Rule of the Routes: Infrastructure, Colonization, and ‘the Social Science’ in the Canadas from Conquest to Confederation A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of Graduate Studies Carleton University By Rhys E. Steckle In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ii Abstract Rule of the Routes offers a rich and detailed account of colonial social and political development from 1759 to 1875 by focussing on a state-led process of what is throughout referred to as ‘infrastructural colonization’. Offering a novel account of state formation and infrastructure development by shifting from traditional infrastructural systems, namely highways, canals and railways, and toward mundane modes of transport, specifically rural routes, this thesis shows how agricultural settlement, communal development, rural infrastructures and forms of political administration became inextricably intertwined by the mid-nineteenth century. Longstanding historical divisions between state-military roads and common-merchant routes began to fade at the turn of the nineteenth century. While states have always sought to ensure military control over their roads, attempts to establish an ‘art of government’ based on the prudent administration of the common routes of the people are comparatively more recent. Through an examination of a specific road-building initiative, the colonization roads project, Rule of the Routes offers an account of Canadian social and political development by outlining the State’s use of common routes as a mechanism of social and political subjectification. This is the first thesis of its kind examining rural infrastructure development for the region known as ‘the Canadas’ during the late-18th and 19th centuries. Drawing on an exhaustive amount of archival material, Rule of the Routes uses the process of infrastructural colonization to trace the decline of mercantile conceptions of public order, infrastructure, and settlement strategy, and its notion of a static political equilibrium of ‘kings, lords, and commons’. Beginning in the 19th century, conceptions of political sovereignty stressing patronage, the people’s ignorance, and static class structures, slowly gave way to recognizable liberal governmentalities which targeted populations, not ‘the people’, and privileged notions of social order and political subjection based on practices of ethical subjectification, not traditional authority or sovereign-juridical force. Rule of the Routes shows how such concerns can be seen in the very form of rural roads themselves, from their materials, width, orientation, layout of lots, maps depicting them, and their organizational administration. The form of the liberal- bureaucratic state expanded as its interest in the regularities of population tightened. New ministries developed as techniques for representing the social, moral, and economic progress of colonization were institutionalized. Rule of the Routes documents conditions on the ground to offer a reflexive historical sociology revealing how colonial socio-political relations between the French and English, as well as imperial attempts to anglicize canadiens, motivated the early development of ‘the social science’ in the Canadas. The thesis concludes by demonstrating how attempts by state actors and amateurs alike to use the social science to demonstrate the progress of infrastructural colonization led to the creation of new territorial abstractions which led to changes in the form of infrastructural colonization in the 1870s and the end of the colonization roads. iii Acknowledgements I suppose the ‘acknowledgements’ sections of doctoral theses are typically read by those expecting to find their own names mentioned. If I’m right, hopefully each of you reading this already knows the contributions you’ve made to my work and to myself as a person and researcher. If not, I want it known that I certainly didn’t intend to leave it ‘till now to acknowledge the numerous people who’ve made a profound impact on me during my time at Carleton. I hope I’ve already told you in one way or another how much whatever you did or said, or didn’t do or didn’t say, was appreciated. If I haven’t, I’ll thank you now for doing or not doing what you did or didn’t do. It was a great help: thanks! However, if you’re one of the dozen or so people likely to stumble upon my work while trolling for sources for your own, let me just say, ‘Welcome!’, and I hope you find whatever it is you’re looking for. Or maybe even something you weren’t. Those which surprise and reveal are always the best sources anyway. I hope you’ll count my work as one of them. There remain some who need to be named outright. They could never know how much their love, support and friendship has meant and continues to mean to me. As in all matters, Trisha Bingeman comes first. I’m pretty sure she knows just how much she helped me during these last few years, but just in case she doesn’t: Thank you my darling. I really couldn’t have done this without your loving support. Next, and first among equals, is Matthew Johnston. If you’re a sociologist who stumbled across this dissertation and you don’t know Matt’s work yet, give it time. He is the hardest working academic I have ever met and the most prolific writer I ever will. It’s become almost courteous among academics now to describe someone as ‘brilliant’. “Have you met so-and-so, they’re brilliant” or “Did you read that piece that author wrote that one time? It’s brilliant.” I don’t like this trend. It devalues people like Matt. He was my peer who more than anyone brought me out of my shell and encouraged me to share my thoughts, which we occasionally wrote down and published. Other times such thoughts were simply lost to the wind on the steps of the Prescott. Matt’s a kind person and a gentle soul; hell of a shortstop too. Next is Matthew Sanscartier. Like Johnston, Matt is a singularly gifted writer and prolific scholar. More than anyone, Matt was the person during my time at Carleton I looked forward to bouncing ideas off. He has a keen eye for the weak points in an argument alongside an inexhaustible knowledge of how to fix them. When you talk to Matt, you get smarter. It just happens. I can’t explain it. It’s like finding a cheat code for reality. But perhaps the things I admire most about Matt are his wonderfully dark sense of humour and his innate personal confidence in himself and his abilities (unlike in most cases, it rarely shows as cockiness; it takes a few beers). He reminds me constantly that you can do anything … if you’re brave enough. I’m constantly striving to emulate him and usually coming up short. I’m still a little sour towards Laura for taking him back to Winnipeg. I don’t care who had him first. I couldn’t omit Ryan Couling and Mark Ramsay. Ryan was always willing to discuss the most abstract sociological/philosophical ideas at the drop of a hat. He was the first, and possibly, remains the only person I know with the same willingness to dig to the roots of an idea and then keep going as I have. Mark had the misfortune of being assigned the office next to mine. I spent hours talking to him about every conceivable subject and was a constant source of distraction. I’d iv barge into his office at the slightest opportunity and pull him away from his work. I’m sure I once went on an hour long rant about the power of perspective and unnecessary sexualisation in Stephen King adaptations. I was like Kramer from Seinfeld, but slightly less animated with my entrances. Anyway, I need him to know how much I appreciate his friendship and to thank him for indulging me; it helped keep me sane. Sorry for distracting you, but I’d do it all again. Finally, Ryan and Mark each taught me in their own ways that being a great scholar and a great person are not mutually exclusive. I learned firsthand that you can be gifted without sacrificing any of your innate personal kindness. I cherish that lesson. There are countless other people who deserve to be mentioned and I hope they’ll forgive the disservice of being named so briefly: Aaron Doyle, Alexis Shotwell, Jeffrey McNairn, Elsbeth Heaman, J-G. Prevost, Paula Whissell, Darlene Moss, Patricia Lacroix, that lady who handles OGS awards for Carleton, Randy Lippert, Samantha McAleese, definitely not the people at SSHRC, Janna Klostermann, Alan Hunt, Justin Paulson, the librarian who knows me as ‘Rise’ but whose name I don’t know, Jennifer Henderson, and all the people involved in interlibrary loans at MacOdrum; you’re the real MVPs. I need to acknowledge the support of my committee: William Walters, Bruce Curtis, and Mike Mopas. None of them were in the room as I did the typing, but each was in the back of my mind while writing every sentence of this dissertation. That’s, after all, the mark of a good teacher; someone who gives you the insights and guidance you need to be able to think for yourself. From William and Bruce I got a masterclass in the governmentality approach to political sociology. As someone who arrived at Carleton reading primarily Nietzsche, Levinas, and Derrida, both showed me in their own ways that there was more than one way to be a theorist. Bruce played the role of academic physician in curing me of my ‘theory-titis’. On second thought, maybe ‘cured’ is too strong a word, but I’m definitely in remission. I benefitted greatly from my chats with Mike.