B.C. (Cambridge 1968), 151–2Google Scholar

¹¹³ Somit and Tanenhaus, The Development of American Political Science, 45. The significance of education for citizenship for American political science is discussed at 42–8, 195–9. See also Political Science, ed. Eulau, Heinz and March, James G. (Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 1969), 8Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ “The Great American Textbook,” Parliamentary Affairs XVII, 2 (Spring 1964), 220. See also Carey, George, “Introductory Textbooks to American Government,” The Political Science Reviewer I (Fall 1971)Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ “Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest for a Discipline,” American Political Science Review LIX, 4 (Dec. 1965), 865

¹¹⁶ “The New Revolution in Political Science,” presidential address to the American Political Science Association, 1969, reprinted in Easton, David, The Political System (2nd ed., New York 1971)Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ See Surkin, Marvin and Wolfe, Alan, “The Political Dimension of American Political Science,” Acta Politica V (1969–70)Google Scholar, and Lowi, “The Politics of Higher Education,” 13, 15. The radical movement in American sociology is equally clearly a reaction to conditions in American society. See Colfax, J. David and Roach, Jack L., eds., Radical Sociology (New York 1971).Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ A political Politics: A Critique of Behavioralism, ed. McCoy, Charles A. and Playford, John (New York 1967), 8Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ See for example Gitlin, 145, and Goldschmidt, 229–30, in McCoy and Playford, A political Politics. Similar introspection is displayed in Power and Community: Dissenting Essays in Political Science, ed. Green, Philip and Levinson, Sanford (New York 1970).Google Scholar Eight of the 12 essays “attempt to illuminate aspects of the American polity inadequately analyzed by main-stream political science” in such a way as to undermine complacent myths about the American system, viii. The introspective focus is well stated by Kenneth M. Dolbeare: “The discipline of political science itself is of marginal relevance to the problems and prospects of America's future. But it is where we work, and we must make our efforts where we work, or we shall make no efforts at all,” 109.

¹²⁰ “The Behavioral Revolution and After,” in Haas and Kariel, Approaches to the Study of Political Science, 501. The impact of Vietnam on scholarly discourse in the United States is well revealed in The Dissenting Academy, ed. Roszak, Theodore (New York 1968)Google Scholar, a volume critical of the social sciences and humanities in the United States. In a preface largely devoted to Vietnam, Roszak asserts that the Vietnam war “is very largely a product of the academic community's own cultural default,” vi.

¹²¹ The genesis of behaviouralism was complex, and cannot be explained simply as an American response to American circumstances. See Dahl, Robert A., “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest,” in Politics and Social Life ed. Polsby, Nelson W. et al. (Boston 1963)Google Scholar, for an extended discussion. It is clear however that the precipitating factors included the disillusioning experience of Washington-based American political scientists in the Second World War who found that their discipline seemed inadequate to explain what they encountered, and who observed that their advice carried little weight with government, in comparison to the more scientific disciplines. “In order for the advice of a political scientist to carry more weight, the behaviorists advocated the use of scientific methods in tackling policy problems.” Haas, “The Rise of a Science of Politics,” in Haas and Kariel, Approaches to the Study of Political Science, 13–14. The existence of particular traits in American culture also helped. Dahl agrees with Crick that “the rapid flowering of the behavioral approach in the United States no doubt depended on the existence of some key attitudes and predispositions generated in the American culture – pragmatism, factmindedness, confidence in science, and the like.” Dahl, “The Behavioral Approach,” 15

It might be objected that the preceding is to argue no more than the obvious, that everything begins somewhere, and where that somewhere is affects the development. I agree, but I prefer to say that it is to argue no less than the obvious.

¹²² See Herbst, Jurgen, The German Historical School in American Scholarship: A Study in the Transfer of Culture (Ithaca 1965)Google Scholar, for a discussion of this important episode in the development of the social sciences in the United States.

