In the last day or two in Paris I started reading Edmund White's La Flâneur, a copy I picked up at the Red Cross book sale and had no idea I would be reading in Paris a few years later. I finished it on the plane. White says a number of things that I am mulling over, particularly as I compare my experiences in Paris with my life in the U.S. (I'm really trying to understand why I felt so much at home in Paris; I expected to enjoy it there, but I didn't really expect to feel so comfortable right off the bat.) One thing that struck me in particular this morning is a point he made about identity politics. This was in the context of a discussion about why France was so slow in the 1980s to recognize the seriousness of AIDS and to begin educating the public to slow the spread of the disease. He associates this phenomenon with the absence of a recognized gay activist community and goes on to talk about the French attitude toward interest groups in general.
The French themselves would argue that their rejection of all ghettoization, far from being a sign of closetedness or cynicism, is in fact consistent with their 'singularity' as a nation. The French believe that a society is not a federation of special interest groups but rather an impartial state that treats each citizen—regardless of his or her gender, sexual orientation religion or colour— as an abstract, universal individual. For the French any subgroup of citizens is a diminishment of human equality.He goes on to point out that the only problem with this attitude is that the rights of particular groups are not always defended. It's a good point, particularly in context, but I think I can still see things to admire in the French viewpoint as he portrays it. For all my interest in women in science, for example, when I was studying astrophysics I didn't like being seen as a woman scientist. The label seemed to imply that it was somehow important to note that I was a woman, whereas in my view a scientist is a scientist, and the useful labels are things like "botanist' or "astronomer" and adjectives like "theoretical" and "experimental" (perhaps nationalities are useful labels if particular countries or locations are known for working in a specific area?). (Roughly the same idea applies to the labels "woman writer" or "woman blogger.")
I can see the need for people (men and women both) to encourage not just women but other underrepresented groups to consider a career in science if they're interested in it, which I suppose is a form of community action, but I've always been leery of identifying myself as a female anything. What I really needed when I started back to school at 23 to study science was financial aid directed toward returning students with children and advice and help for those coming to astrophysics poorly prepared in high school; women are not the only ones who need these things. Are women scientist interest groups the best way to get this kind of support for women? It's arguable, but I don't really think it's the only way. (Also, you have only to look at the history of feminism to realize that just because people are women and interested in women's rights doesn't mean they all agree on a common identity or platform. I think it says a lot that many people hesitate to use the word "feminist" to describe themselves, or they say, "I'm a feminist but...". Is there a way to rally together for common causes without falling prey to stereotypical images, often derogatory, that most definitely do not do justice to the complexity of human individuals?)
I'm not sure how applicable any of this is to White's argument about HIV/AIDS education and prevention, or to the French attitude toward identity politics, but what he said struck a nerve with me, and here I sit in Helsinki with some time to write. I'm muddle-headed from the dramamine and not sure this will make any sense to me tomorrow, but what the hey. You can all tell me what you think anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment