What do you think?
Rate this book
Deshacer el género
Deshacer el género recoge reflexiones recientes de la autora sobre el género y la sexualidad, centrándose en el nuevo parentesco, el psicoanálisis y el tabú del incesto, el transgénero, el intersexo, las categorías de diagnóstico, la violencia social y la labor de transformación social. A partir de la teoría feminista y la teoría queer, Butler considera las normas que rigen –y no lo consiguen– el género y la sexualidad en tanto que vinculadas a las restricciones de una categoría reconocible de persona. El libro supone un replanteamiento de su pensamiento inicial sobre la performatividad del género en El género en disputa. En esta obra, la crítica a las normas de género se sitúa claramente dentro del marco de la tenacidad y la supervivencia humanas. «Hacer» el propio género exige en ocasiones «deshacer» las nociones dominantes de la categoría persona. La autora escribe sobre la «nueva política del género» surgida en estos últimos años, una combinación de movimientos interesados por el transgénero, la transexualidad, el intersexo y sus complejas relaciones con la teoría feminista y la teoría queer.
391 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
447 people are currently reading
16015 people want to read
About the author
Judith Butler
221 books3,678 followersJudith Butler is an American post-structuralist and feminist philosopher who has contributed to the fields of feminism, queer theory, political philosophy and ethics. They are currently a professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature departments at the University of California, Berkeley.
Butler received their Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University in 1984, for a dissertation subsequently published as Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. In the late-1980s they held several teaching and research appointments, and were involved in "post-structuralist" efforts within Western feminist theory to question the "presuppositional terms" of feminism.
Their research ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, and mourning and war. Their most recent work focuses on Jewish philosophy and exploring pre- and post-Zionist criticisms of state violence.
Butler received their Ph.D. in philosophy from Yale University in 1984, for a dissertation subsequently published as Subjects of Desire: Hegelian Reflections in Twentieth-Century France. In the late-1980s they held several teaching and research appointments, and were involved in "post-structuralist" efforts within Western feminist theory to question the "presuppositional terms" of feminism.
Their research ranges from literary theory, modern philosophical fiction, feminist and sexuality studies, to 19th- and 20th-century European literature and philosophy, Kafka and loss, and mourning and war. Their most recent work focuses on Jewish philosophy and exploring pre- and post-Zionist criticisms of state violence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews
November 20, 2009
Anyone who has read Judy Butler has had to contend with philosophical mind-benders of astonishing brilliance and tortured diction, such as: "What happens to the subject and to the stability of gender categories when the epistemic regime of presumptive heterosexuality is unmasked as that which produces and reifies these ostensible categories of ontology?" Which makes it all the more surprising to run into the same brilliance, the same incisiveness, but this time with a kind of heartrending poetry that absolutely cuts to the quick. Like from the first chapter:
"Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're missing something. If this seems so clearly the case with grief, it is only because it was already the case with desire. One does not always stay intact. It may be that one wants to, or does, but it may also be that despite one's best efforts, one is undone, in the face of the other, by the touch, by the scent, by the prospect of the touch, by the memory of the feel."
Make of that what you will. That paragraph has been haunting me for days.
"Let's face it. We're undone by each other. And if we're not, we're missing something. If this seems so clearly the case with grief, it is only because it was already the case with desire. One does not always stay intact. It may be that one wants to, or does, but it may also be that despite one's best efforts, one is undone, in the face of the other, by the touch, by the scent, by the prospect of the touch, by the memory of the feel."
Make of that what you will. That paragraph has been haunting me for days.
April 4, 2020
Before I read Judith Butler, I would have identified myself as a woman. But she says I'm wrong. At the most basic level I'm not necessarily a woman.
Butler sees gender as performance. Butler says anatomy has cultural framing. It is Performance, not an essence. Gender is performed without ones being conscious of it.
"Terms that make up ones own gender are outside oneself, beyond oneself in a sociality that has no author." Anatomy and sex have cultural framing. They are not natural, not essential, not pre-cultural.
You could have fooled me!
She says all this in incomprehensible jargon. I guess that's why she's a philosophy professor.
Believe it or not, her philosophy has caught on, in college campuses all across the country. Well. I just thought you should know. It was news to me.
On the subject of social norms Butler writes "The task of all these movements seems to me to be about distinguishing among the norms and conventions that permit people to breathe, to desire, to love, and to live, and those norms and conventions that restrict or eviscerate the conditions of life itself" and later she says "What is most important is to cease legislating for all lives what is livable only for some, and similarly, to refrain from prescribing for all lives what is unlivable for some." This, at least, makes sense.
Butler sees gender as performance. Butler says anatomy has cultural framing. It is Performance, not an essence. Gender is performed without ones being conscious of it.
"Terms that make up ones own gender are outside oneself, beyond oneself in a sociality that has no author." Anatomy and sex have cultural framing. They are not natural, not essential, not pre-cultural.
You could have fooled me!
She says all this in incomprehensible jargon. I guess that's why she's a philosophy professor.
Believe it or not, her philosophy has caught on, in college campuses all across the country. Well. I just thought you should know. It was news to me.
On the subject of social norms Butler writes "The task of all these movements seems to me to be about distinguishing among the norms and conventions that permit people to breathe, to desire, to love, and to live, and those norms and conventions that restrict or eviscerate the conditions of life itself" and later she says "What is most important is to cease legislating for all lives what is livable only for some, and similarly, to refrain from prescribing for all lives what is unlivable for some." This, at least, makes sense.
June 13, 2016
This one-star rating is probably unfair. Butler certainly made statements I agreed with, and is a widely respected feminist scholar who seems to be very important intellectually. But this book was a flaming heap as far as I'm concerned. In no essay did I ever figure out what she was actually trying to say, because she just rambles all over the place saying random things (using the biggest words possible) and never seems to have a point at all. The assertions I did understand seem actively unhelpful, like an effort to get everyone to disassociate themselves from their attributes.
The book is also almost completely devoid of examples. Maybe this is typical for psychoanalysis and/or philosophy, but I am a historian, so it calls her whole shtick into question for me. I don't buy an argument with no evidence, and what's more, I don't UNDERSTAND an argument with no evidence because there's no real-world situation to hang it onto, no question or problem to which she's proposing a solution. (While I can totally get behind some literary analysis, in fact I am a committed advocate for using fiction and pop culture more in history and other disciplines, an example from a play or a movie DOES NOT COUNT as evidence for the motivations of real people unless you specifically make that link. Just because it happened in a play doesn't mean it represents the whole of humanity.)
The whole thing just came off as pretentious. The Joan Scott book I read recently was dense, jargon-heavy, and challenging, but ultimately rewarding because it was written as simply as possible given the subject matter and she chose the specific words she needed. Butler just sounded like she was making stuff up to sound smart, but again, not actually saying anything.
The book is also almost completely devoid of examples. Maybe this is typical for psychoanalysis and/or philosophy, but I am a historian, so it calls her whole shtick into question for me. I don't buy an argument with no evidence, and what's more, I don't UNDERSTAND an argument with no evidence because there's no real-world situation to hang it onto, no question or problem to which she's proposing a solution. (While I can totally get behind some literary analysis, in fact I am a committed advocate for using fiction and pop culture more in history and other disciplines, an example from a play or a movie DOES NOT COUNT as evidence for the motivations of real people unless you specifically make that link. Just because it happened in a play doesn't mean it represents the whole of humanity.)
