Like some of the other posts, I also thought Butler and Athanasiou's discussion of responsiveness as almost a moral obligation was very interesting and differed drastically from a lot of the readings we've seen this semester. Most of the authors have worked to address a social issue within the context of what is right or good based on basic human rights and autonomy owed to each individual being. But I never really saw any author argue that those who support or participate (or in some cases choose to shut themselves off) in the capitalist, patriarchal society are immoral as much as Butler and Athanasiou seem to do. They both argue that to remain open and responsive in trying to change the system is a moral obligation and necessity to the constant evolution of politics and society, even if it results in an individual continuing in an uncomfortable situation. This seems perfectly logical in and of itself, but I wonder how many people are actually willing to do so? Obviously those who have martyred themselves for a specific cause or belief, but is it realistic to expect every member of society to always be present and participating? These concepts seem like they would fit better in a more pluralistic society like that which some of the past authors have discussed (Young & Mouffe), but again, I wonder how realistically achievable that type of environment is? To me, it almost seems better to completely dismantle the political and social structures entirely because even if more marginalized voices attempt to participate, would their voices even be heard in the current power structure?
No comments:
Post a Comment