In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

On Simone Weil

Guest Blogger

This is a guest post by Julia Haslett. Julia is the director and producer of An Encounter with Simone Weil.

In 2004, I read this line: “Attention is the rarest and purest form of generosity.” It so intrigued me that I decided to learn more about the woman who wrote it. Her name was Simone Weil and she was a French philosopher, activist, and mystic, from the 1930s. I was amazed by what I discovered. Weil was a brave young woman willing to speak truth to power. She was brilliant, politically committed, empathic, and kind of bad-ass. In her twenties, she was a leader in the male-dominated labor union movement. In 1936, she went to Spain to fight in the Civil War––putting her body on the line for what she believed in. When her teaching job was threatened because she’d helped organize a protest, she responded by saying, “I’ve always considered dismissal as the crowning of my career.” She wrote copiously and insightfully on religion, history, philosophy, and ancient Greece. Her writings deeply influenced the likes of Albert Camus, Susan Sontag, and Czeslaw Milosz. But despite all this she was little known both in and outside academia.

That was enough to give me a sense of purpose. I would do what I could to introduce Simone Weil’s life and ideas to more people. I was a documentary filmmaker so it made sense to make a film about her. And so she became my mission for what ended up being the next six years of my life.

The resulting film, An Encounter with Simone Weil, premiered in Europe in late 2010, and in the U.S. in April 2011. It was well received, even winning an award at Michael Moore’s Traverse City Film Festival. Over the past year, I’ve shown the film at numerous universities in the U.S. and Canada. I’m happy to say that Women Studies departments sponsored many of those screenings, and along the way it got a plug from the feminist philosophers blog. And then this July in Dublin, An Encounter with Simone Weil had its first official “feminist” screening sponsored by the Irish Feminist Network––a 2,000-member organization committed to engaging young people in feminist discussion.

This might lead you to assume that Weil was herself a feminist. That however was not the case. In fact, she rejected the title, along with identity politics altogether. Instead, she postulated a “decreation” of the self. She believed the self must be dismantled in order to reunite with God. In that context, Weil denied all aspects of her own identity––her gender, her class, her Jewishness, and, at times, even her intellect. Her activism was itself literally self-annihilating, leading to her death from self-starvation at the age of 34. Stuck in London and unable to help her French compatriots in occupied France, she refused to eat more than the rations afforded them. This act of solidarity was tantamount to suicide given her recently diagnosed tuberculosis.

Some have posthumously diagnosed Simone Weil as anorexic––she under ate her whole adult life. I tend to resist that diagnosis because of her strong attraction to the Christian mystics and Christian asceticism more generally. However, there’s no denying a classically “feminine” nature to her activism that led to a sacrifice of self in the interests of another or of a cause. A group of female students in Canada actually formed a group to discuss just that subject after the film screened on their campus last fall. The question of how to engage politically without denying one’s own needs is an active one for women and men alike, especially in an era characterized by increased direct action like we saw with Occupy Wall Street. I’d argue though that women are historically and culturally better positioned to theorize about it.

All this is to say that Simone Weil is an extremely complex figure, who serves as both inspiration and warning. Undoubtedly, she deserves to be read more widely and studied more thoroughly. Eight years after starting An Encounter with Simone Weil, she continues to be my most reliable and nourishing intellectual companion. My humble hope is the film will make her that to more of us, despite her complicated relationship to feminism.

Clara Fischer of the Irish Feminist Network puts it well:

“I think that the issue of Simone Weil’s feminism is a tricky one…her rejection of traditional gender roles makes her a feminist in many people’s eyes. She led a remarkable life – a life that was unconventional, a life of the mind, of political activism, and of mysticism. This in itself, and her subversion of the feminine it entails, could be viewed as being broadly in line with feminism, as could her concern with social justice. Some commentators have remarked that had she lived a bit longer, she probably would have developed a more explicitly feminist position. While that is of course speculative, I’d also like to think so.”

So would I.

—————

If you’d like to learn more about Weil here are some resources and reading suggestions:

– Simone Weil Reader
(contains some of her best political and spiritual writings)

– Simone Weil: An Anthology
(another good introduction to the range of her work)

– Waiting for God (Perennial Classics)
(a collection of Weil’s essays on faith)

– Oppression and Liberty (Routledge Classics)
(a collection of her political writings focused on Marxism)

– www.simoneweilmovie.com (the film’s website with our trailer and more Weil info)

58 thoughts on On Simone Weil

  1. I love Simone Weil so much. The book Utopian Pessimist is another good one. One of my favorites among her pieces seems to be available free on Google Books here (it’s quite short).

  2. Thank you for spreading the word, I look forward to reading more about Simone Weil.

    It is so so important to keep alive the intellectual history of women as original creative thinkers in their own right. I know so many people who think there were no female authors before Jane Austen, no female scientists before Marie Curie, no female philosophers before Mary Wollstonecraft; so many people who think that because they have been exposed to so few female intellectuals, there has been a historical dearth of creative, intelligent women — and people use this as a justification for male supremacy, for the great lie that it is men who have done all the creating and imagining and philosophizing in this world, and that women are mere latecomers to full-fledged humanity.

