butler

Bueno esta era una deuda tambien de comentarios que recibi a mi tesis y nunca abordé. Creo que podría pnsar en identidades en relacion a lo que plantea butler, se podría pnsar que tipor de repeticion esta operando en marcar y volver a marcar a los indigenas como indigenas, o incluso como indigenas a medias por estar traslocados, algo que tambien podrá pensarse en relacion al genero, y cruzando a massey, que plantea la migracion como forma de escape para as mujeres del poder patraircal. No abre muchas opsiones para pensar como es que lo abyecto puede irrumpir en discursos dominantes sin plantear una reclasificación una variacion en la norma. en un punto me parece bastante althseriana butler, aunque traiga variaciones al "hey you". Bueno en esto tambien todos los estudios de medios vienen a complicar bastante el espacio que media entre la repeticion de la norma y su recepcion, y como influencia el modo en que la norma se trasmite, si tiene fondo rosado o musica piola. Todo esto me parece bien interesante, pero seguramente lo que mas me preocupa es que la norma sea discursiva y en esto me parece que me sigo quedando con bourdieu y la practica. si me parece importante salirse del discurso, , quizas se puede introducir el tema de la repticion, que es algo que bourdieu menciona y lo ineaxacto de cada repeticion (que tambien lo plantea bourdieu, aunque muchas veces lo leen como esructuralista). Pienso: como funcionaria el tema de la citacion y el habitus mmm y no se si podemos compara la relacion habitus-practica con repeticion discursiva - citacionalidad de la norma ..... lo pienso un rato





Butler, Judith. 1993 Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of "Sex". New York & London: Routledge. (Selections: Introduction)
She wants to examine the construction of the gendered bodies in their materiality, yet this took constantly to spheres outside the body bodies are not simple objects of thought, and these “movements beyond themselves seemed to be kite central to what bodies ‘are’” If she has previously claimed that gender is produced in a performative this does not mean that the perfomativity is a free election of a rational subject, this is, an instrumentalist view. Such notion does not consider that a subject exists as a gendered one. If we propose that gender is constructed but not totally determined her question is: “ How are we going to understand the ritualized repetition by which such norms produce and stabilize not only the effects pf gender but the materiality of sex?” (x) To consider that sex its materiality is constructed through repetition of norms goes against the dominant notions of construction, that consider construction as something artificial, secondary, dispensable. If we consider this constituent constraint we can ask how much constraints produce intelligible bodies but also a domain of unthinkable abject bodies. “It is not enough to argue that there is no pre-discursive “sex” that acts as the stable point for the reference that on which or in relation to which the cultural construction of gender proceeds. ” To say that sexual difference is a material difference but that is always already marked by discourse. The category of sex is form the start regulatory, it both functions as a norm and produces the bodies it governs. Sex is an ideal concept that materializes through time by the reiteration of the norm. This materialization is never complete and the repetition is a sign of that
“bodies never quite comply with the norms by which their materialization is impelled. It is in the instabilities, the possibilities of rematerialization, opened up by this process that mark the domain by which the force of the regulatory law can be turned against itself to spawn rearticulations that call into question he hegemonic force of that very regulatory law… In these performativity must be understood not as a singular “act” but as a the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names… the regulatory norms of work in a performative fashion… to materialize the body’s sex… in the service of the consolidation of the heterosexual imperative…. Materiality will be rethought as the effect of power, as power’s most productive effect. Sex will be one of the norms by which one becomes viable at all that which qualifies a body for life within the domain of cultural intelligibility. ” (2) The sexed subject constitutes itself by a repudiation that produce s a field of abjection, the outside of the subject and the body but that is always inside it [cfr Grosz]. This abjection is always threatening the construction of the sexed subject, however is not just threatening a norm which constantly fails, but rather remains as a “critical resource in the struggle to rearticulate the very terms of symbolic legitimacy and intelligibility.” (3) In this it is desidentification with political discourse on identities what can mobilize contestation and turn to reconceptualize which bodies matter and which are yet to emerge as matters of concern.

[I agree with this so far and I do think it is an important step to take, it is a way of approaching to construction, which refines our view. My critique may sound simplistic but the problem all this is the emphasis on discourse and my question here is how to approach this without restrincting the acts to discoursive practice. If we are going to consider that bodies in a way are kind of rebellious mediums for discourses to be actualized, then what about all other domains, what about the already there organization of the social world tat shape bodies and practice in a silent way, what about objects, ideas, images other people that shape us by pushing, intervening, making us connect or think in a certain way. What about the disoursive as a filed of contestation, in this perspectives it seems that the discourse is mostly the field of power and the outside of the discourse, the abject is always non discoursive, (maybe) closer to matter, and is what it escapes from discourse. The point is not so much about a discourse being more abstract than “matter” but rater how to consider discourse as a materiality but part of other materialities.]