Talk:Imitation and gender Insubordination (Group 4)

Butler states her worry about how naming one's identity as gay or lesbian could lead to an othering effect because it differs from heterosexual individuals who do not need to come out or say that they are heterosexual because it is just assumed. This reminds me of the idea of the International Day of Women or Black History month in which certain groups and individuals are celebrated during this special period during the year. In a way, this is good because it brings to light issues that women and people of color face in their everyday lives, however it also creates the effect of othering because it reinforces the need for these people to have a "special" day when in fact every day should be "their" day.

This phenomenon of labelling can also create barriers between people that might not exist without the label. However, this creates a paradox because the act of not labeling oneself might lead to further stigma due to not bringing the topic of LGBTQ issues to public discourse.

Indeed, Butler brings a very nuanced critique of identity politics that goes beyond "This is why Trump won." In my interpretation, due to her twice having mentioned (through a Foucault quote, and then again in her own words) the political purchase potential of reifying categories of sexuality of gender as creating locations from which to gain said political/rights ground, her problem is with the paradox of which part of the "I" is excluded to constitute an identity, and problematizing of gender and sexuality itself, though apparently, as you say, she goes more in depth, so I think I may have missed that.

As such, she seemed able to set aside the paradox to some degree for political purchase, but to the degree that it causes worry in "division", I think there's more to be said about these categories evolve from "site from which to negotiate political purchase" to "site of othering". Arguably, this "othering" is being imposed upon them. I feel that equating the two relies on conflating one with the other: equating the political purchase of gays and lesbians (as well as bi, trans, queer+ in a contemporary context) with being inherently "opposed" to what is deemed "good" for the rest of the population.

I feel that justifications for withholding these rights is the real 'divider' here, and I say this because we have other sites of familial difference that simply contain "difference" rather than a politicized "superiority" or "inferiority". While there is still a lingering default ideal of "2 kids: one boy, one girl", having a mix of 1-4 boys and girls is at least MUCH less politicized as a site of politics and rights (at least in a Canadian context, though various Asian countries encouraging more child-bearing each have their own stories, to be sure, and having more kids, or none at all is, itself, a cultural taboo being contested) than defining oneself as gay or lesbian. I mean to say that there are multiple sites of familial difference that are NOT politicized that theoretically could be, and that creating the position of "gay" or "lesbian" as a political tool is a kind of *step* towards these differences becoming as equal, and then, thus (I think), as apolitical as having a different number of children.

I consider this as a necessary step, since whether we choose to define categories or not, there is taboo and inequality, and so I see the contesting of this taboo by creating categories (which is necessarily, I feel) from which to bargain equality is a crucial step en route to it being an apolitical point, and, hopefully, embracing Butler's post-modern conception of both gender and sexuality.

@Lianzhen I agree with yours and Butlers points on the worry of being othered. However at this point in time, I think recognizing these groups that are being othered is important for spreading awareness of the issues they face. We live in an educated circle where we are taught about social inequalities and issues pertaining to these groups of people, however there are many parts of the world where people are not being taught these social phenomena. I think staging these special days of recognition and creating a platform for these minority groups is an important first step to recognizing that the problems they face do exist, and that further steps are required in order for the groups to gain more stable ground in society.

In Judith Butler's excerpt, she briefly discusses the misconstrued notion of drag as an imitation of heterosexuality. In the same vein, this dichotomous thinking demonstrates its pervasiveness in lesbian communities as well, where many (but not all) individuals label themselves as "butch" or "femme" – performing traits that would be perceived by the general populace as masculine or feminine. The dynamic of lesbian relationships is not so simple that it can be ignorantly regarded as a mere copy of heterosexuality, and yet the dominant values imposed upon society lead us to believe so until otherwise educated.

It is key to note that regarding lesbianism as an imitation of heterosexuality – like drag – is erroneous and a mechanism of oppression rooted in the dominant ideology, and in conjunction with other race and gender theorists we have studied, that this leads to great complexities than many of us will realize. For instance, how this dichotomous thinking affects lesbian, black communities. Not only is it that studs can only date femmes (a system of oppression and restraint within another existing, overarching system of oppression), but performative factors come into play as well such as the fact that studs are not allowed to become pregnant, nor have a weave instead of dreads. The women in this case are oppressed on the grounds of race, sexuality, and now even gender as the norms of society restrict identity and expression.

