Scan barcode
charleygordonboyle's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
riomatchett's review against another edition
3.0
K so, like all Butler I think this was both brilliant, and dense af. Her basic argument (I think) is that violence/non violence depends on concepts of demography, ie who is ours (to be protected from violence) or other (the perpetrator of violence). By radically reconceiving our understandings of interdependency (disability studies has been doing this for a long time), we can come to see all violence we enact, physically or systemically, as violence done to ourselves. Like I said, a DIFFICULT READ for me, but worth it. She refers a lot to BLM, and racist systems specifically. If you’re into philosophy/social theory then hard recommend, but deffo not a light read.
butchriarchy'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.
claudiamarzollo's review against another edition
5.0
humbling and brilliant and inspiring for the end of 2020
keegan_leech's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.75
The biggest obstacle to reading this book is its density. Butler writes as an academic, for academics. While it's short and not totally impenetrable, her writing is certainly complex enough that this would make a slow read for just about anyone, and a slog for many.
That said, the content is interesting. I wasn't totally satisfied by it. I found Butler frustratingly inconclusive on many points, but the arguments she raises are worthwhile simply in that they've kept me thinking about them long after putting the book down.
There isn't much more to say though. This wasn't a book that totally changed the way I think, and I couldn't recommend it to everyone, but it has had an impact on me. I find looking back on it that Butler's writing has influenced the way I think, and that I can't quite shake this book, or the arguments it makes. I keep returning to them as I read other things, and as I go about my daily life or read the news.
That said, the content is interesting. I wasn't totally satisfied by it. I found Butler frustratingly inconclusive on many points, but the arguments she raises are worthwhile simply in that they've kept me thinking about them long after putting the book down.
There isn't much more to say though. This wasn't a book that totally changed the way I think, and I couldn't recommend it to everyone, but it has had an impact on me. I find looking back on it that Butler's writing has influenced the way I think, and that I can't quite shake this book, or the arguments it makes. I keep returning to them as I read other things, and as I go about my daily life or read the news.