I want to talk about Judith Butler…mostly because I don’t agree with her. While her theories about gender performativity are interesting, does she really mean that people don’t have an essence? When she says that gender identity is “a compelling illusion, an object of belief” does she really mean that gender is an aloof performance that is acted out at whim? Most of my head just screams out that she’s wrong in claiming this, because I think that gender reveals an inner desire that prompts individuals to behave as they do. Otherwise, wouldn’t everyone just perform the same gender, fit in, and avoid discrimination?
Let’s talk about Butler’s theory in terms of Stone Butch Blues. Jess lives a tormented life of abuse as her family, peers, and local police force abuse her for being different. If gender is merely a constituted act that comes from the society around her, why would Jess choose to be so different? As a general rule, people try to avoid trouble and instead fit in. Jess even passes as a man because she can no longer handle the persecution. I have a hard time believing that Jess merely performs this gender. Moreover, if gender is simply “an historical situation rather than a natural fact,” how do we see certain people performing genders that they’ve never seen before? Jess did not grow up learning her gender from a butch woman…
Butler would say that there is no essence, that people simply perform their gender, and that gender can change with a new repetition of different acts. But I wholeheartedly disagree. I think that Jess really feels like a butch. She acts like a butch because that’s who she is. Jess is not a rebel without a cause. She doesn’t walk around acting butch to be persecuted and hated by those around her. Instead, she simply acts like herself, like her inner essence tells her. Most of Butler’s claims about gender performativity deny any sort of individual identity, and for this reason, I think she’s wrong.
Is she *completely* wrong just because she doesn't take biological/genetic factors into consideration? And can we ever get outside of this either/or logic (i.e., we either have an essence or we don't; we either perform gender or we don't)? The simple answer is: both claims are right. But I think we should remain skeptical of simple answers.
ReplyDeleteI think your argument that Jess' aberrant gender performance showcases the "essential" nature of gender is a very perceptive one. It makes sense to question why Jess performs the way she does, even in the face of such persecution and hatred. I mean, how masochistic would she have to be in order to willingly take on a role as a gender outsider?
ReplyDeleteBut I would also urge you to think about Jess' childhood and formative years when you ask yourself, "why would Jess choose to be different?". In the beginning of the novel, Jess was continually told that she was a failure as a daughter, as a girl. She was pushed out of her own gender and forced to assume an identity as an outsider; this was a role she initially resented, but then grew to accept. It is true that she "did not grow up learning her gender from a butch woman," but then again, she wasn't a "butch" until Al taught her how to be one. I would argue that Jess' atypical gender identity is just as learned as is a societally-accepted heteronormative gender identity.
As for your overall reasoning that if gender really is a performance, everyone would just "fit in and avoid discrimination," I think you're operating under the assumption that "performance" implies "choice," which is not true in terms of Butler's theory. Jess is forced out of girlhood at a young age and has no option but to conform to a different gender role-- but the fact that she did not choose what gender to perform does not make her identity any less of a performance. You're right in saying that Butler dismisses the notion of an "essence," but I think that you might have misunderstood her theory to mean that everyone freely chooses what gender/sexuality to perform, and I don't think that is what she meant.
I definitely agree with your point that Judith Butler makes no effort to take into account anything biological, or how Jess naturally feels. It seems that Butler is not necessarily doing this though because she believes that no one has any natural gender whatsoever. Instead, I think the purpose is to point out that people are generally not all that different from each other. Men and women have roles they have to fulfill based on the standards of other people, but at the same time, these people are putting on an act where they don't necessarily feel biologically inclined because this is what they need to do in order to be heteronormative. By looking at everyone as simply putting on an act, we can see each other as much more similar which is good in a sort of unifying way.
ReplyDeleteEven if you think Butler's theory leaves something to be desired in the way of addressing the essence that individuals claim to feel when identifying their own gender, you can still reconcile the two opposite ideas. If you choose to assume that there is something essential about gender that resides within each individual, then perhaps you could consider the role of the gender binary. According to Butler, we perform prescriptive genders within this binary as they have been assigned to us. What if we do have some essential identity that the accepted binary fails to express or define? This stance would allow for individuals outside of male and female as well as people who live within heteronormativity.
ReplyDelete