On Judith Butler and ‘Gender Trouble’
“For the most part, feminist theory has assumed that there is some existing identity, understood through the category of women, who not only initiates feminist interests and goals within discourse, but constitutes the subject for whom political representation is pursued.” — Judith Butler
In feminist theory and politics, representation can be said to play a dual role. On the one hand, it is a political tool that grants women legitimacy as active political subjects. While, at the same time, representation takes on a normative function in language, reflecting the category of women. For feminist theorists and activists, the formation of a language that represents women has been necessary to make them more politically visible, especially in countering misinformation and a lack of representation.
Nonetheless, this traditional understanding has faced challenges in feminism, as the very concept of women is questioned. Some theorists now reflect upon how this category can function as a candidate for liberation. In this context, when analysing political and linguistic representation, pre-defined criteria are established, identifying which cases can be accepted and represented; this qualification process requires that certain criteria be met before representation can be extended. As Foucault sees it, structures of legal power not only negatively regulate political life through restriction, prohibition, and domination, but also produce the very subjects they come to represent, according to the needs of those power systems.
“Within feminist political practice, a radical rethinking of the ontological constructions of identity appears to be necessary in order to formulate a representational politics that might revive feminism on other grounds.” (Butler, 1999, p. 8).
The idea of the universal form of feminism across cultural boundaries is often associated with the notion that the oppression of women manifests itself in distinctive ways within universal hegemonic structures of patriarchy. This idea has been criticised for failing to take into account the complexities of gender oppression in specific cultural landscapes. These efforts may have colonised and misappropriated non-Western cultures to support Western notions of oppression, and inadvertently created an “Orient”, in which gender oppression is described as so-called “non-Western barbarism”, when looking beyond the West.
Feminism consequently faces political problems regarding the assumption that the term “woman” denotes a unifying identity, and is a term that interfaces with the diverse intersections of gender, race, class, ethnicity and sexuality. It becomes difficult to separate gender from the political and cultural intersections at which it is constantly generated and maintained. Judith Butler critically examines the premise of feminist theory of fixed identities and fixed subjects. Butler argues that categories such as “women” are also affected by various other factors such as socioeconomic status. Ignoring the specifics of oppression in various temporal and geographical contexts must therefore be avoided.
Butler contends that gender expressions and acts make up components in building gender character, instead of simply reflecting pre-existing identities. This viewpoint opens up outcomes for subversive activities and inclinations to challenge customary gender categories. In any case, they address the dependence on pre-patriarchal models, as these can distort the complexities of power relations. Recent challenges have destabilised the idea of a settled subject of women and called for a more nuanced understanding of gender. By embracing Butler’s view of gender, and acknowledging its diverse intersections, the theory can evolve into a more comprehensive movement. Butler’s approach encourages us to view gender as fluid, and question conventional gender standards, and effectively challenge the limitations of representational talk to advance towards gender equality.
Butler challenges the presumption of a steady and widespread category of “women’’ as well as the thought of a widespread patriarchy that consistently persecutes women over all social settings. Butler contends that the term “women” has ended up a challenged and tricky signifier, causing uneasiness and sparking debates surrounding differing convergences with sex, race, class, ethnicity, and sexuality. Within the setting of pushing for the rights of certain people, such as “women”, Butler’s point of view prompts a reexamination of conventional gender categories. While experiences may differ based on how society categorises individuals as men or women, Butler emphasises the expressive nature of gender. That gender identities are not settled or foreordained but are constituted through social temporality.
With respect to gender, we can recognise that certain problems may rise based on social categorisations. For instance, somebody seen as a woman may be more likely to encounter workplace harassment or discrimination, whereas somebody categorised as a man might confront other challenges. Butler’s critique does not reduce the reality of gender-based issues or fights that people confront. Instead, it urges us to question the stability of gender categories and recognise that gender is a socially constructed aspect of identity, transcending traditional gender binaries.
The social construction of race may be a well-established concept, but it is fundamental to recognise that prejudice holds on in spite of its constructed nature, and the signs of racism can change altogether across different settings. For example, some people may be considered “white” in South America but be classified as “Latino” within the United States of America, due to the fluidity in racial categorisations across the temporal and cultural. In any case, this does not refute the significance of supporting the rights of those who encounter negative racial stereotyping and separation.
In advocating for the rights of people, Butler’s approach calls for a more extensive understanding of gender, in relation with other intersections, and thus, a comprehensive approach to activism. Instead of fortifying fixed gender categories, intersectionality matters in our endeavours, recognising the complexities and diversities of human experiences. Disability, for instance, does not as such have to be a fixed category either, as people may experience changes in their physical capacities over time. Some people may be able to pass as able-bodied given certain circumstances. It is therefore important to reconsider these traditionally fixed categories, without negating biological facticity.
Consequently, we could look to liberate individuals from the imperatives forced by social gender and dominant categorisations or discourses. Butler’s view is that we must not oversimplify the complexity of gender and identity, not ignoring the differing qualities and ease inalienable in individuals’ encounters. The objective is then to transcend limiting gender norms that restrict our autonomy.
Bibliography
Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
