Reading only one chapter of Arendt’s “The Human Condition” for this week I found it hard to elaborate on Butler’s extensive discussion and critique of Arendt’s works, especially since Butler herself underlines how the arguments of the former transformed through time. The clash of ideas that I feel more comfortable addressing based on my readings involve the juxtaposition of human plurality and individualism. Arendt starts her chapter with a statement:
“Human plurality, the basic conditions of both action and speech, has the twofold character of equality and distinction.”
With this sentence, she assumes that action requires a group of people. She later adds that action cannot be performed without speech as it “would not only lose its revelatory character, but, and by the same token, it would lose its subject.” Therefore, in her terms, to act humans must gather together and vocalize their ideas. She excludes bodily aspect of actors as she claims that “physical identities appear without any activity of their own in the unique shape of body and sound of the voice.” On the other hand, Butler proposes her argument of alliance with own self including own body, voice, and existence itself. For her stating the “I” is itself an action as it “refuses to background one minority status or lived site of precarity in favor of any other.” I believe these differences in views of action and actors arise from the context two authors prioritize. Arendt focuses on communal discussions starting from “polis” in Greece, the topic within which her “action” arises is connected to the idea of collective power. She does not erase the inner strength of individuals but says that when it is united into one power it becomes effective. Butler’s “action” comes from gender studies where the primary conflict arises between the social stigmas and individual feelings. Therefore, for her actors, it is important to be able to express themselves on an individual level. The problem I had with Butler’s argumentation is that even though she advocates for the importance of individual experience, she herself falls under overgeneralization and refers to a group of audience by “we” as in this sentence:
“As we know, not everyone can take for granted the power to walk in the street or into a bar without harassment.”
Does that mean that she calls for support to make her action? Or that the distinction between private and public is somehow arbitrary?