Book Review: Récits identitaires-Le Québec à l’épreuve du pluralisme

(Golden Brown/Shutterstock)

Quebec has always had an unusual-and even ‘distinct’-place in Canadian life. Besides having the largest and most prominent separatist movement in Canadian history, Quebec’s also been at the center of the controversy over Bill 21, the ‘secularism’ law that restricts public servants from wearing religious symbols like kirpan daggers.

La belle province gets a lot of flak for these actions, but what most people don’t realize is that they’re very common in other parts of Canada too. That’s what makes a review of Jocelyn Maclure’s Récits identitaires: Le Québec à l’épreuve du pluralisme (Identity stories: Quebec and the task of pluralism, Éditions Québec Amérique, 2000) very timely. Although the book is almost 25 years old and focuses exclusively on Quebec, a careful reading of it shows a lot of parallels with Canada as a whole, one that remains very relevant even today.

The book is structured around Maclure examining various contributions to Quebec’s identity debates, ranging from ‘traditional’ nationalism centered around the separatist-supporting ‘Montreal School’ to the ‘anti-nationalism’ views of federalist scholars like Pierre Trudeau. He traces the evolution of Quebec’s discussions about its heritage and identity, especially as monolithic views are increasingly challenged and the province becomes more diverse.

1. Melancholic nationalism

The first main section of the book discusses the ‘melancholy’ view of Quebec nationalism, particularly as expressed by the thinkers of the Montreal School and writers like Fernand Dumont. Melancholic Quebec nationalism focuses on Britain’s conquest of New France (the French colony that preceded modern Quebec) as being the start of the humiliations and oppression that Francophone Quebecers have experienced under British and Anglo-Canadian rule.

Melancholic thinkers believe the Franco-Quebecois are traumatized by this oppression. It stunted their growth as a commuity, made them hate themselves and left economically and socially inferior to Anglophones. Many thinkers advocate for Quebec’s separation from Canada and becoming an independent country, similarly to how many Asian and African countries became independent in the 1960s-70s. The Franco-Quebecois would be thriving instead of just surviving, but the melancholic nationalists think too many Franco-Quebecois are unable to get past their own malaise and cultural exhaustion to support it.

Among Canadians in general, there’s been the persistent fear of being economically and culturally dominated by the United States, not to mention of eventually being annexed by it. This motivated nationalist thinkers like George Grant and Mel Hurtig to either lament Canada’s fate or to resist integration with the United States. (Their efforts have arguably been more successful than Quebec’s separatists, helped in part by the blundering incompetence of George W. Bush’s presidency and the rhetoric spouted by Donald Trump and his supporters.)

Similarly, writers like John Ralston Saul talk about the inferiority complex that Canada’s often felt towards both the U.S. and other economic and cultural powerhouses like Britain and France. Saul, in particular, spoke out against it, saying that Canada’s cultural and social contributions can easily stand with those other countries. If anything, Canada punches much more above its weight than our small population would imply.

2. National ‘normality’ and new ways of self-identifying

In the book’s second main section, Maclure cites thinkers like Guy Laforest, André Laurendeau and Jocelyn Létourneau. These thinkers challenge the melancholic nationalists’ views that the Franco-Quebecois lack the fortitude to separate from Canada. They talk about the ‘métissage’ that shaped Quebec’s society and contributed to its growth and a new way that Francophone Quebecers could view themselves. They also advocate for a third way between the melancholic nationalists and cosmopolitan ‘antinationalists’ like Pierre Trudeau.

Laurendeau called for a major overhaul of Canada’s Constitution to entrench both the equality of Francophone and Anglophone Canadians and Quebec’s distinct place in Canada; Laforest advocated for Quebec to be a ‘pluralist distinct society’ that had a unique place in Canada and that allowed for multiple identities and both individual and collective rights (e.g. language rights for both French- and English-speakers), while he also criticized melancholic nationalism and Pierre Trudeau’s opposition to Quebec’s distinctiveness; Jocelyn Létourneau spoke out against the idea that the Franco-Quebecois were suffering from malaise or immaturity in not voting for separatism, saying that their ambivalent identity was a simple reflection of how Quebec’s history has shaped it. All three of them talk about how Quebec isn’t exclusively Francophone, and how it can and should recognize other cultural groups.

