Assess the significance of Judith Butlers work

Assess the significance of Judith pantry troopss surviveThe modern meaning of the word &apos gender&apos emerged in the 1970s. Its original purpose was to draw a line between biological sex and how particular vox populis and behaviours could be defined as either &aposfeminine&apos or &aposmasculine&apos (Pilcher Whelehan, 2004). The reason for using the word &aposgender&apos was to raise awareness of the exaggeration of biological differences between men and women. The popularity of this meaning for the word &aposgender&apos resulted from the efforts of endorsement wave womens liberation movement in the 1970s. This essay examines how uphold wave feminism attempted to construct a &aposgrand narrative&apos of women&aposs oppression. It past examines Judith solelyler&aposs contribution to post-modern womens rightist theory done her performative theory of gender and how this fits into post-modern libber debates.A product of second wave feminism, which began around 1970, was the attempt to endow women within a &aposgrand narrative&apos history of their oppression. One of the seminal writers on this narrative was Simone de Beauvoir. Her work in describing how women had become &aposthe other&apos in her disc The Second Sex (de Beauvoir, 1961) laid the foundations for what was to come in the second wave of feminism (Gamble, 2002). De Beauvoir argues that the way in which men think about women is only in relation to their fantasies, that they fetch no substance of their own. Unfortunately, for de Beauvoir, women kick in come to accept men&aposs fantasies of cleaning womanhood as constituting their own conception of themselves. For de Beauvoir, it was for women to conceive of themselves in their own foothold, to take back the power themselves.A criticism of de Beauvoir&aposs approach was that it tended to blame women for their current condition (Gamble, 2002). The second wave feminists of the 1970s, however, much(prenominal) as Millet (1970), pointed to patriarchy as the root cause of women&aposs oppression. It is patriarchy, so Millet argued, that has become a political institution, and from this flows all the other forms of women&aposs oppression. Firestone (1970) also took a unbendable line against patriarchy, equating women&aposs oppression to a caste or class system. Ideological support for patriarchy, in Firestone&aposs view, has come from institutions such as the family, marriage along with romantic love.These ideas are referred to as constructing a &aposgrand narrative&apos, a way of charting the history and development of particular ideas, in this reason women&aposs oppression (MacNay, 1997). One of the problems that much feminist thought has come up against in trying to provide a &aposgrand narrative&apos of women&aposs oppression is that it is difficult to effectively give all women a common identity (Whelehan, 1995). If the very idea of gender flows from cultural origins, hence it is only inseparable to conclude tha t gender has different meanings in different cultural contexts. How hence can a common identity be posited?Other critics such as Richards (1982), examining second wave feminism from a liberal perspective, have seen it as a movement that has failed. Richards sees many of the feminist approaches as being extreme and unattractive, and not focussing, as she sees it, on rational debate. She criticises feminists for utilising &aposeccentric&apos competitions which do not conform to the normative expectations of philosophical debate. Further, she criticises feminism for ignoring the obvious differences between men and women such as women&aposs ability to have children and thereby presenting an unrealistic picture of utopian gender relations.Another vibrant stream of criticism against second wave feminism has been that it assumes that what is required is a reversal in the relative positions of men and women. In other words, if women can take the position of men in society then their opp ression will finally be undone (Brooks, 1997). Instead, however, post-modernist forms of feminism have tended to criticise the placing of women and men in oppositional categories. Post-modernist writers, such as Judith pantryman, Brooks argues, help the feminist debate move on from the grand narrative to the focussing on deconstruction and identity (Brooks, 1997).Judith butler&aposs work as a companionable theorist has been extremely influential. Some of the major themes of her work include important contributions to queer theory and her criticism of the way in which gender has been constructed (Clough, 2000). Her break by dint of work was grammatical gender Trouble which strongly criticised existing feminist theory on gender such as the work of Firestone and Millet.Butler (1990) points out that feminist approaches have tended to emphasise the difference between gender and sex. In these perspectives sex is seen as a biological fact, while gender is a cultural construction. The pro blem for Butler is that this split has gone too far, such that it is not possible to analyse how the sexed body is constituted (Salih Butler, 2004). Rather than splitting gender and sex, then, Butler&aposs work has actually collapsed one into the other (Fraser, 2002). Sandford (1999) explains that this is achieved by showing that gender actually produces sex.Butler (1990) asks whether it is possible to talk about the &aposmasculine&apos attributes of a man and then talk about their &aposfeminine&apos attributes and still be able to ascribe sensible meaning to the word &aposgender&apos. Butler (1990) argues that when the idea of &aposwoman&apos and &aposman&apos are dispensed with, it is much difficult to see how these gendered attributes can still be viable. Butler (1990) states that gender cannot necessarily be referred to in terms of these attributes, or as a noun, a thing of itself, but rather as a verb. In this feel Butler considers gender to be performative, to be an act whi ch constitutes itself rather than flowing from some other source.The criticism aimed by Butler (1990) at feminist theory is precisely that it has argued there must be a source for actions. This means that gender cannot be &aposperformed&apos of itself it must be performed by something. Butler (1990) provides an example in the relationship between sexual require and gender. Freud&aposs explanation that attraction comes from biological sex is considered by Butler. She argues that sexual attraction, rather than coming from sex, is a process that is learned over time, that is a procedure we work on, not something flowing directly from biological sex.The political implications of this argument are vital, especially for homosexuality. Kirsch (2001) argues that some people in the queer movement have accepted the primacy of biology. This idea is related to essentialism which relies on factors such as the &aposgay gene&apos to explain homosexuality. In contrast to this view, a construction ist approach concentrates on the ship canal in which society encourages certain types of behaviour through social norms. &aposMen&apos and &aposwomen&apos, within Butler&aposs theory, are no longer essentialist universal categories but rather free-floating categories which are socially produced.The norms to which Butler is referring are those which see the body as being directly related to the types of sexual desire and practices that are associated with it (Salih Butler, 2004). sexual desires and practices which do not fit within this matrix are &aposnot allowed&apos. In order to understand how sexed bodies are produced, Butler uses Lacan&aposs reading material of Freud (Salih Butler, 2004). Lacan argues that it is through fantasy that the sexed body is created. Salih (2002) points out that it is Butler&aposs use of Freud that is one of her most important achievements. Here, she analyses Freud&aposs idea of the Oedipus complex. This is where the child is agonistic to give up i ts desire for its parents by the incest taboo. Butler reinterprets this by arguing that the child desires the parent of the same sex, but thinks that this is taboo. Sex and gender identities are then formed from this taboo. Butler argues that everyone&aposs gender identity is formed from this homosexual taboo. Butler refers to the formation of gender identity in terms of melancholic appellative (Salih, 2002). The place where this identification can be seen, according to Butler, is on the body in the form of gender and sex identities.While Butler&aposs theory of performativity along with her work in post-modern feminist theory has been extremely influential, it has also provoked a fair degree of criticism. Benhabib (1995) has argued that the death of the subject, which is at the heart of Butler&aposs thesis, leads to an incoherent picture. Benhabib (1995) points out that it is difficult to believe there is nothing behind the mask of gender, that agency appears completely absent. In a parallel argument to Benhabib, Kirsch (2001) makes the point that this negation of the subject has negative consequences for ideas of identity and collective action. A sense of collectivity, in particular, is often seen by those &aposcoming out&apos as providing support. In Butler&aposs theory, however, there is only the focus on the individual. To Kirsch (2001) it seems that Butler&aposs theory tends to reduce the ability of the wider community to provide support to the individual.A more generalised criticism of modern feminism, however it is labelled, is that there is a sense in which it is an exclusive club. Butler&aposs ideas relating to the performativity of gender are only usable to a certain restricted group in society white, middle-class, intellectual (Whelehan, 1995). Each feminist