Constructions of the Self Essay Example

analysed as "effective" modes of repetition, within alternative ,; homosexual ; practices . i. e. She suggests that , "Gender is a kind of persistent impersonation that passes as the real... Gender practices within gay and lesbian cultures often thematize "the natural" in parodic contexts that bring into relief the performative construction of an original and true sex. " ( Butler. 1990, viii. ).

This piece thus has numerous purposes: Initially, I aim to consider the cardinal question of how Judith Butler's work upon performativity, reveals: 1. The Lacanian account of the Subject as working from an assumed position of Phallocentric/ Heterosexual Desire. 2. That in spite of his extensive work upon the constructed nature of identity; Foucault's Structuralist approach, also presumes a dialectic (heterosexual) relationship to exist, in the power relations of sexual difference. The secondary aspects of this piece will then consider how these ( "hetero" ) theories are affected by Butler's comments.

With the main area of debate centering upon a discussion of why she believes that such accounts of the self, offer a limited understanding of the way in which discourse/ selfhood operate. Finally, I shall consider the positive aspects of Butler's work ; in terms of how this critique offers us an innovative way of postulating the "subject". e. g. Her sustained view, that a certain agency may arise from performative acts; which has important political implications for the self , when the parodies of alternative gender practices, are taken seriously within the power plays of Discourse/ Culture.

Within Gender Trouble. Butler works through Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, in order to demonstrate the implicit heterosexual presumptions; which stem from this essentially Authoritarian account of

the subject. She begins by noting how his theory rests upon the principle that the ontological structures of "gender" and "sex", are preceded by the linguistic significance of the Symbolic Order. i. e. " The ontological specification of being... is understood to be determined by a language structured by the Paternal law... a thing takes on its characterization of "being" and ecome mobilised by the ontological gesture only within a structure of signification that, as the Symbolic, is itself pre-ontological. " ( Butler. 1990, p. 43).

The Lacanian view thus suggests that the being of the gendered self, cannot be achieved without the subject entering onto the language system; whose primary signifier is the Phallus. An event which is achieved by the (boy) child, unconsciously leaving the Imaginary Order, for that of the Symbolic. A move which is achieved via the successful negotiation of the Oedipus Complex. . e. The "demands" of the child , within the Imaginary,-(in which the self is perceived to exist at the level Narcissism),- are exchanged in the awakening of "desire", for the Mother. However, the child becomes inscripted with the dangers of this incestuous desire for the m/other object, when it faces the threat of castration, by the third agency of the Father. This threat is then overcome as the child identifies with the figure of the, ( Phallic) father, and as such enters the socio-cultural world as an autonomous self.

To Lacan the ultimate result of this event is that the Oedipus Complex is not a process of biological determinacy, (as Freud suggests). Rather this phenomenon becomes fixed , by the sociolinguistic conventions; which necessarily follow from the primary signifier

of the Phallus. i. e. The child enters into the perpetual and constructed illusion of a "whole" self, ("I"); via the language of the Paternalistic values, around him. Or as Butler describes this: " For Lacan the subject comes into being... nly on the condition of a primary repression of the pre-individuated incestuous pleasures associated with the (now repressed ) maternal body. " ( Butler 1990, p. 45).

In terms of sexual/ gender categories, this way of understanding the self, proposes a distinction which is made between the concepts of "having" and "being", the Phallus. i. e. The workings of the Social Order, operate upon the basis that the male subject, who "has" the form of the Phallus,(i. e. he penis)-exists in a binary relationship to the female object; who "is" the signifier/ embodiment of the power of this Phallic desire. In otherwords, the Language of the Father designates specific sexual identities; in which the Masculine "possessor" of the Phallus, must ultimately strive to maintain the status of his position; via the a dialectic struggle with his "Other",-the Feminine.

This is because "she" becomes the entity which reflects the elements of Masculinity; in the sense that she "lacks" the status attributed to the Phallus as primary Signifier. . e. " Women are said to "be" the Phallus in the sense that they maintain the power to reflect or represent the "reality" of the self-grounding postures of the masculine subject... in order to "be" the Phallus... women must become... (in the sense of "posture as if they were") precisely what men are not, and, in their very lack, establish the essential function of men. " (ibid).

The consequence of

this system of signification, is that the illusion of two practices of gender, (which in turn, reflect specific identities of Male/ Female. ,-are continually at work in order to maintain the status-quo of the self within the social sphere. i. e. The loss of "the real",-(which itself stems from a Narcissistic illusion of "totality")-is disguised and compensated for, by the Paternal constructions of the Symbolic Order. Thus to Lacan, it seems that we are left in an endless "masquerade", in which, "The effect that the ideal or typical manifestations of behaviour in both sexes, upto and including the act of sexual copulation, are entirely propelled into comedy. " (Lacan. 1985,p. 84. ).

However, within Lacan the "comedic" aspects of this situation, take on an Absolutism; since his analysis, maintains that there can be no other "law", to enter into the economy of the Father. Perhaps the main contention within Butler's critique of this theory, is her claim that Lacan's postulation of sex/gender/sexuality, only allows for Heterosexual desire to be signified, within the identity of the self. In short, she maintains that to remain within the dichotomy of specific, (male/female) constructions, is to necessarily assume that the only "legitimate" expression of sexuality is that which stems from Same/ Other identifications. . g. She suggests that from a "female" perspective, " to "be" the Phallus... is to be the object, the Other of a (heterosexualised) masculine desire, but also to represent or reflect that desire. " ( Butler. 1990,p. 44). Butler then expands upon Lacan's dependency upon compulsory heterosexuality, via a discussion of the way in which he employs the notion of "the mask", to encompass female homosexuality,

into the economy of the Phallocratic Order.

To Lacan, "the mask" is that which the gendered self employs, in order to resolve the negative-("melancholic")- aspects of identity and heterosexual desire. Thus in Lacan's account of lesbianism, the female simply adopts the function of the mask; in order to compensate for the psychosexual "disappointment" of heterosexual love. Butler cites how this account also insinuates that, " the female homosexual is subject to strengthened idealization, a demand for love that is pursued at the expense of desire. (Butler. 1990, p. 49). - A view which she further criticises, since this demonstrates the way in which adherers of the heterosexual matrix, seek to reduce alternative sexualities to an insignificant status. i. e. By negating the existence of sexual desire within lesbian relationships, Lacan essentially, reduces this form of identity be seen as the expression of over emphasised masculinity, and as such he in effect , reinstates the female within the Laws of the Phallus/ heterosexual desire.

Ultimately therefore, it appears that Butler, on the one hand, welcomes the Lacanian model of the self; in the sense that within his theory , "... the language of physiology or disposition does not appear... " (ibid. p. 55). But, on the other hand, it seems that she condemns this model on the grounds that, " binary restrictions nevertheless still operate to frame and formulate sexuality and delimit in advance the forms of its resistance to the "real" ". (ibid).

In the subsequent sections of Gender Trouble, Butler then advances her critique in order to demonstrate how,- although Foucault's work upon Power disrupts the necessity of fixed gender/ sexual categories, "his own theory maintains an

unacknowledged emancipatory ideal that proves increasingly difficult to maintain, even within the strictures of his own critical apparatus. " (Butler. 1990, p. 94. ). To Foucault the "self " arises from the effects of the disciplines of power, which exist within the sociocultural environment. i. e. The "individual" is constructed as such, via the historically specific, disciplinary powers of Discourse.

