Under the dumbfounded gaze of many Quebecers, the “politics of identities” (identity politics), imported from the United States, maintains its pressure on the last North American bastion that still dares to resist it. But as I mentioned in my last text1the future of Quebec depends on citizenship and not identities.
Posted yesterday at 3:00 p.m.
We must therefore collectively resist these false good ideas that undermine our universalist conception of society, anchored around the Quebec values of French as the common language, the secularism of the State and equality between men and women.
Among these false good ideas is the EDI (equity, diversity and inclusion) approach, which is the presentable screen for critical race theory (Critical race theory), and which some will associate with “wokism”.
For some time now, EDI training and certifications have been multiplying within our private companies and our public institutions, without having been the subject of the slightest social debate.
Equity, according to the EDI approach, poses a problem, because the Quebec model is not based on equity, but rather on equality, between all people without distinction, exclusion or preference based on “race”, sex, religion, etc., as stipulated in the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Conversely, equity, according to the EDI approach, stems from the Canadian model and consists rather of locking individuals into identity groups based on their “race”, their sex, their religion, etc., and then classify on a scale of victimization, to then favor the identities that one considers more oppressed and to discriminate against the identities that one considers privileged. This way of proceeding poses innumerable problems.
The individual reduced to a single dimension
First of all, this approach essentializes individuals, ie it reduces them to just one of their dimensions. In other words, we put labels: I am black, therefore necessarily I am a victim, regardless of whether I have succeeded in life, whether I have integrated well into my society or whether I see myself differently. Second, this approach claims the existence of “white privilege” as the basis of its victimization scale, which renders the entire history of Quebec completely unintelligible. Indeed, our history has first and foremost been lived across linguistic divides, not across racial divides as in the United States. Moreover, favoring certain identities to the detriment of others based on a scale of victimization can only lead to inter-community rivalries and an escalation of victim accusations.
Diversity, according to the EDI approach, poses a problem, because it stupidly associates diversity of identity with diversity of points of view and experiences (another essentialization of individuals), and it focuses on what divides us rather than on what that brings us together.
Of course, our differences can be a strength, because they allow us to combine complementary expertise and experiences, but they must not take precedence over our sense of community, over what binds us.
Inclusion, according to the EDI approach, is problematic because it requires a reversal of the duty of integrating new members into a group. Indeed, it is normal when we integrate a new country, a new organization, a new team or a new social circle, to take the fold of this new environment, and it may take effort. On the contrary, it is not normal that it is only up to this new environment to transform itself to welcome you; we will agree, it is impossible, it would require as many transformations as there are individuals.
The trap of the EDI approach is that it wraps itself in virtue by using an ameliorative vocabulary, that is to say terms that automatically present themselves positively. Who can oppose more equity, more diversity or more inclusion? Does opposing the EDI approach necessarily make you a deeply inequitable being, demanding uniformity and exclusion? Of course not, no one can be against virtue. But this approach is an American cultural import that generates a strong negation of our model of living together. Like what hell is paved with good intentions.
In summary, enshrining the EDI approach in Quebec is denying our universalist model of living together, denying our history, denying who we are. On the contrary, we must initiate a real social debate about this approach, and we must propose an alternative approach that better reflects our model of living together in Quebec.