Version classiqueVersion mobile

Guy Rocher

 | 
Violaine Lemay
, 
Karim Benyekhlef

Première partie. Le savant

2. Pluralism, Internormativity and Effectivity in the “Life and Letters” of Guy Rocher

Roderick A. Macdonald

Texte intégral

Giants Make Contact

Giants Make Contact

Œuvre spécialement réalisée pour cet ouvrage par Maya Pankalla

  • 1 Roderick A. Macdonald, F. R. Scott, is professor of constitutional and public law, Faculty of Law, (...)

1Several themes traverse the life and letters of Guy Rocher. For over three decades I have been privileged to observe and learn from Guy’s engagement with these themes in the many endeavors we have shared.1 As is often the case with those who have lived intense professional and scholarly lives, the profound and multiple modes of engagement that have characterized this life, the manifold sites of this engagement, and the complex trajectories among these sites inspire admiration, if not outright awe.

Sociology, law and public engagement as official biography

2Guy’s official biography only hints at this richness and does so largely by dates and higher education geographic reference points: Berthierville (1924); Université de Montréal (1943); Université Laval (1950); Paris (1957); Harvard University (1958); Université Laval (1952-1960); Université de Montréal (1960-2011). In such a presentation, one might be inclined to see the non-academic extroversions of his scholarly career as mere appendages: Director of the Sociology Department at Montreal (1960-1965), and Vice-Dean of the Social Sciences Faculty (1962-1967); consultant to the Parent Commission (1962-66); Vice-Chair of the Canada Council for the Arts (1969-1974); Deputy Minister for Cultural Development (1977-1979), and Deputy Minister for Social Development (1981-1983).

3The above conspectus of Guy’s life in sociology, law and public engagement, however impressive it may be, misses both the well-springs of Guy’s passion and the impact he has had on his students and colleagues. For Guy, the true scholar seeks knowledge, is a committed teacher, and acts in the world. Social and political action is the necessary concomitant and the ultimate vindication of one’s research.

4In this brief appreciation, I should like to complete the preceding formal (and summary) recitation with a substantive account of the themes that have characterized Guy’s career. In what follows I offer a chronological narrative of that career as seen through the lens of the many moments of our personal interaction during the past 35 years. Before I do so, however, I should like to acknowledge the powerful effect that Guy’s work, and more particularly Guy himself, have had on my own scholarly career and the legal theory by which it has been informed. If today I find myself politically anchored in law and society studies and public engagement, and theoretically attending to legal pluralism, internormativity and effectivity, this is in large measure a consequence of Guy’s model. I can only hope that the juxtaposition of our many interactions over the years adequately conveys the multiple dimensions of the intellectual journey we have travelled in parallel and attests to my appreciation for Guy’s personal generosity towards me – a generosity and humanity that reached out across the distances of age, culture, language, discipline, university and political commitment that at first glance might seem to suggest the impossibility of personal friendship.

Talcott Parsons in the lens of humanistic study

5Like so many of those whom he has taught and influenced, I first encountered Guy in print, long before I met him in person. As a 24-year old graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School from farm-belt (now area code 905) Ontario studying “droit civil” at the University of Ottawa from 1972 to 1974, I had occasion to engage informally with my politically active classmates during the Quebec electoral campaign of 1973. Most were cégep entrants into the Faculty from the regions and they confronted me with my first direct experience with the psycho-social distance reflected in what was then characterized as the “two solitudes.” Much of the campaign – its themes, its rhetoric, its symbols – was foreign to me and difficult to internalize. I sought out books, articles and conversations that would provide me with a better insight into Quebec and its citizens than I had been able to acquire till then.

  • 2 Montreal, Hurtubise HMH, 1971.
  • 3 Montreal, Hurtubise Éditions HMH, 1973.
  • 4 Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1972.

6I was soon referred to Guy Rocher and two monographs in particular: École et société au Québec2 and Le Québec en mutation.3 Immediately I was thrown into a vast corpus of Guy’s work, dating back to his early career at Laval in the 1950s. I knew I was reading one of the pioneers in the application of contemporary social sciences to Quebec society. But like many who first encounter Guy’s work, I had little appreciation of the breadth of his analysis and its historical sweep: the relationship between Church and State, intergenerational migration between rural and urban settings, the structure and practices of public education, and the self-image of francophones de souche. Having studied Talcott Parsons as an undergraduate, I recognized the inspiration, without knowing that Guy was about to publish his monumental Talcott Parsons et la sociologie américaine.4 Yet there was something different in Guy’s approach. His analysis crossed cultural and intellectual boundaries. He understood Parsons, sociology, and social science more generally not just as empirical methodology, but as fundamentally informed by humanistic concerns. His vice-presidency of the Canada Council (1969-1974) at that time was a perfect illustration of Guy’s overarching concern for the interconnections among the disciplines of a liberal education. Little did I realize how much such a conception of scholarship would be that I came to devote my own academic career to pursuing.

Public service in support of Quebec and the French language

7Between the early 1970s and the time I first encountered Guy in the flesh in 1984, our careers took us in numerous directions, although we both fetched up in law faculties on opposite sides of Mount Royal beginning in 1979. After his distinguished career as professor and departmental chair of sociology at the Université de Montréal from 1960 to 1977, Guy took a leave from his university career to work for the Government of Quebec. He served for two years as Associate Secretary-General of the Conseil exécutif and as Deputy Minister for Cultural Development. In these roles, Guy guided reflection about the modernization of governance in Quebec, the deployment of administrative institutions and regulatory agencies to pursue the public good, and the promotion of French as the common language of public discourse in Quebec. Upon his return to the University in 1979, he became associated with the Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP) in the Faculty of Law. He has been institutionally located there ever since.

8I began my teaching career in 1975 at the other end of the Quebec City–Windsor corridor, where for four years I taught in the Faculty of Law of the University of Windsor. There my academic and social action preoccupations mirrored those being pursued by Guy. I was particularly interested in “public legal education” and served for two years as Director of the Community Law Programme. In that role I sought to promote a vision of legal institutions in the region around Windsor – for example, legal aid, small claims courts, administrative tribunals, pre-paid legal insurance plans – that was oriented to facilitating access to justice. Like Guy, I saw overcoming social differentiation and exclusion as driving motivations. Action aimed at enhancing the situation of the Franco-Ontarian population of Essex County became a particular preoccupation. I worked with the committee to establish a French-language secondary school and taught a night school Introduction to Law course in French, as well as the first French-language courses offered by an Ontario Faculty of Law. While these public service contributions within and outside the university were in no way of the significance of Guy’s forays into public administration, they were driven by similar concerns. And so, in 1979, when the flow of Anglophone migratory traffic on the 401 was predominantly east to west, I accepted an offer to join the Faculty of Law at McGill.

Towards a sociology of law

  • 5 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 12, 1980, p. 45.
  • 6 Recherches sociographiques, vol. 23, 1982, p. 65.

9Guy’s decision to join the Centre de recherche en droit public was intellectually and personally courageous. No doubt this change of scholarly home was something of a culture shock for him. Interdisciplinary research in the social sciences was in its infancy in Canada and Quebec. Moreover, the academic discipline of law was particularly insular and self-preoccupied. In public law fields, scholars were just beginning to find their voice. Because so much public law activity was directed to constitutional matters, many of the best scholars made this their main concern. By contrast, the types of considerations that a thoughtful sociologist could bring to the legal endeavour were aimed more at administrative law – education, health, consumer law, landlord-tenant, social welfare, and so on. Guy’s two essays Le sociologue et la sociologie dans l’administration publique et l’exercice du pouvoir politique5 and Le droit et l’imaginaire social6 are bookends to his early years with the CRDP. They reflect his intellectual concerns during the early 1980s and show his increasing comfort with the specificity of legal discourse. Yet, at this very moment of scholarly re-invention, no easy task for a career professor in his late 50s, Guy again responded to the call of public duty. He took another leave from the University to serve as Associate Secretary-General of the Conseil exécutif and as Deputy Minister for Social Development (1981-1983), presiding over the reconfiguration of many social programmes in Quebec.

10For me, the transition to McGill was also a culture shock. The faculty seemed to be disconnected both from the great movements in legal education sweeping North America and from the great social movements then sweeping Quebec. Two of my fields were Administrative Law (which was then taught at McGill, and as Guy was then discovering, at the Université de Montréal, largely as the law relating to what courts would do to administrative agencies, and not as the law of institutional design and the choice of governing instrument) and Jurisprudence (which, on the few occasions when the course was actually offered, was taught as a course in analytical jurisprudence, statutory interpretation, and the theory of precedent). Several years on we both mused upon the fact that the dominant U.S. theoretical approaches to law – legal realism and sociological jurisprudence – that had been standard fare of my studies at Osgoode Hall and my graduate programme at the University of Toronto had failed to cross the Ottawa River. Thanks to Guy, this type of reflection began to emerge in Quebec in the early 1980s as an indigenous theoretical development. Just as Guy took a pause from his scholarly work after two years of acculturation at the CRDP, I too briefly abandoned the everyday life of a professor to embark on another round of university administration, serving a term as Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (1981-1983). In that role, I took as my challenge to spearhead the move to increase the number and variety of French language courses offered by the faculty, to reduce the number of obligatory doctrinal courses so as to open space for courses in social law and legal theory, and to instigate the faculty’s commitment to interdisciplinarity through law and society studies. Only later in conversations with Guy did I perceive the similarity between this legal-pedagogical trajectory at McGill and the social-pedagogical trajectory Guy was pursuing in public administration.

Legal pluralism

  • 7 I. Bernier and A. Lajoie (eds.), Le droit, la société et l’économie, Toronto, University of Toront (...)
  • 8 I. Bernier and A. Lajoie (eds.), Regulations, Crown Corporations and Administrative Tribunals, Tor (...)

11The following year, having known Guy for a decade only through his scholarship, I finally had the opportunity to meet him. In 1984, Ivan Bernier and Andrée Lajoie organized a round table in Ottawa as part of research programme sponsored by the Macdonald Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Canada’s Development Prospects. The round table was meant to stimulate reflection on the thematic on law, society and the economy, and to provide feedback for scholars who were contributing papers to six volumes on various aspects of the regulatory context of Canadian administrative law. Guy presented a draft of his study Le droit canadien: un regard sociologique, later published in volume 46 of the commission’s research studies.7 I found in Guy’s paper and interventions a rich and fascinating opening to the world of legal sociology that I was only beginning to explore. In a hasty rewrite prompted by Guy’s presentation, I revised the speaking notes for my paper entitled Understanding Regulation by Regulations later in the proceedings. This revised version, clearly showing Guy’s influence, appeared in volume 48 of the commission’s research studies.8

  • 9 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 18, 1986, p. 33.
  • 10 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 18, 1986, p. 47.

12At one break in the gathering, I hovered on the fringes of a group around Guy who were discussing the continuing relevance of Max Weber’s legal theory and Talcott Parsons’ modifications to Weber’s taxonomy of authority. Guy slipped into the conversation a name with which I was unfamiliar – Santi Romano – and an idea I had previously encountered only in passing – legal pluralism. I asked Guy who I should be reading to get up to speed on legal pluralism and he mentioned, apart from Santi Romano, Eugen Erlich and Georges Gurvitch. Shortly thereafter, Guy generously invited me (a young Anglophone scholar who he hardly knew) to contribute to a special number of the journal Sociologie et Sociétés on “Droit et pouvoir, pouvoirs du droit” that he was co-editing with Robert Vandycke. Guy’s paper, entitled Droit, pouvoir et domination,9 was another revelation for me. Here I was introduced to the multiple sociological typologies of legal normativity, to Guy’s meticulous scholarly methodology, and to his subtle understanding of Jean-Guy Belley’s work on legal pluralism. My own contribution to the special issue, Vers la reconnaissance d’une normativité implicite et inférentielle,10 owed much to Guy’s careful probing and to his insistence that my essay not foreclose a conception of law embracing multiple State, as well as multiple non-State, institutional forms. Legal pluralism has been a central theme in my work ever since. Only recently, however, have I come to recognize a second dimension of Guy’s reflection on the topic in that 1986 essay in Sociologie et Sociétés: the internormative dialectic of power and resistance in most legal pluralist hypotheses.

Internormativity

  • 11 Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1996, p. 25.