    Thank you thank you thank you.

  3. Just out of curiosity, what’s your opinion of what Susan Sontag, Francine du Plessix Gray, etc. have written about her rather pronounced anti-Judaism, her acceptance of typical Christian notions concerning the so-called “Old Testament,” her failure to speak out in any way against Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, etc.? If any or all of that is accurate, she’s hardly someone I could ever personally admire, in the way I do ( to name two women often associated with her, despite the very obvious differences) Edith Stein and Etty Hillesum.

  4. her acceptance of typical Christian notions concerning the so-called “Old Testament,”

    Hey Donna, could you elaborate on this? I remember being schooled the first time I studied in a college setting the Pentateuch and other books of Hebrew history and wisdom that when you call ’em the Old Testament, you’re essentially saying they’re nothing but forerunners to Christian revelation, which strips them of a lot of their meaning, historically, religiously, and philosophically. What precisely is the complaint about Weil?

  5. when you call ‘em the Old Testament, you’re essentially saying they’re nothing but forerunners to Christian revelation, which strips them of a lot of their meaning, historically, religiously, and philosophically.

    That’s what “Old” means, after all; that it was superseded by the “New” Testament. It’s not a chronological term! In Weil’s case, from the assertions I read, it was supposedly a lot of angry, vengeful, “Old Testament God” stuff. Not being that familiar with Weil myself, I was interested in the OP’s take.

  6. That’s what “Old” means, after all; that it was superseded by the “New” Testament. It’s not a chronological term! In Weil’s case, from the assertions I read, it was supposedly a lot of angry, vengeful, “Old Testament God” stuff. Not being that familiar with Weil myself, I was interested in the OP’s take.

    Is it wrong to say that the God of the Old Testament/Torah was angry and vengeful? Because from a non-Christian perspective, “psychotic egomaniacal misogynistic bastard” sounds about right. Not that the ‘New Testament’ is tons better, but at least we moved from “kill everyone who doesn’t look like you/rape is mostly wrong if it ruins someone’s marragability” to “try to be nice to people, even women (who aren’t quite as special as men but are still at least human beings.”

    I guess what I’m asking is whether you believe it’s possible to be anti-Judaism (the religion) without being anti-Semitic. Because I generally think theism is poison, and monotheism even more so, but that doesn’t imply prejudice against ethnic Jews.

  7. So we really have to have this argument again? The one that contrasts Christianity favorably with Judaism? The one that thinks Judaism is nothing more than the Hebrew Bible, and that Jews take everything in it literally? The one that basically thinks that Jew = Karaite? The one based on absymal ignorance of Jewish history? You may want to, but I refuse.

  8. I walked away from commenting once because of that goddamn argument, the attempt of Christians to offload the blame for the intense misogyny and violence of their religious history onto Judaism, because I was sick of seeing it. Christian ignorance is not an accurate assessment of Judaism.

  9. Oh, and amblingalong, you may not be Christian, but you write from an intensely Christiancentric perspective, and I’m sick and tired of people like you.

  10. Also, if someone’s antipathy towards Judaism was the reason they never spoke out against Hitler’s persecution of the Jews when they apparently condemned every other persecution on the face of the planet, then it certainly is tied to anti-Semitism.

    But if you can answer the following questions correctly, I’ll let you off the hook.

    1. What book of the Bible contains the statement “You shall love your neighbor as yourself”? Hebrew or Christian?

    2. Where does one find the saying, “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole . . .; the rest is commentary?

    3. 1000 years ago, which religion permitted women to divorce, required repayment to them of what they brought into the marriage, and presumed that mothers would get custody of daughters, and young children in general — Judaism or Christianity?

    4. 900 years ago, the leaders of which religion, Judaism or Christianity, repeatedly and strenuously condemned domestic violence?

    5. In all of the last 2000+ years when Jews had judicial power, whether as a sovereign nation or because they were given that power by the countries they lived in, how many recorded cases were there in which capital punishment imposed and carried out for breaking the commandments in Leviticus or elsewhere?

  11. Trying to return to the topic of Simone Weil. I would also be curious as to the OP’s opinion of the essay about Weil by Jillian Becker, at http://www.streetlevelconsulting.ca/biographies/weil.htm.

    For example, is it true that Weil wrote ““Look, here is evil! … A people chosen for moral blindness, chosen to be the murderers of Christ… . The Jews, this handful of uprooted people, have caused the uprooting of the whole planet”?

    Do you think that the following passage in the essay is a fair characterization of her reaction when she learned that anti-Jewish statutes in Vichy France precluded her from being hired for a government teaching post in Algeria?

    Was this not her opportunity to come out strong? She who had for so long thought of herself as the champion of the oppressed, the comforter of the afflicted, who felt only for them and not for herself and desired so ardently to share in their lot, to bear their anguish with them, was now almost inescapably one of them. She had the words to protest; she had the courage to endure; she had the intellect to perceive, analyze, understand, clarify the issue; and she had the will, a positive ardor, to suffer in the cause of suffering humanity. Compassion was her calling. So what might be expected of her now? At the very least, perhaps just to start with, she could publish a denunciation of the Vichy government and its craven collaboration with the Nazis in their policy of persecution and genocide. Had not the Jews a claim, at least as great as any other oppressed people if not at this moment greater, on those who routinely published protests against oppression and injustice? Now, would-be saint and martyr, now is your hour!

    She did not seize it. She wrote to the government, and, yes, it was a letter of protest. She reasoned with them sharply against what she felt to be an injustice—one inflicted on Professor Simone Weil personally. Not one word did she say about the evil of anti-Semitism, not one word on behalf of the Jews who were being stripped of all they possessed, torn from their families, deported, imprisoned, starved, enslaved, tortured, and massacred. The letter was entirely and exclusively a complaint that the authorities had classed her as a Jew. She argued that to call her Jewish was an unfounded, unreasonable allegation.

  12. I have a comment in moderation attempting to return the focus to Simone Weil herself, rather than amblingalong’s ignorant and offensive comment.

  13. I found this discussion of Simone Weil over at The Guardian from a few years back really helpful.

    I think what I’m taking away from this is that Weil, in her desire to form some kind of universalist theodicy, confronted and could not reconcile with the notion of a chosen people, and so did not embrace or find much in the Torah… even though she did get a lot out of, say, Hinduism, Platonism, and gnosticism. I feel like I would really need to read her and confront the specifics of what she’s arguing to have anything substantive to say on the anti-semitism question.

  14. Alexandra is right. One of Weil’s primary critiques of Judaism was the idea of a “chosen people.” Her belief in the radical equality of all peoples meant there could be no hierarchy or special category for one group over another. As for her letter in the early 1940s protesting new French policy barring Jews from teaching in public schools, I would say this. It was a satirical letter in which she was pointing out the ludicrousness of racial and ethnic profiling using her own case as an example.

    That said, there’s no disputing that her relationship to Jews and Judaism was a complicated one. According to her niece, Simone Weil and her brother grew up not knowing they were Jewish. While this maybe a slight exaggeration, it is an accurate reflection of the degree to which assimilation was the norm for Jews in early 20th century France. Weil grew up in an entirely secular household and was raised in a Catholic country. This does not however entirely explain or excuse her blindness towards the persecution of Jews leading up to and during WWII. Some have theorized that––not dissimilar to her relationship to her gender––she set out to dismantle or reject all that she was (Jewish, female, affluent, intellectual). Ultimately, the compassion she expressed for the oppressed (the unemployed, the working class, those living under French colonial rule) was not expressed towards herself and by extension those whose identity she shared.

    I was very happy that the film was selected by the Washington Jewish Film Festival and the San Francisco Jewish Film Festival, where, interestingly enough, we got our first standing ovation. Post-screening discussions were lively and in some cases combative, but finally there seemed to be a consensus that despite her blind spots, she was a woman worth learning more about.

  15. I walked away from commenting once because of that goddamn argument, the attempt of Christians to offload the blame for the intense misogyny and violence of their religious history onto Judaism, because I was sick of seeing it. Christian ignorance is not an accurate assessment of Judaism.

    Uh, what? I literally said nothing like this. Christianity and Judaism are both pretty misogynistic (hey, Islam, too!). I mean, they’re all empirically false, so arguing about which is ‘best’ is kinda like arguing over whether green dragons or red dragons can fly faster.

    I said nothing about Christian history. I also said nothing about Jewish history. I can’t tell if the post you read is the same post I wrote, because your response is so intensely unrelated to anything I said.

    Oh, and amblingalong, you may not be Christian, but you write from an intensely Christiancentric perspective, and I’m sick and tired of people like you.

    where in my post did you find a critique of the way Judaism is practiced, as compared to Christianity? I mean, yeah, I think that the writings of the ‘New Testament’ are very, very slightly less objectionable than those in the ‘Old Testament,’ if only because I can find more commands to execute gays in the Old Testament. Whatever. I’m sure someone could make an equally compelling argument in favor of the ‘New Testament’ being slightly worse. They’re both fairy tales with plenty of stupid shit in them.

    That is the entire extent of what I said on the subject- I said literally nothing about the relative ethics of Jewish vs. Christian societies, or anything else of the kind. You went somewhere entirely different with your questions.

    So we really have to have this argument again? The one that contrasts Christianity favorably with Judaism? The one that thinks Judaism is nothing more than the Hebrew Bible, and that Jews take everything in it literally? The one that basically thinks that Jew = Karaite? The one based on absymal ignorance of Jewish history? You may want to, but I refuse.

    Of course, not, since I literally did not say a single thing about any of those topics! …did you even read my post?

  16. I have a comment in moderation attempting to return the focus to Simone Weil herself, rather than amblingalong’s ignorant and offensive comment.

