 |
 |
||||
 |
|||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||
|
|
|
|
Postscript | Jean-Paul Baillargeon (continued) As an echo to that proposal, Fernand Harvey wishes that the reflections put forward in this colloquium result in “research [activities dealing with] the study of cultural practices of individuals and local communities, and also into comparative studies between regions of a given country, or between smaller societies at different stages of cultural development.” Those types of studies could do much to clear up ambiguities, if only because it forces us to clarify certain situations, because we would have to compare comparable things. At the founding colloquium of the Canadian Cultural Research Network, in Ottawa, in June 1998, John Meisel, in his usual urbane language, used the expression “linguistic plasticity” (1998), not only about the meaning of the same words in French and in English, but between speakers. If we ever succeed in dissipating some terminological ambiguities, which may focus the light on certain ways of seeing reality, this would surely be a step in helping to appreciate one another, and possibly to deepen our thoughts about the other. All that would be very helpful in rendering more explicit the role of culture today in our own societies. In reading the papers of the speakers of this colloquium, we can add another general reflection, which can be linked closely with the idea of clarifying terms and concepts. Most of these speakers have used an academic style. This is not surprising as we all come from that world. But some have chosen other ways of expressing themselves, such as an autobiographical narrative (Cohnstaedt), a professional testimony (Cardinal), an almost polemical editorial (Sauvageau), an administrative memorandum (Higham), or else the legitimization of a heartfelt cause with lengthy theoretical considerations (Bayne). If we want to be sure to understand each other, in talking about the stakes involved in the handing down of culture in smaller societies within the context of globalization, it is not forbidden to favour one type of expression over another, if it helps an author to emphasize more dramatically what he wants to say. There are famous authors of the twentieth century who felt they needed to use different forms of writing to express themselves. One thinks, for example, of Sartre (theatre, novels, philosophical, political and polemical essays), of Malraux (novels, literary and aesthetic essays, political writing). Here in Québec, Gérard Bouchard (2002) recently published a novel to tell the story of the builders of the Saguenay region in ways that his works as a sociologist and historian could not express. John Ralston Saul has moved between novels and historical or philosophical works. This leads us to hope that, in addition to the “objective” studies called for by Fernand Harvey and John Meisel, there would be more personal manifestations, including journalistic essays, like Taras Gresco’s (2002), or the literary works of authors called “cultural ferrymen” (Giguère, 2001). Some such works can be found in francophone Québec and in anglophone Canada. But would the “two solitudes” be so irreducible if there were more literary ferrymen between them? Is it possible that, beyond certain limits, cultural exchanges and cross-breeding can no longer co-exist? From that, we turn to reflections some authors sent following the events of September 11, 2001. Some said that these events were a way of telling the United States that the rest of the world exists (Lask). Others have seen in the attacks a refutation, by a part of the world, of the influence of the western materialism (Meisel). The clash of cultures has also been put forward. But Sophie Bessis (2001) has talked more about a clash between two imaginations, how we in the West perceive the Arab and Muslim world and how that world perceives the Western world. Should there not be a lesson for all small societies which survive and bloom in a context of globalization, of a much feared homogenized culture? How do we perceive each other? There may be interesting exercises to devote ourselves to before entering into “comparative studies between regions of a given country, or between smaller societies” (Harvey), because “linguistic plasticity” is not the only confusing factor. First and foremost, there are all those ambiguous ways of seeing the other. To throw away all those dubious phantoms is a preliminary and fundamental condition for the uniting of smaller societies in order that they survive and bloom in a context of globalization, if we wish to hand down something other than sham cultures and merchandized caricatures of culture. To do so, we suggest, as a reference, a definition of culture taken from one of the late Fernand Dumont’s essays (1995: 17-18). |
||
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
