| Summary: | Because of the historical hegemonies that structure our disciplinary field, it so happens that the literatures of the English-speaking world are implicitly understood as fitting neither the purview of “British” “USAmerican studies,” but corresponding to the shifting area that emerged with decolonization the 1960s, and to which the tag “post-colonial” has become attached. My own special enclave is Canadian studies in a greater ensemble where former plantation colonies such as the Caribbean coexist with settler-invader colonies like Australia and NZ. Every year in mid September Masters students come to my office to discuss the choice of a topic for their Master’s thesis. They bring suggestions often inspired by the charismatic (or sensational) highlights of the season, from Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale to the memorial literature that has stemmed from a century and a half of forced assimilation, (cf. Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse). Although Indigenous writing and topics related to Indigenous history arouse a sincere interest (curiosity?) in my students, I must admit that I have grown increasingly uncomfortable with the position of expertise I assume when supervising research in this field. The question of the method, concepts, and critical distance required to study Indigenous texts and handle the knowledge they impart on the reader has therefore become a cause of unease over the years. It is this discomfort that I wish to look into today, envisaging my unease in relation to the position of First Nations literature within Canadian literature, an inclusion that many First Nations writers refute, calling for a separatist approach. But I will also be speaking of the role played by discomfort in canonical Canadian literature, an area known to experts in the field as “CanLit.”
|
|---|