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.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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 don’t necessarily support essentialism. I just feel like the argument against it is “essentialism does not exist because we can’t see it”

like I said in the OP, I didn’t have time to follow up on Butler like I wanted to b/c I am in the middle of writing a paper on “On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense”

Our assignment is to trace the influence of Nietzsche’s rejection of the correspondence theory of truth

It looks to me like Nietzsche’s rejection of the” thing-in-itself” was based on our inability to perceive it, and not on whether it existed or not

Its like if my shih-tzu went out and tried to convince all her friends there is such a color as red

She would be basing it on hearsay and the other dogs would laugh at her and she wouldn’t be able to prove it and they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it even if she could

But she would not be wrong

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

She states clearly that lesbian must remain open to all who would wish to adopt it as their identity in the future. But she also states that people should understand the role of identity in a society that has created a need for sexual identity. And so identity can act toward visibility in a heteronormative/patriarchal society.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

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

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

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.

yeah there is already the whole gatekeeping thread for this conversation

i was making the jump to straight guys throughout my life who, in the process of hitting on me and getting shot down, thought it was funny to tell me "i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body" when i am pretty sure they really are not

i would not want to gate-keep against pre-operative transexual lesbians, but i DO want to gate-keep against Dan the perv who sexually harassed me when i was 19

but like i said, another thread

[EnderD_503]

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

I don’t necessarily support essentialism. I just feel like the argument against it is “essentialism does not exist because we can’t see it”

Again, I would argue that is entirely incorrect and does not at all encompass the argument against essentialism. The argument against essentialism is against the meaning and implications of essentialism (essentialism is ideological, as is everything, it does not represent any kind of defense of "biological fact," but the production of knowledge and its representation as objective "fact"), not an argument against biology. You cannot divorce any aspect of humanity from its interaction with the world around it.

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

like I said in the OP, I didn’t have time to follow up on Butler like I wanted to b/c I am in the middle of writing a paper on “On Truth and Lying in a Non-moral Sense”

Our assignment is to trace the influence of Nietzsche’s rejection of the correspondence theory of truth

It looks to me like Nietzsche’s rejection of the” thing-in-itself” was based on our inability to perceive it, and not on whether it existed or not

Its like if my shih-tzu went out and tried to convince all her friends there is such a color as red

She would be basing it on hearsay and the other dogs would laugh at her and she wouldn’t be able to prove it and they wouldn’t be able to do anything with it even if she could

But she would not be wrong

Nietzsche's rejection of a thing has little to do with the inability to perceive it, and more to do with perception as inseparable from any notion of "truth." This is an understanding most post-structuralists, in particular, generally agree on; society and perceptions of "truth" as a web of socially constructed systems.

Looking at it within its context of other of Nietzsche's works helps with perception of what precisely he is saying. If we jump to his premise in Beyond Good and Evil, that "good" and "bad" can only exist within particular social contexts, that they do not exist otherwise.

Linking this to his premise expanded upon in Will to Power:

But among the forces cultivated by morality was truthfulness: this eventually turned against morality, discovered its teleology, its partial perspective--and now the recognition of this inveterate mendaciousness that one despairs of shedding becomes a stimulant. Now we discover in ourselves needs implanted by centuries of moral interpretation--needs that now appear to us as needs for untruth; on the other hand, the value for which we endure life seems to hinge on these needs. This antagonism--not to esteem what we know, and not to be allowed any longer to esteem the lies we should like to tell ourselves--results in a process of dissolution.

This is the antinomy:

Insofar as we believe in morality we pass sentence on existence.

The supreme values in whose service man should live, especially when they were very hard on him and exacted a high puce--these social values were erected over man to strengthen their voice, as if they were commands of God, as 'reality," as the true" world, as a hope and future world. Now that the shabby origin of these values is becoming clear, the universe seems to have lost value, seems "meaningless"--but that is only a transitional stage.

The nihilistic consequence (the belief in valuelessness) as a consequence of moral valuation: everything egoistic has come to disgust us (even though we realize the impossibility of the unegoistic); what is necessary has come to disgust us (even though we realize the impossibility of any liberum arbitrium or intelligible freedom"). We see that we cannot reach the sphere in which we have placed our values; but this does not by any means confer any value on that other sphere in which we live: on the contrary, we are weary because we have lost the main stimulus "In vain so far!"

The same premise can be replied to this debate, as well as to modern gender, sexuality and the ridiculous either/or debate (which Butler does not appear to fully support, anyway) between essentialism and constructivism.

Essentialism is an understanding of certain facets of supposed "human nature" that claims to be absolute. It holds the same problem as any absolutist ideology. The challenging of any absolutist ideology results in a similar response described by Nietzsche when he discusses the reaction of humans to the idea that their value systems, previously believed to be absolute and inherent, are a matter of perception and social construction. People then defer to the belief that, because something is based upon perception or is partially the product of social interaction, that the argument is that these things are "meaningless" or that they do not exist. This is entirely incorrect.

Constructivism, on the other hand, is not limited to an absolutist idea that certain human traits are solely socially constructed. It does not absolutely contest the possibility of a partial biological contribution to human traits, but, instead, seeks to examine the ways in which identity and the essentialist concept of "innate" identities in relation to certain bodies is, itself, an issue of social actualisation through repetition. Essentialism denies any possibility beyond innateness. Constructivism, despite perhaps being poorly named, does not.

As such, your shih-tzu analogy does not really directly correlate with the debate. Both the shih-tzu and the other dogs in your example are trying to assert the absolute existence or inexistence of something. The debate, if we relate it back to Butler, is about the essentialist belief that gender is purely a biological construction that is fixed/unchangeable and, thusly, "natural" via its limited definition of "natural." Essentialism does not allow any other option and takes a simplistic view of gender construction.

Butler's perspective is not the exact opposite (again, if you look at the quotes I've provided throughout this thread) - meaning that she is not denying the possibility that gender may be influenced somehow by some biological component, but that gender is developed within the child within the first year of birth...not as a result of being voluntarily constructed, not as a construct that can be controlled in any way, not even as pure construction at all, but as a factor that is influenced by the complex intersections of the child's interaction with the world around it. In fact, there she does not even exclude it as "natural," since natural must not be simply defined by biological fixedness. In fact, there is nothing that says certain intersections between biology and early social interaction do not result in what we understand as "gender." Otherwise, one would be able to argue for "masculine" and "feminine" animals, when animals do not bear gender presentations nor sexualities. Humans might place their own understandings of what "masculine" and "feminine" constitute upon the animals, but that has little to do with some innate animal "gender" or "sexuality."

Originally Posted by dark_crystal

yeah there is already the whole gatekeeping thread for this conversation

i was making the jump to straight guys throughout my life who, in the process of hitting on me and getting shot down, thought it was funny to tell me "i am a lesbian trapped in a man's body" when i am pretty sure they really are not

i would not want to gate-keep against pre-operative transexual lesbians, but i DO want to gate-keep against Dan the perv who sexually harassed me when i was 19

but like i said, another thread

There could be one thousand threads on a subject, it does not invalidate the relevance of its discussion in this thread. Certain topics are not simply restricted to certain threads, nor rendered irrelevant when they pop up in more than one thread. In fact, my post was directly related to one you made, and indirectly to many other posts you've made throughout this current thread. Let's follow the chain of discussion, throughout the topic you have expressed concerns about second wave feminism and the ways in which it dismissed butch/femme relationships as "tools of the patriarchy.

From the OP:

I am taking a literary theory class, and this week is "Feminism week," so our assigned readings included "Gener Trouble," by Judith Butler
I found it very triggery! And I am kinda feeling like holding her responsible for a lot of the "shoulding" i went through throughout the 90's

From post #10:

it just sounds too much like the second-wave "butches and femmes are tools of the patriarchy" rhetoric.

Butler speaks directly to that, and, in fact, writes against this "shoulding" and "tools of the patriarchy" rhetoric in her discussion of the uses of identity and recognising identity as necessary within the modern queer community. Policing "lesbian" and "woman," relates directly to why there was and is still a lot of "shoulding" going on, as far as "how to be a lesbian." This is 100% relevant to this topic.

[dark_crystal]

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

Essentialism denies any possibility beyond innateness. Constructivism, despite perhaps being poorly named, does not.

See, I really felt like the Nietzsche/Lacan/Foucault/Butler sequence that has been my life the past month really is saying that that there is nothing at all that is innate.

I felt like it was absolutist. I am willing to take your word for it if it is not, though, as I am not likely to go much deeper into theory after this semester

Originally Posted by EnderD_503

absolute and inherent, are a matter of perception and social construction. People then defer to the belief that, because something is based upon perception or is partially the product of social interaction, that the argument is that these things are "meaningless" or that they do not exist. This is entirely incorrect.

i was totally doing that. I was thinking if something is not innate then it must be a complete illusion