We must, of course, teach history at school. “The past has not yet completely passed, as Guy Rocher says. It is still present in today’s structures, whether we like it or not. It is therefore very important to know where we come from, who were those who wanted us to be as we are and [ce] what they did for this. »This knowledge, continues the venerable sociologist, is essential for a better understanding of ourselves, individually and collectively, and, consequently, for informed decision-making.
Such a plea is obvious to discerning minds. It’s then that things get tough and dissensions appear. Goes for the importance of history at school, but what history? Presented with what method, by whom, with what purposes?
In the more specific case of the history of Quebec, for example, should we emphasize political history or social history? Should we favor a narrative and event-based approach or a more explanatory and methodological approach?
These debates have animated the history teaching community in Quebec since the Parent report of 1963-1966. Five Quebec history programs at the secondary level have followed one another since that time, the most recent dating from 2016. Each of them has raised controversy by being considered too much this or not enough that by various stakeholders. Will we one day find the right way to teach the history of Quebec?
In Thinking about history and its teachingent in Quebec (PUL, 2023, 208 pages), Olivier Lemieux, professor of education administration and policies at UQAR, offers original insight into this fascinating debate by directly giving the floor to eleven of the main actors in this educational saga. They are historians, didacticians, professors or educational advisors, are all at the age of wisdom – the oldest is 99 years old and the youngest, 68 years old – but they have lost none of their verve and their convictions. .
Even if all these people passionately love history, good understanding does not always reign among them. The didactician Christian Laville, for example, recognizes the importance of knowledge of history – knowing what the Conquest is, the industrial revolution, he notes – but especially insists on learning methodological skills. He makes a harsh judgment on the 2016 program, which is still current, too event-driven, too political and too nationalist for his taste.
The historian Robert Comeau is resolutely in the opposing camp. He is delighted to note that the current program puts the national framework at the heart of history teaching and gives priority to the transmission of knowledge, with a chronological approach, without neglecting an introduction to the historical method.
This famous 2016 program was generally well received in the industry. It is inspired by a report produced by the historian Nadia Fahmy-Eid and the sociologist Jacques Beauchemin, in 2014, at the request of the government of Pauline Marois, who wanted to revise the highly contested 2006 program. Many speakers were accuses the latter of neglecting knowledge in favor of skills and of denationalizing the history of Quebec.
In the interview he gives to Olivier Lemieux, Beauchemin defends his vision of history teaching with remarkable eloquence. What structures our history, he says, is the national framework. Quebec is certainly a Western and modern society, but what sets it apart first and foremost is the fact of being a French-speaking nation in a minority situation.
This reality, Beauchemin insists, is “the main key to understanding” the Quebec journey. We cannot, in fact, understand the Quebec of yesterday and today if we neglect this “experience of minoritization”. It is not a question of creating a nationalist history that would exclude Anglo-Quebecers, immigrant communities and indigenous nations, but of rediscovering the “general intelligibility” of the Quebec experience. We will then draw the political lessons we want, freely and with full knowledge of the facts.
The program inspired by Beauchemin’s vision is solid, but what will the 14, 15 and 16 year olds who are taught it learn from it? Historian Micheline Dumont is therefore right to insist on the fact that it is also in CEGEP that the history of Quebec should be taught since the older students would be more receptive to it.
The Marois government tried to move in this direction, but the college community stupidly derailed the project. This forces me to note, with regret, that Guy Rocher’s advocacy for history is not yet obvious to everyone.
Columnist (Presence Info, Game), essayist and poet, Louis Cornellier teaches literature at college.