Like many people, I have serious questions about the methodological integrity of L’actualité’s recent findings on the future of French in Montreal, and the highly subjective ways in which they were interpreted and disseminated to the public. (The cover graphic showing a frog holding the “Ici on parle English” sign added a certain nuanced je ne sais quoi). But let’s assume that, as Jean-François Lisée insists, the answers given to L’actualité “reflect exactly what the respondents wanted to say.” Let’s discuss a couple of the “truths” that Mr. Lisée asks us if we can “handle” in his recent piece in The Gazette (“Poll result surprised L’actualité,” Opinion, March 29).
Speaking on behalf of the folks at L’actualité, Mr. Lisée writes that “[t]o our surprise, we found that there was a disconnect between the considerable – and admirable – investment that anglo Quebecers have been putting into acquiring a knowledge of French and their apparent lack of concern for either the future of French in Montreal or the rights of francophones.”
I find it odd that Mr. Lisée should be “surprised” that bilingual anglophone Quebecers do not all share his particular vision of society – politically, historically and socially aligned as it is with a specific nationalist project and the Parti Québécois – simply because they speak French. The idea that a shared language automatically implies shared values and beliefs among a given population has been largely debunked in many parts of the world.
I happen to find it heartening that while non-francophones are increasingly choosing to learn the French language and encouraging their children to do the same (how is this a lack of concern, again?), respondents to this poll appear to be simultaneously challenging Mr. Lisée’s vision of Quebec and the ways in which he mobilizes the French language in order to consolidate support for a nationalist project that he publicly plays a key role in defining. In other words, contrary to his expectations, 80 per cent of bilingual anglophones are not just jumping up and saying “Yes, of course!” to whatever Mr. Lisée thinks they should. The real truth is that the French language in Montreal means different things to the different people who speak it, and for many different reasons. Considering the diversity of our city, this should not come as a big surprise to the editorial board at L’actualité. But since apparently it does, we should be asking why that’s the case.
Mr. Lisée states that he “wish[es] for a time when all Quebecers will feel they have a stake in securing the predominance of the French language in Quebec, in securing the rights and vibrancy of the Quebec English-speaking community and in enabling a robust culture, including linguistic resilience, for the First Nations.” I would be interested to know whether there were members of the Quebec English-speaking community or representatives from the First Nations actively included in developing the questions for this poll. If so, what do they have to say about all this? But if not, why not?
I’m also a bit confused by what exactly Mr. Lisée means when he talks about the “rights of francophones.” Which francophones? Which rights? Given the context of his article, I assume he means linguistic rights and not a broader range of economic and social rights that many francophone Quebecers may find equally (or possibly even more) important, and in fact share with fellow anglophone and allophone citizens. If I have implied too much, I would invite him to translate for me his own views on this.
I do agree with Mr. Lisée that it was “naive” to assume that everything regarding language and the hiring practices of “large Montreal corporations” had “been settled decades ago.” Decades ago Quebec was a different place. The whole world was a different place. In the wake of the Quiet Revolution, the cultivation of highly protected francophone economic markets (as well as intellectual, educational and political markets) was both necessary and successful in creating avenues of empowerment for a francophone population that had previously been shut out from the predominantly English-speaking markets.
Today, many Montreal-based francophone companies have grown into multinational corporations that do most of their business outside Quebec. Because of this, francophone markets are being challenged by the dynamics of a rapidly evolving global economy where English, like it or not, is the international language of business. Does this raise questions about the position of French in Quebec workplaces? Of course. Should these tensions be brought out and debated rigorously? Absolutely. But we need to dig deep and call up the analytic fortitude to be able to work through some of the real complexities between English as a colonial language in the Quebec national discourse, as it was defined in the 1960s and ’70s, and English as the global lingua franca in 2012. That 77 per cent of poll respondents in the 18-to-34 age group apparently believe it is acceptable to hire unilingual anglophones as managers may have Mr. Lisée scratching his head, but to me it also indicates that we are dealing with a new generation that has a whole new (scary) economic reality to contend with.
Based purely on his article in The Gazette, the truth seems to be that the majority of bilingual anglophones polled think differently than Mr. Lisée and his colleagues at L’actualité. I think the real question is whether they can handle that truth.
celine.cooper 9cL utoronto.ca