Historian, sociologist, writer, Gérard Bouchard teaches at the University of Quebec in Chicoutimi in the programs in history, sociology / anthropology, political science and international cooperation. He holds the Canada Research Chair in Collective Imaginaries.
What we are currently observing in Quebec with the recent episodes of the anti-vaccine movement invites us to question the state of our values. Any society or community is based on a body of values, norms, identity benchmarks and traditions that make up its symbolic foundation. It is the support of collective life. It allows communication and understanding, solidarity, the building of consensus around social choices, mobilization around great ideals – and above all: trust between citizens and social cohesion.
The symbolic foundation exercises a determining function. We can guess, for example, that, in this respect, American society is in great difficulty. The same is true where democracy stumbles, where social peace is compromised, where divisions become more pronounced. We think of certain Latin American countries and even of France, which struggles to rally its citizens around Republican myths.
Vectors of transmission of values
All this draws attention to the mechanisms traditionally responsible for the transmission of values in Quebec, especially those which enjoy an exceptional hold, a status bordering on sacredness, so that their transgression entails a sanction – that is, what I call social myths.
The religion that played the leading role here has declined sharply. Political discourse is lacking in credibility. The family is still there, but its hold is no longer the same. Literature and the arts have moved away from this function. The field of action of intellectuals has shrunk considerably. Fractional media (social and otherwise) raise discordant voices. The school system, if many experts are to be believed, is in crisis. Finally, transcendent figures are lacking. Then ?
We must first be careful not to conclude too quickly in a state of crisis and to associate it with pathologies that are easy to exaggerate. This kind of diagnosis does not advance knowledge, it can even cloud it. However, it is indisputable that our society has changed, once again like all those in the West. It obviously has its share of woes, but I would be tempted to say that overall it is not doing so badly – however, this is a rough estimate based as much on impressions as it is on observations.
The ambiguous situation of national history
To see it clearly, it would take difficult investigations which are currently lacking. I will therefore narrow the scope of my commentary to focus on teaching, more specifically that of national history.
I have just completed a research on the history textbooks in use with us since the beginning of the 19th century.e century (the results will appear next year at Boréal). My survey illustrates the rich possibilities of this teaching as a vehicle for raising awareness of fundamental values and great humanist ideals, but also the difficulties it encounters.
A first obstacle comes from a disagreement among specialists on the very idea of assigning such a function to national history. According to many, this would mean making her deviate from her vocation, sacrificing her objectivity, making her an instrument of moralization (of “prêchi-prêcha”) and, all in all, bringing her to meddle in what does not concern her. I set out in my book how these objections can be dismissed.
A second difficulty is of a didactic nature. For the teaching of national history to raise awareness of fundamental values, it must practice going back and forth between the past and the present, so as to draw lessons from old episodes on the values and ideals pursued by our society.
For example, and to stick to the period of New France, the treatment reserved for Aboriginals, Blacks and Protestants could nourish reflection on pluralism and anti-racism. The deportation of the Acadians will serve to illustrate the horrors of colonialism. The deprivation of rights and the despotism imposed by France will inspire a commentary on freedom and a critique of metropolitan aims.
However, this round trip is badly done in the textbooks of the last decades, especially the most recent. The values to be promoted are announced, but they are very few and very poorly articulated in the story. A very promising process remains inoperative.
A third difficulty arises from the choice of values on the program. Limiting it to a few involves a risk of amputation and arbitrariness; Extending it too much leads to superficial treatment.
The case of national history is just one example. One of the most complex tasks is examining the vectors of value transmission to verify that they are functioning and rectify them if necessary. It is also one of the most essential, the quality of collective life depends on it.
Values do not fall from the sky, their transmission requires great care. Where is Quebec on this plan?