Every week of the summer, The Duty takes you on the back roads of university life. A proposition that is both scholarly and intimate, to be picked up like a postcard during the summer months. This week: a reflection by Dominique Garand on the place of controversy in Quebec society.
We will have to abandon the cliché of Quebecers being wary of controversy. Empirically, in fact, as a recent anthology shows, we argue as much here as anywhere else in the world. Over 200 years of history, we see a series of conflicts that have exacerbated public opinion, as well as a host of people who were quick to jump into the fray to virulently berate their adversaries. Picking quarrels can even become a trademark and a way of earning a living, because there is a market for specialists in indignation and denunciation. Moreover, far from being a mode of expression to be avoided, controversy is encouraged by the media and desired by their readers and listeners. Not a week goes by without a controversy stirring up minds to the point that each individual feels invited to take a stand. We will therefore say that if the controversy divides, it also acts as a social cement.
Certainly, one can point out certain deleterious effects of controversy, first of all the exacerbation of hostile moods that it provokes, the polarization that results from it, the bad faith that the desire to prevail stimulates, the deviations from propriety and rationality. But this is to neglect the positive functions that it accomplishes. First, that of encouraging the expression of differences, one of the fundamental values of democracy. The absence of controversy is the fact of totalitarian regimes that do not tolerate contestation. Controversy also allows the denunciation of abusive powers that turn a deaf ear. Finally, it places us before human and social contradictions, the many dilemmas that present themselves to us and which, sometimes, put legitimate values in opposition. In addition to serving as an outlet for our mood swings and frustrations, controversy shakes minds, confronts us with otherness, forces us to better define our thinking in front of tough opponents. It is still necessary to put wit and style into it.
Deploring the excesses and breakdowns in dialogue is undoubtedly normal, but it is part of an idealism that ignores the unavoidable nature of passions in conflict. We must certainly encourage and practice “listening to others” and “civilized exchanges”, but we should also better understand what controversy is and, since it is inevitable, find a way to play on it without falling into hatred and resentment. Controversy is a verbal war: we attack a target (individual or collective, or even abstract) and try to make them surrender. The means to achieve this, from subtle to openly violent, are multiple: irony, sarcasm, characterization, ridicule, accusation, insult. This is not nice and it indicates fracture points in the community, spaces where dialogue has failed. In polemics, one does not really engage in dialogue with the opponent, but rather seeks to assert oneself and mobilize the majority against him. In this “game,” the forces are unequal to the extent that the protagonists do not all enjoy the same social status and their access to the means of disseminating their thoughts is unequally distributed.
In Quebec, as in all Western countries, the development of controversy has closely followed the evolution of means of communication, from newspapers and magazines to electronic media. In the current context that has seen the creation of multiple platforms and networks on the Web, it has become difficult to impose a code of ethics for exchanges that would be respected. By taking stock of the harmful effects of this phenomenon, many conclude that social dialogue has deteriorated. It is a fact that past controversies were more civilized, better supervised and were played out between protagonists with more or less the same level of education, who spoke more or less the same language and took the time to develop their positions with minimal respect for the rules of argument. Passions were at stake, but we had to give them a reasoned expression. Today we are seeing a certain failure of rationality that is struggling to make its voice heard amidst the cacophony and statements that are as incendiary as they are inconsequential. How should you behave in front of people who refuse to even acknowledge you as an interlocutor? While it is difficult to discuss with “trolls” and other agitators, we should nevertheless expect educated people to accept the polemical contract with all its irritants.
I am thus observing a disappointing trend, both within the progressive left and the conservative right: the avoidance strategy. Once you have attacked your adversary, you retreat into your fortifications. From this point of view, we can say that Quebec is resistant to this long-term controversy that would go beyond a simple outburst. We prefer to take refuge in our own private selves and maintain among our own people the conviction that the other is completely wrong, rather than waging open war against them by exposing ourselves to their attacks. However, it is not a question of reaching an agreement in a great reconciliation, but of accessing a better understanding of the differences by naming them as clearly as possible. In Quebec, we find few public speakers capable of distancing their ideas and beliefs from their identity, in such a way as to agree to debate them with greater freedom. It is true that facing adversity can be emotionally and intellectually demanding, especially when the other person confronts us with our contradictions and threatens to make us lose face. Sensitive people need not apply. However, this would be the condition for the birth of a quality social dialogue.