User Profile

Good: the structure (a life in five ideas) makes sense and is easy to follow. Bad: the biographer makes himself way too visible. I do not care about his judgments on the practicability of Weil's ideas, even less about his strange downplaying of French and British colonialism, and less still about his bizarre asides about Donald Trump or smartphones. Those are the worst! Did his editor tell him he can only write about Weil if he ties her to contemporary issues somehow? It's so bad.

Simone Weil is a great figure to write a biography about. I think less of her now, than I did before reading this. My commie brain is telling me that she was just a bourgeois reactionary who only got more openly right-wing with age. In a way, she was the traditional stereotype of what commies imagine all anarchists are like. Fortunately I don't just think with my commie brain and am able to see her as a complex and nuanced figure. I do feel like many intellectuals are probably sympathetic to Weil out of class solidarity. They regard her as a uniquely strong willed and uncompromising figure because she was also a bourgeois intellectual, and disregard all the other militants who have done far better work than her while leading lives just as raw and uncompromising - if not more so, since she could, and did, always go back to her rich parents after any of her failed life experiments (e.g. trying to work in a factory or to fight in the Spanish civil war). But I've been following this train of thought while reading and have decided to not come down too harshly on Weil for being, well, privileged. That would be a simplistic lens to view her life through.

This book made me want to learn more about other militant figures of Weil's time.

Had a hard time for the first few chapters because I was on my guard on whether or not I was reading Mao apologia - but the more I got into the book, the more I understood the author's points and was able to follow his way of thinking. From then on, this felt like a necessary corrective approach to the field of sinology. The book is written for academics and that's fine. It's still fairly engaging, with exceptions. The last chapter is exceptionally hard to understand, it's too heavy with Marxist theory for my tiny brain. The chapter about the death count of the Great Leap Forward started off like something I would hate (it just feels like the "holocaust denier" kind of argument about numbers not adding up), but somehow managed to make an excellent point about the disregard for Chinese lives that Sinologists show in handling the history of the GLF. This book confronted me with my own unconscious racisms and essentialisms. It made me aware of some rotten things in sinology. I hope to reread the last chapter once I have a more solid grasp on Marxist concepts. I guess maybe I should read Said's Orientalism too, since it is the framework that this book is based on. Maybe someday. I also think it's interesting that the author isn't a Sinologist but actually considers his external perspective to be an epistemological strength. After all the book is mostly about epistemology (it does have "knowledge production" in the subtitle) and I find that very interesting.

For the shortness of this text, it gave me so much to think about. It is a very dense text in this way. Roughly, the first half of the book is about antisemites and the second half about Jews. Just from the implications of the fact that it was written, this text gives us a glimpse into the discourse around Jews in 1946 France. It is hard to believe how normalized open antisemitism still was in post WW2 France. Seeing that Sartre feels the need to argue for the basic rights and existence of Jewish people is honestly kind of horrifying. The Overton window must have been really bad back then. About the analysis itself: the description of "the antisemite" seems extremely specific, maybe too specific. Maybe Sartre is describing a type of guy that only existed in his specific time and place. Or maybe he is mixing personal distaste (understandable!) into his analysis and thereby missing the core of antisemitism: he isn't describing an ideology, but a character flaw. But maybe that is his point. Some of his analysis of antisemitism seems applicable to all prejudices against minorities, like the disgust, fear, sexualization, etc. Other parts seem specific to antisemitism, like the conflation of Jewishness with the abstract and universal, and identification of the antisemite with a mystical heritage from which property derives. One interesting feature of the text is that it barely mentions Jewish culture at all. One of his main points is that Jewishness is produced by the antisemite. Jewishness is only defined negatively. I guess the reason why this stands out to me now, is that between Sartre and me lie decades of identity politics. I guess one thought differently about identity, group identity, minority identity in the 1940s. This was a really interesting insight for me, however trivial it may be for others. This in turn makes me think of second wave feminism and how the second wave understanding of the social construction of woman follows the exact same model. It makes sense considering de Beauvoir's influence. Fascinating stuff.

I have strayed from the topic of this review, but this just goes to show how many new thoughts and connections this text gave me. I would really like to know, though, whether back when it came out there was any criticism from the Jewish community about his downplaying of Jewish culture and the existence of positive Jewish community. I imagine there must have been?