Strategies and tactics of polemical exchanges: The play of minorization/de-minorization in public hearings | Intellect Skip to content
1981
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research
  4. Volume 15, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 15, Issue 2
  • ISSN: 1751-9411
  • E-ISSN: 1751-942X

Abstract

Broadly debated in various public arenas, the ‘reasonable accommodation’ controversy has emerged on the advocacy agenda in Quebec (Canada), raising heated disagreements about religious minorities’ rights and practices, and passionate discussions about policies governing the management of religious diversity. While borrowed from the legal domain, the concept of reasonable accommodation moved beyond its origin and became the subject of various inquiries in communication studies and sociology, raising questions such as the media’s role in transforming the debate into a social crisis, the sexist representation of women and the racializing implications of the debate. However, the literature omitted the inherent dialogical nature of the debate and consequently missed identifying the communicative tactics employed by protagonists of the debate. The analytical and conceptual tools offered by conversation and argumentation analysis have not been used to clarify the discursive mechanisms of this controversy. This article fills this gap and examines the verbal and non-verbal interactions occurring during an important yet understudied instance of public debate: the public hearings that took place in Quebec, Canada, between May 2010 and January 2011, within the framework of public consultations on Bill 94. The article contributes to an understanding of the communicative strategies that influence public debates and their tactics: polarization and the processes of minorization and de-minorization. Findings show that polarization could be schematized according to two axes: one opposing partisans of an open secularism and partisans of a ‘republican’ secularism and one confronting justification based on gender equality, and justifications based on the principle of state neutrality. The findings also reveal that public hearings are not only an arena in which those possessing institutional power define who counts as minoritarian and who does not, they are also arenas in which those that are seen to be the ‘others’, can challenge the established structures of power and formulate alternative narratives of heir realities.

© 2022 Intellect Ltd
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00051_1
2022-10-01
2024-04-20
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amossy, R.. ( 2008;), ‘ Argumentation et Analyse du discours: perspectives théoriques et découpages disciplinaires. ’, Argumentation et Analyse du discours, 1, https://doi.org/10.4000/aad.20. Accessed 19 October 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Amossy, R.. ( 2011;), ‘ La coexistence dans le dissensus, La polémique dans les forums de discussion. ’, Semen: Revue de sémio-linguistique des textes et discours, 31, pp. 25–42, https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9051. Accessed January 2010.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Amossy, R.. ( 2021;), ‘ Introduction: Why polemics?. ’, In Defense of Polemics, Cham:: Springer;, pp. 1–6.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Angenot, M.. ( 2008), Dialogues de sourds: traité de rhétorique antilogique, Paris:: Fayard and Mille et une nuits;.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Anscombe, G. E. M.. ( 1957;), ‘ XIV: Intention. ’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 57:1, pp. 321–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Antonius, R.. ( 2008;), ‘ L’islam au Québec: les complexités d’un processus de racisation. ’, Cahiers de recherche sociologique, 46, pp. 11–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Barthélémy, M., and Quéré, L.. ( 1991), La mesure des événements publics: Structure des événements et formation de la conscience publique, Research Report of the CNRS, Paris:: Centre d’études des mouvements sociaux (France);, https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00542618. Accessed 17 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bauman, Z.. ( 1995;), ‘ Making and unmaking of strangers. ’, Thesis Eleven, 43:1, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.1177/072551369504300102. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Besel, R. D.. ( 2011;), ‘ Opening the “black box” of climate change science: Actor-network theory and rhetorical practice in scientific controversies. ’, Southern Communication Journal, 76:2, pp. 120–36.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bilge, S.. ( 2012;), ‘ Mapping Québécois sexual nationalism in times of “crisis of reasonable accommodations”. ’, Journal of Intercultural Studies, 33:3, pp. 303–18.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Bilge, S.. ( 2013;), ‘ Reading the racial subtext of the Québécois accommodation controversy: Analytics of racialized governmentality. ’, Politikon, 40:1, pp. 157–81, https://doi.org/10.1080/02589346.2013.765681. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bourdieu, P.. ( 1982;), ‘ Les rites comme actes d’institution. ’, Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 43:1, pp. 58–63.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Bosset, P.. ( 1995), Le pluralisme religieux au Québec: un défi d'éthique sociale: document soumis à la réflexion publique, Québec:: Commission des droits de la personne du Québec;.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bronckart, J. P.. ( 1996;), ‘ Genres de textes, types de discours et opérations psycholinguistiques. ’, Voies livres, 78, pp. 1–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Burger, M.. ( 2011;), ‘ Une caractérisation praxéologique du désaccord polémique: ce qu’informer dans les médias veut dire. ’, Semen: Revue de sémio-linguistique des textes et discours, 31, pp. 61–80, https://doi.org/10.4000/semen.9183. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Cefaï, D.. ( 1996;), ‘ La construction des problèmes publics. Définitions de situations dans des arènes publiques. ’, Réseaux. Communication-Technologie-Société, 14:75, pp. 43–66.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Chan, M.. ( 2018;), ‘ Networked counterpublics and discursive contestation in the agonistic public sphere: Political jamming a police force Facebook page. ’, Asian Journal of Communication, 28:6, pp. 561–78.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Chateauraynaud, F.. ( 2011;), ‘ Sociologie argumentative et dynamique des controverses: l’exemple de l’argument climatique dans la relance de l’énergie nucléaire en Europe. ’, A contrario, 2:16, pp. 131–50.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cohen, S.. ( 1999;), ‘ Moral panics and folk concepts. ’, Paedagogica Historica, 35:3, pp. 585–91.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Conway, K.. ( 2012;), ‘ Quebec’s Bill 94: What’s “reasonable”? What’s “accommodation”? And what’s the meaning of the Muslim veil?. ’, American Review of Canadian Studies, 42:2, pp. 195–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Corroyer, G.. ( 2011;), ‘ Les discordes idéologiques dans le débat politique, L’argumentation à l’épreuve de l’incommunicabilité. ’, Communication, Information médias théories pratiques, 28:2, https://doi.org/10.4000/communication.1692. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cossée, C.,, Lada, E., and Rigoni, I.. ( 2004), Faire figure d’étranger: regards croisés sur la production de l’altérité, Paris:: Armand Colin;.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Côté, P.. ( 2008;), ‘ Chapter Two: Québec and reasonable accommodation: Uses and misuses of public consultation. ’, in L. Beaman, and P. Beyer. (eds), Religion and Diversity in Canada, Leiden:: Brill;, pp. 41–65.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Dascal, M.. ( 2017;), ‘ Types of polemics and types of polemical moves. ’, in S. Cmejrková,, J. Hoffmannová, and O. Müllerová. (eds), Dialoganalyse VI/1: Referate der 6: Arbeitstagung, Prag 1996, Berlin and Boston, MA:: Max Niemeyer Verlag;, pp. 15–34, https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110965056-004. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Dufresne, Y.,, Kilibarda, A.,, Blais, A., and Bibeau, A.. ( 2019;), ‘ Religiosity or racism? The bases of opposition to religious accommodation in Quebec. ’, Nations and Nationalism, 25:2, pp. 673–96, https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12429. Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Filliettaz, L., and Roulet, E.. ( 2002;), ‘ The Geneva Model of discourse analysis: An interactionist and modular approach to discourse organization. ’, Discourse Studies, 4:3, pp. 369–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Felstiner, W. L.,, Abel, R. L., and Sarat, A.. ( 2017;), ‘ The emergence and transformation of disputes: Naming, blaming, claiming. ’, in L. B. Nielsen. (ed.), Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Rights, Abingdon:: Routledge;, pp. 255–306.