In his famous book, The Road to Somewhere, British journalist David Goodhart opposed two groups that now structure political divisions in the United States, England, France and Quebec. On the one hand, people everywhere (the Anywheres), who live in metropolitan areas; full of diplomas, socially liberal and sympathetic to globalization and immigration, loving to indulge in a nomadic way of life; on the other, people from somewhere (the Somewheres), who live on the outskirts of metropolitan areas. Less educated, more conservative, they are more suspicious of globalization and immigration.
While there is undoubtedly something true about Goodhart’s social portrait, we must avoid thinking that people somewhere are all deeply sedentary. In Quebec, the generations that followed that of the baby boom had to deal with uncertainty, precariousness and instability at the start of their careers. Flexibility requires, they were (and still are) numerous to move every five years. This residential instability has had repercussions not only on the life of these new type nomads, but also, more broadly, on the democratic life of our society as a whole.
First, when you move to a new location, it takes some time to become interested in or understand local issues (especially since many local newspapers have closed their doors). Second, when considering another move in the near future, less effort may be made to bond with neighbors, or to participate in some form of local life.
In Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam has shown that democratic life is better in environments where social capital is strong. By social capital, he means all these links that we forge with others in our locality: conversation with neighbors, going to the neighborhood church, the local bistro, the ball field or the community center, or even participation. to associations. According to the author, when the citizens are isolated and atomized, the rulers have the free way to adopt questionable measures.
In 2013, a Statistics Canada survey revealed the weakness of social capital in Quebec. In their locality, Quebecers are not very involved; neighbors speak little or do not know each other; therefore, the level of trust in our fellow citizens is low.
This inglorious portrait resembles what I see in my area, in eastern Montreal. The madness that has hit the real estate market is exacerbating the problem. Many young couples (and not so young) take part in the lottery of flip. We buy a condo and sell it two years later. We can deplore this attitude. But, unlike in the days of the glorious thirties, we do not climb the social ladder today by modest salary increases. Young families understood this. They find themselves dreaming of earning a small inheritance or hitting a home run in the real estate market. Young adults today are downgraded; the majority will have a less prosperous destiny than that of their grandparents.
In his famous analyzes, Tocqueville praised these intermediary groups (neighborhood school, neighborhood, church, town hall, local association) which strengthen in citizens a sense of belonging. It is through contact with the opinions of others that our political judgment becomes more precise and refined. Thus, during real conversations, face-to-face, an imperative of civility and moderation is essential, unlike exchanges on Facebook or Twitter.
Without giving in to nostalgia, we should at least take note of the fact that this erosion of the feeling of belonging to a place has repercussions. Not only on local democracy, but also on the social fabric of our neighborhoods.