Dear Philippe Girard, in your published letter In THE Duty of October 14, you very aptly link the recurring discourse of mediocrity with the feeling of failure. You also say that Quebec is not finishing its dreams, which would take us back to the era of survival. Here, let me disagree. First, I would reduce the scope of your remark to the sovereignty project. I would add that, since the 1960s, our society has experienced its share of success, we can even speak of substantial progress in certain areas. It seems to me that survival is behind us. That said, there is still a lot to do in our society (one in ten Quebecers uses a food bank? How many families are homeless?…).
The failure of the sovereignist project hurt us, because this failure overlapped with others. The project indeed had an authentic vision. By this I mean a big dream which is a source of collective energy and which tows others by communicating to them the same momentum (as Quebecers experienced in the 1960s with neonationalism). In this sense, sovereignty was more than independence. It was all we could have done with her: the company we dreamed of.
Instead, we are always forced to often pursue horizons that are not ours, and when they are, to comply with rules that distort or hinder them. In most areas where we wish to legislate in our own way, according to our sensitivity, our ideals, we must deal with a second actor who is more powerful than us and whose views differ. That’s how it is when you don’t control your destiny.
You could object that it is the fault of Quebecers themselves. There are also nuances here. The second referendum was launched at a very unfavorable time, with support for sovereignty at a low point. Until the day before the vote, the Yes camp was on a roll; with a week or two more, the results could have been very different. In addition, Ottawa violated our law by financing the No party at a time when the two camps were virtually equal. Nevertheless, the sovereignists came very close to victory.
There is a lesson to be learned from all of this: let’s not be too hard on ourselves. The same observation applies to those who, for various reasons, supported the No party. The Yes supporters failed to convince them, their choice must be respected. And as someone said, there will be a next time (meaning: when we decide to end the dependence and humiliation).
New Horizons
The failure of sovereignty brought with it the great vision that nourished it. It is therefore necessary, you rightly say, to conceive another vision. You mention various possibilities, including the fight for the environment or against inequalities (we could add: against violence, poverty, the excesses of multinationals, and for freedom, democracy, equity). I note that these struggles are not exclusively Quebecois, that they are unfolding on a global scale. I see it not as an obstacle, but as a possible opening, perhaps even as a necessity.
It may be that, unlike the old visions which found their roots in the nation’s past, the new ones will arise above all from the emergencies of the present, emergencies which, challenging numerous societies, would call upon vast coalitions of actors at the same time. supranational scale. Would this result in a withdrawal of the nation? It would be quite the opposite. New dreams, a new vision, would take shape, sparking new enthusiasm, new commitments. The feeling of working for oneself would fully remain, but a “self” which would also think of itself in an expanded space, integrated into new horizons.
I extract from your text a sentence which finds its full meaning here: “My Quebec pride will still evoke the past, but when it resonates, it is the future that I will hear. “And this time about Quebec identity, you write: “I don’t want to see it survive, I want to see it unfold, develop. » I countersign.
I spoke of supranational coalitions. Not to be confused with these large masses of heads of state, over-publicized, whose commitments announced with fanfare are often nothing more than balloons. Citizens should get involved, they should have their seat there (you see where your thoughts are leading us).
Let’s come to the question I asked you about your dreams. I like that you move it to the realm of values. You clearly explain their formation: “The value is constituted from emblematic events in our history […] it enters into duration through memory and through its presence in the field of experience. » I would add that these “emblematic events” can also belong to the present. I will stick to the example of the climate and the trauma it causes. They immediately aroused the same anxieties, the same alarms, the same upheavals in the imagination on a global scale. Compared to what we know about myths, two major shifts occur here: a) the time for the formation of value (or myth) is short-circuited; b) the process extends beyond the nation. It’s new, like the time we live in.
Finally, I note that you no longer speak of cynicism, you believe it is possible to feed on the past by opening it to the future, you see a way to chase away the feeling of mediocrity and powerlessness, you envisage a reconciliation with a Quebec identity, you adhere to very high ideals. Allow me to rejoice in that. With others like you, the “magnificent work” of your dreams might just come to fruition.