This week, I was very interested in Butlers’ excerpt of Performative acts and gender constitution as I relate her critique to feminism to our discussion last class. When considering gender within the simplistic dichotomy patriarchy/women oppression, one’s assumes the universalism in terms of gender being homogeneous within each category (all men as oppressors and all women as victims). Subsequently, as we noted in class, the use of “we” erases all differences of race, class or gender in this case that might unify in order to achieve some goals at first, but then alienate those who cannot identify with the generic model.
But life is not that simple. Authors such as Butler, Sedgwick or Halberstam just argued how the lines among sex, gender and sexuality easily become blurry when analyzing social constructions, discourses or even characters that once traditional identifies as representative of masculinity (James Bond).
To be honest, I am still confused about these concepts as I still believe we are born with a distinctive set of chromosomes that serves to place us in different categories (regardless how arbitrary this classification is), either female, male or hermaphrodite. Now, as we enter in all social, cultural, political etc. constructions we identify ourselves, perceive our bodies and our bodies/identities are perceived in multiple, infinite ways even within a predominant heterosexual framework. Then I will agree with Butler that sexuality and gender are constructed, “(gender) then can be neither true nor false, neither real nor apparent and yet one is completed to live in a world in which genders constitute univocal signifiers.” (908) However, I am not sure that her proposal to reduce gender to a sustained performative act on a social stage would accomplish to change or acknowledge the influence of rigid parameters such as heterosexual framework and sexual difference. She does mention that we have to “reread the texts of Western philosophy” from the point of view of the marginalized and “establish philosophy as a cultural practice” (910) when in reality we still observe a system of social punishment for those who do act according to the norm or when political correctness avoids conflict and, therefore, open discussion.
I would very appreciate if we can work on the transfers or conceptual common grounds between sex, gender and sexuality, so I can see the gray areas.
Hi, Liliana: As you, I also agree with Butler that sexuality and gender are constructed. When I was reading the text a very simple example came to my mind: when a baby is born, depending on his sex, the decoration of his room will be blue if he is a man and pink if she is a girl. Therefore, the social discourse tell us that men should like blue and women pink. As I said it is a very common example, but I think its illustrative in how we have interiorize the characteristics that are imposed to a gender. However, as you mention, taking into account that gender is performative probably won’t make any change in the society (at least in the actual). The current conflicts regarding this topic are a prove of it. Maybe in a century or more -if the world still exists- a real change will happen.
Hi Bruno,
Yes, that’s the idea I have about the baby being a baby and then adopting all the narratives, attitudes, etc. of a gender. But Butler argues that the “body is not merely matter but a continual and incessant materializing of possibilities…one does one’s body” (902). From what I understood, Butler supports the idea that there is no line between sex and gender; sex is not biological but socially and historical construed. Would that be because we “adopt” our gender through our body, so therefore sex is also a social construction by default.
Coming late, but I had time to think about your post. I read it once before class and did not know what to think of it…as well as most of the readings we had on gender…
When you talked about that relationship between sex/gender and the body, it reminded me a book I read for a French class. I tend to think that gender is socially constructed, but I can’t say the same of sex.
The book that I read was very disturbing…very very disturbing
It was about two children who had been raised as if they were similar, by their father (the mother was dead) on a farm, away from town and without any neighbours. In French, the personal pronouns to indicate whether it was a girl or a boy did no longer matter, as the kids would use them interchangeably. They did it so well that I read half of the book and I still did not know if it was a girl or a boy talking. I needed to know, although it should have not affected my reading of the story. Slowly, a few things came up. One of the two kids started to talk about some changes in the body. Having periods. Noticing the interaction among animals, and seeing some of them about to give birth, one of the kids started to realize that she was a girl, based on the physical differences between her and her brother and father. That is what makes me think sex is not socially constructed for it is not chosen, we are born with it. We may change the way we perceive it and, in this case, I would see that as a judgement on gender rather than sex.