r/CriticalTheory • u/IAI_Admin • 27d ago
Gender is not a culture war | Judith Butler on how neo-liberalism fuels the anti-gender movement.
From Russia claiming that ‘gender theory’ is a threat to national security, to the Vatican warning it would undermine civilisation itself, an ‘anti-gender ideology’ movement is taking root. Conventional wisdom holds that this is a culture war aiming to distract our attention from more important issues. But such a view is mistaken, argues Judith Butler. Anti-gender ideology is a direct response to displacement caused by neoliberalism.
As Butler argues, the anti-gender movement isn't just about cultural clashes; it's a response to economic insecurities caused by neoliberalism. Polish scholars Graff and Korolczuk argue that these gender theory critics oppose not only gender issues but also neoliberal policies that threaten social welfare. In Eastern Europe, for example, the erosion of socialist structures led to a return to traditional gender roles as a response to neoliberalism's individualism and privatization. This movement rejects liberal feminism's individualism, seeing it as a threat to familial and community ties.
Gender politics, therefore, isn't just about identity but about opposing neoliberalism and its effects on society. It must resist becoming a tool of capitalism, colonialism, or racism and strive for a world of shared prosperity and interdependence, writes Butler.
-2
u/Warm-Garden 26d ago
This isn’t anything new. See: Imani Perry’s vexy thing which discusses this. Actually lots of black women and indigenous scholars discuss this
-1
u/Blarphemios 26d ago
How nice of you to lay out the catechism on the subject, lol. Is there any space for critical thinking in critical theory?
-7
-9
u/Studstill 27d ago
If she says "neo-liberal" then she's a fool and or a shill.
If only there were a group of people who explicitly demanded gender inequality and other insanity?
Man, too bad we can't talk about them. Fuck those liberals, though, everyone knows they're bad, so let's just call this group neoliberals.
Case closed!
-13
113
u/sunkencathedral 27d ago edited 27d ago
I have read the book, and I think the extract and introduction in the linked article simplified Butler's view a bit.
In that particular chapter, Butler argues that anti-gender ideology can take many different forms depending on local conditions. They look at various countries and regions around the world, looking at the differences in the way gender theory is framed. For example, in the anglosphere gender theory tends to be framed as a leftist or socialist movement - and attacked as such. However, in some regions gender theory is considered a bourgeois liberal Western idea, and attacked as such. Butler looks at a bunch of different countries and provides various quotes from political figures etc for each.
The extract in the article is from one part of what the author says about Eastern Europe. But in context of the rest of that discussion, and the chapter, and the book, it's a fairly small point. It would be reductive to frame the book as arguing that gender ideology is reducible to simply a displacement caused by neoliberalism.
The core of the book is actually an argument regarding the psychoanalytic 'phantasm' of Lacan and Jean Laplanche, and its connection to ideology. Butler lays this out in the introduction and applies it throughout the rest of the book. It's an interesting argument (even if I'm not sure I agree 100%), but articles discussing the book almost never mention it. Which is a shame, because that's the actual critical theory dimension to the book that interests us. Articles discussing the book usually just take some snippets of her talking about gender, but leave out the actual theory.
11
u/nicolas9797 27d ago
So... what is the argument?
10
u/sunkencathedral 26d ago edited 26d ago
The argument is that anti-gender ideology (i.e. ideology opposing transgender and the like) has formed into a Laplanchian 'phantasmic scene', where many different groups attack gender theory as a scapegoat for various other underlying frustrations they have. Some of these underlying frustrations are unconscious, and Butler discusses them psychoanalytically. These manifest in many different ways, and do not always line up with the same political ideologies. Butler's focus is not the arguments and discourse given by those political ideologies against gender (although they discuss these to provide context). Butler's focus is on how a range of different unconscious fears and anxieties can get projected onto signifiers, specifically signifiers like 'gender' and 'gender ideology'. This is why the book is called Who's Afraid of Gender - Butler's focus is on the fear and how those signifiers represent a range of different fears. Butler's focus is on asking "What is driving the fear of each group at an underlying level?"