An event which stems from the inscriptive process, where self is empowered,- ( "effected by their own means" )1[1]- to depend upon these power relations, and act accordingly; thus producing the "proper" forms of identity, deemed suitable by the Governing forces around them. (e. g. Those of Law or Science). Ultimately, what Foucault suggests is that the subject is that which is produced by the effects of their compliant, "talking about" and "actualisation of ", specific "normative" or socially desirable, forms of Power. Where power is conceived to be that which, "... xists only when it is put into action. "( Foucault . The Subject and Power. afterword. ). This method of conceiving of the self, as a site of various power plays of knowledges or "technologies", can thus be extended to gleen an understanding of the way in which the categories of sex, gender and identity, are constructed. In short, Foucault's analysis reveals that sexuality has developed as a historically specific construct; which is employed, by the dominant forms of Power; to "administer" the "natural" / correct forms of (hetero)sexual identitiy to the subject.

A crucial aspect of this operation is that subversive forms of sexuality, are not forcibly repressed within Western Culture. Rather he believes that the existence of these forms of practices, are essential

to maintaining the dominant structure of Heterosexuality within society; since it is through the acknowledgement/ marginalisation of these alternate identities that discourse is able to encourage the "proper" acts of sexual conduct to be worked through by the self. e. g.

By expressing homosexuality within the discursive powers of culture, this alternative form of identity, ultimately becomes "lost" as it were, within the workings of dominant, Heterosexual discourse. Thus in Foucaultian analysis, any discourse, which seek to emancipate marginalised practices, become "self defeating"; since ultimately they remain compliant within the Power practices which are instigated by the ideals of "normal" culture. The "trouble" that Judith Butler has with Foucault's view, occurs when she considers a contradiction found within The History of Sexuality. nd his work upon the Hermaphroditism of Herculine Barbin. In the latter, Foucault celebrates the way in which a self,- who displays neither a specific sex nor gender, -can successfully confuse these categories and as such, appear to enjoy a liberated form of sexual pleasures.

To Butler this appears to be paradoxical to Foucault's contention, that there can be no "emancipatory" sexualities, outside of the technologies of discourse. i. e. "Foucault invokes a trope of prediscursive libidinal multiplicity that effectively presupposes a sexuality "before the law,"... sexuality waiting for emancipation from the shackles of "sex"... on the other hand... <he> argues ... that recourse to a sexuality before the law is an illusionary and complicitious conceit of emancipatory sexual politics. ". (Butler. 1990, p. 97). Butler understands this confusion, not to arise from a primordial, " play of pleasures"; rather she believes it is indicative of the fact that Foucault's own thought itself, falls into

a system of discourse which structures the subject within the power webs of heterosexual pleasure.

An "intention" which is apparent in Foucault's interpretation of Barbin's sexual acts with females; where h/er relationships are explained, "through recourse to the masculine component. " (ibid. p. 99). Thus,( in a similar way to Lacan,) this theory appears to privilege masculine desire; reducing ,- even this ambivalent sexual position,- to be understood as effected by Same-Other, power relations/ pleasures. To Butler this is problematic since, when supporting his position, Foucault appears to rely upon a dichotomy of cultural determination versus "natural" diversity.

Thus he essentially relies upon the repressive language that he celebrates to be disrupted by the non-specific sex of Barbin. i. e. To Butler, "... the heterogeneity to which Foucault appeals is itself constituted by the very medical discourse that he positions as the repressive juridical law. " ( ibid. p. 101. ). What this ambivalence in a subject's sexual position indicates to Butler is that the categories of sex and gender are the effects of the enactment of discursive law upon the self. i. e.

She maintains that Barbin does not signify beyond the law of cultural determination, in a state of "natural " pleasures. But rather, s/he embodies the way in which cultural law, constitutes itself in such a way, so as to reclaim all pleasures within its power relations. Or as Butler claims: " S/he is outside the law, but the law maintains this "outside" within itself. In effect s/he embodies the law's uncanny capacity to produce only those rebellions that it can guarantee will... defeat themselves and those subjects who, utterly subjected, have no choice but

to reiterate the law of their genesis. " (ibid, p. 106).

