This blog is in response to the recent reading and class discussion surrounding Judith Butler’s, thought provoking, book, “Frames of War: When is Life Grievable?” In this blog, I intended to explore what I found most intriguing about Butler’s work- the precariousness of us all.

Is there a shared oneness in us all, as in, us humans? Is there a binding factor that brings us together? Are we simply just one? These are some of the questions I asked while reading Butlers work. I must start, though, on a more basic level, by asking what is she really trying to say?

It appears, that Butlers work is motivated by the inhumanity of war. Essentially she asks, who is to be the judge of one life is being better or worse then the next? Her rebuttal seems to argue that the frameworks which shapes are lives such as the media, structure the lens we see through. In effect, our knowledge and understanding of the world, is not our own organic creation. According to Butler, it is moulded by the media. From an Orwellian stance, the media is The Party, and we- Winston- are more or less forced to buy into a system, or perhaps, a perspective. Therefore, are ability to even value a life as better or worse, derives from how others lives appear on the media.

{Please forgive me for making seem as if the media is the only frame in our lives that structures our perspectives, there are many more, I simply don’t have the time to discuss them all.}

Butler’s belief, from my understanding, is that there is a unifying factor that brings all of us humans together; be it the mere fact that we are from the same species or something more abstract- we are all, according to Butler- the same. Therefore regardless of how the frames shape our role in the tragedy as either the victim or the saviour, tragedy dooms us all. My pain is your pain appears to be the overarching theme in Butler’s piece. This seems to be her reason for not valuing one life over the next.

In theory, Butler work should resolve many of the problems we have in this world. Yet, in practice, her work is futile. Butler devalues the differences we have in society, and instead, attempts to form solidarity by placing emphasis on what makes us human. Herein lies the problem, we must celebrate what makes us different and learn how make these differences live in harmony with each. Not push our differences aside to fetishize over our sole similarity.

I commend Butler for attempting to end the violence and tragedy we have in this world by placing emphasis on our so called precariousness, or oneness.  She offers a unique perspective that sadly cannot be applied to the real world, however.  In some regards there is a shared oneness in us all, yet in my opinion, our similarities will not quell violence and acts as such, it is the celebration of our differences that will.

(This blog is in response to two class discussions I had this week, and will be addressing terrorism along with the media’s selective illustration of it.)

Terrorism in the 21st century is rampant. It is said that the so-called “ War on Terror” began with what I would consider to be the worst day in American History, 9/11. 9/11 is the genesis of a decade of heinous act after heinous act.

There are a plethora of saddening stories of how bigotry has taken lives in this past decade. I, however, will only focus on the two most recent acts terrorism. Last Wednesday, January 7^th, the satirical magazine Charlie Hedbo was ambushed by Al-Qaeda like operatives. The assault, which took place in Paris, ended 12 lives. This tragedy underscores the new breed of terrorism.

In comparison to the massive amounts of hysteria caused by the devastation of 9/11, the recent attacks in Paris can be considered to be relatively dormant.The mere disappearance of the Twin Towers – without taking into consideration all the other catastrophes of the day – validates the sheer magnitude of this act of terrorism. Conversely, the tragedy on January 7^th did not rupture any of Paris’s renowned infrastructures. This new form of terrorism, albeit less destructive, is still as evil and some even argue more lethal, as it is harder to detect and thus prevent.

Call me a cynic, but I don’t think it was a coincidence that another form of this small-scale terrorism happened four days before the events in Paris. One can draw parallels with the attack in Paris to the recent massacre in Northern Nigeria. Boko Haram, a fundamentalist Islamist organization, similar to Al – Queda kills in the name of Allah. On January 3 2015, Boko Haram essentially wiped out two villages in Northern Nigeria, killing roughly 2000 people. The sheer numbers of this massacre, one would think, would cause it to be handled as if it was a large-scale terrorism attack. Yet the media’s coverage of this tragedy was not nearly as extensive as the recent events in Paris, even though there was a considerable difference in death toll. I question the reasons why.

The world we live in is structured by imperialism. This is reflected most in the media. Considering the media is strictly concerned with suiting the western perspective, it should not come to a surprise that the inordinate number of deaths in Northern Nigeria were pushed aside by the tragedy in Paris. As the French would say, c’est la vie.

Works Cited

“Charlie Hebdo and Its Satirical Role.” BBC News. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-15551998>.

“Paris Attack: The New Terror – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/08/politics/paris-new-terror/index.html>.

“Satellite Images Show Devastation of Boko Haram Attacks, Rights Groups Say – CNN.com.” CNN. Cable News Network. Web. 16 Jan. 2015. <http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/15/africa/nigeria-boko-haram-images/index.html>.