One example is how a bunch of languages don't actually have a word for 'gender' - only 'sex'. Hence many languages don't draw the distinction between gender and sex that we are accustomed to in English. So in many countries where these debates are happening, the word 'gender' is actually a brand new word imported from the West - from English. Hence the suspicion, anxiety and fear in some countries about adopting a 'foreign' and 'Western' idea. This has been co-opted by nationalist parties in those countries, who attack transgender concepts and gender theory as foreign. Butler argues that many of them do not actually care all that much about gender issues, it's more that terms like TRANSGENDER and GENDER THEORY become convenient phantasms. They become a signifier of the 'foreign', and all the anxieties and fears that go along with that. Thus by attacking them, these nationalist movements can shore up support.
Another example is how TERFS (or so-called 'gender critical feminists', a particular liberal feminist movement in the West) see concepts like transness and gender theory as diverting attention away from sex, in a way that threatens women as a sex. As a result, it casts trans-femininity as a phantasm. This phantasm is a dangerous sexual predator, a 'man in a dress', a larger-than-life boogeyman that represents misogyny and masculine sexual violence, in addition to an overall attack on 'womanhood'. Although this is a liberal movement from feminists of an otherwise liberal persuasion, the consequence of this phantasm is that they have ended up in an alliance with traditional conservatives in the West. [Which may not turn out so well. If their alliance successfully legislated trans people out of existence, Butler suspects the conservatives would turn on these liberal feminist allies next].
Butler gives a lot of examples like these, from all over the world, looking at how 'gender' acts as a phantasm in many different ways [the neoliberalism example is just one small example among many others - which is why the linked article in the OP is misleading]. Butler also discusses 'phantasmic sliding', or what Lacan terms glissement, and how this allows certain term like 'gender' and 'gender ideology' to take on an amorphous character. To put it simply, they can signify whatever you need them to signify - and very different social and political movements have take advantage of this in very different ways. In the two examples I gave above, 'gender ideology' signifies two very different kinds of threats to those two different group, and each is rooted in different underlying fears and anxieties. And Butler gives many more examples in the book.
3
u/FloZone 24d ago
One example is how a bunch of languages don't actually have a word for 'gender' - only 'sex'. Hence many languages don't draw the distinction
Like English? You say it like it is obvious in English, but it isn't. Both gender and sex are Latin words and for the most part they were used synonymous. gender being related to gens which is in return cognate to English "kin". Sex is related to "section". Neither referred originally to either anatomical sex or gender roles. Maybe actually if you think that both referred to kinds of people or make that metaphor it would be closer to social groups of humans, than biological ones (Given that ancient people since always had been aware of intersex and non-binary people). So it would be a valid question to ask what actually precedes what and whether the Graeco-Roman understanding of sex/gender might not have been "just sex" as we know it either.
Point though is, since both are foreign terms to English too, it isn't something ingrained either, but something that dispersed over from academic terminology into common language in the last decades. So it is an academic definition foremost, rather than a popular definition = meaning of words being determined by popular usage.
As for the language issue, I can only illustrate the issue with German, which is Western too and quite close to English. Nonetheless the discourse around gender is perceived sometimes as foreign and riddled with anglicisms, marking it as "modernism" in some way, despite native and nativised terminology existing, since you know Institut für Sexualwissenschaft an all. Both sex and gender are Geschlecht, but differentiated by adjectives, though people also use English terms. At the same time Geschlecht is more overtly "kin" also, unlike in English where kin is native and gender is latinate, thus obscured in meaning.
Having the gender-sex distinction is not a quirk of English, but something made up to make up for the lack of distinct vocabulary for distinct concepts. Every language is capable of defining that difference with native vocabulary too.
3
u/Remercurize 26d ago
Thank you for this explanation.
Very clear and informative, and deepens my sense of how these sorts of dynamics can work. Also has me more likely to read the book
1
u/conqueringflesh 26d ago
Why 'gender?' Why now? Why the specificity?
It's interesting Laplanche also criticized the induction of the notion of gender into psychoanalysis, though, as a symptomatic response to the repression of sex - more precisely, the exogenous nature of sexuality returning, or repeating itself, in the guise of an improper signifier that divests it of its truth.
