Francophone Minorities: From a Homogeneous Representation to the Construction of a Plural Identity
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Some years ago, when I first taught Introduction aux Etudes Canadiennes in French, I was confronted with two major challenges that I had not expected. That experience probably tells as much about me and where I am coming from as it does about the challenges themselves, which were (1) to find textbooks of Canadian studies in French and (2) to find texts that acknowledged the diversity of Francophone communities and identities within Canada. Canadian studies textbooks in French do not exist, and the English Canadian studies textbooks do not present Francophone diversity, despite academic journals in French devoted to the analysis of multiple Francophone experiences. (2) The English textbooks do present debates surrounding the place of Quebec in the federation, the history of Acadians, Francophone literatures, related statistics on Canadian Francophonies, and the linguistic situations in various provinces. However, the experiences of Francophones are not used as examples for the discussions about diversity and identity. In other words, the debates about diversity and identity are framed in terms of English Canada and French Quebec. (3) This essay proposes a reevaluation of Canadian Francophone minorities' experiences, and shows that Francophone communities are shaken by identity debates that are not only about surviving and assimilation but also about the multiplicity of identities and how they create tensions in various communities. These debates are also about the political struggles over the definition of a group's markers and who are the privileged interlocutors. In this sense, Francophone minority communities are no different than the larger Canadian society, which is also characterized by contested identities. I was confronted with almost the same problems in the Spring 2000 Journal of Canadian Studies, which examined the state of Canadian studies and that discipline's future at the new millennium. In the introduction, the editor poses several questions, including the following: (4) 1. Does Canadian studies have to be used to establish a nationalist consensus? 2. Does this field of studies have to establish a consensus regarding theoretical and empirical research projects? In that issue of the journal, several Canadianists answer these questions in ways that are critical of projects totalizing Canadian experiences. For example, political scientist Ian Angus criticizes the English Canadian philosophy as being directed toward a policy of nation-state building and not substantially questioning the risks inherent in the conceptual homogenization of such a project. (5) The same concern is considered by political scientist Jill Vickers when she criticizes the theoretical bases of Canadian studies insofar as that field constructs a Canadian us that marginalizes or silences the diversity of Canadian experiences. (6) In the same publication, comparative literature specialist Richard Cavell shows how the conceptualization of space leads to a homogenization of the national identity. (7) Written from different epistemological points of view, these three essays have the same plea against the orthodoxy of an essentialist Canadian identity and against a grand consensual theorization of the nation. Despite these oft-repeated pleas against essentialist identity, the discipline of Canadian studies is still focused on the heterogeneity of the majority group and is marked by a theoretical and empirical silence about the heterogeneity of non-majority social groups, and this has an important consequence for Canadian studies. The absence of the political recognition of the multiple Francophone identities places the field of Canadian studies largely behind, or blind to, important political changes that have increased the diversity of the Francophone communities. For example, in 2002, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages (Immigration and the Vitality of Canada's Official Language Communities: Policy, Demography and Identity) recommended a diversification of immigration by increasing the immigration of French-speakers. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».