Thus the aim that Butler has in this analysis is to show that gender practices are the result of culturally determined performances, which in turn rely upon the illusionary construction of compulsory heterosexuality,( based upon sexed identities), to maintain their stability. She believes that the essential relevance of sexual/ gender categories, which seek to "naturalise" the performances of specific sexual acts,- ultimately have cultural/political significance. Furthermore she maintains that the rigidity of this (heterosexual) politics is broken by the practices of homosexual agency; since the parodic performances of these subjects -(e. . through "drag"/ "butch lesbian" )- appear to reformulate the conception we have of stable sex/gender categories-identifications.

However, an important point here is that these "parodies" are not simply the re-enforcement of (misplaced) heterosexuality; rather these practices ultimately subvert the legitimacy of power, which is attributed to the cultural performance of heterosexualism. i. e. " ... the dis-empowering and denaturalizing effects of a specifically gay deployment of heterosexual constructs... ecome the site of parodic contest and display that robs compulsory heterosexuality of its claim to naturalness and originality. "(ibid. p. 124. ). Thus it seems that Butler's account , the "self ", is that which arises form the enactment or performance of culturally specific -identities; which ultimately do not stem from any fixed categories of sex/gender.

A view which she supports, by noting that the parodic enactment of gender, found within homosexual contexts, is in no way the re-presentation of an original sex/ gender; because to Butler , "... he notion of originality... " is itself a cultural construction which has no material grounding. In terms

of the way in which this argument affects the way we perceive Lacanian theory, it could be said that, by reformulating sexuality/gender in the performative, Butler illustrates that Lacan's adherence to the primary significance of the Phallus is misplaced. i. e. By constructing the Subject, only in relation to the fallacy of masculine desire Lacan assumes that there is an original (hetero) sexual position which to be found within the Symbolic Order. viz.

That the language of sex/gender/ identity, is ultimately determined by the Universal laws of the Father. Thus by demonstrating the instability of sexual categories and significations; Butler is able to contend the Authoritarian view of the self, which depends upon distinct gender identities, to desexualise all non heterosexual acts. i. e. "... perpetual displacement,;in gender parodies;, constitutes a fluidity of identities that suggests an openess to resignification and recontextualization ; parodic proliferation deprives hegemonic culture and its critics of the claim to natualized or essentialist gender identities. (ibid. p. 138). In terms of how we understand the Foucaultian model of the self, it appears Butler suggests that perhaps in his structuralist approach, Foucault himself favours the powers implicit to Paternal/heterosexual pleasures. This can be seen when on the hand, he celebrates the "non-identity " arising from hermaphroditic pleasures, but on the other ,describes the sexual practices of this subject to be significant only within the terms of the Masculine libidinal economy.

For Butler it seems to be paradoxical that Foucault should make this move; since his theory of juridical power appears to refute his reading of the emancipatory level of Barbin's non specific sex/ gender. Thus suggesting that Foucault's theory itself supports the dominant

matrix of power that he wished to expose. Thus in conclusion, it seems that where Butler " takes us", in her far ranging critique of the trouble implicit to the categories of sex/ gender, is not "beyond" the power plays of discursive practices.

Rather, it seems that what she is aiming to show is: that it is from within the very midst of these practices, that we should begin to understand how the fluid and shifting structures of identity are performed by the -(non absolute)-self; within the cultural scene. Furthermore her analysis also gives an insight into the way in which any "gendered" discourse, ultimately carries with it the implicit reliance upon the heterosexual matrix.

This is because Butler's work upon the performative agency of the self, also illustrates the way in which "normative" sexuality is produced by the repeated practices of gender specific, cultural categories. A dominant view which becomes questionable when the inherent instability / comedy of fixed identities, becomes apparent from an analysis of the actualities of sexuality. Finally Butler seems to offer us a "new" way to understand how the politics of culture are worked upon the self . Thus her promotion of an alternative political strategy ,-( in which identity is not viewed from a fixed position)-aims to remove the cultural emphasis on Heterosexual discourse. Or as she states, " If identities were no longer fixed as the premises of political syllogism... a new configuration would surely emerge from the old. " (ibid. p. 149 ).