Joëlle Kuntz. In the book dedicated to you by Francis Jeanson, he talks about your ability to be happy. However, Sartre somewhere said about happiness that it is reactionary. Are you in conflict with him on this subject?
Simone de Beauvoir. Happiness is a word that can have so many meanings: Sartre probably meant that betting one’s life solely on happiness is betting on repetition. Happiness is reactionary if it consists of having a home, a wife, children, where nothing changes, nothing moves. This is often the idea of happiness. For me, happiness means a kind of inner peace, a harmony with the world, which is not reactionary, even though, from there, one can do whatever they want with it: a happiness that closes in on itself or on the contrary an opening to the outside. I think that ultimately, you are more inclined to act and to be interested in other things than yourself when you are, if not happy, at least in harmony with yourself, rather than when you are unhappy, obsessed, neurotic…
What do you think, then, of “subversion through happiness,” as formulated by journalist and philosopher André Gorz?
The pursuit of private happiness, as opposed to this mechanical, profit-based world, yes, in a certain sense, can be a form of subversion. The search for intimate, more personal values… Gorz is right: there is a certain pursuit of happiness that goes against this stupid machine in which people are trapped up to their necks and which prevents them from breathing. We are currently witnessing a crisis, which may not go very far, but presents interest: executives drop everything, even if they earned a lot of money while being subjected to boring tasks. They go live on farms in the countryside, do whatever they want from morning to night. There is something subversive, a rebellion against the social machine.
However, without politicization, this rebellion will not succeed because it is too selfish and embedded in the system. After all, all those who aspire to subversion through happiness, such as hippies, for example, remain within this society, they take advantage of it to some extent, scramble to have one of their own who works, helps them, parents who give them money. Without politicization, this form of subversion cannot lead to another society. All these private revolts, which can sometimes have a subversive effect, are not unsympathetic to me, but they are still very short-lived.
There is, however, a feminist movement that adopts this political style, rejecting traditional sacrificial activism, service to others.
I don’t think that this is the right solution. That being said, women are so dependent, enslaved, oppressed, that if they simply come back to fulfill themselves, on a private level, as individuals, that is already a big step; they are so low in the social hierarchy… In my opinion, however, they should also engage in politics. Moreover, the most interesting women in my eyes, in the liberation movement, are precisely those who try to link politics and the fight for the affirmation of their rights as women. However, it is true that in France, many women joined the liberation movement because, even leftists, it was they who had to prepare coffee and sandwiches, type at the machine and play the docile companions of the activists.
This is why I ask you the question: can politics as envisaged by today’s leftists solve anything regarding women’s issues?
I think that women, even apolitical ones, becoming aware of themselves as women, are already taking a big step towards their liberation. But then, they are obliged to take a stand in terms of class struggle: for example, those who recently went to Place d’Aligre to distribute flyers to housewives, workers, on the issue of abortion.
