This gets me to thinking about Hyperreality. The map (gender) covers the territory it is designed to represent (the person) and becomes the truth because of the person's experience in being viewed as the map instead of as the territory. Effectively they are trapped by the automating effect of seeing all the other "maps" around them and suffer a panoptic experience where they police themselves so as to hide that the territory behind the map exists because as you say this could lead to punitive measures if deviations from the map are discovered. The illusion of a coherent idea we call "gender" is maintained through a collective conspiracy maintained by simulant actors hiding the truth that there is none.
I enjoy your straight forward approach to your videos and discussions. Butler is one I am becoming more familiar with though she tends to be a difficult read (I’m in grad school, studying literary theory). Performativity has often intrigued me, namely questioning what is and isn’t natural in terms of why males and females “perform” their gender. I think of feminine gay men and masculine gay women who grew up knowing they were gay but felt compelled to keep it secret. Why did they later adopt a performativity contrary to what was “snowballed” onto them? If I’m being naive, I doubt mean to be: I want to learn. As a gay man, it’s such a fascinating topic. Also you’re just adorable! :)
You explain things so well, using everyday language and examples we can all understand. No complex jargon, making it accessible for everyone. You're doing great sweedy 🌻
I love Judith butlers interpretation of this concept- I first discovered her interpretation of this from my business school bookstore at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona with Alessandro durati’s anthropology of language and Key terms in language and culture.
Lovely explanation. Thank you for your intellectual generosity. It teaches me a better way to explain Butler's gender theory as I am working with my research (the politics of adoption concerning gender theory). I hope to hear more insights from you soon. Please stay safe always. ❤️
This is such gibberish. So Steven Tyler and Willy Nelson aren't playing the performantive game. Butler is poison. Notice now it's all about queer theorysince gender has become a ball of confusion
Isn't Butler's concept of performativity also informed by Austin's distinction between performative and constative utterances? I've always assumed it is, associating back to the territorial dispute over Austin between Derrida and Searle in Limited Inc. Maybe I have this wrong, but here's how I think of it. In the same way that we are mostly unaware that our spontaneous uses of language have a performative element -- i.e., are acts, speech acts -- we are mostly unaware of how our spontaneous choices and behavior "perform" in fields of taken-for-granted meaning. But we can also become aware of this and harness performativity consciously. So behavior, like speech, is never purely "constative," so to speak. It has this additional aspect of "doing things" that can be brought to light. Do I have this right?
It would be interesting to volley Butler towards Bourdieu. I’m sure it’s been done before but I would like to hear your take on habitus vs. performativity.
I had the same question--I've started reading both, but don't have enough experience to answer the question myself. I found this paper that outlined a few differences: www.alexandria.unisg.ch/226459/1/Nentwich%C3%96zbilginTatli_2014.pdf Summary: They're actually very similar with a few key differences: 1) Where Butler's theorization was drawn from observations of diverse subcultures in avant garde and drag spaces, Bourdieu theorized in reference to traditional Algerian society and the French bourgeoisie (so direct observation of the powerful/norm-setting classes) 2) They understand speech acts to be legitimized in different ways. Butler argues that speakers create their own legitimacy while speaking (perlocutionary acts), while Bourdieu argues that speech acts are considered variably legitimate depending on the social position of the speaker and must be legitimized by social relationships and institutions outside of the speaker (illocutionary acts). 3) "Bourdieu looks at how human action is embedded in the field and doxa through habitus: the agent’s embodiment of social structures (Bourdieu, and Wacquant 1992). Meanwhile, Butler focuses on repetitive acts of performativity in reproducing or deconstructing the norms (Reckwitz 2004)". Hope that helps! Would love to hear if anyone else has additional ideas!
This answer is to go back to the source of both Butler and Bourdieu, and that’s Heidegger (with some Heidegger via Foucault). ‘Performativity’ is just ways of being for Dasein, that being is embodied in action, not as some platonic essence or as some projection of the mind. And shape of this embodiment is determined by Das Man - the social world of roles and relations, hierarchies and values (to put it crudely). Peformativity focuses on how this manifests in the individual going about life. The Habitus denotes Das Man, this social milieu wherein we also find ourselves and which serves as the field of meaning as the background against which individual lives instantiate performativity. It all goes back to Heidegger. But he’s too hard and un-sexy to read nowadays, and was a bad man. But he’s a way more important thinker.
The work of Paul Rosenfels in the 1970s (Ninth Street Center in the East Village in NYC) regarding "polarities" combined with "social performance" (any one of any sex and sexual orientation can have a "masculine" or "feminine" personality and anyone can be "objective" or "subjective" [masc-ojecvtive and fem-subjective are unbalnced, the other two combinations are balanced) amount to being "performativities". But Paul intended this for adults in personal communities, adults who had assimilated into the world with their own agency; he did not intend these labels to become publc, have pronouns, and be categories of people for political rights.
