The value of viewing "women" as a universal status
In Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, Judith Butler discusses the idea that the social construct of gender can be used for political strategies. Gender is a series of acts that are repeated in order to formulate one's identity, and it can change over time. Some of these acts may be done in the name of representing women, yet they may still be politically motivated.
Butler raises an interesting point when she says that if people want to change the status of women in society, they must first "determin[e] whether the category of woman is socially constructed in such a way that to be a woman is, by definition, to be in an oppressed situation" (Butler, 523). She argues that political interests mainly create the social construct of gender in itself, and that feminists should investigate the construction of gender in order to examine how oppression shapes how women are perceived. On one hand, eradicating the term women so that it no longer exists would prevent it from being used for strategic purposes, however many social policies already diminish the existence of women. Feminist ideology has often used the term women to create a category of shared experiences among individuals, which falsely assumes that all women have similar political goals and live the same lives. By trying to gain visibility for women, feminists may accidentally create a category that does not represent all women accurately and this universal unity may neglect some gender identities. This shared reality may not exist for women of all sexualities, races, and social classes. This category can be problematic when it is brought to a larger political level, "as when women first enter a profession or gain certain rights, or are reconceived in legal or political discourse..." (Butler, 524). A solution to this issue could be viewing the category of a "woman" as a universal term.
Butler does not distinguish between sex and gender as they are both social constructs. She indicates that gender does not stem from a universal or natural phenomenon, therefore it is created by actions over time. Gender categories are structural groupings that impact the power dynamic of systems that favor certain gender identities over others, such as favoring men over women. Gender is a result of "socially shared and historically constituted" acts that are performative (Butler, 530). This includes social gender roles that attribute genders to skills, jobs or objects, as well as historical factors that influence institutions and create long-lasting power dynamics such as the patriarchy. Butler argues that the redefinition of gender identity (and the term "women") needs to ensure that performative acts, clothing, appearance, and other physical characteristics that usually correspond to a person's gender actually do not express an association to gender at all. This made me think of retail stores that are switching to androgynous clothing lines in order to promote inclusivity of all genders and encourage people to wear whatever they feel comfortable in. I am also reminded of popular makeup brands that are featuring male makeup artists and male models in their makeup lines, which sends the message that people of all genders should be able to express themselves through this art.
I agree with Butler's point that it is vital to represent women in a political setting without constructing a collective reality that we assume all women can relate to. We should be able to acknowledge the sexual differences between individuals and reject that the category of men is the norm or universal status, as feminist theory states. However, I see Butler's worry that sexual difference should not become a concept that we use to affirm that gender is binary. The category of women should reject gender binarism and carefully create a sense of unity without ostracizing individuals who are not cisgender. Transgender, non-binary, and intersex folks should feel comfortable identifying with the term women if they want to. I agree with viewing "women" as a universal status because I think it would be more inclusive of individuals who do not have shared experiences.
Hi Ashna, great post! I really enjoyed the way you characterized and interpreted Butler's argument about erring on the side of caution with respect to grouping the experiences of all women together for political purposes, since the category of "women" is incredibly broad. I also found your sentence that states that "The category of women should reject gender binarism and carefully create a sense of unity without ostracizing individuals who are not cisgender." to be an incredibly thoughtful and well written sentence. I think it really highlights the delicate balance that exists between wanting to move beyond a rigid, traditional gender binary, while simultaneously not being trans exclusive. I sort of see it as two extreme ends of a spectrum, one being maintenance of this very traditional binary conception of gender (man and woman), and the other extreme being the complete abolishment of gender altogether. I think that there is somewhere in the middle which might be best to strive for, which might look like a world in which we understand the categories of man and woman as to very valid gender possibilities that exist in a sea of other possible gender identities, and that everyone would be able to openly identify and live their life as members of one of these possible gender identities. This way, trans identities and experiences are validated, and no one is forced to fall into one of two incredibly narrow and non-encompassing boxes.
ReplyDelete