Foucault, Butler, Grosz and Colebrook have a discussion: Can Judith Butler’s queer theory be reconciled with naturalist queer theories of Grosz and Colebrook?
Disclaimer: this piece written for fun, and has an aim to deepen my understanding of Butler.
Is it possible to reconcile Judith Butler’s queer theory with naturalist queer theories of Grosz and Colebrook? We will analyze this issue by first explaining Butler’s ontological views. To understand Butler, we will need to refer to Foucault. After discussing Butler and Foucault, we will examine the naturalist theories of Grosz and Colebrook. Finally, we can compare the two perspectives of the queer theory.
Foucault points out that the judicial system of power produces the subject which they subsequently represent. As an example, we look at the law that describes the relations within the family. When we look at the ancient civil code, the head of the household is man. Judicial system of power pretends as if it represents reality, its assumption is embedded in social beliefs. Foucault claims that a subject is an effect of the system. He claims that law does not just represent, it also generates. Ontologically speaking, we see that Butler is very close to Foucault. She also opposed this representative understanding of power, and she believes that power becomes productive through its regulatory activity. Such as the position of the father, and the wife, power claims that it represents reality. It also produced these structures, such as men as head of the family, and the father. Sex is also a product of power as we will discuss below, it is not a cause.
Gender theory indicates that sex is biological, and gender is cultural. However, both Butler and Foucault reject this statement. For sexual differences, they both believe that judicial systems of science create sex and pretend as if they respect the reality, but nature is not divided as male and female. For gender, Butler states that the regularity forces we have discussed in the previous paragraph, produce gender. It depends on what gender role that you perform. Gender is 2 real, but real is performatively produced. It is not grounded in nature, the real is not natural. We can categorize people by using gender categories, but it is accidental. We talk about gender as if it is based on nature so that we can legitimize it. Butler is against this naturalism, she believes that reality is socially constructed. Though she does not deny the reality of sexual difference, she denies that this difference causes gender to be something.
Reversing it to the naturalists, we can criticize Grosz and Colebrook, by stating that naturalism hides how gender is constructed and its fluidity. According to Butler, natural is constituted, sex and gender are constituted as well: “Category of sex is constructed in the service of a system of regulatory and reproductive sexuality (149)”. Butler believes that because power and law are regulatory forces that are outside us, we can never actually be free. It means that there is no possible experience free from power. These laws produce what it intends and it can also prohibit as well. Prohibition is a performative performance too, it is a regulatory power that controls what is signified, since prohibition can create desire. And, law prohibits. Sex and gender ar bounded by these laws. Even to become a member of the male sex, a person needs binary sex organs, and this person’s gender will be regulated by law.
Grosz states that non- patriarchal science is not like this deterministic nature. However, I see issues with this statement. She claims patriarchal culture does let visibility of nature. On the other hand, Irigaray speaks of sexual difference as something to appear with the emergence of patriarchy. We have seen that this statement can be found in the traces of the past, just as Beauvoir pointed out as she has indicated how women are seen in the patriarchal tradition through myths. In addition, Grosz is not adequately dealing with power as well. It is said that nature gave rise to the patriarchy, but wasn’t patriarchy against nature? She does not deal with the problem of oppression that the power creates. Considering patriarchy is the system that some 3 individuals are oppressed, the regulatory power of patriarchy is significantly huge, and we can claim that the laws of society are constituted around patriarchy. She does not take into account the construction of nature, because it is constituted around patriarchy, I believe that we interpret nature in a patriarchal way. Her, not stating the issue of repression as a woman is interesting. This oppression does not only on women, but it includes any fluid gender with the exception of men.
Colebrook defines life as it really “is” as vitalism does. Her “ought”, is derived from the life, “is”. She reduces “ought” from nature, creating a sensible life. But the question here is that, what is life? Life can be anything and it can justify anything in this context. This creates issues such as justifying dangerously the anti-queer arguments. We say that ought does not derive from is, it is supplied from the outer, real life never justifies ought.
Three of these women; Butler, Grosz and Colebrook have different ontologies, they create their ipseity differently. Thus, we examine queer theory questioning the issue of identity through these women. We have seen that people are identified in the system in relation to the system. The key point is that queer theory affirms fluidity instead of identity, it is open to transformation and open to change. Therefore, what naturalists miss is that it is becoming rather than being. However, the question of self does not go away but the question of self, changes from identity of self to fluid self where fluid self is different then identity of self.
Butler believes we need to stop talking about sexual differences where naturalists say that the body is real and given. However, Butler opposes this by saying that the given is constituted, we cannot access the real. We can ask in virtue of what the body is given? Butler answers this as regulations, and norms that makes materializing the body possible. Therefore, she believes that we are constituted as having this identity of gender. If we fallow up to the queer 4 theory, we can see Butler talking about “notion of self as fluid”. This is where the main clash is between the naturalists and Butler.
Queer theory is about power since power regulates the society. In the ontological sense, the productive power creates identity where queer theory is constituted on. However, naturalists are tired of this, because they believe that the body is real. The question here is that is there actually a way that we can know if the reality we are representing is true, and how. Grosz explains the question with being part of nature, but this cannot compete with the pressure that the LGBT community and the women go through the disadvantageous effects of the regulatory power that Butler points out, every day. Therefore, we can feel and see the regulatory power that tries to constitute reality. Thus, it is possible to not be sure about the truthfulness of reality.
Reality is well shaped by the extension of power where norms are external, but for the naturalists, internal in terms of norm. We have established that Butler is an externalist. When we examine the relations between forces and power, we think about whether power can be reducible to forces. Butler tells us power is social and political, that it is everywhere and it cannot be reduced to material forces, it shapes itself and changes. This cannot be explained by naturalism, since there is no power in nature according to them. Butler gave power to forces where naturalists start from forces and cannot explain power.
Butler would criticize the naturalists by stating that they do not think of the issue of power. If we claim that the power is a result of the nature and its function, then this heterosexual repression suddenly becomes the result of the nature. However, this is not a valid argument just as we have seen above. Sexual selection creates differentiation. But sex is not actually restricted with two, nor it should not be restricted. Though the binary sex occurs with the differentiating of the two, it is not enough to understand the sexes. As an example, we see a systematic sexism that 5 comes with patriarchy and going beyond the natural division of sex, and this should be understood to be criticized so that the disadvantageous groups compared to the gender of men can find their place in the society. However, this regulatory power(s) does not exist in the naturalists. Maybe, a constructive criticism would be to think of these two perspectives to the queer theory as complementing each other. We can try to see nature as something that is not dangerous and in a relation with Butler’s power theory.
