tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638402958079714573.post4968805529442109038..comments2011-04-19T16:06:39.581-05:00Comments on Humanism and Human Rights: An Interpretation of DerealizationDoctor Jhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13189506916480012553noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638402958079714573.post-45734803042247444952011-04-12T09:53:24.832-05:002011-04-12T09:53:24.832-05:00I agree with Shannon, and also agree that derealiz...I agree with Shannon, and also agree that derealization is reversible. I think that since someone being a grievable soul depends so much on other people, if someone is accepted, understood, loved, whatever, by other people then they in theory have the capacity to become a grievable soul. I think in the same sense, people can lose that connection to others, and in some way lose their status as a grievable soul. Although, I do not completely agree with the idea that someone is completely ungrievable. I think that being such depletes one of a level of humanity, and I'm not sure that I inwardly like that idea so much. I also like Shannon's point about the derealization of a more broad part of a society, and am not sure exactly how one could go about fixing that.HannahGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07665501401280899937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5638402958079714573.post-3137526541139453422011-04-12T09:21:30.300-05:002011-04-12T09:21:30.300-05:00First of all, your interpretation of Butler’s argu...First of all, your interpretation of Butler’s argument in the context of Fanon’s theory of “The Gaze” sounds spot on to me. Just like “The Gaze,” the process of derealization also tends to be a silent means of objectifying. I had noticed that Butler used the phrase “the gaze” in her essay too (“The body implies mortality, vulnerability, agency: the skin and the flesh expose us to the gaze of others...” (26)). Perhaps that’s just coincidence, but it certainly seems that Butler is invoking Fanon as well as Foucault into her argument about derealization. <br /><br />On an individual level, I think derealization is reversible. In class, many of us argued that we would not deny the fact that civilians in Iraq are worthy of just as much grief and attention upon death as US soldiers. Even though the lives of the Iraqis are derealized by the hegemonic power of the media and government to leave simply leave them out of the dominant discourse, effectively making their lives “unreal,” we can take a quick casualty statistic and imagine the individual lives that make up the number. While the life stories we craft may be completely fictitious, I think our capacity to do this reflects our individual ability to re-instill humanity and life into people belonging to a group or category in which they previously constituted a mere number. However, I think Butler is more concerned with the derealization that takes place on the part of the broader society. Derealization of people on the part of governments is more dangerous because there is no clear individual whose mind needs to be changed. And when the linguistic modes of objectification are done more subtly or by omission from discourse, there is no derogatory term that we can publicly shun from our speech and explain why it is inappropriate to use. Without an overhaul of the current social order, would simply introducing previously derealized lives into our dialogue really change anything?Shannonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17863597789221958017noreply@blogger.com