Reasoning Otherwise: Leftists and the People's Enlightenment in Canada, 1890-1920 (review)

Reviewed by: Reasoning Otherwise: Leftists and the People's Enlightenment in Canada, 1890-1920 Joan Sangster McKay, Iran — Reasoning Otherwise: Leftists and the People's Enlightenment in Canada, 1890-1920. Toronto: Between the Lines, 2008. Pp. 656. Ian McKay's comprehensive history of "first formation" socialism has much to offer North American historians interested not only in the history of the Left, but also in the intellectual currents that animated political and social debate in Canada in the period from the late 1880s to the First World War. Characterized by extensive research, especially in published sources such as socialist newspapers, journals, and pamphlets, Reasoning Otherwise is particularly valuable for its focus on this relatively unstudied era of Canadian socialism. McKay's survey offers us breadth, detail (sometimes rather too overpowering), and complexity. The book begins with an exploration of the intellectual context and early organizational history of the Left up until 1902 and ends with the cataclysmic period of World War I and 1919 General Strike. These historical endpoints bookend four thematic chapters on class, gender, religion, and race that illuminate important new perspectives on the Left's shifting understanding of these issues. Some of the thematic chapters seem more robust than others. For example, the chapter on "race" is thinner, with a long, general introduction covering known events like the Komagata Maru, but perhaps this was due to a paucity of primary sources. In contrast, the chapter on class is a rich and detailed analysis of socialist thinkers and organizations — from the lesser to the better known — which explores some of the overlap and differences between various socialist currents of the time. [End Page 482] Part of McKay's mission is to rescue intellectuals whom he sees as underappreciated or misunderstood. Arguing that Herbert Spencer's writing encompassed far more than reductionist notions of "survival of the fittest," McKay does an admirable job of presenting his ideas as constituting an evolutionary "language of politics" (p. 117) that influenced many strands of socialism. McKay's interpretation of Spencer's influence, however, is somewhat different from earlier (and some current) feminist scholars who portray his influence on debates about women's equality in a less positive light. Also, one does wonder whether Spencer was as overwhelmingly influential as McKay suggests. Surely it difficult to ascertain, for instance, whether "[s]o many merchant seamen seem to have come down with 'Spencerism' that it could have been listed as one of the occupational hazards of seafaring life" (p. 35). The value of this book lies in its extensive research, its refreshing exploration of new historical themes, and its painstaking reconstruction of personalities and organizations of the Left. However, I am less convinced that it offers the entirely new methodology for studying socialism that the author terms "a radical reconnaissance." It is puzzling that this methodology, already sketched out in McKay's earlier Rebels, Reds and Revolutionaries, has not been engaged critically by historians, given our exposure to decades of post-structuralist writing emphasizing that no writing is neutral, that language matters, and that politics are inherent in all aspects of our scholarship. McKay claims that a radical reconnaissance attempts to "scout" out the past, providing us with a "preliminary examination or survey" (p. 1) rather than authoritative conclusions. He insists that his method encourages us to "[see] the past more clearly" (p. 2), contextualize, be fair-minded by describing political positions "accurately" (p. 11), accept historical "contingency" (p. 3), and understand the difficulties of generalizing "beyond the particular" (p. 3). This description of method, in fact, sounds a lot like liberal pluralism — or even sound, careful historical research! We would all likely endorse openness to new ideas in our scholarship; however, it is questionable whether we can really make "preliminary" observations about history, un-tethered from judgmental hierarchies. As McKay himself notes, his approach is not "neutral," nor is it bereft of politics or criticisms. His analysis, if sometimes understated, suggests the issues he sees as important to the Left, and, indeed, those which also should have been important to the Left. Also, he clearly favours some historical writing as "better" than other interpretations. Indeed, in spite of McKay's stated antagonism to...

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.