A Black man…who lives in Montreal is obviously very different from a white…man who lives in Chicoutimi, but they’re both still Quebecois. Their experiences in a common society help shape what that society is and what it becomes.

The rest of Canada’s had similar experiences, even if they aren’t as openly discussed. Anglophone Canadians used to largely see themselves as citizens of the British Empire and then switched to a general ‘Canadian’ identity, but that same identity is constantly questioned. Concerns about ‘shared values’ are common all over Canada, as are questions about exactly how far institutions should go to accommodate various cultural differences.

‘Regional’ cultural identities, such as among Asian Canadians living in British Columbia, Ukrainians living on the Prairies or Black Canadians living in Nova Scotia, and even among some white people in places like Alberta or Newfoundland & Labrador have also challenged the idea of a single ‘Canadian’ identity’. People have various ideas to accommodate these differences ranging from multiculturalism to institutional reform for a ‘Triple E’ (elected, equal and effective) Senate.

The biggest challenge to a ‘Canadian’ identity, of course, are the competing nationalisms of many Quebecois and Indigenous people. Nothing Quebecers have experienced in Canadian history obviously comes anywhere close to the shit Indigenous people have experienced, but they’re similar in that many people in both groups insist that they have very distinct, unique places in Canada and refuse to see themselves as ‘just’ Canadians. A lot of them are quite willing to call themselves Canadians, but they also see themselves as part of their nations. A few Anglophone Canadians have called for formally recognizing their nationalisms in some way, but the idea remains controversial, to say the least.

3. Cosmopolitan ‘anti-nationalism’

The book’s third section discusses thinkers who flat-out reject Quebec nationalism like Jean-Pierre Derrienic, Régine Robin and (most famously) Pierre Trudeau. Many of these anti-nationalist thinkers see themselves as ‘paddling against the current’ (to use Trudeau’s famous words) against a melancholic nationalism that left the Franco-Quebecois stagnant and traumatized under Anglo-Canadian rule. Trudeau felt that Quebec already had all the tools it needed to thrive. Instead of criticizing the past, Quebecois should focus on modernizing and participating in the world.

Trudeau had a general dislike of nationalism, which he considered irrational. He felt that the intellectual’s job was to use reason to dispel its myths. Instead of nationalism, he preferred a federalism he saw as more rational, with a focus on strictly individual rights and freedoms. Only individuals, rather than collective groups like Quebecers, had innate rights. Collective rights like a distinct status for Quebec could only come by suppressing the rights of other minorities.

Other thinkers like Derrienic didn’t go quite as far, saying that Quebecers could still have a collective identity, but that it didn’t need to be constitutionally entrenched. They also shared Trudeau’s views on the primacy of individual citizen rights, saying that laws should be able to apply equally to anyone and everyone. For Derrienic, a distinct status for Quebec would favour the Franco-Quebecois over other Quebecois. Marc Agenot criticized what he saw as the ‘neo-tribalism’ of Quebec’s ‘ethnic’ nationalists, believing that a cosmopolitan view of universal rights was better. Régine Robin condemned what she saw as a Quebec nationalism that was only open to ethnically French Quebecois and called for a ‘universal’ citizenship based on individual rights rather than people’s origins.

Like its Quebec counterpart, the Canadian identity is constantly evolving and being challenged.

These debates are common in the rest of Canada, of course. Justin Trudeau, who currently holds the same position his father once did, called Canada the world’s first ‘post-national state’ that had no ‘core identity’. Trudeau senior’s views on rational federalism and individual rights are heavily entrenched in Canada, most particularly in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms he helped establish. (Ironically, this led Trudeau senior to promote a pan-Canadian nationalism to oppose the Quebec one, something he admitted in his early writings would almost be necessary.) Trudeau and his supporters never let up on their opposition to collective rights, whether they be distinct status for Quebec or Indigenous Treaty rights. Many Anglophone Canadians, even Western conservatives who otherwise hate the Trudeaus, agree with them on this.

