Scan barcode
A review by mxunsmiley
The Force of Nonviolence: The Ethical in the Political by Judith Butler
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.