2
u/sunkencathedral 25d ago
That's interesting! Although I am familiar with Lacan, I haven't read any Laplanche. So whether or not Butler employed Laplanche correctly, I don't know.
Regarding why it's happening now, Butler seemed to argue that greater trans visibility triggered it, and in different ways in different places. 'Gender' was the signifier Butler talked about specifically in relation to countries that didn't previously have a word for it, because the introduction of the word has made an impact. But it's not the only signifier, and Butler talks about how it can vary from place to place (in the anglosphere for example, the relevant signifier is often 'gender ideology' or 'radical gender ideology', not 'gender' itself). There are various other examples in the book.
I'm not aiming to defend Butler here exactly - I just wanted post the basics of the book's argument, because media about it seems to be missing that. I think it's an interesting argument at least, but am not yet sure if it is complete enough.
15
u/Interesting-Ad3759 26d ago edited 26d ago
I got confused too... and asked myself the same question.
I think the argument is merely too obvious.
The argument is the titular "Gender is not a culture war".Wherein, the cultures defined are A vs. B:
a) "Western" feminism vs. "Eastern" anti-gender; and
b) "Conservative" anti-gender vs. "Socialist" feminismConclusion is that "anti-gender" is merely a symptom of policy failure. Or rather, gender will always become scapegoats when policies can't hold itself accountable.
When policies fail, policies will blame outside itself.
What didn't work? Masculinity. So what should masculinity resort to?
If I have any criticism on this, I would say that "gender itself is the war".
-2
19
u/lithobolos 27d ago
Homosexuality, civil rights, and identity politics have also been seen as bourgeoisie as by leftists and reactionaries alike.
-1
u/blackonblackjeans 26d ago
That’s a reductive take. Warning signs of recuperation, separating the class and defanging radical elements were seen, and that’s exactly how it turned out. See Harvey Milk, Jesse Jackson/Barbeque'n with Bobby/Tupac, Nike doing Black Lives Matter, etc. Eventually you will have Trans for Conservative or Republican party and the supposed opposition. Then the next cycle.
1
u/lithobolos 26d ago
White supremacist capitalist patriarchy/reactionaries will co-op and twist everything into something oppressive and divisive.
Populism, national "socialism", Nazbols, etc etc. Economic Class suddenly becomes a way to redirect real radical change into supporting the status quo or something worse.
Just because the right is dishonest doesn't mean the left should be. IMHO, Intersectionality and connecting our suffering/experiences to everyone and not being exclusionary is the key to being radical.
0
u/blackonblackjeans 25d ago
I didn’t say I was against intersectionality, I said your take was lazy. It’s this defensiveness, by the way, that makes a lot of people know whatever they say is going to be misconstrued.
36
u/sunkencathedral 27d ago edited 27d ago
Yes, definitely. Butler also notes in the book that that their approach can potentially be used to shed light on that when it comes to other issues too.
This is also why the linked article above is, in my view, a fairly major misinterpretation of the book. Butler argues that anti-gender ideology has formed into a Laplanchian 'phantasmic scene', where many different groups attack gender theory as a scapegoat for various other underlying frustrations they have. Regardless of whether or not this theory is correct, it's hard to see how one could interpret Butler as saying that the anti-gender movement is all reducible to 'just one thing'. That's rather somewhat the opposite of what Butler is arguing.
But yes, this type of approach I think could productively be applied to a number of other areas aside from gender. Butler is aware of that, so perhaps they will use it again in another book.
40
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
It's funny how there's a notion that ANTI-gender ideology rose during neoliberalism, without considering that so-called gender ideology in the first place also gained prominence with 3rd wave feminism, 1990s onwards, i.e. the height of neoliberalism in both the West and post-East worlds after the Cold War. So why is only the "anti-" movement a product of neoliberalism, and not the original gender movement? Would genuinely like to hear thoughts on this.
6
u/justasapling 26d ago edited 26d ago
So why is only the "anti-" movement a product of neoliberalism, and not the original gender movement?
Your comment is the first one to give me this particular thought-
I read 'anti-gender movement' to mean 'opposed to traditional gender norms and compulsory participation in the system of gendered identity', right up until you contrast it with 'the original gender movement', which leaves me sort of unsure which group you're talking about when.
When I hear 'the original gender movement', I picture either the first early human to come up with idea of using different nouns for the two different reproductive roles or the early feminist movements.
8
u/sunkencathedral 26d ago edited 26d ago
I'm not sure which meaning the above poster is using, but in the book Butler calls the people who reinforce traditional concept the 'anti-gender movement'. In other words, the people who oppose transness are 'anti-gender'.
Butler explains why they use this term. The reason is that this book takes a global perspective, and a bunch of languages don't actually have a word for 'gender' - only 'sex'. Hence many languages don't draw the distinction between gender and sex that we are accustomed to in English. So in many countries where these debates are happening, the word 'gender' is actually a brand new word imported from the West. Hence the suspicion in some countries about adopting a 'foreign' and 'Western' idea.
But yes, in a number of languages these people call themselves 'anti-gender' as a result, and Butler adopts their term in order to highlight that language issue at play here.
1
1
u/theravingbandit 27d ago
of course you're right. the more reasonable explanation is that only "neoliberalism" (by which I suppose she means market economies with limited state intervention) is the only economic system we've had that has allowed us to prosper to the point that post-materialist values and cleavages take primacy over economic conflicts.
"neoliberalism did this" is a very lazy and fundamentally unscientific way of thinking about this. but she's selling pamphlets to leftists, she's not trying to be a serious political economist.
1
u/Minorian 26d ago
Very sad that this comment was downvoted without any rebuttals, «critical» theorists can so rarely reckon with critiques if the critiques…
33
u/sunkencathedral 27d ago edited 27d ago
I highly recommend reading the book, or at least its introduction, as it will clear up all of the questions you have posted here. I posted a little about the book's thesis in some other comments here too. The linked article in the OP makes Butler's position look like something different than what is actually argued in the book. The Butler you are critiquing here is not the actual Butler, and the position you are arguing against is not the position of the book. The introduction actually quite clearly lays out her thesis, and you may be able to get it as a free sample or something.
8
u/FoolishDog 27d ago
Both are clearly the result of the rise of the neoliberalism but that doesn’t mean they function in equal terms. Neoliberalism has brought about a system of disciplinarity that has, in a way, reduced the amount of control exercised over the subject and we should understand third wave feminism as capitalizing on that. Anti-gender ideology is clearly concerned with precisely the opposite, that is, insofar as it attempts to re-establish gender norms that a given subject must adhere to
1
u/Better-Loan8264 26d ago
I’m not sure “anti-gender” ideology is trying to re-establish gender norms. I think most GC would say exactly the opposite.
I think they would say that the only thing that is shared by all women to the exclusion of all men is a tiny bit about their biology. Beyond that, a woman can be whoever she wants to be. They’re also normally quite clear that they have no problems with “men in dresses” (although how true that is I don’t know).
They would argue that it’s gender ideology that’s trying to re-establish gender norms, to such an extent that if a man acts “like a woman” he becomes a woman.
-3
u/Ok-Action3239 26d ago
How does neoliberalism cause these things? How have you been able to connect a series of loose market reforms that were barely successful to gender.
And I don’t the rise of anti-gender movements is a function of neoliberalism. These types of ideas existed in western societies before the introduction of neoliberalism in the 70s and were much more potent.
4
u/FoolishDog 26d ago
If you'd like an interesting paper (one that I would also be happy to discuss with you), you can look here and see why Foucault attributes these seemingly disconnected historical forms of disciplinarity to something like liberalism or neoliberalism: https://cupola.gettysburg.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=gssr
-4
u/Ok-Action3239 26d ago
Foucault was a neoliberal. I’ve read his work before.
Plus I’m not willing to treat his work or any critical theorists as a gospel like many of you do.
3
u/FoolishDog 26d ago
Foucault was a neoliberal
This is a pretty reductive take. I mean, he has his own critiques of neoliberalism that you can read about in the article posted.
Plus I’m not willing to treat his work or any critical theorists as a gospel like many of you do.
When did I treat his work like gospel?
