Judith Butler (1)Recensioni

Some really interesting and insightful essays combined with others that are so steeped in academese that they suck all the life out of their subjects.

Boitempo

Armas da Crítica - Fevereiro de 2024.

I’ll need to read this again after becoming more familiar with many of the sources she interacts with. However a very interesting investigation into the manufacturing of gender and sexed selves through different philosophical lenses.

I wish Butler would have left Freud and Klein alone and stuck to her own actually compelling arguments in this one.

O título original deste livro de Judith Butler – Frames of War: When is Life Grievable? – utiliza o termo “frames”, traduzido para o português como “molduras”. Assim como no cinema, na tela, no enquadramento que é dado a determinada cena, “as molduras pelas quais apreendemos [...] são em si mesmas operações de poder”. Seu objetivo, de acordo com Butler, é “delimitar a esfera de aparição enquanto tal. Por outro lado, o problema é ontológico, visto que a pergunta em questão é: O que é uma vida?”.
Uma vida específica só pode ser considerada lesada ou perdida se, primeiro, for considerada viva. “Se certas vidas não são qualificadas como vidas ou se, desde o começo, não são concebíveis como vidas de acordo com certos enquadramentos epistemológicos, então essas vidas nunca serão vividas nem perdidas no sentido pleno dessas palavras”.

No he acabat de llegir-lo sencer, es dens per mi. Comentaris subrallats amb llàpis a les pàgines 62 i ss.

Constituye una lúcida crítica a la idea esencialista de que las identidades de género son inmutables y encuentran su arraigo en la naturaleza, en el cuerpo o en una heterosexualidad normativa y obligatoria. Esta obra interdisciplinaria que se inscribe simultáneamente en la filosofía, la antropología, la teoría literaria y el psicoanálisis es deudora de un prolongado acercamiento de la autora al feminismo teórico, a los debates sobre el carácter socialmente construido del género, al psicoanálisis, a los estudios pioneros sobre el travestismo, y también a su activa participación en movimientos defensores de la diversidad sexual.

Honestly, I hate postmodernist academic language. Its completely uneccessary, elitist, and designed to enrage and obfuscate. Its edgelord stuff for the educated. It covers up lack up knowledge or meaning with difficult language, meaning that most of us have to read and reread each sentence, trying to tease out meaning and understand what the writer is saying. If you don't understand it, you assume that you aren't clever enough. But there is no need to write like this, its just showing off. Very few concepts require impenetrable language, and the struggle with most of those concepts is making it accessible. Only a handful of humanities subjects aim for inaccessibility and they all have one thing in common - the requirement that the subject is not studied too closely. I spent two nights reading this book, got most of the way through chapter one, and then tossed it away. The problems are twofold. Firstly, content. Big claims require big evidence, and Butler makes lots of big claims but provides no evidence whatsoever (unless this is done later on). Whats more, the claims are made in a way that enables the author to deny that they are claims, rather they could be rhetorical statements, philosopher's questions. But claims they are, and there were three main claims I disagreed with: that gender is completely disconnected from biological sex and always has been; that feminist philosophy is actually anti-feminist because it doesn't realise this and in fact is evil and stupid because by insisting that gender is a cultural construction applied to people perceived to be of one or other sex it actually creates an oppressive gender role for women; and that there is actually no such thing as biological sex. The third of these is particularly interesting because I had a conversation with a friend a while back where I said that those of our comrades who kept saying things like biological sex isn't real were a great recruiting ground for the far right, and was told that no-one said biological sex wasn't real and that this was a terf meme that told lies about us. But here we are. So, because of the second bit problem with this book, I tossed it aside. The second big problem is that it is unreadably difficult unless you're a big brain. If it had been easier to read I would have carried on reading it to learn if any of these claims are taken back, amended, or evidence provided. Perhaps anyone reading this review could let me know if they care enough. Life is too short to read difficult nonsense. Perhaps I need a beginner's guide!

Comecei esse livro com grande interesse, mas fui tomado pela sensação de que o livro não estava mais me prendendo e que eu não estava, afora as ideias mais gerais, obtendo valor dos argumentos. Pois bem, o que Butler enfatiza é que a não-violência deve ser entendida sob o pano de fundo de uma igualdade radical: se toda vida surge entrelaçada em muitas, se toda vida é possibilitada o tempo todo por muitas outras, se nosso processo subjetivo e de identidade é sustentado por toda essa rede, que isso sirva para nos lembrar sempre que é a desigualdade de condições que gera as diferenças em termos de liberdades (sintéticas); que todas as vidas humanas tem valor e todas por isso tem de ser passíveis de luto, todas ao alcance da tristeza. Assim, para que a violência e também assim a não-violência não seja aprisionada em um viés e seus embates, em uma luta de uns contra outros, em justificações permissivas, é preciso partir da luta pela igualdade, da co-participação das vidas nas formações subjetivas. Assim, se a violência rompe a interdependência das vidas como se isso fosse possível, mascarando esse processo constitutivo de modo destrutivo, temos que almejar por algo melhor.

What World Is This?: A Pandemic Phenomenology by Judith Butler is a look at the interconnectedness of the world in which we live, using the pandemic as a way to rethink the things we took for granted or, more often, misunderstood.

I'll state upfront I have long enjoyed and been pushed to think more deeply about the world by Butler's books. To the extent one is a fan of an academic author, I am one. A professor gave me a copy of Bodies That Matter when it was first published (thank you Dr Michie) and from there I went back to read Gender Trouble and then kept up with Butler through her other work in areas like performativity and antisemitism. So yes, I am probably predisposed to finding this new book valuable.

And it did not disappoint. I'll talk first about the book as I think it is meant to be received by readers, which is a call for us to rethink what it means to live in a world, a habitable world, and livable lives. We are always already interconnected, the air one of us breathes we all breathe. We share the air and, because the COVID virus is airborne, we share responsibility not just for our own life but the lives of those around us, and in theory they for ours (though admittedly in the US a large portion of the population doesn't care about any life other than their own because, you know, freedom). Hopefully we can take this situation and rethink what it means to share a world. The inequity in the world, that which makes it uninhabitable for some and makes some lives unlivable, is something that we can and should work on. Universal healthcare, climate change, racism, heterosexism, and so many other factors that keep the basic elements of a just world unequally distributed, we need to reconsider in light of our new understanding of our interconnectedness.

On a more personal level, one of the things that always makes Butler's books such a joy for me is the way she inevitably introduces new texts and/or new ways of thinking about a text. In this case it is Scheler's essay "On the Tragic." At best I had a surface understanding and, more accurately, I had a secondhand reading of it as my understanding. Yet as Butler explores the ideas in relation to the tragic I was sent in a direction of my own. I won't get into it other than to say it involves depression as both an individual state and as a (one of many) constitutive state of the world that only presents itself at certain moments. I mention this because if you're the kind of reader that doesn't simply want to understand what a book's main thesis is but also wants to find ways to synthesize that information with other ideas of your own, this book may well offer you that opportunity.

I would recommend this to readers with or without a phenomenology background, the text is accessible and ideas are presented in fairly straightforward ways. This is valuable in helping us to rethink the world we will be inhabiting after (?) the pandemic as well as our roles in a world where we are all already intertwined.

Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.

In my teenage years, I reared myself on a vulgarised sort of Butlerian philosophy (through the mediums of Tumblr, the DFTBA-sphere, and /b/ "trap threads"), specifically the untwining of sex, gender, behavior, and sexuality. It's nice to come full circle in a way.
By the table of contents, I was expecting a sort of rote laundry list of french writers, but a few things allow me to love this more than if it were just a glorified bibliography. For one, Butler's powers of synthesis are very much to be respected, allowing her to weave a very nice abstraft narrative through various theories of gender. She also has a great sense of purple theorizing, and it's easy to get caught up in her strings of words. Last, I feel a fondness for the experience described and suggested in this book, having lived through a lot of it in some way or other.