The whole thing just came off as pretentious. The Joan Scott book I read recently was dense, jargon-heavy, and challenging, but ultimately rewarding because it was written as simply as possible given the subject matter and she chose the specific words she needed. Butler just sounded like she was making stuff up to sound smart, but again, not actually saying anything.
May 30, 2022
Some people manage to convince the world of their intelligence by writing long, confusing sentences full of polysyllables about an emotionally charged subject. Their claims don't need to be testable, commonsensical or even intelligible. If they're intelligent-sounding, their opacity seems to actually work in the author's favour, perhaps because the reader assumes that their inability to understand is evidence of the author's sophistication.
If you'd like to spend some hours under a firehose of nonsense, I can't recommend this book enough.
If you'd like to spend some hours under a firehose of nonsense, I can't recommend this book enough.
February 28, 2018
In her introduction to this collection of essays theorist and philosopher Judith Butler states why an ongoing critique of gender norms in not only necessary but vital: "Not so much to celebrate difference as such but to establish more inclusive conditions for sheltering and maintaining life that resists models of assimilation" (pg 4). She calls for trans, intersex and gender nonconforming people "to be treated with the presumption that their lives are and will be not only livable, but also occasions for flourishing" (pg 4). "The critique of gender norms must be situated within the context of lives as they are lived and must be guided by the question of what maximizes the possibilities for a livable life, and minimizes the possibility of unbearable life or, indeed, social or literal death" (pg 8).
I have no background in philosophy and was unfamiliar with most of the texts and thinkers Butler referenced, as well as some of the academic terms. I still found this a very readable and exciting book. I bought a physical copy so that I could mark it up as I went along, and I anticipate reading it in part or in full again in the future, applying new insights and gaining new meaning.
I have no background in philosophy and was unfamiliar with most of the texts and thinkers Butler referenced, as well as some of the academic terms. I still found this a very readable and exciting book. I bought a physical copy so that I could mark it up as I went along, and I anticipate reading it in part or in full again in the future, applying new insights and gaining new meaning.
March 30, 2010
I'd heard this was the "accessible" Butler text, which is sorta true, but just remember--it's still Butler. I think perhaps the reason many people find this to be a more engaging text is that Butler's concerns, though densely theoretical, have more immediate 'real life' applications than, say, in Gender Trouble or Bodies that Matter. It seems Butler's become increasingly interested in what it might mean to be an ethical, incoherent/post-modern (ha) subject, and as such, her interests in regulatory regimes of gender, sexuality, & co. have shifted to concerns about reconstituting the notion of 'the human' as a way of encountering the other in an ethical way. Secondly, the book is more accessible because the essays included are essentially stand-alone essays--which isn't entirely different to some other texts (Bodies that Matter, in particular), but that the essays are also fairly distinct from one another. So there's a piece on intersexuality; one on the heterosexuality--in question for Butler, obvs.--of kinship systems; one concerning representations of incest, following in light of recent trauma theory; so on and so forth. I was most interested, I think, in Butler's rethinking of the human, and what makes for an unlivable life--this seems particularly resonant, because it navigates the line between theory (she's clearly working through Kristeva's idea of the abject--as well as her own earlier work on abjection in Bodies that Matter) and experience--why is it that some people quite literally are regarded, even if only implicitly, as subhuman? As less worthy of rights, dignity, respect? Butler's challenges have direct impact and the comparatively lucid style on display in this text makes it an often emotionally engaging read. Many people have quoted the "Let's fact it. We are all undone..." passage, and I think rightfully so. If Butler ever had dreams of creative stardom, they're probably most on display in this text--the writing is exciting and sometimes strangely beautiful.
Also, there's another great Butler joke about her exhaustion with the phallus, as well as some great "accounts of the self" scattered throughout--I believe in the last chapter, we're offered a picture of Butler as a tweenager; as might be expected, she's not brushing her teeth with a bottle of Jack or swooning over the latest Teen Beat sweethearts, but rather, is reading Hegel and Spinoza, and generally being everything I imagined a mini-Butler might be.
It's a fabulous text--if you like Butler, grab it. If you hate her, grab it. If you've yet to check Butler out, I tend to agree with many--this is a good starting place.
Also, there's another great Butler joke about her exhaustion with the phallus, as well as some great "accounts of the self" scattered throughout--I believe in the last chapter, we're offered a picture of Butler as a tweenager; as might be expected, she's not brushing her teeth with a bottle of Jack or swooning over the latest Teen Beat sweethearts, but rather, is reading Hegel and Spinoza, and generally being everything I imagined a mini-Butler might be.
It's a fabulous text--if you like Butler, grab it. If you hate her, grab it. If you've yet to check Butler out, I tend to agree with many--this is a good starting place.
March 20, 2018
I often see people warning potential readers to stay away from Judith Butler due to the 'incomprehensibility' or 'difficulty' of the material. Should the style in which something is written decrease the value? Should all works be written to the same style and standard in order that they are acceptable?
Is comprehensibility a so-called valid outcome?
Butler addresses the issue of style in the new foreword to Gender Trouble: "It is no doubt strange, and madden-ing to some, to find a book that is not easily consumed to be “popular” according to academic standards. The surprise over this is perhaps attributable to the way we underestimate the reading public, its capacity and desire for reading complicated and challenging texts, when the complication is not gratuitous, when the challenge is in the service of calling taken-for-granted truths into question, when the taken for grantedness of those truths is, indeed, oppressive."
I would argue that easy answers are harmful. Can complex ideas truly be encapsulated in 'straightforward' writing or a simple diagram? Does the reduction of the idea to digestible simplicity remove the nuance? Finally, does simplicity of presentation argue an answer, rather than a question?
We claim to have answers to many concepts, and present them as fact, framework, acknowledged truths. Time, space, gender, history, sex. These ideas are often presented in summaries, as answers, as truths - and one would do well to interrogate the cultures and societies that bring forth these truths, these understood facts. Life is a question - a perpetual conversation.
Undoing Gender is a conversation. Butler never attempts to answer the complexity of gender; rather she asks question upon question, changing her approach and focus, pulling in new concepts and theories as the book progresses. Butler challenges the legitimacy of recognition of the diversity of being - who recognises? Who regulates? Is recognition harmful or helpful? In recognition, are we reduced to answers, rather than questions? We 'do' ourselves as we do 'gender' - perpetually, over and over, rewriting the self and the understanding of the self. We learn to present ourselves in a discourse that "denies the language [we] might want to use to describe who [we] are, how [we] got here, and what [we] want from this life."
Language limits us. Structure is dictated by power. When we 'do' gender, and categorise it using understood norms, do the understood norms apply or are they categories differently interpreted by the individual? When one 'does' woman, as another 'does' woman, is the category 'woman' a convenience and understood norm? If we 'do' woman differently, what is 'woman'?
This books gifts us with questions - I have a lifetime of questions. I will 'do' myself and overwrite myself as I live and the world lives alongside me. Will we reach a point when the multiplicity of genders that are done - a multitude, an infinity of genders - will be admitted into the terms that govern reality? Will we develop "a new legitimating lexicon for the gender complexity that we have always been living?"