sub-movement implicitly creates its own lists of what can be done, and what cannot. Women, therefore, can find it difficult to label themselves as feminists as there are now many apparent bar s to entry and negative associations with it (Whelehan, 1995).Perhaps in this sense second wave feminism, as enunciated by Firestone and Millet, provided a vision with which it was easier to associate. In contrast, post-modern perspectives, a category in which Butler&aposs work has been put, provide a much more complex and illusory analysis of gender even, as some critics would have it, making it harder for those attempting to live outside society&aposs norms.It has been argued that theories such as those put forward by Butler have lead to the need for a new type of feminism (Pilcher Whelehan, 2004). This is precisely because postmodernist thought has rejected the &aposgrand narratives&apos associated with second wave feminism. As a result, women may find it difficult to claim the identity &aposwoman&apos as its nature is so contested in postmodernist thought (Pilcher Whelehan, 2004). This is part of the problem that so-called &apospost-feminism&apos has attempted to address.This leads to an attempt to dissolver the question What gender am I? Viewed through the influence of Butler&aposs theories, it is increasingly difficult to provide a clear answer. The two answers that are most &aposnatural&apos, male or womanly suddenly become obsolete expressions which appear devoid of their previous meaning. With the &apossubject&apos apparently removed from the equation, it is difficult to lay claim to any particular gender. sure as shooting Butler&aposs theory does not imply that both men and women can travel without hindrance across the boundaries of gender, far from it. Naturally society&aposs norms still apply and even transgressions are carried out in relation to the norms themselves. Ultimately, though, the question comes back to the problem of agency. If it is up to me to choose my gender, as I wish, then who is doing the choosing? When Butler even rejects the idea of there being an actor at all, all meaning fades from the question What gender am I?In conclu sion, the second wave of feminism brought a grand narrative view of the history of women&aposs oppression. It pointed to oppression as a political institution enforced through social mechanisms such as the family, marriage and economics.Critics of this approach, however, questioned whether it was possible to set women up in direct opposition to men. Judith Butler responded to the second wave view by collapsing the ideas of gender and sex into each other. Gender, she argues, is performed, and so the subject in feminist thought, was apparently destroyed. But, argued critics of Butler, these notions of gender appear to restrict the political power of feminism, to leave it toothless, without its subject. Attempting to answer the question What gender am I? when viewed in the light of Butler&aposs theory, leads to a sense of confusion. I could be both, I could be either, I could be neither. Is this freedom, or is it just too free-form? ReferencesBenhabib, S. (1995). Subjectivity, historio graphy, and politics Reflections on the feminism/postmodernism exchange. In S. Benhabib, J. Butler, D. Cornell, N. Fraser (Eds.). Feminist contentions A philosophical exchange. New York Routledge.Brooks, A. (1997). Postfeminisms Feminism, cultural theory, and cultural forms. Oxford Routledge.Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble Gender and the Subversion of Identity. Oxford Routledge.Clough, P. T. (2000) Judith Butler. In G. Ritzer (Ed.). The Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.Beauvoir, S. (1961). The Second Sex. Translated by HM Parshley. New York Bantam.Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex The case for feminist revolution. New York William Morrow and Company.Fraser, M. (2002). What is the matter of feminist criticism? Economy and Society, 31(4), 606-625.Gamble, S. (2002). The Routledge companion to feminism and postfeminism. Oxford Routledge.Kirsch, M. (2001). Queer theory and social change. London Routledge.MacNay, L. (1997). Foucault an d feminism power, gender and the self. London mandate Press.Millet, K. (1970). Sexual politics. London Ballantine.Pilcher, J., Whelehan, I. (2004) Key concepts in gender studies. London Sage.Richards, J. (1982). The sceptical feminist a philosophical enquiry. London Penguin.Salih, S. (2002). Routledge critical thinkers Judith Butler. Oxford Routledge.Salih, S., Butler, J. (2004). The Judith Butler reader. Oxford Blackwell Publishers.Sandford, S. (1999) Contingent ontologies sex, gender and woman inSimone de Beauvoir and Judith Butler. Radical Philosophy 97, 1829.Whelehan, I. (1995). Modern feminist thought from the second wave to post-feminism. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.