Scan barcode
melitrophium's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
While this book didn't necessarily "change my mind", it did change my perspective and it will inforn my practice. Butler makes some very valuable points. Highly recommend read
mxunsmiley's review against another edition
While extremely disorganized, Butler does bring forth many interesting ideas and a different approach to the debate of violent vs. nonviolent political movements. I didn't find them completely unintelligible as Butler is often accused of being, but the main problem I had was that I couldn't immediately see the connection between all the points they made. It seemed like they were jumping around from one idea to the next, though eventually I saw it all come together.
That nonviolence shouldn't be dismissed as simple moral positioning, but should rather be engaged with from a standpoint of the actual fact of human and even all organic existence (that we are born dependent on something or someone, and that continues pretty much throughout our lives until we die), was refreshing. Their section on the "grievability" of certain groups of people included some points I found myself most engaged in.
That the concept of "equality" cannot work without seeing ourselves as interdependent seems obvious but I think it's necessary to underline, considering we have so many initiatives allegedly committed to it, while also clinging to individualism. Butler does a nice critique of individualism as a result.
How we should approach the dichotomy of violence and nonviolence depends on who defines both, they emphasize, and often the entity that most exploits and frames it is the state. That what we see as "nonviolence" could very well be and has been construed as "violence" by the state, thus confusing what we may mean by either, was an interesting discussion. That nonviolence, like the hunger strike or human blockade, can actually been seen as forceful (they mention Einstein's "aggressive pacifism" in particular) and violent to power structures as it inherently ruptures them, was something I hadn't entertained, either.
I also found the bits about "nonviolence except in matters of self-defense" to be another thing I hadn't considered. How we define the "self" in particular, how "self-defense" may not even register as such (and never does) by the state or by certain others who don't define that "self" as worth protecting (hence "grievability"). How the "self" actually encompasses others as well, because the "self" is dependent on groups of people presumably like yourself.
Of course, I also began to consider where a violent approach, what seems necessary to some people in their opposition to injustice, may end. I think they engaged with this indirectly by examining Freud and the death drive. I have to admit, I was a bit lost in that section because I have no idea about psychoanalysis.
Finally, I think they do a good job of criticizing terms like "vulnerable populations" to be paternalistic and rather perpetuating the hierarchy that exists in the world. I didn't scratch the surface of what they engage with in the book, though. It took me a while to get through this because they just condense a lot of ideas into what read like bite-sized sections that, like I said, feel very haphazard.
That nonviolence shouldn't be dismissed as simple moral positioning, but should rather be engaged with from a standpoint of the actual fact of human and even all organic existence (that we are born dependent on something or someone, and that continues pretty much throughout our lives until we die), was refreshing. Their section on the "grievability" of certain groups of people included some points I found myself most engaged in.
That the concept of "equality" cannot work without seeing ourselves as interdependent seems obvious but I think it's necessary to underline, considering we have so many initiatives allegedly committed to it, while also clinging to individualism. Butler does a nice critique of individualism as a result.
How we should approach the dichotomy of violence and nonviolence depends on who defines both, they emphasize, and often the entity that most exploits and frames it is the state. That what we see as "nonviolence" could very well be and has been construed as "violence" by the state, thus confusing what we may mean by either, was an interesting discussion. That nonviolence, like the hunger strike or human blockade, can actually been seen as forceful (they mention Einstein's "aggressive pacifism" in particular) and violent to power structures as it inherently ruptures them, was something I hadn't entertained, either.
I also found the bits about "nonviolence except in matters of self-defense" to be another thing I hadn't considered. How we define the "self" in particular, how "self-defense" may not even register as such (and never does) by the state or by certain others who don't define that "self" as worth protecting (hence "grievability"). How the "self" actually encompasses others as well, because the "self" is dependent on groups of people presumably like yourself.
Of course, I also began to consider where a violent approach, what seems necessary to some people in their opposition to injustice, may end. I think they engaged with this indirectly by examining Freud and the death drive. I have to admit, I was a bit lost in that section because I have no idea about psychoanalysis.
Finally, I think they do a good job of criticizing terms like "vulnerable populations" to be paternalistic and rather perpetuating the hierarchy that exists in the world. I didn't scratch the surface of what they engage with in the book, though. It took me a while to get through this because they just condense a lot of ideas into what read like bite-sized sections that, like I said, feel very haphazard.
pictusfish's review against another edition
3.0
Perhaps i simply wasn't the intended audience, but the essay seemed to wander in a way that made it very difficult to come to any conclusions. I did have a few moments of insight, though, and do think it is worth reading.
books_ergo_sum's review against another edition
relaxing
5.0
There is nothing more satisfying to me than reading a philosophy book that this accurately explains the messy thoughts I’m trying to grapple with.
And this one was all about explaining: what exactly is happening when something violent happens and my heart screams that it’s wrong but others disagree.
And idk. Butler’s book just blew my mind. Because their argument wasn’t that some people are pacifists and some people are basically Thrasymachus from Plato’s Republic…
The starting premise was that pretty much everyone agrees—violence is wrong. ✨Except in self-defense✨ And it’s this teeny tiny exception that legitimizes all violence. Because of who gets included in that self and what counts as defense.
And the arguments in here were just excellent. So clear, so pointed, so philosophical. We had:
▪️ god-tier critiques of liberal individualism and the “self” we’ve inherited from different European Enlightenment philosophers (I could listen to arguments that the liberal subject is gendered male all day long)
▪️ Freud and Lacan on the death drive and unconscious judgments that we don’t even realize we’re making about self-defense
▪️ Foucault and Fanon on the structures of power that permanently Other certain groups and exclude them from the in-group being defended
And the book had an actual solution! (you know how rare that is in philosophy? 😆) And it was linked to some of my favourite Butler-ideas: their stuff on grievability and equality.
And this one was all about explaining: what exactly is happening when something violent happens and my heart screams that it’s wrong but others disagree.
And idk. Butler’s book just blew my mind. Because their argument wasn’t that some people are pacifists and some people are basically Thrasymachus from Plato’s Republic…
The starting premise was that pretty much everyone agrees—violence is wrong. ✨Except in self-defense✨ And it’s this teeny tiny exception that legitimizes all violence. Because of who gets included in that self and what counts as defense.
And the arguments in here were just excellent. So clear, so pointed, so philosophical. We had:
▪️ god-tier critiques of liberal individualism and the “self” we’ve inherited from different European Enlightenment philosophers (I could listen to arguments that the liberal subject is gendered male all day long)
▪️ Freud and Lacan on the death drive and unconscious judgments that we don’t even realize we’re making about self-defense
▪️ Foucault and Fanon on the structures of power that permanently Other certain groups and exclude them from the in-group being defended
And the book had an actual solution! (you know how rare that is in philosophy? 😆) And it was linked to some of my favourite Butler-ideas: their stuff on grievability and equality.
scottpnh10's review against another edition
4.0
Only problem was that this is a very dense book, which makes it a little hard to follow on audiobook. Will be re-reading in a physical copy at some point.