FOR A CANADIAN PHILOSOPHY: GEORGE GRANT Ian Angus

22 Pages·2001·1.34 MB·English

CanadianJournalofPoliticalandSocial Theory/Revue canadiennedetheoriepolitique
etsociale, Volume XIII,no. 1-2 1989
FOR A CANADIAN PHILOSOPHY:
GEORGE GRANT
Ian Angus
On September 27, 1988, George Grant died, bringing to an end an
iconoclastic intellectual careerengagedwith national andinternationalpo-
litical events of the last fifty years. His defence of Canada's membership
in theBritish Empire as abuttress against the U.S., his famous lament for
thedefeat ofJohnDiefenbaker'sConservative government,hisopposition
to theVietnamWar,hispositive response to theindependence movement
in Quebec, hisopposition to thetestingoftheCruise missile-time after
time he metthechallengeofspeaking to thecentralpoliticalcurrentsthat
have formed thecountry. For this he wasmarginalized by the intellectual
establishment in Canada. In particular, the guardians of the title
"philosopher"refusedhimthehard-earnedrecognitionofhisoriginal con-
tribution to the creation of a truly Canadian philosophy.
Ifirstmet George Grantin 1972 when he gave alectureat the Universi-
ty ofWaterloo on "Ideology." At that time students were well aware of
thedismal failureof almost all ofour professorstoaddress Vietnam and
Canadian complicity inthe war, which was thecentral issue facing us at
thetime.Many furtherconcerns circledout from this centre-theoppo-
sition oftheWesterngovernmentsto self-determination by colonizedpeo-
ple inAfrica and Asia, the obedient kow-towing of successive Canadian
governmentstoAmericanpressure,thevast inequalities ofwealth andpow-
erexisting within relativelyaffluentsocieties, andthekeyrole ofuniversi-
ties in providingapologiesforthis system andtechnicalimprovements to
sustainit. Only aminisculeproportion ofCanada's so-calledintellectuals
GEORGE GRANT
would even discuss these issues, letalone help provide us with the tools
we needed to come to some understandingofthesituationandacton it.
That eveningGeorgeGrantspokeofthecolonization ofCanadian univer-
sities by American professorsandtheirliberalideology andoftherole of
so-calledvalue-free social scienceinmaintainingorderinan injust socie-
ty.Most importantforus, he connectedthis generalanalysis to thehorror
ofVietnamandthetruth it bespokeofthe imperialistdrive oftheAmeri-
canempire. He waswillingto call this empire "capitalist," as we insisted,
buthealso calledit "technological." Wewere lesssureofthisword, though
it didseem to clarifythewayin whichrecenttechnologicaladvancements
were used for destruction, rather than for meetinghumanneeds. To our
surprise,we hadfounda conservative whofelt keenly thepublicrespon-
sibility ofthephilosophicalcalling, whospokeboth passionately andana-
lytically of our subordinate position in Canada, and of the global
consequences of the American empire.
The lecture ended with a discussionof whether conservativesand so-
cialists had more in common than either had with the liberal establish-
ment. I didn't realize it then, butthis dialogue cut to the root ofwhat is
most distinctivein Canadian politics -the centrality ofcommunity, eth-
nicity,andhistoryasagainsttheliberalfocus on individuals andtheir in-
terests.
Grant wasalways at the centre ofdiscussionslike this. The"Red Tory"
appellation, though it wasused widely and loosely later, emerged from
hisexample. Howmany otherconservatives, either then or today, would
address these radical questionsaboutcontemporary society? Hisconser-
vatismwas more like the conservationism oftheecologymovement than
the Conservative Party. As Grant said, like the liberals, they have bought
into theideology ofprofit andprogress. In theend, Grantthoughthim-
selfbeyond conservatism too. Duringhislateryearshe describedhisgoal
as "simplyto thinkwhat we aredoing." Butthebeacon ofhisphilosophi-
cal formulations were always vivified by his passionate concern for the
good life as it could be lived here and now.
What better description ofa philosopher? But there have been many
whodidnotthinkso. In acharacteristic gesture, DavidGauthier, then(1979)
ProfessorandChairofthe Department ofPhilosophy at theUniversityof
Toronto, reviewed a volume ofessays on Grantentitled George Grantin
ProcessfortheBulletin oftheCanadian AssociationofUniversityTeachers.
