This text is part of the special notebook The State of Quebec 2024
Quebec is not immune to the various forces which, all over the world, are eroding our democratic institutions and morals. Among these forces, the divide in public debate is particularly worrying. In this extract from a text published in The state of Quebec 2024philosopher Daniel Weinstock presents some principles to elevate debates and ensure our democratic health.
We could say that public debate has always tended to highlight differences of opinion within our societies. However, what is happening today is of a different nature, and relatively new factors have made this polarization more difficult to overcome. […] [L]he way in which we consume information as well as the material modalities of public debate mean that we live more and more in “echo chambers”. These virtual and real environments in which confirmation bias reigns push us to conceive of social debates in a binary, even Manichean, manner. There are “good” (us) and “bad” (them), and the more we live in our bubbles, the more we comfort ourselves in our own goodness, and in the evil character of others.
This trend poisons social relations, but it also tends to be reflected in the way our elected representatives express themselves. A vicious circle sets in. The health of our democracies demands that we get out of it.
In this context, public intellectuals have a special responsibility. Whether they like it or not, they serve as role models for the population. Their tone inevitably affects the way citizens talk to each other, and, more fundamentally, their understanding of major social debates.
Who are public intellectuals? Quite simply those who are used to speaking and sharing opinions on television, in newspapers, on the radio […] and whose speeches are perceived by their fellow citizens as having a certain epistemic authority. Some are also members of the university community, others are not. Generally speaking, it is a good thing that in Quebec all public intellectuals are not only made up of academics. The diversity of voices is a positive factor for public debate, and it is difficult to deny that the institutional and social situation of academics introduces biases and distortions in the way they see things. We all have our biases. The only way to overcome them is to confront them through debate and discussion.
The healthy diversity of the public intellectual class in Quebec, however, poses a challenge. Contrary to what prevails in academia, no institutional standard constrains them. Beyond the self-regulation that they accept, there is no “code of ethics” for public intellectuals that would be imposed on them by the fact of belonging to a professional order. In what follows, I propose some principles that could serve as a basis for such self-regulation. […]
Avoid caricature
It is always easier to achieve a rhetorical victory against an adversary when one represents one’s thoughts in a truncated manner, ultimately reducing it to an epithet like “woke” or “reaction.” […] The goal of public intellectual debate around difficult public policy issues is not to score easy rhetorical points, but to move society forward, something that is only done by taking the arguments of others seriously and tackling it in their most convincing form.
Complicating the debate instead of simplifying it
The goal of democratic debate is not to make disagreement disappear. […] In my opinion, the health of a democratic society is measured, among other things, by the variety and quality of the arguments that are present in the public square, and which fuel the debates and then the decision-making of both citizens and politicians. Public intellectuals provide a service to democracy when they contribute to this proliferation. […]
Look for compromises
Fellow citizens with whom we disagree will always be part of the social and political landscape of our society. […] Democracy then consists of trying to make common decisions despite persistent disagreements. […] Democratic deliberation, when it takes place between people of good faith, serves to find ways to reduce the extent and intensity of conflict. […]
In the years to come, Quebec will continue to be grappling with public debates that tend to stir up passions. What indicators should we use to measure the health of the French language? Should we set immigration thresholds, and if so, what criteria should we use to select immigrants? These are all questions that should spark difficult debates in our society. The leadership of public intellectuals will have to be measured not by their ability to score points against each other, but by their ability to dialogue in a spirit of respect and civic friendship.
About the Author :
Daniel Weinstockfull professor, vice-dean for research at the Faculty of Law of McGill University and holder of the Katharine A. Pearson Chair in Civil Society and Public Policy
This content was produced by the Special Publications team at Duty, relating to marketing. The writing of the Duty did not take part.