On Jun 4, 2008, at 12:00 PM, wrobert at uci.edu wrote:
>> Materiality and reality aren't being used as synonyms here,
>> they're just
>> being put in analogous positions.
>
> The problem is that they aren't even analogies. If you took the
> trouble to read the broader argument, you would realize that Butler
> is stating that the meaningfulness of sex is not accessible through
> 'materiality', rather it is discourse that makes the body meaningful
> by transforming that 'matter' into something meaningful. Also, keep
> in mind that discourse is something more than volunteeristic language
> within a Foucaultian perspective. It's inevitably tied into
> institutions and social interactions.
Thank you. Very nicely put.
Really, what is it about Butler's argument that drives otherwise very smart people completely around the bend? People get very nervous when the stability of biological distinctions between the sexes is brought into question. There's no better proof of this than strolling around with an infant. Strangers on the street will rebuke you if you dress it gender-ambiguously. If they misidentify the gender, they get all apologetic, even if you don't act offended.
Doug