6 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2019
    1. perfornative sentence

      Performs an action affecting particulars in a way that cannot be measured or perceived outside of the moment in which the utterance takes place.

    2. Examples :

      Involve the:

      • creation of relationships
      • creation of dividing lines which, prior to the uttering of the sentence, did not 'exist'; i.e. prior to "I do" they were not married, but afterwards they are; prior to "I name this ship...", it had no name, but afterwards it does; they are historical mile markers of sorts.
      • involves particulars; not all women are my wife; this one is. Not all ships are named; but this one is.
      • must be said aloud or in print, and often needs to be backed by some legal authority to "legitimate" the action; of course, anybody can name something, but the 'officially recognized' name can only come from a certain privileged source / I can marry a random woman just by saying "I do" to her, but the 'marriage' is not recognized, etc'; privileges some constructs over others by a vested authority
      • also denote things that cannot be done for me; I must utter them in order for them to take effect (be true); they require agency (or the appearance of agency)
      • the statements themselves are neither true or false, they just are; ex-post we can decide that a subsequent statement identifying the brother as the legal heir to the watch is 'true' or 'false'; but the original declaration is neither(?)
      • involve the combination of words with some ceremony or ritual that somehow enshrines it (in the case of the bet maybe the ritual is the exchange of money, but not sure if that fits the bill). Almost like incantations of sorts.
  2. Jan 2019
    1. My aim is to contribute to effortsto sharpen the theoretical tool of performativity for science studies andfeminist and queer theory endeavors alike, and to promote their mutualconsideratio

      Summary: Social constructivist theories of knowledge aren't helpful because they get caught up in bouncing ideas around. Performative theories are better and ought to be considered, because they are practice-focused. Barad is offering them for consideration.

  3. Mar 2017
    1. here.

      I mean, yeah, isn't Derrida basically saying that language establishes our reality?

    2. Derrida then criticizes speech-act theory for relying on this exploded notion of context.

      This was actually a major point of contention in our senior seminar class a few weeks back, when we were reading J.L. Austin's speech-act theory in How to Do Things with Words. Particularly when we discussed how the similarity between performative and constative (non-performative) statements begins to increase when evaluating their infelicities (lack of success; failures):

      “In order to explain what can go wrong with statements we cannot just concentrate on the proposition involved (whatever that is) as has been done traditionally. We must consider the total situation in which the utterance is issued—the total speech-act—if we are to see the parallel between constative statements and performative utterances, and how each can go wrong."

      Austin urges us here to seek out context as a way of identifying how both performative and constative statements can go wrong (or become "infelicitous") in distinct ways. Though performative and constative statements may appear similar without proper context, Austin argues that they become clearly different when considering individual situations.

    1. he opposed the aesthetic view of literature as po-etic and contemplative, divorced from the world of action

      This is almost reminiscent of J.L. Austin's "How to Do Things with Words" and his theory surrounding performative utterances v. constative utterances. Language as direct action, or "speech-acts" and not mere nonsense.