Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Transnational
Domesticity and
Femininity
After the Empire:
The Francophone World and
Postcolonial France
Series Editor
Valérie Orlando, University of Maryland
Advisory Board
Robert Bernasconi, Memphis University; Alec Hargreaves,
Florida State University; Chima Korieh, Rowan University;
Mildred Mortimer, University of Colorado, Boulder;
Obioma Nnaemeka, Indiana University; Kamal Salhi,
University of Leeds; Tracy D. Sharpley-Whiting, Vanderbilt
University; Nwachukwu Frank Ukadike, Tulane University
History’s Place: Nostalgia and the City in French Algerian Literature, by Seth
Graebner
STACEY WEBER-FÈVE
LEXINGTON BOOKS
A division of
ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.
Lanham • Boulder • New York • Toronto • Plymouth, UK
Published by Lexington Books
A division of Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
A wholly owned subsidiary of The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc.
4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706
http://www.lexingtonbooks.com
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or
mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission
from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review.
Excerpts from The Woman Destroyed by Simone de Beauvoir, translation copyright © 1969 by
Collins Publishers, and G.P. Putnam’s Sons. Used by permission of Pantheon Books, a division of
Random House, Inc.
Annie Ernaux, excerpts from A Frozen Woman, translated by Linda Coverdale. Translation
copyright © 1995 by Seven Stories Press. Reprinted with the permission of Seven Stories Press,
www.sevenstories.com.
Excerpts in the first half of chapter 2 are reproduced from Annie Ernaux, La femme gelée, ©
Éditions Gallimard, 1981, all rights reserved.
Excerpts in the second half of chapter 2 are reproduced from Simone de Beauvoir,
La femme rompue, © Éditions Gallimard, 1967, all rights reserved.
⬁ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National
Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI/
NISO Z39.48-1992.
For my mother and father, who gave my sister and me our allowances “just for
breathing.”
Acknowledgments xi
Introduction: Interrogating and Re-hybridizing the Personal xiii
Conclusion 207
Bibliography 215
Index 233
About the Author 239
ix
Acknowledgments
xi
xii A C K N O WLEDG MENTS
This study examines the problematic location of home, the traditional female
activity of homemaking, and representation of female subjectivity in contem-
porary cinematic, (auto)biographical, and fictional texts by several prominent
contemporary French and Francophone women artists. The women artists
(filmmakers, authors, and screenplay writers) in this study question the no-
tion of home as a female interior space in which protagonists traditionally
become objects or accessories. They bring to the fore multiple representations
of contemporary French, Algerian, and Tunisian femininity. In their texts,
the artists foreground domestic space, female housekeeping activities, and
women’s ideological roles in order to (re)appropriate the normative gender
discourses of their homelands. They accomplish these goals by revealing how
the home within each society functions, often subversively, as a space of
socio-political-historical contention and a complex framework for identity
and subjectivity construction.
I take as my point of departure in this study the notion of the transna-
tional; but in following Shohat and Stam’s approach, I also wish to postco-
lonialize as well as feminize and domesticize this notion. In the same spirit as
Shohat and Stam, I likewise strive to shape a conceptual space in this book
that questions any single theory or theoretical approach by echoing their
call to see the practice of theorization itself as grounded within implicated
historical, geographical, socio-political, and gendered contexts (2003: 1). By
bringing together a few primary tenets of critical inquiry from postcolonial-
ism, feminism, and domesticity in this book, I argue that these theoretical
frameworks must be considered in relation to one another and suggest the
xiii
xiv I N T R O D U C TION
The first-person films and lifewriting narratives included in this book capture
the inter- and intra-national natures of media and their messages as well as
exoticize and otherize French and North African cultures and diversify and
multiply so-called national or hegemonic points of identification.
Film, literary, and cultural studies research has seen since the turn of the
millennium an intensification of academic interest in issues concerning na-
tion, race, gender, sexuality, and other axes of identity. Once believed in the
past to be objects of separate and specialized disciplines, the study of different
visual and written systems of representation today elicits many overlapping
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xv
“realism.” They assert that these false claims are always fraught with power
relations and imbued with a priori frameworks that regulate and govern the
relationship of seeing and knowing. The artists in this study are interested in
exploring how the process of uncovering or articulating new identities and
subjectivities ushers in new ways of seeing, knowing, and being. Their works
illustrate an interactive process in which meaning is always in production and
a state of transition, dependent on the spectator or reader who must decode
or interpret and assign the new identities and subject positions and construct
the new ways of seeing, knowing, and being. Their work supports the notion
that written and visual inscriptions cannot be predetermined nor narrowly
prescribed. My hope in this book is to bring together all of these postcolonial,
feminist, and domesticity concerns and practices under the same transna-
tional umbrella and to discuss them in relation to one another.
Shohat and Stam remind us that, “Communities, societies, nations, and
even entire continents exist not autonomously but in a densely woven web
of connectedness, within a complex and multivalent relationality” (2003: 1).
In following their lead, I too take a relational approach in this book by cross-
ing borders between geographies, communities, practices, and disciplines.
I bring together France, Algeria, and Tunisia not because of their shared
historical colonial past—Algeria and Tunisia are two former colonies of the
French Empire—but because of their shared contemporary transnational,
linguistic, and transcultural heritages. Their cultures, languages, cuisines,
religions, economies, politics, and art have overlapped, melded, clashed with,
and complemented one another for more than a century. Mostly though, as
I will show, I bring together France, Algeria, and Tunisia in this study be-
cause many French, Algerian, and Tunisian artists share common artistic and
aesthetic aspirations and points of reference; albeit the kinds of socio-cultural
perspectives and motifs and individual tropes, devices, and specificities in
their work vary widely.
The French, Algerian, and Tunisian women artists and their protagonists
included in this study are all engaged in the common pursuit of challenging
traditional stereotypical, limited, and exclusive ways of seeing women within
and outside the borders of their respective societies and cultures in which the
women’s race or ethnicity, social class or level of education, and sexuality or
sexual activity conform to monolithic or hegemonic ideals of their respec-
tive societies and cultures. These women artists work from within as well as
beyond their so-called national systems of visual and written representation
to open up new ways of seeing, knowing, and being. At times, they adopt
an Orientalist paradigm in their pursuit (e.g., seeing North African women
through the French-European gaze). Other times, they reverse this paradigm
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xvii
(Strehle, 2008: 1).6 Home reflects and resembles “nation”: it expresses the
same ideological pressures that contend within the nation and does not serve
as a retreat from the public and political spheres.7 As such, the home cannot
be viewed as women’s space, but rather as a space designated—and perhaps
deliberately designed—to teach, form, and shape women to enact their impe-
rial function of (re)constructing the homeland.
In this sense, the home is a receiver of public languages and values, a
location in which national, global, and/or hegemonic discourses speak and re-
produce themselves through magazines, newspapers, television, radio, books,
how-to manuals, the Internet, and so on. Moreover, many contend that
nation, world, and/or hegemony speak in the privacy of the home through
the traditions and practices related to the imperial mission of engendering
legitimate, obedient, civilized children.8 In Strehle’s words, “Far from being
a ‘separate sphere’ of insulated privacy, home has permeable walls and a vital
function in the nation, which explains why it is vigorously defended as a pub-
lic good” (2008: 2). Thus, many scholars advocate a transnational approach
to the reading of seemingly “local” and “domestic” texts that illuminate struc-
tures overlapping home and elsewhere.
The women artists in this project reflect a variety of specific cultural
locations and individual positions inside and/or outside the home/land and
all are aware of either a colonial legacy of domesticity or an imperial ideology
of home and its associated values. I explore these women’s representations
of first-person domestic experience in their texts in relation to public and
national discourses or social and personal crises. I am concerned with how
these domestic experiences, performances, and relationalities inflect identity
and understandings of self and gender.
Regarding the theorization of self and gender, many feminist scholars
focus on the impact that domestic space, architecture, and geography have
on female identity. Along this vein of critical investigation, very recent ex-
aminations of the home have begun focusing on how everyday relationships
with our homes are bound up with sensory perception and metaphor.9 These
approaches seek to understand how “people’s experiences and understandings
of, engagements with and metaphoric references to the aural, tactile, olfactory
and visual elements of their homes” figure into theories of gender performa-
tivity and agency (Pink, 2004: 10). Many argue that housework and forms
of home creativity (a term which refers to home decoration or the creation of
mood or atmosphere, such as controlling the lighting, burning candles, play-
ing music, etc.) can be seen as conscious or subconscious subjective actions
through which individuals engage with the sensory environments of their
homes. In turn, these subjective actions may be read as gender constructing
xxii I NT R O D U C TION
agents in both cultural and social practice.10 Yet researchers caution that these
gender-constructing agents must be read and understood within a context of
difference, for domestic practices and spaces have different social meanings
in different cultural and economic contexts. Sarah Pink explains that “dif-
ferent practices and relationships to the material and ‘natural’ components
of ‘home’ are embedded in specific sets of values and beliefs and long-term
historical processes” (2004: 13). In this study, we will see how these women
artists engage differently with the location of home and with varying prac-
tices and politics of domesticity in their common vision of challenging and
(re)appropriating these “specific sets of values and beliefs” and “long-term
historical processes.”
As one commonly finds in the genres of first-person cinema and life-
writing, the cinematic and literary backdrops of the primary texts in this
study, the home often figures as a site of personal, social, racial, ethnic,
linguistic, political, sexual, and historical struggles. The women artists I
examine in this study all seem to concur that one may no longer regard the
home un-problematically as a geographical location or source of identity,
memory, and the personal. In each account, home is unsettled as the protago-
nists realize that it was or still is “an illusion of coherence and safety based on
the exclusion of specific histories of oppression and resistance, the repression
of difference even within oneself” (Martin & Mohanty, 1986: 196).11 This re-
alization manifests an important point of departure in analyzing the primary
texts included in this study.
colonized peoples (i.e., the desire to mimic the colonizer) and call to return
to a pre-colonial past, and Michel Foucault’s notions of discourse and the
power/knowledge nexus (i.e., discourse has social materiality and efficacy and
is always imbricated with power, emerging from everywhere). Although these
scholars and their thinking have been much challenged and expounded upon
in postcolonial discourse theory, their work opened up the dialogic process
in which scholars—coming from many points of view—sought to expose the
linking of Western knowledge with oppression (i.e., imperialism/colonialism)
and to re-think the very way in which knowledge has been constructed.12
European enlightenment thinking of the eighteenth century had closely
aligned the terms democracy, nationalism, and citizen-subject and under-
stood them as interrelated on a one-to-one basis. With the fall or decline of
the French and British Empires in the twentieth century, scholars en masse
began to perceive the relationship between these terms—especially with re-
gard to citizen-subject and the nation-state—as far too narrow and limiting,
suggesting a homogeneity that did not and does not exist. Scholars began to
question and critique the historicism of the West, which posited Europe as its
theoretical subject, and started to investigate history in an anti-chronological
manner along three syncretic key concepts: precolonialism, colonialism, and
postcolonialism. Yet, postcolonial discourse theory is not a single theory
or approach but rather an amalgam of theories and approaches, a dialogic
process of re-thinking knowledge and the construction of that knowledge.
Within postcolonial studies, terms like ambivalence, hybridity, and the third
space of negotiation become widely applied tools facilitating and effecting the
re-thinking of knowledge and its construction. These interdisciplinary tropes
are much debated in postcolonial discourse theory and are far-reaching and
widespread, with profound implications in other disciplines and discourses.
Ambivalence, hybridity, and the third space of negotiation (also some-
times called an “in-betweeness”) are important terms most often utilized
when analyzing and theorizing the location and construction of the post-
colonial subject, a prime preoccupation in the field of postcolonial studies.
One of the primary assertions with regard to the postcolonial subject in the
field of postcolonial studies is the notion that the postcolonial subject is hy-
brid; that is, that s/he occupies a space in-between two cultures.13 Hybridity
illustrates an important practice in postcolonial studies: the avoidance of
binaries or pairings of oppositions such as self/other, center/margin, speak-
ing subject/silent native and so on, since such binary terms of opposition
are hierarchically constructed and based on ontological notions of subjec-
tivity common to Western thinking. Unlike binary terms of opposition,
this hybridity or in-betweeness directly illustrates the contradictions and
xxiv I NT R O DU C TION
This style of filmmaking and writing seemingly engenders the artist’s personal
vision and intrinsically underlines the processes involved in remembering—
notably the dispersing of the unified subject in order to suture together the
fragmented bits of his/her past into a cohesive fictional narrative of experi-
ence.
Thus, the hybrid postcolonial subject, as seen through the lens of the in-
terrogation of the personal in this book, is well situated in history, class, gen-
der, and “nation.” However, as I will argue, the emphasis here is on changing
notions of history, class, gender, and “nation” and their long-standing ideolo-
gies. Although marginalized within their respective societies, the protagonists
examined in this study are neither restrictively described as nor necessarily
seen as the mouthpiece for an anonymous subaltern group. Rather, they are
personalized and individualized (this is to say re-hybridized) in different and
diverse ways. The women artists included in this study are careful not to
speak for the women of the communities or social groups they put into rep-
resentation in their narratives, since doing so runs the risk of re-appropriating
colonial practices and power relations and reinstating colonial dichotomies
and identities. Instead, the artists speak with the voices of the women they
bring to life in their narratives.
Furthermore, the artists multiply and diversify these female voices and the
representations of the female bodies and female activities of the owners of these
voices so as to show the very fluid, permeable, and shifting natures of the in-
terminable processes of identity formation and gender construction. Thereby,
the hybrid postcolonial subject no longer remains strictly either a diasporic
intellectual elite or a subaltern collectivity of anonymous voices in unison or
in tandem. The hybrid postcolonial subject, through the lens of the inter-
rogation of the personal, becomes a polyphony of personalized and dispersed
individual voices that share a common origin or source and that individually
expose, resist, and challenge the contradicting and ambivalent discourses in
which they are implicated. Moreover, the re-hybridized postcolonial subject
xxvi I NT R O DU C TION
generally looks more to the present and future as opposed to the past. These
are important postulations to which we will often return in this book.
forgiving) the mother—a victim herself who unknowingly molded her daugh-
ter into a replicated social and historical subject—in the daughter’s attempt
to find her unique and separate or shared and symbiotic identity. In Regard
interdit, son coupé, Djebar diverges from her contemporaries through her em-
phasis on pushing the filial question one step further. By accepting that the
daughter’s social and cultural (and even personal) identities may stem from
her mother, Djebar extends this issue to include the questions of memory
and the remembering of H/history. For Djebar, women’s representations do
not culminate solely in the (re)appropriation of social, cultural, or individual
female identity. Rather, women’s representations also serve as her means to
(re)appropriate History and to (re)construct the history and memory of the
individual, the community, a people, or a republic or nation.
Both identity and memory are effected and affected by language, a
critical argument often raised in both feminist and psychoanalytic theory.
Djebar’s postcolonial and diasporic subjectivity grants her a more immediate
(and thus privileged) hybrid vantage point in her theorizations of identity
and memory than are readily witnessed in many Eurocentric theoretical dis-
courses, particularly those that concern women’s representation. In what is
now a commonplace and almost trite comparison in postcolonial discourse
theory, but certainly true in Djebar’s early writings, the mother has come to
symbolize a land, a nation, a community, a génétrice. Yet in today’s examina-
tions of globalized, multilingual, multifarious, multi-sited, and multicultural
transnational and diasporic subjects, Djebar’s maternal-filial dialogic ex-
changes (voice) and filial observations (gaze) of the mother and her home-
making activities serve as site and source of women’s symbiotic identity and
her (re)location in History, home, and socio-political discourse. This is one
of the principal tropes I examine in the personal cinematic and lifewriting
narratives I treat in this study.
The primary line of critical inquiry in feminist film studies centers on the
trope and language of desire. For many scholars, women’s filmmaking is not
simply a matter of “learning to speak a new language, nor of displaying new
cinematic strategies, but is a desiring process itself that emerges from a locus
of difference” (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996: 3).17 These scholars have sought to
reexamine earlier notions of female experience and identity in an effort to
understand how notions of lived experience are socially constructed and fully
implicated in structures of desire, whether hegemonic or marginal.18 In this
xxviii I NT R O DU C TION
study, this trope of desire aids in the examination of the homes in the primary
texts as domestic sites that are socially constructed and fully implicated in
hegemonic constructs that restrict and suppress female desire, but which can
also be later subversively deconstructed (like the “third space”) and recon-
structed by female desire through re-hybridized female-speaking subjects.
Aided by psychoanalysis, a second line of critical inquiry developed in
feminist film theory that focused on desire as created by the gaze. In this
second wave of feminist film criticism, film scholars began to see the cinema
as a “fantasmatic production which mobilizes primary processes in the circu-
lation of desire” (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996: 11). Feminist film scholar Laura
Mulvey has famously asserted that the cinema (à la Hollywood) manifests an
erotic, voyeuristic activity, offered to the male spectator who holds the gaze,
in which the woman-image exists precisely to be looked at and to be desired.
In contrast, many women and European filmmakers developed alternative
cinematic models in an effort to develop a counter-discourse—either at the
margins or from within the center of the structure—purporting “to transcend
distinctions of period and genre” (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996: 11). These coun-
ter-discourses emerged as early as the 1920s by Germaine Dulac, were contin-
ued through the 1930s by Marie Epstein, were carried throughout the 1950s
to the early twenty-first century by Agnès Varda, and are ever-present in the
modern-day contemporary women filmmakers examined in this study.
Closely connected to this second line of inquiry, enunciative apparatus
theory opens a third line of critical inquiry. Within the context of psycho-
analytic film theory: “the woman is the pivotal figure which allows the entire
machine to operate” (Flitterman-Lewis, 1996: 11). This theory draws heavily
on the notion of scopophilia and the pleasure created by the voyeuristic film-
viewing experience as well as on the notion of fantasy functioning “to acti-
vate a process of slippage between the subconscious desires of the filmmaker
performed on the screen and that of the viewer who is made susceptible to
having his or her own fantasies interact with these generated by the film”
(Flitterman-Lewis, 1996: 11). When applied specifically to cinema studies,
enunciation involves the technical and the narrational techniques (or the
so-named enunciative apparatus) employed by the director to render his/her
imagined film text coherent to the spectator. However, the enunciative ap-
paratus engenders a reciprocal process in which the screen image must appear
as the spectator’s own in order for the slippage to be maintained. In relation
to women’s cinema as a counter-cinema, women filmmakers began chal-
lenging and (re)appropriating in a different way the traditionally patriarchal
enunciative apparatus to their purposes in presenting their texts from their
own perspectives.
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xxix
to women’s positioning as object of the male gaze in both film and literature
(or even History), women’s subjectivity is multiple and hybrid and firmly
situated inside a “contact zone” of contradiction, ambivalence, and paradox.
Finally, lifewriting scholars of heteroglossic dialogism, or the “multiplic-
ity of tongues” through which subjectivity is enunciated, seek to explore the
interfaces of orality and writing. In this view, the spaces or “margins” be-
tween languages manifest sites of interdiscursivity and contest the notion that
self-narration is a monologic utterance of a solitary, introspective subject.24
This view emphasizes the role of language in positioning speakers and their
discourses at an intersection of multiple socio-historical-political positions
and operative cultural values. This is to say that, in this view of heteroglossic
dialogism, textual subjectivity stems from a socio-political-historical con-
text in which several oppositional or alternative meanings could have been
derived. Consequently, the extra-textual subjectivities are thus realized via
the relationships of divergence or convergence that they share with those
alternative meanings. Scholars of lifewriting who employ a heteroglossic
dialogic optic when examining a first-person narrative most often underline
the text’s interlocutory or dialogic character. They find that this character
reflects “not only a relationship with the ‘other(s),’ but an internal dialogue
with the plural aspects of self that constitute the matrix of [marginal] female
subjectivity” (Henderson, 1998: 344). This internal dialogue with the aspects
of “otherness” within the self implies a relationship of difference and iden-
tification with the “other(s).”25 We will see in the chapters that follow how,
like the enunciative apparatus, this heteroglossic dialogism engenders a sub-
jectivity that slips between multiple socio-political-historical discourses and
the author’s, the protagonist’s, and the reader’s desires while paradoxically
still managing to root itself in time and history and push to the surface new
or revised ideologies. For all of the primary texts included in this study, the
home and domestic acts provide important jumping off points from which
subjectivity slippage and new ideological prospects may occur.
Transnational Umbrella as
Overarching Framework
I have underscored thus far in this introductory chapter a number of critical
tenets in the theoretical approaches of domesticity, postcolonial discourse
theory, and feminist film and literary theory. In each instance, these interdis-
ciplinary tenets work to flesh out the Self/Other relationship(s) much debated
xxxii I N T R O DU C TION
in contemporary academic investigation and are all crucial to this study. From
domesticity we saw three important postulations: the home as the original site
of nationalism and a space of return and of consolidation of the Self enabled
by encounters with the Other; how the sensory perception of the home and
home creativity may be read as gender constructing agents of the Self; and
how the location of home and the politics of domesticity have the potential
to challenge and (re)appropriate specific sets of cultural values and belief
systems and long-term historical processes. In postcolonial discourse theory,
we understand that Western knowledge (or the Self) cannot fix the Other in
predetermined sets of characteristics, categories of identity, or subjectivities
or subject (or object) positions and that identity (or the Self) is unstable;
changes through time, location, and encounters; has many facets; and is in-
herently hybrid, ambivalent, and contradictory. From feminist studies, as we
just saw, we underline the enunciative apparatus and heteroglossic dialogism
that engender a subjectivity (or the Self) that slips between multiple socio-
political-historical discourses and desires while still managing paradoxically to
root itself in contemporary time and history and push to the surface various
Others and new or revised ideologies. The Self/Other divide proves an equally
critical tenet to transnationalism; where diaspora, borders, globalization, and
the politics of location figure largely in this divide.
It is perhaps more befitting to discuss transnationalism as an interdis-
ciplinary academic field or critical optic than as an institutionalized school
of critical theory, per se. Rather like postcolonial studies in some regard,
transnational studies is also not a single theory but an amalgam of many in-
terdisciplinary theories and theoretical positions. It, too, is a dialogic process
of re-thinking knowledge and discourse and the construction of that knowl-
edge and discourse. Transnational studies brings together history, sociology,
economics, literature, cinema, art, popular culture, and mass media. Scholars
working in this tradition explore issues like migration, immigration, citizen-
ship, nationalism, marginality, diaspora or displacement, borders and border
crossing, representation, transculturation, ethnography, consumerism, and
politics of location in the primary texts they analyze. In scholarly practice,
the term transnational is often used to qualify tropes and perspectives like:
“transnational spaces,” “transnational identities,” “transnational subjectivity,”
and so on. Transnational studies has amassed more scholarship in the fields
of cinema and mass media studies as well as in other areas of visual culture,
especially architecture, than necessarily in traditional literary studies. Yet
transnational studies has significant implications for the field of literature,
especially with regard to lifewriting narratives of migrant and immigrant or
“other” so-called marginal communities and “minor” literatures.
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xxxiii
uation. She explains that in the field of French film studies (as it developed in
the United Kingdom)—although always recognizing the contribution of émi-
grés filmmakers to the French film industry—scholars initially focused most
energies and attention on examining how “the canonization of [“French”]
films, filmmakers, film movements, and film genres . . . contribute[s] to the
vexed notion of French cinema as a ‘national’ cinema” (Tarr, 2007: 3). From
this critical perspective, Tarr argues, “the specificities of French cinema at
particular moments in time through its love/hate relationship with, and need
to differentiate itself from, Hollywood” accounts for the principal line of
investigation into the concept and construction of French National Cinema
(Tarr, 2007: 3). In other words, the national approach that dominated much
scholarly European but particularly French film criticism in the UK in the
1990s sought to analyze how film texts enunciate the national.
Scholars analyzed individual film texts and cinematic genres and ques-
tioned the meanings they mobilized vis-à-vis constructions of the national.
They considered what typologies needed tracing into a cartography of the
national.30 Scholars looked for what was coded in the film as national (e.g.,
language, costuming, setting, décor, music, themes, historical figures or
events, and other cultural elements) and took into consideration the country
responsible for the financial backing of the film and other more technical
matters like the origins, nationalities, training, and schooling of the pro-
duction and editing crews as well as the cast members. Scholars illustrated
how this enunciation of the national in the cinema worked to construct and
perpetuate myths of the given society and culture. As Hayward summarizes,
“Traditionally the ‘national’ of a cinema is defined in terms of its difference
from other cinemas of other nations, primarily in terms of its difference from
the cinema of the United States (i.e., Hollywood)” (Hayward, 2005: 8).
Scholars still adopt this national approach in scholarly practice today, where
much attention is paid to the economic and political forces pressuring or in-
fluencing particular film industries and productions. However, the national
approach has mostly evolved and expanded its preoccupations to the realm
of the transnational, where it generally seeks to decode and debunk such cul-
tural myths and constructions of “nation” via counter-cinematic productions,
styles, or techniques of filmmaking, or ideological perspectives.
In the late 1990s and with the turn of the millennium, film scholars be-
gan to speak to the reductionist nature inherent in the national approach to
film analysis. Influenced by post-structuralist and multiculturalist arguments,
scholars began to see this approach as built on a paradigm of exclusion. That
is to say that the “national” in the mainstream films under analysis tended to
recuperate and proliferate dominant or hegemonic views and definitions of
xxxvi I N T R O DU C TION
it is not surprising, then, that over the last twenty years or so a key
strand within film studies has been the investigation of cinema as,
variously, a “hybrid,” “postnational,” “supranational,” “sub-state”
or . . . “transnational” phenomenon, in relation to which the “na-
tional” is bypassed, decentered or hybridized. (2007: 4)
Furthermore, Tarr explains that, “The increasing fluidity between these vari-
ous categories means that the identity of any given film or filmmaker is be-
coming increasingly difficult to pin down in purely national terms” (2007: 4).
This fluidity led to a rather wide-spread adoption of the term transnational in
film studies on a number of different continents as well as to the discussion
of two specific and quite paradoxical notions: the homogenizing effects of
Hollywood in “other” cinemas and the diversity of multicultural particulari-
ties which are also the result of globalization.32 With the first notion, as Tarr
elucidates, there is a risk that a transnational perspective will continue to
position Hollywood as central to its concerns and with the second, that it will
underestimate the asymmetrical power relations between various constituen-
cies (2007: 4). Hence, most scholars consequently began to engage with the
“transnational” not as a dialectical or oppositional term to “national,” which
was (and still sometimes is) the temptation in some scholarly work (i.e., genre
studies approach).
Rather, scholars taking up the transnational cause view it as a “necessary
framework for analyzing how films are produced, circulated, and received in
the era of globalization” and as a “relational concept which remains in dia-
logue with the national as well as with the global and the local” (Tarr, 2007:
4–5). Thus, in this inclusivist reworking of the transnational—which espouses
the concept of fluidity and permeable boundaries of various categories—cine-
matic genres, styles, content matter, and discourses are not necessarily viewed
in opposition to or in conflict with one another but rather appear as converg-
ing within one another; thereby including the “national” and that which was
formally supposedly considered “not” or just simply previously ignored or
unseen. In simplified terms, a transnational approach to film studies creates
an opportunity to define and construct diacritically one “nation” in relation
to another as well as to define and diacritically construct multicultural facets
existing inside the “nation.” Most important to emphasize, though, and more
than just a de-centering of the “national” or “dominant” or an international
collaboration or exchange with multinational financial backers, casts, and
production crews, a transnational approach proposes a polycentric look at the
film industry and its inter/national productions.
Like postcolonial studies, transnational studies is also a “post-” move-
ment. It is postnationalist and can be understood as a number of different
“modes of production and consumption as well as ideology, genre and
aesthetics” (Lim, 2007: 39). Yet, one may read the “trans” prefix more as a
spatial marker as opposed to the temporal marker indicated by “post.” The
transnational functions to destabilize or has the effect of destabilizing the
xxxviii I N T R O D U C TION
notion of place, for the transnational “is most at home in the in-between
spaces of cultures, in other words, between the local and the global” (Ezra
and Rowden, 2005: 4).33 Transnational artists and transnational texts often
foreground a number of common concerns, critical devices, and enunciative
tropes. Many scholars agree with Vijay Devadas’ definition of transnational
cinema, which also more-or-less fits a definition of transnational literature.
He summarizes that transnational cinema is
reception (i.e., the different ways in which individual films are interpreted by
foreign audiences).36 As already hinted at, other scholarship centered on the
transnational in relation to film, mass media, popular culture, and literature
has concentrated on migration and diaspora. Reasons for omitting the post-
colonial from the transnational vary among scholars, but the most common
reasons why include that the term is ambiguous in socio-historical terms,
largely apolitical, and fundamentally Eurocentric in its privileging of the
colonial era.37
In drawing from Stuart Hall’s and Bill Ashcroft’s work on globalization,
Higbee proposes that we should include the postcolonial in our thinking
about the transnational in the context of contemporary French cinema for
“an appreciation of postcolonial theoretical discourses and their histori-
cal context is vital if we are to fully understand what is at stake in French
films that deal with issues of migration, displacement, and the imbalance of
power involved in intercultural exchange” (2007: 53). Thus, two potentially
separate yet interconnected approaches to theorizing the transnational are
developing in the field. On one hand, transnational studies has looked to the
“technical” components of the aesthetic project (the financers, production
crews, filmmaking tools like CGI, cast members, and audiences) and the
mechanisms of distribution and circulation of these artistic products around
the globe. These scholars seek to investigate the interstices between “national”
and “transnational” in the texts, audiences, and cultures they analyze through
an optic of globalization.
In this account, globalization comes to represent “the increasing concen-
tration of economic, political and media powers . . . and the fragmentation
of nation states, social and cultural formations” (Higbee, 2007: 52). On the
other hand, transnational studies is also starting to look to the “postcolonial”
components of the aesthetic project (the categories of exile, diaspora, and “ac-
cent”) and the provisionality of inherited boundaries and pressures of global
hegemony. These scholars seek to investigate the interstices between “global”
and “local” in the texts, audiences, and cultures they analyze also through an
optic of globalization. But in this account, globalization comes to represent
(à la Hall) a centuries-old phenomenon of which we are simply experienc-
ing the latest (albeit highly accelerated) phase and of which colonialism is an
earlier manifestation and (à la Ashcroft) as predication of the fluidity of the
concept of home and a basis for how local communities and minority groups
achieve agency.38 This revised consideration of the transnational in which the
postcolonial is taken into account connects with another approach to film
studies, the discussion of “Third Cinema,” and it recalls Bhabha’s “Third
Space of Negotiation.”
xl I NT R O D U C TION
Third Cinema asserts difference within its own indigenous cinema, but also
dissolves geographical boundaries with ‘a virtual geography of its own’”
(2006: 421). It is a cinema committed to social liberation and to a school of
anti-aesthetics. It is not to be confused, however, with Third World Cinema,
which is a term that refers to the cinemas of the African continent, the Middle
Eastern territories, the Indian continent, China and Asian territories, and
Latin America.42
As already indicated, not all Third World Cinema is necessarily Third
Cinema in project, stylization, content, and design and vice-versa. And fur-
thermore, as the previous discussion of transnational and deterritorialization
has shown, to think in geographical terms is not always the most productive
and helpful approach. Thus, many scholars, myself included, prefer to em-
ploy the terms postcolonial or transnational cinema instead of Third World
Cinema in their work. It should be noted, though, that postcolonial and
transnational are not completely synonymous terms with Third World Cin-
ema and that Third World Cinema is a cinema with its own history, codes,
conventions, canon, and theory. However, it lies beyond the scope of this
book to engage with this particular cinema, especially given the fact that I am
more interested in the notion of Third Cinema and where it intersects with
the postcolonial cinematic optic.
In his theorization of “accented cinema,” Hafid Naficy does not assert
that all diasporic, exilic, or Third cinema can (or indeed must or should) be
viewed through a postcolonial optic.43 Nevertheless, including a postcolonial
optic in the transnational readings I present in this study is not only a valuable
contribution; it is essential to this study as I will show in the subsequent chap-
ters. As I mentioned before, this revised consideration of the transnational
that takes into account the postcolonial optic recalls Bhabha’s third space of
negotiation. For Bhabha, this Third Space, like the Third Cinema, enables
other positions to emerge. It is a mode of articulation, a productive space that
engenders new possibility and in which cultural meaning, representation, and
interpretation have no “primordial unity or fixity.”44 In essence, this Third
Space encodes a counter-hegemonic practice and hybrid strategy in which
meaning may be renegotiated and rearticulated. As I already pointed out, this
may be problematic, for this Third Space is left unrooted in history and space.
I suggested before the possibility of a re-hybridization of the postcolonial hy-
brid subject through the lens of the interrogation of the personal. In addition,
I would like to argue for the possibility of a re-hybridization of this Third
Space also through the lens of the interrogation of the personal and propose
the construction: a ²⁄³ (or two-third) space; or in other words, a space or spaces
in-between the second space and the third space.
xlii I N T R O D U C TION
Cinema asserts difference within its own indigenous cinema but also dissolves
geographical boundaries with a virtual geography of its own.
These characteristics of Third Cinema do not address in the same way
or to the same degree all of the films and filmmakers I include in this study;
and not all of the filmmakers I include are considered auteurs and not all
the texts I analyze here fit the category of Second Cinema. Yet, all of the
filmmakers and their texts theoretically fit within the third space of negotia-
tion and in-between the categories of Second and Third Cinemas in terms
of project, stylization, and content. Hence, I propose an articulation of a ²⁄³
Space in transnational film and literary studies in this book. I recognize that
mathematically speaking, ²⁄³ (or two-thirds) is not a fraction in-between the
integers two and three; but linguistically-speaking, thanks to the diacritical
slash mark, ²⁄³ may be read as 2 and/or 3. This construction neatly expresses
my consideration and suggestion to re-hybridize the Third Space and Second
and Third Cinemas by situating the postcolonial hybrid subject in personal
history, as I will show in the following analyses in each subsequent chapter.
A “TRANSVERGENT” CONSIDERATION
In this way, a cinema of transvergence, like the concept of the rhizome, shares
the postcolonial optic’s agenda to re-frame “marginality” (or difference) as
well as “dominant” by challenging hegemonic modes of thought and binary
structures through a deconstruction of “center” and “margin” and through a
revelation of how the so-called center and so-called margins, themselves, exist
as constructed ideologies and positionings that serve hegemony. There are
two main positions or tropes that emerge from Novak’s logic of transvergence
that have been most often discussed in scholarly discourse and that have inter-
esting implications for this study. They are the notion of derailment and the
concept of allogenesis or the alloself, which is to say the “alien from within”
(Novak, 2002: 65).
Novak coins the term transvergence as a way in which to discuss the
postmodern experiences of relations and relationships with otherness. He
calls this experience the “production of the alien,” but he does not perceive
this otherness as negative or in classical accordance with typical science-
fiction or political themes of alienation. For Novak, rather, this production
of the alien represents a centrifugal (and thus derailed) process of becoming
and being the other of the self. This process results in the formation of a
subjectivity he names the alloself. In architecture, Novak accomplishes this
transvergent paradigm by employing the virtual processes of contemporary
digital architecture that are able to conceive of and design spaces beyond the
limits of human experience of spatial and temporal dimensions. By using a
computer’s ability to entirely disregard physical laws and the constraints of
geometry, Novak designs his “liquid architectures,” that is to say new forms of
virtual reality or new objects and areas in cyberspace that combine time and
space with little-to-no rational constraints. Thus, some scholars in various
disciplines have looked to Novak’s work and designs as discourses and texts
that transcend the traditional boundaries between art and science. For these
thinkers, transvergence exposes the artificial construction that art and science
are binary opposites.
xlvi I NT R O D U C TION
In the field of art history, a transvergent ethics has come to view new
idioms of expression as conditioned by exodus, invention, and eventual col-
laboration. In this context, collaboration does not stem from democratically
disseminated or proportionally allocated resources but from the permanent
re-appropriation of shared resources, resulting in a re-territorialization of
production, creation, and artifacts. Transvergent ethics has redefined some
contemporary art by creating a home for several new “genres” or “media”; as
in: BioArt—which includes the use of biological matters as part of the artistic
production and context creation, EcoArt—which are artistic acts in which
artists attempt to influence the ecologies in which one lives by reclaiming or
restoring damaged environments artistically or in which artists revision the
human relationship to nature by proposing and inspiring new ways for people
to co-exist with their local environments, Technozoosemiotics—which is the
study of signs elaborated by all natural or artificial living species, as well as
various other new cutting-edge media in which artists explore the relations
between technology and material culture.
In the field of cultural studies, a transvergent ethics concentrates on the
logic of becoming the other and being the alloself. In borrowing a construc-
tion from postcolonial studies, the first and second cultures (the particular
cultural roots or identities of both cultures) in this paradigm of transvergence
no longer count, per se. Rather, as Michael Goddard explains, “the capacity
to be transformed through a cross-cultural encounter with otherness” is at
the heart of the transvergent project (2007: 114).50 Transvergence privileges
a forging ahead as opposed to a retreat into pre-existing cultural, familial, or
psychological identities and a priori social, historical, or political frameworks
and discourses. As such, Novak’s notion of transvergence is quite different
from Lacan’s mirror stage, although both address the Self/Other relation-
ship paradigm. Whereas both ego (or the Self) and the other simultaneously
embrace, oppose, fix, and fixate each other in the mirror in the Lacanian
theorization of otherness, the Novakian theorization of otherness articulates
dynamic and shifting relationships of opposition and confluence for the al-
loself (or the other within the self) that is never separated, fixed, or fixated
in binary opposition. These dynamic and shifting relationships of opposition
and confluence for the alloself are made possible through centrifugal forces or
derailment in Novak’s perspective.
This trans-linear, centrifugal, or derailed movement between two systems
allows for a myriad of possibilities. For Higbee, tranvergence articulates “an
open-ended challenge to the fixed positionings typically offered by hege-
monic structures of knowledge and power” (207b: 85). The identification
with the alien/allo-/other as an integral element of transvergence enables a po-
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xlvii
Once again in the spirit of Shohat and Stam, my challenge in this study was
to produce knowledge within a kind of “kaleidoscope framework” of com-
munities, ideologies, disciplines, and discourses in relation to one another
without suggesting that their positionings are identical and interchangeable.
For this reason and from my own ²⁄³ Space of expression in this book, I do not
adopt a single theoretical methodology and restrictively apply it to the close
readings in each chapter. Rather, I am more interested in exploring the mul-
tichronotopic links of theory and practice that bypass the proverbial feminist
studies versus transnationalism versus postcolonialism and so-on scenario.
In this study, I aim to investigate the relationalities between trans/national
representations of French, Algerian, and Tunisian women on the page and
on the screen in a trans-linear or derailed-like fashion through a diversity of
domestic, feminist, postcolonial, and transnational optics.
xlviii I NT R O DU C TION
Overview of Chapters
In Chapter One, I will begin with an exploration of making home in Algeria
through the metaphorical processes of de/reconstructing the home from a
space of confinement and imprisonment to one of improvised movement
and (un)veiled collective subjectivity. In this chapter, I will concentrate on
the first segment (Touchia: Ouverture) of Assia Djebar’s 1976 film, La nouba
du Mont Chenoua, and the postface (Regard interdit, son coupé) from her 1980
collection of short stories, Femmes d’Alger dans leur appartement. By pulling
from her 1999 text, Ces voix qui m’assiègent, a “theoretical journal” that pro-
vides insights into her creative intention and struggles, I will situate Djebar
as a postcolonial feminist literary and film theorist and will outline a series of
important theoretical contributions she makes in this text. Specifically, I will
discuss the concept of a double gaze, the importance of the audience’s posi-
tioning as listener, and the recognition of women’s desire to speak in refusing
the dominant masculine gaze.
In Chapter Two, I will consider Annie Ernaux’s 1981 text, La femme
gelée, and Simone de Beauvoir’s 1967 novella, La femme rompue, within the
trope of displaying femininity through the home and domestic acts in French
society. In this chapter, I will understand Ernaux as a quasi-sociologist or
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G xlix
Notes
1. Thomas Foster, Transformations of Domesticity in Modern Women’s Writing
(New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2002).
2. Erica L. Johnson, Home, Maison, Casa: The Politics of Location in Works by
Jean Rhys, Marguerite Duras, and Erminia Dell-Oro (London, UK: Fairleigh Dickin-
son Univ. Press, 2003), 14.
3. Inderpal Grewal, House and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the Cultures
of Travel (Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press, 1996).
4. Rosemary Marangoly George, The Politics of Home: Postcolonial Relocation and
Twentieth Century Fiction (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
5. Johnson, Home, Maison, Casa, 19.
6. Susan Strehle, Transnational Women’s Fiction: Unsettling Home and Homeland
(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008).
7. Strehle, Transnational Women’s Fiction, 1.
8. Strehle, Transnational Women’s Fiction, 2.
9. Sarah Pink, Home Truths: Gender, Domestic Objects, and Everyday Life (Ox-
ford, UK: Berg, 2004).
10. Pink, Home Truths, 10.
11. Biddy Martin and Chandra Talpade Mohanty, “Feminist Politics: What’s
Home Got to Do with It,” in Feminist Studies/Critical Studies, ed. Theresa de Lau-
rentis (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1986), 191–212.
12. Susan Hayward, Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts (New York: Routledge,
2006), 295.
13. Hayward, Cinema Studies, 296.
14. Hayward, Cinema Studies, 298.
15. Hayward, Cinema Studies, 298.
INTERROG A TING A ND RE-H Y BRIDIZIN G li
16. Emma Wilson, French Cinema since 1950: Personal Histories (Lanham, MD:
Rowman and Littlefield, 1999).
17. Sandy Flitterman-Lewis, To Desire Differently: Feminism and the French Cin-
ema (New York, NY: Columbia Univ. Press, 1996).
18. Joan Scott, “Experience,” in Women, Autobiography, Theory, eds. Sidonie
Smith and Julia Watson (Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 57–71.
19. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson, Reading Autobiography (Minneapolis, MN:
Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2001).
20. Smith and Watson, Reading Autobiography, 9–11.
21. Smith and Watson, Reading Autobiography, 145.
22. Julia Watson, “Autoethnography,” in Enclyclopedia of Life Writing, ed. Marga-
retta Jolly (London, UK: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001), 83.