He outlined the disparity between professional philosophers who have
chosen toconcentrateon thetoolsofthought(suchas logicalorlinguistic
analysis, or on themethodsof scientific research) and those, like Grant,
whohave directed themselves to thereal issues posedby living. Gauthier
concluded that Grant avoided the confrontation of his views with the
methodsofcurrentphilosophicalanalysis, that he wasunknownby such
professionalphilosophers, and that, therefore, he couldnot be Canada's
foremost political philosopher. As he said, "Ifhe will notspeakwith the
IANANGUS
currentphilosophicaltongue, then they will notlisten to hislamentation."
This quasi-official rejection, the kind ofview that has expelled andper-
secutedgenuinephilosophicalthinking fordecadesin this country, states
that because Grant does not talk to them he is not a philosopher. Thus,
thebasiccriterionforaphilosopheris theholdingofapositionin auniver-
sity philosophy department -not only apositivistic, but a circular and
self-serving,definition. No wonder Grantchoseto direct hisenergieselse-
where! That our greatest philosopher has been treated this way is bad
enough, that this situation continues to haunt successive generations of
Canadianswhohave attemptedto find aphilosophicalarticulation forthe
politics and history of Canada is inexcusable.
WhenI beganteaching in theDepartment ofCommunicationat Simon
FraserUniversityin 1981, 1hadallmy students in communicationtheory
read Grant. In lectures there was no difficulty in getting across. They all
knew that Grant wassaying something important andthat it went to the
heartofwhat this countryis. Certainly they wanted clarification ofwhat
wassaid andwhy. Certainly they wanted to argue with him andtobring
theirexperience tobear onhisformulations. Thisis as itshouldbe -each
generation contributing to thedialogue that forges ourideaofourselves.
Butnotforaminute didthey doubthis honesty,his clarityandboldness,
hisgraspofsome part ofthetruth.Whiletheestablishmentapologists mar-
ginalizedGrant, it waspossibleto speak over theirheadsto students and
otherswhoare engagedwith passionate thinkingofthis countryandtheir
place in its future.
InCanadian Studies, on theother hand, Grantwas lionized. Inasense,
his position was ajustification of their existence. Yetthe forces pushing
university andintellectual life to conformity andself-satisfactionarealive
andwell theretoo. Grant'spresence wasalways unsettling. AtaCanadian
Studies after-dinner speech at the Learneds in Halifax (1982), Grant ad-
dressed the question of what it meant to study ourselves. He quoted
Heideggerto theeffect that themodernconceptionofknowledgeinvolves
"summoningforthtogiveitsreasons." Bowingto thosefromoutside, most-
ly the U.S., he acknowledged that others could summon us forth and
demaaMyour reasons, but argued that we would not do well to look at
ourselvesthatway. Unlike hiswriting, whichbegins with asureandclear
statementofan issue, hisspeakingvoicebeganslowly,tentatively, clearing
a common ground. It gathered directionandconviction, and thundered
to aparadoxicalconclusion. "MystudyofRousseau is aCanadian study."
Some were amazed, some outraged, and some carrywith them still such
characteristic Grantian sayings that have helped in forgingintellectual direc-
tion and in gathering strength.
Grantwasfour-square againstparochialism. He meant: Take up the task
to think Canada, put your questions to the past and the future, and put
them to thebestthinkers.Withouttheirhelp inbringing ournational,bi-
national,multi-national, experience tophilosophicalarticulation, we will
142
GEORGE GRANT
remain abackwater, andwill deserveto be so.Arguewith Rousseau;argue
with Plato; through this dialogue we will make Canadian philosophy.
With hisdeath, therewill come apressureforcanonization. He will be
respected andquoted, probably at thecost ofbeing read and criticized,
whichis what everyphilosopherwants.Letusnotforget that George Grant
was only able to begin to formulate Canadian philosophy by goingout-
side the canons,by disturbing theboundaries betweendisciplinesandthe
boundaries between thoughtandlife.Thetraditionofphilosophicalques-
tioningthat forgesanational tradition is yetto be accomplished in Cana-
da. Grantbegan that doing,whichwill take generations to complete.The
future will memorializehim, thepasthasignoredhim, the presentneeds
to continue the dialogue with him.
Letuspressagainsttheboundaries, trudgeinto thewilderness,risk snow-
blindness, and bringthe bush to thought. That is oursolidarity with Ge-
orge Grant -our needing, remembering, and questioning the George
Granttrail, some markersas we go ourownway. Letthemhave theirchairs
ofphilosophy, their self-congratulation in stuffy rooms. There are many
of us who will not forget George Grant.
Department of Communication
University of Massachusetts
CanadianJournalofPolitical andSocial Theory/RevuecanadiennedeWoriepolitique
etsociale, Volume XIII, no. 1-2 1989
JUSTICE IN THE THOUGHT
OF GEORGE GRANT
Geoffrey R. Martin
George Grantisundoubtedly Canada's most provocative and probably
most misunderstood thinker. Compared to other philosophers, his work
is widelyknownamongnon-specialists largely becauseheconsidered his
thoughtapublic matter andwent out ofhisway todeliver ittolargenum-
bers viaradio talksand public addresses. Partly due totheseefforts, Grant
hasmore enemies than friends, at least among liberals and progressives.
The essence of the liberal critique isthat Grantis merelyanostalgic, tire-
some remnant ofa traditional class that has been by-passed by progress
and has not reconciled itselfto the better life that now exists.' For exam-
ple,John W Holmes, the dean ofCanada's "Middle Power" diplomatic
corps, says of Grant: "Nostalgia isseductive. The Grantian vision of our
bucolic Canadian paradise lostis somewhat reminiscent ofthe lament of
."z
the Reaganites for the world ofBooth Tarkingtonand the Land ofOz.
For Roland Puccetti, Grantis aleading figure in the "Mausoleum," rather
than the "Searchlight" tradition, of philosophy because he rejects
justabouteverythingthat hasbeen done by philosophers sincethe
time ofBaconand Descartes. It isallintellectual heresy, acorrup-
tionoftheGoodandtheTrue:savingexceptionsbeingthehistori-
cal turningbacktoandthuspartial rejuvenation ofAncientVerities
(cid:9)-found in Hegel andNietzsche.3
These sentiments represent the increasing reaction to Grant in the late
1980s.
GEORGE GRANT
Many observers of the public scene, like Robert S. McElvaine,4 are
speaking openly ofthefact that NorthAmerica, andtheWest more gener-
ally, is going through a political transformation, away from the "conser-
vatism" ofthe last twenty years, towardsanewkind of "progressivism"
that is notyetfullydevelopedormanifested. Evidence ofthis change may
be seen in the declining repute of Reagan-style conservatism in North
Americanpolitics andtherise ofan admittedly twistedliberalism, allpart
ofwhat MichaelWeinstein hascalled "state-sponsored community."5 The
health authorities ofSweden propose to set up an `AIDS colony" on an
island near Stockholm, for example, to"protect" the healthy population,
and so far they have met surprisingly little public resistance.6 Measures
like this -the use of the "positive" state in the "public interest" -are
likely to be more common in thecomingyearsas thepopulation becomes
accustomed to state leadership and initiative in the interests of "justice."
In this new environment it will be easier for people to slur and mis-
represent thinkers like Grant, both in writing and conversation, with
charges ofnostalgiaandantiquarianism. Grant'sthoughtanditsinfluence
amongthoughtful people is not secure and cannot be taken for granted
becauseitalreadyappearsto manytobemore andmore irrelevantas time
passes. Despitethis, we are seeing few efforts to recover and defend the
truth in Grant. Much of the currentcriticism ofGrant's thought is valua-
blein itselfbut focussesrather narrowly on certainaspectslike technolo-
gy, orhis ethics andnationalism.' He publishedhis first articleover forty
years ago and yet little has been done to try to understand his work as
awhole.Joan O'Donovancomesclosestto this,yetevenheranalysis does
not answer thequestion of how the publications ofthe 1970s and 1980s
fit in with his earlier work.8
It is thereforethegoal ofthis essayto begintherecoveryoutlinedabove
by examiningboth thecontinuityandtheflux in Grant'sthoughtthrough
the identification of a single theme around which the diversity of his
thought clusters. In this essay I argue that in his latest book, Technology
andjustice, Granthasreturned full-circle:in the1940sand1950shispub-
lic writingdisplayedcertaintybasedon Kantianliberalism with arelative-
lybenign view ofmodern life. Incomparison to hiscritique ofmodernity
made in the 1960s and 1970s, Grant now expresses total certainty once
again, based on "God as Goodness," andalso more readilyidentifies the
positive aspects ofmodernity.
