Through Feminist Eyes: Essays on Canadian Women’s History

THROUGH FEMINIST EYES

ESSAYS ON CANADIAN WOMEN’S HISTORY

Joan Sangster

THROUGH

FEMINIST

EYES

© 2011 JOAN SANGSTER

Published by AU Press, Athabasca University

1200, 10011 – 109 Street

Edmonton, AB T5J 3S8

ISBN 978-1-926836-18-8 (print)

ISBN 978-1-926836-19-5 (PDF)

ISBN 978-1-926836-40-9 (epub)

Cover and book design by Natalie Olsen, Kisscut Design.

Cover image by Fototeca Storica Nazionale / Photodisc / Getty Images, Feminist Reunion of the Socialist League.

Author photo by Lesli Onusko.

Printed and bound in Canada by Marquis Book Printing.

We acknowledge the financial support of the Government of Canada through the Canada Book Fund (CBF) for our publishing activities.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Sangster, Joan, 1952 –

Through feminist eyes: essays on Canadian women’s history / Joan Sangster.

Issued also in electronic format.

ISBN 978-1-926836-18-8

1. Women—Canada—History.

I. Title.

HQ1453.S26 2011                   305.40971                   C2011-900870-X

Please contact AU Press, Athabasca University at [email protected] for permissions and copyright information.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

INTRODUCTION

Reflections on Thirty Years of Women’s History

DISCOVERING WOMEN’S HISTORY

THE 1907 BELL TELEPHONE STRIKE

Organizing Women Workers

LOOKING BACKWARDS

Re-assessing Women on the Canadian Left

THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND THE WOMAN QUESTION, 1922–1929

MANUFACTURING CONSENT IN PETERBOROUGH

THE SOFTBALL SOLUTION

Female Workers, Male Managers, and the Operation of Paternalism at Westclox, 1923–1960

‘PARDON TALES’ FROM MAGISTRATE’S COURT

Women, Crime, and the Court in Peterborough County, 1920–1950

TELLING OUR STORIES

Feminist Debates and the Use of Oral History

FOUCAULT, FEMINISM, AND POSTCOLONIALISM

GIRLS IN CONFLICT WITH THE LAW

Exploring the Construction of Female ‘Delinquency’ in Ontario, 1940–1960

CRIMINALIZING THE COLONIZED

Ontario Native Women Confront the Criminal Justice System, 1920–1960

CONSTRUCTING THE ‘ESKIMO’ WIFE

White Women’s Travel Writing, Colonialism, and the Canadian North, 1940–1960

EMBODIED EXPERIENCE

WORDS OF EXPERIENCE/EXPERIENCING WORDS

Reading Working Women’s Letters to Canada’s Royal Commission on the Status of Women

MAKING A FUR COAT

Women, the Labouring Body, and Working-class History

Publications by Joan Sangster

Publication Credits

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This book would not have been possible without the support I received from everyone at Athabasca University Press. Alvin Finkel especially has been an exemplary editor; his smart and perceptive comments flew back almost immediately when I sent him emails, and he was always on the mark with his suggestions. Betsy Jameson also offered important encouragement and feedback, and all the staff at AU Press, including the director, Walter Hildebrandt, have been wonderful. I also want to thank the anonymous reviewers of the manuscript for their comments and input. At Trent, Meghan Buckham and Kirk Niergarth provided me with much-needed technical aid, organizing the manuscript and magically turning old articles on paper into modern computer files. As always, Bryan Palmer provided unconditional love and support; indeed, when I was reluctant to proceed with a retrospective collection of my own work, he encouraged me to do so.

My thinking about women’s history has been shaped by many factors over the past thirty years: I’ve been inspired by the writing of scholars whom I have never met and by friends and colleagues with whom I’ve shared new ideas over glasses of wine. I’ve also benefited tremendously from my interactions with undergraduate and graduate students, whose engagement with historical writing can be energizing, enlightening, and inspiring. Because of them, my job is far more than ‘work’; it is also a pleasure and a joy. This book is dedicated to them.

All royalties from this book will be donated to the Barbara Roberts Memorial Fund, which provides support for projects relating to workplace issues, unions, and radical social movements, to the pursuit of peace, social justice, and human rights, and to women’s studies education, all examined from a feminist perspective.

INTRODUCTION: REFLECTIONS ON THIRY YEARS OF WOMEN’S HISTORY

I did not grow up wanting to be a historian. As a well-socialized child of the 1950s, my early fantasies centred more on the frilliest wedding dress possible. Luckily for me, I abandoned the ‘say yes to the dress’ dream for a life in history. After an undergraduate career in which I managed to avoid Canadian history almost completely and focused instead on African subjects, I worked, travelled to Africa, and came back thinking about the radical possibilities of history on the home front. From the time I returned to school, first part-time at Glendon College, then to do graduate work at McMaster University, I had a dual devotion to labour and women’s history, though there were inevitably tensions and challenges in that pairing. Yet as I was a relatively new feminist at that time, women’s history often felt like ‘home,’ and I have never lost the sense of discovery, excitement, involvement, and pleasure that reading women’s history entails. Trying to pass a fraction of that excitement along to students has taken up almost thirty years of my life, and I have thoroughly enjoyed the ‘wow’ factor in students’ responses to previously unimagined views of the past, whether it was Sylvia Van Kirk’s wonderful reinterpretation of women in the fur trade, Constance Backhouse’s disturbing account of the Ku Klux Klan and intermarriage, or Rusty Bitterman’s tale of Isabella MacDonald, a stick-wielding rural woman defending her family and property against Prince Edward Island landlords.¹

This collection grew out of a desire to reflect critically on the evolution of women’s history over the past thirty-some years. My original intent was to pen a historiographic text, but other research passions always intervened. Another feminist historian suggested using my own writing as a basis around which to discuss women’s history in Canada, and Athabasca University Press responded to her suggestion with enthusiasm. This is not, however, an autobiographical text detailing my personal experiences as a historian. Nor do I claim that the essays gathered here are a perfect reflection of the evolution of Canadian women’s history, since the interpretive paths of gender historians have sometimes approximated each other but have at other times diverged. I chose a number of pieces that explore some of the changing concerns and debates in women’s history, though ultimately they illustrate how I wrestled with concepts, theories, and the peculiarities of Canadian gender history. One advantage of taking a retrospective view of writing about women’s history is that it helps to contextualize our own writing, reminding us how significantly women’s and gender histories were shaped by the social milieu, political background, and theoretical debates of the time. I do not pretend to hide my own research interests (how could I?), which have centred on themes such as class, work, legal regulation, and colonialism, or my theoretical predilections for a feminist historical materialism, if influenced also by some of the ‘post’ writing. While my ideas have shifted over time, productively challenged especially by critical race theory and anticolonial writing, I also believe that not everything new is automatically better. Some ‘old’ ideas and positions may be, and should be, defended.

It is not my aim to offer a detailed ‘from then to now’ description of the writing of women’s history in this introduction, though a few very general observations do come to mind. First, Canadian women’s history has always existed at the crossroads of, and in dialogue with, international writing, particularly that emanating from the United States, Britain, and France (the last more so in Quebec). As colonialism has taken on greater significance in women’s history, scholarship on empire, and comparative research on British white settler societies have also become more important. Second, writing on women and gender has been intimately connected to, and stimulated by, movements for social change, most notably, (but not only) the women’s movement. Whether it was challenges to the gendered division of labour, patriarchal legal structures, or the regulation of women’s bodies, feminist critiques of existing power structures have had an inestimable impact on women’s history. In turn, feminist efforts to construct our own ‘herstory’ offered insights into, and also lent weight to, specific political struggles. As racism increasingly became a political issue for the women’s movement, for instance, new questions about ‘race’ and whiteness emerged in women’s history, though political concerns always take some time to register in published scholarship.

Third, it also goes without saying that our project has been intertwined with that of women’s studies and with feminist theorizing. Women’s studies has both sustained and been sustained by women’s history and has created a vibrant space for interdisciplinary dialogue. Feminist theory may appear less important in historical writing than in other disciplines in which theory is the sole topic of conversation, but this is in part because historians often interweave theory with their historical narrative. We might even argue that historical knowledge is vital to the development of feminist theory, though this imperative would not be universally embraced.

Fourth, the subject area of women’s history, while marginalized in its infancy, increasingly gained acceptance and moved closer to the centre of the historical profession: this was registered in many ways, including the awarding of prizes, articles in journals, the hiring of professors, and our participation in professional organizations. Gender has been integrated into some general history texts and courses, and far more departments now have at least one gender specialist. The danger, of course, may be a perception that one is just enough. Finally, Canadian women’s history does have its own peculiarities, shaped by distinct patterns of economic and social development, by Canada’s own version of colonialism, and by in- and out-migration, not to mention historians’ past preoccupation with the nation-state and nationalisms. The receptiveness of Canadian women’s history to international scholarship and theoretical currents has been by and large very positive and productive. One problem, however, is that Anglo-American historiography is so dominant, even hegemonic, and almost always so unaware of Canadian scholarship that we have to be careful to question the conclusions and historiographical certainties enshrined in this writing, as there may well be Canadian exceptions to these ‘rules.’ Raising these would-be distinctions in international audiences can make one sound like an irritating Canadian nationalist demanding attention, but there is no way around this problem of scholarly marginalization.²

In the following discussion, I have assumed, as Judith Bennett has suggested, that we can use the term ‘women’s history’ with the understanding that it encompasses gender history, for the longer ‘women’s and gender history,’ or WGH, is a larger mouthful (or an awkward acronym). Some historians have seen these projects as distinct, and where that is the case, I try to note their standpoint on this issue. A few still see a pecking order of sophistication, with women’s history superseded by gender history.³ My own view is that hierarchies in this regard are not particularly useful. More historians would probably now concede, I hope, an overlap and interplay between these two approaches, in which other distinctions—theory, theme, method, evidence—are at least as important as the woman/gender distinction. Perhaps of greater value than setting up this hierarchy of methodological sophistication is a different, more general question: does our writing effectively uncover and understand power relations in the past, and, if so, how and why does it do this? In this regard, both gender and women’s history can be considered ‘feminist’ history (or not), depending on their commitment to feminist politics and perspectives. This might mean approaching a past without sexist or racist preconceptions, understanding the ‘why’ of women’s agency, analyzing women’s inequality where it existed, or probing the multiple power relations that have created and sustained social inequalities.

Historians like Cecilia Morgan and Beverly Boutilier have explored the history of Canadian women’s history, offering intriguing examples of women—often amateurs shut out of the corridors of academe—who valued, rescued, and recounted Canadian women’s history, long before our time. Many were animated by their own political and cultural beliefs, including feminism for some, or more often a particular vision of progress, ‘Canadianness,’ nationalism, or imperialism. Taking a different view, Aboriginal historians like Ethel Brant Monture were keenly aware of the ways in which the dominant Canadian histories had discounted and marginalized Indigenous peoples, and folklorists like Edith Fowke attempted to rescue the disappearing history of the ‘common people’ by preserving their stories and songs.⁴

While recognizing the importance of these pre-1960s historians, we usually associate the rise of women’s history with the late 1960s and the 1970s, and the explosion of curiosity, creativeness, and political energy that shaped the emergence of this new women’s history is undeniable. Inspired by the ferment of the ‘long sixties’ political movements of feminism, the New Left, and civil rights organizing, and shaped by new currents in social history that validated a focus on ordinary people rather than high politics, women’s history burst onto the academic scene with considerable optimism and political vitality. In Canada, it announced its presence with books like Women at Work: Ontario, 1880–1930, with new journals like Atlantis, and with the founding of the Canadian Committee on Women’s History (CCWH) in 1975.⁵ The foundation story of the CCWH, already told effectively by Veronica Strong-Boag,⁶ was intricately tied up with overt challenges to the barriers women faced in a profession that was not only male-dominated but also shaped by class and ethnocentric biases. However, we were not entirely alone: our attempts to question what was of scholarly significance, as well as existing professional power structures, were shared by other insurgent groups, including labour historians. Both challenged a hierarchy in which workers and women appeared to be nonentities on the historical stage, and both redirected attention to groups, themes, and power relations previously ignored in historical writing: the patriarchal relations of family life, the class relations of the workplace, or the intermingling of the two.⁷ As our historical gaze shifted to the streets, the home, and the workplace, older nationalist versions of history, so closely tied to the narrative of nation-state building, came under critical scrutiny, though Quebec social and women’s history moved in parallel and different directions, shaped by a distinct cultural history and a concern with Quebec’s own national subordination.

This moment of discovery was very much a project of the women’s movement, for feminists recognized that women needed an understanding of the past in order to reshape our present and imagine a better future. Popular women’s publications were hungry for any tidbit of women’s history. In Kinesis, a feminist newspaper produced in Vancouver, for example, a feature article on women’s history in 1976 insisted that revising our understanding of history was essential to the feminist project. History books reflected the ideas of those in power, thus excluding women, the non-white and the poor. A history of working women, Native peoples, and the poor, the author argued, would reveal a completely different story, including their struggles for equality and justice. This popular article relied on the limited research to date, including material on the vote, social reform, and British Columbia women elected to office from all political parties, but it was also deeply critical of the conservative agenda of early suffragists, detailed actions of working-class women, and was critical of racism against Aboriginal peoples. Its politics, in other words, were more radical than the historical writing it was able to cite, an interesting comment on this time period.⁸ Some of the earliest popular texts that inspired us were far-reaching, venturesome overviews that spoke to an unbounded sense of political discovery and commitment: Sheila Rowbotham’s examination of 300 years of women’s oppression and the fight against it is but one example.⁹ I taught my first women’s history course in the summer session at UPEI in 1979, using material on women in the United States, Europe, and Canada, galloping over centuries and topics—a rather audacious reach that I would not attempt so blithely now.

There is no doubt that some of the earliest attempts to delve into women’s history ‘added’ women into the existing historical concerns, whether it was the story of white settlement, industrialization, or movements for social reform and equal citizenship. Fewer applied their feminist insights directly to a retelling of the ‘old’ dominant stories of the Canadian nation, though an exception might be Barbara Roberts’s refreshing re-examination of national hero Sir John A. Macdonald through the prism of his historically maligned wives in They Drove Him to Drink.¹⁰ And yes, some pieces written in the 1970s and 1980s looked at the suffrage and feminist movements, in part because they represented one early, significant campaign for equal rights—admittedly, campaigns that involved only some women and excluded others. I never wrote about suffrage, but I have tried to imagine the context that encouraged these studies, since they are sometimes cited as evidence of the limitations and narrowness of early women’s history. In contemporary politics, this was a period when campaigns for some basic rights for women, from maternity leave to marital property rights, were ongoing and in the courts.¹¹ Feminists, newly aware of forms of contemporary oppression that had never before been ‘named,’ were understandably interested in explanations for oppression, but, as Andrée Lévesque argues for the case of Quebec, there were also attempts to understand how, where, and why women made their own history (even within the cloistered sphere of the male-dominated church). She adds that feminist historians were caught in a difficult situation: they might be accused of creating a history of victimologie, yet if one stressed women’s agency, they were ‘idealizing’ their subjects!¹²

