american feminist literature, american literature, feminism, feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, history, humanism, lgbtq, philosophy, politics, science and technology, sex reassignment, Uncategorized, women and gender studies

Judith Butler, “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7.4 (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2001), 621-636.

JudithButler2013.jpg

(photo credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)

Bodies and their artistic nature of gender, sex identity and expression is a complicated notion. In the essay entitled “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” Judith Butler discusses these complications in discussing the social construction of bodies, sex, and gender. Butler uses a Foucauldian framework to talk about body politics and the “regulatory regime” of medicine on bodies (621). Butler does this by specifically focusing on one individual in particular identified as “the case of Joan/John” (625).

The case of Joan/John is not a uncommon story but is an example of the ways in which the medical establishment constructs bodies that are “viable” and are coherent for the nation-state. In short the case of Joan/Joan is a story of an infant that goes through a botched circumcision, in which the doctor convinces the parents it will be better for the child to grow up with no penis and assume the identity of a female then to grow up with a deformed penis (622). The narrative gets more complicated as Joan/John grows up and ends up identifying more as a male than his produced female more identity (623). Through this case study, Butler identifies the debate between social and biological arguments for sex/gender (623) More important, this essay offers a theoretical framework for discussing the forced construction of gender on individuals and their bodies. Butler’s thesis states, “in recounting this story and its appropriation for the purposes of gender theory.…I hope to underscore here is the disciplinary framework in which Joan/ John develops a discourse of self-reporting and self-understanding…by which his own humanness is both questioned and asserted” (628-629).

Lasting thoughts from this piece are productive invitations to discuss the body and nation. Asking academics and intellects alike the question of what ultimately constitutes humanness?  Butler asserts there is  major “limits to the discourse of intelligibility [coherent/identification/taxonomy]” (635). If that is so, Butler’s contributions challenge the constructed categories of the nation-state and binary body politics. This essay highlights the nation-states perceived need for these categories to propel nationalism and its citizenship. I would recommend this essay to academics, intellectuals, and social activists. This is a perfect essay to sit down and discuss with like-minded thinkers. I guarantee you will engage in an exciting and stimulating conversation reading this and discuss it with peers or colleagues! 

10/10

Advertisements
feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, postcolonial theory, subaltern studies

Essay Review: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” in Colonial Discourse and Post-Colonial Theory: A Reader (London: Routledge, 1993), Pp. 66-111.

 

image_column-one.jpeg

       (photo credits to link provided: Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak [ India, USA ] Biography. Accessed August 31, 2018)

Historical narratives try to give agency and articulate the subjects in colonial contexts, but have they done justice to these subjects (as Judith Butler would say)? For Gayatri Spivak this has been an unsuccessful project of theoretical and historical narratives. In Spivak’s essay entitled, “Can the Subaltern Speak?” the provocative argument of injustice and reproductions of imperialism have been suggested to some of the most influential theorists and historians of our time. Spivak critiques ideology and the intellectuals obsession to categorize categories. In this sense the author is claiming that those who have tried to use deconstruction, post-modern, and intervening language have actually in turn reproduced imperial narratives. This critique the author gives critiques, as well as gives credence to, names such as Foucault, Deleuze and Guattarie etc. The author critiques the ways in which theorists and historians have reproduced terms of subject and citizen ultimately creating a type of violence in the form of narrative presence. Spivak’s thesis states, “I have argued that, in the Foucault-Deluze conversation, a postrepresentationlist vocabulary hides an essentialist agenda. In subaltern studies, because of the violence of imperialist epistemic, social and disciplinary inscription, a project understood in essentialist terms must traffic in a radical textual practice of difference” (80). This critique searches to illuminate if the subject of the state, nation, and empire is adequately represented. Spivak’s continual question, “can the subaltern speak,” is complicated by what the author demonstrates as absences in historical narratives of those termed as oppressed or subjugated bodies. Power is thus driven out of knowledge and the ways in which reproduction rears its ugly head is through historical and theoretical narratives about binary othering (82). Spivak notes, “Deleuze and Foucault ignore both the epistemic violence of imperialism…”(84). By discussing the gaps of theory and history Spivak is able to point to types of personage that is not intelligible or is rendered in a  “blind-spot” to the “privileging of the intellectual” discourse (86-87). For example Spivak spends time teasing out how sati, which is a cultural death of husband and female sacrifice to honor and loyalty aka “good wife” ritual, is read outside of the flattened imperial discourse (101). What Spivak calls attention to is that intellectual discourse does a disservice or does not give justice to the whole story go culture, race, context, and letting one speak from their own experience.

Spivak states, “the broader question of the constitution of the sexed subject is hidden by foregrounding the visible violence of sati…when the status of the legal subject as property-holder could be temperately bestowed on the female relict, the self-immolation of widows was stringently enforced” (99). What the author highlights is the deeper projects of reproducing racialize gendered subject bodies as victims for saving rather than free agent respectable of self-reporting. Spivak states, “between patriarchy and imperialism, subject-constitution and object-formation, the figure of the woman disappears, not into a pristine nothingness, but into a violent shuttling which is the displaced figuration of the ‘third-world woman’ caught between tradition and modernization” (102). Reified bodies and histories is the crux of Spivak’s critique of historical and theoretical narration of bodies and the nation vis versa. In the end of this powerful essay Spivak answers her question, “can the subaltern speak?” with the answer— “the subaltern cannot speak” (104). Spivak calls for a more nuanced and self-reporting narration of history for those who are spoken for and spoken about. Wonderful read to expand your mind and theoretically challenge static historical narratives. 

10/10

 

american feminist literature, american literature, feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, history, history of africa, history of europe, history of india, history of magic, history of the united states, literature, political theory, postcolonial theory, religious studies, science and technology, short story, subaltern studies, Uncategorized, witchcraft, world history

Magickal Reviews

Thanks for joining me!

“You ran away to find freedom, and you found it. You made it. Now you gotta tell it. You gotta figure out how to tell the story.” — Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha