Philosophy (dance and theatre) homework
Judith Butler Gender Trouble Feminism andtheSubversion ofIdentity With anintroduction bythe author \ L e \) () o ~~ Q Q::S rn kd d ~ ~ ~NewYor anLon on ( m v -
Typeset inJoanna byRefineCatch Limited,Bungay,Suffolk Printed andbound inGreat Britain by TJ International Ltd,Padstow, Cornwall All rights reserved. Nopart ofthis book maybereprinted or reproduced orutilized inany form orbyany electronic, mechanical, orother means, nowknown orhereafter invented, including photocopying andrecording, orin any information storageorretrieval system,without permission inwriting fromthepublishers.
British Library Cataloguing inPublication Data A catalogue recordforthis book isavailable fromtheBritish Library Library ofCongress Cataloging inPublication Data A catalog recordforthis book hasbeen requested ISBNlO: 0-415-38955-0 ISBN13: 978-0-415-38955-6 SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 175 IV.
BODILY INSCRIPTIONS, PERFORMATIVE SUBVERSIONS "Garbo 'gotindrag' whenever shetook some heavyglamour ~ part, whenever shemelted inor out ofaman's arms,when- ever shesimply letthat heavenly-flexed neck...bear the weight ofher thrown-back head.... How resplendent seems the artofacting! Itis all impersonation, whetherthesex underneath istrue ornot." -Parker Tyler,"TheGarbo Image" quotedinEsther Newton, MotherCamp Categories oftrue sex,discrete gender,andspecific sexuality have constituted thestable pointofreference foragreat dealof feminist theoryandpolitics. Theseconstructs ofidentity serveas the points ofepistemic departure fromwhich theory emerges and politics itselfisshaped. Inthe case offeminism, politicsis ostensibly shapedtoexpress theinterests, theperspectives, of "women." Butisthere apolitical shapeto"women," asitwere, that precedes andprefigures thepolitical elaboration oftheir interests andepistemic pointofview? Howisthat identity shaped, andisitapolitical shapingthattakes thevery morpho- logy andboundary ofthe sexed bodyasthe ground, surface,or site ofcultural inscription? Whatcircumscribes thatsiteas"the female body"? Is"the body" or"the sexed body" thefirm found- ation onwhich gender andsystems ofcompulsory sexuality operate? Oris"the body" itselfshaped bypolitical forceswith strategic interestsinkeeping thatbody bounded andconstituted by the markers ofsex?
The sex/gender distinction andthecategory ofsex itself appear topresuppose ageneralization of"the body" thatpre- exists theacquisition ofits sexed Significance. This"body" often appears tobe apassive medium thatissignified byaninscription from acultural sourcefigured as"external" tothat body. Any theory ofthe cultural constructed body,however, oughtto 176 GENDER TROUBLE question "thebody" asaconstruct ofsuspect generality whenit is figured aspassive andprior todiscourse. ThereareChristian and Cartesian precedents tosuch views which, priortothe emergence ofvitalistic biologies inthe nineteenth century, understand "thebody" asso much inertmatter, signifying noth- ing or,more specifically, signifyingaprofane void,thefallen state: deception, sin,thepremonitional metaphoricsofhell and the eternal feminine. Therearemany occasions inboth Sartre's and Beauvoir's workwhere "thebody" isfigured asamute facticity, anticipating somemeaning thatcanbeattributed only by atranscendent consciousness, understoodinCartesian terms as radically immaterial. Butwhat establishes thisdualism forus?
What separates off"the body" asindifferent tosignification, and signification itselfasthe actofaradically disembodied con- sciousness or,rather, theactthat radically disembodies thatcon- sciousness? Towhat extent isthat Cartesian dualismpresupposed in phenomenology adaptedtothe structuralist frameinwhich mind/body isredescribed asculture/nature? Withrespect to gender discourse, towhat extent dothese problematic dualisms still operate withinthevery descriptions thataresupposed to lead usout ofthat binarism anditsimplicit hierarchy? Howare the contours ofthe body clearly marked asthe taken -for-granted ground orsurface uponwhich gender significations are inscribed, amere facticity devoidofvalue, priortosignificance?
Wittig suggests thataculturally specificepistemic apriori establishes thenaturalness of"sex." Butbywhat enigmatic means has"the body" beenaccepted asa prima facie given that admits ofno genealogy? Evenwithin Foucault's essayonthe very theme ofgenealogy, thebody isfigured asasurface andthe scene ofacultural inscription: "thebody isthe inscribed surface of events.T" Thetaskofgenealogy, heclaims, is"to expose a body totally imprinted byhistory." Hissentence continues, however, byreferring tothe goal of"history" -hereclearly understood onthe model ofFreud's "civilization"-as the SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 177 "destruction ofthe body" (148).Forces andimpulses with multiple directionalities areprecisely thatwhich history both destroys andpreserves throughthe Entstehung (historical event)of inscription. As"avolume inperpetual disintegration" (148), the body isalways undersiege,suffering destruction bythe very terms ofhistory. Andhistory isthe creation ofvalues andmean- ings byasignifying practicethatrequires thesubjection ofthe body. Thiscorporeal destruction isnecessary toproduce the speaking subjectanditssignifications. Thisisabody, described through thelanguage ofsurface andforce, weakened througha "single drama" ofdomination, inscription,andcreation (150).
This isnot the modus vivendi ofone kind ofhistory ratherthan another, butis,for Foucault, "history" (148)inits essential and repressive gesture.
Although Foucaultwrites,"Nothing inman [sic J-not even his body-is sufficiently stabletoserve asthe basis forself- recognition orfor understanding othermen [sic]" (153), he nevertheless pointstothe constancy ofcultural inscription asa "single drama" thatactsonthe body. Ifthe creation ofvalues, that historical modeofsignification, requiresthedestruction of the body, much asthe instrument oftorture inKafka's "Inthe Penal Colony" destroysthebody onwhich itwrites, thenthere must beabody prior tothat inscription, stableandself-identical, subject tothat sacrificial destruction. Inasense, forFoucault, as for Nietzsche, culturalvaluesemerge asthe result ofan inscrip- tion onthe body, understood asamedium, indeed,ablank page; in order forthis inscription tosignify, however, thatmedium must itselfbedestroyed-that is,fully transvaluated intoasub- limated domain ofvalues. Within themetaphorics ofthis notion of cultural valuesisthe figure ofhistory asarelentless writing instrument, andthebody asthe medium whichmustbe destroyed andtransfigured inorder for"culture" toemerge.
By maintaining abody prior toits cultural inscription, Foucault appears toassume amateriality priortosignification andform. 178GENDER TROUBLE Because thisdistinction operatesasessential tothe task of genealogy ashe defines it,the distinction itselfisprecluded asan object ofgenealogical investigation. Occasionallyinhis analysis of Herculine, Foucaultsubscribes toaprediscursive multiplicity of bodily forcesthatbreak through thesurface ofthe body to disrupt theregulating practicesofcultural coherence imposed upon thatbody byapower regime, understood asavicissitude of "history." Ifthe presumption ofsome kindofprecategorical source ofdisruption isrefused, isitstill possible togive a genealogical accountofthe demarcation ofthe body assuch as a signifying practice?Thisdemarcation isnot initiated bya reified history orby asubject. Thismarking isthe result ofa diffuse andactive structuring ofthe social field.Thissignifying practice effectsasocial spaceforand ofthe body within certain regulatory gridsofintelligibility .
./ MaryDouglas~rity and Dopger sugeststhat thever contours of 2the boay:" are.stablished thr~hmarkin sthat seek to est~~ific.-.CQdes ofclllruralsoherence. Anydiscourse that establishes theboundaries ofthe body serves thepurpose of instating andnaturalizing certaintaboosregarding theappropri- ate limits, postures, andmodes ofexchange thatdefine whatitis that constitutes bodies:
ideas about separating, purifying,demarcating andpunishing transgressions haveastheir main function toimpose system on aninherently untidyexperience. Itis only byexaggerating the difference betweenwithinandwithout, aboveandbelow, male andfemale, withandagainst, thatasemblance oforder is created.v Although Douglasclearlysubscribes toastructuralist distinc- tion between aninherently unrulynatureandanorder imposed by cultural means,the"untidiness" towhich sherefers can be redescribed asaregion of cultural unruliness anddisorder. SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 179 Assuming theinevitably binarystructure ofthe nature/culture distinction, Douglascannotpointtoward analternative con- figuration ofculture inwhich suchdistinctions becomemalle- able orproliferate beyondthebinary frame.Heranalysis, however, providesapossible pointofdeparture forunderstand- ing therelationship bywhich socialtaboos institute andmain- tain theboundaries ofthe body assuch. Heranalysis suggests that what constitutes thelimit ofthe body isnever merely material, butthat thesurface, theskin, issystemically signified by taboos andanticipated transgressions; indeed,theboundaries of the body become, withinheranalysis, thelimits ofthe social per se.
Apoststructuralist appropriationofher view might well understand theboundaries ofthe body asthe limits ofthe socially hegemonic.
Inavariety ofcultures, shemaintains, thereare pollution powerswhichinhere inthe structure ofideas itself and which punish asymbolic breakingofthat which should be joined orjoining ofthat which should beseparate. Itfollows from thisthat pollution isatype ofdanger whichisnot likely to occur except wherethelines ofstructure, cosmicorsocial, are clearly defined.
A polluting personisalways inthe wrong. He [sic] has developed somewrong condition orsimply crossed oversome line which should nothave been crossed andthis displacement unleashes dangerforsomeone." In asense, Simon Watney hasidentified thecontemporary construction of"the polluting person"asthe person withAIDS in his Policing Desire:AIDS,Pornography, andtheMedia.
57 Notonly is the illness figured asthe "gay disease," butthroughout the media's hysterical andhomophobic responsetothe illness there is atactical construction ofacontinuity betweenthepolluted status ofthe homosexual byvirtue ofthe boundary-trespass that is homosexuality andthedisease asaspecific modality of 180 GENDER TROUBLE homosexual pollution.Thatthedisease istransmitted through the exchange ofbodily fluidssuggests withinthesensationalist graphics ofhomophobic signifyingsystemsthedangers that permeable bodilyboundaries presenttothe social orderassuch.
Douglas remarksthat"the body isamodel thatcanstand forany bounded system.Itsboundaries canrepresent anyboundaries which arethreatened orprecarious.Y" Andsheasks aquestion which onemight haveexpected toread inFoucault: "Why should bodilymargins bethought tobe specifically invested with power anddanger?"s9 (Douglas suggeststhatallsocial systems arevulnerable attheir j margins, andthatallmargins areaccordingly considereddanger- ous. Ifthe body issynecdochal forthe social system perse or a site inwhich opensystems converge, thenanykind of unregulated permeability constitutesasite ofpollution and endangerment. Sinceanalandoral sexamong menclearly estab- lishes certain kindsofbodily permeabilities unsanctionedbythe hegemonic order,malehomosexuality would,withinsucha hegemonic pointofview, constitute asite ofdanger andpollu- tion, prior toand regardless ofthe cultural presence ofAIDS.
~imilarly, the"polluted" statusoflesbians, regardless oftheir low-risk statuswithrespect toAIDS, brings intorelief thedan- gers oftheir bodily exchanges. Significantly, being"outside" the hegemonic orderdoesnotsignify being"in"astate offilthy and untidy nature. Paradoxically, homosexuality isalmost always conceived withinthehomophobic signifyingeconomyas both uncivilized andunnatural.
