So I chose to write about Butler and about this, I am surprised. By all intents and purposes, I feel that I should be drawn to Focault and his metaphor of the panopticon. In so many ways, I see my student’s lives dictated and controlled under the watchful guard of school authority – which I believe is at the heart of the Achievement Gap. Yet I do not want to write about Focault and his institutions. It is to Butler and her gender/sex/natural/cultural/feminine/phallogocentric world that my thoughts seem to return to again and again. I was initially surprised by how intrigued I am with Gender Trouble, given that some of what she writes does not resonate with me. I do not mean that I doubt her theories, or even disagree with them. I mean that I have suspended judgment on some of her observations of gender and sex, simply because I do not know how to feel about them.
After giving more thought to Butler’s appeal, and the way that I tend to navigate the world in general, I realize that this lack of feeling is where my intrigue lies. Normally, I steer through theories that are new to me by creating an empathic link. I connect with the humanity about whom the theories or philosophies are derived. Faces of students, family members, neighbors, and friends replace those of the theoretical subjects, and I get it. I feel it; I walk their paths and in doing so, understand the theory on a level that encompasses more than a left-brain comprehension of terminology and syntax.
But what does one do when confronted with the realization that as the subject of the theory now in question, she was never given the language or the perspective to view the path she has walked – and continues to walk -in any other way than as what it is? In other words, my connection to feminist theory has always been in the recognition of subjugation of a woman by a man, not in the very definition of what each gender/sex embodies respectively. I cannot feel this and because I cannot, I am in unchartered territory. Because I am in unchartered territory, I am intrigued.
So the initial surprise I mentioned above, has given way to delight – and it is delight – in the opportunity to connect to humanity in a way I have not previously attempted, and more importantly, to reconfigure my own place within that world. Thus my path through Butler, education and me, must diverge. The first is the part of Butler that is familiar – that coheres with the path I have walked the past thirty-five years. The second is the unfamiliar – the unknown – the path that by virtue of having my eyes opened to it, I most certainly must follow as surely as I must leave the other behind.
The Familiar
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge that the basic premise of Butler’s work did not align with my beliefs in the idea of constructed performativity. In fact, Derrida’s deconstructionism is how I approach teaching literature in my classroom. Every novel – especially the classics – is held under the microscope of what “truths” have been constructed by reason of the author’s place in history, gender (sex), socio-cultural and socio-economic background. It is the only way to be combat much or the patriarchal, classist, and White supremacist doctrines that have infiltrated most of the literary canon. It is the only way to create a culturally responsive, equitable classroom in terms of student engagement to the curriculum.
In that respects, the idea that “only men are ‘persons’ and there is no gender but the feminine” (p. 27) is a familiar concept to be applied across culture and class. Only Whites are persons so the only culture is one of color. Only middle class is normative so class issues are directed at people of low income. Individualism is self-sufficiency – collectivism is needy. Capitalistic gain is success – simple living is sloth. Stoicism is strong – emotions are weak. These examples are “set within the terms of cultural hegemonic discourse predicated on binary structures that appear as the language of rationality” (p. 12) and are “defined by what they lack” (p. 13) in the same way as the binary opposition of the male/female sexes.
These truths I recognized long ago, so in this way, the feminism of Butler is the feminism I understand. The term “tomboy” invokes a belief in what qualities predicate a girl in direct relation to what predicates a boy – the specifics of this cross over to my unfamiliar path so I will discuss this further later. Another example is the idea of female promiscuity. Again, there is a constructed definition of what are appropriate sexual actions by women, and by nature this conversation would not exist if the definition was not initially determined based on the interaction of women with men.
Even terms like “presidential’ or “professional” really carry these predications. As I discussed in class, would the discussion of Sarah Palin’s of Hilary Clinton’s actions be described as unpresidential, if at first we had not constructed the idea of what presidential really meant in terms of men and women? Would the office-wear decorum of skirts without hose be “unprofessional” if the standard of “professionalism” was not male slacks?
Returning, then, to education, it is primarily my objective to empower girls not to internalize the phallogocentric discourse that permeates every institution, media form and social interaction these young women experience. Literature, again, provides the medium for deconstructing these beliefs and awakening them to the cultural hegemony to which they partake. I must confess, I usually have very passionate feminists by semester’s end – some that are boys by the way – and I firmly believe that by unmasking the nature of the “truths” they have internalized, the door is open to the possibilities that lie before them. However, I have a poster in my classroom that states, “A girl is anything she wants to be” and though this is wonderful in its precept, I recognize it as unnecessary if the assumption was not first that a girl is something already defined. This is where my path of thirty five years stops.
The Unfamiliar
I struggle with the idea of having one base of reality from which to work – which is the contradiction that is created in Gender Trouble. Butler recognizes the binary opposition between males and females by nature of existence – and really physical parts – but does she allow for this opposition to be reciprocal? What I mean is that if we acknowledge this opposition, can we not say that a man is defined by everything that is not women, and the significance, or the judgment, or the bias upon that statement is what is actually constructed? One of the ideas that was significantly life-changing for me a few years back, was the Frerian concept of the oppressor as dehumanized by dehumanizing others. This opens an entirely new realm of thinking in regards to whom the victim is and by what measure. This idea of “lacking”, again, is constructed with the idea that the male opinion has been the most significant. I have never felt like I was lacking anything by not having a penis, but rather that men attach a ridiculous amount of importance to having one. Growing up with two brothers and now watching my husband and son frequently celebrate their male parts, I find myself nonplussed by this propensity to define oneself by a protruding part of one’s anatomy.
I know that men have historically held the power based on that anatomical protrusion, so I am not trying to be naïve, but to even engage in this discourse at all, seems to contradict what Butler is arguing. It is like a series of double negatives upon double negatives – a kind of chicken and egg argument. The familiar path has told me that true feminism is acknowledging all that is female and embracing it – not necessarily throwing out the definition all together. That too, seems to suppose a set definition already in existence. Does the definition of feminine really only become problematic when limitations or rewards are placed upon that definition? By ignoring gender/sex qualities, are we enacting the gender/sex equivalent of color blindness?
Butler is saying no, and I have to get my head around this. I have always thought of feminist issues along the same lines as race issues, but Butler’s arguments draw a decisive line between the two. For women, “’being’ the phallus is always a ‘being for’ a masculine subject who seeks to reconfirm and augment his identity through the recognition of that ‘being for’” (p. 61) is a constructed belief system that crosses all cultures and incomes and is really a form of global hegemony, unlike forms of race and class discrimination that are culturally enacted. In addition, the heterosexual ideal in its establishment of gender/sex, is a hegemonic belief of which I abide simply because of whom I love, and the institutions I have followed. That is something to think about – both personally and in regards to what has been normative within my classroom.
This sheds new light on my existence as a married woman who speaks frequently about her husband and children. What beliefs am I promoting simply because I have a ring on my left hand? What limitations is that placing on the girls in my class – if any? Is simply stopping homophobic remarks and promoting acceptance of all peoples enough, or does true feminism come by way of making homosexuality as normative as heterosexuality? I have always thought the term “feminism” a useless term in itself, simply because of the binary opposition implied by the word. In that sense, does it even become important if the ultimate goal is to allow everyone his/her dignity and humanity? Am I being sexuality blind by even suggesting that?
I know I need to read Gender Trouble again to process these thoughts, and then move on to the ideas that will make more sense having done this. Until then, I suspect these concepts will be smacking me in the face at all angles, much like a new vocabulary word that pops repeatedly once it has been brought to a students’ attention. I welcome this, which ultimately brings me back to why I enjoyed Butler’s work. I consciously make my life decisions by what will make me the most humane person I can be. The idea that I may be hurting anyone, including myself, because I have not entertained the idea of a constructed reality not previously brought to light, is just not acceptable.