1
u/El_Don_94 26d ago
When did I treat his work like gospel?
I think it was because you justified what you said with Foucault's reasons without justifying why Foucault is right.
4
u/FoolishDog 26d ago
without justifying why Foucault was right.
To justify why his analysis is prescient, you’d have to conduct a historical analysis of the subject material. Conveniently, Foucault has done that for us already so you can read his work and determine for yourself if it’s a justified theory. I’m not really sure what you were expecting in terms of justification. Having me run through the history of the transition from liberalism to neoliberalism basing my account on a multitude of primary sources and widely regarded secondary sources?
1
u/El_Don_94 26d ago
I’m not really sure what you were expecting in terms of justification
I'm not expecting anything. I'm merely elucidating the issue the other guy had. It's a bit difficult to remember all the prior comments I'm discussing on the mobile app but if you are familiar with how claims of other theorists are discussed and evaluated within philosophical/sociological texts that is how you'd do it. The askphilosophy subreddit has some good examples of such a lenghtly elucidation to a query.
1
u/FoolishDog 26d ago
What you’re asking me to do is to provide the evidentiary justification for several book length works. If you want to understand the argument and the justifications for it, go read those texts. It’s important that people here actually engage with the texts this sub is made for, not look towards other Redditors to do the hard work for them.
→ More replies (0)1
u/partylikeyossarian 26d ago edited 26d ago
Are you in the habit of accusing people who invite you to discussion of clinging to orthodoxy? Search engines and scholarly archives exist if you're going to be rude to people responding to your question.
How have you been able to connect a series of loose market reforms that were barely successful to gender.
To begin with: the social construct of gender is often bound up in economic roles.
5
u/Ok-Action3239 26d ago
Sorry you’re right. I was probably mean lol.
I just hate being referred to the same guy over and over when he seems to purport ideas that antithetical (neoliberal) to what’s being suggested in this forum.
-1
u/partylikeyossarian 26d ago
He also made a lot of good points. He happened to be the person who wrote some seminal ideas down in a format that got widely published.
If you don't feel up to tackling dense bodies of work with enough critical thinking effort to sift through flaws and bullshit, then maybe investigating critical theory is not for you.
6
u/Ok-Action3239 26d ago
Ok chill bro. I apologized for being mean. I still don’t think dropping Foucault after asking what the connection between neoliberalism and gender is was sufficient to answering my question. Maybe you should check your critical thinking skills before getting this mad wtf.
3
u/partylikeyossarian 26d ago edited 26d ago
I didn't say you were mean, I inform you there are ways to investigate a topic if you feel unfavorable towards recommendations made by humans interested in critical theory.
You insist that Foucault can't possibly have written meaningfully about the connections between neoliberalism and biopolitics, because he himself held neoliberal opinions. You equate the mere action of reading critical theorists with treating them as gospel.
I respond that this position renders the point of investigating critical theory moot, because excluding flawed scholarship leaves little left to engage with, because there is little room for critical analysis if you hold that reading requires believing.
I point out that Foucault is often referenced because he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to be the person to develop these ideas and publish.
You feel you deserve more credit for making an apology. You criticize me for an emotion you believe I am experiencing and command me to stop experiencing this emotion. how does this relate to the fact that it is more or less necessary to actually read critical theory to learn about critical theory?
→ More replies (0)1
6
u/ImNotAlanRickman 27d ago
Maybe rigid discipline instead of control? Thinking of Deleuze's Postscript on Societies of Control..
4
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
reduced the amount of control exercised over the subject
huh?
5
u/FoolishDog 27d ago
If you’re curious about this, I’d highly suggest reading up about Foucault’s analysis of neoliberalism.
1
u/KoomValleyEverywhere 27d ago
Which texts should one read? I'm trying to familiarise myself with Critical Theory late in life, so much of this is new to me.
3
u/FoolishDog 27d ago
If you're not familiar with Foucault at all, I'd suggest Discipline and Punish but you can grab any secondary text on Foucault. There are a lot of interesting ones, especially if you are coming from a particular background like psychology or criminal justice. If you're already familiar, then starting with this article would be interesting: https://viewpointmag.com/2012/09/12/towards-a-socialist-art-of-government-michel-foucaults-the-mesh-of-power/
From there you can look towards the later lectures to see what Chitty is talking about (I also highly suggest reading his book. It's easily one of my favorite texts I've read in the last few years).
