![]() Instead, she offers psychoanalysis and examples from literature. The middle of her book is all history, which I initially found irrelevant, but after reading Butler I appreciated it more, because Butler has almost NO examples of a concrete, historical nature. What’s the difference? Scott uses examples. Butler largely draws from psychoanalysis and literature. Both are theorists, but Scott generally speaks to and about the historical profession. The main difference between Joan Scott and Judith Butler is, for me, that one is a historian and one a philosopher. That much seems useful, but I must say - with the caveat that I didn’t fully understand her argument - I don’t think we really do disassociate this way, if we do I don’t find it significant, and if we don’t I doubt we should start, so I don’t see the utility of her theory or indeed any proof of it. Social norms require “me” to eject parts of my potential behavior in favor of approved behavior. The “me” doing the identifying can’t be the same “me” that is identified as gay, straight, female, male, and so on. She has an odd kind of psychoanalytic hypothesis that seems to assert we all disassociate ourselves from our attributes. Judith Butler talks more about social norms in the construction of gender. It originally meant something more akin to “assigned gender roles” than it does now, and that encompasses all genders as well as gender implications. That some things, like political history or politics in general, are thought of as masculine and in relation to feminine topics like “the home.” The term “gender” or “gender history” is generally taken just to mean “this is about women,” but Scott’s approach contradicts that to embrace all the feminist implications of the word. Joan Scott’s main point is that gender should be thought of as structures of power. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |