Formation and materialization of sex, gender and race.

Judith Butler in Bodies that Matter  approaches the issue of
materialization in terms of the process by which social categories of
sexual difference and gender come into being, and how these same norms
create or produce the bodies they try to describe and/or categorize. For
example, at the beginning of her piece Bodies that Matter, Butler asks the
question Is there a way to link the materiality of the body to the
performativity of gender? And how does the category of 'sex' figure within
such a relationship? (235). First, Butler states the binary system in
which sex and sexual difference are rooted, the normative system that has
created the categories of difference to begin with. The basic assumption
or binary has been that sex is biological, natural, unchangeable, a fact.
On the other hand, gender is seen as cultural. For Butler, however, this
is not the case.  By instituting sex as natural and/or biological we
attribute it certain characteristics and norms that make it so. Gender,
then, is not modifying anything but rather reinforcing these norms that
have already been instated as the right or wrong way of doing sex, as it
was said in class. In other words, gender and sex work off of each other.
This does not mean, however, that bodies don't exist or that discourses
invent bodies, sex and/or gender. What Butler means is that there is a
“regulatory ideal” behind 'sex', which regulates our understanding of what
constitutes sexual differences, for example. There are certain things
expected of certain bodies and this is where gender and performativity
come into play. In order to fit these categories one must perform these
differences, as prescribed by our societal norms. To not do so correctly
can costs us to be disapproved of and ostracized. In other words, we could
be in some way punished for deriving from the norm. To take a step back,
however, what is at the heart of this understanding of sex, sexual
difference and gender is precisely that these categories are constructed
and built off of each other, and that they are NOT static. Ideals and
ideas of sex and gender change over time as societies and cultures do.
Some categories might be modified and/or slightly expanded on depending on
the current interests, but the binary prevails. I think this point is what
can link Butler's piece with Omni and Winant's piece Racial Formation.

In their piece, Omni and Winant, first define the category of race in
order to move into what they call the process of racial formation. They
state, “race is a concept which signifies and symbolizes social conflicts
and interests by referring to different types of bodies” (55). As we can
see, this definition can be perfectly applied to that of gender, for
example. This definition implies that, as I stated before, that
categories, norms and concepts – such as race – are subject to change
because social interests and conflicts change as well. Moreover, they
define racial formation as “the socio-historical process by which racial
categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed” (55). Here,
it becomes clear that,in fact, race is not a static concept and that it
changes according to the interests of those with the power to modify the
categories within a specific socio-historical context. The categories
still exist through out time, but they continue to be revisited in order
to fit particular desires or purposes. This is precisely what Butler is
talking about when she defies sex as a natural and biological fact of
life, and the binary behind that idea. She is pointing out that our
understanding of sex as such is in fact a construction that serves a
purpose and that this in turn drives what constitutes sexual difference,
gender and gender performativity – or how perform these norms. There are
specific discourses at the heart of both sex/gender and race and if
anything Omni and Winant's piece helps legitimatize and clarify the point
Butler makes. I think these two pieces complement each other well and
clearly point out to the power of discourse and why who controls the
production of discourse matters and has specific material consequences in
a socio-historical context.

Finally, perhaps not entirely related to the analysis of these two works,
but as a good discussion starter - or at least  some food for thought -
here is an article that talks about two Swedish parents who have chosen to
keep their child's gender a secret. I think this is an excellent social
experiment, whether they intend it that way or not, and it will be very
interesting to see how it all turns out. The implications of having to
keep somebody's gender a secret already tell us a lot about the power of
discourse. I also wonder about how school teachers and others react and
act in regards to this.
Swedish parents keep their baby's gender a secret


Sara