Butler began by discussing John Searles “speech acts” and
then transitioned into her belief that “gender is an identity instituted
through a stylized repetition of acts” (900, Rivkn and Ryan). But of course
before talking about this shouldn’t we ask what is gender? I believe sex refers
to being male or female biologically where as gender refers to what you
perceive yourself to be either man or woman or even a mix. Once you have
identified your gender, which I don’t believe is a choice but is something you
have come to accept about yourself, you then go on to live and function within
society.
I think Butler would agree that the moment you wake up (an
act), choose your outfit (an act), and make your way out the door (an act), you
have already managed to express yourself or your “gender” in several ways and
repeatedly every day. My question is what acts are considered male and female?
Why have they been categorized as such? Are they also functions of what society
has put in place?
For instance, just a couple of years ago, men were
accustomed to wearing shirts (t-shirts/dress shirts) of certain colors whether
it was red, white, blue, or black (“masculine” colors). Now, it is not unusual
to see men dressed in “feminine” colors such as purple, pink, or “salmon”
(which I think is just another version of pink but that’s a whole other story).
The same can be said of children. Babies’ rooms used to be painted either blue
or pink (why blue or pink?) and now many parents are going the neutral route
with pretty beiges, greens, and yellows. It seems that these acts started out
from the child’s birth in which they had no choice on the matter until they
mature and regain control. But yet, this no choice has an affect on them
whether people believe it or not.
Near the end, Butler suggests that we must try and live in a
world in which acts express nothing. I don’t know if I agree with that or if I
just don’t really understand what she means. Expressing oneself through acts is
not a negative thing nor is it something to hide or be ashamed of (unless those
acts are against the law). It is what it is and all we need is for people to be
more accepting of others.
Ahhh I find what you say interesting...don't we like our little individual personalized acts??
ReplyDeleteI, personally, appreciate certain colors and tend to dress my nieces with the same colors. When I look at my nieces though, I can see they have their own tastes. Which brings me to personality. I believe it is socially constructed, but I wonder if Butler is not seeing personal tastes, personality and gender as the same. Although my sister and I had the plan to dress my nieces as little dolls as long as we would have control over what they wear, we realized too soon that my nieces had their own taste and would prefer wearing pants and shirts. What is the beginning of their gender construction?? I doubt it...since such a choice was motivated by a need to play and to jump around easily and to be able to run away from us when they have been naughty... so was it an unconscious manifestation of gender??
I'm also thinking about genderless schools in Sweden. They even introduced a new genderless pronoun borrowed from Finnish. That genderless world Butler is talking about is slightly taking place in a few countries. It would be interesting to observe oppression in these places (if it exists) and to look at the role of gender in it. Did it solve anything to have a genderless society beside allowing children to be free to choose their gender?