Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview

Author(s): Margaret A. Simons, Jessica Benjamin, Simone de Beauvoir

Source: Feminist Studies, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Summer, 1979), pp. 330-345
Published by: Feminist Studies, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3177599
Accessed: 24/02/2010 10:03

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=femstudies.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Feminist Studies, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Feminist Studies.

http://www.jstor.org
 SIMONEDE BEAUVOIR:
AN INTERVIEW

MARGARETA. SIMONS
and JESSICA BENJAMIN

INTRODUCTION

Nineteen seventy-nine, the thirtieth anniversaryof the publication

of The Second Sex, is a year in celebration of Simone de Beauvoir
and her contribution to feminism. In New York, a Conference on
Feminist Theory in September, sponsored by the New York Insti-
tute for the Humanities, will commemorate de Beauvoir'sinitiation
of a new era of feminist theory. Feminist Studies is planning to
publish a symposium on de Beauvoir. National Public Radio is
producing a special programon her. Gallimard,the French publish-
ing house, is publishing a collection of her articles, prefaces, and
interviews to appear later this year. The week Jessica and I arrived
in Parisfor our interview, a film composed of discussions between
de Beauvoir and her intimate friends was playing in Montparnasse.
This anniversaryyear seemed like an appropriate time to invite
de Beauvoir to review with us her involvement in feminism, from
the genesis of The Second Sex to her current activities in the inter-
national feminist movement.
We hoped, as well, to come away from our interview with a clear-
er picture not just of the French women's movement, but also of
de Beauvoir as a person. Specifically, we wanted to ask her about
her relationship with the philosopher Jean-PaulSartre, a relation-
ship which has been much distorted by the American academic
and popular press. Although the relationship has certainly played
a central role in her life, it has too often been described as defining
her life, such as when Time magazine refers to de Beauvoir as Sartre's
"Longtime Companion." Actually, of course, the reality is quite
different. As she points out in our interview, this failure to recog-
nize women as autonomous persons is the result of a "phallocratic
prejudice." From the standpoint of feminist theory, a most serious
aspect of this sexist view of de Beauvoir's relationship to Sartre is
the discounting of de Beauvoir as an original thinker and the refusal

Feminist Studies 5, no. 2 (Summer 1979). @by Margaret A. Simons.

 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 331

to acknowledge, analyze, and critically study her work as social

theory and social philosophy. This view fails to recognize the orig-
inality of de Beauvoir'sinsights and is thus unable to appreciate
her considerable influence on Sartrein the development of a social
philosophy of existentialism, and on contemporary feminist theor-
ists as well.
We were thus surprised to hear de Beauvoir say that she has not
influenced Sartre at all philosophically, because she feels that she
is not a philosopher, but rather a literary writer. Why should she
accept this view of her work that defines it as merely reflective of
Sartre's perspective rather than as philosophically innovative? Per-
haps the most obvious explanation is that de Beauvoir is simply
describing their relationship as she has experienced it. And, in fact,
a reexamination of her autobiographies and essays reveals that she
has often claimed to lack philosophical originality, and to be merely
a follower of Sartre'sphilosophy, applying or defending it from
critics. In The Prime of Life, de Beauvoir describes with charac-
teristic candor the difficulties-her timidity and lack of audacity-
that prevented her and other women from embarking on the grand
system building that she identifies with philosophy. We can also
see from her accounts in The Prime of Life that although Sartre
urged her to write, he was nonetheless apt to see her essentially as
a critic, or even as a passive spectator of philosophical discourse,
rather than as a true participant.'
These same factors, as well as the later failure of the philosoph-
ical community to recognize the significance of her contribution
in The Second Sex to the articulation of a social, political philos-
ophy bridging the gap between Marxismand existentialism, can
account for her present attitude. Once this total situation is under-
stood, it's not surprisingthat de Beauvoir should have come to
regardherself as lacking in philosophical originality, and as subor-
dinate to Sartre philosophically, a follower and defender of his
ideas, while in fact, she has both redefined and transcended those
ideas in her work. De Beauvoir'sattitude should remind us of the
great difficulty women confront in accurately evaluating our own
work, especially when it is within an antifeminist context, or dis-
cipline.
But it should also warn us of our tendency to idealize women
such as Simone de Beauvoir. In seeking to find in her a model for
our own lives, we only create further misconceptions about her
life. Not that we must accept her evaluation of her own work!
Whatis called for is an accurate understanding of both her life,
including her relationship with Sartre, and of her work, which has
thus far certainly not received the critical analysis it warrants-even
from feminist philosophers.
332 A. SimonsandJessicaBenjamin
Margaret