    Yeah, this is clearly a case of you reading your own issues into my post, because for fucks sake, we’re discussing two works of fiction. The idea that one may be slightly less fucked-up than the other, despite the fact they’re both totally fucked-up, really is not that radical, especially when coupled with the caveat that a different reading could easily rank them differently.

    You’re the one who decided to read my comment as an attack on Jewish societies. Though, to be fair, the idea of a society defined on religious lines is a pretty awful one, so I guess it is kind of- in the same sense that its an attack on societies that define themselves around Christianity.

  17. Donna and I were responding to this, since you can’t seem to remember your own post:

    Not that the ‘New Testament’ is tons better, but at least we moved from “kill everyone who doesn’t look like you/rape is mostly wrong if it ruins someone’s marragability” to “try to be nice to people, even women (who aren’t quite as special as men but are still at least human beings.”

    Somehow the NT gets nutshelled as “try to be nice to people” and the Torah as “kill everyone who doesn’t look like you,” but you’re claiming that you didn’t promote Christianity at the expense of Judaism? Particularly because, and I can’t believe this is coming up yet again, reducing Jewish thought to the Torah is just inaccurate. The commentary is essential. Our coming-of-age ceremony is public exegesis, for pete’s sake.

  18. Particularly because, and I can’t believe this is coming up yet again, reducing Jewish thought to the Torah is just inaccurate. The commentary is essential. Our coming-of-age ceremony is public exegesis, for pete’s sake.

    Note, again, that I said nothing about Jewish thought vs. Christian thought. You are reading something I never, ever, ever wrote. I said something about the text of the OT vs. NT.

    Specifically, I personally have found slightly more awful shit in the former than the latter, though both have tons and tons and tons of awful shit.

    Somehow the NT gets nutshelled as “try to be nice to people” and the Torah as “kill everyone who doesn’t look like you,” but you’re claiming that you didn’t promote Christianity at the expense of Judaism?

    The first line of my statement: Not that the ‘New Testament’ is tons better

    I mean, if I say “everything on worldnetdaily.com is awfully misogynistic, but this one post about abortion is slightly more misogynistic than average even for such an awful site,” am I promoting all the other posts on worldnetdaily at the expense of the one about abortion?

  19. Honestly, I’m sorry if I gave the impression I thought Christianity was superior to Judaism. Really, I am. Not a faux-apology.

    That said, I don’t think it’s particularly outrageous to say that between fictional works A and B, one contains marginally more objectionable content than the other. I also don’t think that implies an endorsement of either work.

    Finally, the idea of a religious person telling an atheist to educate themselves about religion is so hilarious I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry.

  20. Why is it so hilarious, amblingalong? Religious education (not of the indoctrination kind, mind you) is an important part of the cultural education for all of us. I am very glad that I, a secular person, got a chance to read a great deal of the Hebrew and Christian bible and a big chunk of theology, too (though the school I went to emphasized Christian over Jewish philosophy and theology — never got to read Maimonides, though we did read Spinoza!). There’s a whole lot of fascinating, intelligent exploration of what it means to be human, what justice is, what our duties are to one another, in the religious tradition. Atheists who dismiss this out of hand are, simply, ignorant.

    Finally, dismissing the Torah, Old/New Testament etc as “fiction” is myopic and simplistic, and I’m sure you know better. Ecclesiastes isn’t fiction – it’s beautiful philosophy. Job is an extraordinary exploration of injustice, and is one of the most troubling texts I’ve ever read. The Psalms are poetry, the Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and Judges through Kings is history — it might not be history according to modern standards, but then again, neither was Herodotus’ history, and people don’t dismiss his book as “fiction” either, even with all the inaccuracies.

  21. the idea of a religious person telling an atheist to educate themselves about religion is so hilarious I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry.

    You realize that religions are historical and cultural phenomenons that one can be educated OR ignorant about totally irrespective of whether those religions are “right,” yes? When you spout off about the contents of religious texts while clearly having very little idea what the thousands of pages they contain actually say, then yes, you sound ignorant and should educate yourself if you want to have a serious discussion about those texts.

    Not to mention: there are a lot of people who are very well educated about religion, science, history, and the world generally, and yet still consider themselves religious. I have absolutely no problem with atheists (and I personally identify as agnostic), but you are being an asshole when you ridicule other people’s beliefs. I don’t care if you think you’re right — guess what? all assholes think they’re right! — it’s still unbelievably rude to attack people for their religious or spiritual beliefs when they aren’t pushing them on you or anyone else.

  22. Finally, dismissing the Torah, Old/New Testament etc as “fiction” is myopic and simplistic, and I’m sure you know better. Ecclesiastes isn’t fiction – it’s beautiful philosophy.blockquote>
    There is nothing beautiful about the idea that the only meaning in life comes from (a fictional) God. That idea is actually incredibly damaging.

    Job is an extraordinary exploration of injustice, and is one of the most troubling texts I’ve ever read.

    I’m not sure what you find ‘extraordinary’ about it, aside from the ruthless sadism it ascribes to God.

    The Psalms are poetry, the Song of Solomon is erotic poetry, and Judges through Kings is history — it might not be history according to modern standards, but then again, neither was Herodotus’ history, and people don’t dismiss his book as “fiction” either, even with all the inaccuracies.</

    I mean, yes, I think the bible(s) are fascinating. Really, I do. I just don’t think they’re particularly valuable as anything other than anthropological curiousities.

    you are being an asshole when you ridicule other people’s beliefs.

    Those beliefs are objectively ridiculous.

    it’s still unbelievably rude to attack people for their religious or spiritual beliefs when they aren’t pushing them on you or anyone else.

    Religious people have privilege. That privilege directly oppresses non-religious people. Excuse me if I shed zero tears for religious people who get made fun of once while their entire culture affirms their choice.

    You realize that religions are historical and cultural phenomenons that one can be educated OR ignorant about totally irrespective of whether those religions are “right,” yes? When you spout off about the contents of religious texts while clearly having very little idea what the thousands of pages they contain actually say, then yes, you sound ignorant and should educate yourself if you want to have a serious discussion about those texts.

    Yeah, I’ve read those texts you’re referring to, many, many times. The hilarious part is because the ‘educate yourself’ comment is based in a belief that further education would actually convince said atheist what they’re saying isn’t true.

  24. Particularly because, and I can’t believe this is coming up yet again, reducing Jewish thought to the Torah is just inaccurate. The commentary is essential. Our coming-of-age ceremony is public exegesis, for pete’s sake.

    Note, again, that I said nothing about Jewish thought vs. Christian thought. You are reading something I never, ever, ever wrote. I said something about the text of the OT vs. NT.

    No. What you said, after comparing the alleged merits of what you refer to as the Old Testament (properly, the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh) to the New Testament, was:

    I guess what I’m asking is whether you believe it’s possible to be anti-Judaism (the religion) without being anti-Semitic.

    If that isn’t equating Judaism with the “Old Testament,” I don’t know what it is. Hence my reference to Karaism (I’m sure you don’t even know who the Karaites were); hence my reference to Christiancentrism, one aspect of which is the false notion that Judaism is essentially a “dead” religion, frozen in time as of the compilation of the Hebrew Bible, and completely ignoring the Talmud and nearly two thousand years of commentary on both. You are out of your depth here, and should just stop.

  25. Finally, the idea of a religious person telling an atheist to educate themselves about religion is so hilarious I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry.

    Cos there have never been any atheist Jews…

  26. You are out of your depth here, and should just stop.

    I am anti-Judaism, just as I am anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, anti-religion. If you think that represents bigotry on my part, I honestly think you need to check your privilege.

    1. Oh for Christ’s sake. What is today, “Everyone act like a jackass and derail every thread”?

      BACK ON TOPIC.

      (Hint: The topic is not religious privilege or who one is “anti” this afternoon).

  27. Yeah, I’ve read those texts you’re referring to, many, many times. The hilarious part is because the ‘educate yourself’ comment is based in a belief that further education would actually convince said atheist what they’re saying isn’t true.

    Sometimes, yes. But this time, I think it meant as a, ‘Learn more about Judiasm before you judge its merits on the reading and interpretation of one text – and one often maligned by Christians’. And I have to say, as an atheist, I agree with that. You don’t have to believe. You can still think religion is a crock, and that theism is dangerous and that monotheism is doubly dangerous. But I also think a flat reading of religion is also dangerous. And not acknowledging that certain religions have also been oppressed and continue to face oppression (like Judiasm), and having that also be part of the conversation is also unhelpful.

  28. You cannot simply say that all religious people have privilege over all non-religious people. I would say that, in the US, someone who is an atheist but culturally Christian – which many American atheists are – would in fact have privilege over someone from a variety of religious backgrounds. Are you really going to argue that Richard Dawkins is in a position of relative lack of privilege when compared with a Sikh, a Muslim, a Hindu…?

    And second, you are stating as ABSOLUTE TRUTH that it should be self-evident that religion and study of religious tradition has nothing to offer atheists – a claim which I, as an atheist, vehemently disagree with. It is in part through studying and engaging with religion that I have come to find my own deep moral center. My moral philosophy is not religious and does not neatly map onto any religious tradition I’m familiar with, but engaging with religion deepened my convictions and made me think more critically – not only because it taught me more sharply what I disagreed with in religion (specifically Christianity) but also because it taught me a lot that had never occurred to me before.

  30. Julia, thank you so much for your response to my questions — which were genuine, based on my very limited reading about Weil. And I agree that she sounds like someone worth knowing more about.

    I must admit, though, that I’ve never understood Christian objections to the the “chosen people” concept, given that as most Jews understand it, it means being chosen to set an example to others rather than for any earthly or heavenly reward, whereas Christians generally believe (with differences among different denominations with respect to predestination vs. free will, etc.) that they get to go to heaven and non-Christians all burn in Hell. That’s not being chosen?!

    I also have to say that I very much doubt that Simone Weil and her brother grew up not knowing they were Jewish, given, among other things, that her paternal grandparents seem to have been practicing Jews. (Her father’s family came from Alsace, from villages not far from where some of my own family originates; there are plenty of Weils in my family tree!) Also, it would be a mistake to exaggerate the general degree of assimilation among French Jews around the turn of the 20th century, even those living in Paris, given the intensity of not merely religious but “racial” anti-Semitism at the time in France, even if it wasn’t as great as in Germany. After all, Weil was born only 15 years after the Dreyfus affair. (Alfred Dreyfus was a cousin of my great-grandfather’s. Also, I’ve read quite a bit about French Jewish history in general, to try to come to terms with the fact that my mother’s grandparents, two aunts, and two uncles were confined in French-run concentration camps, and either died there or were deported on French trains to Auschwitz or other fatal destinations like Fort 9 in Kaunas.)

  31. Jill, amblingalong’s comments and the resulting discussion aren’t really quite as off-topic as you seem to think, since he seems to be arguing that if Simone Weil was anti-Judaism, her beliefs were justified. The problem is that he doesn’t know anything about Judaism and isn’t qualified to make that argument.

    I prefer to believe that you’re not suggesting that a discussion of Simone Weil’s beliefs concerning Jews and Judaism, and her failure to speak out about the persecution of the Jews, is “off-topic” to a thread about a documentary film concerning Simone Weil.

    1. I prefer to believe that you’re not suggesting that a discussion of Simone Weil’s beliefs concerning Jews and Judaism, and her failure to speak out about the persecution of the Jews, is “off-topic” to a thread about a documentary film concerning Simone Weil.

      I’m definitely not suggesting that — comments about Weil’s failure to speak out about the persecution of Jews is squarely on-topic. AmblingAlong’s own theories on “religious privilege” of Jews / Muslims / whoever and AA’s own distaste for religious people is not on topic.

  32. Finally, amblingalong, you may think I’m trying to present myself as the Queen of the Jews around here, but please keep in mind that, guess what — I’m an atheist too, most of the time. (On days when I’m not, I’m agnostic.) Yet, I still strongly identify as a Jew. And know enough not to be quite as contemptuous about religious belief and religious texts as you seem to be, even though I’d be willing to bet that my knowledge of the harm done in the name of religion, throughout history, is at least equal to yours.

  33. Jill, amblingalong’s comments and the resulting discussion aren’t really quite as off-topic as you seem to think, since he seems to be arguing that if Simone Weil was anti-Judaism, her beliefs were justified.

    I did not get that from his (?) posts. Weil did not share the same perspective and did not criticize Judaism from a general anti-theistic perspective, but from a deeply religious position. Practically speaking, she rejected Judaism because she believed in a different religion.

    From a Jewish perspective, would not her rejection of the concept of Jewish identity be a bigger issue? (Honest question – I do not share that perspective, but many argue for assimilation being a bad thing, and giving up your separate cultural identity is pretty much the same thing)

  34. While perhaps part of the off topic mess, I still wanted to address the issue of religious privilege.

    You cannot simply say that all religious people have privilege over all non-religious people.

    At least this is not generally true. While it can be argued that it is in the US, the situation in many parts of Europe is quite different with atheism being much more socially accepted.

    I would say that, in the US, someone who is an atheist but culturally Christian – which many American atheists are – would in fact have privilege over someone from a variety of religious backgrounds. Are you really going to argue that Richard Dawkins is in a position of relative lack of privilege when compared with a Sikh, a Muslim, a Hindu…?

    As to the US situation, I disagree.

    Here you are getting into issues of intersectionality, since Dawkins is a high status white man (and also British, btw). Looking only on the privilege granted by the religious position many have a very dim view to the unapologetic atheism that he has become a symbol for.

    To try to isolate the privilege from religion, consider a peer of Dawkins on the other axis of privilege. In other words, a high status established man in academia. In the US, a Jew would have much more privilege than an atheist. It is harder to say with Muslims and Hindus since then you typically get the racial axis as well, but even so you could perhaps compare with for example Deepak Chopra…

  35. Finally, the idea of a religious person telling an atheist to educate themselves about religion is so hilarious I don’t even know whether to laugh or cry.

    Like Donna, and as I have said many, many times, I’m an atheist–except I never have any days on which I am not.

  36. In the US, a Jew would have much more privilege than an atheist.

    People like you and amblingalong keep forgetting that those aren’t mutually-exclusive categories. See # 34 above, as well as EG’s comment. Again, yours is a thoroughly Christian-centric and simplistic viewpoint.

  37. “In the US, a Jew would have much more privilege than an atheist.”

    I think this is extremely context-dependent. The US is a big country and you can’t really compare being an atheist in Cambridge, MA to being an atheist the Bible Belt. And even in religious parts of the country, I don’t buy that atheists have it *worse* than religious minorities. Maybe sometimes. But I grew up in an area where anti-Semitism was still very much a thing. I got mildly picked on as a kid from a secular background, but mostly in the sense of “oh, it’s too bad you were never baptized so you’re going to hell, but you can still play with us.” Not at all comparable to what people from actual religious minorities were subjected to – outright fear and hostility.

