Thursday, March 01, 2007
Bilingualism, eh?
So, living in Québec has been a great experience. Fewer bullets to dodge than Ecuador and fewer power outages than Cuba. It’s been more than ten years since this province nearly broke away from the country. Only by some text-book definition of a miracle under the sleepy federal leadership of Jean Chrétien, did Québec manage to stay in Canada. Yet, in 2007 language is still a major divider.
Montréal is a city of cities. There are English parts where French cannot be found, and French parts where English is as alien as Swahili, and yet there are Swahili parts where passable French and English are a bit rare.
Coming here to a Francophone university to master the language (or at least bring it up to newspaper readable speed) garners piles of respect. Many Francophone graduate students realize that at some point they will likely have to familiarize themselves with English in order to survive in academia or policy circles. But few Anglophones really need to master French to get through the whole of their lives. Translation services in Ottawa abound for both parliamentarians and the civil service. Anglos still have it pretty easy.
So, I’ve been wondering what the hell bilingualism really is. Is it a draconian policy to shove two languages down the throats of every kid in Canada, where the result, through public education, is generations of students leaving school with piss poor understanding of the other language? Is it something that is reserved for Ottawa? Is it something that can never be achieved, considering that many pure laine Francophones look on in disdain when any Anglo square-head fumbles on French grammar and misses Québec slang?
A good fracnophone pal of mine and I discussed what the hell bilingualism is. We were having fondue and wine in Québec City with a few toasts of caribou thrown in. We figured that the vast majority of Canadians can get through their lives without need of the other language. Just as in Switzerland those from Geneva never have a pressing need to master Swiss German. Sure. But those who might be in positions of leadership, and in positions to influence leadership, should certainly bring themselves to understand the language. Only we figured that the real issue is not to just understand the language, but to understand the ideas going on within its culture. The language divide between Québec and Anglo-Canada is a big thing, but the ideas embedded and separated between them is even bigger.
Reading a French and English newspaper, everyday, I’ve come to realize that our biggest challenge with bilingualism is the lack of translation of ideas and attitudes between the Anglo and Franco worlds. French media and English media in this country might as well be covering the happenings of the opposite sides of the moon. Seriously, what counts for news in English Canada gets a full miss in Québec, and vise versa. Sure a few pundits cross over, and sure, we all take notice of big issues, but the day to day happenings are really lost in translation.
So, my friend and I have come to conclude that bilingualism is really more about transferring those happenings between the two solitudes to realize that we really have more in common than we think.
In the 1995 referendum Québec really had no idea what Anglo Canada was thinking, and Anglo Canada really didn’t see the heart of the matter as to why young radical Québécois were taking to the streets chanting out “screw the world.” It was a dangerous time, and we nearly tore ourselves apart because while we may have taken notice to what the other side was saying, we didn’t understand what they were really thinking.
This is the goal of bilingualism, as I see it. To ensure that ideas, desires and hopes are expressed openly, in whatever way possible. The mechanics of how and Francophone and Anglophone communicate with each other, are just mechanics. The idea of bilingualism being forced action to help build resumes is far too pedestrian. And if we keep up that attitude, rest assured, it will come back to haunt us once again. But if we see bilingualism as a vehicle to share and communicate our ideas, I mean at street level, not just in politics, and then we may stand a fighting chance.
Montréal is a city of cities. There are English parts where French cannot be found, and French parts where English is as alien as Swahili, and yet there are Swahili parts where passable French and English are a bit rare.
Coming here to a Francophone university to master the language (or at least bring it up to newspaper readable speed) garners piles of respect. Many Francophone graduate students realize that at some point they will likely have to familiarize themselves with English in order to survive in academia or policy circles. But few Anglophones really need to master French to get through the whole of their lives. Translation services in Ottawa abound for both parliamentarians and the civil service. Anglos still have it pretty easy.
So, I’ve been wondering what the hell bilingualism really is. Is it a draconian policy to shove two languages down the throats of every kid in Canada, where the result, through public education, is generations of students leaving school with piss poor understanding of the other language? Is it something that is reserved for Ottawa? Is it something that can never be achieved, considering that many pure laine Francophones look on in disdain when any Anglo square-head fumbles on French grammar and misses Québec slang?
A good fracnophone pal of mine and I discussed what the hell bilingualism is. We were having fondue and wine in Québec City with a few toasts of caribou thrown in. We figured that the vast majority of Canadians can get through their lives without need of the other language. Just as in Switzerland those from Geneva never have a pressing need to master Swiss German. Sure. But those who might be in positions of leadership, and in positions to influence leadership, should certainly bring themselves to understand the language. Only we figured that the real issue is not to just understand the language, but to understand the ideas going on within its culture. The language divide between Québec and Anglo-Canada is a big thing, but the ideas embedded and separated between them is even bigger.
Reading a French and English newspaper, everyday, I’ve come to realize that our biggest challenge with bilingualism is the lack of translation of ideas and attitudes between the Anglo and Franco worlds. French media and English media in this country might as well be covering the happenings of the opposite sides of the moon. Seriously, what counts for news in English Canada gets a full miss in Québec, and vise versa. Sure a few pundits cross over, and sure, we all take notice of big issues, but the day to day happenings are really lost in translation.
So, my friend and I have come to conclude that bilingualism is really more about transferring those happenings between the two solitudes to realize that we really have more in common than we think.
In the 1995 referendum Québec really had no idea what Anglo Canada was thinking, and Anglo Canada really didn’t see the heart of the matter as to why young radical Québécois were taking to the streets chanting out “screw the world.” It was a dangerous time, and we nearly tore ourselves apart because while we may have taken notice to what the other side was saying, we didn’t understand what they were really thinking.
This is the goal of bilingualism, as I see it. To ensure that ideas, desires and hopes are expressed openly, in whatever way possible. The mechanics of how and Francophone and Anglophone communicate with each other, are just mechanics. The idea of bilingualism being forced action to help build resumes is far too pedestrian. And if we keep up that attitude, rest assured, it will come back to haunt us once again. But if we see bilingualism as a vehicle to share and communicate our ideas, I mean at street level, not just in politics, and then we may stand a fighting chance.
Comments:
Incidentally, I believe that most French-speaking Swiss learn High German rather than the Swiss German dialect. They usually communicate between each other in English. (An interesting fact - until WW2 Swiss German was the language of country yokels - it was adopted by urban Swiss to differentiate themselves from Germans).
On the subject of Quebec, what exactly is the objection to Quebecois independence - it strikes me that if they had a customs and currency union (similar to pre-1973 Britain and Ireland) there would be no practical downside.
On the subject of Quebec, what exactly is the objection to Quebecois independence - it strikes me that if they had a customs and currency union (similar to pre-1973 Britain and Ireland) there would be no practical downside.
I should say pre-1979, which was when the punt joined the ERM and the 1:1 parity was dropped. The free movement of people and goods was unaffected by Irish independence and continues to the present day.
The problem with separation? Yikes, that’s a novel in itself.
Real quick:
1) It’s a political minority rather than a sweeping majority that is pro separation. This minority fumbles a bit when it comes to questions of inclusion and identity of Anglophones living in Québec, as well as Allophone minorities. Québec’s indigenous communities are also not keen on the idea, as they would have to re-do and renegotiate identity rights in their communities.
2) Québec is in the hole financially. A lot of the happy social projects here don’t pay for themselves, especially when the main resource (electricity) gets sold off to New York and beyond and fire-sale prices. Québec relies on Ottawa for transfer and equalization payments. With out that, it would be economic chaos.
3) A good chunk of Canada’s military is parked in Québec, and employing many people in the process. The moving day parade out of here would be something else.
4) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all Canadian provinces and territories. There is nothing in the separatist movement to match the Charter, and this is troublesome for Québec’s minorities. As well healthcare provision could be thrown into this. A seperate Québec would have a private pay-per-use medical system up and running over night. Sure, no wait times, but that would be because no one could afford to go to the hospital in the first place.
5) There is no real sense or clarity as to what a post-Canada Québec would look like. My guess is that in the frenzy of the aftermath economic and political negotiations would pretty well make an independent Québec a virtual provience anyway. It would be a fun game for lawyers for a while, but a waste of time for the guy on the ground.
6) If there was a customs and currency union that would allow the same mobility as today, then why bother leaving in the first place to deal with issues 1 – 5, and all the other messiness that goes with it?
Real quick:
1) It’s a political minority rather than a sweeping majority that is pro separation. This minority fumbles a bit when it comes to questions of inclusion and identity of Anglophones living in Québec, as well as Allophone minorities. Québec’s indigenous communities are also not keen on the idea, as they would have to re-do and renegotiate identity rights in their communities.
2) Québec is in the hole financially. A lot of the happy social projects here don’t pay for themselves, especially when the main resource (electricity) gets sold off to New York and beyond and fire-sale prices. Québec relies on Ottawa for transfer and equalization payments. With out that, it would be economic chaos.
3) A good chunk of Canada’s military is parked in Québec, and employing many people in the process. The moving day parade out of here would be something else.
4) The Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to all Canadian provinces and territories. There is nothing in the separatist movement to match the Charter, and this is troublesome for Québec’s minorities. As well healthcare provision could be thrown into this. A seperate Québec would have a private pay-per-use medical system up and running over night. Sure, no wait times, but that would be because no one could afford to go to the hospital in the first place.
5) There is no real sense or clarity as to what a post-Canada Québec would look like. My guess is that in the frenzy of the aftermath economic and political negotiations would pretty well make an independent Québec a virtual provience anyway. It would be a fun game for lawyers for a while, but a waste of time for the guy on the ground.
6) If there was a customs and currency union that would allow the same mobility as today, then why bother leaving in the first place to deal with issues 1 – 5, and all the other messiness that goes with it?
Post a Comment