De Beauvoirhas clearly rejected the role of model for feminists,

either in her life or in her theory. In the film, Simone de Beauvoir,
by Josee Dayan and Malka Ribowska, she admits to Alice Schwart-
zer, the German feminist, that there have certainly been episodes
in her life, in her relationships with other people, for example, in
which she can feel no pride. And she complains about those per-
sons who would idealize her, and try to force her life to conform
to a rigid mold.
Peopleoftenaskme: "Whyhaveyou not createdwomenwhoarepositive
heroines?"BecauseI havea horrorof that,I havea horrorof positiveheros;
andbookswithpositiveherosdon'tinterestme. A novelis a "problematique."
Thestoryof my life is itselfa problematique. I don'thaveanysolutionsto
to and
give people people don't have to awaitsolutionsfromme. It is in this
regardthat,sometimes what you callmy fame,people'sexpectationsof me,
bothersme. Thereis a certainunreasonable demandthatI finda littlestupid
becauseit wouldencloseme,immobilizeme completelyin a sortof feminist
concreteblock.
Although de Beauvoir does not want to be encased in feminism
as though in cement, she obviously considers herself a feminist, and
values her participation in the feminist movement. And she rejects
wholeheartedly the celebrity role of the theoretician of the feminist
movement, a role that Americans seem especially prone to thrust
upon her. She refused the request of L'Arc, a French literary mag-
azine, to devote an issue to her in 1974, asserting that the issue
must not focus on her as a personality, as a celebrity, but on the
work of a group of French feminist theorists. The sense of her
appreciation of other women in her development as a feminist is
clear from another discussion shown in the film on her life. In this
instance, Sartre comments to de Beauvoir that she had become a
feminist in the best way, by writing The Second Sex. De Beauvoir
replies that she "became a feminist, above all, after the book had
existed for other women.2
Our interest in de Beauvoir'scurrent involvement in the feminist
movement was stimulated by the evidence we found that de Beau-
voir, at the age of 71, is as engaged in feminist activity as ever be-
fore. Her adherence to a leftist political perspective links her ideo-
logically with the editorial board of Questions Feministes, a French
journal to which she lends her political support and her name as
"directrice de publication." In a recent interview, de Beauvoir de-
fines this leftist feminist vision: "It is the hope that history will
bring within society more profound changes than have yet appeared,
changes that will truly transform relations between men and women,
among men and among women-everything that has remained un-
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 333

changed in spite of collectivization and the nationalization of the

means of production in the socialist countries. That is the leftist
hope."3 Feminism, in de Beauvoir's perspective, is thus a leftist
movement, that leftist movement which would most radically trans-
form society.
Yet an event occurred in Paris during our visit that made very
clear de Beauvoir'scommitment to prevent the feminist movement
from becoming subsumed, or in any way negated, by a male-directed
movement. This event was the founding of the International Com-
mittee on Women's Rights, whose first official action was to respond
to a call for support by Iranian women in the midst of demonstra-
tions against the imposition of highly restrictive dress codes. The
committee's response was to send an international task force to
gather information about the status of women under the new re-
gime. One of the most electric moments of the news conference
called to announce the Committee's formation and project in Iran
came when de Beauvoir angrily denounced a male speaker who had
been arguingthat the demonstrations by Iranianwomen were en-
dangeringthe success of the revolution, and that the women should,
in the interests of the revolution, suppress their own complaints.
De Beauvoir loudly proclaimed that she had seen many revolutions
in her lifetime and that in every instance the women had been told
that they must not press their demands, that they must wait for the
sake of the revolution. But their time never came, and now women
are no longer content to wait, they demand liberation now!
In the preface to a book about two women's experiences in the
French Women's Liberation Movement, de Beauvoir addresses the
danger in a leftist movement which defines women's liberation as
"secondary":
Certainmilitantswould have liked to subordinatethe women's struggleto the
class struggle;the Feminine-Masculine-Future groupdeclareditself to be rad-
icallyfeminist. The women's struggleappearedto them primordialand not
at all secondary. That is also my position. In the most diversecountriesI
have heardit said-by men but also by women-that it was necessaryfirst of
all to concern oneself with the revolution,with the triumphof socialism;...
later one could interest oneself with the problemsof women. But in my ex-
perience, this later meansnever. Certainlyit is necessaryto link the two strug-
gles. But the example of the countriescalled socialist provesthat an economic
changein no way entails the decolonizationof women.4
When de Beauvoir first became involved in the feminist move-
ment in the early seventies, her primary focus of concern and action
was the prochoice movement to legalize abortion. We learned dur-
ing our visit that much of her energy is currently directed toward
334 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

the issue of violence against women. She supports, and has on occa-
sion herself provided shelter for victims of wife abuse. In this activ-
ity she has aligned herself with the League for Women's Rights,
which has led a campaign to combat sexism in numerous areas of
French society. De Beauvoir admits that much of their activity is
essentially reformist, but that it is nonetheless valuable.
In my estimation,tearingreformsfrom the governmentmay be a stage on the
road to the revolution-on the condition, of course, that one is not satisfied
with these reformsbut makesthem instead the startingpoint for new demands.
Whilepreparingthe projectson antisexistlaws, the Leaguehas dedicateditself
to importantactions that are very much to the point. The Leagueinitiated a
campaignfor the denunciationof rapeand createdS.O.S. Alternativesto come
to the aid of batteredwomen. It had recourseto legal means-seeking the inter-
vention of FrancoiseGiroud-and illegalmeans-by the occupation of Plessis-
Robinson-in orderto assurea shelterfor batteredwomen.... Whymust
women throw down theirhands and accept everything? A revolutionaryatti-
tude today has to be a compromisewith existing conditions. To deny us the
meansof revoltingis to deny our revolt.5
Toward the latter part of our visit to Paris, an article written by
de Beauvoir appeared on the front page of Le Monde, a leading
French newspaper. The article argued for the necessity of a law
to combat sexism. De Beauvoir criticized a recent French court
decision acquitting a man who had beaten his wife nearly to death
and then left her in agony throughout the night until she died.
Whatwe challengeare the sexist motivationsthat led to this acquittal. For
havingbrokenseveralwindows, some young men were sentencedto years on
a prisonfarm. For havingmurderedhis wife, MonsieurLeberwill serveno
sentence,under the pretext that this offense arisesfrom the domaineof "love"
or from the conjugalrelation.... Does loving, then, implicitly authorizeone
to kill?
The verdict... seems to us in the highest degreeto reveala sexist mentality.
Contraryto what people claim, we feministsdo not wish to avengeourselves
on men. But the fact is that we have no choice. In orderto protect women,
it is necessaryto incarceratecertainmen. That does not satisfy us, we would
like to suppressviolence and in orderto do that it is necessaryto attack it at
its very roots.
Wewould like to act on the entire culturalenvironmentwhich supports
these masculine,aggressiveattitudesagainstwomen: advertising,pornography,
literature. An antisexismlaw would permitus to denounceeach case of sexist
discriminationbefore public opinion. In the long run, an antisexistreflex
would be createdwhich would have avoidedthe death of Mme. Leber. She
would not have accepted the beatings,he would not have daredto beat her
 Simonede Beauvoir:AnInterview 335

the neighborswouldhaveintervened,the socialserviceswould

systematically,
havereacted.6
When asked about her current plans, de Beauvoir has often said
that she is no longer engaged in major literary projects. "I'm a
little tired of writing," she told Catherine David in their recent
interview. "Maybe because I have the impression of having my
essential work behind me. Nothing I could write now could add
substantially to it."7 But in her discussion with Claude Lanzmann
in the film, she admits that in spite of her new found enjoyment
of idleness, there are many projects, such as the film itself, which
continue to occupy her attention. "Besides it could be possible
that tomorrow I will take up again ... that the desire for something
will come to me. If by chance I had suddenly the desire to write
a long and difficult book, perhaps I would throw myself into it
once again. These things can happen."8
Recent years have seen an evolution of feminist theory, bringing
into question many aspects of de Beauvoir's perspective in The
Second Sex. But this development has, in a sense, only confirmed
the importance of The Second Sex for feminism. For de Beauvoir,
in spite of her relative isolation, writing without the political con-
text of a feminist movement, succeeded in defining the central
issues which are still the focus of theoretical discussion within
international feminism today. She subjected every fashionable
intellectual (and male-dominated) current to a rigorous critique
from the standpoint of feminism: biological determinism, psycho-
analysis, Marxism. Anticipating by a quarter of a century-indeed,
sowing the seeds of-recent Marxist feminist writings, she suggested
that Marx's and Engels's reduction of all antagonistic social rela-
tions to relations of production, their inattention to the relations
of reproduction, made them unable to explain the bases of women's
oppression in society:
... womancannotin goodfaithbe regarded simplyas a worker;forherrepro-
ductivefunctionis as importantasherproductivecapacityno lessin the social
economythanin the individual life ... it is impossibleto regardwomensimply
asa productiveforce;sheis for mana sexualpartner,a reproducer, anerotic
9
object....
But The Second Sex also helped lay the theoretical foundation
for radical feminist theory, with de Beauvoir's insistence that the
most personal relationships and activities of a woman's life are
inherently political. She saw all aspects of women's lives as dis-
torted by a patriarchalideology common to all cultures throughout
history, and permeating our laws, religions, and literature. But she
336 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

