{"id":4751,"date":"2010-01-28T12:47:12","date_gmt":"2010-01-28T16:47:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=4751"},"modified":"2011-01-16T16:15:53","modified_gmt":"2011-01-16T20:15:53","slug":"rothenberg-on-butler","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2010\/01\/28\/rothenberg-on-butler\/","title":{"rendered":"rothenberg on butler iterablity linguistic performative"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Rothenberg, Molly Anne. <span style=\"text-decoration: underline;\">The Excessive Subject<\/span>. Cambridge UK: Polity Press, 2010.\u00a0 Print.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">The theretical import of iterability precludes precisely the type of politics for which Butler has become famous. (100)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>R. runs Judith Butler up against Joan Copjec.\u00a0 R argues that Butler has slid back to a Foucaultian &#8220;immanentist position on the reduction of subjects to their determinants.&#8221; (94)\u00a0 Butler adds a Althusserian interpellative twist to the proceedings, and by interpellation R. understands the subject <em>qua<\/em> subject to be product of &#8220;internalized discourse.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>She argues that Butler&#8217;s theory of subject formation revolves around the censorship of speech, that the subject comes to be through &#8220;implict and explicit norms&#8221; that govern the speech of a subject.<\/p>\n<p>But R. points out, this notion directly contradicts Foucault&#8217;s concerns about the repressive hypothesis, &#8220;which abjures such a notion of the constitutive role of repression.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p><span style=\"color: #000000;\">So, even as she (Butler) is invoking Foucault in her reference to his model of power and to his notion of the discursive constitution of subjects, she is importing a non-Foucaultian &#8212; and equally non-psychoanalytic element &#8212; into her theory, that is, the constitution of subjects by way of exclusion. (94)<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>R. lauds the fact that Butler recognizes the theoretical importance of the &#8220;disjuncture between utterance and meaning.&#8221;\u00a0 But the crucial dig occurs when R. argues that Butler correctly identifies the fantasy working in the belief that the speaker&#8217;s intention can be realized &#8220;univocally in the effect on the addressee.\u00a0 This relies on a phantasy of sovereign action &#8230; one that immediately does what it says&#8221;.\u00a0 But even having made this criticism about a sovereign speaker, &#8220;Butler goes on to garner support for this very &#8220;phantasy&#8221; in her own theory of subject formation (97).<\/p>\n<p>R. cites as an example Butler&#8217;s argument for the resignificatory possibilities of the term &#8220;queer.&#8221;\u00a0 But R. isn&#8217;t buying this, and catches B. in a bind.\u00a0 &#8220;&#8230; Butler treats this &#8220;resignification&#8221; as though it can have <em>predictable<\/em> effects, re-describing the contingent contextual appropriation of the spech act as if it had all the intentionalist force of an illocutionary act, a move which is strictly precluded by the theory of iterability.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;&#8230; iterability ceases to operate in the special case of performers who <strong><em>intend <\/em><\/strong>to appropriate the speech act for subversive purposes.\u00a0 Significantly, Butler reserves the power of such insurrectionary speech for those who have been the objects of injurious speech, the marginalized or abjected &#8230;&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;What Butler fails to respect in these formulations is that <strong><em>all <\/em>signification is iterable, working by <em>simultaneously and unpredictably <\/em>repeating and breaking with prior contexts.<\/strong> Iterability (as she sometimes acknowledges in her more tempered moments) does not confer on the speaker the sovereign power of opening or closing contexts, legitimating or de-legitimating meanings&#8221; (99).<\/p>\n<p>And finally, R. cites Butler&#8217;s use of the &#8216;agency&#8217; of Rosa Parks.\u00a0 &#8220;For all her temperate reasoning about the impossibility of governing speech, then, Butler repeatedly returns to the more politically useful, if less theoretically valid, formulation of special performative agency.&#8221; (99)<\/p>\n<p>OK enough, R. makes a strong case for viewing Butler&#8217;s appropriation of Austin-Derridean iterability as caught in contradictions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Rothenberg, Molly Anne. The Excessive Subject. Cambridge UK: Polity Press, 2010.\u00a0 Print. The theretical import of iterability precludes precisely the type of politics for which Butler has become famous. (100) R. runs Judith Butler up against Joan Copjec.\u00a0 R argues that Butler has slid back to a Foucaultian &#8220;immanentist position on the reduction of subjects &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2010\/01\/28\/rothenberg-on-butler\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;rothenberg on butler iterablity linguistic performative&#8221;<\/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":[78,102,82,15],"tags":[143],"class_list":["post-4751","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-butler","category-iterability","category-performativity","category-subjectivity","tag-excessive"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4751","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=4751"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4751\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4753,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4751\/revisions\/4753"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4751"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4751"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4751"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}