For our last reading of Butler and Athanasiou, their
chapter (chapter 17) “Public Grievability and the Politics of Memorialization,”
particularly stuck out at me. In an earlier chapter, Butler and Athanasiou
discussed in the midst of wars and politics, who is considered “countable” or “worthy”
of a number. This conversation continues with this idea of “memoro-politics.”
Athanasiou writes:
“Such re-membering engaged
with the ways in which memoro-politics is produced through, and predicated
upon, a constant contestation regarding what matters as memorable, who owns
memory, and who or what is dispossessed of the rights and rites of memorability….The
gesture of witnessing in the name of others (as in the title of the performance
In the Name of), especially those constituted as alien to the forms and norms
of memorable national belonging, acknowledges and, at the same time, displaces
the norms that authorize collective memory through the proper name (of the
father and the fatherland).”
In the midst of wars or racial
disputes, discounting or dismantling others’ memories has been a weapon used to
delegitimize opposing/other groups. Though it has been exercised throughout
periods of history, it is not right. Who are we, as humans, to discount another
person’s life? Or let injustice reign while people’s deaths go unnoticed?
However, there is hope. As enter a phase of #BlackLivesMatter, I think people
are starting to realize the importance of making names known and remembering
the injustice that is surrounded in people’s deaths. Make no mistake, I do not
believe all of our problems are solved with one mere hashtag or blurb, but I
think it is starting to create a conversation surrounding the importance of
life and creating proper memories for those who have died.
I’m really interested in the line "the gesture of witnessing in the name of others" as a gesture that is particularly useful to those "alien to the forms and norms of memorable national belonging." Those who are alien being minorities and those who are marginalized, I think that Butler and Athanasiou are saying that minoritarian politics are solely performative politics due to the fact that minorities are barred from traditional politics, a norm of national belonging. Performative politics stresses the collective over the individual and as shared experiences are one of the tenets of many minority epistemologies, especially black female epistemology, we can see why performativity provides possibilities for politics that traditional politics could not. As this relates to the hashtag you brought up, I think the #BlackLivesMatter is a prime example of performative politics. It is a movement, a collective, which is untraditional precisely because it is a movement that is critiquing and seeking to change the status quo of politics. I think we need to reconsider how we think of hashtags. Hashtags have become an avenue for nonprofit fundraising that people can give money as they would to a campaign or a normative political movement or non-profit. Additionally, many marches have been organized behind this hashtag. It is not a phrase that has no action or political clout behind it and I would contend that this is a substantial avenue of activism.
ReplyDelete