was also aware of the situations that divide women. Her compara-
tive analysis of racism and sexism is more cognizant of their dis-
similarities than are many of the theories of contemporary, white
feminist theorists. De Beauvoir continued in the tradition of Mary
Wollstonecraft;and she anticipated the focus of much of contem-
porary feminism, by focusing on the contradictions inherent in the
lives of women confined to a limited domestic sphere. But she also
recognized the reality of privilege that such a role can represent to
the working woman, freedom from alienating labor in dead-end
jobs, and from the necessity, and anxiety, of having to support
herself and her children.
Although The Second Sex reflects the Freudianism then pre-
dominant in psychoanalytic theory, de Beauvoir attacked its sexist
concept of normalcy that effectively condemned women to depend-
ent, passive lives. She essentially turned psychoanalytic theory on
its head, considering it as evidence of the psychological depths of
woman's social and political oppression. She used these insights
to demand woman's social, economic, and'political autonomy, and
to argue for an end to sexist educational practices. Her critique of
sexism and psychoanalysis encompassed, as well a critique of hetero-
sexism: the ways that patriarchalideology is lived out in sexuality.
She saw lesbianism as an authentic alternative for women in a sexist
society offering, and legitimating, only inauthentic alternatives.
De Beauvoir'sanalysis of woman's oppression in The Second Sex
is open to many criticisms: for its idealism-her focus on myths
and images and her lack of practical strategies for liberation; for
its ethnocentrism and androcentric view-her tendency to generalize
from the experience of European bourgeois women, with a result-
ing emphasis on women's historic ineffectiveness. Still, we have no
theoretical source of comparable sweep that stimulates us to analyze
and relentlessly question our situation as women in so many do-
mains-literature, religion, politics, work, education, motherhood,
and sexuality. As contemporary theorists explore the issues raised
in The Second Sex, we can see that in a sense all feminist dialogue
entails a dialogue with Simone de Beauvoir. And a discussion with
her can be a way of locating ourselves within our feminist past,
present, and future.
INTERVIEW:PARIS, 13 MARCH1979
Margaret A. Simons: The Second Sex is important for us because
it gives us a theoretical foundation. What do you consider the fem-
inist theoretical foundation for The Second Sex? You mentioned
Virginia Woolf and Colette....
FeministStudies5, no. 2 (Summer1979).
O 1979 by MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin.
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 337

