Butler and Dietz Response

Andrea Gamboa
22/2/15

In Butler and Dietz's respective articles, both of the authors discuss the ways in which current politics falls short of addressing feminist needs and goals. Though the authors do not call for a new kind of feminist politics, they do argue for a re-conception and reformation of past and present feminist politics.

Dietz argues that politics must be "resuscitated" in order to render feminism an integral component of democracy. In critiquing liberalism, Dietz argues that it serves to uphold traditionally masculine values and in turn, upholds patriarchal norms. Butler and Dietz both focus on the inclusion of all women in society, but they do so in different ways. Dietz uses the language of "universal citizenship" while Butler focuses on the fact that women are human and because they are human they are entitled to certain inalienable human rights. Butler argues that defining humanity and the human experience is crucial in this aspect because of the fact that so many groups are widely considered "sub-human." For example, many people misconstrue the phrase"Black Lives Matter" into "All Lives Matter" in an effort to prove that every life is of value. The reality within society today proves that this statement is far from the case and rather the exclusion and dehumanization of groups is often so insidious, it can go unrecognized.

As Butler puts it, "certain lives are not considered lives at all...and their dehumanization occurs first, at this level. This level then gives rise to physical violence that in some sense delivers the message of dehumanization which is already at work in the culture" (25). I personally found Butler's argument more compelling because she focused on the humanity aspect of feminist politics and not through something as easily re-definable as citizenship, but I am interested in learning what the class thought of the two readings.