I’m heavily invested in beginnings and endings, so the time has come for the post to sum it all up. Just in case the first sentence was not obvious enough, this post will be self-indulgent. In my first post of the semester, I ruminated over how Butler’s argumentation that the category of “woman” is highly problematic could be reconciled with the gains feminist political movements made for individuals who identified as women through the use of identity politics. I came to the conclusion that the concept of fragmented coalitions she presented as a means to acknowledge the success of the past while moving the feminist movement into the future was highly problematic, and was uncertain any political movement could be at all successful outside the mentality of collectivity which identity politics fosters. I was similarly uncertain the category of women could truly be fundamentally altered. Everything she asserted seemed impossible. After reading Undoing Gender and many other wonderful texts throughout the course of the semester, I think I can finally appreciate the merits of Butler’s arguments and, to some extent, understand her ideas and the limitations of my own former assumptions.
Despite the issues I had with Gender Trouble, the viability of fragmented coalitions and the ability of concepts which seem resolute to be fundamentally altered in politically powerful ways are two ideas I rely on within my theory. Probably in large part due to the Cvetokovich reading, I now recognize it is possible to form political coalitions amongst people with nothing in common aside from a goal or belief, even if that goal or belief reflects different value systems, an inconsistency which I had trouble grappling with as I initially worked through Butler. This determination has enabled me to draw parallels between heterosexual individuals who hold divorce parties and folks who speak at congressional hearings in attempts to secure the rights of queer individuals to marry the people they love. My conviction that the fundamental alteration of discourse, institutions, and reality is possible which I have developed from reading Butler and becoming invested in her idea of the changing human has allowed me to base my project on the idea that seeking marriage rights as an act of redefining the institution, could be a productive course of action for the queer community, something Butler doesn’t even think is possible. I think that justifies the claim I’ve come full circle. I suppose the most important thing I have taken from this class is a broader view of what is possible and new ways of evaluating possibility. Whether this has made me a better thinker, a new version of naïve, or just a more hopeful person in general, I haven’t quite decided. I’m excited to continue reading and learning with the insights the class has afforded me.
Tracy,
ReplyDeleteThis final post really sums up the semester nicely and I am glad you were able to reconcile your ideas about butler. I especially like the way you talked about how people can belong to a group because they have a similar cause and belief rather then sharing the same identificatory factor. I believe this idea is actually very fruitful in finding a new way of defining people. Perhaps if people were defined by what they believed in instead of what they looked like or what sexuality they were the world would be a better place. But alas, I am sure that too would have its own problems.
Great post!
Michelle