  38. In the US, a Jew would have much more privilege than an atheist.

    People like you and amblingalong keep forgetting that those aren’t mutually-exclusive categories.

    I was discussing religion so I though that it was pretty clear, but I meant Jew as in a believer in Judaism and not only as a member of the ethnic/racial group. Is there a good way to differentiate between these two meanings of the word “Jew”? “Observant Jew” would to me seem to imply an above average engagement with the religion, but perhaps it would work?

    @Allison: You are probably right. The US is a huge place, and I can believe that there are places where the dynamics are different. On reflection, I was over generalizing when making it a general claim for the whole of the US. Possibly that was Alexandra’s original point also, and I just misread her.

    I guess I mainly wanted to point out that you can not forget intersectionality when considering the privilege of for example Dawkins, Daniel Dennet, or Sam Harris (to include a couple of US examples). They are successful white men in very privileged positions.

  39. If anyone’s interested in Weil’s family, I can recommend her brother’s autobiography, The Apprenticeship of a Mathematician.

  40. I meant Jew as in a believer in Judaism and not only as a member of the ethnic/racial group.

    Actually, it is entirely possible, and not uncommon, to be simultaneously an atheist and a practicing Jew!

  41. @DonnaL: My question was simply: To specifically talk about the actual believers in the religion Judaism, what is a correct and clear term to use? I honestly do not know the answer and would be interested in your opinion.

  42. My question was simply: To specifically talk about the actual believers in the religion Judaism, what is a correct and clear term to use? I honestly do not know the answer and would be interested in your opinion.

    Jews. Modify with adjective of your choosing.

  43. I just don’t buy that a religious Jewish guy would have more privilege in Academia than an atheist (possibly Jewish) guy in Academia of similar status and other signifiers. My father (and my mother too) spent a lot of time in an academic tradition in the US with a significant Jewish influence and history; we are white, culturally-christian* atheists ourselves. Two of the three of my father’s most significant mentors in his doctoral and post-doctoral work were Jewish; I don’t know if they were practicing or not, as most of them are dead now. Point being, I have never ever ever heard my father talk about being on the short end of the privilege stick, and my father has not been slow to complain about obstacles he’s faced in his academic career!

    I also have spent some time studying in this tradition, and I also fail to see how atheists are disadvantaged in the academy, except perhaps at a number of schools (genuinely religious colleges, overtly conservative colleges, some of the military academies) that are significantly different in their culture than mainline academia.

    I think it’s worth noting that Thomas Jefferson, hundreds of years ago, was able to found the University of Virginia explicitly to combat the perils of a religious education and generally to talk about all the harms done to the republican character of the country by organized religion, but many universities in this country had significantly discriminatory on Jewish students (regardless of belief or practice!) well into the Twentieth century.

    @@@Alison – I got told that too when we were living in Colorado Springs, lol. I also got told that Bill Clinton was going around the countries murdering infants by sticking needles in the soft spots of their skull, which I think was a reference to abortion somehow… all I know is, my first grade class overwhelmingly voted for Bob Dole! Political lies start young…

  44. Yeahno. I was just in on a shockingly ignorant email chain about why it was TOTALLY FINE NO PROBLEMS to schedule big academic events on YK and Rosh.

    Because we can’t accomodate everyone, ya’ll. Your beliefs in the big-sky man are you own problem. And if you’re a Jewish atheist, why are you bothering?

    I swear, one day I’m going to schedule something on Christmas and Easter and just say “What?? Conflicts are unavoidable!”

    Yeah, academia is so not a friendly place to be an observant Jewish persons vs non-practicing.

  45. I think it’s worth noting that Thomas Jefferson, hundreds of years ago, was able to found the University of Virginia explicitly to combat the perils of a religious education and generally to talk about all the harms done to the republican character of the country by organized religion

    History is not teleological. The Enlightenment was a time in which US national policiticians could be Deists and get away with it. Now, I doubt it.

    I’ve known Jews who practice in academia, where I’ve spent over a decade. Their comfort-level seems to depend less on academia and more on where their university is located–the ivory tower is less isolated than we might like to believe. I decided not to attend a large research university for graduate school when, on my campus visit, I sat in on an undergraduate class in which the students were discussing Merchant of Venice, and one young woman raised her hand, started to make a point, and then stopped short and asked “I mean–are there any Jews in the room?”

    “We’re done here,” I thought.

  47. @chava: That sounds pretty bad. I hope that was just some idiots being unaware of the dates and then refusing to admit a mistake. The alternative of people honestly not seeing the problem would just be too depressing.

    (Btw: Wouldn’t Easter scheduling conflict with Passover?)

  48. Hi – delurking after 5 years as I’m a philosophy student interested in Weil’s ideas, though I’ve never read her properly! Thank you for the OP and for the links, which I will follow up.

    It’s disappointing to hear about the anti-Semitic strain in her thinking, certainly.

