Butler and Dietz Response

Sammy Karon
21 February 2015

Both Butler and Dietz argue that politics in its current form is inhumane. Thus, their arguments are first and foremost for the benefit of all humans, but carefully written to ensure the improvement of the status of women as well.

Butler considers politics the realm of conversation in which people determine what it means to be a human. From this discussion, institutions are formed that decide who counts as a human and how humans should live. However, she notes that these institutions are artificially constructed and they result in unnatural rules for how humans should interact. The "unnatural" aspect of political society becomes evident as soon as someone experiences grief. Watching someone go through grief demonstrates how humans are naturally social creatures. We make other people's lives into a part of ours, whether we choose to or not, and that is why death and loss are so painful and life changing. Therefore, some type of politics is inevitable because humans have physical bodies and we interact and become vulnerable by proximity. However, instead of using politics to help humans get past their physical vulnerability and actually understand one another, democracy seems to create "unreal" rules and relations by determining how humans should live without considering if that is really "livable" for all. Thus, the crucial element to politics is humanity, and political systems need to teach people how to perceive different types of people as human in order for constructed "human rights" to be truly applied in society. 

Dietz continues this conversation on politics being personal. Dietz notes that liberal democracy does much to recognize "human rights," but just like Butler noted, before human rights can be pursued, the notion of "human" must be expanded and rethought. Dietz sees two main issues with liberal democracy. First, the Constitution des not in fact address all the human rights that need to be protected. Second, liberal democracy is rigid and against change, so women [or other groups being left out of "human" rights] cannot advocate for the changes they need. Dietz uses Marxism and maternalism as examples of ways feminists have tried to fix politics but ultimately failed, because politics needs to be inclusive to all, while these two groups leave some feminist needs out of their platform. Thus, ultimately democracy needs to be reshaped so that it can expand the definition of what it means to be human, and feminists are the type of people who understand what that expansion should look like.

Ultimately, Butler and Dietz seem cautious to define the aims of "feminist politics" because in order for it to exist, it has to be nonthreatening to other groups. Thus, feminist politics needs to seek the good of the whole, and give non-female actors an incentive to accept political change that improves the status of women and people not traditionally considered equal humans. In a sense, it seems like feminist politics follows the motto "a rising tide raises all ships." However, I am left wondering how a rising tide can raise all ships to the same level, considering some ships are not in as good condition as others due to purposeful past events. In other words, how can feminism benefit all people without addressing the hurt of the past? Furthermore, who should be addressing that hurt, feminists or non-feminists?