The construction ofstable bodily contours reliesupon fixed sites ofcorporeal permeability andimpermeability. Thosesexual practices inboth homosexual andheterosexual contextsthat open surfaces andorifices toerotic signification orclose down others effectively reinscribetheboundaries ofthe body along new cultural lines.Analsexamong menisan example, asisthe radical re-membering ofthe body inWittig's TheLesbian Body. SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 181 Douglas alludesto"akind ofsex pollution whichexpresses a desire tokeep thebody (physical andsocial) intact, "60 suggest- ing that thenaturalized notionof"the" bodyisitself acon- sequence oftaboos thatrender thatbody discrete byvirtue of its stable boundaries. Further,therites ofpassage thatgovern various bodilyorifices presuppose aheterosexual construction of gendered exchange, positions,anderotic possibilities. The deregulation ofsuch exchanges accordingly disruptsthevery boundaries thatdetermine whatitis to be abody atall. Indeed, the critical inquiry thattraces theregulatory practiceswithin which bodily contours areconstructed constitutespreciselythe genealogy of"the body" inits discreteness thatmight further radicalize Foucault's theory." Significantly, Kristeva'sdiscussion ofabjection in Powers of Horror begins tosuggest theuses ofthis structuralist notionofa boundary-constituting tabooforthe purposes ofconstructing a discrete subjectthrough exclusion." The"abject" designates that which hasbeen expelled fromthebody, discharged as excrement, literallyrendered "Other."Thisappears asan expul- sion ofalien elements, butthealien iseffectively established through thisexpulsion. Theconstruction ofthe "not-me" asthe abject establishes theboundaries ofthe body which arealso the first contours ofthe subject. Kristeva writes:
nausea makesmebalk atthat milk cream, separates mefrom the mother andfather whoproffer it."I" want noneofthat element, signoftheir desire; "I"donot want tolisten, "I"do not assimilate it,"I" expel it.But since thefood isnot an "other" for"me," whoamonly intheir desire, Iexpel myself, I spit myself out,Iabject myself within thesame motion through which "I"claim toestablish myself." The boundary ofthe body aswell aswell asthe distinction between internalandexternal isestablished throughtheejection 182 GENDER TROUBLE and transvaluation ofsomething originallypartofidentity intoa defiling otherness. AsIris Young hassuggested inher useof Kristeva tounderstand sexism,homophobia, andracism, the repudiation ofbodies fortheir sex,sexuality, and/orcolorisan "expulsion" followedbya"repulsion" thatfounds andconsoli- dates culturally hegemonic identitiesalongsex/race/ sexuality axes of diferentiation.t" Young'sappropriation ofKristeva shows how theoperation ofrepulsion canconsolidate "identities" founded onthe instituting ofthe "Other" oraset ofOthers through exclusion anddomination. Whatconstitutes through division the"inner" and"outer" worlds ofthe subject isabor- der and boundary tenuouslymaintained forthe purposes of social regulation andcontrol. Theboundary betweentheinner and outer isconfounded bythose excremental passagesinwhich the inner effectively becomesouter,andthisexcreting function becomes, asitwere, themodel bywhich otherforms of identity-differentiation areaccomplished. Ineffect, thisisthe mode bywhich Others become shit.Forinner andouter worlds to remain utterlydistinct, theentire surface ofthe body would have toachieve animpossible impermeability. Thissealing ofits surfaces wouldconstitute theseamless boundary ofthe subject; but this enclosure wouldinvariably beexploded byprecisely that excremental filththatitfears.
Regardless ofthe compelling metaphorsofthe spatial distinc- tions ofinner andouter, theyremain linguistic termsthat facilitate andarticulate aset offantasies, fearedanddesired.
"Inner" and"outer" makesenseonlywith reference toamediat- ing boundary thatstrives forstability. Andthisstability, this coherence, isdetermined inlarge partbycultural ordersthat sanction thesubject andcompel itsdifferentiation fromthe abject. Hence, "inner" and"outer" constitute abinary distinc- tion thatstabilizes andconsolidates thecoherent subject.When that subject ischallenged, themeaning andnecessity ofthe terms aresubject todisplacement. Ifthe "inner world" no SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 183 longer designates atopos, thentheinternal fixityofthe self and, indeed, theinternal localeofgender identity, becomesimilarly suspect. Thecritical question isnot how didthat identity become internalized?
asifinternalization wereaprocess oramechanism that might bedescriptively reconstructed. Rather,thequestion is: From whatstrategic positioninpublic discourse andfor what reasons hasthetrope ofinteriority andthedisjunctive binary ofinner/outer takenhold? Inwhat language is"inner space" figured? Whatkindoffiguration isit, and through what figure ofthe body isitsignified? Howdoesabody figure onits surface thevery invisibility ofits hidden depth?
From interiority togender performatives In Discipline andPunish Foucault challenges thelanguage of internalization asitoperates inthe service ofthe disciplinary regime ofthe subjection andsubjectivation of criminals.v Although Foucaultobjectedtowhat heunderstood tobe the psychoanalytic beliefinthe "inner" truthofsex in The History of Sexuality, heturns toacriticism ofthe doctrine ofinternalization for separate purposes inthe context ofhis history ofcrimino- logy. Inasense, Discipline andPunish canberead asFoucault's effort torewrite Nietzsche's doctrineofinternalization in On the Genealogy ofMorals onthe model of inscription.
Inthe context of prisoners, Foucaultwrites,thestrategy hasbeen nottoenforce a repression oftheir desires, buttocompel theirbodies tosignify the prohibitive lawastheir veryessence, style,andnecessity.
