Hi bloggers!

Recently we’ve been read three articles: Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close by Jonathan Safran Foer; “Regarding the pain of Self and Other: Trauma Transfer and Narrative Framing in Jonathan Safran Foer’s Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” by Ilka Saal; “Survivability, Vulnerability, Affect (Frames of war: when is life grievable?)” by Butler Judith. What Butler provide us is a theory through which Saal use to analyse Foer’s novel.

It takes me a long time to read Butler’s articles because it appears to be theoretical and hard to understand without specific instances. What Butler states is that our life are precarious due to the interdependence we share. However, this interdependence is also illustrated by the distinction between “we” and “them”, in which the gap is the difference of value, culture, norms as well as identity embed among us, consciously or unconsciously. On the one hand, “we” only exist on the condition of the existence of “them”, on the other hand, individuals rely on others in their particular groups in which they share their similar identity. The inter-dependency existing within and outside our groups indicates the frangibility of the relationship as well as our precariousness.

However, in this blog I’d like to focus on “we” and “them”. How should we understand this distinction? What framework would a global citizen apply to interpret the concept of different value of life?

“We mourn for some lives but respond with coldness to the loss of others.” (Butler.36). The reason we hold such a difference moral reflection is the different level of moral relation. That is, we only mourn for a perceivable loss, which originates from social structure we live in, which is decided by our society and community. Nevertheless, dose it indicates that we lose our initiative on choosing interpretative framework?

In my perspective, the answer is no. Let’s take a look at the definition of global citizen by Kosmos Journal :”A global citizen is someone who identifies with being part of an emerging world community and whose actions contribute to building this community’s values and practices.” This definition is based on the assumption that there is an emerging community which share the ascent set of values. But it doesn’t mean that to be a global citizen, we are required to abandon what we used to believe, our original value and political beliefs. Since World War II, efforts have been undertaken to develop global policies and institutional structures that can support these enduring values. These efforts have been made by international organizations, sovereign states, transnational corporations, international professional associations and others. In the world in which globalization is prosperous and blooming, we face more opportunity to step over the boundaries and eliminate “we” and “them”.