JUDITH BUTLER

by Shuangshuang Yang (2023)

Judith Butler, born on February 24, 1956, is an influential American feminist, philosopher, gender study writer, and queer theorist. She grew up in a Jewish family and attended Hebrew School where she received the early training in philosophy. She received her Ph.D. in Philosophy from Yale University in 1984 and is Distinguished Professor in the Graduate School and formerly the Maxine Elliot Chair in the Department of Comparative Literature and the Program of Critical Theory at the University of California, Berkeley. As a queer individual, Butler prefers to use singular “they” pronouns, but I use “she/her/hers” to refer to Judith Butler in this essay to be coherent with prior important literature about her theories (which ironically reflects the tenacity of heteronormality and the binary understanding of gender, just like her books suggested).

Butler's experiences and insights have been shaped by her own non-normative sexual orientation and gender identity. She has made significant contributions to gender and queer theory, particularly through her popular and influential book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (2011, originally published in 1990). In this book, she critiques the binary view of gender relations and argues that gender is a complex interplay of cultural norms, discourses, and power dynamics. She also explores the ways in which gender norms are reinforced, regulated, and enforced within society, and the potential for subverting these norms to challenge oppressive power structures.

In this essay, I first discuss Butler’s key concept of gender performativity, detailing its assumptions, arguments, and implications. Then, I put Butler in conversation with MacKinnon on their theories of gender. I conclude this essay by summarizing the weaknesses and strengths of Butler’s theory and highlighting the implications of Gender Trouble.

CONSTITUTING AND TROUBLING GENDER

In Gender Trouble (2011), Judith Butler delves into the intricate relationship between sex, sexuality, and gender, effectively challenging conventional understandings of these concepts. To begin with, Butler rejects the notion of a strict sex/gender distinction and posits that gender is neither causally determined by sex nor as fixed as sex itself (Butler 2011: 88). She argues that biological sex, while often assigned at birth based on physical attributes, is not an inherently biological or natural category; rather, it is subject to cultural and historical contingencies (Butler 2011: 91). Consequently, the connection between sex and gender is not predetermined but is shaped by social and discursive processes.

Another critical aspect of Butler's analysis is her aim to disentangle gender subversion from sexuality. By doing so, she seeks to challenge the prevailing assumption that alternative expressions or non-conformity with gender norms must necessarily be linked to specific sexual desires or practices (Butler 2011: 31). She contends that this conflation often reinforces normative and essentialist understandings of gender, perpetuating the belief that gender identities are directly determined by one's sexual orientation. Instead, Butler emphasizes the potential for gender subversion and resistance that disrupts or challenges traditional gender norms without being inherently tied to one's sexual desires or practices (Butler 2011: 32).

When the link between sex/sexuality and gender is naturalized, it reinforces the belief that there are only two distinct and mutually exclusive genders: male and female. This binary understanding of gender can be harmful as it enforces a system that excludes and marginalizes individuals whose identities and experiences do not align with the prescribed norms. It reinforces social hierarchies and power imbalances based on gender, leading to discrimination, prejudice, and the denial of rights and opportunities for those who do not fit within the binary framework. Thus, Butler argues against the naturalization of the sex/sexuality/gender link and challenges the binary understanding of gender. She proposes a more nuanced and inclusive perspective that recognizes the performative nature of gender, emphasizing that it is a social construct that is continually produced and reproduced through cultural and discursive practices.

Judith Butler’s concept of gender performativity is a central aspect of her theory of gender. She argues that gender is not an inherent or fixed attribute but a socially constructed and performed phenomenon. Gender performativity operates through a set of repetitive acts, which she refers to as "citation." These acts involve individuals referencing and imitating existing gender norms and performances. Through citation, individuals reiterate and reinforce gendered practices, maintaining, perpetuating, or intervening on the social construction of gender. Further, gender is always a doing, though not a doing by a subject who might be said to preexist the deed. She argues that “there is no ‘being’ behind doing, effecting, becoming; ‘the doer’ is merely a fiction added to the deed—the deed is everything”, suggesting that gendered acts produce gendered subjects that can generate them (Butler 2011: 140). Gender performances are not solely individual acts but are shaped by societal norms, expectations, and discourses. These norms and expectations dictate how individuals should express their gender and conform to specific gender roles.

