Butler's Work on Performativity - Case Study Example

Introduction Identifying gender and establishing oneself inside an identity of sexuality is one that not only is constructed through gender. This isalso based on ideologies in social and cultural constructs. In Judith Butler’s philosophies, there are specific relationships to the idea of performativity and gender identity. Butler specifically states that performativity is one of the constructs that makes up gender. Each individual establishes a performance of their gender according to the association and identity that is affiliated with gender identity. While Butlers several statements show the social and cultural pressures that lead to performativity in gender, there is a lack of definition with subjectivity, individual identity and outside gender theories. Her several works show the levels that relate to the performance as gender; however, there are also several debates over the identification of individuals that may be outside of the performativity that Butler suggests. Performativity and Gender The first set of concepts that are approached with Butler’s theories of performativity is to define what this means and which actions it constitutes when one is performing the idea of gender. The basis of this theory is to show that gender is not one that is recognized as an internal and natural means, but is instead a performance that one carries out. This requires specific attributes for one to become a gender and to perform the identity of gender. Butler notes that this is not something that is self – constituted and requires external means to influence the idea of gender identity. It is also noted that performativity and gender is not a performance that is only taken into consideration at certain points. Butler points out that this would limit the identity of gender as it is seen by others. Instead, this concept is one that is practiced by an individual repeating specific acts and continuing to accept them as a part of their identity. This turns into the identity and condition of the subject as it is practiced and continuously repeated. “This iterability implies that performance is not a singular act or event, but a ritualized production, a ritual reiterated under and through constraint, under and through force of prohibition and taboo, with the threat of ostracism and even death controlling and compelling the shape of the production” (Butler, 95, 1993). The idea of performativity for gender identity is then one that begins with a basic act that continues to be repeated. As this occurs, it becomes a taboo in society until it is accepted as gender identity from the performance. This continuous act with gender identity is what Butler describes as the basic theory of performativity for gender identity. Acts of Gender through Butler’s Theories For the idea of performativity to become a part of gender identity and an accepted taboo, there are specific requirements that need to be met. This allows the taboo and performance to become a part of social, cultural and political acceptance and to create a different sense of boundaries with identity. Butler points out that the main ideals need to transcend beyond speaking about gender and instead require the act of being a gender. The gender that interacts as a specific taboo on a repetitive basis then becomes the subject of gender. The identity that is created from this is then known as a subjective identity from the acts that are created. Gender is not seen by society and culture as one that is an individual identity, but instead becomes the subject of gender in masculine or feminine form. The idea of the subjective in identifying gender through performativity then becomes a central way in which gender identity is accepted and defined in specific cultures and to create a specific identity and relationship to gender (Butler, 2-3, 1997). The speech and acts of gender not only are inclusive of how identity relates to gender. There is also the need to create the subjective identity through the way that the body interrelates to actions, which Butler refers to as chiasmus. This includes the psychological relationship to gender and how this moves into actions and speech that create the performance of gender identity. As this is done, gender becomes an institutionalized identity that is psychologically accepted through culture. This act of gender is one that creates borders, taboos and the movement beyond taboos when referring to gender identity. The chiasmus that is created then becomes a definition of what is normal gender and what is not. As this is reproduced, it becomes a reality. This performance is one that Butler shows through examples such as gender violence and boundaries that are between genders. One of the questions that Butler continues to pose is how the act of performativity is able to transcend borders and create community because of the acts and psychological understanding that is reflected in this. The social and literary theories combine with this to accept the realities of what the act of gender includes and what is not accepted in this specific performance (Butler, 219, 2004). Identifying Gender through Butler One of the basic critiques that Butler establishes is based on how performativity of gender is one that questions how one begins to act into a gender identity. When one is performing to create a specific identity through gender, there is a loss of true identity that relates to gender. Specifically, Butler states that this performance leads to a loss of the normal and is instead substituted for a copy and mimic of what one believes their identity should be. This leads to a psychological assumption of belonging to a gender which leads to acting in a specific way. The body then becomes a performance of a specific gender identity and what it means to be masculine or feminine. “If the body is not being, but a variable boundary, a surface whose permeability is politically regulated, a signifying practice within a cultural field of gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality, then what language is left for understanding this corporeal enactment, gender, that constitutes its interior signification on its surface?” (Butler, 189, 1990). The performance of identity that Butler is referring to is one that becomes significant through politics, culture and social arenas that are identified from the exterior. Butler also points out that this is not an internal or normal approach to gender, but rather, one that is constituted by the pressures from society and surrounding mediums. The performance of gender then becomes a reaction to the environment, rather than a personal and natural understanding of gender identity. For gender to become identified through performativity, there are specific concepts that have to be applied. More than the repetition of actions to create gender identity is a foundation that sets the pace for a taboo of gender identity to become normative. The subjective figures that create gender identity are first put into a sense of public display. The culture and social awareness is then heightened through the performance that is seen through gender. As this moves into the public, intellectual and social responses are taken into consideration with different critiques and acceptance from society. The voices of gender identity that are acting in performativity will then continue to repeat specific actions from the critiques and responses from the public. This may continue with the same force or will slightly alter their subjective display until the taboo of gender identity is accepted. Using public reflection and criticism as the basis to change the gender identity and to create an analysis of what the subjective of gender means then becomes the central way in which gender identity continues to be performed and which either becomes mainstream or changes in society (Butler, 3, 2004). The several ideas that relate to culture, society, gender identity and the subjective performativity become the basis of Butler’s critiques of gender identity. The defining points of gender and the specific details of how identity forms in society becomes the specific theoretical framework. The focus is to define the levels of performance and gender as well as how these become influential within society through taboo, repetition and psychological responses to the concept of identity. When looking at these theoretical frameworks in a different way, there is the ability to see where the theories lack when defining the ideas of gender identity. Butler’s Hate Speech One of the ways in which Butler approaches the ideas of performativity is through the concept of words that lead to hate speech by both genders. This relates to the words that are used to define gender, specifically with those that are in arguments and debates on gender. Butler states that this is one of the ways in which the subjective becomes the main proponent of gender identity. This moves into violence that is a part of words and which creates a performance or movement away from a specific identity with gender. Doing this prosecutes one part of gender while empowering other concepts of identity that then begin to be accepted within society. This is specifically associated with the politics of gender and what is accepted or shunned in political powers and speeches when pertaining to gender identity. The idea of actions, the subjective, pictures and other concepts then become closely associated with the hate speech and prosecution of gender identity, while creating a sense of power to other ideas of gender identity (Butler, 65, 1997). Critique of Butler’s Works on Performativity When looking at performativity from a sociological perspective, the viewpoints of Butler are questioned with their relevance to gender identity. The theories that relate to gender identity from a sociological basis relates to ideas such as feminism, queer theory and postcolonial theory. Each of these is social theories that question the idea of gender identity and what it means to identify with a gender. The specific association that is a part of the sociological viewpoint is based on the idea of gender becoming a social feature toward identity which is accepted or rejected by society. Different types of gender theories then move into place to push the boundaries of gender. When relating this to ideas of performativity, the pushing of boundaries is a part of the performance of identity, used specifically to change the categories and identity of gender. The social identity becomes a centralized question when looking at gender, what is accepted by society and how gender has changed with performance over time because of specific sociological responses (Cuff et al, 323, 2006). This is furthered with the hate speech idea that Butler points out. The one way in which sociological perspectives and Butler are able to agree is through the idea of hate speech in which society accepts or rejects certain words and ideas that prosecute gender or give it power. The gender theories that are associated with sociology then relate to the idea of performativity and the hate speech that is in politics and which is accepted within society. Even though the sociological identity that pushes boundaries relates directly to the idea of performativity, there are other questions that relate to these theories. When looking at this from theories such as Derrida’s notion of citationality and subjectivity, there is a question of what can or can’t be considered in gender identity. While Butler defines several perspectives of what gender identity includes, there are some questions of how the psychoanalytic perspective of subjectivity works. When looking at performativity from this viewpoint, there isn’t the ability to show specific thought patterns, identity and individual relationships to gender identity. When each of the individuals becomes subjective to cultural and social icons, there is a stigma that is surrounding specific thoughts. However, the subjectivity is limited by not looking at the psychology that doesn’t link to the idea of the subject or to the objectivity that surrounds this (Hood, John et al, 80, 2002). The one agreement seen looking at this specific idea of gender identity is the idea of hate speech as the identity and social icons often are associated with the politics and words that surround the performance of gender identity. Beyond this, are limited angles that are a part of the idea of performativity as well as subjectivity then become a main difficulty of Butler’s theories. This particular problem of subjectivity furthers with the approach that Butler takes when defining where the performances of gender come from. There are several who state that the main approach of performativity is one that is a conscious decision by the individual and through the self. However, Butler focuses only on the external environment and gender identity that is constructed through the identity of the subjective mainstream. This limits the ability to understand the idea of performativity with the gender identity becoming one of debate between individual choice and basic concepts in social identity. “This makes it seem that the cause of these acts, gender and desire, lie within the self. It also masks from view the ways in which they are politically regulated products of disciplinary practices that work to sustain compulsory heterosexuality and gender hierarchy; and the ways in which compulsory heterosexuality compels the kind of gender practices through which it is sustained” (Jagger, 28, 2008). The limits of the theories that Butler creates first start with the limitation of belief that gender identity comes either from the individual or from society. Not approaching the idea of individual choice and psychological differences then creates a limitation in the idea of performativity. This is further limited because of the way in which gender is approached by the gender hierarchy and the alternative gender identities that may be present. Not adding this into the main idea of performativity then limits the theoretical framework to one margin of individuals. The margins that aren’t approached by Butler when looking into performativity continue with a lack of recognition toward the several levels of identity and how they relate to political ideologies. The main focus of most of Butler’s works is to create a sense of focus toward the ideas of feminism, gay and lesbian culture and gender identities that are accepted in society after being marginalized for a time. This is specifically associated with the ideas of hate speech and how this relates to creating identity and ideologies through politics. While Butler points out significant patterns that come from performativity, there is not a specific focus toward the alternative politics that are related to feminist ideologies and the changing identities. Not adding in the external environmental factors that have shaped gender identity and which have caused individual and psychological changes outside of performativity then limits the theoretical ideas of Butler (Lloyd, Moya, 7, 2007). These debates continue with the concept of feminist social theories seen both in contemporary and traditional ideologies. This creates several boundaries between the object and subject, with specific definitions that have been altered over time with these concepts. The definitions that change with the idea of subjective and objective ideas continue with debates over the idea of gender and what defines gender identity. Categorizing gender, creating specific roles and social identities that relate to this and trying to define them is one of the areas in which most critics of feminist theories debate upon. Butler takes these concepts and moves past them with a focus on moving outside of the classical thoughts and instead focusing on how gender is constructed through performativity. Moving outside of these definitions and creating an approach that shows how gender is created with identity is one of the strengths of this particular theory, while excluding definitions that would categorize the idea of gender because of past theories (Harrington, Adkins, 234, 2005). This specific debate against Butler’s works then move into a contrast of the definition of subjectivity. The subject is what defines gender through different external and internal ideologies and sociological viewpoints. From Butler’s viewpoint, the subject includes both the external environment and internal psychology. This is what allows one to perform with gender identity in a specific manner. This differs from other philosophies, which define the subjective as a philosophical term that relates to identity. Instead of a focus on self – identity, which Butler shows, the idea of subjectivity in a traditional sense is defined as one that is based on internal relationships. This conflict toward sociological approaches toward relations and gender identity, as well as internal understanding of gender identity, then becomes a debate when looking at the subjective. Redefining the traditional understanding of subjectivity and creating a debate over what it means to have a subjective identity toward gender is one of the strong debates in defining performativity and its relationship to the subjective (Salih, 2002, 30). Conclusion The theories of gender identity and their relationship to performativity, as presented by Butler, is one that carries specific ideologies and a focus on the sociological concept of gender. Butler works to redefine how gender is constructed in society and through a psychological basis. The several observations made about the sociological building of gender are then seen with her different approaches to define performance of gender and acceptance of this performance into gender. While Butler’s key points remain strong in the construction of gender, there are several theories that are not referred to and which move into debates against her ideas of performativity. Psychological, sociological and theoretical frameworks based on gender identity are deconstructed through the works of Butler. This specifically relates to concepts such as the definition of self and identity as it relates to identity as well as definitions of subjectivity. This limits the theories of Butler and the relationship to gender identity that she constructs. References 1. Adkins, L (2005) ‘Feminist Social Theory’ in Harrington, A (ed) Modern Social Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p233-251 2. Butler, J. (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge. 3. Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex, New York: Routledge. 4. Butler, J. (1997) Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative, London: Routledge. 5. Butler, J. (2004) Precarious Life, London: Verso. 6. Butler, J (2004) Undoing Gender, London: Routledge. 7. Cuff, E., Sharrock, W. and Francis, D. (2006) Perspectives in Sociology (5th ed.), London: Routledge. Ch. 15 8. Hood-Williams, J. and Cealey-Harrison, W. (1998) Trouble with Gender, The Sociological Review 46(1): 73-94. 9. Jagger, G. (2008) Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative, London: Routledge. 10. Kirby, V. (2006) Judith Butler: Live Theory, London: Continuum. 11. Lloyd, M. (2007) Judith Butler: From Norms to Politics, Cambridge: Polity. 12. Salih, S. (2002) Judith Butler, London: Routledge. pages 43-71. 13. Salih, S. (2004) The Judith Butler Reader, London: Blackwell Publishing. Read More