Dear Simone,
I thoroughly enjoyed your journal entries that detailed your
travels while in America. In particular, I admire your fearlessness when
approaching new experiences as well as the nuance of your analyses of American
culture.
Considering how I tend to gravitate toward other Americans I
meet while traveling, I found your interaction with others of your nationality
compared to Americans quite interesting. For example, your café discussion with
other French intellectuals seemed quite frustrating for you. You discussed an
“emptiness” amongst them, yet you seemed to learn so much amongst other New
Yorkers and Americans throughout the book. I was so proud to read that you
rejected the fearful, and slightly ignorant, suggestions of the Frenchmen to
not critique America within your writing or discuss the Black community. Not
only did you ignore them, but also wrote with such grace, conviction, and depth
regarding race, class, and feminism. I found your relationship with Richard
Wright quite refreshing, as you soaked up greater perspective and joy during
your time in Harlem. I truly believe once you challenged this fear, you had the
tools to traverse other parts of the country with some level of comfort and
excitement. What became of your relationship with Mr. Wright? Did you feel that
your interaction with intellectuals was beneficial to your understanding of
America, or did it hinder the diversity of your conversations?
I am asking because I often feel that I do not break the
mold in regard to connecting with locals while I am abroad. Unlike you, it
takes me quite a while to warm up to those who do not share a commonality like
my first language or nationality. After I leave, I feel that I did not engage enough with the people whole consider the country I visited their home. Would
you share how you quickly surpassed the initial hurdle of engaging others who
had a culture and mindset different than your own?
Regards,
Joy
Joy
Several components of America Day by Day that Joy notes are also ones that I found interesting, particularly because they reminded me of Tocqueville (though probably only because his Democracy in America is on my mind after reading it for another class last week). For one thing, I found it interesting that de Beauvoir perceived French intellectuals to be "empty," especially in contrast to the Americans she encountered. This brought to mind Tocqueville's characterization of American politics as anti-intellectual and almost mindless. He argues that the tyranny of the majority is a problem in the United States, and that view points of the majority are the ones that will be adopted, ultimately placing the majority in charge of systems that were put in place to protect minorities. This anti-intellectual tyranny of majority seems very different from the Americans you met and learned so much from. Additionally, de Beauvoir's reluctance to spend time with other French people while traveling reminded me of Tocqueville's ideas surrounding American exceptionalism. He writes that, because class distinctions in America are very narrow, there is not too much of a feeling of unity when in America. However, Tocqueville gives the example of two Americans traveling in Europe and meeting each other, arguing that they would immediately feel some bond of sameness due to American exceptionalism and the way it's highlighted when physically separate from America. It's interesting that de Beauvoir experienced an almost opposite phenomenon when in America, though that certainly aligns with Tocqueville's assertion that the same bond would not exist between two Europeans who met while traveling abroad. Though these two books were written 110 years apart, I find it interesting to compare and contrast the experiences of two French travelers in America, and think the stark contradictions and similarities are worth noting. How has travel changed over time? What has stayed the same? Are any parts of travel timeless, or is travel constantly changing?
ReplyDelete