In her article Dietz calls for a revitalization of the
democratic process, especially through a new sense of citizenship. Instead of
being citizenship being individualistic or based on strict roles, Dietz wants
everyone, especially feminists, to collectivize in the interest of continuous
good, not a goal that will eventually come to an end. While today people tend
to view politics and liberalism as a distant idea that only requires voting
every two years, Dietz wants citizens to become active in the process again and
not for just a specific cause or movement that will end, but for a bettering of
democracy and society. Admittedly, I am less sure of what kind of politics Butler
calls for, but I interpreted her chapter as requesting society to become more
open in its definitions of humanity and of ‘the self.’ Butler seems to ask for
a willingness to engage and, not only redefine ideals and definitions based on
other traditions, but to open dialogues and ask ‘why?’, so as not to be limited
by the understandings that society is aware of.
I think Dietz is calling for a new kind of feminist politics
by asking that feminism not be constrained by addressing specific social and
economic topics. Dietz wants feminists to engage in revitalizing citizenship
and a political process in democracy that required everyone to participate to
move society and politics forward. While restoring citizenship isn’t
specifically a feminist issue, but Dietz sees an opportunity for feminists to
spearhead this cause, as previous feminists movements held aspects that were
similar to what Dietz wants citizenship to become. This feminism would be less
alienating and would allow feminists to pursue their agenda in a wider sphere
of influence. Maybe in a similar vein, Butler too wants feminism to evolve, where it can actively and continually challenge and redefine itself to a wider audiences, always seeking to involve more participants and incorporate their experiences into feminism.
Your summary of Dietz really helped me understand her point and I can see where I may have been wrong in my assumptions. I still wonder, however, what this means for those that aren’t a part of the majority. If we ignore specific problems, who will speak for those without a voice in the public? It may be that Dietz is saying that this new form of politics will be sensitive to all those issues, but I just do not see how that can be the case. A public that is sensitive to all issues and therefore takes all issues on as its own seems too idealistic and unattainable. I worry that in an attempt to broaden the scope of feminism by focusing on the collective in this way will have the opposite effect. I feel as if this is the type of logic that actually leads to marginalization as there is no effective way to represent every voice. There is a large risk of creating a homogenizing paradigm that very few can actually measure up to, falling back into the ills of the status quo. In politics, I think there is too fine of a line between collectivism and homogenization for this to really work in the way that she theorizes that it will. That is way I maintain that feminism is the alternative. It addresses the specifics that get pushed to the side in politics.
ReplyDelete