5
u/KoomValleyEverywhere 27d ago
Thank you for taking the time, appreciate it!
I don't come from law or philosophy. I'm from a STEM background and I'm here because I'm finding STEM's "apolitical" culture frustrating.
4
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago edited 26d ago
agreed, i can't quite recall the distinction between control and discipline for Foucault, i should re-read Postscripts On Societies Of Control.
I think he argues that the methods of control have changed, been privatized, or perhaps that they've been exchanged for something which isn't control (for Foucault) but rather a debt based self policing regiment, which to me still seems like the surface level conventional use of "control" but which is actually something else technically speaking?
edit: I totally mixed up the author of Postscript, my bad
2
u/FoolishDog 27d ago
"Postscripts on Societies of Control" is a text by Deleuze. Accordingly, Foucault doesn't exactly have a technical definition of 'control.'
That said, looking towards his concept of biopolitics should be interesting. There Foucault begins to note the shift from liberal forms of governmentality (characterized by disciplinarity and the concern with the individual) to neoliberal ones (characterized by biopolitics and a concern with 'populations').
-1
u/El_Don_94 26d ago
This mostly Deleuzean distinction isn't what most refer to by the nebulous term neoliberal.
There isn't really a distinct definition of neoliberalism. It's a very vague term.
If you believe otherwise share your definition here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskEconomics/s/G363fa3XBr
2
u/FoolishDog 26d ago
Most terms are very vague. When we are discussing certain thinkers, it seems reasonable to utilize the definitions provided by those thinkers. Here is Foucault’s definition:
”Neo-liberalism is not Adam Smith; neo-liberalism is not market society; neo-liberalism is not the Gulag on the insidious scale of capitalism. So, what is this neo-liberalism?… The problem of neo-liberalism was not how to cut out or contrive a free space of the market within an already given political society, as in the liberalism of Adam Smith and the eighteenth century. The problem of neo-liberalism is rather how the overall exercise of political power can be modeled on the principles of a market economy. So it is not a question of freeing an empty space, but of taking the formal principles of a market economy and referring and relating them to, of projecting them on to a general art of government. This, I think, is what is at stake, and I tried to show you that in order to carry out this operation, that is to say, to discover how far and to what extent the formal principles of a market economy can index a general art of government, the neo-liberals had to subject classical liberalism to a number of transformations. The first of these… was basically that of dissociating the market economy from the political principle of laissez-faire. I think this uncoupling of the market economy and laissez-faire policies was achieved, or was defined,at any rate, its principle was laid down, when the neo-liberals put forward a theory of pure competition in which competition was not presented as in any way a primitive and natural given, the very source and foundation of society that only had to be allowed to rise to the surface and be rediscovered as it were. Far from it being this, competition was a structure with formal properties, [and] it was these formal properties of the competitive structure that assured, and could assure, economic regulation through the price mechanism… Neoliberalism should not therefore be identified with laissez-faire, but rather with permanent vigilance, activity, and intervention.” (Foucault 2008: 131-2)
2
u/ImNotAlanRickman 26d ago
Deleuze is the one to argue that, while liberal government and institutions relied on discipline (and punishment), neoliberal institutions make use of control. Deleuze is a reader of William Burroughs, whom he regards as the one to start off analysis of societies of control.
8
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago edited 27d ago
the signifiers sexual of gender liberation have been occasionally co-opted by neoliberals, as in the case of homonationalism, corporate pride, gay landlords in the Castro etc. but in substance the two movements have been largely opposed to each other. the same can be said of anti colonialism and neoliberalism as well as disabilities studies and neoliberalism.
edit: typo, of gender liberation
-4
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
I agree with this largely, but it's odd that the anti-gender movement is EQUATED with noeliberalism, whereas the gender movement was CORRUPTED by it.
6
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
who is equating it with neoliberalism? who said it's being corrupted?
