Butler: { To claim that discourse
> is formative is
> not to claim that it originates, causes, or
> exhaustively composes
> that which it concedes; rather, it is to claim that
> there is no
> reference to a pure body which is not at the same
> time a further
> formation of that body. In this sense, the
> linguistic capacity to
> refer to sexed bodies is not denied, but the very
> meaning of
> "referentiality" is altered. In philosophical terms,
> the constative
> claim is always to some degree performative.}
Yes, sex may be indeed be performative--but this does not, for example, disprove menstruation and pregnancy as a fact of female possibility (rather than male possibility) or its associated effects and affects...
{ In relation to sex, then, if one concedes the
> materiality of sex or
> of the body, does that very conceding operate -
> performatively - to
> materialize that sex?}
Yes, but steroetypes not withstanding--what's at stake?
{And further, how is it that
> the reiterated
> concession of that sex - one which need not take
> place in speech or
> writing but might be "signaled" in a much more
> inchoate way -
> constitutes the sedimentation and production of that
> material effect?}
All sorts of abuses (and generosities) occur in the fetishization of male and female sexes, and the powers associated or denied them...
Dr. Nicholas Ruiz III Associate Professor Department of Humanities, Cultural and Studio Arts Daytona Beach College PO Box 2811 Daytona Beach, FL 32120-2811 Editor, Kritikos http://intertheory.org