Individuals internalize and reproduce these performances through socialization processes, such as education, family dynamics, and media influences. The performance of gender becomes ingrained and habitual, often unconsciously reproduced and regulated by individuals to fit within societal expectations (Butler 2011: 237). However, Butler also acknowledges that gender performativity is not a straightforward process of compliance. She highlights the potential for subversion and resistance within gender performances (Butler 2011: 402). Individuals can challenge and disrupt normative gender expectations by engaging in acts of gender non-conformity, subversive gestures, or by highlighting the constructed nature of gender through parody or exaggeration.

In the last chapter, Butler talks about moving beyond identity politics and critiques the notion that political mobilization should solely revolve around fixed and essential identity categories. Rather than centering political action on individual identities, Butler calls for collective action and coalition building across various marginalized groups. This involves recognizing the intersections of different forms of oppression, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism, and working together to challenge and dismantle these intersecting systems of power. Eventually, the goal of moving beyond identity politics is not to disregard or erase the importance of personal and collective identities (Butler 2011: 474). Instead, it is about recognizing the limitations of essentialist understandings of identity, broadening the scope of political engagement to address the complex and interrelated dynamics of power and oppression, and creating a more equitable society.

BUTLER AND MACKINNON

Constituting and Troubling Gender

While both Catharine MacKinnon and Judith Butler recognize the possible link between sexuality and gender, their divergent perspectives stem from their theoretical assumptions (Butler 2011: 28). MacKinnon centers on (hetero)sexuality to construct her theory of gender. She basically assumes that “heterosexuality determines gender”, arguing “gender emerges as the congealed form of sexualization of inequality between men and women” (MacKinnon 1989: 4). In MacKinnon's analysis, gender and sexuality are understood as complex social constructs that intersect and operate within systems of power. The ways in which gender is constructed and enforced impact the experiences, opportunities, and vulnerabilities of individuals based on their sex. Sexuality, in this context, is seen as a realm where these power dynamics are enacted and reinforced.

Butler strongly disagrees with MacKinnon’s idea that “sexual hierarchy produces and consolidates gender” and suggests the assumption that having a gender equals to entering a heterosexual relationship of subordination is homophobic, because it prescribes the sexual ordering of gender and maintains “men who are men will be straight, women who are women will be straight” (Butler 2011: 30). Further, Butler indicates there exist two popular views on the relation between sexuality and gender: the sexist claim that “a woman only exhibits her womanness in the act of heterosexual coitus in which her subordination becomes her pleasure”, and the feminist claim that advocates for the elimination of gender altogether because gender is always an expression of sexual subordination (Butler 2011: 31). She criticizes both claims for maintaining orthodox heterosexuality normality and failing to acknowledge alternative sexual practices, and argues that “gender can be rendered ambiguous without disturbing or reorienting normative sexuality” (Butler 2011: 31). Based on her critique of heterosexual frame of sexuality and gender, she starts developing the theory of performativity and contends that the performance of gender subversion can be irrelevant to sexuality.

Performativity vs. Exploitation

Butler's concept of gender performativity and MacKinnon's focus on sexual exploitation offer distinct perspectives on gender and power dynamics. While Butler emphasizes the performative nature of gender and challenges traditional gender norms, MacKinnon centers her analysis on the systemic oppression, exploitation, and objectification of women within heterosexuality.

Butler's notion of gender performativity argues that gender is not a fixed or essential attribute, but a social construct enacted through repeated acts and performances (Butler 2011: 162). This view challenges the binary understanding of gender and emphasizes the fluidity and malleability of gender identities. She also highlights how societal norms and expectations shape and regulate gender performances. For Butler, the performative nature of gender provides possibilities for subverting and destabilizing traditional gender norms, encouraging individuals to explore alternative expressions of gender (Butler 2011: 102). MacKinnon's analysis, exemplified in works like Toward a Feminist Theory of State, centers on the systemic exploitation and objectification of women within patriarchal societies. MacKinnon focuses on the ways in which gender inequality is perpetuated through sexual means, such as pornography, prostitution, and sexual violence. She argues that women are subjected to systemic sexual objectification and that sexuality becomes a tool of control and domination within patriarchal power structures (MacKinnon 1989: 83). MacKinnon's work emphasizes the material realities of gendered oppression and calls for legal and institutional interventions to address gender inequality and sexual exploitation.

