Réconcilier individualisme et collectivisme

En cette période des fêtes nationales (québécoise, canadienne et américaine), je me permettrai de discuter légèrement du débat linguistique en offrant une certaine perspective anglophone à la chose, notamment celle des Américains.

Avec un Américain, discuter de l’importance de la préservation du français en Amérique du Nord n’est pas de tout repos, surtout dans la peau d’un francophone qui tente de justifier les politiques linguistiques du Québec à cet effet. Dans une discussion sur le sujet, le Canadien anglais typique adoptera une attitude arrogante, c’est bien connu. Le Canadien anglais, il en a du ressentiment envers les Québécois ! Et on comprend pourquoi. Mais le Canadien anglais, il est fondamentalement au courant du débat et on n’a pas besoin de le mettre en contexte.

Du côté américain, on sera très intéressé par la chose si on vous l'explique, mais on vous regardera comme si vous veniez de débarquer de la planète Mars : "Really, you speak French in Canada?". Trêve d’exagération, l’Américain typique ne comprendra aucunement les raisons collectives qui ont mené les Québécois à se doter d’une loi 101. Individualiste à l’extrême, non seulement ne vous comprendra-t-il pas, mais il ne sympathisera pas du tout avec vous lorsque vous tenterez de lui expliquer ce que doivent faire les immigrants québécois pour s’adapter à la réalité linguistique du Québec. Mais alors là, il sera en désaccord viscéral, même s’il n’en a rien à foutre de qui parle quelle langue au Canada.

J’ai longtemps cherché l’angle et les raisons pour justifier ce débat auprès d’un anglophone et je n’avais jamais sérieusement songé à analyser les valeurs collectives historiques des deux peuples fondateurs du Canada. Les plus vieux d’entre vous me direz que je suis probablement trop jeune, car les débats avec les regroupements d’anglophones québécois ont souvent créé le besoin de faire ressortir lesdits arguments au début des années 1990 à Montréal. Le texte suivant de Josée Legault publié par Le Devoir en 1992 est d’ailleurs un petit bijou à cet effet. Sur ce, pour que vous compreniez mieux de quoi je parle, je laisse la parole à Raman, qui discute si bien de la chose dans un éloquent commentaire sur le blogue de AngryFrenchGuy.

Perspective sociologique très intéressante :

Raman
June 20, 2008 at 4:01 pm

"One very fruitful line of analysis when trying to understand what oppose the French and English, both here and more traditionally, in Europe, is to consider how Anglo-Saxon political philosophy is centered almost solely around liberalism; whereas the Latin-Catholic outlook always tries to balance individual and collective rights.

Durkheim, I believe, was the first one to say it. He perceived that there was a fundamental divide between the Protestant (individualistic) and Catholic (more communal) outlooks. But many latter sociologists and philosophers have roughly come to the same conclusion.

(The most recent example I read was in "A declaration of interdependence", by Will Hutton. Fascinating book.)

Anglo-Saxons tend to perceive society as not much more than a collection of individuals who happen to reside on a given territory, who enter into private contracts with each other and who compete against each other in a free market. And the only socle on which to base rights are individual freedom and liberties, individual ownership, as well as the pursuit of happiness through unhindered personal endeavors.

In all logic, the only justifiable social restriction to these liberties is when an individual’s actions impedes on another’s rights. And hence the sole value of the State is to regulate so that individuals respect each other’s liberties, intervene so that private contracts are honored, so that private property is respected and so that the market remains free.

Consider philosophers like Locke or Leo Strauss: Influential in Anglo-Saxon countries. And, pushed to its limits, someone like Robert Nozick.

The Latin-Catholic outlook, on the other hand, will more readily agree that there are such things as collective possessions and collective rights: Items that are considered to belong equally to all members of society, including future generations, and that should be nurtured by the State in the name of the democratic majority.

The "social contract" here is perceived as much more than simply preserving individual liberties: It also includes a component of "responsibility" on the part of the individuals towards the collectivity.

From that perspective, it can be justified to curb individual rights and freedoms when it is perceived that they endanger something that is valuable to the group as a whole.

I’m oversimplifying, of course. Debates occur within different groups, and all Anglo-Saxon societies are not equally liberal (Americans tend to be more libertarian than Canadians or the British, for example). Also, all Latin societies are not as socialistic, nor will they always readily curb liberal values.

Nevertheless, in my opinion this difference in outlooks can explain a lot of the misunderstandings that oppose us.

Look at a recent example: Banning the Muslim veil in French schools.

Even if it is a hot debate topic even over there, ultimately it makes sense, in a French mindset, to curb some people’s right to dress as they please and express their religious beliefs, since it is perceived that the secular nature of the State is a collective right that must be upheld and protected for the benefit of all. Ultimately, even if it steps on some people’s feet, it is considered that only in a strict secular state can people of all religions coexist peacefully. So, long term, it is better to restrict some individual choices.

Imposing such a restriction makes less sense in an Anglo-Saxon context. And indeed trying to pass such legislation would meet a lot more opposition in countries like England, (English) Canada or the U.S., if it is considered at all.

To come back to language laws.

Most often Anglophones who criticize Bill 101 will take the "individual rights" line of defense: "It’s a store owner’s sacred right to put up a sign in whatever language they want". Or: "Only parents should be left to decide what school their kids attend". And imposing French is seen as authoritarian (if not outright fascist).

The Francophone view is that the French language is a valuable heritage for Quebeckers that should be upheld and preserved by the State, in the name of the democratic majority and for future generations. Imposing restrictions such as bilingual signs and having to send your kids to French school does protect that (endangered) collective value ― the democratic majority’s ― while not denying individuals’ or minorities’ liberal rights. Furthermore, it helps social cohesion through fostering a common public language, as well as through reducing "ethnic" tensions and resentment which arise when a minority imposes its views and customs upon a majority (as was the case before).

It does "curb" the rights of those who’d rather conduct all their business in English: But it doesn’t "deny" them. Keeping Anglophones from sending their kids to school, or banning Anglos from owning stores altogether would.

It is, in a Francophone outlook, a balance between the majority and minorities, and between collective and individual rights.

While we take the liberal outlook into consideration when drafting such laws, their opponents would do well to consider that there actually is a rationale behind what the Quebec population and its government does.

Also, Anglos would do well to consider that they are not as strictly liberal as they portray themselves: If it were so, there would be no nationally imposed curriculum in schools, and no progressive income tax systems, for example.

But, as it is, many Anglos find it more convenient to describe Quebeckers (or the French) as being anti-democratic: Communists, Fascists or even Nazis… In doing so they are either failing or unwilling to consider that there are different conceptions of democracy than the Anglo-Saxon more strictly liberal one."