Judith Butler interview

Ok, so this is Joel Osteen. This is a ritual he and many other Word Faith teachers have at the beginning of their meetings. What you need to grasp is that the undergirding belief is that Speaking words gives them power to change physical reality. Thinking isn't quite enough, you have to say it out loud. By doing so, and not wavering on saying it, eventually, what you are saying will be real.

The idea is that we are in 'god's image' and as god created the world by speaking it into existence, so we have that power too.

I've seen a few of them follow their logic in a circle that says that if god said black was white, it would be true, because whatever god says happens.

So they will pore over the bible, find a verse that seems to align with what they want, and say it out loud as a personal affirmation/incantation and believe strongly, and it will come to pass.

Obviously, the genesis of the pomo philosophy and this sort of fringe religious nuttery are very different, but when you look at how the two perspectives operate, wrt being convinced that material reality isn't fixed and is malleable with the use of words, where everything is predicated solely on self-belief, I think it's quite obvious that we are talking about a metaphysical belief system, which is why I talk about Genderism as a neo-religion. In practice, it is simply indistinguishable from religious practices.
It masquerades as a human rights campaign, but that is just part of the proselytism.

well, I do think it's rather relevant that a group of people who are right now contributing to a culture that is literally reshaping the physical bodies of its followers have very little life experience outside the university quads. And one doesn't really see academics getting called out on this in the way some politicians are - instead, it's reverent fandom. Yesterday's Twitter response to this interview from her fans was like that scene in Life of Brian

Except for your initial message was based on a mass generalisation in turn based on some rather old and tired stereotypes. Simply, it's not true. I work with a broad range of people very, very few of who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths and who live in a variety of different households and with many different caring responsibilities. Same goes for the many different colleagues in a range of different departments I have worked with in my nearly 1/4 century as an academic. It was actually quite offensive.

[quote GrumpyMiddleAgedWoman]@FloralBunting, you are far more patient than I am. Thank you for articulating just what is so batshit about JB's comments.

It's that split between material reality and PoMo. In PoMo, as I understand it (and I probably don't, to be fair, understand it much at all, I lost patience with it) we mediate our experiences and the world through words and words mean what we say they do. So if you say you are a woman, you are indeed a woman.

Have I got that sort-of right?[/quote]
I think at this stage, it's quite clear that there is very little internal logic and what is argued will be what is expedient to the Genderist's aim.

But yes, post modernism is a massive deconstruction project, and we now appear to be in the stage of those deconstructionists now trying to create their own reality with words they have reassigned meanings to.

It actually reminds me very strongly of 'Word-Faith' Christian teachings, which are a bit like the Deepak Chopra stuff already joked about, but with a strong streak of authoritarian dogma that is very similar to Butler & co. I'll find a good example and post it so you can see what I mean.

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. This year’s furore around Wi Spa in Los Angeles saw an online outrage by transphobes followed by bloody protests organized by the Proud Boys. Can we expect this alliance to continue?

Thank you! So not a leading question at all then!

@YetAnotherSpartacus well, I do think it's rather relevant that a group of people who are right now contributing to a culture that is literally reshaping the physical bodies of its followers have very little life experience outside the university quads. And one doesn't really see academics getting called out on this in the way some politicians are - instead, it's reverent fandom. Yesterday's Twitter response to this interview from her fans was like that scene in Life of Brian.

Sorry I should have been clearer: it’s the question Butler was asked. So the Guardian have cut the question and the answer, I think. Most of the screenshots only show Butler’s answer so it’s not clear that she’s specifically responding to a question which references WiSpa.

Here’s the question:

It seems that some within feminist movements are becoming sympathetic to these far-right campaigns. This year’s furore around Wi Spa in Los Angeles saw an online outrage by transphobes followed by bloody protests organized by the Proud Boys. Can we expect this alliance to continue?

I note that many of the screenshots of the cut sections which are circulating on social media happen to omit the crucial first paragraph, in which she talks specifically about the WiSpa incident. The following three paragraphs which were also cut (and widely screenshotted) only make sense in the context of that first paragraph

I can't seem to find that paragraph. Is there a link to it?

I note that many of the screenshots of the cut sections which are circulating on social media happen to omit the crucial first paragraph, in which she talks specifically about the WiSpa incident. The following three paragraphs which were also cut (and widely screenshotted) only make sense in the context of that first paragraph.

What the Guardian should have done, of course, is to add an editor’s note in brackets and italics after the WiSpa paragraph, stating the WiSpa charges factually and making it clear that this happened after the interview was conducted. That would be a far fairer and more honest way of handling the situation: contextualise the interviewee’s assertions, make the timeline clear, let readers make their own minds up about the views which the interviewee sets out.

I don't mean this flippantly, but it was striking, when I was at university, how few of the tutors had families / children / a home life. I don't have children myself and this is not a dig, just an observation that even in the late 20th century, when I was at university, that 'bachelor' tradition of tutors had just carried on - they go from (generally, private) school to university to an academic life where you are housed, fed and watered by the university. And, throughout, you are surrounded by a constantly renewed stream of teenagers. It's a Peter Pan, never-grow-up lifestyle and I'm not surprised it's provided the life-support system for the sort of PoMo la-la land bollocks that was inflicted on my generation and many others. We criticise the gravy train of politicians who go from public school to Oxbridge to spads to 'think tanks' or big name charities to MPs as lacking 'real world' experience, but this is so much more true of academics

Gee, thanks.

It wasn't entirely clear to me whether Butler was accusing GC feminists of fascism or "only" of collaboration with fascism. It should be noted though that her insinuations are of a piece with Stonewall's allegation that GC feminism is akin to antisemitism.

Thanks Ivy, that's a really interesting observation and explains a lot. I left school at 16 and very grounded in reality from an early age and I really struggle to understand this mindset so that makes a lot of sense to me.

It's possible the news about the Wi arrest came after the interview was conducted, but this doesn't justify excising a couple of paragraphs from the interview: I think we can be pretty sure that both the questioner and Butler hold the views they do independently of the Wi incident. It seems very unlikely that they have changed their minds, but if they have, it would be really interesting to give us a bracketed editorial note saying that after the initial publication, the persons concerned admitted they were wrong. Similarly, the news about Wi spa should have been handled by adding an editorial note after the question saying "[Please note, since the publication of this article, it has reached the Guardian's attention that the Wi spa allegations were in fact true]".

"I wonder where she thinks babies come from?"

I don't mean this flippantly, but it was striking, when I was at university, how few of the tutors had families / children / a home life. I don't have children myself and this is not a dig, just an observation that even in the late 20th century, when I was at university, that 'bachelor' tradition of tutors had just carried on - they go from (generally, private) school to university to an academic life where you are housed, fed and watered by the university. And, throughout, you are surrounded by a constantly renewed stream of teenagers. It's a Peter Pan, never-grow-up lifestyle and I'm not surprised it's provided the life-support system for the sort of PoMo la-la land bollocks that was inflicted on my generation and many others. We criticise the gravy train of politicians who go from public school to Oxbridge to spads to 'think tanks' or big name charities to MPs as lacking 'real world' experience, but this is so much more true of academics.

Why on earth did MN delete my comment? It's getting ridiculous.

Here's the archived version of the original interview for anyone who wants it:

<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210907102452/www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210907102452/www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender

I think you need to be careful saying this, this isn't quite right. Butler doesn't say that gender is a performance but rather is 'performative'. What this means is that there are a series of culturally informed behaviours and acts that, from a very young age we learn and then enact (e.g. ways of walking or speaking that are stereotypically 'female' or 'male')....it is these repetitive acts, which everyone is engaged in, that themselves produce the 'illusion' of two stable genders. In other words the culturally learned gendered behaviours constitute, rather than express, any apparently stable gender identity

Which works for 'gender' (the way that men and women express themselves, culturally coded as 'masculine' or 'feminine') but not for sex - because having sperm or egg is not 'cultural'.

She is astonishingly ignorant and seems to apply no actual critical thought to any of her positions.
Isent Postmodernism all about critical thinking?

This is why people describe her as a con artist.

I've just been flicking through YouTube and an interview with LOJ and Judith Butler popped up as a recommendation!😱

Do I hate myself enough to watch it?

I dropped out of the queer theory module after one lecture, as did two other females.
It was awful.

JB is the queen of queer and she is worshipped as such.
Everything said here is exactly what I experienced, the class was full of superior, self important assholes who believe that JB is elevated and that thickos that can’t understand her is anyone who disagrees with her.
They are all better than you.

She is the canceller, never the cancellee.

Utterly despicable woman.

There's a ceremony where you go into a hospital and the person who's been designated as a doctor says the magic words "it's a boy", and there it is.

But society has to agree that he's a doctor, or it doesn't work.

@FloralBunting, you are far more patient than I am. Thank you for articulating just what is so batshit about JB's comments.

It's that split between material reality and PoMo. In PoMo, as I understand it (and I probably don't, to be fair, understand it much at all, I lost patience with it) we mediate our experiences and the world through words and words mean what we say they do. So if you say you are a woman, you are indeed a woman.

Have I got that sort-of right?