An Update on the Two Solitudes

by Andrew Zielinski, October, 2020

Background

A generation ago, anglophone Quebec and the Rest of Canada were buzzing with what now feels like Old Time expressions that described the cultural deadlock between our country’s two founding societies. One such expression was: what does Quebec want? Another such expression referred to French and English Canada, particularly as they co-existed in Quebec and even between Quebec and Ontario, as The Two Solitudes.

Thirty to Sixty years later (depending on how you’d like to count it), nothing has really changed except that there is less linguistic fighting in public discourse and less passive-aggressive pseudo-exchanges dressed up as attempts to understand each other without really wanting to do so.

For those born after the last Quebec Referendum on sovereignty, this disconnection in understanding is somewhat similar to current day discussions on systemic racism. The underlying principle of both conditions is similar: outwardly statements are made that point to an understanding of the other side and an acceptance of the difference. Inwardly, people stick to their kind. The result is that everything seems resolved on the surface but quietly, internally, nothing changes.

The latest incident in Minneapolis, causing the unnecessary death of a black victim at the hands of white police officers, escalated into another iteration of the Black Lives Matter movement that had global reverberations because, by this time in human evolution, this should no longer be a problem, based on all that has been said and done since at least the 1960’s.

Similar parallels could be drawn for women’s rights, the LGBTQ community, aboriginals, etc.

Sometimes treating the symptoms and changing outward behavior is enough.

And, sometimes, it isn’t.

The sad part of Quebec’s Two Solitudes problem is that the base values of either side are impalpable to the other side. And this, I believe, is, in part, what drives the sovereigntist movement, in Quebec, and general animosity toward Quebec nationalism, outside of Quebec. I believe this to be the root cause of all the revisionist history, venomous rhetoric, anti-French sarcasm, and anti-federalist sentiments that regularly surface in times of cultural tension.

Why This Essay?

This essay is about these base values. It will attempt to describe them from both sides of the old divide and, I hope, will shed light on why, to this day, particularly in people over the age of sixty (our Baby Boomers), this flame continues to burn.

Before digging in to all this, I’d like to highlight that younger generations seem to have less of an overall issue with this division… thankfully! And I will offer my thoughts on this as well, below.

Two Visions of Society Born of Necessity

So, why does it seem there is this on-going tension between the anglophone community and the rest of Quebec?

I believe it involves expectations, a bit of history, at this time, and regionalism. Anglophones, allophones, newcomers, all have this particular vision of Canada. And Quebec fits into Canada. So, what is good for BC and Nova Scotia, is good for Quebec. You see, it’s the federal government’s version of Canada that gets marketed outside of Canada. And this vision is based on 1970’s Trudeauism. That’s nearly half a century of no updates on this country’s amazing evolution!

Ottawa’s version of Canada is one of multilingualism, multiculturalism, and social heterogeneity (often referred to as the Cultural Mosaic). This is a vision of Canada that pressures all provinces to coalesce, over time, to a one-size-fits-all way of life and identity.

Understandably, in a country where the vast majority of citizens speak English, it’s easy for the majority to come together linguistically, and in many ways, culturally.

If we estimate Canada’s population to be 35,000,000 and Quebec’s to be 8,000,000, that means Quebec’s primarily French-speaking community represents 23% of the population (excluding anglophones and including francophones outside Quebec). Let’s call it 25%, nationwide. And this, doesn’t include our 350,000,000, or so, American neighbors that also speak English and account for the bulk of our international commerce.

The linguistic dynamic in Quebec, historically, has not been positive. Although antagonistic behavior was initiated from both sides, it reached a boiling point in the 1950’s and 1960’s. It was quite common for a French-speaking Quebecer to be told at a downtown Montreal department store to “Speak White Man’s Language” when addressing a salesclerk in French. And this attitude still pervades today, in some areas, albeit much less prevalently.

It is this exasperating dynamic that pushed some members of the French speaking community to respond politically. Various reactionary groups started to take shape. Even the once-federalist Société St-Jean-Baptiste started to take on decidedly Quebec nationalistic overtones. The more radical Rassemblement pour l’indépendence du Québec was formed. Unions started to rally behind their oppressed workers. In sheer frustration, and as an exasperated outcry from the more militant reaches of Quebec society, a small publication entitled “Les nègres blancs de l’Amérique,” made its way into bookstores.

Then, the splinter groups started to get organized. By coming together, they agreed to give up their radical ways and form a political party in order to get elected and use the levers of democratic society to peacefully bring about social change in order to safeguard their language, their culture and feel at home, in their home. And, in 1976, roughly 10 years later, they got elected as Quebec’s first sovereigntist party.

What evolved from this desperate need to survive, was more of a Melting Pot approach to society. The Canadian Cultural Mosaic was killing French Quebec slowly. French Quebec wants less multilingualism, less multiculturalism, less heterogeneity and more homogeneity, predicated on its culture, which was supposed to be protected in Canada’s Constitution but was, in effect, challenged every day on its streets.

Present-Day

And so, to this day, remnants of this Quiet Revolution pervade. But it is generational, in great part, in my opinion. Those generations that fought to institutionalize the French Fact in Quebec, in order to protect it and give it an official home in North America, continue to fight the same fight. They are the ones raising subsequent generations in this DNA-level protectionism because, as they say, if you don’t, within two generations the French Fact in Quebec will disappear.

Although younger generations appreciate the perspective, especially unilingual French Quebecers, their sense of not being able to survive without all this is not as passionate because, to a greater or lesser extent, they are bilingual. In fact, the closer to Montreal they live, the more bilingual they are.

On the other side of the old divide, Quebec anglophones are also mostly bilingual.

So, what’s left is how each individual wants to live, day-to-day. Mostly in English or mostly in French, at home, at work, socially? With more education came more understanding, less division. And, not everyone is choosing to live in English.

What didn’t get diluted was the French Fact, in Quebec. It continues to evolve, politically, culturally, economically.  It is truly a Distinct Society, with or without constitutional recognition from the Rest of Canada (referring to the failed Meech Lake Accord attempt at constitutional ratification, and rectification). It is protected. The Old Guard did its job. Now, they need to leave it for subsequent generations to enjoy and manage as they see fit.

It is this history that has led to the present day and the friction between Ottawa and Quebec City over such areas as youth education and immigration. One side decries racism and the other side says: “You don’t get it!”

One recent such example is the polarity over Quebec’s now famous Law 21. The law institutes secularism in public sector jobs that involve representing the authority of the state. It basically says that anyone holding a position of governmental authority cannot display any religious symbols on their person and must adhere to their departmental dress codes. The immediate knee-jerk reaction from the rest of Canada was to denounce the law as racist. From a Cultural Mosaic perspective, this could be perceived as understandable. From a Melting Pot perspective, within a clearly defined culture, the label is terribly wrong. “Secularism is not racism,” as our Premier accurately and succinctly responded to a journalist inquiring about the legitimacy of Law 21.

So, today, the Two Solitudes are defined with more precision and less emotion. One side adheres to the Melting Pot Theory and the other side adheres to the Cultural Mosaic Theory. These are Distinct Societies, indeed!

OK, So Now What?

So, how to make all this work together, peacefully, amicably, and productively, for everyone?

The Greater Montreal Forum wishes to celebrate the positive contributions to Quebec society regardless of linguistic sides, past history, and old terminologies. It is a break with the past yet respectful of the past. It looks to the flags of Montreal and of Quebec as symbols of our common past and inspiration for a common future, in Quebec, in which we help each other and lift each other.

And this starts with a common understanding of how this melting pot can work with respect and dignity for both founding cultures. It will also require leaving a big part of a painful past behind to build something new and something better.

Our public positions will be free of the usual knee-jerk reactionism that has been coming out of old-time community organizations, fighting old battles, in old ways, using old expressions. We will seek positive angles, middle grounds, constructive arguments, build bridges, through interpretations of current events that seek to build rather that hinder positive development. We seek to move forward, not backwards. We will, of course, keep a watchful eye on impacts to our community and ask, probe, analyze, in positive and constructive ways.