Judith Butler, Entry 6
Feb. 23rd, 2011 06:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
huangtimI decided to blog about Butler's essay because I'm not quite finished with the Ishiguro reading, and Butler would be easier to write about…
Butler’s essay “clicked” with me, but raised some questions in my mind. Her idea that certain social organizations dehumanize others makes sense, but it left me asking what the “alternative” to our world looks like. If we lived in a society that had no social organizations, what would we do about human identity? I believe that humans find who they are and their identity through the people they associate with and the ideas and social groups that they organize themselves around. If we lived in a world that did not dehumanize anyone, how individuals assert who they are as people?
Butler’s essay reminded me of Woman on the Edge of Time again. In the novel, the people of Luciente’s time removed gender roles from their society by letting both males and females breastfeed, and changing reproductive techniques. Race was not associated with culture at all. These changes were made in order to get rid of racism, sexism, and discrimination in the future, and to make everybody equal in society. Piercy’s novel fits quite well into the framework of Butler’s argument. However, the people of the future of Piercy’s novel still organize themselves around certain cultures. Is this feasible in the Butler’s alternative to our world?
One of Butler’s final points is that one must be “intelligible” to be oppressed. That one must be comprehensible and understood by society to be kept down. However, she also says that those that do not fit into the social norms that our society has created are dehumanized. What is better then, being oppressed or dehumanized? Butler loses me here…
One last note about Piercy’s novel. The people of the future do not have SET names. They do not even have permanent last/family names, and can change their names whenever. Although this causes confusion sometimes, it is said to be better, because your name will always represent your true identity. Perhaps no set names actually means no REAL identities that can be grasped and hated. With malleable identities, no one can be dehumanized, and one can always change his or her identity to avoid being oppressed.
Butler’s essay “clicked” with me, but raised some questions in my mind. Her idea that certain social organizations dehumanize others makes sense, but it left me asking what the “alternative” to our world looks like. If we lived in a society that had no social organizations, what would we do about human identity? I believe that humans find who they are and their identity through the people they associate with and the ideas and social groups that they organize themselves around. If we lived in a world that did not dehumanize anyone, how individuals assert who they are as people?
Butler’s essay reminded me of Woman on the Edge of Time again. In the novel, the people of Luciente’s time removed gender roles from their society by letting both males and females breastfeed, and changing reproductive techniques. Race was not associated with culture at all. These changes were made in order to get rid of racism, sexism, and discrimination in the future, and to make everybody equal in society. Piercy’s novel fits quite well into the framework of Butler’s argument. However, the people of the future of Piercy’s novel still organize themselves around certain cultures. Is this feasible in the Butler’s alternative to our world?
One of Butler’s final points is that one must be “intelligible” to be oppressed. That one must be comprehensible and understood by society to be kept down. However, she also says that those that do not fit into the social norms that our society has created are dehumanized. What is better then, being oppressed or dehumanized? Butler loses me here…
One last note about Piercy’s novel. The people of the future do not have SET names. They do not even have permanent last/family names, and can change their names whenever. Although this causes confusion sometimes, it is said to be better, because your name will always represent your true identity. Perhaps no set names actually means no REAL identities that can be grasped and hated. With malleable identities, no one can be dehumanized, and one can always change his or her identity to avoid being oppressed.
no subject
Date: 2011-02-24 03:28 am (UTC)This is very difficult stuff and you shouldn't feel bad about not totally following it! Butler's argument is that people can be oppressed in different ways; it's easiest to explain with examples. In class we'll talk about Ishiguro, but for now let's say gender. If we live in a sexist society, men are the standard against which meaning is measured. Take Brave New World as an example––sex and culture are defined by a male standard and the women, like Lenina, exist only as objects to be desired, right? They are what Butler calls an "other for the master subject." Within the system of gender in that context, the only recognizable positions are the male or the female. But what if you had someone who wasn't male OR female? They wouldn't have a place within that system at all, and in order to be part of the world they would always have to be pretending to be something they were not. Even to become oppressed as a woman in that sexist culture, they would have to become "intelligible" as a woman. If they were not able to do that, then they would be "unintelligible," not human at all, and so not counted for anything. We could argue that Linda occupies such an inhuman position because she has aged so much she is no longer recognizable as a woman and so there's no place for her in the world any more.
I hope this helps! This is a thought-provoking and interesting blog entry; thanks.