The first few chapters of Judith Butler's and Athena Athanasiou's "Dispossession: The Performative in the Political" introduce the nature of dispossession and contextualize it within our social sphere, namely "establish[ing] us as relational and interdependent beings" (Butler and Athanasiou, 3). They frame dispossession in two sense: the first is the notion of "being dispossessed," which relates to our inherent and primordial interdependency with others that "establishes our vulnerability to social forms of deprivation" (Butler and Athanasiou, 5). The first sense claims that dispossession is a "heteronomic condition for autonomy" (Butler and Athanasiou, 2). The second sense is the notion that subjects are made to be or become dispossessed as a result of the imposition of "normative and normalizing violence that determines the terms of subjectivity, survival, and livability" (Butler and Athanasiou, 2).
It seems to me that the first sense is something that at least Butler believes is indisposable and intrinsic to the social existence of beings. The second, however, it open to some contestation. As Butler and Athanasiou discuss, what we consider today to be the right of property "was produced over time as a natural, if not essential, characteristic of human personhood" (Butler and Athanasiou, 9). As such, the normative factors that are able to render us dispossessed seem to be entirely historically contingent and therefore malleable. While the first sense of dispossession is inherent to our subjectivity, the second sense is not because we are dispossessed by different forces based on our situation and identity.
I think it is interesting that the book is written as a conversation, wherein Butler and Athanasiou response to each other's remarks. Their conversation in a way is a manifestation of dispossession, because interactions and responses to others is a form a dispossession in the first sense because it recognizes the limitations of self-sufficiency.
Finally, I enjoyed Butler's discussion of Palestinian land rights as it relates to dispossession. The Arab-Israeli conflict is an excellent example of two groups who co-habituate in a way that is co-dependent. The disagreement could be their dispossession in the second sense, where one could argue that Israel consistently dispossesses Palestinians on a grand scale, and on the other hand argue that the entire situation constitutes mutual dispossession on the part of both sides.
I would be curious to know the class's thoughts on how to apply Butler's and Athanasiou's discussion to the Israel-Palestine situation.
It seems to me that the first sense is something that at least Butler believes is indisposable and intrinsic to the social existence of beings. The second, however, it open to some contestation. As Butler and Athanasiou discuss, what we consider today to be the right of property "was produced over time as a natural, if not essential, characteristic of human personhood" (Butler and Athanasiou, 9). As such, the normative factors that are able to render us dispossessed seem to be entirely historically contingent and therefore malleable. While the first sense of dispossession is inherent to our subjectivity, the second sense is not because we are dispossessed by different forces based on our situation and identity.
I think it is interesting that the book is written as a conversation, wherein Butler and Athanasiou response to each other's remarks. Their conversation in a way is a manifestation of dispossession, because interactions and responses to others is a form a dispossession in the first sense because it recognizes the limitations of self-sufficiency.
Finally, I enjoyed Butler's discussion of Palestinian land rights as it relates to dispossession. The Arab-Israeli conflict is an excellent example of two groups who co-habituate in a way that is co-dependent. The disagreement could be their dispossession in the second sense, where one could argue that Israel consistently dispossesses Palestinians on a grand scale, and on the other hand argue that the entire situation constitutes mutual dispossession on the part of both sides.
I would be curious to know the class's thoughts on how to apply Butler's and Athanasiou's discussion to the Israel-Palestine situation.
Rupsha, I too enjoyed their discussion on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It is something I have tried to learn a lot about and their discussion offered a new and enlightening perspective on the issue. I thought you outlined their ideas of dispossession well, although you are right to point out the contestation! Part of me thinks that there are so many factors the two bring up in the conversation of dispossession and what it means, that much more will come from this book in terms of not only defining the term, but also working towards dismantling it as a cultural norm for many individuals of society.
ReplyDelete