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 in Collective Imaginaries
During a seminar at the École de technologie supérieure on February 5, Rémi Quirion and Jean-Pierre Perreault, respectively chief scientist of Quebec and president of ACFAS, expressed the wish that more space be given to science human in the field of knowledge. We must welcome this intervention which I would like to extend.
Too often, in fact, when it comes to science, knowledge or innovation, we spontaneously think of basic and applied sciences, technology, often medicine, almost never social sciences or cultural sciences. . Similarly, when we talk about the major problems facing our societies and which require the contribution of “science”, we usually mention the imbalances linked to the climate, and more generally to the environment, the development and application of new technologies, space, biology, and the like.
Here are, however, three examples of serious problems concerning the human sciences. The first concerns the equitable management of diversity. This question has been asked at all times and in all societies. The solution that was brought to it – with rare exceptions – consisted in suppressing it by forced assimilation or crushing it by other more violent means (we know sad examples of this today, in these times of Olympic celebrations… ).
With the rise of human rights, we have come to respect and welcome difference. But this new orientation created other difficulties by upsetting the old symbolic arrangements worked out in the past of the nations; we are talking here about traditions, identity, memory. How to share them with newcomers while taking into account their own cultural heritage, but without diluting or sacrificing them? Almost all contemporary societies are grappling with this challenge; none has found what we could call THE solution.
The second example concerns the cultural foundations of social cohesion. All collective life rests on a symbolic foundation (mainly ideals, beliefs) which transcends divisions, interests, parties, which cements the social bond and makes it possible to create the consensus necessary for governance. These benchmarks also inspire citizens, who find meaning in their lives and thus regulate their behavior. What happens when these landmarks blur or crumble? An eloquent example of this is currently given by the United States, a nation grappling with very serious pathologies because its symbolic foundation—mainly theAmerican Dream which was its pivot — comes undone. “We no longer know how to do anything together”, recently headlined the New York Times. But how to restore these landmarks? How to re-solder a national imaginary?
The third example concerns the fate of democracy. The results of many studies agree: the state of health of democracies in the world is declining. Even more, we see, in Africa for example, democracies collapsing in favor of dictatorships. What we know well is the role of solidarity as the main condition of democracy. Without this condition, a state of disarray and fragmentation is established, conducive to the emergence of despots. So, the social bond only holds by force. But, there again, we do not know how to mend a community fabric.
Broken down companies
In these three cases, my diagnosis seems pessimistic, but it is very close to reality. Otherwise, the means to repair broken down societies would have been in place a long time ago.
These three problems have diverse and profound repercussions in all spheres of collective life. These are also problems for which no society has so far found real remedies, despite the research carried out. But who would dispute that the resulting knowledge, even if it remains partial, is not worthy of belonging to the domain of “knowledge” and “science”?
Similarly, who would like to prioritize the disciplinary fields and the subjects under study? Are racism and the oppression of women, planetary problems, less important than the future of the cell phone? Is the elimination of social inequalities less pressing than the observation of the planets? Is the fight against suicide and the understanding of its causes less important than the lack of knowledge of the seabed? And what about the omnipresence of violence, the trivialization of torture, pedophilia, etc.? ?
Some might argue that, unlike the “exact” sciences, the human sciences suffer from a serious handicap, namely their inability to formulate laws. This flaw is obviously due to the nature of the object on which they work: their daily lot is that of diffuse and tenacious perceptions, unconscious springs, emotions, incoherent behaviors, that is to say all phenomena subject to irrationality. In contrast, “science” would operate on solid ground that can easily be grasped. This is another illusion. The part of the questions that it does not manage to clarify is immense, on the side of the infinitely large as on the side of the infinitely small.
This imbalance calls for a more equitable distribution of subsidies, of course, but also a new recognition of titles and jobs. He also pleads for a reform of the scientific imagination, which considers as “scientific” only the handler of test tubes, the wearer of lab coats or, more generally, research based on an impressive infrastructure of equipment.
We should therefore be pleased that the two great bosses of science in Quebec have a more realistic and fairer vision of scientific work as well as of the issues associated with the subjects and the fields of inquiry.
P.S. – Death on February 18 of François Ricard. Very sad news. A brilliant, very shrewd mind. A generous, modest man. One of the most remarkable intellectuals of contemporary Quebec. A great humanist has left us.