That lawisnot literally internalized, butincorporated, withthe consequence thatbodies areproduced whichsignify thatlawon and through thebody; therethelaw ismanifest asthe essence of their selves, themeaning oftheir soul, theirconscience, thelaw of their desire. Ineffect, thelaw isat once fullymanifest and fully latent, foritnever appears asexternal tothe bodies it subjects andsubjectivates. Foucaultwrites: 184GEND ER TROUBLE It would bewrong tosay that thesoul isan illusion, oran ideological effect.Onthe contrary, itexists, ithas areality, itis produced permanently around,on,within, thebody bythe func- tioning ofapower thatisexercised onthose thatarepunished.
(my emphasisj'" The figure ofthe interior soulunderstood as"within" thebody is Signified throughitsinscription on the body, eventhough its primary modeofsignification isthrough itsvery absence, its potent invisibility. Theeffect ofastructuring innerspaceispro- duced through thesignification ofabody asavital andsacred enclosure. Thesoul isprecisely whatthebody lacks; hence, the body presents itselfasasignifying lack.Thatlackwhich isthe body signifies thesoul asthat which cannot show.Inthis sense, then, thesoul isasurface signification thatcontests anddisplaces the inner/outer distinctionitself,afigure ofinterior psychic space inscribed on the body asasocial signification thatperpetu- ally renounces itselfassuch. InFoucault's terms,thesoul isnot imprisoned byorwithin thebody, assome Christian imagery would suggest, but"the soulisthe prison ofthe body." 67 The redescription ofintrapsychic processesinterms ofthe surface politics ofthe body implies acorollary redescription of gender asthe disciplinary productionofthe figures offantasy through theplay ofpresence andabsence onthe body's surface, the construction ofthe gendered bodythrough aseries ofexclu- sions anddenials, signifying absences.Butwhat determines the manifest andlatent textofthe body politic? Whatisthe prohibi- tive lawthat generates thecorporeal stylization ofgender, the fantasied andfantastic figuration ofthe body? Wehave already considered theincest tabooandtheprior taboo against homo- sexuality asthe generative momentsofgender identity, the prohibitions thatproduce identityalongtheculturally intelli- gible grids ofan idealized andcompulsory heterosexuality. The disciplinary productionofgender effectsafalse stabilization of SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 185 gender inthe interests ofthe heterosexual constructionand regulation ofsexuality withinthereproductive domain.The construction ofcoherence concealsthegender discontinuities that runrampant withinheterosexual. bisexual.andgayand lesbian contexts inwhich gender doesnotnecessarily follow from sex.anddesire. orsexuality generally. doesnotseem to follow fromgender-indeed. wherenoneofthese dimensions of significant corporeality expressorreflect oneanother. When the disorganization anddisaggregation ofthe field ofbodies disrupt theregulatory fictionofheterosexual coherence.itseems that theexpressive modellosesitsdescriptive force.Thatregula- tory ideal isthen exposed asanorm andafiction thatdisguises itself asadevelopmental lawregulating thesexual fieldthatit purports todescribe.
According tothe understanding ofidentification asan enacted fantasy orincorporation. however.itis clear thatcoherence is desired. wishedfor.idealized. andthat thisidealization isan effect ofacorporeal signification. Inother words. acts.gestures.
and desire produce theeffect ofan internal coreorsubstance.
but produce this onthe surface ofthe body. through theplay of signifying absencesthatsuggest. butnever reveal. theorganizing principle ofidentity asacause. Suchacts.gestures. enactments.
generally construed. are performative inthe sense thattheessence or identity thatthey otherwise purporttoexpress are fabrications manufactured andsustained throughcorporeal signsandother discursive means.Thatthegendered bodyisperformative sug- gests thatithas noontological statusapartfromthevarious acts which constitute itsreality. Thisalsosuggests thatifthat reality is fabricated asan interior essence. thatvery interiority isan effect andfunction ofadecidedly publicandsocial discourse.
