This man has a rather rare background of eminent qualities, both personal and intellectual. I met him through a small, unpretentious book that we wrote together, with the collaboration of his nephew François (French-speaking Quebecers, 1991). I knew the sociologist he was, I wanted to get closer to him. We became friends, which I always felt honored for.
He is a man who generously devoted himself, first to Quebec. He was very closely associated with major struggles in our contemporary history: education, democratization, secularism, language, sovereignty. He was always very faithful to his convictions; he never deviated from it. His kindness, his great openness to debate, his diplomacy covered an unshakeable firmness of principles. Its path is a straight line.
As a scientist, he left a considerable body of work which he did not wish to group into a few volumes which would undoubtedly have become classics. But all the pieces are there, especially collective works that he directed (or co-edited), numerous articles and book chapters, and a few notable works on various subjects. Among these, I do not forget to mention his famous sociology textbook in three volumes which was and still is a huge success, having been translated into several languages and distributed throughout the world. He also showed himself to be exceptionally generous by speaking publicly in the form of countless conferences, conference presentations, interviews, etc.
The professor was adored by his students. Their testimonies praise the great teacher that he was, very attentive to each person, respecting their opinions but ensuring that they were well thought out. A student in 1964-1968 at Laval University, which he had left a few years earlier, I did not have the pleasure of following his teachings. But my brother Lucien, while he was taking courses in social sciences, had him as a teacher twice. It’s one of his fondest student memories.
I liked to consult him (often by telephone or email) on subjects relating to my work. I always came away from these exchanges more learned, more enlightened. He was a demanding but patient, indulgent and endearing master. He loved to laugh; he also knew how to make fun, but subtly, never maliciously. His serenity always amazed me, so he didn’t have demons? Or else he had tamed them, which is no less remarkable…
In terms of his personal qualities, I mentioned his generosity. He has many others. He was a modest and fascinating interlocutor with his knowledge, his always clear and nuanced judgments, his great wisdom and his moderation: never outbursts, malice, never confidences or unpleasant comments about anyone. He gave the impression of only having friends — who would have blamed Guy Rocher?
I ask the question, but I always suspected that he sometimes had a difficult relationship with the management of the University of Montreal. I realized in 1995 that she had not yet submitted her star teacher’s candidacy for a Prix du Québec. I am delighted today to have contributed to repairing this injustice.
We agreed on all the essential things. However, we had a disagreement about secularism. Our disagreement was less about the main principles than about the modalities. But in the fever that had invaded this debate, the affair took on proportions that we had not anticipated. We took turns in the parliamentary committee to defend our points of view. But I did it with the greatest discomfort and with all due respect. Nevertheless, it was a painful ordeal from which he too may have suffered. Regardless, this episode, paradoxically, made me appreciate its qualities more. One day he decided that enough was enough, that the case had to be closed, and things went back to the way they were. We didn’t need to discuss it, his behavior said it all.
I also had the pleasure of knowing his companion, Claire-Emmanuèle Depocas, a great lady, remarkable for her intelligence and distinction, kindness and elegance too. And convictions (in her youth she collaborated with Bias). In short, an exemplary companion to whom Mr. Rocher always addresses with great tenderness — I say “Mr.” Rocher, I never allowed myself to address him as familiar.
He will always be with us; his life is a monument. A monument of dignity, serenity and light.