Simone de Beauvoir: Virginia Woolf. But in any case I wrote The

Second Sex from my own experience; from my own reflections;
not so much from another's influence. Of course, I encountered
Virginia Woolf in my readings. I liked A Room of One's Own very
much. But I cannot say that I was influenced by her. I think that
I really wrote the book in a very spontaneous way, as an answer
to the question that I was asking myself, that I had begun to ask
myself based on the fact of being a woman. Then, at the time, I
had read books written by men, and books written by women, as
well as books written by antagonists such as Montherlant and Law-
rence, who influenced me insofar as I understood how they under-
stood women and how this was detestable. But I cannot say that
there was somebody whose path I followed. The closest to having
influenced me in this matter would certainly be Virginia Woolf.
Or perhaps I was influenced by everybody. It was my stance with
respect to the world and to literature, as I saw them.
M.S.: Critics always talk about Sartre'sinfluence on your work,
but they never talk about your influence on Sartre's work. What
has been your primary influence on Sartre, on his work?
S.B.: I think we have had a reciprocal influence, that is, that each
of us has criticized the works of the other.
Jessica Benjamin: Do you ever remember telling him that you
thought something that he did ought to be changed, or be different?
S.B.: Of course! Many times....
M.S.: How did he respond?
S.B.: Well, he did what I told him to do. When I told him that
the first version of The Respectful Prostitute was very bad, he com-
pletely rewrote it. When I told him that the end of The Sequestered
of Altona was very bad, he completely rewrote the end. And so it
was for many of his essays. I have criticized a major part of his
works, sometimes very, very severely. He would argue, but then
he would admit that I was right. He would change things because
he knew that I criticized his writings according to his own objec-
tives. The same was true for his criticism of my work: Sartre al-
ways criticized with my objectives in mind. In other words, we
always followed each other's work with the eyes of a reader who
would be simultaneously the author-with more distance than the
author could have-and at the same time with the complicity that
the author has with himself.
I think, as you suggested in your question, it has been said that
it was Sartre who influenced me. This is because in France it is
338 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

always assumed that it is the man who influences the woman; it is

never the other way around. Anyhow, Sartre is a philosopher, and
I am not, and I have never really wanted to be a philosopher. I
like philosophy very much, but I have not created a philosophical
work. My field is literature. I am interested in novels, memoirs,
essays, such as The Second Sex. However, none of these is philos-
ophy.
M.S. But Ethics of Ambiguity, surely that's philosophy.
S.B.: For me it is not philosophy; it is an essay. For me, a philos-
opher is someone like Spinoza, Hegel, or Sartre;someone who has
built a great system, and not simply someone who likes philosophy,
who can teach it, understand it, and who can make use of it in
essays. A philosopher is somebody who truly builds a philosophical
system. And that, I did not do. When I was young, I decided that
it was not what I wanted to do.
M.S.: I see certain parallels in the development in Sartre's work,
and the development in your work after the war. For example,
your interest ih the social, historical development of woman's
situation, and in childhood in The Second Sex. Do you think you
communicated this interest in the child to Sartre and that he gained
some interest because of your own interest? He never wrote about
women, but he wrote more and more about childhood.
S.B.: Maybe. Indeed, this is because I was much more interested
in my childhood than Sartre was interested in his. And I believe
that, little by little, I made him realize that his childhood has also
been important for him. When he wrote The Words,he understood
that he had to talk about his childhood. And that, perhaps, was
partially due to my influence. It is very possible.
M.S.: Sometimes, it is difficult for me to understand correctly
your relationship with Sartre, your autonomy. Your ideas of the
woman's situation, and of the Other, are really your own creation.
And yet sometimes, in your own statements, it sounds as though
you are saying the ideas came from Sartre....
S.B.: Oh! No! Absolutely not. The ideas about women are my
own. Sartre has never been very interested in the question of wom-
en. As a matter of fact I had a dialogue with him published in
L'Arc'Otwo years ago, in which I asked him why he had not inter-
ested himself in the question. No, these ideas are my own, indeed.
... I have been influenced by [Sartre] in the philosophical domain,
but I was not at all influenced by him in the literary field. When I
wrote my memoirs, . .. when I wrote my novels, I was never influ-
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 339

enced by Sartre because I was writing from my lived and felt ex-
periences.
J.B.: So when you wrote in L'lnvitee that Francoise says what
really upsets her about XaviRreis that she has to confront in her
another consciousness, that is not an idea that particularly came
[from] Sartre ... ?
S.B.: It was I who thought about that! It was absolutely not
Sartre!
J.B.: But that is an idea which it seems to me appears later in his
work.
S.B.: Oh! Maybe! (Laughter) In any case, this problem... of the
other's consciousness, it was my problem.
M.S.: You have maintained such a close relationship. Maybe it is
difficult for other people to appreciate it. We do not have other
models.
S.B.: Maybe.
J.B.: Yet you must know that people in some way celebrate you
or think that you are a model for them. I think what astonishes
them is that you could have a relationship with such a powerful
man and not be overpowered by him.
S.B.: But that's the way it is.... (Laughter)
J.B.: What difference do you see between being alive in a world
with a feminist movement and being in a world without a feminist
movement?
S.B.: It is not a different world; anyway we live in the same world.
Only, it is enriching because many of [today's] feminists are very
conscious, very intelligent, very critical women, who understand
woman's situation very well. In short, they have taught me many
things based on their experience. Because, in fact, the great advan-
tage of feminism is that women communicate with each other much
more openly, much more sincerely, much more directly perhaps
than they used to, except with very intimate friends. In other
words, yes, it is indeed a great enrichment.
M.S.: After you wrote The Second Sex, what an outcry! People
were so negative.
S.B.: Yes, especially the men.
M.S.: Now, with a feminist movement, you have more support, it's
more of a positive encouragement for your ideas and acceptance....
340 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

S.B.: Not necessarily, because the struggle is also very invigorating.

