5 Matching Annotations
  1. Jan 2019
    1. performativity isactually a contestation of the unexamined habits of mind that grant lan-guage and other forms of representation more power in determining ourontologies than they deserve

      I'm reminded here of the Lit. Theory readings for this week. One of the theorists compares poetry to drama in its performativity, and its performativity is exactly the reason that a poem's "meaning" cannot be categorized or nailed down. In the same way, is Barad pointing to the subjectivity in examining what it means to be human? If being human involves performativity, our current rhetoric will never be able to come close to capturing it...which I suppose is where "posthumanism" comes into play as we search for new ways to grapple with articulating subjectivity.

    2. Performativity, properly construed, is not an invitation to turneverything (including material bodies) into words; on the contrary, per-formativity is precisely a contestation of the excessive power granted tolanguage to determine what is real.

      Mulling this over: words can, in a sense, be material--we can record them on paper or other tangible things. Letters are symbols but they have narrowly defined meanings. Letters combined can become words that represent material things.

      Performativity is, by its very nature, ephemeral, even if it is in some sense material (bodily, as discussed above). The premise, then, seems to be that if discursive practices are performative, they naturally challenge power because power can only be obtained upon something longer-lasting. Or, alternatively, that performativity challenges power because the understood meaning(s) cannot be represented by words.

      Doesn't the assumption that words have power act to give words more power?

    3. If performativity is linked not only to the formation of the subject butalso to the production of the matter of bodies,

      Dr. Rivers, please freaking help.

      Am I reading Barad right? Is she saying here "If not only the internal workings of the mind of the subject and the subjects actions are shaped by performativity, but also the physical compilation of the universe, then it is all the more important that we understand performativity and how it causes this shaping of the physical world."

  2. Dec 2018
    1. But there is no such substratum, there is no "being" behind doing, working, becoming; "the doer" is a mere appanage to the action. The action is everything. In point of fact, the people duplicate the doing, when they make the lightning lighten, that is a "doing-doing"; they make the same phenomenon first a cause, and then, secondly, the effect of that cause.

      Sentence reused by Butler in Gender Trouble:

      The challenge for rethinking gender categories outside of the metaphysics of substance will have to consider […] that « there is no ‘being’ behind doing, effecting, becoming; the ‘doer’ is merely a fiction added to the deed – the deed is everything. » […] There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is perfomatively constituted by the very expressions that are said to be its results. » (Gender Trouble Routledge, 1990 p. 25)

  3. Apr 2016
    1. If you accuse someone of pretending because you would have to be pretending to be that way, that’s not feminism. That’s using the guise of feminism as subterfuge to actually attack other women.