Law, Rhetoric and Irony in the Formation of Canadian Civil Culture

Front Cover
University of Toronto Press, 2002 M01 1 - 359 pages

In Rhetoric, Irony, and Law in the Formation of Canadian Civil Culture, Michael Dorland and Maurice Charland examine how, over the roughly 400-year period since the encounter of First Peoples with Europeans in North America, rhetorical or discursive fields took form in politics and constitution-making, in the formation of a public sphere, and in education and language. The study looks at how these fields changed over time within the French regime, the British regime, and in Canada since 1867, and how they converged through trial and error into a Canadian civil culture.

The authors establish a triangulation of fields of discourse formed by law (as a technical discourse system), rhetoric (as a public discourse system), and irony (as a means of accessing the public realm as the key pillars upon which a civil culture in Canada took form) in order to scrutinize the process of creating a civil culture. By presenting case studies ranging from the legal implications of the transition from French to English law to the continued importance of the Louis Riel case and trial, the authors provide detailed analyses of how communication practices form a common institutional culture.

As scholars of communication and rhetoric, Dorland and Charland have written a challenging examination of the history of Canadian governance and the central role played by legal and other discourses in the formation of civil culture.

 

Contents

Envoi
3
Situating Canadas Civil Culture
14
Who Killed Canadian History? The Uses
41
Issues in the Transition
77
Constituting Constitutions under the British Regime 17631867
118
The NorthWest Riel and
153
Refiguration of Civil Culture 18851929
191
Manitoba
223
Civility Its Discontents and the Performance of Social Appearance
258
The Figures of Authority in Canadian Civil Culture
290
NOTES
317
BIBLIOGRAPHY
325
Copyright

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

About the author (2002)

MICHAEL DORLAND is Professor in the School of Journalism and Communication at Carleton University. MAURICE CHARLAND is Professor of Communication Studies at Concordia University.

Bibliographic information