What I took
from Butler’s Imitation and Gender Insubordination was the complete
desire for surrender to the deconstructing of gender roles in order to revolutionize
society with a new equality of genders. I
have never heard of the homosexual identity being referred to as norms undergoing
“re-materialization.” That seems
plausible if gender is completely socially constructed, right? According to society, individuals react and
exhibit unique characteristics which could be labeled as either male or female. How can a label be placed on a group when it
is comprised of unique individuals? Butler
argues that men and women should not be seen as different, but rather stripped
of societal constructions and unified. Therefore,
humanity gains complete equality by not identifying with male or female. I have heard of Butler before because she is
a prominent feminist scholar, but I am unclear about how she sees feminist
women who argue and oppose the constricting grip of patriarchal society? Or am I missing the Butler’s point, and she
is rationalizing lesbianism and arguing that homosexuality is the key to
equalizing genders? Is she being
prejudice against heterosexuality?
Hi Yolonda,
ReplyDeleteI may be totally wrong, as I had some difficulty with the text, but I don't think that Butler is being prejudice against heterosexuality, but rather showing that heterosexuality is the root (from my understanding) of how behaviors are enforced in homosexuality, that some homosexual individuals take looks at heterosexuals, develop a caricature of a "female" or "male role" and overly exaggerate this caricature, which then females or males (heterosexual) look at, and then try to emulate within their heterosexual relations. It seems that she is trying to say gender and sex comes full circle?
I don't think Butler was trying to the prejudiced toward heterosexuality. Rather, she was pointing out that there are aspects of heterosexuality and homosexuality that mirror each other. So in the end you almost get a “which came first”scenario. As in, which one has more validity? I think that is the question she is attempting to pose. Although I could be wrong on that.
ReplyDeleteI think she is suggesting that gender shouldn't be just a binary black or white categorization (male or female). She is exhorting a flexible gender that doesn't have to fit into two boxes only. It was mentioned before in this blog: girlhood is not just pink, it has many definitions. Nevertheless, her theory of deconstructing and re-building a new flexible gender that can change over time seems a bit strange. I have never heard of it before, and I am trying to understand it.
ReplyDeleteNora
Great discussion folks! Yes, I think Butler is all about multiplicity. She is an important fundamental scholar in gender studies so keep in mind that much of her goal was to simply speak back to a discourse - of heteronormativity - that assumed those who were not part of that discourse were wrong. I think I would put Butler as a radical feminist (according to the van Zoonen reading for Thursday) in that she sees differences and wants those differences honored as equal but not reduced to "same." For Butler the problem is asking anyone - gay, straight, male, female - to conform to rules and scripts that Butler argues are completely arbitrary.
ReplyDelete