23. Mae Gwendolyn Henderson, “Speaking in Tongues: Dialogics, Dialects, and
the Black Woman Writer’s Literary Tradition,” in Women, Autobiography, Theory,
eds. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson (Madison, WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press,
1998), 343–351, and Françoise Lionnet, “The Politics and Aesthetics of Métissage,”
in Women, Autobiography, Theory, eds. Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson (Madison,
WI: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 325–336.
24. Henderson, Speaking in Tongues, 344.
25. Smith and Watson, Reading Autobiography, 165.
26. Steven Vertovec, Transnationalism: Key Ideas (London: Routledge, 2009).
27. Vertovec, Transnationalism, 7.
28. Françoise Lionnet and Shu-Mei Shih, Minor Transnationalism (Durham:
Duke Univ. Press, 2005).
29. Lionnet and Shih, Minor Transnationalism, 6–7.
30. Susan Hayward, French National Cinema (New York: Routledge, 2005),
5–6.
31. Hayward, French National Cinema, 8.
32. Carrie Tarr, “French Cinema: ‘Transnational’ Cinema?” Modern & Contem-
porary France 15.1 (2007), 3–7.
33. Elizabeth Ezra and Terry Rowden, “General Introduction: What is transna-
tional cinema?” in Transnational Cinema: The Film Reader, eds. Elizabeth Ezra and
Terry Rowden (London: Routledge, 2005), 1–12.
34. Vijay Devadas, “Rethinking Transnational Cinema: The Case of Tamil Cinema,”
Senses of Cinema, http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/06/41/transnational
-tamil-cinema.html (22 July 2009).
35. Will Higbee, “Locating the Postcolonial in Transnational Cinema: The Place
of Algerian Émigré Directors in Contemporary French Film,” Modern & Contempo-
rary France 15.1 (2007), 51–64.
36. Higbee, Locating the Postcolonial, 52.
37. Higbee, Locating the Postcolonial, 52.
38. Higbee, Locating the Postcolonial, 52–53.
39. Hayward, Cinema Studies, 422–423.
lii I NT R O D U C TION
As I have illustrated briefly by the two short case studies of Assia Djebar’s
Ces voix qui m’assiègent and the Song of Messouada in the Introduction of this
book, Djebar’s contributions to the fields of postcolonial and feminist stud-
ies and my own particular study of women’s contemporary filmmaking and
lifewriting of France, Algeria, and Tunisia cannot be understated. I posit that
scholars may now discuss much of her work not simply as primary artistic ex-
amples in which feminist and postcolonial literary and film theories resound,
but as actual theoretical discourses, themselves, in feminist, film, and postco-
lonial theory. Principally speaking, we know Djebar as a novelist, translator,
filmmaker, poet, essayist, and playwright. Increasingly, we consider Djebar
a theorist. As we shall see in this chapter, Djebar puts in theory and prac-
tice self-referential modes of storytelling articulated through re-hybridized
speaking positions in which protagonists speak and gaze from a ²⁄³ Space of
expression. Let us begin with a cursory overview of her literary and cinematic
project and agenda so as to better contextualize and comprehend her employ-
ment of this speaking position and space of expression.
Throughout her work, by engaging with a variety of political and social
themes and content, Djebar presents issues that touch very deeply not only
her personal experiences but those of her community as well. At the heart of
Djebar’s work is her primary agenda of articulating the struggle for women’s
social emancipation in Algeria through a variety of first-person singular and
plural narratives. She promotes this agenda by textualizing the challenges
and complexities of women’s existence in a Muslim world and by taking
up the semiotic impact of war on the minds, daily existence, representation,
and identity of Algerian women and their communities. Moreover, Djebar
1
2 C H A PT E R 1
previously silenced female voices into Algerian history, Djebar mediates tex-
tual and cinematic spaces in collaboration with her own views and speech in
which a re-hybridized subject’s views and speech may also be seen and heard.
To this effect, Djebar asserts that in all of her work, she is “speaking nearby”
the indigenous women of her Algerian communities. In other words, Djebar
knows that she may not speak “for” the subjects in her literary or cinematic
discourses since “speaking for” reinstates colonizing cultural practices. There-
fore, in her texts Djebar collaboratively appears alongside her seeing/speaking
female subjects. In effect, this multiplicity of female Algerian gazing perspec-
tives and voices challenge and overturn hegemonic Algerian discourses, which
then in turn create new transnational cultural discourses for future genera-
tions of Algerian hybrid gazing/speaking subjects in Algeria. Thus, her work
lends itself well to and continues debates central to feminist, autobiographi-
cal, cinematic, and postcolonial modes of critical discourses.
I take as my point of departure in this chapter Djebar’s text, Regard in-
terdit, son coupé—the postface to her 1979 collection of short stories, Femmes
d’Alger dans leur appartement. This chapter will examine numerous theo-
retical positions set forth in the postface. In this text, Djebar problematizes
spectatorship and the gaze and finds support for multiple gazing perspectives
when examining the role and function of the gaze in Algerian society. She
recognizes the act of writing as both processes of veiling and unveiling (i.e.,
the anxiety inherent in divulging personal narratives in Arab societies; unveil-
ing), which she succeeds in mitigating by finding a collectivity of Algerian
women’s voices (veiling) in her work. She fleshes out women’s duality in
body and voice, which draws out a division between Algerian women’s bodies
and voices as two (in)congruent agents of narrative discourse. Importantly,
she also examines women’s oral tradition of the stories, songs, histories, and
legends Algerian women pass along to and instill in their children. I also take
into consideration in this chapter how Djebar further engages in (twenty years
later) these theoretical positions in her 1999 text, Ces voix qui m’assiègent, as
well as how Djebar has specifically contextualized many of them in her first
film, La nouba du Mont Chenoua.
These theoretical positions and their evolution in Djebar’s work con-
tribute to the methodological cubism in this study by helping to explore
the multichronotopic links of theory and practice concerning the represen-
tations of women, the home, and homemaking activities in contemporary
French-language women’s literature and filmmaking from the Maghreb
(specifically Algeria and Tunisia) as well as the Métropole (France). In
order to understand how Djebar’s first-person cinematic and literary nar-
ratives have the potential to partially deterritorialize the process of imaging
4 C H A PT E R 1
When examining the two paintings in this essay, Djebar speaks to the
reader “simply” as an Algerian woman. At the beginning of this essay, she in-
troduces Delacroix’s masterpiece as one that still makes us question ourselves
(1979: 240), and she provides a brief history of how this painting came into
being. She explains that Delacroix came to Algiers as an invited guest of a
Monsieur Poirel, chief engineer of the Port of Algiers and amateur painter.
Through Poirel, Delacroix made the acquaintance of a local rich man, who
eventually allowed Delacroix to enter his home. Once inside the man’s home,
Delacroix excitedly sketched the women and children, as well as the décor,
and took precise notes of the colors of the room and the women’s clothing
as well as of each of their names. Djebar recounts that upon his return to
Paris, Delacroix would spend the next two years working on the image in his
memory of this visit to this man’s home.
For Djebar, the full sense of Delacroix’s painting plays on the relation-
ship of the three women depicted, their bodies, and their confinement. She
sees these women as prisoners resigned to a closed place illuminated by a kind
of dreamy light of no clear origin (1979: 241). She suggests that Delacroix’s
genius in this painting rests in that he makes these women appear to us at
once present and distant, enigmatic to the highest degree (1979: 241). From
Djebar’s point of view, Delacroix’s vision of the man’s home manifests a sto-
len gaze. In effect, Djebar reminds us that his painting permits us to gaze—a
gaze which in reality is forbidden to us. She rightly asserts that we are not
subconsciously fascinated by Delacroix’s superficial vision of the Orient “dans
une pénombre de luxe et de silence” (1979: 243) / [“within a luxurious and
silent semidarkness” (1992: 137)]; but rather we are consciously fascinated
because we position ourselves in front of these women in order to gaze at
them, which reminds us that we do not ordinarily have the right to do so.
Thus, Delacroix’s painting grants us a voyeuristic vantage point.
The original “public” spectator of “the women of Algiers in their apart-
ment” was in fact male and Western. As Djebar underlines in her essay, this
orientalizing gaze (regard orientalisant)—which was borne first by French
military translators and then later via Western photographers, painters, and
cineastes—relies on this closed society and continuously underscores its
“mystère féminin” (1979: 256) / [“feminine mystery” (1992: 146)]. This
orientalizing gaze in Djebar’s writing raises the question of spectatorship for
her and for scholars examining her work.
Central to feminist film theory has been the examination of the relation-
ship between the gaze and the object of the gaze—a notion which includes
the on-screen characters’ diegetic gazes throughout the film and also the
viewer in the audience’s gaze watching the film being projected on screen.
6 C H A PT E R 1
Moreover, feminist film theory has also focused on how that relationship
between the gazer and the object of the gaze carries on after the object leaves
the gazer’s gaze. Thus, feminist theories of spectatorship have intrinsically
relied on analyses of the roles and functions of the gaze in the cinema, which
we know to be a critical theoretical point of departure in Djebar’s filmmaking
and writing as well.
The gaze for Djebar and other feminist film scholars refers to the ex-
change of looks that takes place within the cinematic text, but its functions
extend far beyond a simple exchange of looks. Feminist film scholars over
the last thirty years have approached the gaze from a variety of perspectives
and have come to a variety of evolving conclusions concerning the functions
of the gaze in the cinema. In the 1970s, feminist film scholars—grounding
their assertions in psychoanalytic theories of pleasure and desire—saw this
exchange of looks in dominant forms of cinema as reproducing a voyeuristic
pleasure and associated the position of the spectator with the male viewer
in the audience. They read the positioning of the on-screen woman as the
object of the (male) spectator’s gaze and suggested that the female spectator
would have to derive her viewing pleasure through identification with this
passive, fetishized position of the female character on screen or assume the
male positioning.1
In relation to Djebar’s theoretical work on the spectator (gazer) in Al-
gerian society in her text Regard interdit, son coupé, she finds that the only
licit gaze in her society is Algerian and male. In paraphrasing an important
reading of the gaze in this essay, Djebar asserts that the eye that gazes in Al-
gerian society maintains dominance over and always seeks out the eye of the
dominated (1979: 245). Thus Djebar’s first conception of the gaze (like its
first conception in early feminist film studies) assumes a male “bearer-of-the-
look.” Where their early theorizations differ, however, stems from the role of
the female (her beauty, her body, etc.) stylized as the normatively assumed
object of the male spectator’s public gaze.
Djebar identifies the first public spectator of the Algerian women of
Delacroix’s painting as male and Western. However, Djebar explains in Re-
gard interdit, son coupé that the female as object of the public look is forbidden
in Algerian society. Thus, Djebar’s first spectator position assumes a male
theoretical positioning; but when Algerian gazing practices focus on a female
object, Djebar asserts that this position is reserved for male family members
(husbands, brothers, and sons) within the confines of private places and is
denied to the public spectator. Therefore for Djebar, the “bearer-of-the-
‘authorized’-look” is qualified as Algerian, male, and familial. This familial
restructuring of the authorized spectator in her post/colonial context provides
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 7
one insight into how looking relations have been revisited in feminist film
theory.
Almost initially following the assertion of the assumed male position of
the cinematic spectator, feminist film scholars began to unravel this supposed
impossibility of female spectatorship in dominant cinema. One central revi-
sion of this impossibility included the female viewer’s ability to postulate a
bisexual spectatorship position, thus escaping the previously assumed fixed
masculine/feminine sexual identities of the viewer.2 This restructuring al-
lowed for a position of spectatorship for the female viewer, but the gender
binaries of masculine/feminine were still strictly maintained. Yet, still further
revisions recognized the limitations in this postulation of masculine/feminine
traditional positions of spectatorship and their implications. These “third
wave” revisions emphasized the heterogeneity factor implicit in the female
spectator’s position.3 This theorization, stemming from psychoanalytic
theory, still upheld the belief that dominant cinema continually restages the
Oedipal scenario; but feminist film theorists now began to see this as a pro-
cess by which the female viewer might identify as both subject and object of
the cinema. These revisions emphasized the social nature of subjectivity and
called for an objective in feminist cinema to construct within the film me-
dium different visions and conditions of viewing/representation for different
social subjects.4
By revising filmmaking, mise en scène, and editorial practices in their
work, filmmakers desiring to create counter-discourses to the apparatus and
enunciation of dominant cinema have sought technical and narrative ways
of re-conceptualizing gender and gender roles on screen and in the audience.
“Feminist” filmmakers have often challenged and continue to challenge the
female viewing experience and the representations of femininity in the cin-
ema. Primarily through subversion and requisition, they work to defamiliarize
conventional characteristics, codes, conventions, modes, tropes, and motifs of
dominant modes or enunciations of filmmaking and gender representation.
Their re-conceptualizations of the female viewer and femininity emphasize
the social nature of subjectivity and identity formation, which reflects Dje-
bar’s theorizations of the Algerian female spectator and her representation of
Algerian femininity in Regard interdit, son coupé. In Djebar’s theorizing, the
social nature of female subjectivity and identity formation—as either viewer
or object—is grounded in the physical and metaphorical functions of the veil.
From Djebar’s perspective, the veil manifests a social signifier that engenders
Algerian society and spaces.
In Regard interdit, son coupé, Djebar analyzes the physical veil worn by
many Muslim women. For Djebar, their veil paradoxically creates a position
8 C H A PT E R 1
for the female spectator in an Algerian male space as well as erases her iden-
tity. As she explains, totally enveloping her body and limbs, the veil allows the
woman who wears it and circulates in public under its covering to be in her
turn a possible thief in a masculine space (1979: 245). However, as Djebar
continues, the female gaze is present in society, but this liberated eye, that
could become a sign of a conquest toward the knowledge of others, outside
a confinement, is perceived as a threat, and the vicious circle reforms (1979:
245). In other words, Djebar reifies that the authorized gaze is only to be
Algerian, familial, and male. Although the veil ironically allows the Algerian
woman to gaze, her gaze, like Delacroix’s, remains stolen and unauthorized.
Like Delacroix’s outsider spectatorial position that threatens the traditional
gaze, Djebar’s position created in this essay also threatens the traditional
gaze. She shows in Regard interdit, son coupé how the spectatorial position
of the veiled woman—a female spectator—threatens the traditional gaze by
representing a potential to upset the balance of dominator/dominated in
traditional Algerian society.
In all of Djebar’s work, the veil represents a rather complex and contradic-
tory signifier. As David Kelly asserts, “It both imprisons and offers freedom”
(1996: 845). The veil functions to occult the Algerian woman from public
view by concealing her body beneath it and thus, in effect, renders her an in-
visible subject. But as Laurence Huughe argues: “The cotton veil that removes
the woman from the masculine, alien gaze also figures the veil of stone—that
is, the walls that imprison the woman within the universe to which Islamic
social order relegates her: the domestic universe, that of the family” (1996:
867). In brief, as an “invisible subject,” the veil allows the Algerian woman to
circulate in a public and masculine space, consequently subverting and appro-
priating—Djebar suggests “stealing”—the masculine gaze for herself. Yet, in
Islamic thought and social practice, the veil may remain a tangible marker of
her marginalization in such a space and thus “relegates her [to the] domestic
universe.” Thus, the veil creates both presence (the male gaze subverted by a
female eye) and absence (her occulted subjectivity). Recalling the discussion
from the Introduction concerning the home’s deeper affiliation with the pub-
lic realm, the domestic universe is a receiver of public languages, values, and
discourses and reflects and resembles “nation.” Thereby, the veil works on
both ends of the spectrum, as a marker of masculine presence and feminine
absence and national and domestic discourses; thus effectively challenging the
binary oppositions and social contradictions facing all Algerian women.
For Huughe, this ambivalent figure of the veiled woman “is indeed the
paradigm of a sort of unifying instance in the search for a new relation to
meaning that would take into consideration the complexity and contradic-
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 9
tions inherent in the Algerian woman” (1996: 867). For Djebar, as expressed
in Regard interdit, son coupé, and for this chapter, this “new relation to mean-
ing” materializes in the female spectatorial position that the veil enables.
Additionally, the examination of Regard interdit, son coupé and Ces voix qui
m’assiègent from Djebar’s position, herself, as a “veiled” spectator analyzing
Delacroix’s painting implies another way in which Djebar complicates the
spectator position and its traditional theorizations.
By presenting the first spectators who are male (represented through the
local man and by extension, Delacroix) and a second spectator who is female
(represented by the figure of the veiled woman), Djebar creates a third spec-
tatorial space (represented through her use of “nous” [“we”] when discussing
the effects of Delacroix’s painting on the observer) that fluidly shifts gender
through its interpolation between the authorized Algerian-familial-male spec-
tator position and the unauthorized feminine and female spectator positions.
This gender-shifting spectator may effectively move in and out of masculine,
feminine, authorized, and unauthorized spectatorial spaces or positions.
Through presenting a series of spectators in Regard interdit, son coupé—male,
female, masculine, feminine, authorized, unauthorized, Algerian, Western—
Djebar asserts (although she does not yet articulate it as such in Regard inter-
dit, son coupé) a certain “in-betweeness” or hybridity of spectator positions.
In this instance, the re-hybridized postcolonial subject is clearly situated in
personal history or rather personal histories: Djebar’s experiences and reflec-
tions examining Delacroix’s painting, Delacroix’s experiences and reflections
during the visit to this home, and our experiences and reflections reading
Djebar’s essay. At once, the spectator position is both center and margin and
begins to imply a complexity, incompleteness, or fragmentation.
With regard to the spectator position created in Djebar’s filmmaking,
just like the critical distance she takes in her writing, the camera allows her
to assume a multiplicitous perspective. For this chapter of this study, this
multiplicitous perspective speaks to Djebar’s ability to assume different
perspectives and avoid being gazed upon. In other words, the re-hybridized
²⁄³ Space of expression allows Djebar to bring to light in print or in film Al-
gerian women’s first-person perspectives and both marginal and hegemonic
representations of Algerian femininity. In Djebar’s work, the position of the
re-hybridized spectator is both textual (occupying a representative space or
position in her writing and filmmaking that challenges Algerian nationalist
discourse) as well as meta-textual (implying a shared relationality) between
the viewer or reader (the “real-world” spectator) and the text.
As already briefly discussed in the Introduction, much contemporary
women’s filmmaking and lifewriting emphasize an interactive process in
10 C H A PT E R 1
they are passed between the character and the author and then to us. This
collaboration creates a position for a re-hybridized spectator in which she may
see him/herself as both subject and object of the cinematic or literary text.
In Djebar’s work, collaboration is metaphorically represented in her analysis
of the symbolism and function of the physical veil, behind which Algerian
women may gaze, and the metaphorical veil, under which they may share
their stories in whisper. Thus, the veil remains key in understanding Djebar’s
contribution to feminist film and literary studies, as it allows for collaboration
in the narrative and collaboration between the text and reader or viewer as
well as creates a space or position from or in which to challenge traditional
theorizations of the voice and gaze. In all of Djebar’s work, this re-hybridized
postcolonial subject position—situated in personal history and speaking and
seeing from the ²⁄³ Space—is perhaps most strikingly prominent in her 1976
film, La nouba du Mont Chenoua. Let us consider this cinematic text more
closely.
In Regard de l’autre, regard sur l’autre from Ces voix qui m’assiègent, Djebar
writes that she remembers clearly the first shot of La nouba du Mont Chenoua
that she filmed on a December night of 1976 in a country farmhouse—“une
scène d’‘intérieur-nuit’: image de fiction” (1999: 161) [“an inside night scene:
image of fiction”]—lasting one minute, thirty seconds of a man watching his
wife sleep. She explains that in this shot she captures a gaze, or rather a double
gaze. Djebar writes:
This insight is significant for, in her essay, Djebar shares that she uses this
particular scene occurring near the middle of La nouba du Mont Chenoua in
which “l’autre” (an injured Algerian man) sits in his wheelchair watching his
sleeping wife (an Algerian woman) lying in bed as a platform upon which
to expostulate the conditions of masculine and later orientalizing gazing
practices. At the close of this short essay, she then compares these two gazes
to women’s gazing and redefines what it means for women to gaze within
Algerian female communities.
Djebar asserts that the man in the wheelchair’s gaze is certainly a gaze of
desire (1999: 162), and she questions whether there would really be a cinema
if there were not first, explicitly, a quest for desire (1999: 162). She stresses,
however, that this masculine gaze in this shot is not held long enough to
allow the spectator to slip into a more or less complaisant suggestion of a
shared pleasure with the man (1999: 162). Quite interestingly and almost
14 C H A PT E R 1
counter-intuitively, she asserts that this masculine gaze is not voyeuristic. For
Djebar, this masculine gaze “d’avant le desert” [“before the desert”] draws out
this man’s powerlessness and his suffering from separation (1999: 162). In
Djebar’s theorization of re-hybridized spectatorship, the masculine (Algerian,
male, familial) gaze—when he is not the “maître du sérail” [“master of the se-
raglio”]—manifests a lack of power (1999: 163). As Djebar sees it, this pow-
erless masculine gaze proves reminiscent of colonization in which this “regard
d’avant le désert” is made subordinate to a voyeurstic “regard dominant”
[“dominant gaze”] of the colonizer (1999: 163). In confronting these two
forms of the gaze in her work, Djebar successfully draws on and draws out
multiple gazes from multiple perspectives in La nouba du Mont Chenoua.
In words echoing more recent feminist film theory, Djebar succeeds in
La nouba du Mont Chenoua in representing portraits of the (Algerian) multi-
plicitous woman—the female-gendered subject who formerly existed outside
the (Algerian) ideology of gender. Through the “regard d’avant le désert” in
this scene, she asks the spectator to read the sleeping woman on screen (Lila)
in a revised way which recuperates alongside of her multiplicitous figure the
representations of Algerian women who have not been traditionally repre-
sented in Algerian society or who have been formerly relegated to the off-
screen spaces of the cinema. Djebar succeeds in bringing to light in her work
the representations of Algerian women who have traditionally been ignored
in Algerian history-writing. However, Djebar implies in her work that the
West must recognize that to gaze at “the” Algerian woman and to see “her”
in terms of a Western subject-object relation as a monolithic representative
of all Algerian women inherently repeats essentialist colonial ways of seeing.
Gwendolyn Audrey Foster develops this idea by asserting that the women in
postcolonial cinema (the subaltern), whose enunciations often seem designed
to circumvent Western subjugation, remain subject to Western generaliza-
tions. But when looking back at the Westerner as subject, Foster postulates
that they disrupt feminist and postcolonial discourse.6
Foster suggests that the Western reader should assume “the subject posi-
tion of the listener, rather than the dominant position of the gazer/criticizer”
(1997: 217). Thus, the spectator as listener should listen to the critical testi-
mony—explicitly or implicitly stated—in postcolonial women filmmakers’
work. Djebar reconciles this inherent danger in her work through the quali-
fication of her artistic design to “speak nearby” and not “for” the (subaltern)
women of Algeria. This is to say that, she recognizes her privileged position
to bring to light the figure of the multiplicitous Algerian woman, but she
refuses to embody the figurehead of such representation. Rather, she veils
her voice with the voices of her fellow speaking countrywomen; since she
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 15
reminds us that in a postcolonial context, both the Western and the feminine
gaze remain unauthorized. Thus, Djebar privileges Algerian women’s voices
throughout her work.
The privileging of Algerian women’s voices instantly brings to mind
Gayatri Spivak’s groundbreaking essay, Can the Subaltern Speak? After analyz-
ing the story of the suicide of Bhuvaneswari Bhaduri, a young Indian woman
who had been involved in the armed struggle for Indian independence,
Spivak concludes that the subaltern—the indigenous women of postcolonial
societies—cannot speak. Touria Khannous asserts in this regard:
“for” another) but in which discourses “come to pass between them.” In other
words, Djebar shows that the subaltern may speak and does reaffirm that
their discourse is mediated through another’s discourse, but she along with
Minh-Ha reveals the collaborative nature of such a process in which speaking
subjects speak “with” or “nearby” one another.
For Djebar, this is the only possible form of female communication in
Algerian society. She foregrounds the great importance of this collaborative
female form of communication through all of La nouba du Mont Chenoua.
Yet, as we established in the Introduction of this study, the original hybrid
subject of postcolonial studies—now re-situated in this study in a ²⁄³ Space
through the lens of the interrogation of the personal and echoing Minh-Ha’s
concept of collaboration—is no longer strictly a subaltern collectivity of
anonymous voices but a polyphony of personalized and dispersed individual
voices that share a common origin, source, location, agenda, or position. This
reworking of the hybrid postcolonial subject in La nouba du Mont Chenoua
as a re-hybridized speaking and gazing subject is textualized in the very first
installment or “movement” of the film.
“Touchia: Ouverture”
As I have already demonstrated in Assia Djebar as Film Theorist in “Touchia:
Ouverture” and “Ces voix qui m’assiègent” (Weber-Fève, 2008), Djebar takes
up this challenge to foreground collaborative female communication and a
re-hybridized subject position within the very opening sequence of her film.
She describes this sequence in Regard de l’autre, regard sur l’autre:
Une femme, en gros plan, est représentée; elle tourne le dos aux
spectateurs; on ne voit que ses cheveux, que la masse de sa tête et
elle est contre un mur; elle fait glisser son front sur la Pierre; peut-
être, signe d’impatience ou d’impuissance, vient-elle de se taper
littéralement la tête contre ce mur! . . . C’est possible. Car elle
nous refuse, elle me refuse—moi, le regard-caméra. C’est pour-
tant dans ce rapport que je choisis de la montrer. Elle continue
de marcher, de chercher, de s’obstiner à dire non aux spectateurs;
soudain sa voix, et avec elle sa révolte, éclate: ‘Je parle, je parle,
je parle!—silence—je ne veux pas que l’on me voie!’ soupire-t-
elle. Puis elle ajoute, quand on comprend que, dans la chambre,
l’homme est là aussi, dans l’attente : ‘Je ne veux pas que tu me voies! ’
(1999: 165–166)
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 17
Djebar shares that, in her view, cinema made by women and possibly all post-
colonial cinema in her reasoning always originate in a desire to speak (1999:
166). That is, this woman’s unauthorized refusal to be gazed upon by the
masculine gaze—as the protagonist expresses this in the voiceover—and by
the camera gaze—as evidenced by her turning her back to the lens—suggests
a privileging of speech over the gaze. This refusal is also heard in Minh-Ha’s
cinematographic work7) and illustrates how Djebar desires to present “those
who gaze for the first time”; that is, by a voiced refusal to be gazed upon.
Although Djebar may privilege speech in this opening sequence, she cannot
ignore the gaze, however, in her first film.
The film foregrounds a French-educated Algerian woman’s (Lila)
search for “testimonial proof of her brother’s disappearance during the war”
(Knannous, 2000: 53). Ali—Lila’s mute and paralyzed husband (injuries
sustained in a horse-riding accident)—and Aicha—Lila’s daughter—ac-
company Lila. Throughout the film, Djebar films Lila at home with Ali
and Aicha, traveling around the Algerian countryside in her jeep, and her
interviews with the countrywomen of Chenoua. Spliced throughout the
film within these fictional narratives are fantasy-like enactments of the
women’s oral histories, documentary-like military sequences, ethnographic-
like images of Chenoua countrywomen and children, and quasi-formalistic
shots of grandmothers and grandchildren engaged in the recounting of oral
histories. In all of these fragments, Djebar in/directly investigates various
forms of gazing from various perspectives. Through a formal cinematic
analysis of the first section of the film entitled, Touchia: Ouverture, let us
now examine Djebar’s textualization of the gaze as a “phenomenological
reduction” (Bensmaïa, 1996: 877), a notion which suggests the outlawing
of the “master’s” gaze and voice.
18 C H A PT E R 1
then quickly jump cuts to a medium shot of Lila still framed in the window.
Lila closes the window shutter blocking out the exterior light, walks toward
the left side of the room (camera pans left to follow her movement), and
then stops to lean against the wall near a painting of what appears to be a
landscape. She removes her scarf. Meanwhile, Djebar’s voiceover continues
in which Djebar expresses a desire to “wander in the past, in my memories”
and questions the term, “homeland.” Djebar throws a large-than-life shadow
of Lila on the back wall, which symbolically superimposes a variety of motifs
in this film that she often recasts throughout her work. On one hand (in ad-
dition to Djebar’s voiceover), Lila’s shadow provides a second metaphor for
Djebar’s direct presence in this work. The actress playing the role of Lila bears
a striking physical resemblance to Assia Djebar. By extension then, one could
convincingly read Lila’s shadow as Djebar’s authorial signature—her veiled
presence—speaking nearby Lila. In a second way, Lila’s shadow may also rep-
resent a community of shadows (an in-between or ²⁄³ Space) of patios and huts
that Djebar identifies in Regard interdit, son coupé in which Algerian women
congregate and from which their whispers and murmurs originate. And fi-
nally, the shadow also suggests Algerian women’s doubled existence—as the
silent woman perpetuated in the hegemonic discourses of Algeria (expressed
through Lila’s silent on-screen frustration) and as a veiled, marginal-speaking
transmitter of and (active) participant in Algerian history (the larger-than-life
shadow), who needs bringing into the light.
The scene continues with a cut to a longer medium one shot of the pro-
file of Ali wheeling himself into the shot from screen-left. Lila remains stand-
ing in her previous position screen-right. The two appear to mutually gaze
at each other via an eyeline matching, and then Lila walks over and stands
directly across from Ali. Djebar cuts to a close-up of Ali’s profile, which is
framed by a window with its curtain drawn in the background. Ali turns his
head to face the camera, but he never looks into the camera’s eye. He then
slowly wheels himself backwards into a corner of the room. It is interesting to
compare Djebar’s framing of Ali inside a closed window shut to the exterior
with her earlier framing of Lila inside a barred window open to the exterior
and its natural sunlight. Immediately, the less dramatic framing of Ali draws
out the exceptionalness of Lila’s framing and asks the spectator to begin to
see Algerian men and women in revised ways. In Ali’s framing, the home
becomes reduced to a single corner. Djebar reifies the dominator/dominated
structure, but she revises it through gender reversal. In quite a literal way,
Djebar’s dominating (camera) eye seeks out and annihilates Ali’s dominated
eye, leaving Ali no recourse but to retreat to the corner of the room as if out
of fear. Thus, the home as represented in relation to Ali ironically becomes
20 C H A PT E R 1
even more prison-like than the way in which Djebar presents it in relation to
Lila. The exterior sunlight that floods the open window also floods and illu-
minates Lila’s body—thus creating a connection to the outdoors, an “escape
route” of sorts to reach other women in her effort to wander in the past, sift
through her memories, and explore the meaning of a homeland through the
women’s narratives.
Djebar reinstates the hegemonic or nationalist way of viewing Algerian
women in connection to nature and the country. As Djebar claims in Regard
interdit, son coupé, one of the only ideologically accepted ways of representing
Algerian women in Algeria is in connection to the land. Further editing be-
tween shots of Lila looking through the window, the countryside, the home’s
rooftop, and then the mountain of Chenoua crystallizes this representation.
But as Djebar had first accomplished in the disillusionment (or defamiliariza-
tion) of the male gaze earlier in this scene, she once again succeeds in surprising
the spectator. Following this tranquil editing between Lila and the Algerian
landscape, Djebar cuts to an image of a woman standing behind vertical
bars—in a prison cell it appears—and then to a sequence of documentary-
like archival images of army trucks entering a village, a tree blowing in a
storm, and the trees on the mountainside ablaze. Set against these images are
sounds of war: airplanes, explosions, male and female cries and shouts, and
gunfire. In a very abrupt way, Djebar unseats the idyllic representation of
Algerian women as an Algerian landscape and creates a new representation by
memorializing in this sequence the sacrifices made, the trauma experienced,
and the hardships borne by many Algerian women during the struggle for
independence from France.
Djebar also effectively defamiliarizes the traditional representation of
home as a space of female occultation through the low-angle long shot which
foregrounds the home while capturing the mountain of Chenoua in the back-
ground. Viewing the home in relation to the mountain as a former fe/male
site of warfare testifies to the contemporary emancipatory war some Algerian
women and Djebar directly or indirectly wage against the patriarchal State
and political factions in Algeria.8 Moreover, viewing the home in relation to
the mountain as a beacon to Algerian women’s communities—since Djebar
has returned to the rural mountain communities to interview the women
there—bespeaks her project to salvage and encourage women’s oral histories
in a strengthened effort to avoid their cultural, social, and historical autism.
Therefore, the home becomes a site of female political action, spectatorship,
and authorship in La nouba du Mont Chenoua.
Following the sequence of editing that recaptures images and sounds of
the war in Touchia: Ouverture, Djebar cuts back to a medium one shot of
Lila’s profile. Lila then turns to look back at us over her left shoulder, directly
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 21
gazing into the camera lens. Fully centered within the cinematographic frame,
Djebar subtly zooms in on Lila’s face and freeze-frames this image. This has
a striking effect on the spectator. In a very literal way, Djebar crystallizes the
female gaze. Her dominant gaze (represented in the camera’s eye) directly
meets Lila’s appropriated gaze in a “metaphorical” or symbolic direct eyeline
matching. Equal cinematographic and semiotic ground is established. The
male gaze, as represented earlier in Ali’s inability to look into the camera’s
eye, is successfully subverted. The freeze-frame not only effectively creates for
Djebar a (re)appropriated space or position of female (on-screen as well as
off-screen) spectatorship in transnational cinema, but it also directly engages
her theorizations of the female gaze as an enabler of female conversations
and dialogues (female speech), a point she later articulates in Ces voix qui
m’assiègent.
In Regard de l’autre, regard sur l’autre from Ces voix qui m’assiègent, Dje-
bar challenges the traditional gaze through Algerian women’s désir de parole
(1999: 166) / [“desire for speech” (my translation)], but Djebar asserts that
this desire for speech is borne only after she opens her eyes (1999: 166) and
specifically when she circulates “dans les paysages retrouvés” (1999: 166) /
[“in refound landscapes” (my translation)]. Djebar states that this female gaze
searches out locations, houses, dried-up rivers, burned forests and meets other
women who gaze back on her in their turn (1999: 166–167). Djebar finds
that in their interweaving gazes, dialogue becomes baited on the present and
on the past (1999: 167). For Djebar, women’s gaze becomes a departure for
speech (1999: 167) or in other words, an impetus for a feminine speech pur-
porting to testify to women’s present (and past) daily existence and memories
of “un passé encore à vif” (1999: 167) / [“a past still alive”]. Through a per-
sonal investigation or a sifting through life experiences that shares common
points of origin, reference, or destinations with others in Djebar’s work, this
re-hybridized subject—through the gaze and in speech—exposes, resists, and
challenges the contradicting and ambivalent discourses in which it is impli-
cated.
For the remaining roughly ten minutes of Touchia: Ouverture, the
film juxtaposes sequences of ethnographic-like images of Algerian coun-
trywomen and children performing domestic tasks, fictional fragments of
the doctor’s house call to examine Ali, Ali’s dream sequence revealing his
riding accident, anonymous women performing various domestic tasks,
and a group of strolling musicians playing traditional indigenous music.
Spliced within these fragments are images of the mountain, countryside,
and coastline. The most striking element of these juxtapositions impacting
the spectator’s viewing experience is Djebar’s mise en scène in each of the
images. Djebar masterfully fills each plane (foreground, middle ground, and
22 C H A PT E R 1
instance, I wish to read Djebar more specifically in the young girl’s figure
than in Lila’s, largely because this young girl seems to recognize that she has
something to learn about Algerian culture, history, and society by watching/
listening to the mother figure as represented in Lila. Indeed, this most literally
reflects Djebar’s project: to look and listen to the mother as a source to the
past and a means for revised Algerian women’s representation. Lila’s closing
of the window shutter, which symbolically reinstates social occulting practices
in the film, effectively demonstrates the guaranteed effacement of an entire
female generation’s representation and predicts the implicit dangers for the
new generations if communication between female generations is cut. In the
remaining segments of La nouba du Mont Chenoua, Djebar works against
these dangers by establishing positions of female spectatorship and authorship
through Lila’s gaze and speech as well as through her own voiceovers that
meld and collaborate with the gazes and voices of the countrywomen Lila
interviews in various home settings.
In Regard interdit, son coupé, the home shelters a paradox. On the one
hand, the home houses the “mystère féminin.” It is a private and feminine
world in which the women may whisper with one another and may carry out
their domestic duties. They are physically present and active in this world.
On the other hand, Djebar speaks of the home as a metaphor for a quasi-
prison. Djebar reads the women of Delacroix’s painting as symptomatic of
the cultural double imprisonment of Algerian women in society. As captured
in Delacroix’s painting, even within the closed “feminine” space of the home,
the master makes his authority felt through his own gaze that annihilates
all others (245). Thus, the unveiled women of the painting are imprisoned
inside his gaze, as their gaze is ironically made absent in this “female” world.
As such, the home in Djebar’s essay is unsettled, destabilized, and becomes a
site for a repression of difference. Yet, as we saw above, the home also has the
potential to become a ²⁄³ Space of contradiction, ambivalence, paradox, and
resistance. It is a contact zone in which gazes, voices, speeches, and bodies
may collaborate together to produce trans/national representations of Alge-
rian women on the page and on the screen. A brief overview of Djebar’s utili-
zation and theorization of the voice, the body, and speech in Regard interdit,
son coupé and Ces voix qui m’assiègent will show us how.
fellow countrywomen in her writing reifies this silencing since she claims to
deny her individual voice in her work. Yet in more ways, Djebar’s literary
strategy in Regard interdit, son coupé, and by extension in all her work, revises
this cultural silencing insofar as she is consciously “writing in order to affront
and struggle against a double silence” (1979: 27). In Être une voix francophone
from Ces voix qui m’assiègent, Djebar identifies this double silence firstly as
a struggle against her own literary silence (“autisme”) when faced with the
unnamable violence in Algeria (1999: 27) and secondly as a struggle against
her maternal genealogy (1999: 27). As she demonstrates in La nouba du Mont
Chenoua, by veiling her individual voice in the shadows (or “timeless cho-
rus”) of her female family members’ voices, she effectively revises this double
silence in creating a polyphonic palimpsest upon which she superimposes
(some of the following being earlier identified by Donadey in this chapter):
encounters and spoken exchanges between women, the oral transmission of
history by women, a multiplication of female voices, and parallels between
women’s existence.
Djebar’s struggle against a female autism—the first of the threatening
silences against which she writes—returns us to Regard interdit, son coupé, spe-
cifically when Djebar explains that the silencing of female voices in their oral
transmission of history leads to their autism. Djebar writes: “Ainsi, ce monde
de femmes, quand il ne bruit plus de chuchotements de tendresse complice,
de complaints perdues, bref d’un romantisme d’enchantement évanoui, ce
monde-là devient brusquement, aridement, celui de l’autisme” (1979: 259).
Thus, Djebar suppresses her individual voice so that she may successfully
muffle it and blend it with the whispers of her fellow countrywomen recount-
ing the songs, legends, and stories testifying to Algerian women’s role in his-
tory so as to avoid her personal and her female community’s collective autism.
The suppression of her individual voice does not suggest complete anonym-
ity, however. Djebar’s voice speaking alongside her fellow countrywomen in
her writing is still personalized and collaboratively recounts a personal history
or histories; in other words, her perspective and personal take on the story in
which she seeks to (re)claim a multiplicity of female identities.
In this superimposition of female voices reclaiming their oral tradition,
Djebar effectively overcomes the double silence. She additionally suggests
that the female body, through its textual representation in print and in film,
may also overcome the double silence. Djebar ushers in this assertion in Re-
gard interdit, son coupé through her analysis of the Algerian oral narrative (or
song) of Messaouda—the young Harazélias girl who spurs the retreating men
of her village to turn around and fight the invading Tedjini warriors by vol-
untarily revealing herself as she climbs over the village wall to face the would-
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 25
be conquerors. In this legend that Djebar recounts in her essay, while facing
the advancing Tedjini enemies, Messaouda cries out: “Où sont les homes de
ma tribu? / Où sont mes frères? / Où sont ceux qui chantaient pour moi des
chants d’amour?” (1979: 251). [“Where are the men of my tribe? / Where are
my brothers? / Where are those who used to sing songs of love to me?” (1992:
143).] Upon hearing her cries, as legend has it, the men rushed to her aid cry-
ing out: “Sois heureuse, voici tes frères, voici tes amants!” (1979: 250). [“Be
happy, here are your brothers, here are your lovers!” (1992: 143).] As a result,
the men, “électrisés par l’appel de la jeune fille” (1979: 250) [“electrified by
the young girl’s call” (1992: 143)], successfully pushed back the enemy.
On a pragmatic level, Djebar uses the song of Messaouda as evidence of
women’s involvement in many nineteenth-century resistant movements as
“women warriors” who successfully stepped out of their traditional bystander
or supporting role. However, on a theoretical level and as she also shows
via her analyses of Delacroix’s and Picasso’s paintings, Djebar successfully
uses the song of Messaouda to interrogate the cultural representation of the
female body and voice in Algerian society. In addition to her body and voice
representing—as illustrated in the aforementioned song of Messaouda—a
local heroism, tribal solidarity, and the impetus to a victorious ending for the
community, they also represent a mobilizing force for Djebar. She questions
whether the fleeing men of Messaouda’s village are more afraid of seeing
Messaouda’s body totally revealed or if they are more “éléctrisés” by hear-
ing her voice. The recognition of the female body and voice as a mobilizing
(especially creative) force has prolifically proven central to many feminist ap-
proaches and readings of literature and film.
