Sunday, March 29, 2015
Butler and Athanasiou 8-11
Chapter 10, responsiveness as responsibility, was very similar to Zerilli's idea and problem of making a political claim. The founding paradox in Zerilli is the idea that once you make a claim you create a foundation that may be excluding people from making more claims. This is akin to the idea in Butlers discussion that we are responsible for maintaining certain norms in society but also need to be aware that maintaining these things may lead to greater dispossession for others. A key example of this was discussed in class as the problem of feminism where some feminist were speaking for all women but were not represented by many women from different races and cultures.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Matt, I also discussed Butler and Athanansiou’s chapter, “Responsiveness and Responsibility,” but hadn’t made the connection between their work and Zerilli’s piece on reframing feminism. I definitely agree that when someone makes a steadfast statement to define feminism (or any claim for that matter), they ostracize those who do not belong. We also saw this phenomenon in Lugones and Mohanty’s pieces when they discuss Western feminists who impose their notions of “proper” feminism on developing countries, neglecting their political and religious history. However, as I review the list of paradoxes we made in class today, I am very conflicted as to where “making political claims” fall. Do you think it falls under “Response to other v. Oneself of Others” or “Being and Becoming Dispossessed”? Or perhaps both? Also, if making political claims inherently creates exclusion, is the solution to never make or establish claims? I definitely look forward to taking about this in class!
ReplyDelete