Re: Judith Butler

Gregory,
This all sounds nice and sophisticated but competely
uncompelling. I have not read Butler's book. Does she offer in it any
more interesting reasons why we should follow her in our thinking about
sex/gender/sexuality, etc? If as you say she says, sex is best thought
of as a material product of discourses, then why should I not think of
trees or dictionaries in the same way. And if I may, then what interest
in elucidating our culture's experience/phenomenon of sex/gender/etc?
Have I made any sense here?

On Thu, 9 May 1996, Gregory A. Coolidge wrote:

> I call sex a material element only because Butler describes sex as a material
> product of power upon a body. Butler wants to remove from sex (sexuality)
> any hint or trace of biological (natural) determinations. I think Butler
> does equate sex with sexuality (sexual identity(s), the actual act of sex, the
> motivation of sex, the desires leading to sex, etc.) as opposed to gender
> (identifications, behaviors, social roles based upon feminine and and maculine attributes). The basic distinction between sex and
> gender is not sufficient for Butler, or Foucualt, because sex can be imagined
> as a biological manefestation, and gender as a social manefestation, if one
> wished to conceive of them in such terms. Butler wants not only gender
> to be conceived of as a social prodcut, but also sex (sexuality). As such,
> sex is material (a tangible, physical creation), in that it is a social product of discursive and material forces.
>
>



Replies
Re: Judith Butler, Gregory A. Coolidge
Partial thread listing: