Racisme et antiracisme au Québec. Discours et déclinaisons by Micheline Labelle (review)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reviewed by: Racisme et antiracisme au Québec. Discours et déclinaisons by Micheline Labelle Maryse Potvin Micheline Labelle . Racisme et antiracisme au Québec. Discours et déclinaisons. Montréal : Presses de l'Université du Québec, 2010. 212 pp. $29.00 sc. This book purports to offer an analysis of the Québec state's discourse on racism and anti-racism, as well as the position adopted by a few NGOs and citizens who submitted briefs to the 2006 public consultation on the government policy project designed to fight against racism. The book reviews numerous extracts from these "discourses," found in various public policies and briefs. The author's main objective is to "question the soundness of certain agreed-upon (conventional) ways to approach the problem in Quebec" (158). Despite the book's attractive title and objectives, it exhibits important flaws and omissions, three of which are, in my view, significant: 1. The first one is the lack of conceptual framework for "discourse analysis," in a work that proposes to analyze "discourses" on racism and anti-racism. "Discourse analysis" covers a vast multidisciplinary field, that comprises numerous approaches and theoretical debates (Foucault's theory on discourse, Habermas's discourse ethics, etcetera). 2. The second one is the book's ambition to cover "the Quebec State's discourse" during the 2000s—the "State" comprises many levels of government, normative powers (executive, legislative, judicial), institutions and actors—while it only analyzes the "governmental discourse," from a few recent provincial policies. Hence, one can question the book's choice of ministries and institutions, of NGOs and citizens, because there is no justification of the selection criteria. Why were the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Health excluded, given that they have adopted policies that concern racism and anti-racism? Why exclude the discourse of intellectuals, of researchers or even that of the media surrounding the 2006 consultation? Why limit one's analysis to 29 briefs out of 124, when the author submits, in conclusion, that a "strong consensus emanated from all 124 briefs" (157)? [End Page 237] Consequently, there are astonishing omissions regarding the problematization of racism and anti-racism in Quebec. When the author describes the issues and theoretical debates, she fails not only to mention the issues that arise from ethnic and power relationships specific to the Québécois context, but also the issues that are specific to Quebec research on this question. The author's survey of the literature, focused on American and European documentation, cannot provide the theoretical and historical context in Quebec, and the international issues, although relevant, cannot shed light on the reasons underlying the different positions that emanate from the various "discourses" in Quebec, nor on how they were expressed. Labelle fails to mention the views expressed by Quebec researchers since the 2000s concerning the government's discourse, especially recent analysis that puts into perspective the strengths and weaknesses of the government's discourse on racism (e.g., Marhraoui, McAndrew, Potvin). A more inclusive reading of research in Quebec would have allowed her to avoid certain misleading statements on "the authors" (which ones?) who, she states, analyze neo-racism while negating social representations that are linked to colonial racism, who confuse anti-racism and managing diversity, who adopt an overly extensive (or intersectional) approach. Rather than being diachronic, the analysis is synchronic. The work contains no in-depth analysis of the situation "before" and "after" the 2006 public consultation (for example: the Quebec government's discourse at the time of the Durban World Conference of 2001, and as it is now, following the Bouchard-Taylor report, in the Immigration Ministry's (MICC) 2008 policy). On a larger scale, it would have been preferable to put into perspective the meaning of the 2006 public consultation and the issues involved, with regards to various "discourses." These discourses (including the racist discourse), in particular during recent events that have greatly influenced Quebec, notably the "reasonable accommodation" crisis, cannot be ignored in any reflection on racism in Quebec. Some other assertions are also misleading: the author submits that the publication of a document on racism by the Conseil des Relations interculturelles in 2001 "placed the debate...
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".