Judith Butler and Difficult Reading
In response to the question, 'Is difficult reading a luxury that only those with time (and money) can afford?' I would agree that difficult reading is a luxury allowing for only persons with free time and the money to afford the texts to 'enjoy.' As a college student, I don't have much disposable income and almost all of the books I buy are for classes. During summer and winter break are the only extended periods of time that I have to afford reading Judith Butler or Adorno for 'fun.' I don't believe that those who have not learned to read closely are harmed much if at all. Because we take the time and the money to be able to read difficult texts, we have that ability. What about people who work three jobs and have children? Their survival does not depend on reading closely. One could argue, I suppose, that by reading closely, a population could create the foundation necessary for revolutionary thought and action. I would counter that, as discussed above, this luxury of difficult reading is not affordable for a large portion of the population. For those who can afford to read difficult texts, is it necessary for those people to engage in such reading? If what Judith Butler says in A Bad Writer Bites Back is true, difficult reading, for those who can afford it, is necessary to "help point the way to a more socially just world." This quote, however, makes me question how exactly Butler assumes difficult reading will bring about a more 'socially just world.' I'm sure that there are some people who, even if they did manage to read Butler's texts, would disagree with her ideas. Those persons who disagree may or may not help the world become more socially just. Butler suggests in the article as well that "common sense sometimes preserves the social status quo" and that difficult reading (and writing) can challenge that common sense and, in essence, challenge the status quo. To use hooks, what about those straight white male capitalist patriarchs? Or would their reading of difficult texts not challenge but not alter their common sense? I'm not sure.
How is difficult reading (and writing) supposed to challenge the status quo? Especially those who may not agree with queer theory?
Comments
IMO, although I agree that in all likelihood a sizable percentage of those who can't afford to read Butler's work would disagree with her ideas, this doesn't eliminate the possibility for difficult reading to challenge the status quo. A challenge doesn't necessarily lead directly to a change, especially in relation to social norms and perceptions. But if people aren't aware of ideas or arguments beyond their own, their "common sense," then even the possibility of change is precluded. Difficult reading poses a challenge to the status quo by introducing new or non-mainstream ideas, such as queer theory, to the masses. It's not necessarily an immediately broad-based challenge, but it provides the foundation for future changes.
p.s In case you're curious, I found your site through the notebook in the drawer between the armchairs at the P.O.
Posted by: S | April 7, 2008 01:53 PM