How to commit Canadian sociology, or "what would Innis do?".

Stanbridge, Karen

Harold Innis is following me. I noticed him first when I was an undergrad in Economics. Then, it was not his Staples Theory that caught my attention; that was just something I had to memorize for the exam. Rather, it was his commitment to building an Economics that reflected the Canadian experience rather than borrowing from the American or British. My distracted, 20-year-old self focused in long enough to recognize this as exceptional and brave. Innis showed up again when I switched to Sociology. Now, Staples Theory placed him among (or at least alongside) thinkers whom I held in high esteem: Gunder Frank, Cardoso, and others whom my Marxist mentors at Western taught me to appreciate. But it was only recently that Innis lodged himself permanently in my brain and heart, when I finally comprehended the profundity of his "dirt research."

"Dirt research" was what Innis called his direct method of studying regional economies in Canada. It was more than the ethnography that most of us are used to. It was ethnography extreme. Want to understand how the fur trade was established and conducted in the Canadian interior? Get in a canoe and traverse the routes of the early traders. Only then will you grasp the kinds of geographic and environmental challenges that faced the trade (Innis [1930] 1999). Curious about the fishery in Newfoundland? Go to the outports, talk to the fishers, experience the conditions and the climate yourself. You will begin to understand how and why the industry took the form it did (Innis [1940] 1954). When I read more about his methodology and reflected on the young Innis, recently returned (injured) from the trenches of the First World War, spending months paddling a birch bark canoe through the interior of 1920s Canada, and trekking through the wind and fog of isolated communities in 1930s Newfoundland (without the modern conveniences of backwoods travel), all to forward a social science of Canada, I was impressed and humbled. Whether his motives were purely intellectual or self-interested (Evenden 2013), it is still the case that Innis--an Economist of all things!--went to some extraordinary lengths to ground his theory in the Canadian experience in all its varieties.

Now, the ghost of Harold Innis has been evoked again in Ralph Matthews' essay "Committing Canadian Sociology" (Matthews 2014). It is not Innis's "dirt research" but Staples Theory that Matthews (2014) revives, arguing that it should serve as the basis for a distinctive Canadian Sociology. Innis's Staples Thesis is still useful as a means to understand Canada's resource-based economy, says Matthews (2014), but it needs to be modified to reflect a new reality. The dialogue around resource extraction has become much more complex than in Innis's day. Indeed, social issues, such as the proliferation of neoliberal ideology and politics; economic globalization and its impact on people and ecosystems; the assumption of aboriginal rights and entitlement; and the rise of environmental awareness and environmentalism are now driving conversations regarding Canada's resource economy. Ideal fodder, says Matthews (2014), for a Canadian Sociology dedicated to studying and analyzing how these broader trends manifest in particular Canadian conditions. Matthews (2014) goes on to sketch out what a reconstituted Staples Theory might look like, citing examples of studies that examine resource extraction in Canada through the lenses of these newer social processes.

I am pleased to see Innis revived in Professor Matthews' (2014) essay, especially since he does it in such a positive way. To be sure, Matthews (2014) understands the serious challenges unfolding in the areas of the environment and resource extraction in Canada. But there is still a celebratory tone to his essay, a sense of possibility. This is refreshing in our discipline, where we tend to use our Sociological Imaginations primarily to critique the state of affairs rather than improve upon them.

And maybe it is this last point that makes me wish that Professor Matthews had gone even further by recommending that we not only revive Staples Theory for a new Canadian Sociology, but that we revive the methods of its creator as well. When confronted with the big questions of our discipline, we should ask ourselves, "What would Innis do?" In other words, we should ponder, 1

1. "Which places and people in Canada should I attune myself to in order to acquire a deep knowledge of this process from their perspective?"

2. "How can I use this knowledge to build something new, rather than tear down what is known?" (1)

This is not a rejection of Professor Matthews' thesis, but a specification of its techniques, and a commitment to envisioning alternatives. Let me elaborate on each of these in turn.