Even historians who likely would not have called themselves liberal feminists sometimes started with the stories of more visible political women who had led public lives, left accessible archives, or whose struggles seemed, on the surface at least, to resemble more contemporary feminist concerns, such as campaigns for legal reform or reproductive control. Still, not everyone wrote about suffragists: to claim, as late as 1996, that Canadian historians have given lavish attention to the winning of female suffrage between 1916 and 1919 as the critical watershed in the construction of modern feminism oversimplifies, and thus fails to do justice to, the range of historical writing that did emerge in women’s history.¹³ While the early efforts to insert women back into history by looking at their contributions to society were part of the overall impetus for women’s history, feminist writing, argues Andrée Lévesque, was more complicated than this. In Quebec, she notes, one of the first key statements on women’s history, by Micheline Dumont, moved decisively away from traditional French-Canadian biographical celebrations of women settlers and saints, focusing on the economic and social conditions of women.¹⁴ Moreover, women’s ‘contribution’ to history, Lévesque suggests, was not necessarily interpreted in the vein of public, political history but took in previously neglected areas such as the history of motherhood, contraception, and so on.¹⁵ I am not sure that proportionally more biographical (or ‘great woman’) monographs were actually written in the very initial stage of women’s history than more recently. When I first began writing, I saw biography as a more elitist and traditional genre, as I’m sure others did too. An interest in biography, however, has been resurrected by some authors as a very effective method of probing prominent, influential women’s ideas about power, ‘race,’ and colonialism. Biographies of the prominent can provide insights into the imposition of, and challenges to, dominant ideas about race and class. However, they do inevitably leave us more focused on these notable figures rather than on the female subjects they were categorizing and describing, who appear to us only from a distance.¹⁶

To label early writing on women’s history as ‘adding women and stirring’ (a rather negative domestic analogy) thus captures only part of the project of discovery and diminishes how important (and thus radical) even adding women and stirring was in the eyes of many establishment historians. In the 1970s, women’s history was typecast in some graduate studies programs as marginal at best, trendy at worst, and there were almost no women professors teaching in this area. Those of us who survived in unsympathetic environs often found sympathetic male supervisors (as I did), but a refrain I heard from faculty and students was that women’s history was too political, biased, and partial, an excuse for our prejudices as someone put it. How could we not study men’s gender roles as well, we were asked, and those who asked were not usually early advocates of gender history; rather, they often assumed the ‘minimal’ importance of women’s history! Women were a smaller proportion of the graduate cohort than now, and though we treasured those few, beleaguered, kind women faculty who offered us support, we could also see that they were the targets of masculine marginalization: those who stuck their necks out on issues like sexual harassment might be mocked or sidelined.

Adding and stirring also misses the sense of unbounded and exciting potential at a time when almost no women’s history was written; moreover, the intent to add women to history, in its most basic form, persisted well into the 1990s and beyond, producing invaluable accounts of women within certain time periods, as well as in the professions, politics, unions, and so on.¹⁷ Nor was the intent of early writing to reconstruct a world of women, severed from society and the larger social formation. One of the initial Canadian statements on the subject urged that women’s history be integrated into social history to create an entirely new history of society.¹⁸ Influential writers like Joan Kelly (whose work inspired me) declared that we needed a more holistic history that took in a double vision of productive and reproductive relations, while Gerda Lerner called for a new vantage point and new questions for traditional history, rather than simply ‘filling in the blanks.’ We need a new history of humanity, she too declared, a slogan similar to one popular in the women’s movement at the time: Women’s liberation is human liberation.¹⁹ This dual commitment did not seem at all contradictory: as I began to explore women’s history, I was won over by feminist writers like Linda Gordon and Sheila Rowbotham, who produced impassioned and pointed feminist indictments of male domination, while simultaneously conveying a critique of class and capitalist relations, and I found that political journals committed to social justice politics, like Radical America and Socialist Review, provided the medium for these messages as much as academic journals.

It is hard to say exactly when a moment of discovery became a moment of expansion and complication. Perhaps they proceeded together. Rather than always tracing our steps in linear terms of improvement, I think it is useful to draw on Susan Friedman’s description of the dialogic tension continually operating within women’s history between efforts, on the one hand, to reclaim and restore women’s history and, on the other, an ensuing anxiety about the possibility that our feminist reproductions of history may risk repeating patterns of thought that distorted or excluded women from the master narratives to begin with.²⁰ As a result, our enthusiasms about recovery have to be continually checked by critical self-reflection. Women’s history does make compensational and oppositional truth claims²¹ (and decidedly political ones) that counter existing hegemonic views of history, but feminist critiques of the production of androcentric (hardly ‘value-free’) knowledge have also made us wary of speaking for others and of generalized truth claims. This ongoing tension between positivism and subjectivism, between truth-telling and critique, Friedman suggests, is a productive one, although she concludes that the current inordinate influence of poststructuralism risks pushing the balance too far towards relativism, a fetishization of indeterminacy, political paralysis, and a stereotyping of the naïve project of recovery.²² Perhaps we are always walking a tightrope between recovery and reflection, negotiating a continuum between objectivity and relativism.²³

Women’s historians could claim that we were simply retrieving a new narrative, a new version of history from a feminist point of view, but it was clear that there was not one feminist history, just as there were many methodological and thematic pathways into women’s history. Certainly, historians increasingly pursued many divergent areas of research, from Wendy Mitchinson’s pioneering work on operations on insane women to Bettina Bradbury’s quantitative analyses of Montreal censuses and her discoveries of pigs, cows and boarders in working-class households.²⁴ Some areas of study, such as lesbian history, were initially more fully developed outside of Canada but, over a period of twenty years, moved from virtual obscurity to greater prominence within Canada. Employing something of a whig perspective of progress, Gail Brandt suggested in a historiographic piece that, by 1990, the earlier monolithic and static interpretations of women were superseded by an increasing variety and richness in our writing, not only because the range of topics proliferated (that seems undeniable) but because ideas like the social construction of skill were developed more fully, traditional periodization was questioned, and concepts like ‘separate spheres’ interrogated.²⁵ Still, complication, in the form of analyzing differences between women, had been a theme running through feminist writing from the 1970s on, whether it was with respect to the imperialist bourgeois project of importing female domestic servants into Canada to help propagate the Anglo-Saxon race, working-class women resisting their ‘improvement’ by middle-class reformers, divisions within the suffrage movement between labour and bourgeois women, or the distinctive experience of groups of European immigrant women.²⁶ There were, of course, lacuna in our exploration of difference, particularly with reference to race and sexual orientation. While US writing focused more on race and class, with some feminist historians exploring the separate, unequal, but interconnected worlds of white and African-American women, Canadian writing focused more on class to the exclusion of race—again reflecting the women’s movement well into the 1980s.²⁷

Inevitably, we were influenced by ideas defined as new and significant in Anglo-American writing at the time. An interest in the notion of distinct women’s cultures—so evident in the United States in the late 1970s and 1980s in work by Carol Smith-Rosenberg and others—was indicated also in Canadian writing that employed a life-cycle analysis or that focused on women’s diaries, recollections, and social networks, and this writing was frequently linked to the specificities of region, place, or women’s rural work.²⁸ Nonetheless, writing on ‘women’s culture,’ often shaped by both cultural and liberal feminism, was arguably less prominent in Canada, though we too wrestled critically with the concept of ‘separate spheres.’²⁹ Regional differences in our writing were probably inevitable. More pieces on industrialization emerged in central Canada; women writing about the prairies were concerned with the division of labour in farm families; and women studying Newfoundland probed the changing nature of the family economy of fishing. Quebec was a culture unto itself and developed particular strengths related to its own social history, including explorations of both religious and lay women professionals nurtured in a Catholic milieu and among discussions of French-Canadian nationalism and the woman question. Although women’s history in its early incarnations was an important aspect of the awakening of regional history, it is not clear, as Suzanne Morton says of Atlantic Canada, to what extent women’s history really transformed how regional themes are examined—even if it has added immeasurably to that history.³⁰ Western-based feminist collections, often transborder ones, are still very common, perhaps indicating a stronger sense that prairie and coastal history has been altered in the wake of feminist critiques, as well as a regional feeling that women’s history is still defined too much by central Canadian themes and examples.³¹

One could argue that an increasingly self-critical moment emerged by the mid-1980s and into the 1990s (a rather long span of time, I admit) as feminist historians interrogated their own early assumptions, almost immediately asking what was missing, even from the newly emerging story of women’s history. An answer came from historians exploring themes such as immigration, sexuality and the law, criminalized women, or those in marginal political parties, to name only a few areas.³² Influenced in part by the demographic and political changes in Canada ushered in by the end of an ostensibly ‘white-only’ immigration policy in the late 1960s, and especially pushed by critiques penned by women of colour, women’s history did increasingly attempt to confront issues of ethnicity, race, and racism, as well as the colonial project of dispossession and subordination that defined our nation-state and shaped the lives of Indigenous women so profoundly. The latter, of course, had not been completely absent: we should not discount the pioneering work done by scholars like Sylvia Van Kirk and Jennifer Brown in fur trade studies.³³

New political priorities did mean that the way we posed our questions had to be rethought: rather than examining women factory workers, we had to look more closely at domestic work and the informal economy; rather than looking for women’s political activism in feminist groups and political parties, we had to explore women’s organizing on the basis of their ethnic, racial, linguistic, and cultural identities; rather than associating ‘race’ solely with women of colour, we had to address white identity as well. Although poststructuralist writing on difference and identities may have shaped this new concern with ethnic and racial differences, it was also a profoundly political response to critiques circulating within the women’s movement at the time. Feminist historians—and I include myself—may have imperfectly integrated a race analysis into our writing of women’s history, but there has been a shift over time in our sensibilities in this regard. I think it inaccurate to suggest that there is an immoveable group of feminist historians who see a ‘race’ analysis as abandoning gender.³⁴ Rather, many historians are struggling to understand the specificity of women’s lives within the categories of analysis that are most salient to their research context, with race being one of those. In the early twentieth century, for instance, Newfoundland outport women’s lives were profoundly shaped not only by gender but by merchant and industrial capitalism, regional poverty, and religious and cultural identity.³⁵

We can also make some very broad generalizations about feminist and critical theory: earlier works in the 1970s and into the 1980s were influenced by varieties of ‘modernist’ feminist theories, including those trying to understand ‘patriarchy’ or, like the pioneering Women at Work: Ontario, 1880–1930, by Marxism and Marxist-feminist writing.³⁶ Some historians put more emphasis on gender oppression, seeing this as a means of changing the past and the present,³⁷ while others drew on E.P. Thompson’s ‘Marxist-humanist’ vision of history and feminist-socialist debates about the relationships between capitalism and patriarchy. My socialization was shaped particularly by the latter two currents: Thompson’s emphasis on class formation as both a material and cultural phenomenon, on experience as a dialectical process, and on the importance of human agency seemed to offer a vision of the past that opened up rather than closed down the possibilities of a feminist and socialist analysis.³⁸ Still, there was never an entirely either/or distinction between class and gender: even those stressing gender as a ‘primary category’ in their writing, for instance, were not completely inattentive to class, at least in Canada.

Interdisciplinary exchange also played a role in shaping emerging theoretical approaches. Feminist political economists, many of whom were sympathetic to structural and materialist approaches, produced historical studies on women, work, and the welfare state, and their work was not insignificant to the emerging feminist oeuvre. I suspect that women’s history was less influenced by literary theory here than it was in the United States—though certainly there was some interchange between the two fields.³⁹ Poststructuralist theory—the ‘linguistic turn’—and a parallel thematic interest in culture, representation, and identity were clearly increasingly influential by the 1990s onwards,⁴⁰ though other theoretical proclivities, including feminist materialism, did not completely wither away. The influence of queer theory, postcolonialism, and some poststructuralist writing on language was also evident by the mid-1990s. On the international scene, some historians went so far as to suggest that gender history had literally been brought into being by poststructuralist theory. While this claim did not dominate Canadian writing, it was a distortion of the historiography that understandably irritated socialist feminists.⁴¹

There was perhaps less debate about the theoretical benefits of ‘post’ theorizing in Canadian women’s history than there was in Anglo-American social history more generally. This can hardly be chalked up to younger historians’ timid fears of one Marxist historian, a rather facile claim (and an insulting one to the historians who were using theory) put forward by Mariana Valverde.⁴² It is more likely that the insights of ‘post’ theory were simply taken for granted as Canadian historians followed an international trajectory in which materialism and Marxism were on the decline. They looked outside our borders for the key texts shaping this debate, and, following some Anglo-American social historians, some suggested that a more a pluralist ‘accommodation’ between materialism and poststructuralism was the answer.⁴³ The latter accommodationist or integrationist enterprise (summed up most recently by Geoff Eley and Keith Nield’s claim that we do not have to choose) persists in some writing.⁴⁴ However, I am not alone in seeing some of these attempts to find a ‘third way’ as problematic, not only because they can become a new form of liberal pluralism,⁴⁵ but also because many authors ultimately do choose which theory to validate and which to undermine or reject, even if subtly so, and it was more likely to be historical materialism that was portrayed as lacking or ‘myopic.’⁴⁶

In her 1991 historiographic piece, A Postmodern Patchwork, Gail Brandt suggests that women’s historians in Canada were drawn to post-structuralist notions of diversity and mutability, as well as its dislike of generalization and discrete categories of analysis.⁴⁷ Yet generalization and categories of analysis were not banished from historical writing in the wake of poststructuralism, and few Canadian feminist historians truly embraced forms of radical deconstructionism advocated by writers like Hayden White. Poststructuralism certainly had an influence, perhaps a discreet, subterranean one that persists today, and many women’s historians paid an almost ritual homage to Joan Scott’s writing on language and gender. However, this does not mean they embraced poststructuralism in a thoroughgoing manner, and this was perhaps especially true in Quebec.⁴⁸

Still, for those of us who are sympathetic to historical materialism, class seemed increasingly to become a silent partner in women’s history, and, symbolically, labour historians’ texts were judged by their attention to gender, while feminist histories were not held to account for class in the same way.⁴⁹ In international circles of Anglo-American writing, the theoretical shift away from a social history shaped by Marxism was well documented, though the same trends were not necessarily found in non-Western ‘third world’ contexts. Not only was social history not supplanted by cultural history in Latin America, argues Barbara Weinstein, but Anglo-American assertions that the integration of gender into social history signals the highest pinnacle of scholarly theoretical sophistication creates a hierarchy in which Latin Americanists appear to be lagging behind, surely an insulting equation. Her warning connects to the arguments of some Indigenous women in North America who lay claim to different historical priorities than non-Aboriginal women; for them, categories of imperialism or race, rather than gender, may yield more significant master narratives.⁵⁰

In feminist theory more generally in North America, class did not disappear; indeed, it was often invoked as a marker of difference, but it was described more in terms of identity than with reference, as it had been earlier, to the productive and reproductive relations undergirding capitalism. In the wake of a new individualism evident in politics and theory by the 1990s, argues Beverly Skeggs, class was seen as redundant or as a relic from modernism which had no applicability to the ability to travel through differences, unencumbered by structure and inequality. Class, publishers informed her dismissively, no longer sells.⁵¹ A movement away from class was even the case for those using intersectionalist theory (as I did too), perhaps suggesting that I/we should have been more cognizant of some of the problems with intersectionality. We looked to intersectionality as a means of avoiding an ‘add-on’ analysis of compounding inequalities, focusing instead on the interconnected, seemingly indivisible aspects of social life. It also promised an analysis still interested in listening to multiply marginalized outsider voices.⁵² However, at one end of the spectrum of intersectionality writing, all categories of analysis were simply deconstructed,⁵³ and attention was focused on the multiplicity of differences within individual identity. Some of the intersectionality writing paid relatively little attention to class,⁵⁴ and indeed, key ontological differences between kinds of inequality—race, class, gender, and so on—were occluded. The methodological murkiness of intersectionality, a failure to address the structural level of oppression, and the tendency to skirt questions of origins thus remain problems with intersectionality writing.⁵⁵ The different ways in which intersectionality has been used by feminists are increasingly under critique and reconsideration,⁵⁶ offering the possibility that insights about the interconnectedness of social life may be retained without neglecting the importance of structural inequalities. Interestingly, in the last two years, some prominent US-based feminists have suggested a reconsideration of class analysis and Marxism, in light of their recognition that global capitalism was able to accommodate and reconfigure key demands of ‘second wave’ feminism. One might argue that the ‘fit’ between feminism and capitalism was encouraged far more by postmodern and liberal feminism than socialist feminism since the latter group did not completely abandon the much-maligned metanarratives of Marxism or their critique of structural inequalities. Nonetheless, even if this insight about accommodation is not entirely new, a renewed look at it may take feminist theory in productive new pathways.⁵⁷

The National Question and Feminist History

One example of how Canadian women’s history both intersected with international scholarship and followed its own distinct path is to be found in debates concerning the ‘nation.’ Although Anglo-American and French feminist historians have certainly written about the ways in which gendered power relations and discourses have shaped definitions of the nation,⁵⁸ Canadian women’s historians have arguably wrestled with a more fragmented notion of the nation. Within our nation-state, there has long been more than one group constructed as a nation, and this has inevitably complicated gender history. Early on, both French- and English-speaking feminists defined themselves as part of a specific nation, and there are other groups of women who would still define themselves as located within a cultural nation shaped by ethnicity and history. There are also feminists within Canada who see their own liberation not simply in gendered terms but in national and anticolonial terms as well. For those writing women’s history, in other words, the ‘nation’ had not only been problematic because it was originally equated with a masculine story of political evolution, thereby marginalizing aspects of women’s history deemed less central to this ‘public’ realm, but also because the notion of a homogeneous nation has been so contentious for many groups. This is particularly true for Québécois and Aboriginals but also for those on the economically regional outskirts of the nation. It is for this reason that one commentator has suggested that an understanding of fragmentation and critiques of essentialism were already known to Canadian feminists before postmodern critics popularized them.⁵⁹

It may seem peculiar to explore the concept of the nation when the current emphasis is on creating transnational histories that escape or ‘rise above’ the limited categories of past analyses: too often, claims a group of new scholars who are somewhat dismissive of their predecessors, we continue to fall back on the comfortable fiction of the nation.⁶⁰ While this historiographical assertion needs some interrogation, the value of thinking transnationally about women’s history, as many historians have already rehearsed, is obvious: it allows us to research and write comparatively; trace the movement of populations, cultures, and ideas across national boundaries; analyze the common and distinct social forces that shaped women’s lives and gender relations; and highlight divergent patterns of colonialism, class, and ‘race’ politics shaping feminist thought and practice, to name a few areas.⁶¹ Historians of empire have made particularly good use of transnational work, though some of this is essentially comparative history with a new name.⁶² Still, the legal regimes, environmental resources, and political cultures of the nation-state were important influences on women’s lives, as were their loyalty to, and critiques of, national identity. So we must ask why and how these influences affected their histories and history writing. Moreover, even though Canadian historians have offered critiques of national and/or nationalist metanarratives, they have often circled back, interpretively, to the nation as their focus or as a means of framing the parameters of their study.⁶³ I see no reason to privilege transnational history as far superior to those histories bounded by the nation, since good transnational histories must ultimately be built on accounts of the relationships, entanglements, and conflicts between the local, regional, national, and global. One could even argue that Canadian history is itself transnational given the multiple nations within its boundaries (an idea some American colleagues looked on rather askance when I tried it out on them).