Shotwell, James T., who studied under Burgess at the turn of the century, described the graduate faculties of Columbia and other leading universities of the time as “almost like colonial offshoots of those in Germany where they [faculty] had been trained.” The Autobiography of James T. Shotwell (New York 1961), 45Google Scholar

¹²³ Political Science in the United States of America (Paris 1956), 15–17

¹²⁴ Arend Lijphart recently addressed his European colleagues on the danger of an undue imitativeness which reflected the “great influence that American political science has had on the discipline in other countries.” He asserted that the “approaches and products of behaviorism” were too readily accepted by the “largely underdeveloped discipline abroad,” and cautioned against “an uncritical acceptance of the newest development in the form of the antibehaviorist challenge.” “Political Science versus Political Advocacy: Comments on the article by Marvin Surkin and Alan Wolfe,” Acta Politica v (1969–70), 165

“It is often pathetic to see how much the list of projects in the social science institutes in the world periphery is copied from the world center, with obvious political implications.” Galtung, “After Camelot,” in Horowitz, Rise and Fall of Project Camelot, 307

Canada is not immune from this weakness in the social sciences and elsewhere. See Doern, G. Bruce, Science and Politics in Canada (Montreal and London 1972), 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar, for the Canadian tendency to follow the American scientific effort “without any discrimination or determination of whether or not it suits our own preferences.”

¹²⁵ An estimate based upon the recent figure of 750 political scientists in Canada, and the distribution of field interests shown in Hull, “The 1971 Survey of the Profession.” The figure, of course, includes French Canadian political scientists.

¹²⁶ The comparison is approximate only as the various American figures I have seen, mainly found in the journal PS, vary widely. The comparison also excludes the contributions of outsiders. These data problems, however, do not affect the general argument.

¹²⁷ The fact that so much work in this field “has been inspired from outside the countries concerned” is described as a “conspicuous weakness,” by W.J.M. Mackenzie, who also complains of the impact of fashion, and of writings designed “to satisfy academic requirements in a distant country” which display little relevance to problems as defined by indigenous scholars. The Study of Political Science Today, 66. Moksos and Bell make the important observation that “the ideological implications of the social science of underdeveloped areas are generally subject to less informed and less close scrutiny than is usually the case with American studies dealing with the domestic scene or other industrialized countries. For one thing, independent criticism operates at a disadvantage because there are relatively few scholars engaged in studies of particular underdeveloped countries, and even fewer expatriate or refugee scholars from these countries in the United States. Also, the academic communities within the underdeveloped nations frequently do not possess a caliber sufficient to serve as a counterbalance to the viewpoints of visiting social scientists. Even when there is a high level of indigenous social analyses, such local interpretations may not have wide currency in professional circles within this country.” Moksos, Charles C. Jr, and Bell, Wendell, “Emerging Nations and Ideologies of American Social Scientists,” The American Sociologist II, 2 (May 1967), 67Google Scholar n.3

See also Myrdal, Asian Drama, Vol. I, xiii, 16–20, on Western concepts as a source of bias, and O'brien, Donal Cruise, “Modernization, Order, and the Erosion of a Democratic Ideal: American Political Science 1960–70,” The Journal of Development Studies VIII, 4 (July 1972).Google Scholar Almond, Political Development, “Introduction,” is a valuable autobiographical account of the impact of the Committee on Comparative Politics of the Social Science Research Council on the study of non-Western political systems, with a focus on political development and modernization.

¹²⁸ Kavanagh, Dennis, “Allegiance among English Children: A Dissent,” British Journal of Political Science II, 1 (January 1972)Google Scholar, discusses the insensitivity of applying American socialization assumptions to British politics.

¹²⁹ “Must Canadian Political Science be a Miniature Replica?” 32

¹³⁰ Cairns, Alan C., “The Study of the Provinces,” B.C. Studies 14 (Summer 1972), 76Google Scholar

¹³¹ The OECD Reviews of National Science Policy: Canada (Paris 1969)Google Scholar, stated: “The development of Canada's science policy along the lines traced by the United States thus comes up against the obstacle of the limited resources available to the country. Moreover, it becomes increasingly clear that this development must take account of Canada's own requirements, which are not necessarily felt to the same extent in the United States,” 371. According to the chairman of the Science Council of Canada, “research will be most effective if it is used selectively. We must be competent in all fields but can only be pre-eminent in a few. These fields should be selected to avoid head-on competition with the United States of America, Russia, or other major industrial nations. While not neglecting areas in which we have common needs with the rest of the world, we should try to identify those fields in which our priorities are different from others and concentrate on these.” Ibid., 57

¹³² See Hyneman, Charles S., The Study of Politics (Urbana 1959)Google Scholar, chap, vii, “Have we Tackled too Much?”

¹³³ Although Crick's view merits pondering, “There is more accurate information to be found about contemporary American government and politics than for any other nation, and yet there is remarkably less knowledge about the causes and conditions which could reveal the coherence, the significance and the underlying tendencies of this information.” The American Science of Politics, 230

¹³⁴ Russell, Peter H., The Supreme Court of Canada as a Bilingual and Bicultural Institution (Ottawa 1969)Google Scholar, and Brossard, Jacques, La Cour Suprême et la Constitution (Montreal 1968)Google Scholar

¹³⁵ See Vaughan, Fred, “Emmett Matthew Hall: The Activist as Justice,” Osgoode Hall Law Journal 10 (1972)Google Scholar for a recent Canadian contribution.