Despite these differences, there are also points of convergence and complementarity between Butler and MacKinnon's theories of gender: Both Butler and MacKinnon recognize the intersectionality of gender with other axes of identity and power, such as race and class. They acknowledge that gender operates within complex systems of oppression and that multiple forms of discrimination and exploitation intersect and reinforce each other. Both theorists reject essentialist views of gender, which posit that gender is fixed and determined by biological sex. They emphasize the socially constructed nature of gender and challenge the idea that there is an inherent essence or natural basis for gender identity.

Individual Subjectivity vs. Collective Experience

Butler and MacKinnon emphasize different approaches to “trouble” the current systems of power. Butler questions the notion that there is an authentic or true self underlying gender identities, suggesting that subjectivity is constructed through the ongoing process of performing gender (Butler 2011: 145-146). This analysis encourages a critical examination of personal subjectivity and an exploration of alternative gender expressions. In contrast, MacKinnon, while acknowledging the importance of individual experiences, focuses more on the collective experience of women being exploited within patriarchal societies (MacKinnon 1989: 84). Despite different approaches, Butler and MacKinnon share a commitment to political and social change. While Butler's emphasis lies in cultural and discursive interventions, encouraging resistance through acts of non-conformity, MacKinnon highlights the need for legal and institutional reforms (based on collective actions) to address gender-based oppression and exploitation.

CONCLUSION

Some gender scholars have raised concerns about the potential exclusionary elements of Butler's theory of performativity if it becomes a dominant and hegemonic system. For instance, Dennis Schep (2011) draws on Nancy's concept of finite thinking to propose an alternative approach to universality that may offer a more inclusive way of conceptualizing gender. Schep (2011) argues that Butler's attempt to encompass all gender dynamics within a single theory of performativity may lead to the exclusion of certain possible gender identities. In contrast, finite thinking acknowledges the limits of any given system or theory and allows for the recognition and validation of multiple and diverse identities.

Moreover, critics argue that Butler's reduction of the materiality of gender events to discursive signification overlooks the specificities of gendered bodies and the complexities of non-discursive realities in gender experiences. This includes oppressive regulations imposed on non-dominant gender practices, the violence experienced by transgender individuals, and the moral pressures faced by gender minorities. For instance, Boucher (2006) suggests that Butler's assertion that performative speech acts transform the referent assumes that transcendental subjectivity not only shapes epistemological forms but also determines the substantial materiality of the object-world. Consequently, despite the novel epistemological framework introduced by gender performativity, Butler's alignment with the dominance of signs and discourses in poststructuralist theory undermines the significance of material realities in actual lived experiences. This implies that gender becomes an autonomous system detached from the social and material dimensions of gender, as well as individual engagement.

While some critics argue that Butler's analysis leads to a pessimistic view of collective resistance, her work also opens possibilities for social change. By unveiling the constructed nature of gender, Butler challenges readers to question the norms that govern their own lives and envision new possibilities. She encourages individuals to engage in acts of subversion and resistance to disrupt oppressive power structures, empowers readers by demonstrating that they have the agency to challenge and reshape the gender norms that constrain them.

Judith Butler’s theory also has had a profound impact on feminist scholarship and broader discussions on identity, power, and social norms. Butler's concept of gender performativity offers a powerful critique of essentialist notions of gender. Her analysis disrupts the idea of fixed and natural gender categories, leading to a more nuanced, fluid, and dynamic understanding of gender identities. Furthermore, she recognizes the intersectionality of gender with other aspects of identity such as race, class, and sexuality (Butler 2011: 111). She emphasizes the ways in which gender is entangled with other forms of oppression and discrimination, highlighting the interconnected nature of social identities and experiences. It encourages readers to consider the multiple dimensions of privilege and marginalization that intersect with gender.

In total, Judith Butler's Gender Trouble remains a powerful and important book that continues to resonate with readers today. Its deconstruction of gender norms, call for an intersectional analysis, political engagement, impact on theory, and relevance in contemporary contexts make it a valuable resource for anyone interested in understanding and challenging societal norms surrounding gender. People should still read Gender Trouble because it challenges traditional understandings of gender, encourages critical thinking, and provides tools for analyzing and challenging oppressive systems.

REFERENCES

Boucher, Geoff. 2006. "The Politics of Performativity: A Critique of Judith Butler." Parrhesia, 1(1), 112-141.

Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.

MacKinnon, Catharine. 1989. Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Harvard University Press.

Schep, Dennis. 2012. “The Limits of Performativity: A Critique of Hegemony in Gender Theory.” Hypatia, 27(4), 864-880.