This book, by far, has been my favorite read for this class.
Do you blame the nanny? I don’t.
Leila Slimani does an amazing job in crafting a narrative that fits everyone’s biases. Through Slimani’s story, to blame or not to blame the nanny is a byproduct of the reader’s own biases. What do you notice, what details strike you the most, how far your analysis of class, race, and gender dynamics can overcome the gory aspects of what happened?
Louise
Overview
We can agree that Louise was not just a nanny, she was a cleaner, a cook, interior designer, planner, teacher, and entertainer. However, she was just still paid for being a nanny, aka take care of the children. Some people could argue that no one asked her to be all of those things, that it was actually on her and her strange obsession with taking over the lives of the Masses.
Only a few times did the Masses, especially Paul, worry about “the nanny’s long hours” because he doesn’t want “her to accuse us of exploiting her one day” (p. 54). Myriam said she will fix the problem. She confronts Louise but ends up “thrilled” that Louise takes it upon herself, it is her fault. This is followed by small apologies once in a while, cheap gifts, and used clothes.
Did she have OCD?
Imagine being secluded in a strangers apartment, taking care of two children, surrounded by dirt and messyness. Imagine forcing yourself to not clean, to not organize because you are not being paid to do it. Nevertheless you are still forced to come to that space everyday. Dishes pilling up, dust, dirty clothes, the smell of trash. Would you be able to spend your entire day without taking care of the mess of a stranger without being paid for it?
Maybe, we could argue that she did not have to go that far. But, what if you were scared to not find another job? How can you prove to your employers that you are the right choice? How can you prove you are irreplaceable to secure your job that has no protections?
Maybe, we could argue that she just wanted the life of the Masses, to live a fantasy of what life could be, of motherhood, homemaking, and domesticity. For this specific point I want to argue that this is the capitalist fantasy that fits Louises’ background, a fantasy that is hard to question because it’s not 100% chosen. Instead, to an extent, it is imposed by the circumstances, by her past, her background, money, lack of proper stable housing, etc.
Contradictions and Rebellion
Throughout the book we see a weird fight between the desire and hate for this chosen/imposed fantasy. Moments of lucidity become more common as Louise becomes a “more accepted” part of the family. Like glitches in the matrix, Louise becomes more open and vulnerable to the truths she hides, the humanity in her. In the Masses’ trip to Greece, Louise is able to taste a bit of those privileges she once should have deserved just because of the color of her skin. For instance, autonomy weirdly becomes natural the moment she pushes Mila at the beach. She is annoyed, but she no longer performs, she reacts like the real parents of the child: irritation, boundaries, and selfishness.
When they go for dinner, the three of them, for the first time, Louise almost gets the courage to “tell them something — doesn’t matter what, something about her — but she doesn’t dare” (p.76) Why is she so scared? When was the last time you felt that scared to talk about yourself to someone? Is it just the fear of being unprofessional?
The more this lucidity is noticed in Louise, the more annoyed the Masses get, the more worried they are that they are giving too much to Louise. Resentful. The worry is no longer that she is doing too much, it is that they, instead might be giving her too much. The amount of work becomes normal, their gestures of appreciation, of caution, have become excessive.
Are this really gestures of appreciation? Why is increasing her paycheck not an option? They can afford a trip, an expensive watch, impulsive shopping, hosting friends at their home, but not increase Louise paycheck? Why, weirdly, it feels like they are being so nice to Louise. Did you get deceived? The Masses are giving Louise what rich people think can replace money. Social and cultural capital are the main currency. They are giving her a taste of their life, a peek into their privacy, a spot that can only be taken by people of the same class. Pity is not empathy.
Beyond class dynamics
However, we should not see Louise only as a victim either. She also is a privileged person in comparison to other people in the book. Here is where the complexity of the book and the blame becomes tricky.
“No illegal immigrants, agreed?”
She is chosen, she is different. She is not like the other nannies. Racism and Xenophobia.
Louise knows that she is special and she loves it. She knows she has an advantage, that the fantasy she chose fits her and attracts others.
She doesn’t need to pay or fake marriage for her papers, like Wafa did.
Her isolation, to an extent, is chosen. The people that are naturally around her do not fit the fantasy she belongs to.
She is respected by the friends of the Masses, she is respected in the streets, by her landlord, no one questions her capacity to do her job. She is respected by the masses, she is feared, to an extent by Myriam.
However, as we advance through the book we can see that her whiteness and her femininity are not enough to escape the misfortunes and judgements that being poor brings.
Here is where the understanding or at least a message that I think Slimani is trying to convey is that maybe these features, these privileges, are what makes Louise so dangerous in comparison to the other nannies. For Louise it is easier to accept and embrace the fantasy, but at the same time it is easier for her to understand that the fantasy is not real, that she deserves a different fantasy or that, if nothing else, she has more of a chance to force that fantasy into reality.
The unquestioned historical privileges that she embodies as a French woman, blind her from her own reality.
For Myriam a similar opposite process happens too, her historically unquestioned imposed disadvantages blind her from her own actions, from her desires to perform and achieve a different kind of fantasy.
A society of disconnection, where sorority is a threat to your own capitalist endeavors.
This is just a very superficial aim to understand some of the dynamics the Slimani carefully crafts in her book. There is so much to say about Myriam, Paul, and the kids, but this will make the blog into a paper.
To conclude, I will say: I do not think we can only blame Louise for what happened. Do you?