Abstract
I’m not a historian by training. I note this by way of positioning myself as a reviewer because the volume under review is the work of historians who have a disciplinary expertise different from my own. Moreover, how we position ourselves and the lens through which we view the world matters because that lens shapes our assessment. To that end, let me note that I’m a settler, I’m white, and I’m a critical feminist scholar housed in an interdisciplinary department of Global and International Studies. My home institution is located on the traditional territory of the Lheidli T’enneh.
Breaking Barriers, Shaping Worlds is a volume about discovery and recovery of women in the history of Canada’s foreign relations. The authors in the volume provide us much needed insights into the realm of women in international spaces and places, thus disrupting the telling of history that hides, silences, minimizes, and denies the work and contributions of women in a variety of sectors. The stories recovered by the authors in the volume range from the work of Marie Smallface-Marule and the way her Indigenous internationalism “was a response to both ongoing colonialism and decolonialism” (136) to the diplomacy of Jean Casselman Wadds during the patriation of the constitution (chapter eight). In the introduction, Jill Campbell-Miller and Greg Donaghy tell us that this is the “first edited collection to specifically examine women who shaped Canada’s international history” (4). For this reason alone, it is a volume worth reading. I do, however, have a few questions.
One of the things I found particularly intriguing about this volume is the authors’ experiences with archival research. For example, David Webster observes that “archives preserve men’s stories more than women’s. Historians amplify the silences in the way we tell stories” (66). Historians are not alone in amplifying silences in the way they tell stories because political science and international studies are rife with grand narratives that ignore and silence women and deny gender. However, the references to archival work and the challenges faced by the authors made me wonder about their research processes and the kind of work that they had to do to even tell the stories of the women their work highlighted. Maybe that’s another volume, but I was very curious about it because it seems to be a unique challenge worthy of sharing with a broader audience.
I am also curious to know if the authors of the respective chapters would consider their work to be feminist, or if they would self-identify as feminist historians. I’m not sure. I ask because the volume starts off with a reference to the work of Deborah Stienstra written in 1994 that asks if the silences have been broken in terms of women and gender in Canadian foreign policy. Stienstra argues that it’s not enough to simply look at “women as a subject” and that rather we need to focus on gender relations (3). It seems that some of the chapters do focus on women as a subject and engage in what has been called an “add women and stir” approach. Questions of gender then remain absent. While some feminists are highly critical of the “add women and stir” approach, I think it can be a useful way to at least start conversations with those who are unfamiliar with gender, and can function as a sort of “thin edge of the feminist wedge.” But on its own, it is not enough.
I wonder, how do the authors situate themselves? What frameworks do they bring to their analysis? Some of the authors most certainly share insights into frameworks and concepts that inform their work. For example, in her chapter on the Voice of Women, Susan Colbourn introduces the concept of “Cold War maternalism” (116) and notes that the Voice of Women made arguments that “illustrated diverse and entangled concepts of security” (117). As I read her chapter, I wanted to know more about these intriguing concepts. Similarly, Eric Fillion and David Webster, in their respective chapters, build on the work of Cynthia Enloe, and raise fascinating questions about gender and the politics of marriage.
I also wonder, what are the responsibilities of a historian when writing about a woman who, while breaking barriers, was working from a profound place of privilege, engaged in the work of colonizers or outright anti-feminist work? I have no doubt that there are volumes of debate on this in the history literature, but I just don’t know the answer to this question, and it is one that multiple disciplines should tackle. Authors in this volume such as Jill Campbell-Miller and Kim Girouard are clear that the women’s stories they tell are also stories of whiteness and colonial practices, but how do we square the accomplishments of these women with the racism behind their accomplishments? Is it about being able to embrace complexity, or is it more than that? I don’t know and I’m curious.
I have questions, and questions are never a bad thing. It means that the authors made me think as I read the volume. I thank them for their work because they introduced me to many women about whom I had little knowledge. I also want to acknowledge that one of the co-editors, Greg Donaghy, died very suddenly during the final production of this volume. There is a touching appreciation written about Greg Donaghy at the end of the volume that speaks to the momentous impact he had in his field and beyond. I think he would be proud of this volume and its contributions to the recovery of the women in Canadian foreign relations history.
