The following texts were written separately by two researchers who, during the winter of 2022, led together in perfect harmony and for their greatest pleasure a series of seminars at the École de technologie supérieure de Montréal for a program whose general theme was “How to act as a responsible citizen in a globalized Quebec?” Towards the end of the program, however, a difference of opinion emerged between the two researchers. The subject: what kind of adults will today’s children and adolescents, exposed to the turbulence that we know, become? Everyone presents their point of view here. The purpose of the exercise is less to convince readers to adhere to one or the other thesis than to provide them with material for reflection on a topical issue that may have serious consequences.
It seems to me that we live in a time when the number and severity of sources of anxiety have little precedent in our history. One thinks of the climatic threat which weighs on the whole planet, of the permanent nuclear danger, of the other possibilities of abuses brought about by the invasion of Ukraine, of the now increased risk of pandemics, to which one can add, closer to home and in a different register, the aging of the population which will soon force a small number of citizens to meet the needs of a growing number of elderly people.
All these factors contribute to draw very dark horizons that affect us all. But, could we say: especially young people, who are coming out of two years of confinement? It seems that quite early children, and at least teenagers, fear these worries, especially at school, with their parents and on social networks.
To the extent that this statement is justified, the risk is great that many of these young people will be deprived of their share of dreams, so necessary at their age. And isn’t lasting, even permanent damage to be feared? In other words, what kind of adults is the present world, so tormented, so disordered, preparing?
From this point of view, the contrast is great with the privileged generation to which I belong. Born towards the end or shortly after the Second World War, she grew up and lived in a happy, even cozy society, which seemed destined to last indefinitely.
From five to ten or twelve years old, we were nourished by fiction, by the marvellous. Shortly afterwards, reality entered it, but gradually, without the part of the dream being entirely sacrificed—as if it cushioned and supported the other. Isn’t this a breeding ground in which “life projects” (as they say) just like resilience can take root more easily?
On the subject of resilience, from what little I know of it, it inspires in a victim or a traumatized person (and especially in the strongest characters) the ability to return to their previous (“normal”) state and even any further. But that’s assuming that she has a grip on her adversity — rebuilding after an earthquake, for example.
This does not seem to be the case with the permanent, insidious danger of the nuclear threat, too advanced degradation of the environment and the succession of pandemics. In other words, isn’t resilience strongly hampered by helplessness?
Gerard Bouchard
Emeritus Professor, UQAC
I am very aware that the spirit of the times is one of pessimism. The pandemic never ends, Russia has just violently attacked Ukraine by multiplying war crimes, while efforts to fight against climate change are not up to par.
In this context, I ask myself the question: if I had the power to return to any era of the past to raise my four children, what would I do?
Since the average life expectancy in the world was 46 years in 1950, but 68 years in Canada, and that there were two world wars in the XXand century, it is easy to eliminate all eras before 1945.
The period after 1945 is, for its part, clearly exceptional. Since then, humanity has experienced the strongest economic and demographic growth in history, while poverty is reduced as never before and basic education and literacy are on the rise.
Life expectancy is also progressing and today reaches an average of 71 years worldwide, including 82 years for Canada. Famines are becoming rarer, and as 2015 Nobel laureate in economics Angus Deaton points out, no country has a higher infant mortality rate today than 50 years ago.
Why then are we so pessimistic about the future? Professor Roy F. Baumeister and his colleagues developed the theory that “evil is stronger than good”. In other words, the power of negative events affects us more than positive ones. And negative stereotypes are harder to invalidate than positive ones.
Add to this the structural tendency of media of all kinds to over-represent negative events, and what another Nobel laureate in economics, Daniel Kahneman, calls the availability heuristic, i.e. the tendency of individuals to refer to information immediately available in their memory, especially that which is stereotyped on a given issue, and we have the perfect recipe for explaining the marked tendency towards pessimism.
All in all, I wouldn’t change the era. The march of progress is real even if the challenges remain significant, sometimes serious, even colossal. Moreover, going back to the past, even thirty years, would provide a marked advantage to my sons, which my daughter would not support. Neither do I.
Stephane Paquin
Professor at the National School of Public Administration