So, performativity is when an observed human trait, be it tangible or not, spontaneously occurs into being before being ultimately labeled by society? Yep, I can see how this would fall into the box of mankind's love for categorising and fragmenting things. Stereotyping and typecasting, for example. In other words, "How things came to be, by accident, and how they are seen thereafter by the society in question." No wonder it's difficult for a generation to change their minds about a subject such as sexual orientation or sexual identity - they were once told that it was blasphemous to be attracted to the same sex, and now they are told the opposite. It was an unspoken "truth," and now the opinion has shifted. Mass perception is dangerous and is likely a cause for many social anxieties. Not gonna lie, I had written a long comment a few hours ago, and I deleted it - it took a few more hours for me to grasp the keyword. Thanks again, David. Have a great week! P.S. I'd suggest taking a longer pause between points before editing them together. There were a few abrupt audio transitions and it was a little jarring. I say this with no disrespect to the content, and am more alluding to the overall production quality. Sitting in that corner was a definite upgrade, tho!
Great explanation ! I just love how sincere these representations of your are, and always articulate and calm. How your video content has risen in quality for the past year or so !
As someone who hasn't read Butler, when she says she doesn't know if biological sex exists, is she basically saying that biological sex as it is spoken of today can't be thought of as being purely descriptive because it reinforces the normalizing framework you spoke about? Or that it is belied by normative commitments? Or perhaps she is saying that the category of biological sex encompasses so many disparate things (sexuality in the colloquial sense, hormones, physical appearance, genetics, psychological profile) that the sense they can all be joined together into this unity called "biological sex" is illusory? Any insight here would be appreciated :) Thank you for the informative video by the way!!
When she admits that she doesn't know it exists, she is referring specifically to the kind of scientific arguments for its existence (hormones are probably the best 'scientific' evidence for it). She says this not because she believes such a sex to exist, but because she doesn't know if there's a kind of universal sexual identity in relation to our biological sex (what about intersex people????) that we all would gravitate towards if we lived in a non-cultured vacuum where there are no external, societal factors. Hope that helps!
I have a question...can't performativity be applied to any aspect of our live and not just gender? For example, many behaviours, habits etc that are not gender specific could also fit into the realm of performativity?
Wow, I really don't understand the introduction of skin color toward the end there, but I think you pointed out something of value to me anyway. It seems her theory is a general one on gender, not a rule for why a specific person accepts or rejects a gender assigned at birth. (We are assigned both a sex and gender at birth.) Her theory is an explanation of cultural gender specifics. I don't know that she is trying to explain why a cis person can go along with the norms and why a trans or non binary person cannot (go with their assignments.)
thanks a million, sir for this wonderful elaboration, I am really indebted. May you kindly elaborate the meaning of the word inertia you mentioned in the video, please?
@@TheoryPhilosophy please forgive me if I asking a lot, is gender according to Butler, subjective and mutable or changeable? I mean it is not static and subjectively performed according to every individual right?
I believe people are born with certain predispositions that manifest in what is generally a socially constructed world. For instance, more women work in fields such as nursing and teaching, while men tend to work in fields such as computing and accounting. What has been socially constructed is the fields themselves. However, the dynamics in the fields attract people of different talents, temperaments, ect. This in conjunction with men and women tending to have differences in these areas means that women will tend to find themselves in fields where they work with people while men will tend to work with things. Now, notice how I said, "tend." This is crucial because this is not absolute. There will always be women who like working with things and there will always be men that like working with people, and that is fine because it shows how different we all truly are. So my main issue with Butler is that she believes humans are more malleable than I do. I personally do not see gender as purely a social construct and believe that the science tends to back up my claims better than it does her own. But at the end of the day, it is an interesting discourse and there are many questions that she and others in academia should and could ask. For example, why is it that jobs that are more female-oriented pay less than those more male-oriented? Are the jobs men do truly that much more valuable than those women partake in? Anyways, I'm probably going to get slammed for this post, but these are my opinions and you are more than entitled to disagree :).
I just don't understand :/. There are biological differences, but they aren't biological because it doesn't apply to everyone. You say it's science, but then you say that it's not natural and not universal. It's just confusing with the contradictions.
A lot of what you listed are such perfect examples of social constructs. A lot of those fields aren’t always natural to either sex, we are taught they are
SIR HAS BUTLER SHOWN IN HER THEORY THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBVERSION, I MEAN IF WOMAN BEHAVES IN A MASCULINE WAY OR OTHERWISE MAN BEHAVES IN A FEMININE WAY, HOW CAN THHIS BE ?