¹³⁶ Van Loon and Whittington, The Canadian Political System, 67–72

¹³⁷ If we date from Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure (Chapel Hill, 1953)Google Scholar, rather than from the earlier Middletown studies of the Lynds

¹³⁸ F.F. Ridley recently described Britain as “an under-developed country” in the study of public administration. Differences in the size of the two academic communities had the effect that the British “cannot hope to rival American research nor, indeed, are we likely on the simple law of averages to have as many original thinkers… It is… to America that we must largely look if we are to consider the development of public administration as an academic subject.” “Public Administration: Cause for Discontent,” Public Administration 50 (Spring 1972), 65, 70–72

¹³⁹ Politics and Government of Urban Canada: Selected Readings, ed. Feldman, Lionel D. and Goldrick, Michael D. (Toronto 1969)Google Scholar, Preface; see also 3

¹⁴⁰ A version of David Truman's point that where data is not easily available, as in Soviet studies, much work will be “reportorial, journalistic, and non-theoretical.” “Disillusion and Regeneration,” 870

¹⁴¹ Kornberg and Tharp present data which show striking changes in the period 1968–70 for CJPS from earlier periods. Although the trend indicated is pronounced, it may be deceptive as books are not included, the time period is short, and “theory” articles are excluded. “The American Impact,” 65

¹⁴² See Jorgen Rasmussen's strong plea for institutional studies in European politics in “ ‘Once You've Made a Revolution, Everything's the Same': Comparative Politics,” in Graham and Carey, Post-behavioral Era, 79

¹⁴³ “Contiguous Problem Analysis: An Approach to Systematic Theories about Social Organization,” in Sherif and Sherif, Interdisciplinary Relationships, 72

¹⁴⁴ J.E. Hodgetts recently defended his somewhat traditional study of the public service, dealing with the organizational context of administrative activity, on the ground that “it has not yet been done and it should be done before we fly off to the esoteric realms inhabited by modern-day organizational theorists and administrative behaviouralists. The failure to adopt these exciting contemporary tools of analysis is not a mark of disapproval or disagreement: the preference for more pedestrian modes of inquiry is simply based on an old-fashioned notion that we must first learn to walk before we can fly. In this respect, such weaknesses as this study exposes are reflections of the comparative neglect of the subject by students of Canadian public administration and the retarded stage of development in which it still languishes.” He also speaks of “the limited objectives imposed by the prevailing state of our studies.” The Canadian Public Service: A Physiology of Government 1867–1970 (Toronto 1973), xii—xiii

¹⁴⁵ Farthing, John, Freedom Wears a Crown (Toronto 1957)Google Scholar

¹⁴⁶ For recent arguments stressing the particularities of the Canadian situation, the problems thus posed for borrowing social science from abroad, and the necessity for indigenous social science research, see Bonneau and Corry, Quest for the Optimum, 72–3, and Smith, Arthur J.R., “The Social Sciences and the ‘Economics of Research,’” address to the Royal Society of Canada, 3 June 1968, 5–6Google Scholar, cited in A Science Policy for Canada: Report of the Senate Special Committee on Science Policy, Volume 2, Targets and Strategies for the Seventies (Ottawa 1972), 459

¹⁴⁷ For an earlier indication of some of the special features of the Canadian polity of interest to political scientists, see Angus, H.F., “Canada as a Phenomenon for Political Scientists,” Western Political Quarterly XII, 2 (June 1959).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Professor Michael Oliver, research director of the b and b Commission, has described the Commission's surprise at the inadequate methods of analysis available for the understanding of French-English relations: “so the existing body of research findings, and the conceptual frameworks of the humanities and social sciences, revealed immediately the scant attention which has been paid in the past to the problems of the Commission – the range of problems that make up the current crisis.” “The Research Programme of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism,” Gray Lecture, mimeo, 2 March 1965, 10–11, cited in A.R. Kear, “Canadian Political Science – One Man's Fancy,” 18

The b and b Commission also noted the “striking fact” that so little was known about cultural groups other than the British and French in Canada. “As far as a sociology of ethnic relations exists,” they reported, “it is mainly American. Although much can be learnt from research carried out in the United States, the conclusions reached are frequently not applicable in Canada.” They continued: “Canadian society differs from American society in a number of respects that are of direct importance to immigrants and cultural groups. Among these are the greater social role of government, the existence of two linguistic communities, the idea of a ‘cultural mosaic’ instead of a ‘melting-pot,’ the fact that large-scale immigration to Canada continued after the United States’ policy became restrictionist, the low density of our population, and Canada's proximity to a more populated and more highly developed country. By studying the effects of these factors, scholars could make distinctive contributions to social science, and also help to develop the understanding which must underlie sound social policy in Canada. Since Canada is one of the most technologically advanced of the highly pluralistic societies, research on the Canadian experience could also offer other countries more understanding of complex societies.” Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Book IV, The Cultural Contribution of the Other Ethnic Groups (Ottawa, 1970), 225–6

¹⁴⁹ Clarkson, Stephen, “Lament for a non-subject: reflections on teaching Canadian-American relations,” International Journal XXVII, 2 (Spring 1972).Google Scholar See also Richard A. Preston, “A Plea for Comparative Studies of Canada and the United States and of the Effects of Assimilation on Canadian Development,” in Preston, The Influence of the United States on Canadian Development, for a plea for more intensive study of the impact on the United States on Canadian life. Political scientists might note with some chagrin that the two most provocative examinations of the dependent Canadian relationship are by an economist, Levitt, Kari; Silent Surrender (Toronto 1971)Google Scholar, and a Christian philosopher, Grant, George, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Toronto 1965).Google Scholar

¹⁵⁰ The left-wing explanation of this failure is quite straightforward. Failure to come to grips with the conflict of nationalisms in Canada and the colonial-imperial character of Canadian-American relationships reflects the “subordination of social science in the hinterland,” which is related to the intellectual, cultural, and political allegiance of social scientists in the “colonized hinterland to the forms, techniques and concepts of the social sciences at the imperial centre.” Since the “difference between a sociology ‘adequate’ for the analysis of an imperial centre and that which is adequate for the analysis of a colony is quite plain” the result of colonial imitativeness is vacuity and irrelevance. Gurstein, “Towards the nationalization of Canadian sociology,” 50, 52. See also Lumsden, “Academic Underdevelopment in a Dependent Country.”

¹⁵¹ An alternative view is presented by David Easton who recently asserted that political scientists have too long suffered the “crippling effects… of unwitting commitment to national goals and perspectives.” He makes a plea for the “denationalized” social scientist who, like the “ideal international civil servant… may be permitted to achieve maximum freedom from national commitments by being obliged to carry an international passport and to conduct himself accordingly.” “The New Revolution in Political Science,” The Political System, 347. As already noted (see above p. 218) this particular address by Easton overwhelmingly focused on problems of concern to the American political system.

¹⁵² David Truman recently expressed pleasure at the growth of interest-group studies abroad which partly reflected “the considerable prestige of American political science… [and] the influence of American perspectives and modes of inquiry.” On the other hand, he expressed chagrin that too many had failed to note that his book The Governmental Process was “an analysis of the American system,” whose findings could not be applied “indiscriminately to other, quite different, systems.” The failure of foreigners to make the relevant distinction paralleled the similar failure of “much recent American social science, of couching parochial findings in universal terms and thus ignoring their limited application and the enormous variabilities traceable to cultural diversity.” The Governmental Process (2nd ed., New York 1971), xxiii, xxvi

¹⁵³ A practice the authors felt “has not thus far been conducive to the breakthroughs anticipated.” Sherif and Sherif, preface, Interdisciplinary Relationships, xii. See Goldhamer, Herbert, “Fashion and Social Science,” World Politics VI (1953–4)Google Scholar, and Hagstrom, Warren O., The Scientific Community (New York 1965), 177–84Google Scholar for fad and fashion leadership in academic life.

¹⁵¹ Essays in Canadian Economic History (Toronto 1956), ed. Mary Q. Innis, 10, 3. See Neil, A New Theory of Value: The Canadian Economics of H.A. Innis, for an elaboration. In “The Social Sciences,” C.B. Macpherson noted the early difficulties of understanding the economy and society “by the use only of imported social science,” 185. In a previous article, “The Position of Political Science,” he commented that “a social science which is adequate for one country may be inadequate in another country at the same time if the economy is at a different stage of development in the two countries,” 454. Donald G. Creighton's 1957 Presidential Address to the Canadian Historical Association should be consulted by those who prefer to have their criticisms of “alien” theories couched in strong, almost intemperate, language. His particular scorn is reserved for those who succumb to “imported” Marxian class theories and the Turner frontier thesis. He concluded by contrasting “imported theories of historical change” with “the manifold facts of Canadian experience.” “Doctrine and the Interpretation of History,” reprinted in Creighton, Donald G., Towards the Discovery of Canada (Toronto 1972), 45Google Scholar

