Greg,
I think you are right in your reading of Butler. But how useful this
apppraoch is, in political terms, is not the only question.
>I call sex a material element only because Butler describes sex as a material
>product of power upon a body.
If so, is the body simply a lump of putty that can be formed in any way, or
are there material constraints on the forms it might take? But even the
material constitution of putty has some bearing on what can be done with it.
Butler wants to remove from sex (sexuality)
>any hint or trace of biological (natural) determinations.
So, given the above has she succeeded? Or is it that she simply wants to
remove from _debate_ any appeal to the biological. That is she recognises it
but denies it at the same time. I do think this undermines her whole
position. In fact given the onerous readings of genetic research it seems
positively naive.
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.
But is this a rhetorical strategy which she admits is not wholly correct,
but which she thinks is political desirable?
Thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------
I think you are right in your reading of Butler. But how useful this
apppraoch is, in political terms, is not the only question.
>I call sex a material element only because Butler describes sex as a material
>product of power upon a body.
If so, is the body simply a lump of putty that can be formed in any way, or
are there material constraints on the forms it might take? But even the
material constitution of putty has some bearing on what can be done with it.
Butler wants to remove from sex (sexuality)
>any hint or trace of biological (natural) determinations.
So, given the above has she succeeded? Or is it that she simply wants to
remove from _debate_ any appeal to the biological. That is she recognises it
but denies it at the same time. I do think this undermines her whole
position. In fact given the onerous readings of genetic research it seems
positively naive.
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.
But is this a rhetorical strategy which she admits is not wholly correct,
but which she thinks is political desirable?
Thanks,
--------------------------------------------------------
Colin Wight
Department of International Politics
University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Aberystwyth
SY23 3DA
--------------------------------------------------------