GWSS 3102 Fall 2008

'The feminist "we" is always and only a phantasmatic condition, one that has its purposes, but which denies the internal complexity and indeterminacy of the term and constitutes itself only through the exclusion of some part of the constituency that it simultaneously seeks to represent'.

Judith Butler's writings in Gender Trouble as summarised above, is mainly concerned with deconstructing the existence of feminism and its basis on an idea of binary sexes. She points out that the term feminism suggests that it is representative of the idea of the feminine and it is in identifying and describing who belongs to this group, that the troubles inherent in the system are realised. The main problems are the fact that the idea of 'woman' is often seen in the Western way as many believe major feminism movements began in the West. This supports the view of many writers we have read in this course such as Gandhi, Collins and Narayan, that show that those with the epistemic authority to describe feminism are often white feminists and this often leads to the exclusion of feminists of other colours and cultures. Another aspect to the description of women on which Butler focuses is the idea of sexes being only of two kinds, man and woman, and the description of feminism in terms of women makes it necessary to view feminist thought as representative of people who are considered by society to have feminine traits. This might exclude lesbians, transsexuals, women who are considered 'masculine' in some way based on their work or way of life and even unmarried women, who are seen as going against their inherent sexual natures and need for domestic stability. Butler suggests that a repetition of the ideas of feminism as it applies to all is necessary along with an understanding of all peoples' unique cultures rather than an attempt to identify a single meaning of feminism and apply it to the world which would be akin to cultural imperialism.

Posted by anazo001 at 2:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"If taken as the grounds of feminist theory or politics, these "effects" of gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality are not only misdescribed as foundations, but the signifying practices that enable this metaleptic misdescription remain outside the purview of a feminist critique of gender relations."

In this sentence, Judith Butler is saying that since gender is socially, and even the idea of two different biological sexes are socially constructed, feminism (when founded on the acceptance of women as a category that does not need to be critiqued or questioned) is founded on a false construction. More importantly, the false construction of these categories of "men" and "women" might be the root of all of the hierarchies and power disparities that feminism is supposed to critique! As she says later "this foundationalism...presumes, fixes, and constrains the very "subjects" that it hopes to represent and liberate." Between those two phrases, she means to say that accepting the gender binary and the predicursive existence of "women" is not grounds for a very helpful or constructive "feminism."

Posted by kruse086 at 5:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Assuming for the moment the stability of binary sex, it does not follow that the construction of 'men' will accrue exclusively to the bodies of males or that 'women' will interpret only female bodies" (356).

This sentence by Judith Butler argues what many feminists have been saying for years, gender is socially constructed. Since gender is socially constructed this means that one is not born inherently with the "male" or "female" gender. Instead, gender is taught, created, and enforced by the society in which one lives. For example, boys are not inherently born to like playing with cars and girls are not inherently born to like playing iwth barbie dolls, this is taught. There are very specific traits that boys and girls are taught they must possess to fit into the gender categories of "boys" and "girls". Since gender is taught by one's culture and not inherent in either sex, it is very possible that one born into the sex of a male may most identify with the gender of a girl and vice-versa. The gender of a woman is not exclusive to females because it is socially created and not biological.

Posted by schne534 at 2:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The first sentence I chose was on page 357.
"Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a pregiven sex (a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established."

Someone else has already posted this sentence, but I thought I would post my interpretation since I already analyzed it. With this sentence, I think that Bulter was saying that gender should not be determined by the connection that our culture makes with the gender and sex binary. Gender is not determined by a sex that is given based on genitalia. Gender can also influence and determine sex.

I chose another sentence from page 357 to analyze that I have not yet seen.
"At this juncture it is already clear that one way the internal stability and binary frame for sex is effectively secured is by casting the duality of sex in a prediscursive domain."

In this sentence I think that Butler is saying that our culture casts the binary system of sex and gender (female/male, woman/man) onto a previously unstructured place. For example, we use genitalia to decide if it's a boy or a girl before we even know anything about who that child is as a person. The baby is the prediscursive domain that the boy/girl frame for sex is put on.

Posted by katy at 1:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The critical task for feminism is not to establish a point of view outside of constructed identities; that conceit is the construction of an epistemological model that would disavow its own cultural location and, hence, promote itself as a global subject, a position that deploys precisely the imperialist strategies that feminists ought to criticize." Pg. 360

Judith Butler is explaining that feminism should not view women as a subject that exists outside the cultural/political/sexual context in which they exist. The failure of this construction is that "woman" cannot be constructed outside this cultural/political/sexual context because we must ultimately ask the question: What is a "woman"? Is this "woman" defined by having a vagina? What about people who were not born with said vagina who identify as women? Is it a question of hormonal balance or chromosomes? How do people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome fit into this equation? Would a definition that is reliant upon social expression work? How would that explain social expressions that change across cultures and even within cultures? The problem with constructing this identity is that there must then be an other that does not fit into this epistemological model. Then by taking this model, we would then attempt to force our model of "woman" on people that don't precisely fit into it. We would be deciding what's best for a particular person without their input. That is precisely imperialism.