¹⁵⁵ David Coburn recently reached the same conclusion for sociology in Canada, expressing the fear that the weak Canadian data base could encourage and facilitate the “wholesale application” to Canada of the abundant American findings and theory which may be inapplicable. He called for “close attention to Canadian society” on the ground that Canadian contributions to sociology would “to a large extent” be determined by that local knowledge. “Sociology and Sociologists in Canada: Problems and Prospects,” in Loubser, The Future of Sociology in Canada, 39. S.D. Clark has recently deplored what he describes as “a studied effort on the part of many sociologists in Canada to avoid types of study that do not appear to fit into the framework of American sociology.” Elsewhere he states: “Perhaps, in the end, what is most required on the part of the sociologist is a feel for his society. That feel can only be got by knowing its history and having a strong sense of identification with it.” “The American Take Over of Canadian Sociology: Myth or Reality,” Dalhousie Review (Summer 1973), 214, 217

¹⁵⁶ Democracy in Alberta (2nd ed.), xi

¹⁵⁷ “The Development of Class in Canada in the Twentieth Century,” 143–4

¹⁵⁸ McNaught, Kenneth, “The Multi-Party System in Canada,” in Essays on the Left, ed. Lapierre, Laurier, et al. (Toronto 1971), 44–9Google Scholar; Noel, S.J.R., “Political Parties and Elite Accommodation: Interpretations of Canadian Federalism,” in Canadian Federalism: Myth or Reality, ed. Meekison, J. Peter (2nd ed., Toronto 1971), 122–4Google Scholar

¹⁵⁹ Smith, Denis, “President and Parliament: The Transformation of Parliamentary Government in Canada,” in Apex of Power: The Prime Minister and Political Leadership in Canada, ed. Hockin, Thomas A. (Scarborough 1971), 228–34Google Scholar

¹⁶⁰ Kirkpatrick, Evron M., “Toward a More Responsible Two-Party System: Political Science, Policy Science, on Pseudo Science?” American Political Science Review LXV, 4 (Dec. 1971)Google Scholar;. Crick, Bernard, The Reform of Parliament (New York 1965), xiGoogle Scholar; Polsby, Nelson W., “Review Article: The British Science of American Politics,” British Journal of Political Science 2 (Oct. 1972), 497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁶¹ “The British Science of American Politics,” 497.

¹⁶² McRae, Kenneth D., “Empire, Language, and Nation: The Canadian Case,” in Building States and Nations, ed. Eisenstadt, S.N. and Rokkan, Stein (Beverley Hills 1973), vol. II, 174Google Scholar

¹⁶³ “Every generation should write its own history, but only a few are fortunate enough to find their historians. The postwar generation of social scientists in Canada have so far failed to produce a portrait of their age, and the result is a pervading sense of perplexity among Canadians about where they stand, economically and politically, in relation to the world of the mid-»sixties.” Dales, John, “Introduction,” to Mackintosh, W.A., The Economic Background of Dominion-Provincial Relations (Toronto 1964), 2Google Scholar; italics in original

¹⁶⁴ Vallee, Frank G. and Whyte, Donald R., “Canadian Society: Trends and Perspectives,” in Canadian Society: Sociological Perspectives, ed. Blishen, Bernard R., et al. (3rd ed., Toronto 1968), 851Google Scholar

¹⁶⁵ Ibid., 850

¹⁶⁶ See Guy Rocher, “L'Avenir de la Sociologie au Canada,” 15–16. The contrast between the explicit underpinnings of normative theory and social philosophy of the Tremblay Report and the workmanlike perspective of the Rowell Sirois Report is instructive of French-English differences.

¹⁶⁷ Mills, C. Wright, “The Professional Ideology of Social Pathologists,” American Journal of Sociology XLIX, 2 (Sept. 1943)Google Scholar; Parsons, Talcott, “The Distribution of Power in American Society,” World Politics, X, 1 (Oct. 1957), 123CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mannheim, Karl, “American Sociology,” in Mannheim, Karl, Essays on Sociology and Social Psychology (London 1953Google Scholar); Bernard Crick, The American Science of Politics, 229

¹⁶⁸ Hull, “The 1971 Survey of the Profession,” tables viii and ix; “not stated” has been excluded from the calculation