Complementing and Critiquing Gender Performativity
Velika Nespor
March 5, 2010
This week, Judith Butler came to Penn to talk about what she refers to as “gender performitivity” and the way in which said performitivity makes life unlivable. She stated that not only are gender norms totally entrenched in our daily thought processes but that thinking in general is a means of co-habitation. Because the way that each person thinks is based on how all other individuals think, we should be more sensitive to how gender norms make life unlivable for some, because if one person suffers, all people suffer. She says that there is hope of changing the way that we view social norms, stating cases of general rebellion, such as a case of migrant workers’ singing the national anthem in Spanish. In their singing of the national anthem in Spanish, an act which technically they could have been arrested for, these undocumented laborers endowed themselves with a pre-legal right. In fact, according to Butler, that is where rights originate, in expressions of freedom.
While I believe that Butler’s philosophy makes sense on a theoretical level, it is hard to see it as particularly pragmatic. For example, when I asked her about where anatomical differences come into play in her philosophy, she stated that biology too is entrenched in gender norms. I understand that our anatomy doesn’t necessarily define our sexual orientation or the way that we derive sexual pleasure on an individual level, but none-the-less, people have different sexual organs and I do not think that her speech adequately addressed that fact. She stated that what is natural is completely created by societal perspective, but I believe that there might be an element of the natural in our social perspectives. What is the origin of our gender norms? I do not pretend like I know where society comes up with them, and I wish that Butler would have made her answer to the question a little bit less opaque.




