Imagine being made to feel unwelcome in your beloved city. Not necessarily by your neighbors, though it could be them as well, but, by the people in government. The government whose very function is to protect and provide you with all possible opportunities to better yourself in its vicinity, you find instead is actively partaking in place renaming in the city to represent only Francophones names and history whilst ignoring and trampling Anglophones all the while covertly sending the message that they do not belong here. This is happening today in 2017 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The issue as it stands is about language. The result is the question of who then does the city belong to? The Francophones or the Anglophones. In order to come to a conclusion, hopefully, once and for all about this internal war, that has very real effects on people’s daily lives, is to empirically test it. By conducting research on tomorrows working force, university students ages 18-27 who will be tested on their thoughts both consciously and unconsciously about who belongs. We can trample the issue and come forth with a proper solution that appeases the generations that will have to live there.
Introduction
Prior to any publicized arguments about language, much of Montreal city favored English, according to Lambert et al. 1960, who performed a matched-guise test on Anglophone and Francophones attitudes toward either language in Montreal. However, soon after the “Quiet revolution” came about which was an effort for the francophone to up their status in Canada and gain it back. During which much of the French population and party began reclaiming very central and iconic-or prototypical areas of Montreal. In an effort to redefine the landscape ( a particular perspective of an area and how it should be defined or better yet allocated to) into their own visions. Many of the areas destroyed in order to have the landscape rebuilt and rezoned did not belong to primarily French populations.
Language legislation was written up in Quebec in order to protect the Francophone population and its culture. Culture as a concept according to Mitchell (1990,103) is simplistically an idea constructed during a particular time, that others use to define certain ways of life, such as social norms and who deserves a seat of power where and there. The language legislation promoted Francophones to higher standing whilst seemingly strangling the Anglophones who inhabited it.
In 1977, the Charter of the French language , also known as Bill 101 was passed. Initially stating that in essence French as the language of Quebec must be protected and enforced throughout the province. Stating for example that the norms of the province should be that French is on all signs that are there for public consumption, immigrants must attend French school, the work place shall be conducted in primarily French etc. For instances, if you have immigrant parents in Canada and you are of school-age and reside within Quebec you must attend school instruction in French. If you have Canadian born parents one of them must have attended English primary school in order for you to attend a school in English instruction. The silent, yet, waging war between the English and the French populations of Montreal is still noticeable today. Since the time of the charter of French language, street signs have been systematically changed to either French equivalents or completely eradicated and replaced with people the government and more specifically who the French government of Montreal and Quebec consider worthier.
Take for instances, in the heart of downtown a street from its time of conception was named Dorchester- in honor of the first baron Dorchester, an anglo-irish governor of the province of Quebec, the name was changed in 1987 to instead honor Rene Levesque. Rene Levesque was a Quebec Premier and Francophone. While at first glance the renaming of streets may seem like an inevitable and completely harmless statement, it’s quite the opposite. As, Cretan et al. (2015) pointed out it’s a reshaping of the landscape symbolically and choosing a particular part of history to represent. In effect deciding on the collective memory of the city.
Cretan et al.(2015) also brings attention to another article by Redwood et al.(2010) which talk about the fact that after any form of political change, renaming’s are common and a way to exert and flex in a sense who is now in power. Kircher, R et al. repeated a very similar study to the study done by Lambert (reference page two) in the 1960s this time not only using Francophones and Anglophones but also Allophones – persons who are immigrants, and tested their reactions to favored sides of language either French or English. The results said that although there was an increased standing of French as a favored language, English was still much more preferred. Using feedback reports many stated that French was only useful in Quebec and to help them succeed only in Quebec.
Levine in the article La reconquete de Montreal (1997) brings to attention that the apparent ‘take over’ led to the economic claim of Montreal’s business to the French all whilst causing the original business hubs to migrate out to places such as Toronto to avoid language laws strangulations on their businesses, such as signs and individual labels. In an effect reducing Montreal’s original status of being Canadas business central. One can assume all because of strictly enforced language laws following Bill 101.
The consistent uprooting of the English language and Anglophones as well as the ultimate takeover of by the Francophones leaves many questioning is Montreal an Anglophone city with a clearly more predominate population or a French one that is required to abide by its hegemonic rule? And ultimately is it possible for the two to live in harmony?
Literature review
Canada, a place more than 36 million people call home, with ten individual provinces that house a diverse set of ideas and people. All whilst boasting two official languages French and English. However, the true reality is the majority of Canada is Anglophone or English speaking, thereby meaning Francophones or French speakers represent only a minority with one exception being the province of Quebec, whose made its official language French. The province of Quebec and more specifically the city of Montreal according to the government of Canada statistics taken from the 2016 census is composed of 394,630 of Montrealers whose first official language is English compared to the 49,600 of Montreal French speakers.
When prompted the seemingly casual question of “what is Montreal French or English?” to someone whose never been to Montréal nor has ties there you’d most likely get the answer the English just by case of majority. However, in reality this is not the case as English is listed officially as a minority language in Quebec overall.
Montreal had prior even to the arrival of the Irish escaping the famine a large Anglophone population. Francophones were strongly established in the east end of Montreal, Anglophones in the west end, with immigrants providing a dividing buffer zone…(Lemarre, P et al., 2002)
All whilst these Anglos inhabited Montreal so did the French at what seemed like a time of more peace as the two distinct groups operated separate spheres in the “same” geographical area.