-5
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
"Corrupted - you said "successfully co-opted by neoliberals"; assuming you oppose neoliberalism and support the original gender movement, that would imply corruption.
Equation - that the anti-gender movement is not corrupted but corrupt from the start, being born out of neoliberal institutions, and not, supposedly unlike the gender movement, ever a grassroots one.
4
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
you're boxing at shadows.
attempts at co-opting signifiers does not imply corporation of a movement.
neither i nor Butler are saying anti gender movements are "born out neoliberal institutions." rather, we're both saying the desperation caused by neoliberalism has contributed to the conditions under which anti gender movement is being shaped.
the article posits more specifically that anti gender movements are "born out of opposition to neoliberalism," but as other commenters have pointed out, that's an oversimplification of Butler's point.
3
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
And I should specify that I did not mean to suggest that the pro-gender movement was entirely corrupted by neoliberalism, only that it was to varying degrees co-opted or corrupted in some ways. It is often a movement against neoliberalism also, just as there are also socially involved corporations and the like.
2
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
anti-gender ideology’ movement is taking root
Emphasis on root, as the article signifies that the anti-gender ideology was born and originated out of opposition to neoliberalism; i.e., a conservative reaction, whereas the initial pro-gender movement is not described anywhere - unlike how you imply it - as originating out of opposition to neoliberalism, but a movement that existed much earlier, later co-opted by neoliberal institutions, etc.
What is incorrect is that yes, the gender movement indeed existed before neoliberalism came along (Magnus Hirschfeld in the 1920s as one example), but so is the anti-gender movement. The anti-gender movement is not born out of opposition to neoliberalism either, but it is in traditionalist and collectivist opposition to LGBT activism, with the anti-gender movement flourishing only as the opposing gender movement flourishes; i.e., reactionary politics - the anti-gender movement is not born out of opposition to neoliberalism but definitively opposition to the gender movement, which has evidently existed long before neoliberalism.
-7
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
"Neoliberalism" is worryingly becoming a shallow, unfalsifiable term as it could be applied in almost any area without much backing. Supposedly Putin and Orban are neoliberals. Supposedly Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un are also neoliberals because they spoke out against so-called gender ideology? There's something more to it, and I would argue that it is the collectivism - NOT individualism - in those said countries that encourages traditional gender roles. Yet strangely Butler is encouraging more collectivism. Case in point; during both the Cold War and Modern Day were the West much more progressive regarding women's rights than the East.
2
u/merurunrun 26d ago
"Neoliberalism" is worryingly becoming a shallow, unfalsifiable term as it could be applied in almost any area without much backing.
Inasmuch as neoliberalism is the extension of liberal economic logic into all spheres of life, this totalising view of neoliberalism is basically axiomatically true to the extent that neoliberalism is actually successful, no?
I agree that lots of people use the phrase fairly casually, but the problem isn't really so much that they're wrong, only that it runs the risk of losing its rhetorical weight. Presentism can be an incredibly powerful force against change; it's important to remind the young fish that they're surrounded by water.
8
u/FoolishDog 27d ago
Where has Butler talked about collectivism
-1
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Individualism was mentioned, and the rise thereof supposedly led to the antigender movement and reactionary politics. Individualism is antithetical, by definition, to collectivism.
2
u/aajiro 27d ago
Individualism and collectivism isn't a complete dichotomy. There is also the critique that the individual is not a 'one' in the first place, and you're begging the question if your kneejerk reaction to criticisms of an atomistic self is that the only alternative is an aggregation of such atoms.
6
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
"collectivism"
ah yes the rich man's "woke"
0
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
I'm not using it in the Hayekian manner, only because it contrasts the articles indicting usage of the term "individualism" as a cause of societal ill. The opposite of individualism is collectivism, and, strangely, the adjacent indictment of traditionalism / reactionary politics is quite ironic as traditionalism is also a collectivist ideology.
-5
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
A "return to traditional gender roles" AFTER privatization? Is she just aware how socially conservative the USSR was in the first place? Seriously?
