Alt Text
Show parent replies
just read an article critiquing Butler's gender theory by Dennis Schep ("The Limits of Performativity: A Critique
of Hegemony in Gender Theory") and idk how to think about it yet but i have some feelings
first of all ill be clear that i dont have enough background understanding in structuralism or psychoanalysis to fully grasp butler, but it doesn't seem required for this article. at the same time tho, i am worried by that bc it might be simplifying.
basically the whole argument is basically just "To say that identity is performative may be liberatory for some, but pose an insurmountable conflict for others, particularly those who perceive their identity to be structured by some form of essentialist determination"
... and like... yeah? and thats ok lol. like i know they try to have a sympathetic example in the article of a trans woman but idk seems like cope to me tbh. ofc i have to be careful bc personal agenderish tendencies but like im sorry to say that performativity is
"cultural imperialism" is just fucking hilarious. idk i get big "veganism is anti-indigenous" vibes from this. like there are some important critiques to be made of veganism and or performativity when approaching marginalized groups politically and rhetorically, but that
doesnt mean its just like haha welp throw it all in the trash bc some marginalized people don't like it. like there are absolutely queerphobic trans people and i dont think this is really very useful for doing this shit lol
also butler is contrasted with foucault a lot and criticized for basically not doing the same thing? like not exactly but it seems really weird. a geneology of gender would be worthless, everyone knows its culturally and historically contingent, that wouldnt do anything to
dislodge the affinity for essentialism people feel and would not get to the metaphysical nature of things. there needs to be theory done in this way that can't just be handled like punishment for example idk
that being said the article did cite someone i think will be more convincing, or at least seems a lot more promising. Sedgwick, Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading. weak theory and strong theory, bad surprises. i think i much more partial to these ideas, even if Schep is
trying to argue the same thing. With all this being said, i think there are still strong criticisms you can make about hegemony within a field, even if that hegemony is ostensibly progressive. but i think that criticism has to be very focused and precise, and the examples can't
come from common usage where most people are likely not to have fully understood what is actually being said.