Project # 1

PROJECT # 1

An Account of Oneself

By: Judith Butler

MICHAEL HOMSANY

Professor: Benjamin Doyle

College Writing 1111

Group C Members:

Ivonne Abbo

Sean Keogh

Melanie Hashiguchi

SECTION # 1

INTRODUCTION

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Ethos: the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations. Or even it could mean CREDIBILITY.

2.     Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

a.     Philosophy: the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

3.     Anachronism: a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

4.     Hegelian: Have, pertaining to, or characteristic of Hegel or his philosophical system.

Summary (By Ivonne Abbo):

In section one, Butler explains what is giving an account of one. When the “I” is giving an account of it, is not only talking about itself but about the “others”. This is what Butler agrees about philosopher Adorno’s opinion. Others and their characteristics affect people since “I” before being an Individual by itself, it emerges from a social framework that later on, helps shaping up its formation. Another important aspect discuss in section one, is the idea of how when a social group, rejects an individual opinion, ethics ends up confronting itself from what Adorno called “VIOLENCE”.

SECTION # 2

SCENES OF ADDRESS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Interpellate: interrupt the order of the day by demanding an explanation from (the minister concerned).

a.     Philosophy: (of an ideology or discourse) bring into being or give identity to (an individual or category).

2.     Paradoxical: seemingly absurd or self-contradictory.

3.     Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

Summary (By Michael Homsany):

In the reading “An Account of Oneself”, Judith Butler introduces different philosophers and their ideas about “Ethics and Morality”, and when is it that the “I” become reflective about itself.  In Scenes of Address Butler brings up to Nietzsche and his idea about how we become reflective about our actions and how we became passionate to give an account of what we have done.  Butler uses N´ to describe how we make an accountability of ourselves (became reflective) by a system of fear and terror, or better known as a system of Justice.  Butler mentions that according to N´ this system of Justice emerge from an idea of REVENGE. Butler agrees with the fact that through punishment, the “I”, will “create a memory” of that action he had made, to later on be reflective about it.

SECTION # 3

FOUCAULTIAN SUBJECTS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Dyadic: Have or pertaining to a dyad or group of two.

2.     Regime:  A method or system of rule, governance, or control; a system of organization; a way of doing things, esp. one having widespread influence or prevalence.

3.     Critique: More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.

4.     Recognition:  Knowledge or consciousness; (also) understanding.

Summary (By Sean Keogh):

The section begins by talking about Foucault and how he talks about the regime of truth. The regime of truth is the system that society follows to be morally correct, what as humans we try to be. He states that this, regime of truth, can constrain the “I”, into what it can become. This “I” can never be beyond this regime because it is unfamiliar and has never been experienced. Foucault then begins to say that the regime, actually offers a beginning framework for the scene of recognition by the “I”. This regime of truth does not define, exactly, who the “I” is but the “I” is always in relation to it, or uses it as a point of reference.

Butler then proceeds to talk about if, you question this regime, and then you are thus questioning the truth you can give about your self. Since we are so closely related to this regime, if we critique it, then we are critiquing ourselves. “Self-questioning becomes an ethical consequence for Foucault…” (p. 23) It then talks about how this self-questioning puts oneself at risk. The questioning that happens can cause unrecognizability; the “I” does not recognize this regime of truth as who he/she wants to be.

Lastly, Butler brings up Foucault’s views on the question “How ought I to treat another?”(p.25) Foucault talks about how when the “I” recognizes the other, he must understand that the since he is recognizing the other, the recognition is coming from him. But then he also realizes that this recognition of the other is not just his. The “I” is thus once again, submitting to a norm, the norm or recognition. Which is not from his own “private resources”.

It seems throughout this section Foucault is talking about how the regime of truth, and the social norms, is what defines people. No person is unique in any way. They are defined by something put in place before them.

SECTION # 4

FOUCAULTIAN SUBJECTS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Altruism: Disinterested or selfless concern for the well being of others, esp. as a principle of action.

2.     In media res: into the midst of affairs, into the middle of a narrative.

3.     Exposure: The action of uncovering or leaving without shelter or defense; unsheltered or undefended condition. Also, the action of subjecting, the state or fact of being subjected, to any external influence.

4.     Dispossession: The action of dispossessing or fact of being dispossessed; deprivation of or ejection from a possession.

5.     Subjectivity: The quality or condition of being based on subjective consciousness, experience, etc.; the fact of existing in the mind only.

Summary (By Melanie Hashiguchi):

“You don’t know me, anonymity insists. Now what?” 
 

 -Leigh Gilmore, The Limits of Autobiography

Despite our refusal to acknowledge the correlation between norm and general understanding, we find ourselves meeting at crosswords with our norms when we give an account of ourselves (in other words, when we begin to understand ourselves better). We are introduced to philosopher Adriana Cavarero who argues that the “what” we are isn’t what’s important, but more so the process of questioning ourselves in the first place. One situation in which the “Who are you?” is used is that when approaching an other that is unfamiliar to us. This situation itself represents the limits of what we, as individuals know.

Cavarero herself brings about Arendt, a philosopher whose point is that discourses surrounding the “whom” or the unknown other stirs “relational politics”. In this way, questioning the other allows for self to be exposed to and thereby affected (“the making of ethical claims”). 

Nietzsche’s claims of a life made up of destruction of suffering differs from that of Cavarero who stakes claim to the self that is affected by the other, the “I” that is affected by the “you”. Really, Cavarero’s two main points are that one, there is this dependency on the other, the “you”, one without which the self, or the “I” would not exist and two, despite our wanting to understand the other, we simply can’t because our selves are different as well as our understandings. No matter the number of similarities one may find in another person, there exists no understanding of yourself in another person or another person in you, thereby erasing the existence of the collective we. 