Is comprehensibility a so-called valid outcome?
Butler addresses the issue of style in the new foreword to Gender Trouble: "It is no doubt strange, and madden-ing to some, to find a book that is not easily consumed to be “popular” according to academic standards. The surprise over this is perhaps attributable to the way we underestimate the reading public, its capacity and desire for reading complicated and challenging texts, when the complication is not gratuitous, when the challenge is in the service of calling taken-for-granted truths into question, when the taken for grantedness of those truths is, indeed, oppressive."
I would argue that easy answers are harmful. Can complex ideas truly be encapsulated in 'straightforward' writing or a simple diagram? Does the reduction of the idea to digestible simplicity remove the nuance? Finally, does simplicity of presentation argue an answer, rather than a question?
We claim to have answers to many concepts, and present them as fact, framework, acknowledged truths. Time, space, gender, history, sex. These ideas are often presented in summaries, as answers, as truths - and one would do well to interrogate the cultures and societies that bring forth these truths, these understood facts. Life is a question - a perpetual conversation.
Undoing Gender is a conversation. Butler never attempts to answer the complexity of gender; rather she asks question upon question, changing her approach and focus, pulling in new concepts and theories as the book progresses. Butler challenges the legitimacy of recognition of the diversity of being - who recognises? Who regulates? Is recognition harmful or helpful? In recognition, are we reduced to answers, rather than questions? We 'do' ourselves as we do 'gender' - perpetually, over and over, rewriting the self and the understanding of the self. We learn to present ourselves in a discourse that "denies the language [we] might want to use to describe who [we] are, how [we] got here, and what [we] want from this life."
Language limits us. Structure is dictated by power. When we 'do' gender, and categorise it using understood norms, do the understood norms apply or are they categories differently interpreted by the individual? When one 'does' woman, as another 'does' woman, is the category 'woman' a convenience and understood norm? If we 'do' woman differently, what is 'woman'?
This books gifts us with questions - I have a lifetime of questions. I will 'do' myself and overwrite myself as I live and the world lives alongside me. Will we reach a point when the multiplicity of genders that are done - a multitude, an infinity of genders - will be admitted into the terms that govern reality? Will we develop "a new legitimating lexicon for the gender complexity that we have always been living?"
July 21, 2013
some sloppy opinions.
Butler asks a lot of questions, but barely ever appears too doubtful. Most of the time she isn't interested in providing her answers and opinions - which is what I read other people for. Questions aren't that hard to find alone. A book should provide clearly stated opinions, attempts at answers, rather than end every chapter with more extra issues than before. I can't help thinking she doesn't always want the reader to answer her questions and uses them for the sake of rhetorics; that this problem is a stylistic issue she can't help. She seems to avoid concrete judgements; I've just read her book and I know what questions she asks herself, what books she reads and what films she watches, but what does Judith Butler think ?
I wasn't particularly interested in the parts dealing with psychoanalysis or her accounts of transgendered people (something I think she could have said much more interesting things on). I loved the fragments on norms, probably because I hadn't read much about the subject before. After reading Undoing Gender, I'd like to know more about Butler's ideas on "being human", something I've never thought about the way she has. I wish she elaborated on the subject, providing some ethical or generally philosophical background. I thought there'd be more about how gender affects one as a person in the social sphere. Perhaps I'll find it in a different text of hers.
Some of her points seem obvious, and she's willing to go over and over them in simple language. At other times, she comes out with long and complicated sentences or vague references the reader is expected to understand - and I really don't know who this book is aimed at. I don't think she does herself. Some things I find simple fillers, and others, in chapter 2, I don't understand on the first reading. The chapters are too autonomical in the questions they want (and often don't want) answered, their language, their references. I know varied ways of looking at subjects are often the best, but here it was a little ill-fitting. Every chapter is for someone else, and the last one came out of the blue. It was interesting but I don't think it needed to be there. If she said anything about why she thinks the problems she deals with are philosophically valid, there'd be a point in talking about the two philosophies. I think these problems with unifying make the book hard to be enjoyable to anyone in full.
I will be returning to Butler, but I'm certainly critical of her method of writing and of which subjects she chooses to elaborate on.
Butler asks a lot of questions, but barely ever appears too doubtful. Most of the time she isn't interested in providing her answers and opinions - which is what I read other people for. Questions aren't that hard to find alone. A book should provide clearly stated opinions, attempts at answers, rather than end every chapter with more extra issues than before. I can't help thinking she doesn't always want the reader to answer her questions and uses them for the sake of rhetorics; that this problem is a stylistic issue she can't help. She seems to avoid concrete judgements; I've just read her book and I know what questions she asks herself, what books she reads and what films she watches, but what does Judith Butler think ?
I wasn't particularly interested in the parts dealing with psychoanalysis or her accounts of transgendered people (something I think she could have said much more interesting things on). I loved the fragments on norms, probably because I hadn't read much about the subject before. After reading Undoing Gender, I'd like to know more about Butler's ideas on "being human", something I've never thought about the way she has. I wish she elaborated on the subject, providing some ethical or generally philosophical background. I thought there'd be more about how gender affects one as a person in the social sphere. Perhaps I'll find it in a different text of hers.
Some of her points seem obvious, and she's willing to go over and over them in simple language. At other times, she comes out with long and complicated sentences or vague references the reader is expected to understand - and I really don't know who this book is aimed at. I don't think she does herself. Some things I find simple fillers, and others, in chapter 2, I don't understand on the first reading. The chapters are too autonomical in the questions they want (and often don't want) answered, their language, their references. I know varied ways of looking at subjects are often the best, but here it was a little ill-fitting. Every chapter is for someone else, and the last one came out of the blue. It was interesting but I don't think it needed to be there. If she said anything about why she thinks the problems she deals with are philosophically valid, there'd be a point in talking about the two philosophies. I think these problems with unifying make the book hard to be enjoyable to anyone in full.
I will be returning to Butler, but I'm certainly critical of her method of writing and of which subjects she chooses to elaborate on.
February 9, 2010
This is another philosophy book on the same lines of the Michel Foucault we just read for class as well. And once again, what she is saying is very important but most of what is said is unattainable by the average reader. After discussing the concepts in class I would have given this book five stars, but I think that if someone picked up this book without that avenue for discussion much of the main concepts and theories would be lost.
I think that most of the book was not to get the reader to subscribe to a certain moral or ideal, but more to get the reader to think in a way that they have not before (example: legalization of gay marriage may work as a legitimization of those relationships, but in the end could ostracize other members of the community who were never looking for that type of legitimacy, the real answer maybe something other then marriage for everyone no matter your sexual preference - rather then defining something newly legitimized by something already considered a recognized norm maybe we need to look at the language we currently have). I believe that in the end she is trying to open up new conversation to address old arguments.
But if you chose to pick it up, please try chapters 3 and 4. They are very worth the work.
I think that most of the book was not to get the reader to subscribe to a certain moral or ideal, but more to get the reader to think in a way that they have not before (example: legalization of gay marriage may work as a legitimization of those relationships, but in the end could ostracize other members of the community who were never looking for that type of legitimacy, the real answer maybe something other then marriage for everyone no matter your sexual preference - rather then defining something newly legitimized by something already considered a recognized norm maybe we need to look at the language we currently have). I believe that in the end she is trying to open up new conversation to address old arguments.
