Judith Butler vocalizes an idea I had been trying to form from our discussion on Hum and Gates; She gets to the root of the problem in the fight for representation--the subject. We may have already realized that language and politics harbor limitations and constraints on representation (cyclically reinforcing each other), "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, 2). As Butler states this is obvious, however her application of Foucault's critical theory is how she substantiates claims I could not quite solidify in my mind.
How can we 'fight the system' when it was built in a way that limits us as the subject? As Butler states, it is self-defeating (3-4). This may seem obvious, but it is a realization that has caused me to look at the world around me differently; questioning the 'systems' that were put in place to protect and limit me, rather than liberate or represent me. I have never before, considered the subject of feminism or that which represents the 'system' the subject is fighting, for representation.
Feminism for me has been black and white in the area of subject. Women are the subject, seeking equal representation and equal rights. However Butler makes a valid point, 'women' suggests a common identity "rather than a stable signifier that commands the assent for those whom it purports to describe and represent, women, even in the plural, has become a troublesome term" (4). It is true that though I am a woman, that is not all I am. My gender does intersect with my race, as well as other individualizing factors; and truly what does it mean to be a 'woman'. Does this term not limit us to be constrained by what makes up a 'woman' within our episteme. Does it not conform us to a limiting mass-identity?
We are again self-defeated, forced into a subject that is a production of the society we are fighting against, "The notion of a universal patriarchy has been widely criticized in recent years for its failure to account for the workings of gender oppression in the concrete cultural contexts in which it exists" (5). How can the subject deemed 'women' fight for equality to 'men' when the system--a patriarchy--ignores the ramifications and existence of gender oppression?
I see movements today that attempt to address this problem, however I don't think they are quite there yet. Emma Watson, scholar and actress, has blazed a different path for gender equality. Her campaign #HeforShe begins to delve into a separation of gender needing to unite in the fight for equality. She notes how gender oppression and inequality affects both genders, though it may not always seem as obvious. She also specifies the importance, and the need for, men to advocate for women's equality. In a way I feel this addresses part of Butler's complications with feminism and the fight for equality. Emma Watson is attempting to bring the patriarch in on the fight against the patriarch. In this way, she is bringing in a new subject that does not face the same constraints as the term 'women' in the system. However the fact that equality is even a gendered issue, is problematic. I am not sure that it is one that can be solved. Personally I think it would involve an entirely new way of thinking and structuring that does away with gender. In theory it may be possible, but in reality I can't see us getting there. However this won't stop me from trying, and from exploring the subject further!
If your interested in #HeforShe, here are some links!
Emma Watson UN Speech
HeforShe talks
A HeforShe conversation with Emma Watson
Emma Watson (Time's 100 Most Influential People)
I love this post! You captured everything that I was trying to say in mine and more. I also love the links that were provided. It made your argument much stronger. I also love how you talk about how you are a woman but that does not define all that you are. I think race and gender and personality are all separate pieces of each persons puzzle. Great job at explaining this!
ReplyDeleteAs you immediately begin to discuss in the first part of your post, Butler's work also made me even more aware of gender and its connections to my other identifying elements. As a woman, I am not solely defined by being just that, my race, sex, ethnicity, regional location, all work together to define who I am. These intersections cannot be ignored. Butler really talks about the problems surrounding the "subject" and how this term really limits feminism from transcending gender oppression when the subject is masculine. I love how you stated that it is "women" fighting for "women" to "men", however, how can these distinction more toward equality when they are fighting in a patriarchal society of masculine discourse. You end your way with stating that there needs to be a new way to think about, structure, gender. I believe at the end of Butler's essay the problem rests within the mind/body distinctions, and how we need to rethink this structure in order to tackle gender equality. Unfortunately, I also agree that realistically thinking, restructuring these ideas about sex and gender to implement change, is unlikely.
ReplyDeleteSamantha,
ReplyDeleteIt is true that it hard for us to be represented in a system that limits us as subjects. Butler explains that "...representation serves as the operative term within a political process that seeks to extend visibility and legitimacy to women as political subjects" (2). It is a political process -- a process that is phallocentric. It is the man that we have the power to legitimize us as political subjects. This is problematic, "...politics must be concerned with this dual function of power: the juridicial and the productive" (Butler 3). Butler supplements this claim through her analysis of Beauvoir's The Second Sex, "...men could not settle the question of women because they would then be acting as both judge and party to the case" (15). Men have all the agency in the world, they choose whether or not deem women as visible political subjects. They are the system that we have to fight against to become representable, to overcome the "otherness."
-Kelli