Thursday, April 9, 2015

Judith Butler/ queer theory

Judith Butler's take on gender/sexual orientation is intriguing in how she tries to thwart the idea that heterosexuality serves as the epitome of how love should be constituted, leaving homosexuality on the back burner. Although the binaries endure in a perpetual struggle, it is categorization through repetition that legitimizes the instability entailed in forging which constructs self "

Rather, it is through the repeated play of this sexuality that the “I” is insistently reconstituted as a lesbian “I”; paradoxically, it is precisely the repetition of that play that establishes as well the instability of the very category that it constitutes. Boorish proclamations spewed by humans have been embedded into the foundation of language, a world in which proper and improper are well and alive, and sometimes inadvertently or explicitly oppress a sect of people who share mutual interests. Since the concept of proper and improper exist as a flailing binary, it can be noted that the two instigate a series of feverish compulsion as to which one between the two takes the cake to assert signification "Where the notion of the "proper" operates, it is always and only improperly installed as the effect of a compulsory system." Imitation may determine if an origin exists, however, imitation could also imply that intricate systems harbor flaws in which consistency must be practiced to validate behavior. Performance triggers disruption. A public display of what builds us up accordingly functions to display what strips us down "

In this sense, the “reality” of heterosexual identities is performatively constituted through an imitation that sets itself up as the origin and the ground of all imitations. In other words, heterosexuality is always in the process of imitating and approximating its own phantasmatic idealization of itself—and failing. Precisely because it is bound to fail, and yet endeavors to succeed, the project of heterosexual identity is propelled into an endless repetition of itself.

Numerous points have been addressed in Butler's essay, but one of her more dominant proposals talks about the concept of "coming out" and how hindrance walks under the guise of liberation. Once "outness" is established, it doesn't do much to quell the anxiety and insecure tension of a subject bound in societal inferiority "

Is the “subject” who is “out” free of its subjection and finally in the clear? Or could it be that the subjection that subjectivates the gay or lesbian subject in some ways continues to oppress, or oppresses most insidiously, once “outness” is claimed? An individual does as much as she or he can to preserve a sense of self, but at times, the "I" can be harnessed to provoke a code of misguided representations

To claim that this is what I am is to suggest a provisional totalization of this “I.” But if the I can so determine itself, then that which it excludes in order to make that determination remains constitutive of the determination itself. I suppose the underlying point isn't that homosexuality and heterosexuality are two competing species hounding for a slice of the pie. Rather, both are similar if not duplicate in expression, but heterosexuality has frothed at the mouth to make clear heterosexuality triumphs when both triumph and crumble all at the same time.

  Illustrating the key essentials in this doodle was a challenge, yet I'll convey what I was trying to point out in my crudely drawn figure based on historical fact. Way back in the early 20th century, charlie Chaplin lost in a Charlie Chaplin look a like contest. I doubt his competitor wore a dress as a means to trump the real Charlie Chaplin, but shown in a emulation out competing a per-supposed one of a kind. Stripped of labels, dress wearing Chaplin took the reins under a ruse. If the winner was swapped with the actual charlie Chaplin, considering labels and facts stripped, real charlie Chaplin is merely taking the reins under a ruse. Copy cat antics prod at formulating a tense discourse. Ambiguities intensify strife. Alternates play the role of primaries as primaries do alternates. Accordingly, failure and succession is cyclical in an ongoing war on dissolving sexuality into groups and sub-groups, when it merely is what it is.  


1 comment:

  1. Some slightly weird things going on throughout with quotation marks, so I wasn't sure what was a quote and what was you. Take a look back and you should see what I mean...

    You write, "Once 'outness' is established, it doesn't do much to quell the anxiety and insecure tension of a subject bound in societal inferiority." I think you are getting at Butler's idea of exiting one closet and entering another, but it's important to understand that this is also partially just about any subject's inability to be totally free from language-based identity categories. In that sense, even hetero sexualities are going to be limited and confined. but Butler does attempt to deconstruct these oppositions by showing how any category is defined by its opposite, which means that their meaning comes not from their natural truth, but from their relationships to other signs/categories: so heterosexuality is always dependent on the homosexuality it purports to shut out. Your final paragraph above is a bit hard to follow, but it really does seem to connect with that metonymic slippage that we talked about with poststructuralism and Queer Theory. All in all, a bit hard to navigate this with the quote formatting glitch, but it seems like you are definitely on the right track.