Those Treaty rights, of course, are an issue across Canada. Trudeau senior himself tried to formally abolish them in the 1969 White Paper, and had to relent due to the furious Indigenous opposition. Indigenous nations are easily the most prominent challengers to the idea of universal individual rights in Canada today. Some Indigenous thinkers even believe that Treaty rights apply to non-Native Canadians too, establishing our right to live in the lands that form Canada.

It might seem like a pan-Canadian nationalism would have to be opposed to recognizing the distinct places of Quebec or the Indigenous nations in Canada, but in the final section of the book Maclure shows this isn’t necessarily true.

4. Democracy, identity and pluralism in Quebec

In the final section of the book, Maclure discusses how Quebec’s identity has evolved in recent years, particularly with new immigrants making it their home. He notes that Quebec’s full of disagreement and debate on what being Quebecois means. Single, homogenous national identities are challenged by everything from ethnicity to gender to sexuality to social class. Different people’s perspectives and ideas interact with each other, creating an identity that is constantly evolving and being reframed. A Black man of Haitian origin who lives in Montreal is obviously very different from a white “pur laine” (“pure wool”, meaning ethnically descended from the original French settlers) man who lives in Chicoutimi, but they’re both still Quebecois. Their experiences in a common society help shape what that society is and what it becomes.

Contrary to the stereotype of Quebec being just xenophobic and ethnically nationalist, Maclure shows how Quebec society is actually a lot more open than it sometimes gets credit for, going for integration over assimilation. He speaks out against the melancholic nationalists who insist there’s only one way to be a ‘true Quebecois’. He also opposes anti-nationalism since it often deprives people of a sense of belonging and rootedmess. Many Franco-Quebecois see their province as home to a nation, but that nation doesn’t have to exclude the Anglo-Quebecois minority or the Indigenous nations that also live within Quebec. Respecting those other identities and nations helps Quebec maintain its own distinct place in the world and gets past the old conflict between the melancholy nationalists and the anti-nationalists.

Much the same can be said about Canada as a whole-our identity, just like Quebec’s, is constantly changing.

There are many parallels between the Quebec Maclure describes and Canada as a whole. The same conflicts over religious wear happening in Quebec are rife across the rest of Canada. There’ve been a lot of discussions about what exactly it means to be Canadian and the Canadian identity. As far back as 1972, broadcaster Peter Gzowski held a contest to complete the phrase “As Canadian as…” with the winning response being “…possible, under the circumstances.”

Like its Quebec counterpart, the Canadian identity is constantly evolving and being challenged. This has only increased in the years since Maclure wrote Récits identitaires, from the controversies over reasonable accommodation in Quebec in 2007 and 2008 to the controversies over Muslim women wearing niqab veils during citizenship ceremonies to Justin Trudeau’s claims about Canada’s lacking a ‘core identity’ and the regional, Indigenous and racialized identities mentioned above.

5. A book ahead of its time

If anything, Maclure was remarkably prescient about the identity debates that Quebec would face over the next 25 years. While he focused on the debates happening in Quebec, a lot of what he discusses also applies across Canada. Towards the end of the book, he notes that many Anglo-Quebecois and Indigenous peoples don’t see themselves as part of the Quebec nation, something that could just as easily apply to Franco-Quebecois and Natives towards the Anglo-Canadian nation. He cites Létourneau’s description of Anglophone, Francophone and Indigenous ‘worlds’ in Quebec, similar to John Ralston Saul writing about Canada’s ‘triangular reality’.

Maclure also criticizes both the Canadian constitutional framework set up by Pierre Trudeau and the separatist movement for not understanding just how complex Quebecois identity is, and notes how all the writers he’s discussed contribute to it. Their combined efforts provide a framework not to create a single fixed identity to present to the rest of Canada, the Indigenous nations or the rest of the world, but to ensure that identity can continue to evolve.

Much the same can be said about Canada as a whole-our identity, just like Quebec’s, is constantly changing.

With Récits identitaires, Maclure shows just how much we as a country have in common with each other.