the public regulation offantasy through thesurface politics of the body. thegender bordercontrol thatdifferentiates inner from outer. andsoinstitutes the"integrity" ofthe subject. In other words. actsandgestures. articulated andenacted desires 186 GENDER TROUBLE create theillusion ofan interior andorganizing gendercore,an illusion discursively maintainedforthe purposes ofthe regula- tion ofsexuality withintheobligatory frameofreproductive heterosexuality. Ifthe "cause" ofdesire, gesture, andactcan be localized withinthe"self' ofthe actor, thenthepolitical regula- tions anddisciplinary practiceswhichproduce thatostensibly coherent genderareeffectively displacedfromview. Thedis- placement ofapolitical anddiscursive originofgender identity onto apsychological "core"precludes ananalysis ofthe polit- ical constitution ofthe gendered subjectanditsfabricated notions abouttheineffable interiority ofits sex orofits true identity. Ifthe inner truthofgender isafabrication andifatrue gender is afantasy instituted andinscribed onthe surface ofbodies, then itseems thatgenders canbeneither truenorfalse, butare only produced asthe truth effects ofadiscourse ofprimary and stable identity. In Mother Camp:
Female Impersonators inAmerica, anthropologist EstherNewton suggests thatthestructure of impersonation revealsoneofthe key fabricating mechanisms through whichthesocial construction ofgender takes place.t" I would suggest aswell thatdrag fully subverts thedistinction between innerandouter psychic spaceandeffectively mocks both theexpressive modelofgender andthenotion ofatrue gender identity. Newtonwrites:
At its most complex, [drag]isadouble inversion thatsays, "appearance isan illusion." Dragsays[Newton's curiousper- sonification] "my'outside' appearance isfeminine, butmy essence 'inside'[thebody] ismasculine." Atthe same timeit symbolizes theopposite inversion; "myappearance 'outside' [my body, mygender] ismasculine butmyessence 'inside' [myself] isfeminine."?
Both claims totruth contradict oneanother andsodisplace the SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS187 entire enactment ofgender significations fromthediscourse of truth andfalsity.
The notion ofan original orprimary genderidentity isoften parodied withinthecultural practices ofdrag, cross-dressing, and thesexual stylization ofbutch/femme identities.Within feminist theory,suchparodic identities havebeen understood to be either degrading towomen, inthe case ofdrag andcross- dressing, oran uncritical appropriation ofsex-role stereotyping from within thepractice ofheterosexuality, especiallyinthe case of butchlfemme lesbianidentities. Buttherelation between the "imitation" andthe"original" is,Ithink, morecomplicated than thatcritique generally allows.Moreover, itgives usaclue to the way inwhich therelationship betweenprimaryidentifica- tion-that is,the original meanings accordedtogender-and subsequent genderexperience mightbereframed. Theperform- ance ofdrag plays upon thedistinction betweentheanatomy of the performer andthegender thatisbeing performed. Butwe are actually inthe presence ofthree contingent dimensions of Significant corporeality: anatomicalsex,gender identity, and gender performance. Ifthe anatomy ofthe performer isalready distinct fromthegender ofthe performer, andboth ofthose are distinct fromthegender ofthe performance, thenthe performance suggestsadissonance notonly between sexand performance, butsexand gender, andgender andperformance.
As much asdrag creates aunified pictureof"woman" (whatits critics oftenoppose), italso reveals thedistinctness ofthose aspects ofgendered experience whicharefalsely naturalized asa unity through theregulatory fictionofheterosexual coherence.
In imitating gender,dragimplicitly reveals theimitative structureofgender itself-as well as its contingency.
Indeed,partofthe pleasure, the giddiness ofthe performance isin the recognition ofaradical contingency inthe relation between sexand gender inthe face of cultural configurations ofcausal unities thatareregularly assumed tobe natural andnecessary. Inthe place ofthe law of 188 GENDER TROUBLE heterosexual coherence,wesee sex and gender denaturalized by means ofaperformance whichavowstheirdistinctness and dramatizes thecultural mechanism oftheir fabricated unity.
The notion ofgender parody defended heredoes notassume that there isan original whichsuchparodic identities imitate.
Indeed, theparody is of the very notion ofan original; justasthe psychoanalytic notionofgender identification isconstituted by a fantasy ofafantasy, thetransfiguration ofan Other whois always already a"figure" inthat double sense,sogender parody reveals thattheoriginal identityafterwhich gender fashions itself isan imitation withoutanorigin. Tobemore precise, itis a production which,ineffect-that is,inits effect-postures asan imitation. Thisperpetual displacement constitutesafluidity of identities thatsuggests anopenness toresignification andrecon- textualization; parodicproliferation depriveshegemonic culture and itscritics ofthe claim tonaturalized oressentialist gender identities. Althoughthegender meanings takenupinthese par- odic styles areclearly partofhegemonic, misogynistculture, they arenevertheless denaturalized andmobilized throughtheir parodic recontextualization. Asimitations whicheffectively dis- place themeaning ofthe original, theyimitate themyth ofori- ginality itself.Inthe place ofan original identification which serves asadetermining cause,gender identity mightberecon- ceived asapersonal! culturalhistoryofreceived meanings sub- ject toaset ofimitative practiceswhichreferlaterally toother imitations andwhich, jointly, construct theillusion ofaprimary and interior gendered selforparody themechanism ofthat construction. According toFredric Jameson's "Postmodernism andCon- sumer SOCiety," theimitation thatmocks thenotion ofan original ischaracteristic ofpastiche ratherthanparody:
Pastiche is,like parody, theimitation ofapeculiar orunique style, thewearing ofastylistic mask,speech inadead language: SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS189 but itis aneutral practice ofmimicry, withoutparody's ulterior motive, without thesatirical impulse, withoutlaughter, without that stilllatent feeling thatthere exists something normal com- pared towhich whatisbeing imitated israther comic. Pastiche is blank parody, parodythathaslost ithumor." The lossofthe sense of"the normal," however,canbeitsown occasion forlaughter, especially when"thenormal," "theori- ginal" isrevealed tobe acopy, andaninevitably failedone,an ideal thatnoone can embody. Inthis sense, laughter emergesin the realization thatallalong theoriginal wasderived.
Parody byitself isnot subversive, andthere mustbeaway to understand whatmakes certain kindsofparodic repetitions effectively disruptive, trulytroubling, andwhich repetitions become domesticated andrecirculated asinstruments ofcultural hegemony. Atypology ofactions wouldclearly notsuffice, for parodic displacement, indeed,parodic laughter, dependsona context andreception inwhich subversive confusions canbe fostered. Whatperformance wherewillinvert theinner/outer distinction andcompel aradical rethinking ofthe psychological presuppositions ofgender identity andsexuality? Whatper- formance wherewillcompel areconsideration ofthe place and stability ofthe masculine andthefeminine? Andwhat kindof gender performance willenact andreveal theperformativity of gender itselfinaway thatdestabilizes thenaturalized categories of identity anddesire?
If the body isnot a"being," butavariable boundary, asurface whose permeability ispolitically regulated, asignifying practice within acultural fieldofgender hierarchy andcompulsory het- erosexuality, thenwhat language isleft forunderstanding this corporeal enactment, gender,thatconstitutes its"interior" signi- fication onitssurface? Sartrewould perhaps havecalled thisact "a style ofbeing," Foucault, "astylistics ofexistence." Andin 190 GENDER TROUBLE J my earlier reading ofBeauvoir, Isuggest thatgendered bodies are somany" stylesofthe flesh." Thesestylesallnever fullyself- styled, forstyles haveahistory, andthose histories condition and limit thepossibilities. Considergender,forinstance, as~ style, an"act," asitwere, which isboth intentional andper- formative, where "performative" suggestsadramatic andcontin- gent construction ofmeaning.
Wittig understands genderasthe workings of"sex," where "sex" isan obligatory injunction forthe body tobecome acul- tural sign, tomaterialize itselfinobedience toahistorically delimited possibility, andtodo this, notonce ortwice, butasa sustained andrepeated corporeal project.Thenotion ofa"pro- ject," however, suggeststheoriginating forceofaradical will, and because genderisaproject whichhascultural survival asits end, theterm strategy bettersuggests thesituation ofduress under \WhiCh genderperformance alwaysandvariously occurs.Hence, as astrategy ofsurvival withincompulsory systems,genderisa performance withclearly punitive consequences. Discretegen- ders arepart ofwhat "humanizes" individualswithincon- temporary culture;indeed,weregularly punishthosewhofailto do their gender right.Because thereisneither an"essence" that gender expresses orexternalizes noranobjective idealtowhich gender aspires, andbecause genderisnot afact, thevarious acts of gender createtheidea ofgender, andwithout thoseacts,there would beno gender atall. Gender is,thus, aconstruction that regularly concealsitsgenesis; thetacit collective agreement to perform, produce,andsustain discrete andpolar genders as cultural fictionsisobscured bythe credibility ofthose produc- tions-and thepunishments thatattend notagreeing tobelieve in them; theconstruction "compels"ourbelief inits necessity and naturalness. Thehistorical possibilities materialized through various corporeal stylesarenothing otherthanthose punitively regulated culturalfictionsalternately embodiedanddeflected under duress. SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 191 Consider thatasedimentation ofgender normsproduces the peculiar phenomenon ofa"natural sex"ora"real woman" or any number ofprevalent andcompelling socialfictions, andthat this isasedimentation thatover time hasproduced aset of corporeal styleswhich, inreified form,appear asthe natural configuration ofbodies intosexes existing inabinary relation to one another. Ifthese styles areenacted, andifthey produce the coherent gendered subjectswhopose astheir originators, what kind ofperformance mightrevealthisostensible "cause"tobe an "effect"?
