Hey Class,
Over the past week we have moved from Foer’s novel Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close to Saal’s academic essay analyzing the novel, to our current discussion on Judith Butler’s piece “Survivability, Vulnerability, Affect”.
In the excerpt from her book, Butler defines the human body as socially constructed and analyzes how that affects our actions towards others, specifically regarding violence and mourning. She claims that when we don’t grieve for someone’s life, it is thought to be “ungrievable”, and “an ungrievable life is one that cannot be mourned because it has never lived, that is, it has never counted as a life at all” (38).
Though these words are harsh, they speak truth. If we don’t recognize a life once it’s gone, what says we appreciate it while it persists?
This got me to wonder, if I don’t grieve every death on this planet, does that mean that I don’t think that they deserved to live? How am I supposed to grieve a loss if I didn’t know it has happened? Or how am I supposed to grieve the loss of a life if I didn’t know the person personally? Is the simple acknowledgement of the loss enough?
Just because I am not devastated over the loss of a family in a car crash, or a soldier lost in combat does not mean I don’t think their life was important. People are more inclined to mourn a loss over someone they have a personal connection to rather than a stranger.
Yet I do understand how this idea can be applied to genocides developing countries and the current refugee crisis. Is it true that because the unaffected countries don’t go into grieving they don’t care?
This idea raises a lot of controversy and conflicting examples. Please comment your thoughts!
-Olivia
Works Cited
Butler, Judith. “Survivability, Vulnerability, Affect.” Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? N.p.: Verso, 2009. 33-62. Print.