    I’m interested in Weil’s emphasis on “attention”, and how this links with her activism having a “feminine” nature. Weil was a big influence on Iris Murdoch, who argued that understanding others and viewing the world correctly was a major (and neglected) part of being ethical (compared to just acting correctly); this then feeds through to later philosophers like Bernard Williams, Charles Taylor, feminist moral epistemology (e.g. Margaret Olivia Little), John McDowell, Jonathan Dancy…I’m guessing Martha Nussbaum too (who I’ve not read but who talks about love and knowledge). Many mainstream philosophers might not therefore realise how much influence she has ulimately had.

    The idea of attending to another and truly seeing who they are is quite appealing to me, especially as there seems something quite self-centred about the “autonomous rational action” school of thought in ethics (which then feeds through into politics and economics). But the problem is, if “being good” is about overcoming oneself to recognise others, what prevents the kind of extreme self-sacrifice that the OP describes? Is it a problem at all?

    Here’s one problem I had reading Murdoch (which maybe points to a solution): if I don’t see the value in myself, doesn’t that undermine seeing value in others? So if I can direct the same kind of “selfless love” at myself that I (presumably) should at others, then maybe that doesn’t count as selfishness, i.e. the kind of immediate self-promoting attitude I might have had before I learned to understand others. And so then maybe there’s a way of standing up for my own dignity, autonomy, independence etc which is *not* about just promoting my self-interest, i.e. by turning the same kind of attentive eyes on myself as I do on others.

    I wonder if that would open up a route between Weil’s position and “identity politics”.

  49. Thank you for the Guardian link Alexandra!

    I see I’ve missed the UK screenings of the film itself, but I’ve signed up to the mailing list in case it returns…

  50. PS I realise when I said “mainstream philosophy” I should have said “mainstream Anglo-American analytic philosophy”. OK, relurking…

  51. “Observant Jew” would to me seem to imply an above average engagement with the religion, but perhaps it would work?

    I can tell you that, as a moderately observant Jew (I’ll eat in some non-kosher restaurants, I don’t fully cover my hair, I wear pants, etc.) you stand out much more for moderate observance levels than a Christian.

    I am also in academia, and I can tell you that I stand out like a sore thumb, far more than the atheists in my field.

    Being even moderately observant means that it’s very difficult for me to “pass.” I have to answer lots of questions about why I don’t answer e-mail on Saturday or why I’m always getting salads (because I’m fat and on a diet, natch) or why I’m gone every other day in the month of October.

    Because I’m a religious Jew, people feel the right to question me about my beliefs and practices, even when it’s incredibly inappropriate. And I feel the need to answer, because if I don’t, then I’m being a secretive Jew. And I worry about how people see me, because in many cases, I’m the only Jew they know. Definitely the only practicing Jew they know.

    So I have a hard time believing that an atheist has less privilege in that context.

    Not that things are really that bad. My school marked the first day of class on YK, but then they sent out a big “oops” e-mail and changed it. Oops, indeed. =P

    1. Do people assume you are conservative too? Because that happens to my moderately observant Muslim friends, and especially the guys. People assume they are more socially conservative than comparatively religious Christians. That assumption is even crazier because some of the people who have made it know that I’m gay and and yet they assumed that some of my good friends where very conservative.

      1. I haven’t really gotten that, because in pretty much all the environments that I’ve lived in, being liberal is very much the majority, even among religious folks. But I have gotten assumptions that I’ll be super judgy towards or try to convert people. As if. =P

  52. And I worry about how people see me, because in many cases, I’m the only Jew they know. Definitely the only practicing Jew they know.

    That just makes me realize how fortunate I’ve been to have lived in the Northeast USA my entire life. Because even though I’m *not* observant, it’s very difficult for me to imagine growing up and living where that’s possible. I wonder sometimes whether, if I’d grown up in that kind of setting, I would have any internalized self-doubts about being Jewish remotely resembling those I still have, even now, about being trans. I do think it’s safe to say that the converse is true — that I would have been a lot better off growing up somewhere where half the people I knew were trans! Unfortunately, there is no such place.

  53. I get very twitchy when people want terminology to separate out religious vs non-religious Jews. The whole “Torah True” rhetoric has just become too common and an excuse to exclude those who do not fit a very narrow definition of Jewish.

    Matlun–

    Observant Jew is a good term, but it doesn’t indicate squat about belief. I’m more observant than EG and less so than Shoshie, but don’t think of myself as particularly religious. Practice is not necessarily or even often tied up with what Christians think of as religious belief/theism.

    1. Yeah, I totally agree about the whole “Torah True” thing. Blarg. I certainly wasn’t trying to set up a dichotomy or anything. I consider anyone who sees themselves as observant Jews to be observant Jews, and I’m ALL about observance not being on a continuum between Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, whathaveyou.

      Also, word on the belief thing. Jews don’t tend to do a lot of talking about God, at least in my experience. At least in my circles, your personal beliefs in God are just that: personal. I think it’s because we have so many rules to argue about, and that’s way more fun.

Comments are currently closed.