J.B.: I was going to ask you about another question which comes
up a lot in your literary work and your autobiography. You say in
The Second Sex that men resent women because women represent
nature and mortality and, in that way, they represent death, right?
S.B.: Yes.
J.B.: Dorothy Dinnerstein" extends this idea; she says that if men
as well as women were parents, then people would not be able to
blame this fact of mortality upon the woman. And then they would
have to face mortality without the ability to blame someone. Do
you still think that, psychologically speaking, the hatred of women
and the domination of women is based on this fear of death? Do
you still believe that this has to do with the roots of the hatred of
women?
S.B.: No. But I think that one of the things, as revealed in their
myths, that men detest about women is that men are born, and
that consequently they are mortal. But this is only one thing, one
of the myths, one of the hatreds. There are many other reasons
for men's hatred of women. But this particularone, certainly,
does exist. It exists for some men. There are quite a few who
see in woman the image of death itself. That's certain.
J.B.: Do you think that in some way feminist politics can relate
to this issue? Or do you think that it can only be dealt with indi-
vidually, this kind of hatred?
S.B.: In my opinion, it is above all an individual matter. I do not
believe that feminism will prevent men from hating women because
women are their mothers, consequently their death, in a manner of
speaking.
J.B.: But do you think that by changing motherhood you could
change that?
S.B.: Oh, that, I do not know. I cannot go into sociological ques-
tions. From my experience, I do not know what will become of
the world or how things will turn out.
M.S.: I read with great interest the interview with John Gerassi.,2
in which you said that to change the whole value system of society,
to destroy the concept of motherhood, is revolutionary. What does
that mean? Do you remember?
S.B.: Oh! Yes.... I think that by changing the concept of mother-
hood, by changing the idea of maternal instinct, of the feminine
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 341

vocation, society will change completely. Because it is through this

idea of feminine vocation that women are enslaved to the home,
that they are enslaved to their husbands, that they are enslaved to
man, to housekeeping, etc.... If this concept were to be destroyed,
I do not mean motherhood itself, but all the myths which are re-
lated to motherhood, without any doubt society would be com-
pletely transformed.
M.S.: But you do not mean to completely destroy motherhood.
S.B.: No. Women want to have children, and I have nothing against
that. However, I believe that in today's world, the world as it is in
our Western civilization, maternity is a trap for women because it
enslaves them to man, to the home. They are dragged back into
the interior of this sytem which feminists want to destroy.
M.S.: And you reject a utopian vision of technology eliminating
maternity? I am thinking of Shulamith Firestone and a feminism
that wants to completely eliminate motherhood, biologically.
S.B.: If it were possible to change the conditions in which matern-
ity exists, then maternity could be retained. There are certain rela-
tionships between a woman and her child which can be very strong.
The same goes for a father, who can also have a very strong rela-
tionship with his child. Therefore, if the world were made in a
different way, if the woman did not become a slave as soon as she
became a mother... then, what would be the need for eliminating
motherhood? But as motherhood is today, maternity-slavery, as
some feminists call it, does indeed turn today's women into slaves.
And I think that motherhood is the most dangerous snare for all
those women who want to be free and independent, for those who
want to earn their living, for those who want to think for them-
selves, and for those women who want to have a life of their own.
The conditions could be changed ... maybe.... Let's hope so.
J.B.: One of the questions that many people ask when they look at
what you said many years ago is: Is it still impossible for a woman
to be a mother and also to be transcendent?
S.B.: Perhaps it is not impossible. ... No, I think that there are
some people who do achieve this. But I think that it is very diffi-
cult.... Very often, nowadays, women are torn because they have
the feeling that they are not good enough mothers, that they are
not good enough workers. But, certainly, there are some who have
achieved success. There are women who are lawyers, physicians,
government ministers, etc., who do have, at the same time, children.
Certainly, it is not impossible. However, it is not feasible for the
342 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

majorityof women,for the averagewoman,for the womanwithout

money, for the womanwhose workis unrewarding.... Thereare
those womenwho muststay home.... The double task of working
at the plantand beinga mother,for instance,is very, very difficult.
J.B.: So you think that it has perhapsbecomeeasierfor some wom-
en, but not for all?
S.B.: Yes, exactly. It is easierfor certainwomen... the privileged
women.
M.S.: Thereis a big movementin Americanfeminismwhich I think
is a parallelto the movementin Frenchfeminismidentifiedwith the
concept of "l'6criturefiminine." It takesthe biologicaldifference
betweenthe womanandthe man and makesit an essentialdiffer-
ence. It takesan experiencesuch as maternity,or such as the wom-
an'srelationshipwith her body, and makesthis biologicalgiventhe
centerof her existence,of a woman'sculture. It is a foundationfor
separatism,andit is very muchopposedto the position of TheSec-
ond Sex. How do you think about this now?
S.B.: Well,I am againstthis oppositionto TheSecondSex.... In
Francealso, some women havetakenthis stance. Here,therearea
certainnumberof womenwho exalt menstruation,maternity,etc.,
and who believethat one can find a basisthere for a differentsort
of writing. As for myself, I am absolutelyagainstall this sinceit
meansfallingonce moreinto the masculinetrapof wishingto en-
close ourselvesin our differences. I do not believethat we should
deny these differences;neitherdo I believethat we shoulddespise
or ignorethem. It's good to demandthat a womanshouldnot be
madeto feel degradedby, let's say, her monthlyperiods;that a
womanrefuseto be madeto feel ridiculousbecauseof her preg-
nancy; that a woman be able to be proud of her body, and her
feminine sexuality. However, there is no reason at all to fall into
some wild narcissism, and build, on the basis of these givens, a sys-
tem which would be the culture and the life of women. I don't
think that womanshouldrepressthese givens. She has the perfect
rightto be proudof beinga woman,just as manis also proudof
his sex. Afterall, he has the rightto be proudof it, underthe con-
dition, however,that he does not depriveothersof the rightto a
similarpride. Everyonecan be happywith her or his body. But
one shouldnot makethis body the centerof the universe. There-
fore, if you wish, I reject this sort of separatism.
J.B.: Do you think that, in other words,the problemwith separa-
tism is that it takesthe biologicalfact as the social fact?
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 343

S.B.: Yes, that is correct. Finally, it comes to playing man's game

to say that the woman is essentially different from the man. There
exists a biological difference, but this difference is not the founda-
tion for the sociological difference.
M.S.: In The Second Sex, you often equate masculine values with
human values. But I think that you no longer agree with that view.
When we first talked, in 1972, we were in disagreement about
whether woman's situation leads her to have a perception of some
experience that is valuable. Do you now see a value in women shar-
ing and discussing their situations? Do you see any meaning in the
idea of values from woman's situation?
S.B.: I think that there are certain masculine faults that women
avoid thanks to their situation. Women have less importance, less
desire for emulation, and less of the ridiculous, in one sense, in
their role. They are less comical, in the bad sense of the word,
than men who take themselves so seriously. I believe women es-
cape, more or less, all of this. But the difficulty is that they escape
all these pitfalls because they don't have any power. As soon as
they gain power, they acquire all the male's defects. But one can-
not, all the same, wish for women to remain in a humiliating and
inferior situation in order to keep certain qualities. However, one
could wish for men to share some of these feminine qualities which
result from her oppression, such as patience; empathy; irony; the
somewhat ironic distance from things; the rejection of exactly
those masculine values, such as medals, roles-in short, all this
type of male tinware. Women can perhaps, better than men,
reject all that, but only to the extent that they are removed from
it, from power.
M.S.: Do you think that women, because of our situation of op-
pression, share experiences with other people who are oppressed?
Instead of seeing feminism as isolated from other movements, do
you see a unity because, perhaps, of this shared situation of oppres-
sion ... ?
S.B.: No. Unfortunately, it does not suppress the isolation, be-
cause they are not qualities that suppress isolation. However, I
believe that isolation can in itself be the source of certain qualities;
because it forces the human being to resort to herself, it brings
about more of an inner life. Isolation forces a person to rely more
on herself, unlike men, who are always seeking refuge in external
things. But those qualities do not suppress the isolation.
J.B.: This is a problem you talked about in The Second Sex, that
344 MargaretA. Simonsand JessicaBenjamin