Historically speaking, women and their socio-political-economic posi-
tion and status have typically been determined by their bodies—their indi-
vidual awakenings and action, their pleasures and their pain all competing
against representations of the female body in larger social frameworks.9 The
body and its organs, functions, fluids, and secretions have all been a source
of biological (“natural”) and ideological (“cultural”) (mis)representation
as well as constituted a site for gender (mis)construction. This is one rea-
son why the female body remains the cornerstone to the field of feminist
theory, for it offers no such “natural” foundation for the pervasive cultural
assumptions constructed about femininity.10 This appears especially true
with regard to the representations of femininity as presented in dominant,
patriarchal, middle-class literature and film as complaisant, subservient,
self-sacrificing to the needs or bettering of the family, passive, secondary,
attractive, and in danger of violation. In questioning women’s socio-
political-economic status, feminists throughout the ages have examined
26 C H A PT E R 1
in various ways and from various perspectives the tension that has always
existed between women’s lived bodily experiences and the cultural meanings
inscribed on the female body that always mediate those experiences.11 This
tension has often been framed within the binary opposition of male as Self/
Subject and woman as Other/Object.12 Scholars understood the Self as tran-
scendent and superior to bodily representation and bodily functions, while
the Other was trapped in immanence and defined by bodily shape, size, and
functions. Feminist scholars noted how the female was constructed in and by
the cultural assumptions of femininity and how the male reaped the benefits
of that arrangement.13 The Other was seen as inferior and “defined by a ‘lack’
of masculine qualities that men assumed resulted from natural defectiveness”
(Conboy et al, 1997: 7). Djebar picks up on these readings of the female body
to some extent in her work, but she revises them.
Djebar underlines the female body in Regard interdit, son coupé through
her reading of Messaouda’s body (and voice) in the song of Messaouda as a
body and voice in danger. Interestingly, Djebar reads them in this way not
because Messaouda has put herself in harm’s way by climbing over the wall
and calling out to the men of her village, but rather because she has done so
in a totally spontaneous movement. In Regard interdit, son coupé, the female
body and voice manifest a mobilizing creative force borne in the improvised
and dangerous action of a young girl who voluntarily shows her body and
calls out—two transgressive acts in Algerian society. This representation of a
female body and voice in creative spontaneity instantly brings to mind Hé-
lène Cixous’ theorizations of the female body and voice and their connection
to writing that she asserted in her groundbreaking essay Le rire de la Méduse
(1975).
In this essay, Cixous outlines a feminine writing practice or mode—une
écriture féminine [“a feminine writing”]—that recuperates the lost voice of the
archaic mother and creates a space or position from which the body speaks.
Critics of this writing genre find the practice essentialist since Cixous relies on
a certain biologism that privileges biology (“nature”) over ideology (“culture”)
in arguing that one is born and not made a woman. Scholars seeing Cixous
as an essentialist see the issue of sexual difference and gender construction in
her work as a “glamorous form of biologism” (Bray, 2004: 29). In Le rire de
la Méduse, Cixous calls for a specifically feminine textuality which directly
expresses a subversive feminine sexuality—not advocating a language of the
body which is composed of grunts, wails, screams, or nonsense—but a spon-
taneous language which is capable of translating those moments when lan-
guage fails us and the body attempts to speak.14 Cixous desires to forge a new
language which “communicates the space between language and the body, a
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 27
space of the (m)other” (Bray, 2004: 37) and which is inherently subversive to
dominant, phallocentric, or patriarchal language.
In some ways, as seen in Djebar’s discussion of Messaouda’s body and
voice, Djebar is also advocating a “mythical” or “legendary” language of the
(m)other that draws on the female body and voice. In Regard interdit, son
coupé, Djebar explains that the mother, as well as the daughter, are shut-up
inside the family—ce resserrement à l’intérieur des familles (1979: 256) [“this
tightening within the families” (1992: 146)]—which she finds leads to a reat-
tachment to the oral roots of Algerian history, as mothers and grandmothers
often recount oral histories (including Messaouda’s song) to their children. In
this context, Djebar reads the (m)other’s representation as a woman without
body and individual voice whose sound recovers the timbre of a collective and
obscure voice, necessarily sexless (1979: 256–257). In effect, Djebar positions
the maternal as a link to history—but a history only realized through the aid
of the sororal as represented in the figure of Messaouda (she cries, “Where
are my brothers?”).
In brief, the maternal in Regard interdit, son coupé delineates a group of
mothers and grandmothers who maintain affective memory in the shadows
of the patios and huts (1979: 257). In Regard interdit, son coupé, the mater-
nal also “engenders” the only official female cultural identity constructed,
which is limited to the land, the village, the popular local saint, sometimes
to the “clan,” but in any case is concrete and passionate with affection
(1979: 257). For Djebar the (m)other bears no individual identity, either
in body or voice, and exists only as a figureless and collective voice. But the
sister (Messaouda), for Djebar, bears her own unique identity and exists
as an individual body and voice in fusion. Yet, the (m)other and sister are
co-dependent and both exist as speaking subjects that either create histories
(Messaouda) or narrate histories (the mother). However, in Regard interdit,
son coupé, Djebar uses the figureless representation of the (m)other or the
maternal to speak to a larger cultural project that she has in mind. For Dje-
bar, the maternal provides not just a procreative link between the genera-
tions but also an affective link to H/history through her oral tradition. And
in order for her voice to effect the oral tradition story/history—l’histoire
(1979: 257) in Djebar’s view—she hides her body from us so as to return
as the voice of an indefinite grandmother or timeless chorus in which the
story/history is told (1979: 257). Through the figure of the (m)other in
this essay, Djebar reifies Algerian women’s duality—their division into
body and voice—and privileges the (m)other’s voice, particularly in chorus,
which in turn reaffirms the importance and weight of the Algerian women’s
community in Algerian society and history.
28 C H A PT E R 1
However, through the figure of the sororal in her essay, Djebar challenges
the division of female body and voice by fusing the two. This fusion begins to
echo Cixous’ understanding of the body as morphology—“the interpretation
of the way in which the shape or form of the female body is represented in
culture” (Bray, 2004: 35). In looking at Djebar’s study of the relationships
between female body and voice through a lens of morphology, one may con-
clude that the female body may not be reduced to either nature or culture but
becomes, rather, the scene of a dynamic discourse which exceeds the limits
of either category and thus opens up the possibility of a radical rewriting of
the place and function of the body within the nature/culture divide or larger
framework of society (and representation) in general.15 In this regard for Cix-
ous and to a lesser extent for Djebar, écriture féminine provides a “space in
which women can begin the process of creating an ontological autonomy and
begin to write a subjectivity which exceeds the phallocentric limits imposed
on women” (Bray, 2004: 73). Whereas Cixous sees writing in the feminine as
a deconstructive avant-garde textual practice challenging and moving beyond
the constraints of phallocentric thought, we can read Djebar’s writing in
the feminine as a space in which women can begin the process of creating a
“veiled” textual hybrid subjectivity that challenges nationalistic discourses by
bringing the female body and voice in fusion to the task of discourse.16 This
process is perhaps best illustrated in Djebar’s collection of essays, Ces voix qui
m’assiègent.
Djebar echos Gracki’s assertions in her own words in her Du français comme
butin from Ces voix qui m’assiègent.
Du français comme butin originally appeared as an article in La Quin-
zaine littéraires’s December 1989 edition. In this brief excerpt reprinted in
Ces voix qui m’assiègent, Djebar succinctly debates several keystone issues in
her writing. She contemplates la sotto voce (or the low, soft voice, so as not
to be overhead) of women’s speech. She theorizes that speech is anchored in
the memory of the shadow of the people. And she discusses writing in the
first-person-singular pronoun in the Maghreb. In her essay, Djebar supports
the metaphoric reading of the use of the “je” in literary writing as akin to
appearing naked in public. She explains that to speak outside the matriarchal
warmth, outside the antiphon of Tradition, outside the “fidelity”—this term
taken in a religious sense—to write in the first-person singular and from a
singularity (or individuality), body naked and voice hardly deviating by the
foreign timbre, incites again in front of us all the symbolic dangers (1999:
70). She asserts in her essay that censorship and curses sometimes result, ac-
companied by a premature prolixness and more new, freshly “modernized”
orators than female elders of the suspicious tribe (1999: 70). In other words,
Djebar agrees that an ontological use of the “je” in Maghrebian writing
constitutes a transgressive act in a religious sense; but she also recognizes
additional symbolic dangers in such an act, largely in the creation of a new,
modernized “nationalistic” discourse that denies women’s oral histories.
Djebar envisions no possible avenue to Algerian women’s subjectivity
through the “national” (hierarchical and patriarchal) discourses that refuse
their voices. Djebar, like many feminist theorists, wishes for the free pursuit
of fe/male subjectivity insubordinate to a hierarchical patriarchal economy.
But Djebar slightly qualifies this pursuit by seeking to set free a collection of
subjectivities in the plural that are located within the oral histories of Algerian
women by recounting these personal histories in her work. Djebar interrogates
the nationalist discourses of Algeria as solely privileging and elaborating mas-
culine subjects and their contributions to Algerian history, effectively ignor-
ing Algerian women and their contributions. Djebar will directly affront the
30 C H A PT E R 1
in others’ views, and that to veil herself in her writing was a natural mode
(1999: 98). As Huughe proposes, the first veil Djebar donned was her pseud-
onym. Huughe writes:
The second way in which Djebar veiled herself (or the second veil she
donned) is her relationship to the French language.
In Écrire dans la langue de l’autre—an essay from Ces voix qui m’assiègent
that first appeared in a speech she delivered at the “Troisième Congrès inter-
national de l’ARIC” on “Identité, culture, et changement social” at the Un-
viersity of Sherbroke (Canada-Québec) in August of 1989—Djebar writes,
“J’ai utilisé jusque-là la langue française comme voile. Voile sur ma personne
individuelle, voile sur mon corps de femme; je pourrais presque dire voile sur
ma propre voix” (1999: 43). [“I have used the French language until now as
a veil. Veil covering my individual person, veil covering my woman’s body, I
could almost say veil coving my own voice” (my translation).] Djebar reasons
that since the French language represented the outside world of men while
the Arabic language represented the inside world of women, her use of the
French language in writing allowed “her stealthily to break into the world
of the ‘outside’ while preserving herself” (Huughe, 1996: 867). Thus, the
French language became her second veil.
For Djebar, to veil oneself does not signify dressing up or disguising
oneself in order to hide oneself (1999: 98), but rather to venture outside
while at the same time preserving oneself (1999: 99). Although some have
argued that Djebar’s use of the French language as a veil in her writing has
alienated her from her Arabic-speaking female community, Djebar strives to
overturn this claim by denying any ontological authorial voice in her writing.
Thus, she permits herself to adopt in her work a collective (and thus veiled)
voice resonating in the conversations between Algerian women and in their
oral tradition. (Consequently, this collective voice constitutes Djebar’s third
veil.) In essence, the veil permits and presents Djebar, and by extension all of
the other Algerian women to whom she is speaking nearby in her work, as a
re-hybridized speaking subject. By denying her individual subjectivity in her
writing and by adopting a collective yet still personal female voice, Djebar
rehabilitates a ²⁄³ female space or position of spectatorship and authorship
32 C H A PT E R 1
This collective female voice in oral tradition and in personal history in Dje-
bar’s work echoes an important revision in feminist theoretical discussions of
the corporeal body in literature; that is, the notion that the body is a site for
play with categories and labels and that gender is not passively scripted on the
body but rather performed on and through the body.20
In revising earlier theorizations of gender formation, feminist scholars be-
gan seeing representations and standards of conventional or normative femi-
ninity as performative acts. Scholars began turning their attention to the ex-
amination of “feminine” behaviors, in which women may burden themselves
with cosmetics and cosmetic procedures in an attempt to embody eternal
youth or may gravely jeopardize their health or undergo expensive cosmetic
procedures in pursuit of an idealized female form, may repress sexual desire
and freedom for the preservation of Victorian middle-class or religious ideals,
may resign to social or familial pressure to abandon career for the bearing and
raising of children, or may carry the burden of maintaining domestic order
at home. Contemporary debates concerning the female body have focused
on the existing tension between defining and challenging the category and
activities of women, or more specifically, contemplating the physical features
that mark a body as female and the attributes and practices that render a body
“feminine.”21 Scholars commonly concur that gender, itself, is a performative
act and that the female body—constructed through ideologies, discourses,
and practices—manifests a contested site or battleground for competing ide-
ologies (Conboy et al., 1997: 8). Djebar takes up this “battleground” notion
in a most direct, literal, and head-on fashion throughout all of her work by
examining the image, representation, symbolism, and function of many bod-
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 33
ies of Algerian women throughout history during times of war, but especially
during the war for independence from France.
In Regard interdit, son coupé and Ces voix qui m’assiègent, often times Dje-
bar writes of the porteuses de bombes [“women bomb carriers”], the Algerian
female F.L.N. members who took part in attacks against French colonialists
during the Algerian war for independence. As Djebar views it, the sexual
violation and torture of these Algerian women in French custody affronts
masculine codes of honor and were largely missing from French accounts
of the war.22 In Algeria during the years following the war, when the newly
(re)independent country was searching for a revised national identity, the
subjects of rape and female torture during the war became taboo. As Djebar
argues, Algeria’s revised national identity effaced these women’s bodies that
bore physical evidence of their sacrifices and silenced their troubling testimo-
nies. On this point, Madeleine Dobie argues that:
beyond the borders of the nation-state. She drives this argument home par-
ticularly in the Postface of Femmes d’Alger dans leurs appartement.
Djebar’s emphasis on female bodies and voices in written texts once again
cannot fail to bring to mind Cixous’ work on écriture feminine in quite a
literal way. Again, Djebar appears to answer Cixous’ call for women to return
to their bodies in writing the feminine, which as Cixous argues cannot fail
to subvert traditional phallocentric reasoning. By using Algerian women’s
bodies as a point of departure in her writing, Djebar envisions an avenue to
a revised (transnational) set of Algerian H/historical discourses that would
take into account Algerian women’s existence and contributions. This revi-
sion would bestow upon individuals, most notably the spectator or reader,
a liberty to move between masculine and feminine subjectivities and would
provide what Cixous would recognize as an emergence of relational identity,
certainly between the sexes.
Djebar calls to Algerian women to bring their bodies into the light,
thereby “challeng[ing] the dominant discourse of nationalism” (Gafaiti, 1996:
814), which was set forth in 1980 when the Algerian government launched
a campaign to write (falsify) the modern history of Algeria. The writers and
intellectuals who answered this campaign produced texts that became easily
distinguishable by their self-celebratory tone, their mechanical nationalism,
and incomparable mediocrity from an esthetic point of view (Gafaiti, 1996:
814). What proves interesting in Djebar’s theorizing of Algerian women’s
maternal duality—her absent body but present voice—lies in the fact that
this theorization reads “against the grain” of much early “nationalist” postco-
lonial theory. Much first-generation postcolonial theory reads the Mother’s
body—very much present as illustrated by the appearance of her breasts,
stomach, thighs, etc. in many postcolonial primary works—as a metaphor
for the African continent, a pre-colonial past or a traditional or indigenous
society, the nation, the community, or the family. Although Djebar’s mother
represents many of these same locations, ideologies, or social institutions, it
remains ultimately the mother’s voice and not her body in Djebar’s work that
presides and leads us to the past and/or situates us home.
Yet the female body—since it also bears physical evidence of the past—
remains important as a corporeal palimpsest of Algerian H/history and women’s
roles played throughout. Therefore, not wanting to reinstate binary practices
of situating Algerian women in either body or voice, Djebar often engages in
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 35
voices in literary, social, cultural, and historical discourses. This is not to say
that prior to Djebar’s figures of Algerian women as mothers and sisters that
Algerian women were not represented in postcolonial literary, social, cultural,
and historical texts. Gafaiti’s assertion simply evidences the truism that the
involvement of those Algerian women as active agents in the anti-French
demonstrations and attacks was fully ignored. Yet, Djebar’s duality of female
body and voice proves interesting in another way with regard to the chal-
lenges she levels at the dominant discourses of nationalism. Djebar reveals
this additional challenge in her analysis of Picasso’s Women of Algiers at the
end of her essay.
As Djebar presents in Regard interdit, son coupé, Picasso came to live
in Algeria from December 1954 to February 1955, when the Algerian war
for independence was just beginning. During this time, he created fifteen
paintings and two lithographs on the subject of three Algerian women.
When comparing Picasso’s work to that of Delacroix a century earlier, Dje-
bar writes that Picasso reverses Delacroix’s curse, shatters the unhappiness,
inscribes in bold or daring lines a totally new happiness, a prescience that
should guide us in our daily lives (1979: 259–260). Picasso’s work manifests
a glorious liberation from confinement and awakens the bodies in dance, in
expenditure, and in free movement (1979: 260). According to Djebar, the
juxtaposition of the “impenetrable” figure of one Algerian woman in Picas-
so’s painting to the figures of the other Algerian women in motion represent
a proposed moral of a connection to be recovered between the former and
parried calmness—the lady, frozen as before in her sullen sadness, is hence-
forth immobile, but like a rock of interior strength—and the improvised
bursting out in an open space (1979: 260). In other words, one must find
an “in-betweeness” between this particular representation of a frozen Alge-
rian—reminiscent of Delacroix’s representation—and the representation of
Algerian women bursting out in improvised movement—reminiscent of the
representation of Messaouda. Djebar desires to create a literary and histori-
cal in-betweeness or re-hybridization for Algerian women writers, storytellers,
mothers, sisters, and daughters in which they may socially exist congruently
in body and voice. Djebar specifically finds the makings of this corporeal and
audio congruence in the figure of the woman warrior. In Regard interdit, son
coupé, Djebar utilizes the image of the woman warrior (Messaouda) and by
extension the bomb carriers who were also women warriors, and the recount-
ing of their heroic actions and liberating (for Messaouda) / punitive (for the
bomb carriers) consequences as a textual representation of fusion between
Algerian women’s bodies and voices.
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 37
In essence, barring the years during the Algerian war of independence and
its moments of spontaneous heroic acts of women warriors as represented in
the Song of Messaouda, Algerian women’s situation has not changed, Djebar
reckons. She expresses in Regard interdit, son coupé that
Conclusion
For Djebar, the image of the home Delacroix represented in his painting—a
space of imprisonment—still represents the contemporary Algerian cultural
norm. But the home as a space of improvised movement and (un)veiled
collective subjectivity, which Djebar wishes to read in Picasso’s painting,
bespeaks a possible revised image of the home for Djebar. It still remains,
however, that both of these representations materialized from the problematic
Western (orientalist or cubist), male gaze. As Djebar has shown in La nouba
du Mont Chenoua, in order for the image of the home as a space of improvised
movement and (un)veiled collective subjectivity to come to fruition through
female spectatorship and authorship, Algerian women must subvert the mas-
culine double gaze and voice and continue their feminine oral tradition. As
shown in Regard interdit, son coupé, the means to effect Algerian women’s
concrete and daily liberation rests in the in-between space of official and
M A K ING HOME WIT H ASSIA DJ EBAR 39
Notes
1. Laura Mulvey, “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema,” Screen 16 (1975), 6–18.
2. Laura Mulvey, “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ In-
spired by Duel in the Sun,” Framework 6 (1981), 15–17.
3. Teresa De Lauretis, Alice Doesn’t: Feminism, Semiotics, Cinema (Bloomington,
IN: Indiana Univ. Press, 1984).
4. Sandy Flitterman-Lewis, To Desire Differently (New York, NY: Columbia Univ.
Press, 1996), 9.
40 C H A PT E R 1
Neither Annie Ernaux nor Simone de Beauvoir in the field of French liter-
ary studies is a modern or contemporary women writer that one immedi-
ately or even generally associates with Diaspora or diasporic spaces. To my
knowledge, there are no “official” postcolonial approaches to or postcolonial
readings of their work and ideas, per se. Although both Simone de Beauvoir
and Jean-Paul Sartre championed Francophone African literatures in the
mid-twentieth century and were fervent supporters of the independence
movements in Southeast Asia and North and West Africa, they were not so-
called “postcolonial” writers. With regard to Annie Ernaux, the prototypical
postcolonial questions concerning nationality, citizenship, nation-states, bor-
ders, and political engagement never surface. She is categorically considered a
French writer of the auto/biographical tradition in both theory and practice.
However, if we recall the trope I elaborated in the Introduction, all of
the artists in this study address a state of “homelessness at home” in their
narratives. This notion speaks to the feelings of unease, nervousness, dissat-
isfaction, restlessness, shame, frustration, and resignation experienced by the
protagonists in their daily existence inside the home and their dis/location
lived within. In other words, this dis/location captures a kind of diasporic
space in which the protagonists are both “here and there,” caught in an
inauthentic self-identity normatively conceived, understood, imposed upon,
accepted, and performed at home. It is this diasporic-like experience of an
unsettled home and its in-authenticity that becomes a catalyst for the female
protagonists (re)awakening to the hegemonic and personal discourses giving
shape and form to their multiplicitous identities, thereby creating their sense
of existing both “here and there” or neither “here nor there.” Calling to mind
41
42 C H A PT E R 2
Strehle’s theorization of the home as I laid out in the Introduction, the home
reflects and resembles “nation” by expressing the same ideological pressures
that contend within the nation and does not serve as a retreat from the public
and political spheres. We recall that the home has permeable walls and is a
receiver of public languages and values as well as a space in which national,
global, and/or hegemonic discourses speak and reproduce themselves.
It is through this lens that I include de Beauvoir and Ernaux in this
study. Both women are keenly aware of the “imperial” ideology of home and
its associated values, which is to say the “deeper affiliation[s] with the public
realm as a patriarchal space where power relations vital to the nation and cul-
ture are negotiated” (Strehle, 2008: 1). In this case, “nation” is understood as
hegemonic middle-class, mid-twentieth-century, metropolitan France. In this
chapter, we will explore how the diasporic space of home—this “homelessness
at home”—inflects transnational identity and transnational understanding of
self and gender in contemporary women’s lifewriting from France. Transna-
tional in Chapter Two does not suggest the international borders between
two independent nation-states but rather the virtual intra-national borders
between social class and sex within the homeland of France. In order to real-
ize this transnational reading of femininity and home in this study, let us first
begin with an overview of de Beauvoir’s and Ernaux’s literary corpuses.
Annie Ernaux’s and Simone de Beauvoir’s objectives in their writing
echo some of Assia Djebar’s primary artistic and theoretical agendas. On the
surface, all three women are concerned with bringing to light numerous con-
tradictions that engender the representations of Algerian or French women
within various societies and circumstances. Whereas Djebar has represented
these contradictions in a variety of artistic media and academic forms, Er-
naux has principally remained within the realm of literature, and de Beauvoir
worked within the realms of literature, philosophy, and drama. As Djebar
has done in her revisions of conventional forms of cinematic spectatorship
and literary authorship, Ernaux has likewise revised “high literature” through
the blurring of the literary boundaries between conventional fiction, auto/
biography, and auto/ethnography. One may consider both women writers
as quasi-sociologists or quasi-archaeologists whose texts disclose first-person
female accounts of Algerian and French women’s existences in contemporary
times. More of a “traditionalist,” de Beauvoir remained more faithful to con-
ventional literary forms in her writing than the other two women. However,
as this chapter will show, her work also manifests certain tropes that work
together to subvert multiple aspects of conventional literary forms. Addition-
ally, all three women’s texts tease out multiple theoretical interrogations of
women’s contemporary representations, subjectivities, and identities in Alge-
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 43
ria and/or France. Let us continue this overview with a more in-depth look at
Annie Ernaux’s corpus and then explore in close detail her novel La Femme
gelée with regard to the re-hybridized speaking and gazing subject position she
creates and the ²⁄³ Space of expression she adopts in this text.
Annie Ernaux
Since many of Ernaux’s texts include much of her personal life and personal
history, it only seems fitting in this chapter’s discussion and analysis of her
third novel, La Femme gelée (1981), to begin with her brief biography. Claire-
Lise Tondeur provides a very useful summary. She writes:
Ernaux’s early texts, Les Armoires vides (1974), Ce qu’ils disent ou rien (1977),
La Femme gelée (1981), La Place (1983), and Une Femme (1987), primarily
recount scenes from her childhood, adolescence, and early adulthood, which
all testify to various forms of social class stereotyping, social contradictions,
personal disillusionment, class mis/identifications, and gender mis/represen-
tations. In these texts, Ernaux introduces the reader to her struggles with
44 C H A PT E R 2
social class and gender stereotypes brought about by her parents’ social ascen-
sion from the working class to the petite bourgeoisie. She also shares with the
reader her personal pains and anxieties endured in her passage from the petite
to intellectual middle-class bourgeoisie.
In her work, Ernaux foregrounds social class and gender stereotypes in
order to undermine them by writing against their misrepresentations. In
other words, like Djebar, Ernaux also appropriates hegemonic ways of see-
ing, in this case contemporary French women of the lower and middle social
classes in order to revise these mis/representations. She reveals in her writing
how these representations have been unilaterally constructed by the dominant
social class in the interest of self-gain and complicitly carried out by the domi-
nated social classes. In doing so, Ernaux, like Djebar, succeeds in mediating
a textual ²⁄³ Space or mode of articulation in which a re-hybridized subject,
which is to say a protagonist caught in-between multiple social and gender
discourses and personal histories, may gaze and speak.
From a seemingly anthropological or sociological perspective, Ernaux
thus underscores all of her texts with a rather post-modern examination of
the contemporary contradictory and ambivalent French social politics and
cultural discourses by questioning normative gender and social class roles and
ideologies and their effects. On this point, Tondeur asserts that, “l’auteur
rédige [des] textes pour chercher à mieux comprendre l’aliénation langagière
et sociale que représente pour cette intellectuelle son appartenance originelle
au prolétariat” (1996: 37). [“the author writes texts in order to better under-
stand the linguistic and social alienation that represents for this intellectual
her original belonging to the working classes” (my translation).] Concerning
this assertion in relation to the corpus of Ernaux’s work, Michèle Bacholle
finds that:
Tous ces textes sont en fait des variations sur un même thème.
Ils disent tous le déracinement socioculturel, la douleur de ce
passage de la classe “dominée” à la classe “dominante”, la honte
que l’auteur adolescente a ressentie vis-à-vis de ses parents, le sen-
timent de trahison et de culpabilité éprouvé plus tard envers eux
et la nécessité de réhabiliter à travers eux un monde jugé inférieur
par ceux qui tiennent le haut du pavé. (2000: 141)
[All these texts are in fact variations on the same theme. They
speak, all of them, about socio-cultural uprooting, the pain of this
passage from the “dominated” class to the “dominating” class, the
shame that the adolescent author feels in respect to her parents,
the feeling of betrayal and of guilt later felt for them and the need
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 45
ERNAUX’S JE TRANSPERSONNEL
conventional ways of writing via the critical device that scholars have named
the “transpersonal I” or her je transpersonnel. Ernaux defines this device in
her own words as:
Thus, in the first-person narratives of Ernaux, Djebar, and the other women
artists in this project, we continually see a relational form of self-narrating
and self-discovery in their respective works. In addition to structuring these
women’s works and creating an in-between space of genres and disciplines in
which to write, another immediate advantage to this relational framing is that
it provides a practical agent for these women artists as re-hybridized speaking
subjects in challenging, appropriating, and revising hegemonic forms of gen-
der representation and conventional modes of writing. This, in turn, allows
these artists (and others after them) to continue creating new re-hybridized
spaces and seeing and speaking subjects. We will pause for a moment to con-
sider Ernaux’s writing style and the manners in which it realizes ²⁄³ Spaces or
modes of articulation and expression.
being led astray, wasted things. She has moved into ‘the differ-
ence’ that characterizes the feminine condition. Where is the cul-
tural portion, the progressive conditioning, education, religion,
confrontation with the masculine world, where is the freedom,
in other words the possibility that was given to not accept, in
some fashion, the responsibility; perhaps even the more or less
conscious acceptance of the role of the woman, for all sorts of
reasons, for example to please a man, to perform seduction, etc.
. . . Inside the book, there is often a sway of discourse between
‘here the influence, the conditioning’ and ‘but why did I accept?’
That which supposes that one can refuse, exercise his/her free-
dom. (my translation)]
Lyn Thomas finds this novel to manifest a literary version of topics discussed
among 1970s feminist consciousness-raising groups, for Ernaux shares her
thoughts on and experiences with personal problems stemming from tradi-
tional social and gender politics.7 Thomas recognizes in this novel affinities
with the feminist Bildungsroman insofar as Ernaux depicts a gradual process
of self-awareness and the development of a feminist understanding of her
individual experience (1999: 10). Additionally, she concludes that Ernaux
emphasizes the contrast between the reality of oppressive gender roles and the
discourses of equality and liberation prevalent in the existentialist literature
and middle-class intellectual milieu of the time (1999: 32). Gender roles and
discourses of power and power relations are common lenses adopted by many
scholars as they discuss this text in their secondary criticism.
Bacholle asserts that La Femme gelée “montre comment l’annihilation du
pouvoir féminine qui étrangement se perd au fur et à mesure que le pouvoir
culturel et social se gagne, a déçu les espoirs de la jeune fille de 20 ans” (2000:
32) [“shows how the annihilation of feminine power that strangely is lost as
cultural and social power is won, has disappointed the hopes of the young
twenty-year-old girl” (my translation).] And she concludes that Ernaux’s goal
in this text is not one of a “revendiation féministe en soi” (2000: 32) [“a
feminist demand for self” (my translation)] but rather “la dénunciation d’un
ordre social, inapproprié à l’épanouissement de la femme—un order qui ne
s’explicite pas clairement, mais qui sourd partout et que le langage selon les
cas dénonce ou renforce” (2000: 32). [“the denunciation of a social order,
inappropriate to the blossoming of the woman—an order that does not make
itself clearly explicit, but that bursts everywhere and that language accordingly
denounces or reinforces” (my translation)]. Each of these aforementioned
readings or summaries of La Femme gelée thereby demonstrates the ability of
Ernaux’s je transpersonnel to transcend the personal to speak nearby the social
52 C H A PT E R 2
LA FEMME GELÉE
ing the confusion she felt as a child regarding her mother’s “authenticity.”
The protagonist clarifies:
However, this dilemma will resurface time and time again in Ernaux’s life-
time through her ascension to the intellectual bourgeoisie, a social class space
and status in which “moman” does not exist, when she finds herself faced
with similar conflicting portraits of motherhood; that is, an “emancipated”
mother sharing the domestic chores and child-raising responsibilities with her
partner that Ernaux experienced as a child and the “maîtresse de la maison”
mother “qui mijotent de bons petits plats dans des intérieurs coquets, dont les
maris sont dans des bureaux” (1981: 60) [“who simmers delicious dishes in
their cunningly decorated homes while their husbands are busy at the office”
(1995: 64)] that her husband ultimately comes to expect from Ernaux. In
56 C H A PT E R 2
this new context Ernaux faces after her marriage in the last third of La Femme
gelée, language will not aid but rather complicate her conceptualization of the
home and to the same extent her expected (female) role therein.
Like Djebar who found it impossible to write in her maternal language of
Arabic and opting rather to write in the French language of her schooling, Er-
naux also found it impossible as a child, adolescent, and young adult to write
exclusively in her maternal—or what some scholars call carnal—language.
Like Djebar, Ernaux chooses rather to write mainly in the language of the
school and peppers her writing with her “language of origin” when pertinent
or necessary. Thus both women associate their maternal language with the
oral and their acquired language with the written.
Furthermore, both women negotiate a ²⁄³ Space of authorship as a re-
hybrid speaking subject that borrows from both languages in creating a new
“language” that (re)appropriates speech in order to challenge the dominant
discourses of patriarchy in literary, social, cultural, and historical discourses.
More so in Ernaux’s work than in Djebar’s, this new language is “imbued
with ‘argot,’ provincialisms, billingsgate, abrupt shifts, and fluid connec-
tions” (Johnson, 1999: 298) and is a “paratactic hodgepodge that mirrors the
babble of heteroglossic discourses influencing her development” (Johnson,
1999: 298). Thus for Ernaux as well as for Djebar to a lesser extent, words
and their concrete referents and symbolic associations play a primary role in
their work. As Christine Fau finds, “words have an almost magical power” for
Ernaux (1995: 502). Fau asserts that on one hand, words for Ernaux “reassure
and help her in her journey into womanhood” (1995: 506). On the other
hand, Fau conversely concludes that the protagonists of Ernaux’s texts try to
conform themselves to the images that these words evoke, which results in
the protagonists’ creations of various identities that do not seem “authentic”
(1995: 506).
The word “authentic” often appears in many scholars’ descriptions of
Ernaux’s writing style and is regularly implied in Ernaux’s own textual rep-
resentations. It seems to me that these scholars and Ernaux are either using
or implying this polemic not to suggest that Ernaux is speaking for all of
contemporary French women in her writings, as once explicitly argued in the
feminist practices of essentialism that pivoted on the notion of authenticity.
It appears rather that this “authenticity” reflects a certain first-person reality
(as understood and interpreted in Ernaux’s language) that imitates a specific
“slice of life” that other women caught in a similar upward trajectory of
social mobility might also experience. Ernaux elucidates this point in her own
words:
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 57
Le féminisme comme lutte pour l’égalité des droits entre les homes
et les femmes, conditions de vie, responsabilités, rôles identiques
ou partagés est toujours au cœur de mes préoccupations. Je pense
qu’il y a peu de femmes et d’hommes vraiment féministes, les unes
et les autres voudraient conserver les avantages (ou qu’ils suppo-
sent comme tels) des rôles masculins/féminins traditionnels, des
tabous et des censures demeurent. Je me surprends à ne pas faire
telle chose, à ne pas aller à tel endroit parce que je suis femme.
Tout cela montre la nécessité d’une pensée féministe. Pas d’une
écriture féminine, évidemment. Ce n’est pas à moi de décider si
mes livres sont féministes ou non. (1997: 70–71)
[Feminism as a struggle for equal rights between men and women,
conditions of life, responsibilities, identical or shared roles are always
at the heart of my preoccupations. I think that there are very few
women and men who are truly feminist, certain of them would like
to conserve the advantages (or what they consider as such) of tradi-
tional masculine/feminine roles, taboos and censorship that remain.
I surprise myself when I do not do something, when I do not go
somewhere because I am a woman. All of this reveals the necessity of
feminist thought. Not feminine writing, of course. It is not up to me
to decide if my books are feminist or not. (my translation)]
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 59
Ernaux states that La Femme gelée textualizes this “exil intérieur” as a loss
of identity and period of suffering when living in Annecy as a young bride
and mother.
Yvetot où j’ai passé toute ma jeunesse, c’est le lieu le plus fort. An-
necy, j’y étais entre vingt-cinq et trente-cinq ans. C’est très com-
plexe. Dans cette ville je suis entrée dans le rôle qu’on attendant
de moi. Pendant cette époque j’ai pourtant préparé le CAPES,
l’agrégation, j’ai écrit Les Armoires vides. C’est en fait dix années
de vie active intellectuellement, ce qui aurait pu aussi ne pas être
le cas. Mais c’est très mutilant, d’avoir, dans la force de l’âge, toute
son existence soumise à la transmission de la vie. Je suis heureuse
d’avoir eu des enfants mais l’enfermement était total. Je ne savais
pas comment je me sortirais de là. Quand je retourne à Annecy,
je revois cette femme, un double souffrant. Car c’était une souf-
france. (1995: 39–39)
Ernaux poignantly reflects this suffering immediately in the title of the text.
The symbolism of the title of this text, La Femme gelée, suggests that the
“narrator is frozen in a certain lack of identity” (Bacholle, 1996: 32) but
also that she is frozen between conflicting and ambivalent sets of realities or
modes of representation and between two homes. On one hand in this text,
the narrator rather affectionately describes her childhood home in which the
conventional domestic roles were reversed—her father performing many of
the “feminine” acts, such as cooking, doing dishes, and picking Annie up
from school and her mother performing many of the “masculine” acts, such
as regulating the family business accounts and balancing the family business
books. On the other hand, the narrator frustratingly depicts her new home in
which her husband (after promising to share equally in the domestic chores
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 61
The imagery that Ernaux evokes in this opening passage—the normative rep-
resentation of femininity in the post-war middle-class archetype of the stay-
at-home mother as “vaporish,” a “fairy,” and “voiceless” versus the marginal
representation of femininity in the working-class archetype of the working
mother as “too fat or too flat,” with “sandpapery fingers” and gaudy make-
up, and as outspoken—is recursively repeated throughout this text as well as
throughout most of her other works. In effect, these two portraits occupy two
polarities on the spectrum of feminine representation for Ernaux. Like Djebar
and the other women artists discussed in this project who challenge the binary
oppositions of social and gender politics in their work, Ernaux immediately
draws out these representations of femininity so that she may mobilize them
one against the other in order to reveal their inherent contradictions and
misrepresentations. In turn, this allows her to tease out multiple theoretical
interrogations of French women’s multiple contemporary representations and
identities inside and outside the home, thus creating an in-between space in
which Ernaux may transcend her personal disillusionment by and disappoint-
ment in these representations of femininity.
In the same manner as the afore-cited opening paragraph, Ernaux com-
pares just a few pages later two contradictory portraits of the home. When
recalling the “home economics” lessons learned at school, she expresses:
However, Ernaux qualifies this description by stating that her family did live
by a certain “code.” She explains, “Pas tout à fait les memes travaux, oui il
y a toujours un code, mais celui-là ne devait à la tradition que la lessive et
le repassage pour ma mere, le jardinage pour mon père” (1981: 16) [“Not
exactly the same work, true, there’s always a code, but theirs owes nothing to
tradition except the laundry and ironing for my mother, the gardening for
my father” (1995: 17)]. But as Ernaux reflects on this code—her mother with
the laundry and ironing responsibilities, her father with the gardening—she
realizes that the division of labor in her parents’ home was established in cor-
respondence to their “goûts” and “capacités” (1981: 16) [“personal preferences
and abilities” (1995: 17)]. In other words, the domestic and child-raising tasks
were shared in a practical way between her parents that took into consider-
ation their personal preferences as well as the demands of their businesses,
which were located on each side of their family house.
Yet, when the protagonist learns in school lectures and through the
examples of her classmates’ family life the aforementioned normative descrip-
tions of home life, she begins to view her parents’ shared division of labor as
representative of their lower-class origins and begins to doubt her mother’s
“authenticity.” It is only through this relationality and the other’s gaze that
the protagonist will come to see conflicting sets of reality and feel ashamed
64 C H A PT E R 2
Ernaux continues:
Thus, through the eyes of a socially superior other with bourgeois domestic
standards of the era, Ernaux comes to view the home as a maintenance trap of
things to be kept up as opposed to a space in which things are left alone with
their dust and their wear (1981: 23), as she had believed before Brigitte’s visit.
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 65
Ernaux explains that until her adolescence, she found it normal for her
father to be at the kitchen sink doing dishes and her mother at the filing cabinet
running the businesses (1981: 61). The protagonist of La Femme gelée never
truly questioned her parents’ gender roles until their non-conventionality was
pointed out to her by another—her first school friend, Brigitte. The protago-
nist explains: “Introduite dans mon intimité familiale, Brigitte me fait voir ce
que j’avais senti jusqu’ici sans y attacher d’importance. Non, ma mère ne sait
pas cuisiner, même la mayonnaise, le ménage ne l’intéresse pas, et elle n’est
pas ‘féminine’ ” (1981: 74). [“On my own home ground, Brigitte makes me
see what I had hitherto felt without attaching any importance to it. No, my
mother doesn’t know how to cook, not even to make mayonnaise, housework
doesn’t interest her, and she isn’t ‘feminine’ ” (1995: 78).] Ernaux textualizes
Brigitte’s and later other middle-class friends’ astonishment at witnessing the
narrator’s father cooking and doing the dishes. The protagonist suggests that
her father’s kindness is transformed in her schoolmates’ eyes into weakness
and her mother’s dynamism as wearing the pants in the family (1981: 75).
She confesses that their interpretations of her parents’ non-conventional gen-
der roles shame her (1981: 75).
In contrast to the protagonist’s “abnormal” division of labor and home
life, she describes on the next page the “normal” standards as observed in
Brigitte’s family:
The protagonist recounts that Brigitte often helped her mother with the
cooking, cleaning, and laundry work. Since the protagonist did not share
in these domestic chores at her home—due to both of her parents wanting
her to spend her time on schoolwork, reading, or playing—she begins to
66 C H A PT E R 2
feel a certain lack in her existence, knowledge, and abilities (1981: 76). She
discovers “une étonnante complicité ménagère entre mère et fille” (1981:
76) [“an astonishing and unexpected domestic complicity between mother
and daughter” (1995: 81)] of which she had no idea. In front of Brigitte and
Brigitte’s mother, the protagonist is embarrassed not to be able to share this
commonality in her family home-life setting.
As Ernaux states in La Femme gelée, conventional social and gender-role
logic of 1950s France asserted that:
Pour une fille, ne savoir rien faire, tout le monde comprend, c’est
ne pas être fichue de repasser, cuisiner, nettoyer comme il faut.
Comment tu feras plus tard quand tu seras mariée? La grande
phrase de logique irréfutable, pour vous mettre le nez dans le caca,
pas un œuf à la coque, bien bien, tu verras si ça plaira à ton mari la
soupe aux cailloux! . . . Puisque toutes les filles, toutes les femmes
doivent s’occuper de leur intérieur, il faudrait bien que j’apprenne
ces choses, en plus de mon future métier. (1981: 76–77)
[Everyone understands that for a girl, not knowing how to do a
thing means being incapable of cooking, cleaning, ironing prop-
erly. How will you cope later on when you’re married? The big
question, with its irrefutable logic, to rub your nose right in it,
can’t even boil an egg, well just wait, you’ll see how your husband
lies eating out of cans! . . . Since all girls and women have to look
after their homes, I should learn those things too, as well as my
future profession. (1995: 81–82)]
Feeling this pressure as well as the “lack” when comparing herself to Brigitte,
during one summer vacation, the protagonist convinces her mother—at her
mother’s shoulder shrugging (1981: 77)—to teach her a few basic housekeep-
ing tasks and to the protagonist’s great sense of self-worth, how to make a
chocolate mousse. The success of this summer’s homemaking experiment
made the protagonist feel complete; but Ernaux’s adult voice, looking back,
qualifies this completion, “Mais ne pas exagérer, c’était un plaisir et un jeu, re-
passage et gâteaux, du délassement d’après lecture, du trompe-l’ennui des fins
de vacances. . . . Sitôt la classe recommencée, adieu le divertissement ménager
les choses sérieuses d’abord” (1981: 77–78). [“But I shouldn’t make too much
of this ironing and baking; it’s fun, a game, a relaxing change from reading,
a way to stave off boredom toward the end of vacation. . . . As soon as school
starts again, that’s the end of domestic diversions. First things first” (1995:
82).] Thus, Ernaux leaves us again with an in-between representation of home
life, which begins to speak to Ernaux’s ideal domestic representation.
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 67
The shame as a child and adolescent when faced with the lack of normative,
middle-class standards of domesticity, family life, femininity, and gender
roles—these national and sometimes global discourses—in her childhood
home transforms into oppression as an adult when undertaking these new
values in her new home. Insofar as the division of domestic labor is concerned
as an adult, she longs for her childhood portrait of non-conventional family
home life. However, the protagonist explains that both she and her husband
began their marriage with non-conventional characteristics that quickly
ended with her husband’s graduation from law school, his starting his career,
and the birth of their first son.
Before their move to Annecy, where her husband begins his career, the
protagonist and her husband live in Bordeaux while finishing their stud-
ies. Ernaux describes this period of time as moments before marriage began
to weigh on her (1981: 127). She finds a certain complicity between the
68 C H A PT E R 2
couple—a complicity in the daily domestic chores (or joint lack there of) and
their academic progress. Although their meager finances distance them from
the downtown and fashionable neighborhoods surrounding the university,
where the protagonist would have preferred to live, to the less expensive pe-
ripheries of the city, she still finds this new chapter in their lives a great and
exciting adventure (1981: 128). The protagonist describes:
borrow the landlady’s vacuum cleaner, and he’s the one who runs
it, without complaining. (1995: 136)]
Unified during this time by a lack of money, the protagonist shares that her
husband accompanies her to the grocery store and that they select together
their groceries. She describes this portrait as one of a “jeune couple moderno-
intellectuel” (1981: 130) [“young, modern, intellectual couple” (1995: 137)]
in which they take turns preparing soup in their pressure cooker, always
equally able to return to their studies (1981: 130). The crack in this harmo-
nious imagery arrives when the university restaurant (cafeteria) closes for the
summer. When this occurs the protagonist finds herself abandoned “devant
les casseroles” twice a day (1981: 137). From this moment on, conventional
bourgeois housekeeping standards, expectations, and gender roles begin to
take root—against the protagonist’s will.
The protagonist vents, “Aucun passé d’aide-culinaire dans les jupes de
maman ni l’un ni l’autre” (1981: 130) [“neither one of us used to help Mama
in the kitchen” (1995: 138)] and questions
In these moments, the protagonist remembers her father and his role in the
kitchen. In a manner similar to Brigitte’s earlier reaction to his peeling pota-
toes, the protagonist’s husband retorts, “non mais tu m’imagines avec un ta-
blier peut-être! Le genre de ton père, pas le mien!” (1981: 130–131) [“Come
on, do you think I’m going to wear an apron? That sort of thing is for your
father, not me!’ (1995: 138)]. As before in Brigitte’s gaze, she once again feels
humiliated in the gaze of a socially superior other. This time the other is
her husband. The protagonist concludes, “Non je n’en as pas vu beaucoup
d’hommes peler des patates. Mon modèle à moi n’est pas le bon, il me le fait
sentir” (1981: 131) [“No, I haven’t seen many men peeling potatoes. My
father, out in the kitchen, is not the right role model, that’s made very clear”
70 C H A PT E R 2
(1995: 138)]. She considers the two paternal models she knows—her father
and her father-in-law, “Le sien commence à monter à l’horizon, monsieur
père laisse son épouse s’occuper de tout dans la maison, lui si disert, cultivé,
en train de balayer, ça serait cocasse, délirant, un point c’est tout. A toi
d’apprendre ma vieille” (1981: 131) [“His father is beginning to loom on the
horizon, the master of the house who lets his wife do all the housework, such
a cultivated, eloquent gentleman—and you want him to pick up a broom,
that’s a good one, are you crazy or what? Period. Just get on with it, old girl”
(1995: 138)]. As the protagonist will soon come to recognize:
Moreover, she alone is expected to affront this culinary chore. And unfortu-
nately, her homemaking responsibilities only increase when their first child
enters the family portrait.
Eventually, the protagonist manages to finish her studies and accepts a
position as a public school teacher, but the child-raising chores added to her
daily housekeeping drudgery begin to eat away at her. In La Femme gelée, the
protagonist cannot successfully break out of her state of frozenness brought
on by her disappointment in conventional gender roles and her disillusion-
ment by their normative discourses. The protagonist’s and her husband’s
learning and sharing of child-raising responsibilities initially established with
the birth of their first child will rather soon suffer the same fate as their earlier
sharing of domestic tasks. The protagonist’s jealousy and frustration in not
being able to pursue the same intellectual and professional goals as readily as
her husband resounds on almost every page of this portion of the novel that
describes their homes and home life in Bordeaux and Annecy. Consequently,
a revengeful spirit comes to occupy some of the protagonist’s thoughts and
actions:
At times, Ernaux writes that her mother-in-law shared confidences with her
on these occasions. In one such episode, the mother-in-law tells the protago-
nist that she had earned a “licence” in natural sciences and had even taught
some courses in an institution before meeting her husband and the arrival
of their children (1981: 135). “Naturally,” her intellectual and professional
pursuits were abandoned for her domestic responsibilities. Although Ernaux
does not directly comment on this information in the text, we can see her
mother-in-law’s expected notion of intellectual and professional abandon-
ment contributing to Ernaux’s frozenness. In reflecting on her mother-in-
law’s portrait, Ernaux writes:
Thus, the third maternal portrait with which Ernaux leaves us is that
of a young mother privately suffering as she is emotionally and ideologically
caught between two domestic portraits—the normative middle-class portrait
in which the couple maintains the conventional division of labor and 1950s’
housekeeping standards and the marginal working-class portrait in which
the couple reverses the conventional division of labor and in which things
are left alone with their dust and their wear. Furthermore, the protagonist is
emotionally and ideologically caught between two maternal portraits—the
normative middle-class representation of femininity as silent or voiceless,
self-sacrificing, and willing to abandon professional and intellectual pursuits
and the marginal working-class representation of femininity as outspoken,
employed, and “wearing the pants in the family.” Similar feminine represen-
tations surface in Simone de Beauvoir’s writing, but the former is not associ-
ated with the working class but rather the intelligentsia of French society.
Before moving onto the close reading of Simone de Beauvoir’s short story
La femme rompue and a discussion of the re-hybridized speaking and gazing
subject and ²⁄³ Space of expression in this short story, let us begin with some
biographical background information and a cursory overview of her literary
corpus and agendas.
Simone de Beauvoir
Many scholars have compared some of Ernaux’s work with some of Simone
de Beauvoir’s. Both women share a feminist desire to see the institution of
marriage (and its attendant domestic and familial responsibilities) as grounds
for equal sharing of domestic work and intellectual and professional pursuits
in restructuring normative gender roles. Both women were also agrégées and
were for a limited time professors: Ernaux of literature and de Beauvoir of
philosophy. However, their individual approaches to writing differ greatly.
De Beauvoir was deeply committed to a variety of writing forms, includ-
ing the philosophical essay, the novel, drama, autobiography, travel writing,
correspondence, newspaper, magazine, and journal articles, and interviews.9
Benefiting from a financial crisis in the family—her father having lost the
family fortune and not being able to guarantee Simone’s marriage dowry—
de Beauvoir’s parents turned her to education as an adolescent. She passed
the agrégation de philosophie, which allowed her to earn a living through a
few high school teaching positions. She also began writing and publishing.
Her first novel, L’Invitée, appeared in 1943. Within two years following the
release and success of this first text, de Beauvoir had become a leading intel-
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 75
lectual figure in the post-Liberation culture of Paris, a fact often linked to the
“intellectual fashionability of existentialism” at the time (Fallaize, 1998: 2).
During this time, she worked very closely with Jean-Paul Sartre on his L’Etre
et le néant, to which she was both intellectually and emotionally committed,
even though she reportedly disagreed with certain elements of Sartre’s theory
and reworked them when wanting to employ them in her own writing.
Following the war, de Beauvoir decided not to return to teaching and
opted to turn her pen to her left-wing political journal with Sartre, Les Temps
modernes, and her writing. During the early to mid 1940s, she wrote a number
of important philosophical essays which questioned a variety of ethnical and
ontological problems within the phenomenological and existential traditions
(i.e., the ethical problem of the individual’s relation to others and the situating
of the individual as an ambiguous subject). In the second half of the 1940s, de
Beauvoir became interested in the female condition and the autobiographical
project. Wanting to write something autobiographical, de Beauvoir began
asking herself “What has it meant to be a woman?”10 In attempting to answer
this question, she wrote her groundbreaking essay, Le Deuxième sexe, which
was considered “an onslaught on contemporary ideas about women and a
founding text of the women’s movement in the second half of the twentieth
century” (Fallaize, 1998: 3). The stormy reaction in the press to the release
of this essay’s two volumes was overwhelming to de Beauvoir. The public’s
reaction and the reactions from her friends and colleagues ranged from nega-
tive and condemning to positive and supportive. Much criticism focused on
her frank discussion of female sexuality in the essay and obscured the political
engagement of the text.
Following the publication of Le Deuxième sexe, de Beauvoir became more
politically active than previously before in her life. She celebrated the defeat of
the French colonial presence in Vietnam and wrote about the French system-
atic use of torture on Algerians during the war with Algeria. Later, she became
more active in the growing women’s and students’ movements of post-1968.
An explicitly autobiographical phase in her writing came to fruition in the
end of the 1950s with the publication of her Mémoirs d’une jeune fille rangée
(1958) and led to subsequent autobiographical texts, which were all best sell-
ers and widely popular in France. Finally, a decade later, de Beauvoir returned
to the novel form in Les Belles Images (1966) and experimented with the short
story form in La Femme rompue (1967). Her literary career ended with an
account of the last ten years of Sartre’s existence and the publication of her
correspondences to Sartre and Nelson Algren.
Secondary criticism of de Beauvoir’s eclectic collection of texts varies
widely among scholars and has quite often treated her work with antipathy.11
76 C H A PT E R 2
Toril Moi argues, “Comparable French women writers are not treated in this
way: nothing in the criticism of say, Simone Weil, Marguerite Yourcenar,
Marguerite Duras or Nathalie Sarraute matches the frequency and intensity
of virulence displayed by so many of Simone de Beauvoir’s critics” (1994:
75). Moi concludes that de Beauvoir is subject to such attacks because she
claims to speak as an intellectual woman.12 Fallaize reads de Beauvoir’s com-
mitment to engage in serious intellectual activity (and especially in philosoph-
ical discourse) as a “central challenge to patriarchy” (1998: 7) and suggests
that this provides the reason for such “virulence” as Moi sees in the critical
reaction to de Beauvoir’s work. Fallaize also takes into account the “unlady-
like” subjects—namely de Beauvoir’s treatment of sexuality—that rest at the
heart of de Beauvoir’s work and proposes this as yet another reason for the
difficult reception of and reaction to her work. Fallaize writes, “Beauvoir was
so aware of the danger of being dismissed as a writer of ‘ladies’ books’ . . .
that she was determined to underline her own distance from such parochial
pursuits and stressed the universal, philosophical aspects of her work rather
than the personal ones” (1998: 8). Fallaize asserts that de Beauvoir’s work
“cannot be fitted into a tradition of French women’s writing and has largely
been read against works by her male contemporaries” (1998: 8). However, de
Beauvoir’s autobiographical works have received much more favorable critical
response and more recent engagement.
Scholars focusing on de Beauvoir’s autobiographical texts emphasize
the relational nature of these texts. This critical optic or approach resembles
somewhat Ernaux’s emphasis on the relationality in her corpus of work, as
outlined earlier in this chapter. Scholars examining de Beauvoir’s autobio-
graphical texts very often concentrate on the construction of relationships
within de Beauvoir’s narratives; in particular Simone’s relationships with
her father, her mother, her childhood friend Zaza, and Sartre. Concerning
de Beauvoir’s novels, some scholars have shown a tendency to underline the
relationship between the text and the reader, which is also at the heart of de
Beauvoir’s fictional enterprise.13 Other scholars have preferred to examine
de Beauvoir’s novels in relation to her philosophical essays, thus reading
the narratives as illustrations or a playing out of de Beauvoir’s philosophi-
cal theories.14 According to Fallaize, “later studies [of de Beauvoir’s novels]
tended to be thematic, focusing on death, nature, and politics” (1998: 13)
and have discussed her novels “in light of Le Deuxième sexe” (1998: 13) or “in
the context of new feminist debates” (1998: 13). Moreover, recent treatment
of de Beauvoir’s novels and short stories have drawn on psychoanalysis in
examining the language used, the formation of identities witnessed, and the
writing process (specifically the role of memory played therein) as textualized
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 77
of knowledge eaten by Eve that imposed itself on me: blinding clarity of a dis-
enchantment of the world, a liberating light of knowledge” (my translation)].
This is an interesting insight into their takes on the sociological situation of
women in twentieth-century metropolitan France. We will pause briefly to
take a closer look at Le Deuxième sexe before continuing our discussion of de
Beauvoir’s influence and impact on Ernaux.
Much literary, sociological, and philosophical criticism exists on de
Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième sexe. These readings often differ depending on the
academic nature or discipline of the scholar, but one of the common points of
connection between these readings is on de Beauvoir’s understanding of the
status of women in Occidental societies. These readings focus on how wom-
en’s status, in de Beauvoir’s view, is opposed to Jean-Paul Sartre’s “universal”
existentialist human condition, which states that all human beings are born
with the freedom (and burden) of making their own decisions. Although de-
bates continue concerning de Beauvoir’s role and influence in Sartre’s work
and vice-versa, the fact that Le Deuxième sexe challenges Sartre’s existentialism
remains in the forefront of much feminist criticism on their work.
In Le Deuxième sexe, de Beauvoir denies that she and all women have
access to the instruments of Sartrean existentialism.18 Feminist scholars as-
sert that de Beauvoir blocks Sartre’s central argument that contingency and
freedom of choice are available to everyone in face of an open situation.19
Instead, de Beauvoir argues that women face “a destiny, a necessity, a limited
range of roles and figures [young girl, adolescent, lesbian, married woman,
mother, prostitute, and servant] in the closed chamber of history’s conspiracy
against her” (Imbert, 2004: 14). In the two volumes of Le Deuxième sexe, de
Beauvoir presents a female consciousness that takes into account her histori-
cal and social situation. She shows how this female consciousness in norma-
tive social practice succumbs to “an oppressive relation that gives her second
place, supposing [that] it [first] does not cast her down into nothingness or
turn her into a thing” (Imbert, 2004: 16), which in many social instances is
a likely threat.
In ‘Le fil conducteur’ qui me lie à Beauvoir, Ernaux describes the climate
in 1949 French society (when de Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième sexe appeared) as
a total opacity on women’s condition (e.g., traditional values [religion, mar-
riage, the family] governed society and the “union libre” was considered
scandalous) (200: 2). Ernaux shares in this essay that the image of her own
mother, active shopkeeper enjoying her power, authority, and freedom—
despising housekeeping chores—and who was convinced that women must
have financial independence, occulted the reality of society’s workings at the
time when she was an adolescent (200: 2). She suggests that Le Deuxième sexe
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 79
allowed her as a young adult to re-read her adolescence and to situate herself
as a woman in French society. She feels that this unveiling of the feminine
condition as presented in de Beauvoir’s text was somewhat frightening, but
also profoundly liberating, and opened on “la voie à une prise en main de ma
propre vie” (2–3) [“an avenue to taking charge of my own life” (my transla-
tion)] for Ernaux.
Ernaux makes specific reference to Le Deuxième sexe at two conflicting
moments in La Femme gelée—once around the middle of the text when she
decides to prioritize her academic goals over family and then later when pre-
senting her newlywed life and the third maternal and domestic portraits. In
the first reference, Ernaux writes, “Alors toujours les garçons. Le Deuxième
sexe m’a fichu un coup. Aussitôt les résolutions, pas de mariage mais pas non
plus d’amour avec quelqu’un qui vous prend comme objet” (1981: 103) [“So
it’s still boys. De Beauvoir’s Le Deuxième sexe is a real eye-opener. Prompt
resolutions: neither marriage, not even love, with someone who sees me as an
object” (1995: 109)]. In the last third of the text, after she and her husband
marry and become the short-lived “young, modern, intellectual couple” shar-
ing the domestic chores and continuing their academic and intellectual pur-
suits, Ernaux writes, “Qui parle d’esclavage ici, j’avais l’impression que la vie
d’avant continuait, en plus serré seulement l’un avec l’autre. Complètement
à côté de la plaque, Le Deuxième sexe!” (1981: 129) [“Where’s the slavery I’d
read so much about? I have the feeling our life from before is simply going
on in closer quarters, that’s all. The Second Sex? Completely off base!” (1995:
137)]. In brief, in Ernaux’s work, Le Deuxième sexe inversely confirmed (by
initially thinking de Beauvoir got it wrong) a formative domestic model of
quality that Ernaux desires to keep in marital practice. As we saw, of course,
Ernaux comes to realize that de Beauvoir got it right about the conventional
bourgeois institution of marriage.
Andrea Veltman provides a very helpful and recuperative reading on
de Beauvoir’s take on marriage in Le Deuxième sexe. Basing her reading on
de Beauvoir’s dichotomy between transcendence and immanence, Veltman
shows how Le Deuxième sexe critiques the continuation of gender inequities in
the institution of marriage, specifically in the division of domestic work and
not of marriage itself. As opposed to making the “easy” conclusion that de
Beauvoir is dismissing marriage as an unjust social and religious institution in
Le Deuxième sexe, Veltman asserts that de Beauvoir is actually dismissing the
unjust traditional division of labor maintained within the normative institu-
tion of marriage. She arrives at this conclusion through de Beauvoir’s basing
of traditional gender role discourses within the marriage on a dichotomy
of transcendent and immanent acts. For de Beauvoir, the act of producing
80 C H A PT E R 2
The aesthetics of writing, for Ernaux, are what specifically separate her writ-
ing process from de Beauvoir’s. She finds that de Beauvoir’s approach to
writing “comme un apprentissage de techniques” (2003: 5) [“as an acquisi-
tion of techniques”] and “premier jet rapide, repris ensuite” (2003: 5) [“quick
first draft, revisions following”] suggests an indifference to writing “comme
matière” (2003: 4) [“as matter”]. For Ernaux, “writing as matter” resides in
the relationship between language and identification. However, as Ernaux
82 C H A PT E R 2
LA FEMME ROMPUE
He finds that de Beauvoir manages to revise this banal and trite scenario by
“situating her fiction discreetly at the interface of her philosophical ideas,
including her conceptions of independent and complicitous womanhood”
(1998: 71). These conceptions in turn become politically, socially, and his-
torically engaged discourses that challenge “freedom, fidelity, authenticity,
sincerity, inauthenticity, and dependency” (Davison, 1998: 71). Moreover,
these conceptions also raise the question of “power relations between the
sexes” (Davison, 1998: 72). For Davison, the most effective stylistic tool in
La Femme rompue stems from de Beauvoir’s use of the diary form. He sug-
gests that, “Beauvoir felicitously uses the optical advantages of the diary form
(Monique’s self-awareness, self-deception, evasion strategies and so forth) to
pose the central question of Monique’s agency in her fate as victim of infidel-
ity and eventual abandonment” (1998: 72). Scholars often concur on this
reading of de Beauvoir’s La Femme rompue, and Davison’s assertions put us
on the path to understanding de Beauvoir’s re-hybridized speaking and gazing
subject as well as her ²⁄³ Space of expression in this study.
The general consensus in the critical scholarship on this short story is
that de Beauvoir is very much wrapped up in the task of presenting Monique
as the victim of her own in-authenticity and flight into emotional depen-
dency.23 De Beauvoir’s use of the diary form transcends her “fictionalized”
first-person narrative to stir the reader’s awakening to the normalizing dis-
courses in operation around him or her. De Beauvoir’s end goal in awaken-
ing the reader to these normalizing discourses is to lead the reader to his or
her more “authentic” being-in-the-world. As was the case with Ernaux, this
objective entails an eventual revision of hegemonic gender roles in contem-
porary society and gives voice to a re-hybridized speaking subject residing
in-between fixed languages, discourses, and ideologies.
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 85
qualities and agenda in La Femme rompue, the text failed to have the same
existential impact on a more popular readership.
The question concerning the reader’s recognition of particular qualities
and objectives or agendas raises a slightly more uncommon but very pertinent
reaction to de Beauvoir’s La Femme rompue. In our contemporary theoretical
challenges to the conventional tenets of “fiction” and “autobiography” and
in our recognition that de Beauvoir wrote La Femme rompue and Les Belles
images during a period in her life when she was also heavily engaged in un-
dertaking her autobiographical project, some scholars see La Femme rompue
as employing an autobiographical mode. Davison explains
Davison supports this argument by basing his reading on the Freudian notion
of repression. He finds that de Beauvoir reverses the claims made about au-
tobiography and fiction and simultaneously enhances the interpretative pos-
sibilities and vitality of this short story (1998: 72). Davison cites de Beauvoir’s
claim in her Mon Expérience d’écrivain that the “role of the writer in general is
to communicate ‘le sens vécu de l’être dans le monde’ ” (1998: 73) [“the lived
meaning of the being in the world” (my translation)]. He asserts that fiction
for de Beauvoir still “explores the real world and reveals it in its complexity”
(1998: 74) and that for her, “Fiction is not to be solipsized in self-referentiality”
(1998: 74), but he suggests that de Beauvoir paradoxically does this by speak-
ing “in-between the lines” of the text.
In effect, Davison’s assertion speaks to the very theoretical debates cen-
tral to the critical discourses of lifewriting. The question is not whether La
Femme rompue is “fiction” or “autobiography,” since these categorical labels
of writing modes or genres no longer neatly exist independently. Rather, the
question is how the personal affects the social in this work. In a manner simi-
lar to the way in which Ernaux’s personal transcends the social, de Beauvoir’s
“speaking nearby” provides a useful mode through which to revise normal-
izing processes of patriarchal socialization through a first-person narrative.
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 87
tend to address readers as equals and friends and to adopt an intimate tone. It
is worth noting that this is often said about the diary form as well, although
the intended diary “reader” is often imaginary, a higher power (i.e., “God”),
or the author him/herself.
This intimate and friendly tone, a diehard steadfast from the very be-
ginning of the development of women’s magazines in the late nineteenth
century, has underpinned many different versions of femininity over time.
Women’s magazines (at least in several Anglophone cultures) offer survival
skills to cope with the dilemmas of femininity at particular moments in time
(Gill, 2007: 183). For example, they adopted a feminist tone in the 1940s
during wartime, emphasizing independence and work outside the home. But
in the 1950s, women’s magazines celebrated a return to family life and the
virtue of the housewife by encouraging women to make their homes even
cleaner and more inviting through the purchases of new consumer goods
and domestic appliances (Gill, 2007: 183). In the 1960s and ’70s—the
particular moment in time of the serialized publication of La Femme rompue
in Elle magazine in France—romance was identified as the dominant theme,
pervading nearly everything in popular culture and media.27 Gill asserts that
an iconography of “great moments” of romance was found in all the stories,
with images of “the proposal,” the “engagement ring,” and the “wedding
day” that were particularly favored (2007: 184). Gill explains that during
this period of time in mainstream women’s magazines, romance eclipsed sex
(which was often portrayed as dirty or sordid) and instead was presented in
terms of its social effects—the status of being part of a couple, paired with
a handsome boyfriend, or able to flash one’s engagement ring (2007: 184).
Angela McRobbie argues that the messages conveyed were relatively stable
across issues—namely a girl has to fight to get and keep a man; she can never
really trust another female unless the other is old and hideous; and yet, despite
all of this, romance and being a girl are fun.28
Gill finds that today, this version of femininity would be “hard to find
in magazines aimed at teenage girls [and young adult women]” and that
“the code of romance has given way to a focus on pop, fashion, beauty and
(celebrity) boy-watching” (2007: 185). Concerning today’s women’s maga-
zines, Gill postulates that the most common version of femininity posits an
increasing focus upon celebrity; a dramatic sexualization of the female body;
an increased adoption of feminist registers of discourses that stress being in
control and pleasing yourself; a focus on work outside as well as inside the
home with attention placed upon activity, multitasking, and organization;
and an increasing emphasis on (heterosexual) sexuality as a key focus of atten-
tion in order to please men and to fulfill oneself (Gill, 2007: 184).
90 C H A PT E R 2
I must point out that both Gill and McRobbie have based their work
on British, Canadian, and American women’s and teenage girls’ magazines;
but as many of their samples included international magazines (i.e., Cosmo
and Marie-Claire), it stands to reason that we can extend their readings (to
a limited degree) to our context in this chapter of Elle magazine in France.
And furthermore, as we shall see in subsequent discussion in this chapter, de
Beauvoir’s La Femme rompue clearly textualizes McRobbie’s observations of
the messages conveyed in 1970s women’s and teenage girls’ magazines and
would constitute similar “romance” tropes of which de Beauvoir makes use
and thus which her Elle readers would have recognized. McRobbie identifies
the “romance” trope of “a girl has to fight to get and keep a man,” which
raises the notion of competition between women. Women’s magazines’ ad-
vice columns are riddled with inquiries and solutions on the topic, and much
(if not all) of the content in women’s magazines is fraught with the subject
(i.e., how to be more/less . . . in order to . . .). In La Femme rompue, competi-
tion between women surfaces most blaringly in the form of comparison. Let
us now return to our discussion of this short story.
Throughout the novella, for better or for worse, Monique constantly
compares and contrasts herself to Noëllie. For Monique, this obsession to
compare and contrast her qualities to Noëllie’s, the past to the present, her
relationship with her daughters to Maurice’s, her relationship with Maurice
to Noëllie’s, and her role as a mother to Noëllie’s drives her to the brink
of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion. In her desperate attempt to
comprehend why Noëllie has become so important to Maurice, she feels com-
pelled to pump the women of her clique by telephone and in person several
times a day for information on Noëllie, she looks for advice in astrological
guides, and she seeks character insight from a graphologist to whom she sends
three writing samples—hers, Maurice’s, and Noëllie’s. In her obsession, she
makes a mockery of herself in the eyes of her friends and in our eyes.
Eventually, the manifestations of this obsession become physical (mainly
her weight loss and chronic hemorrhaging) and begin affecting her quality of
life (she remains in bed all day and stops bathing, eating, reading, listening to
music, and attending the theater and cinema.) In essence, she stops living. At
this point in the narrative, she resigns to her daughter Colette’s and Maurice’s
pleas to see a psychiatrist. Although Monique begins to realize at certain fleet-
ing moments here and there in the narrative that she may be at fault for her
victimization, she remains ultimately blind to her “in-authenticity” (this is to
say the notion that Monique is acting out in complicity with one of society’s
and history’s limited roles bestowed upon women) and not remaining “true”
to her person.
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 91
Que Paris est dur ! Même par ces moelleuses journées d’automne,
cette dureté m’oppresse. Je me sens vaguement déprimée ce soir.
J’ai fait des plans pour transformer la chambre des enfants en un
living-room plus intime que le cabinet de Maurice et que le salon
d’attente. Et je réalise que Lucienne ne vivra plus jamais ici. La
maison sera paisible, mais bien vide. Surtout je me tourmente,
à cause de Colette. Heureusement que Maurice rentre demain.
(1967: 125)
[How hard Paris is! Even on these balmy autumn days this hard-
ness weighs me down. I feel obscurely low-spirited this evening. I
92 C H A PT E R 2
have made plans for changing the girls’ room into a cozier place to
sit in than Maurice’s consulting room or the waiting room. And I
am coming to realize that Lucienne will never live here anymore.
The house will be not quite, but very empty. But above all I am
racked with anxiety about Colette. What a good thing Maurice is
coming home tomorrow. (1969: 127)]
At this point in the narrative, Maurice has not yet disclosed his affair with
Noëllie to Monique. Maurice is away in Rome for a “research trip.” She is
completely unsuspecting of what the very near future has in store for her,
but her realization of the “empty nest” into which her home has changed
foreshadows the “emptiness” which she will realize her life will become once
Maurice shares his secret.
Two entries later, still ignorant of Maurice’s affair and not expecting him
home before midnight due to “lab work,” Monique once again describes in
her journal the empty house upon returning home from the cinema.
This description also functions to foreshadow the end of the text, when Mo-
nique returns from her trip to New York visiting Lucienne and knows that
Maurice has moved out and taken all of his things to his new separate apart-
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 93
ment. When Maurice does finally disclose his secret to Monique, the home
takes on a new dimension in both a literal and metaphorical way.
At a later point in the narrative, after Maurice divulges his affair to
Monique, Maurice and Noëllie leave for a weekend trip together. Monique
tries to pass the time on her own by seeing a double Bergman feature at the
cinema, knitting, listening to music, lighting a fire in the fireplace (1967:
150), but she finds no comfort in these activities. At the close of the entry,
she torments herself by wondering how Maurice and Noëllie are spending
their time together. She laments on snippets of happy memories with Mau-
rice as they flash through her mind. She begins to lose her grip on reality. De
Beauvoir writes:
For Monique, the home has always kept things faithfully in perspective. She
found a purpose for her adult life in her domestic and maternal responsibili-
ties played therein. The home (and the people living inside) reassured and
“authenticated” her lifestyle and her identity. She has always depended on
them, and at this point in the narrative, she still depends on them. She never
realized and still does not realize the importance of developing an identity and
lifestyle that exist outside the home and beyond an immediate close circle of
family members and social clique (i.e., the importance of having professional
employment). Now that Maurice and her daughters only minimally desire
Monique’s domestic and maternal roles, Monique begins to feel betrayed by
the home. She is lost in another dimension, as if the rug has been pulled out
from under her feet. She is not able to look beyond the home and what she
perceives as the needs of her family to realize that she has created these “false”
94 C H A PT E R 2
needs for her own benefit. De Beauvoir loans her voice in the narrative to
Maurice in driving this point home.
During an argument between Monique and Maurice at a later point in
the narrative concerning Monique’s and Noëllie’s opposite manners of raising
their daughters, de Beauvoir implies through Maurice’s silence that Monique
exploits her “mother hen” behavior to gain a stronger sense of self-importance
since she had no opportunity to earn one through a profession. The argument
begins as Monique shares with Maurice what one of her friends told Monique
about the relationship Noëllie has with her daughter—that Noëllie’s daughter
complains of being neglected by her mother.
In loaning her voice textually to Maurice (and through his silence) in this in-
stance in La Femme rompue, de Beauvoir appears to be “speaking nearby,” but
from a very curious subject position. Rather than disguising her individual
voice in a timeless chorus of female oral tradition (as in Djebar’s writing) or
through a transpersonal I (as in Ernaux’s writing), de Beauvoir communicates
her message from a speaking, authoritative male’s position. This fact func-
tions on the levels of irony and subversion in La Femme rompue. This proves
ironic in that a male speaking position is correcting Monique in the text for
female behavior to which de Beauvoir theorized women were socially and
historically limited by hegemony.
Unlike the middle-class literature, to which Ernaux alludes in La Femme
gelée, that revered and praised the bourgeois wife and mother’s dedication and
self-sacrifice to the home and domestic and maternal acts, de Beauvoir paints
a middle-class portrait in La Femme rompue that favors women’s pursuit of
professional activity over maternal methods and behavior. Moreover, she
subversively suggests this reading by engaging an authorized male speaking
position that challenges the traditional hegemonic discourse on women’s role
in the home and family. Furthermore, many of Maurice’s thoughts and opin-
ions are echoed later in the text by Lucienne, Monique’s younger daughter
living independently in New York. This echoing results in the creation of a
re-hybridized speaking subject in La Femme rompue that shifts gender and
age. This re-hybridized speaking subject not only subverts traditional speak-
ing positions through inversion but also creates new speaking spaces and
speaking subjects (“male-female,” “dominant-marginal”) within the ²⁄³ Space
(in-between hegemonic and counter-hegemonic discourses), as we will see at
the end of the narrative, for future generations.
Additionally, this argument between Maurice and Monique concerning
maternal roles poignantly showcases Monique’s obsession to compare and
contrast herself with Noëllie at any given opportunity on any given subject.
Monique takes Maurice’s defense of Noëllie’s methods as a direct and personal
attack. She refuses to accept that Noëllie’s methods are superior to hers and
states, “Je suis sure que Noëllie n’est pas une bonne mère. Une femme aussi
sèche, aussi froide, ne peut pas donner à sa fille ce que j’ai donné aux miennes”
(1967: 178) [“I am sure Noëllie is not a good mother. So hard and cold a
woman cannot possibly give her daughter what I gave mine” (1969: 180)].
96 C H A PT E R 2
In response to this argument and in her effort to gain ground over Noël-
lie and (in her mind) Noëllie’s influence on Maurice, Monique decides to
fight on her own terrain (1967: 178): domesticity. She spends the next day
arranging everything in the armoires, putting away all of the summer things
and pulling out all of the winter clothes, and makes an inventory of items
needing replacing—some of Maurice’s socks, sweaters and pajamas, and a
pair of slippers (1967: 178). Monique finds comforting the well-stocked
closet in which everything has its place (1967: 178). De Beauvoir writes,
“Les piles de fins mouchoirs, de bas, de tricots m’ont donné l’impression que
l’avenir ne pouvait pas me faire défaut” (1967: 178) [“The heaps of delicate
handkerchiefs and stockings and lingerie gave me the feeling that the future
could not possibly let me down” (1969: 180)]. However, as the following day
will reveal, these immanent acts go unnoticed by Maurice, as he has a larger
bone to pick with Monique concerning her gossiping with and pumping for
information from Noëllie’s mutual acquaintances. Thus, once again Monique
feels betrayed by the home but still does not realize (in de Beauvoir’s eyes)
that she is the one responsible for her current condition.
Almost two months following this entry, in a subsequent entry, Monique
begins to see her responsibility for her current condition. It is during the
winter holiday season, and Maurice and Noëllie have left for a ten-day ski
vacation in the Alps. Monique is home alone and has hit the lowest point
in her depression. She has given the housekeeper a vacation and passes her
time swallowing alcohol, tranquilizers, and sleeping pills (1967: 220). When
she feels a bit better, she tries to read a detective novel (incidentally, another
ironic detail in the narrative, as Monique begins her journal in an attempt to
uncover the “truth” of her condition, to which she remains ultimately blind)
or listen to the radio (1967: 22).
The narrative never gives any indication that Monique has handled any of
the cleaning responsibilities and conversely gives the impression that the
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 97
housekeeper makes daily visits to the house to take care of these tasks. The
narrative suggests that Monique is responsible for the cooking, shopping,
and arranging of household items, furniture, and clothing—de Beauvoir
never once mentions laundry in the text—and of course alludes to her past
maternal duties and ever present interferences into Colette and Jean-Pierre’s
(Colette’s husband) life (especially during Colette’s flu-like illness). There-
fore, there is no impression in the text that Monique should clean up the
ashes and “dirt” residing in the bedroom, but there is every suggestion in
the text that Monique usually takes pride in her home and highly esteems its
state or condition. Therefore, de Beauvoir is again using the home to function
metaphorically in La Femme rompue, but this time she has it reflect the mess
Monique has made of her life.
In a manner quasi-reminiscent to the protagonist of La Femme gelée’s
discovery through the eyes of another of the degree of “saleté” residing in
her home(s), Monique makes a similar discovery. After a few days pass of
Monique not visiting Colette nor inviting her over to visit, Colette becomes
worried and pays Monique a visit.
Although Monique does not reside in the ignorant bliss of not knowing that
the state of her home is socially “unacceptable,” as was the case for Ernaux’s
protagonist, the effect of another’s gaze carries the same weight in La Femme
rompue as it does in La Femme gelée. Both women even use the same term,
“stupéfait/stupefaction,” in describing another’s reaction (and their reaction
to this other) in viewing the state of their homes. Whereas the gaze functions
in La Femme gelée to make Ernaux’s protagonist see the house as a “main-
tenance trap of things,” the gaze functions in La Femme rompue to make
Monique begin to see the house as something beyond which to move and
from which to disassociate her identity. Additionally, the gaze also functions
in La Femme rompue to introduce a spectator position that fluidly shifts age
and gender.
98 C H A PT E R 2
Quel courage inutile, pour les plus simples choses, quand le goût
de vivre est perdu! Le soir, je prépare la théière, la tasse, la casse-
role, je dispose chaque chose à sa place pour que, le matin, la vie
reprenne avec le moins d’effort possible. Et c’est quand même
presque insurmontable de sortir de mes draps, de réveiller la jour-
née. Je fais venir la femme de ménage l’après-midi pour pouvoir
rester au lit autant que je veux le matin. Il m’arrive de me lever
juste quand Maurice rentre à une heure pour déjeuner. Ou s’il ne
rentre pas, juste quand Mme. Dormoy fait tourner la clé dans la
serrure. Maurice fronce le sourcil quand je l’accueille à une heure
en peignoir, décoiffée. Il pense que je lui joue la comédie du déses-
poir. Ou que du moins je ne fais pas l’effort nécessaire pour “vivre
correctement” la situation. Lui aussi il me serine: -Tu devrais voir
un psychiatre. (1967: 233–234)
[What useless energy you need for even the simplest things, when
all liking for life is gone! In the evening I get the teapot, the cup
and the saucepan ready; I put each thing in its place so that life
may start in the morning with the least possible effort. And even
so it is almost more than I can bring myself to do, creeping out
of my bed, starting the day. I get the daily woman to come in the
afternoon so that I can stay in bed as long as I like in the morning.
Sometimes I get up just as Maurice is coming home to lunch at
one o’clock. Or if he does not come back, then at the very mo-
ment Mme. Dormoy turns the key in the lock. Maurice frowns
when he sees me at one o’clock in a dressing gown and with my
hair undone. He thinks I am putting on a desperation act for his
benefit. Or at least that I am not making the necessary effort “to
( RE) DISP LA YING F EMIN IN IT Y AN D H OME 99
live the situation decently.” He too tells me over and over again,
-You ought to ses a psychiatrist. (1969: 236)]
Although in Maurice’s gaze Monique does not appear to see herself as the ob-
ject of ridicule and nastiness, as was the case with Diana’s gaze, she sees herself
as the object of disappointment. This sensation only fuels her obsession to
press others for more information. She overwhelms her daughters (especially
Colette) with endless questions concerning their impressions of Monique’s
and Maurice’s marriage and relationship, Monique’s maternal habits, and
their relationship with Monique. The thought of her life, identity, and exis-
tence culminating in failure and disappointment sets her beside herself.
Yet, it is through the other’s gaze that Monique comes to recognize her
current state of “bad faith.” The gaze enables her at the end of the narrative
to be able to move beyond this condition and to take responsibility for her
existence and identity. When Monique returns to Paris after Maurice has
moved out all of his belongings to his new apartment, de Beauvoir closes the
narrative with the last diary entry, in which she writes:
door will open slowly, and I shall see what there is behind the
door. It is the future. The door to the future will open. Slowly.
Unrelentingly. I am on the threshold. There is only this door
and what is watching behind it. I am afraid. And I cannot call to
anyone for help. I am afraid. (1969: 253–254)]
In this citation, we see that once again the home is transformed. The walls
that originally constituted her universe have transformed into a door that
will slowly open upon a new identity and existence (her being-in-the-world).
Although the apartment is still physically empty behind this door, it is no
longer the past that resides therein but rather her future. In keeping with her
existentialist philosophies of living, de Beauvoir completes Monique’s portrait
by giving the impression that she will look to the future instead of to the past,
as she has done throughout the entire narrative, and live in the present mak-
ing decisions and accepting responsibility and accountability for them.
Through the various portraits of femininity and speaking and gazing
positions created in this narrative, de Beauvoir clearly illustrates how women’s
subjectivity is multiple and hybrid and firmly situated inside a contact zone
of contradiction, ambivalence, and paradox. Moreover, we see how in this
contact zone or ²⁄³ Space of first-person literary enunciation, imperial and
diasporic legacies function, clash, and converge across and within indigenous
social class and gender borders. As we previously established, these discursive
and technical commonalities predominantly figure in Ernaux’s work as well.
Conclusion
As we have come to see in this chapter, whether the protagonist is a “fro-
zen” or “broken or dumped” woman in their respective narratives, both
protagonists appear disappointed in and by conventional gender roles and
disillusioned by their normative discourses. Their homes—seen either as a
maintenance trap of things that add countless demands for immanent acts
or as an entire “universe” sheltering the protagonist from the responsibil-
ity of “outside” transcendent acts—become politically and socially charged
transnational spaces of contention on which hybrid seeing and speaking
subjects from multiple perspectives descend in order to transform them into
new re-hybridized spaces or positions of female spectatorship and authorship
from within. In the following chapter, we will again see domestic spaces as
politically and socially charged locations of contention, but we will discover
how the performance of immanent domestic acts may lead to transcended
( RE) D ISP LA YING F EMININ IT Y AN D H OME 101
Notes
1. Chantal Mouffe, “Feminism, Citizenship, and Radical Democratic Press,” in
Feminists Theorize the Political, eds. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (New York, NY:
Routledge, 1992), 376.
2. Françoise Lionnet, Autobiographical Voices: Race, Gender, Self-Portraiture
(Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1989), 193.
3. Paul Smith, Discerning the Subject (Minneapolis, WI: Univ. of Minnesota
Press, 1988), 105.
4. Nancy K. Miller, “Representing Others: Gender and the Subjects of Autobi-
ography,” Differences 6.1 (1994), 1–27; and Paul John Eakin, How our Lives Become
Stories (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986).
5. Bethany Ladimer, “Cracking the Codes: Social Class and Gender in Annie
Ernaux,” Chimères 26 (2002), 53–70.
6. Ladimer, Cracking the Codes, 56.
7. Lyn Thomas, Annie Ernaux: An Introduction to the Writer and Her Audience
(New York, NY: Berg, 1999), 10.
8. Claire-Lise Tondeur, “Entretien avec Annie Ernaux,” French Review 68.3
(1995), 37–44.
9. Elizabeth Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir: A Critical Reader (New York, NY:
Routledge, 1998), 1.
10. Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir, 3.
11. Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir, 7.
12. Toril Moi, Simone de Beauvoir: The Making of an Intellectual Woman (Oxford,
UK: Blackwell, 1994), 73–92.
13. Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir, 12.
14. Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir, 13.
15. Fallaize, Simone de Beauvoir, 13.
16. Monika Boehringer, “Donner la vie, donner la mort: ‘L’amère écrite’ chez
Simone de Beauvoir et Annie Ernaux,” Dalhousie French Studies, 64 (2003), 13–23.
17. Liliane Lazar, “A la recherché de la mère: Simone de Beauvoir et Annie
Ernaux,” Simone de Beauvoir Studies 16 (1999–2000), 123–134; and Catherine R.
Montfort, “La Vieille Née: Simone de Beauvoir, Une mort très douce, and Annie Er-
naux, Une femme,” French Forum 21.3 (1996), 349–364.
18. Claude Imbert, “Simone de Beauvoir: A Woman Philosopher in the Context
of her Generation,” in The Legacy of Simone de Beauvoir, ed. Emily R. Grosholz (Ox-
ford, UK: Clarendon Press, 2004), 3–21.
102 C H A PT E R 2
103
104 C H A PT E R 3
women’s filmmaking of Tunisia and France via Raja Amari’s Satin rouge
(2002) and Coline Serreau’s Chaos (2000). In Chapter Three, transnational
refers again to the virtual intra-national borders between social class and sex
within the homeland but also begins to open up a new exploration in this
study of the international socio-cultural borders between Tunisia and France
and Second and Third Cinemas. Let us first begin with a background look
at Amari’s and Serreau’s filmmaking so that we may better contextualize our
trans/national readings of their work and project; which is to say the manner
in which their work signifies difference both across and within particularities
of location and situation.
As we saw in Chapter One, Assia Djebar entered into the cinemato-
graphic text and medium through a literary backdoor. This suggests that
since she began her artistic endeavors first in the literary domain, the “scripts”
(the poems, nursery rhymes, tales, shared accounts, and legends) occupy a
prime importance and primary position in La nouba du Mont Chenoua. Yet
Djebar also acknowledges that the cinematic text and the technical processes
entrained in creating her films have strongly influenced the literary work she
has since written. We may draw a related conclusion concerning the two film-
makers we will examine in this chapter, Raja Amari and Coline Serreau. All
three artists share the same authorial presence in their filmmaking, as most
readily marked in the writing credits as screenwriters to their films that they
all hold. Neither Amari nor Serreau share with Djebar the practice of writ-
ing fiction, but Amari has written several critical reviews for an Algerian film
journal and Serreau has written several plays for the theater. Thus, one may
suggest that women’s discourses maintain a primal significance throughout
Amari’s and Serreau’s work as well—especially in the form of female first-
person narration. We will lead off with Raja Amari and a cursory look at the
Tunisian film industry and a few critical ideologies of nation and gender in
contemporary Tunisian society before we begin to examine the re-hybridized
subject position and ²⁄³ Space of expression in her work.
Raja Amari
If Djebar entered into the cinematographic medium by a literary backdoor,
then Amari entered it through a critical side door. Although not much sec-
ondary work exists on Amari in North America at the time of preparing this
manuscript—due to her rather recent arrival to the realm of cinema—pieces
of information exist here and there in cinematic secondary texts that purport
to broaden spectators’ awareness of women filmmakers, especially postco-
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 105
lonial women filmmakers. One such text informs us that before starting
her training and studies at the famous FEMIS (L’Institut de Formation et
d’Enseignement pour les Métiers de l’Image et du Son) in Paris in 1994, she
had spent much of the prior two years writing critical articles for the Tunisian
cinematic magazine, Cinécrits, which was edited by the Association Tunisi-
enne pour la promotion de la critique cinématographique.1 Again before her
studies at La FEMIS, Amari earned a “Diplôme de langue et culture ital-
iennes” from the Società Dante D’Alighieri in Tunis and a “Maîtrise de lit-
térature et civilisation française (option Histoire de l’art)” at the Université de
Tunis I (Gabous, 1998: 184). Adding to her eclectic academic background,
Amari also earned a “Premier prix de danse” at the Conservatoire National
de Musique et de Danse in Tunis. Based on these established varied interests
in language, culture, literature, art history, dance, and film, I believe it fit-
ting to state that the relationships between differing cultural, social, political,
artistic, and ideological discourses (their contradictions, paradoxes, and over-
laps) provide the foundation on which Amari builds her first feature-length
film, Satin rouge (2002). Moreover, the tropes of gaze and voice resurface in
Amari’s work and, as with Djebar’s cinema, they both again offer interesting
insight into the relationships at play in Amari’s film.
In recalling our discussion in Chapter One on Djebar’s postcolonial
women’s cinema, we may ascertain that Amari is similarly using the cin-
ematic medium to privilege women’s expression that forges a cinematic ²⁄³
Space of female authorship by first relying on conventional cinematic spaces
or positions of female spectatorship. This is an important assertion, for the
question of female spectatorship has proven and continues to prove essential
to academic studies of Tunisian cinema and critical approaches to Amari’s
filmmaking. A brief history on the topic of spectatorship in the Tunisian film
industry is useful to our understanding of its role and importance in Amari’s
cinema.
Beginning with the very arrival of the cinema in Tunisia with the Lu-
mière Brothers [who came to “chasser des images exotiques” (Gabous, 1998:
11) [“to chase or hunt exotic images”] very late in the nineteenth century
and continuing through the following several decades, Tunisian women
played only very marginal and stereotypical roles on screen and a non-role
off screen. Tunisian women were not trained in operating cinematographic
equipment in these early decades and appeared on screen only in the back-
ground, typically as if part of the setting or backdrop. Their appearance was
usually exaggerated in the same folkloric fashion as described by Mark Al-
loua and Assia Djebar in their work on the images of Bedouin women and
children in indigenous dress that were printed on the thousands of postcards
106 C H A PT E R 3
that circulated throughout Western Europe from the late nineteenth century
to the early twentieth century.2 Postcolonial film scholar Abdekrim Gabous
describes these representations:
Gabous reports that there were many incidences in these early decades of
cinematic public screening in Tunisia of governmental officials banning
Tunisian women from viewing films in public cinemas (1998: 20). Therefore,
for the first fifty years or so of the Tunisian film industry’s presence in Tunisian
society, Tunisian women’s relationship to the cinema was relatively non-existent,
as they played little-to-no role in the film or in its production processes and
were even denied spectatorship on many occasions.
When Tunisian women did begin to enter into the Tunisian film in-
dustry, due largely to President Bourguiba’s progressive measures to educate
women in Tunisia through a nationalized public education system in the
1960s, most Tunisian women working in the cinematic industry of their
country found themselves in positions socially gendered as feminine (i.e.,
either cosmetic in nature—hairdressing, wardrobe, make-up—or clerical in
nature—script girl, production secretary, archivist). Additionally, many Tu-
nisian women found themselves caught in a double standard. Due to social
conceptions of the home and domestic discourses of the time, women want-
ing to work within the cinematic industry who had families to take care of
at home found themselves trapped into job descriptions that did not require
them to shoot on location with the production crew that would relocate
them outside their home city (Gabous, 1998: 38). The only exception to
this general practice in more recent times was the need for Tunisian actresses
who, for the sake of “authenticity,” were required to play important roles and
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 107
therefore traveled with the production crew. However, it would appear that
Tunisian women desiring to pursue acting careers in the 1960s and 1970s
were faced with choosing between their cinematic careers or having a fam-
ily and working in one of the aforementioned more “stationary” cinematic
employment positions.
Yet many feminist film scholars of Tunisian cinema underline the
silver lining in this arrangement of employment possibilities. Due to the
general nature and demands of editing in the cinematic industry, which
involved a combination of artistic and clerical skills, multitasking abilities,
and did not require one to travel with the on-site production crew, many
Tunisian women were initially drawn to the field of cinematic editing.
Gabous explains that within the Tunisian film industry even today, women
dominate this editing aspect of the filmmaking process. One may argue
that the editing process is what actually creates the cinematic text that the
spectator views. The director may maintain the ultimate authority on any
cinematic text, but the editor(s) (in conjunction with the director) must
assemble the sequences of shots in creating the narrative. This assembling
or sequencing, which underlines the entire film, most effectively gives the
film its character and depth and establishes its mood and tone. It is the
editing that makes a film “whole” and determines whether it “works” or
not. Therefore, it appears that many Tunisian men and women working in
the still ultimately male-dominated cinematic industry in Tunisia may find
themselves in a unique position to challenge this industry through editing
subversion. Many postcolonial Tunisian filmmakers and editors have often
capitalized on this arrangement and these technical possibilities. In effect,
through technical cinematic subversion, male and female directors and edi-
tors may raise questions in their work that open onto wider cultural and
political change in Tunisian society and ideology. But what do we already
know about Tunisian society and ideology?
Many scholars (literary, sociological, historical, and anthropological)
label Tunisia as a hybrid nation of a hybrid culture and hybrid people. Much
of Tunisia’s hybridity can be traced through its history as a land under sover-
eign (and intermittently foreign) rule. In examining Tunisia’s hybridity, one
must start with the obvious: Tunisia’s geographical position on the globe.
Tunisia lies directly in the center of the North African coastline at an almost
equal distance from the Nile Valley to the east and the Atlantic Ocean to the
west. The Mediterranean shoreline of Tunisia gives Tunisia two maritime
faces—one which looks north toward Europe and a second which looks east
toward the Middle East. These two maritime faces have been and continue
to be critical in shaping Tunisia’s history and culture.
108 C H A PT E R 3
Due to this geographical position, Tunisia has been open to foreign in-
vaders and colonists from both the east (Andalusian Muslims) and the north-
east (Italians, Sicilians, Maltese, and Turks) as well as from the northwest
(Spaniards and French). In addition, during the times of the African slave
trade, Sub-Saharan Africans were brought into Tunisia, thus adding an addi-
tional layer of cultural and ethnic hybridity. Tunisia manifests such a hybrid-
ity of ethnic diversity that anthropologists describe contemporary Tunisians
as “an amalgamation of many ethnic groups” (Perkins, 1986: 5). In addition
to the aforementioned ethnic groups, one must also include the indigenous
North Africans (the Berbers) and Jews. These ethnic groups (sometimes
transient, sometimes permanent) left behind or instilled in Tunisia various
religious, lingual, political, philosophical, and ideological institutions that
continue to shape Tunisian identity and culture for both Tunisian men and
women even in the present day.
As I have already discussed in Housework and Dance as Counterpoints in
French-Tunisian Filmmaker Raja Amari’s “Satin rouge” (forthcoming, 2010),
women’s roles and identities in Tunisian society testify to the multiplicitous
and multi-sited nature of Tunisian society as just described. On one hand,
in a manner similar to Djebar’s discussion of the Algerian woman, Tunisian
society reveres the Tunisian woman as “mother” and perceives her as the
“true guardian of tradition, the glue that holds [her] people together in the
face of many threats from without as well as from within the national sphere”
(Merini, 2000: 156). Yet on the other hand, the family generally regards her
needs and concerns as secondary. However paradoxically, Tunisia does stand
alone among its Maghrebi neighbors for the extensive degree of freedom it
has extended, since its liberation from France in the 1950s, to both its male
and female nationals. Although, a rather limited and quite narrow and con-
servative view exists regarding how Tunisian nationals should and should not
be. It lies beyond the scope of this book to engage in a full discussion on this
matter, thereby I will limit subsequent attention to the topic as it relates to
the female gender, which is the focus of this project. However, I must note
there is much room and interest in the field to develop the matter as it relates
to the male gender as well.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, when an independent, postcolonial
Tunisia emerged from under French colonial rule and began to engage in
“modernized” nation-building practices, questions addressing the role of
Tunisian women—and more importantly their image in this “new,” postco-
lonial, and independent society—took precedence. Many political, artistic,
and intellectual figures were concerned with how Tunisian women’s images
were constructed in the public eye, in the arts, and in the media. These con-
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 109
Thus, women carry a large share of the burden—or some would say
the honor—for safeguarding the family lineage. Charrad asserts that family
reputation depends a great deal on “the virginity of daughters and sisters,
the fidelity of wives, and the continence of widowed and divorced daugh-
ters or sisters” (2001: 63). Yet, female sexual activity is not the only factor
on which a family’s reputation may ride. According to Charrad, “norms of
chastity and modesty [also] apply to women’s behavior in public,” which
favor modes of discretion and a certain degree of invisibility. The emphasis
on the normative perception of Tunisian women in their family lineage as
married mothers (the prescribed monolithic and homogenous representa-
tion of “acceptable” contemporary female identity) collectively persists
and pervades most female gender constructions in contemporary Tunisian
cultural and social thought.4
One common underlying characteristic of the various socio-political
nationalist discourses of post-independence Tunisia presented in this chapter
rests on this assumed, monolithic, and homogenous collectivity of Tunisian
women’s “modern” identity. As Zayzafoon provides insight:
Although women in Tuinisia today “enjoy the same legal status as men,”5
inequalities between social classes and between urban and rural women per-
sist.6 For example, the situation of a single mother with an illegitimate child
is still ignored by Tunisian law.7 And, homosexuality is still illegal in Tunisia
and can carry a punishment of up to three years in prison.8 However, many
still-marginalized individuals in Tunisian society do attest to improvements
in the social and cultural rights of Tunisian citizens since 1956.9 Yet, despite
the amendments to Tunisia’s constitution effected throughout the late 1980s
and 1990s in the areas of domestic violence, women’s rights in marriage and
divorce, and women’s political rights, the vestiges of the 1950s past remain.
The emphasis on the normative perception of Tunisian women as mothers—
the prescribed monolithic and homogenous representation of contemporary
female identity—collectively persists.
Beginning in 1956, President Bourguiba initiated and led an aggressively
pro-Western and pro-development program that instituted numerous re-
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 111
forms designed to make the nation competitive in the world market economy
(Holmes-Eber, 2003: 4). Among these initiatives, Bourguiba enacted prob-
ably the most important and significant piece of legislation to women’s socio-
economic position in Tunisian society: the Personal Status Code. Historian
Paula Holmes-Eber shares that the Personal Status Code (PSC), “continues to
be one of the most radical and liberal sets of laws on women and the family
in the Arab and Muslim world today, granting women numerous rights and
protections paralleled by few Middle Eastern countries” (2003: 4). The PSC
granted women citizenship and the right to vote, forbade the veil, abolished
polygamy, improved women’s rights in divorce by allowing women to initiate
it, and challenged the practice of arranged marriages. Under Bourguiba’s ad-
ministration, women’s education and employment were also encouraged, and
free schooling at all levels through the university was offered to both women
and men. In addition, further laws were decreed encouraging women’s em-
ployment through protection of their rights in the workplace (Homes-Eber,
2003: 4).
The PSC began to lay foundation to a more gender-egalitarian society
in Tunisia. In spite of the PSC, though, the people’s unwavering support (at
least in public if not always in practice) of Arab tradition, social customs, and
religious beliefs—which were often understood and touted as in opposition to
Bourguiba’s politics of political and social change—continues to challenge the
political, cultural, and social balance between European and Middle Eastern
ideologies and cultural values in operation in contemporary Tunisian society.
The political and social status of Tunisian women and their image or cultural
value in contemporary Tunisian society is one example of how Tunisia finds
itself at the center of a complex web of a variety of so-called traditional and
so-called progressive belief systems and ideologies. As we shall see in this
chapter, one important cultural domain of contemporary Tunisian society,
its cinema, is playing a critical role in challenging the widespread traditional
belief systems and their underlying normative cultural values and attitudes.
As we saw in Chapter One with regard to Djebar’s reading of Algeria’s
national decolonizational discourses that deny Algerian women any voice
and any identity outside their biological role within the family, we see in this
chapter how official political discourses conversely granted Tunisian women
a voice and made room for Tunisian women in educational institutions and
the workplace, thus an identity outside the family. But as we just saw in the
earlier discussion of Tunisian women’s roles within the cinematic industry in
Tunisia, double standards, paradoxes, and contradictions do exist. And more-
over, it is these very cultural double standards, ideological paradoxes, and
social contradictions that shape the landscape of Tunisian cinema and that,
112 C H A PT E R 3
Stollery proposes that “piercing this ‘façade’ and seeking out ‘discrepancy’
between ideology and actions is precisely what some contemporary Tunisian
cinema attempts to do” (2003: 51). In his essay, Stollery reveals how male
privilege and authority, traditionally embodied in the father figure, become
the “objects of scrutiny and contestation” (2003: 51). He concludes that
contemporary Tunisian films that focus on domestic drama raise questions
concerning “relationships across generations and between different types of
masculinity [that] hint at potential openings onto wider cultural and politi-
cal change” (2003: 51). It is evident to me that Amari is approaching the
domestic drama in Satin rouge with similar questions in mind. Her specific
cinematic focus raises critical lines of inquiry that concern relationships across
female generations and between different types of femininity. Yet I believe
her end goal is the same in Satin rouge: the opening onto wider cultural and
political change in Tunisia.
Raja Amari’s Satin rouge, her début feature-length film, offers interesting
insights into this opening up onto wider cultural and political change in Tu-
nisia by challenging Tunisia’s widespread conventional and traditional belief
systems and underlying cultural values and attitudes through its examination
of postcolonial female gender construction and processes of (urban) contem-
porary female identity formation in Tunis, Tunisia. Through her cinematic
portrait of the film’s protagonist, a forty-something widowed housewife and
mother of one, Amari’s film also poses important questions concerning wom-
en’s representation (understood in the sense of constructed cultural identities)
in contemporary Tunisian society. Moreover, Amari’s insights and questions
indirectly speak to larger preoccupations at play in many contemporary
North African cinematic domestic dramas concerning the need to shift lines
of gender representation and ways of seeing gender on screen and in society.
As I will develop in my discussion of Satin rouge below, Amari’s illustra-
tion of female housework and its associated representation provide useful
points of critical inquiry since they may proffer a new or different vantage
point in examining the Self-Other divide and the role this divide plays in
constructing identity and gender in film and society. Through a detailed
analysis of the opening sequence of Satin rouge, a sequence which, in my view,
captures concretely the possibility for (re)appropriating female representation
114 C H A PT E R 3
her personal interests in studying the art of raqs sharqi (an Arabic term for
“belly dancing.”) Given Amari’s reference to Egyptian cinema, it is useful to
our discussion to gloss the first few decades of this industry in order to con-
nect the Egyptian cinematic musical genre, which Amari grew up watching,
to the cinematic ²⁄³ Space and re-hybridized speaking subject witnessed in her
filmmaking
In his discussion of Egyptian film history from 1896 to 1994, Hind
Rassam Culhane identifies a common discursive theme running through-
out the Egyptian cinematic industry in which many Egyptian filmmakers
address “a basic dilemma in Arab society: the construction of Arab/Islamic
identity and culture in the face of Western political and cultural domi-
nance/hegemony” (1995: 33). The first film shown in Egypt was projected
in the backroom of a café called Zavani, in Alexandria, in 1896. It was
a Lumière Brothers’ film. The spectacle was so successful that by 1908,
five cinemas “in the French style” were operating and showing imported
films.15 However, within a few years, Culhane explains that the Egyptian
movie-going public wanted films that “expressed themselves, their country
and their society” (1995: 36). Thus, French filmmakers arrived in Egypt
to shoot local scenes for Egyptian spectators. In 1917, Italian filmmakers
entered the Egyptian film industry and also began making films for Egyp-
tian spectators. These films, made with Egyptian actors, met little success.
However, around the same time, an Egyptian filmmaker—returning from
studying film in Germany—named Mohammed Baoumi began shooting
films that reflected common popular Egyptian social concerns of the time.
In contrast, these films met great success.
In the 1920s, Egyptian production companies as well as ciné-clubs
began to appear and the melodrama genre became widely successful.16
Culhane shares that during this decade in Egyptian film history, the first
major theme of Egyptian filmmaking was introduced in Istefane Rosti’s
The Call of God, which was later re-titled Laila. This film recounts the
story of Laila, a beautiful village girl who gives herself to her fiancé, but he
then falls in love with an American woman and follows her to the United
States. Laila, abandoned and pregnant, is run out of the village by the vil-
lagers and seeks refuge in Cairo. The rest of the film then tracks the miser-
ies she experiences in Cairo. Culhane explains that the film introduced a
major Egyptian theme of “the seduction of the Egyptian by the West in
general, and America in particular, and the misery that results” (1995: 39).
Many scholars of Middle Eastern and North African cinemas believe that
this theme still often operates by and large today in much contemporary,
generally non-Eurocentric, World Cinema.
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 117
With the advent of sound cinema in Egypt in the late 1920s and early
1930s, the musical genre entered the cinematic scene with great success.
This film genre dominated the Egyptian film industry until the outbreak
of World War II. One reason for this genre’s dominance posits the inclu-
sion of indigenous “oriental” Egyptian song and dance which presented
Egyptian filmmakers a “great opportunity to combine technological devel-
opment with the reinforcement of traditional cultural identity” (Culhane,
1995: 39). Scholars assert that Egyptian music has played a major role in
connecting the Arab World, and Egyptian films have been a major vehicle
for communicating that music.17 In fact, the song performed in the con-
cluding scene of Satin rouge (the wedding reception) is of Egyptian origin.18
Culhane writes that:
Until today, the Egyptian music and song industries, like the
Egyptian film industry, dominate the Middle East, with Lebanon
coming second. Radio played the greatest role in disseminating
these sounds, but after radio came the Egyptian sound film. And
it would happen, over the next 57 years, that Egyptian music and
song would connect Arabs from North Africa to Baghdad to one
another in a common identity, through the agency of the sound
film. (1995: 42)
As we have just seen in this discussion of the beginnings of the Egyptian film
industry, whether in regards to East-West relations or a “Pan-Arab” context
stretching from North Africa to the Middle East, a transnationality has al-
ways existed and played a prime role in the development of the Egyptian film
industry.
We could extend this same statement to the development of the Tuni-
sian film industry. One could argue that Amari’s reworking of the Egyptian
musical through Satin rouge’s soundtrack and Lilia’s cabaret performances
pays homage to this genre or evidences Amari’s authorial presence in the film,
since the Egyptian musical genre has clearly influenced Amari’s spectator
experience (and thus her filmmaking) and assumingly her personal interests
in studying the art of raqs sharqi at the Conservatoire de Tunis. Furthermore,
the Egyptian musical genre in general and Samia Gamal in particular offer
Amari a privileged discourse on a representation of Arab femininity in which
a woman as object of the gaze accepts and returns the gaze through a perfor-
mance of self-expression in movement.
Among scholars of “oriental” dance as well as Egyptian cinema, Samia
Gamal is well-known for her unique performance style of blending both
Eastern and Western styles of dance and movements, including ballet and
118 C H A PT E R 3
Latin dance, in her cinematic and nightclub performances.19 She is also well-
known for performing in high-heels, this costume element symbolizing the
West when typically and traditionally in the East dancers perform barefoot.
One aspect of Gamal’s performances, the cabaret or nightclub-like influence
on her cinematic performance style, proves an interesting underlying element
shared in common with the venue in which Amari showcases Lilia’s public
performances in Satin rouge.
Satin rouge narrates the “coming of age” of a forty-something widow,
Lilia (Hiam Abbass), living and raising her teenage daughter, Salma (Hend
El Ahem), in contemporary Tunis, Tunisia. The narrative follows Lilia’s pro-
gression from a seemingly conservative and traditional housewife and mother
to a rather liberal and “modern” woman and mother-in-law. In the beginning
of the film, Lilia’s daily existence is mostly limited to Salma and taking care
of their home. One night when Salma does not return home as expected,
Lilia suspects that she may be in a local cabaret. She enters the cabaret but is
overcome by its atmosphere. She faints but recovers in the dressing room of
the cabaret’s lead dancer, Folla (Monia Hichri). The two forge a friendship,
and Lilia soon becomes a cabaret performer herself. Lilia begins a short-
lived romance with Chokri (Maher Kammoon), who unbeknownst to her
is romancing Salma. In the penultimate scene, Chokri learns of Lilia’s and
Salma’s mother-daughter relation, and Lilia learns of Salma’s and Chokri’s
engagement. Chokri and Lilia vow to keep their affair a secret from Salma,
and the film ends with a marriage reception in which family, neighbors, and
Lilia’s cabaret colleagues joyfully dance and celebrate the marital union of
Salma and Chokri.
Amari clarifies that in Satin rouge she desired to present an image of con-
temporary Tunisian society as divided into two worlds. Not the traditional
social division of masculine and feminine but rather the opposition of day
and night. On this point Amari expresses in the DVD interview:
Amari explains that in typical traditional Tunisian society, “their paths would
never cross because nightclubs are perceived as a bit creepy and a depraved
environment” (2003). She stylizes Lilia’s cinematic maternal portrait as “as
‘regular’ woman, a model housewife with a great deal of moral conviction
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 119
and a strict sense of duty” (2003). However, by the conclusion of the film,
Lilia has gradually (and almost in spite of herself and her convictions) gone
against “everything she originally stood for and everything that she forbade or
reproached her daughter with: sleeping over, going out with a man” (2003).
In this interview, Amari connects these two social worlds through the double
life that she believes every Tunisian lives. When commenting on the way
in which Lilia hides her involvement with the cabaret from her family and
neighbors, Amari asserts that:
Although this double life perhaps most frequently manifests itself in male
and female romantic relations in modern Tunisia, Amari uses this concept in
Satin rouge to interrogate and challenge normative as well as marginal cultural
representations of femininity.
In Satin rouge, Amari uses Lilia’s double life as housewife by day (the
Self) and cabaret performer by night (the Other) to present two portraits
of contemporary Tunisian femininity. The former portrait adopts and the
latter portrait questions traditional Tunisian discourses of domesticity and
the modern Tunisian woman’s supposed “moral and spiritual mission.” Yet
Amari does not rely on oppositional and isolated settings of home and caba-
ret to present these portraits throughout the film. As the opening sequence
reveals, these two portraits may co-exist and merge within domestic space, al-
though not without personal or familial conflict, as the film will later develop.
Moreover, in addition to setting up Lilia’s doubled femininity, which seems
to respond to Kandiyoti’s call to focus on shifting lines of demarcation in
North African cinemas that exist within each gender (1994: 51), the opening
sequence also suggests that these two portraits of femininity in the film—the
dancer and the mother—share the same point of origin. Thereby, they are
not strictly pitted against one another in quasi-binary terms as seemingly
witnessed in Tunisian hegemonic discourses of femininity.
Furthermore, the opening sequence is also significant for it suggests
that both portraits of femininity (the dancer and the mother) become part
of Lilia’s multiple form of feminine resistance to the institutions of home
120 C H A PT E R 3
and homemaking from within the home. From the very opening sequence
of the film, the home clearly presents a contact zone of contradiction, am-
bivalence, and paradox. As we have already established in previous chapters
of this study, once again—but this time in relation to Amari’s text—the
home captures a kind of diasporic space in which the protagonist is both
“here and there.” Again, the home reflects and resembles “nation” by ex-
pressing the same ideological pressures that contend within the nation and
does not serve as a retreat from the public and political spheres. As I have
analyzed elsewhere (forthcoming, 2010), Amari cinematically captures this
multiple form of feminine resistance and complexity of home in the open-
ing sequence when filming Lilia’s housekeeping acts with the panning shot
and framing, two cinematic tools which both subtly work to subvert and
challenge these institutions and many traditional discourses of Tunisian
femininity in this film.
The opening sequence of the film splits the opening credits into two
parts. The credits, written in both French and Arabic in white lettering,
which literally reads as a marker or sign of Amari’s transnational or transver-
gent cinema, begin to roll on a silent black backdrop. Then at about forty-
five seconds into this opening sequence, we hear chirping birds followed by
random city noises (children’s voice, automobile traffic sounds, and muffled
footsteps shuffling by). The credits continue to roll for about one minute lon-
ger, but now they are set against a soundtrack. We hear percussion rhythms
sounding on a drum, a man singing, a meshing of sound as if radio channels
are being changed, an announcement by a female voice informing the listen-
ers of a new Tunisian soccer team and its latest match results, and then a
male singer performing a song. At this point, the first image appears on the
screen, and we see Lilia’s reflection (although we do not realize it at first) in
one of her bedroom mirrors as she is straightening the curtains of her bed-
room window. For the remaining almost three minutes of this scene, Amari
captures with no cuts and only very subtle camera pans right and left and very
slow camera tilts up and down Lilia’s movements as she cleans and dances.
In a very defamiliarized and quasi-documentary way, Amari introduces the
main preoccupation in Satin rouge: Lilia’s sense of social and moral duty and
the conflict entrained by her desire to pursue her own interests and longing
for self-expression. However, Amari’s use of Lilia’s reflection in the bedroom
mirror introduces a discursive theme running throughout the narrative sug-
gesting that nothing is quite as it seems.
In a very literal and physical way through this first representation of
Lilia in this opening shot, Amari uses the bedroom mirror to manifest Lilia’s
double life and double portrait of femininity. On the one hand on the film’s
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 121
narrative level, this doubled image sets up her doubled existence and identity as
model housewife during the day and cabaret performer at night. Yet on the other
hand and not too unlike Lacan’s mirror stage, the reflected image which the
spectator misrecognizes as the flesh and body of Lilia bespeaks Lilia’s own even-
tual awakening to her initial misrecognition. This reflection—not from Lilia’s
own perspective as depicted on screen but from that of the spectator—raises
the role that Tunisian society plays throughout the film through its social
discourses of the pressure to conform and the repressive prevailing morality
that dominates this society in which someone almost always appears to be
looking over your shoulder.
Throughout Satin rouge, Amari raises this motif and engages with the
issue of social labels and expected social conduct as well as their associated
stigmas and prejudices. It seems that from the outset of the film, Amari wants
the spectator to identify with preconceived notions of acceptable Tunisian
female activities, namely her housekeeping practices. However, when Lilia’s
hand surprisingly enters into the shot to clean the mirror, making the specta-
tor realize that the first representation of Lilia was a reflection, Amari begins
to challenge these preconceived notions of acceptable and expected social
conduct and the double life that she feels Tunisians live, which the film will
eventually wipe away by the end.
The opening sequence continues as the camera, without cutting, slowly
pans right to capture the dressertop on which rests a framed photograph of
a man, whom we assume is her late husband. Lilia has not yet entered the
frame, as the camera precedes her movements. Moving more quickly than
the camera’s panning, Lilia then enters the medium shot in order to dust the
dressertop and photograph frame. Again preceding Lilia’s movements, the
camera continues slowly to pan right to film Lilia’s vanity table on which a
framed photograph of her daughter rests. As before in the previous shot, Lilia
quickly enters this shot to dust this piece of furniture and photograph. With-
out hesitating, the camera continues to pan right, filming the other side of the
vanity table upon which rest some of Lilia’s hairstyling tools and products.
Once more Lilia moves into the shot, and the camera continues to pan right
to film a bedside table on which is placed a framed photograph of a baby. At
this point, the camera comes to rest.
It is often said that the panning shot tends to emphasize the unity of
space and the connectedness of people and objects within that space (Gi-
annetti, 2008: 126). This is a useful definition to apply to discussions of
Amari’s panning shot—and by extension framing—in Satin rouge since both
tools, in general, emphasize the literal cinematic contiguity of people and ob-
jects sharing the same space (Giannetti, 2008: 126), a key to decoding most
122 C H A PT E R 3
if not all cinematic domestic dramas. In this opening sequence, the unity of
space is preserved but not in the traditional reactionary way. Rather than pan-
ning to keep Lilia in the center of the frame as she moves about the bedroom,
Amari ironically refuses to focus on Lilia’s movements and housekeeping
motions. As a result, the bedroom and its objects seem to capture the focus
on Amari’s camera lens. The camera’s panning movement that precipitates
Lilia’s motions reinforces this reading. Thus, Lilia’s actions appear intrusive
as she enters into each frame and obstructs the spectator’s view of the setting.
As seen in Ernaux’s presentation of her childhood home and first homes
with her husbands in La Femme gelée and in de Beauvoir’s treatment of the
protagonist’s Parisian apartment in La Femme rompue, we again have a sense
of the home as depot of “stuff” that requires maintenance and as a restrictive
world of immanent acts.
As we may recall from the Introduction of this book, many scholars link
postcoloniality and feminism in their critical interrogations of the home as
metaphors for critiquing nationalist discourses that refuse, deny, or overlook
women within the nationalist landscape or national identity of the country.
We may also recall that recent theoretical examination of the home has
begun to explore how everyday relationships with our homes are bound up
with sensory perception and metaphor. But this research also reminds us that
these relationships are culture-specific and must be read differently as such.
In illustration of this vital concept of situating the home within a context of
cultural difference, it is helpful to this project to examine how researchers de-
scribe and understand the normative Tunisian home. Holmes-Eber explains
that Tunisian women’s social life takes place within the home.
noisy, active, busy social centers, filled with neighbors who have
dropped in ostensibly to borrow tea; friends who have stopped
by to drop off the magazines they had promised during the last
week; and relatives who live in the house, next door, upstairs, or
are visiting for a few weeks. (2003: 16)
Yet there is also a subversive technical quality to these scenes in Amari’s film-
making—largely the absence of sound within the home when Amari films
these scenes—that undermines the domestic portrait of the contemporary
Tunisian home as social and open in Satin rouge. As the opening sequence of
the film establishes, the home in Satin rouge assumes a more ominous pres-
ence and does not portray the “happening” place that Holmes-Eber describes.
Although it is perhaps too restrictive to label Amari’s portrait of the contem-
porary Tunisian home a “prison,” there are certainly qualities to the home
which may be read as “prison-like”; for example, its constrictive and cramped
living areas, the prevailing sensation of always being under surveillance, the lack
of mood-setting sounds or soundtrack and lighting, and the bareness of home
décor. Furthermore, one may also read these friends, neighbors, and family
members who visit Lilia at home as agents of hegemony or nation who express
the same ideological pressures—whether intentionally or unwittingly—through
their evaluations of and interferences in Lilia’s homemaking and child-raising
practices. Thus, these domestic details of Lilia’s home and the activities oc-
curring therein in Satin rouge may be read in different ways.
Scholars concur that the values and beliefs which constitute a society’s or
individual’s conception of the home inform our interpretations of different
uses of space and things in the home and reveal how various domestic spaces
and objects are implicated in social and family relationships.20 Therefore,
contemporary scholars of domesticity advocate for a reading practice that
foregrounds the home and its associations within a broad context of cultural
difference, which they reason may only be understood by first avoiding over-
arching and monolithic definitions or stereotypes of cultures. This avocation
recalls Kandiyoti’s and Stollery’s suggestion for a reading practice of North
African cinema that shifts lines of gender demarcation. For Amari, as well as
for the other women artists in this project, shifting lines of gender demarca-
tion within and beyond the home and revising representations and qualities
of domestic spaces and women’s role(s) therein and beyond remain key objec-
tives in all their work.
With the panning shot and framing in the opening sequence of Satin
rouge, Amari limits the qualities of the on-screen domestic space (its con-
nectedness or literary contiguity within the space) to Lilia and the bedroom
124 C H A PT E R 3
objects. Not only does this create a feeling of isolation—for no one else is
humanly present in this sequence with Lilia—but we also begin to have a
sense of the home and family via the photographs’ dominating presence and
priority in Lilia’s life and in traditional Tunisian female society. This detail
appears to capture and reinforce the so-called modern Tunisian women’s
moral and spiritual mission. Furthermore, the filming of Lilia at the edges of
the cinematic frame also create a greater implied distance between her char-
acter and the spectator or even a lack of identification with the character, for
the spectator’s eye is drawn first to the bedroom objects and not Lilia. This
use of framing allows the spectator to more easily take a critical distance in
examining the traditional discourse of femininity on display at this point in
the opening sequence. Additionally, the “body cropping” secondary effect
of Amari’s framing in this opening sequence also makes evident traditional
discourses of Tunisian femininity and hints at the aforementioned nationalist
project of regeneration, which Amari wishes to undo in Satin rouge.
Never once at this point in the extreme long take of the opening sequence
does Amari film Lilia in a full shot revealing her entire body. Nor has Amari
ever fully captured her face on screen. Rather, Amari cinematically dissects
Lilia’s body—filming her hands, shoulders and upper back, hips, and torso as
if all separable from her body as Lilia moves into each frame. The effect of this
manner of filming Lilia is to defamiliarize conventional ways of seeing women
represented on the cinematic screen (at least in Western filmmaking prac-
tices), yet also to reflect Tunisian ways of viewing women’s traditional role
in traditional Tunisian society (i.e., housework, childbirth, and childrearing).
In other words, Amari’s focusing independently on Lilia’s hands, shoulders,
hips, and torso—parts of the female body commonly associated with house-
work, childbearing, and childrearing—foregrounds women’s two important
functions for traditional Tunisian society: first, maintaining domestic order
and second, transmitting values and morality to the next generation—her
“moral and spiritual mission.”
However, much of Lilia’s housework in this scene occurs on the edges
of the cinematic frame or even all together off screen. The irony lies in the
fact that although Amari does foreground Lilia’s housework and introduces
her in the text as a housewife from her very first portrait, Amari’s refusal to
center Lilia’s movements specifically within the cinematic frame thus renders
her housework almost marginal or secondary. Therefore, from the very be-
ginning of Satin rouge, Amari articulates a challenge to traditional Tunisian
ways of thinking, representing, and viewing Tunisian women. Expressed dif-
ferently, housework in Amari’s filmmaking, which is represented in norma-
tive contemporary Tunisian discourses as rather central to Tunisian women’s
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 125
the dresser to dust it once more. The camera follows her but Lilia quickly
steps out of the shot, returning to her initial position on the opposite side of
the bedroom, where Amari first filmed her at the opening shot of the scene.
Again, the camera finds Lilia’s reflection in the original mirror and then films
her back as she prepares to exit the room. The camera rapidly swish pans left
in time to capture Lilia grabbing the can of furniture polish as she exits the
room and cleaning spots on the walls as she walks down the hallway. Amari
slightly raises the angle in order to look straight upon Lilia as she walks down
the hallway, still wiping the walls, until she makes the bed at the end of the
hallway and disappears. The camera fades to black as she exits the frame.
Amari uses the motif of the bedroom mirror within these closing mo-
ments of this opening scene to represent a portrait of contemporary Tunisian
femininity as one of alterity. In other words and as also shown in Djebar’s
representations of the multiplicitous female subject and aided by Cixous’
theorization of alterity as a form of Otherness which is not reducible to the
binary Self/Other but which exceeds it, Amari positions Lilia as the cultural
Other of herself. The reflected image of Lilia’s body expressed in the language
of raqs sharqi as she dances raises her “othered” or unconventional desire to
pursue her own interests and pleasures. In contrast to this reflected represen-
tation of the unrestricted female body in dance, Amari primarily shows Lilia’s
actual body throughout the scene performing housework—the conventional
activity of a Tunisian woman of Lilia’s socio-economic status—which reflects
her sense of social and moral duty. In this split filming of Lilia, Amari cre-
ates a doubled-Other. Additionally, the fact that Amari directs Lilia to step
away from the mirror momentarily and move over to the dresser in order to
capture the late husband and the dancing Lilia in the same shot reifies Lilia’s
social “Otherness” as a dependent and constrained housewife. Yet unlike the
earlier camera movement which preceded Lilia’s movements in cleaning and
thus rendered them marginal and secondary, the camera in this sequence of
actions follows Lilia’s movements in dance and thus suggests an importance
and agency in her self-identity and self-expression in raqs sharqi. The reflec-
tions of her dancing self upon returning to her original position before the
mirror ushers in her doubled-Other as an independent and liberated woman
with personal desires. Lilia’s return to her everyday housekeeping performa-
tivity at the close of this scene becomes part of the process through which her
conscious actions (cleaning or dancing) produce the gendered identities that
are multiple and conflicting in Lilia’s portrait.
Researchers studying housekeeping practices have often drawn a con-
nection between housework and dancing, with the former understood as an
act of performing the private self at home.23 Research shows a common cor-
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 127
relation among “housekeepers” who often combine music with which they
identify and housework movement. Pink elucidates that this combination of
music, movement, and housework “enables individuals to connect their expe-
riences of housework to other activities, thus incorporating it into part of the
vision they have of themselves as individuals” (2004: 70). For Lilia, house-
work is clearly incorporated into the vision she has of herself, for she initially
has nothing else in her life beyond her home and daughter and uses the home
and homemaking responsibilities as initial excuses for refusing to return to the
cabaret after her initial discovery of it at a later point in the film. However,
in Satin rouge, Amari does not present Lilia’s experiences of housework in
connection to her dancing, but rather in contrast. Although both opening
sequence performances appear within the same location of the bedroom and
in the same sequence, they are not simultaneous. Lilia must temporarily stop
cleaning in order to dance and then stop dancing in order to return to clean-
ing. It is as if to suggest that these two portraits of femininity—the one that
adopts traditional domestic discourse (the housewife) and the other one that
questions traditional domestic discourse through unrestricted self-expression
(the cabaret performer)—may not ever (or at least not easily) converge.
However, this is not to say that these two portraits of femininity may
not transverge. They are clearly imbricated as they both involve the same
performer and occur within the same space. Yet, the opening sequence—the
change from one kind of performer (housewife) into another (cabaret dancer)
and then back again—implies a complexity, incompleteness, fragmentation,
and derailment of these two portraits and begins to open up the possibility of
a re-hybridized subject position (i.e., Lilia) born in-between these two por-
traits. Thus, Amari effectively creates imbrication as well as interstices in this
opening sequence. She maintains these two structures throughout the film
and uses them to suggest a certain ambivalence or multifariousness in the rep-
resentation of contemporary Tunisian femininity. Furthermore and perhaps
more importantly, Amari uses this imbrication and these interstices to estab-
lish an intersubjectivity on the part of the protagonist. For some theorists
of domesticity, housework and dancing entrain an intersubjectivity through
which individuals experience their home via maternal objects, technologies,
spaces, and sensory experiences, sometimes in conflicting and contradictory
ways.24 For Amari in Satin rouge, this intersubjectivity in contemporary Tuni-
sian society may only be realized through domestic and personal conflict.
The notion of the home as a site of conflict is certainly not unique to
Amari’s portrait of the home in Satin rouge. Conflict exists in this film as
well as in the other cinematic and literary narratives in this study on several
levels (e.g., mother versus daughter, traditional versus contemporary modes
128 C H A PT E R 3
In the preceding quotation, Amari finds the root of this controversy not so
much in the visualness of the sex act portrayed on screen, but rather in the
fact that Lilia is a widow, a highly symbolic and sacred figure in Arab or Is-
lamic societies, whom Amari presents with sexual desires.
