Butler sees
gender as variable and fluid. She doesn't think that biological sex (female/male)
determines gender roles (feminine/masculine), nor an attraction to the
opposite sex.
'When the
constructed status of gender is theorized as radically independent of sex,
gender itself becomes a free-floating artifice, with the consequence that
man and masculine might just as easily signify a female body
as a male one, and woman and feminine a male body as easily
as a female one.'1
Butler is interested
in breaking down the structures of compulsory heterosexuality. She sees
certain bodies as having such an effect, while most act to reaffirm the
hetero-normative homogeny. It is the body of visible excess however, that
displaces compulsory heterosexual norms. The media, consciously or not,
plays an important role in this potential subversion, since it is through
media that images of bodies of excess are most frequently and widely disseminated.
The talk show genre is one of the few public spaces, albeit an 'unserious'2
space, in which queer individuals are encouraged to talk about their sexual
identity. A disruption of the hetero-norm can cause a subversion of the
ideological and capitalist model of media as spectacle. However, in a desire
for acceptance into the mainstream (the heterosexual hegemony), many queer
activists along with many traditional gay and lesbian people from a particular
middle-class ideology don't wish to disrupt the hetero-norm, instead they
consciously act to perpetuate it.
Butler explains the
potential disruption of the hetero-norm through a rereading of J.L. Austin's
term, 'performativity'. The performative is a speech-act, it creates what
it is describing. In other words, the 'doing' of an activity constitutes
the 'being' of the activity. The 'performative depends on a densely woven
web of social relations that renders it intelligible, believable, and acceptable'.3
Through an application of this concept, Butler demonstrates how the hetero-norm
can be inculcated yet subverted. This potential subversion occurs by shifting
the 'context of the utterance'4
thus parodying the dominant gender conventions. Performativity exposes
the falsity behind the assumption that homosexuality, as 'copy', derives
from heterosexuality as 'original'.5
Instead, all gender identities are continuously and compulsorily being
performed. The idea of 'performativity' differs from performance in that
performance is a choice made by the individual, it is an act, and does
not constitute their identity, whereas performativity is unconscious, continuous
and ideologically compulsory.
Performativity means
there is no performer, per se, prior to the performed. Butler's
rereading of performativity sees both homosexuality and heterosexuality
as parodying the constant panicked mimesis of the unattainable heterosexual
norm. The unconscious pastiche which evolves out of the constant, failed,
re-enactment of the hetero-norm enters into the realms of parody when it
is acknowledged that what is being imitated is in fact a copy itself, not
derivative as original. While the parody of gender identity is not subversive
in itself, there are some situations where certain types of gender parody
can be disruptive. Conversely, most gender 'repetitions become domesticated
and recirculated as instruments of cultural hegemony.'6
The possibility for
a disruption of the purported always already heterosexual norm is, by nature,
highly contextual. There are, as I will argue here, occasions where the
talk show provides the grounds for such a disruption. A disruption or fracture
causes a reconsideration of the 'place and stability'7
of the feminine and masculine, and question 'the psychological presuppositions
of gender identity and sexuality'.8
In some ways, Butler views drag as a conscious parodic effect of hetero-normativity.
In this way a person 'doing drag' on a talk show can be seen as displacing
the unconscious anxious mimesis of what is deemed to be 'natural'.9
The drag queen, the transgendered, or cross-dressed body, is a potential
site of disruption, both of the hetero-norm and the media spectacle.
It is important to
note, however, that the appearance of these bodies does not automatically
equate to a disruption of the hetero-norm, nor of the media spectacle itself.
Each example must be considered contextually. 'The more that the "act"
is expropriated, the more the heterosexual claim to originality is exposed
as illusory.'10
The exposure of this illusion causes a questioning, and therefore a disruption,
of the hetero-norm. However, some bodies will be more disruptive than other
similar bodies, depending upon the corresponding contextual situation.
An over-exposure of this illusory process can lead to a form of habituation.
This means that in some contextual situations, a potentially subversive
body will fail to disrupt to the same extent as it may in a different context.
For example, the difference between a transgendered body on Ricki Lake
to one walking down Dunedin's George Street is self evident.
The media is extremely
crucial in regards to this process of habituation. The media disseminates
a large majority of the queer images people are exposed to daily. While
the viewer may become used to the queer body in a media form, this is radically
different to a 'real' life person to person encounter. So, while the media
may be 'normalising' the queer body through a repetition of images, in
the 'real' world, a similar body may still be highly disruptive. In many
situations, the presence of the queer body in the media does not act to
subvert, but rather perpetuate, the hetero-normitive hegemony.
Butler offers a practical
reading of the potentially transgressive nature of queer bodies in her
analysis11
of Jennie Livingston's film, Paris Is Burning.12
Segments of this analysis can be applied to the appearance of the queer
body in mass media, and is particularly relevant to American daytime TV
talk shows, such as Oprah, Ricki Lake and Sally Jesse
Raphael.13
Butler uses Venus Xtravaganza as a potent example of when the parodying
of dominant norms is not enough to actually displace them. Venus was a
young Latino pre-operative transsexual, who was most likely killed by a
client because he discovered her penis. Drag doesn't equal subversion.
The film focusses on either Latino or African-American 'males', who take
part in drag-balls. These balls are contests in which individuals compete
against each other in a number of categories, which are replications of
social norms. The judging factor is 'realness'. Realness is determined
by an ability to 'compel belief and produce a naturalised effect',14
thus reaffirming hetero-normative constructions - the very constructions
that submit the participants to victimisation. If a contestant can be 'read',
they have failed to fulfil the artifice of replication, their performance
is visible as performance, as an appropriation. This re-idealisation of
the hetero-norm is a regular result of queer bodies appearing on talk shows,
and occurs more frequently than disruptive acts.
[next
page 1 | 2 | 3
]
1
Butler, 1990, p6
2
Gamson, p224.
3
http://www.sou.edu/ENGLISH/IDTC/Terms/terms.htm#anchor42031
4
ibid.
5
Fuss, Diana (ed), p22, 1991.
6
Butler, Judith, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity,
1990. London: Routledge,
7
ibid.
8
ibid.
9
'Natural' in a hetero-normative sense.
10
Butler, Judith, 'Imitation and Gender Insubordination' in inside/out:
Lesbian Theories, Gay Theories, Diana Fuss, (ed.),1991. London:
Routledge, p23.
11
Butler, Judith, 'Gender Is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion'
in Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex", 1993.
New York: Routledge.
12
Paris Is Burning, 1991, dir. & prod. Jennie Livingston. A
'documentary' film focusing on drag balls in Harlem, NYC and issues
of gender identity.
13
See Engl368 essay for empirical distinctions between types of shows
and audiences attracted. Pp.3-4.
14
Butler, Judith, 'Gender is Burning', p125.
