A response to Judith Butler

     The main point of  Butler's essay, Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory, can be very crudely summarized as the following. Gender is a social construct; furthermore,gender is performative. Meaning one is not a particular gender, but rather performs that gender through their speech, dress, behavior, and actions. What informs our performance is the collection of other performances put on by those who have performed our respective role before us, as well as those who are currently performing it. In other words, there is no essence of a man, but rather what makes one a man is if they perform the gender of man. The "script" that informs what our performance should resemble is not set in stone, however. It can and does change, based, at least in part, on the choices that the actors of a gender make; hence why gendered fashion norms have changed over time, however, gendered fashion norms still exist and still impact how one performs their gender.

 

    I realize that my summary of Butler's essay is not the best, but I mostly wrote it to remind myself of what she was arguing, and for that purpose it suffices.

   The prompt that I want to respond to is something like: Am I performing "man" right now?

I mean literally, right now, as I am typing, what am I doing that is contributing to putting on the performance of man? Well I am wearing traditionally masculine clothes, I have a traditionally, masculine haircut, my nails are not painted, . . . other than that I do not know. I'm sure I am living up to more masculine stereotypes deliberately or otherwise that I am not aware of, but for now that is all that I can think of that is contributing to my performance as a man. So I guess the question that leads me to is am I a man right now? The answer would seem to be yes, but I call into question the criteria. If it really is only a matter of matching up with aspects traditionally male performances, then I suppose I am one. But that makes the category of man seem really arbitrary and worthless. And if you analyze any other traditional aspect of the male performance, as I am doing with my clothes, hair and nails, you come to the same, conclusion: the category of man is ridiculous. If what it means to be a man is to act like other men, but what other men act like can change across culture and time, then me saying I am a man is a statement that should have no real weight behind it in terms of describing me as a person. I am a man because I do masculine things, and those things are considered masculine because other men have traditionally done them, and what made them men was the fact that they did those things.This seems just seems like a form of circular reasoning. However, it is accurate in describing what gender is. My performances align with traditionally masculine performances, and I am very happy with who I am and how I present myself to the world, but I think calling me a man because of that is, frankly, a stupid label.