NOTE TO USERS

This reproduction is the best copy available.

UMJ®

THE STATE OF THE INTERWAR SOCIAL SCIENCES IN NOVA SCOTIA

by

Paul Fraser Armstrong

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

at

Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia September 2009

© Copyright by Paul Fraser Armstrong, 2009 Library and Archives Bibliotheque et 1*1 Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OttawaONK1A0N4 OttawaONK1A0N4 Canada Canada

Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-56381-6 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-56381-6

NOTICE: AVIS:

The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distribute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats.

The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission.

In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la lot canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these.

While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis.

1*1 Canada DALHOUSIE UNIVERSITY

To comply with the Canadian Privacy Act the National Library of Canada has requested that the following pages be removed from this copy of the thesis:

Preliminary Pages Examiners Signature Page (pii) Dalhousie Library Copyright Agreement (piii)

Appendices - Copyright Releases (if applicable) , Dedication

To the Memory of my Mother and Father who were first among those who taught me to be a better human being.

To C. Russell Elliott, servant of God, friend and teacher.

And to all those scholars, not least of whom are those who supported this research, who so freely shared their knowledge, guided me to a deeper understanding, and helped me find expression in this work.

My grace is sufficient for you, for power is made perfect in weakness. 2 Corinthians 12:9

IV Table of Contents

Abstract vi

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Chapter 2: Existing Canadian Models The Prehistory Model 6 The Humanist Model 10

Chapter 3: Interwar Social Science at Toronto John Allan Irving (1903-1965) 15 Samuel Delbert Clark (1910-2003) 18 Chester Bailey Martin (1882-1958) 22 Final Remarks 25

Chapter 4: The Social Economics Model An Alternative Moral Science 26 Weberian Social Economics 28 Transmission to America 35 Young' s Correction of Mitchell 3 7

Chapter 5: Interwar Social Science in Nova Scotia Daniel Joseph MacDonald (18 81 -1948) 41 Samuel Henry Prince (1886-1960) 48 Alfred Burpee Balcom (1876-1943) 56 Final Remarks 63

Chapter 6: Conclusion 64

References 69

V Abstract

I begin by setting out a methodological dispute concerning the respective roles of recursive causation and contingent history in the development of the social sciences, and suggest that greater attention to the comparative analysis of forms of intellectual practice may contribute to a resolution of this dispute. In Canada, early institutional and structural analysis by sociologists focussed on the disciplinary separations that occurred in the 1960s, and was later rationalized with Robert Brym's prehistory model. Detailed investigations in intellectual history, however, showed the coherence of social science practice in the interwar period, and A.B. McKillop's humanist model represents a robust alternative. Using representative faculty members, I examine the form that interwar social science took at the University of Toronto, and conclude that it is a good match for the McKillop model. The practice of interwar social science in Nova Scotia, however, has other salient features, and I elaborate an alternative model of social economics that appears to be a better match for the historical practice in Nova Scotia. I conclude that this kind of analysis offers some prospect for advancing a resolution of the underlying methodological dispute.

VI Chapter 1 - Introduction

In a stimulating article on historical epistemologies, Peter Wagner (1995) advances a cogent argument concerning the development of the social sciences. He suggests, reasonably, that the level of epistemological certainty varies from time to time within a scientific community, and that this variation can be an object of investigation. He traces various changes in epistemological understanding within the social sciences, arguing that the confidence of social scientists in their concepts and methods reached an all-time high in 1960, gradually giving way again to skepticism.1

Wagner recognizes that a state-transition occurred between the interwar and postwar periods, but he regards it as only a moment in a larger development process in which institutional, cognitive and political linkages were built during the first half of the twentieth century.

My own reading of the history of the social sciences suggests the existence of a long-term intellectual transformation that began during that classical period and ended in the 1960s ... It was the transformation of the restricted liberal modernity of the 19th century into a fully inclusive social configuration. (Wagner, 1995: p. 185)

Stephen Turner, in a series of incisive essays over the last twenty years,2 provides a similar explanation for the development of sociology, although with more emphasis on the institutional and cognitive interactions, and less on the linkages with, and influence of, the state. He relates the story of the development of mainstream American sociology

We should limit this self-understanding of the social sciences to the mainstream and not the moving edge: the moving edge would be the breakdown in the positivist separation of facts and values. See Putnam (2002) for a discussion of Quine's 1951 criticism of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy and its implications for the separation of facts and values. 2 See, for example, Turner, (1991, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2007a, 2007b), and Turner and Turner (1990).

1 as one of continuity - of a steady rise to dominance of quantitative method as the ruling paradigm.

American quantitative sociology, as a distinctive enterprise with something resembling a "paradigm", began to take a distinctive form in the 1890s and came to dominate the field in the first three decades of the 20th century under the leadership of Franklin H. Giddings, the first professor of sociology at Columbia. (Turner, 2007b: p. 13)3

There is an alternative account, however, which emphasizes a transition period over a much narrower segment of time, perhaps a decade or so in duration from the interwar period to the immediate postwar period, say 1939-1949. We see fundaments of this account, for instance, in a discussion by Carl Schorske of the postwar change in American academic culture:

The most important cross-disciplinary illumination was the identification of a virtual refounding of all four disciplines [literature, philosophy, economics, political science] in the 1940s and 1950s. (Bender and Schorske, 1998: p. 6)

It bespeaks a moment in American academic culture when it was preparing to turn away from the nineteenth century primacy of a loose, historical conception of meaning - from range to rigor, from a loose engagement with a multifaceted reality historically perceived to the creation of sharp analytic tools that could promise certainty where description and speculative explanation had prevailed before. (Schorske, 1998: p. 315)

In recent work, George Steinmetz has advanced an analysis of the "radical transformation" thesis in a series of strong, provocative essays on American sociology.4 Consistent with his story about the rise of methodological positivism in the postwar

3 Cristobal Young (2009) is the latest to support this account. He uses a stage theory with a new dataset to argue for the progressive separation of sociology from economics. 4 See, for example, Steinmetz (2004, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c, 2007).

2 period, he argues for a sequence of contingent, historical events interacting with macro- structures in American society.

The consolidation of the sociological-scientific field after World War II cannot be explained simply in terms of disciplinary maturation or generational succession ... After the war, social reality became more orderly and was presented using tropes of stability, repetition, and "the end of history" ... Because social practices were more regular and repetitive, it was plausible to forecast and even to control them. For historically contingent reasons, in other words, social reality now resonated powerfully with methodological positivism. (Steinmetz, 2007: p.p 362-364)

These alternative theses - the longue duree of Wagner and Turner, and the contingent history of Schorske and Steinmetz - are united in their understanding of the object of investigation: the postwar dominance of analytic, synchronic explanatory accounts in social science. They differ sharply, though, in their explanatory strategies. In the longue duree, mechanisms of recursive causation are highlighted for the order which they cumulatively select. In contingent history, mechanisms of genetic causation are highlighted for the order which they radically transform. The disputes, in other words, are centrally methodological.

The chief historiographic problem for the development of the social sciences in Canada appears, at least at first sight, to be rather different. What is striking about the development of the Anglo-Canadian social sciences is that the disciplinary separation that was well-established in the United States by 1930 was not similarly accomplished in Canada until about I960.5

5 Abbott (2001) notes that three-quarters of the major American universities had separate sociology departments by 1930; Young (2009) shows that 15 of the top 20 sociology departments (by PhDs granted 1920-1939) were separately formed by 1930. With the exception of McGill, no Canadian university had a separate sociology department until about 1960. McMaster seems to have been next after McGill, establishing a separate department in 1958. Of course, there were Chairs in Sociology, and the subject was taught well before those dates in both the United States and Canada: see Tomovic (1975) for statistical

3 The early explanations by sociologists of the development of Canadian social science are stories about institutional diffusion (Tomovic, 1975; Hiller, 1980), in which British and American exemplars were emulated, disciplinary perspectives were differentiated, and institutional autonomy was achieved. In a forceful re-interpretation, Robert Brym (1989) rationalized this history, and dismissed the "sociological" work prior to disciplinary separation as prehistory.

The chief alternative to this model developed within intellectual history. Intellectual history in Canada had a later start than it did in the United States, developing about the same time as Marxist-inspired social history was getting off the ground. The result was that many young scholars were attracted to the study of the excluded and marginalized (Dummitt, 2009), rather than the intellectual history that might otherwise have developed. While there was some experimentation with intellectual tools and perspectives, it is only in the last two decades that there has developed the rich infrastructure of micro-studies that is necessary to support large explanatory historical models of development. The most notable exception to this sequence of events was the path-breaking study of A. B. McKillop (1979), who traced the early dominance of Scottish common sense in Canada, and the later rise of philosophical idealism under the influential leadership of John Watson at Queen's University. He suggests that this formed the base for a humanist model of social science in the interwar period - a practice which was cross-disciplinary, theoretical and historical.

I examine the intellectual output of several social scientists at the University of Toronto during the interwar period, and conclude that there is a good fit with McKillop's model there. The data about interwar social science practice in Nova Scotia is not a good fit though. As a result, I elaborate a model of social economics with a practice which is cross-disciplinary, practical and ethical. Using three faculty representatives, I examine their intellectual output, their "intellectual pedigrees" (with whom and where they did their highest degree), and the textbooks they used in their teaching. I conclude that there

data on early sociology in Canada; see Morgan (1966) for statistical data on early sociology in the United States.

4 is better support for this model in Nova Scotia, and it suggests that there were multiple coherent alternatives to the disciplinary model that became dominant after 1960.

The explanation of the variation in the forms that Canadian social science took in the interwar period is outside my argument, but I conclude by suggesting that the character and timing of the institutionalization of religion in Nova Scotia and Upper Canada may account for the differences in kind which developed within social science practice.

Finally, I relate this analysis back to the larger methodological debate with which I started my discussion about the explanatory frameworks for the development of the social sciences, and conclude that a closer and more sensitive analysis of the forms of intellectual production may be a means of advancing a resolution on these vexed issues.

5 Chapter 2 - Existing Canadian Models

I want to turn now to an analysis of the theoretical field defined by the current literature on the history of the Canadian social sciences.

Within the literature, there are currently two major competing explanations of the history of Canadian social science. What I want to do in this chapter is to define and set out the "prehistory" model of Robert Brym and the "humanist" model of A. B. McKillop. I will sketch the central argument of each explanation, and indicate why I believe the "prehistory" model fails and the "humanist" model succeeds.

The Prehistory Model

As the protagonist of this first model, I will use the fine scholar, Robert Brym, as he has provided a particularly good example of this theoretical position.

Brym (with Bonnie Fox) wrote a widely-read history of Canadian sociology in 1989. This monograph is a slightly edited version of a lengthy article by him on the development of English Canadian sociology that was published in the journal Current Sociology in 1986. An additional chapter for the book was added on the development of feminist theory by his co-author, Bonnie Fox. Brym does not address what he refers to as "Quebecois" sociology, as he rightly contends that French-Canadian sociologists form a relatively distinct academic community within Canada.

The skeleton of Brym's argument is clear: the period before 1960 in Canada can be viewed as the prehistory of sociology;6 during the 1960s, sociology was institutionalized in English Canada around a cultural-institutional paradigm, seen in the work of such leading figures as S. D. Clark (development), Seymour Lipset (politics), and John Porter (stratification); theoretical and empirical work during the 1970s and 1980s showed the

6 "There is some justification for viewing the period before 1960 as the prehistory of sociology in English Canada" (Brym, 1989: 15). Cf. Falardeau (1974) on "precurseurs et pre-sociologie".

6 inadequacies of this framework; and this led to its triumphant replacement with a structural paradigm.

The narrative structure of Brym's story is classical in form - conflict, crisis, climax, denouement - and is encapsulated in the title of the monograph: From Culture to Power.

The term, prehistory, is a concept that was used originally to differentiate the period of time before writing was introduced, from that which followed. During the twentieth century, however, it became increasingly used in a metaphorical sense to denote an earlier period in which some process or activity was immature, from a later period in which missing components have been added or missing relationships have been completed. Robert K. Merton, for instance, considered the "speculations of a Comte or a Spencer, a Hobhouse or a Ratzenhofer" as part of the prehistory of sociology.7 This conception of progressive history bears the mark of the modernization theory that was so influential in the early post-war years. It seems odd, therefore, to find this same conception appearing again in Brym's history at the end of the 1980s.8

What then accounts for Brym's characterization of sociology before 1960 as part of the "prehistory" of the discipline in Canada. It is certainly true that disciplinary sociology at Canadian universities was weak institutionally as measured by department formation, disciplinary associations and journals, and research funding. The two strongest centres for social science in the interwar period were at McGill and at the University of Toronto. However, while Carl Dawson shaped McGill sociology in the

7 Merton used the term, "prehistory", in the introductory essay to his masterwork, Social Theory and Social Structure, in the 1949 edition (p. 5). In the early form of that essay, published in 1948 in the American Sociological Review, he refers to the work of Comte et al as being "chiefly of historical interest"; in the subsequent edition of the book in 1957, Merton adopts the gentler term, "early history". In the 1968 edition of the book, Merton expands what was a three paragraph section on history and systematics into a thirty-eight page essay; what he uses there is the much more sophisticated language of "prediscoveries", "anticipations", and "adumbrations". 8 It is not, though, as odd as it might seem. Modernization theory was a liberal form of an historical law of succession and represented an alternative to Marxist historical law. As someone who drank deeply from the Marxist well, Brym must necessarily have found it difficult to eliminate this element of faith.

7 spirit of Chicago, his alma mater, the social science at Toronto was conducted in a cross- disciplinary tradition, and one would not, therefore, expect the development of autonomous departments or disciplinary association and journals from that source. In fact, the Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, which was established in 1935 (Bladen, 1960; Taylor, 1967) and continued until 1967 when it gave way to successor journals, ran articles on all aspects of social science in a broad spirit, with articles by such "sociologists" as R. M. Maclver, S. D. Clark, Leonard Marsh, T. H. Marshall, Robert Faris, Robert Park, C. A. Dawson, Talcott Parsons, Everett Hughes, Jean Burnet, Seymour Lipset, Reinhard Bendix, John Porter, and Dennis Wrong, an impressive list by anyone's standards.

Thus, what is important, in my judgement, for the rhetoric of prehistory is the lack of what Brym would recognize as theoretical strength. Brym is explicit that his monograph will not address a body of work that he regards as purely micro-sociological - something, he suggests, which is Canadian in only an incidental way. He argues that "area studies" can contribute to general social understanding, but "they do so by virtue of their (at least implicit) comparative, macro-sociological orientation" (Brym, 1989: p. 2). The implication of this position is that he doesn't have to deal with McGill and its rather significant output during the interwar period.

When Brym does refer to McGill, it is to identify its interpretive sociology as a response to the social gospel movement of Protestantism, and he references Morgan (1969), Hadden, Longino and Reed (1974); and Campbell (1983).9 He argues that although the social gospel movement had a major formative impact on the development of academic sociology in the United States, McGill was the only major university in Canada that responded in this way.

The story, in my opinion, is considerably more complex than Brym allows. The main point here is that in Brym's account the linkage of McGill with the social gospel supports a characterization in which its typical intellectual style - "highly empirical, focussing on

9 For discussions of the Social Gospel movement in Canada, see Allen (1968, 1973, 1977), Cook (1990), Emery (1977), Fraser (1988), and Masters (1969).

8 social problems, ahistorical"10 - was part of the prehistory of Canadian sociology before a theoretically informed discipline emerged after 1960.

For Brym, this is ground-clearing work for the central ideal-type that he uses in his typology: the cultural-institutional paradigm. Brym argues that sociology was institutionalized in English Canada around a "cultural-institutional" paradigm, seen in the work of such leading figures as S. D. Clark, Seymour Lipset, and John Porter. With this ideal-type, he blurs the differences between the early Clark (and his studies with Harold Laski) and the later Clark,11 minimizes the socialism of Seymour Lipset, and ignores the extent to which Porter relies on a body of work with roots in Robert Michels, Gaetano Mosca, and C. Wright Mills. With his claim about prehistory, Brym collapses these early approaches into one, truncating our understanding of the theoretical diversity and depth of the early work, and setting up a straw man for his subsequent criticism.12

Brym is right to point to a transition that happened from the various models of Clark, Lipset and Porter in the 1960s to the Marxist political economy that dominated at the end of the 1970s. However, to argue that what came before 1960 was prehistory is a position

Brym, 1989: p. 16. Oswald Hall, who did his M.A. with Dawson and Hughes in the late 1930s, and later taught at McGill, flatly dismisses the "social problem" characterization (although not responding to Brym): "At McGill sociology was no adjunct of social work, but rather a repudiation of any such ties. It also turned resolutely away from the 'Social Problems' view of sociology as a study of crime, delinquency, suicide, prostitution, poverty and such matters" (Hall, 1988: p. 18). The disjunction is probably due to the way each of them are defining social problems: Hall, more narrowly; Brym, more broadly. 11 See Hiller' s (1982) biography of Clark. 121 don't want to give the impression that this view of prehistory is idiosyncratic with Brym. Oswald Hall, for instance, makes a similar claim with a very colourful metaphor: "The emergence of sociology at the University of Toronto has been chronicled by Professor Clark, but it may be useful to pursue comparisons with McGill. If at McGill the genesis of the department partook of the nature of an immaculate conception, at Toronto the metaphor would be that of a protracted Caesarean section, perhaps the longest on record" (Hall, 1988: p. 16).

9 that is simply not consistent with the empirical evidence about the state of social science in the interwar period.13

The Humanist Model

In A Disciplined Intelligence, McKillop is exercised to develop an account of the intellectual infrastructure that developed in the late nineteenth century, and provided the underpinning for the development of interwar social science. He brilliantly analyzes the development of philosophical idealism as a response to the Darwinian challenge, and its elucidation and extension by the internationally renowned philosopher, John Watson, professor of moral philosophy at Queen's University from 1879 to 1924.14

The idealism that so dominated the intellectual life of the pre-War years in Canada was very largely an attempt to maintain the universal moral authority of traditional Christianity in the face of the massive challenge posed by the empirical sciences to the pre-Darwinian monistic world view ... Whereas in Great Britain and in the United States philosophical idealism had fallen into disrepute by the end of the Great War, in Canada its hegemony was still intact. (McKillop, 1979: p. 227)

Although McKillop (1994, 2003) has subsequently extended his studies to examine the particulars of interwar social science at Toronto, he does not characterize or discuss the form that interwar social science took in this early monograph. However, the requirements that such a formation would have to meet to be consistent with ethical

It is worth noting that Brym does not offer an explanation of the transition from sociological prehistory to sociological history which he benchmarks as 1960. 14 I am trying to separate the wheat from the chaff here, and acknowledge the enormous intellectual authority of McKillop's work. In his "Introduction to the Carleton Library Edition", McKillop (2001) acknowledges the legitimacy of some of the criticism his work has received on the (what seem reasonable) grounds that he was breaking wholly new ground; he rejects other criticism on the grounds that he is being unfairly lumped in with some of the more strident advocates of the "secularism thesis".

10 idealism are sufficiently explicit that I think we can name that form: cross-disciplinary, theoretical, historical.

A satisfactory alternative account to the prehistory explanation has to demonstrate two closely-related arguments.

The first requirement is to show that the patterns of social science that developed at such universities as Toronto, McGill, and Dalhousie during the interwar period were not partial or incomplete, but coherent alternative forms to the social science that was practiced on the other side of the 1960 benchmark. A complete account would need to show that the constitution of interwar social science was not a result of the long rise of secularism as measured against the long ebb of religion, but a positive choice by the key figures involved, together with an explanation of how that choice subsequently failed.15

There is now a nice body of specialized literature (Axelrod, 2002; Berger, [1976] 1986; Bladen, 1978; Bothwell, 1991; Brown, 1946; Burke, 1996; Clark, 1988; Drummond, 1983; Fay, 1934; Ford, 1985; Gauvreau, 1988, 1994, 1995; Hiller, 1982; Innis, 1945; Irving, 1945, 1947, 1948; Maclver, 1968; McKillop, 1994, 2003) on the interwar social sciences at the University of Toronto.16 It reveals a considerably different picture of what was accomplished there than the prehistory narrative allows.

Let me set out the account of Toronto social science that current scholarship portrays, and the explanatory framework for that form that McKillop (1979) set out in his study. The picture is one of a vigorous and coherent Canadian social science in the interwar period at the University of Toronto, influenced by British idealism and grounded in a "different mode of organizing knowledge" (Gauvreau, 1988: p. 217). Michael Gauvreau, in a stimulating article on George Brett, comments on the interwar approach.

In part, therefore, we would need to understand the set of ultimate values that supported alternative forms of social science. G. K. Chesterton wrote: "But there are some people, nevertheless - and I am one of them - who think that the most practical and important thing about a man is still his view of the universe." (quoted in Naugle, 2002: xi). This study does not offer a complete account. 16 See also Bissell (1953).

11 The fact that Brett and some influential social scientists at the University of Toronto pursued, until the 1940s, a method of organizing their disciplines which preserved the unspecialized, philosophical, and historical emphases associated with the humanistic ideal, indicates the need to revise explanations of the rise of the social sciences in English-Canadian universities. (Gauvreau, 1988: p. 209)

Certainly, English-speaking Canadian philosophers of the mid-nineteenth century, "all subscribed to the doctrines of Christianity" (Goudge, 1967-68). In an early article, Gladys Bryson (1932) described how the social sciences emerged from moral philosophy - that is, the philosophy of the mores.11 While this is certainly true, it is to the specific reason for, and the character of, those changes that we need to attend. The orthodox position of moral philosophy in the mid-nineteenth century was shaken in Britain, and somewhat later in Canada, by two events - German Biblical criticism and evolutionary naturalism.18 "The net result", comments D. C. Masters, "was a growing skepticism in regard to the supernatural aspects of Christianity" (Masters, 1969: p. 28).

It was as a response to this threat that Ethical Idealism developed in Great Britain, and was promulgated soon after in Canada.19 John Irving (1945, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1957, [1965] 1976), in his early histories of Canadian philosophy, describes how the Scottish philosophy of Common Sense, developed by Thomas Reid, Dugald Stewart and William Hamilton, was supplanted in Canada by the end of the century by British Idealism.

Hendel (1952) has a very interesting discussion of the moral sciences, and their relation to Canadian philosophy. 18 Most noteworthy here was the publication of Essays and Reviews in 1860, a collection of seven articles by prominent churchmen, who forcefully expounded German Biblical criticism to the English-speaking world. Darwin's book, Origin of the Species was published in 1859. The close timing of the publication of the two books reinforced the sense of an intellectual convulsion, and added to the scandal. For good discussions, see Altholz (1994) and Francis (1974). George Rawlyk suggests a third event as part of the causal nexus - the impact of comparative religion, "which seemed to undermine, for many, the belief in the uniqueness of Christianity" (Rawlyk, 1988:36). 19 Gedicks (2006-07) , in a discussion of the American situation, refers to this kind of response as the "Christian Enlightenment", a rather apt phrase, in my view.

12 John Watson (at Queen's) was undoubtedly the leading figure. Studying under Edward Caird in Glasgow, he developed an international reputation after emigrating to Canada, culminating in his 1910-1912 Gifford Lectures. The diffusion and influence of British Idealism in Canada was both widespread and deep. Other influential Canadian representatives were George Paxton Young (Toronto), William Caldwell (McGill), George John Blewett (Toronto), Herbert Leslie Stewart (Dalhousie) and John Macdonald (Alberta), located at various intellectual centres in Canada.

Watson's Idealism attempted by several means to secure more adequate philosophical foundations for Christianity in light of the Darwinian revolution. Society was conceptualized as an organism and private interests were viewed as subordinate to a larger whole. Because history was identified as a record of the progressive development of Spirit, it was possible to reconcile the active powers of the individual with a moral teleology of society.

Religion is the spirit which must more and more subdue all things to itself, informing science and art, and realizing itself in the higher organization of the family, the civic community, the state, and ultimately the world, and gradually filling the mind and heart of every individual with the love of God and the enthusiasm of humanity, (from Watson's 1912 Gifford Lecture, quoted in Irving, 1952: p. 10)

The main point of interest for our purpose is that British Idealism, as mediated by Watson and his fellow travellers, had a deep and permanent influence on Canadian intellectuals in the early 1900s, particularly in Upper Canada, and provides one of the dominant intellectual frameworks for the subsequent development of the social sciences in the interwar period.

Unlike the early disciplinary separations in most American universities, the social sciences at the University of Toronto during the interwar period were centred in three departments: philosophy under James Gibson Hume and George Sidney Brett, political economy under Robert Maclver, E. J. Urwick and Harold Innis, and history under George Wrong and Chester Martin. In the following chapter on the University of Toronto, I

13 sketch the lineaments of the approach at Toronto in some detail, one which is consistent with McKillop's explanatory framework, and conclude that it can be said to constitute a coherent alternative form of social science characterized as cross-disciplinary, historical and theoretical.

14 Chapter 3 - Interwar Social Science at Toronto

In this chapter, I want to examine the form that the social sciences took at the University of Toronto during the interwar period. In the previous chapter, I characterized that form as cross-disciplinary, historical, and theoretical.

I advance this definition here by exploring the work of three Toronto social scientists - John A. Irving, Samuel D. Clark, and Chester Martin20 - together with contemporary reviews and analyses of their published work. I focus on identifying the theoretical and methodological approaches of these scholars, and try to show the areas of intellectual agreement that were common among them.

John Allan Irving (1903-1965)

Irving, a native of Ontario, did his undergraduate studies at the University of Toronto, where he was much influenced by G. S. Brett, in philosophy,21 "who combined in peerless teaching the profoundest historical knowledge and the most acute logical acumen with an extraordinary constructive imagination" (Irving, 1935: p. 228), E. A. Bott in psychology, and R. M. Maclver in political economy.22 Irving did graduate work

20 I have deliberately chosen to avoid Harold Innis. There is a large and very dense critical literature on his work and his influence. Given that skeptics of the humanist explanation can attribute such a configuration to the "special and unique brilliance" of Harold Innis (as Donald Creighton called it), I have chosen to focus on other, lesser known figures. 21 Brett was appointed as a Lecturer in Classics and Librarian at Trinity College in 1908, at the age of 28, and to the position of Professor of Ethics the following year; after various interim appointments, he was made Acting Head of the Department of Philosophy at University College in 1926, and became permanent Head the following year, a position which he occupied until his death in 1944. 22 Maclver was born in Scotland, studied at Edinburgh and Oxford, and was Head of Political Economy at the University of Toronto from 1915-1927. He is better known for his position as Head of the Department of Sociology at Columbia from 1929 to 1944, and was elected President of the A.S.A. in 1940. For details about his life and social theory, see Alpert (1954), Bierstedt (1981), Craig (2007), Halas (2001), Maclver (1968), McKillop (2003), and Williams (2007). Concerning his general attitude to the social sciences, he

15 at Cambridge with G. E. Moore and Ludwig Wittgenstein. He taught at Princeton for eight years and, in 1938, took an appointment as Head of Philosophy and Psychology at the University of British Columbia. He returned to take the position of Head of Philosophy at Victoria College in the University of Toronto, where he taught until his death in 1965.

It is to this scholar that we owe much of our understanding of the early history of philosophy in Canada. In a series of elegant essays (1945, 1947, 1948, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1957, 1960, [1965] 1976), he wrote intellectual history, and set it within an understanding of philosophy in which intellectual history was foundational. While his lucid style of exposition may have benefitted from his studies with Moore and Wittgenstein,23 it was to Brett's influence that he owed his view that "few if any human phenomena can be grasped outside their historical context" (Armour and Trott, 1981: p. 449).

In his studies of the history of Canadian philosophy, Irving describes the development of a Toronto school of intellectual history in the interwar period, and traces its development to the influence of G. S. Brett.

In the perspective of the last hundred years, it is also clear that Brett must be acclaimed the founder and chief inspiration of the first indigenous philosophical movement to develop in Canada, the Toronto school of intellectual history.24 Among the members of this group, all of whom were trained by Brett, may be included F. H. Anderson, T. A. Goudge, George Edison, D. R. G. Owen, A. H.

commented in his autobiography: "I thought of myself as a social scientist - not as a sociologist or a political scientist or an economist. I had come to the conclusion that the demarcation of the social sciences into separate departmental boxes was artificial" (Maclver, 1968: 73). His position is, therefore, much more complex than is suggested by his well-known remark that he "had not been able to introduce sociology at Toronto" (Maclver, 1968: p. 76). 23 See, for instance, Irving (1935), an early article which was very much in the analytical tradition. 24 Subject to Brett's influence and leadership, no doubt. However, intellectual history was also "in the air": Arthur Lovejoy, for instance, was at the height of his influence during the 1930s at Johns Hopkins, founding the Journal for the History of Ideas in 1940. Cf. Merton's (1985) essay on recollections of George Sarton.

16 Johnson, Marcus Long, R. F. McRae, and Emil Fackenheim. Working in association with them, though concentrating mainly on the history of mediaeval philosophy, are such gifted scholars of St. Michael's College and the Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies as A. C. Pegis, J. M. Kelly, J. R. O'Donnell, and L. E. M. Lynch, who were trained in part by Brett. Both groups have already made, and will continue to make, distinctive contributions to intellectual history. (Irving, 1957: p. 264)

Brett described his own perspective as "neo-idealist" (Gauvreau, 1988: p. 222), rejecting the transcendental idealism of John Watson, but continuing to maintain that "values underlay the structure of knowledge" (Gauvreau, 1988: p. 213). Irving's analysis tried, in one essay after another, to show that Brett's commitment to the history of philosophy was not antiquarian, but essential to his understanding of how philosophy is conducted: "in the history of philosophy he sought, rather, the meaning of existence for humanity" (Irving, 1957: p. 258).

Brett's conception of intellectual history has similarities, therefore, to the philosophy of history expounded by R. G. Collingwood. Collingwood and Brett were contemporaries, although Irving does not note any particular influence or contact between them.25 Be that as it may, Brett, like Collingwood, was sharply critical of the analytical philosophy then dominant in Britain, while still wanting to distance himself from transcendental idealism.26

The emerging Canadian scholarship in intellectual history that Irving described, and

25 Although Collingwood's Essay on Philosophic Method was published in 1933, and made no small impact within philosophy, his works on The Idea of Nature and The Idea of History, for which he is best known, were published posthumously in 1945 and 1946; to the extent that Brett and Collingwood were engaged in similar projects in the philosophy of history, therefore, it seems unlikely to have been the result of any direct influences. 26 Gauveau (1988) indicates that "Brett's ideas resembled those of an influential transatlantic community of'renegade' philosophers", the Americans Williams James and John Dewey, the Englishmen Thomas Hill Green and Henry Sidgwick, and the German thinker Wilhelm Dilthey. The main outlines of their thought, elaborated between 1870 and 1920 , attempted to define a via media between idealism and empiricism.

17 the philosophical underpinnings for it that Brett provided, were not sustained as a mainstream after 1960.

It has only been relatively recently that there has developed a renewed attention to this kind of work. I have tried to indicate, however, that there was an intellectual space created in philosophy during the interwar years at the University of Toronto, where the metaphysics for a different kind of social science was being envisioned and practiced.

Samuel Delbert Clark (1910-2003)

S. D. Clark was born in Alberta, and remained in many ways a Westerner in his attitudes. He did his undergraduate work in history and political science at the University of Saskatchewan in the late 1920s, and received his Masters in History from the same institution in 1931 under the social historian, A. S. Morton. After a brief stint the following year at the University of Toronto, he took advantage of a scholarship to study at the London School of Economics to explore his concerns "with the inadequacies in the capitalist system", and while there he worked with Harold Laski and R. H. Tawney (Hiller, 1982: p. 45). Although Morris Ginsberg held the Chair in Sociology at the L.S.E. during those years, Clark did no work with him (Clark, 1979: p. 393).27 Nevertheless, upon his return from London, Clark did a Masters in Sociology at McGill under Chicago-trained C. A. Dawson28 - at that time, the only graduate programme in sociology in Canada - and then went back to the University of Toronto to work on his doctorate in political science under Harold Innis and Alex Brady.

Ginsberg had just assumed the post in sociology a few years before from L. T. Hobhouse - at that time, the only chair in sociology in the whole of England (Kumar, 2001). It is of some interest that Morris Ginsberg participated as a visiting professor in the Values Discussion Group at the University of Toronto during the spring of 1949. Other members included S. D. Clark, Harold Innis, Donald Creighton, Karl Helleiner, and Marshall McLuhan. (Buxton: 2004). 28 Everett Hughes, who had done his Chicago dissertation under Robert Park, had been recruited to McGill in 1927 as well, so the department had a decidedly Chicago orientation. Hughes later returned to Chicago where he played a role in the "Second Chicago School": see Helmes-Hayes (1998). For an interesting discussion of Hughes at Brandeis, see Reinharz (1995).

18 In sum, it appears that concerns with the constitutional historiography that was taught at the University of Toronto in the early 1930s led Clark to broaden his studies with critical social theory, social ecology, and economic history. Clark was appointed to the Department of Political Economy at Toronto to teach sociology in 1938, and remained there for the rest of his career, where he was still Head when the separation of economics and sociology was implemented in 1963.

The social science model that Clark advocated in these early years, according to his biographer, was one of "interdisciplinary historical empiricism" (Hiller, 1982: p. 16): sociology was to be integrated with economics in interdisciplinary study - "sociology-in- political-economy". In his own review of the origins of Canadian sociology, Clark describes the conception of sociology at Toronto in the 1930s with a slightly wistful tone:

In the University of Toronto there was the curious development of an honours programme in sociology before a single appointment in sociology had been made. Given here, however, the accepted definition of sociology as a body of learning bringing together history, economics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, and biology, such a development was not as strange as it might today appear. It was a splendid programme of training that was in those years offered in the honours programme in sociology at Toronto. (Clark, 1975: p. 227)

Clark was not particularly interested in methodology,29 but we do have five articles that he wrote concerning his self-understanding of his work, two articles (1939; [1962] 1968) on the role of history, and three articles (1959; [1963] 1968; [1965] 1968) on the problem of social change. What we find, in these articles, is the development of Clark's methodological ideas from a rather insipid advocacy of middle-range theory to a much more interesting critique of equilibrium analysis.

In the first article, Clark limited his discussion to "the sociological analysis of

The most important scholarly contribution of Clark was in the historical sociology of religion (Clark 1940, 1944, 1945, 1946, 1947, 1948, 1951). See the outstanding discussion by Clifford (1969) which locates Clark's work in a larger historiography of religion.

19 historical material", and located it in an interstitial space: between "the danger of slipping into the purely historical method, losing sight of the relationship to social theory" and "the danger of distorting the historical material by forcing it into a rigid sociological frame of reference" (1939: p. 350). He advances this formulation somewhat further in the preface to what is, arguably, his most important work, Church and Sect. Here, he removes the qualification that he is just talking about the analysis of historical material. He states bluntly that "sociology has suffered from the failure to bridge the gulf between grand works on the philosophy of history where there has been too little analysis of facts and highly detailed studies of local social groups or communities where there has been too little theoretical interpretation". He goes on to recommend what he regards as the fruitfulness of his own methodology, and names it as the "sociological historical approach" (Clark, 1948: p. vii).

In the later cluster of his methodological work during the late 1950s and 1960s, Clark advances two cogent arguments in favour of this methodology.

Clark argues, firstly, that "the analysis of structure must be linked with the analysis of process" ([1965] 1968: p. 309). Comparative spatial analysis yields insight, but "the emphasis necessarily must be upon the characteristics of order and stability in the phenomenon being examined" ([1965] 1968: p. 309) and, therefore, distorts our understanding of society. Historical analysis, however, compares states over time: "what is required is a model of the society as it was and a model of the society as it has become or is becoming" ([1963] 1968: p. 301). "It becomes essential to attempt to identify, at different points in time, what can be described as different boundary-maintaining social systems",30 and then "the analysis turns to the processes which brought about the change" ([1965] 1968: p. 309). This illuminates the historicity of our own social order: "in the end, the chief contribution which can be made by investigation of a sociological-

Here, Clark is criticizing Parsons. He does so more systematically as well, particularly in his excellent discussion of "change within the system" versus "change of the system", but an exposition of this material would take us too far afield from our present concerns.

20 historical character may be that simply of calling into question many of the theories about society now held" ([1962] 1968: p. 293).

Clark advances a second, related argument that "what investigation of any phenomenon reveals is a character of instability as well as stability" ([1965] 1968: p. 308), that "while change necessarily involves movement in the direction of increasing structural differentiation it just as necessarily involves movement in the opposite direction"31 ([1963] 1968: p. 202). Clark's argument rests on the diachronic model which I outlined above.

Social change viewed within the perspective of the society that was [at time ti], clearly has the effect of making more complex and differentiated the structure of social life [at time tz\. This cannot help but be the case if as a result of change there is anything at all that is new and different. But the new society which grows out of the old is clearly not more complex and differentiated. Viewed within the perspective of this society, what social change means is a movement to a social state less complete, less highly structured. There emerges here new forms of social organization but only by the breaking down of other and more highly developed forms. ([1963] 1968: pp. 302-303)

Clark is advancing, therefore, quite a sophisticated model of innovation and routinization.

The analysis of state-transitions has become a staple of historical methodology, and the study of innovation and routine almost became an industry in economics and organizational theory during the 1990s. It is hard, therefore, to sustain the criticism that the "sociological historical" approach of Clark was misguided or primitive, although he was certainly at odds with the epistemological certainty and methodological approaches that were accepted in Canada by 1960. We cannot, therefore, dismiss Clark's early output by referring to interwar social science as "prehistory".

31 Clark, at this point, is criticizing Smelser - in my view, quite effectively.

21 Chester Bailey Martin (1882-1958)

Chester Martin was born in Nova Scotia, did his undergraduate work at the University of New Brunswick, and became the first Rhodes Scholar in North America in 1904. He proceeded to do his M.A. at Balliol College in Oxford over the next three years and was importantly influenced there by his tutor, A. L. Smith, a man "who did much to create Balliol's reputation in the History Schools" (Creighton, 1958a: p. 93). He then took a job at the National Public Archives where he worked for two years, completing his first publication, a book of archival papers on Red River Settlement (Martin, 1910). In 1909, at the age of twenty-seven, he was invited to start the Department of History at the University of Manitoba, and spent the next twenty years building it up. Along with J. W. Dafoe, the influential editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, Martin "became a member of a small group of Winnipeg intellectuals which had a considerable influence on the thought of the west" (Creighton, 1958a: p. 93). He was appointed as Head of History at the University of Toronto in 1929, taking over from the larger-than-life figure of George M. Wrong. He retired from the position in 1953 and published his summa two years later at the age of seventy-three. He was awarded three Honorary Degrees, was a President of the Canadian Historical Society, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. He died in 1958.

To understand the accomplishment of Martin, some understanding of the regime of his predecessor is necessary. George Wrong located history in the humanities, where its aim was "the understanding and the interpreting of the soul of a people" (Wrong, 1927: p. 6).33 Trained in theology and moral philosophy at Wycliffe and University Colleges,

32 Martin did not publish separate work on his methodology as far as I can determine. His attitudes must, therefore, be gleaned from a deep knowledge of his work, which was considerable (Martin, 1910-1955). I have relied in part upon the prior investigations of Berger ([1976] 1986), Bothwell (1991), McKillop (1994), and Wright (2005), the two commemorative notes by Donald Creighton (1958a, 1958b), and three reviews of Martin's work (Knaplund 1929, Hedges 1939, Morton 1955). Not much remembered now, Martin occupied a central position among Canadian historians during the interwar years. 33 In a more elaborate and seminal statement of this kind, Cardinal Newman argued that Athens and Jerusalem are completed in Rome. In that dense idiom characteristic of his writing, he identifies the ideal of education in a passage in Discourse VI: "That perfection of the Intellect, which is the result of

22 Wrong was "the doyen of Ontario's historians" (McKillop, 1994: p. 473), holding an appointment in History at Toronto from 1892-1928.34 His educational ideals, however, "harked back to the Oxford he had glimpsed during a few months of summer study" (Berger, [1976] 1986: p. 9). This expressed itself in a number of ways at the University of Toronto: in his predilection to hire Oxford graduates, in his establishment of the tutorial system, in a focus on undergraduate study, and in his institution of the "Historical Club" for elite students. His creed was that of Lord Action: "the great achievement of history is to develop and perfect and arm conscience".35

What Martin develops, in contrast to Wrong's pedagogical regime, is a central emphasis on research. He sought to build an indigenous Canadian historiography from the ground up: to the extent that there was a metaphysic, it would be authentic to the voices and records of historical subjects in Canada. It was under Martin that a graduate programme was developed at Toronto36 and faculty were expected to publish original research on a continuing basis. In his commemorative note, Donald Creighton remarks: "his own devotion to scholarship both attracted and inspired graduate students; and he

Education, and its beau ideal, to be imparted to individuals in their respective measures, is the clear, calm, accurate vision and comprehension of all things, as far as the finite mind can embrace them, each in its place, and with its own characteristics upon it" (Newman, [1852] 1976: p. 124). 34 Initially, his appointment was as lecturer in history, the sole position at that time. History became a "graduating department" in 1895, and a "full department" in 1905 when Edward Kylie was appointed as a lecturer in history. Wrong was Head of Department until his retirement in 1928. He remained active as Emeritus Professor, and continued to host the first meeting of the Historical Club most years, from its inception in 1904 almost until his death, in 1948. (Bothwell, 1991) 35 Wrong (1933) quotes Lord Acton in a paper he delivered to the American Historical Association in Toronto at their annual meeting in 1932. McKillop has an excellent discussion of this speech and Wrong's philosophy of history (McKillop, 1994: pp. 473-474). 36 Wright's discussion of the early graduate program is worth quoting to make the point about its development under Martin: "At the University of Toronto, George Wrong had supervised MA theses since 1893. Throughout the first two decades of the twentieth century, however, the MA program 'was little more than a BA plus an essay' - and that essay could be as short as twelve pages. References when provided, were not formalized and bibliographies were irregular. In other words, the apparatus criticus of modern scholarship was either absent or inconsistent." (Wright, 2005: pp. 55-56)

23 achieved his ambition of making Toronto the principal centre of senior historical research in Canada" (1958a: p. 97).

Martin was not alone in this effort. Wright has a wonderful discussion of the atmosphere at the Public Archives in Ottawa during the 1920s:

Beginning in the early 1920s, the Public Archives became the gathering place for historians from across the country. In numerous letters to his wife, [Arthur Leroy] Burt offered a running commentary on who was at the Archives and what they were doing. Harold Innis, Duncan McArthur, Frank Underhill, Chester New, Reginald Trotter, A. S. Morton, Bartlet Brebner, George Brown, W. N. Sage: everyone, it seemed, made repeated summer trips to the Archives. "It is quite interesting to see the actual renaissance of Canadian history in course of preparation," he wrote in 1926. "Certainly all the professional historians in Canada are turning their eyes on the Archives during the summer & a revolution is bound to come about as the result." (Wright, 2005: p. 52)

This annual migration to the Public Archives in Ottawa was so predictable that Queen's University (in Kingston) initiated an annual Summer School of Historical Research at the Public Archives (in Ottawa) in 1922. This Summer School ran until 1939 (Wright, 2005: p. 59).37

Chester Martin concentrated his own work in two areas: on the history of the frontier,38 and on the political and constitutional history of Canada, both aimed at the

In his 1932 review for the Royal Society of Canada, Chester Martin commented on the importance of the Public Archives and the Summer School in Ottawa and suggested that "the next move would seem to be an attempt to develop some sort of liaison facilities there for the supervision of research students in economics and history from every university that can be induced to support the project" (Martin, 1932: p. 69). 38 Martin's studies of the western frontier are extensive. Here he was working with the Turner and Innis theses, and the study of economic and geographic influences on the emergence of Western society. However, I am using the language of the frontier to also suggest the underlying unity of his work in his studies of the Maritimes, although here it is an intellectual and moral frontier that he is analyzing.

24 same goal of revealing, what we would now call, the contingent actions of men who formed a society and a national polity.39 His historical argument was rooted in particular evidence, and his writing was littered with quotations from the historical persons he was writing about. He abjured the effort to write history with a "deterministic or theoretical approach" (Berger, [1976] 1986: p. 34), but saw those particular and practical actions of historical persons as cumulating in larger moral patterns, the most important in the national polity being the achievement of responsible government. In his metaphysics, then, he professed a very similar kind of neo-idealism as we found in Brett40 and Irving; in his practice, he professed an unspecialized, historical and theoretical study very similar to the approach of Clark.

Final Remarks

By reviewing the intellectual work and biographies of these three men - in philosophy, in sociology, and in history -1 have tried to demonstrate that the form that the social sciences took at the University of Toronto in the interwar period was cross- disciplinary, historical, and theoretical in nature. I sketched the biographical and social context of their work, and suggested some of the contours of the scholarly practice that prevailed in their domain of action. In the case of Irving and Clark, I was able to rely on the understanding I developed from their own methodological statements. In the case of Martin, I had to rely to a much greater extent on my understanding of his practice, and needed to infer his methodological position, rather than mentally reconstruct it.

I believe the evidence put forward is convincing, and find the testament in the subjects' own words to be compelling.

Creighton confirms the significance of Martin's frontier work by suggesting that Martin's 1938 Introduction to Simpson 's Athabaska Journal was, perhaps, "his highest achievement" (1958b: p. 263). 39 Berger comments on his methodological stance: "Martin was exceptionally sensitive to the unpredictability of history and to the ultimate impenetrability of human motives: he was fond of the dictum that history was the record of the contingent and the unforeseen" ([1976] 1986: p. 34). 40 See Martin (1945) for a commemorative note about Brett.

25 Chapter 4 - The Social Economics Model

An Alternative Moral Science

In 1920, there were twenty English-language universities in Canada offering Arts courses, of which five had one or more courses in sociology.41 Of those five universities, three of them were in Nova Scotia: Acadia, St. Francis Xavier, and Saint Mary's. There were two other arts universities in Nova Scotia at that time, Dalhousie and Kings. Following a disastrous fire in 1920, Kings relocated to Halifax with the financial help of the Carnegie Foundation, and satisfied the terms of that help by affiliating itself with Dalhousie in 1923. The first courses in sociology were offered the following year.

There are some grounds, therefore, to see Nova Scotia as the birthplace of sociology in Canada. It is convenient to take the introduction of sociology as a sign of the break between the moral philosophy of the nineteenth century and the moral sciences of the early twentieth century.42 At least it seems appropriate to refer to them as moral sciences in Nova Scotia. For, of greater import for our purposes than was the start of the social sciences in Canada, was that their practice in Nova Scotia was of a different kind than that which developed at the University of Toronto.

I have described the Toronto form of social science as cross-disciplinary, historical, and theoretical. In Nova Scotia, I will maintain that the form was also cross-disciplinary,

41 The data on universities offering arts courses and the start year for sociology is from Tomovic (1975), Tables 1 and 7. He shows a total of 19 institutions, but there are a few small adjustments required to his data. On the plus side for the total universities offering arts courses, he did not include either the University of Alberta, the University of Saskatchewan, or the University of King's College. On the minus side, he did include both Brandon College and Saint Dunstan's College. I am excluding from my data all those schools which were offering degrees at the time through an affiliated university, as was the case with both Brandon and Saint Dunstan's (and some other colleges). This then brings the total to the 20 institutions in 1920, which I noted above. 42 See, for instance, Alvey (1999) for a discussion of the transition to moral science.

26 but it was ethical and practical, rather than historical and theoretical. Interwar social science in Nova Scotia, I am arguing, drew more from Scottish common sense philosophy, Millian methodology, and early nineteenth century historism,43 than it did from the British idealism which John Irving and A. B. McKillop report shaped intellectual thought at Upper Canadian universities in the early twentieth century.

This is not to say that McKillop's model doesn't hold for the University of Toronto, and I think my analysis in the previous chapter supports that. Rather, it is a question of how far that imaginary extends in space. The historian, Michael Bliss, in a 1982 review of McKillop's book, also raises the question of extension, although suggesting an overly narrow geography:

McKillop convinces us that there is such a tradition, but does not, perhaps cannot, tell us how extensive or important it is in Canadian life. Sometimes a reader, particularly one located in Toronto, feels that the tradition's importance declines sharply outside of the boundaries of Kingston, Ontario. (Bliss, 1982: p. 55).

In this chapter, I want to outline a model for the interwar social science that took form at St. Francis Xavier, Dalhousie-Kings, and Acadia universities in Nova Scotia. These three institutions have the advantage of being geographically distant from one another and had origins in different religious denominations: St. Francis Xavier was Roman Catholic, Dalhousie was Presbyterian44 and Kings Anglican, and Acadia was Baptist.

The great intellectual historian, Leonard Krieger (1989), distinguishes the terms "historism" and "historicism". It is my hypothesis, not explored in this essay, that this is just what distinguishes the Nova Scotian social imaginary from that in Upper Canada. 44 The denominational character of Dalhousie is complex. Unlike Acadia, Kings, and St. F.X., Dalhousie was not church-established, and at least from its re-organisation in 1863 had a liberal non-sectarian basis. Its denominational character, therefore, seems to be a result of the militancy of its Presbyterian first principal, Thomas McCulloch, the funding of several of its Professorial Chairs by the Presbyterian Churches, and the proximity of a Presbyterian theological college in Halifax; equally consequential, a Presbyterian student was more likely to steer clear of one of the other church-established universities. As regards McCulloch's militancy, John Irving relates the following anecdote: "It is said that when McCulloch received the notification of his appointment his first response was: 'The Lord hath delivered

27 These four denominations represented the religious affiliation of choice for some 85% of Nova Scotians at the end of the nineteenth century.45

I want to outline the character of this Nova Scotia moral science by looking at the work of three professors: Rev. Dr. Daniel Joseph MacDonald at Antigonish, who was Professor of Economics & Sociology from 1913 until he retired in 1944; Rev. Dr. Samuel Henry Prince at Dalhousie-Kings, who was Professor of Economics & Sociology from 1924 until he stopped teaching in 1954; and Alfred Burpee Balcom who was Professor of Economics & Sociology at Acadia from 1913 until 1943 when he died. All three of them were Maritimers, and all of them took their highest degree at American universities. While there were other disciplinary contributions to the moral sciences in Nova Scotia during the period we are examining, I think it is fair, as I will try to show, to conceptualize these scholars as being at the centre of activity. Their own work was located within the paradigm of social economics, a paradigm to which they were exposed as graduate students, and which they in turn taught to their own students.

Weberian Social Economics

In the early 1900s, social economics was terminology that was in common parlance. While its ethical overtones have come to the fore in recent decades, in the early years of the twentieth century, the concept spoke to the cross-disciplinary character of an

the enemy into my hands'" (Irving, 1960: p. 153). In any event, as late as the 1920s, fifty-one percent of the undergraduate students in Arts & Science at Dalhousie were Presbyterians (Learned and Sills, 1922: p. 18). And the comment by Bishop Morrison of Antigonish in a 1925 letter to the Most Rev. Peter Di Maria (Apostolic Delegate) confirms the Roman Catholic view of Dalhousie: "supposedly undenominational but mainly Presbyterian" (Cameron, 1996: p. 195). Cf Scammel, 1952; Wood, 1987; Murphy, 1984; Harvey, 1938; Roper, 1990a; andLongley, 1939. 45 The fifth largest denomination in Nova Scotia was the Methodist church with a further 12% of the population in 1901. The largest concentration of Methodists was in Cumberland County; hence, it is no accident that Mount Alison University, with a Methodist church establishment, was established in Sackville, N.B., just across the border. See, the fascinating historical mapping of religious affiliations done by Clark (1960).

28 expansive social science, in which the pure theory of economics represented a formal idealized rationality, and the study of sociology represented the investigation of substantive rationality in its concrete cultural expression. Such a position was most advanced in Germany, owing much to the Methodenstreit of the 1870s between Gustav Schmoller and Carl Menger. Mommsen (1998) locates Max Weber's work as a position which "mediates" between the historical school of Schmoller and the theoretical economy of Menger.46 As such, the Weberian conception goes beyond the methodological isolation of the economic motive, as proposed by John Stuart Mill (and formalized by Menger, Jevons and Walras). Such at least was already the position of Carl Diehl (1923) in his memorial review of Weber's work, published at the invitation of Frank Taussig in The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Perhaps the most important texts on social economics during the early twentieth century were those in the multi-volume Grundriss der Sozialokonomik [Outline of Social Economics] under the leadership of Max Weber.47 The Grundriss was planned as a successor to Schonberg's Handbuch, which for many years was the standard German encyclopedic reference for political economy. The 1910 editorial scheme for the project {Stoffverteilungsplan) indicated that "Weber wished to conduct a comprehensive survey of the state of the art in the social sciences in the German-speaking world, or as it would later be called, 'social economies'. The Grundriss was supposed to cover the entire range of social-scientific analysis of contemporary society and its historical origins" (Mommsen, 2000: p. 369). In his capacity as editor of the Grundriss, Weber was particularly concerned with how the opening monograph on theory was set out,48 as he "wanted it to be very clear how the transition from theoretical economics to a more social and empirical form of economic analysis could be made" (Swedberg, 1999: p. 26). He

46 Cf. Sumiya (2001). 47 The meaning of social economics in the Grundriss lay in its cross-disciplinary sense, not so much in its ethical or practical sense. I am using the term primarily in this cross-disciplinary sense. 48 Weber wrote this comment to the publisher: "The key question is how theory is introduced, and once this is properly done, everything else will fall into place." (Weber in a letter to Paul Siebeck, Dec 26, 1908, quoted in Swedberg, 1999: p. 26).

29 was, therefore, very pleased that Friedrich von Wieser, the great Austrian economist, agreed to do it.49

Friedrich von Wieser, along with his friend and brother-in-law, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, were students and protog^s of Carl Menger, one of the parties to the famous Methodenstreit, and a progenitor of marginal utility theory. The three of them formed the initial base of, what we now think of as, the Austrian School of economics. The relations among German historical economics, Austrian marginal theory, and American institutionalist economics, together with the interaction they each had in transforming classical economics (for both the French and British streams), are exceedingly complex.50 Much of the problem, it seems to me, derives from our reading of history from our present theoretical position. In this case, it is a theoretical position which recognizes the success of neoclassical economics. Malcolm Rutherford (1997, 2009), for instance, the leading historian of American institutionalist economics, seems to have boxed himself into a corner with his adoption of the standard reading of neoclassical economics as originating with the marginal revolution of the 1870s.51

If we focus on methodological approaches, however, the picture looks quite different. Here, Menger and von Wieser are using a methodology that is quite similar to the

49 F. A. Hayek ([1926] 1992), in his lengthy obituary of Wieser, reports that Wieser was approached by Weber in 1909, and gave himself over to work on his summa in theory for several years. It was published in German in 1914as Theorie der gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft [Theory of Social Economy]. 50 Current work that can give the reader an entry to the discussions of the character of, and relations among, these schools includes Peukert (2001), Pearson (1999), Tribe, (2002), Morgan and Rutherford (1998), Mommsen (1998), Hodgson (2004), and Caldwell (1990). 51 Keith Tribe (1998) has made a cogent argument for the standard narrative: "This paper seeks to demonstrate how the publication of Menger's Grundsatze der Volkswirthschaftslehre (1871) and the first part of Walras' Elements d'economie politique pure (1874) marked a decisive shift in economic analysis which, over the ensuing fifty years, became consolidated into a Neoclassical orthodoxy whose basic principles inform what has become known as 'modern economies'" (p. 1); see also Tribe (2003). The discussions of Bowley (1972), Hutchinson (1972), Winch (1972), and Blaug (1972) suggest some of the nuances of interpretation around this question. Nevertheless, I think Jaffe (1976) and Machovec (1998) suggest another hne of argument. At a minimum, what I suggest below is that the methodology doesn't catch up with the substance until the 1930s.

30 approach of John Stuart Mill to political economy. The joints in the history of methodology, in other words, break at quite different points that do the joints in the history of substantive theory. Let me recast the history of the joints.

Adam Smith set out a moral system in which prudence was one of the lower, commercial virtues, an element in a larger moral regime along with justice and benevolence (Alvey, 1999). Amartya Sen comments: "Even though prudence goes well beyond self-interest maximization, Smith saw it in general only as being 'of all virtues that which is more helpful to the individual', whereas 'humanity, justice, generosity, and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others'".53 Smith highlights the "propensity to truck, barter and exchange", but his character is still one with complicated motivations and meta-rankings. As an analytical tool, Smith's economic man is too complex:

We can link the individual motivations with particular outcomes (e.g. prudence and investment) but cannot trace the full outcome of each of the character traits on their own because they interact with each other and link up with so many other characteristics and circumstances. (Morgan, 2006: p. 3)

With his interest in empirical science, it was just this problem that John Stuart Mill sought to resolve. In 1836, he published On the Definition of Political Economy in a London journal, and his On the Logic of the Moral Sciences in 1843.54 The approach of

Weber has much in common with Mill as well. The central issue between them is Weber's insistence that homo economicus is an "ideal-type", not a "real-type", as Menger (and Mill) contended (see Mommsen, 1998; and Diehl, 1923). I interpret this to mean that Weber understands homo economicus not just as an abstract model of economic rationality requiring other substantive rationalities as complements, but as one that is historically conditioned and particular to capitalist society. Weber is arguing for a much more sophisticated understanding of history and contingency than either Mill or Menger can entertain. Ludwig von Mises picks up Menger, not Weber. 53 Sen (1987), quoting from Adam Smith's The Theory of Moral Sentiments; as quoted in Walsh (2000). 54 Although Mill made a number of small changes in both publications over time, a close assessment by Whitaker of the Logic, indicates none of them were materially significant. The principal intellectual event between the two publications was his reading of Comte during the interval, but Whitaker argues that Mill "saw [On the Definition] as perfectly consistent with the Logic" (Whitaker, 1975: p. 1041).

31 Mill was to isolate and idealize the economic domain of behaviour, in which the principal motivation was the desire for wealth, constrained by the desire for luxury and leisure.

With this, Mill gives birth to an analytical device, homo economicus.55 However, he is clear that this character is an idealization: political economy "does not treat of the whole of man's nature as modified by the social state" (Mill, [1836] 1967: p. 321). Rather, it is relevant "only with those parts of human conduct which have pecuniary advantage as their direct and principal object" (Mill, [1836] 1967: p. 327). Other domains of behaviour would, therefore, require other forms of analysis, conducted in other branches of social science: "different species of social facts are in the main dependent, immediately and in the first resort, on different kinds of causes; and therefore not only may with advantage, but must, be studied apart" (Mill, [1843] 1973: p. 900).

Whitaker seeks to clarify Mill's causal model - what Mill referred to as tendencies - with some notation:

Let Mi, M2,... Mn be the various motives bearing on behavior, of which Mi is the economic motive. Now, although all social phenomena will be consequences of

the full set, Mi, ... Mn, there will be "certain departments of human affairs, in which the acquisition of wealth is the main and acknowledged end". It is with these that political economy deals, and it does so by supposing that only Mi is at work ... The resulting prediction of consequences is approximate and has "to be corrected by making proper allowance for the effects of any impulses of a different description"; that is the neglected effects of the "disturbing causes," M2, ...M,56

And so it would go in another domain of behaviour if M2 was the "main and acknowledged end". In other words, there is nothing here that assumes homo

Persky notes that the first use of the term 'homo economicus' is in 1906 by Pareto, and that Ingram is the first to use the term 'economic man' in 1888 (Persky 1995: p. 222). My use of the term with Mill, therefore, is anachronistic. 56 Whitaker (1975: p. 1042), quoting Mill from both the Logic and On The Definition.

32 economicus to be an exemplar for moral behaviour. However, it is fair to say that this is the first act to constitute moral science.

The work of Mill, of course, shaped the methodology of late classical economics, but it was also carried forward, largely unchanged by the "Marginal Revolution", to the social sciences in the interwar period. Whitaker observes that "the central portions of the Senior-Mill-Cairnes tradition on economics as a deductive science were perpetuated by the influential Cambridge group of Sidgwick, [Neville] Keynes, and Marshall, despite respectful nods in the direction of the historical school" (Whitaker, 1975: p. 1045).

Before I turn again to the social economics of the Menger-Wieser tradition,571 want to say a few words about the interwar coup in theory which leads to the neoclassical synthesis after WWII.58 There is a complex history of ideas that can be told for each of the three neoclassical assumptions - greed, rationality and equilibrium.59 In the case of

57 Eugen Bohm-Bawerk was the third theorist in the first generation of the Austrian school, but is notably more objectivist in his foundations than Menger and Wieser. "For Menger it was these differences which were profound enough to warrant his charge that Bohm-Bawerk's theory was 'one of the greatest errors ever committed'" (Endres, 1987: p. 307). The Keynes "avalanche" badly distorted our understanding of the relevant intellectual trajectories. Weintraub argues that the influence of Jevons and Walras, the non-Austrian progenitors of the "Marginal Revolution", came to Anglo-American economics through Pareto in the 1930s: "The line of activity in the 'mathematico-scientification' of economics goes from Jevons and Walras through Pareto, not Marshall. Vilfredo Pareto's influence, in the sense of his being read and being taken seriously by others in the emergent highly theoretical economic analysis, is palpable ... Those who followed Pareto in Italy - Antonelli, Barone, etc. - found their contributions read and understood by Henry Schultz, Griffith Conrad Evans, Henry Ludwell Moore, Ragnar Frisch, Lionel Robbins, John Hicks, R. D. G. Allen, Paul Samuelson, and others. Recall that the three main lines of connection from Pareto to neoclassicism are through the LSE, with Robbins and Hicks, through the emergent mathematical (though at that time not yet neoclassical) tradition in the United States with Moore, Schultz and Evans, and through the Harvard group around the physiologist L. J. Henderson which involved Schumpeter, Samuelson, and Talcott Parsons. The stabilization of neoclassical economics, the canonization of the neoclassical vision, had an extended family in Italy." (Weintraub, 1997: p. 254). Cf. Asso and Fiorito (2000). 59 See Kreps (1998): "In Robert Solow's trinity of 'greed, rationality, and equilibrium,' greed is a code word for purposeful behavior. Most economists populate their models with greedy individuals - those whose purpose is self-interest, very narrowly defined. In this sense, Solow's code word is entirely

33 the rationality assumption which I have been discussing, the decisive break is made with Lionel Robbin's calculus of choice with the publication of his 1932 manifesto, An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. Robbins seeks to "provide a working definition of what Economics is about" (Robbins, [1932] 1945: p. 1), and contrasts two definitions. The first is found in Marshall's view: "Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of well-being".60 Robbins rejects this definition of a domain of behaviour, one still consistent with the Million conception, and adopts the analytical calculus of choice:

The conception we have rejected, the conception of Economics as the study of the causes of material welfare, was what may be called a classificatory conception. It marks off certain kinds of behaviour, behaviour directed to the procuring of material welfare, and designates these as the subject matter of Economics. Other kinds of subject matter lie outside the scope of its investigations. The conception we have adopted may be described as analytical. It does not attempt to pick out certain kinds of behaviour, but focuses attention on a particular aspect of behaviour, the form imposed by the influence of scarcity. It follows from this, therefore, that in so far as it presents this aspect, any kind of human behaviour falls within the scope of economic generalisations ... The one regards the subject- matter of economics as human behaviour conceived as a relationship between ends and means, the other as the causes of material welfare. (Robbins, [1932] 1945: 16-21)

It is this move by Robbins that signals the coming end of the social sciences as moral sciences, with the "stabilization" and "canonization" of Weintraub completed with the appropriate. But the formal canon is that individuals act purposefully, and in theory (if not in many models) the goals pursued could be an equitable distribution of resources or a 'just' outcome somehow defined." See Pettit (1995) for a more fine-grained discussion of narrow and wider conceptions of self- interest 60 Quoting from Marshall's Principles of Economics (Robbins, [1932] 1945: p. 1).

34 publication of Paul Samuelson's Foundations in 1947. A more complete explanation of the movement of ideas in the social sciences between the interwar and postwar period would discuss the important role which Talcott Parsons played with his 1937 book, The Structure of Social Action, or which Ruth Benedict played with her 1934 book, Patterns of Culture, or the impact of the Vienna Circle. However, my purpose, here was just to suggest that the important methodological changes in the social sciences were not triggered by the Marginal Revolution, but were essentially consistent with the late classical methodology we found in Mill.

Transmission to America

Between the years 1820 and 1920, some nine thousand Americans went to study at German universities, and they acted as a transmission belt for the movement of ideas from Germany to America. Before 1870, Carlson reports that the "flow was dominated by scientists and lawyers" reflecting the early success of Humboldt's education reforms. After 1870, "the flow of social scientists and humanists increased" (Carlson, 1999: pp. 290-291). Adolph Wagner, Gustav Schmoller, and Max Weber were all well known names. In a recent paper, Goodwin and Meardon argue that "the century opened with a strikingly high level of internationalization based mainly on the sense of dependency felt by American economists on authorities overseas and on the need they had to arrive at advice on a wide range of policies for a rapidly growing and industrializing nation" (Goodwin and Meardon, 1998: p. 313).62

But let us now finally turn back to Wieser and his social economics. The intellectual tradition that developed from Carl Menger was quite compatible with the methodology of Mill,63 and this is well-exemplified in Wieser's Theorie der gesellschaftlichen Wirtschaft. Published as I mentioned just before the First World War, it received a lengthy review in

Cf. the important paper by Cooter and Rappoport (1984) which locates Robbins as part of the "ordinal revolution". 62 Quoted in Asso and Fiorito (2000). 63 See, for instance, Cartwright( 1994).

35 1917 by Wesley Mitchell.64 Mitchell, along with Walton Hamilton and John Maurice Clark, was one of the three "instigators" of the American Institutionalist movement, announced with the 1918 paper by Hamilton at the American Economics Association session on economic theory (Rutherford, 1997: 182-185). He was one of the founders of the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) and its first Director, and a professor at Columbia from 1913, the university that became one of the major centers for institutionalism in the United States.65 Mitchell is high in his praise of Wieser's contribution, comparing him to Mill: "In the literature of the Austrian school it merits the place held by Mill's Political Economy in the literature of the classical school" (Mitchell, 1917: p. 95).

Wieser has a succinct description of his methodology:66

The task of economic theory is to exploit scientifically and interpret the content of common economic experience ... The complex presented by experience cannot be explained in its totality, one must isolate and split it up into its elements in order to comprehend their working; further one must keep these elements in thought free from all disturbances, in order to comprehend their unmixed effects, and if in thought one finally admits disturbances one must take these very disturbances in their typical course, omitting everything accidental ... Beside the isolating assumptions that contain less than the full truth, the theoretical economist makes many idealizing assumptions that contain more than the truth. In them he elevates the empirical case in thought to the highest conceivable degree of completeness, because the completest situation is at the same time the simplest and therefore the most comprehensive. Thus, for example, the theorist assumes a model economic

64 Mitchell also had Wieser's monograph translated into English and republished in 1927 (Ekelund and Thornton, 1986). It is worth noting that Mitchell studied with both Thorstein Veblen and with Carl Menger (Mills, 1949). 65 (Rutherford, 2004). For varying amounts of time during the interwar period, important institutionalist sympathizers, such as J. M. Clark, Rexford Tugwell, Frederick Mills, Joseph Dorfman, Carter Goodrich, and Robert Hale, were at Columbia along with Wesley Mitchell. 66 I find Mitchell's (1917) translation of the German to be quite a bit superior to that of A. F. Hinrichs, the translator of the 1927 English edition, and have, therefore, used Mitchell whenever possible.

36 man such as never has existed and never can exist in fact ... The theorist starts with isolating and idealizing assumptions of the highest degree of abstraction, in which he includes the pure elements of reality ... Step by step by a system of decreasing abstraction, he must render his assumptions more concrete and more multiform. (Wieser, [1914] 2003: p. 3-6).

As was the case with Mill, Wieser identifies a particular restricted domain of behaviour, "the content of common economic experience", creates an idealization of behaviour in that domain, "a model economic man such as never has existed", and then adds back confounding conditions, step-by-step, to create a more realistic description of experience in that domain.

Mitchell raises one criticism of Wieser, being the need to allow for "inductive verification", and suggests several means to that end: his own preferred method using "statistical and historical apparatus"; a second method with the mathematical analysis of choice-sets using Edgeworth's "curves of indifference"; or a final method using psychological investigations into "certain widely-shared habits of feeling, thinking, and acting in frequently-recurring situations" (Mitchell, 1917: p. 116).

Young's Correction of Mitchell

In the famous institutionalist manifesto of 1924, The Trend of Economics,61 Mitchell pursued this recommendation about psychological investigations with an essay titled, The Prospects of Economics. In an influential review of the Manifesto, Allyn A. Young (1876-1929) "corrects" Mitchell by setting out his own understanding of methodology. Young, by this time a senior economist, had studied under the early institutionalist,

67 "The twelve economists Tugwell had brought together included some of the best-known early twentieth century American economists - Frank Knight (Risk, Uncertainty and Profit), J. M. Clark ("workable competition"), Paul Douglas (Cobb-Douglas production function), Morris Copeland (flow of funds), W. C. Mitchell (Business Cycles), George Soule (trade unions), Sumner Slichter (labour economics). All of them were relatively young, six under 35 and only three above 40. Tugwell, in his editorial introduction, described the book as a "sort of manifesto of the younger generation". (Arndt, 1995: p. 128)

37 Richard Ely, had worked as "chief economic advisor" to President Wilson at the Paris Peace Conference, and was at the time of his review on the faculty at Harvard. In 1927, on Edwin Cannan's retirement, Young accepted his Chair of Political Economy at the London School of Economics, considered by Carman as "the best talent available not in any small local or national circle, but in the whole area where our language is spoken" (quoted in Mehrling, 1996: p. 628). He died suddenly of influenza in London during the winter of 1929, and was then succeeded in the Chair by Lionel Robbins with his very different approach.

Young, about the same age as Mitchell, had worked with him in 1902 at the U.S. Bureau of Statistics where they formed a life-long friendship. At the time of his review of Mitchell's article, Young was President of the American Economic Association, and "perhaps the most respected American economist of his day".68 If I can say that he "corrected" Mitchell, it was as a result of the authority that he had.

Young begins by complimenting Mitchell: "No economist of his generation has made more important substantive additions to economic knowledge than Professor Mitchell" (Young, 1925: p. 174). He then proceeds to rebut Mitchell's "psychological" attack on mainstream economics: Mitchell's use of Veblen's criticism of hedonistic homo economicus. Young argues that "economics not only should be or is, but always has been a study of human behavior, getting its data from experience, not from

68 Sandilands (1997: p. 1260). In this biographical sketch of Young, I have also relied on Taussig et al (1929) and Mitchell (1929).

38 psychological postulates" (Young, 1925: p. 178).69 Young then proceeds to outline his understanding of the methodology of economics:

The "economic man" was a fiction, not of economics, but of the sterile formal logic of economic method, for much of which, of course, economists themselves have been responsible. What the economists really abstracted was one special class of human relationships. Or better, they took into account the world as they knew it, modified only in that their eyes were focussed on the impersonal types of relationships that are to be found in the market places of countries where modern commercial institutions have been developed. They did not rationalize human behavior; they merely put into generalized form their knowledge of some very real types of behavior ... I hazard a guess that in the actual construction of economic science analogies and "models" have had much to do with the form generalizations have taken. Thus our generalizations relating to diminishing and marginal utility are not "deductions" from any psychological postulates, but would appear to be organizations of our knowledge of a larger field of economic behavior upon the analogy of or after the model of generalizations already successfully established with respect to the behavior of the market place. (Young, 1925: pp.181-182)

As with Mill and Wieser, Allyn Young identifes a particular restricted domain of behavior, "one special class of human relationships". Here, however, it seems to me that Young makes the same advance as Weber in that he locates this "special class"

69 Young is here speaking in the language of the psychological behaviourism that had become popular after the war, but his animus is directed at "Wesley Mitchell's Veblenian view of the great influence of Bentham's psychological hedonism upon classical economic theory. As between those two things, he maintained, the relation or influence ran mainly in the other direction; from the older assumption that in business dealings men tried to maximize their economic gains, to Bentham' s broader generalization that all human behavior tries to maximize the net gains of 'pleasure' or 'happiness' for those doing the 'behaving'. The more basic influence behind classical economic thought, Young believed, was British empiricism in philosophy; the basic premises of deductive economic theory were not a priori axioms, but inductive generalizations from experience and observation of economic activities themselves" (October 15, 1973 Letter from Overton Taylor to Charles Blitch, quoted in Sandilands, 1999: pp. 474-475).

39 historically, which he identifies as "the impersonal types of relationships that are to be found in the market places of countries where modern commercial institutions have been developed". This is a strength of his account in that it serves to underscore the point that the idealized models of economics are derived from generalizations of observed behaviour. His other difference from Mill and Wieser, however, is that he is using a behavioural model, and this cuts him off from the language of motivation and intentions, and makes it difficult to discuss the ambiguity of behaviour, the trade-offs among goods and the conflicts among the demands of virtue. It is for this reason that he is silent on the matter of confounding conditions that both Mill and Wieser are able to address.

So, where have we arrived with this discussion of Weber, Mill, Wieser, Mitchell, and Young. I have tried to show in the foregoing analysis that some of the most influential streams of American economic thought in the early twentieth century were broadly compatible with a Millian methodology, if not somewhat more advanced in key respects. There are certainly few signs of the coming catastrophe of the neoclassical transformation.

What I have been doing is building a model of one of the leading strands of American moral science in the early 1900s. I have focused on showing the basis on which it could be said to be cross-disciplinary. The ethical and practical dimensions have been lurking in the background, but I have not made them explicit or sought to argue their case. What is required at this point is to show that the social science practiced in Nova Scotia has a connection to this cross-disciplinary model. In doing so, I think the ethical and practical dimensions of the social science will also become evident.

40 Chapter 5 - Interwar Social Science in N.S.

The three scholars, Daniel MacDonald, Samuel Prince, and Alfred Balcom, who I am examining as representatives for the social sciences in Nova Scotia, were all born within a few years of one another in the same regional culture, although to quite distinct faith traditions. Unlike their counterparts at the University of Toronto whom I discussed, the scholarly writings of these Nova Scotia professors were not large. Rather, they occupied themselves to a considerable extent with practical research, teaching, and social action linked to their Christian faith. As a result, in addition to exploring their writing, and the textbooks they used in their teaching, I spend some considerable space analyzing their "intellectual pedigree" - the methodology of their mentors or the tradition in which they studied for their highest degree.

Each of these representatives, as will become evident, entered the social sciences with different interests and orientations. However, it is my argument to show that their particular work in social science, as distinguished from that of their "cousins" in history or philosophy, can be understood as social economics.

Daniel Joseph MacDonald (1881-1948)

Born in Glassburn, near Antigonish, MacDonald took his Bachelor of Arts degree at St. Francis Xavier, graduating in 1900, and followed this with theological studies in Rome at Urban College. He was ordained as a priest by Cardinal Respighi in 1904, and returned to Nova Scotia to serve in parish life. In 1910, he entered the Catholic University of America in Washington to do graduate work in english and economics. He received his Master's degree in 1911 and his Ph.D. in 1912. Upon his return to Antigonish diocese, he was appointed as Professor of Economics and Sociology at St.

41 F.X., in which position he continued until his retirement in 1944. He took on additional responsibilities, first as Vice-Rector from 1925 to 1930, then as Vice-President from 1930 to 1936, and finally as President from 1936 to 1944. He died in 1948 and was buried in the local parish cemetery in Heatherton near the home where he had been born.71

The decision to pursue graduate studies at the Catholic University was probably not an accident. The Catholic University of America had been authorized by the papal brief of Leo XIII in 1887 and formally opened two years later. The papacy of Leo XIII from 1878 to 1903, in some contrast to the "debilitating feebleness of intellectual life"72 in the papacy of Pius IX which preceded him, was an "imperial papacy"73 which radiated "intellectual purpose".74 The two most important events for our purposes were his encyclical letters, Aeterni Patris in 1879, m&Rerum Novarum in 1891.

The 1879 letter was the central reference in propelling the Thomist revival in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.75 It reflected his call to rebuild "the signs of credibility which justify acceptance of divine revelation" (Hennesey, 1978: p. S195) and in so doing to, once again, put philosophy in the service of faith.

This philosophical renewal was complemented by the social renewal called for in the 1891 letter. Here Leo XHI recognized the value of private property as being consistent with natural law "by stimulating the individual to self-improvement, by supplying the

70 In his first year at St. F.X., he taught english and history, but thereafter taught economics and sociology. There was a brief period in the 1920s when another faculty member taught sociology, and further appointments in both economics and sociology were made again after his appointment as President in 1936. 71 Sources for the biographical material include Johnston (1994), his obituary in The Casket newspaper for Sep 16, 1948, and the University Calendars for 1912/13 to 1944/45. 72 Hennesey, 1978: p. S187. 73 Hennesey, 1978: p. SI86. 74 Nuesse, 1990: p. 7. 75 Maclntyre (1990) emphasizes that "Thomism had been enjoying a revival for about thirty years" when Leo XIII took office, but was still not strong enough to bear the intellectual weight that was then required of it. This is of great import for the subsequent development of Thomist scholarship in the twentieth century under Etienne Gilson and Bernard Lonergan.

42 basic needs of human personality and by safeguarding the integrity of family life". However, wages must be sufficient to support "reasonable and frugal comfort", and where that is not present, the wage-earner is "the victim of force and injustice". In the case of the indigent, give alms, although this is a duty not of justice but of charity. In the cooperation necessary for social production, differences must be subordinated to "the precepts of justice and charity".76 We will here recall that Adam Smith set out a moral system in which prudence was one of the lower, commercial virtues, an element in a larger moral regime along with justice and benevolence. In this case, however, Leo XIII is specifying a standard for the resolution of conflicts among the virtues.

Both of these encyclicals had been issued while MacDonald was growing up, but the intellectual impacts were still rippling through the scholarly and lay Catholic communities when he made his decision to go to the Catholic University in Washington. The general model for the Catholic University had been inspired by the example of Johns Hopkins and the research orientation that it had adopted from the German university (Nuesse, 2001: p. 646), but it was further distinguished as the second major university in America to form a Department of Sociology, which it did in 1895, and was among the top five producers of sociology doctorates in the U.S. before 1939.77 As Morgan notes in his pioneering study, it was the only Catholic institution in America "to develop sociology in any serious fashion before 1900".78

Sociology is important for its paradigmatic status for the social sciences at the Catholic University, but also because, of the three faculty members from whom Daniel MacDonald is almost certain to have taken classes, the Professor of Sociology from 1897

76 The quotations in this paragraph are drawn from Abell (1945: pp. 465-466). In some cases, Abell is quoting directly from the encyclical, although the translation from Latin is his own and differs slightly from the current Vatican translation. 77 Young (2009) surveys the origins and early Ph.D. production of the top 20 sociology departments in the U.S. Chicago was, of course the first university with a stand-alone sociology department under Albion Small in 1894. The University of Pennsylvania was third in 1913. Young reports the start of the Catholic University Sociology Department as 1897. However, Nuesse (2001) fixes the date at 1895, and appears to have resolved some of the confusion evident in Mulvaney (1955). 78 Morgan (1966: p. 257), quoted in Nuesse (2001). See also Morgan (1969, 1970, 1982).

43 to 1934, William Joseph Kerby, was by far the strongest talent of the three. Kerby had studied in Berlin with Gustav Schmoller of the German historical school and Georg Simmel. Two further particulars are worthy of note at this point: Kirby introduced a sociology course in 1907-08 which treated "social processes in American life with particular reference to the functions of conservatism and radicalism", and read a paper on "Processes of Radicalism" at the 1920 meeting of the American Sociological Society (Nuesse,2001: p. 653, 657).

MacDonald did his Ph.D. thesis, presumably, in English as his doctoral dissertation is titled The Radicalism of Shelley and its Sources. This study traces "the development of the religious and political views of [Percy Blysse] Shelley ... to help one in forming a true estimate of his work and character" (MacDonald, 1912: p. 5). In my own reading of this work, it is much closer to a contemporary piece of historical sociology, than it is to a literary analysis. MacDonald is not concerned with the structure or content of the poetry or essays themselves, but uses them as evidence for his analysis of the social and ideological location of Shelley. While the language strikes the ear as old-fashioned, the analysis is theoretical and erudite.

MacDonald, in my view, is trying to work out his own understanding of the relation between moral behaviour and social institutions, and connects the particular forms they took in early nineteenth century society, in a very interesting way, through an empirical analysis of, what we would now call, the "imaginary" which Shelley expressed:

Notwithstanding all its shortcomings radicalism fulfils a very useful purpose in society. It keeps before our eyes the ideal ... Shelley's poetry exercises our imagination, takes us away from ourselves and makes us think about our neighbors ... 'the imagination has a supreme role in the neighborly relations of

For a relative assessment of Patrick Joseph Lennox who taught english and of Frank O'Hara who taught economics when MacDonald was there, see Nuesse (1990: pp. 221, 226). Nuesse identifies Kerby in this same reference as "an outstanding figure", but in Nuesse (2001), he demonstrates this in considerable detail. For discussion of Kerby's mentor and predecessor, the moral theologian, Thomas Joseph Bouquillon, see Nuesse (1986).

44 men ... But only they have entrance to our hearts to whom imagination gives the passport'. (MacDonald, 1912: pp. 148, 150)

It may be no wonder then that Father Jimmy Tompkins describes MacDonald in the early 1920s as the most radical member of the faculty (Cameron, 1996: p. 241).