But if you chose to pick it up, please try chapters 3 and 4. They are very worth the work.
December 14, 2024
(5*) re-read for my diss. I find myself always so moved by their last essay, their mediation on philosophy as a discipline, and too, so touched by their personal anecdotes.
--------------
(4.5) they did it again. The theoretical enquiry was not so revolutionary as it was in Bodies or Gender Trouble, but it was made so beautiful by how Judith, the person, really precipitated outward through the text. Judith, the "bar dyke who spent [their] evenings reading Hegal." They spoke to some personal points which provided me with a lot of comfort. Certainly not what I was expecting from this text.
"I confess, however, that I am not a very good materialist. Everytime I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language."
I can't stop thinking about this.
--------------
(4.5) they did it again. The theoretical enquiry was not so revolutionary as it was in Bodies or Gender Trouble, but it was made so beautiful by how Judith, the person, really precipitated outward through the text. Judith, the "bar dyke who spent [their] evenings reading Hegal." They spoke to some personal points which provided me with a lot of comfort. Certainly not what I was expecting from this text.
"I confess, however, that I am not a very good materialist. Everytime I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language."
I can't stop thinking about this.
May 13, 2024
Judith Butler ne cessera jamais de me mettre au défi avec le niveau de lecture de ses oeuvres. Ici, je m'attendais à une suite peut-être un peu plus marquante à Trouble dans le genre, mais j'ai tout de même été servie de solutions quoique rien de beaucoup plus que j'aie pu imaginer au fil d'autres lectures sur le sujet. Mes articles préférés ont été ceux sur l'entre-soi et la nature de la parentalité (a-t-elle toujours été hétérosexuelle?). J'ai également aimé les nuances apportées à son propos général dans le reste du livre, mais je ne peux m'empêcher de trouver que Butler se contredit également, ou sinon perd de sa radicalité/de sa force du début de sa carrière. Ça et ses textes souvent trop inaccessibles (je suis d'accord avec le fait que c'est un.e scientifique, un.e philosophe de surcroît, et qu'on ne peut pas ne pas permettre aux sciences sociales d'entretenir un vocabulaire soutenu), où le contenu en devient par moment un peu hermétique, j'ai l'impression qu'on tombe dans un certain relativisme qui noie la direction du sujet. On pourrait aussi attribuer ces petites faiblesses au fait qu'il s'agit d'une collection d'articles et non un essai suivi en soi. Dans tous les cas, Butler me donne toujours à penser et je ne pourrais pas passer à côté d'elle et ses idées, même si ça m'en fait redouter la lecture.
Read
October 13, 2022(writing a sincere review as if i didn't read this to further clarify something my good friend marysia mentioned in passing several months ago... straying away from discourse street i just want to accessibly immortalize my thoughts and opinions)
gender has become one of the philosophical questions of our current age; what is gender, does gender truly exist, is gender established or instituted, can gender be neutralized, etc.
"Undoing Gender" is an elegant and lengthy composite series of essays, most if not all text referential to each other, intended for those interested in and/or having foundational knowledge in philosophy (reoccurring references to Foucault's "history of sexuality" and Hegel's concept of desire, namely the desire for recognition), psychology and cultural feminism/feminist history and theory. the essays themselves are to a degree accessible without prior academic knowledge, theories are non-complex and presented in straightforward, easy-to-follow writing- though one would benefit from autodidactic research before and throughout the text. if the literary accessibility wasn't up for question, i would say this is essential queer reading. one could also "cherry-pick" essays based on interest.
many interpret Butler's ideology as ejective and dismissive of "male" and "female", the presented argument being that "male" and "female" are roles that we act out and perform, and the implication of gender as a performance would mean that there is an infinite quantity of possible performances rather than just two- the diminutive concept of two genders is embedded in political, legal and contemporary social discourse as it is bound with power and normativity, and this affects the livelihood of those that exist outside of the institution of the gender binary (Butler illustrates several excellent examples of this). Butler argues that "male" and "female" are parodies of their preexisting meanings, or rather, devoid of their meaning entirely (adding my own personal reference to baudrillard's theory of hyperreality and locke's value of semiotics: we are making meaning).
as a gender abolitionist, i agree with Butler's theoretical perspective offering an account of how the binary of masculine and feminine comes to exhaust the semantic field of gender ("To assume that gender always and exclusively means the matrix of the “masculine” and “feminine” is precisely to miss the critical point that the production of that coherent binary is contingent, that it comes at a cost..."). while my personal belief is that we are limited by language thus creating a question of developing a new legal, political, medical, social and literary lexicon theory for legitimating gender complexity (beyond the limiting singularity of the "two genders")- Butler elegantly organizes their theories on gender in short essay-format; their lived experiences as a caucasian non-binary lesbian, a long-standing community activist and university professor in the state of California being woven into their thought and taking into account the experiences of other groups. i enjoyed how they also openly assessed a critique from French philosopher Sylviane Agacinski on their own work in previous gender and queer theory, responding to bioessentialist comments and a strained homophobic remark with humour, and Butler can be quoted in another essay "I'm no great fan of the phallus." i laughed, love a comedic edge to a lengthy, serious read.
i have 26 pages of notes- this took me almost five months of casual, on-and-off reading from my living room to the downtown coffee shop hungover on a couple of hours of sleep. while i began autodidactic research on gender complexity online as a teenager and studied sexuality and gender theory as a young adult in university, coming to identify as a gender non-conforming lesbian in between, "Undoing Gender" has not given nor has it radicalized my scope of preexisting thought on the subject. instead, i would say it has echoed experiences and further organized philosophical inquisitions on gender- developing my aforementioned lexicon on gender complexity. like if Butler and i took a long walk together and i, having to take a longer route home, was left with a widened lens and a few literary references as a treat. something to enjoy and think about. i want to avoid the discourse. i am not walking down that street.
i enjoyed a couple of essays in particular; On Limits of Sexual Autonomy (how gender reduces us to the politics of our bodies), Natural/Cultural/State Law (how Western politics govern gender and sexuality), Longing for Recognition (references to the Hegelian rubric of the desire for recognition), the End of Sexual Difference (gender politics and postulation of identity), Butch Desire (comprehension of lesbian masculinity), and "Gender Trouble" & the Question of Survival (Butler's personal commentary addressing their previous text on queer theory, dated 14 years prior, and their lived experiences since publishing this text- i particularly enjoyed their involvement in activism as well as their lens on drag as a gender performance through the angle of a masculine lesbian. my favourite quote from the series in general is "one could describe me as a bar dyke who spent her days reading Hegel and her evenings, well, at the gay bar, which occasionally became a
drag bar." as this illustrated a familiarity and connected the little distance that exists between Butler and i.
there is a redoubling in a sense as i had previously mentioned i spent my teenage years reading some queer theory then studying some queer theory in university (i point to an emphasis on some). it's possible, this text being dated 2004, that Butler was always forming my foundational concepts on gender complexity and nonconformity. Butler can be quoted in their ending note as having written both "Gender Trouble" and "Undoing Gender" to expose a pervasive heterosexism in feminist theory and try to imagine a world in which those who live at some distance from gender norms, who live in the confusion of gender norms, might still understand themselves not only as living livable lives, but as deserving a certain kind of recognition. since the publication of this text, the question of social transformation and politics changed in the interim- the way we, even i having come-of-age within the many ideologies of gender in the current era, have seen significant widespread change, though not completely and not always positive, Butler having initially conceptualized a foundation for gender complexity and gender theory through the philosophical and political framework is what makes "Undoing Gender" not only essential queer reading, but should be ostensibly recognized as laying the groundwork for answering the current philosophical question of our generation- what is gender?
anyway i have a library fee to pay... (i actually don't)
gender has become one of the philosophical questions of our current age; what is gender, does gender truly exist, is gender established or instituted, can gender be neutralized, etc.