When requested to comment further on Lilia’s symbolic and almost al-
legorical status in Tunisian society and when questioned if she “were afraid
of shocking by tackling the symbolic figure of the ‘mother’ who is, moreover,
represented by a widow,” Amari replies that:
It is true that what may bother people the most is the fact that the
main character is a mother. The mother is supposed to represent
the pillar on which the whole society—i.e., the family, the virtues
and values to be passed on—is based. Making her lose control in
a way unbalances the perception of “good morality.” Lilia is go-
ing to do everything in her power to fulfill her desire up to the
very end, in the final scenes, when she becomes literally perverse.
(2003)
Amari explains that Lilia no longer wants to fight her desires and decides to
indulge in her needs (2003). “She follows her dream, without rebellion; her
experience at the nightclub will enable her to leave her position as ‘mother’
and become a woman who is looked at and desired” (Amari, 2003). As we
have seen in our discussion of the Algerian woman as object of the gaze
in Algerian society, this is strictly forbidden. Although the physical veil
does not enter at all into Amari’s work and historical documents testify
to Bourguiba’s banning of the veil in Tunisia, there is still the impression
that the Tunisian perception of “good (female) morality” relies on a meta-
phorical veil of abstinence and chastity under which Tunisian women are
not to be looked at and desired. For Amari, this veil contradicts her portrait
of contemporary femininity in which Tunisian women, who are caught in-
between conflicting feelings of desire, love, humiliation, and jealousy, strive
for self-expression and corporeal voices that allow them to become both the
subject and object of the gaze. Thus, through Amari’s defamiliarization of
Lilia’s portrait as the model housewife who resigns herself to and accepts tra-
ditional discourses of domesticity, she reveals the cultural double-standards
imposed upon contemporary Tunisian women. Amari opens the film with
the traditional, unified, and fixed portrait of the Tunisian housewife only in
order to employ it as a tool in challenging normative and marginal cultural
representations of the feminine condition and experience in contemporary
Tunisia.
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 131
Rather than just performing a prescribed set of actions for dusting and
straightening in a routine or housekeeping manual–like fashion, Lilia inter-
rupts the housekeeping performative act with her impromptu raqs sharqi per-
formance. Each performative act, then, may be recognized in resistance to the
other as well as in its own terms as “central” (housekeeping) and “marginal”
(dancing) to hegemonic ways of seeing women’s roles in contemporary Tuni-
sia. Amari’s use of the panning shot and framing in this sequence, in which
the lens marginalizes Lilia’s housekeeping and centers her dancing, underpins
in an “outside-in” manner Lilia’s gradual reconstruction or rewriting of her
shifting identity and introduces Amari’s goal in the film to bring these two
“worlds” or discourses of femininity together.
Thus, both her housekeeping and her dancing enter the narrative as
counterpoints that paradoxically work as binaries to divide Lilia’s subjectivity
between “domesticated, good” Self and “emancipated, bad” Other. Whilst at
the same time they also (increasingly throughout the film) work together to
resist such a reification of doubled subjectivity in favor of a plurality of in-
between or re-hybridized female subjectivities (her intersubjectivity). Lilia’s
domestic world broadens through her association with the cabaret network of
employees (i.e., “other” women) she joins whilst still maintaining (albeit per-
haps unrealistically) her respectable position as widowed housewife. In other
words, we see in Satin rouge how a “modern Tunisian woman” transgresses
(or perhaps even transcends) the “Self-Other” divide by embracing and not
repressing the “Others” residing within her “Self.” As we recall from the
Introduction, Marcus Novak would call this the alloself—the alien within.
In relation to contemporary Tunisian cultural and social thought, such
engagement enables new ways of seeing, constructing, and (re)presenting
various “other” forms of femininity or “other” notions about or definitions
of “womanhood.”
By inviting spectators to compare Lilia’s dispersed housewifery portrait
with the unified model presented in the neighbor’s portrait, who embodies
132 C H A PT E R 3
the social pressure and repressive prevailing morality in Tunisia in the film,
Amari is asking the spectator to recognize the shifting lines of demarcation
that exist within “the” feminine portrait of Tunisian women. By linking
domestic skills to self-expression—the opening sequence in which dusting
is replaced by dance and then brought back and the act of sewing cabaret
costumes that leads into cabaret dancing—Amari reveals how housework as a
performative act may lead to a (re)construction and hopefully eventual public
acceptance of gendered female identity in contemporary Tunisian society as
multiple and multivalent. In Satin rouge, this reconstructive process may only
be realized through initial rejection and then eventual revision of the ma-
tronly figure. One may also find this symbolic mode of gender reconstruction
in Coline Serreau’s Chaos (2002). In Serreau’s film, it surfaces in the figure of
the grandmother (Line Rénaud) and her function in the narrative. Let us now
move onto a discussion of contemporary French filmmaker Coline Serreau
and a close reading of Chaos.
Coline Serreau
Coline Serreau arrived on the French cinematographic scene through a
theatrical stage door. Daughter of Jean-Marie Serreau, a stage director con-
sidered one of the most important of the 1950s, and Geneviève Serreau, a
writer and translator, Coline Serreau had already acted in approximately
six plays and had even co-written one with the famous French comic,
Colouche, before making her first film in 1977, a feminist activist docu-
mentary titled Mais qu’est-ce qu’elles veulent? (1977–1978). For Serreau, her
background and continual involvement with the theater does not only in-
fluence her filmmaking but also provides a useful insight into her definition
or understanding of the role or function of the cinema and performance in
French society. In an interview published after the release of her first two
films—the aforementioned documentary and one fiction film, Pourquoi
pas! (1977)—when asked if she would continue to make documentaries,
Serreau replied:
content and subject matter and have marked cinematic style in terms of the
technical tools or elements employed in addressing these issues. As a typical
vestige of May ’68 intellectual goals, scholars find that Serreau “use[s] main-
stream cinema (and cinematographic genres) to communicate more ‘radical’
ideas and to lead her audience to think differently” (Rollet, 1998: 40). She
appropriates a “prise de parole” [“speaking out”] that gives a voice in most
of her texts to those who have not traditionally had access to public speech
(such as the working class, ethnic minorities, and women) in her quest for
social justice. This mediation may provide one reason for her widespread
popularity in France.
Serreau is one of the most famous living female French directors of our
contemporary time, not only in France but also outside of France. She is the
only woman (at the time of preparing this manuscript) with a film figuring
in the list of the twenty most popular French movies since the start of the
Fifth Republic (1958), reaching the fourth position with Trois hommes et
un couffin (1985).26 Yet relatively little academic investigation of her work
exists in Anglophone studies of French cinema. Biographical entries of her
life and filmographies of her work are abundant in secondary texts, but in-
depth examination of her work proves harder to find. The secondary criti-
cism available in North America tends to focus on her blockbuster comic hit,
Trois hommes et un couffin. Critical readings of this film have focused on the
representation of maternity, fatherhood, and family construction as well as
comparisons to Leonard Nimoy’s 1987 American remake, Three Men and a
Baby. What this criticism and Rollet’s French Film Directors text most often
underline is Serreau’s use of comedy and the comic genre in reaching her
public and conveying her messages. No study of Serreau, moreover, would
be complete without addressing Serreau’s cinematic or theatrical relationship
to comedy and the comic genre. Let us pause for a quick moment to consider
this important relationality in Serreau’s work before moving onto our close
reading of Chaos.
In discussing how French society treats comics and the attempt to discuss
social problems in a humorous way, Sylvie Thomas writes, “Mais le comique
en France est traité à la légère et parler avec humour des grands problèmes de
société ne se fait pas” (1998: 1) [“But the comic in France is treated lightly and
to speak with humor about society’s major problems is not done” (my transla-
tion)]. Thomas continues to suggest that, “l’universalité et le profondeur des
oeuvres de l’inclassable et dérangeante Coline Serreau restent à découvrir”
(1998: 1) [“the universality and the depth of the works of the unclassable
and troublesome Coline Serreau remain to be discovered” (my translation)].
In explaining to Thomas her choice of a comic mode of expression to address
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 135
Thus, one may not reduce her cinematic comedy to slap-stick, vaudeville,
farce, or quid pro quo, although she does draw on these genres in much of her
work, perhaps most notably in Trois hommes et un couffin. One may neither
restrict her comedy to dialogic banter and language play, which incidentally
are also important agents of humor underscoring all of her work. Serreau’s
comedy, which combines these aforementioned characteristics with other
narrative characteristics such as irony and satire, effectively resists definition.
Her comedy works to subvert and transgress the main audience’s conven-
tional conceptions of the particular subject(s) at hand, whether the spectator
is aware of this subversive or transgressive process at play or not.
Serreau’s comedy is ultimately of a more cerebral nature. In an in-
teresting way, Rollet compares Serreau’s comedy to the genre of the conte
philosophique à la Voltaire.27 Rollet shows how Serreau’s films resemble
Voltaire’s tales in their development of a mixture of narrative forms with
the goal of critiquing French society. As Voltaire had adapted the fairy tale
genre and the picaresque novel to create a hybrid literary form that permit-
ted him to critique (indirectly) the governing institutions of his day (e.g.,
the monarchist State and the Catholic Church), Serreau’s “tales” surface as
a hybrid cinematographic form stemming from a wide variety of cinematic
genres that include comedy, tragedy, domestic and love dramas, thrillers,
science fiction, fantasy, and documentary. These traces of the various cin-
ematographic genres in her texts allow her to critique the governing dis-
courses of her day (e.g., race, social class, gender, immigration, and family
structures). In other words, Serreau’s comedy is a comedy that stems from
136 C H A PT E R 3
Moi je vois le monde dans ses contradictions, qui font rire. Quand
on ne voit pas le comique, c’est qu’on a une vision tronquée. Une
vision complète englobe forcément l’humour, qui suscite une
distance, une réflexion sur soi-même et la capacité de ne pas se
prendre pour le centre du monde. C’est une philosophie, par un
art ni un choix simplement léger. (Thomas, 1998: 2)
[But I see the world in its contradictions that provoke laughter.
When one does not see the comic, that’s when one has a trun-
cated vision. A complete vision inevitably embraces humor, which
generates a distance, a reflection on oneself and the ability not to
take oneself as the center of the world. It’s a philosophy, not an
art neither a mere light choice. (my translation)]
CHAOS (2001)
their fortunes—all the while still under the management of Pali and suppos-
edly not keeping any of the profits for herself. As we learn in this sequence,
Noémie/Malika explains to Hélène that she has swindled Pali out of a great
fortune by hiding in secret accounts small percentages of the money she has
earned through her prostitution and stock market ventures. This, in turn,
led to the brutal attack witnessed by Paul and Hélène at the opening of the
film once the organization discovered her secret. After Noémie/Malika and
Hélène forge their friendship and Hélène has vowed to help Noémie/Malika,
the two women concoct a sting operation that succeeds in Pali’s arrest and
Touki’s murder (by Pali), thus securing a future of freedom and safety for
Noémie/Malika. They rescue Noémie/Malika’s younger sister from an ar-
ranged, forced marriage and save Mamie from her solitude.
Serreau’s cinematic style in this sequence in particular and throughout
the film in general succeeds in creating a fantastic filmic atmosphere through
the representation of a mix of reality with unreal elements. In French Cin-
ema, this cinematographic styling is the main mode of representation of the
social fantastic in French cinematic tradition. This mix of reality with unreal
elements opens interesting points of comparison or an intertextuality between
these cinematic genres. This is to say that Chaos’ multi-meta-narrative quality
(especially as illustrated in Serreau’s extended flashback sequence of Noé-
mie/Malika’s childhood and adolescence and the sting operation) revolves on
surreal scenes that Serreau documents with such realistic details that their ab-
surdity appears plausible. As noted by scholars examining the social fantastic,
this conclusion, as well as the genre’s emphasis on beginning with a realistic
situation (i.e., (post)modern portrait of a “traditional” modern-day family in
crisis) that ends with a phantasmagoria (i.e., the dream-like closing image of
Hélène, Zora, Noémie/Malika, and Mamie sitting on a bench looking out
to sea), remain important tenets of this social fantastic literary and cinemato-
graphic genre.
Other elements of the social fantastic resonate in Serreau’s Chaos as well.
Most immediately as implied by the film’s title, the omnipresence of chaos
surrounding the characters’ daily existence dominates the film as well as the
literary and cinematographic genre’s main narrative. Additionally, one may
note the representation of a hero (heroine for Serreau) with a “good” as well
as “bad” side who toes the line between righteousness and criminality (Noé-
mie/Malika). There is the representation of victimization and characters who
have fallen on economic or emotional hard times (Noémie/Malika, Zora,
and Mamie) and the subversion of the picturesque qualities of the setting
in order to portray the criminality and delinquency that surrounds it (the
outskirts and back alleyways of Paris and Marseille and the swank and posh
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 139
In other words, the goal of Serreau’s verbal and visual art, whether cinematic
or dramatic, is to make allusion to social injustices through vivid representa-
tion of society’s contradictions and ambivalences so that the spectator may
draw his or her own conclusion and (re)act accordingly. This goal recalls this
chapter’s earlier discussion of the role Amari envisions her cinematic art play-
ing in contemporary Tunisian society, as well as the other women artists dis-
cussed in this project who see their work as avenues leading to social change
140 C H A PT E R 3
next scene of Paul and Hélène driving down the street and then dramatically
ends as Noémie/Malika (running toward them and away from her attackers)
screams for help. The music then begins again as Serreau intersperses shots
of Hélène and Paul driving through the automatic car wash, following their
abandonment of the unconscious Noémie/Malika on the street, and the film’s
opening credits.
One hears this score of upbeat, quick-tempo jazzy music repeated again
at several key moments throughout the film. Although it appears to be the
same (or at least very similar) score of music at these various moments, the
jazzy music works in two distinct ways in the narrative: first to reflect the cha-
otic tone and then to underscore the comedy and chaos that both underline
the entire film. As just outlined above, this jazzy musical score mirrors the
chaotic rushing about the apartment witnessed in Paul and Hélène’s behav-
ior in the opening scene. Serreau also employs this extra-diegetic jazzy score
during Noémie/Malika’s cardiac arrest scene (which Hélène witnesses) in the
hospital upon Hélène’s first visit to Noémie/Malika. This re-use of the jazzy
musical score, in a very different context, draws an interesting comparison be-
tween the two scenes and raises one of Serreau’s social critiques in the film.
When comparing the apartment scene to the hospital scene, which the
film invites the spectator to do through the use of the same musical score, the
spectator comes to recognize the fake urgency of Paul and Hélène’s rushing.
By drawing on the sense in French of the word urgence as “emergency,” I wish
to suggest that Serreau invites the spectator to examine the “mauvaise foi”
of Paul and Hélène’s existence by comparing the bourgeois social label be-
hind which they hide and shrug responsibility to Noémie/Malika’s marginal
or outcast social label under which she is victimized and hospitalized. For
Serreau, this comparison is representative of a general apathy of others that
she finds in contemporary mainstream French middle-class society and which
she subversively strives to bring to the surface in Chaos. In Serreau’s interview
with indieWIRE, Erica Abeel describes Vincent Lindon’s “dead-pan portrayal
of a clueless man [as] a scary example of indifference to the plight of others.”
In this interview, Serreau responds that:
The first thing we see in the film is the attack on this girl, which
puts everything into a new perspective. The supposedly “normal”
doesn’t apply anymore. What Vincent does at the beginning is all
too typical—he just cleans her blood off the window and runs.
Hélène is different; her life is transformed by the event. But most
people just don’t care. If you take five people on this planet, one
is on a diet and four are starving. Yet that doesn’t seem to prevent
142 C H A PT E R 3
us from going on. What I’m showing in this movie is one person
who can’t go on in the old way. She’s stopped in her tracks. And
right beside Hélène is Paul, who’s oblivious. We see his blindness
through her eyes. And that’s where the comedy comes in. It’s also
tragedy. Because we’re all doing what Vincent does.
Not only does Serreau’s comment capture the tragedy of the indifference to
others that she finds in French middle-class society, which she immediately
represents through Paul’s reaction to the attack on Noémie/Malika, Serreau’s
comment also highlights the second way that this jazzy musical score works
in the film: enhancing comical domestic moments.
When asked by indiWIRE to comment on her arrival in Chaos at a
“genre-bending mix of comedy, social criticism, and thriller,” Serreau an-
swers, “Humor is the best weapon that artists have. It’s the strongest and most
dangerous weapon. I’ll never give it up. Movies help us think about our lives.
Otherwise, I don’t see the point of making them.” The jazzy musical score,
which also aids Serreau’s genre-bending cinematographic mix, is heard one
more time in relation to Paul and Hélène’s home. Later in the narrative—af-
ter Hélène has befriended Noémie/Malika, abandoned her family and career,
and has begun helping Noémie/Malika emotionally and physically recover
from the attack—Serreau strings together a series of mini-scenes of Paul
trying to contact Hélène via cell phone and voicemail. He is not necessarily
trying to contact her in order to inquire after her state and well-being but to
complain about the mail that is piling up, the dishwasher that is clogged, and
his linen suit that needs ironing before a business dinner. In his voicemail,
Paul expresses that he neither knows how to do these things nor knows the
personal phone number of their housekeeper (Rosario) in order to make the
request for her to take care of these affairs. He wants Hélène to return home
to take care of these problems so that their lives can go back to “normal.”
Hélène returns Paul’s voicemail with a message of her own, which she termi-
nates by telling him to “trouver une autre poire” [“find another sucker”]. The
music begins, and we are presented with a series of close-up shots of Paul’s
hands attempting to iron his suit; his face bearing expressions of exasperation;
the core of his body (he is ironing only wearing his boxer shorts) accompanied
by little cries of pain as he loses hold of the iron; and the ironing board, bowl
of water, and suit all in disarray.
In many ways, this series of close-up shots of a male performing domestic
work (accompanied by a jazzy musical score) proves reminiscent of Serreau’s
Trois hommes et un couffin. The slap-stick-type, “fish-out-of-water”-style
comedy certainly functions on the same social commentary level in these
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 143
two films. It seems that Serreau is suggesting in Chaos that within the almost
twenty years of French social evolution (since 1985, the year Trois hommes
et un couffin was released), expected bourgeois norms of traditional domestic
practices and responsibilities remain still at first blush intact.
Unlike Ernaux’s and de Beauvoir’s frozen and broken/dumped women,
Serreau’s women fight back and in some respects, perform a preemptive
strike. In other words, Serreau’s women, although initially caught up in their
social victimization, eventually create their own exit strategies and choose
to leave on their own terms. This is opposed to Ernaux’s and de Beauvoir’s
women who are forced to deal with the reality their men render unto them
and who face fewer options or possibilities, largely due to financial depen-
dency on their male partners. Therefore, although traditional bourgeois gen-
der roles may be initially expected and anticipated in Chaos, Serreau shows
how contemporary French women may either subversively challenge these
expectations through their refusal to comply or by physically overturning
them, as shown in Florence’s (Chloé Lambert) wreaking havoc on the studio
apartment after learning of Fabrice’s infidelity and indiscretions and then
eventually claiming the domestic space as her own and putting Fabrice out to
the curb. With the opening scene of the film and Paul’s adventures in ironing
aside, what is most striking in the cinematic portrait of the three categories
of domestic representation in Chaos is the general absence of a soundtrack
during the scenes playing out in the characters’ homes. Replacing the extra-
diegetic jazzy musical score are the sounds of natural noise as the actors move
about the sets and speak to one another as well as diegetic noises like the tele-
phone ringing, knocks at the front door, the television playing in the back-
ground, et cetera. There are only two additional exceptions to this cinematic
sound formula in the film.
The first exception occurs when Hélène returns to the apartment after
having been away for a few days. She finds Florence and Charlotte (Marie
Denaudaud), the girl with whom Fabrice has been cheating on Florence, en-
joying a snack in the kitchen with (diegetic) salsa-type music playing through-
out the apartment. When Hélène first enters the apartment, she calls out for
“Rosario,” whom we assume must be a housekeeper under their employment
based on Paul’s earlier reference to her in his voicemail to Hélène. The second
exception occurs at the very end of the film when Hélène, Noémie/Malika,
Zora, and Mamie are sitting on a bench outside Noémie/Malika’s newly pur-
chased sea-side home behind them, looking out to sea. In this closing scene,
we first hear diegetic sounds of the sea and then an extra-diegetic classical
musical score of an aria composed by Bach. Concerning the first exception
and the inclusion of the salsa-type or Latin music and Hélène’s assumption of
144 C H A PT E R 3
soundscapes all work to establish the home as a site of chaos and turmoil and
as a battlefront between the sexes.
This active intervention of the characters within their domestic spaces
(their dialogues and the actors’ delivery of their lines) captures very much
the performativity of chaotic life in a turbulent home. And the choices these
characters make throughout the film (albeit often quite extreme or “fantastic”
and occasionally coerced) reveal their own responsibility in their processes of
living out certain gendered selves. The women of the film understand the
process at play and work to subvert their traditional gendered identities and
existences by eventually refusing to comply with the traditional domestic
expectations of their family roles in cooking, grocery shopping, paying bills,
laundry, and running household errands. The men, however, remain blind
to this process, which culminates in rendering them powerless and unable
to comprehend and negotiate the changes taking place. In essence, the men
become their own (self-inflicted) victims of their own traditional gendered
identities and discourses—a development in the narrative which corroborates
Serreau’s personal understanding of the function of patriarchal principles in
capitalist societies.
Even though diegetic music does not play a large role in Chaos, the extra-
diegetic jazzy and classical musical scores figure largely in the ways the spec-
tator comprehends and engages with the representations of domestic space.
We have already underlined in this discussion the upbeat and quick-paced
tempo to the jazzy musical score. In addition to enhancing the comedy or ac-
tion in various scenes, this musical score also highlights the “rapid-fire pace”
hallmark of Serreau’s cinematographic style.29 In the indieWIRE interview,
Abeel likens this hallmark characteristic of Serreau’s filmmaking to American
styles of filmmaking in general and asks Serreau to comment further on her
appropriation of such a cinematic pace in her cinematographic work. Serreau
responds:
The jazzy musical score (with its fast pace and quick tempo) works to drive
home the essential calls underlying Serreau’s work for a much-needed rejec-
tion and refusal of unjust organization of capitalist societies. With the aid of
the jazzy musical score, Serreau shows how a domestic space that embraces
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 147
their lives. However, only the women (in Mamie’s image) seek to atone for
this abandonment.
As Leslie Camhi explains, “[Mamie’s] character highlights the somber
truth . . . . In a world where empathy and consideration are rapidly dimin-
ishing; women tend to maintain some vestige of concern for others, perhaps
as an anachronistic legacy of their maternal function.”30 As Serreau shows,
this atonement may only be made possible through initial rejection and then
eventual recuperation of the maternal figure. Although this notion may raise
vestiges of essentialist images of maternity or maternal functions or even a cer-
tain biologism, Serreau overrides this essentialist critique by favoring a multi-
plicitous portrait of contemporary French femininity in which a middle-class
mother with a successful professional career, a beur female adolescent, a beur
former drug-addicted prostitute, and a retired middle-class grandmother who
cooks, cleans, and gardens appear on the utopian verge of starting a new life
together. We are left with the notion that instead of taking care of the men in
their lives, these women will learn to take care of themselves and each other.
Thus, for Serreau as for the other women artists in this study, the re-
hybridized subjects she presents in this film, as seen through the lens of the
interrogation of the personal, become a polyphony of personalized and dis-
persed individual, expressly female voices. These re-hybridized subjects share
a common origin, source, or experience and expose, resist, and challenge the
contradicting and ambivalent discourses in which they are implicated. In this
film and for much of Serreau’s work, her ²⁄³ Spaces of expression or enun-
ciation combine comedy, social satire, theatrical elements, cinematographic
medium and language, hyper-reality, and phantasmagoria.
Conclusion
In conclusion, as we have seen in our discussion of Raja Amari’s Satin rouge
as well as in our discussion of Coline Serreau’s Chaos, we may easily situate
both women within this study’s discussion of contemporary French, Algerian,
and Tunisian women artists who strive to present multiple portraits of female
gender constructions and a variety of discourses that transgress race, class,
politics, religion, patriarchy, hegemony, time, and ideologies in an effort to
awaken the spectator’s or reader’s awareness of the “inauthentic” shortcom-
ings and pitfalls of societies’ contradictions, ambivalences, and paradoxes. It
remains both Amari’s and Serreau’s wish that the spectator or reader will then
reflect on re-appropriated and revised ways to create new transnational social
discourses and collaborative spaces of female representation in which multiple
C REA TING DOM EST IC L AN DSCAPES 149
female voices may speak from ²⁄³ Spaces of expression by recounting personal
history and emphasizing socio-historical-political import. As we shall see in
the following chapter, this wish proves very dear to the aims of Leïla Sebbar
and Yamini Benguigui in their work as well.
Notes
1. Abdelkrim Gabous, Silence, Elles tournent! (Tunis, Tunisia: Cérès Éditions,
1998), 184.
2. Gabous, Silence, 12.
3. Lamia Ben Youseef Zayzafoon, The Production of the Muslim Woman: Negoti-
ating Text, History, and Ideology (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005), 99.
4. Zayzafoon, The Production of the Muslim Woman, 107–108.
5. “U.S. Department of State on Tunisia,” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/
hrrpt/2006/78864.htm (accessed June 22, 2008).
6. “Freedom House Report on Tunisia,” http://www.freedomhouse.org/template
.cfm?page=184 (accessed June 22, 2008).
7. “Violence Against Women in Tunisia,” http://www.omct.org/pdf/VAW/
TunisiaEng2002.pdf (accessed June 22, 2008).
8. “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada,” http://www.orb-cisr.gc.ca/en/
research/rir/?action=record.viewrec&goterec=444335 (accessed June 22, 2008).
9. “Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.”
10. Martin Stollery, “Masculinites, Generations, and Cultural Transformation in
Contemporary Tunisian Cinema,” Screen 42.1 (2001), 49–63.
11. Deniz Kandiyoti, “The Paradoxes of Masculinity, Some Thoughts on Segre-
gated Societies,” in Dislocating Masculinity: Comparative Ethnographies, eds. Andrea
Cornwall and Nancy Lindisfarne (New York, NY: Routledge, 1994), 212.
12. Kenneth J. Perkins, A History of Modern Tunisia (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Univ. Press, 2004); Mournira M. Charrad, States and Women’s Rights: The Making of
Postcolonial Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco (Berkeley, CA: Univ. of California Press,
2001); and Jarrod Hayes, Queer Nations: Marginal Sexualities in the Maghreb (Chi-
cago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press, 2000).
13. Will Higbee, “Beyond the (trans)national: Towards a Cinema of Transver-
gence in Postcolonial and Diasporic Francophone Cinema(s),” Studies in French
Cinema 7.2 (2007): 79–97.
14. Kate Schultz, “INTERVIEW: Self-Empowerment by Way of the Midriff; Raja
Amari’s Satin rouge,” IndieWIRE, http://www2.indiewire.com/people/int_Amari
_Raja_020820.html (accessed April 26, 2008).
15. Hind Rassam Culhane, East/West and Ambiguous State of Being (New York,
NY: Peter Lang, 1995).
16. Culhane, East/West, 39.
17. Culhane, East/West, 42.
150 C H A PT E R 3
(Re)Presenting Female
Iconography at Home
with Leïla Sebbar and
Yamina Benguigui
Our close readings and discussion in Chapter Three focused on Amari’s and
Serreau’s agendas to explore how the processes of uncovering or articulating
new identities and subjectivities usher in new ways of seeing, knowing, and
being “female” in their respective societies. We have seen how they attempt
to derail traditional race-, class-, religious-, and patriarchal-based ideologies
and markers of identities by drawing out the latent contradictions, am-
bivalences, and paradoxes of their “imagined communities” with regard to
“home/making,” “gender,” and “nation.” As evidenced in our close readings,
both artists privilege a forging ahead as opposed to a retreat into pre-existing
cultural, familial, or psychological identities and a priori social, historical, or
political frameworks and discourses. Through their “transnational” multiple
portraits of female gender construction and performance, we observed a few
manners in which a protagonist or subjectivity transforms through a cross-
cultural encounter with otherness and effectively becomes the other by em-
bracing, in Novakian terms, the “alien within” or the alloself. In this sense or
construction of the Self-Other divide as allogenesis, we began to see how the
notion of otherness articulates dynamic and shifting relationships of opposi-
tion and confluence for the alloself, which is never separated, fixed, or fixated
in binary opposition.
From the critical perspective of transvergence and cinematographic prac-
tice in the work of Amari and Serreau, the possibility that marginal or “oth-
ered” positions—rooted in the identification with the alien/allo-/other—can
occupy shifting, multiple, and re-hybridized subjectivities is clear. Through
this lens in Chapter Three, we saw how the ²⁄³ Space of cinematic expression
and articulation re-frames marginality as a point of resistance and allows
151
152 C H A PT E R 4
A Virtual Geography
Borders (whether geographical, linguistic, ideological, socio-economic, politi-
cal, or gendered) and the physical action or metaphorical notion of border-
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 153
crossing and its consequences entrained play important roles and occupy
primal space in both Sebbar’s and Benguigui’s work on the whole. Although
Sebbar may not be considered beur in the strictest or most technical applica-
tion of the term due to her birth in Algeria to a French mother and Algerian
father—given that the term refers specifically to the children born in France
to both parents of North African immigrant origin, which does “fit” Ben-
guigui’s biography—some scholars situate both women artists’ work within
the tradition of beur or banlieue writing and filmmaking. However, despite
Sebbar’s and Benguigui’s points of connection with beur or banlieue writing
and filmmaking, I feel it more fitting to discuss these women as artists of the
postcolonial or better-yet transnational tradition.
The transnational term better describes Sebbar’s and Benguigui’s hybrid
projects of circumventing static definitions of identity through their rejection
of all fixed labels of ethnic, economic, and national demarcation. Sebbar’s
and Benguigui’s transnational aims reflect one of the primary goals of many
postcolonial artists: to challenge inherent hegemonic presumptions of reading
texts from Other worlds that have been based on the notions of fixed identity
and fixed historicity.1 Within a transnational literary and filmmaking frame-
work, many postcolonial artists (including Sebbar and Benguigui) often ar-
ticulate these challenges through examinations of the intersection(s) between
the discourses of nationhood, race, gender, sexuality, and economic exploi-
tation. Within this intersecting space of multiple discourses, transnational
literature is said to have constructed itself as a counter-voice to preconceived
and imposed notions of identity and as a way of re-appropriating meaning
for oneself and fulfilling a need for the articulation of a new sense of self.2
It may be said that this literature “contributed to [the development of] the
idea that both culture and identity are the products of discourse and that as
invented, unstable discursive fabrications, they could be transformed, recre-
ated, redefined” (Talahite, 2001: 60). It may also be said that transnational
literature proffers an edifying model that “rather than pitting a rotating chain
of oppositional communities against a . . . European dominant . . . stresses
the horizontal and vertical links threading [diverse] communities together”
(Shohat and Stam, 1994: 63). These insights illustrate a few specific applica-
tions of the thinking of the transnational as a dialogic process of re-thinking
knowledge and discourse and the construction of that knowledge and dis-
course that I mentioned in the Introduction, especially with regard to issues
like migration, citizenship, displacement, and representation which constitute
a focus or preoccupation for many transnational literary artists.
In this vein and central to the work of transnational women artists and
the scholars studying their texts are the questions surrounding social, political,
154 C H A PT E R 4
Leïla Sebbar
Born in Aflou, Algeria, to two French-language teachers—an Algerian fa-
ther (“républicain musulman laïque”) [“republican, Muslim, secular”] and
a French mother (“républicaine catholique laïque”) [“republican, Catholic,
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 155
For Sebbar and many scholars working on her texts, these biographical factors
and writing perspectives account for the recognition of her cultural bivalence
and the importance that her two cultures (French and Algerian) mark in her
conceptions of self.
On this critical insight, Sebbar writes in Lettres parisiennes: autopsie de
l’exil:
In some ways, it is due to this cultural bivalence and the fact that her birth
land is not France that she is excluded from collections of works by “beur”
writers.6
But moreover and more convincingly, Sebbar has proclaimed that she is
“dans une position un peu particulière, ni ‘Beure’, ni ‘Maghrébine,’ ni tout
à fait Française” (LaRonde, 2003: 16) [“in a slightly particular position, not
‘Beure,’ not ‘Maghrebine,’ not entirely French” (my translation)]. Scholars
also add to the list that she is not Pied-Noire. Her hybrid existence between
many cultures confirms her postcolonial state of being and transnational
status of self-identification. In addition, LaRonde explains that Sebbar, in
effect:
ism is the study of Near and Far Eastern societies and cultures, languages,
and peoples by Western scholars. It also denotes the imitation or exaggerated
depictions of often exotic and eroticized representations of Eastern cultures
in the West by primarily late nineteenth and early twentieth-century artists
of a variety of media, including literature, poetry, painting, sculpture, film,
photography, pornography, music, and dance. Orientalism succeeded in
depicting a single “Orient,” that is, the notion of a cohesive whole of a vast
region spreading across a myriad of cultures and countries situated in Asia,
Africa, the Middle East, the Anatolian peninsula, and the Balkan region.
Orientalism essentializes an image of a prototypical “Oriental” as biologically
inferior—culturally backward, peculiar, and unchanging—who is portrayed
in dominated and sexual terms.12
The primary discourses and visual imagery of Orientalism are laden with
the problematics of power, and at their conception, were generally formulated
to facilitate (defend and strengthen) the mission civilisatrice of the West. In
Said’s theorizations, Western imperial powers and discourses constructed
a stereotypical Orient through asymmetrical power relations (i.e., rational
Europe/irrational Orient), an assertion composing a foundational tenet in
the field of postcolonial studies. However, it appears that Said’s own work
may also be guilty of asymmetrical power relations. The problematics of
power informing Said’s construction of Orientalism have also been raised by
feminist scholars in relation to Said’s theorizations as well. One of the major
challenges directed at Said’s account of Orientalism includes his obliteration
of gender. Valerie Kennedy calls this challenge, “Said’s blindness to gender,”
and she finds that this characterizes all of his work.13 Many scholars raise that
it is rare in Said’s work for him to analyze a work by a woman and find this
neglect ironic for two important reasons.
First, this gender-blindness parallels the conventionally stereotyped view
of women by compounding the “diagnosis of the West’s view of the Orient
as something both desired and feared, as something relatively unfamiliar and
therefore both attractive because exotic, and dangerous or repulsive because
unknown and threatening” (Kennedy, 2000: 41). This is to say that by ne-
glecting factors of gender in his account and not considering the portrayal
and discourses of women (“Oriental” or European) as other than the odalisque
or houri or European and middle-class, he reproduces (albeit unwittingly) the
sexual or inferior stereotyping of the Orient as “Other,” which is a represen-
tation he is supposed to be criticizing. Second, by neglecting the discourses
of “Oriental” women and European women travelers to North Africa, Said
overlooks their contributions in challenging the traditional male, Eurocentric
claims and representations of non-European cultures. Thus, for postcolonial
162 C H A PT E R 4
different cultural values and exchanges. She strives to bring the inherent com-
plexity and multiplicity of cultural transversalism and cultural reproduction
(i.e., the similarities and differences) to the fore in her work; and in doing so,
she has created what some scholars label a neo-Orientalist approach.
Kian finds that Sebbar bases a large portion of her novels not only on
the representation of the Orient by the Occident, but also on the analysis of
images that project “le côté fantastique et dogmatique de sa culture d’origine”
(2004: 129) [“the fantastic and dogmatic side of her culture of origin” (my
translation)]. In considering Sebbar’s Shérazade trilogy, Kian asserts that:
Upon close study of Sebbar’s corpus of work, it is my opinion that this ob-
jective—to destabilize hegemonic East/West (mis)conceptions and to subvert
widespread geographical and gender myths existing on all the shores of the
Mediterranean Sea—informs all of Sebbar’s work. In carrying out this objec-
tive in her corpus, Sebbar adopts three tropes in her writing that create real
and virtual narrative spaces for both cognitive and visual reflection. These
three tropes give rise to her individual transnational literary approach and
effectively allow Sebbar and her protagonists to sift through life experiences
in the narratives.
First, Sebbar employs what postcolonial scholars consider the motif of
haunting and spectrality, which is to say the textual or emotive reappear-
ances of past colonial images and fantasies or side-effect aftermath feelings
that haunt the contemporary postcolonial cultural scene.14 Second, Sebbar
uses mimicry, which one may define as a hybrid stance of identification and
distance.15 And third, Sebbar draws on the motif of (often self-imposed) exile.
These three tropes work together to destabilize French national hegemonic
discourses and subvert widespread French colonial (especially gender) myths.
164 C H A PT E R 4
They also support the claim shared by all the women artists in this study
that written and visual inscriptions cannot be predetermined nor narrowly
prescribed; thereby aiding to partially deterritorialize the process of imaging
their respective communities and explore how the process of uncovering or
articulating new identities and subjectivities ushers in new ways of seeing,
knowing, and being across all levels of “local,” “national,” and “global” visual
and written systems of representation.
Michael O’Riley asserts that the motif of haunting and spectrality is
especially relevant to contemporary notions of postcolonial Franco-Algerian
cultural relations and systems of representation because “the invisible yet per-
ceived persistence of a colonial past and desire linked to orientalist practice
continues to condition both postcolonial and Franco-Algerian relations [and
systems of representation] as well as critical responses to them” (2001: 48).
He concludes that in postcolonial France, “movements toward global and
multicultural unions . . . remain haunted by orientalist images or practices
from the colonial period in Algeria transposed onto new contexts” (2001: 49).
He suggests that in an effort to envision another approach to postcolonial
relations between France and Algeria, postcolonial and transnational French
authors of Algerian heritage writing and publishing in France (including
Sebbar), offer “critical insight into the oppositional and productive limits
and potential of the postcolonial practice of re-inscribing orientalist sites of
memory within the contemporary context” (2001: 49). O’Riley asserts that
the texts of such authors demonstrate
He theorizes that in her writing and associated artistic projects, Sebbar “urges
those working in postcolonial studies to examine the relevance of the re-in-
scription of an orientalist practice as a critique of new forms of orientalism”
(2001: 49). In other words, Sebbar wonders if the recuperation of traditional
images that were originally inscribed into orientalist-styled visual and written
systems of representation may serve as a jumping off point or trampoline for
a discourse of criticism.
In response, O’Riley along with many other postcolonial theorists and
artists are contemplating whether the practice of returning to or including
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 165
dominating gaze, but that also gazes upon herself and her own body. This
female turning of the gaze upon herself resounds in Sebbar’s trope of mimicry
employed in her writing.
In relation to Sebbar’s Shérazade trilogy, Peter Stranges asserts that
Shérazade mimics odalisque paintings and other discursive figurations of
hegemony, but this mimicry manifests a hybrid stance of identification and
distance.16 Anne Donadey reads the trope of mimicry as a repetition of Orien-
talist discourse with a difference.17 Mimicry as repetition with a difference es-
pouses the notion of a mimicry that “deconstructs the hierarchy between mas-
ter and slave, colonizer and colonized, native-born and newcomer” (Stranges,
2003: 81) and surfaces in Sebbar’s texts when Franco-Maghrebi characters
complicitly mimic the exotic clichés of Orientalism all the while through
their French citizenship and partenance [“belonging”] to the Hexagon recast
this otherness as sameness. Stranges explains that, “By repeating stereotypes
about the Other as sameness, the [individual] reconfigures the collective
identity as an inclusivist brassage [“brewing” or “mixing”] of Self and Other,
in other words, as hybridity” (2003: 82). Thus, this recasting of otherness as
sameness (or “the alien within”) in all of Sebbar’s work, which only seems
possible from the margins by a community of marginal subjects or “othered”
individual subjectivity displaying both “Arabness” and “Frenchness,” differs
from traditional Orientialist imitation in that the goal of neo-Orientalism
is to subvert the exclusivist and demarcating intentions of Orientalism that
sought to reify Self-Other dichotomies.
The brassage of Self and Other (or the acceptance of the Other’s sub-
jectivity, a kind of allogenesis in Novakian terms) and a revisionist history of
post/colonial representation must recognize the common French-Algerian
grounding of intertwining cultures, histories, and destinies.18 Stranges asserts
that:
pour Leïla Sebbar, l’exil, plus qu’une déchirure, est avant tout un
apprentissage, susceptible même de procurer du plaisir. Mais en-
visageable comme tel seulement à condition d’être armé intellec-
tuellement, capable de transformer l’intranquillité et le tourment
en un matériau positif. (2005)
[for Leïla Sebbar, exile, more than a tear, is foremost an acquisi-
tion, likely even to bring about pleasure. But imaginable as such
only in the condition of being armed intellectually, capable of
transforming the untranquility and the torment into positive
material. (my translation)]
This is to say that exile, displacement, and nomadism are not necessarily
“dead ends” in the incessant debates over national and personal identity, nor
168 C H A PT E R 4
are they locked into fixed, monolithic dichotomies of the country of origin
and the country of residence or destination. Rather, these tropes in “beur”
writing and Sebbar’s lifewriting serve to forge “links between the unbound,
pleasantly anonymous scene of writing, the lost ‘symbolic land[s] . . . the
‘social terrain’ of the French nation, and . . . immigrant populations” (Wood-
hull, 1993: 110). Following the edifying functions or benefits as outlined by
Larguet, exile, displacement, and nomadism work to broaden the responses
to what it means to be “French” in public spaces and discourses as well as
private or domestic ones.
In light of this project’s particular examinations of female representation,
however, one must add a gender perspective to Sebbar’s tropes and their
functions or advantages. We must extend the question of what it means to
be “French” to ask more specifically what it means to be a “French woman.”
Let us pause to consider how the life experiences of exile, displacement no-
madism, and immigration of women to France have given shape to or been
ignored in the (re)constructions of French femininity and “the” French fe-
male experience.
[and] young women are often forgotten, [with] only the issue of
Islamic headscarves in French school bring[ing] the problems of
young women of immigrant origin to the foreground. (2000: 2)
African women posed different questions and problems for French society by
revealing how the experiences and processes of immigration (and integration)
were clearly gendered and lived out differently by men and women.
In the former colonizer’s discourses on immigration and integration—and
especially in reactionary discourses like those of the Front national—a linkage
between gender and national identity occupies a precarious position. In one
extreme, Freedman and Tarr assert that women are considered participants
in ethnic and national processes of cultural construction and identification in
a number of specific ways; for example, as biological reproducers of ethnic
community, reproducers of the boundaries of ethnic or national groups, key
actors in transmission of community values, markers of ethnic or national dis-
tinctiveness, and active participants in national struggles.22 Yet paradoxically
in the other extreme, Freedman and Tarr find that political representations
of immigrants have tended
In either scenario, what is clear is that women’s personal and individual ex-
periences with immigration and life afterwards are elided from History and
mainstream media.
The extreme right’s political representations of women of immigrant origin
have falsely exploited women’s roles in biological reproduction of ethnic com-
munities in France by creating fears of an “immigrant invasion” boosted by
the supposedly high birth rate amongst communities of immigrant origin and
by capitalizing on the persistent image of women of immigrant origin bear-
ing numerous, illegitimate children and expecting the French state to support
them.23 Freedman and Tarr conclude that other political agents who maintain
a discourse of integration (and not racist expulsion) in France also place repre-
sentations of women of immigrant origin within the family. Like the extreme
right, these centralist politicians emphasize women of immigrant origin’s role
as biological reproducers of the ethnic community but differ in suggesting that
these women’s principal responsibility lies in the essential transmission of so-
called “French” community values; in other words, those cultural values which
will aid their children’s integration into French society.
Tarr and Freedman explain that in this political and social view, it is the
mother’s “duty to ensure the stability of ethnic population and to see to it that
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 171
[her] children integrate or assimilate and become ‘French’” (2000: 15). Thus,
women of immigrant origin in France are represented in a variety of multiple
socio-political discourses as both “bearers of tradition” as well as “agents of
modernity” who are paradoxically responsible for “both perpetuating the
boundaries of ethnic groups with France and ensuring that these boundaries
are made permeable to French culture” (Freedman and Tarr, 2000: 15). This
question of integration—along with the tropes of mimicry and haunting and
spectrality—importantly frame one of Sebbar’s more recent texts, Mes Algéries
en France: Carnet de voyages (2004). Let us now turn to our close reading of
this life narrative.
Sebbar shares that she does not like to travel abroad and that each time she
is in a foreign land, she would like not to be a foreigner. For Sebber, “vivre
dans la langue, dans cette familiarité” [“to live in the language, in this famil-
iarity”], all the while discovering the country and its landscape, describes her
ideal travel experience.23 She finds this experience time and time again while
traveling throughout France and takes extensive notes on her experiences,
encounters, new information gleaned, and memories recalled.
For Sebbar, these extensive notes form the basis of much of her recent
writing. She describes the rather organic and intermedial processes in which
her travel notes transform into writing material by explaining:
most often, I know that I will find again what I want if I need it
for a short story, a tale, an article. The photos don’t go in the di-
ary. I store them in a kind of soft photo-album that the Chinese
photographer from my neighborhood gives me, then in a white
cardboard file-box by year, place, subject. (my translation)]
Sebbar’s narrative still stems from a ²⁄³ Space of expression, like the other
primary texts analyzed in this study; but in this case, the re-hybridization of
subject and subject position are not just a polyphony of personalized and dis-
persed individual voices that share a common origin or source but are also a
mish-mash of personalized and dispersed individual media which Sebbar uses
to expose, resist, and challenge the contradicting and ambivalent discourses,
borders, and cultural values of “nation.”
Sebbar concludes that Mes Algéries en France is an elaborated or refined
travel notebook that traces and retraces her routes that run across a France
(her own) inhabited by an Algeria (her own).24 Sebbar works to deliver in this
text, “[son] roman réel et imaginaire, d’Occident en Orient, d’Orient en Oc-
cident”25 [“her real and imagined novel, of Occident in Orient, of Orient in
Occident” (my translation)]. Larguet summarizes that in this text:
n’est jamais pour fixer une histoire dans un passé mais pour lui
construire un avenir. Et par ses livres, bâtir des ponts. (2004)
[Leïla Sebbar refuses however all nostalgia of a past time. . . . In
effect, if Leïla Sebbar, through her essays, her fictions or her au-
tobiographical testimonies, participates in a work of memory, it’s
never in order to fix history in a past but in order to construct it a
future. And through her books, build bridges. (my translation)]
In Mes Algéries en France as well as everywhere else in her work, Sebbar en-
gages the cultural component that interests her the most: the study of the
real or imagined dynamics between past and present, particularly insofar
as Franco-Maghrebi representations are concerned. She routinely questions
what these dynamics hold in store for France’s and Algeria’s futures.
It lies beyond the scope of this project to examine all of Sebbar’s dynam-
ics of representations of past and present Franco-Maghrebian femininity and
domesticity that she portrays throughout the various divisions of Mes Algéries
en France. Although many portraits do overlap in terms of their ideological
implications or metaphorical functions in the text, the portraits are simply too
numerous to delineate properly in individual discussion. Thus, I will under-
line what I consider the strongest feminine and domestic portraits—specifi-
cally in relation to the tropes of mimicry and haunting and spectrality—as I
work my way through an analysis of the text as a whole.
In the first division, Portrait de famille, Les Écoles, Sebbar strings together
the story of her parents’ meeting, photographic portraits of her parents
around the age when they would have met, stories of her father’s schooling,
stories of her mother’s leaving France for Algeria, family photographs of Seb-
bar and her brother and sisters as children, descriptions of the école coranique
and the école de la République, photographs of different schools in the area,
class portraits of students at various points of time in Algeria’s French colonial
history, school registration papers, and images of textbook covers and school
materials. This section evidences the earlier discussion of Stranges’ notion of
the brassage of Self and Other or a Novakian reading of Sebbar’s “production
of the alien.” In this division, the reader confronts a revisionist sense of post/
colonial history, the intertwining cultures and destinies of France and Alge-
ria and their occupants, at least insofar as the school systems are concerned.
However, as an extension of the State and potentially the most powerful (and
subversive) arena for perpetuating colonial discourses, the school becomes a
much broader symbol of la République in Portrait de famille, Les écoles.
Sebbar harnesses this semiotic in the closing text in this section, Les écoles
de la République, when examining les Mariannes rouges: the rare busts of the
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 175
famous effigy whose toga-like apparel is painted red and which stand before
certain schools of the République, even those located in the former colonies.
She draws a correlation between these “colored” busts that represent the
French nation to the “métisse” girls of the Parisian suburbs “ni putes ni sou-
mises”—the Mariannes of today who on July 14, 2003, costumed themselves
as Marianne and demonstrated at the frontispiece of the National Assembly
(Sebbar, 2004: 44). In a very clear example of peoples of French and Algerian
heritage sharing joint destinies, Sebbar writes:
True, the donning of the bonnet phrygien—the liberty cap that every
Marianne always sports—in French socio-cultural thought is known as the
symbol of the people of Paris, thus suggesting that all those wearing it are
recognized as citizens of the Republic and, in effect, become “French.” Albeit
a gift of citizenship and rights in one perspective, this recognition pivots,
however, on an official policy of assimilation in which the new immigrant
citizen is supposed to (more or less) leave his/her culture of origin at his/her
point of entry into the nation and assimilate to all things “French.” Tradi-
tionally since the establishment of the Fifth Republic, the Mariannes, which
are renewed every three years upon vote by the mayors of French cities, have
been modeled after famous French actresses or models—Brigitte Bardot,
Mireille Mathieu, Catherine Deneuve, Inès de la Fressange, Laetitia Casta,
and Évelyne Thomas.
These Mariannes have (perhaps unwittingly) recuperated monolithic
representations of the “French” nation in terms of race, social class, and
(Western) conventional standards of feminine beauty. Reportedly, however,
in 2002 following some controversy regarding Casta’s personal life, finances,
and relocation to London, England, a new Marianne, not bearing the features
of a famous French women but those of an anonymous beurette (or young
woman of North African descent), was born and was intended to symbol-
ize a modern, multiethnic France. Sadly, this construction of Marianne was
short-lived, not widely or prominently displayed or advertised, and quickly
replaced a year later by Évelyne Thomas.28 Also reportedly, in 2006 it was
rumored that the new Marianne (that would replace Thomas) was planned
to be anonymous and black.29 But, at the time of preparing this manuscript
in 2008, no mention of this possibility or corresponding photograph of the
constructed bust appears on the official website of the French Presidency,
which contains a link to the history and explanation of Marianne along with
a gallery of photographs of the different “official” busts that have been fash-
ioned in the past.
In relation to Sebbar’s representation of the “Mariannes métisses” in
Mes Algéries en France, by inviting the reader to question his/her perception
of iconographic imagery of the French Republic, Sebbar is shaking up the
dynamics of past and present histories and is bringing to the reader’s atten-
tion a “mixed” effigy of Frenchness. She shows how her “Mariannes métisses”
embody a double brassage of Self and Other—doubled in the sense that these
women are “othered” in both race and gender. Thus, Sebbar creates a reverse
neo-Orientalism which, through the power of iconography and semiotics,
turns the past colonial gaze upon the République itself in order to destabilize
178 C H A PT E R 4
and subvert the images and meanings inherited from the ancient and recent
pasts. This destabilization opens up new re-hybridized spaces and points of
departures for multiple discourses of and challenges to what it means to be
républicain. This “shaking up” works to bring to light the double standards
entrained by républicain ideals or tenets as non-exercised in banlieue reality
and to offer a modality in which the relationships between dominant and
subaltern discourses can be renegotiated. Therefore, the first most striking
portrait of femininity in Mes Algéries en France embraces a neo-Orientalist
representation of a plurality of feminine identities politically engaged in chal-
lenging accepted notions of French national femininity and articulating a new
sense of female self “ni pute ni soumise.”
In Algériennes, the second text of Mes Algéries en France, this renegotia-
tion of dominant and subaltern discourses of the female self is repeated. How-
ever, this division adopts the motif of haunting and spectrality, rather than
mimicry, in representing “ethnic Othered” forms of French femininity and
portraits of marginal domestic space and households in France. Algériennes is
primarily composed of a series of stories and portraits of a multiplicitous rep-
resentation of Algerian femininity. Sebbar introduces the reader throughout
the division to her “soeurs étrangères,” who are: women storytellers, Algerian
women “regrouped” with their husbands working in France, grandmothers
who remained in Algeria while children and grandchildren moved to France,
the “indigenous” women of the turn-of-century postcards, and photographs
of various Algerian women intellectuals and Kabylie women. In this division,
we also meet Juliette Grandgury, a French nurse working near Aflou follow-
ing World War II, through whose fearless efforts and services came to be well-
loved, respected, and appreciated by the people of the area. We meet Sebbar’s
mother’s Singer sewing machine and the young local seamstress (Fatima) who
would come every Thursday to Sebbar’s parents’ home to help with the sew-
ing. We also meet other academic French-Algerian mixed couples (colleagues
and friends of Sebbar’s parents), young women warriors of the Algerian war
for independence, prostitutes, women of the “Goutte d’Or” neighborhood in
Paris, three of Sebbar’s childhood girlfriends, and Shérazade.
These multiple portraits of femininity work together to show how differ-
ent parameters, markers, and categories of identity—gender, language, ideol-
ogy, belief systems, (non)conventional behavior, and marginality—intersect
with visual and written systems of representation and can subvert the images
and meanings inherited from the past. Yet these multiple portraits also scare
up motifs of haunting and spectrality that continue to dominate much of
postcolonial studies. These textual and emotive reappearances of past colonial
images and the fantasies or side-effect aftermath feelings which haunt the
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 179
smiling. The photograph of the two men is much grainier but does show two
men standing with an arm around each other. They appear much more serious-
looking in their expression than the three women, but it is difficult to tell due
to the quality of the image whether there is a trace of a smile or not.
Our final image of this division is a photograph taken of Eugène Giraud’s
painting entitled Odalisque en rouge that resides in the Musée Calvet in Avi-
gnon, France. In this painting, a young woman elaborately dressed in a stun-
ning red dress with a tapestry-like motif trim and strings of beaded necklaces
lounges on a sort-of chaise with one arm resting on a cushion propping up her
chin. In her other hand resting at her side, she appears to be holding the coil
of a hookah. The setting appears to be a palatial boudoir, but the colors are
quite dark surrounding the woman, thus rendering distinct details obscure.
She returns our gaze, but she is as much frozen as Delacroix’s Women of Algers
whom Djebar described and theorized in Regard interdit, son coupé. Although
Giraud’s odalisque bears no wide grin, there is most definitely an expression
of satisfaction and contentment painted on her face.
When first reading this section of Mes Algéries en France, it was not al-
ways apparent to me why all of these images were included among the texts
or why they appeared in the order, position, or arrangement that they do.
Upon multiple readings of these texts and images, it appears to me now that
there is a sort of theoretical progression and recursive linkage between each
of these eleven just-described images in Algériennes. Pignon’s watercolor of
“Marianne métisse” not only provides an organizational or structural link from
the first division of Mes Algéries en France to the second, but this image also
sets a tone or gives a context to Algériennes that echoes the multiple “cultural
roots” of the women we are about to meet in this division. The watercolor
speaks to Sebbar’s theorization of the creation of plural identities among and
within the individuals of both France and Algeria, which she fleshes out in
the subsequent images.
It is interesting to compare this opening representation to the representa-
tion that closes this second division: the photograph of Giraud’s nineteenth-
century Orientalist painting, Odalisque en rouge. The effect of bookending
this division with these two representations functions to present conflicting
perspectives entrained in fusing the real and the fantastic, which in their turn
engages Sebbar’s study of the dynamics of past and present. The “realness”
of the Marianne métisse reflects the present dynamics of a multicultural and
multiethnic French society or nation on the potential verge of official rec-
ognition in dominant French political discourse. And, the “fantasticality” of
the odalisque recalls the spectrality or underlying haunting quality of France’s
and Algeria’s torrid histories of de/colonization of the past.
182 C H A PT E R 4
are at least coded photographically as such, Sebbar ensures that these bound-
aries are seen and lived as permeable within “French” culture.
Not just in Algériennes but in the other divisions of Mes Algéries en France
as well—Arts et lettres, Une passion algérienne, Les hommes assis, le champ des
morts, Parcs et jardins Bestiaire—Sebbar shares the female responsibility in
the transmission of community values. But, rather than “aiding the children
born in France to parents of immigrant origin integrate into French society,”
Sebbar uses the remaining representations of Algerian femininity (the young
Jewish girls, female professors, intellectuals and ethnologues, women visiting
Muslim cemeteries, and peasant women depicted on postcards bearing pas-
toral or village scenes) to challenge the hegemonic discourses of community
values in the French Republic by opening them up to new images, iconogra-
phy, representations, and associations of French society.
Throughout all of Mes Algéries en France, Sebbar desires to show how both
women and men, but particularly women, are active participants in the ethnic
and national processes of cultural reconstruction and social re-identification in
contemporary France. Through her intermedial framework in Mes Algéries en
France—the narratives, photographs, cultural artifacts, portraits, and other
objects of textual analysis—Sebbar aims to explore and textualize a number
of transnational issues of identity with particular regard to how families and
loved ones are split between countries of origin and destination and to the
emotional ties binding individuals to one or both countries of origin and
destination. The ebb and flow of border crossings and communications
across borders and the (re-)hybridization of cultures serve as crucial dialectics
throughout her corpus that mobilize her artistic agenda to “raise conscious-
ness” and textualize the counter-hegemonic actions and discourses of the
nonelite who refuse assimilation to a nation-state.
With this dialectic in mind and as this discussion has shown in this chap-
ter, the fundamental dilemma shaping Sebbar’s body of work and framing
contemporary transnational literature of France in general is the disconnect
between marginal multiethnic groups of French citizens and the universalist
discourses of French Republicanism. For centuries, France has prided itself
on being the land of equality, founded on an abstract concept of universal
citizenship which renders ethnic, gendered, religious or class difference ir-
relevant.31 Yet as the riots of November 2005 and continual discussion in the
media witness, one can no longer overlook the limits of Republican univer-
salist discourses and must now recognize France’s (official, political) identity
transformation into a plural and multiethnic society. French cultural studies
scholars of late have repeatedly turned to French cinema as a medium of ar-
tistic and popular expression requiring further review of the “ways in which
184 C H A PT E R 4
She further explains that French films in the 1990s that offered a secondary
or minor role to young actresses of Maghrebi descent tended “either to sub-
ordinate the female role to the drama of the white central male character” or
“construct her as object of desire and punish her for attempting to assert her
autonomy” (2005: 87).
In the films prior to 1997, Tarr concludes that “sympathetic independent-
minded young beur women characters [were primarily] exploit[ed] . . . as
objects of the gaze or contain[ed] . . . through the structuring of the narra-
tive” (2005: 87). In her study of the representations of “beur” women of the
banlieue in French cinema, Tarr only finds two films made prior to 1997
that take up as the central preoccupation the “way in which a young woman
of Maghrebi descent negotiates her identity [and explores] female subjectiv-
ity through relatively complex characters who enjoy some narrative agency”
(2005: 87). These two films were Anne Fontaine’s Les Histoires d’amour
finissent mal en général (1993) and Zaïda Ghorab-Volta’s Souviens-toi de moi
(1996). Tarr’s reading of these two films calls for recognition of the need
for gender specificity in discussions on “beur” or “banlieue” filmmaking in
French cinema secondary criticism.
Tarr explains that in addition to Fontaine’s and Ghorab-Volta’s need
to negotiate a place for themselves within a fundamentally male-dominated
French cinema industry, their films—in which they foreground realistic rep-
resentations of young French women of Maghrebi immigrant origin—need
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 187
Yamini Benguigui
One manner in which “beur” or “banlieue” filmmakers have begun to
reframe gender difference and create alternative spaces beyond binary op-
positions is by returning to their parents (notably their mothers) and telling
their parents’ story for the first time. From the late 1990s to present day,
many “beur”-authored films have shifted from the director’s personal story
or history to his or her parents’ stories and histories. Directors of Maghrebi
heritage began making films which “explore the experience of immigration
in France in the 1960s and 1970s from the point of view of North African
immigrants and their children” (Tarr, 2005: 17). Tarr provides insight that,
“by reclaiming these histories, the beurs are challenging dominant French
histories of the nation and working towards a valorization of their own place
188 C H A PT E R 4
within a multicultural France” (2005: 17). These directors are able to move out
of the typically-Parisian banlieue and “claim new spaces away from Paris and
its banlieues by focusing on aspects of the provinces not frequented by tour-
ists, particularly the areas around Marseilles, Lyons, and the North of France”
(Tarr, 2005: 16). For at least one contemporary filmmaker, Yamini Benguigui,
this protest against intolerance and bid for inclusion surfaces not just on the
“national” French sphere but also within the domestic and gender ones.
Benguigui’s film, Inch’Allah dimanche, whose title one may translate
into English as “Allah be willing, it’s Sunday,” recounts the story of a
thirty-something Algerian woman’s (accompanied by three young children
and mother-in-law) arrival in France to join her husband, who has been an es-
tablished laborer in Picardie, France, for the past ten years, during the period
of the regroupement familial in the mid-1970s. The film chronicles the first
month of the protagonist’s transition to living in France and French society
and adopts an episodic-like structure. In other words, Inch’Allah dimanche
follows a very simple and basic narrative. Upon Zouina’s (Ferjria Deliba) ar-
rival in France and learning of another Algerian family in the area, homesick
Zouina and the three children spend the next three Sundays in secret try-
ing to find this other Algerian family after her husband, Ahmed (Ainedine
Soualem), and mother-in-law (Rabia Mokeddem), leave the home each time
in search of a sheep at a nearby Moroccan’s ranch. During these clandestine
Sunday adventures, they meet a French widow (Marie-France Pisier) whose
husband (a French solider) was killed in Algeria during the war for indepen-
dence and who agrees to help Zouina and the other family.
Upon meeting Malika (Amina Annabi), the mother of the other Algerian
family, and her children on the third Sunday, Zouina meets the handsome,
young French bus driver (Jalil Lespert) with whom she exchanges quick looks
through her kitchen window as he passes by the bus stop outside her home
each day. What complicates or interrupts this simple and basic structure are
the domestic episodes that constitute Zouina’s daily existence in her new
homeland. These episodes are often abusive (Zouina is verbally abused and
degraded by her mother-in-law and violently struck and pushed by Ahmed)
but also touching (the images of Zouina and her children around the kitchen
table and close-up shots of Zouina as she struggles to endure the transition)
and even comical at times (Zouina attacking Mme. Donze {France Darry}
who has just punctured and torn apart her children’s soccer ball).
Inch’Allah dimanche is a film that “engenders” primarily female relation-
ships as its primary focus and examines the power relations entrained when
peoples’ lives intersect in the most banal of ways—as next-door neighbors, at
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 189
regard sur notre propre communauté, sans manichéisme ou idée toute faite.
Je revendique mon appartenance à une composante de la société française:
je raconte des histoires françaises” (Alion, 2001: 136) [“For me, it is capital
that we can take a look at our own community, without Manichaeism or pre-
conceived ideas. I assert my belonging to a piece of French society: I recount
French stories” (my translation)]. Like the other women artists included in
this study, Benguigui presents a polyphony of personalized and dispersed in-
dividual voices that share a common origin or source and that expose, resist,
and challenge the contradicting and ambivalent discourses in which they are
implicated across her corpus.
Benguigui adopts a very pragmatic, down-to-earth, or no nonsense point
of view (inspired by the Italian comic genre) in her work in general and in
Inch’Allah dimanche in particular. In desiring to look at the things that truly
matter in (and to) French society and how they affect its people, Benguigui
shares a similar lens in her filmmaking as Serreau in hers. In many ways, both
women’s cinematic comedy is of a cerebral nature. As we recall from Chapter
Three’s earlier discussion concerning the connection between Serreau’s com-
edy and that of Voltaire’s contes philosophiques, Benguigui’s “tale” in Inch’Allah
dimanche also surfaces as a hybrid cinematographic form stemming from a
wide variety of cinematic genres that include comedy, domestic drama, his-
torical drama, documentary, “beur” or “banlieue,” and personal cinema. Like
Serreau, these traces of the various cinematographic genres allow Benguigui
to critique the governing discourses of contemporary times—race, social
class, gender, immigration, and family structures (or familial hierarchy)—
while philosophically distancing the spectator from these social issues. This
philosophical distance in turn allows the spectator to turn back to the issues
in a more reflexive and reflective personal and individual manner.
Yamina Benguigui, French citizen born in Lille to parents of Algerian im-
migrant origin, is perhaps most known in France for her cinematic and tele-
vision documentary work, of which Mémoirs d’immigrés (1997) remains the
most discussed and analyzed in secondary criticism in North America at the
time of preparing this manuscript. Scholars distinguish Benguigui’s work by
the consecration in her films to memory (and its role and function in society)
and the question of immigration, especially immigration from the Maghreb.
Since 1994, she has engaged through the cinematic medium in the
met à jour une face cachée du racisme: celle qui consiste à nier
l’histoire des mutations culturelles, ou à en étouffer l’expres-
sion. Son travail devrait pouvoir servir d’exemple et conforter
les enseignants désireux de développer les multiples formes que
cette expression peut prendre chez les enfants de toutes origines.
(Barlet, 2004)
[brings to light a face hidden of racism: the face that consists in
denying the history of cultural mutations, or in covering them
up in expression. Her work should be able to serve as an example
and comfort teachers desiring to develop multiple forms that this
expression can take for children of all origins. (my translation)]
[It was necessary to put into image this story/history and this
memory as we were having a lot of trouble situating ourselves: we
don’t exist anywhere. The first generation was living in the wait-
ing room of France, was quasi invisible, in any case in the cinema
and on television, even off-screen. (my translation)]
Thus, Benguigui strives to overcome this lack of representation by challeng-
ing in her work the French collective memory in which “un Mohamed est un
balayeur ou un ouvrier” [“a Mohamed is a street sweeper or a factory worker”]
and of which the mentality one has not succeeded in changing, especially in
the French professional world of enterprise and business.37
According to Benguigui, “la culture ouvre la parole” [“culture opens
up speech”], and she sees the cinema as capital in this relationship because
“l’image est déterminante dans le rapport intercultural” (Lemercier 2006)
[“the image is determining in intercultural relationships”]. In specific respect
to women’s interculturality, as represented in Inch’Allah dimanche [in other
words the relationships between Zouina and her mother-in-law Zouina and
her two next-door female neighbors, and Zouina and Melle Manant (Marie-
France Pisier)], the hegemonic, stereotypical image of the Algerian wife and
mother as victim of patriarchal Muslim culture remains an obstacle to the rec-
ognition of a heterogeneity of identities and representations within marginal
communities and domestic spaces. This is to say that, as Benguigui theorizes
and demonstrates, to stop at the representation of French women of North
African immigrant origin as victims of patriarchal Muslim culture is to freeze
these women as Delacroix has done in his painting.
Benguigui calls for and offers in Inch’Allah dimanche a “tableau vivant”
that breaks through this frozen representation and that hopefully incites the
spectator (and French society in general) to follow suit. Additionally, such
static and traditional representation of women of immigrant origin as solely
victims of patriarchal society denies the diverse representations and multiple
dimensions of the problems and difficulties of the various women of these
communities and also those problems and difficulties that touch many
women’s lives (of all races, classes, and ethnicities) in France. Thus, one may
understand Benguigui’s goal in Inch’Allah dimanche as one that attempts to
capture this subaltern heterogeneity and multiplicity all the while at the same
time highlighting certain themes that are of concern to the majority of women
in France—whether they be of immigrant origin or not—such as women’s
right to work, women’s financial independence, and women’s sexuality and
“ownership” of their bodies. However, one must also situate Benguigui’s goal
within a context of doubled difference, for these shared common themes are
194 C H A PT E R 4
neither identical nor universal across French society in the same degree. Yet
they do provide common points of connection, which may (perhaps subver-
sively?) tap into the French Republican popular conscious in challenging its
collective memory of the past and collective take on the present, especially in
terms of examining la condition féminine in France.
Benguigui clarifies that after making Mémoirs d’immigrés, she wanted
to make a film featuring a heroine and focusing on women’s conditions in
France. She knew that fiction would provide the only avenue to such a proj-
ect. She shares that:
In her interview with Yves Alion, Benguigui provides a brief summary or his-
tory of these women’s arrivals in France. She explains that when the women
arrived, they were very often strangers to their husbands, who had been re-
siding and working in France for many years and who had most often only
returned home on vacation once every two years. Per Benguigui, the men did
not know how to welcome the women. For these women, she summarizes
that “le fossé culturel semblait par ailleurs infranchissable” (Alion, 2001: 136)
[“the cultural gap seemed moreover impassable”]. Benguigui elucidates that
in their country of origin, space was not lived or occupied in the same manner
(i.e., women met up together in common courtyards on a regular, daily basis).
In France, at the time, Benguigui counters that women remained relatively
alone at home throughout the day, a representation we saw in Chapter Two’s
discussions of de Beauvoir’s and Ernaux’s representations of (albeit middle-
class) femininity and female activities.
Benguigui explains that most of the North African women immigrating
to France were coming from rural communities in which everybody knew
one another and were rocked to the core when finding themselves in a new
community where “l’anonymat prévalait” (Alion, 2001: 136) [“anonymity
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 195
Alors j’ai voulu montrer leur quotidien entre quatre murs, dans la
solitude la plus noire. 95% des mères étaient dépressives: c’est le
chiffre officiel du Ministère des affaires sociales. Elles ne voyaient
rien de la France, qui rentrait pourtant en catimini chez elle par le
truchement de la radio. (Alion, 2001: 136)
[Thus, I wanted to show their daily life between four walls, in
the darkest solitude. 95% of the mothers were depressed: that’s
the official statistic from the Minister of Social Affairs. They saw
nothing of the France that yet entered their homes through the
intervention of the radio. (my translation)]
The opening scene of Inch’Allah dimanche in which Zouina, her children, and
her mother-in-law board a boat in Algeria to ferry them to France, captures
Benguigui’s immediate emphasis on the emotional in quite a riveting way.
The sequence opens with an extreme close-up from a high angle on a pair of
an Algerian immigration agent’s hands stamping a passport. Benguigui cuts
to another close-up shot but of an anonymous traveler’s hands holding a
suitcase. From this image, she cuts to a close-up of Zouina’s youngest child,
196 C H A PT E R 4
Ali (Anass Behri), back to the immigration agent, to an older couple standing
in line ahead of Zouina and her family (Zouina is visible in the background),
and then comes to rest on Zouina’s profile standing across the table from
the immigration agent. Aïcha (the mother-in-law) hands over the family’s
passports to the agent and is the only family member to speak during this
process of passport regulation. Benguigui captures this exchange for roughly
eight seconds and then cuts to a close-up of Zouina’s daughter, who is leaning
on her hands with elbows resting on the agent’s table. The agent asks whose
are these children, and the mother-in-law replies that they are her son’s.
Benguigui pans left to Zouina’s hands and then tilts vertically up to her face.
Benguigui cuts to the younger son and remains centered on him, horizontally
at his level, as the family advances forward and out of the shot. The editing
and framing of this opening sequence establishes several functions that Ben-
guigui will maintain throughout Inch’Allah dimanche.
In its first function, Benguigui’s filmmaking, as established in the ex-
treme close-up shots of various pairs of hands throughout the film, introduces
a primary motif that she carries throughout the film. Hands, a tangible and
tactile symbol or metaphor for relationships of all sorts, are repeatedly fea-
tured in various ways throughout the film. From the forced shaking of hands
between Zouina and Mme Donze following their “neighborly” dispute to the
caressing hands of Zouina as she comforts the children in various scenes, from
the violent hands of Ahmed when striking Zouina to his more gentler move-
ments when playing the guitar, and from the henna-stained hands of Aïcha
thrown up in the air during her daily brow-beating assaults directed at Zouina
to Zounina’s and her mother’s hands being torn apart on the docks when
boarding the boat for France (or Zouina’s injured hand after she punches
through Malika’s window), hands and their gestures create a narrative of de-
marcation that comments on the multiple subjectivities that exist within the
film. Whether decorated with henna or nail polish; rough from manual labor;
smooth from kneading bread made with olive oil; authoritatively stamping
nationality; driving a public service bus, running a small grocery shop; gar-
dening; or engaged in the preparation of North African dishes, coffee, and
bakery items, hands become social markers demarcating class, gender, and
ethnicity in Inch’Allah dimanche.
In its second function, Benguigui’s filmmaking, as seen in the editing
throughout this opening sequence, also works to establish a narrative of
dynamics and character relationships that Benguigui will maintain and even-
tually overturn throughout the film. Zouina is clearly the protagonist in the
film and is the character the most often filmed in close-up one and medium
one shots. Yet Benguigui often paradoxically counters her agency through-
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 197
out the film through cutting to shots of others who either have more social
power or familial authority in relation to Zouina (i.e., Ahmed and Aïcha) or
who hold more importance (i.e., the two sons) in the eyes of those with the
power or authority than Zouina. As the opening sequence establishes by the
mother-in-law’s holding of the family passports and speaking with the im-
migration agent, the spectator quickly discovers that Zouina ranks very low
(if not the lowest) in the family’s hierarchy. Additionally, Benguigui’s editing
also works to establish the third function of her filmmaking: the film’s theme
of surveillance by reminding us through the frequent cutting to others that
follows the close-up and medium one shots of Zouina that Zouina walks a
very taunt tightrope between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Although
the characters never gaze directly into the camera lens, which would make
the spectator feel as if under direct and explicit surveillance, the editing (spe-
cifically Benguigui’s use of shot-reverse-shot) implicitly draws the spectator
into the film by positioning him or her in the middle of the exchanges of
gazes and looks. This technique reifies his or her empathetic association with
Zouina and engages more fully his or her interaction with and connection to
the film.
Moreover, in its fourth function, Benguigui’s filmmaking, as illustrated
in the tight framing of the opening sequence and almost exclusive employ-
ment throughout the film as a whole, also functions to establish the immedi-
ate (trans)personal nature of this cinematic first-person narrative. In a manner
very similar to Ernaux’s use of the “je transpersonnel,” the living portrait of
Zouina that Benguigui paints in Inch’Allah dimanche works to transcend
the individual to encompass the social, but not without demonstrating the
conflicts and contradictions entrained in such a process. In a way similar to
Une Femme gelée, Inch’Allah dimanche transcends the personal to speak on the
level of the social and presents a sort of personal microcosm of a social mac-
rocosm in which the female second generation of immigrant origin in France
struggles against the creation and imposition of normative first-generation
and colonial Orientalist gender role discourses. In keeping with Minh-Ha’s
theoretical understanding of the collaborative network of exchange in mar-
ginal or minority artists’ work, Benguigui’s “je transpersonnel ” gives voice to
a re-hybridized speaking subject who asserts that normative gender roles and
their discourses should be built on a multilateral system of “croisé” represen-
tation within the French Republic. She further develops this hypothesis as the
opening sequence continues.
Following the immigration check-point scene, Benguigui cuts to a long
shot of a group of Algerian travelers waiting in line on the dock to board
the ferry bound for France. Benguigui captures this image for roughly four
198 C H A PT E R 4
seconds, at which point in time a woman’s voice calling out “Zouina” breaks
the frozen image. Benguigui cuts to a medium of an older woman standing
behind the tall fence on the dock surrounded by a group of younger women
who are encouraging the older woman to let Zouina leave. Benguigui cuts
to another medium shot of the crowded ramp of travelers boarding the boat
with Zouina positioned in a right profile shot (as she is looking back over
her left shoulder) inside the left-hand side of the screen. The mother-in-law
is centered within the shot directly behind Zouina gesturing violently and
nudging (almost pushing) Zouina forward. Benguigui cuts to a medium shot
focusing on the left profile of the older woman on the dock screaming “my
daughter.”
Benguigui returns to Zouina (in the same shot or framing as just outlined)
who then turns around to exit the ramp and return to the dock. Benguigui
cuts to a reverse shot of Zouina in the center of the frame struggling against
the boarding passengers to make her way back down the ramp. Zouina is call-
ing out “Mama.” As Zouina makes her way off the ramp and runs off screen,
Benguigui rests momentarily on the confused expression of a crew member
standing on the dock. Benguigui returns to the original shot from the ramp in
which the mother-in-law with back turned to the camera is yelling at Zouina
who is now at the fence on the dock. Benguigui cuts to a close-up shot of
Zouina on one side of the fence reaching through the bars. Then through a
series of shot-reverse-shots, we witness the painful departure and separation
of Zouina and her mother in which the crew member must physically tear
her away from her mother’s embrace extended through the fence. The scene
ends with Zouina climbing back up the ramp—her mother-in-law insulting
her and yelling at her for the disgraceful scene she just made—to the sounds
of much wailing from Zouina and her family members present and a close-
up on her mother fainting. The action and emotion captured in this open-
ing sequence foregrounds in quite a visual and auditory way the structure of
Maghrebi familial hierarchy, which has become a discursive commonality
highlighted in many contemporary “beur” artists’ work of various media.
In her research on Maghrebi families in France, Camille Lacoste-Dujardin
posits an unequal clash of cultures as the source of most of the problems and
conflicts found within the “beur” familial hierarchy in France. She asserts that
for the personal relations of young people within the French society that they
inhabit, only Western culture is operative; whereas for the Maghrebi culture
of the parents, Western culture is merely a component of the young peoples’
identity or at best an “added extra,” which is contained within the private
domain.38 She concludes that the Maghrebi family in France operates within
a basic circle of social organization that differs profoundly in Maghrebi and
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 199
far from the control of this community, fathers feel as though they
are exposing their wife and children to other transgressions which
risk compromising the honor of the family name . . . this honor
is guarded, and thus also threatened, by women and in particular
by young women, who are perceived as the most vulnerable link
in the family chain. . . . Maghrebi families in France often attempt
to exercise a very strict control over their children, particularly the
girls, and this is all the more so because they feel that they have
been reduced to a fragment of a family. . . . A strong demand is
placed on the young to conform to the Maghrebi family model.
(2000: 61)
Many “beur” and North African first-person narratives testify to this hierar-
chic familial structure in which is privileged a parent-son (or more specifically
mother-son) relationship. Lacoste-Dujardin reads this privileging within the
context of patrilineage. She asserts that, “Most parents show little anxiety for
sons whose mere existence satisfies the demands of the reproduction of the
family genealogy . . . young men (by virtue) are accorded a pre-eminent status
and satisfy their parents in symbolic order” (Lacoste-Dujardin, 2000: 62–63).
Lacoste-Dujardin finds in her research that young “beur” men are granted a
great amount of freedom of movement, without having to give any account
of their activities outside the household and are conscious of their masculine
authority. She argues that these men are encouraged to express their virility,
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 201
are comforted by a close relationship with their mothers, and are strengthened
by their communal masculine identity.41
In opposition to the son’s privileged position within the family, the
daughter’s disadvantaged position stands in sharp contrast. Lacoste-Dujardin
asserts that within parent-daughter relations, the daughter “is expected to
reproduce the essentially maternal role that is assigned to women above all
other social roles, especially over any role that takes them outside of the
home” (2000: 63). She explains that young “beur” women have few chances
to go out and establish relationships outside the home even though they wish
to participate in society through outside activities. She finds a huge disparity
existing between parents’ representations of an ideal woman who conforms
to community norms and the reality of their daughters’ aspirations which
are composed of more individualistic goals. Yet Lacoste-Dujardin asserts that
many young “beur” women appreciate how their mothers have been cheated
as they fell in-between two family structures, since they have been deprived
both of the life as a couple in France and of the solidarity of their gender
group in the extended family in the Maghreb. She cites this realization and
appreciation as one of the strongest reasons for many young “beur” women’s
attachments to their mothers and primary cause of a “strong interdependence
between [them], particularly [with] the oldest daughters” (2000: 63). Thus,
she concludes that:
generation” and “transnational.” Yet, until the final sequence of the film in
which Ahmed forbids his mother to say any more negative things about or
toward Zouina and in which Zouina claims some independence by asserting
that she will take the children to school tomorrow, Zouina and her daughter
occupy the two lowest ranks within the family hierarchy—a dynamic Ben-
guigui depicts quite physically upon the family’s first entrance into their new
French home within the opening sequence.
This moment from the opening sequence begins with a slow zoom
from a high angle on Zouina and the three children huddled together in the
doorway of the salon/kitchen. They are positioned in the background with
the mother-in-law occupying the front and middle-ground pacing back
and forth as she inspects the space and approvingly comments on their new
lodgings. Benguigui cuts to a medium shot of Aïcha asking for a key to the
kitchen cupboard. Ahmed enters the shot stating there is no key as there is
no lock on the cupboard. Aïcha insists that Ahmed install a lock, as she does
not trust Zouina with the family’s food supply, and Ahmed shares that he
only has a key to the house that he hands over to Aïcha. Benguigui cuts back
to the original high angle shot of Zouina and the children waiting in the
doorway. The children then enter the room and start to explore their new
dwelling. Benguigui continues to zoom in onto Zouina. In a reverse shot
from Zouina’s assumed gaze, Benguigui focuses on the bags, boxes, and
suitcases that occupy the kitchen shelves and storage units. She then cuts
to Ahmed with the children going upstairs to see their bedrooms. Ahmed
stops in the doorway, opposite from Zouina, and tells his mother to rest.
He heads up the stairs, and Zouina follows him up the stairs. Benguigui
cuts to a close-up of Aïcha in the corner of the salon opening her suitcase
and removing her sheepskin rug.
Again, the framing and editing in this scene work to establish Zouina as the
protagonist but also to show her in relation to the others in the household. As
female and second generation, she is positioned and treated as the doubly dis-
advantaged Other, whose needs, interests, and desires come last. Until the end
of the film, any public attempt for self-affirmation (her “winning one-thousand
francs” from the vacuum cleaner salesman), self-education (her learning to
read and write the French language), self-assertion (her physical or emotional
outbursts when defending her children from Mme Donze’s destruction of their
soccer ball or in response to her mother-in-law’s insults and nagging), or self-
indulgence (her enjoyment from listening to the radio programs and experi-
menting with the cosmetics Mlle Briat gave her) are either met with physical
abuse by Ahmed or more verbal abuse from Aïcha. Zouina is expected to re-
produce the essentially maternal role that is assigned to women above all other
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 203
social roles, especially over any role that takes them outside of the home or
offers them self-fulfillment outside their maternal role.
As we already witnessed in the emotional separation of Zouina from
her mother on the docks back in Algeria and as the film will show in the
repeated close-up embraces between Zouina and her daughter, Benguigui
clearly privileges the mother-daughter relationship (or a matrilineal heritage)
in this work. Throughout the film, she often films Zouina and her daughter
occupying the same positions or planes within the cinematic frame, whereas
Zouina and Aïcha or Zouina and Ahmed are often captured in oppositional
positions and planes. Thus, many critics have reviewed Inch’Allah dimanche
as a film in which the daughter tells her mother’s story from the daughter’s
(or child’s) perspective. Although I acknowledge clear moments in the film
that echo this perspective, I believe that like Zouina herself who occupies a
hybrid or “two-thirds” position in-between the first and second generations,
Inch’Allah dimanche is a film narrated through a hybrid optic that mixes
adults’ and children’s points of views and perspectives on the various daily life
immigration and integration issues at hand.
The film maintains a “generational” feel that is well-situated within a
certain historical period of time in France, but the contradictions, problems,
conflicts, and themes addressed in this generational narrative transcend the
1970s’ historical time frame to comment on the very contemporary position
of women of immigrant origin in France and their feminine condition. Ben-
guigui appears to share Djebar’s point of view in agreeing that on a national
political or hegemonic level of discourse, these women’s representations and
conditions have remained frozen. And like Sebbar’s post-Orientalist aesthetic,
Benguigui presents a protagonist who embodies this frozen representation
of victim of patriarchy only in order to subvert it so that she may reveal in
the end how these women occupy contradictory, ambivalent, and paradoxi-
cal discourses as both “bearers of tradition” and “agents of modernity.” For
Benguigui, as well as for all of the other women artists in this project, it is
only through acknowledging and examining contradiction, ambivalence, and
paradox that one may arrive at ameliorated social (re)construction.