MacDonald, then, did his doctoral work within the matrix of Leo XIII' s teachings and the cutting edge of social science practice at the Catholic University. On his return to take up teaching at St. F.X., Macdonald (1915a, 1915b) published an essay in the campus paper, the Xaverian, titled Economics and the Church. Surprisingly strident in tone, he argues that economic behaviour is subject to the demands of morality, and that this must guide the teaching and practice of economics itself: "The economist is not free to direct man's activity in any direction whatever, he must at least be guided by the dictates of justice and of charity". He then indicates that moral conflicts of this kind result from an antagonism of interests: "Where there is scarcity, there will be two men wanting the same thing, and consequently an antagonism of interests ... The antagonism of interests gives rise to moral problems ... Economics is concerned not only with the conflict between man and man for the possession of economic goods but also with a conflict of interests within the individual himself." He then relates this conflict of interests to the institutional forms of the society, and comments on the distribution of power within those forms: "The capitalist uses howitzers, 17 inchers, but the poor laborer, bows and arrows". This conflict, Macdonald indicates was given precise point in the encyclical, Rerum Novarum: "Leo XIII goes to the root of the question and vindicates the rights of the laborer ... that the remuneration must be enough to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort." He concludes that "simple justice requires that all should have the necessities of life before any are permitted to indulge in extravagant luxuries". In the years following the war, he publishes a number of essays on similar themes in the local newspaper: "Poverty and its Causes" (Casket, March 29, 1917); "Catholic Church and Social Work" (Casket, Mar 17, 1921); "Labour and the Social Economic Problem" (Casket, Jan 24, 1924).

After the war, research he conducted led to his 1927 report, Country Life versus City

45 Life: A Few Timely Observations, in which he analyzes the socio-economic opportunity costs of ex-patriate migrants to the United States.80 MacDonald forwards this report to J. A. Walker, then N.S. Minister of Natural Resources, who decided to print and circulate the manuscript through the office of the provincial government. In a letter of reply, Walker endorses the paper, and writes: "The problem of maintaining rural communities, the seed bed of population, is not confined to Nova Scotia and is receiving the consideration of social economists the world over".81

What can we say about the texts that MacDonald used in his courses? Up until the point at which he took over as President of the university, the texts that were used for most of the period for the economic principles course were Richard Ely's Outlines of Economics earlier, and his Elementary Principles of Economics later; William Smart's An Introduction to the Theory of Value on the lines of Menger, Wieser and Bohm-Bawerk; and Wright, Field, and Marshall's Materials for the Study of Elementary Economics%2 The sociology texts that were used for most of the period for the sociology principles course were Charles Ellwood's Sociology in its Psychological Aspects, Edward Hayes' Introduction to the Study of Sociology,83 and Reports of the Canadian Conference of

80 Outmigration from Nova Scotia, particularly during this period to Boston, was very substantial in the early decades of the twentieth century. Cameron (1996: p. 166) notes "the population in Antigonish county had dropped from 18,060 in 1881 to 11,518 by 1921". 81 Daniel J. MacDonald, St. F.X. Archives: RG 30.3/21/517. 82 Richard Ely was an early American institutionalist who had studied in Germany with Karl Knies at Heidelburg. His Outlines of Economics, originally published in 1893, and subsequently revised by Allyn Young in its 1916 and 1923 editions, was "the most widely used general treatise" in America between WWI and the Depression (Dorfman, 1959b: p. 211). William Smart also wrote an analytical preface to the 1893 translation of Wieser's Natural Value. MacDonald used the text, Introduction to Economics, by Frank O'Hara, the professor of economics at the Catholic University, for the first three years after it was published (1917-1919), and then reverted to his previous textbook scheme. In later years, he added Taussig's Principles of Economics to the Ely text. We will meet Taussig in the discussion of economics at Acadia. 83 Ellwood was a student of Dewey, Mead, and Simmel. Turner describes Ellwood's sociology as "a humanitarian science" (Turner, 2007a: p. 153). Hayes studied with John Dewey and James Tufts at Chicago in 1899, then did a year in Berlin with Schmoller, Wagner, and Simmel. He was President of the A.S.S. in 1921. (Sutherland, 1929).

46 Catholic Charities edited by Catholic University professor, William Kerby, whom we discussed above.

Through the 1920s, St. F.X. had been at the centre of various experiments with rural conferences, study groups, and other forms of adult education.84 In 1928, Moses Coady was appointed as first Director to establish a new Extension Department. Coady was granted leave in 1929 for a study-tour of adult education extension in Canada and the United States. In 1930, the St. F.X. board authorized "shifting the extension department into action", appointed Angus B. MacDonald, the brother of Daniel MacDonald, as Assistant Director, and the "Antigonish Movement" was born.85

It is hard to appreciate the extent to which the Antigonish Movement,86 and its work of building producer and consumer cooperatives of all types, absorbed the energies of St. F.X through the 1930s and 1940s, perhaps until 1952 when Moses Coady retired. In a paper read to the Canadian Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas (probably) in the late 1930s, titled The Philosophy of the Antigonish Movement, Daniel MacDonald, by then President of the university, reported that the "aim of this movement is to implement the teachings of our Holy Father and his predecessors with regard to Social Justice". At this time, he reports there were then eleven full time workers in the Department of Extension, and a further thirty full-time project extension workers. In the late 1930s, there were only some thirty non-extension faculty.87

It is hard to read this text without seeing MacDonald's understanding of the

84 Cameron (1996: p. 212) reports that "From 1900, college authorities had expanded the curriculum and had made temporary experimental forays into extension work". 85 A. B. MacDonald organized the N.S. Credit Union League and became its first managing director. In 1944, he moved to Ottawa to organize the Co-operative Union of Canada, and served as its National Secretary until his death in 1952. (St. F.X. Archives, File RG 25.3/4/2731). 86 The critical literature on the Antigonish Movement is large and readily available. Further work of note on the relations between the Catholic Church and St. F.X are found in Edwards (1953) and Ludlow (2006). Cameron (1992) provides some helpful background. 87 St. F.X. Archives: HD/41/A582. The paper was printed but is undated. There is a reference in the paper to a letter dated Mar 8, 1938 from Cardinal Pacelli, "now our Holy Father", so the paper would have had to have been delivered after March 2, 1939 when Pacelli was elected to the papacy.

47 Antigonish Movement as the embodiment of the call of Rerum Novarum. The social science which MacDonald practiced during his lifetime certainly was practical with a clear ethical focus and, as I have sought to particularly emphasize in this discussion, was cross-disciplinary in the rather sophisticated way that social economics was conceptualized.

Samuel Henry Prince (1886-1960)

Prince was born on a rural homestead a few miles outside of St. John in southern New Brunswick to a staunch Anglican Loyalist family:

As the Prince genealogy shows, I am of Loyalist extraction on both sides of the house. Earliest tradition shows one side of the family to be descended from a French Huguenot, and in the case of the Prince ancestry, it appears that his European forefather was from Germany. Both families represent one of the most unmixed Loyalist communities existing anywhere in Canada. (Prince autobiographical notes, quoted in Hatfield, 1990: p. 33)

Given to "an evangelical simplicity and a fervent relationship with God" (Hatfield, 1990: p. 37), Prince decided early on to go into the Anglican ministry and, in 1904, entered Wycliffe Theological College in Toronto,88 graduating with a B.A. with honours

88 The choice of Wycliffe for an evangelical was quite clear. At that time, Trinity College in Toronto served the anglo-catholic wing of the Anglican Church, while Wycliffe served the evangelical wing; moreover, the antagonism between them was sharp. Further support comes from Russell Elliott, a student, and later a colleague, of Prince, who tells a story which reflects on the evangelical character of Prince's churchmanship: "He wasn't that interested in a lot of the externals, like candles and vestments, and that sort of thing. He never owned a set of stoles on his own. He would wear whatever stole he happened to find in the Sacristy at the College Chapel. Some student reminded him one day that the stole he was wearing was pretty thread-bare, and not very good condition. His response to that was 'the soul is more important than the stole'. Many years after he retired [from the University], he retired also from the Council of Social Service, and I succeeded him as Chairman, and we were going to have a banquet in his honour, and I called his sister and asked what kind of a present he would like to have. She said he never owned a set of stoles. So, we got him a set of stoles. And he was as pleased as could be with those stoles.

48 Dynes and Quarantelli argue that Prince is not really committed to the grand theory of social change, but that his empirical focus is on emergent organization:

We think that it is possible to argue that the Prince study was not about social change, at least in the substantive sense. His major focus was on an emergent system to distribute disaster relief to the "victims" of the explosion. That system emerged some sixty hours after the explosion ... Prince, in his later chapters, talks about changes within the community that were evident in 1919 and in the early 1920s, but none of these relate to ways the emergent relief system became institutionalized within the community. (Dynes and Quarantelli, 1994: p. 64)

Now I think Dynes and Quarantelli are on to something here, but their argument betrays their interests in mass emergency and disaster research.100 I agree that Prince was not fundamentally concerned about theories of social change, per se. He was, rather, concerned essentially about social organization, whether it was, in the case of the Halifax Explosion, a matter of emergency relief or whether it was, as it was later, a matter of long-term housing for the needy. It is not that Prince was atheoretical, but that he was interested in getting traction on how to make a difference.

Let me give an example from within his own teaching. When Prince was appointed as an Assistant Professor of Economics and Sociology at Dalhousie in 1924,101 the introductory course he taught was not a Principles of Sociology course, but one on Social Organization. That I suggest was his central interest.

Similarly, the research program on social organization which Prince conducted was not an academic one. The social organizing and activism for which he is so well-known was, for him, a laboratory for developing his understanding of how to organize

At the time of writing, both authors were with the Disaster Research Center at the University of Delaware. 101 It should be noted that Prince taught the Economic History course and the Labour Problems & Trusts course for years.

55 progressive "social change". And he did so far beyond the "emergent organization" of disaster relief.

His first significant paper after his dissertation was the 1932 report on Housing in Halifax for the "Citizens' Committee on Housing". Written in the style of Charles Booth and Seebohm Rowntree, a socio-economic survey of housing by A. G. Dalzell and a sanitary survey by the City Board of Health were appended to an analysis and recommendations prepared by Prince. This report led to the setting up of the N.S. Housing Commission, and Prince was appointed to the Board, and subsequently as its Chairman, where he served for many years. He went on to serve as Chairman of the National Committee on Housing, Vice President of the Canadian Conference on Socail Work, governor of the Canadian Welfare Council and of the Canadian Mental Health Association, executive officer of the Canadian Correctional Association, Chairman of the N.S. Diocesan Council of Social Service, and on and on. Of more than passing note was his organizing role in the creation of the Maritime School of Social Work, where he served as its first director from 1946 to 1949 until it became institutionalized.

The most recent recognition of his sociological practice - cross-disciplinary, ethical, practical - came in the year 2000 when the Canadian Traumatic Stress Network established the "Dr. Samuel Henry Prince Humanitarian Award" and in the year 2009 when the International Research Committee on Disasters announced the Samuel Henry Prince Dissertation Award.

Alfred Burpee Balcom (1876-1943)

Balcom was born in Nictaux Falls in the Annapolis Valley to a Baptist family and graduated with a B.A. from Acadia University in 1907. He attended Harvard as a graduate student with MacKenzie King102 and worked under the influential political

This relationship with MacKenzie King was perhaps the basis for the telegraphed appeal by Norman Rogers in 1930 asking Balcom to speak publicly during the general election campaign. (National Archives: W. L. MacKenzie King Papers, Volume 206, Jun 27,1930).

56 economist, Frank Taussig. In his third year of study, he was awarded the Austin Teaching Fellowship.103 Balcom completed his M.A. degree in 1909 with a thesis titled, The Development of English Poor Law Policy. He taught at the University of Minnesota for a few years, and then accepted an appointment in 1913 to the Chair in Economics & Sociology at Acadia University. During the early years at Acadia, he also served as Registrar from 1913 to 1925, and in 1930, Acadia awarded him an honorary Doctor of Civil Law degree. Balcom took an active role in civic affairs: he was twice Mayor of WolfVille; in 1934, he was Chairman of a Royal Commission on the Nova Scotia milling trade; and in 1939 was appointed Chairman of the Nova Scotia Economic Council, succeeding Stanley MacKenzie (former President of Dalhousie University). Balcom continued to teach until his death in 1943. In a memorial address, the historian, Thomas Dadson, summed up the man: "In the best sense of the term Dr. Balcom was a humanist".104

Let us begin, as we did with the other Nova Scotia social scientists, with a discussion of Balcom's graduate teacher, Frank Taussig. Taussig was the leading figure in American economics during the first few decades of the twentieth century.105 Born just before the U.S. Civil War, Taussig obtained his B.A. from Harvard, and studied for a year in Berlin, with Adolph Wagner and Adolph Held, two of the "younger" German historical economists, where he indicates he was much stimulated:106 "When I went to Berlin in 1879,1 got great stimulus - new points of view - from Wagner" (Carlson, 1999: p. 300). He returned to Harvard and completed his Ph.D. in 1883 with a dissertation

Reports of the President and the Treasurer of Harvard College, 1909-1910: The Graduate School of Arts & Science, p. 103. 104 The biographical details are drawn from Dadson (1943), CJEPS (1944), Goodwin (1961), and Kirkconnell(1938). 105 In Schumpeter's 1951 essay collection, Ten Great Economists, Taussig is one of three Americans, the others being Irving Fisher and Wesley Clair Mitchell. 106 In their memorial essay on Taussig, Schumpeter et al (1941) indicate they are not sure whether Taussig actually met Wagner, this despite Schumpeter having living with Taussig for five years (Schumpeter, 1951). New research by Carlson (1999), however, has uncovered survey responses by Taussig to Henry Farnham in 1906 which provide additional information.

57 under Charles Dunbar, published as Protection to Young Industries as Applied in the United States. In this, he follows up on work by Friedrich List, and explores the "infant industry" argument for trade protection. This sets the path for his chief specialization in trade theory and balance of payments mechanisms, and "confirmed his bent, which was historical rather than analytical" (Opie, 1941: p. 350). Taussig was appointed to a Chair in Political Economy in 1886 and remained there for the next forty years. During that time, he was the editor of Harvard's influential The Quarterly Journal of Economics from 1889 to 1890, and 1896 to 1935.

Schumpeter referred to Taussig as "the American Marshall" (Schumpeter et al, 1941: p. 363). Already in 1891, Taussig had probably been the editor who arranged for Wagner to contribute a Review of Marshall's Principles in The Quarterly Journal of Economics}0* In 1892, Taussig read his own review of Marshall to the American Economics Association and suggested it was "the most important contribution to general political economy made in England since the days of John Stuart Mill".109 Between 1891 and 1898, Taussig exchanged eighteen letters with Marshall, and he and wife visited Marshall in Cambridge in 1895. Two years later, in 1897, Marshall sought out Taussig's advice on the revision of his Principles: "But there is no one whose judgement I should value more than yours" (Opie, 1941: p. 357).

The conventional view of Marshall is as the father of modern economics, the harmonizer and chief expositor of the union of classical economics with the new marginal utility theory, and progenitor of the first "partial" tools of future equilibrium analysis. However, recent research about Marshall reveals that he was centrally

107 Dunbar was a formative influence and Taussig wrote a memorial tribute in the Harvard Monthly of 1900. 108 Wagner comments: "I have acceded with pleasure to the request with which the editor of the Quarterly Journal of Economics has honored me, a German economist, to contribute a notice of the important economic work of an English colleague, Professor Marshall; and it is only by circumstances beyond my control that this notice has been so long delayed (Wagner, 1891: p. 319). The timing suggests an invitation from Taussig during his initial editorship. There is a further whiff of a suggestion in a reference to the upcoming review by Wagner in the correspondence between Marshall and Taussig (Opie, 1941: p. 353). 109 The paper was published the following year: Taussig (1893: p. 95).

58 concerned with the theory of economic progress and coordination in the tradition of Adam Smith, rather than with the Walrasian equilibrium modelling of later neoclassical economics (Loasby, 1986, 1989). This view of Taussig as "the American Marshall", then, is much more ambivalent and nuanced than we have been led to believe.

Taussig had a reputation as a conservative and staunch defender of mainstream economics, attracting opposition from some of the American institutionalists (Bruce, 2005; Schumpeter et al, 1941; Dorfman, 1959a). In a recent article, however, Bruce systematically analyzes Taussig's work and suggests that he "had much more in common with American institutionalism, and in particular with Veblen, than historians of economic thought have hitherto considered" (Bruce, 2005: p. 219). Taussig, he reports:

lamented the fact that the "habits, traditions, states of mind" of managers and indeed the entire capitalist class was one where "business exists simply for the sake of a profit". That "property and profits are regarded as an end, not a means" is part and parcel of "the mores which have grown with the growth of our capitalist system and our persisting social stratification". (Bruce, 2005)110

Taussig here defines homo economicus as a habit or state of mind related to the particular form of life which is doing business, and argues that it is historically contingent.

In a Festschrift for Taussig in 1936, Parsons has a good discussion of Taussig's understanding of motives, which takes this discussion a little farther. He suggests that, consistent with a deep appreciation of Mill's political economy, Taussig understands and argued for a broad understanding of human motivation:

[Professor Taussig] has on the one hand not been content to ignore the problem of motivation nor on the other to accept any such simple solution as the hedonistic formula ... Thus we find in his work a clear recognition of the importance of "domestic affection" among the motives to accumulation, of social ambition

Bruce (2005: p. 212) quoting from Taussig's Wertheim Lectures in Industrial Relations.

59 which, even if in a sense self-regarding, is not merely a desire for the intrinsic utilities which can be commanded by money income, of the "instinct of contrivance" to which he assigns a prominent role in the process of invention, and many others. (Parsons, 1936: pp. 370-371)

The position of Taussig is considerably more complex than has been generally regarded. He did not write directly on methodology, and his views have to be gleaned from his theoretical expositions and book reviews. However, it seems fair to regard Taussig as recognizing the institutional location of forms of life, and the mutual contribution of all the social sciences to an adequate understanding of human behavior.

Let us leave the last word on Taussig, to Schumpeter and his colleagues:

To [Taussig], economics always remained political economy. His early training and his general equipment were not only as much historical as they were theoretical; they were primarily historical. The practical problem in its historical, legal, political, in short, in its institutional aspects attracted him much more than any theoretical refinements ever did. And nobody who knew him can have failed to admire his ability to see problems in their sociological settings and in their historical perspectives. (Schumpeter et. al., 1941: p. 341-342)111

Such was the teacher and mentor of A. B. Balcom. What of Balcom's own work and thought? It can be divided into three areas of interest, or phases in his work.

I have already mentioned Balcom's 1909 dissertation on the poor laws.112 Here he makes evident the principal concern of his life with practical policy issues. He followed the dissertation a few years later, in 1913 with a review of a German monograph on the

111 Warren Samuels makes a similar point about Taussig: "Taussig's political economy, or economic sociology, set him off from most other leading orthodox economists. He saw society as both a structure and a struggle for power and privilege, in which an instinct of domination and an impulse of emulation were prevalent if not dominant (Samuels, 1987: p. 596). 112 In January of 1911, Balcom followed this up with a public lecture at Harvard on "Nassau W. Senior and the Reform of the English Poor Laws". (Harvard Crimson: Jan 7, 1911)

60 history of English poor relief. This review, published in the American Economic Review, is further evidence of Balcom's keen interest in the history of economic policy. Upon his return to Acadia, he must have discovered the speculative bubble in local silver fox farming that had occurred in his absence. He published an article about this bubble in Harvard's Quarterly Journal of Economics, edited then by his mentor, Frank Taussig. The article shows an eloquent style and a mastery of the particulars of the phenomenon, but does not progress to any policy conclusions.

Following these initial efforts of publication - a kind of trying his wings - Balcom publishes three essays on prices, trade and finance: his 1920 article, The Rise in Prices, his 1924/25 article, Why All Tariffs are an Evil, and his 1932 article on The Automatic Gold Standard and the Necessary Modifications}17, In these essays, he essentially is working through and building upon Taussig's frameworkfo r international trade. Balcom argues that there is a domain of behaviour where the propensity to "truck, barter and exchange" is dominant, but distinguishes between motives and outcomes, assigning mutual gain to an outcome:

It is important always to keep in mind that international trade and internal trade are essentially similar business transactions. Both refer to buying and selling by individuals and firms, inspired by similar motives, carried on through similar mechanisms, and producing similar results - the mutual gain of the contracting parties. (Balcom, 1924-25: pp. 477-478)

Balcom's remaining four publications represent his mature work in policy analysis at the level of the Maritime economy. His first work, the 1928-29 article, Agriculture in Nova Scotia since 1870, examines much the same problem as did Daniel MacDonald in his 1927 paper. Balcom refers also to the problem of outmigration, but instead of assessing its opportunity costs, as did MacDonald, he looks at the economic health of agriculture in the province. He notes that "a clearer understanding of the influences

113 Balcom also wrote an essay responding to the Pollak Foundation's Prize, and received honourable mention by the judging committee of Wesley Mitchell, Allyn Young, and Owen Young. This essay was not published and is not available. See Foster and Catchings (1927), and Hayek (1931).

61 which determine the selection of occupations and locations by the young people of rural communities as they reach the age of maturity is particularly desirable" (1928-1929: pp. 42-43), but such is not his purpose. The work of Balcom and MacDonald, here, is complementary. In the early 1930s, Balcom initiated a prize contest for the most comprehensive study of economic conditions in the Maritimes. In the published work of the winner, Stanley Saunders, Balcom (1932a) writes the "Introduction", and sets the work in the context of the outmigration from Nova Scotia and the demand for "Maritime Rights". In 1935-36, Balcom follows up with a lengthy assessment of the Jones Report (The Nova Scotia Royal Commission of Provincial Economic Inquiry), one of whose Commissioners was Harold Innis. Balcom describes the Commission's purpose as an enquiry into the causes of the economic retardation of the province. Whatever interest Balcom may have had earlier for equilibrium analysis, he is explicit here in his recognition of the constraints which the institutional framework (freight rates, tariff policy, and transfer payments) had played on the economic performance of Nova Scotia. Finally, it is worth noting that he returns again to the theme with a 1939 review of a book of essays on the Maritime economy.

The course work and texts he taught are a little more explicit in the early years: in his principles of economics course, "attention is directed to the basic relation of the "complex organization" of production and the "forces tending to determine the distribution" to the "social problems of the day"; in his principles of sociology course, the "influence of the political, economic, intellectual, moral and religious factors in progress" were to be examined. The texts used are not given until the 1924-25 academic year, and by then he is a little more circumspect in his descriptions, with a less explicit moral concern. For the principles of economics course, he used Taussig's Principles of Economics, and for the principles of sociology course, he used Ross' Principles of Sociology, and continued with them for the entire period in which he taught. After 1930, when Professor Mosher joined him in the department, Balcom continued to teach the sociology courses.

The practical shape of Balcom's social science is there aplenty, the ethical shape is present, but more muted. Dadson, in his memorial address, called Balcom "a gentleman"

62 and had "never heard from him a mean word about anybody or to anybody". He comments on the early death of Balcom's wife which, I think, speaks to this quality of ethical restraint:

Most of you will have no memory of Mrs. Balcom, a gracious lady, who made his home a place of singular happiness for him and hospitality for his friends. He was never quite the same after her untimely death about thirteen years ago. He maintained his home and bore his grief without parade ... He never wore his religion on his sleeve, yet his whole life was ordered by its abiding loyalties. (Dadson, 1943)

Final Remarks

MacDonald, Prince, and Balcom were colleagues in Nova Scotia. There is no indication of interaction between them, but they cannot have helped knowing about one another in such a small province. Their religion backgrounds were quite different - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Baptist - each at, what were still then, church-governed institutions.

Their work was not ahistorical. Each of them used historical material as part of providing context or in a consideration of origins, but they did so within a framework of practical and ethical action. In this sense, the form of social science which they practiced differed from the social science we found at Toronto.

In its particulars, their social science was quite different from one another. Yet, I have tried to point to an underlying similarity in the practical, ethical and cross- disciplinary character of the social sciences they practiced. This practice cannot be considered prehistory, although it is nothing like the social science that came to dominate affairs in the post-war period. I conclude that there were valid prototypes for social science in place in Canada by the beginning of the interwar period, and what Toronto did and what Nova Scotia did were different.

63 Chapter 6 - Conclusion

The early Canadian theory I discussed offered explanations which focussed on that moment of epistemological certainty which Peter Wagner highlighted, about 1960, when the Canadian disciplines separated. Correspondingly, this work emphasized structural and institutional explanations and, in my view, confused a state-transition in the social sciences from the interwar to the postwar periods, with their origin. Not much interested in the historical sociology of the social sciences, Canadian sociologists did not do much macro-analysis after the early work. There is some brilliant recent historical work in sociology, such as that of Richard Helmes-Hayes or the late Jeffrey Cormier, but it is mostly focussed on specific individuals or events in the social sciences. The one recent exception that occurs to me is Neil McLaughlin's essay, Canada's Impossible Science, which, rather surprisingly, stirred up a national controversy.

The historians, on the other hand, were not able to ignore the particulars of a vigorous and broad-based scientific practice in the interwar years. What Gauvreau has called the "neoclassical interpretation"114 has wanted to draw a line between moral philosophy and positive science, pushing the transition dates back to the late nineteenth century and the early years of the twentieth century. Correspondingly, this account has tended to emphasize a secularization explanation.

In recent years, much of the historical work has attempted to develop more information on the extent to which there was, or was not, a religious content and character during the interwar years (Van Die, 1989; Airhart, 1992; Christie and Gauvreau, 1996; Gidney, 2004). This work serves, in my opinion, to confirm the influence of the churches and the religious underpinnings of social life until the end of

Gauvreau (1991: p. 163); see Cook (1997) for a strong reply. Gauvreau takes this farther in a subsequent survey essay written with Ollivier Hubert in 2006. Here, the new language of the "church as accommodator" is used.

64 World War II. The effect of this work is to move the dates back towards the moment of epistemological certainty which the sociologists like.

What I have tried to show is that further resolution of the question of timing, and the causal processes behind that, can be advanced through a more sensitive analysis of the formations and intellectual history of the social sciences. I think the questions get some purchase when we stop focussing on the dates, and start focussing on the forms.

For me, Gauvreau is barking about something important, but is not barking up quite the right tree. McKillop, it seems to me, has correctly identified a transition in the later part of the nineteenth century and early part of the twentieth century - what I am suggesting was a transition from moral philosophy to moral science - but he seems to see it as a concession to an eventual total purge. - an unstable amalgam of two worlds.115

And this is where I part company with McKillop. Consistent with Gauvreau's account which emphasizes the continuing interwar practice of Christianity and its location in a form of life that displays emotion and catharsis, as well as reason and measured behaviour, I see no basis for judging that the various forms that interwar social science took were unstable. It is that later state-transition from a stable moral science to an epistemologically certain positive science after the Second World War on which Gauvreau's attention is focussed.

The route I have taken is to examine the form that the Nova Scotian social sciences took during the interwar period. I developed a model of that social science - cross disciplinary, ethical, practical - and tested it against the evidence of the work of Daniel MacDonald, Samuel Prince, and Burpee Balcom. Nova Scotia social science simply does not fit the Toronto model.

"Yet certain Ontario professors made exceptional contributions to the disciplines of philosophy, psychology, and sociology during this period. The most outstanding among them taught at the University of Toronto. They were remarkable precisely because they refused to separate the concerns of the social sciences from those of the humanities. Like their colleagues in classics, English, and history, theirs was usually an historical approach ... Moreover, they refused to divorce their work not only from the past but also from the moral." (McKillop, 1994: p. 485)

65 I suggest that there was a moment of liquidity in Canadian society at the turn of the century, and that multiple coherent forms of social science took shape in that moment. What this gives us, then, is a variable, and this makes all the difference. We no longer have to explain a unique pattern, but can use comparative analysis of empirical evidence to build and test various explanatory models. Providing an explanation for this variation is outside my argument, and beyond my present resources. However, I can make a few remarks which point to the direction in which I would look.

Nova Scotia was, firstly, greatly shaped by the great Evangelical Revival Movements during the late 1700s and early 1800s, particularly in the western counties of the province.116 Secondly, large portions of the eastern counties, predominantly Scottish Roman Catholic, and the central counties, predominantly Scottish Presbyterian, were Gaelic speakers,117 and an underclass relative to the dominant English classes of the society.118 Finally, the Baptist church was the central institution of the African-Nova Scotian population (Paris, 1989), and the issues of slavery and prejudice had a resonance out of all proportion to the numbers of African-Nova Scotians in Nova Scotia.119 Moreover, these formative influences occurred at a point when Nova Scotia society, more broadly, and the Church, specifically, were being defined, ordered and institutionalized.

116 George Rawlyk's scholarship on Henry Alline and those who were "ravished by the spirit" has inspired a whole generation of scholars. 117 John Edwards reports that "the majority of emigration [from Scotland] occurred between 1790 and 1830", and that by the latter date, for a brief period, the Scots "had become the largest ethnic group in Nova Scotia" (Edwards, 1991: p. 272). Kennedy reports that "most Scots who immigrated to Nova Scotia appear to have been Gaelic speaking" (Kennedy, 2002: p. 25). By the late 1800s, significant out-migration and language erosion were taking their toll. Jonathan Dembling (2006) has recently done work on the 1901 census, and concludes that there were still some 50,000 Gaelic speakers in Nova Scotia at that time (out of a total provincial population of 460,000). 118 Michael Kennedy is convincing with his claim that "the process of language and cultural decline was an often painful and humiliating experience". He quotes one of Cape Breton's Gaelic poets, Bard MacDiarmid, who wrote "My cheeks burned with shame...you perpetrators of devastation, you perpetrators of devastation" (Kennedy, 2002: pp. 59-60). Cf. Sinclair (1950); Cameron (1992). 119 The African-Nova Scotian population before 1900 arrived in three main migratory waves: the Negro Loyalists; the Jamaican Maroons; and the War of 1812 Refugees. In 1901, there were some 6,000 African-Nova Scotians, being about one-third of the total African-Canadian population.

66 What I want to suggest is that the timing and character of that establishment are critical. The Nova Scotian establishment was earlier; the Upper Canadian establishment was later.

A few years ago, Jerry Pittman (1993) published an article on his research into the Darwinian debate as it presented itself in Nova Scotia religious newspapers. What is significant was its negative finding: Nova Scotians were not much exercised over the threat that Darwinian ideas made to their faith. Barry Moody, in a discussion of the educational philosophy at Acadia University in the 1800s, makes a similar point, arguing that "they were able to see something very positive in the whole confrontation" (Moody, 1988: pp. 26-27).

George Marsden suggests that "the American intellectual community in America remained isolated during the early national period" and that, because of this, "the romantic era was truncated" (Marsden, 1977: pp. 228-229). This is certainly true for Nova Scotia, but my earlier discussion of practices suggests a little different emphasis: ideas have the most effect during periods of, what I have called, liquidity, and in Nova Scotia, a particular form of life was institutionalized earlier than in Upper Canada, and was not vulnerable to the same shocks which later opened up Upper Canadian society.

I am suggesting that the institutionalized social order in Nova Scotia and the ideational structure that corresponded to it, lacked an historical consciousness during the nineteenth and well into the twentieth centuries, in much the same way as the United States had not assumed a developmental view of history.120 And I want to suggest that Upper Canadian culture, and the form that it took at the University of Toronto was much more open to the historical consciousness of Romanticism: from Herder to Watson.

At least this is the line of explanation which I think is worth pursuing. I am happy in this moment to have simply opened the question of what form the social sciences took in

120 '"pjje fundamentalist response to Darwinism, for instance, generally was not an anti-intellectualistic one framed in terms of the incompatibility of science and religion. It was an objection rather to a type of science - a developmental type - which they almost always branded as 'unscientific'" (Marsden, 1977: p. 230).

67 Nova Scotia. The fact of variance between Nova Scotia and Toronto stands as a stark anomaly to existing theory, and indicates the productivity that may attach to inquiries that focus more on form than timing.

Many Maritimers, even now, see Upper Canada as the "heart of darkness". This is, I think, the lingering remains of that early historical consciousness that was true of Nova Scotia until after the Second World War. It is not an accident that sociology in Canada began here. Perhaps in a recovery of this early history, we can begin to see ways of transcending some of the contemporary dilemmas we face. For power is made perfect in weakness.

68 References

Abbott, Andrew. (2001). Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Abell, Aaron I. (1945). "The Reception of Leo Xffl's Labor Encyclical in America, 1891-1919." The Review of Politics: Vol. 7, No. 4,464-495.

Airhart, Phyllis D. (1992). Serving the Present Age: Revivalism, Progressivism, and the Methodist Tradition in Canada. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Allen, Richard. (1968). "The Social Gospel and the Reform Tradition in Canada." Canadian Historical Review. Vol. 49, No. 4, 381-399.

Allen, Richard. (1973). The Social Passion: Religion and Social Reform in Canada, 1914-1928. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Allen, Richard. (1977). "Salem Bland: The Young Preacher." Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society: Vol. 19, No. 1-2,75-93.

Alpert, H. (1954). "Robert M. Maclver's Contributions to Sociological Theory." In Freedom and Control in Modern Society, M. Berger, T. Abel and C. Page (eds.), pp. 286-312. New York: D. Van Nostrand.

Altholz, Josef. (1994). "A Tale of Two Controversies: Darwinism in the Debate over 'Essays & Reviews'." Church History: Vol. 63, No. 1, 50-59.

Alvey, James. (1999). "A Short History of Economics as a Moral Science." Journal of Markets & Morality: Vol. 2, No. 1, 53-3.

69 Armour, Leslie and Elizabeth Trott. (1981). The Faces of Reason: An Essay on Philosophy and Culture in English Canada, 1850-1950. Waterloo, Ont: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

Arndt, Heinz. (1995). "The Trend of Economics: USA 1924." History of Economics Review: Vol. 24, 128-132.

Asso, Pier Francesco and Luca Fiorito. (2000). "Receptiveness, Knowledge and Influence: The Spread of Italian Economic Thought in the United States (1890- 1940)." Storia del Pensiero Economico: N. 39.

Axelrod, Paul. (2002). "The University of Toronto through Historians' Eyes." Historical Studies in Education: Vol. 14, No. 2, 299-308.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1909). Development of English Poor Law Policy. Masters Thesis. Harvard University.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1913). "Review: Die Sozialokonomischen Grundlagen der Englischen Armenpolitik im Ersten Drittel des 19 Jahrhundert." The American Economic Review: Vol. 3, No. 3, 700-701.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1916). "Fox Farming in Prince Edward Island: A Chapter in the History of Speculation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Vol. 30, No. 4, 665-681.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1920). "The Rise in Prices." University Magazine: Vol.19, No. 1, 16-23.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1924-25). "Why All Tariffs Are an Evil." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 4, No. 4, 476-484.

70 Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1928-29). "Agriculture in Nova Scotia since 1870." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 8,29-43.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1932a). "Introduction." In The Economic Welfare of the Maritime Provinces, Economic Publications No. 1. Wolfville, N.S.: Acadia University.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1932b). "The Automatic Gold Standard and the Necessary Modifications." Proceedings of the Canadian Political Science Association: Vol. 4, 123-138.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1935-36). "The Jones Report - An Interpretation." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 15, No. 1, 1-13.

Balcom, Alfred Burpee. (1939). "Review: Studies in the Economy of the Maritime Provinces." The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 5, No. 4, 550-552.

Barnes, Harry Elmer. (1948). An Introduction to the History of Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bender, Thomas and Carl Schorske. (1998). "Introduction." In American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines, pp. 3-13. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Berger, Carl. ([1976] 1986). The Writing of Canadian History: Aspects of English- Canadian Historical Writing Since 1900. (Second Edition). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bierstedt, R. (1981). "Robert Morrison Maclver." In American Sociological Theory: A Critical History, pp. 243-297. New York: Academic Press.

71 Bissell, Claude. (1953). University College: A Portrait, 1853-1953. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bladen, V. W. (1960). "A Journal is Born: 1935." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 26, No. 1, 1-5.

Bladen, V. W. (1978). Bladen on Bladen: Memoirs of a Political Economist. Toronto: Scarborough College Press.

Blaug, Mark. (1972). "Was There a Marginal Revolution?" History of Political Economy: Vol. 4, No. 2, 269-280.

Bliss, Michael. (1982). "Review: A Disciplined Intelligence." Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society: Vol. 24, No. 1, 52-56.

Bothwell, Robert. (1991). Laying the Foundations: A Century of History at the University of Toronto. Toronto: Department of History, University of Toronto.

Bowley, Marian. (1972). "The Predecessors of Jevons - The Revolution that Wasn't." The Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies: Vol. 40, No. 1, 9-29.

Brown, Harcourt. (1946). "George Sidney Brett." Isis: Vol. 36, No. 2, 110-114.

Bruce, Kyle. (2005). "Frank W. Taussig's Institutionalism." Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 39, No. 1, 205-220.

Brym, Robert (with Bonnie Fox). (1989). From Culture to Power: The Sociology of English Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Bryson, Gladys. (1932). "The Emergence of the Social Sciences from Moral Philosophy." International Journal of Ethics: Vol. 42, No. 3, 304-323.

72 Burke, S. Z. (1996). Seeking the Highest Good: Social Service and Gender at the University of Toronto, 1888-1937. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Buxton, William. (2004). "The 'Values' Discussion Group at the University of Toronto, February-May, 1949", Canadian Journal ofCommunication: Vol.29, 187-204.

Caldwell, Bruce (ed.). (1990). Carl Menger and His Legacy in Economics, Annual Supplement to Volume 22, History of Political Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Cameron, James D. (1992). '"Erasing Forever the Brand of Social Inferiority': Saint Francis Xavier University and the Highland Catholics of Eastern Nova Scotia." CCHA Historical Studies: Vol. 59, 49-64.

Cameron, James D. (1996). For the People: A History of St. Francis Xavier University. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Camic, Charles. (1995). "Three Departments in Search of a Discipline: Localism and Interdisciplinary Interaction in American Sociology, 1890-1940." Social Research: Vol. 62, No. 4, 1003-1033.

Camic, Charles and Yu Xie. (1994). "The Statistical Turn in American Social Science: Columbia University, 1890 to 1915." American Sociological Review: Vol. 59, No. 5, 773-805.

Campbell, Douglas. (1983). "Riddell, Prince and Bradwin: The Columbia School." Beginnings: Essays on the History of Canadian Sociology. Port Credit, Ont: The Scribblers' Press.

Carlson, Benny. (1999). "Wagner's Legacy in America: Re-Opening Farnam's Inquiry." Journal of the History of Economic Thought: Vol. 21, No. 3, 289-310.

73 Cartwright, Nancy. (1994). "Mill and Menger: Ideal Elements and Stable Tendencies." Poznan Studies in the Philosophy of the Sciences and Humanities: Vol. 38, 171-188.

Chriss, James J. (2006). "Giddings and the Social Mind." Journal of Classical Sociology: Vol. 6, No. 1, 123-144.

Christie, Nancy and Michael Gauvreau. (1996). A Full-Orbed Christianity: The Protestant Churches and Social Welfare in Canada, 1900-1940. Montreal & Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

CJEPS. (1944). "Obituaries: Alfred Burpee Balcom, 1876-1943." The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 10, No. 1,79-79.

Clark, Andrew. (1960). "Old World Origins and Religious Adherence in Nova Scotia." Geographical Review: Vol. 50, No. 3, 317-344.

Clark, S. D. (1939). "Sociology and Canadian Social History." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 5, No. 3, 348-357.

Clark, S. D. (1940). "Economic Expansion and the Moral Order." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 6, No. 2, 203-225.

Clark, S. D. (1944). "Religious Organization and the Rise of the Canadian Nation, 1850- 1885." Report of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Historical Association: Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 86-97.

Clark, S. D. (1945). "The Religious Sect in Canadian Politics." American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 51, No. 3, 207-216.

Clark, S. D. (1946). "The Religious Sect in Canadian Economic Development." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 12, No. 4, 439-453.

74 Clark, S. D. (1947). "The Religious Factor in Canadian Economic Development." Journal of Economic History: Vol. 7, Supplement, 89-103.

Clark, S. D. (1948). Church and Sect in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clark, S. D. (1951). "Religion and Economic Backward Areas. " American Economic Review: Vol. 41, No. 2, 258-265.

Clark, S. D. (1959). "Sociology, History, and the Problem of Social Change." Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 25, No. 4, 389-400.

Clark, S. D. ([1962] 1968). "History and the Sociological Method." In The Developing Canadian Community, Second Edition, pp. 284-294. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clark, S. D. ([1963] 1968). "Social Change and the Community." In The Developing Canadian Community, Second Edition, pp. 295-305. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clark, S. D. ([1965] 1968). "Comparative Sociological Analysis and the Problem of Social Change." In The Developing Canadian Community, Second Edition, pp. 306- 313. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Clark, S. D. (1975). "Sociology in Canada: An Historical Over-View." Canadian Journal of Sociology: Vol. 1, No. 2, 225-234..

Clark. S. D. (1979). "The Changing Image of Sociology in English-Speaking Canada." Canadian Journal of Sociology: Vol. 4, 393-403.

Clark, S. D. (1988). "How the Department of Sociology Came into Being." In^ Quarter-Century of Sociology at the University of Toronto, 1963-1988, R. Helmes- Hayes (ed.), pp. 1-10. Toronto: Canadian Scholars'Press.

75 Clifford, N. K. (1969). "Religion and the Development of Canadian Society: An Historiographical Analysis." Church History: Vol. 38, No. 4, 506-523.

Cook, Ramsay. (1990). "Ambiguous Heritage: Wesley College and the Social Gospel Reconsidered." Manitoba History: Vol. 19,2-11.

Cook, Ramsay. (1997). "Salvation, Sociology and Secularism." The Literary Review of Canada: Vol. 6, No. 1, 140-12.

Cooter, Robert and Peter Rappoport. (1984). "Were the Ordinalists Wrong about Welfare Economics." Journal of Economic Literature: Vol. 22, No. 2, 207-530.

Craig, Cairns. (2007). "Maclver, Macmurray and the Scottish Idealists." Journal of Scottish Thought: Vol. l,No. 1.

Creighton, Donald. (1958a). "Chester Martin, 1882-1958." Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series: Vol. 52, 93-98.

Creighton, Donald. (1958b). "Chester Martin." Canadian Historical Review: Vol.39, No. 3, 263-264.

Dadson, Thomas McCosh. (1943). "A. B. Balcom,'07: An Appreciation Assembly Address." Acadia Bulletin: Vol.30.

Davids, Leo. (1968). "Franklin Henry Giddings: Overview of a Forgotten Pioneer." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 4, No. 1, 62-73.

Dembling, Jonathan. (2006). "Gaelic in Canada: New Evidence from an Old Census."" In Language and Culture, Wilson McLeod, James Fraser and Anja Gunderloch (eds.), pp. 203-214. Edinburgh: Dunedin Academic Press.

76 Diehl,Carl. (1923). "The Life and Work of Max Weber." The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Vol. 38, No. 1, 87-107.

Dorfman, Joseph. (1959a). The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Volume Three, 1865-1918. New York: The Viking Press.

Dorfman, Joseph. (1959b). The Economic Mind in American Civilization, Volume Four, 1918-1933. New York: The Viking Press.

Drummond, I. M. (1983). Political Economy at the University of Toronto: A History of the Department, 1888-1982. Toronto: University of Toronto Press..

Dummitt, Christopher. (2009). "After Inclusiveness: The Future of Canadian History." In Contesting Clio's Craft: New Directions and Debates in Canadian History. London: Institute for the Study of the Americas.

Dynes, Russell R. And E. L. Quarantelli. (1994). "The Place of the Explosion in the History of Disaster Research: The Work of Samuel H. Prince." la Ground Zero: A Reassessment of the 1917 Explosion in Halifax Harbour, Alan Ruffman and Colin Howell (eds.), pp. 55-68. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing Limited.

Edwards, John. (1991). "Gaelic in Nova Scotia." la. Linguistic Minorities, Society and Territory, Colin Williams (ed.), pp. 269-297. Clevedon, U.K.: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Edwards, William X. (1953). "The MacPherson-Tompkins Era of St. Francis Xavier University." CCHA Report: Vol. 20, 49-65.

Ekelund, Robert and Mark Thornton. (1986). "Wieser and the Austrian Connection to Social Economics." Forum for Social Economics: Vol. 16, No. 2,1-12.

77 Ellwood, Charles. (1912). Sociology in its Psychological Aspects. New York: D. Appleton and Company.

Emery, George. (1977). "The Origins of Canadian Methodist Involvement in the Social Gospel Movement, 1890-1914." Journal of the Canadian Church Historical Society: Vol. 19, No. 1-2,104-119.

Endres, A. M. (1987). "The Origins of Bohm-Bawerk's'Greatest Error': Theoretical Points of Separation from Menger." Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics: Vol. 143, 291-309.

Falardeau, Jean-Charles. (1974). "Antecedents, debuts et croissance de la sociologie an Quebec." Recherches Sociographiques: Vol. 15, No. 2&3,135-165.

Fay, C. R. (1934). "The Toronto School of Economic History." Economic History: Vol. 3, 168-171.

Ford, Ann Rochon. (1985). A Path Not Strewn with Roses: One Hundred Years of Women at the University of Toronto, 1884-1984. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Foster, William Trufant and Waddill Catchings (eds.). (1927). Pollak Prize Essays, Criticism of Profits. Newton, M.A.: Pollak Foundation for Economic Research.

Francis, Mark. (1974). "The Origins of Essays and Reviews: An Interpretation of Mark Pattison in the 1850s." The Historical Journal: Vol. 17, No. 4, 797-811.

Fraser, Brian J. (1988). The Social Uplifters: Presbyterian Progressives and the Social Gospel in Canada, 1875-1915. Waterloo, Ont: Wilfred Laurier University Press.

78 Gauvreau, Michael. (1988). "Philosophy, Psychology and History: George Sidney Brett and the Quest for a Social Science at the University of Toronto, 1910-1940." Historical Papers: Vol. 23, No. 1,209-236.

Gauvreau, Michael. (1991). "Beyond the Half-Way House: Evangelicalism and the Shaping of English Canadian Culture." Acadiensis: Vol. 20, No. 2, 158-177.

Gauvreau, Michael. (1994). "Presbyterianism, Liberal Education and the Research Ideal: Sir Robert Falconer and the University of Toronto, 1907-1932." In The Burning Bush and a Few Acres of Snow: The Presbyterian Contribution to Canadian Life and Culture, William Klempa (ed.), pp. 39-66. Ottawa: Carleton University Press.

Gauvreau, Michael. (1995). "Baptist Religion and the Social Science of Harold Innis." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 76, No. 2, 161-204.

Gauvreau, Michael and Ollivier Hubert. (2006). "Beyond Church History: Recent Developments in the History of Religion in Canada." In The Churches and Social Order in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Canada, Michael Gauvreau and Ollivier Hubert (eds.), pp. 3-45. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Gedicks, Frederick Mark. (2006-07). "Religions, Fragmentations, and Doctrinal Limits." William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal: Vol. 15, No. 1,25-41.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1888). "The Sociological Character of Political Economy." Publications of the American Economic Association: Vol. 3, No. 1,29-47.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1893). "The Idea and Definition of Value." Publications of the American Economic Association: Vol. 8, No. 1, 87-95.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1904a). "A Theory of Social Causation." Publications of the American Economic Association: Third Series, Vol. 5, No. 2, 139-174.

79 Giddings, Franklin H. (1904b). "The Concepts and Methods of Sociology." The American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 10, No. 2, 161-176.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1904c). "The Concepts and Methods of Sociology." Science: New Series Vol. 20, No. 515, 624-634.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1920a). "Pluralistic Behavior: A Brief of Sociological Theory Restated." The American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 25, No. 4, 385-404.

Giddings, Franklin H. (1920b). "Pluralistic Behavior: A Brief of Sociological Theory Restated, Concluded." The American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 25, No. 5, 539-561.

Gidney, Catherine. (2004). A Long Eclipse:: The Liberal Protestant Establishment and the Canadian University, 1920-1970. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Gillen, John Lewis. (1926). "Masters of Social Science: Franklin Henry Giddings." Social Forces: Vol. 5, No. 2, 197-214.

Goodwin, Craufurd D. W. (1961). Canadian Economic Thought: The Political Economy of a Developing Nation, 1814-1914. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Goodwin, Crauford and Stephen Meardon. (1998). "The International Dimension of American Economics." In The Economic Mind in America: Essays in the History of American Economics, Malcolm Rutherford (ed.). New York: Routledge.

Goudge, Thomas. (1967-68). "A Century of Philosophy in English-Speaking Canada." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 47, No. 4, 537-549.

80 Hadden, Jeffrey, Charles Longino, and Myer Reed. (1974). "Further Reflections on the Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America." Sociological Analysis: Vol. 35, No. 4, 282-286.

Halas, Elzbieta. (2002). "How Robert M. Maclver was Forgotten: Columbia and American Sociology in a New Light, 1929-1950." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 37, No. 1, 27-43.

Hall, Oswald. (1988). "Some Recollections of Sociology in Two Universities: McGill and the University of Toronto." In A Quarter Century of Sociology at the University of Toronto, 1963-1988, R. Helmes-Hayes (ed.), pp. 11-23, Toronto: Canadian Scholar's Press.

Hankins,F.H. (1931). "Franklin Henry Giddings, 1855-1931: Some Aspects of His Sociological Theory." The American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 37, No. 3, 349-367.

Harvey, D. C. (1938). An Introduction to the History of Dalhousie University. Halifax, N.S.: McCurdy Printing Co. Ltd.

Hatfield, Leonard F. (1990). Sammy the Prince: The Story of Samuel Henry Prince, One of Canada's Pioneering Sociologists. Hantsport, N.S.: Lancelot Press.

Hayek, Friedrich. ([1926] 1992). "Friedrich von Wieser (1851-1926)." In The Collected Works ofF. A. Hayek, Volume IV: The Fortunes of Liberalism, Essays on Austrian Economics and the Ideal of Freedom, Peter Klein (ed.), pp. 108-125. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hayek, Friedrich. (1931). "The'Paradox'of Saving." Economica: No. 32, 125-169.

Hedges, James. (1939). "Review: Dominion Lands Policy." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 20, No. 1, 72-74.

81 Helmes-Hayes, Richard C. (1998). "Everett Hughes: Theorist of the Second Chicago School", International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society: Vol. 11, No. 4, 621- 673.

Hendel, Charles W. (1952). "The Character of Philosophy in Canada." Philosophy and PhenomenologicalResearch: Vol. 12, No. 3, 365-376.

Hennesey, James. (1978). "Leo Xffl's Thomistic Revival: A Political and Philosophical Event." In Celebrating the Medieval Heritage: A Colloquy on the Thought of Aquinas andBonaventure, David Tracy (ed.), pp. S185-S197. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hiller, Harry. (1980). "Paradigmatic Shifts, Indigenization, and the Development of Sociology in Canada." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 16, No. 3, 263-274.

Hiller, Harry. (1982). Society and Change: S. D. Clark and the Development of Canadian Sociology. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Hodgson, Geoffrey. (2004). The Evolution of Institutional Economics: Agency, Structure and Darwinism in American Institutionalism. London: Routledge.

Hutchinson, T. W. (1972). "The 'Marginal Revolution' and the Decline and Fall of English Classical Political Economy." History of Political Economy: Vol. 4, No. 2, 442-468.

Innis, Harold. (1945). "Obituaries: Edwards John Urwick, 1867-1945." The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 11, No. 2, 265-268.

Irving, John A. (1935). "Toward Radical Empiricism in Ethics." In American Philosophy Today and Tomorrow, Horace Kallen and Sidney Hook (eds.), pp. 228- 247. Freeport, NY: Books for Libraries Press.

82 Irving, John A. (1945). "The Achievement of George Sidney Brett." University of Toronto Quarterly: Vol. 14, No. 4, 329-365.

Irving, John A. (1947). "George Sidney Brett, 1879-1944." Psychological Review. Vol. 54, 52-58.

Irving, John A. (1948). "The Social Philosophy of E. J. Urwick." In The Values of Life, E. J. Urwick, pp. xi-lxv. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Irving, John A. (1950). "The Development of Philosophy in Central Canada from 1850- 1900." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 31, No. 3, 252-287.

Irving, John A. (1951). "Philosophical Trends in Canadian Philosophy Between 1850 and 1950." Philosophy and Phenomenological Research: Vol. 12, No. 2, 224-245.

Irving, John A. (1952). "One Hundred Years of Canadian Philosophy." In Philosophy in Canada: A Symposium, John Irving (ed.), 6-26. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Irving, John A. (1957). "Philosophy." In The Culture of Contemporary Canada, Julian Park (ed.), pp. 242-273. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Irving, John A. (1960). "The Achievement of Thomas McCulloch." In The Stepsure Letters, Thomas McCulloch, pp. 150-156. Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

Irving, John A. ([1965] 1976). "Philosophical Literature to 1910." la. Literary History of Canada: Canadian Literature in English, Second Edition, Carl Klinck (ed.), pp. 447-460. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

JaffS, William. (1976). "Menger, Jevons and Walras De-Homogenized." Economic Inquiry: Vol. 14, No. 4, 511-524.

83 Johnston, A. A. (1994). Antigonish Diocese Priests and Bishops, 1786-1925, Kathleen MacKenzie (ed.). Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University.

Kennedy, Michael. (2002). Gaelic Nova Scotia: An Economic, Cultural and Social Impact Study. Curatorial Report No. 97. Halifax: Nova Scotia Museum.

Kirkconnell, Watson. (1968). The Fifth Quarter-Century: Acadia University, 1938- 1963. Wolfville,N.S.: Acadia University.

Knaplund, Paul. (1929). "Review: Empire and Commonwealth." American Historical Review: Vol. 34, No. 4, 829-830.

Kreps, David M. (1998). "Economics - The Current Position." In American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines, Thomas Bender and Carl Schorske (eds.), pp. 77-104. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Krieger, Leonard. (1989). Time's Reasons: Philosophies of History, Old and New. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kumar, Krishan. (2001). "Sociology and the Englishness of English Social Theory", Sociological Theory: Vol. 19, No. 1, 41-64.

Learned, William S. and Kenneth C. M. Sills. (1922). Education in the Maritime Provinces of Canada. New York: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Lipset, Seymour Martin. (1955). "The Department of Sociology." In A History of the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University, R. Gordon Hoxie (ed.), pp. 284- 303. New York: Columbia University Press.

Loasby, Brian. (1986). "Marshall's Economics of Progress." Journal of Economic Studies: Vol. 13, No. 5, 16-26.

84 Loasby, Brian. (1989). "Knowledge and Organization: Marshall's Theory of Economic Progress and Coordination." In The Mind and Method of the Economist: A Critical Appraisal of Major Economists in the 20th Century, pp. 47-70. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.

Longley, Ronald Stewart. (1939). Acadia University, 1838-1938. Wolfville,N.S.: Kentville Publishing Company.

Ludlow, Peter. (2006). "Fostering Social Awakening 'Along Safe and Sane Lines': Archbishop James Morrison and the Antigonish Movement." CCHA Historical Studies: Voil. 72, 29-53.

MacDonald, Daniel J. (1912). The Radicalism of Shelley and Its Sources. Doctoral Dissertation. Washington: Catholic University Press.

MacDonald, Daniel J. (1915a). Economics and the Church, Part I." Xaverian: Vol.20, No. 2, 20-26

MacDonald, Daniel J. (1915b). Economics and the Church, Part II." Xaverian: Vol.20, No. 3, 30-38.

MacDonald, Daniel J. (1927). Country Life versus City Life: A Few Timely Observations. Halifax: Ministry of Natural Resources.

MacDonald, Daniel J. (1939?). The Philosophy of the Antigonish Movement. Paper read before the Canadian Academy of St. Thomas Aquinas, Quebec. Antigonish: St. Francis Xavier University.

Machovec, Frank M. (1998). "Paradigm Lost: The Walrasian Destruction of the Classical Conception of the Market." In Microfoundations of Economic Growth: A Schumpeterian Perspective, Gunnar Elliasson and Christopher Green (eds.), pp. 29- 56. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

85 Maclntyre, Alasdair. (1990). Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy and Tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

Maclver, Robert M. (1968). As a Tale That is Told: The Autobiography ofR. M. Maclver. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Marsden, George. (1977). "Fundamentalism as an American Phenomenon, A Comparison with English Evangelicalism." Church History: Vol. 46, No. 2, 215- 232.

Martin, Chester (ed.). (1910). Red River Settlement: Papers in the Canadian Archives Relating to the Pioneers. Ottawa: Public Archives of Canada.

Martin, Chester. (1914a). "The Red River Settlement." Canada and Its Provinces, Vol. XIX, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty (eds.), pp. 13-93. Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company.

Martin, Chester. (1914b). "Political History of Manitoba, 1870-1912." Canada and Its Provinces, Vol. XIX, Adam Shortt and Arthur Doughty (eds.), pp. 97-143. Toronto: Glasgow, Brook & Company.

Martin, Chester. (1916). Lord Selkirk's Work in Canada. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Martin, Chester. (1920a). The Natural Resources Question: The Historical Basis of Provincial Claims. Winnipeg: The King's Printer for the Province of Manitoba.

Martin, Chester. (1920b). "The First'New Province'of the Dominion." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 1, No. 4, 354-378.

Martin, Chester. (1922). "The Colonial Policy of the Dominion." Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series: Vol. 16, No. 2, 35-47.

86 Martin, Chester. (1923a). "Review: The Constitution of Canada: An Introduction to its Development and Law." Canadian Historical Review. Vol. 4, No. 2, 162-170.

Martin, Chester. (1923b). "Review: Women of Red River." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 4, No. 4, 355-358.

Martin, Chester. (1924). "Responsible Government and Its Corollaries in the Canadian Constitution." Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series: Vol. 16, No. 2, 41-56.

Martin, Chester. (1925). "The Correspondence between Joseph Howe and Charles Buller, 1845-1848." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 6, No. 4, 310-315.

Martin, Chester. (1927a). "Confederaton and the West." Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting: Vol. 6, No. 1,20-28.

Martin, Chester. (1927b). Prophets of the Commonwealth. Ottawa: The Association of Canadian Clubs.

Martin, Chester. (1927c). "Review: The Religious Warfare in Nova Scotia, 1855- 1860." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 8, No. 3, 258.

Martin, Chester. (1928). "Sir Edmund Head's First Project of Federation, 1851." Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting: Vol. 7,No. 1, 14- 26.

Martin, Chester. (1929a). Empire and Commonwealth: Studies in Governance and Self- Government in Canada. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Martin, Chester. (1929b). "Sir Edmund Head and Canadian Confederation, 1851-1858." Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting: Vol. 8, No. 1, 5-14.

87 Martin, Chester. (1929c). "Nova Scotian and Canadian Reformers of 1848." Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series: Vol. 23, No. 2, 1-16.

Martin, Chester. (1930a). "Review: Sir George Parkin, A Biography." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 11, No. 1,66-67.

Martin, Chester. (1930b). "Review: The Dominions and Diplomancy, The Canadian Contribution." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 11, No. 4, 341-344.

Martin, Chester. (1930c). "The Maritime Provinces, 1815-1840." In The Cambridge History of the British Empire, Volume VI, J. Holland Rose, A. P. Newton, E. A. Benians (eds.), pp. 270-286. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, Chester. (1930d). "The Maritime Provinces, 1840-1867." In The Cambridge History of the British Empire, Volume VI, J. Holland Rose, A. P. Newton, E. A. Benians (eds.), pp. 354-368. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martin, Chester. (1931a). "The Completion of Confederation." Queen's Quarterly: Vol. 38, No. 2, 197-210.

Martin, Chester. (1931b). "Review: Responsible Government in Nova Scotia." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 12, No. 2, 205-207.

Martin, Chester. (1932a). "British Policy in Canadian Confederation." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 13, No. 1,3-19.

Martin, Chester. (1932b). Fifty Years of Canadian History." In Fifty Years Retrospect, 1882-1932. Toronto: Royal Society of Canada.

Martin, Chester. (1934a). "By-Products from British and American Books on the Eighteenth Century." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 15, No. 1,62-67.

88 Martin, Chester. (1934b). "The Loyalists in New Brunswick." Ontario Historical Society, Papers and Records: Vol.30, 160-170.

Martin, Chester. (1934c). "Our Kingdom for a Horse: The Railway Land Grant System in Western Canada." Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting: Vol. 13, No. 1, 73-79.

Martin, Chester. (1935). "Review: The Maritimes and Canada before Confederation." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 16, No. 1, 71-75.

Martin, Chester. (1936). "Review: Joseph Howe, A Study in Frustration and Achievement." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 17, No. 1,78-80.

Martin, Chester. (1937a). "The United States and Canada Nationality." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 18, No. 1, 1-11.

Martin, Chester. (1937b). "Review: The Neutral Yankees of Nova Scotia." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 18, No. 4, 437-440.

Martin, Chester. (1938a). "Dominion Lands Policy." In Canadian Frontiers of Settlement, Volume II, W. A. Macintosh and W. L. G. Joerg (eds.), pp. 189-571. Toronto: MacMillan Company of Canada.

