A lot of issues were covered by Judith Butler and Athena Athanasiou in the first seven chapters of the reading. What stood out to me the most was the underlying implication that perhaps language is faulted in the description of differences by being to dualistic or deterministic. This is especially prevalent in the first chapters in which dispossession is defined as having a dual and paradoxical nature in that being disposed may be fundamental to identity as well as destructive for identity.
This aspect of dispossession seemed similar to the paradoxical nature of making political claims in Zerilli. When making a political claim one begins to speak for the entirety of the political collectivity for which one associates with. In this sense, the making of political claims is necessary for progress in a community but is also detrimental for those whose voices isn't heard by simply being associated with the claim of someone else.
I really like the parallels you draw between Butler/Athanasiou and Zerilli in terms of the limitations and paradoxical nature of language. One interesting point you touch on is how language relates to identity in Butler/Athanasiou and politics in Zerilli. This brings into play the private vs. public sphere. Is the dualistic nature of language more formative when looking within or when speaking outwardly? It seems that in both cases it can be either beneficial or detrimental. The two can be differentiated, however, because language is not absolutely necessary in inner identity formation, while it is necessary in making a political claim.
ReplyDelete