As we will see, George Grant's chiefoccupation during his fortyyears
ofscholarship has not been negative or destructive, nor merely the act
oftearingdown what exists whilefailingto offer"positive," "theoretically
acceptable alternatives," as Ian Boxhas suggested.9 Rather, it is my claim
that much ofhiseffort hasbeen directedtoward thepositive reconstruct-
ingofsociety, consistent with adominant senseofjustice.Onemightsug-
gest that almost any of Grant's major concepts, like "technology,"
"modernity," or "the Good," also provideatheme throughwhich to un-
GEOFFREY MARTIN
derstand the entirety of his efforts. The advantage of justice is that it is
central to all of his writings, from 1944 until the present, andallows us
to see the continuity and variation within his thought. Technology was
notamajorconcernforGrantuntilthe1960s, andmodernityandtheGood
were of little importance before 1950.
Onemore issue, that ofmethod,must be resolvedbeforeIproceed.How
canonebestunderstand theessenceofathinkerlike Grant? First, theback-
ground ofthe thinker -hisloyalist roots, forinstance-must be consi-
dered, then his works, andinfluences, in theorderof theircomposition.
Ironically, the historicist Antonio Gramsci makes the strongestargument
forthis strategy.We should, he says,examinethecatalogueofthethinker's
works, "eventhose most easilyoverlooked,in chronologicalorder, divid-
ed accordingtointrinsic criteria." In addition, the "[s]earchfor theLeit-
motiv [sic], fortherhythm ofthethoughtasit develops, should be more
important than that for single casual affirmations and isolated
aphorisms."'° It is toward an understanding of Grant's "leading theme"
that this paper is devoted.
Justice as "Proper Conservatism"
George Grant'sscholarlyactivities begantoward theendoftheSecond
World Warandfocussed on the question of whether Canada was a "na-
tion" and whether it should remain part of the British Commonwealth.
In "Have We a Canadian Nation?," Grant answered yes, Canada was de-
veloping as a nation, andmust seek out principles to organize the com-
munity around,for"unlesswe know whywe exist, unlesswe know what
we are trying to build here in Canada ... we will inevitably be shaped by
the REPUBLIC," the United States." Post-1783 British North America, in
rejecting theAmerican Revolution, was conservative in the sense that it
hadalways sought topreserve orderover the excesses offreedom found
in the United States. For Grant, it was rightandjust that Canada should
become a strong independentnation. In TheEmpire: Yes orNo?, Grant
clearlybelieves that postwarjusticewill be served by astrongBritishEm-
pire,a "third force" that will prevent U.S./U.S.S.R. dominance ofthe new
international organization and of the postwar world.'2
Even in 1944, justice, as themediator betweeninward life andoutward
existence, andthestateas theindividual writ large, were presentin Grant's
thought. Canada must strengthen itsnational existence, andthis "strength
can only come from within ourselves.... Only if we can build up within
ourselves awayoflife that justifies ourexistencewill we continue to ex-
ist:''3Justiceinthe inward life and in the outward existence wouldcon-
tinue to be an important part ofGrant's thought. In fact, as we will see,
at differentpointsin hislife oneortheotherofthese twoelements is given
a dominant role in his writing.
146
GEORGE GRANT
This early work laid the foundations for the first definition ofjustice
in Grant'sthought, whichcanbe referred to as "proper conservatism" or
Kantianliberalism. Afterhis return from Britainin the late 1940s, Oxford
doctoratein hand, Grantturned hisattentionto what he at firstidentified
as the conflict between the classical belief in the transcendent and the
modern belief that theexplanation andendoflife is found in theworld.