An Account of Oneself

Personal Opinion Response Essay

The first chapter of An Account of Oneself by Judith Butler was the most challenging reading that I have ever read. Every word of every sentence of every paragraph of every section has a meaning that is important and that requires a lot of focus. Butler with her own ideas and the ideas of other philosophers such as Adorno, Nietzsche and Foucault to explain us the action of giving account of oneself but taking into consideration our social frame. More on, she tries to introduce the question of individuality, and the importance of it.

            Through analyzing the ideas of Adorno, we first saw the introduction of the collective ethos, that according to him, this ethos historically belongs to the past.  Butler starts to express her idea about morality and ethics and how the society and its environment have a critical effect on the individual ethics and morality. Adorno then introduces the word Violence (that he relates it with the idea of universality) to describe the collective ethos. He explains “it is violence that brings these customs into conflict with morality”. This idea here I think that is one of the biggest and more important points of the chapter, and it means that the problem with morality originate itself mostly when there is a conflict on the interest that is universal with the interest of a particular individual. He claims that there is violence when the universality itself ignores the rights of the individual; and more on when it refuse to consider the individual values over the collective as a whole. Then is when this ethos becomes violent.

            Butler expresses her own idea too about Adorno´s hypothesis, and she agrees with Adorno and thinks that its not that the universality it’s violent, but that there are conditions on which it can provoke violence.  While reading all this for the first time it confused a lot, I felt almost trapped and entangled but when I read it again and again I understand the real meaning of it. I think that that is something that describes Butler way of writing, it confused you, but once you re-read it, you will kind of get the point.

Couple of pages later, the reading will get to a very impressive part, that is by fact the part that I most adopt from it to my life. Butler introduces the famous “I”, that for my understanding this “I” means each one of us. Its and “I”, that according to Adorno, to be reflective itself needs to stay apart from the violent and adapt morality to their lives. But the main point comes when the “I” wants to give an account to itself; but itself it’s already implicated in the social framework that it emerge from. To help explain this I take the example we´ve seen in class where there was this guy who wants to give an account to itself, but everything he says, does not describe only him, but also “others” that belongs to that same social frame he comes from. This makes me think that the “I” has not story of its own; but then I realize the point of Butler reading of trying to explain me “WHOM I AM?”

            The Butler brings up Nietzsche, whom has a totally different opinion that Adorno´s one, but still she kind of agrees with him. For Nietzsche we reflect after something wrong that we have made, and he believes on punishment and that punishment later creates that “making of a memory”, so you don't repeat you´re wrong action. I really felt more connected with Nietzsche thought when Butler talks about N´ideas as a system of Justice that actually emerge from an idea of revenge. But for understand more clear this idea I thought on a cause of effect system, whereas Nietzsche thinks that we should take responsibility on each of our actions because later on there will be an effect later on.

            The section number 2 is called the “Scene of Address” so then I understood this title when Butler explain that according to Nietzsche, we start to give an account when someone ask us to; “I reflect when someone ask me to?”. But there is more than that; also, he states that we became reflective according to fear and terror. Then if we go further will see that we became morally because of a consequence of fear and terror. I do think this idea is very interesting and deep, although that confused me a lot and let me to a lot of questions, that I know Butler ask herself to.

            The last but not least idea that stays in my mind is when Butler introduces Foucault; an idea that seems to “crash” with Nietzsche idea. He points out the importance of ethics and norms in the social frame. While I was reading, Butler explain that F´ ideas means that the social frame and your surrounding contributes a lot to shape/form who I am, and at the same time determine who I am (which are kind of similar but are not the same things). He addressed how the internal and external factor influence in big on the “I” self- accountability. When I read Foucault theory I start thinking on how truth this passage was, since in my opinion the social group that I emerge from are in big part of who I am today. For example the Jewish community in Panama helped a lot to the formation of my self and influence in big to the self-accountability of my self. As we discuss in class many times, the “I” almost never stands by itself, instead it is always surrounded by a social group that like as F´says, ends up shaping the “I” by itself.

            Finally Adriana Cavarero finishes the chapter with some impacting ideas. She claims the important of the “YOU”, and how without it “my own story becomes impossible”. She addressed how the YOU is more important, or better said, comes before the “We” and before the “Others”; and how without the “you”, there is no “WE”. She tries to question the singularity of the person as an “I”, which confuse me a lot because of the way she explains it. Cavarero talks about something very interesting when it comes to singularity; she claims how when we want to make ourselves recognizable we should give a narrative account of our life. But this narrative is not mine alone. So in order to have the singularity of my own story; the “I” must give way to the perspective and temporality of a set of norms.

            Judith Butler writing is definitely not something easy to follow, but once you catch what she means you’ll get the flow of it. I feel like if you could never be sure if you are in the correct path of the reading but at least the annotations helps you understand more clearly. What I enjoy of it is how you get a sense of her concern for the individual in the universality as a whole. For must of the people of my age this is interesting to read in the way that, sometimes we think we can answer the question of “Who I am”, until the moment that we really confront the question, and we get to understand that all of our answers and not only ours. Or maybe sometimes we get so frustrated trying to know whom we are, comparing to what our social frame and/or society think we are or expect from each of us. So lets start making An Account of Oneself and really answer us ourselves, WHOM I AM?