I think it is pretty safe to say that we live in an extremely visual culture. Every day we are bombarded with colors, patterns, and images. When we look around we do not see people’s personalities, we see what clothes they are wearing or what kind of haircuts they have. We see the shape, size, and color of their bodies. We are classified and categorized by these visible traits. Judith Butler, Michael Omi, and Howard Winant recognize this power of the visual. They realize that what we show, see, and perceive have real consequences. In this entry I hope to explore Butler’s, Omi’s, and Winant’s complex ideas about some of the components that make up our visual culture. More specifically I plan on looking at how these scholars analyze sex and race and I hope to take a look into the similarities between them.
As mentioned before, sex is one of the visual traits that we use to categorize people. But how do we do this categorization? We simply look at someone, and based on numerous perceivable features, we decide which side of the binary they fit into - male or female. In Bodies That Matter, Judith Butler investigates this perceivable aspect of sex. She dives into why we perform this construct. Butler acknowledges that sex is commonly thought of as a natural, biological thing. With this idea, one can assume that there is a right and wrong way to do sex. Butler does not agree. She sees sex as being somewhat manufactured: “In other words, ‘sex’ is an ideal construct which is forcibly materialized through time. It is not a simple fact or static condition of the body, but a process whereby regulatory norms materialize ‘sex’ and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms” (Butler 236). This is a radical statement. Instead of attributing sex to nature, she attributes it to a historical, societal period. It is not a constant or universal thing. The meaning, language, and definition of ‘sex’ change based on who is using it, where it is being used, when it is being used, and what it is being used for. To be female in the 17th century is not the same as being female in the 21st century. To be female in Asia is not the same as being female in North America. Furthermore, just as some definitions of sexes change, new ones can emerge. For example, ‘intersex’ was not always an option and other options that used to exist are no longer available to us. ‘Sex’ is constantly evolving and constantly adapting. It is in this sense of ‘sex’ that we can make a fairly clear connection to Omi and Winant’s theories about racial formation.
In Racial Formation in the United States, Omi and Winant think about race similarly to how Butler thinks about sex: “Race is a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts and interests... Although the concept of race invokes biologically based human characteristics... selection of these particular human features for purposes of racial signification is always and necessarily a social and historical process” (Omi & Winant 55). They acknowledge, like Butler, that things that are thought to be natural or biologically based are not that simple. Like sex, race is a constantly evolving and changing category. New ‘races’ emerge and old ones go out of existence. On an early version of the U.S. Census, the only categories for race were ‘slave’ and ‘white.’ That’s clearly not the case anymore.
So why does all this matter? It matters because how we see race and sex in 21st century America is not a natural thing. It is, at least somewhat, a construction of the time period and historical context that we live in. And it matters because sex and race can determine - among many other things - who we date, how we act, and even what bathroom we use:
(Image courtesy of http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/2603433/Hulton-Archive)
The issue that I have is that no one talks about how we ought to behave in relation to these ideas once we have accepted them as having a biological component, but ultimately being a social construct. Are we to completely disregard sex and gender and race? We all have different preferences in the aesthetic of our partners which often include genitals, mannerisms, and ethnicity and/or coloration which relates directly to sex, gender, and race for the vast majority of the population who has accepted it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you both. It is true that we all have personal preferences regarding how we see and treat people, who we will date, and what kind of people we choose to associate with. I cannot help but think that, outside of societal influence, what my personal opinion of the different kinds of people I meet with day to day would be different.
ReplyDeleteThere is a song that I am reminded of when thinking about all of this, called "Everyone's a Little Bit Racist," from the musical Avenue Q. The title gives away the point of the song, and I must say that I agree with it. We can be as open-minded as we hope to ever be, but there is a simple fact that with the influence of familial pasts, media, and peer groups, we form schematic patterns of thought that are innately prejudiced, though we know that such thoughts are incorrect.
The problem with all of this is that we cannot change cultural ideas overnight. We cannot wake up tomorrow and say "everyone is the same, regardless of color, race, sex, gender or creed," and have it be the truth. As long as there are cultural differences between different peoples, there will be different ways of viewing those peoples, whether they be open-minded, stereotyped, or completely prejudicial.
I especially like the introduction in this blog, because it sets up a very comprehensible idea of what Butler, Omi, and Winant are exploring in their articles. I am also very interested in the visual you chose to use at the end of your blog, because I think it both functions as a powerful reminder of how sex and race have been categorized in the past, to making a smart claim of how gender is still categorized today. We still have split bathrooms based on binary formations of sex, which make for a sticky situation when someone doesn’t fit the norm. Nice work.
ReplyDeleteI think you have a good understanding of the material, and it was all nicely worded. I think, regarding to the first comment, what is most important is to take into consideration this knowledge we have of of norms are formed and imposed on use. How all of these things, as mentioned, are cultural formations that serve a specific function, but more importantly how all of this affects us, how it affects others, who does it affect, in fact, and why. The better we are aware of these things the better we can come to criticize them and ourselves in hope for some change. I think.
ReplyDeleteAlso, on a side not, I read Chilean news as often as I can (I'm from Chile) and I came across an article that talked about how Argentine is trying to implement neutral bathrooms at discos(Clubs)for transvestites, This story was so problematic in many ways, and it exemplifies a particular way of framing transvestites (and other sexual 'deviants) that occurs often in Latin America, which is that of "deviation" as ok when it is in relationship to a show, dancing at a club, for example, places where being extravagant is ok, this making the assumption that being a transvestite is extravagant.
Like one of your other commentators, I like how you set up this blog post and lay out what exactly you'll be talking about and why. You do a nice job of explaining what Butler means by the idea that sex is socially constructed and what Omi and Winant mean when they argue that race is also socially constructed. Your example of the changing racial categories on the U.S. Census serves as a good example of how categories of identity and embodiment shift according to changing political, economic, and cultural ideologies. I'm curious though how you might use Butler and Omi and Winant to analyze how race and sex are not just constructed in parallel to one another (as in race is socially constructed and sex is as well), but actually that they are mutually constitutive, they produce one another. The image that you've chosen here (which is a striking and well-chosen one) might be a great place to start thinking this through--how, for example, does this image demonstrate that the very categories of binary gender (and we can add sex to this as well) are always already racialized, that the very categories of "ladies" and "men" are (in the case of the restroom image) rendered white. What implications does this have for how race is gendered/sexed? Nice job on this post.
ReplyDelete