In their text “A problematic interpretation of the Quiet Revolution”, Denis Monière and Robert Comeau criticize our Brief history of the Quiet Revolution by accusing it in particular of lacking “methodological rigor” (The duty, September 7, 2021).
What is the method? Without going back to René Descartes, let’s go back to the dictionary definition. The method is a “set of steps taken by the mind to discover and demonstrate the truth.” In our discipline, that of history, the method first applies to reading.
History is made with documents. The method of internal document criticism seeks to establish facts with as much certainty as possible. It is important to read carefully in order to identify the point and discern the author’s intentions.
In the case of our book, the subject and the intentions are explicit throughout the text. It is a historical reconstruction of the experience of Quebeckers, these men and women living on the territory of Quebec (p. 22), during the period of the Quiet Revolution, from a historical perspective. of political culture. Nowhere is a “social history” perspective mentioned.
Before establishing facts, the reader must recognize his own biases and respect the authenticity of the text. Otherwise, he risks making factual errors, omitting important elements, exaggerating others and ascribing foreign intentions to the author. Therefore, any conclusion drawn from a partial and partial reading becomes inaccurate and invalid.
Faced with the criticism of Monière and Comeau, we honestly wondered if they had read the book in question. All reading is appropriation, historians agree. Here the appropriation deviates considerably from the authentic text. Their criticism thus comprises a series of allegations which fall under the error of fact, the omission, the exaggeration and the trial of intention, which invalidates their conclusion.
Factual errors first. They start our Brief history of the Quiet Revolution with the election of Jean Lesage in June 1960. The book clearly indicates that it begins on September 7, 1959 with the death of Maurice Duplessis (p. 11, 18-19, 79-82), which marks the end of a period according to contemporaries.
Monière and Comeau assume that February 16, 1983, the closing date of the period, would be the outcome of a simple “union crisis”. Here again, contemporaries consider it the end of an era (pp. 11-12, 237-240). These two cultural phenomena, of the same nature in history, limit the period when the representation of the State as guarantor of the common good is consensual in Quebec.
Among the other errors of fact, Monière and Comeau consider that the book would “ignore” the role of the Quebec Party. This is at the heart of the argumentation on nationalism (p. 97-98), on constitutional (p. 160) and linguistic (p. 170) issues, and especially of chapter 5, which presents the PQ government of René Lévesque summarizing the ideals of the Quiet Revolution (p. 203-206).
Monière and Comeau affirm that the book obscures the interactions between the associative and political worlds – which they unduly shrivel up to the only parties and the government. The developments on participatory democracy (p. 151-155) and the long description of the composition of the Lévesque cabinet in 1976 (p. 203-204) contradict this assertion.
The same goes for their many omissions and exaggerations. Monière and Comeau judge that “the authors take little account of what is happening on the federal scene”. The reading of the first chapter on Canada and the world brings a clear denial of this judgment.
For them, the book would downplay the elections of Jean Lesage and Pierre Trudeau. However, they are well understood in their respective importance: that of regime change in Quebec (p. 81), that of the stiffening of the federal tone against Quebec demands (p. 161) and the hopes for constitutional changes (p. 230- 232).
Monière and Comeau consider that the feminist movement “developed within the framework of the independence movement”. Issues such as equal rights or contraception and abortion (p. 40,181-182) clearly go beyond this narrow consideration.
Finally, lawsuits abound. “Without realizing it”, the authors would adhere to “the nationalist doxa which makes believe that Quebec is free of its choices” and to “the old tradition of apolitism or the devaluation of politics as an instrument of social change. “. If we profess these unsuspected beliefs, we would have mentioned them, because politics is at the heart of our analysis.
For Monière and Comeau, the book would hide “the process of national emancipation [que la Révolution tranquille] has set in motion in various forms ”. This is simply not true: the ideal of emancipation runs through the book from cover to cover. It includes that of the Quebec nation, but is not limited to it.
Is our interpretation of the Quiet Revolution problematic? We believe that readers can make their own assessment for themselves. Let’s end on a constructive note. In our courses on the historical method in our respective establishments, the criticism of Denis Monière and Robert Comeau will provide our students with an eloquent example of the approach to be avoided in history.
Watch video
Reference-feedproxy.google.com