Bring the Dirt Back In

Professor Matthews distinguishes between a Sociology of Canada and Canadian Sociology. The latter, he writes, is "directed toward understanding the 'fundamentals' of Canadian social organization, identity, institutions, and culture" (Matthews 2014:110) and "should seek to understand Canada, in its own terms" (Matthews 2014:110, italics in original). This last can be accomplished if we conduct our analyses "self-consciously ... within the context of the Canadian experience, geography, and culture, and takes as its goal the identification of the unique social dynamics that these produce" (Matthews 2014:110-11). Matthews' (2014) Canadian Sociology advocates study of Canada from the ground up to permit the people and places that comprise Canada to direct (but not dictate) our research. This is not a plea for Canadian exceptionalism, cautions Matthews; there is nothing in this approach that prevents us from using conceptual frameworks developed elsewhere (Matthews 2014). But these frameworks should be employed in the service of Canadian data rather than the other way around.

The approach that Matthews (2014) recommends is clearly Innisian in that it advocates disciplined practice of a social science that is guided by Canadian conditions, social and environmental conditions especially. This is what Innis did when he brought his professional expertise and knowledge of American and U.K. economics to bear on his study of Canadian economic development. But Matthews (2014) stops short of encouraging the kind of deep physical and emotional awareness of Canadian conditions that Innis undertook. It is "dirt research" sans the dirt.

I say we should bring the dirt back in. Here I do not mean that we should all climb into canoes and follow the routes of the fur traders. Rather, when we commit Canadian Sociology we should do our best to grasp the real physical and emotional experiences of the human and nonhuman subjects that we are studying. For some of us, it could mean emulating Innis outright, entering into the environments that we study, recreating or participating in the circumstances under which our subject(s) live or lived, undertaking the extreme ethnography that was Innis's dirt research. For the rest of us, it would require that we seek out sources that help us to get as close to the lived and sensory experiences of our subjects as possible. These would include not only sociological and other academic materials, but popular histories, archival matter, memoirs, and accounts that have been written, composed, painted, photographed, and recited by people who know and have tried to capture and articulate their impressions. The point is to surround ourselves with our data, to feel it as deeply as we can. Innis sought this kind of physical and emotional closeness with his Canadian subject matter to the extent that he had traveled through most of the country by the time he died in 1952.

Build Something New

Professor Matthews (2014) provides us with several examples of research that exemplify the kind of Canadian Sociology he would like to see more of, research that reveals the impact of the social processes that he identifies as significant--neoliberal governance, Aboriginal rights, environmentalism, and so on--on resource extraction in different regions of Canada. But studies such as these, while they reveal forces and factors previously "hidden" from examination, usually only describe and critique the current state of affairs. They do not offer alternate possibilities. There is nothing wrong with this; indeed, "seeing through" (Berger 1963:30) the surface of things is what those of us who exercise our Sociological Imaginations are supposed to do and what our discipline is especially good at. An Innisian approach would go further, however, and ask how this analysis can contribute to our building a broader framework that we might use across cases and regions? It was not Innis's observation that British and American economic theories did not apply to Canada that made him famous; if he had spent his career marshaling evidence and engaging in critiques of existing models, we likely would have never heard of him. What made him famous was that he moved past critique of what he knew didn't work, to build a useful alternative: Staples Theory.

Of course, coming up with new theoretical frameworks on the level of Staples Theory is something few of us will ever do. But envisioning alternatives, be they theoretical, political, economic, or institutional, is something that all of us can do. Indeed, Sociologists should be especially good at conceiving of new approaches to the existing state of affairs because we hold such a broad knowledge base. It is a requirement of our discipline to be deeply aware of the historical and cultural foundations of our current social conditions to grasp how and why the world works the way that it does. This broad knowledge means that Sociologists are usually not very good at providing the "sound bite" responses to social issues that are demanded by the media cycle these days; "it depends" is the mantra of Sociologists making sure that all perspectives are taken into account. It does, however, provide a solid basis for thoughtful responses to the most pressing matters of our day, responses that go beyond description and critique to build alternative models of social organization. This could be especially useful in cases where critique is no longer helping move the dialogue forward.

Two such cases are economic inequality and environmental depletion. The best minds on the planet agree that these two processes generate great human suffering and ecological harm, and together will, if left unchecked, devastate our species. A Canadian Sociology along the lines that Professor Matthews (2014) prescribes will continue to describe and critique how these processes manifest in Canadian contexts, and add to the stock of evidence confirming their existence and elaborating on their ill effects, a worthwhile enterprise. But Canadian Sociologists could also take a cue from Innis and draw upon the insights we have acquired through our deep engagement with the Canadian experience to imagine and build something better. In other words, put aside (but do not forget) what we know is not working and get on with envisioning, debating, and eventually creating things that do.

What might a Matthews-Innisian Canadian Sociology (M-ICS) look like? I will echo Professor Matthews and recommend the work of my colleague Barbara Neis and her research partners. Neis et al. are dirt researchers par excellence, skilled academics well versed in the imagination of the discipline who immerse themselves in the field to experience the conditions facing people who live and work in rural and coastal communities around the world and hear their stories. And while description and critique of the current state of affairs forms part of their projects, they are ultimately concerned with building alternative means to secure the economic well-being of their human subjects and the sustainability of their nonhuman ones. They put aside (but do not ignore) what they already know, that is, that prevailing economic models and resource policies cause small(er) fishers to suffer and are harmful to coastal environments and fish stocks, and focus their efforts on generating something better. It is by no means an elegant or straightforward enterprise, as Neis and Ahmed Khan (Khan and Neis 2010) acknowledge by their recommendation that oceans researchers experiment with "clumsy solutions." This is a delightful term for responses that "are exploratory, include inputs from a broad range of stakeholders along the fish chain, and require information sharing, knowledge synthesis, and trust building," along with attempts to "address power relations, collective action dilemmas, and the fundamental question of 'rebuilding for whom'" (Khan and Neis 2010:347). Complicated yes, clumsy perhaps, but essential, they write, "for stewardship, equity, and long-term resource sustainability" (Khan and Neis 2010:347). Thus, Khan and Neis (2010) not only confront but try to move the dialogue forward on what we already know are the two fundamental challenges of our time: economic inequality and environmental depletion. Neis practices an applied Sociology that not all of us will choose to do. But an M-ICS could just as well be practiced on a smaller scale, and with theoretical innovation as the goal.

In "Committing Canadian Sociology," Ralph Matthews (2014) outlines a refreshingly positive vision for Canadian Sociology in which the Canadian experience features prominently and serves to inform our analyses of resource extraction in the context of broader social processes a, la Staples Theory. I have suggested that Canadian Sociologists go further and embrace Innis's methodology by committing themselves to helping build new and useful (if clumsy) rejoinders to the ideas and institutions they so ably describe and critique. We could all do worse than begin each research project by asking ourselves, "What would Innis do?"

References

Berger, P. L. 1963. Invitation to Sociology: A Humanist Perspective. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.

Evenden, M. 2013. "The Northern Vision of Harold Innis." Pp. 73-99 in Harold Innis and the North: Appraisals and Contestations, edited by W.J. Buxton. Montreal-Kingston, ON: McGill-Queens University Press.

Heyer, P. 2003. Harold Innis. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Innis, H. [1930] 1999. The Fur Trade: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Innis, H. [1940] 1954. The Cod Fisheries: The History of an International Economy. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Khan, A. S. and B. Neis. 2010. "The Rebuilding Imperative in Fisheries: Clumsy Solutions for a Wicked Problem?" Progress in Oceanography 87(1-4):347-56.

Matthews, R. 2014. "Committing Canadian Sociology: Developing a Canadian Sociology and a Sociology of Canada." Canadian Review of Sociology 51(2): 107-27.

Spry, I. 1999. "Economic History and Economic Theory: Innis's Insights." Pp. 105-13 in Harold Innis in the New Century: Reflections and Refractions, edited by W. Buxton and C.R. Acland. Montreal-Kingston, ON: McGill-Queens University Press.

KAREN STANBRIDGE

Memorial University

(1) A third question, "How would Innis communicate these results?" has been omitted from the list. This is because Innis's writing style has been variously described as "inscrutable" (Spry 1999), exasperating, and baffling (Heyer 2003:59-60).

Karen Stanbridge, Department of Sociology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, NL, Canada A1C 5S7. E-mail: kstanbri@mun.ca