Martin, Chester. (1938b). "Introduction to the Journal." Journal of Occurrences in the Athabasca Department by George Simpson, 1820 and 1821, and Report, E. E. Rich (ed.), pp. xiii-lix. Toronto: The Champlain Society.

Martin, Chester. (1938d). "Review: American Foreign Policy in Canadian Relations." Journal of Modern History: Vol. 10, No. 2, 269-271.

Martin, Chester. (1939a). "Lord Durham's Report and Its Consequences." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 20, No. 2, 178-194.

89 Martin, Chester. (1939b). "Professor G. M. Wrong and History in Canada." In Essays in Canadian History Presented to George Mackinnon Wrong, R. Flenley (ed.), pp. 1- 23. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Martin, Chester. (1939c). "Review: A History of the Canadian West to 1870-1871." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 20, No. 3, 316-319.

Martin, Chester. (1940). Trends in Canadian Nationhood. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Martin, Chester (ed.). (1941a). Canada in Peace and War: Eight Studies in National Trends Since 1914. Toronto: Oxford University Press.

Martin, Chester. (1941b). "Review: The Heart of Howe: Selections from the Letters and Speeches of Joseph Howe." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 22, No. 1, 73-75.

Martin, Chester. (1941c). "Review: Building the Canadian West, The Land and Colonization Policies of the Canadian Pacific Railway." Geographical Review: Vol. 31, No. 3, 518-520.

Martin, Chester. (1942). "Review: The Martime Provinces of British North America and the American Revolution." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 23, No. 4, 420- 421.

Martin, Chester. (1944). "The British Commonwealth." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 25, No. 2, 131-150.

Martin, Chester. (1945). "George Sidney Brett, 1879-1944." Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, Third Series: Vol. 39, 77-79.

90 Martin, Chester. (1946). "Review: Lord Russell's Canadian Policy: A Study in British Heritage and Colonial Freedom." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 27, No. 4, 433- 435.

Martin, Chester. (1948). "Review: John W. Dafoe." Canadian Historical Review. Vol. 29, No. 2, 199-201.

Martin, Chester. (1949). "Review: The Development of the Theory and Practice of Education in New Brunswick, 1784-1900." Canadian Historical Review. Vol.30, No. 1,69-71.

Martin, Chester. (1950). "Review: The Copy Book of Letters Outward, Hudson's Bay Company, 1680-1687." Canadian Historical Review. Vol. 31, No. 4, 414-416.

Martin, Chester. (1955). Foundations of Canadian Nationhood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Masters, D. C. (1969). "The Rise of Liberalism in Canadian Protestant Churches." CCHA Study Sessions: Vol. 36, 27-39.

McFarland, David D. (2004). "Adding Machines and Logarithms." Social Science Computer Review: Vol. 22, No. 2, 249-255.

McKillop, A. B. (1979). A Disciplined Intelligence: Critical Inquiry and Canadian Thought in the Victorian Era. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's University Press.

McKillop, A. B. (1994). Matters of Mind: The University in Ontario, 1791-1951. Toronto: Toronto University Press.

91 McKillop, A. B. (2001). "Introduction to the Carleton Library Edition." In ,4 Disciplined Intelligence: Critical Inquiry and Canadian Thought in the Victorian Era. (Second Edition). Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

McKillop, A. B. (2003). "Idealism, Ethics and Society: R. M. Maclver and Sociology at the University of Toronto." Cahiers de Recherche Sociologique: No. 39,205-226.

McLaughlin, Neil. (2005). "Canada's Impossible Science: Historical and Institutional Origins of the Coming Crisis in Anglo-Canadian Sociology." Canadian Journal of Sociology: Vol. 30, No. 1, 1-40.

Mehrling, Perry. (1996). "The Monetary Thought of Allyn Abbott Young." History of Political Economy: Vol. 28, No. 4, 607-632.

Merton, Robert K. (1948). "Discussion of 'The Position of Sociological Theory'." American Sociological Review: Vol. 13, No. 2, 164-168.

Merton, Robert K. (1949). "Introduction." Social Theory and Social Structure: Toward the Codification of Theory and Research, pp. 3-18. Glencoe, II: The Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. (1957). "Introduction." Social Theory and Social Structure, Revised and Enlarged Edition, pp. 3-16. Glencoe, II: The Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. (1968). "On the History and Systematics of Sociological Theory." Social Theory and Social Structure, 1968 Enlarged Edition, pp. 1-38. New York: The Free Press.

Merton, Robert K. (1985). "George Sarton: Episodic Recollections by an Unruly Apprentice." Isis: Vol. 76, No. 4, 470-486.

92 Mill, John Stuart. ([1836] 1967). "On the Definition of Political Economy." In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume 4, Essays on Economics and Society, John Robson (ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mill, John Stuart. ([1843] 1973). "On the Logic of the Moral Sciences." In Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Volume 8, A System of Logic Ratiocinative and Inductive, John Robson (ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Mills, Frederick C. (1949). "Wesley Clair Mitchell, 1874-1948." The American Economic Review: Vol. 39, No. 3, 730-742.

Mitchell, Wesley. (1917). "Wieser's Theory of Social Economics." Political Science Quarterly: Vol. 32, No. 1, 95-118.

Mitchell, Wesley. (1929). "Personal Notes: Allyn Abbott Young." Journal of the American Statistical Association: Vol. 24, No. 166,200-201.

Mommsen, Wolfgang. (1998). "Max Weber Mediating Between the Historical School and the School of Theoretical Economy." Centre for History and Economics, King's College, Cambridge: Presented at the Conference on 19th Century Historical Political Economy, 2 -3 October, 1998.

Mommsen, Wolfgang. (2000). "Max Weber's'Grand Sociology': The Origins and Composition of Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft: Soziologie." History and Theory: Vol. 39, No. 3,364-383.

Moody, Barry M. (1988). "Breadth of Vision, Breadth of Mind: The Baptists and Acadia College." In Canadian Baptists and Christian Higher Education, George Rawlyk (ed.), pp. 3-30. Kingston and Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.

Morgan, J. Graham. (1966). Sociology in America: A Study of Its Institutional Development until 1900. Doctoral Dissertation, Balliol College, Oxford University.

93 Morgan, J. Graham. (1969). "The Development of Sociology and the Social Gospel in America." Sociological Analysis: Vol. 30, No. 1, 42-53.

Morgan, J. Graham. (1970). "Contextual Factors in the Rise of Academic Sociology in the United States." Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology: vol. 7, No. 3, 159-171.

Morgan, J. Graham. (1982). "Preparation for the Advent: The Establishment of Sociology as a Discipline in American Universities in the Late Nineteenth Century." Minerva: Vol. 20, No. 1-2, 25-58.

Morgan, Mary. (2006). "Economic Man as Model Man: Ideal Types, Idealization and Caricatures." Journal of the History of Economic Thought: Vol. 28, No. 1, 1-27.

Morgan, Mary and Malcolm Rutherford (eds.). (1998). From Interwar Pluralism to Postwar Neoclassicism. Annual Supplement to Volume 30, History of Political Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.

Morton, W. L. (1955). "Review: Foundations of Canadian Nationhood." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 36, No. 4, 347-349.

Mulvaney, B. G. (1955). "The Department of Sociology of the Catholic University of America, 1894-1955." The American Catholic Sociological Review: Vol. 16, No. 4, 266-274.

Murphy, Terence. (1984). "The Emergence of Maritime Catholicism, 1781-1830." Acadiensis: Vol. 13, No. 2, 29-49.

Naugle, David. (2002). Worldview: The History of a Concept. Grand Rapids, MI: William Eerdmans Publishing Company.

94 Newman, John Henry. ([1852] 1976). The Idea of a University, I. T. Ker (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Nuesse, C. Joseph. (1986). "Thomas Joseph Bouquillon (1840-1902), Moral Theologian and Precursor of the Social Sciences in the Catholic University of America."" The Catholic Historical Review: Vol. 72, No. 4, 601-619.

Nuesse, C. Joseph. (1990). The Catholic University of America: A Centennial History. Washington: The Catholic University of America Press.

Nuesse, C. Joseph. (2001). "The Introduction of Sociology at the Catholic University of America, 1895-1915." The Catholic Historical Review: Vol. 87, No. 4, 643-661.

Opie, Redvers. (1941). "Obituary: Frank William Taussig (1859—1940)." The Economic Journal: Vol. 51, No. 202/203, 338-368.

Paris, Peter J. (1989). The Moral, Political and Religious Significance of the Black Churches in Nova Scotia. Dartmouth, N.S.: Black Cultural Centre for Nova Scotia.

Parsons, Talcott. (1936). "On Certain Sociological Elements in Professor Taussig's Thought." In Explorations in Economics: Notes and Essays Contributed in Honor of F. W. Taussig, pp. 359-379. New York: Books for Library Press.

Pearson, Heath. (1999). "Was There Really a German Historical School of Economics." History of Political Economy: Vol. 31, No. 3, 547-562.

Persky, Joseph. (1995). "The Ethology of Homo Economicus." The Journal of Economic Perspectives: Vol. 9, No. 2, 221-231.

Pettit, Philip. (1995). "The Virtual Reality of'Homo Economicus4." Monist: Vol.78, No. 3, 308-329.

95 Peukert, Helge. (2001). "The Schmoller Renaissance." History of Political Economy: Vol. 33, No. 1,71-116.

Pittman, Jerry N. (1993). "Darwinism and Evolution: Three Nova Scotia Religious Newspapers Respond, 1860-1900."" Acadiensis: Vol. 22, No. 2,40-60.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1920). Catastrophe and Social Change: Based Upon a Sociological Study of the Halifax Disaster. New York: Columbia University.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1922). "La Sociologie, sa Nature, Son Contenu, ses Attaches." Political Science Quarterly: Vol. 37, No. 4, 681-683.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1932). Housing in Halifax: A Report. Halifax: The Citizens' Committee on Housing.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1936). Society and the Housing Crisis: An Introduction to the Study of Housing. Toronto: Council for Social Service.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1942). "The Canadian Family in Wartime." Marriage and Family Living: Vol. 4, No. 2, 25-28.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1943). "Co-operative Housing." Journal, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada: Vol. 20, No. 9, 156-158.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1955). The Legacy of Adoration: Homiliae Columbiae. New York: Exposition Press.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1958a). The Social System: A Compendium of Popular Sociology. Toronto: The Ryerson Press.

Prince, Samuel Henry. (1958b). The Dykes of Civilization. Toronto: Anglican Church of Canada.

96 Prince, Samuel Henry. (1961). The Architecture of Rural Society: The Inaugural Lectures of the HacKenley Memorial Foundation in Rural Sociology. Toronto: The Council for Social Service

Putnam, Hilary. (2002). "The Empiricist Background." In The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays, pp. 7-27. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Rawlyk, George. (1988). "A. L. McCrimmon, H. P. Whidden, T. T. Shields, Christian Higher Education and McMaster University." In Canadian Baptists and Christian Higher Education, George Rawlyk (ed.), pp. 31-62. Montreal and Kingston: McGill- Queen's University Press.

Reinharz, Shulamit. (1995). "The Chicago School of Sociology and the Founding of the Graduate Program in Sociology at Brandeis University: a Case Study in Cultural Diffusion", in A Second Chicago School: the Development of a Postwar American Sociology, Gary Alan Fine (ed.), pps. 273-321. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Robbins, Lionel. ([1932] 1945). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. (Second Edition). London: MacMillan and Company.

Roper, Henry. (1990a). "The Nova Scotia University Scene in the Late Nineteenth Century." In The Idea of the University, 1789-1989, Kathleen Jaeger (ed.), pp. 18-31. Halifax, N.S.: Institute for Advanced Studey, University of King's College.

Roper, Henry. (1990b). "Christianity and Science at Dalhousie and King's College." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 70, No. 3, 394-400.

Rutherford, Malcolm. (1997). "American Institutionalism and the History of Economics." Journal of the History of Economic Thought: Vol. 19, 178-198.

97 Rutherford, Malcolm. (2004). "Institutional Economics at Columbia University." History of Political Economy: Vol. 36, No. 1, 31-78.

Rutherford, Malcolm. (2009). "Towards a History of American Institutional Economics."" Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 43, No. 2, 309-318.

Samuels, Warren J. (1987). "Taussig, Frank William (1859-1940)." In The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, Volume 4, John Eatwell, Murray Milgate, Peter Newman, p. 596. London: MacMillan Press.

Sandilands, Roger. (1997). "Review: Allyn Young, The Peripatetic Economist." The Economic Journal: Vol. 107, No. 443, 1260-1262.

Sandilands, Roger. (1999). "New Evidence on Allyn Young's Style and Influence as a Teacher." Journal of Economic Studies: Vol. 26, No. 6, 453-480.

Scammel, Harold. (1952). "The Rise and Fall of a College." Dalhousie Review: Vol. 32, No. 1,35-44.

Scanlon, T. Joseph. (1988). "Disaster's Little Known Pioneer: Canada's Samuel Henry Prince." International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters: Vol. 6, No. 3, 213-232.

Scanlon, T. Joseph and Gillian Osborne. (1992). "The Man Who Helped Sammy Prince Write: Dwight Johnstone and the Halifax Explosion." International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters: Vol. 10, No.l, 189-206.

Scanlon, T. Joseph and Gillian Osborne. (1994). "More Source than Influence: Johnstone's Contribution to Prince's Dissertation." In Ground Zero: A Reassessment of the 1917 Explosion in Halifax Harbour, Alan Ruffman and Colin Howell (eds.), pp. 69-84. Halifax: Nimbus Publishing Limited.

98 Schorske, Carl. (1998). "The New Rigorism in the Human Sciences, 1940-1960." In American Academic Culture in Transformation: Fifty Years, Four Disciplines, pp. 309-330. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Schumpeter, Elizabeth. (1951). "Foreword." In Ten Great Economists: From Marx to Keynes, Joseph Schumpeter, pp. vii-xiv. New York: Oxford University Press.

Schumpeter, J. A., A. H. Cole, and E. S. Mason. (1941). "Frank William Taussig." The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Vol. 55, No. 3, 337-363.

Sen, Amartya Kumar. (1987). On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell.

Sinclair, D. MacLean. (1950). "Gaelic in Nova Scotia." Dalhousie Review: Vol.30, No. 3, 252-260.

Steinmetz, George. (2004). "Odious Comparisons: Incommensurability, the Case Study, and Small N's." Sociological Theory: Vol. 22, No. 3, 371-400.

Steinmetz, George. (2005a). "The Genealogy of a Positivist Haunting: Comparing Prewar and Postwar U.S. Sociology." Boundary 2: Vol. 32, No. 2, 107-133.

Steinmetz, George. (2005b). "Scientific Authority and the Transition to Post-Fordism: The Plausibility of Positivism in U.S. Sociology since 1945." In The Politics of Method in the Human Sciences: Positivism and Its Epistemological Others, George Steinmetz (ed.), pp. 275-323. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Steinmetz, George. (2005c). "American Sociology's Epistemological Unconscious and the Transition to Post-Fordism: The Case of Historical Sociology." In Remaking Modernity: Politics, Processes and History in Sociology, Julia Adams, Elisabeth Clemens, and Ann Orloff (eds.), pp. 109-157. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

99 Steinmetz, George. (2007). "American Sociology Before and After World War II: The (Temporary) Settling of a Disciplinary Field." In Sociology in America: A History, Craig Calhoun (ed.), pp. 314-366. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sumiya, Kazuhiko. (2001). "Max Weber and the Critical Succession of the German Historical School." In The German Historical School: The Historical and Ethical Approach to Economics, Yuichi Shionoya (ed.), pp. 120-137. London: Routledge.

Sutherland, E. H. (1929). "Edward Cary Hayes, 1868-1928" The American Journal of Sociology: Vol. 35, No. 1, 93-99.

Swedberg, Richard (ed.). (1999). Max Weber: Essays in Economic Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Taussig, Frank. (1893). "Value and Distribution as Treated by Professor Marshall." Publications of the American Economic Association: Vol. 8, No. 1, 95-101.

Taussig, Frank, Charles Bullock, and Harold Burbank. (1929). "Minute on the Life and Services of Professor Allyn Abbott Young." The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Vol. 43, No! 3.

Taylor, Kenneth W. (1967). "The Foundation of the Canadian Political Science Association", Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science: Vol. 33, No. 4, 581-585.

Tomovic, Vladislav A. (1975). Sociology in Canada: An Analysis of its Growth in English Language Universities, 1908-1972. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Waterloo.

Tribe, Keith. (1998). "The Genealogy of NeoClassicism." Keele Economics Research Papers #1998/03. Keele, UK: Keele University Centre for Economic Research.

100 Tribe, Keith. (2002). "Historical Schools of Economics: German and English." Keele Economics Research Papers: Publication #2002/02, Keele University, U.K.

Tribe, Keith. (2003). "Continental Political Economy from the Physiocrats to the Marginal Revolution." In The Cambridge History of Science: Vol 7, The Modern Social Sciences, Theodore Porter and Dorothy Ross (eds.), pp. 154-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, Stephen. (1991). "The World of the Academic Quantifiers: The Columbia University Family and Its Connections." In The Social Survey in Historical Perspective, 1880-1940, Martin Bulmer, Kevin Bales and Kathryn Kish Sklar (eds.), pp. 269-290. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, Stephen. (1994). "The Origins of 'Mainstream Sociology' and Other Issues in the History of American Sociology." Social Epistemology: Vol. 8, No. 1,41-67.

Turner, Stephen. (1996). "The Pittsburgh Survey and the Survey Movement: An Episode in the History of Expertise." Pittsburgh Surveyed: Social Science and Social Reform in the Early Twentieth Century, Maurine Greenwald (ed.), pp. 35-49. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Turner, Stephen. (1998). "Did Funding Matter to the Development of Research Methods in Sociology?" Minerva: Vol. 36, No. 1, 69-79.

Turner, Stephen. (2007a). "A Life in the First Half-Century of Sociology: Charles Ellwood and the Division of Sociology." Sociology in America: A History, Craig Calhoun (ed.), pp. 115-154. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Turner, Stephen. (2007b). "Defining a Discipline: Sociology and Its Philosophical Problems, from its Classics to 1945." In Handbook of the Philosophy of Science: Philosophy of Anthropology and Sociology, Stephen Turner and Mark Risjord (Volume Eds.), pp. 3-69. Boston: Elsevier.

101 Turner, Stephen and Jonathan Turner. (1990). The Impossible Science: An Institutional Analysis of American Sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Van Die, Marguerite. (1989). An Evangelical Mind: Nathaniel Burwash and the Methodist Tradition in Canada, 1839-1918. Montreal and Kingston: McGill- Queen's University Press.

Wagner, Peter. (1995). "Sociology and Contingency: Historicizing Epistemology." Social Science Information: Vol. 34, No. 2, 179-204.

Wallace, Robert W. (1991). "The Struggle of a Department: Columbia Sociology in thee 1920s." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 27, 323-340.

Wallace, Robert W. (1992). "Starting a Department and Getting it Under Way: Sociology at Columbia University, 1891-1914." Minerva: Vol. 30, No. 4, 497-512.

Walsh, Vivian. (2000). "Smith After Sen." Review of Political Economy: Vol. 12, No. 1, 5-25.

Weintraub, E. Roy. (1997). "Why So Many Italian Economists?" Rivista di Storia Economica: Vol. 13, No. 2, 253-260.

Whitaker, J. K. (1975). "John Stuart Mill's Methodology." The Journal of Political Economy: Vol. 83, No. 5, 1033-1049.

Wieser, Friedrich von. ([1914] 2003). Social Economics. London: Routledge.

Williams, Malcolm. (2007). "Maclver on Causation." Journal of Scottish Thought: Vol. l,No. 1.

Winch, Donald. (1972). "Marginalism and the Boundaries of Economic Science." History of Political Economy: Vol. 4, No. 2, 325-343.

102 Wood, Anne. (1987). "Thomas McCulloch's Use of Science in Promoting a Liberal Education." Acadiensis: Vol. 17, No. 1, 57-73.

Wright, Donald. (2005). The Professionalization of History in English Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Wrong, George. M. (1927). "The Historian's Problem." Canadian Historical Association, Report of the Annual Meeting: Vol. 6, No. 1, 5-7.

Wrong, George M. (1933). "The Historian's Duty to Society." Canadian Historical Review: Vol. 14, No. 1,4-8.

Young, Allyn A. (1925). "The Trend of Economics as Seen by Some American Economists." The Quarterly Journal of Economics: Vol. 39, No. 2, 155-183.

Young, Cristobal. (2009). "The Emergence of Sociology from Political Economy in the United States: 1890 to 1940." Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences: Vol. 45, No. 2, 91-116.

103