Let's talk about Judith Butler

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

And here is the entire issue I am having with Theory, and why i make a bad intellectual. I know essentailism is "bad" and constructivism is "good," (and I know value judgements are bad) and essentialism is behind every oppressive force, but the grounds upon which we elevate constructivism seem a little spurious to me

I wouldn't say they are any more spurious than the grounds to which society has elevated essentialism. I also think that there is quite a difference between essentialism as socially constructed belief with specific consequences, and any ability for biology to help determine things like gender and sexuality. Yet because most everything in society that claims to be "natural" tends to actually be the product of social construct (since "nature" cannot create categories of "gender" or "sexuality," and the presence of these concepts alone are entirely cultural, especially given that in many languages and cultures the distinction between "sex" and "gender" doesn't even exist, and in many eras the notion of "sexual identity" did not even exist). As such, it becomes more important for many to look at the role of presumptions of "naturalness" in society than attempt to look for "the gay gene," or "the reason" some people are this way or that way, and especially when such attempts frequently are underlined with the desire to find a way to biologically eliminate undesirable traits (again how the social plays into notions of the supposed "objectivism" science).

Personally, as I stated a few times above, I approach the topic with biology and social relationships as an infant as the source of the production of "gender" and sexual preference. In a similar way that modern psychology has more lately determined personality traits as neither fully biological nor environmental (the old nature vs. nurture debate).

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

we learned in class that to be called an "essentialist" is the worst thing you can hear as a theorist

Heh, well that's pretty irresponsible of a prof, imo. Universities should generally judge ideas on the logic used to arrive at them, not by being cliquey.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

However, as I understand it, the reason we reject essentialism is not because it cannot exist, but because we cannot access it directly

In your original post you wrote:

Basically, what i think she says in "Gender Trouble" is that there is no innate masculinity or femininity and we are all just performing arbitrary social constructions

I feel like she is telling me i don't exist! That my butch does not exist! That transitioning FTMs/MTFs are putting themselves through surgery for nothing!

It appears that the reason you support essentialism in this case is not because constructivism or a medium between essentialism and constructivism (which is basically what Butler is proposing) cannot exist, but because you might believe that the idea that something that is so much a part of you must be 100% innate. I think the prospect that some important factor of identity is not entirely innate is extremely frightening and threatening to many people. Especially when you constantly have society trying to devalue who you are.

Yet Butler is, by no means, saying that Butch and Femme don't exist.

Everything "can" exist, however, there is no evidence I've ever read that proves gender essentialism. We have to understand why certain categories have become important to us in society. Why is the identity of queer or masculine or feminine important in relation to bodies that have traditionally been approved as "bearing" these identities, and those that have not? Queer, lesbian, gay, pansexual, bisexual, why are these identities important? There is no "gene" for any such fluid concept, but we use them because of oppressions that have occurred and continue to occur as far as monstracising and making invisible certain bodies participating in certain sexual acts with certain other bodies. Same with gender. Does that make these identities any less important to us? No. They are important, and we need to get this idea out of our heads that just because something is not 100% essentialist, that it makes it any less real, truthful, valid or important. It might be helpful to look at it through the lens of race as well. Race and ethnicity are also social constructions, and yet in an age where racism is still rampant, identities such as POC, black, first nations etc are extremely important. Yet just because race is not something that has always existed socially, does make the POC community, its identities and activism any less real or valid.

No, sexual preference and gender are not choices, but neither does that mean they are entirely biologically pre-determined.

I bring up this quote again, because I think it's extremely important to emphasize when talking about gender:

There is a tendency to think that sexuality is either constructed or determined; to think that if it is constructed, it is in some sense free, and if it is determined, it is in some sense fixed...Performativity is neither free play nor theatrical self-presentation; nor can it be simply equated with performance. Morover, constraint is not necessarily that which sets a limit to performativity, constraint is, rather, that which impels and sustains performativity.

Essentialism also rides on the idea that what is declared "biological" cannot be changed, and yet biology is so much more complex than that, not to mention the way biology intersects with society.There is no "natural" for humans thing that can be stripped of its social aspects. Every so-called "scientific fact" is interpreted with specific social ciphers, so that we create knowledge through our experiences as social beings.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

that is a good reason not to speculate about it, but not a good reason to reject it, and not a good reason to elevate constructivism

What proof, exactly, lies on the side of essentialism, and what reason is there to support?

i think it is as problematic to reject essentialism just because it has been used against us as it is to reject it just because we can't understand it

constructivism is appealing because it puts everything in our control, at least unconsciously, but it is no more provable than essentialism, because we would have to prove it against essentialism, and we cannot access essentialism

Actually, constructivism does not put everything in our control...not even unconsciously, and Butler argues just that. She says that we cannot voluntarily change our sexual preferences or our gender, nor should we want to. Constructivism is problematic because of its name, moreso than what many theorists understand by its implications.

For example, why are certain bodies labeled as "disordered" in our society? Why is intersexed viewed as a "disorder"? Why is trans viewed as a "disorder"? Why are differently abled people viewed as having "disabilities"? There is nothing in science which deems that any of these things are "disorders" or "disabilities." It is a social judgement we place upon those who don't physically fall into a body or sex-normative category.

The argument against essentialism is not an argument against the role of biology, but an argument against the meaning of essentialism itself.

exactly my point- under constructivism, it makes perfect sense, but in practice, we could end up with lesbian spaces full of those very same successful white dudes that think no one undergoes oppression anymore

Not really. Policing "lesbian" and "woman" in the past is what led to second wave rejection of butches and femmes, and which excluded women of colour from the women's movement co-opted by white, middle class women. Butler argues against such policing. Her argument is that lesbian should not mean having certain kinds of sex, dressing in a certain way, or even sleeping with only women (many lesbians fuck transmen, genderqueer folks, gay cis men and it doesn't make them any less lesbian), having certain beliefs or any other criteria.