The author is a historian, sociologist, writer, teacher at the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in the history, sociology, anthropology, political science and international cooperation programs and holder of the Canada Research Chair on collective imaginations.
As I have often intervened on these two themes, readers will kindly excuse the somewhat repetitive nature of this text.
I feel compelled to do so by the recurrence of old amalgams that we never stop fighting.
What is pluralism?
For years, not a week has gone by without hearing or reading about a misunderstanding on this subject. According to a concept that is too widespread in Quebec, pluralism is a specificity of Canadian multiculturalism endorsed by the federal system and imposed on Quebecers by the charter of P.-E. Trudeau. Another misconception is that it is a policy that systematically prioritizes immigrants and ethnic minorities at the expense of the majority.
Pluralism simply teaches respect for diversity. It prohibits violating the rights of a citizen on the basis of inadmissible criteria (denying accommodation to a black person, rejecting a Muslim’s application for a job, etc.). It also recognizes the right of members of minorities to retain elements of their culture (for example: language, religion, customs). We are therefore talking here about integration, not assimilation.
Far from being a hallmark of multiculturalism, pluralism is prescribed in all democracies, as required by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948). Its principle is old, but it has imposed itself above all as one of the main legacies of the horrors of the Second World War. Nations were now invited to welcome diversity instead of crushing it.
We perhaps do not notice enough that pluralism is one of the fundamental values of Quebec and that its applications are generalized there. Our charter makes it an obligation and all our institutions, public and private, are subject to it. We fight to eradicate social exclusion, racism and all forms of discrimination.
Beyond formal constraints, pluralism has also entered our culture. Except for a minority of recalcitrants, it is part of everyday ethics. It permeates our relationships with others, it is very present in the media and our teaching programs make room for it from primary school onwards.
Interculturalism
It will therefore be understood that, like any model of democratic management of relations between cultures, interculturalism integrates pluralism among its main components. Nevertheless, and for this very reason, it is sometimes rejected in Quebec on the pretext that it is a disguised version of Canadian multiculturalism. He thus becomes a target in the national fight against the machinations of the federal government. Should we therefore rename this model to facilitate its promotion?
It would be unfortunate. The origin of interculturalism dates back to 1971, when the Premier of Quebec, Robert Bourassa, announced to his Canadian counterpart (PE Trudeau) that his government rejected multiculturalism and would not apply it. This model, he wrote, did not suit Quebec, which would develop its own formula. After fifty years of reflection that has mobilized many researchers, interculturalism has taken shape.
Quebec researchers have disseminated it throughout the world through numerous publications, conferences and colloquia. It has seduced many minds, it has influenced currents of thought, it has made itself known as a very credible substitute for multiculturalism and it is already well identified with Quebec. However, we are still waiting for a government that will want to take charge of it and translate it into original policies.
Although generalizable, the model was first designed for nations like ours. It is centered on integration, which suits a small minority nation still imbued with the feeling of its fragility and which fears fractures. Its other components derive from it. These are mainly: a) programs of rapprochement, exchanges between members of the majority and minorities; b) the formation of an inclusive national culture; c) a collective identity appealing to the memory of the majority, but also to those of the minorities. Finally, interculturalism considers Quebec as a nation and not as one ethnic group among others.
On these four essential points, the model clearly differs from Canadian multiculturalism, which even rejects the existence of a majority-minority relationship and of a national culture or identity. Added to the model is the promotion of common values and French as the official language.
Inspired by a philosophy that has permeated our past, interculturalism is also intended to be a formula for balance: integration without assimilation, a collective memory making room for that of minorities, a combination of collective rights and individual rights, a majority which assumes its responsibilities, but which remains all the more sensitive to the situation of minorities because it is one itself.
The meaning of words
It is therefore important, in this subject as in others, to be attentive to the meaning of words. Here is a recent example: the use of the expression “from diversity” recently borrowed from France to designate members of minorities. This expression should be banned. First, it peddles a falsehood by implying that the majority would be homogeneous. In addition, it is another, more subtle way of raising a barrier between the majority and the minorities. Finally, it can open the way to discreet forms of exclusion.
In summary, pluralism is a universal norm that we have applied for a long time and to which we have come very freely, following our own path, like most democracies in the world. Interculturalism offers an application which is original to us. If we reject them, what will we replace them with? Assimilation?