04 April 2024
In this captivating reflection, Rebecca Amsellem, economist, entrepreneur and feminist activist*, plunges us into the intricacies of the music industry through the prism of the 1% figure. Through bold hypotheses and insightful analysis, she explores the challenges facing women composers and raises fundamental questions about gender equality in music creation. By examining the conditions necessary for women to flourish creatively and highlighting self-censorship and systemic barriers, Rebecca Amsellem invites deep reflection on notions of legitimacy, aesthetics and cultural posterity. This provocative and inspiring text encourages us to rethink our perceptions and envisage a future in which artistic equality is no longer an ideal to be achieved, but a tangible reality.
"Thank you to Jorge Chaminé and Philippe Gimet for inviting me to say a few words - what an honour to be with you today.
As an economist by training, I'm used to starting with a figure to understand a situation. Because a figure is proof. And "proof tells the story of the obstacles to creating equality", writes Geneviève Fraisse in the preface to Reine Prat's book Exploser le Plafond (Editions de l'Echiquier).
Here, the figure is 1%.
1% of composers programmed between 2012 and 2017 are women (Sacem). 1%
To understand this figure of 1%, we can put forward three hypotheses.
Let's look at these hypotheses.
1% of composers programmed between 2012 and 2017 are women composers because women do not compose. Or very little.
This is partly true. Today, 17% of female composers are registered with Sacem, compared with 83% of men. It's a male-dominated profession, meaning that the vast majority of professional composers are men.
Women - in music as in painting - are mostly seen as themes and not as doers.
To achieve a form of equality - 50% of female composers performed, for example - we need to increase the figure from 17%. We need more women composers.
And for that to happen, at some point in history, women must have all the conditions they need to create. So what are these conditions?
The American writer Bell hooks has thought long and hard about this. "What does the ideal play look like? (Understanding in order to write) Is there music? Is there silence? Is there chaos or serenity outside? What do I need to set my imagination free?"
"Many years ago, I decided that if I wanted to know the conditions and circumstances that led men to greatness, I should study their books and compare them to the lives of women."
And Bell hooks found out what those conditions were. In the life of every 'great' man there was a host of people dedicated to his genius: parents, friends, mistresses, children...
All of them were expected to protect the time and space of the "great" man so that he had all the hours he needed to dream. And therefore to create. "I was determined to create a world where my creativity could be respected and supported", said Bell hooks.
If today we think of the ideal of a creative environment in this way, it's because women's creativity wasn't legitimate. Throughout history, no woman has been protected in this way to preserve her creativity, with a few rare exceptions. Certainly not Toni Morrison, who brought up her two sons alone. The relationship to creativity in general - and to writing in particular - has been largely constructed through a male prism. That's why, for many women today, it can be an unattainable fantasy: you need a room all to yourself, nine uninterrupted days, emptiness, nothing, and then everything and adventure. And what if we didn't need a different environment?
The story of Bell Hooks reminds me of something very personal. If you have a daughter, a granddaughter, who has the desire to create - whatever their chosen field - a word of encouragement is worth all the applause in the world. That's the role my grandfather played in my life, and I'm still lucky today.
One last thing, self-censorship.
I often hear that if women don't do this or that, it's not because they can't, it's because they don't want to. We are in France, in 2024 after all. That's where we are. If a woman wants to run a business, she can, if she prefers to look after her wives, she can too. If anything could stop her, it would be self-censorship, she would be the one stopping herself.
I find this concept fascinating because it reverses the burden of proof. If a woman can't do something, it's her fault and her fault alone.
What I'm saying is this: self-censorship exists, that's for sure. But it is the result of repeated failures. I'm thinking of a chicken trying to get through a wall. It tries once, it bumps into it. It tries a second time and bumps into it. You've got it, I'm not going to go on. What will the chicken do? It's going to stop trying to cross the wall.
This is what self-censorship looks like. It's the female artist who tries once, twice, for this competition, this prize, this grant, and hears no, a hundred times. It's certain to hear no a hundred times. Especially when you've seen your mother hear the same noes. Your sister, your friends. The consequence is that at some point, you stop trying.
You withdraw, you stop. So, if we want there to be no more self-censorship, we need to create the conditions so that a woman doesn't hear no a hundred times. Especially from people less competent than them. Now that we've seen how to increase the number of female composers, I suggest we focus on the second hypothesis: women do compose - but they compose badly.
Or - less ironically - it's not enough for there to be more female composers to increase that figure by 1%. It's also necessary for their style to be liked for them to be performed. Why are there fewer female composers performed than male composers? There are several explanations.
Firstly, a historical catch-up. The number of female composers has been increasing positively over the years, and they were almost absent a century ago. With the notable exception of the reason we're here, since Pauline Viardot was one of the few women to be a composer and make a living from her art.
And one of the reasons for her success - putting aside her genius - is the fact that her husband decided to leave his position as theater director to focus on his wife's career and the education of their children. Furthermore, there's the central question of taste.
