Critical Analysis One
Judith Butler’s “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory”
The first piece of writing I wish to analyse is Judith Butler’s “Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory”. Butler contests the popular argument that a person’s way of being, like their actions, mannerisms etc, aren’t expressive of gender, but are instead performative of gender. By this, she means that an individual’s performance of gender is what is already historically constituted as gender, and that an individual repeats and re-enacts an established set of actions that have been pre-determined through history. She is building on Simone de Beauvoir’s phenomenological theory, and argues that “gender identity is a performative accomplishment compelled by social sanction and taboo” (Butler, 1988:520). Butler’s essay questions the social constructions of gender, and allows us to scrutinise our own experiences with it. As beings we are forced to do gender in a very specific way, normally conforming to one of two genders, due to the constructed binary gender system that has been determined. This brings to question that if gender is not as black and white as it appears, then there is opportunity for the use of different “acts” to produce a different gender. Butler recognises this grey area when she says, “in its very character as performative resides the possibility of contesting its reified status” (Butler, 1988:520).
As an individual’s gender identity is created through acts, in there lies the possibility to form a different gender by any other act. Social conventions discourage us from participating in the exploration of this space, building and holding social expectations and taboos that delimit our assigned gendered space, building restrictions and leading to punishment. Butler reinforces this by saying that the possibilities of gender are “necessarily constrained by available historical conventions” (Butler, 1988:521). This leads to individuals being required to give gendered performances, which continually reinforce the existing frameworks of gender, perpetuating a “shared social structure” (Butler, 1988:522). Butler also discusses how theatrical acting, and how actor’s act works in contrast to the performative act. As actors, we are aware that we are acting and performing a character, a gender, a personality. What we don’t always recognise is the history of why we are playing a gender in a specific way, as we take gender as natural instead of it having been established through performative acts. Butler reminds us that gender is based on historical situation and interpretation, and not on actual fact. Moya Lloyd, in “Judith Butler: From Norms to Politics”, says:
“Just as a dramatic script both outlasts the actors who use it but also requires them to follow it in order to convey a particular character, so the gender script also outlasts those who enact it but nevertheless requires them to follow it in order to convey a particular gender. Just as actors in a play act for an audience, so is gender publically enacted.” (Lloyd, 2007:41)
If we do indeed perform and reinforce the gender stereotypes of “woman” and “man” in everyday life, then this is not just constructed by our own creation, but also by other’s reactions and responses to the gendered performances that shapes gender identification. This would explain why women are reduced to being viewed as merely objects, as it serves as part of the mechanism to reinforce the gendering of persons who are assumed to be female as “women”, in a similar way men are reduced to being viewed as unemotional. Butler insists that gender does not express an entity hidden somewhere in an individual’s body or psyche, but rather the “discrete genders are part of what “humanises” individuals within contemporary culture” (Butler, 1988:464). This reinforces the idea that gender is a performance, not because it is not something we have naturally, in mind-set or other, it is something which we do.
Butler’s essay brought forward a lot of intriguing details about gender in our society. She observes how gender is used and questions why it has been established this way, when it could so easily be changed and adapted. I observed further that the categorising of individuals by gender exists because gender is an important way we “read” people. This is meant in a way that makes individuals legible as human beings. We read people in many ways (by social cues, personality traits, race, appearance), that way we can use the characteristics to fit the individual into a category within the larger ideal of “human”, this is a way for us to humanise a person in our culture.
Critical Analysis 2
Steven Epstein’s “A Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality”
The second reading I wish to analyse is Steven Epstein’s “A Queer Encounter: Sociology and the Study of Sexuality”. In this piece, Epstein focuses on the “social constructions of sexuality” (Epstein, 1994:188), where he seeks to establish how certain modes of sexuality get naturalised. He discusses how the main obstruction to a sociological understanding of sexuality, was the restrictive importance it has on the system of sex and its direct relation to reproduction. Epstein continues by explaining that sexuality should not be placed in the “realm of the extraordinary” as something that followed its own kind of logic, but instead that in at any moment in history of any society, “people become sexual in the same way they become everything else. Without much reflection, they pick up directions from their social environment” (Gagon, quoted in Plummer 1982:226). He describes how sexuality, that was deemed unusual or different, was classed as an abnormal subculture, but later evolved into movements for equality.
