Conference Report

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SECOND SEX

Paris, 19±23 January 1999

This conference, celebrating the work of Simone de Beauvoir, was the most impressive conference I have attended for several years. Christine Delphy and Sylvie Chaperon gathered together more than 100 speakers, from all over the world, for an audience of 500 participants, to discuss Le DeuxieÁme Sexe. The lucky ones had registered in time, others had been refused subscription because the accommodation could simply not ®t in any more people. During the months of preparation the conference had been extended by two days, because there was so much interest in the event. The result of all these efforts was impressive: ®ve days full of scienti®c work and feminist thinking. The combination of philosophical analyses, `oral history', homage to Simone de Beauvoir and a strong impetus for (re)reading and for reconsidering feminist engagement was a rare balance. Michelle Perrot chaired the opening session. At the conference, her contribution illustrated how `we' have analysed women's systematic labelling as `The Other' during history, and how `we' have altered that position during the last decades. In an interview in the Paris newspaper LibeÂration, published on the opening day of the conference, she said: `Her [Simone de Beauvoir] thinking became a weapon and a reality' and she summarized the modernity of Simone de Beauvoir. All around us at the confer- ence, we felt an atmosphere of actors exchanging ideas and memories; no vibrations of `victims' or `grumblers'. It was an excellent initiative to bring together philosophical contributions about the lasting value of Simone de Beauvoir as a philosopher, stories and memories about the history of the (French) women's movement, analysis of the reception of Simone de Beauvoir's work in different parts of the world and also a bit of nostalgia and creative ways of commemorating a very inspiring woman. `Work of Memory of Women', Michelle Perrot called it in the interview in LibeÂration. We were together because of the cinquantenaire or ®ftieth anniversary of Simone de Beauvoir's Le DeuxieÁme Sexe; and it was to the conference speakers' credit that they respected this fully: they addressed the topic of the conference, and did not use Simone de Beauvoir as an alibi to present papers of general feminist interest.

SIMONE THE BEAUVOIR AS A PHILOSOPHER

There remains a huge interest in the question: Was Simone the Beauvoir an original philosopher, and where did she ®nd the inspiration to go her own way? It is the main question in the work of Karen Vintges. Several speakers at the conference addressed this question again, from different perspectives, including

The European Journal of Women's Studies Copyright # SAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi), Vol. 6, 1999: 363±368 [1350-5068(199908)6:3;363±368;009529] 364 The European Journal of Women's Studies 6(3)

Eva Lundgren-Gothlin's (Sweden) `The Philosophical Origins of Simone de Beauvoir's Le DeuxieÁme Sexe and Sara HeinaÈmaa's (Finland) `Simone de Beauvoir's Philosophy of Sexuality'. Hegel and Sartre, Merleau-Ponty and to a lesser extent Heidegger are the main philosophers that inspired de Beauvoir. It materialized that the research about the philosophical contextualization of Simone de Beauvoir differs a lot, from country to country. The thematic dimension is more important than the exact (always male) sources of inspiration. The following questions and themes were discussed:

. Is emancipation/liberation possible for women, if one uses Simone de Beau- voir's interpretation from Hegel? . What are the implications for women of the fact that Simone de Beauvoir leaned a lot on the work of Merleau-Ponty? Her phenomenology is overtly sensorial, which gives it a gender sensitivity lacking in most of the other phenomenolo- gies. . Simone de Beauvoir made ethics a part of her existentialism. The relevance of `Esquisse d'une morale de l'ambiguiteÂ' is now seen as greater than was recognized for many years previously. The recognition of its value emerged in the recent revival of ethical interests. This revival was pushed forward by the feminist discussion about ethics. This is important. It becomes clear that de Beauvoir offered an existentialist ethical theory, while other existentialist authors did not. . The philosophy of de Beauvoir is a praxiology. In working out this approach, she rede®ned philosophy,

In the special issue of the French newspaper LibeÂration (15 April 1986), on the occasion of de Beauvoir's death the day before, several commentators predicted that the impact of Simone de Beauvoir would be more lasting than Sartre's. `Et si le plus philosophe des deux n'eÂtait pas celui qu'on croit?' one of the articles was titled, implying that Simone de Beauvoir, as a philosopher, was more outstanding than Sartre. During the whole conference the dialogue between the participants was of fact- ®nding importance. For instance, in one country a Hegelian reading of de Beauvoir is self-evident, while in another country it still has to gain recognition. This kind of contextualization of reading traditions of philosophical texts appears to work better in life situations than in publications. However, the fact that `reading' these texts can differ so much always confuses me: is there a philosophi- cal reading or analysis of methodology or not? Second, a very legitimate question (not receiving a satisfying answer from the conference speakers) was posted from the public: What are the criteria you use to call an author a `philosopher'? In other words: what is the de®nition of `philos- ophy' used, when including or excluding the work of Simone de Beauvoir? The American researcher Meryl Altman delivered a highly appreciated contri- bution about the roots of Simone de Beauvoir. The title of her lecture was `Unhappy Bodies: The Frigid Women in The Second Sex'. She focused on the use Simone de Beauvoir made, in The Second Sex, of the work of Stekel. In the original French edition of Le DeuxieÁme Sexe Stekel is mentioned 62 times, in quotes and/or references. In the English translation Stekel appears more sporadically. De Beauvoir wanted to use psychoanalysis, but not the Freudian frame of reference. So, she chose Stekel. All the criticism later feminists formulated against Freud already played a role in the resistance of de Beauvoir. Simone de Beauvoir had Conference Report 365 dif®culty working with the frame Freud proposed, among other things, because of the fact that in a Freudian perspective `transparency' is not achievable. Meryl Altman's contribution revealed more than just the facts about de Beauvoir's interpretation of Stekel. Her contribution discussed the methodology of Simone de Beauvoir and the refutable quality of the English translation of The Second Sex.

Methodology Despite the immense admiration I have for the creative work achieved by Simone de Beauvoir in The Second Sex, the methodology used to write ± or compile ± The Second Sex is no longer feasible today. It is written with personal analyses, arguing with examples, pieces from the social sciences, fragments of philosophy and excerpts of supportive authors, while skipping others, without systemizing the search and selection mechanisms. The use Simone de Beauvoir makes of Stekel illustrates this very well. It leads to important insights; it works, but in our own teaching practice today we would hardly accept it from our doctoral students. De Beauvoir's writing methods were impressively illustrated by a presentation by Catherine Violet at the conference. She is studying the manuscripts of de Beauvoir. With sheets of the originals, she showed the way Simone de Beauvoir used to work. De Beauvoir needed two typists, because it was dif®cult the follow the speed of her writing. And, the typists were dif®cult to ®nd, because of Simone's almost illegible handwriting. Those are the spicy anecdotes. What is more surprising, today, is the seemingly loose character of her associations, inserts, corrections, or quotes. Besides the manuscripts no other texts seem to have been found to reveal the way Simone de Beauvoir did her research. Violet's contribution impressed the audience, not least because of the personal ± even indiscreet ± touch she brought to it. With hundreds of feminist researchers in the hall, one could hear their breath stopping as they looked at the overhead projections of Simone de Beauvoir's manuscripts. We entered, hesitatingly, into the intimacy between the author's mind, her pen, her folios.

Translations The English translation of The Second Sex has been extremely important. It is well known that the biggest in¯uence of the book, in Europe, was provoked not by the ®rst, French publication of it, but by the comments and analyses resulting from the English reception of it. It was very interesting to hear, together in one session at the conference, a paper by Yolanda Patterson on her archive work concerning the English translation and her study of the letters between the translator and the editor; and a critical analysis of the English translation by Elizabeth Fallaize. Overall, the conclusion was that the English translation is simply not `true' enough. Despite the total dedication of the translator, the English version cut the original text so much (under instructions by the editors, as we learnt from the letters Patterson has studied) that the English public lived with a different Second Sex than did the French-reading public. Fallaize presented a speci®c critique on the chapter about `housework'. It is of historical importance that the version the English and American feminists have read differs so much from the original French version. All the paragraphs about the sensual, tactile, repetitive and addictive aspects of housekeeping, shopping and caring are missing in the English version. Not only did the English translation receive attention during the conference, The 366 The European Journal of Women's Studies 6(3)

Second Sex has been translated into many other languages too. In Japan there has even been a new translation recently produced by a feminist reading group. Takako Inoue related the incredible experience. Also participants from Arabic countries had the chance to exchange their own experiences of making and/or reading translations of Simone de Beauvoir's work.

