in support of, “Oh, the Hypocrisy.”

4

August 8, 2011 by Katie.

My lovely friend Nikki B. over at Women Are From Mars recently wrote a great post for Gay Pride Month (yes, that’s June…I’m a little behind) on the hypocrisy of the gay community judging those who define themselves through other alternative-sexual titles.  (Go read it here.)  Nikki B. gets all up on her soap box and I love her for it.  I wanted to raise armies to rally to her cause.  Unfortunately, I don’t have armies but I do have…books.  And we all know the pen is mightier than the sword, right?

I present the Queen of Discursive Sexuality herself:  Ms. Judith Butler.

Coincidently, I’ve been holed up in the densely verbose land of Ms. J. for the entirety of the summer (a full time job can make for slow reading) and I’m super stoked to share my findings.  Butler’s Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex is jammed packed with all sorts of delicious ideas but, in sum, she asks the question:

How does language – and the skads of context, history, and meaning in each word – limit, or delimit, sexuality, identity, and “normalcy”; not only in the realm of linguistics and definition but even into the realm of physical possibility?

To put it plainly:  LABELING.  How do LABELS make us.  And, make us decide which bodies matter and which bodies don’t.  Which (some)bodys matter, even.

And that’s what Nikki’s talkin’ about, right?

I want to point out one of the major textual layers of Butler’s argument.  Words (concepts, ideas) like “sex” and its presumed naturalness (the “sex” of a being as being something that occurs in nature) work not only to include (limiting)  – “Hi. I’m a woman.”  or  “Hi.  I’m a man.” –  but also to exclude (delimiting).  I’ll quote Nikki (she’s quoting the “hypocrites”):

“Hey, look at these people over here! Now, they’re different. That shit? Totally not right, dudes. Totally. They really should figure their shit out.”

Ahem. Right.  Maybe you should realize your citational performativity – and figure that shit out.

Which brings me to Butler’s sub-point: Performance as citation.  Wtf does that mean?

You begin with a. Perfomance: an act that reiterates a social/cultural norm or set of norms that appears as an original intent of the performer but is actually concealing a long history of meaning.  Or, more simply, we recognize the act because we’ve seen it a million times before; we recognize its meaning because the meaning is built in; you add in b. a Performative: a practice that enacts or produces that which it names.  Similar to the Performance.  Butler’s example, “Let there be light!” and…there was [light]; lastly, to further draw out the second part of Performance c. Citationality: when you Perform you are citing or drawing on all of the pre-established historical narrative of a Performance/Performative.  The Performances/Performatives only work because they are already familiar.  We “know” what they are supposed to mean we already “know” the limits. (Butler, pgs. 12-13.)

Why does this matter for gender/”sex”?  How does this pertain to Nikki’s post?  Well, the identification with a “sex” re: man/woman/heterosexual is inherently citational.  The intelligible possibilities for a sexed body are produced, reiterated, and maintained through the constant citation of the norms.  Furthermore, these citations, these “norms,” produce inclusion and exclusion.  Remember “limiting” and “delimiting”?  Yeah, that.  If your citation is recognizable, you are included in society.

This particularly pertains to Nikki’s post because – I think – Homosexuality, to a certain extent, has become a recognizable citation.  And, by drawing further attention to bisexuality, fluidity, or transexuality, those who are outside the norms – or excluded – homosexuals increase the cementation of the borders that include them as “normal.”  This is understandable when you consider the results of exclusion: “psychosis, abjection, psychic unlivability.” (Butler, pg. 15.)

The good news is: these citations can be revised!; because, we, by citing the norms, by reiterating them, make them up!

Those who are excluded don’t have to be.

And this is what Butler is striving to do; this is what Nikki, in her post, asks us to consider:

How can we rethink these norms so that everyone, every body, is legitimized and MATTERS.

Suggested Reading:
Butler, Judith.   Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex.

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “in support of, “Oh, the Hypocrisy.”

  1. Patrick says:

    Excellent post, but in my mind the next obvious question, and probably the most difficult, is “How?” If there is now an increasingly recognizable citation for homosexuality, which I agree that there is, is it not because inherent in this definition is a a rather limited range of accepted performance? Because of this defineability I begin to fear that labels of transsexual, bisexual, and (especially) “fluid” are, respectively, more difficult to define a performativity that can be cited and therefore doomed to remain on the outskirts of borders of normality. I would like to see it be otherwise, and I hold out hope that it is possible, but it would be more difficult than the welcoming of homosexuality into the index of citational performativity. Unless some watershed is slowly being broken by homosexuality that enables a growing acceptance of “other-ness”. Then again, it’s not like that is going down without a fight (looking at you, Tea Party evangelicals)

    • Simone. says:

      Wow, Patrick! Thanks for the comment. You are definitely correct; those “other” labels are more difficult (in some ways) to define than homosexuality. Part of Butler’s argument, however, that I didn’t cover in the initial post discusses the necessity of “exclusion” in “inclusion.” It’s a variation of the old “humans think binarily” argument; we define ourselves mostly by what we are not. In fact, says Butler, it’s possible we cannot define ourselves – “identify” – without disidentifying. Moreover, Butler also maintains that the “excluded” – she calls it the “outside” actually is constantly, albeit possibly subconsciously challenging the “inside.” She says the citation of the “outside” contains not only political possibility but also the potential for radical rearticulation. Or, continuing to cite the “outside” – talk about it, act on it – in and of itself upsets the regulatory “norm” in place….

  2. Nikki B says:

    Oh my, words. Good morning, brain. Yes it is Monday. Wake the fuck up.

    Ahem.

    There is obviously a desire for those who were once “other” to be now included in “normal” – maybe because then they don’t have to define themselves over and over and over again? They are now a part of the familiar, we now all understand “homosexuality” (even is some would rather we still didn’t – Tea Pary evangelicals included here).

    Part of gaining that acceptance into what is normal, perhaps, is to contrast oneself with that which is still clearly *not* normal, in terms of what we’re familiar with – e.g. it’s ok to be gay – at least we’re not those trans peeps or those weird kids who want to be called “fluid” (holla!). To some extent, we legitimize our bodies, our selves, our “performance” by making someone else’s body, self, “lifestyle” illegitimate. Right? In addition, we can then agree with the people who once didn’t understand/accept us, on that “those people over there” aren’t legitimate. Thus concreting a new “normal” that now includes us. Yes?

    We all have a drive for acceptance, and perhaps that also drives us to contrast ourselves with those even less “normal” in order to do that… and to miss the point that we’re marginalizing and ostracizing anew. Whether we realize it or not, we care more about being accepted than we do about dismissing someone else.

    I suppose the answer to “how” is what we’re doing now. Educate. Discuss. Think. And, above all else, remember what it was like outside that boundary of “normal” – and try our darndest not allow our own acceptance be at the cost of someone else’s.

    • Simone. says:

      Thanks for responding, Nikki! Glad you liked it; I wouldn’t want to do a disservice to you lovely post! I won’t repeat myself because I think my reply to Patrick’s comment re-articulates your comment sum-up! We need to educate, think, and discuss! WE NEED TO CITE, as Ms. J.B. would say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: