Re: Judith Butler


You are indeed correct that a purely social constructivist
position does not end the normal-abnormal debate. Such things as normal
and abnormal sexuality are themselves social constructions, social norms
categorizing normal and abnormal behavior. The point of Butler's jettisoning
of the biological, is to remove one of the common elements in which socially
constructed ideas of normality and abnormality are founded. If one can
change the discourse surrounding sexuality by convincing others that
sexuality itself is a social construction, then one can begin to change
the definitions of normality and abnormality, to perhaps, open the way for
greater sexual freedom, by removing biology as an inherent limit on sexuality.
Does this mean that the normal-abnormal distinction (on a moral plane) will
be done away completely, I have my doubts about this, and I doubt that
Butler would want all such distinctions to be removed. Are we to call
sex with young children just another sexuality freely revealing itself, I
think not, and I think Butler would agree. Are we to call homosexual
realtions between consenting adults an aspect of sexual freedom (undeserving of the distinction normal and abnormal), I think so, and I think Butler would

Re: Judith Butler, Hugh . Roberts
Partial thread listing: