Judith Butler interview

[MotherofPearl]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2021/sep/07/judith-butler-interview-gender?CMP=ShareiOSAppOther

Apologies if this has already been posted. I found this troubling to read. Am I misreading this or is Butler saying that GC feminism is fascist?

"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.

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]".

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 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.

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.

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 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?

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?

@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.

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!

[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.

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.

@donquixotedelamancha

I GENUINELY don't get if there's a definite boundary between Butler and Chopra and, if so, where!

One of them is a callous grifter motivated only by their own fame and fortune who uses big words to hide the self-conflicting vacuousness of their ideas and doesn't care about how their bullshit harms the vulnerable as long as they keep making money.

The other is Deepak Chopra.

Perfect.

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.

@YetAnotherSpartacus at both of the universities I attended, undergrad and postgrad, I only had one tutor who was married with children and had tutors who didn't even know how to use everyday household items. I had one tutor who told me, when I said that there wasn't a single woman on the reading list he had just given us, "well, Michel Foucault was gay." I'm glad to hear your experience is different and I'm glad it's changing, but Butler is an academic of the Old School.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

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!

The question definitely shows the interviewer's own views and biases, but I think we have to give Butler enough credit that she wouldn't have gone on an extended rant about feminists and fascism unless that was her actual view and wasn't predicated solely on the assumptions in the interviewer's question.

@FloralBunting

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.

This is very very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

The question definitely shows the interviewer's own views and biases, but I think we have to give Butler enough credit that she wouldn't have gone on an extended rant about feminists and fascism unless that was her actual view and wasn't predicated solely on the assumptions in the interviewer's question

Oh absolutely! I wasn't suggesting so much that JB was led or duped by the question as the whole interview was an echo chamber.

That has been the point I've been trying to make, transdimensional. This is a Q&A style interview quoting Butler verbatim.

If somehow the journalist has falsified this, they're in the shit. Otherwise JB can't say she didn't say this - there'll be proof otherwise. JB is also, I assume, in no position to demand anything she actually said be taken out. Well, she could try. But any decent editor would refuse and stand by their reporting. If an editor is cowed enough to do this on request then once the floodgates are open on that, where does it end?

The Guardian must explain its workings here at once. It's not even a matter of the issue at hand, although that's sus enough. How could anyone believe a thing they report again after this?

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?

A professional journalist (by which I mean both someone who is trained in journalism and someone who has some standards of professional integrity) would never have asked a question like that. Why the Guardian commissioned this person, rather than one of their own staffers or a respected freelance, to conduct the interview is another question that needs answering.

both of the universities I attended, undergrad and postgrad, I only had one tutor who was married with children and had tutors who didn't even know how to use everyday household items. I had one tutor who told me, when I said that there wasn't a single woman on the reading list he had just given us, "well, Michel Foucault was gay." I'm glad to hear your experience is different and I'm glad it's changing, but Butler is an academic of the Old School

Silly old us. We can't even use can-openers! :)

Really, I think your experience was terribly unusual. I was at university before JB was famous and I can assure you that none of what you write was true even then for my experience across a range of universities. Yes, there is privilege and obviously, there are pockets of this, but this is not sector-wide. And even if we are (gasp) unmarried and (double-gasp) don't have children, it does not mean that we don't have a grip on the real world.

I'd so love to watch her being interviewed by John Cleese.

This is an open case in California. Surely newspapers shouldn't be commenting on it in this manner?

@RoyalCorgi

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?

A professional journalist (by which I mean both someone who is trained in journalism and someone who has some standards of professional integrity) would never have asked a question like that. Why the Guardian commissioned this person, rather than one of their own staffers or a respected freelance, to conduct the interview is another question that needs answering.

YY Corgi, this too. From their tweets, having to answer to any of this is just a pain in their arse and they certainly don't strike me as any kind of professional. The question was a disgrace and how it made it into print is beyond belief.

Re: the question about why this interviewer was chosen … I note that the interview contains a promo box for a series on ‘gender now’ (described as ‘a series exploring transgender life, identity and politics today’) but the click-through link doesn’t work. That suggests this is the first in a series - and I’m guessing the Guardian deliberately sought ‘diverse’ voices to report it. That’s just a guess though.