Through the distinction between labor, work, and action, Arendt highlights the non-utilitarian nature of action, and even calls action the real nascent of a man（Arendt, 177）; Butler re-examines the gender performativity theory, in closely observing the activities of the minority groups, she partially opposes, and partially develops Arendt’s theory of action through philosophical deduction.
The biggest difference between the two theorists is that Arendt starts from the tradition binary opponents of words and deeds, and opposes the overrated importance of thinking in ancient philosophy; while Butler’s argument derives from her theory of gender studies, which emphasizes the embodiment of action.
In developing her argument, Butler also used Chantal Mouffe’s antagonism approach of democracy, introducing the concept of “recognition”, which explores the definition of “the people”, and also puts the “precarity” of action into the light. (Butler, 36) Through a Derridian argument, Butler comes up with her definition of human and life and frames the embodiment of humans in relation into “network” in a biological sense, which echoes Arendt’s concept of “net”.(Butler, 43) Butler claims that the human body is the junction of the public and private sphere. As the ontology of action, the body also determines that the action cannot be absolutely public, as Arendt has distinguished. (Butler, 43)
From
the perspective of gender assignment, Butler maintains that even if people do
not actively choose, as long as the body goes to the street, this is already performative,
and it is, therefore, an action. The deduction broadens the view of freedom
comparing to Arendt’s. (Butler, 58)
The two theorists’ points of view have a lot in common, i.e. they both explore
the concept of action from the plural aspect. Although she pushes some points
to extremes, it is clear that many of Butler’s views are echoes of Arendt’s
point of view, for example, Butler’s precarity is the transformation of uncertainty
in antagonistic pluralism.
But several questions haunt me while reading these two theorists, especially about Arendt’s:
i.e. 1, According to her, when actions are purposeful, they are bad actions. Isn’t it a purposeful gathering to gain freedom?（Power corrupts indeed when the weak band together in order to ruin the strong, but not before. Arendt, 203）
2, Is she against Machiavellianism? Is the valorization of forgiveness the reason why she was interpreted as a Nazi sympathizer?