Butler’s Gender Trouble: The Beginning of Part 3 Subversive Bodily Acts

I will attempt two give a brief summary of the two sections in Part 3: Subversive Bodily Acts. However, we have all come to realize the depth of complexity in Butler’s analysis of other experts in the field of Gender Studies. To decode every one of her sentences would take me a lifetime, so I will focus on the points that I found to be most pivotal to her arguments.

I: The Body Politics of Julia Kristeva

Before stating a summary of this section, I will define two important terms used in Kristeva’s theories on genderized language. The ‘Symbolic’ is defined as the paternal law that structures all language signification, the idea that our language inherently is confined by language that is male centered. The second term is ‘semiotic’, which is the construction of reality through symbolic meaning. Butler critiques Kristeva’s ‘theory of the semiotic dimension of language’, drawing on insights that Kristeva makes with her theory but also posing the limitations of the theory.

Kristeva uses Lactanian’s narrative, which assumes that cultural meaning “requires the repression of the primary relationship to the maternal body” (108). Poetic language is defined as an attempt to reclaim the maternal body within the framework of language. It is a linguistic device that fractures and multiplies meaning. Kristeva adds on to this Lacatian idea of the suppression of the maternal body by claiming this phenomena transcends cultural construction. She claims that the maternal body as “bearing a set of meanings that is prior to culture itself” (109). Butler is most critical of Kristeva’s attention to subversion of the dilemma of the ‘maternal body’ and questions Kristeva’s argument of removing the maternal body from the construction of society.

Kristeva uses drive theory in her discussion of the maternal body being confined by language. She claims these drives to emerge before they are placed into linguistic terms that ultimately repress and eliminate these drives. The maternal “signifies both libidinal dependency and the heterogeneity of drives” and the maternal body “signifies the loss of coherent and discrete identity” (113). The drives of maternity ultimately set-up a system of the dependency on the mother, which is defined though the Symbolic. Kristeva believes the semiotic to be repressed by the Symbolic and the Symbolic to be the hegemonic system that is briefly ‘troubled’ by the semiotic. Her purpose becomes to differentiate between the semiotic and the Symbolic.

Butler’s criticism is seen when she discusses Kristeva’s subversion of the maternal body’s connection to heterogeneity, rather than deconstructing the construction of the maternal body’s dependency on heterogeneity discourse. Bultler uses Kristeva’s work to illuminate new claims that Kristeva overlooks, such as the mandate of maternity “as a compulsory defense against libidinal chaos” (117). She discusses this aspect through a discussion of homosexuality and how it deviates from the maternal symbol in lesbianism. A lesbian must go through a series of displacements in order to avoid the maternal drives. An internalized ‘heteronormalcy’ is constructed through biological justification and the lesbian woman is the divergent, the psychotic.

The ultimate error of Kristeva’s theory according to Butler is subversion of the connection between culture and this maternal being. She states:

The law that is said to repress the semeiotic may well be the governing principle of the semiotic itself, with the result that what passes as “maternal instinct” may well be a culturally constructed desire which is interpreted through naturalistic vocabulary. And if that desire is constructed according to a law of kinship which requires the heterosexual production and reproduction of desire, then the vocabulary of naturalistic affect effectively render that “paternal law” invisible. (123)

II: Foucault, Herculine, and the Politics of Sexual Discontinuity

This section discusses Foucault’s ‘genealogical critique’ of the gender binary that does not support divergence from maleness or femaleness. According to Butler, Foucault argues that there is no inherent “sex” and a failure to recognize the sex binary reinforces the subjugation of all people. He believes in the necessity of deconstructing the ‘sexed body’ and understanding the power dynamics of the binary. Foucault uses the case study of Herculine, a hermaphrodite that was biologically said to be a girl but showed secondary male sex characteristics and physical features, ultimately choosing a male identity later in life. Foucault focuses on the period of h/er life in which s/he is has not yet became classified as a male by law. He claims this part of Herculine’s life to be ‘non-gendered’, meaning s/he is not forced to comply to the conventions male or female norms, and thus, experiences happiness in this gender confusion. However, Butler refutes this point claiming that Herculine struggled a lot during h/er period of being non-gendered because s/he did not fit into a category of the gender binary. Herculine’s case becomes an ultimate example of ‘gender trouble’ because s/he upset that gender/sex binary and challenges the distinction between heterosexuality and lesbianism.

