What pleasure did I feel reading Patrick Moreau’s text published in the Homework of February 5-6, “Divide the population”, not only for the judicious and well-argued substance, but also for the accuracy of the language! The text dealt with the decline of a measure planned by the Legault government on the pretext that it “divided Quebecers”. But that is not my point. My inner exclamation of surprise and contentment came from the fact that the author, exploring the phenomenon of division, did not once use the Anglicism “polarization” or “polarize”, this term which imposes its misinterpretation everywhere. , is found on everyone’s lips and contaminates the writings without any form of trial.
Indeed, if in English polarize means to divide into two opposing camps, in French “to polarize” means to concentrate on a single pole, in other words… the opposite! Because one converges and the other diverges. Mr. Moreau took care to use the following variants: split, diverge, confront, confront, oppose, to which we could add split, fragment, diametrically oppose or, why not, bipolarize, which has the advantage of to be clear ; and in the substantive form: conflicts, oppositions, controversy, terms which could be substituted, depending on the context: bipartition, split, splitting, disjunction, unbinding, fragmentation, compartmentalization, radicalization, schism, splitting, dichotomy, antagonism, rupture, fracture, opposition, hardening of opposing camps, etc.
Let’s be clear: “polariser” in French was calibrated on unipolar attraction, unlike the shift in meaning towards English that is spreading like wildfire today. Equivalent to “concentrating in one point”, the term is not poor in synonyms: to focus (the attention), to concentrate (the light), to unite (the glances), to keep the course on (the essential), to centralize (opinion), condense, crystallize, target or channel.
Does such wealth really need borrowing?