As we have seen in Chapter Three’s discussion of North African domestic
dramas that raise questions concerning the relationships across generations
and between different types of gender roles that hint at potential openings
onto wider cultural and political change, Benguigui’s ²⁄³ Space also succeeds in
transcending traditional, unified, and fixed definitions of French and Other
masculinity or femininity. Rather, like Amari as well as the other women
artists in this project, Benguigui advocates a reading practice that focuses on
the shifting lines of demarcation that exist within each gender and nationality
204 C H A PT E R 4
as well as the lines that exist between them. Thereby, she unsettles “home”
by revealing its illusion of coherence and safety—an illusion based on the
exclusion of specific histories of oppression and resistance, even the repres-
sion of difference within oneself. But, in this case, Benguigui’s re-hybridized
postcolonial subject realizes this process and system of repression and refuses
to resign herself to it any longer.
Benguigui breathes life into the possibility that marginal or “othered” posi-
tions—constructed in the moment of identification with and acceptance of the
alien/allo-/other residing within the self—can occupy shifting and multiple po-
sitionings. This foregrounding of difference and interconnectedness transcends
the traditional boundaries of “local,” “national,” and “global” and exposes how
these constructions are, in the first place, artificial and primarily function to
serve hegemony. Inch’Allah dimanche illustrates a protagonist’s (as well as other
secondary characters’ but to a lesser degree) capacity to be transformed through
a cross-cultural encounter with otherness or “alienation.” This identification
with the alien/allo-/other negotiates a position that is both center and margin
and that has the power to deny the fixity of binary epistemology. Read through
a transvergent lens of analysis, Benguigui’s work re-frames marginality (i.e., a
“marginal” or “different” representation of multicultural French femininity or
of French women of North African heritage as other than victims of Islam or
patriarchy) as a point of resistance. Moreover, her re-framing of marginality
allows for continuities as well as differences in “national” identity and integrity
to exist side by side, even as next-door neighbors.
Conclusion
From the very pragmatic, down-to-earth, or no nonsense point of view ad-
opted in the Italian comedic genre that has influenced Benguigui’s camera and
which looks beyond official discourses of hegemonic or ideological systems of
reification, Benguigui reveals a “talking cure” in her work that moves a com-
munity (or Republic) beyond frozen monolithic or Manichaeism-like repre-
sentations and discourses. Inch’Allah dimanche and the rest of Benguigui’s
work demonstrate a willingness to communicate, which is a break from the
strict interpretation of the Maghrebi tradition of hachouma, “a tradition that
blocks communication between the sexes” (Lacoste-Dujardin, 2000: 67).
This break from tradition that results in the establishment of communication
between men and women and between generations in both Benguigui’s and
Sebbar’s work, for many postcolonial literary and cinema scholars, appears to
be “the determining factor in arriving at a familial consensus that allows for
(R E )PR E S E N TING F EMA LE IC ONOGRAPH Y AT H OME 205
Notes
1. Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, “Third World Women’s Cinema: If the Subaltern
Speaks, Will We Listen?” in Interventions: Feminist Dialogues on Third World Women’s
Literature and Film, eds. Bishnupriya Ghosh and Brinda Bose (New York, NY: Gar-
land, 1997), 214.
2. Anissa Talahite, “Identity as ‘Secret de Guerre’: Rewriting Ethnicity and
Culture in ‘Beur’ Literature,” in Cultures transnationales de France, ed. Hafid Gafaïti
(Paris, France: L’Harmattan, 2001), 59.
3. Hafid Gafaïti, “Cultures et transnationalité,” in Cultures transnationales de
France, ed. Hafid Gafaïti (Paris, France: L’Harmattan, 2001), 9–26.
4. Talahite, “Identity as ‘Secret de Guerre,’ ” 68–69.
5. Soheila Kian, “Une entrevue avec Leïla Sebbar, l’écriture et l’altérité,” French
Review 78.1 (2004), 128–136.
6. Nancy Houston and Leïla Sebbar, Lettres parisiennes: autopsie de l’exil (Paris,
France: Barrault, 1986), 185.
7. Michel LaRonde, Leïla Sebbar (Paris, France: L’Harmattan, 2003).
8. LaRonde, Leïla Sebbar, 19.
9. LaRonde, Leïla Sebbar, 20.
10. Deepika Bahri, “Magical Realism,” Emory University English Department,
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Magical_Realism/html (accessed March 24,
2006).
11. Edward Said, Orientalism (New York, NY: Vintage Books, 1979), 1.
12. Deepika Bahri, “Orientalism,” Emory University English Department, http://
www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Orientalism/html (accessed March 24, 2006).
13. Valerie Kennedy, Edward Said: A Critical Introduction (Cambridge, UK: Pol-
ity Press, 2000), 6.
14. Michael O’Riley, “Specters of Orientalism in France, Algeria, and Postcolonial
Studies,” Mosaic 34 (2001), 48.
206 C H A PT E R 4
15. Peter Stranges, “Mimicry, Mixed Couple, and ‘Odalisques’: A Hybrid Re-
membering of the French Republic,” Esprit créateur 43.1 (2003), 81.
16. Stranges, “Mimicry, Mixed Couple, and ‘Odalisques,’ ” 81.
17. Anne Donadey, Recasting Postcolonialism: Women Writing Between Worlds
(Portsmouth, UK: Heinemann, 2001), 103.
18. Stranges, “Mimicry, Mixed Couple, and ‘Odalisques,’ ” 83.
19. Michel LaRonde, Autour des écrivains maghrébins (Paris, France: L’Harmattan,
1993), 22.
20. Jane Freedman and Carrie Tarr, Women, Immigration and Identities in France
(Oxford, UK: Berg, 2000), 1.
21. Freedman and Tarr, Women, Immigration and Identities in France, 1.
22. Freedman and Tarr, Women, Immigration and Identities in France, 14.
23. Carole Netter and Anne-Marie Obajtek-Kirkwood, “Harfung, 3 questions à Leïla
Sebbar,” Clicknet 2004, http://clicknet.swarthmore.edu/leila_sebbar/virtuel/carnet
.html (accessed April 25, 2006).
24. Netter and Obajtek-Kirkwood.
25. Netter and Obajtek-Kirkwood.
26. “Ni putes ni soumises,” http://niputesnisoumises.com.
27. “Ni putes ni soumises.”
28. At the time of preparing this manuscript, no search on Google Images revealed
any depictions of the “Marianne beurette.”
29. “Marianne noire,” Sundries 2005, http://futuremd.blogspot.com/2005/11/
marianne-noire.html (accessed June 27, 2008).
30. Carrie Tarr, Reframing Difference: Beur and Banlieue Filmmaking in France
(Manchester, UK: Manchester Univ. Press, 2005).
31. Tarr, Reframing Difference, 3.
32. Tarr, Reframing Difference, 13.
33. Tarr, Reframing Difference, 16.
34. Tarr, Reframing Difference, 87.
35. Anne Henriot, “Mémoirs d’immigrés,” Télédoc 2002, http://www.cndp.fr/tice/
teledoc/dossiers/dossier_ immigres.htm (accessed April 24, 2006).
36. Fabian Lemercier, “Yamina Benguigui: La culture ouvre la parole,” Euro-
medcafé, http://www.euromedcafe.org/interview.asp?lang=fra&documentID=15 (ac-
cessed April 24, 2006).
37. Lemercier, Yamina Benguigui.
38. Camille Lacoste-Dujardin, “Maghrebi Families in France,” in Women, Immi-
gration and Identities in France, eds. Jane Freedman and Carrie Tarr (Oxford, UK:
Berg, 2000), 59.
39. Lacoste-Dujardin, “Maghrebi Families in France,” 62.
40. Lacoste-Dujardin, “Maghrebi Families in France,” 62.
41. Lacoste-Dujardin, “Maghrebi Families in France,” 63.
Conclusion
²⁄³ SPACES: HOME, NATION,
GENDER, SELF-OTHER
In concluding this monograph, I hope that the reader will take away from his
or her reading experience the motivation to reconsider contemporary wom-
en’s filmmaking and lifewriting of France, Algeria, and Tunisia through a
transnational lens of deterritorialization. We have seen throughout this study
the manners in which women’s coming to voice via the (re)appropriation of
hegemonic discourses of representation, use of language, and authority in
speaking is made possible through the domestic space of the home and the
arts of homemaking. All of the women artists in this study reveal how the
home and homemaking either function or have the potentiality to function
as physical or symbolic locations of socio-political-historical contention and
complex frameworks for identity, gender, and subjectivity construction.
Drawing inspiration from Shohat and Stam’s notions of a “methodologi-
cal cubism” or a “kaleidoscope framework,” I set out to explore in this study
the multichronotopic links of theory and practice that bypass the proverbial
feminist studies versus transnationalism versus postcolonialism and so on
scenario. Thus, rather than adopting a single theoretical methodology, I
aimed to investigate the relationalities between transnational representations
of French, Algerian, and Tunisian women on the page and on the screen in
a translinear or derailed-like fashion through multiple domestic, feminist,
postcolonial, and transnational optics. Yet, for the sake of organization and
in order to be able to apply these perspectives and frameworks more coher-
ently and with greater impact in this study, each chapter emphasized one
theoretical positioning slightly more than another when examining the artists’
shared projects of defining, challenging, and re-framing the “national” and
the “feminine” in the primary texts analyzed.
207
208 C O N C L U SION
Yet we have also seen how these women succeed in (re)appropriating these
discourses to various degrees and through different forms of self-referential
modes of storytelling. Through these modes of first-person narration, the
women artists included in this study create representations of a plurality of
feminine identities, bodies, and voices politically engaged in challenging the
normative notions at hand. Consequently, we have seen how these women
artists arrive at powerful articulations of new senses of female selves that
in turn inspire additional political, social, theoretical, and artistic engage-
ment. To this end, this is to say that this project has demonstrated how
one may position these multiple portraits of French, Tunisian, and Algerian
female identities and domestic spaces at the crosshairs of a complex web of
H/history, ethnicity, race, class, and gender relations. As shown, whether in
“inauthentic” or (re)appropriated portraits, these challenges reflect women’s
contradictory, ambivalent, and paradoxical position(s) in their respective
societies and cultures.
As “bearers of tradition” and “agents of modernity,” the female protago-
nists of the preceding chapters (and their creators) are conventionally expected
by their societies to reify (to differing degrees) national, cultural, religious,
lingual, social, gender, and domestic boundaries as well as transcend them.
Linked to the concepts of border-crossing and derailment, I have brought
to light an array of political and cultural interconnections and transversals
that require rethinking in relation to the socio-political-historical tensions in
which these interconnections and transversals have developed and continue to
develop. In each chapter, I have strived to reveal some of the contradictions
and points of contention existing in “the” feminine condition as it is known,
experienced, and enunciated in France, Tunisia, or Algeria. I have also strived
to broaden the responses to what it means to be a French-speaking woman in
a variety of contemporary seemingly public literary and cinematic spaces and
discourses as well as seemingly private or personal ones.
I have sought to show in the individual chapters of this study how the
subversive refusal of the hegemonic cultural sign of female not only makes
a space or position for renewal or recreation of female subjectivities from
women’s perspectives, but also incites the next generation or wave of con-
temporary re-hybridized women artists (and feminist, postcolonial, and
transnational literary and film scholars) to create new female subjectivities
from their own individual and personal ²⁄³ perspectives. Hence, one may cre-
ate or locate these new female subjectivities in-between the representations of
home, femininity, and domesticity but always squarely in personal history.
Moreover, as all of the women artists included in this study demonstrate, one
may also create new re-hybridized female subjectivities and articulate their
²⁄³ S PA C E S: HOME, NA TION, G ENDER, SEL F-OT H ER 213
Primary Sources
Amari, Raja. Satin rouge. 100 min., A.N.P.A., 2001.
———. Satin rouge. 100 min., Zeitgest Video, USA, 2003.
Beauvoir, Simone de. La Femme rompue. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1967.
———.The Woman Destroyed, trans. Patrick O’Brien. New York: Pantheon Books,
1969.
Benguigui, Yamina. Inch’Allah dimanche. 98 min., ARP Sélection, 2001.
Djebar, Assia. Ces voix qui m’assiègent. Paris: Éditions Albin Michel, 1999.
———. Femmes d’Alger dans leur appartement. Paris: Des femmes, 1980.
———. La nouba du Mont Chenoua. 16 mm, 115 min., Women Make Movies,
1977.
———. Women of Algiers in Their Apartment, trans. Clarisse Zimra. Charlottesville:
Univ. of Virginia Press, 1992.
Ernaux, Annie. La Femme gelée. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1981.
———. A Frozen Woman, trans. Linda Coverdale. New York: Seven Stories Press,
1995.
Sebbar, Leïla. Mes Algéries en France. Saint-Pourçain-sur-Sioule: Bleu autour, 2004.
Serreau, Coline. Chaos. 109 min., Bac Films, 2001.
215
216 B I B L I O GRA P HY
Africultures. Le cite et la revue de référence des cultures africaines. March 24, 2006.
http://www.africultures.com/index.asp?menu=affiche_artiste@no=291.
Alion, Yves. “ ‘Inch’Allah Dimanche’: Entretien avec Yamina Benguigui.” L’Avant-
scène 506 (2001), 136–138.
Amari, Raja. “INTERVIEW: Self-Empowerment by Way of the Midriff; Raja Am-
ari’s Satin rouge,” interview by Kate Schultz, IndieWIRE, http://www2.indiewire
.com/people/int_Amari_Raja_020820.html (accessed April 26, 2006).
Angelfors, Christina. La Double Conscience: La prise de conscience féminine chez Colette,
Simone de Beauvoir, et Marie Cardinal. Lund: Lund Univ. Press, 1989.
Angelini, Eileen M. Strategies of “Writing the Self” in the French Modern Novel. Lew-
iston: The Edwin Mellen Press, 2001.
Aptheker, Bettina. Tapestries of Life: Women’s Work, Women’s Consciousness, and the
Meaning of Daily Experience. Amherst: The Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1989.
Armel, Aliette. “Assia Djebar: La Mémoire des femmes.” Magazine littéraire, 410
( June 2002), 98–103.
Ashe, Marie. “Postmodernism, Legal Ethics, and Representation of ‘Bad Mothers.’ ”
Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, eds.
Martha Albertson Fineman and Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia Univ. Press,
1995), 142–166.
Aslett, Don. Is There Life After Housework? Cincinnati:Writer’s Digest Books, 1981.
Audé, Françoise. Cinéma d’elles. Lausanne: Editions L’Age d’Homme, 2002.
Bacholle, Michele. “An Interview with Annie Ernaux: Ecrire le vécu.” Sites 2, 1
(1998), 140–151.
———. Un passé contraignant double bind et transculturation. Amsterdam: Rodopi,
2000.
———. “Women in Their Apartment: The Trespassing Gaze.” West Virginia Univer-
sity Philological Papers 48 (2001–2002), 18–28.
Bahri, Deepika. “Magical Realism.” Emory University English Department. http://
www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Magical_Realism/html (accessed March 24,
2006).
———. “Orientalism.” Emory University English Department. http://www.english
.emory.edu/Bahri/Orientalism/html (accessed March 24, 2006).
Becker, Lucille Frackman. Twentieth-Century French Women Novelists. Boston:
Twayne Publishers, 1989.
Bekri, Tahar. “Leila Sebbar: Les Nouvelles de l’entre-deux.” Notre Librairie: Revue du
Livre: Afrique, Caraïbes, Océan Indien 111 (October–December 1992), 55–57.
bell hooks. “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance.” Eating Culture, eds. Ron Scapp
and Bian Seitz (Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 1993), 181–200.
Bensmaia, Reda. “ ‘La nouba des femmes du Mont Chenoua’: Introduction to the
Cinematic Fragment.” World Literature Today 70: 4 (1996).
Berghagn, Daniele. “Cinema of transvergence.” Migrant and Diasporic Cinema in
Contemporary Europe. http://www.migrantcinema.net/glossary/term/cinema_of
_transvergence/ (accessed 22 July 2009).
BIBL IOGRAPH Y 217
Capaldi, Elizabeth D. Why We Eat What We Eat: The Psychology of Eating. Washing-
ton, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1996.
Caughie, John. Theories of Authorship: A Reader. London: Routledge, 1981.
Charrad, Mournira M. States and Women’s Rights: The Making of Postcolonial Tunisia,
Algeria, and Morocco. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 2001.
Chelminski, Rudolph. The French at Table. New York: William Morrow and Com-
pany, Inc., 1985.
Chossat, Michèle. Ernaux, Redonnet, Bâ, et Ben Jelloun: Le personage feminine à l’aube
du XXIème siècle. New York: Peter Lang, Inc., 2002.
Clerc, Jeanne-Marie. “Du cinéma à la littérature: Naissance d’une écriture ‘métisse’
chez Assia Djebar, romancière et première femme cinéaste algérienne.” Colonizer
and Colonized, ed. Theo D’haen (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2000), 421–432.
———. “La Guerre d’Algérie dans l’œuvre cinématographique et littéraire d’Assia
Djebar.” Esprit Créateur 41: 4 (Winter 2001), 89–100.
Conboy, Katie et al. Writing on the Body. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1993.
Conboy, Katie, Nadia Medina, and Sarah Stanbury. Writing on the Body: Female Em-
bodiment and Feminist Theory. New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1997.
Conner, Mark, and Christopher J. Armitage. The Social Psychology of Food. Bucking-
ham: Open Univ. Press, 2002.
Cooperman, Jeannette Batz. The Broom Closet: Secret Meanings of Domesticity. New
York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Counihan, Carole M. The Anthropology of Food and Body: Gender, Meaning, and
Power. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Culhane, Hind Rassam. East/West and Ambiguous State of Being: The Construction
and Representation of Egyptian Cultural Identity in Egyptian Film. New York: Peter
Lang, 1995.
Davison, Ray. “Simone de Beauvoir, La Femme rompue.” Short French Fiction: Essays
on the Short Story in France in the Twentieth Century, ed. J. E. Flower (Exeter: Ex-
eter Univ. Press, 1998), 71–88.
Déjeux, Jean. La Littérature féminine de langue française au Maghreb. Paris: Editions
Karthala, 1994.
———. Littérature maghrébine de langue française. Ottowa: Naeman, 1973.
Devadas, Viyay. “Rethinking Transnational Cinema: The Case of Tamil Cinema.”
Senses of Cinema. http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/06/41/transnational
-tamil-cinema.html (accessed July 22, 2009).
Dirlik, Arif. “Bringing History Back In: Of Diasporas, Hybridities, Places, and
Histories.” Beyond Dichotomies: Histories, Identities, Cultures, and the Challenge
of Globalization, ed. Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi (Albany: State Univ. of New York
Press, 2002), 93–128.
Doane, Mary Ann. “Film and the Masquerade: Theorising the Female Spectator.”
Feminist Film Theory, ed. Sue Thornham (New York: New York Univ. Press,
1999), 131–145.
Dobie, Madeleine. “The Woman as Look and the Woman as Voice: Assia Djebar and
Leila Sebbar.” Constructions 9 (1994), 89–105.
BIBL IOGRAPH Y 219
Green, Philip. Cracks in the Pedestal: Ideology and Gender in Hollywood. Amherst:
Univ. of Massachusetts Press, 1998.
Grewal, Inderpal. House and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the Cultures of
Travel. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1996.
Gupta, Akhil. “Reincarnating Immigrant Biography: On Migration and Transmi-
gration.” Beyond Dichotomies: Histories, Identities, Cultures, and the Challenge of
Globalization, ed. Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi (Albany: State Univ. of New York
Press, 2002), 169–184.
Haden, Catherine A. “Joint Encoding and Joint Reminiscing: Implications for
Young Children’s Understanding and Remembering of Personal Experiences.”
Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental
and Cultural Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden. (Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 49–70.
Hall, Colette. Marie Cardinal. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi, 1994.
Harfung. “3 questions à Leïla Sebbar.” Eds. Carole Netter and Anne-Marie Obajtek-
Kirkwood. May 2004. ClicNet. April 25, 2006. http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/
leila_sebbar/virtuel/carnet.html.
Hayes, Jarrod. Queer Nations: Marginal Sexualities in the Maghreb. Chicago: Univ. of
Chicago Press, 2000.
Hayne, Marlene, and Shelley MacDonald. “The Socialization of Autobiographical
Memory in Children and Adults: The Roles of Culture and Gender.” Autobio-
graphical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental and Cul-
tural Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden (Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 2003), 99–120.
Hargreaves, Alec G. “The ‘Beurs’: Between and Beyond National Boundaries.” The
Arab-African & Islamic Worlds, eds. R. Kevin Lacey and Ralph M. Coury (New
York: Peter Lang, Ltd., 2000), 135–152.
Harrus-Révidi, Gisèle. Psychanalyse de la gourmandise. Paris: Editions Payot &
Rivages, 1994.
Hayward, Susan. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. London: Routledge, 2006.
———. French National Cinema. New York: Routledge, 2005.
Heller-Goldenberg, Lucette. “Assia Djebar, l’écriture de l’oralité et des voix qui l’as-
siègent.” Etudes Francophones 16.2 (Autumn 2001), 25–32.
Henderson, Mae Gwendolyn. “Speaking in Tongues: Dialogics, Dialectics, and the
Black Woman Writer’s Literary Tradition.” Women, Autobiography, Theory, eds.
Sidonie Smith and Julia Watson (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 2001),
343–351.
Henriot, Anne. “Mémoirs d’immigrés.” Télédoc. 2002. http://www.cndp.fr/tice/
teledoc/dossiers/dossier_immigres.htm (accessed April 24, 2006).
Hewitt, Leah D. Autobiographical Tightropes. Lincoln: Univ. of Nebraska Press,
1990.
Higbee, Will. “Locating the Postcolonial in Transnational Cinema: The Place of Al-
gerian Émigré Directors in Contemporary French Film.” Modern & Contemporary
France 15.1 (2007), 51–64.
222 B I B L I O GRA P HY
Mémoirs d’immigrés. Ed. Anne Henriot. October 2, 2002. Télédoc. April 24, 2006.
http://www.cndp.fr/tice/teledoc/dossiers/dossier_immigres.htm.
Mémoirs d’immigrés. Ed. Olivier Barlet. March 24, 2006. http://editions-harmattan
.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=article&no=93.
Mennell, Stephen. All Manners of Food: Eating and Taste in England and France from
the Middle Ages to the Present. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press, 1996.
Merini, Rafika. “A Socio-Literary Perspective of Women in the Maghreb: Morocco,
Algeria, and Tunisia.” The Arab-African & Islamic Worlds, eds. R. Kevin Lacey and
Ralph M. Coury (New York: Peter Lang, 2000), 153–166.
———. Two Major Francophone Women Writers, Assia Djebar and Leïla Sebbar. New
York: Peter Lang, 1999.
Mignolo, Walter D., and Freya Schiwy. “Beyond Dichotomies: Translation/
Transculturation and the Colonial Difference.” Beyond Dichotomies: Histories,
Identities, Cultures, and the Challenge of Globalization, ed. Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi
(Albany: State Univ. of New York Press, 2002), 251–286.
Miller, Nancy K. Bequest and Betrayal: Memoirs of a Parent’s Death. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press, 1996.
———. “Mothers, Daughters, and Autobiography: Maternal Legacies and Cultural
Criticism.” Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Mother-
hood, eds. Martha Albertson Fineman and Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia
Univ. Press, 1995), 3–26.
———. “Representing Others: Gender and the Subjects of Autobiography.” Differ-
ences 6:1 (1994), 1–27.
———. “Classical Reeducation: Decanonizing the Feminine.” Autobiographical Memory
and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives,
eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden. (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003),
22–36.
Minh-Ha, Trinh T. Women, Native, Other: Writing Postcoloniality and Feminism.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1989.
Minh-Ha, Trinh T., and Gwendolyn Foster. “Character Zone: A Conversation
with Trinh T. Minh-Ha.” Countervisions: Asian American Film Criticism, eds.
Darrell M. Hamamoto and Sandra Liu (Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press,
2000), 203–220.
Minh-Ha, Trinh T., and Judith Mayne. “Third Cinema and Post-Colonial Narra-
tives in Africa, Latin America, and Asia Critical Essay: ‘From a Hybrid Place.’ ” An
Introduction to World Cinema, ed. Aristides Gazetas (Jefferson: McFarland and Co.,
2000), 305–312.
Minh-Ha, Trinh T., and Nancy Chen. “Speaking Nearby.” Feminism and Film, ed.
E. Ann Kaplan (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2000), 317–335.
Mishriky, Salwa Elias. Sans Voix ou Sans Moi. New York: Peter Lang, Inc., 2001.
Moghadam, Valentine. Modernizing Women: Gender and Social Change in the Middle
East. Boulder: Rienner, 2003.
Moi, Toril. Simone de Beauvoir: The Making of an Intellectual Woman. Oxford: Black-
well, 1994.
226 B I B L I O GRA P HY
Montfort, Catherine R. “La Vieille Née: Simone de Beauvoir, ‘Une mort très douce,’
and Annie Ernaux, ‘Une femme.’ ” French Forum 21:3 (1996), 349–364.
Mortimer, Mildred. “Transforming the Word: The Storyteller in the Works of Ca-
lixthe Beyala, Malika Mokeddem and Assia Djebar.” Nottingham French Studies 40:
1 (Spring 2001), 86–92.
Mouffe, Chantal. “Feminism, Citizenship, and Radical Democratic Press.” Feminists
Theorize the Political, eds. Judith Butler and Joan W. Scott (New York: Routledge,
1992).
Mulvey, Laura. “Afterthoughts on ‘Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema’ Inspired
by ‘Duel in the Sun.’ ” Framework 6 (1981).
———. “Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema.” Screen 16 (1975), 16–18.
Naficy, Hamid. An Accented Cinema: Exilic and Diasporic Filmmaking. Princeton:
Princeton Univ. Press, 2001.
Nelson, Katherine. “Narrative and Self, Myth and Memory: Emergence of the Cul-
tural Self.” Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: De-
velopmental and Cultural Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden
(Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 9–28.
Netter, Carole, and Anne-Marie Obajtek-Kirkwood. “Harfung, 3 Questions à Leïla
Sebbar.” Clicnet. 2004. http://clicnet.swarthmore.edu/leila_sebbar/virtuel/carnet
.html (accessed April 25, 2006).
Neuman, Shirley. “ ‘An appearance walking in a forest the sexes burn’: Autobiography
and the Construction of the Feminine Body.” Autobiography & Postmodernism, eds.
Kathleen Ashley, Leigh Gilmore, Gerald Peters (Amherst: Univ. of Massachusetts
Press, 1994).
Ni putes ni soumises. April 25, 2006. http://www.niputesnisoumises.com.
Noonan, Mary. “Voicing the Feminine: French Women Playwrights of the Twenti-
eth Century.” A History of Women’s Writing in France, ed. Sonya Stephens (Cam-
bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2000).
Novak, Marcos. “Speciation, Transvergence, Allogenesis: Notes on the Production of
the Alien.” Architectural Design 72:3 (2002), 64–71.
Nowaihi, Magda M. “Resisting Silence in Arab Women’s Autobiographies.” Interna-
tional Journal of Middle East Studies 33:4 (November 2001), 477–502.
Oakley, Ann. The Sociology of Housework. Bath: The Pitman Press, 1974.
———. Woman’s Work: The Housewife, Past and Present. New York: Pantheon Books,
1974.
Orientalism. Ed. Deepika Bahri. English Department, Emory U. March 24, 2006.
http://www.english.emory.edu/Bahri/Orientalism/html.
O’Riley, Michael. “Specters of Orientalism in France, Algeria, and Postcolonial Stud-
ies.” Mosaic 34 (2001).
Orlando, Valérie. Nomadic Voices of Exile: Feminine Identity in Francophone Literature
of the Maghreb. Athens: Ohio Univ. Press, 1999.
Perkins, Kenneth J. Tunisia: Crossroads of the Islamic and European Worlds. Boulder:
Westview Press, 1986.
BIBL IOGRAPH Y 227
Perry, Charles. “Couscous and its Cousins.” Medieval Arab Cookery, eds. Maxime
Rodinson, A. J. Arberry, and Charles Perry (Trowbridge: Cromwell Press, 2001),
233–238.
———. “Elements of Arab Feasting.” Medieval Arab Cookery, eds. Maxime Rodinson,
A. J. Arberry, and Charles Perry (Trowbridge: Cromwell Press, 2001), 225–232.
Petterson, T. Sarah. Acquired Taste: The French Origins of Modern Cooking. Ithaca:
Cornell Univ. Press, 1994.
Pfirsch, Jean-Vincent. La Saveur des sociétés: Sociologie des goûts alimentaires en France
et en Allemagne. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 1997.
Pieprzak, Katarzna. “Where Wounding Words are Drowned.” Banipal: Magazine of
Modern Arab Literature 7 (Spring 2000), 70–71.
Pink, Sarah. Home Truths: Gender, Domestic Objects, and Everyday Life. Oxford: Berg,
2004.
Pitte, Jean-Robert. French Gastronomy: The History and Geography of a Passion. New
York: Columbia Univ. Press, 2002.
Pratt, Mary Louise. “Modernity and Periphery: Toward a Global and Relational
Analysis.” Beyond Dichotomies: Histories, Identities, Cultures, and the Challenge of
Globalization, ed. Elisabeth Mudimbe-Boyi (Albany: State Univ. of New York
Press, 2002), 21–48.
Ramsay, Raylene L. The French New Autobiographies. Gainesville: Univ. Press of
Florida, 1996.
Reese, Elaine, and Kate Farrant. “Social Origins of Reminiscing.” Autobiographi-
cal Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Developmental and Cultural
Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden (Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum, 2003), 29–48.
Rich, B. Ruby. “In the Name of Feminist Film Criticism.” Multiple Voices in Feminist
Film Criticism, eds. Diane Carson, Linda Dittmar, and Janice R. Welsch (Minne-
apolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1994), 27–47.
Richards, Tazz. The Belly Dance Book: Rediscovering the Oldest Dance. Concord:
Backbeat Press, 2000.
A Ride on My Magic Carpet. Jasmin Jahal. December 1999. April 23, 2006. http://
www.jasminjahal.com/articles/99_12.carpet.html.
Roberts, Mary. “Contested Terrains: Women Orientalists.” Orientalism’s Inter-
locutors: Painting, Architecture, Photography (Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 2002),
179–204.
Rodinson, Maxime. “Studies in Arabic Manuscripts Relating to Cookery.” Medieval
Arab Cookery, eds. Maxime Rodinson, A. J. Arberry, and Charles Perry (Trow-
bridge: Cromwell Press, 2001), 91–164.
———. “Venice, the Spice Trade and Eastern Influences on European Cooking.”
Medieval Arab Cookery, eds. Maxime Rodinson, A. J. Arberry, and Charles Perry
(Trowbridge: Cromwell Press, 2001), 199–216.
Rollet, Brigitte. Coline Serreau: French Film Directors. Manchester: Manchester Univ.
Press, 1998.
228 B I B L I O GRA P HY
Romines, Ann. The Home Plot: Women, Writing, & Domestic Ritual. Amherst: Univ.
of Massachusetts Press, 1992.
Rosello, Mireille. “Gender, Hospitality and Cross-Cultural Transactions in ‘Les Pas-
sagers du Roissey Express’ and ‘Mémoires d’immigrés.’ ” Women, Immigration and
Identities in France, eds. Jane Freedman and Carrie Tarr (Oxford: Oxford Interna-
tional Publishers, Ltd., 2000), 135–152.
Russell, Catherine. Experimental Ethnography. Durham: Duke Univ. Press, 1999.
Saalani, Hela. Personal interview. February 1, 2005.
Said, Edward W. Orientalism. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.
Saigal, Monique. “Comment peut-on créer un nouveau langage feminine aujourd’hui?”
Thirty Voices in the Feminine, ed. Michael Bishop (Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi
B.V., 1996), 65–76.
———. L’écriture: lien de mere à fille chez Jeanne Hyvrard, Chantal Chawaf, et Annie
Ernaux. Amsterdam: Editions Rodopi B.V., 2000.
“Samia Gamal.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samia_Gamal (accessed February 21,
2006).
Sanger, Carol. “Mother from Child: Perspectives on Separation and Abandonment.”
Mothers in Law: Feminist Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, eds.
Martha Albertson Fineman and Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia Univ. Press,
1995), 27–42.
Scholliers, Peter. “Meals, Food Narratives, and Sentiments of Belonging in Past and
Present.” Food, Drink and Identity: Cooking, Eating and Drinking in Europe Since
the Middle Ages, ed. Peter Scholliers (Oxford: Oxford International Publishers Ltd.,
2001), 3–22.
Schrauf, Robert W., and David C. Rubin. “On the Bilingual’s Two Sets of Memo-
ries.” Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narrative Self: Devel-
opmental and Cultural Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine A. Haden
(Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 121–146.
Scott, Joan. “Experience.” Women, Autobiography, Theory, eds. Sidonie Smith and
Julia Watson (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 57–71.
Sebbar, Leïla. Mes Algéries en France: Carnet de voyages. Saint-Pourçain-sur-Sioule:
Bleu autour, 2004.
Serreau, Coline. “Fast-Paced Feminism: Coline Serreau Talks about ‘Chaos.’ ” In-
terview by Erica Abeel, IndieWIRE, http://www.indiewire.com/people/people
_030130serreau.html (accessed April 24, 2006).
———. “La Force des convictions et le plaisir du spectacle.” Jeune cinéma 1:10
(April–May 1978), 1–7.
Shohat, Ella, and Robert Stam. Unthinking Eurocentrism: Multiculturalism and the
Media. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Silverman, Kaja. The Acoustic Mirror: The Female Voice in Psychoanalysis and Cinema.
Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1988.
———. “Dis-Embodying the Female Voice.” Issues in Feminist Film Criticism, ed.
Patricia Erens (Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press, 1990), 309–329.
BIBL IOGRAPH Y 229
———. “Lost Objects and Mistaken Subjects.” Feminist Film Theory, ed. Sue Thorn-
ham (New York: New York Univ. Press, 1999), 97–105.
———. The Subject of Semiotics. New York: Oxford Univ. Press, 1983.
———. The Threshold of the Visible World. New York: Routledge, 1996.
———. World Spectators. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press, 2000.
Slaughter, M. M. “The Legal Construction of ‘Mother.’ ” Mothers in Law: Feminist
Theory and the Legal Regulation of Motherhood, eds. Martha Albertson Fineman and
Isabel Karpin (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1995), 73–102.
Smith, Alison. Agnès Varda. Manchester: Manchester Univ. Press, 1998.
Smith, Paul. Discerning the Subject. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1988.
Smith, Sharon. “The Image of Women in Film: Some Suggestions for Future Re-
search.” Feminist Film Theory, ed. Sue Thornham (New York: New York Univ.
Press, 1999), 14–19.
Smith, Sidonie, and Julia Watson. Reading Autobiography: A Guide for Interpreting
Life Narratives. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 2001.
Spittler, Gerd. “In Praise of the Simple Meal: African and European Food Culture
Compared.” Changing Food Habits: Case Studies from Africa, South America and Eu-
rope, ed. Carola Lentz (Frankfurt: Harwood Academic Publishers, 1999), 1–26.
Stacey, Jackie. “Feminine Fascinations: Forms of Identification in Star-Audience
Relations.” Feminist Film Theory, ed. Sue Thornham (New York: New York Univ.
Press, 1999), 196–209.
Stollery, Martin. “Masculinities, Generations, and Cultural Transformation in Con-
temporary Tunisian Cinema.” Screen 42:1 (2001), 49–63.
Straayer, Chris. Deviant Eyes, Deviant Bodies: Sexual Re-orientations in Film and Video.
New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1996.
Strand, Dana. “Film, Food, and ‘La Francité’: From le pain quotidian to McDo.”
French Food: On the Table, on the Page, and in French Culture, eds. Lawrence R.
Schehr and Allen S. Weiss (New York: Routledge, 2001), 203–220.
Stranges, Peter. “Mimicry, Mixed Couples, and ‘Odalisques’: A Hybrid Re-membering
of the French Republic.” Esprit créateur 43:1 (2003).
Strehle, Susan. Transnational Women’s Fiction: Unsettling Home and Homeland. New
York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
Suleiman, Susan Rubin. “A Double Margin: Reflections on Women Writers and the
Avant-Garde in France.” Autobiographical Memory and the Construction of a Narra-
tive Self: Developmental and Cultural Perspectives, eds. Robyn Fivush and Catherine
A. Haden (Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003), 182–210.
Talahite, Anissa. “Constructing Spaces of Transition: ‘Beur’ Women Writers and the
Question of Representation.” Women, Immigration and Identities in France, eds.
Jane Freedman and Carrie Tarr (Oxford: Oxford International Publishers, Ltd.,
2000), 103–120.
———. “Identity as ‘Secret de Geurre’: Rewriting Ethnicity and Culture in ‘Beur’ Li-
terature.” Cultures transnationales de France, ed. Hafid Gafaïti (Paris: L’Harmattan,
2001).
230 B I B L I O GRA P HY
Wall, Wendy. Staging Domesticity: Household Work and English Identity in Early Mod-
ern Drama. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002.
Watson, Julia. “Autoethnography.” Encyclopedia of Life Writing: Autobiographical and
Biographical Forms, ed. Jolly Margaretta (London: Fitzroy Dearborn, 2001).
Weber-Fève, Stacey. “Housework and Dance as Counterpoints in French-Tunisian
Filmmaker Raja Amari’s Satin rouge (2002).” Quarterly Review of Film & Video
(forthcoming, 2010).
———. “Assia Djebar as Film Theorist in Touchia: Ouverture and Ces voix qui
m’assiègent.” French Review 81.3 (2008), 60–68.
Williams, Linda. “Film Bodies: Gender, Genre and Excess.” Feminist Film Theory, ed.
Sue Thornham (New York: New York Univ. Press, 1999), 267–281.
Willis, Michael J. “Islamism in Algeria: the Politics of Inclusion and Exclusion.” The
Arab-African & Islamic Worlds, eds. R. Kevin Lacey and Ralph M. Coury (New
York: Peter Lang, Ltd., 2000), 51–64.
Wilson, Emma. French Cinema since 1950: Personal Histories. Lanham, MD: Row-
man & Littlefield, 1999.
Wood, Roy C. The Sociology of the Meal. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Univ. Press, Ltd.,
1995.
Woodhull, Winifred. Transfigurations of the Maghreb: Feminism, Decolonization, and
Literatures. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1993.
Yalom, Marilyn. Maternity, Mortality, and the Literature of Madness. University Park:
Pennsylvania State Univ. Press, 1985.
Yamina Benguigui: La culture ouvre la parole. Ed. Fabian Lemercier. Euromedcafé.
April 24, 2006. http://www.euromedcafe.org/interview.asp?lang=fra@document
ID=15.
Zayafoon, Lamia Ben Youssef. The Production of the Muslim Woman: Negotiating
Text, History, and Ideology. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2005.
Index
233
234 I ND E X
Ces voix qui m’assiègent, 3, 9–10, 13, Amari comparison, 104; Bedouin
21, 28–34. See also Être une voix women representations, 105–6; de
francophone; Regard de l’autre, regard Beauvoir comparison, 42; Ernaux
sur l’autre comparison, 42, 56; gaze, 4, 11–17,
Chaos: cinematic style, 138–40; gender 165–66, 208; pseudonyms, 28, 31;
issues, 146–48; home representations, Self/Other, xviii–xix, 126; Serreau
140, 146; housework images, 142–43; comparison, 104; Touchia: Ouverture,
sound and soundtrack, 140–47; three 16–23; 2/3 Space of expression, 9,
narratives, 136–38 15–16, 39, 56, 211. See also Ces voix
Character Zone, 10 qui m’assiègent; La Nouba du Mont
Charrad, Mournira M., 109–10 Chenoua; Regard interdit, son coupé;
child-raising chores, 70 Song of Messaouda
Cinema Interval, 10 Dobie, Madeleine, 33
Cixous, Hélène, 26–27, 28, 34, 126 domesticity. See home representations;
collaboration, 10 housework; marriage
collective female voice, 32 Donadey, Anne, 11–12, 35, 166
comedy, 134–36 double lives, 119–21, 131–32
communication, subaltern, 15–16 double silence, 24
“croisement,” 158–60 Du français comme butin, 29
Culhane, Hind Rassam, 116–17
cultural diversity, 154–57 Eakin, John, 48
EcoArt, xlvi
dance roles in film, 118–21, 126–27 Écrire dans la langue de l’autre, 31
Davison, Ray, 84 egalitarian marriages, 68–69
de Beauvoir, Simone: agenda, xlviii– Egyptian film history, 115–17
xlix, 41–42, 103, 208; biography, Elle magazine, 85–86
74–75; criticism of, 75–77; Djebar enunciative apparatus theory, xxviii
comparison, 42; Ernaux comparison, Ernaux, Annie: agenda, xlviii–xlix,
74, 77–82; Serreau comparison, 143; 41–42, 103, 208; biography, 43–45;
2/3 Space of expression, 100, 211; Une de Beauvoir comparison, 74, 77–78;
mort très douce, 77. See also La Femme Djebar comparison, 42, 56; gender
rompue; Le Deuxième sexe issues, 58–59; hybrid writing style,
Déjeux, Jean, 28 49–52; Je ne suis pas sortie de ma nuit,
Delacroix, Eugène, 4–6, 8, 9, 23, 36, 38 77; je transpersonal, 45–46, 48–49; ‘Le
De l’écriture comme voile, 30–31 Fil conducteur’ qui me lie à Beauvoir,
départenance, 154 77; philosophy of writing, 59–60, 81;
desire, xxvii–xxviii Serreau comparison, 143; 2/3 Space
Desplechin, Arnaud, 115 of expression, 48–49, 56, 211; Une
Le Deuxième sexe, 75, 77–82 femme, 77. See also La Femme gelée; ‘Le
Devadas, Vijay, xxxviii Fil conducteur’ qui me lie à Beauvoir
diary formats, 89 Esther Kahn, 115
diaspora spaces, 41–42, 120 Être une voix francophone, 24
Djebar, Assia: agenda, xlviii, 1–2, 208; exile motif, 163–64, 167–68
Algerian gender issues, 2–3, 111–12; existence, right to, 191–95
IN DEX 235
239