{"id":2733,"date":"2009-04-03T15:37:22","date_gmt":"2009-04-03T20:37:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=2733"},"modified":"2009-04-03T15:41:58","modified_gmt":"2009-04-03T20:41:58","slug":"mills-genealogy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2009\/04\/03\/mills-genealogy\/","title":{"rendered":"mills genealogy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hence the overwhelming impulse of Excitable Speech<\/span> is to provide a theoretical argument that makes legal redress illegitimate. This indicates a significant divergence from Foucault\u2019s approach to the question of theoretical engagement
\nwith political problems.<\/p>\n

This point becomes clearer if Butler\u2019s theoretical position is contrasted with a genealogical approach, for the aim of the latter would be to trace relations of force in order to bring to the fore the points of weakness and possible intervention. As such, these points of weakness cannot be designated a priori<\/strong>, but this is precisely what Butler does in presuming that the structural instability of language qua power should be the privileged point of intervention in combating hate speech.<\/p>\n

In short, while resignification might well be a logically possible mode of redress against the speech of hate, this does not ensure that it is necessarily the most efficacious one, since this could only be decided in loco, not a priori, if even then.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, such a presumption of the efficacy of resignification as a strategy of resistance is precisely what her considered arguments against the sovereign force of the speaker warns us against.<\/strong> For just as the efficacy of hate speech cannot be assured through recourse to a notion of the sovereign subject, neither can the efficacy of reappropriation and resignification. The effectiveness of resignification will necessarily be conditioned, not only by the \u2018\u2018condensed historicity\u2019\u2019 of the term, but also by the circumstances in which the attempt at resignification takes place, what might be called the conditions of felicity.<\/p>\n

This has the consequence that, while resignification might be logically possible with all terms or utterances, the historical and discursive circumstances in which resignification is attempted will more or less severely limit the actual realizability or efficacy of a strategy of resignification. Contrary to what some of her critics have suggested, Butler is not unaware that resignification is itself both subject to discursive limits and open to the possibility of failure. As she states, \u2018\u2018neither the radically new nor the subversive repetition can be logically guaranteed; there will be a necessary difference between what is shown to be logically possible and what in any given nexus of discourse and power is possible to realize\u2019\u2019.68<\/p>\n

Thus she does recognize that, as a strategy of resistance to the interpellative force of hate speech<\/strong>, the success of resignification will vary. However, in developing her arguments against the legal regulation of hate speech, Butler
\nseems to resile from this recognition and overemphasizes the progressive potential of resignification as a political strategy.<\/strong><\/p>\n

If this is the case, Butler is (to use her words) \u2018\u2018postulating a logic to which social practices are subject but which is itself subject to no social practice\u2019\u2019.69<\/p>\n

However, this directly contradicts her stated political allegiance to Foucault\u2019s pragmatics<\/strong>. Instead, it suggests that the Derridean influence within her later work introduces commitments that are not yet reconciled with attention to local
\ncontingencies in considering questions of political practice.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Hence the overwhelming impulse of Excitable Speech is to provide a theoretical argument that makes legal redress illegitimate. This indicates a significant divergence from Foucault\u2019s approach to the question of theoretical engagement with political problems. This point becomes clearer if Butler\u2019s theoretical position is contrasted with a genealogical approach, for the aim of the latter … Continue reading “mills genealogy”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[78,80,32,102,82,89,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2733","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-butler","category-citationality","category-foucault","category-iterability","category-performativity","category-power","category-subjectivity"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2733","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2733"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2733\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2735,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2733\/revisions\/2735"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2733"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2733"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2733"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}