Butler organizes their essay around a series of questions: What makes a livable world? And shortly afterward, who counts as human, and what makes a grievable life? There are no easy answers to these questions, and the investigation of them leads to another, bigger question: “Is there a way that we might struggle for autonomy in many spheres but also consider the demands that are imposed upon us by living in a world of beings who are, by definition, physically dependent on one another, physically vulnerable to one another?” (p. 185).
Other questions follow, but as Butler nears the conclusion, they offer the following: “I have tried here to argue that our very sense of personhood is linked to the desire for recognition, and that desire places us outside ourselves, in a realm of social norms that we do not fully choose, but that provides the horizon and the resource for any sense of choice that we have.” (p. 194). You may recall that Foucault also discusses the influence of social norms. In his assessment, we are all always potentially seen, and in this way, norms are enforced. The only ones who avoid this fate outcasts, the lepers who “gave rise to rituals of exclusion” (p. 293). Butler’s focus, however, is on those who are “fundamentally unintelligible” to the norms that define us. In this case, you are left to speak “as if you were human” because “no recognition is forthcoming because the norms by which recognition takes place are not in your favor” (p. 192).
Write dialogue of about 600-700 words, in which you, Butler, and Foucault discuss one of Butler’s key questions: “Is there a way that we might struggle for autonomy in many spheres but also consider the demands that are imposed upon us by living in a world of beings who are, by definition, physically dependent on one another, physically vulnerable to one another?” (p. 185). You can write this dialogue like a basic screenplay (example below).
In assignments such as this one, I often see students try to create situations where Butler and Foucault appear to be mad at one another and argue heatedly. Anything is possible, but you might find more traction if you imagine Foucault and Butler as thinkers who complement each other. After all, you’ll see that Butler uses Foucault’s work favorably on pp. 188-189. They are both describing how social norms shape us, exclude us, even threaten us. They are both thinking deeply about the scope and limits of autonomy. What is autonomy? How is it lost? Can it be recovered?
As we’ll see in class, the ChatGPT version of this dialogue offers a model for beginning:
You: It’s fascinating to see the intersection of your thoughts. Butler, you emphasize the desire for recognition as a basis for autonomy, while Foucault, you highlight the coercive nature of norms. Can there be a synthesis, a way for individuals to assert autonomy within a society that enforces norms?
Foucault: Perhaps the key lies in challenging and redefining those norms. Autonomy is not an absolute state but a negotiation within the structures that surround us. Those who are unintelligible to norms might prompt a reconsideration of what is deemed acceptable. It’s a transformative process.
Butler: Agreed. Autonomy is not a solitary pursuit but a collective endeavor to reshape the norms that define us. The struggle involves not only asserting individual agency but also challenging and transforming the societal expectations that limit recognition.
OpenAI. (2024). ChatGPT 3.5 (JAN 2024 version) [Large language model].
This response looks good at first glance, but it fails to engage with the core assumptions of the writers. Notice that the ChatGPT Foucault says, “Autonomy is not an absolute state but a negotiation within the structures that surround us.” Do you really get to negotiate with the forces of the Panopticon? If you tried, how do you think it would go for you? Likewise, the ChatGPT Butler says that “Autonomy is not a solitary pursuit but a collective endeavor.” There is something too this idea: “the collective” is important to Butler, but who is in this collective and who is not? Who gets to say? How does ChatGPTs “collective endeavor” push back on forces of dehumanization critiqued in Butler’s essay?
My point here? Don’t let ChatGPT function as a panopticon for you, by defining the horizons of what you are capable of thinking. Push beyond the cliches. Risk being wrong, doing so is one way to push back on choices that others have made for us.
Essay provides a compelling answer to the prompt’s main question. Statements made by Butler and Foucault are charted to page numbers in their respective essays, and the selected passages demonstrate the scope of the ideas at work. The dialogue between the writer, Butler, and Foucault has a direction such that a main idea is presented and fully developed. The writing displays excellent knowledge of the texts, even if that means the writer is still coming to terms with these complex ideas. The writing takes risks—and sometimes succeeds.