Judith Butler embraces a gender philosophy partially new to
me. She argues that gender and sex are perfomative ideas founded on regulatory
discourses. The norm regulates what is socially “natural.” The natural definitions
of gender and sex (which by the way are not the same for this author) are
constructed by society and by culture. Her theory makes sense to me because,
coming from a Mexican culture, I know that what is socially accepted –gender-wise—
by one culture may or may not be accepted by another (I still get speeches from
my mom filled with reproach for having only one child). The natural actions –and
by natural I mean what is accepted by each cultural and political regulatory
discourse— of a female from Pakistan are not the same as the natural actions of
a female from France.
Interestingly, Butler goes beyond cultural definitions of
gender. She seems to individualize the construction of gender, and thus
suggesting that gender is a temporary condition. She leaves up to each individual
to construct their own gender, cautioning readers not to misunderstand this flexible-gender
philosophy for one-time actions done deliberately. In other words, she appears
to suggest that we are free to determine our own gender (male, female and/or
what is in between and/or outside of these black and white definitions), since
gender is an idea constructed by society. Adding that our own “definition” of
gender should be based on the actions we do over time and not by the actions we
do once and a while. A step in the direction of shifting the norm, according to
Butler, is to move toward “collective disidentifications” that “can facilitate
a reconceptualization” of gender.
I know that gender “naturalness” or norms change from culture
to culture, but I have never heard of a flexible gender theory before. It got
me thinking about the applications we fill out for pretty much everything, where
the race options seem to change depending on the “norm” of the one asking: “Are
you Hispanic, Latino, Mexican-American, White-Latino, Afro-Latino, African-American,
Asian, European, Caucasian, Anglo, Anglo-American, Anglo-European, etc?” Some, like
the ones from the government, even provide more specific information about the percentages
of blood each classification defines (I don’t think there are many of us who
actually know how much percentage of European or American or African blood we
carry around). I am wondering if in the future our gender “classification” will
be just as diverse: “Are you a female, male, female-male, male-female,
bisexual, homosexual, transsexual, asexual…?” Or maybe one day these
applications will stop asking these questions.
Nora
I am hoping there will be a time that forms stop asking us those questions, but it probably won't happen soon. I'm totally interested in ways forms and templates (think about how you set up your FB page or even a blog) asks us to be and perform who we are in pretty limiting ways. What does it mean for someone who identifies as transgender to have only male or female to choose from?
ReplyDeleteGreat talk about culture too. I think one of the most important things Butler would argue is that gender is situational and contextual. It changes based on specific societies and moments in time.
I found the idea that gender is a social construct intriguing. One thing I have noticed about American culture (and other Western cultures) is both female gender and sexuality are more fluid than their male counterparts. In terms of gender: in the past seventy years or so, it’s become commonplace for women to wear pants; but men wearing dresses or skirts is still highly taboo. To a lesser degree, I think the same is true of hairstyles (for example, a lot of schools with dress codes -- unless they’re ultra-conservative -- do not allow the boys’ hair to exceed a certain length, but they usually do not have a minimum length requirement for the girls.)
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, society seems to be more tolerant of flexibility in female sexuality than male. This is purely anecdotal, but I have had a few female friends go through a lesbian “stage” where they dated women, and then ultimately resumed a heterosexual lifestyle. Society seems to accept this. Conversely, people seem to think men are either homosexual or heterosexual -- the distinction seems much more rigid.
Just something to think about.
Hayley
You make a good point that society is more willing to accept homosexual "stages" in women than in men. However I think it is important to note that society is much more forgiving of these stages than of permanent lesbian lifestyles. I mean, there is an entire booming porn industry showing women engaging in sex together that is targeted at men. Also, I think this genre is generated on the expectation of viewers that the women in the videos are exceedingly interested in men joining their experience.
DeleteHayley,
DeleteYour point about male sex roles being rigid rings true. I have met many men who at one time had wives and children only to decide that they were gay. In every case this decision came much later in life. I would like to think that our social climate is so much more open now that these older men can now live the way they have always wanted. However, I have never met any guys who were straight but then dabbled in homosexuality only to return to being heterosexual. It's always heterosexual males who decide that they are gay in my experience. One example of this exact scenario taking place is Jann S. Werner, the publisher of Rolling Stone. A bit over a decade ago he left his wife and family for another man. Aside from the pain he put his family through this decision seems totally rational to me.
What do I think of Butler’s gender theory? I think that just when I feel like I am beginning to understand Butler, I get confused all over again.
ReplyDeleteI think that language, contributing to definition, categorization, of sex, also contributes to the societal expectations placed on gender. Sex, as Judith Butler proposed, as being “both produced and destabilized in the course of reiteration.” I see this as being similar to gender, however, agree that sex is somewhat “constructed,” as Butler states, while I believe gender is wholly “constructed,” by the outside discourses, iterated and reiterated. Then, as with sex a “set of actions motivated by law,” through discursive practices is created in attempts for the person to take personal agency. This is where I feel that Butler is hitting the nail on the head for both the materiality of sex and for gender as it is socially constructed.
I believe that most humans are given the agency to choose the ways in which they will perform their sex/gender, but also believe that because of the need for humans to name and categorize, the choices as delineated by two sexes (the only two discussed, although there are more) causes limitation. That being said, the “heterosexual hegemony,” as Butler mentions, becomes that mold by which humans are encouraged and compelled to base their performative actions upon.
Although I move back and forth from feeling that I am in complete agreement with Butler’s gender theory, I have to say that by ending her essay in questions, I am left less in agreement and alongside her in feeling that there are only more questions to ask before we can understanding.
Agreed. Butler is confusing at times but her questions are important ones.
Delete