-.-1 VIOLENCE IN QUEBEC J.1cGil1 University A SUGG·ZS'l'ElJ l'TLAr·[:i:\'JœiL Fœ'!. 'l'lD:!; S'I'UDY OF' PE~{CEP'.rIO.l-IS OF VIOLENCE iUJD ITS APPLICATION '1'0 TiIE ~m.ITnJGS OF prEmlE Tli.UDEAU Alm PIElITŒ VALLIEEES A thesis submitted ta the facuIt.i' of Gra.d.uate 3tu(ies and. ~1.esearch in partic:.1 fuIfiIIment ai.' the requ:i..rements for the d.egl'ee of Easter ai.' I..rts in the depaytment of Political Science. l"lontr e0.1, '~ue be c De cembel', 1971 @) Paul Tetrault 1972 " ABSTRACT Author: PAUL TETRAULT Title of Thesis: A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AND ITS APPLICATION TO THE WRITINGS OF PIERRE TRUDEAU AND PIERRE VALLIERES. Department: POLITICAL SCIENCE Degree: MASTER OF ARTS Summa!:'y': The first part of this paper presents a framework for the study of perceptions of violence. It is bel ieved that most pol itical thinkers concern themselves with four basic issues when discussing violence; the definition of the concept, the reasons for its existence, the effects it has on normal social relations and its justification as a political tool. These four categories are explicated in the first part of the paper, and the views of::...- different social and political thinkers are examined in the context of this framework. ln the second part, this framework is applied to the writings of Pierre Trudeau and Pierre Vall i~res. It is shown how their views on violence reflect the worldview of a liberal (Trudeau) and a revolutionary (Valli~res). ... A SUGGESTED FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF PERCEPTIONS OF VIOLENCE AND I.TS APPLICATION TO THE WRITINGS OF PIERRE TRUDEAU AND PIERRE VALLIERES. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .............................', ~ ................. PART 1 A Framework For The Study of Perceptions of Vi 0-1 ence. • . • . .. 6 PART Il Application Of This Framework to the Writlngs of Pt·erre Trudeau and Pierre Val! i~res •• •••••• • 57 CONCLUS ION •••••••••••••••••••• ., •••••••••••••••••••• 0 •••• • 95 BIBLIQGRAPHY •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 100 • ~. f' ',' ln October 1970, Pierre Laporte, Minister of Immigration and Manpower was killed by members of the F. L. Q., thus ending a period of over one hundred years during which Quebec (and Canada) had not experienced pol itical assasination. This form of violence, of course, is not new to world pol itics. ln the past ten or twenty years, most of the countries in the western world have witnessed the emergence of assasination and kidnappings as forms of pol itical action. The October events in Quebec engendered a great deal of dis- cussion on the ethics and attributes of violence. What seemed apparent, hO\'Vever, was that the word "violence" had different connotations for different people. Because, in ideological terms, Quebec had become a 1 pluralist society since 1960 , there has arisen a multitude of ways of looking at the world and thus of looking at violence. ln order to define what is meant by a "plural ist society "in ideological terms" the meaning of ideology must be expl icated. The ideology of a group is its description of its relationship to the structure of society and also its proposais for action in that society. "A plural ist society in ideological terms" means that there are a number (plural ity) of groups with different worldviews (ideologies) that are vying for the attention of the whole society. To say, aS M. Rioux does, (L'Evolution des Ideologies au Ouebec, Revue de L'Institut de Sociologie #1, 1968, passim) that until 1950, Quebec society was dominated by one ideology, is not to say that there were not i"ndividual strains of 1 iberalism from 1840 to 1950. The key word is individual, for, if over a period of time, distinct groups had adopted a 1 iberal ideology, then it would be unfair to speak of a conservationist monolitheism. Rioux then goes on to show that since 1960 one can speak of a plurality of different groups espousing a multitude of worldviews. It is in this sense that pluralist society is used in the Quebec contexte -, 2 Michel Chartrand and Pierre Vall i~res view the phenomenon of violence in a different fashion from Pierre Trudeau and Gerard ~el letier. ln fact, one might say that their views are so totally divergent as to make conditions of dialogue difficult. The purpose of this paper is firstly to present a possible framework for the study of perceptions of violence and, secondly, to apply this framework in the analysis of perceptions of two groups of Quebec pol itical figures represented by Pierre Trudeau and Pierre Val li~res. This essay is not oriented, in inquiry, to current understandings of political analysis. It will not seek to dei ineate causes for the appearance of violence or to subject the concept of violence to empirical val idity, rather it wi Il examine different perceptions' of violence in Quebec. In the first