Comparing Butler's Argument to Gates, Jr.'s and What Words Are At Stake

As I read Judith Butler’s “Gender Trouble” I couldn’t help but compare it to Henry Gates, Jr.’s “Writing ‘Race’”. At the center of both Butler’s and Gates’ respective discussions is the argument that modern discourse and language inhibits full understanding and equality. Butler focuses on how generalized terms like “gender”, “sex”, or “woman” create boundaries of discourse and analysis because they presume that those terms encapsulate a group defined by one feature or idea. Gates says that the language we speak in is dominated by our Western traditions that have inherent ideas of race, reasoning, and humanity attached to them. For Gates, the word “race” became a word of classification overarching a larger group, much what like what Butler says has happened to the word “woman” or “gender”.

Both theorists are arguing against the words that are used as markers of difference. In their presumed connotations they are binaries, two-sided and limiting. But, both Butler and Gates say this is not how it should be. The terms “race”, “gender”, “woman”, among others should be such vivid symbols of distinction, because they are not. A person cannot readily identify with a rigid, solidified definition of the word, because each person’s experience is different. But, there are key differences between the two essays. Gates seems to delve more into how modern language and discourse has been constructed, and therefore explains why we attach certain assumptions to words. But Butler explains what we should do differently, why rigid definitions limit discourse, and why we should expand our definitions of words.

Of the words that Butler says need to be reconceptualized in her essay are “gender”, “woman”, and “sex”. But, “construction” is one that holds special significance to her argument. Butler questions what it means to be “constructed”. Choice and destiny have become defining characteristics of the words she says are at stake. This explains why a rigid definition cannot be used to cover a broad group. These words rely heavily on personal experience and choice.

So, to answer another question for today’s class, I think Butler would argue that conveying one’s personal experience is the ultimate discursive power. She wants us to remove presumptions made about words that are used to define wide and varied groups of individuals. That’s because we can’t apply rigid definitions of the words to every single person. Instead, the words should become more varied in their definitions so that they can then be used in discourse and analysis. Individual experience needs to become a part of their definitions. To apply a rigid definition is to restrict understanding of the broad nature of a group and consequently create markers of difference.