In the “Concluding Unscientific Postscript”, a discussion of the construction of sexed biological language is seen through Dr. David Page’s research, where the lab tried to discover the biological factor that differentiated the sexes. The way in which the Y chromosome was discussed feeds into the male dominant heterosexual discourse, in that the Y chromosome is inherently responsible of maleness and the absence of this, is femaleness. The language went as far as to reinforce the active and passive roles of the chromosomal make-up of men and women respectively! Again, the case of hermaphrodites upsets this research because their chromosomes do not always correspond to the physical characteristics we associate with being a man or a woman, such as the penis and the vagina. However, Butler still expresses problems with the binary because hermaphrodites and people that upset this biological binary are seen as divergent and lacking of the proper assets the understood as being inherently man or women biological features.

Perhaps discussing sex is not as gender neutral or exclusive as we are taught to believe? Biology has even been genderized. And Butler believes troubling the assumptions of nature are imperative to deconstructing the oppressive factors of the gender binary.

Response to Braun, Gavy and McPhillips’ article, “The ‘Fair Deal’? Unpacking Accounts of Reciprocity in Heterosex”

This article examines a new-age heterosex discourse termed “reciprocity”. The authors attempt to unpack the issues surrounding male and female expectations during sex. The premise is that both partners are entitled to give and receive pleasure, with the ultimate goal being orgasm for both partners. While this discourse ensures that female pleasure is accounted for, there are many constraints for both men and women. For example, women feel the pressure to always have an orgasm, while men feel inadequate if they can not sexually please their partner to the point of orgasm. These underlying pressures force heterosexual couples into rigid roles that have specific actions and outcomes expected of them. While we have began to surpass the myths of the female vaginal orgasm and sex solely dependent on penetration, the authors remind us that this framework of reciprocity or “egalitarian” sex can cause significant tension and unfair power distribution in a theoretically equal discourse. In theory, the idea of reciprocity seems flawless but in practice, the way this reciprocity is carried-out, equal sharing of power to actively give and passively receive pleasure is not a reality.

The discussion of “patterns of sex to orgasm” was very interesting. Several couples were interviewed and a pattern of orgasms seemed to develop. The dominant discourse was that women orgasm first, usually through oral stimulation and once the male had completed this task, his orgasms through intercourse. The authors suggest that this sequence of events establishes the idea that women are the passive role, seeing the orgasm as “something that she had as a result of what he did or gave her” (243). This places the male in the active position and instead of this position switching to the female, they both engage in intercourse in order to bring the male to orgasm. Intercourse is not viewed as a gift that the woman gives to her partner, instead it is an act they perform together and thus, the woman is not releases from the passive role.

The next interesting point this article illuminated was the need for a highly sexually educated male to bring his partner to orgasm every time. To me this seems to be an unrealistic ideal that can ultimately cause more harm to both partners. While I believe that both partners are entitled to orgasms, receiving pleasure should not always be defined with the orgasm being the definitive goal. Sexual pleasure is experienced in many different ways and can be fulfilling even it is does not result in an orgasm. A female orgasm not only puts pressure on the woman to always receive “ultimate pleasure” from her partner (which is far from a reality in my opinion), but it also creates a role for men to fulfill this duty or be considered incompetent, or worse yet, feel their partner is incapable of feeling “real” pleasure. I think anxieties of male competence are an issue that many young men I know face. Because there has been so much emphasis on pleasing women in the recent discourse of positive heterosex, if they are unable to bring a woman to orgasm, this threatens their masculine identity. A man responds in an interview that if an orgasm “didn’t happen, then I would be using her” (245), the idea that if the reciprocity is not fulfilled through orgasm then if he orgasms, he will have wrongfully treated his partner. Later, it is also discussed how women feel pressured to have an orgasm in order to boost their partner’s ego. The point is that both partners suffer from this heavy emphasis on reciprocity through orgasm.

The authors discuss positive aspects of reciprocity in heterosex discourse, however, they emphasis the importance of carefully examining every level of this discourse. These levels include the idea of “pure” gifts, the active and passive roles, and male control over the female orgasm. It is important to point these subtitles of experience out because even a more egalitarian discourse can reinforce destructive gender roles that plague our society. I have talked to a lot of girl friends about the pressure we feel to orgasm every time, even when we feel immense amounts of pleasure with the absence of an orgasm, the orgasm seems to be what defines if it was a successful “sex session” or not. I think this article tackles many important issues that I have seen in heterosexual couples that seek to have egalitarian sex.