Epstein argues that “Homosexuality” and “Heterosexuality” does not describe culture, as its been through history, despite the universally consistent use of specific sexual practices. He continues this point by saying the “practices come to mean very different things in a society which insists that each individual, just as he or she possesses a gender, also must necessarily occupy one or the other category of sexual orientation” (Epstein, 1994:197). This is a very astute observation of today’s society, where identity and how you as an individual identify is an important part to the social mechanics. People are treated as things as opposed to beings and are categorised due to this – this is particularly evident in Donald Trump’s America at this time. Anybody observed as being ‘other’ is punished and shunned by society. ‘Otherness’ is a term used to describe an idea which is vital to sociological analyses of how majority and minority identities are formed, which is due to the representation of different groups within any given society being controlled by groups that have greater political power. In the example of Trump’s America, Black Americans have been killed by police officers for reasons that are not justified. Epstein specifically discusses this point related to sexual orientation, but this idea of categorising individuals and grouping them is very relevant in all forms of a human being, be it sexuality, race, gender, age, class and more. Often society does not accept what it does not understand, so if an individual does not yet know what label they class themselves as being a part of, or class themselves as relating to more than one label, society will often reject them due to a lack of understanding.
Epstein opens the reading by examining the theorisation and conceptualisation of sexuality. He explains how, against the conceptions of sexuality being directly due to biology, against Freudian models of the sexual drive, and against the obsession from Kinseyan of collecting and arranging behaviours into a table, sexuality was in fact constructed. Epstein continues later into the reading, discussing Kinsey’s famous study of male and female sexuality. Kinsey claimed that homosexuality and heterosexuality are on a continuum rather than being parts of isolated categories. His studies, particularly the findings from the male participants, had contributed massively to challenging the conventional ideas of normality in sexuality. Epstein points out that the studies exclusive focus on bodies, organs, and acts caused the study to have “lost sight of the crucial question: What do these behaviours mean to their participants? How are such meanings generated and negotiated?” (Epstein, 1994:191). He brings forward a quote from Plummer, before which he states that without the attention to the explanation of meaning, if becomes difficult to tell what is “sexual” and what is not: “When a child plays with its genitals, is this ‘sexual’? . . . Sexual meanings are not universal absolutes, but ambiguous and problematic categories” (Plummer, 1982:231). Whilst I agree with the overall message of the quote, that sexual meanings and ideals will change from culture to culture and therefore it is able to adapt and grow, the almost satire response of a child being sexual is a questionable idea to pick up on. Sexuality is something that changes from person to person, however unless the action is viewed by the individual or the observer as being sexual, then it is not sexual. For example, questioning whether a child’s actions are sexual would bring forward the query of if the child views their action as sexual, or the (if there is an) observer of the action views it as sexual. If either answer is yes, then it leads to the question of at what point in an individual’s life do you become fully sexually aware, and when is this a positive or a hindrance.
Thick Description
Sitting in the front row of Exeter Northcott Theatre, there was a sense of excitement surrounding the area. Children, between the ages of 11-18, from around Devon were eagerly awaiting their chance to get onto the stage, whilst the audience members were enthusiastic to see the work they had produced. The performances throughout the evening were varied in topic and in execution, and were part of the RAW Outreach programme. The next performance is from Doorstep Arts, a non-profit organisation that promotes creative arts and creates theatre with the youth of Torbay. The group are aged between 14 and 17. The lights come up in a warm white glow, illuminating centre stage and the areas surrounding it. A young female, in blue jeans and a white and blue striped jumper, enters from stage right, clutching a guitar in her hand. She sits, a microphone is in front of her. She begins to play a relaxed tune and a slow, low sound of a drum in the background, as 3 more individuals walk on stage, two young males from stage right and a young female from stage left. They are wearing black trousers and black t-shirts with no shoes or socks; they walk with strength and determination. As the young female on guitar begins to sing to her tune, the others begin a complex sequence of movements. “Deep breath, now we’re out of the woods”, the young female on guitar sings. The dancers move freely and fluidly, using each other as tools to get around the space and moving with great intent. The music and the dancers’ movements coincide beautifully, and you begin to see the story they are telling despite the lack of backdrops, props and lighting. You begin to see the pain they have gone through before this short sequence began, which you can see as the dancers reach to each other something appears to be holding them back. The guitar’s tempo picks up, and we see the dancers moving into a complex sequence of movements, quickly progressing one after another, giving us an understanding of the characters’ frustrations and longing. The two males retreat, leaving the female centre stage with a look of desperation on her face, she holds this position for a moment before she begins to sway and finally begins to fall. The guitar, drumming and singing begin to fade. The males scoop her up and carry her on their shoulders of stage. This final image is left open for interpretation, and as an audience member you are left to decide what became of this character’s fate, did she die? Or simply just collapse from exhaustion? This ending being left for you to decide brings you in to be investing further in these characters and makes you long to know what truly happened whilst they were in those woods.