This small-size booklet (nonetheless 121 pages) consists of an unstructured, free-ranging discussion about the nation-state. The discussion is between Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak and Judith Butler, the latter seems to be far out of her field.

Basically, the discussion touches upon too many issues, effectively lacking focus. It might still be read as an introduction of some of the main issues and introduction to some of the main thinkers in this area.

I think academia has moved on to viewing nationalism and the issue of the nation-state in a broader context of citizen theory, which as a framework is much more apt to address real-world problems while the nation-state issue seems to be somewhat outdated, despite the fact that nationalism is still widespread.

Perhaps this lack of focus is also caused by the fact that on the first page, in her opening remark Judith Butler asks why "are we bringing together comparative literature and global states" while in the subsequent discussion there is no attention for writers, except for philosophers and social scientists.

Generally, I am very interested in dialogue / interview publications, but perhaps for this topic this format is less suitable, or could have benefitted from a more structured approach.½

Armas da Crítica - Julho de 2021

...what?

The only reason this gets two stars instead of one is that, from what I've gathered, the premise of this book is interesting and I appreciate how she destabilizes gender/sex identities. But I only know that because of reading about it online. Nothing in the book is coherent or readable enough for me to gather what the author is arguing.

And I'm not totally new to reading theory. I can usually re-read or take notes and generally figure out what's being said. Not here.

El género en disputa, obra fundadora de la llamada teoría queer y a la vez emblemática de los estudios de género Cómo se conocen hoy en día, es un volumen indispensable para comprender la teoría feminista actual: constituye una lúcida crítica la idea esencialista dejé las identidades de género son inmutables encuentran su arraigo en la naturaleza, en el cuerpo o en una heterosexualidad normativa y obligatoria. Libro interdisciplinario que se inscribe simultáneamente en la filosofía, la antropología, la teoría literaria y el psicoanálisis, este texto es deudor de un prolongado acercamiento del autor al feminismo teórico, a los debates sobre el carácter socialmente construido del género, al psicoanálisis, a los estudios Pioneros sobre el travestismo, y también a su activa participación en movimientos Defensores de la diversidad sexual. así, con un pie en la academia y otro en la militancia, apoyada de la lectura de autores como Jacques Lacan, Sigmund Freud, Simone de beauvoir, Claude Levi-Strauss, Luce Irigaray, Julia kristeva, Monique Wittiig, y Michael Foucault, Butler ofrece aquí una teoría original, polémica y desde luego subversiva, responsable ella misma de más de una disputa.

En fecundo diálogo con brillantes pensadores de nuestra época ‹como Adorno, Foucault, Levinas y Laplanche‹, esta obra renueva de manera fundamental la práctica ética, reafirmando con inusitado vigor que la reflexión moral no debe ser considerada fuera del contexto social y político en el cual se formula. Si bien la filosofía moral tiene una tendencia natural a idealizar el sujeto moral, confiriéndole, con demasiada ligereza quizás, una autonomía que supone inherente a él, importa contrarrestar esta tendencia tomando como punto de partida la experiencia intransferible del carácter relacional de cada vida. Ninguna vida podría referirse a sí misma y llegar a construir el relato adecuado de su desenvolvimiento, así como tampoco hablar de su emergencia en el mundo. Lo que se sustrae a ella no son solamente las condiciones de su nacimiento y de su desarrollo, sino también las formas sociales que permiten leerla. El reconocimiento de sí mismo por uno mismo es incompleto. Situado en el relato de los otros, está asediado por las formas de justificación que de allí provienen, y acaban por hacer imposible todo procedimiento de reconocimiento. La relación al otro deviene constitutiva de la relación imposible a sí mismo. Es en ese contexto de desposesión que resulta urgente, según la autora, proceder a una indagación sobre las condiciones de posibilidad de una relación moral a sí mismo y a los otros, que no haga violencia a ese contexto sino que, por el contrario, lo tome en consideración. Debemos aceptar que la ética es violenta desde el momento en que ella se arroga el derecho de sobrepasar los contextos singulares en los cuales se encuentran ubicadas las existencias para formular prescripciones universales.

Judith Butler es una de las feministas de referencia en el panorama filosófico actual y El género en disputa es un texto indispensable para el movimiento feminista. El género en disputa, obra fundadora de la llamada teoría queer y emblema de los estudios de género como se conocen hoy en día, es un volumen indispensable para comprender la teoría feminista actual: constituye una lúcida crítica a la idea esencialista de que las identidades de género son inmutables y encuentran su arraigo en la naturaleza, en el cuerpo o en una heterosexualidad normativa y obligatoria. Libro interdisciplinario que se inscribe simultáneamente en la filosofía, la antropología, la teoría literaria y el psicoanálisis, este texto es deudor de un prolongado acercamiento de la autora al feminismo teórico, a los debates sobre el carácter socialmente construido del género, al psicoanálisis, a los estudios pioneros sobre el travestismo, y también a su activa participación en movimientos defensores de la diversidad sexual. Así, con un pie en la academia y otro en la militancia, apoyada en su lectura de autores como Jacques Lacan, Sigmund Freud, Simone de Beauvoir, Claude Lévi-Strauss, Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, Monique Wittig y Michel Foucault, Butler ofrece aquí una teoría original, polémica y desde luego subversiva, responsable ella misma de más de una disputa.

Interesting structure where four theorists give papers on the overlap between feminism and postmodernism, then respond to one another through criticism and adaptation of theories. Some excellent presentation on the difficulties of retaining a 'female' perspective in a society where identity is individualistic; competing opinions from psychology (Cornell) to philosophy (Butler) to social theory (Benhabib) that come together in the chapters of criticism. Difficult to read (some jargon, and some heavy theory) but worth the time.

A series of case studies on what constitutes 'speech', with an emphasis on American law and society. Unfortunately burdened with a lot of jargon, the content is very strong, particularly when it explores the role of the body in speech, and how hate-speech can be framed. Excellent at times.

In this book, Judith Butler has created a masterpiece of philosophy for the 21st Century.

Drawing together her life's work in varied areas from language to feminism, from trans rights to racism, she has constructed a concrete, legible and intense theory of collaborative existence that draws from all of these ideas to create a powerful, insightful book.

Two stand-out points dominate a theory that in few words has drawn together a lifetime of thought. (1) That a life has little value if it is not deemed to be worth grieving ("grievability") and (2) that violence is justified within the extent to how much we grieve a loss. This grievability is extended to all living things, from person to person, from society to society, from people to other organisms. And the clarity with which Butler has uncovered and shared all of this is spellbinding.

A book for the ages.

A brilliant, more in-depth review in light of the COVID-19 pandemic by Jennifer Carlson is worth a read too: https://jdawncarlson.com/2020/03/11/the-force-of-nonviolence-covid-19-and-the-am...

More accessible than I was anticipating, particularly strong on dehumanisation post-9/11 America and the horrific treatment of "detainees" in Guantanamo Bay.

People often complain about Judith Butler's labyrinthine writing style, but that's never been my main problem with her. What don't like about her work is a) she often misreads key French thinkers (Foucault, for instance, in Gender Trouble) and b) she has an underlying political project that, while I pretty much agree with it, seems to me to cloud her ability to regard the concepts with which she is dealing with the necessary rigor. In other words, she often puts her politics ahead of her philosophy.

Antigone's Claim is generally a well-written and accessible rethinking of how, as Butler puts it in her introduction, Antigone might be used as a figure who challenges the logic of the State. I think this a genuinely worthy project, especially in the way that Butler holds up Antigone as an alternative to the prevailing focus on Oedipus.