13Over the next decade, Guy’s engagement with the interconnections of law and sociology was enriched in several directions. He continued his reflection on the legal aspects of educational reform in Quebec and the social changes brought about from the Quiet Revolution onwards. He also picked up his inquiries into health law, its institutions and its ethical dimensions. I return to these below. What I found most striking at this time was Guy’s deepening engagement with law conceived as a subject, and not just law conceived as an object, of inquiry. Beginning in the mid-1980s, he served on the Scientific Advisory Council of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CIAR). In this position he was instrumental in the creation of the Institute’s ventures onto the terrain of law and society research. Moreover, in the early 1990s Guy also became an active participant in the Quebec Network of the Law and Society programme organized by Jean-Guy Belley. In particular Guy was enamoured of the way in which different legal orders borrowed concepts, rules and institutions from each other, and how this borrowing also transgressed disciplinary boundaries. The Network’s signal contribution was the publication of a collection of essays, edited by Belley, entitled Le droit soluble: contributions québécoises à l’étude de l’internormativité. Guy wrote an essay entitled Les phénomènes de l’internormativité: faits et obstacles.11 To my mind this essay remains the classic exposition of the complex relationships among intersystemic internormativity between different legal orders and internormativity between different intellectual disciplines.

  • 12 Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1996, p. 233.

14Over this same period, my scholarly relationship with Guy became more frequent, more intense, and to my great pleasure, more personal. As of 1987 I was appointed a Fellow of the Law and Society initiative of the CIAR, and I assumed the directorship of the programme in 1989. My mandate was to establish a Quebec Network for the programme, comprising predominantly francophone scholars, who would bring continental perspectives on the sociology of law into Canadian scholarly reflections and whose research would be conducted and published in French. We worked together on CIAR projects for the next six years, both within the Quebec Network and in addressing the more general concerns expressed by other members of CIAR’s Scientific Advisory Council about the direction the Law in Society Programme was taking. In the latter connection especially, I came to see first-hand the consequences of a certain type of dominating, one-way interdisciplinary internormativity in which statisticians, epidemiologists and econometricians sought, over the careful remonstrances of Guy, to impose their normative frames on socio-legal inquiry. Ultimately the battle was lost and two years after I ceased my directorship, the programme was closed. In the interim, however, I had learned much from Guy about how to investigate, characterize, and assess internormative transfers. These lessons found expression in my own essay published in Le droit soluble, entitled Les vieilles gardes: hypothèses sur le pluralisme, l’internormativité, le désordre.12 Once more, not only was my intellectual trajectory guided by Guy’s preoccupations, but my approach to key issues was also shaped by Guy’s analysis.

Effectivity

  • 13 A. Lajoie et al. (eds.), Théories et émergence du droit: pluralisme, surdétermination et effectivi (...)

15Shortly after Jean-Guy Belley began the process of assembling CIAR’s Quebec Network, I had the good fortune to join Guy in another scholarly project, even closer to home. In 1992, Guy’s colleague at the Centre de recherche en droit public, Andrée Lajoie, asked me to join an interdisciplinary, inter-university, and bilingual Fonds formation des chercheurs et action concertée (FCAC) research team she was organizing on Théories et émergence des normes. The initial team – consisting of Andrée, Guy, a younger McGill colleague, Richard Janda, and me – received a three-year grant, which was renewed in 1995, and twice more, in 2000 and 2004, with the addition of Pierre Noreau and Shauna Van Praagh. This scholarly collaboration lasted 15 years and involved the supervision of dozens of graduate students, as well as the sponsorship of multiple seminars and conferences. One of these conferences, held in late 1995, resulted in the publication of the co-edited collection Théories et émergence du droit: pluralisme, surdétermination et effectivité. The title reflected the evolving research interests of each collaborator. In Guy’s case, a better understanding of law’s normativity and of its claims to be an instrument of social control led to his heightened interest in the actual outputs of legal rules and institutions – both intended and unintended. Guy’s text, L’effectivité du droit,13 was an incredibly rich exploration of a theme left largely untouched by classical legal scholarship and education, namely, “does law actually do anything?” By this he meant to ask: “Even if an enactment does not directly change behaviour, does it produce other consequences, such as providing an organizational frame for NGOs to pursue lobbying efforts?” Guy’s analysis went even further than this. He offered a careful theoretical exposition of ideas that have now become standard fare among those who are Charter of Rights and Freedoms sceptics. He showed that it was not enough to ask whether a piece of legislation or a judicial decision achieved the desired change in official or everyday practices. Guy spoke the unspeakable. On the one hand, when we examine the totality of the effects of a particular official norm, perhaps law actually produced perverse consequences – if not it terms of overt behaviour, then in terms of attitudes and collateral actions. On the other hand, Guy was at pains to show that even if a legislative proposal was not enacted as initially intended, its broader purposes could often be achieved because the discursive process thereby unleashed provided anchorage for social groups seeking to change public opinion, official behaviours and even future legislative norms.