"Undoing Gender" is an elegant and lengthy composite series of essays, most if not all text referential to each other, intended for those interested in and/or having foundational knowledge in philosophy (reoccurring references to Foucault's "history of sexuality" and Hegel's concept of desire, namely the desire for recognition), psychology and cultural feminism/feminist history and theory. the essays themselves are to a degree accessible without prior academic knowledge, theories are non-complex and presented in straightforward, easy-to-follow writing- though one would benefit from autodidactic research before and throughout the text. if the literary accessibility wasn't up for question, i would say this is essential queer reading. one could also "cherry-pick" essays based on interest.
many interpret Butler's ideology as ejective and dismissive of "male" and "female", the presented argument being that "male" and "female" are roles that we act out and perform, and the implication of gender as a performance would mean that there is an infinite quantity of possible performances rather than just two- the diminutive concept of two genders is embedded in political, legal and contemporary social discourse as it is bound with power and normativity, and this affects the livelihood of those that exist outside of the institution of the gender binary (Butler illustrates several excellent examples of this). Butler argues that "male" and "female" are parodies of their preexisting meanings, or rather, devoid of their meaning entirely (adding my own personal reference to baudrillard's theory of hyperreality and locke's value of semiotics: we are making meaning).
as a gender abolitionist, i agree with Butler's theoretical perspective offering an account of how the binary of masculine and feminine comes to exhaust the semantic field of gender ("To assume that gender always and exclusively means the matrix of the “masculine” and “feminine” is precisely to miss the critical point that the production of that coherent binary is contingent, that it comes at a cost..."). while my personal belief is that we are limited by language thus creating a question of developing a new legal, political, medical, social and literary lexicon theory for legitimating gender complexity (beyond the limiting singularity of the "two genders")- Butler elegantly organizes their theories on gender in short essay-format; their lived experiences as a caucasian non-binary lesbian, a long-standing community activist and university professor in the state of California being woven into their thought and taking into account the experiences of other groups. i enjoyed how they also openly assessed a critique from French philosopher Sylviane Agacinski on their own work in previous gender and queer theory, responding to bioessentialist comments and a strained homophobic remark with humour, and Butler can be quoted in another essay "I'm no great fan of the phallus." i laughed, love a comedic edge to a lengthy, serious read.
i have 26 pages of notes- this took me almost five months of casual, on-and-off reading from my living room to the downtown coffee shop hungover on a couple of hours of sleep. while i began autodidactic research on gender complexity online as a teenager and studied sexuality and gender theory as a young adult in university, coming to identify as a gender non-conforming lesbian in between, "Undoing Gender" has not given nor has it radicalized my scope of preexisting thought on the subject. instead, i would say it has echoed experiences and further organized philosophical inquisitions on gender- developing my aforementioned lexicon on gender complexity. like if Butler and i took a long walk together and i, having to take a longer route home, was left with a widened lens and a few literary references as a treat. something to enjoy and think about. i want to avoid the discourse. i am not walking down that street.
i enjoyed a couple of essays in particular; On Limits of Sexual Autonomy (how gender reduces us to the politics of our bodies), Natural/Cultural/State Law (how Western politics govern gender and sexuality), Longing for Recognition (references to the Hegelian rubric of the desire for recognition), the End of Sexual Difference (gender politics and postulation of identity), Butch Desire (comprehension of lesbian masculinity), and "Gender Trouble" & the Question of Survival (Butler's personal commentary addressing their previous text on queer theory, dated 14 years prior, and their lived experiences since publishing this text- i particularly enjoyed their involvement in activism as well as their lens on drag as a gender performance through the angle of a masculine lesbian. my favourite quote from the series in general is "one could describe me as a bar dyke who spent her days reading Hegel and her evenings, well, at the gay bar, which occasionally became a
drag bar." as this illustrated a familiarity and connected the little distance that exists between Butler and i.
there is a redoubling in a sense as i had previously mentioned i spent my teenage years reading some queer theory then studying some queer theory in university (i point to an emphasis on some). it's possible, this text being dated 2004, that Butler was always forming my foundational concepts on gender complexity and nonconformity. Butler can be quoted in their ending note as having written both "Gender Trouble" and "Undoing Gender" to expose a pervasive heterosexism in feminist theory and try to imagine a world in which those who live at some distance from gender norms, who live in the confusion of gender norms, might still understand themselves not only as living livable lives, but as deserving a certain kind of recognition. since the publication of this text, the question of social transformation and politics changed in the interim- the way we, even i having come-of-age within the many ideologies of gender in the current era, have seen significant widespread change, though not completely and not always positive, Butler having initially conceptualized a foundation for gender complexity and gender theory through the philosophical and political framework is what makes "Undoing Gender" not only essential queer reading, but should be ostensibly recognized as laying the groundwork for answering the current philosophical question of our generation- what is gender?
anyway i have a library fee to pay... (i actually don't)
June 29, 2025
all love to me, i am maybe a little too stupid for this. just a little! i thought it'd be as digestible as the last book i read by them (who's afraid of gender?), but it's more complex and consists of responses to gender critical people i'm not familiar with. the bits that landed with me were insightful, and i was mostly in awe at how much time and effort Butler has spent breaking down and refuting other people's transphobic arguments. all i kept thinking was "i would have never carried a conversation this far with a transphobic person." cheers to judith for doing the work. hit em again! hit em for me
March 16, 2021
El texto se caracteriza por una serie diseminada de ensayos inconclusos o que, si tienen alguna conclusión, esta es indistinguible de la ambigüedad y la equidistancia. Sin embargo, acierta al apuntar que la historia viciada y opresora de un término no es un obstáculo para su reutilización y resignificación en el marco de una actividad empoderante y subversiva, que consigue resistir a la norma misma y revelar el poder creador, como es el caso de las narrativas antirracistas que intentar reapropiarse del término "modernidad". Eso sí, Butler peca de quedarse demasiado en el plano dialógico-discursivo.
Por lo demás, lejos del hilo claro que el género en disputa proponía, Butler se divierte aquí coqueteando en un capítulo con el psicoanálisis, en otro con la autobiografía y el hegelianismo y en otro con la reseña del último libro que ha leído. Más que "Deshacer el género", yo lo habría llamado "cuestiones obscuras con difícil solución que, sin embargo, entretienen para pensar un rato".
Por lo demás, lejos del hilo claro que el género en disputa proponía, Butler se divierte aquí coqueteando en un capítulo con el psicoanálisis, en otro con la autobiografía y el hegelianismo y en otro con la reseña del último libro que ha leído. Más que "Deshacer el género", yo lo habría llamado "cuestiones obscuras con difícil solución que, sin embargo, entretienen para pensar un rato".
February 13, 2022
More of a 3.5 rounded up, becomes a little too vague and circular. She asks exceptional questions but sometimes I got lost reading through her thought process.
May 22, 2023
can be condensed into a 30 page paper. language inaccessible and difficult to decipher, after deciphering the things that are said are obvious. not sure who butler is writing to.
July 6, 2025
El llibre més facilonet de la Butler good for her q per fi se l’entén a la primera👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼, sobretot els primers capítols es fan molt molt senzills i ràpids de llegir.
Ja es comença a notar el declivi socialdemòcrata en aquest llibre a més de que cus massa el fil en molts temes sense arribar a ninguna conclusió quedanse massa en lo teòric, a diferència de El gènere en disputa, on sí que semblava tindre un objectiu més clar però bé…
Ací ja comença a desenvolupar un poc la seua teoria de la vulnerabilitat, teoria que m’encanta; he tret moltes idees d’altres llibres seus i d’aquest sobre aquest tema q disfrute molt però no sé si acabe de comulgar massa amb la direcció cap a on va amb elles (once again massa socialdemocrata)….tot i així, continuaré llegint i quedant-me amb les coses que m’interessen.
Aprofitaré que fins a agost no he de tornar el llibre a la biblio per rellegir alguns capítols i assimilar bé les idees q crec q he tret conclusions massa presipitaded que aquesta volta l’he llegit massa ràpid
Ja es comença a notar el declivi socialdemòcrata en aquest llibre a més de que cus massa el fil en molts temes sense arribar a ninguna conclusió quedanse massa en lo teòric, a diferència de El gènere en disputa, on sí que semblava tindre un objectiu més clar però bé…
Ací ja comença a desenvolupar un poc la seua teoria de la vulnerabilitat, teoria que m’encanta; he tret moltes idees d’altres llibres seus i d’aquest sobre aquest tema q disfrute molt però no sé si acabe de comulgar massa amb la direcció cap a on va amb elles (once again massa socialdemocrata)….tot i així, continuaré llegint i quedant-me amb les coses que m’interessen.
Aprofitaré que fins a agost no he de tornar el llibre a la biblio per rellegir alguns capítols i assimilar bé les idees q crec q he tret conclusions massa presipitaded que aquesta volta l’he llegit massa ràpid
September 18, 2025
los dolores de cabeza que me ha dado este libro
March 12, 2023
The Dialectics of Sex and Gender
The story of how our norms create and deeply inscribe dialectal antagonisms.
The Biological Determinism Thesis (Natural Gender):
Under this thesis, gender is determined at birth and based on objective physical biology. Gender is borne out in a singular normative way at the level of physical anatomy. Conventional patterns of masculine and famine behavior cannot be altered, Gender, and the behavior patters which naturally follow, are ostensible manifestations of the inner truth of sexual identity.
Gender identity is dense and cannot be constructed. There is a deeply seated sense of gender tied to biology (body and brain) which no amount of socialization can reverse. Together, gender and physical anatomy, create an internal and necessary truth for any given person. Each person has an essential gender core arising from the deterministic biology of anatomy. For example, the presences of the Y chromosome provides a presumption of social musicality.
The Social Constructivist Antithesis (Normative Gender):
Under this thesis, gender neutrality is presumed, e.g., at birth. Gender is malleable and gender identity is primary the result of socialization. Conventional patterns of masculine and famine behavior can be altered.
Language is saturated with the norms which presuppose gender. To undo gender is to undo language. Gender identity and the nature of sexuality are largely the result of social context and the sheer force of language in social relations. We are already familiar with the power of language to shape ideas and gender is an idea as fluid as any other in human experience and thus subject to the shaping powers of language. This extinguishes the binary view of gender. Gender identity goes beyond the physical features of the body, male or female. Gender identity thus resides on a psychological continuum. Biology is not identity destiny. Limited awareness limits the ability to perceive.
Language determines the conditions of intelligibility and the power structure by which truth is pursued. Language serves the dual purpose of describing experience as well as creating experience so we cannot fully trust conventional language to provide the truth about our reality. Often, language is used to distort or pervert reality. What it means to be human arises from what we say about humans. Gender and behavior norms are among the things we say about humans.
Dialectical Synthesis:
Gender is not the same as personal identity and does not have to be borne out in a singular and normative way at the level of biology; its relation to biology is complex. Gender is only one aspect of identity. A maturing person can choose to change their gender. After all, one cannot simply construct (surgically or chemically) a male of female anatomy and simply expect gender (norm and behavior) to follow. To what extent should physical anatomy (sex) be the point of reference for a frame of mind (gender)? Can either serve as a limit or a definition about what is means to be human?
Is the intersex person the example of the dialectal synthesis? The intersex infant is the one born with mixed sex organs or unclear genital features. To surgically alter such an infant based on an ideology of gender dimorphism (binary choice) with only a 50% chance of guessing ‘correctly’ as to physical sexuality is as cruel as it is brutal. Why the rush to judgement in cases where such judgment cannot be just? Maybe there is no ‘correct’ binary choice in such a situation. Most people are born along a chromosomally continuum of male and female. It is possible to simply accept intersex people as such on their own terms without compelling them, or a doctor, to make a binary (false) choice to meet a normative social standard of gender as the prerequisite for development and acceptance as a human being. I recognize that is also a choice, a choice to do nothing, or at least to do no harm. Does being human depend on making a binary choice about sex organs and the gender assignment that is supposed to ‘naturally’ follow? No. Choice from a false binary should not be the price of admission into the human club.
But we have too great an insistence on ‘knowing’ and arriving at ‘conclusions’ for any humanistic synthesis to be possible. Instead, we fuse the social context of gender and the biological determinism of sex to create a ‘norm’. This is not an acceptable dialectal synthesis. For an intersex person or a person with gender dysphoria, such a ‘norm’ is an absolutist and dehumanizing tyranny relegating them to the position of the nonhuman ‘other’. Must a body be a certain way for a gender to be valid? The acceptable dialectal synthesis is a presumption of humanness which does not follow from biological sex or social gender. How free or independent can any of us be when personhood itself is prescribed in advance by the extant power structure inscribing the norms or deterministic mishaps of biology? Gender identity, biology, or orientation are not necessary as a coherent presumption of humanness.
The story of how our norms create and deeply inscribe dialectal antagonisms.
The Biological Determinism Thesis (Natural Gender):
Under this thesis, gender is determined at birth and based on objective physical biology. Gender is borne out in a singular normative way at the level of physical anatomy. Conventional patterns of masculine and famine behavior cannot be altered, Gender, and the behavior patters which naturally follow, are ostensible manifestations of the inner truth of sexual identity.
Gender identity is dense and cannot be constructed. There is a deeply seated sense of gender tied to biology (body and brain) which no amount of socialization can reverse. Together, gender and physical anatomy, create an internal and necessary truth for any given person. Each person has an essential gender core arising from the deterministic biology of anatomy. For example, the presences of the Y chromosome provides a presumption of social musicality.
The Social Constructivist Antithesis (Normative Gender):
Under this thesis, gender neutrality is presumed, e.g., at birth. Gender is malleable and gender identity is primary the result of socialization. Conventional patterns of masculine and famine behavior can be altered.
Language is saturated with the norms which presuppose gender. To undo gender is to undo language. Gender identity and the nature of sexuality are largely the result of social context and the sheer force of language in social relations. We are already familiar with the power of language to shape ideas and gender is an idea as fluid as any other in human experience and thus subject to the shaping powers of language. This extinguishes the binary view of gender. Gender identity goes beyond the physical features of the body, male or female. Gender identity thus resides on a psychological continuum. Biology is not identity destiny. Limited awareness limits the ability to perceive.
Language determines the conditions of intelligibility and the power structure by which truth is pursued. Language serves the dual purpose of describing experience as well as creating experience so we cannot fully trust conventional language to provide the truth about our reality. Often, language is used to distort or pervert reality. What it means to be human arises from what we say about humans. Gender and behavior norms are among the things we say about humans.
Dialectical Synthesis:
Gender is not the same as personal identity and does not have to be borne out in a singular and normative way at the level of biology; its relation to biology is complex. Gender is only one aspect of identity. A maturing person can choose to change their gender. After all, one cannot simply construct (surgically or chemically) a male of female anatomy and simply expect gender (norm and behavior) to follow. To what extent should physical anatomy (sex) be the point of reference for a frame of mind (gender)? Can either serve as a limit or a definition about what is means to be human?
Is the intersex person the example of the dialectal synthesis? The intersex infant is the one born with mixed sex organs or unclear genital features. To surgically alter such an infant based on an ideology of gender dimorphism (binary choice) with only a 50% chance of guessing ‘correctly’ as to physical sexuality is as cruel as it is brutal. Why the rush to judgement in cases where such judgment cannot be just? Maybe there is no ‘correct’ binary choice in such a situation. Most people are born along a chromosomally continuum of male and female. It is possible to simply accept intersex people as such on their own terms without compelling them, or a doctor, to make a binary (false) choice to meet a normative social standard of gender as the prerequisite for development and acceptance as a human being. I recognize that is also a choice, a choice to do nothing, or at least to do no harm. Does being human depend on making a binary choice about sex organs and the gender assignment that is supposed to ‘naturally’ follow? No. Choice from a false binary should not be the price of admission into the human club.
But we have too great an insistence on ‘knowing’ and arriving at ‘conclusions’ for any humanistic synthesis to be possible. Instead, we fuse the social context of gender and the biological determinism of sex to create a ‘norm’. This is not an acceptable dialectal synthesis. For an intersex person or a person with gender dysphoria, such a ‘norm’ is an absolutist and dehumanizing tyranny relegating them to the position of the nonhuman ‘other’. Must a body be a certain way for a gender to be valid? The acceptable dialectal synthesis is a presumption of humanness which does not follow from biological sex or social gender. How free or independent can any of us be when personhood itself is prescribed in advance by the extant power structure inscribing the norms or deterministic mishaps of biology? Gender identity, biology, or orientation are not necessary as a coherent presumption of humanness.
September 7, 2021
As we expect from Butler, an evocative and provocative book. This is a crucial book in understanding the history of gender in the last twenty years. To understand the history of Karens and 'terfs,' trajectories and pathways are found here.
But there is a subtlety in the monograph that has been lost in many of the recent debates about gender. Butler is prepared to make the argument - and take the time to offer subtleties and ambiguties - rather than assume the argument.
This is a well written book. While scholars may disagree with some of the arguments, they are arguments that are well made. ,
But there is a subtlety in the monograph that has been lost in many of the recent debates about gender. Butler is prepared to make the argument - and take the time to offer subtleties and ambiguties - rather than assume the argument.
This is a well written book. While scholars may disagree with some of the arguments, they are arguments that are well made. ,
October 24, 2024
esto ha sido a pain in the ass to read aaaaunq hay cosillas interesantes
-lo de la performatividad del género me ha dejado crazy, en plan como q lo argumenta de una manera que tiene todo el sentido del mundo
-me encanta saber el caso de herculine para a partir de ahora utilizarlo como arma secreta cuando me discuta con cuñados (cuñados siendo mis padres)
-había muchas partes q sonaban a simlish tbh
-glad i finished but i don’t want to repeat it
-lo de la performatividad del género me ha dejado crazy, en plan como q lo argumenta de una manera que tiene todo el sentido del mundo
-me encanta saber el caso de herculine para a partir de ahora utilizarlo como arma secreta cuando me discuta con cuñados (cuñados siendo mis padres)
-había muchas partes q sonaban a simlish tbh
-glad i finished but i don’t want to repeat it
June 19, 2025
je l’ai trouvé beaucoup plus facile à lire que trouble dans le genre (enfin ça reste du butler hein), j’ai beaucoup aimé comment elle développait la notion de norme et surtout la question de la reconnaissance. après, tous les essais ne m’ont pas tous convaincue à la même échelle, notamment quand ça part en psychanalyse… les trois premiers sont très bien, et celui "la parenté est elle toujours déjà hétérosexuelle ?" (qui est la raison pour laquelle j’ai voulu le lire en premier lieu) est vraiment super.
Want to read
November 28, 2013I do not understand this book. It feels like the ratio of verbosity to content approaches unfathomable heights. I'm used to being told that I should express myself more simply and I usually respond that there's a reason for my choice of complexity of expression. Here, I find myself on the other side of that fence.
I imagine that a large part of my inability to comprehend comes from my complete ignorance of a large part of the terminology and the concepts that Butler builds upon. However, perhaps self-indulgently, I also claim that her language is not wired the same way I am, it's not meant to be completely precise so that it is understood even by people who express themselves differently than it: on the contrary, it is quirky, highly stylized and is very much a performance, besides essays on its subject matter, which is gender.
I cannot make that distinction myself, not before I read some of the book's sources, especially Foucault, who is mentioned a lot in the first fifth.
However, I don't see myself finishing it. Not now, at any rate.
I imagine that a large part of my inability to comprehend comes from my complete ignorance of a large part of the terminology and the concepts that Butler builds upon. However, perhaps self-indulgently, I also claim that her language is not wired the same way I am, it's not meant to be completely precise so that it is understood even by people who express themselves differently than it: on the contrary, it is quirky, highly stylized and is very much a performance, besides essays on its subject matter, which is gender.
I cannot make that distinction myself, not before I read some of the book's sources, especially Foucault, who is mentioned a lot in the first fifth.
However, I don't see myself finishing it. Not now, at any rate.
August 2, 2018
"If queer theory is understood, by definition, to oppose all identity claims, including stable sex assignment, queer theory's claim to be opposed to the unwanted legislation of identity".
"Many people think that grief is privatizing, that it returns us to a solitary situation, but I think it exposes the constitutive sociality of the self, a basis for thinking a political community of a complex order".
"Gender is the apparatus by which the production and normalization of masculine and feminine take place along with the interstitial forms of hormonal, chromosomal, psychic, and performative that gender assumes".
"Every time I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language".