Throughout the book, Butler shifts predominantly between two major critical readings of Sophocles's play. The first is Hegel's interpretation of Antigone in [b:Phenomenology of Spirit|9454|Phenomenology of Spirit|Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1425522818s/9454.jpg|995802], in which he looks upon Antigone as the representation of the claims of kinship, in which the ties of blood challenge the hegemony of the State. For Hegel, of course, this is unacceptable. Butler shows how Antigone's challenge turns into that of all womenkind - against all logic, since Antigone is hardly an adequate representative - that is subsumed by Hegel's fetishization of the State.

The other reading Butler deals with extensively is Lacan's reading of Antigone in [b:The Ethics of Psychoanalysis 1959-1960|165963|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis 1959-1960 (Seminar of Jacques Lacan)|Jacques Lacan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1348463112s/165963.jpg|160253]. Butler sees Lacan as the reverse of Hegel, championing the structures of kinship (à la Lévi-Strauss) and the symbolic order of the Oedipal father over the ties of the State.

While Butler's reading of Hegel seems sound enough, her interpretation of Lacan is very weak.

First of all she talks about Antigone as a "postoedipal" character, a label that she seems to think undermines Lacan, when in fact this aspect of Antigone is precisely what makes her so fascinating to him.

Second, Butler shows how the Oedipal/symbolic order is already grounded in perversion, since the law it establishes (e.g. incest taboo) also disingenuously promotes its own transgression. Doesn't Lacan already acknowledge this situation, implicitly throughout his work, and explicitly in [b:The Sinthome: The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII|29277160|The Sinthome The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII|Jacques Lacan|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1472826670s/29277160.jpg|2900394] with the concept of "père-version"?

But the third and most annoying thing about the way Butler misreads Lacan is by interpreting him as a strict structuralist who locates everything in the field of the symbolic. She is able to do this by referring only to the early Lacan writings and seminars - not a single text later that Seminar VII, if I remember correctly, is cited. In this way, she is able to paint Lacan as some kind of linguistic idealist, so that Antigone's ability to mess up the symbolic kinship structures and even the limits of language disrupts his neat little system.

Such a critique is nonsense. It ignores entirely the function of the Real in Lacan's work and its crucial connection to the death drive, and all of the increasingly postoedipal concepts that mark his middle to late work. It also ignores, too, the work of Slavoj Žižek in bringing this aspect of Lacan's work to public attention. The Real is mentioned only once, in passing, in Antigone's Claim - otherwise, it is all structuralism as symbolic idealism.

It is possible that I am being a little ungenerous in my rating. This book really is a thoughtful (if misguided) look at a fascinating literary character and the consequences that arise from her situation. But one also has to wonder why it is that Butler ignores the middle to later Lacan, which extends so brilliantly his earlier thinking on ethics as illustrated, in part, by Sophocles's play.

While difficult to read (I will probably need a few re-reads), I found this book to interrogate many assumptions and ideas I take for granted about selfhood, the "I", and how it is possible (or not) to understand oneself. It has really challenged my research (in a good way) about how democracy asks you to know yourself in order to contribute who you are and what you need to the political process. But how do you know who you are? Where does you come from? What allows you to know who you are, and what are the limits and costs of those practices?

An interesting collection. I think some topics maybe haven't aged well, or at least are really more like sources for a specific time than necessarily have the staying power of other work. The essay about anti-semitism especially feels like it has been more ably taken up, including more recently by Butler herself in her essay about Bari Weiss's book, though both have an element of something missing in their articulations.

The title essay and "Violence, Mourning, Politics," were my favorites; the former also has a kind of incompleteness about it, and I think for me makes the most sense as the staging area for Butler's book about non-violence that came out this year (2020,) though it definitely leaves a lot to chew over. "Violence, Mourning, Politics" is the essay I'm most familiar with via citation, and it was good to read it in its entirety; it's clear why it's so heavily cited, and it's an essay I will definitely come back to. The other essays are fine, just didn't hit as much as those two, or felt like they have not aged as well/are not maybe as groundbreaking as they were in 2004.