·      因為好無力。所以開多本書睇。法國哲學的英文翻譯有時實在太難睇，無咁多時間同佢糾纏，惟有睇番啲英美野。唔想睇william j. Dobson, the dictator’s learning curve (我係城寨忠粉)，除了Butler，應會開埋一直想睇但無睇既The Human Condition。

·      抽一點時間讀了Intro，呢句還以為是一行禪師寫的：”Is the one to whom violence is done not also in some sense part of the ‘self’ who defends itself through an act of violence?  ” “An ethics and politics of nonviolence would have to account for this way that selves are implicated in each other’s lives, bound by a set of relations that can be as destructive as they can be sustaining.” (9)我對Bulter的第一手閱讀，仍停留在Gender Troubles，這種很有intersubjectivity味況的主體/自我觀，我覺得比共同體的說法深刻。

·      如何拆解non/violence 的迷思，Bulter認為需要從新理解self的構成，一種社會性的relatedness。不要因為暴力的negative encounter override晒所有的relationality。而non-violence的力量，正正在於要在field of force中才能彰顯。不要被倒置的真實counter-realism矇閉了我們對現實的認識，因而低估了自己的力量和對方的relationality。(10)

·      Non-violence不是個人的道德感召，而是要把被邊緣化的自我從non-being中找回來。我們不能把人丟到永不超生(non-being)的角落。一種以邊界構成的自我觀，無論這條界有多闊，都會把另一些self推到不可以作self-define的角落(11-12)

·      暴力論的盲點，是把暴力視為可以被隨時止終的工具，一種目的與工具的二元論。(13)但顯而易見，以暴易暴，只會令暴力的總和增力而不是消減。(14) 而何謂暴力，亦總是在不斷被定義的過程中。許多時候，真正的暴力會被說成是為了達到「抗暴」的目的，相反追求平等的抗爭卻會被標籤為暴力。因此暴力好像落入了相對論，但詮釋的問題，其實是對語言的濫用misuse of language(3, 14-5)

·      故此，暴力要打擊的，其實是我們的social-bond和independence。它看似是加諸於個別身體或人之上。她認為身體-自我不應作邊界觀，而應視之為人與人之間的介面。”without that overarching sense of the interrelational, we take the bodily boundary to be the end rather thanthe threshold of openness to alterity that is definitional of the body itself. The threshold of the body, the body as threshold, undermines the idea of body as a unit.” (16) 共於unity之上的平等，是虛假的。所以平等不是零和遊戲。

·      她認為Benjamin的Critique of Violence落入了工具論的錯誤命題。因為暴力不是techne而是praxis，會自行繼續衍生。(19)與此同時，非暴力的力源亦可以是源自rage、indignation與aggression。即是aggressive nonviolence，甘地提倡的satyagnha, soul force (21) 所以NV可以是an ethical stylization of embodiment, replete with gestures and modes of non-action. [又一次說明activism的不足]，是solidarityof the body and its proprioceptive object field to block or derail a further exercise of violence.  (22)

·      所以NV是持續的過程，不會一步到位，亦不是absolute principle。如果我們認為NV無力，那我們更應該問甚麼才是力量[暴力就是力量]？(23)

·      所以，本書的宗旨是radical egalitarianism和grievablity of life ”When NV movements work within the ideals of radical egalitarianism, it is the equal claim to a livable and grievable life that serves as a guiding social ideal, one that is fundamental to an ethics and politics of nonviolence that moves beyond the legacy of individualism.” (24)

·