"What is the value of the "common"?"
"Many people think that grief is privatizing, that it returns us to a solitary situation, but I think it exposes the constitutive sociality of the self, a basis for thinking a political community of a complex order".
"Gender is the apparatus by which the production and normalization of masculine and feminine take place along with the interstitial forms of hormonal, chromosomal, psychic, and performative that gender assumes".
"Every time I try to write about the body, the writing ends up being about language".
"What is the value of the "common"?"
September 28, 2015
I think my difficulties with this book stem from two areas: 1. We had a week to read this for my class, in addition to several other articles. Judith Butler has never been cited as easy to read, and a read through in one day is certainly not enough time to unpack many of her thought-provoking statements. 2. I kept thinking of LDS church leaders saying that "the family is under attack", and realizing that if that is the case, Judith Butler is on the frontlines of the anti-traditional family side. Her social agenda seems to be to de-centralize the importance of marriage and families with fathers and mothers, something that I cannot agree with.
February 13, 2025
De nuevo, un libro maravilloso para profundizar en el género, diseccionando ciertas cuestiones que no quedan claras en El género en disputa. El capítulo de la filosofía, en el que Butler se abre sobre ciertos episodios de su vida, me ha encantado y me demuestra que, efectivamente, es una de las persons más inteligentes vivas ahora mismo. Lo recomiendo, aunque avisando de que los libros de esta pensadora nunca están hechos para ser leídos 1 vez; sino para ser releídos, repensados y saboreados colectivamente.
May 10, 2011
A brilliant but somewhat uneven collection of essays. Your mileage may vary as to what resonates and what's skippable: for me the critiques of Lacanian psychoanalysis definitely fell into the latter category. I'd thought that the Oedipal complex had about the scientific currency of phlogiston; it was astonishing to see that Freud and Lacan arent' dead yet, but beyond that, not a great investment of my time. The remaining essays, however, are sheer gold.
June 26, 2017
Brilliant writing. The essay format is great because once I'm bored with 1 topic she's onto the next. She puts her personality into it despite the "dryness" of the content.
I wouldn't read this without a background in French theory. These 2 books provide a good basis:
-Irigaray & Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy
-Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction
Hegel's important but I have zero exposure. Recommendations?
I wouldn't read this without a background in French theory. These 2 books provide a good basis:
-Irigaray & Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy
-Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction
Hegel's important but I have zero exposure. Recommendations?
June 24, 2020
I didn't read the last essay as I had to return the book to the library.
March 6, 2024
Deshacer el Género es la tercera obra de Judith Butler destinada a abordar íntegramente la temática del género, habiendo un espacio de 11 años entre esta y la anterior que persiguió el mismo objetivo, la afamada Cuerpos que Importan, continuación directa de El Género en Disputa. Esta diferencia temporal implica una serie de novedades a tener en cuenta, pues el libro supone realmente un compendio de artículos escritos en diferentes momentos de la vida de le autore, lo que implica aspectos tanto positivos como negativos que merece la pena destacar:
En el lado positivo de la balanza encontramos una versión mucho más rizomatica del libro, donde cada capítulo, a pesar de guardar cierta relación entre sí, se puede leer de manera totalmente independiente, por lo que la linealidad clásica de otros ensayos se ve interpelada por un formato más cómodo. También destaca el uso de la terminología, ya que por lo general –y salvo alguna excepción– el lenguaje utilizado es más accesible que el que encontramos en obras como El Género en Disputa, lo que para todes creo que será de agradecer teniendo en cuenta la desafiante experiencia que supone leer las primeras obras de Butler.
En el lado negativo, por contra, cabría señalar la inequivalencia entre los capítulos tanto en su importancia general –puesto que hay algunos que abordan temas muy específicos y otros más generales– como en su uso lenguaje, ya que si bien este, como indicamos, es de media más accesible, es cierto que no aplica a todos los artículos como tal, lo que genera cierta disonancia general. Encontramos así textos imprescindibles que nos hablan de la habitabilidad, de nuevas formas de parentesco, del sesgo binario sexual que olvida la intersexualidad en el ámbito médico, de reformulaciones y permutaciones del género... Pero también otros que se dirigen a ámbitos muy cerrados, generalmente el psicoanálisis clínico, y abordan aspectos poco importantes para el público general.
Todo ello conduce a la conclusión de que la obra es esencial para cualquier persona minimamemte interesada en el feminismo filosófico y la teoría queer en general, pero con reservas y no en su totalidad. A mi modo de ver los capítulos más destacados son:
–La introducción.
–I: Al lado de uno mismo, en los límites de la autonomía sexual.
–II: El reglamento de género.
–III: Hacerle justicia a alguien, la reasignacion de sexo y las alegorías de la transexualidad.
–IV: Desdiagnoticar el género.
–V: ¿El parentesco es siempre heterosexual de antemano?
–X: La cuestión de la transformación social (el epicentro de todos los demás, a mi modo de ver)
En ellos encontraremos una abundante fuente de información que abre la puerta a nuevos e interesantes debates sobre el género, algo que en tiempos oscuros como los que vivimos se torna más imprescindible que nunca.
En el lado positivo de la balanza encontramos una versión mucho más rizomatica del libro, donde cada capítulo, a pesar de guardar cierta relación entre sí, se puede leer de manera totalmente independiente, por lo que la linealidad clásica de otros ensayos se ve interpelada por un formato más cómodo. También destaca el uso de la terminología, ya que por lo general –y salvo alguna excepción– el lenguaje utilizado es más accesible que el que encontramos en obras como El Género en Disputa, lo que para todes creo que será de agradecer teniendo en cuenta la desafiante experiencia que supone leer las primeras obras de Butler.
En el lado negativo, por contra, cabría señalar la inequivalencia entre los capítulos tanto en su importancia general –puesto que hay algunos que abordan temas muy específicos y otros más generales– como en su uso lenguaje, ya que si bien este, como indicamos, es de media más accesible, es cierto que no aplica a todos los artículos como tal, lo que genera cierta disonancia general. Encontramos así textos imprescindibles que nos hablan de la habitabilidad, de nuevas formas de parentesco, del sesgo binario sexual que olvida la intersexualidad en el ámbito médico, de reformulaciones y permutaciones del género... Pero también otros que se dirigen a ámbitos muy cerrados, generalmente el psicoanálisis clínico, y abordan aspectos poco importantes para el público general.
Todo ello conduce a la conclusión de que la obra es esencial para cualquier persona minimamemte interesada en el feminismo filosófico y la teoría queer en general, pero con reservas y no en su totalidad. A mi modo de ver los capítulos más destacados son:
–La introducción.
–I: Al lado de uno mismo, en los límites de la autonomía sexual.
–II: El reglamento de género.
–III: Hacerle justicia a alguien, la reasignacion de sexo y las alegorías de la transexualidad.
–IV: Desdiagnoticar el género.
–V: ¿El parentesco es siempre heterosexual de antemano?
–X: La cuestión de la transformación social (el epicentro de todos los demás, a mi modo de ver)
En ellos encontraremos una abundante fuente de información que abre la puerta a nuevos e interesantes debates sobre el género, algo que en tiempos oscuros como los que vivimos se torna más imprescindible que nunca.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 149 reviews