Rate this book

Rámce Války: Za Které životy Netruchlíme? (2009)

by Judith Butler(Favorite Author)

4.12 of 5 Votes: 1

languge

English

genre

Nonfiction

publisher

Karolinum

review 1: Maybe I would like this book more if I had first read Butler's Precarious Life. The main idea of use to me from this is the narrativizing of diegetic framing to the ends of critiquing "regulatory and censorious power" (p. 71-72).I will also mention a gripe about the book's type spacing. I don't know if this is a Verso problem (I don't recall Virilio's War and Cinema having this issue), but the type set was adjusted frequently in unpleasant ways. The text seemed to be trying to avoid hyphenating a word from one line to another, and in the process of doing this would fluctuate the kerning and tracking making some lines almost unreadable.
review 2: Yes. It took me more than two years to get through this book. I put it down after page 42 in 2012 because of its ... moredense content and academic language. I am a fan of Judith Butler because she has some unique and thoughtful ways of looking at difficult questions. In this book of essays, (some of which she gave as lectures), she is looking at how we frame war and violence to justify it and give it meaning. She touches on how the media manipulates our emotions to reinforce or create our sentiments. This is not a new idea. Of course we all know the power of propaganda. But she has more to say about how we frame the idea of war so that we can bear its negative affects.According to Judith Butler, each of our lives is "...always is some sense in the hands of others". She points out that we are nothing but social creatures that depend completely on each other for everything in our lives. And she means everything. From the survival of each infant born to the food on our plates to the infrastructure that provides the food on our plates including the plates. Each of our lives is necessarily dependent on others. She makes a case that our global social entanglement shapes how we view each other as human beings. Or not. Consider that she makes this observation: "...war [divides] populations into those who are grievable and those who are not. An ungrievable life is one that cannot be mourned because it has never lived...it has never counted as a life at all."In a war where the one side (say Hamas) stores armaments in schools, community centres, and houses of worship, the destruction of those armaments means that the people in those places, be they children, women, holy men or teachers do not have grievable lives. Their lives have and had no meaning because they were already dead before they were born. They are not alive and never were. We may believe that the people in those places are being used by the enemy as human shields. Therefore if the enemy does not give their own people the status of living beings worthy of being mourned, missed or valued, why should anyone else? So the bombing of these places becomes justifiable. Butler makes the entire idea of killing ludicrous when seen from this point of view. She is coming from the position that all human life, all interconnected on this planet, is grievable. Yet,we divide the world into those who are worthy of being grieved and those who are not. Otherwise we cannot justify war and violence. In one of her many brilliant statements she writes, "...war seeks to deny the ongoing and irrefutable ways in which we are all subject to one another, vulnerable to destruction by the other, and in need of protection...[via]agreements based on the recognition of shared precariousness."She goes on to assert that "[w]ar is precisely an effort to minimize precariousness for some and maximize it for others."Apart from these ideas and some interesting discussion of the impact of media and photography, the essays for the most part left me cold and wanting. I was distressed by her use of language. For example, she uses the word alterity at one point when otherness would have made her point much more accessible. There are also statements and ideas that I found completely incomprehensible. For example, I could not make sense of this: "The point is not to celebrate a full deregulation of affect, but to query the conditions of responsiveness by offering interpretive matrices for the understanding of war that question and oppose the dominant interpretations -- interpretations that not only act upon affect, but take form and become effective as affect itself."If you can decipher this, I'd love to know what it means.I was also shocked that she actually used the (non)-word irregardless (page 178 for anyone that cares). I will give her the benefit of the doubt and consider that an incompetent editor or grad student made the slip-up.In matters of our global attitudes to war, violence, hatred, and non-tolerance, accessibility of her ideas is important for real change in my opinion. I am not sure she is interested in changing the world so much as she just wants to explore it philosophically and for the fun of it. less

Download links for: Rámce války: Za které životy netruchlíme?

Advertising