During this period, which spanned the 1950suntil the publication ofhis
firstmajorwork, Philosophy intheMass Age(1959), Grant conceivedof
justiceas asort of"properconservatism"(his ownphrase)whichrequired
that people try to reconcile Natural Lawwith modern progress.14 As we
will see, theterms which characterize Grant's thought at that time, espe-
cially in Philosophy,were moral law, freedom, progress, andself-legislation.
Philosophy concludedthis approach to justice, which was developed in
numerous articles during the 1950s.
In 1956,forexample, Grantputforwardthis earlyconception ofjustice
in an article entitled "The Uses ofFreedom: Aword andourworld." The
conceptoffreedom, he said, wasin a stateofconfusionbecausethinkers
from vastly differentperspectives used "freedom"very differently, andthis
confusion worked "against the good life."'5 Most importantly, freedom
hadadifferentmeaningforclassicists, whoacceptsome form oftranscen-
dence, than for the modern who believed that the world holds the key
to both themeaningandthemethod ofhumanlife. "And as most educat-
edpeople,consciouslyorunconsciously, have been dividedwithin them-
selves by this conflict, theiruses of theword `freedom' are aproduct of
theirowndivision" ("Freedom," 516).He attributed thedeclineoftheclas-
sicalandtherise ofthemodern to theparticular circumstancesofProtes-
tant religion (Puritanism in North America), which "brought into the
westernworldafreshinterest inactionthroughitsintensedesire to shape
theworld to God'spurposes" ("Freedom," 519), which clearlypredomi-
nated over the "spiritual inwardness" generally associated with Puritan-
ism. Like Philosophy in the Mass Age, "The Uses of Freedom" was a
preVaticanII work, andGrantdidnotanticipate that theRomanCatholic
Church would further abandonNatural Law in theface ofmodernity. So
during the 1950sthere wasaconflict withinpeople betweenthe classical
andthemodern accountoflife,andGrantsawthat thetrendofthedisap-
pearance ofinwardness/contemplation/limit, in favour of hedonism/free-
dom, had to be arrested.
"The view offreedom appearsmost clearly in anegative form, that is
in the dyingout on this continent of personal relations, art, philosophy
andprayer" ("Freedom," 524). Ineach ofthesecases, the growth of the
"progressive spirit" ledtotheremaking oftheworld-manipulation -
towardtherealizationofourlatest desires. Humansinevitably became ob-
jectifiedbecausetheywere open to manipulation just like everythingelse.
Therise ofhedonism makesartonly "animaginative coatingto existence
rather than ... the recognitionandstatementof reality," andhence it can
GEOFFREYMARTIN
never sucessfully compete with science as the society's "gate to reality"
("Freedom,"525-526).Importantly,at thisstageGrantdidnotbelievethat
the disease wouldnecessarily be terminal. The history of the loss ofall
"reference to thetranscendent"andtherise of"worldly reformism" must
notsimply be seen as aloss,he says, because"[o]ur continent in this cen-
tury has had its great moments." Specifically, until recently the medical
profession was a fine exampleof thebest the human spirit had to offer,
andthere wasgood inthehope ofthe "liberal democratic faith," despite
thefact that it underminedthetranscendent.Norcanwe know theextent
ofthe debasement, because theverdict is notyetin on theefforts ofthe
eliteto revive transcendence. "The Uses ofFreedom" ends in aparticular-
ly appropriateway, with theauthor offering acontingent prediction that
"[a]s thought about our proper end disappears," the social elite will in-
creasingly "pour" pleasure andperversion into the "vacuum." Remarka-
bly, he concludes that "[h]ow God shall reconcile the world to Himself
is not a matter we can comprehend."
Ifin 1956Grant'searlyconceptionof`Justice as `ProperConservatism"'
wasstilldeveloping,by 1959 it hadreacheditsheight. IntheUnited States
edition, Philosophy intheMassAgewasappropriatelysubtitled`AnEssay
on thefabric ofWesternCultureandtheneedforanewmoralphilosophy."