So gender, like many things, is just tradition. Tradition is just succumbing to peer pressure from dead people. Idk, I'm not a philosopher. Just trying to be a better ally/accomplice to an attacked community.
Also a question, you mentioned that structures like the media promote performative categories and work to normalize them. So then it's, the power structures that regulate, promote, create these categories? Does this serve them in economical terms, so that then they gain profit by selling the products necessary to perform these different identities? Or is it more of power in more abstract sense pushing/developing these identities in different situations for different profits? And if so, what is profit for power? To increase itself in whatever form it exists?
I think it can be both in that they both accrue monetary wealth and cultural wealth that will cycle around and beget even more monetary wealth and so on. It's Eye in the Sky by The Alan Parsons Project. And thanks about the hair comment lol. It was the work of both myself and my partner 🤣
Butler is just a sloppy application of Heidegger and Foucault to sex and sex-based stereotypes (gender). Heidegger is way better - see his discussion of Dasein and Das Man in Being & Time. ‘Sex’ is just part of our facticity. Being a woman is about as ontologically interesting and complicated as being-a-Jets-fan or being-a-southern-Baptist. There’s as much ‘performativity’ in those social roles as in so-called ‘gender’. Butler’s work is entirely derivative, but since her fans are philosophical neophytes, they don’t understand the primary sources.
A far simpler explanation is that gendering is learned, role-based behavior that starts at birth. It's obviously based upon 'norms' from the older, parenting generation. yet so are the means by which people 'perform' in deviant ways to said norms. In other wordz, the filosofikal konfuzion uf Butler is her utter failure to realize that said deviant performativity is still nevertheless within the given social matrix. In other wordz, if a gurl acts like a boy, she's said to be 'butch' or 'dikey' by standards describing acceptable deviation from gendered roles. Ditto, of course, for boyz who want to act like gurlz. In other words, most of us don't care; Butler iz filosofizing against the hoi poloi who've never really counted.
The problem with this theory is that what it means to be a man/woman in terms of gender expression today did not mean the same way 500 years ago and 10000 years ago. The definition of our identity always changed , it was never constant. Also manhood or womanhood changes depending on the culture to an extent where something is manly in the west won't be manly in other countries. But how then men and women ( biological) managed to define themselves as men and women all over the world ? The answer is biology. If a British woman , a Australian aboriginal woman and a Siberian woman all get together , within less than a millisecond of seeing each other they will recognize each other as women. This underlying consciousness can never be discounted.
Well the first part of your comment actually is evidence that supports the idea of gender performance and expression. Since how men/women express gender has changed dramatically depending on culture and time period, gender is not biologically inherent to a person and instead is just an outward performance of actions & dress. Sex is what society prescribes to you at birth based of physical genitalia, while gender is how you perform/subvert societal expectations accordingly The second half of your comment, while it does make sense initially, I believe is a bit flawed. While they may (or may not) recognize each other as women, those people will truly never know what their sex is unless they test their chromosomes. For example, a trans woman that is passable will be recognized as a woman by those same people, because of their gender performance, even if they biologically have a penis. If you are then trying to argue that the fact there is a woman and man gender to begin with across cultures that people either accept or transition into, I still feel like that excludes a lot of people. There are cultures that are have multiple genders, especially native peoples, but have been eradicated overtime because of European colonization throughout the world. Also, sex itself isn't entirely black and white. While genitalia may look like penis or vagina, the person still could be visibly intersex or even invisibly, and you would never know unless you tested their chromosomes. And since not everyone gets their chromosomes tested, there's probably a good amount of people who are intersex. For my English Renaissance class, I read the real story of Thomasine Hall's life in the new world, like 1600's, who was categorized as girl at birth, raised as such, then performed as a man to accompany his brother into war, and then switched back to performing as a woman when they moved to the 'new world' as an indentured servant. Some recognized Thomasine as a woman, for example the Governor at the time, despite Thomasine having a penis because it 'didn't work', while others viewed them as a man. So, even in that time period the idea of biological sex wasn't black and white depending on what someone thought a male was. Sorry if this is rambly, I really wanted to make it neat and a concise response but just some things to consider
@@throwaway5131 I never denied that gender performance exists. I said regardless of performance a woman or a man will most of the time if not always be recognized as such. In fact I can even argue a lot of the performance is also influenced by biology. Trans people almost never pass as a men or women because they have distinct body features that shows. Unless they are in heavy makeup it is quite easy most of the time to recognize if someone is Trance. Saying Man or a woman is a biological reality does not 'exclude' anyone simply because the statement is true for that specific category. Why it is so hard to accept Trans as a distinct category ? Because of politics. Trans people have distinct look , they often have distinct behavior patterns , i don't see why they cant be considered a distinct human kind. The only reason comes to mind is politics of power. While I do agree trans people should enjoy every rights men and women have , i find it rather a red herring issue when the demand if they be considered as men and women which they are not. It simply helps fuel a conflict that is unnecessary and unproductive.