From the early 1970s and into the 1980s, feminist historians often had an ambiguous if not contradictory relationship to the concept of a Canadian nation and to nationalism. Feminists wanted women included in the nation’s history in order to fill gaps and silences and, ultimately, to transform that history itself. Like feminist historians in many countries, they opposed a traditional nationalist history of wars and high politics, often promoted by leading malestream historians as the pre-eminent and most significant metanarrative to be studied. Standing at the core of both teaching and research in the post-World War II period, this national history had often focused on the nation as either a progressive, optimistic story of Canada’s liberal political evolution or as a more pessimistic, conservative story in which Canada went from British colony to nation to American colony. In Quebec, the nation was highly contested, but in different ways, with English Canada rather than the United States the focus of anticolonial critique. National identity was also theorized as a product of our distinct relation to the environment, the North, and the emergence of a ‘peaceable kingdom.’ However, this comforting image of the ‘peaceable kingdom’ ignored public and private histories of violence and dissention, occluded gender, and as one critic has suggested, implicitly valorized the superiority of the white Euro-Canadian founding nations.⁶⁴

When feminist historians first argued that we needed to redefine the meaning of the political and interrogate a national history that excluded workers, women, and Aboriginals, we were not, however, completely questioning the very basis of nation itself as a category of historical analysis.⁶⁵ One reason was probably that English-Canadian feminists like myself, who came of political age in the 1970s, had lived through intense political discussions, across ideological and party lines, about our colonial relationship with the United States; remnants of this concern with the cultural and economic domination of the Canadian nation likely lingered on. Second, nationalism was a key organizing principle of activist and academic politics for Quebec feminists who were deeply involved in their own nation-building project in the years after the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. The impressive synthesis of women’s history first published by Le Collectif Clio in 1982 was an attempt to bring to light the distinct history of the Québécois. Rather than rejecting a nation-based identity, the authors sought to recast Quebec’s history, questioning its traditional categories and periodization, by integrating women and a feminist perspective into the narrative.⁶⁶ At the same time, the ongoing political concern with recognizing Quebec as a nation likely left Quebec feminists in a difficult situation: their case for historical redress could be seen as less important than the overall need for national redress from a confining federalism. Feminist historians were not necessarily hostile to nationalism, but they could be critical of it, as Micheline Dumont was in her analysis of the sexist language and assumptions in some nationalist literature.⁶⁷

These two national solitudes of feminism have been an ongoing element of Canadian women’s history.⁶⁸ Quebec feminist historians have rightly questioned why relations with their English-speaking colleagues are so often ‘one way,’ with the English language dominating, while Quebec women’s history written in French remains largely unexamined by anglophones. Although English and French-Canadian women’s history have shared many concerns, differences—in how we periodize history (especially with respect to feminist activity), in the dominant methodologies used, and in the themes explored—still exist. A form of ‘implicit separatism’ has come to operate, as Denyse Baillargeon has suggested.⁶⁹ This may be in part because of an increasing focus on transnational rather than national histories, but it is also because Quebec no longer commands the same political attention in English Canada that it once did. Opportunities for comparative work or, better, examinations of our entangled histories, as Magda Farhni argues, have not been developed.⁷⁰ When the CCWH was first founded, it was cognizant of the need to address the two solitudes, and we found some commonality in co-operative professional efforts. The problem remains, however, and is not helped by the fact that many of us imagine that, intellectually and culturally, Quebec has already gone its own separate way.⁷¹ Even if the solution, as one Quebec feminist colleague tells me, is to sustain our ‘internationalist’ ties with each other, we cannot do so in linguistic solitudes.

Another shift in the view of nation emerged from those writing Aboriginal history, whose work challenged that long-established cornerstone of Canadian history, the idea of two founding nations. Instead, Aboriginal historians spoke of the First Nations and the white settler newcomers. Feminists influenced by postcolonialism also began to critically dissect the nation as an imaginary that was synonymous with gendered, racist, and ethnocentric discourses and practices.⁷² In this historical work, women were not added to the nation as much as the nation itself was held up for scrutiny, including its racialized and gendered dimensions (though class, notably, is not so visible). If in the 1970s feminist historians sought to make women historical subjects and actors within the nation, by the turn of the century scholarship increasingly examined the symbolic meanings of the nation, using a gender and race critique. Race was deeply woven into the nation-building project, it was argued, including in terms of exclusion/inclusion, as immigration policy de facto kept Canada an overwhelmingly white country until the later twentieth century. This question was extended to the constructions of nation within a global context: Sherene Razack has asked how the Canadian state created an image of a protective, gentler peacekeeping military nation while remaining violently complicit in racism and imperialism.⁷³ Research on ethnicity has also indicated the complicated creation of women’s national loyalties. The Ukrainian communist women of the 1920s that I wrote about (who were left out of the dominant definitions of an Anglo, ‘white’ Canadian ‘nation’ at the time) related to multiple nations: their cultural nation of origin, their current national home, and the nation of their political ideals, the Soviet Union.⁷⁴

Despite the impact of feminist and other criticisms of traditional national history, it has proven hard to escape the nation. This holds true even if our aim is to critique it, and even if it is important that we continue to question and trouble the nation, particularly the ways in which it is defined by inclusions and exclusions.⁷⁵ And given that the local state is often first in our line of political sight when we fight for rights and resources for women, our interest in understanding the mechanics of the nation-state is not entirely misplaced. Moreover, contra postmodern