On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, kelley wrote:
> so i read butler, take her seriously as much as possible, but i still
> thinks she's ridiculous for that kind of really awful scholarship --and in
> general i think her scholarship standards stink to begin with. she's
> pretty pisspoor at acknowledging her debts.
>
> ragging'
> kelley
>
Butler's a good example of the problems inherent to the rigid specializations within the academy. Let's face it: the basic thesis of gender trouble is an idea I cover in my Soc 101 classes (symbolic interactionism--the social construction of realities such as gender through everyday social interactions). That a group of queer theorists and pomos can read gender trouble and see it as "cutting edge theory" is a reflection of the fact that people in different disciplines all try to invent the wheel for themselves. I doubt JB's read Berger & Luckmann, Mead, or Goffman.
And again, this isn't meant as criticism of Butler; rather, what disturbs me is the artificial barrier between disciplines that allows some academics to see her work as ground breaking and original.
Miles