woman's oppression is very peculiar because no one else is tied to

their oppressor in that way.
S.B.: Yes, exactly.
J.B.: The fact that many women think that if they are going to be
the subject themselves they have to deny that men are subjects, so
they make men into the Other. And in order for women to avoid
doing that as feminists, they have to act as a subject in a way that
men never acted, that is, they have to create a new subjectivity.
Would you say that was true or not?
S.B.: No. I believe that both parties must consider each other
reciprocally as subjects. I do not think that women should take
up power against men, thinking that they will be able to avoid
what men did to women. I believe that they must find a recipro-
city. It is what I stated in The Second Sex.
J.B.: But in doing that they set themselves in opposition to the
principle of nonreciprocity which men have invented. Then they
argue that men are so much against reciprocity that you can't do
this with them. I think that's what they would say.
S.B.: At any rate it does not seem to me very realistic to think
that women will be able to reduce men to objects. Nor do I be-
lieve that it would be ideal. I think that nobody should try to
reduce the other to an object: neither a woman another woman,
nor a man another man, nor woman a man, nor man a woman.
(Laughter)
M.S.: Sometimes, I think that you have rejected The Second Sex,
in some ways....
S.B.: But not at all! ... Absolutely not!
M.S.: So, do you think that The Second Sex still expresses a fem-
inist position that is real today?
S.B.: In my opinion, yes. There are some old-fashioned statements
in the book. The references perhaps may not be as applicable, that's
all. But I am altogether in agreement with The Second Sex.
M.S.: Do you think there are other people ... ? No, you've never
worried about having other people agree with you.
S.B.: No! I do not want everyone to be in agreement with me.
J.B.: You said in your interview with Gerassi that you were going
to give it [The Second Sex] a more materialist basis. How would
you do that?
 Simone de Beauvoir: An Interview 345

S.B.: As I explained in All Said and Done, I believe that the Other
is not simply an idealist relationship, it is a materialist relationship.
It is a power relationship, based also on scarcity.
J.B.: So you would put it in relation to the exchange principle, in
other words?
S.B.: But that would not change the book as a whole.... There, I
think I've told you quite a lot of things!

NOTES

Wewould like to expressour deepestappreciationto ProfessorVeroniqueZaytzeff

of the Departmentof ForeignLanguagesand Literatureof SouthernIllinoisUniversity
at Edwardsville,Illinois,for transcribingand translatingthis interviewand for offering
invaluableassistancein subsequentcommunicationswith Simonede Beauvoir.Wewould
also like to thankthe GraduateSchool of SouthernIllinoisUniversityat Edwardsville,
Illinois,for theirgeneroussupportof this project.
1Simonede Beauvoir,ThePrimeof Life, trans.PeterGreen(New York: Lancer
Books, 1962), p. 32. De Beauvoirnotes that in a seriesof conversationsbetween Sartre
and RaymondAron,she wasexcludedbecause"my mindmovedtoo slowly for them."
2Simonede Beauvoir,un film de Josee Dayanet MalkaRibowska,realiseparJosee
Dayan(Paris: EditionsGallimard,1979), p. 67.
3CatherineDavid,"Beauvoirelle-meme,"Le Nouvel Observateur,22 janvier1979,
p. 83 (my translation).
4Simonede Beauvoir,prefaceto Histoiresdu M.L.F.,by AnneTristanand Annie
de Pisan(Paris: Calmann-Levy,1977), p. 9 (my translation).
5 Ibid., p. 11.
18, 19 mars
6Simonede Beauvoir,"De l'urgenced'uneloi antisexiste,"Le AMonde,
1979, p. 1 (my translation).
7
David,"Beauvoirelle-mimee."p. 82.
8Dayan and Ribowska, Simone de Beauvoir, p. 87.
9Siinone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Bantam Books, 1961), pp. 52-53.
°"Simone de BeauvoirinterrogeJean-PaulSartre,"L'Arc61 (1975): 3-12.
1
l Dorothy Dinnerstein,TheMermaidand the Minotaur:SexualArrangementsand
HumanMalaise(New York: Harperand Row, 1976).
'2John Gerassi, "Simone de Beauvoir: The Second Sex 25 Years Later," an interview
with Simone de Beauvoir, Society 13. no. 2 (January/February 1976).