Grant's chiefgoal was to light at least part of the way to this new moral
philosophy.The term "properconservatism" comesfrom the concluding
chapter, entitled "Law, Freedom andProgress," in which Granttriedto an-
swerthekeyquestion: "How canwe thinkoutaconception oflawwhich
does not deny the truth of our freedom or the truth of progress?"
(Philosophy, 98). His terminology had changed from previous years but
the thrust wassimilar. Law,in this case,wastherule by whichpeople lived,
andwashismain vehiclefordiscussingquestionsofjustice.WhileNatural
Lawdeclined in influencein recent centuries, the "progressivespirit" be-
came more influential, and since we must accept that both will nowal-
ways exist, the problem is developing a law that can reconcile the two.
Grant defined Natural Law as "the assertion that there is an order in the
universe, and that right action for us human beings consists in attuning
ourselves to that order" (Philosophy, 28), while the "progressive spirit"
was the view that humans are the "makers of history, the makers ofour
own laws ... authentically free since nothing beyond us limits what we
should do" (Philosophy, 42). The general goal of the book is to restore
"moral philosophy"toitsprevious rigour, forrecently it "hascome to be
associated with vague uplift" (Philosophy, v). The chief dilemmais that
as thespaceprogramindicates, "[m]en maynotlong remain boundto the
earth, but will they remain bound by anything in what they do?"
(Philosophy, 98).
Lookingat 1959, it is quitecorrectto conclude thatwe aresurrounded
by meaninglessness, andthat contrary to Natural Lawwe cannot identify
the order in the universe. The state of theworldis synonymously a call
148
GEORGE GRANT
toaction to make it better, ifwe, like Grant, fall "ontheside oflaw" and
if we accept that there is a "meaning in existence" even in the midst of
the disorder. Perhaps this affirmation is only "a matter of faith for me,"
but if we look at the world "[t]he need foran absolute moral law is evi-
dent, just when the difficulties ofthinking such a law are also most evi-
dent." There is adisunion between theindividual character, which arises
from faithandintellectual power, andthat whichcanonly preserve itsin-
tegrity by defending itself from modern thought, for "[t]hose who are
touchedby the modern worldless andless maintain any sense oflimit."
Nevertheless we need to develop anew setof modern standards, which
will onlywork ifthis newlaw"fully recognizes thefreedomofthespirit"
insteadofseeming external to humanwill (Philosophy, 100-102). As Kant
said,alawis moralonly ifit is freely obeyed,andsothenewlawformodern
societymustbealawthat thefree will followwillingly, though at thesame
time this law cannot pander to everywhim.
Inevitably,there is an element ofconservatism in this Kantian proposal
because the lawmust restrain the progressive spirit from breaching the
prescribed limits, since "the truth of conservatism is the truth of order
and limit, both in social andpersonal life." However, it must be "proper
conservatism" becauseconservatism as we know it does notaddressthe
problem ofovercoming evil andinfact often requires that evils be per-
petuated in the form ofthe rule of capital and the "right of the greedy
to turnallactivities into sourcesofpersonalgain." Aproper conservatism
would be "an order which gives form to persons, to families, to educa-
tion, to worship, to politics, and to the economic system" (Philosophy,
108-109. It might seem odd that Kantianliberalism and "Proper Conser-
vatism" areconsistent, since liberalandconservative are supposed to be
opposite to oneanother. Theconfusionis caused by the changing defini-
tions ofthe two during the last twocenturies. "Conservatism" is nowan
ideology of transformation where liberalism in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, exemplifiedby Adam Smith, once was. Elements of
conservatism were found in the thought ofclassicalliberals like Lord Ac-
ton because, like the early Grant, and unlike twentieth century liberals,
they had a clear sense oflimit and restraint to offset the expansiveness
of freedom and democracy.
Justice as Self-Determination
ForGeorge Grantthe 1960srepresentedboth adeepeningofhisanaly-
sisofthe 1950s, culminatingin hisphilosophicalmaster-workof1969, Time
asHistory, andashiftback totheanalysis oftheCanadian situation, which
culminated inhis1965 workLamentforaNation: TheDefeatofCanadi-
an Nationalism.16During this decade Grant moved from Halifaxback to
his native Ontario, and concurrently entered a phase in which his pub-
lished writingsdisplayedmuch greater distress toward the tendencies of