Scan barcode
A review by ben_smitty
Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler
3.0
Gender Trouble is one of the founding texts of queer theory. I don't share Butler's social constructivism regarding sex and gender, so we disagree off the bat, but this is still a fun-ish read.
From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), Butler's arguments rest on certain assumptions:
1. Language itself is inherently patriarchal—we equate words like "weak, emotional, passive" etc. with femininity. Language does not incarnate consciousness and the objective—rather, language (as well as repeated actions or "performance") puts ideas that are socially constructed into fixed structures (i.e. words). These words are then repeated over and over until these ideas become "objective" in everyone's minds.
2. Because language is patriarchal, being a "feminist" automatically means playing on the losing team. Women are defined by lack (of phallus, of selfhood, etc.) and therefore can never gain ground in a patriarchal world.
3. For feminism to really win, radically redefining these inherently patriarchal structures is necessary. Deconstructing the binaries that make up the social world via performance (cross-dressing, refusing to adhere to binaric gender pronouns, playing language games etc.) can slowly unveil the emptiness behind what's often deemed as objective.
Like many other postmodern ideas, Butler's arguments are dense but interesting. I couldn't follow most of the beef she had with Lacan and Freud, but she seems to be criticizing them for automatically assuming heteronormativity? Aren't these just differences in metaphysical presuppositions?
I also think that if language is inherently patriarchal, it's gonna take something more radical than performativity to solve that. Is a new language necessary? one that's free from the restraints of patriarchy? Maybe, idk.
From what I understand (and correct me if I'm wrong), Butler's arguments rest on certain assumptions:
1. Language itself is inherently patriarchal—we equate words like "weak, emotional, passive" etc. with femininity. Language does not incarnate consciousness and the objective—rather, language (as well as repeated actions or "performance") puts ideas that are socially constructed into fixed structures (i.e. words). These words are then repeated over and over until these ideas become "objective" in everyone's minds.
2. Because language is patriarchal, being a "feminist" automatically means playing on the losing team. Women are defined by lack (of phallus, of selfhood, etc.) and therefore can never gain ground in a patriarchal world.
3. For feminism to really win, radically redefining these inherently patriarchal structures is necessary. Deconstructing the binaries that make up the social world via performance (cross-dressing, refusing to adhere to binaric gender pronouns, playing language games etc.) can slowly unveil the emptiness behind what's often deemed as objective.
Like many other postmodern ideas, Butler's arguments are dense but interesting. I couldn't follow most of the beef she had with Lacan and Freud, but she seems to be criticizing them for automatically assuming heteronormativity? Aren't these just differences in metaphysical presuppositions?
I also think that if language is inherently patriarchal, it's gonna take something more radical than performativity to solve that. Is a new language necessary? one that's free from the restraints of patriarchy? Maybe, idk.