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Gagnon, A. G., and Iacovino, R.. ( 2003;), ‘ Le projet interculturel québécois et l’élargissement des frontières de la citoyenneté. ’, Québec: État et société, 2, pp. 413–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Gauthier, G., and Bergson, H.. ( 2002;), ‘ L’argumentation éditoriale. ’, Studies in Communication Sciences, 2:2, pp. 21–46.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Giasson, T.,, Brin, C., and Sauvageau, M. M.. ( 2010;), ‘ Le Bon, la Brute et le Raciste: Analyse de la couverture médiatique de l’opinion publique pendant la « crise » des accommodements raisonnables au Québec. ’, Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 43:2, pp. 379–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Hadj-Moussa, R.. ( 2004;), ‘ Femmes musulmanes au Canada: altérité, paroles et politique de l’action. ’, Canadian Review of Sociology (Revue canadienne de sociologie), 41:4, pp. 397–418.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Jahangeer, R. A.. ( 2020;), ‘ Anti-veiling and the charter of Québec values: “Native testimonials”, erasure, and violence against Montreal’s Muslim women. ’, Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 32:1, pp. 114–39.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Juteau, D.. ( 2004;), ‘ Pure laines’ Quebecois: The concealed ethnicity of dominant majorities. ’, in E. Kaufmann. (ed.), Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities, London:: Routledge;, pp. 84–101.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Keck, M. E., and Sikkink, K.. ( 1998;), ‘ Transnational advocacy networks in the movement society. ’, in D. S. Meyer, and S. Tarrow. (eds), The Social Movement Society: Contentious Politics for a New Century, Lanham, MD:: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers;, pp. 217–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.. ( 1994), Les interactions verbales, Tome 3, Paris:: Armand Colin;.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.. ( 2010;), ‘ L’impolitesse en interaction: Aperçus théoriques et étude de cas. ’, Lexis: Journal in English Lexicology, 6 September, http://lexis.univ-lyon3.fr/IMG/pdf/Lexis_special_2_-_Kerbrat-Orecchioni.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, C.. ( 2011;), ‘ From good manners to facework: Politeness variations and constants in France, from the classic age to today. ’, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 12:1&2, pp. 133–55.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Kraus, M.. ( 2012;), ‘ Cultural diversity, cognitive breaks, and deep disagreement: Polemic argument. ’, in F. van Eemeren, and B. Garssen. (eds), Topical Themes in Argumentation Theory: Argumentation Library, Dordrecht:: Springer;, pp. 91–107, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4041-9_7. [Crossref]Accessed 9 August 2022.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Labelle, M.. ( 2000;), ‘ La politique de la citoyenneté et de l’interculturalisme au Québec: Défis et enjeux. ’, in H. Greven, and J. Tournon. (eds), Les Identités en débat: intégration ou multiculturalisme, Paris:: l’Harmattan;, pp. 269–93.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Laforest, M., and Vincent, D.. ( 1999;), ‘ Incompréhension et malentendu: Deux manifestations de la co-construction du sens. ’, Langues et linguistique, 25, pp. 111–44.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Lea, M.,, O’Shea, T.,, Fung, P., and Spears R.. ( 1992;), ‘ “Flaming” in computer-mediated communication: Observations, explanations, implications, a recursive review. ’, in M. Lea. (ed.), Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, New York:: Harvester Wheatsheaf;, pp. 89–112.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Lemieux, C.. ( 2007;), ‘ À Quoi sert l’analyse des controverses?. ’, Mill Neuf Cent: Revue d’Histoire Intellectuelle, 25:1, pp. 191–212.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Lemieux, R.. ( 1998;), ‘ Sur le sens d’être minoritaire. ’, in D. B. Ouellet, and R. Bergeron. (eds), Croyances et sociétés, Montréal:: Les Editions Fides;, pp. 17–32.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Lewiński, M.. ( 2010;), ‘ Collective argumentative criticism in informal online discussion forums. ’, Argumentation and Advocacy, 47:2, pp. 86–105.