by
Josh Jones, Open Culture:
http://www.openculture.com/2013/06/philosophys_power_couple_jean-paul_sartre_and_simone_de_beauvoir_featured_in_1967_tv_interview_.html
Josh Jones is a writer and musician based in Washington, DC. Follow him at @jdmagness
Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir were twentieth-century
philosophy’s power couple, in a time and place when public intellectuals
were true celebrities.
In the mid-sixties, they were not only
fascinating writers in their own right, but also activists engaged in
international struggle against what they defined as the globally
injurious forces of capitalist imperialism and patriarchal oppression.
In 1967, Sartre, along with Bertrand Russell and a handful of other
influential thinkers, convened what became known as the “
Russell Tribunal,”
a private body investigating war crimes in Vietnam.
De Beauvoir
meanwhile had published a suite of memoirs and prize-winning novels, and
her groundbreaking feminist study
The Second Sex had been in publication a full twenty years.
In the interviews above with Sartre and de Beauvoir, the “free and
intimate couple,” a model of existentialist free love, receives
reverential treatment from the CBC.
The journalists describe Sartre as
“the most famous and controversial writer of his time ... an ally of
students and international revolutionaries [and] a very public figure.”
Sartre’s Paris apartment, an “austere room,” represents “a kind of
universal conscience.” There are long, lingering shots of the writer at
work, presumably on his Flaubert study, ten years in the making at this
point. Sartre becomes passionate when the interviewers ask him about the
dangers of the Vietnam War. He responds:
There is nothing glorious about a
superpower attacking a small nation which cannot fight on even terms,
and yet resists fiercely, refusing to yield … my perspective is
sociopolitical as well as moral. The Vietnam war is the very symbol of
imperialism, the fruit of today’s monopolistic capitalism.
For Sartre, philosophy and politics are inseparable. “The war in
Vietnam,” he says, ”disputes my work, and my work disputes the war.”
When the scene shifts to the separate home of de Beauvoir, nicknamed
“Castor” (the beaver), the camera lingers over her collection of
knick-knacks. Her home is “like a museum of her own life … filled with
reminiscences of Cuba, Africa, Japan, Spain, China, Mexico.”
She
discusses her time spent with Fidel Castro at his country home (“He
fishes with his gun, shooting at trout”), and talks about her memoirs.
“I am attached to my past,” she says, “but I don’t shun the present and
future. Artifacts and souvenirs are meant to preserve the present. To
buy a souvenir is therefore an investment in the future.”
Sartre and de Beauvoir’s relationship is storied and complex. In his
lengthy 2005 expose for The New Yorker, Louis Menand describes it thus:
Their liaison was part of the mystique of
existentialism, and it was extensively documented and coolly defended
in Beauvoir’s four volumes of memoirs, all of them extremely popular in
France … Beauvoir and Sartre had no interest in varnishing the facts out
of respect for bourgeois notions of decency. Disrespect for bourgeois
notions of decency was precisely the point.
Their sexual rebellion seems novel for the times, but the way they
construed their open relationship also relied on Romantic clichés and
the medieval formula of
courtly love.
As Sartre would say of their romantic “pact”: “What
we have is an
essential love; but it is a good idea for us also to experience
contingent
love affairs.” His Aristotelian argument, Menand writes, “worked as
well on her as a diamond ring.”
The couple’s egalitarian sexual politics
often seem at odds with their practice, in Menard’s estimation, in
which Sartre seemed to gain the upper hand and both wielded power over
their conquests.
While speculations on their arrangement may seem prurient, the two
documented their own dalliances obsessively in their work - both fictional
and non - referring to their entourage of admirers and lovers as “the
family.”
They adopted young women, frequently students, as protégées,
and seduced both women and men in what their former lover Bianca
Bienenfeld, in her memoir
A Disgraceful Affair, would call “acting out a commonplace version of ‘Dangerous Liaisons.’”
Author Hazel Rowley, who also wrote on Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, documented their 51-year partnership in her book
Tete-a-Tete,
a biography written in cooperation with de Beauvoir’s adopted daughter
(and possible lover) Sylvie Le Bon de Beauvoir and contested by Sartre’s
adoptee, Arlette Elkaim-Sartre.
Like all radical figures, Sartre and de
Beauvoir need to be accepted as warts-and-all human beings. Their
influential work is not negated by their contradictory lives, but the
personal and political do make for a strange blend in the case of these
intellectual revolutionaries.
No comments:
Post a Comment