There was definitely I bit of confusion while reading this essay by Judith Butler on Imitation and Gender Insubordination. I felt I started off understanding what she was trying to get across but as I went on reading, things started to get a bit wordy and harder for me to understand.
She begins with talking about what it is to be a lesbian. One wants to be able to identify who they are as a person and how they seem to identify themselves. However, Butler believes that with doing this it seems that they would be categorizing the gay and lesbian community in terms that are unnecessary. Why do you have to identify yourself to a certain stereotypes, which seem to place each other on different levels and ranks that bound the limits to who someone is able to become. She states this when she says:
“I’m permanently troubled by identity categories, consider them to be invariable stumbling blocks, and understand them, even promote them, as sites of necessary trouble.”
Judith Butler also touched on the fact of “coming out.” Does one “coming out” to society mean that they are free to be whom they want or does it mean, a target is now placed on them, and an identity for others to look at, therefore giving another judgment that can be made toward that person? Butler believes that you may be free and open about whom you are, identifying publicly but you are put into a new sent of boundaries and limitations, a closet inside a closet so to speak.
Then the issue of imitation is brought up. What was original verses what was a copy on the topic of sex identity? It is seen that heterosexuality is the beginning, but others she homosexuality as the original sexuality, so what came first, the chicken or the egg? We all start out as heterosexual people in the eyes of the majority population. People look at being lesbianism as miming heterosexuality because it is not the norm.
“…I suffered for a long time and I suspect many people have, from being told, explicitly or implicitly, that what I ‘am’ is a copy, an imitation, a derivative example, a shadow of the real.”
This continues on to speak about drag. Some may see it as people imitating who they are not. Drag is not playing a role that should be played by a gender of a different group. But this is assuming that gender is placing male and females into the masculine and femine category based on a physical makeup of the body, rather then being an identity based on roles performed.
“…gender is not a performance that a prior subject elects to do, but gender is performative in the sense that it constitutes as an effect the very subject it appears to express.”
Monday, April 6, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I was suppose to leave a comment for another poster, but seeing how they have yet to post, I will default to this one.
The original poster did a good job of going over the main points discussed by Butler.
Going along the same lines as the original poster (op), I also interpret coming out as being done so that the rest of society can clearly categorize them with little to no effort on their part. Coming out means they are forced to identify with certain aspects of being a homosexual and must imitate these actions continuously. Hence always being in a closet as the op mentioned.
As far as sexual identity is concerned, at first I thought I understood Butler as describing being homosexual with regards to genetics, aka a person is born gay. But as I continued to read, I saw Butler refer to homosexuality as possibly a by product of missing a certain aspect in one's life, say mother of father figure. In the text, Butler mentions Freudian thought saying when possible reasons for the "gayness" could spawn from a loss of a loved one, male or female, leaving the individual left to try and replace it with the missing gender's actions.
It got a little confusing when heterosexuality was brought up with homosexuality being it's copy or vice-versa. It seemed as though Butler was trying to same that because gays "copy" hetero's mannerisms, they must be the original?
My understanding of the drag discussion revolves around the notion of drag being used to solidify the identities of the heteros. In other words, it's portraying all the stereotypes associated with the heterosexuals of that gender. Butler seems to argue that in order for norms to be considered stereotypes, they must continually be imitated.
For fear of things getting all jumbled in my head this is mostly my interpretation of the reading with some reflection of the previous posts.
As I was reading I was surprised at how complex Butler was. At first I was frustrated but after a while I became acutely aware of how brilliant her thought process/writing process is.
From what I've gathered this piece is about identity and how it is created just as much if not more than homosexuality itself.
She starts off discussing the inherent trouble with identity categories. How representative are they really? Who do they represent? Are they even factual? Who made the categories? And even if we chose to embrace and identify with them now, how will those categories be used in the future? Like feminism. Feminism used to be a widely embraced category, then people came to realize it wasn't terribly inclusive or representative of all women. Then the name got trashed to the point where some people equated feminism with bra burning lesbian separatist. With so much disagreement- people now (in the future of the term) may chose not to embrace such an identity category.
Then she devours the concept of- the closet. We (the "homosexual community") come out of the closet to what? Into the living room where it's all nice and safe with you "normal people". It's not and that metaphor requires the acknowledgment of the heterosexual community. It relies on the fact that someone accepts your coming out.
Then she really dives into the creation of identity. first off gender identity and the concept of drag. Drag is viewed as a copy of the original. They are merely imitating a non drag member of that gender. But who do non-drag members of the community create their gender? A girl becomes a girl by imitating mommy and rejecting the acts of daddy and vise versa. All Gender identification is a copy.
It goes the same with sexuality. To be heterosexual we must continually prove we are heterosexual through acts that are viewed as such. "heterosexuality is a panicked imitation of it's own naturalized idealization". (Can we then assume that constant public expression of sexual prowess is nothing more than homophobia?) However, Butler continues, because Heterosexuality is this constant repetitious act there is always a chance for failure. We act heterosexual constantly because we're afraid if we don't then maybe we'd have to consider the possibility that we ourselves are homosexual.
there are a number of other ideas that Butler presents. I'll try to be brief on these so the post isn't as long as the reading.
"Proper gender assignment" and heterosexuality are viewed as originals but in order to be recognized as originals you must have a deviant. If the original is contingent on the deviant can you not argue that the deviant came first? But to have a deviant you must have an original.... f**k. She points out the circular nature of theory in this area.
There was one point she kept making that I just had a little trouble grasping "part of what constitutes sexuality is precisely that which does not appear and that which to some degree can never appear" I think what's being brought up is the fact that most categories are an idealization and deny the existence of overlap. women are physically weak and suitably only for raising kid but pick up a five year old sometime. those little buggers can get weighty.
Okay wow, really long post. sorry for the last minute-ness.
Post a Comment