section, it wi Il be my intention to develop a conceptual framework for the study of the way people perceive violence. Thus, it wi 1 1 become possible to examine and compare the different notions of violence within a framework of given categories. In the development of this framework, the ideas of wei I-known social and pol itical thinkers will be examined to il lustrate what aspects of violence can be fitted into each category. There are no pretensions, however, to an exhaustive study of the role of violence in the history of political theory. The examples chosen will serve an illustrative purpose. It should be emphasized that these categories were drawn as an aid in the study of different people's perceptions of violence, they are not categories of violence per se. Moreover, they may not be exhaustive, but, it is hoped '\ 3 that l"hey wi l' serve to cali attention to some sai ient aspects of the problem. Despite the existence of various definitfons of this concept, definitions which have been historically derived, there exists no agreement as to what exactly constitutes violence, no consensus in the real world as to what particular acts :an be called violent. Thus, the first category of perceptions of violence would be: what acts or phenomena are understood by the particular thinker to constitute violence? For example, many followers of the Marxist tradition see violence existing where liberals and conservatives do nota Franz Fanon's view that colonization constituted an act of violence was certainly not universally shared in France in the 1950's. The second category relates closely to the first. If different thinkers have dlfferent understandings as to what constitutes violence, they also have different understandings as to why violence emerges. The second category, then, would be: what reasons does a particular thinker give for the emergence of violence? A third classification would be: what does a particular thinker perceive the social effects of violence to be? For example, some thinkers talk of the empirical effects of violence; so many people kil led, so much property damaged, etc a others mention the effects of violence on society. Thus, Sorel believes that violence will help polarize class conflict, still others consider that the existence of violence is detrimental to politics Cpolitics in the classical ~--I 1 4 sense of that word, i.e., the activity of the~, free intercourse and discussion between citizens). This is particularly Arendt's view as articulated in the Human Condition. The fourth area of consideration would be: when does a particu!ar thinker bel ieve that it is permissibl~ for an individual or an institution to be violent? For some thinkers, this is merely an ethical problem, for others it becomes both an ethical and a factical problem. It has been the common denominator of most serious thinkers to consider violence as detrimental to the possi- bilities of human fulfillment. Rarely do political thinkers prescribe violence in vacuo, rather, violence becomes permissible only under certain social conditions (exploitation by one class of another, industrialization of an underdeveloped country, expulsion of colonial ism). Historically, liberal thinkers have permitted acts of violence against governments which were not considered legitimate, that is equally true of revolutionâïy thinkers, they differ, of course, on what they consider constitutes legitimacy. These categories are not completely independent one from the other. What a thinker considers to be the social effects of violence will be dependent on what he considers violence to be. Moreover, the way different thinkers perceive the phenomenon of violence is wholly dependent on their worldview. 5 Before embarking on a presentation of the possible categories of violence, this section will treat briefly the aforementioned epistemological problem. A man's notion of violence cannot be treated in isolation, ~ut must be viewed as an integral part of a global worldview. The second part of this paper will treat two different notions of violence in Quebec politics. The first, held by members of the Liberal party elite, will be examined with an emphasis on the writings and speeches of Pierre E. Trudeau. The second, held by certain counter-elites who hold to a Marxist or a Marxist Revisionist ideology, will b~ analyzed, especially in the light of the writings of Pierre Valli~res. In both cases, the \Neltanschauung (worldview) of these men will be examined and their different views on violence wi 1 1 be explicated, using the four part conceptual framework developed in the first section. Within each category, an effort will be made to relate the notion of violence to the general Weltanschauu~ of the individual concerned. At the same time, similarities and differences between these thinkers and other thinkers, some less modern and topical, wi Il be pointed out.