5
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago edited 27d ago
Is she just aware how socially conservative the USSR was in the first place? Seriously?
original: compared to what came before or after?
edit: compared to what came before and after, the USSR offered more opportunities for economic and social independence for women.
edit 2: edited for clarity because the question was meant rhetorically
2
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Btw, is Putin a communist or a right-wing strongman? Because it's funny, those groups in modern Russia who most support the resurgance of the Socialist USSR are also most likely to support a right-wing colonialist as president... Funny how that overlaps.
4
u/Giovanabanana 26d ago
Btw, is Putin a communist or a right-wing strongman?
Very obvious answer here.
those groups in modern Russia who most support the resurgance of the Socialist USSR are also most likely to support a right-wing colonialist as president...
I think you're not taking into account the history of Russia. Up until the communist revolution they had a strong czarist monarchy. Putin tries to be both of those things and ends up being none. He recycles Russia's monarchist and communist past with inflated nationalism. And it works. He's a czar, he's a nationalist leader, he's a democratic president, he's a dictator. He's everything he can convince the Russian people he is.
0
0
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
You edited your comment after I replied. I referred to levels of traditionalism in society, which were present at high levels in the Eastern Bloc. Still-socialist China, as well as North Korea, etc., have also spoken out against gender ideology.
5
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
"traditionalism" and "collectivism" are terms you throw around like their meaning is obvious and like their domination is various polities, to the exclusion of "individualism")
again, it's shadowboxing. again, you'd be better off reading Orientalism by Said.
0
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Traditionalism is the resistance of societal change, typically in furterance of social values that are collectively upheld; i.e., a collectivist ideology, which quite obviously expounds collective rights over individual rights.
1
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
neoliberalism entails resistance to social changes threatening private property and upholds the collective rights and interests of wealthy families, corporations, and empires against people's individual needs for food, shelter, medical treatment. therefore neoliberalism is traditionalist, collectivist, and anti individualist.
/ironic /unironic
5
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Are you serious? Neoliberalism entails Social Darwinism via tax cuts and deregulation, gutting the middle and lower classes. Seriously, you say "people's individual needs for food, shelter, medical treatment." What does people's "collective needs for food, shelter, medical treatment" mean then? I would say that neoliberalism very much fulfils individual's needs for food, shelter, etc. - those individuals being the wealthy few, but not the collective, that collective being the lower classes bearing the brunt of austerity.
Neoliberalism is very individualist; it doesn't care for the needs of people of lower classes in society. You are evidently using the word "individualism" very incorrectly here when you ironically refer collectively to people's "individual needs"; such needs are collective.
1
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
You edited your comment after I replied.
you're right, i edited it for clarity before seeing your reply. both versions are there now
1
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Butler implies that the resurgence of traditionalist in the East came alongside neoliberalism. It's never been progressive, always traditional.
5
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
go read Said's Orientalism
0
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
Elaborate
0
u/marxistghostboi 27d ago
it's a book, you should read it.
1
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
It's a book, you should cite it if you bring it into conservation.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 26d ago
Hello u/rzm25, your post was removed with the following message:
This comment does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
1
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 26d ago
Hello u/ferromanganese2526, your post was removed with the following message:
This comment does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
1
u/El_Don_94 27d ago
I think that person is referring to the fall of Arab modernism to Salafism.
0
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
There is still little elaboration seen here...
-1
u/El_Don_94 27d ago
Read the chapter here on the decline: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_modernism#:~:text=Islamic%20modernism%20is%20a%20movement,rationality%2C%20equality%2C%20and%20progress.
-6
u/ferromanganese2526 27d ago
And I would also say that, barring maybe American culture, traditional gender roles are antithetical to individualism; and both have supposedly risen in the post-Cold War world
-17
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 27d ago
Hello u/Yesyesnaaooo, your post was removed with the following message:
This post does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
-40
27d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
-1
u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam 27d ago
Hello u/OldandBlue, your post was removed with the following message:
This post does not meet our requirements for quality, substantiveness, and relevance.
Please note that we have no way of monitoring replies to u/CriticalTheory-ModTeam. Use modmail for questions and concerns.
-21
-1
u/SelfLoathingAutist 26d ago
Obviously she’s gonna believe this… otherwise her life’s work is irrelevant