The rise of anti-intellectualism is a very concerning topic to me because of how few individuals are aware of what it is or that it is even happening. Butler states, “Although we have heard, lately, about the abusive treatment of prisoners, and our “mistakes” have been publicly exposed, it seem that neither the justification nor the cause of the war have been the focus of public intellectual attention” (Butler 2). This is a great way to exemplify this idea of anti -intellectualism: People, specifically the government, intentionally choose what information the public is given and in what manner they receive it as to not allow them to see the whole picture, or give them ample information to begin stir the right questions.
Not only has anti-intellectualism been secretly diverged into American’s life it has also in some weird sick way been imposed onto us: “Either you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists” (Butler 2)… “but because to voice them is to rise histyricization and censorship” (Butler 2). “To voice them” as in to voice your opinions in opposition to what the government may be saying is then to create censorship against this knowledge to the public and create this idea of madness from individuals who voice such ideas.
Another point Butler discusses is the use of the word “terrorist” and who gets to use it under what conditions: “In the meantime, there remains ever increasing ambiguity introduced by the very use of the term “terrorist”, which is then exploited by various powers at war with independence movements of various lands” (Butler 4). She explains that we tend to reserve this term for only us in times when we need to justify, really what is terrorism acts, performed by American to other countries one example of this she gives is with our northern alliance in the Afghanistan war: “At one point during the war against Afghanistan it was reported that the northern alliance may have slaughtered a village: was this to be investigated, and if confirmed, prosecuted as a war crime?” (Butler 6) I believe Butler asks this question in a very satirical way. Almost like shes says, “as if”.
The reason we have continued to stay in a first person narrative is because it doesn’t require an explanation: “But instead of remaining open to a consequential decentering of first worldism, we tend to dismiss any effort at explanation..” (Butler 8). Then she continues on to ask many questions that basically ask, if we are really trying to help or solve any problems then why are we attacking people who are oppressed and have no say or opinion. We are attacking a speechless nation based on the acts of a few in charge, we are not then helping anyone.
The last quote that really struck me from the first chapter was, “Is a muslim’s life as valuable as legibly first world lives? Are the palestinians yet accorded to the status of “human” in US policy and press coverage? Will those hundred of thousands of muslims lives lost in the last decade of of strife ever recover?” (Butler 12). This is significant to me because one I think it is absolute horrid that these questions resonate with so much validity, and two that these questions are the answers to why we continue to reside in a first person narrative “story”. America as Butler explains doesn’t have to acknowledge what is happening if the people it is happening to are not apart of “US” or have no actual identity at all.
Chapter two:
Here she starts with two great questions: “who counts as humans? and Whose lives count as lives?” (Butler 20) I believe it is important to ask these questions first because before we can define grieve and violence we must first recognize who is lost to cause these things and who causes them.
In terms of Grief Butler has two quotes I would like to use, “Perhaps mourning has to do with agreeing to undergo a transformation…” (Butler 21)… “…something about who we are is revealed, something that delinates the ties we have to others, that shows us that these ties constitutes what we are, ties or bonds that compose us” (Butler 22). I believe this to be true. From my experience when you lose someone as Butler describes you seem to feel a lost sense of self, but at the same time I believe you eventually once you dissociate your own identity from that of another individual you also learn to become closer to total self actualization. You gain another part of your own self where another’s self once had resided.
In my last reflection on give pulse I give an example of how I saw this connectedness at NGS. I described the community and trust the kids all seemed to show in their exercise together. It was genuine, the seemed more like a family then a class, it was a really great thing to observe
“At the same time, essential to so many political movements is the claim of bodily integrity and self determination” (Butler 25). She begins to get into the idea also that in many political movements such as feminism and racism that it seems that the individual have very clear definition of themselves separate from all others. I understand this idea but also think it is maybe not so important to have to distinguish an “own” and a “we” but to realize we’re our own self being which together makes up something bigger than all us. None of us are really a self or a we separate, nor only together. But separate with in a whole, we make a “we”. (Sorry if that is hard to understand)
Although Butler speaks of violence in great length I chose one quote that I think really captures the idea: “violence is surely a touch of the worst order, a way a primary human vulnerability to other humans is exposed in its most terrifying way..” (Butler 28). She then continues on to say “Mindfulness of this vulnerability…” (Butler 29). I stop the second quote so early because the only word we need to focus on is mindfulness. Mindfulness in my way of life is a form of awareness, an understanding of other individuals encompassing not only humans. If we were all mindful and aware of the damage, hurt, anguish, grief, etc that we cause others we would not be so inclined to do so. Alternatively we would also be aware and mindful of the joy, love, trust etc we gave to others and would be more inclined to do so. This goes back to the idea that we need to be more of a we then a self.
