1975. Towards ad History of the Professionalization of Canadian Anthropology. Proceedings of the Canadian Ethnology Society, 399-416

1976 The Sapir years at the National Museum. Proceedings of the Plenary Session of the Canadian Ethnology Society, 98-121

1997 Changing patterns of ethnography in Canadaian anthropology. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 34:269-296

1998 Toward a History of Canadian Departments of Anthropology: Retrospect, Prospect, and Common Cause. Anthropologica 40:153-168

2000 The Pivotal Role of the Northwest Coast in the History of Americanist Anthropology. B.C. Studies 125/126:33-52

Answer: My best guess is….Japan. Because of the isolating effects of publication in Japanese, this work is largely unknown outside of Japan. I’ve been told, however, that the Japan Ethnological Society is, except for the AAA, the largest association of anthropologists in the world.

And this discussion doesn’t have to be just about Canada, either. I’m really interested in hearing about non-Anglophone, non-Northern anthropologies, which Tad alluded to as well.

Interesting question. I guess I would distinguish between Canadian anthropology as in trends among Canadian anthro departments (which may involve the practice of anthropology in various locations) and an anthropology OF Canada which may involve anthropologists from all over the place doing fieldwork in Canada.

Non-Canadian anthropologists may use approaches that are not quite “Canadian” in their studies of various Canadian cultures and sub-cultures while Canadian-trained anthropologists will not necessarily study Canadian topics.

That being said, is there a Canadian anthropological approach that is distinct from American, British, French, etc approaches? Perhaps that’s something Tad will shed light on in future posts.

Is it just me, though, or is there a real tendancy to find at least one faculty member in most Canadian universities that specialises in North American or Canadian Aboriginal issues? Is that part of the Canadian trend, to focus on the “local” (in the broadest sense of within our own country) or is it just that scholars who are interested in Canadian Aboriginal issues flock to live and work in Canada?

Nancy’s rephrasing of the questions gets at much of what I am wondering. I think, thought, that the dilemma that scholars of a Canadian anthropology have faced is that there has been more anthropology done in Canada by non-Canadians and, as such, is a distinctive Canadian anthropology best conceived of as an anthropology OF Canada or of one WITHIN Canada? Nancy’s personal insider-outsider dilemma with respect to anglo and francophone anthropology is, perhaps, a microcosm of this – and a very important observation.

I appreciate Jesse and Comet Jo passing along other resources and expanding the discussion to other fields. I am not familiar with the McLaughlin article, but Jesse’s synopsis indicates that sociologists are talking about these questions too – and in much the same tone as anthropologists. And the Slaney article sounds very useful … I will look at both sources mentioned here with interest. It is worth noting that these discussions continue in newer volumes too. I notice that Regna Darnell and Julia Harrison have a book coming out on the topic from UBC Press (no date as of yet).

And, to Comet Jo’s comment about TF McIlwraith. He is my grandfather and as Comet Jo points out McIlwraith’s ethnographic work with the Nuxalk (Bella Coola) exemplifies the debate about national anthropologies that I found myself in lately. McIlwraith was British trained, under Haddon and Rivers. But he is often labeled a Boasian because of northwest coast fieldwork and an emphasis on texts. Barker weighs in on this, identifying McIlwraith as much more a British social anthropologist than a Boasian (see Barker’s article referenced in the original post). But the discussion about national labels and traditions of anthropology persist.

As an aside, any one interested in a nuanced (rather than polemical) discussion of the distinctiveness of Canadian Anthropology should look at the work of Frances Slaney (formerly at the U of Regina, now at Carlton). There is a good article in one of the recent History of Anthropology Volumes.

It’s about almost exactly the same thing, except it’s on Canadian sociology and it’s 40 pages long. It gets kind of whiny at times and views the American academy through rose-coloured glasses vis a vis Canadian sociology. McLaughlin identifies these areas as being the reason for Canadian sociology’s suckiness (very, very debatable, as I’m sure you’re aware of):

1) Institutional flatness — Canadian universities are generally more equal in terms of educational quality than US ones, are less competitive with each other, and do not rely on standardized exams (yes, he actually thinks they’re things to envy in the US context).

2) The historical relationship of Canada to Britain and the supposed crappy nature of British sociology, thereby influencing the colonists.

3) Canada’s political culture and the entrenchment of a left wing, activist-oriented perspective in Canadian sociology, inhibiting the development of a “more scholarly and professional culture that can serve to push the left academy to moderate its rhetoric, examine its assumptions, and evaluate its evidence” (20), especially in its “simplistic critiques of liberalism” (20).

It has a thing in there about the decline of CASCA, but I don’t really have time to get into it. Anyway, I recommend at least a peek at the article.

As for the existence of a national anthropology and one’s place in it, I guess I never really thought about that either. The only anthro conferences I have attended were in Canada. I was hoping to go to AAA this year to see if it was very different but . . .life has happened again.

I do remember, though, the last time CASCA was in Montreal, that there was a roundtable on British vs French anthro . . .and I had asked one of my profs who was participating whether she felt that this carried over into Canada (Anglo vs Franco anthro in Canada). She replied that she did see a difference, although it didn’t necessarily reflect the exacte differences between British and French anthros.

I thought this was interesting in a couple of respects: I was trained in Montreal but in an anglo university . . .but I’m francophone. In fact, I have trouble having anthro conversations with francophone anthropologists. But I do see the difference now too. And this is *within* Canada.

Anyway, I’m looking forward to reading your further thoughts on the topic!