Denaturalization and American Politics: The First History Seminar of the Year

Written by Daniel MacGregor

Thumbnail Photo by SMU History Department

The past is a treasure trove of stories and anecdotes, representing both the highs and the lowest lows of the human condition. These highs and lows require the discipline of history to create understanding, and with the study of the past comes the duty to share one's findings with others. Thus, Saint Mary University's history department regularly hosts seminars to disseminate their research.

        The first history seminar of this academic year took place in-person in the Loyola Academic building at the end of November.  To a crowd of 10-15 faculty, students, and community members, Professor Shira Lurie presented her talk titled "Dissent or Democracy? The Fragility of American Politics, Then and Now."After the seminar, a healthy question and answer period was held.

        Though the talk was on historical American politics, the central theme was on the concept of denaturalization, which Dr. Lurie described as "one of history's greatest powers." Meaning when someone’s engrained worldviews are challenged by opposing evidence. She argued that people tend to hold specific aspects of society as natural components of the world. Denaturalization is meant to allow for the breaking of the accepted norms of the world and society to realize that what was taken for granted can be changed, for better or for worse, from the ability to gain rights to losing those taken for granted. The example Dr. Lurie used was an early revelation that the separate spheres that divided public and private life along gender lines were constructs of the market revolution and not ingrained to the functionality of society. This idea of denaturalization was then carried over to the arena of American politics. Dr. Lurie argued that the United States' immutable societal principles should be revisited and updated in most cases.

           The talk then defined the two foundational aspects of American democracy: popular sovereignty, where the legitimacy of the state is derived from the majority of the populace, and ("small r") republicanism, based on representative government. With both aspects depending on the act of voting and the concept of majority rules. Dr. Lurie asserted that popular sovereignty as imagined commonly relies on an imaginary unity that, because it is intangible, can be utilized by anyone. As for republicanism, it is an ongoing question of how much authority citizens hand over to their representatives.

        Dr. Lurie continued by outlining how these undeveloped, seemingly concrete truths created internal political divides immediately following independence. She included that there was a strong current of unofficial political involvement in colonial America in the forms of protests, public justice rituals, and other forms of dissent. Considering this, a critical debate among the nation's founders was what role this popular dissent should play in the new nation's institutions. This debate was mainly between a trend for rupture from the past and a continuity of history. This disagreement was the basis for the first two-party system among the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Federalists were in the rupture camp, whose primary fear was anarchy. They held that citizens' main power came from voting, and between elections, the officials had the authority to make decisions. The Democratic-Republicans were in the continuity camp, whose primary fear was tyranny. They held that though America was a new nation, the revolutionary intention of combating officialdom required the constant involvement of the populace. The historical examples used to support this analysis were the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 and The Alien and Sedition Laws of 1798. The key is that these tensions have continued into the present day as there is no consensus on how a republic should operate, leading to ambiguity. 

 In an interview with Dr. Lurie, she noted that the talk is based on an upcoming book project which is in the works centered around the American liberty pole. At the end of the interview, Dr. Lurie noted to the university community that history and humanities courses are vital as they allow for learning about denaturalization.

Though the seminar may have focused mainly on the issue of 18th-century American political tensions and the overarching American context, it still has a solid connection to our local context. This connection is because, of course, Canada is the northern neighbor of the United States and is heavily influenced by American politics. Still, on a deeper level, the universal lesson from this talk was that of denaturalization, which is a valuable tool for everyone, historians, history students, and everyday persons.

Photo by Dmitrij Paskevic on Unsplash

To bring this topic of denaturalization home to our own Halifax home requires placing the concept into the context of Atlantic Canada. In this case, allow me to put on my Atlantic Canada Studies graduate student hat. There are many examples of false constants within our Atlantic Canadian context, including the very region we know as Atlantic Canada. You'll find dozens of associations based around this region if you look, and we accept it as a for-granted truth through many instances like the Atlantic Bubble. But what is often overlooked, as written by Corey Slumkoski in their Inventing Atlantic Canada: Regionalism & the Maritime Reaction to Newfoundland's Entry into Canadian Confederation, is that Atlantic Canada is a fabrication. To make a long story short, Slumkoski explains that the region was a technicality created by the 29th term of the Newfoundland act, which brought the namesake into the Canadian confederation in 1949 noting further that this was likely done to place Newfoundland's standard of living to that of the Maritime provinces average, which was lower than that of the national average at the time.

        Returning to the university campus, we have many experiences we still take for granted. One example is the familiar trope of talking about how the university is somehow a state before "real life." It is assumed that somehow university life is not as important or as complex as being out in the world having a full-time job. Even my writing of the phrase "out in the world" separates university education from literally everything else. However, the denaturalization of this division allows for the acceptance that one does not stop somehow living when one is enrolled in post-secondary education.

While providing a solution to system instabilities, the re-evaluation provided by Dr. Lurie in their lecture of the foundations of the American political system also serves as a prime example of the tool of denaturalization. With this tool, everyone can critically examine the decisions made historically and realize that the consequences of those decisions are not set in stone. As a result, changes can be made, either in the Republic or further north.