حتى تكون مماثلتك دقيقة، لازمك تصف مش كرة ثلج واحدة و انما عدد كبير كثير من كرات الثلج، كل كرة منهم خرجت من بقعة مخالفة و اخذت ثنية مختلفة. لكن لما شفنا كل كرة ثلج اش صارت في اخر المطاف، لقينا الكرات تتشابه لحد كبير. المشكلة هي لما تتبع كرة واحدة (لانك تعتقد انه ما ثمة الا كرتك في الوجود). الاختلاف موجود في الجانب الثقافي البحت (لون الانثى، لون الذكر، لباس، شكل الاحذية..)، اما الفرق موجود اقل لما نركز في الادوار العائلية و المجتمعية. الهدف من الفرق الناتج على كل ماهو ثقافي بحت هو تعيير المظاهر و التصرفات حتى يتسنى للمجتمع انه يصنّف بسهولة الجنس و الجندر. في المقابل، الفرق الناتج على كل ما هو بيولوجي بحت هو اللي يعرّف الجنس (بيولوجي بحت هو العضو التناسلي، حجم المخ، نظام التكاثر، نسبة التستستيرون..). ثمة فروق تعطي تعريف و فروق تعطي تصنيف (فكر فيها: اذا عندك كلب في البيت، هل هو انثى والا ذكر؟ لاش نقبل اننا نصنف الحيوانات على انهم ذكور و اناثي و لكن يصير هذا كفر لما نعمله مع الانسان؟). مثلا، اليوم، ممكن انسان يصير تعريفه بيولوجيا على انه ذكر، و لكنه جندريّا يتم تصنيفه على انه انثى. فهنا ما نحكيش على ذكر او انثى ببساطة و بشكل بحت. و لكن نحكي على متحول-جنسيا والا كوير والا مثلي والا اي حاجة سوى التسمية الثنائية البسيطة. هل ثمة مجتمع على مر التاريخ، فين الراجل يقعد في البيت و تكون عضلاته شبه رخوية و يكون يهتم بتقليم اضافره و تلوينهم بالاحمر و دهن بشرته بالمرهم و يكون مهتم بتنظيف المنزل و تحظير الاكل و المراة تهتم بعضلاتها و رايحتها نتنة بالعرق و تبني الطرقات في الشارع؟ ثمة استغلال للصواب السياسي بحيث انه يخوللنا انها نقول النظريات الاكثر غرابة، و اذا ثمة مين يعترض نتهمه بالعنصرية و كراهية النساء و التخلف الخ.. فصرنا نسمع افكار عجيبة من غير اعتراض، و بالتالي صارت تظهر و كأنها افكار متفق عليها.
Butler is all about performance. She acts like she is smart and whole lot of really dumb people buy into. Do anyone know if the guru is same-sex attracted? 😅
These ideas are banal. Obviously there are styles which change in time or in other cultures to denote roles enacted. But the domain of the activity is determined biologically. Of course conventions are enacted, but identities are discovered NOT chosen. Grow up, philosophers!
So what is BEHAVIOR? What is IMPRINTING? What is IMITATION? These guys [sic] are disassociating behaviors from culture and biology and applying a NAME to our disassociation. That's all Folks. 🤣 Ok. Clever and interesting to many people. Ok.
You are so lucid, coherent and concise. On top of that, you are blessed with great lecture oratory skills!
This gets me to thinking about Hyperreality. The map (gender) covers the territory it is designed to represent (the person) and becomes the truth because of the person's experience in being viewed as the map instead of as the territory. Effectively they are trapped by the automating effect of seeing all the other "maps" around them and suffer a panoptic experience where they police themselves so as to hide that the territory behind the map exists because as you say this could lead to punitive measures if deviations from the map are discovered. The illusion of a coherent idea we call "gender" is maintained through a collective conspiracy maintained by simulant actors hiding the truth that there is none.
For sure! And, like Baudrillard, Butler is wary of the moment that these traits become natural or 'real' as though they are unchanging.
Yeah, but even if the actual territory is buried under layers of representation there had to be a territory in the first place, right?
@@luciferfernandez7094 the territory is dynamic, whereas the map is static
I enjoy your straight forward approach to your videos and discussions. Butler is one I am becoming more familiar with though she tends to be a difficult read (I’m in grad school, studying literary theory). Performativity has often intrigued me, namely questioning what is and isn’t natural in terms of why males and females “perform” their gender. I think of feminine gay men and masculine gay women who grew up knowing they were gay but felt compelled to keep it secret. Why did they later adopt a performativity contrary to what was “snowballed” onto them? If I’m being naive, I doubt mean to be: I want to learn. As a gay man, it’s such a fascinating topic. Also you’re just adorable! :)
Thanks for this video. Writting a paper about performativity right now and this video has really helped.
You explain things so well, using everyday language and examples we can all understand. No complex jargon, making it accessible for everyone. You're doing great sweedy 🌻
This was so helpful. I love the snowball example. It makes sense.
I love Judith butlers interpretation of this concept- I first discovered her interpretation of this from my business school bookstore at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona with Alessandro durati’s anthropology of language and Key terms in language and culture.
Lovely explanation. Thank you for your intellectual generosity. It teaches me a better way to explain Butler's gender theory as I am working with my research (the politics of adoption concerning gender theory). I hope to hear more insights from you soon. Please stay safe always. ❤️
This is such gibberish. So Steven Tyler and Willy Nelson aren't playing the performantive game. Butler is poison. Notice now it's all about queer theorysince gender has become a ball of confusion
this was super helpful! Studying performance studies currently and was having a hard time grasping att all the different definitions. Thank you!
Beautifully explained! THANK you much ❤️
Isn't Butler's concept of performativity also informed by Austin's distinction between performative and constative utterances? I've always assumed it is, associating back to the territorial dispute over Austin between Derrida and Searle in Limited Inc. Maybe I have this wrong, but here's how I think of it. In the same way that we are mostly unaware that our spontaneous uses of language have a performative element -- i.e., are acts, speech acts -- we are mostly unaware of how our spontaneous choices and behavior "perform" in fields of taken-for-granted meaning. But we can also become aware of this and harness performativity consciously. So behavior, like speech, is never purely "constative," so to speak. It has this additional aspect of "doing things" that can be brought to light. Do I have this right?
ruclips.net/video/WOMoM1Fy9JY/видео.html
You are correct, the video simplifies it in a way which misses detail of the linguistic element.
It would be interesting to volley Butler towards Bourdieu. I’m sure it’s been done before but I would like to hear your take on habitus vs. performativity.
Yes that would be interesting but I know next to nothing about Bourdieu XD
I have the same question.
You are such a life saver.
What is the difference between Butler's "Performativity" and Bourdieu's "Habitus" ?
I have no idea because I've never read Bourdieu :/
I had the same question--I've started reading both, but don't have enough experience to answer the question myself.
I found this paper that outlined a few differences: www.alexandria.unisg.ch/226459/1/Nentwich%C3%96zbilginTatli_2014.pdf
Summary: They're actually very similar with a few key differences:
1) Where Butler's theorization was drawn from observations of diverse subcultures in avant garde and drag spaces, Bourdieu theorized in reference to traditional Algerian society and the French bourgeoisie (so direct observation of the powerful/norm-setting classes)
2) They understand speech acts to be legitimized in different ways. Butler argues that speakers create their own legitimacy while speaking (perlocutionary acts), while Bourdieu argues that speech acts are considered variably legitimate depending on the social position of the speaker and must be legitimized by social relationships and institutions outside of the speaker (illocutionary acts).
3) "Bourdieu looks at how human action is embedded in the field and doxa through habitus: the agent’s embodiment of social structures (Bourdieu, and Wacquant 1992). Meanwhile, Butler focuses on repetitive acts of performativity in reproducing or deconstructing the norms (Reckwitz 2004)".
Hope that helps! Would love to hear if anyone else has additional ideas!
This answer is to go back to the source of both Butler and Bourdieu, and that’s Heidegger (with some Heidegger via Foucault). ‘Performativity’ is just ways of being for Dasein, that being is embodied in action, not as some platonic essence or as some projection of the mind. And shape of this embodiment is determined by Das Man - the social world of roles and relations, hierarchies and values (to put it crudely). Peformativity focuses on how this manifests in the individual going about life. The Habitus denotes Das Man, this social milieu wherein we also find ourselves and which serves as the field of meaning as the background against which individual lives instantiate performativity. It all goes back to Heidegger. But he’s too hard and un-sexy to read nowadays, and was a bad man. But he’s a way more important thinker.
I am not a big fan of Butler. But, the way you explained 'performativity' might actually encourage more people to read her stuff. 👍🏼
Happy to hear it!
The work of Paul Rosenfels in the 1970s (Ninth Street Center in the East Village in NYC) regarding "polarities" combined with "social performance" (any one of any sex and sexual orientation can have a "masculine" or "feminine" personality and anyone can be "objective" or "subjective" [masc-ojecvtive and fem-subjective are unbalnced, the other two combinations are balanced) amount to being "performativities". But Paul intended this for adults in personal communities, adults who had assimilated into the world with their own agency; he did not intend these labels to become publc, have pronouns, and be categories of people for political rights.
Get out of my head! Butler-crazy and quickly becoming a T&P fan too. Cool mind you have there, keep em coming.
Haha thanks
10/10 would recommend to a friend :*)
So, performativity is when an observed human trait, be it tangible or not, spontaneously occurs into being before being ultimately labeled by society?
Yep, I can see how this would fall into the box of mankind's love for categorising and fragmenting things. Stereotyping and typecasting, for example.
In other words, "How things came to be, by accident, and how they are seen thereafter by the society in question."
No wonder it's difficult for a generation to change their minds about a subject such as sexual orientation or sexual identity - they were once told that it was blasphemous to be attracted to the same sex, and now they are told the opposite. It was an unspoken "truth," and now the opinion has shifted.
Mass perception is dangerous and is likely a cause for many social anxieties.
Not gonna lie, I had written a long comment a few hours ago, and I deleted it - it took a few more hours for me to grasp the keyword.
Thanks again, David. Have a great week!
P.S. I'd suggest taking a longer pause between points before editing them together. There were a few abrupt audio transitions and it was a little jarring. I say this with no disrespect to the content, and am more alluding to the overall production quality. Sitting in that corner was a definite upgrade, tho!
Cool! Congratulations on 5K subscribers :) keep it up!
season 3 episode 3 of Mad Men My Old Kentucky Home says everything you just said through narrative
Great explanation ! I just love how sincere these representations of your are, and always articulate and calm. How your video content has risen in quality for the past year or so !
Thank you so much 🙂
As someone who hasn't read Butler, when she says she doesn't know if biological sex exists, is she basically saying that biological sex as it is spoken of today can't be thought of as being purely descriptive because it reinforces the normalizing framework you spoke about? Or that it is belied by normative commitments? Or perhaps she is saying that the category of biological sex encompasses so many disparate things (sexuality in the colloquial sense, hormones, physical appearance, genetics, psychological profile) that the sense they can all be joined together into this unity called "biological sex" is illusory? Any insight here would be appreciated :)
Thank you for the informative video by the way!!
When she admits that she doesn't know it exists, she is referring specifically to the kind of scientific arguments for its existence (hormones are probably the best 'scientific' evidence for it). She says this not because she believes such a sex to exist, but because she doesn't know if there's a kind of universal sexual identity in relation to our biological sex (what about intersex people????) that we all would gravitate towards if we lived in a non-cultured vacuum where there are no external, societal factors. Hope that helps!
Theory & Philosophy Thank you, I think the hypothetical cultural vacuum you mentioned is a useful tool in thinking about this!
Thank you so much for this video!! May I ask whether you will also make videos on Erving Goffman's theories?
"It just happens to us." (4:24) I don't know what to make of this argument.
I have a question...can't performativity be applied to any aspect of our live and not just gender? For example, many behaviours, habits etc that are not gender specific could also fit into the realm of performativity?
Wow, I really don't understand the introduction of skin color toward the end there, but I think you pointed out something of value to me anyway. It seems her theory is a general one on gender, not a rule for why a specific person accepts or rejects a gender assigned at birth. (We are assigned both a sex and gender at birth.) Her theory is an explanation of cultural gender specifics. I don't know that she is trying to explain why a cis person can go along with the norms and why a trans or non binary person cannot (go with their assignments.)
Gracias por Elaboración
I like these. Very helpful
Happy to hear it 😊
The thing with ads on youtube: If you switch them off, youtube will not recommend the videos to as many people.
I didn't know that!
thanks a million, sir for this wonderful elaboration, I am really indebted. May you kindly elaborate the meaning of the word inertia you mentioned in the video, please?
By inertia I mean the movement of something that will keep moving unless it is stopped by a counter-force.
@@TheoryPhilosophy please forgive me if I asking a lot, is gender according to Butler, subjective and mutable or changeable? I mean it is not static and subjectively performed according to every individual right?
I believe people are born with certain predispositions that manifest in what is generally a socially constructed world. For instance, more women work in fields such as nursing and teaching, while men tend to work in fields such as computing and accounting. What has been socially constructed is the fields themselves. However, the dynamics in the fields attract people of different talents, temperaments, ect. This in conjunction with men and women tending to have differences in these areas means that women will tend to find themselves in fields where they work with people while men will tend to work with things. Now, notice how I said, "tend." This is crucial because this is not absolute. There will always be women who like working with things and there will always be men that like working with people, and that is fine because it shows how different we all truly are.
So my main issue with Butler is that she believes humans are more malleable than I do. I personally do not see gender as purely a social construct and believe that the science tends to back up my claims better than it does her own. But at the end of the day, it is an interesting discourse and there are many questions that she and others in academia should and could ask. For example, why is it that jobs that are more female-oriented pay less than those more male-oriented? Are the jobs men do truly that much more valuable than those women partake in?
Anyways, I'm probably going to get slammed for this post, but these are my opinions and you are more than entitled to disagree :).
I just don't understand :/. There are biological differences, but they aren't biological because it doesn't apply to everyone. You say it's science, but then you say that it's not natural and not universal. It's just confusing with the contradictions.
A lot of what you listed are such perfect examples of social constructs. A lot of those fields aren’t always natural to either sex, we are taught they are
thanks littlefinger!
Yes.
SIR HAS BUTLER SHOWN IN HER THEORY THE IMPORTANCE OF SUBVERSION, I MEAN IF WOMAN BEHAVES IN A MASCULINE WAY OR OTHERWISE MAN BEHAVES IN A FEMININE WAY, HOW CAN THHIS BE ?
So gender, like many things, is just tradition. Tradition is just succumbing to peer pressure from dead people. Idk, I'm not a philosopher. Just trying to be a better ally/accomplice to an attacked community.
Great video. What is that vinyl you have in the background? The cover looks familiar. Youve got cool hair btw
Also a question, you mentioned that structures like the media promote performative categories and work to normalize them. So then it's, the power structures that regulate, promote, create these categories? Does this serve them in economical terms, so that then they gain profit by selling the products necessary to perform these different identities? Or is it more of power in more abstract sense pushing/developing these identities in different situations for different profits? And if so, what is profit for power? To increase itself in whatever form it exists?
I think it can be both in that they both accrue monetary wealth and cultural wealth that will cycle around and beget even more monetary wealth and so on. It's Eye in the Sky by The Alan Parsons Project. And thanks about the hair comment lol. It was the work of both myself and my partner 🤣
@@TheoryPhilosophy Thanks a lot sir!
Why would anyone establish a social structure that rewards conformity in the first place? 🤔
What do you mean???
Don’t you raise pets like that
Please Can u write what u spoke in a comment I need the sentences
'strawmanning a lot' you could say that is an understatement
Butler is just a sloppy application of Heidegger and Foucault to sex and sex-based stereotypes (gender). Heidegger is way better - see his discussion of Dasein and Das Man in Being & Time. ‘Sex’ is just part of our facticity. Being a woman is about as ontologically interesting and complicated as being-a-Jets-fan or being-a-southern-Baptist. There’s as much ‘performativity’ in those social roles as in so-called ‘gender’. Butler’s work is entirely derivative, but since her fans are philosophical neophytes, they don’t understand the primary sources.
A far simpler explanation is that gendering is learned, role-based behavior that starts at birth. It's obviously based upon 'norms' from the older, parenting generation. yet so are the means by which people 'perform' in deviant ways to said norms. In other wordz, the filosofikal konfuzion uf Butler is her utter failure to realize that said deviant performativity is still nevertheless within the given social matrix.
In other wordz, if a gurl acts like a boy, she's said to be 'butch' or 'dikey' by standards describing acceptable deviation from gendered roles. Ditto, of course, for boyz who want to act like gurlz. In other words, most of us don't care; Butler iz filosofizing against the hoi poloi who've never really counted.
The problem with this theory is that what it means to be a man/woman in terms of gender expression today did not mean the same way 500 years ago and 10000 years ago. The definition of our identity always changed , it was never constant. Also manhood or womanhood changes depending on the culture to an extent where something is manly in the west won't be manly in other countries. But how then men and women ( biological) managed to define themselves as men and women all over the world ? The answer is biology. If a British woman , a Australian aboriginal woman and a Siberian woman all get together , within less than a millisecond of seeing each other they will recognize each other as women. This underlying consciousness can never be discounted.
Well the first part of your comment actually is evidence that supports the idea of gender performance and expression. Since how men/women express gender has changed dramatically depending on culture and time period, gender is not biologically inherent to a person and instead is just an outward performance of actions & dress. Sex is what society prescribes to you at birth based of physical genitalia, while gender is how you perform/subvert societal expectations accordingly
The second half of your comment, while it does make sense initially, I believe is a bit flawed. While they may (or may not) recognize each other as women, those people will truly never know what their sex is unless they test their chromosomes. For example, a trans woman that is passable will be recognized as a woman by those same people, because of their gender performance, even if they biologically have a penis. If you are then trying to argue that the fact there is a woman and man gender to begin with across cultures that people either accept or transition into, I still feel like that excludes a lot of people. There are cultures that are have multiple genders, especially native peoples, but have been eradicated overtime because of European colonization throughout the world. Also, sex itself isn't entirely black and white. While genitalia may look like penis or vagina, the person still could be visibly intersex or even invisibly, and you would never know unless you tested their chromosomes. And since not everyone gets their chromosomes tested, there's probably a good amount of people who are intersex.