  • 14 A. Lajoie et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 12.

16In the same collection I contributed a further essay developing my evolving ideas about legal pluralism – Critical Legal Pluralism as a Construction of Normativity and the Emergence of Law.14 Here once more, Guy’s influence on my work was patent. Following his lead, I explored two features of the legal pluralism hypothesis that I had previously ignored. The first was to ask, in respect of internormativity, whether the simple tracking of specific, explicit normative transfers was an adequate inquiry. Ought I also to be asking about all the indirect, implicit internormative effects of an enactment? For example, shouldn’t I be asking the extent to which the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, even though not applicable to non-State legal orders, nonetheless influenced these other legal systems with a pervasive “rights discourse” or imported a variant of the section 15 analysis into everyday assessments of discrimination? The second impact of Guy’s essay on my own paper lay in its questioning of how one actually goes about trying to measure effectivity. The mere conforming of behaviour to official law reveals nothing about whether the behaviour in question flows from the official norm or is driven by a deep commitment to an identical (or broadly similar norm) located in a competing legal order such as, for example, religion or professional ethics. Both these elements of an “effects of effectivity analysis” have become central to my ongoing development of a theory of critical legal pluralism.

Multiculturalism, minorities and reasonable accommodation

  • 15 Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, 1996, p. 85.

17A final dimension of Guy’s work has its origins in his research and scholarship on religion, education and language in the early 1960s: how do societies understand and present themselves, especially when confronted with phenomena of difference? Guy has pursued this theme, also present in his work with the Parent Commission and during the two periods he served as Deputy Minister, in various iterations ever since. Having invested much energy in the development of Quebec’s modern educational establishment, and in the gradual laicization of primary and secondary schools, Guy understandably has strong views – both as scholar and as public intellectual and political actor – on a cluster of related issues. These include the aims and outcomes of immigration policy, the accommodation of religious and cultural minorities, the impact upon the future of the French language of Quebec’s geographic situation in a continent of some 300 million English speaking peoples, and Quebec’s political location within a country where French would be forever consigned to minority status. In the mid-1990s, the Royal Society of Canada, in partnership with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences sponsored two colloquia, one in Budapest and one in Quebec, on the theme of multiculturalism. Guy contributed a chapter to the resulting collection of essays edited by Denis Szabo, Dual Images: Multiculturalism on Two Sides of the Atlantic. His essay, Les communautés minoritaires au Canada: esquisse de la situation,15 developed a hypothesis about two models for integrating immigrants into a recipient society – the Canadian model of “multiculturalism,” and the Quebec model, which has come to be called “interculturalism.” From the Parent Commission, through Bill 101, through the constitutional reform that abolished Catholic and dissentient schools boards in 1998, through the Bouchard-Taylor Commission Report on “reasonable accommodation” – Building the Future: A Time for Reconciliation –, Guy has maintained a consistent perspective on what he believes to be the perils of multiculturalism for social cohesion. His analysis of this question, however much it has been leavened by his experiences in the precincts of law, remains strongly rooted in sociology. Politically, this analysis is located in the theory that the State – even a State strongly committed to liberal values and to the tolerance of private cultural difference – should be a reflection of a single society, a single culture, and a single nation.

  • 16 Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, 1996, p. 52.

