Edward Said wrote an article in the London Review of Books recalling his encounters with Foucault and Sartre. The article reveals the differences in the positions of these three world-renowned left-wing intellectuals on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
In January 1979, Said received a telegram in New York, and the French magazine Modern invited him to Paris to attend a seminar on peace in the Middle East, and the telegram was paid by Beauvoir and Sartre. In a state of trepidation, he suspected that it was a joke, which, in his own words, was "like receiving an invitation from Eliot and Wolff to visit the office of The Rule of the Day." It took him two days to confirm that the telegram was indeed true, and he accepted the invitation. Said was 44 years old, had just published Orientalism, and was noted for his active involvement in middle Eastern politics. Why would he still be afraid to receive this invitation? Because in his mind "Sartre has always been one of the greatest intellectual heroes of the 20th century." In almost every progressive undertaking of our time, his insight and intellectual genius played a role."
When Saeed arrived in Paris, he received a mysterious notice in his hotel: "For security reasons, the seminar was held in Foucault's house instead. The next morning Saeed arrived at Foucault's residence, where several participants were already seated, and De Beauvoir was talking about her plans to organize a demonstration in Tehran, but she did not show up. He had no sympathy for Beauvoir's chatter, and felt that she was too vain to argue. In an hour or so, Beauvoir left.
On Foucault's bookshelf, Sayyid found his book The Beginning, which pleased him. But Foucault said he had nothing to contribute to the workshop and would go to the National Library in a moment. Foucault's interactions with Said have always been friendly and cordial, but he has never been willing to talk to Sayyid about middle Eastern politics. It was not until Foucault's death that Said gradually understood the reason. He learned from Foucault's biography that in 1967 Foucault witnessed the anti-Semitic madness in Tunisia and interrupted his teaching there to return to Paris. But then a professor in the philosophy department at the University of Tunis told Sayyid that Foucault's departure was due to the "revelation" of his homosexual relationship with a student at the time, and he was expelled by the university authorities. Sayyid doesn't know which version of the story is more true. He later learned from Deleuze that Foucault had argued with Deleuze over the Palestinian-Israeli conflict because of his tendency to support Israel, and the two closest friends, who had once been closest friends, had become increasingly estranged.
Sartre finally arrived, surrounded by a group of assistants and translators. What surprised Said was not only Sartre's old age and haggardness, but his almost silent, passive and indifferent discussion. Only his assistant kept interjecting in an authoritative tone. Said interrupted the discussion, insisting that Sartre's own speech be heard. The result was a two-page manuscript prepared by Sartre, in which there was only a stale and empty tribute to Egyptian President Sadat and no words about Palestinian demands. Sayyid finally understood that he had been bewildered by Sartre's heroic story in the Algerian independence movement, but that Sartre had always been a Zionist sympathizer. Said returned to New York with great disappointment in Sartre, the only meeting between them. The following year, Sartre's death still mourned Saeed.
Hannaharendt: for love of the world is one of Arendt's most influential biographies. To be sure, Said read the book and quoted one of the "historical sources." Unfortunately, the "historical materials" he cites are a "clerical error" of the author. Scott McLemee, a senior editor of the Chronicle of Higher Education in the United States, wrote a report on this, revealing its ins and outs.
The biography, published by Yale University Press in 1982 and revised for a second edition in November this year, in which the author Elisabeth young-bruehl corrected an important error in the first edition concerning Arendt's relationship with Jewish terrorist organizations. The first edition of the biography mentions that Arendt donated to the Jewish Defense League (JDL) twice in 1967 and 1973. Founded in the United States in 1968, JDL has terrorist tendencies and has been suspected of planning dozens of assassinations, bombings and other terrorist incidents (including Sayyid on its "blacklist" of targets). JDL's behavior was even criticized by the Jews. For example, the prominent Jewish organization anti-defamation league has denounced JDL's "racism, violence and political extremism." But in reality, Arendt never donated to JDL, and when she first donated, JDL wasn't even established. Young-Brewer discovered after the first edition of his biography that Arendt had donated to a pacifist organization, the United Jewish Appeal, and regretted that he had made a major mistake in his haste.
In the preface to the second edition, the author points out this error in a note, while also revealing that Said had cited the misinformation and ignored her request for correction. In the fall 1985 issue of CriticalInquiry, Said published "The Ideology of Difference." It reads, "Although Arendt helped the Jews migrate to Palestine before the war, she has always criticized the zionist mainstream ... However, she donated to JDL in 1967 and again in 1973." At the time of publication, the creators of JDL began to influence Israeli politics, advocating the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel. This misinformation about Arendt undoubtedly constituted a serious but untrue accusation against her.
Stunned by his reading of Sayyid's article, Jan-Brewer immediately wrote to Sayyid and the editorial board of Critical Inquiry explaining the reason for the error and expressing deep apologies, pleading in her letter that if the article is reprinted, please correct it, "You can say anything to me, I deserve it, but please do not continue to falsely spread falsehoods about Arendt." But Said never replied to her, and wrote the article unaltered in his 1986 anthology. In the preface to the new edition, Jan-Brewer said, "Sayyid refused to correct this, so that the error was more widely circulated."
But the question is, was it said that Said had not received Jan-Brewer's letter, or was he unwilling to correct it? Jan-Brewer believes he received the letter, but "he chose not to make corrections". Young-Brewer has also worked at Columbia University, where Said taught during his lifetime, but has never spoken to him in person. For said, who died recently, does this also constitute a false accusation? In this regard, we probably need the biographer of Sayyid to clarify later.
This article is excerpted from The Age of Strife, by Liu Qing