For my English Renaissance class, I read the real story of Thomasine Hall's life in the new world, like 1600's, who was categorized as girl at birth, raised as such, then performed as a man to accompany his brother into war, and then switched back to performing as a woman when they moved to the 'new world' as an indentured servant. Some recognized Thomasine as a woman, for example the Governor at the time, despite Thomasine having a penis because it 'didn't work', while others viewed them as a man. So, even in that time period the idea of biological sex wasn't black and white depending on what someone thought a male was.
Sorry if this is rambly, I really wanted to make it neat and a concise response but just some things to consider
@@throwaway5131 I never denied that gender performance exists. I said regardless of performance a woman or a man will most of the time if not always be recognized as such. In fact I can even argue a lot of the performance is also influenced by biology. Trans people almost never pass as a men or women because they have distinct body features that shows. Unless they are in heavy makeup it is quite easy most of the time to recognize if someone is Trance. Saying Man or a woman is a biological reality does not 'exclude' anyone simply because the statement is true for that specific category. Why it is so hard to accept Trans as a distinct category ? Because of politics. Trans people have distinct look , they often have distinct behavior patterns , i don't see why they cant be considered a distinct human kind. The only reason comes to mind is politics of power. While I do agree trans people should enjoy every rights men and women have , i find it rather a red herring issue when the demand if they be considered as men and women which they are not. It simply helps fuel a conflict that is unnecessary and unproductive.
حتى تكون مماثلتك دقيقة، لازمك تصف مش كرة ثلج واحدة و انما عدد كبير كثير من كرات الثلج، كل كرة منهم خرجت من بقعة مخالفة و اخذت ثنية مختلفة. لكن لما شفنا كل كرة ثلج اش صارت في اخر المطاف، لقينا الكرات تتشابه لحد كبير. المشكلة هي لما تتبع كرة واحدة (لانك تعتقد انه ما ثمة الا كرتك في الوجود). الاختلاف موجود في الجانب الثقافي البحت (لون الانثى، لون الذكر، لباس، شكل الاحذية..)، اما الفرق موجود اقل لما نركز في الادوار العائلية و المجتمعية. الهدف من الفرق الناتج على كل ماهو ثقافي بحت هو تعيير المظاهر و التصرفات حتى يتسنى للمجتمع انه يصنّف بسهولة الجنس و الجندر. في المقابل، الفرق الناتج على كل ما هو بيولوجي بحت هو اللي يعرّف الجنس (بيولوجي بحت هو العضو التناسلي، حجم المخ، نظام التكاثر، نسبة التستستيرون..). ثمة فروق تعطي تعريف و فروق تعطي تصنيف (فكر فيها: اذا عندك كلب في البيت، هل هو انثى والا ذكر؟ لاش نقبل اننا نصنف الحيوانات على انهم ذكور و اناثي و لكن يصير هذا كفر لما نعمله مع الانسان؟). مثلا، اليوم، ممكن انسان يصير تعريفه بيولوجيا على انه ذكر، و لكنه جندريّا يتم تصنيفه على انه انثى. فهنا ما نحكيش على ذكر او انثى ببساطة و بشكل بحت. و لكن نحكي على متحول-جنسيا والا كوير والا مثلي والا اي حاجة سوى التسمية الثنائية البسيطة. هل ثمة مجتمع على مر التاريخ، فين الراجل يقعد في البيت و تكون عضلاته شبه رخوية و يكون يهتم بتقليم اضافره و تلوينهم بالاحمر و دهن بشرته بالمرهم و يكون مهتم بتنظيف المنزل و تحظير الاكل و المراة تهتم بعضلاتها و رايحتها نتنة بالعرق و تبني الطرقات في الشارع؟ ثمة استغلال للصواب السياسي بحيث انه يخوللنا انها نقول النظريات الاكثر غرابة، و اذا ثمة مين يعترض نتهمه بالعنصرية و كراهية النساء و التخلف الخ.. فصرنا نسمع افكار عجيبة من غير اعتراض، و بالتالي صارت تظهر و كأنها افكار متفق عليها.
?
Butler is all about performance. She acts like she is smart and whole lot of really dumb people buy into. Do anyone know if the guru is same-sex attracted? 😅
These ideas are banal. Obviously there are styles which change in time or in other cultures to denote roles enacted. But the domain of the activity is determined biologically. Of course conventions are enacted, but identities are discovered NOT chosen. Grow up, philosophers!
So what is BEHAVIOR? What is IMPRINTING? What is IMITATION?
These guys [sic] are disassociating behaviors from culture and biology and applying a NAME to our disassociation. That's all Folks. 🤣
Ok. Clever and interesting to many people. Ok.
Painful.
word
Cool! Congratulations on 5K subscribers :) keep it up!
Thanks 😊