Aesthetic - and the taste that follows it - is the result of social and economic policy. Thus, in a society where men hold the vast majority of positions of responsibility or creativity, it's a certain taste that will be universally accepted.
I don't consider that women compose better than men. Transparently, my opinion doesn't matter anyway. And art is so subjective that giving this opinion would be of no use.
However, it's about leaving evidence: at a certain point in history, these women had this interpretation of their lives. The idea isn't that men have less interpretation, but that women have more opportunity to express it.
We are at a pivotal moment in history - communication seems broken, and we have the responsibility to recreate a conversation with a common language not to agree on everything - that would be a sad world, but to compose around ideas that do not deny others' right to exist.
On this subject, I think of the philosopher Byung-chul Han who tells us that - and this may resonate with you - we live in a performance society, he says (the "achievement society") which has gotten rid of negative power based on the term "duty" ("You must do this," "you don't have the right to do that") to favor positive power. Positive power involves introducing a notion of infinite possibility entirely linked to a person's efforts. It goes like this: "you can do whatever you want," "you are in charge of your own destiny," "everything is possible."
He says, and I quote, "But today's society is a performance society that continually gets rid of the negativity of prohibition and rule and sees itself as a society of freedom. The verb that characterizes the performance society is not the Freudian "must," it's "can." This social turning point entails a restructuring of the soul," writes Byung-chul Han, whose thoughts are described in the episode "The Achievement Society and the Rise of Narcissism, Depression, and Anxiety" from the podcast Philosophize this.
In a performance society, we are our project, and becoming the most authentic version of ourselves is our goal.
We obviously see the excesses of this society - already today.
"The performing subject, exhausted, depressed, is at the same time worn out by himself. He is tired, exhausted by himself, by the war he wages against himself. Unable to get out of himself, to be outside, to trust others, the world, he lashes out at himself, which paradoxically leads to hollowing out and emptying the Self."
I have digressed, but you will understand why. The solution to the end of this malaise generated by a society obsessed with performance is the same as the one to end the blockages that prevent people with opposing opinions from exchanging: it's to evolve the relationship with the other.
The race for authenticity imposed by the performance society has narcissism as its methodology: in order to be the best version of ourselves, we must be focused on ourselves. It's the only option, it's the only possibility, asserts the philosopher. And to break out of this pattern, we must turn to everything that is not ourselves, to the other, to difference, to imperfection. "Thought must surrender to the negativity of the other and tread on virgin lands," writes Byung-chul Han. What happens then? We truly listen, we truly care, we discover a person, we connect with the other, and we are less interested in ourselves.
And I think it's a beautiful message for this superb day organized by the European Center of Music and Jorge Chaminé.
I come to the last hypothesis. Here we are, women compose as much as men, they are performed, and yet, this 1% figure doesn't increase.
The reason is this: the cultural posthumousness is political. These are people who, in museums, choose what will be considered in a generation as legitimate to be kept today. These are people who program concerts, these are people who choose to study one work or another. And these people do work that is, knowingly or not, eminently political. They choose what will continue to be relevant tomorrow.
And I want to emphasize this in conclusion: I don't want to increase this 1% figure because I consider them intrinsically better - I've said it, I don't know, and even if I had an opinion, it wouldn't be relevant.
I want to increase this figure so that interpretations of subjects are not solely from a male perspective. It's not, by the way, a question of identity, nor even of gender, but of lived experience - we live differently when we are a man than when we are a woman. It's a fact. The idea isn't to make women and men live the same experience but for women not to be constantly adapting to a society created by and for men.
To increase the 1% figure, we can't do otherwise than to increase the number of women who compose. But that's not all. Music teachers must teach them so that they are played, and the audience, you, must also be attentive to support and be present at these performances.
The objective is clear - to make the feminist movement obsolete in 1, 2, 3 generations because equality will be achieved. When a woman doesn't ask herself twice whether she is legitimate to do this or that thing because all the conditions will be met for her to do that thing."
*Rebecca Amsellem is a French-Canadian feminist activist, creator of the newsletter Les Glorieuses, and founder of Gloria Media, a newsletter production company. She was invited to speak at the first public event organized by the Centre Européen de Musique at Villa Viardot (Bougival, France), "L'Eternel Féminin". Rebecca Amsellem has just released a podcast documentary entitled "La Méthode," analyzing the means of achieving a feminist utopia. In 2015, she launched the feminist newsletter Les Glorieuses with the aim of creating a new collective imagination where women are fully equal to men. She also holds a doctorate in economics. Her thesis, "Museums go international: new strategies, business models," was published in September 2019 by Editions Peter Lang and received the ENCATC thesis award. Rebecca Amsellem is also the author of "Les Glorieuses: chronicles of a feminist." She is the recipient of the Engagement Award from the Grand Est region and is one of Forbes 2020's 40 women.
Playlist