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.
The first part of this text dealt with ancient Quebec (The duty of March 4). I wanted to show that the many contradictions that can be identified even among the most talented French-Canadian intellectuals were the reflection neither of a personal deficiency nor of a pathology of our culture, but of fractures or impasses. structural at the foundation of the social.
This “ecology” resulted in major blockages and a feeling of collective powerlessness of which the contradictory was an expression (and of which F. Dumont wondered if it was not inscribed in our history). I now want to extend this thesis to recent and current Quebec by presenting three other faces of this impotence.
Mediocrity
We have not paid enough attention to an old tradition of self-denigration in which many Quebec intellectuals indulged until recently. I mean the insistent denunciation of our supposed mediocrity. It’s a phenomenon that was born a long time ago with A. Buies, E. de Nevers, C. Roy, the Nigog writers, E. Montpetit, L. Groulx and many others — the list is long. The thing took expansion in the 1950s with the criticism of our society by intellectuals eager to awaken their contemporaries to the need for profound changes.
But after the 1960s, the same discourse continued with M. Seguin, J. LeMoyne, H. Aquin, P. Vadeboncoeur, then J.-É. Blais, François Ricard, Jean Larose, Gilles Marcotte (who placed this trait at the very heart of Quebec culture), and others who put a lot of effort into it, and even a kind of relentlessness. The fact is all the more notable (and disturbing) in that these authors, once again, were (or are) among our most renowned intellectuals.
This self-flagellation will surprise you for two reasons. First, because the reply was hardly heard. On the contrary, the harshest texts have often been praised by commentators, as if they took pleasure in being slandered – or because our culture is therefore profoundly insignificant? Second reason for astonishment: the phenomenon itself has been studied very little (the review Disadvantage however, devoted some good articles to a related theme — poverty — in its June 2013 issue).
One will wonder what is the link between this discourse of mediocrity and impotence. Here, we must be careful, because the motivations or the state of mind of these intellectuals vary from one to another. At one end are writers very attached to Quebec culture, who have it at heart, but, finding it in poor condition, they say so and are sorry (examples: Yvon Rivard, François Ricard and before them, Lionel Groulx). At the other end are fierce critics (like J. LeMoyne and G. Marcotte) who seem to have taken pleasure in slandering their contemporaries very viciously. It is to these that I refer.
I submit two variants of the same hypothesis to explain their extreme severity. Perhaps they found an escape, a means of freeing themselves from the burden of helplessness by placing themselves carefully at a distance from—in this case above—this fallen society. It is perhaps also the reflex which consists in evaluating us, and more exactly in devaluing us, with the alder of France, this empyrée of the thought, the arts and the letters which throws on us a disdainful glance. The discourse of mediocrity would this time have the function of immunizing against this gaze.
Mutism
The Quiet Revolution, this experiment in freedom, promised to remove blockages. She only did it in part. We are still faced with a renewed version of the Quebec-Canada antinomy. Another was even added: Quebec’s ambivalent relationship with globalization, which is part of growing immigration pressure. Moreover, we remain a fragile minority, struggling for our language, worried about its future.
There is more. As a nation, with some exceptions, we currently have no idea what our future could be and how to move forward. Our inability to chart a course for ourselves and to embark on it resolutely is therefore no longer expressed in a range of discordant ideals, but in silence.
In short, in terms of collective orientations, we no longer suffer from an excess, but from a deficit. We can see it clearly in the state of the reflection on the constitutional future of Quebec and also in the policy practiced by the Legault government: clashes in the corners of the ice rink, but not much in front of the net. Silence has become a new face of our impotence.
The escape
This is not the only one. The conviction of many young people to engage in the battle for the language and for the Francophonie in Quebec is more than timid. Here are two recent examples: a) we have just learned that in some French-speaking universities, French-speaking students have gotten into the habit of conversing with each other in English outside the classroom; b) the French song is in full tumble on the airwaves of our radios.
Young people are very open to cultural currents coming from outside. Who will blame them? But when this thirst for openness is accompanied by a lack of interest in our age-old struggles, it is something else. We can speak here of escape. Another face of our impotence.
It is quite true that, like French Canada, Quebec can appear to be a stuck society. But are we therefore doomed to impotence? Of course not. In the 1960s, we got our act together and substantial changes followed. In 1995, half the population was ready to fight. I have no doubt that those moments will come again. In politics as elsewhere, there is no fatality.