THE FRENCH FEMINIST MOVEMENT

The participants at the Paris conference came from all parts of the world, with a strong representation from the USA, Canada and Japan. It was a tremendous idea to give the ¯oor also to the former sister comrades of Simone de Beauvoir, the Parisian/French members of the feminist movement. For the French feminist movement, Simone de Beauvoir was not only a philos- opher. She was also a militant, whom they fought alongside. The resistance, the political scene after the Second World War, the Algerian civil war, May 1968, the abortion movement, the Mouvement de LibeÂration des Femmes and the aspi- rations of the early Mitterand government: Simone de Beauvoir had it all on her agenda. The former activists were there, and their testimonies were impressive. They provided appetizers to (re)read the books they had written about the events they mentioned here. Present were GiseÁle Halimi, Yvette Roudy, Anne ZeÂlensky, Christine Delphy and Claire Monteil ± it seemed only Simone de Beauvoir was missing. No Simone de Beauvoir conference, anywhere in the world, held in this 1999 de Beauvoir year could surpass the importance of this session. My interest in GiseÁle Halimi's work goes back to the early 1960s, when I followed in the French newspapers her daily ®ght for the lives of the Algerian freedom ®ghters. At the conference, she shortly evoked the case of Djamila Boupacha. The book she has written about this young Algerian, `agent de liaison du FLN', sequestrated, tortured and violated by French soldiers in the early 1960s, was co-authored by Simone de Beauvoir. The book became world famous, and an important argument against colonialism. I had never understood why Simone de Beauvoir was mentioned as the co-author, given the fact that the book only contains an introduction by her. At the conference, Halimi explained that, by publishing the book, she transgressed many French laws: as a lawyer she made public documents that were supposed to be secret; deontologically and juridically she entered a dangerous ®eld by publishing the book. Simone de Beauvoir's name was on the cover of the book to support Halimi, by making her co-responsible. Halimi also mentioned the work of Simone de Beauvoir for the Russell Tribunal. There was, unfortunately, no time for Halimi to speak about the Bobigny trial and other landmarks in the French movement for the legalization of abortion. Anne ZeÂlensky, Christine Delphy and Claire Monteil also spoke about their political, feminist work with Simone de Beauvoir. Their stories are a part of our social history and the conference certainly has been a stimulus to read the material already published and to further document what is still lacking. In the same session we enjoyed the contribution of Yvette Roudy. Roudy was France's ®rst minister for women, in Mitterand's government. As a minister in a completely new ®eld, she surrounded herself with a small group of advisers from the feminist movement. Simone de Beauvoir was one of them. From the left and from the right, the work of Roudy was severely criticized in the early 1980s. In an article in Les Temps Modernes Simone de Beauvoir analysed what was happening, Conference Report 367 politically and ideologically, in that campaign against Roudy. She supported her publicly. Roudy's contribution at the conference had a very strong impact: it combined philosophy, extra-parliamentarian action, insight into ideological hate campaigns, everyday highly pro®led policy-making and governing with the aims of the feminist movement. And we saw the courage of a woman, a person, a feminist, in a position to carry such a heavy burden. And on top of all this, this session received an unexpected visit by Awa Thiam, author of Speak Out, Black Sisters, Feminism and Oppression in Black Africa (1986) and a well-known opponent of female genital mutilation. During Awa Thiam's improvised speech, it became immediately clear that many women in the hall had personal memories of reading or working with the author, during the years this Senegalese feminist was based in Paris. The conference also enjoyed other unplanned speeches. The one by the French minister Martine Aubry was to the point, connecting today's struggle for equality laws in France with our confer- ence's theme.

