Butler proposes a feminism that is aware of the necessity of collectivity. She says we can accomplish this by using grief as a political tool. Grief is described as "the possibility of apprehending the fundamental sociality of embodied life, the ways in which we are from the start, and by virtue of being a bodily being, already given over, beyond ourselves, implicated in lives that are not our own"(p. 22) Basically, in grief, we are dispossessed or taken outside of ourselves on account of another. She says that we should apply this concept to politics. Instead of a push for autonomy, in which we are distinct subjects, delineated from others, we need to operate from a standpoint that is beside ourselves. She asserts that there cannot be a simultaneous fight for autonomy and for community issues.
Dietz also calls for a politics that is collective. She does so by way of critiquing the concept of citizenship. Although liberal citizenship is deemed to come with accessibility, Dietz highlights that that is not the case for everyone. The liberal subject is supposed to have intrinsic worth and rights protected by society. However, society does not serve this function for all citizens. She charges feminism with the task of shaping an inclusive model of citizenship. But in this, Dietz suggests that feminist move away from social and economic issues such as abortion, children, family , and wages in order to address the problems of citizenship. I thoroughly disagree with this point as I think it is precisely in ignoring these issues that we get a closed ideal of citizenship. Not many groups in the country are granted full citizenship, and those who are, don’t have to be burdened with these issues. Dietz trivializes these issues and by placing them in the realm of feminism, trivializes that as well. This makes me wonder what she thinks a citizen is.
No comments:
Post a Comment