How They're Made

Several parallels can be drawn between Judith Butler’s emphasis on materialization in Bodies That Matter and Michael Omi and Howard Winant’s emphasis on racial formation in Racial Formation in the United States. For me, the most pressing similarity is that both issues are surrounded by the two major conflicting ideas (essentialism and social construction, social structure and cultural representation). For Butler, sex cannot be purely essentialist since “[sexual difference] is never simply a function of material differences which are not in some way both marked and formed by discursive practices.” (Butler 235) Because “the category of ‘sex’ is, from the start, normative,” (Butler 235) the materiality of the body cannot be divorced from “the materialization of that regulatory norm (Butler 236). She argues that our heteronormative society brings not only gender into being but also the concept of sex.

Omi and Winant point out that when approaching racial formation from the purely social structure viewpoint one is “unable to account for the origins, patterning, and transformation of racial differences.” When approaching racial formation from cultural representation one “cannot comprehend such structural phenomenon as racial stratification in the labor market or patterns of residential segregation.” (Omi and Winant 56) Omi and Winant declare on page fifty-five that “We should think of Race as an element of social structure rather than as an irregularity within it; we should see race as a dimension of human representation rather than an illusion.” (Omi and Winant 55)

We could apply this thought to sex as essentialist and social constructivist respectively. The phrase would then become: We should think of Sex as an element of nature rather than an irregularity within it; we should see sex as a dimension of human representation rather than an illusion. However, if we apply Butler’s conceptions of materialization to Omi and Winant’s racial formation, the idea becomes that race materializes through the concept of normativity (i.e. the white European being that which all else is measured against) and that the concept is maintained through discursive practices. Beyond that, she would argue that through performative utterance, millions of people have become racialized. Their very races have materialized through declaring “I am African American” or “I am Chinese” etc. Through these statements, they have instantly bound themselves to all other people who have declared the same and to all stereotypes which are associated with that race. Race is put upon us by society, yes, but we have also claimed it as individuals.

Visuality and visual culture are key players in the social aspects of both debates. Those who are perceived as a different race are often perceives as such via observable, physical differences. Susie Guillory Phipps, for instance, will not be treated as a separate race from Caucasians (socially) because she does not appear to be different on a visual level (Omi and Winant 54). Sex and gender are also perceived quickly through visual means by the majority of the population (who also assume that your gender “matches up” with your sex). Through these immediate perceptions, people begin to treat others the way they have been taught that they ought to treat someone of those characteristics.

The piece I chose illustrates how we are made to be labeled and sorted and identified. The boy may have given himself those titles, but he did not make up the titles. They existed before he was even born. Some of his characteristics are natural and some are from social construction. What he is is only interpretable because we have the norms and therefore the common language field with which we may refer to him. We must ask ourselves what of ours is given and what we have taken—what we have claimed and what has been imposed upon us. The boy’s cultural heritage is one of the few pieces of information which the artist has chosen to place on the boy. What does this say about identity?

Work Cited

Femenist Theory and The Body: A Reader. Eds. Janet Price and Margrit Shildrick. NY: Routledge, 1999.

Michael Omi and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States. Second edition. NY: Routledge, 1994.

http://www.myrelchernick.com/maternalmetaphors/images/Andrea'sArticle/Bogyi-and-Mike.jpg 9/7/10

Heteronormativity and its influence on the cultural experience

“Materialization,” in Butler’s piece, refers to the act of making the idea of the body into the body as a physical entity in society. Butler’s emphasis on materialization puts strong note on the fact that “bodies that matter” only exist as such because they are created to. To the author, “‘sex’ is a regulatory ideal” (Butler, 235). It acts as a societal norm, keeping people in the binaries of right and wrong, male and female, subject and object. One must correctly perform their gender and sex in order to be even viewed as a person.

I am particularly interested in Butler’s view of the heteronormative expression of gender, and the way it dictates all aspects of identity. That “…‘materiality’ is formed and sustained through and as a materialization of regulatory norms that are in part those of heterosexual hegemony” (Butler, 243), such that even being outside the “norm” of heterosexuality must be within the guidelines of the hegemony. Thus, a lesbian is a lesbian, only so far as she conforms to the hegemonic definition of a lesbian. The following music video is a satirical look at the stereotypical (hegemonic) view of lesbians as being quick to move in with each other. It also alludes to such ideas that lesbians wear plaid, don't use make-up, and are rather masculine.

(Turner and Lounsbery)

The video also makes a cultural commentary relating to race. The song is performed as a rap, a historically African American music form. In line with such culture, the women in the song, though all white, dress and use a noticeable "rap-like" voice and language. In this way, they are acting African American, as so many white rappers are accused of in popular culture. Not only are they materializing their sex, gender, and sexuality, as Butler might point out, but the singers are also materializing a race, though it is not what society would point out as their own.

In obvious ways, the rappers are performing a "racial formation," which Omi and Winant define as "the sociohistorical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed" (Omi and Winant, 55). To me, though it is played out jokingly, it is obvious that, in addition to commentary on their sexualities, the women in the video have inhabited the formed popular idea of the African American race, at least as it applies to rappers.

Like Butler's explanation of sex/gender materialization, Omi and Winant's "racial formation" is an explanation of making the cultural idea of an identity into a physical, "easily" seen thing. The same way I know what a woman is, I know what a black man is. Without the visual and etymological differentiations between black and white, male and female, hetero- and homosexual, we would all simply be humans. Without the categorizations, there would not be the system of control held by the hegemonic norm. If we could not see the color of a person's skin or the shape of their body, would there be an "us" or a "them"? I think not.

Like Cavallaro, I feel that the human body is "a flexible idea, which can be interpreted in diverse ways, depending on time, place and context" (Cavallaro, 99). If I were blind, I would not be able to interpret the color of a person's skin, their sexual orientation, or possibly even their sex/gender. In a world of blind inhabitants, identity would be completely subjective. We would have to believe what we are being told when a person describes themselves to us. The body would no longer be the cultural material that we have created; it would be the ideology that begins the materialization. The difference would be, though, that the materialization would begin with the individual body. It would no longer be a mound of clay, subject to cultural dictation.

Works Cited

Butler, Judith. “Bodies that Matter." Feminist Theory and the Body: A Reader. Eds. Janet Price and Margrit Shildnick. New York: Routledge, 1999. 235-45.

Cavallaro, Dani. The Body for Beginners. New York: Writers and Readers Publishing, 1998.

Omi, Michael and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 1994. 53-76.

Turner, Amy and Kathryn Lounsbery. "U-Haul: The Music Video." ThatsWhatSheSaidShow. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0MxsQnWRX0

Gender Materialization and Racial Formation

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 17^th century is not the same as being female in the 21^st 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 21^st 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)

Materialization of Gender and Racial Formation

Omi and Winant are primarily concerned with how race is formed and defined in society. This article discusses at length the ways that people try to define and interpret race, but because it is not a concrete, black and white subject, this is quite a challenge. The biggest reason that race is hard to define is because it is hard to figure out exactly where it comes from. Omi and Winant argue that race is socialized: “we have now reached the point of fairly general agreement that race is not a biologically given but rather a socially constructed way of differentiating human beings” (65). People believe that humans are born a specific race and that is the race you will be defined by for the rest of your life. For many, race has become a hurdle that has determined their life path when it can be simply summarized as mostly skin color. To people born and raised in the United States, race is about ancestry, and most of the time this has a significant effect on appearance.

Butler takes a similar stance about how gender is formed in Bodies that Matter. Again we are taught that people are born one sex or another, but despite a person’s chromosomes, gender is a social formation. Society has certain norms that pertain to either the male or female gender, and humans are expected to reflect those norms in order to have strict gender binaries. Butler discusses how these norms are perpetuated when they are materialized. “Sex” is a construct that is not something we are born as but it is “a process whereby regulatory norms materialize “sex” and achieve this materialization through a forcible reiteration of those norms” (236). In the U.S. society, women are expected to have a shapely body, wear feminine clothes, and maintain their hair and makeup in a “feminine” way. Men are expected to have a more muscular build and wear masculine clothing. Short hair and the addition of facial hair contribute to the ideal construction of a man. Society could dictate that women are supposed to have short hair and wear suspenders, and if people reiterate that norm by wearing those styles, that idea of “sex” would be the norm.

I think that both race and gender share a similar problem of having strict guidelines and molds that humans are expected to fit into. There are only two genders, and until recently, people were expected to identify with only one race. Those who do not fit the norms of one gender or race are subject to discrimination. More importantly, people who do not define themselves as one specific gender often feel alienated and long for some sort of identification and connection with other people. Butler describes these in-between areas as uninhabitable zones (237). Society used to dictate that those living in these zones were abnormal and should be shunned from the rest of “normal” society. I think U.S. society today is becoming more accepting of people who are either choosing to live or were born in these “uninhabitable zones” The U.S. is becoming a melting pot of races and cultures and it has been predicted that soon it will be almost impossible to define people by race. In class we looked at the example of the U.S. census that is now allowing people to mark multiple races. I was shocked that this was not previously an option because many people have multiple races in their background.

While it is more common and obvious as to how people can be multiple races, people who are transgender, multi-gender, or no gender are much more likely to be scrutinized in society. This is probably due to the fact that race is visually more difficult to determine. Race can be covered with makeup or a good tan, and a mixture of races is even more difficult to determine based on appearance. However, if someone does not look either fully male or fully female, they become something that cannot be defined and is therefore looked down upon. In 2005, the movie “Transgender” was released about a man undergoing the process of becoming a woman and some potholes she hits along the way. I recall watching the movie at the time of its release and thinking that it was interesting that a whole movie was made about someone who is transgender, but no one would make an entire movie about someone who is born biracial and their everyday life. I really enjoy the movie poster for the film that sums up what both Butler and Omi and Wanant are saying about racial and gender construction: Life is more than the sum of its parts. Race and gender are not cut and try simple things because they have been socially constructed based on visual culture.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407265/

image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_(film)

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

Subject Formation and Materialization In Recognizing Abjection

Have you ever wondered why you seemingly already know without academically learning what it means to be “white”, “black”, “woman”, or “man”?

It is thought by some theorists that the process of subject formation, whether the subject is identified through lenses of classifications such as race and gender, can be seen as a materialized process regulating against and in relation to societal norms, or “common sense” ideas. These “common sense” ideas can be articulated in the way we seemingly already know without academically learning what it means to be “white”, “black”, “woman”, and so on. The speculation comes when theorist challenge how these “common sense” ideas were formed and are currently materializing. In regards to subject formation in relation to race, Michael Omi and Howard Winant argue in their essay, “Racial Formation”, “…that racial formation is a process of historically situation projects in which human bodies and social structures are represented and organized… [and also linked to] the evolution of hegemony, the way in which society is organized and approached” (55-56). They explain that the social structures and cultural representations that form race develop a “common sense” way of thinking about things. They argue this point by saying, “The theory of racial formation suggests that society is suffused with racial projects, large and small, to which all are subjected. This racial ‘subjection’ is quintessentially ideological. Everybody learns some combination, some version, of the rules of racial classification, and of her own racial identity, often without obvious teaching or conscious inculcation. Thus are we inserted in a comprehensively radicalized social structure. Race becomes ‘common sense’ a way of comprehending, explaining and acting as a world” (60). This is why in many cultures it seems to be “common sense” to know what it is to be “white”, “black”, etc., without traditional teaching. This, “common sense” model of knowledge formation set up by Omi and Winant can also be linked to Judith Butler’s idea of sex materialization.

In her essay, “Bodies That Matter”, Judith Butler calls into question why we categorize gender in the socially constructed realm, and sex in a “common sense” normative way. She challenges this by arguing that sex, like gender and race, was also formed and is also materializing. She explains, “Materiality is formed and sustained through and as a materialization of regulatory norms that are in part those of heterosexual hegemony; the materialization of norms requires those identificatory process by which norms are assumed or appropriated and these identifications preceded and enable the formation of a subject, but are not strictly speaking performed by a subject” (243). Basically Butler is saying that although a societal norm is usually thought to be something pre-fixed and from which other things are measured, this “common sense” was also materialized, and changes over the course of history. We can understand this by tracing the way “sex” a societal norm of being either female or male, has materialized into blurry space of intersex. This blurry materialization is what causes the norm to be upset, and thus upsetting the subject (i.e. female) into refusing not only the object (i.e. male) but also the abject (everything beyond the binary, i.e. neither female or male). She explains subject formation deeper by saying, “in this sense, then, the subject is constituted through the force of exclusion and abjection one which produces a constitutive outside to the subject, an abjected outside, which is, after all ‘inside’ the subject as its own founding repudiation” (237). As Omi and Winant explain the materiality of language in race, does Butler explore the movement of producing a subject (in particular the body) in resistance to created norms, while also recognizing what is not the norm.

This resistance to “common sense” resonates throughout visual culture in the contemporary U.S. and internationally with artists who explore abjection, by using the body as a palette to disrupt identity. First take for example what the image on the newest Cosmopolitan cover featuring Jessica Alba says about being a ‘woman’. We may see a slim, large breasted and arguably beautiful “woman”. Now take this image and compare it to a photograph that comes from Italian visual artist Roberto Kusterle. This image calls to question what we think we know is “woman”, with a curved body and long hair, and couples this identification with a horrifying disavowal at that same time. This abjection of a body then materializes the idea into a new realm: that of the abjected. When we think of ourselves as subjects, and especially our bodies as subjects, Butler advises us to, “think about how and to what end bodies are constructed as it will be to think about how and to what end bodies are not constructed, and further, to ask after how bodies which fail to materialize proved the necessary ‘outside’, if not the necessary support, for the bodies which, in materializing the norm, qualify as bodies that matter” (243). When we materialize our body, we should also address our abjections. Think then, how do you form your body identification in reaction to the abjection displayed by Kusterle?

Blog Prompt 1: Butler, Omi, and Winant on Bodies and Visuality

By 9 pm on Tuesday September 7, please post a 600-word (minimum) response to the following prompt:

How does Judith Butler's emphasis on materialization in Bodies That Matter relate to Michael Omi and Howard Winant's emphasis on racial formation in Racial Formation in the United States? What role do visuality and visual culture play in how both gender and race are constructed in the contemporary U.S.?

Remember to link to/embed and analyze a minimum of 1 image, video, website, blog, or other visual cultural production (correctly attributed) that you see relating to this unit's blog prompt and course topics.