SIMONE DE BEAUVOIR AND THE COMMUNISTS

The main speakers on the panel about the relation between Simone de Beauvoir and `the Communists' were Jeanne Colombon, Dominique Desanti and Lise London. Jeanne Colombon explained why she, in the communist press of the 1950s had written negative reviews about The Second Sex. When Colombon started to present her arguments, it was as if I heard my young students of the 1990s. Immediately after publication, The Second Sex was negatively received in the communist press, mainly because the militant life of communist women was dif®cult to relate with the relatively bourgeois attitude of the intellectual de Beauvoir; it was as if `real life' was lacking; and also the negative attitude of de Beauvoir towards motherhood did not appeal to the women/mothers who were trying to combine parenting, householding, paid work and political life. Jeanne Colombon said that she still agreed with the arguments she used in the 1950s, without, however, legitimizing the practices of the Communist Party to which she belonged. This impressive testimony, clearly explained by this eminence grise of French political life, was completed by Dominique Desanti. She had spoken openly about her attitude towards the work and the person of Simone de Beauvoir, during the long years of cooperation with left-wing intellectuals in Paris after the Second World War. It was fascinating for me, after the conference, to compare the memoirs of Desanti with the biography of Simone de Beauvoir by Deidre Bair. It seems that the recollections of de Beauvoir and of Desanti diverge. At the conference, the contribution of Desanti was a short but open analysis of a member of a former Stalinist party who had asked her to write a negative review of The Second Sex. She never bowed to this request, sensing in the 1950s the value for women of The Second Sex. Lise London, in the same panel, spoke about a little known act of Simone de Beauvoir. Lise's husband, Artur London, vice-minister of foreign affairs in Prague, was incarcerated in 1951. He was a victim of the dramatic actions of the communist regimes during the 1950s. His case is well known, Artur London being the author of L'Aveu. While Artur was in jail, Lise's confusion was extreme. She loved her husband dearly, and the Party ± for which she and her husband had fought every possible battle ± accused him of treason. And, of course, in such a situation, sources to be trusted were scarce. Simone de Beauvoir held a conference for Radio Luxembourg about the London case. In her causerie Simone de Beauvoir 368 The European Journal of Women's Studies 6(3) explained ± with great sensitivity ± the puzzling position of Lise London, torn between her party and her lover, but incapable of believing that the accusation against Artur London could possibly be true, or his `confession'. In Paris in 1999 Lise London read the little known text of Simone de Beauvoir, delivered on Radio Luxembourg, about this dramatic form of cognitive dissonance.

A FEMINIST PRESENT

This conference celebrating the ®ftieth anniversary of Le DeuxieÁme Sexe was a homage to Simone de Beauvoir. There was, however, no constraint on presenting critical analyses of the work. They were well represented. However, the attitude of the speakers and participants, and the whole atmosphere during the event, were perfect. It was refreshing and heart warming to be together with hundreds of feminist scholars, for ®ve days, to analyse our inheritance and to think about our female future. It was impossible to attend all the sessions. In this report I only focused on the sessions of which the special historical importance struck me the most. We enjoyed an evening in one of the theatres of St Germain des Pres, where the French chansons came to life again. We also saw a preview of a documentary ®lm (Simone de Beauvoir, un sieÁcle d'eÂcrivains), which anyone interested in Simone de Beauvoir has got to see. And we can recommend a beautiful little booklet, Le Paris de Beauvoir, especially produced for the occasion. It was very thoughtful of the organizers to choose as conference hotels places where Simone de Beauvoir had lived. So, it was easy to retrace de Beauvoir's path, from her hotel to the Sorbonne, to Cafe Flore or Deux Magots, to have lunch at La Coupole. At the end of the week, I skipped a session at the conference to pay a visit to the cemetery of Montparnasse. A quiet moment at Simone de Beauvoir's grave consolidated my impressions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Desanti, Dominique (1997) Ce que le sieÁcle m'a dit. MeÂmoires. Paris: Plon. Fallaize, Elizabeth (ed.) (1998) Simone de Beauvoir: A Critical Reader. London: Routledge. Halimi, GiseÁle (1973) La Cause des femmes. Paris: Grasset. Halimi, GiseÁle (1988) Le Lait de l'oranger. Paris: Gallimard. Halimi, GiseÁle and Simone de Beauvoir (1962) Djamila Boupacha. Paris: Gallimard. Klaw, Barbara (1999) Le Paris de Beauvoir. Beauvoir's Paris. Paris: Editions Syllepse. Lundgren-Gothlin, Eva (1996) Sex and Existence: Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. London: Athlone. Picq, FrancËoise (1993) LibeÂration des femmes. Les anneÂes-mouvement. Paris: Seuil. Stroh, ValeÂrie (1999) Simone de Beauvoir, un sieÁcle d'eÂcrivains, documentary ®lm. Thiam, Awa (1986) Speak Out, Black Sisters, Feminism and Oppression in Black Africa. London: Pluto. Vintges, Karen (1996) Philosophy as Passion: The Thinking of Simone de Beauvoir. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Magda Michielsens University of Antwerp and University of Nijmegen

^