The author is a historian, sociologist, writer and retired teacher from the University of Quebec at Chicoutimi in the history, sociology, anthropology, political science and international cooperation programs. His research focuses on collective imaginations.
Fundamental values (or social myths) play an essential role in a society. We think of freedom, equality, democracy, solidarity. However, these values should never be taken for granted, they require constant attention. But what is currently ensuring their promotion and transmission in Quebec?
The role of values
Fundamental values support all social life. They guarantee the proper functioning of institutions, inspire political choices, facilitate the formation of the consensus necessary for governance, and nourish collective identity. In short, they ensure social cohesion.
For anyone who doubts this, just look at the United States, a society in very bad shape where the social imagination is leaking everywhere. I like to recall that, last year, one of their major newspapers had the headline: “We no longer know how to do anything together”.
Three questions arise. How are these values formed? How are they doing in Quebec? Which organizations support them? I will focus on this last question.
Who takes care of our values?
Formerly, this responsibility was exercised by the Church, the family, the State, the school, the media, literature. What about today ?
The Church has collapsed, the foundations of the family are shaken, the State has lost its credibility, literature, having won its autonomy, has disengaged, the media, weakened, are subject to unfair competition from social networks . As for the school, many specialists say it is in crisis. A reflection is necessary.
A shift towards the self
I would like to briefly examine two obstacles (among others). First of all, our society is currently crossed by a current which affects young people and the extent of which we do not know exactly. I want to talk about the growth of the self. Many young people are very jealous of their autonomy, worry a lot about their identity, demand that their every choice be respected, and sometimes do not cope well with authority (for example, at school). In certain cases, we can speak of a superconsciousness of the ego. We believe we recognize the heirs of the child kings.
At the same time, terminology has spread which emphasizes the intimate, the comfort zone, personal fulfillment or growth, resilience, the quest for harmony, listening to oneself, discomfort. , internal resources, stress management, the search for the “self-entrepreneur”… We also know that didactics has placed the student at the heart of the educational activity, as a self-learner who regulates his learning.
The media echo. Readers thus discover the virtues of working on oneself. We could recently read a text in a Quebec newspaper that spoke of “responsible and caring positivity”, “inner speech”, “cognitive restructuring”, “self-compassion”. We also learned that singer Eddy de Pretto would be “pivoting towards the intimate”, that bosses require “interpersonal skills”, etc.
Not being a specialist on the issue, I do not pass judgment on this phenomenon which obviously obeys a particular dynamic undoubtedly extending beyond Quebec. I limit myself to formulating conjectures and a few questions.
It seems that we are facing a new form of individualism which, unlike the old one (so-called liberal individualism), marks a shift if not a retreat towards the self at the expense of the collective or social dimension. Can we speak of a withdrawn individualism? A form of confinement? If so, citizenship obviously risks suffering. Citizenship, that is to say, for an individual, awareness of social issues, the sense of responsibility that results from them, the ability to make informed choices, the desire to act in the service of society and , of course, to become aware of its values.
The phenomenon, if it increases, could even restrict the State’s ability to generate broad collective mobilizations and build the consensus it needs.
The path of national history
I addressed this second obstacle in my last book (For national history). The teaching of this discipline seems to be an ideal path for the transmission of values. These in fact result from experiences lived in the past of a society and whose memory perpetuates current events in the form of a living heritage.
However, it turns out that the didactics which currently govern this teaching is not very open to the true story and to the highlighting of the characters who have distinguished themselves, which would qualify them to be proposed as models. Examples: the pioneers of female emancipation, the first workers who fought within trade unionism, the activists of anti-colonial struggles. The result is uninspiring textbooks, focused on a monotonous alignment of facts and dates.
This didactics also distrusts emotion to focus on the development of the intellect (“mental skills”) as a priority objective. But how can you read De Lorimier’s famous letter written the day before his hanging without being moved? Or Martin Luther King’s legendary speech? Isn’t emotion a powerful vector of training and motivation?
Renowned Quebec educationalists are squarely opposed to the promotion of values in a history class. Here are reflections taken from three of them:
a) “our job is not to tell the story”;
b) the teaching of values would be a “parasite” on education;
c) history must not serve any cause, “however noble it may be”.
Under these conditions, who will take charge of updating national memory for the intrinsic interest it represents, for the eminent functions it must fulfill in a society and not as a simple material to serve other purposes? ? In summary, who watches over our values?
With the help of some didacticians, I tried in my book to develop a compromise formula which combines the essential contributions of didactics with the resources of story and memory. I’m not sure I’ll be heard.