This particular project will focus on language laws in Quebec as enacted in Montreal, a city seen as threat to the French language of Quebec due to its large Anglophone population and the sense of belonging due to place-naming. The literature review will discuss the issues of place naming and it’s essential and unavoidable deeming of who belongs where and who contains a particular power.
Take a walk in almost any city in the world and you ultimately come across street signs, buildings with the company name posted on the, businesses, and schools who proudly display their name around the area they occupy. Whilst the busyness of everyday life may not point out these things as particularly relevant or of any concern to you, they are different examples of place-naming put in action.
Naming has more power than most think; it deals in promoting identification with the past and locating oneself within wider networks of memory (Alderman, D., 2013). These mere street names and buildings reaffirm a certain identity, history, and viewpoint of that particular place. Place in this case referring to locale is the material parts of the place trees, parks, park benches, streets, etc., and sense of place which comes from the emotional attachments, like what emotions are driven out of you when you think about it.
Place-naming ultimately becomes an internal war between the inhabitants of a particular area to decide the identity politics of people and place (Berg, L., Kearns, R., 1996). This then in effect leads to an issue of who belongs where, referring to both the physical inhabitants and the particular location of street names etc. Take for instance the location of Martin Luther King Jr. streets. While most city councils may agree to allow a street name to be changed of which are implicated in the discursive politics of people and place.( Berg, L., Kearns, R., 1996), According to Derek Alderman (1996) they typically can only be found in rundown, small areas, with predominately black residents. A small victory in honoring a man that helped truly lead and kick start the civil rights movement, but, also a clear tell tale of power.
Although the groups that desired to have a street name changed to honor MLK Jr got just that, they did not have the power to make it in a more prominent place, such as the city center. That further can be looked at as an example of who the history “belongs” to. Referring to belonging in its relation to social class, i.e. race or language group and the political concept of belonging i.e. community boundaries and deciding if they stand inside or outside the imaginary boundary line of the nation and/or community of belonging, whether they are ‘us’ or ‘them’ (Yuval-Davis,N., 2006). Much of which is the issue of what is happening in Montreal.
Sources and methods
In order to address the question of who Montréal truly belongs to the Anglophones or the Francophones, the participants will be three-hundred Canadian born montrealers, one-hundred-and-fifty Anglophones and one-hundred- and- fifty Francophones, ages 18-27, and drawn from two local universities; a predominately Anglophone university, Concordia, and université de Montréal, a francophone one. The reason this particular sample has been chosen is because one, people born in Montréal will be more likely to fall into the category of either a francophone or Anglophone and will have grown up with the knowledge of the tension and history of the two groups (being born in late 80s-early 2000s). Taking into account where the sample is being derived from, university students are a more educated population in comparison to the general population and due to the contact with both Anglophones and Francophones outgroup contact on campus and dorms, the results of which have shown improved intergroup attitudes…consistent with contact theory (Laar et al., 2003) they will possibly have more accurate understandings of either outgroup. Also, as a result of their higher education experience the participants will be more likely to be influenced by a “worldly” knowledge and interaction with professors and other higher educated people.
The actual method will include a 10 question self-report questionnaire, that will be administered, because although there are possible problems of social desirability, giving answers simply because you think others will approve of them, it still is one of the most effective ways to get peoples true thoughts as compared to other methods and that is exactly what is being attempted to gather. It will consist of questions such as “do you identify as either an Anglophone, francophone, or neither?”, “Do you think all signs should be in French, English, or both?”, “do you believe that Francophones and Anglophones both belong in Montréal, if no, then which group does?”, and “do you think people should have a choice to speak either English or French or are you under the impression it should be decided for them?” etc. Following the self-reported questionnaire, a IAT (implicit association test) will be given, whose purpose is to help identify unconscious or implicit biases and stereotypes (https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/australia/). In this case biases towards either Anglophone or Francophone groups in Montréal.
After the data has been gathered from at least 300 participants, the personal answers given by them, as well as the IAT results will be graphed and compared to one another, and then results will be written up about what the self-reported feelings and implicit thoughts of the participants truly believe who belongs in the great city of Montreal.
Conclusion
The research on peoples’ concept of who they think belongs in Montreal and in effect who Montréal belongs to is very limited. As most of the research on the Anglophone and francophone dispute in Montreal happened in the 60s like Lambert et al. (1960) prior to the introduction of the language laws also known as bill 101 or Kircher, R (2014) who did a post 30-year analysis of how people felt about either group following the creation of bill 101. More research is needed because Montreal is a rich city filled with diverse groups and distinctive areas from little Italy to Chinatown and from poutine to all dressed hot dogs. Many people call this city home. The issue here is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to inhabit Montréal past secondary school, if, you are not a francophone.
With Bill 101 in place, you must be able to speak French at a fluent level in order to own businesses, work in contact with others, or hold any form of governmental office in the city or province. So, does that mean the city of Montréal belong to the Francophones or the Anglophones? If, the majority of the inhabitants are Anglophone 394,630 of Montrealers compared to the 49,600 of Montreal Francophones, why is there one group suffering at the hands of another? Perhaps, to push them out. To claim the city entirely for Francophones by making Anglophones feel suffocated enough to leave or at least let the argument die.
By researching the actual ideologies, the residents of Montreal have, we would be able to perhaps lay the argument to rest with empirical data supporting a view point. If the majority agree that Anglophones are who Montréal belongs to then legislation and movements can begin to even out the playing field or if it is in favor of the Francophones they can back up their laws with data. Finally, if somehow a consensus comes from both sides evenly then legislation can be changed to reflect the citizens ideas and feelings.
BIBLIOGRAPHY