Posted by LEEROY JENKINS!!!!11! at 12:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The very subject of women is no longer understood in stable or abiding terms.

Butler argues that the constitutions of gender are not constructed in isolation and there is no pure or completely autonomous woman. The binary normalizations of identity are no longer sufficient to understand the intersectionality of feminist projects. Butler also explains that it is necessary to shift from women studies to gender studies for an objective identification and evaluation of social constructions.

Posted by blumx048 at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The masculine/feminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive framework in which that specificity can be recognized, but in every other way the "specificity" of the feminine is once again fully decontextualized and separated off analytically and politically from the constitution of class, race, ethnicity, and other axes of power relations that both constitute "identity" and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer" (Bulter 355).

What this sentence is trying to say is that the category of "women" which is defined by the discourses that make up what is "feminine" cannot really be such an all-inclusive category. There are oppressions even within this narrow category because of the power dynamics that have to do with race, class, ethnicity etc. Every woman experiences oppression in a different way because of racial, ethnic, and cultural differences. What Butler means by "specificity" is the notion that there is some sort of characteristic that unites "women" across cultures, yet she argues that this is not so because this definition ignores the social and historical complexities that make up different cultures and peoples. She argues that there is no such "identity" as "woman" that is monolithic and can encompass all every woman; intersectionality is completely overlooked with such a notion.

Posted by Magda Bilska at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way." (356)
I interpreted this quote to mean, since gender is thrust upon a sexed body and assigned a meaning in this context, gender is a completely independent entity from sex. With such strong cultural influences, one's "proper" gender assignment cannot be tied to their "biological" sex in any way.

Posted by Feminist Dee at 9:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The feminist "we" is always and only a phantasmatic construction, one that has its purposes, but which denies the internal complexity and indeterminacy of the term and constitutes itself only through the exclusion of some part of the constituency that it simultaneously seeks to represent" (TF 357)

I think that Butler is trying to make a point that there is an assumed population that "feminism" is attempting represent. The problem is that this population is not completely homogeneous and therefore when "feminism" tries to lump them all together, its inevitable that there will be people who are not being accurately represented.

I appreciate that Butler acknowledges that at times, this it serves it purpose well, but it also poses a problem that must be addressed.

Posted by famsocscimajor at 9:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The identity of the feminist subject ought not to be the foundation of feminist politics, if the formation of the subject takes place within a field of power regularly buried through the assertion of that foundation" (356).


To me, this is Judith Butler’s main argument in this reading. In the reading “Gender Trouble,� Butler shows that feminism isn’t just about women. She points out the difficulties of only having two “true� genders in society. It doesn’t matter what gender, race or ethnicity the subject of the power struggle is. Butler describes that a feminist subject could hurt the efforts of feminist politics because there will be problems from our society’s system of power and will ultimately backfire on what real feminist politics are trying to achieve.

Posted by northstar at 9:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a pregiven sex ( a juridical conception); gender must also designate the very appartatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established." (357)

I think Judith Butler is implying here that gender is not only the cultural meaning that is given to a sexed body but is also the apparatus in which sex itself is created. I think she is saying that the idea of sex is created by the ideas of gender while then turning around to use sex to gender that sexed body.

Posted by Faith Kolstad at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Butler states "Indeed, to understand identity as a practice, and as a signifying practice, is to understand culturally intelligible subjects as the resulting effects of a rule-bound discourse that inserts itself in the pervasive and mundane signifying acts of linguistic life (359)." Here, I believe Butler is trying to convey that identity is just the product of repitition, if culture didn't continually repeat itself (as far as gender and gender roles are concerned), we wouldn't have the same identities that are presented to us at birth and enforced through societal norms. Identities are transformed based on cultural practices, which are enforced through language. These gender roles that are intertwined with identity are regulated by the power structures in society. These power structures aren't as distinct as the power figures in the Oppression Model of Power, much like Focault's theory of Panopticon, the source of power is not explicit so we internally police our own bodies. This policing of our own bodies prevents us from obtaining an authentic identity, as we are trying to conform to the societal norms.

Posted by GWSS3102 at 3:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“The foundationalist reasoning of identity politics tends to assume that an identity must first be in place in order for political interest to be elaborated and, subsequently, political action must be taken. My argument is that there need not be a “doer behind the deed,� but that the “doer� is variably constructed in and through the deed.� pg 357

What Butler is trying to say here is that there is no essential essence that each of us has that constitute who we are or defines us. Rather, gender and sex are placed upon us or the “deed� is place on the “doer�. In more simple terms, gender and sex are enscribed on us rather than it being within us.

Posted by gengl018 at 2:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The masculine/feminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive framework in which that specificity can be recognized but in every other way the "specificity" of the feminine is once again fully decontextualized and separated off analytically and politically from the constitution of class, race, ethnicity, and other axes of power relations that both constitute "identity" and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer." (TF 355)

In this sentence, Judith Butler is pointing out the ways that masculine and feminine are given narrow definitions, so that different ways of being a gender are not seen as fitting in with the categories. In this way, differences in the way that class, race, ableness, etc also shape a person are ignored. Because of the attempt to isolate masculine/feminine from other influences, the definition of the terms is inadequate in describing and including all identities of people. I think this is similar to the early models of oppression, in which sexism was separated from the other -isms; when a more accurate definition would include the intersectionality of the -isms. Likewise, definitions of masculine and feminine should take into account other influences on identity; thus decreasing the specificity of the terms to include other interpretations of gender.

Posted by mrk at 2:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The masculine/feminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive framework in which that specificity can be recognized but in every other way the “specificity� of the feminine is once again fully decontextualized and separated off analytically and politically from the constitution of class, race, ethnicity, and other axes of power relation that both constitute “identity� and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer� pg. 355 of Theorizing Feminisms, “Gender Trouble� - Judith Butler

If I had one sentence to use from Judith Butler’s “Gender Trouble� to summarize the Feminist Theory course, I do believe this would be the one. In every paper I have written for this class, on rape culture, black female oppression and third world feminism there always appears to be one underlying theme: interlocking oppressions. One’s oppression is not caused singularly by one dimension, but by many even if the majority of them are the least marginalized within a group –they too work within that person’s make-up to form an individual, just for them special kind of personalized oppression, if you will. I think Butler is trying to say, being a female, given that noun exists in her world, is more than one dimensional. There are many other factors, so many factors that there truly is no black and white way to classify even within a casual sense, let alone a public, judicial one.

Posted by beche018 at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

“The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism, one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally, often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernible in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination� (TF, 354).

I thought it would be best if I broke this sentence down in order to analyze it. Here is my interpretation:

-“The political assumption that there must be a universal basis for feminism…�

This is the political (meaning power and public) assumption (made by Westerners) that there is the same kinds of needs for feminism around the world.

-“one which must be found in an identity assumed to exist cross-culturally�
This basis for feminism is assumed to be the same everywhere, “cross-culturally� (West and East). Women all experience oppression from men in the same ways: sexual, gender, economical etc. It is inevitable in all societies and comes about in the same processes.

“…often accompanies the notion that the oppression of women has some singular form discernable in the universal or hegemonic structure of patriarchy or masculine domination�

The assumption that the same oppressions of women exists universally goes along with the idea that the oppression of women comes only in one form that is distinguishable in the universal (West and “non-West�) structure (ways that society has been created and maintained) of patriarchy (control by the ideologies of men) or masculine domination (meaning domination by power, force, violence, oppression, inequality).

Overall, I think that Butler is critiquing the ways in which Western feminism has tried to categorize ALL women in the world as having the same oppression, simply by being women. The idea that patriarchy is universal is a “short cut to a categorial or fictive universality of the structure of domination� (355).

Posted by Alias at 2:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The identity of the feminist subject ought not to be the foundation of feminist politics, if the formation of the subject takes place within a field of power regularly buried through the assertion of that foundation" (356).
I believe this sentence is a main part of Butler's argument. When she says that there should be no feminist subject at the foundation of feminist politics, many would agree that usually this feminist subject is women. However, in her essay "Gender Trouble," she tries to pull away from feminism being surrounding by only women. She also draws out the complications of only two genders in society. Whether a man, woman, white, black, etc, etc, is the feminist subject of feminist politics, we are pushing that subject into facing scrutiny of the power system. If there is a feminist subject at the foundation of feminist politics, this feminist subject will hinder the efforts of feminist politics because there will be constraints from society's power system upon what the feminist politics are trying to accomplish.

Posted by Callie Hall at 1:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"For feminist theory, the development of a language that fully or adequately represents women has seemed necessary to foster the political visibility of women" (Butler 353). By this, I think Judith Butler means that developing a language or selecting certain word choice to describe women is needed to represent women in the way they should be represented, or the way the feminist would like women to be represented. Language has a large contribution to describing thing or people and the language used to discribe a group can make a significant difference in the way they are perceived. Politically women need to be visible and developing a language to fully describe and represent women is very important so that the women will be heard.

Posted by russ at 11:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

On page 354, Judith Butler states:
"Apart from the foundationalist fictions that support the notion of the subject, however, there is the political problem that feminism encounters in the assumption that the term 'women' denotes a common identity. Rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent of those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term a site of contest, a cause for anxiety."

I believe Butler is making a very astute point in this sentence. In questioning who is the 'subject' of feminism, she points out that simply labeling women as the subject is inherently flawed. The term ‘women’ is nonspecific. It does not account for the multiple avenues of oppression that intersectionally combine to produce hybrid subjects. The avenues such as class, race, sexuality, and ethnicity are separate from gender. Using the term ‘women’ for the subject of feminism creates this picture of a homogenous uniform feminist woman. But in fact, as I believe Butler saying, there are many different shapes and forms of subjects in feminism, and the so called common identity that is created by the term ‘women’ presents a serious problem and truly does cause anxiety.

This is significant because in order to fix something, or come up with a solution to a problem, the 1st step is CORRECTLY identifying the problem. In this case, we need to take great care when drawing the main ‘subject’ of feminism in order to help the effectiveness of the movement.

Posted by hosf0010 at 6:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)