It is difficult to differentiate the ‘Foundations’ of Canadian Studies from the ideas presented by Thomas H.B. Symons in To Know Ourselves: the Report of the Commission on Canadian Studies (1975), written under the auspices of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. Symons held an executive leadership role in this organization as well as the Association of Commonwealth Universities, the Canadian Association in Support of Native Peoples (formerly the Indian-Eskimo Association of Canada), and the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. It was through the latter organization that I came to personally know both Symons and his perspectives on Canadian Studies.
During an oral history interview, I asked Symons his perspectives on the inclusion of Indigenous histories within a Canadian nationalist history. Specifically, I asked about the inclusion of Indigenous histories from the paleolithic period, questioning how sites of Indigenous occupancy from 12,000 years ago could be recognized as national historic sites of Canada, a designation stressing the significance of a nation founded by a settler society several millennia later. In response, Symons told me that he conceptualized Canada based on its current geographical boundaries, regardless of the time or people under consideration. We expressed our different opinions over the next several hours, with me stating that this perspective erased the sovereignty of Indigenous nations who still exist alongside the nation state of Canada, despite affirmations made by Canada that it holds the sole sovereignty over these territories.
Symons’ perspectives from that conversation in 2019 differed from his initial plans for the report To Know Ourselves, published fifty years earlier. The first two volumes of his extensive study were published by the Association of Universities and Colleges in Canada. The fourth volume was meant to feature a separate section called Native Studies in Canadian Post-Secondary Education. This differentiation should be recognized as a ‘Foundation’ worthy of discussion at this symposium. Symons recognized in 1975 that Indigenous histories could be a component of Canadian Studies while also recognizing the significant differences that set one field apart from the other. Symons had already acted on these differences by supporting the first Indian-Eskimo Studies program at Trent University in 1969 (six years before To Know Ourselves), which transitioned into the first university-level Department of Native Studies in 1972 (three years before the report). This program acknowledged that the study of Indigenous Peoples and the study of Canada were distinct in relation to subject matter, methodology, and disciplinary focus. This difference should be maintained, especially as we enter a period of post-secondary education that attempts to prioritize the concepts of decolonization. I would argue that a field such as Canadian Studies cannot decolonize itself. Perhaps it would be more relevant if the field were to acknowledge the legacies of colonialism that are inherently associated with the nationalist study of a country. This might align more directly with Symons’ vision from fifty years ago.
Some might question if Canadian Studies as an academic discipline is inherently nationalist. To Know Ourselves tried to answer this in 1975, relying on language that is equally consequential to our political situation in 2026. Symons wrote that “Canada provides a North American alternative to life under the Government of the United States. Canadian studies [provides] students with an opportunity to examine the significance of this alternative and to assess its practical effects upon their lives.” His report was written in a context not too far from that which encouraged the Massey Commission, notably a desire to differentiate and define Canada in response to the United States. While that context is relevant for understanding how the field of Canadian Studies developed in the years after the Symons Report, it is also necessary to historicize and contextualize Symons himself. He was nationalist who situated his nationalism within the British Commonwealth. He was active in the Progressive Conservative Party, was offered a seat in the Senate, and was asked to serve as the Governor General of Canada. Symons’ nationalism cannot be separated from the ways in which he viewed Canadian Studies nor from his recommendations for its future growth as a discipline.
One of the ‘Foundational’ questions raised by Symons in 1975, which remains consequential fifty years later, is the methodological approach that best suits the study of Canada. To Know Ourselves approached this question by bringing together the subjects that formed the basis for Canadian Studies, including Literature and Linguistics, Economics, Geography, History, Political Science, Sociology, and Anthropology. The report stressed that “no one approach to Canadian studies is uniformly applicable; nor is it desirable. […] some [universities] will be best served by a formal programme of Canadian Studies, while others will find non-designated clusters and informal combinations of courses relating to Canada more relevant to their circumstances.” To Know Ourselves went even further and stressed the necessity of institutional diversity, adding “it would be unfortunate if, in Canadian Studies or other fields, our universities were to seek uniformity in their approach to educational matters.” The questions of curriculum and methodology take on further meaning within the context of the chronic underfunding of post-secondary institutions. The elimination of disciplinary silos and the overall reduction of faculty positions will likely result in what Symons referred to as “informal clusters of courses relating to Canada,” spread across diverse disciplines such as Literature, Economics, History, and Sociology, each with their own methodological approaches. This will result in Canada, as a country, becoming the only common denominator.
Canadian Studies, as a discipline, has been shaped by continuity and change over the past fifty years. When reading To Know Ourselves, it quickly becomes clear that Tom Symons and his fellow commissioners had struggled to contextualize the ‘Foundations’ that would shape their analysis and recommendations in 1975. The foundations for Canadian Studies are similarly opaque in 2026, with factors, both international and institutional, making it difficult to conceptualize what the field might look like ten years from now. In conclusion, it seems that Symons favoured organic growth, which perhaps remains as the only viable strategy.
