Butler, hope this puts things in context...

So, Butler. Or perhaps more broadly, queer theory to go along with race and colonialism/post-colonialism. Of the theory movements we have looked at for this course, queer theory is the next to occur chronologically--as both a challenge to and deviation on feminism. It is grounded in post-modernist thought and very much influenced by deconstruction. It started in, probably (and at least looking at it retroactively), the mid-late 1980's, although it was not officially quoted until, I think, 1990, and many of the foundational texts go back to--of course--Freud and Foucault. The movement within theory came about partly as an outgrowth of the trend to question "history" and repressive systems of power and, more practically, because of the AIDS epidemic that faced those in the LGBT community.

Following the model of deconstruction, queer theory posits that there is no normal (normative), and that what has been described as such is really the outgrowth of cultural norms and repressive discourse. Queer theory fits well, and there is often a lot of overlap, with race theory and various theories that consider the other or deviant, because this is also often the place of the queer figure. Currently, queer theory has also broadened to include disability studies. While the focus is undeniably on the issue of compulsory heterosexuality (and the repressive nature of such, which should be challenged) and (particularly in Butler's case) notions of the body and how it should be considered within the context of performativity and discourse instead of accepted as a given, queer theory also considers more broadly what it means to be normative (often heteronormative) and deviant (and how vague is the line between one and the other--although the consequences of being other are often quite severe). Queer theory also seems particularly interested in exposing and disrupting (perhaps eliminating) traditional binaries relating to "normal" and "deviant." Now that we've contextualized the text, I'm going to (try to) generally cover the themes of the Butler article, and then pose a few discussion questions.

Butler's Gender Trouble is one of the foundational texts of queer theory and I'm sure most of you found it as dense as I did. Butler's training is in philosophy and that is pretty evident in the reading. The text focuses heavily on performativity and questions of gendered bodies and compulsory identity performance. Specifically, Butler is interested in deconstructing traditional norms, and creating a space for the other, while also revealing the underlying assumptions that pervade current (in 1990) gender discourse.

The cited paragraph from Mother Camp on 128, describing drag performance, establishes an overt connection between performance, gender roles, and film. In Butler's context, it also serves as a jumping off point for her challenge (s) to "true sex, discrete gender, and specific sexuality," a challenge that--with the help of drag and various other subversive behaviors--Butler hopes will yield a new politics; a politics that acknowledges the fallacy of "becoming" one's gender, as well as the other flawed assumptions that underlie traditional gender thought.

Butler continues to get pretty dense, falling back into Lacanian notions of the subject and revealing how the notion itself, particularly the relationship between subject/object as it has been argued in feminist terms, is flawed. For Butler, the subject (specifically the subject's gender) is formed not by some default or "actual" notion of gender, but by the repetition of performance. By advocating the destabilization and revelation of underlying (previously unrevealed) assumptions about gender identity, Butler hopes for a new and transformative politics. Seems somewhat utopian to me, but I like the bit about revealing the discursive system that is so repressive--and disrupting it.

So, I have a few questions to consider:

Consider the film (films) we have chosen to look at this week in regard to camp, and in regard to Butler's reading of performative sexuality and gender. Do they accomplish what Butler sees as drag's potential?

If queer theory is interested in disruption of norms, in what ways do these films disrupt heteronormative ideas of gender and sexuality, and in what ways do they uphold traditional norms--either within the narrative or in reading the film?

In looking back at the films we have watched throughout the semester, are there any queer characters that come to mind? Do they seem to subvert or disrupt norms, or are they instead subjected to violence and consequences of their otherness?