FERNAND DUMONT AND THE VICISSITUDES OF CULTURAL POLICY IN QUÉBEC

Abstract

This paper examines the role of the intellectual in relation to cultural policy in Québec, with particular attention given to the contributions made by Fernand Dumont. It is argued that because of its status as an “imagined community” rooted in a social movement – but still within the structure of a provincial government bent on expanding its powers – Quebec’s cultural policy differs markedly from that of states whose administrative structures have been more stable and routinized. In particular, not only have intellectuals and artists played an active part in the formation of cultural policy, but culture itself has been defined in a broad and holistic sense. The paper maintains that Fernand Dumont embodied the engaged, culturally astute intellectual within Québec, and that an examination of how his policy work was informed by his views on identity and culture sheds light on the dilemmas facing intellectuals who wish to become involved in public service.

KEYWORDS:

• cultural policy
• cultural theory
• Fernand Dumont
• intellectuals
• Québec politics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to thank Martin Allor, Jean‐François Côté, Christine Dancause and Manon Niquette for their assistance in the preparation of this paper.

Notes

1. It began with a budget of CAN$3 million, which had increased to CAN$57 million by 1977 (Marsh 1988, p. 552).

2. The Department in turn comprises five sectors: Citizenship and Heritage, Cultural Affairs, International and Intergovernmental Affairs, Planning and Corporate Affairs, and Public Affairs and Communications.

3. The Quiet Revolution refers to the massive changes that took place in Québec during the period from 1960 to 1970. These included the decline of the church, greater urbanization, the growth of the state bureaucracy and educational reform (McRoberts 1988).

4. A number of my colleagues who have been invited to contribute to deliberations about communication policy have voiced their frustrations about how the issues they raised have been routinely ignored by bureaucrats running the programs.

5. They came into particular prominence beginning in the early 1960s when Québec sought to abandon its longstanding conservatism and traditionalism, embarking on a process of “ratrappage” (“catching up”). To a large extent, with the decline of religious authority, they began to assume the cultural leadership the church had long exercised in the province of Québec.

6. This broad notion of culture stands in contrast to the narrower focus on “the production of high culture” characteristic of the “Continental European model of cultural policy exemplified by the French case” (Toepler & Zimmer 2002, p. 36).

7. In this respect, cultural policy, as originally established in Québec, was quite similar to that of the postcolonial regimes of Malaysia and Indonesia, in which “culture was identified as a state‐directed tool of national identity” (Lindsay 2002, p. 65).

8. A glance at the names of the Métro (subway) stations in Montreal compared to those in Toronto bears this out. By the same token, those who work in other languages, notably English, or are supportive of federal institutions are treated with indifference, as in the case of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Roch Carrier and Père George‐Henri Lévesque. Curiously, those who are successful in the United States – and by extension, the world market – are looked on with pride, as is the case with Céline Dion, Cirque du Soleil and André‐Phillipe Gagnon.

9. One could also make a strong case for Marcel Rioux (1919–1992) as the intellectual having the most influence upon cultural policy in Québec. He not only wrote extensively on issues related to culture (Rioux 1979, 1981), but took part in the Federal Royal Commission that examined bilingualism and biculturalism in the 1960s (Canada 1969). Above all, he chaired the provincial Royal Commission that produced an influential report on arts instruction in Québec schools with particular attention given to the teaching of music within the educational system (Québec 1968). The report’s recommendations led to the establishment of vocational public music schools in Québec. However, unlike Dumont, Rioux did not participate in the actually drafting of cultural policies, and the socialist perspective that informed much of his work (e.g., Rioux 1978; Crean & Rioux 1983) was at odds with the more centrist vision of politicians and bureaucrats. Indeed, Rioux was not able to secure an academic position at Université Laval because of his radical views. For a discussion of the contributions made by both Rioux and Dumont to cultural theory in Québec, see Dandurand (1992).

10. The area is now best known for its majestic “Chutes Montmorency” (“Montmorency Falls”).

11. Dominion Textile was given prominent mention in E. C. Hughes’s classic study of Drummondville: French Canada in Transition (Hughes 1943).

12. Dumont’s notion of popular culture emphasized the practices and rituals of everyday life (largely linked to the Catholic Church) and was mostly grounded in his own experiences growing up in the village of Montmorency. In distinguishing between popular culture and “l’actuelle culture de consommation” (Dumont 1997, p. 35), his account differs from the “cultural populism” described by McGuigan (2004, pp. 114–115), which stresses the close links between popular culture and mass culture (see also Dumont 1982; 1987; 2000).

13. Dumont’s writings from the period of the Quiet Revolution and his commentary on the crisis leading to the War Measures Act of 1970 formed the basis of a text: La Vigile du Québec (English translation (The Vigil of Québec): Dumont 1974).

14. Cité Libre was a Montreal‐based journal that was highly critical of the church and championed modernization and reform.

15. In this regard, Dumont was quite wary of how cultural policy was closely linked to cultural imperialism, particularly in its American variant. Coming from Québec, he was particularly sensitive to this issue as the United States has long pursued an aggressive policy of exporting its culture to the rest of the world, with the rest of North America singled out for particular attention because of its proximity.

16. Cultural policy, according to the report, “encompassed a wide field. In addition to the traditional sectors of preservation of our heritage, and arts and letters … the policy deals with education, work structures, the implications of leisure, eating habits and drug use, problems relating to sex and age, regional limitations and strengths, decentralization and so forth” (Québec 1978a, pp. 2–3).

17. The first volume of the published version of the White Paper on cultural development was entitled “Perspectives d’ensemble: de quelle culture s’agit‐il?”. Similarly, in the introduction to his 1979 article, he noted that he would be addressing the question “de quelle culture s’agit‐il” (Dumont 1979, p. 8).

18. In this sense, he was quite critical of the direction taken by the report on administrative restructuring that appeared in 1986 under the direction of Paul Gobeil (Québec 1986). It called for eliminating or cutting back on the sorts of cultural institutions that were favored by intellectuals (Dumont 1995, pp. 252–253).

19. His model in this regard was André Laurendeau, a prominent writer and journalist who became best known for co‐chairing the Royal Commission examining biculturalism and bilingualism (Canada 1967). Even though Laurendeau became very involved in administrative life, he continued to write poems and music (Dumont 1995, pp. 250–251)

20. In line with the corporatist “Québec Inc” orientation of the state that has become entrenched (Fraser 1987), the state views culture as a key sector of the economy, capable of producing a range of economic spin‐offs such as job creation and increased tax revenues.