18As fate would have it, my own preoccupations over the same period covered much the same territory. I developed an interest in the history and mythologies of legal education – notably the notion of the Civil Code of Lower Canada as the “pièce maîtresse de la civilisation canadienne-française,” in access to justice and in the manner in which legal institutions responded to minorities and excluded sectors of the population, and through participation in the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, on the situation of linguistic and cultural minorities. I was invited to participate in the same Canada-Hungary colloquium as Guy. My contribution, entitled The Design of Constitutions to Accommodate Linguistic, Ethnic and Cultural Diversity: The Canadian Experiment,16 reflected more my concerns as a classical jurist than my preoccupations as a “law and society” scholar. Indeed, in that essay, and in my subsequent work with the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, I found myself in sharp disagreement with Guy. While we shared perspectives about Bill 101 and the need for legislation to promote the French language in Quebec, we held opposing views about immigration, religion, multiculturalism and the accommodation of difference. To me, legal pluralism pointed to the desirability of encouraging cross-cutting political cleavages and to the frank recognition that immigrants would necessarily change certain aspects of the host country’s cultural inheritance. The paradox, of course, is that I was convinced that what Guy had taught me about the contribution of sociology to law provided confirmation of my position, while Guy was equally convinced that what he had learned about law confirmed his. Throughout, however, our collaboration continued, and my understanding across the entire range of my scholarly research endeavours was immeasurably enriched by my multi-dimensional dialogue with Guy.

*

19Guy’s career as professor, scholar, public servant, university administrator, public intellectual and political actor has been recognized in the many prizes, awards and honours bestowed upon him throughout his career. All these attest to his exceptional international reputation. But I leave the recitation aside because these would not be the mementos of his career that Guy himself would treasure most. Speaking more personally, let me say that I have always been amazed, and have been by the fact, that Guy reached out to me, a young, Anglophone scholar from McGill only recently arrived in Quebec, to join with him in the pursuit of legal understanding. This parallel journey through pluralism, internormativity and effectivity, of course, is simply the external deposit of a deeper collaboration that Guy fostered through his personal investment in my own growth and development as scholar, and in turn, as teacher.

20Guy has, above all else, chosen to devote himself to the advancement of knowledge, the nurturing of generations of students and the mentoring of generations of scholars in Quebec, and the design and management of the public institutions of a modern, secular State. He has contributed profoundly to generating a genuine dialogue between sociology and law; he has theorized the most complex problems of contemporary western societies; and he has been a passionate actor pursuing his belief that rigourous empirical knowledge, informed by the insights of the humanistic tradition, both can and must inform how we act in the world. Seen in this light, what truly marks Guy’s impact, and what he would surely take as the highest reward and recognition for his career as professor and scholar, is the fact that of his virtues being reflected in the careers of those who have learned from him.

Notes

1 Roderick A. Macdonald, F. R. Scott, is professor of constitutional and public law, Faculty of Law, McGill University; President, Royal Society of Canada. He would like to thank Tom McMorrow (DCL candidate at McGill University), and his colleagues Richard Janda, Shauna Van Praagh, Hoi Kong and Robert Leckey for comments on earlier drafts of this essay.

2 Montreal, Hurtubise HMH, 1971.

3 Montreal, Hurtubise Éditions HMH, 1973.

4 Paris, Presses universitaires de France, 1972.

5 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 12, 1980, p. 45.

6 Recherches sociographiques, vol. 23, 1982, p. 65.

7 I. Bernier and A. Lajoie (eds.), Le droit, la société et l’économie, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1986, p. 151.

8 I. Bernier and A. Lajoie (eds.), Regulations, Crown Corporations and Administrative Tribunals, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1985, p. 81.

9 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 18, 1986, p. 33.

10 Sociologie et Sociétés, vol. 18, 1986, p. 47.

11 Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1996, p. 25.

12 Paris, Librairie générale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1996, p. 233.

13 A. Lajoie et al. (eds.), Théories et émergence du droit: pluralisme, surdétermination et effectivité, Montreal, Thémis, p. 133.

14 A. Lajoie et al. (eds.), op. cit., p. 12.

15 Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, 1996, p. 85.

16 Ottawa, Royal Society of Canada, 1996, p. 52.

Table des illustrations

Titre Giants Make Contact
Crédits Œuvre spécialement réalisée pour cet ouvrage par Maya Pankalla
URL http://books.openedition.org/pum/docannexe/image/8164/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 42k

© Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2014

Conditions d’utilisation : http://www.openedition.org/6540

Lire

Open access

Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search