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Mahrouse, G.. ( 2010;), ‘ “Reasonable accommodation” in Québec: The limits of participation and dialogue. ’, Race & Class, 52:1, pp. 85–96.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Maynard, R., and Ho, S. L. P.. ( 2009;), ‘ Accommodate this! A feminist and anti-racist response to the “reasonable accommodation” hearings in Quebec. ’, Canadian Woman Studies, 27:2&3, pp. 21–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Milot, M., and Baubérot, J.. ( 2002), Laïcité dans le nouveau monde: Le cas du Québec, Turnhout:: Brepols;.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l’Immigration ( 1990), Au Québec pour bâtir ensemble, énoncé de politique en matière d’immigration et d’intégration, Montréal:: Direction des communications;.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Molek-Kozakowska, K., and Wanke, M.. ( 2019;), ‘ Reproductive rights or duties? The rhetoric of division in social media debates on abortion law in Poland. ’, Social Movement Studies, 18:5, pp. 566–85.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Musolff, A.. ( 2015;), ‘ Dehumanizing metaphors in UK immigrant debates in press and online media. ’, Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 3:1, pp. 41–56.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Potvin, M.. ( 2010;), ‘ Discours sociaux et médiatiques dans le débat sur les accommodements raisonnables. ’, Nos Diverses Cités, 7, May, pp. 83–89.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Potvin, M.. ( 2014;), ‘ The reasonable accommodations crisis in Quebec: Racializing rhetorical devices in media and social discourse. ’, International Journal of Canadian Studies, 50:4, pp. 137–164.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Quéré, L.. ( 1990;), ‘ Construction de la relation et coordination de l’action dans la conversation. ’, Réseaux: Communication-Technologie-Société, 8:2, pp. 253–88.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Quéré, L.. ( 1997;), ‘ L’opinion: l’économie du vraisemblable: Introduction à une approche praxéologique de l’opinion publique. ’, Réseaux: Communication-Technologie-Société, 1:1, pp. 387–411.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Rancière, J.. ( 2015), Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics (trans. S. Corcoran.), London and New York:: Bloomsbury Publishing;.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Rosa, A. S. De,, Bocci, E.,, Bonito, M., and Salvati, M.. ( 2021;), ‘ Twitter as social media arena for polarised social representations about the (im)migration: The controversial discourse in the Italian and international political frame. ’, Migration Studies, 9:3, pp. 1167–94, https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnab001.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. Sharify-Funk, M.. ( 2010;), ‘ Muslims and the politics of “reasonable accommodation”: Analyzing the Bouchard–Taylor report and its impact on the Canadian province of Québec. ’, Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs, 30:4, pp. 535–53.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Thompson, J. B.. ( 2005;), ‘ The new visibility. ’, Theory, Culture & Society, 22:6, pp. 31–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Urbinati, N.. ( 2000;), ‘ Representation as advocacy: A study of democratic deliberation. ’, Political Theory, 28:6, pp. 758–86.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Warner, M.. ( 2002;), ‘ Publics and counterpublics. ’, Public Culture, 14:1, pp. 49–90.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Wonneberger, A.,, Hellsten, I. R., and Jacobs, S. H.. ( 2021;), ‘ Hashtag activism and the configuration of counterpublics: Dutch animal welfare debates on Twitter. ’, Information, Communication & Society, 24:12, pp. 1694–711.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. Ben Romdhane, S.. ( 2022;), ‘ Strategies and tactics of polemical exchanges: The play of minorization/de-minorization in public hearings. ’, Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 15:2, pp. 287–308, https://doi.org/10.1386/jammr_00051_1
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1386/jammr_00051_1
Loading
  • Article Type: Article
Keyword(s): argumentation; Canada; ethnic minorities; Islam; Muslims; polemics; Quebec; religious minorities

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a success
Invalid data
An error occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error