“…you have traced in
the very process of giving an account of one’s self, precisely at moments of
unknowingness, an affirmative dimension, namely the potentiality of
self-poietics—that is, the narration of the self, which assumes the norm and at
the same time potentially deconstructs it.” (Butler and Athanasiou 93)
According to the quote above, it almost seems as if ignorance
allows an individual the freedom of self-creation. That is, through the act of
questioning norms, one can thereby determine the self. According to Tuana’s ideas
of ignorance, however, ignorance is always harmful to an individual as it hides
truth and disempowers groups on a systematic level. While these two constructs
of ignorance seem opposed, they actually share the same end-game: to become
open-minded so ignorance can be continually righted as ignorance is continued
in new forms.
If it is in the act of erasing
ignorance that one can be self-identified, then it is in the same act that one
gains knowledge not only in the self, but in the act of “exposure” and “self-othering”
(Butler and Athanasiou 106).
Within identity, many types of
ignorance can play a role, including they
do not want us to know and we do not
even know that we do not know, sometimes both at the same time. As one identifies with the other, they
ultimately deconstruct the norm which they no longer prescribe to and ultimately
their existence questions the very basis of society—it’s social construction. Yet even when we deconstruct them, by
identifying as “other” and something different, we give them power to keep
others in the dark: “Although we do not own or choose the norms through which
we come to exist and connect to others, we bear a responsibility for sustaining
them, in a way, even while keeping them open and contestable” (Butler and
Athanasiou 104).
Sarah,
ReplyDeleteThis was a really interesting response. I agree with you that Butler/Athanasiou's writing works well with Tuana. However, I struggled to follow parts of your explanation why. In your second paragraph, I don't quite understand how "ignorance allows an individual the freedom of self-creation" means the same thing as "through...questioning norms, one can...determine the self." How can self-creation be created by both ignorance and norm questioning? Can you be ignorant and still question norms, or does the very act of questioning norms mean you have a certain amount of wisdom? I agree with you that we are responsible for getting rid of or sustaining negative norms, but I wonder whether or not we must already have created our "self" in order to know how to deconstruct norms. In that way, I wonder if one can be ignorant and deconstruct norms at the same time. What do you think?
I really like how you tied the text to Tuana's ideas of ignorance. Also how you merge ignorance and construction of self identity is very powerful. I agree ignorance definitely allows an individual the freedom of self- creation and we can only (de)construct ourselves by questioning the norms.
ReplyDelete