Simply put, as we study the perception of lesbianism in mainstream society we cannot forget the devastating effects of racism as well when overlaid in a system of intersectionality. For those who would like to learn more about the black lesbian community that was studied, I recommend Nneka Onuorah's short documentary, "Same Difference" (05:22).

I couldn't agree more with your response, Jaden. Our society setting heterosexuality as the default from which other forms of sexuality are argued to have altered has led many to believe that lesbians are not self-defined and independent individuals but rather the imitators of heterosexuality. Such belief has been reinforced so frequently that the lesbians themselves have internalized this view and identify themselves within the categories of "butch" or "femme" as you insightfully pointed out. In this kind of dichotomous thinking system, it is virtually impossible for lesbian individuals and/or communities to completely free themselves from the oppression. What is crucial in fighting against and eventually abolishing such oppression, I believe, is a shift in paradigm that allows lesbians to define and identify themselves to their liking or allows them to maybe not define themselves at all in terms of sexuality if such fits their individual desire.

Hi Hugh,

You mentioned that oftentimes you feel like you have to defend yourself when asked "why do you study sociology?". First of all I will say that I struggle with this all the time. (And might I add that even Kerry told us that some of her family members challenge her discipline and do not understand why she is studying sociology!)

By now I am so used to seeing how people react (or try to force some pleasant and sympathetic reaction) when my sister says she is studying sciences and I say I am studying sociology. It's an unfortunate reaction. But there are two things that give me comfort and are what I hope can potentially deconstruct some people's initial judgments toward our discipline: our passion for it (for me at least) and the ability to apply anything to my studies. I imagine it to be like an improv show where the actors seek the audience's suggestion of a topic. Then, it is up to the improvisers to come up with a scene. Throw us sociologists with any phenomena, and we can somehow link it back to some concept we have learned. What we have learned in sociology thus far is so encompassing and fruitful, and we are actually equipped to puzzle some pieces together to understand different aspects of our society, even if it is just some tiny part of the whole phenomena. (If anything, sociology can offer us good dinner-starting conversations with our family and friends!)

I think this is the power in sociology. It is its applicability and relevance in our contemporary world. From discussions on Donald Trump as the ultimate symbol of everything that is wrong with our society to the Canadian Olympic's depictions of Aboriginal culture to the influence of Snapchat on our lives to why McDonalds is such a successful franchise to why Avatar is a classic representation of the American Monomyth in Hollywood movies, and everything in between... I take great pride in knowing these things and feel excited to share this with those around me.

Ultimately it is most important if we ourselves understand the importance of our discipline. We often talk in class about the importance of education to challenge existing norms and hegemony. Thus, I believe it starts with educating our social circles. We may not necessarily succeed in demonstrating what our study is about but we can encourage them to use those tools like our sociological imaginations.

I really appreciated Butler's discussion of drag and her comment that "drag is not an imitation or a copy of some prior and true gender...all gendering is a kind of impersonation and approximation" (p. 433). This notion of impersonation and approximation helps to explain how displays of masculinity and femininity can vary so much by person, place, or point in time. What society accepts as appropriate behaviour/appearances for men and women is constantly shifting, thereby revealing that there is no natural or true state of gender, that it is in fact a social construct.

I also liked how Butler used the example of drag to show how gender is a performance through socialization. Butler discusses gender in its performative nature to explain how there is no true definition of gender and that no true gender really exists. Her argument about drag further draws on the notion that gender can be performed in multiple different ways and that the attribution of characteristics of femininity or masculinity only stems from society's acceptance that certain attributes pertain to each biological sex. In the Lemert reading, Butler says, "When and where does my being lesbian come into play, when and where does this playing a lesbian constitute something like what I am?" (p.431). She says this to point out how the repeated play of her sexuality is what makes gender and identity unstable. Gender as drag goes to show that gender is not necessarily supposed to be something, but rather is an abstract concept that has been socially constructed to categorize our actions.

Although Butler makes some great points, she fails to recognize the relationship of gender categorization and people in society. The expectations that society has for each of the genders allows both people perceiving gender, and people doing gender to understand social actions. Her statement that gender can be performed in multiple ways is accurate, however in doing so people are unable to categorize individuals as the display cues are not compatible with what they see. To answer her question of: "When and where does my being lesbian come into play?", society is always judging the extent to which one is successful in doing their gender. Society's conclusion of Lesbian's not doing gender well enough, is what I suppose explains their marginalization. I do believe that Butler is right and probably does also understand society's reactions, however explaining it through a sociological lens may give her some more credit.