In what senses, then,isgender anact? Asinother ritual social dramas, theaction ofgender requires aperformance thatis repeated. Thisrepetition isat once areenactment andreexperienc- ing ofaset ofmeanings alreadysocially established; anditis the mundane andritualized formoftheir legitimation.
7I Although there areindividual bodiesthatenact thesesignifications by becoming stylizedintogendered modes,this"action" isa public action. Therearetemporal andcollective dimensions to these actions, andtheir public character isnot inconsequential; indeed, theperformance iseffected withthestrategic aimof maintaining genderwithinitsbinary frame-an aimthatcannot be attributed toasubject, but,rather, mustbeunderstood to found andconsolidate thesubject.
Gender oughtnottobe construed asastable identity orlocus of agency fromwhich various actsfollow; rather,gender isan identity tenuously constituted intime, instituted inan exterior space through astylized repetition ofacts. The effect ofgender is produced throughthestylization ofthe body and,hence, must be understood asthe mundane wayinwhich bodily gestures, movements, andstyles ofvarious kindsconstitute theillusion of an abiding gendered selfThis formulation movestheconcep- tion ofgender offthe ground ofasubstantial modelofidentity to one thatrequires aconception ofgender asaconstituted social temporality. Significantly, ifgender isinstituted through 192GENDER TROUBLE acts which areinternally discontinuous, thentheappearance of substance isprecisely that,aconstructed identity,aperformative accomplishment whichthemundane socialaudience, including the actors themselves, cometobelieve andtoperform inthe J mode ofbelief Gender isalso anorm thatcannever befull internalized; "theinternal" isasurface slgmcation, andgender norms arefinally phantasmatic, impossibletoembody. Ifthe groun 0 gender identity isthe stylized repetition ofacts through timeandnotaseemingly seamlessidentity,thenthe spatial metaphor ofa"ground" willbedisplaced andrevealed as a stylized configuration, indeed,agendered corporealization of time. Theabiding gendered selfwill then beshown tobe struc- J tured b ree actsthat see toaproximate theideal ofa ~bstantial groundofjdentity, butwhich, in..!..
eiroccasional discontinuity, revealthetemporal andcontingent groundlessness ot this ground." Thepossi Ihtiesofgen ertransformation are to be found precisely inthe arbitrary relationbetween such acts, inthe possibility ofafailure torepeat, ade-formity, or a parodic repetition thatexposes thephantasmatic effectof abiding identity asapolitically tenuousconstruction.
If gender attributes, however,arenot expressive butperforma- tive, then these attributes effectively constitutetheidentity they are said toexpress orreveal. Thedistinction betweenexpression and performativeness iscrucial. Ifgender attributes andacts, the various waysinwhich abody shows orproduces itscultural signification, areperformative, thenthere isno preexisting iden- tity bywhich anact orattribute mightbemeasured; therewould be no true orfalse, realordistorted actsofgender, andthe postulation ofatrue gender identity wouldberevealed asa regulatory fiction.Thatgender realityiscreated through sus- tained socialperformances meansthatthevery notions ofan essential sexand atrue orabiding masculinity orfemininity are also constituted aspart ofthe strategy thatconceals gender's performative characterandtheperformative possibilitiesfor SUBVERSIVEBODILYACTS 193 proliferating genderconfigurations outsidetherestricting frames of masculinist domination andcompulsory heterosexuality.
l Genders canbeneither truenorfalse, neither realnorappar- ent, neither original norderived. Ascredible bearersofthose attributes, however,genderscanalso berendered thoroughly and radically incredible.
