While reading the chapter labeled “Action” of The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, there was a quote that stood out to me, which follows, “action, as distinguished from fabrication, is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act” (p. 188). This closely identifies Arendt’s presentation of the importance of action in the human condition. The idea of an action goes hand in hand with speech, to fully portray the action that is being presented. Therefore, there are two important forms of action which is plurality and unpredictability. The plurality of action is fundamentally linked to equality and distinction, where she links these two ideas to language. From her perspective if men could not understand each other they would therefore not be equal, and if there was not a distinction, there would be no need for a language for common understanding. Therefore, she mentions, “no other human performance requires speech to the extent as action. In all other performance’s speech plays a subordinate role, as means of communication or a mere accompaniment to something that could be achieved in silence” (p. 179). Overall, it is impossible to create action in isolation, there is an initial point that may begin with an individual, which will result in some kind of achievement, this achievement is the representation of a collective force. On the other hand, Judith Butler in Notes toward a performative Theory of Assembly, takes a more physical perspective of the understanding thee body as an act of political stance. Thus, the materiality of these bodies in a public sphere. This links to the dominance of ethic, social, and ecology of politics of performativity, that is intricately interdependent. Butler mentions that, “so then, if performativity was considered linguistic, how do bodily acts become performative? This is a question we have to ask to understand the formation of gender, but also the performativity of mass demonstrations” (p. 29). Which suggest an intersection of feminist political theories that is resistant and refuses a the “we” as a whole rhetoric. In that notion, the “we” seen as interdependent establishes a force and encompasses the individual that is isolated from the assembly.