Talk:Performativity

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TaylorC24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion
The term performativity goes back to J.L. Austin. It was reinterpreted within the discourse by people like Derrida, Habermas and others. J. Butler´s definition of this term is only one possible reading. It would be good to write a more comprehensive article on this term, since it is a very wideranging one within the field of cultural studies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.174.41.129 (talk) 13:58, 9 November, 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone erased a previous version that was actually mentioning Austin. Contributions are welcome, but unjustified, proto-vandalist removals are questionable. I'll retrieve material from earleir version here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performativity&diff=81241788&oldid=81004649 -- Typewritten 23:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * if the position of Searle is mentioned and illustrated, one should also illustrate the argument of Jacques Derrida or mention the debate between the two. Especailly because of the fact, that Butler's perspective is influenced a lot by Derridas Deconstruction. Unfortunately I don't have English sources on this topic and my English is to bad to write it by myself I think that would be an important addition to this article. 2003:80:CA30:8D01:90E8:B781:3FB1:581D (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverting
Actually, reverting to earlier version. Further contributors (esp. 68.49.243.231), please add to earlier work and/or justify and discuss your main edits. Performativity is a quite dense concept and has been used by many scholars -- not anyone's monopoly though. -- Typewritten 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with 84.174.41.129 on the need for a more comprehensibe article. References to Butler where there in the earlier version (to her book, not to a reader), now retrieved. More elements about Butler can be picked and pasted from: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Performativity&oldid=87353005 -- Typewritten 23:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the statement "Butler sees gender not as an expression of what one is, rather as something that one does. In other words, subjects can decide what kind of gender they want to be" is not entirely right. I don't think this is what performativity points to - the statement relies on the notion of a pre-discursive subject who can freely choose their gender. Butler, I think, specifically refutes this idea - & Bodies That Matter concerns itself with correcting this 'mis-reading'. Gender, like sex, can instead be seen as an effect of discourse that both precedes and exceeds the subject. Butler doesn't entirely do away with the notion of agency, but here her thinking becomes quite dense and more difficult, I think.

... I agree - Butler cautions that one should not see performativity as a willful and arbitrary act of putting on gender ... (Bodies that Matter - p. 187)

Butler and others
I added a section on Butler and pasted there all content from pre-revert version. Other sections should be added, especially on Performativity in semiotics and linguistics (this section to point to the performative utterance entry ), Performativity in science and technology studies, another on Derrida, another on Deleuze, etc. -- Typewritten 16:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Citation (rhetoric)?
Hello all. This page doesn't look very active, but maybe it has some careful editors floating around? If so, please let me know what the chances of collaborating on an entry on the term 'Citation' might be, used in the rhetorical sense that Butler does. The disambiguation for Citation carries no valence in this sense. I don't have any copies of her works anymore (long story) but I remember it featuring prominently, particularly Bodies that Matter rather than GTrouble. I'm coming from a theatre / performance studies background, so the use is always a little fraught (given the senses JB uses the term). I'm trying to flesh out sections on Brechtian Gestus (which is a semiotic form of mimesis, if that isn't a contradiction in terms; a citational practice might be better). Deleuze (in his second book on Cinema) writes about this too, as have feminist performance theorists. I need someone better versed in Rhetoric than me to help. Let me know - click here to leave a message on my talk page.

DionysosProteus 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Kessler link
The link to Kessler goes to a disambiguation page that doesn't contain an article regarding the Kessler in question. Either someone should write a stub, or the link should be removed, as it serves no purpose.72.78.20.31 (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Complex language
I'm trying to understand this subject but the article is too complicated. It would help to first explain what performativity is, rather than what it is related to. The language needs to be a lot more specific... I'm made unsure when I read things like 'It accounts for situations...' and for someone who isn't alread an expert, 'to shift from a "representational idiom" to a "performative idiom" in the study of science.' means nothing! I'm sure it's important, but is maybe best not placed in the introduction. Sorry I can't offer anything but criticism as I don't know enough to correct it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.84.89 (talk) 15:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're not mistaken. It's so broad as to be virtually meaningless as a term. The Theater Journal breeds this kind of stuff. Basically, it's a downmarket version of Goffman's "Presentation of Self in Everyday Life" filtered through the excessive and generally unrelated jargon of Post-Structuralist Philosophy and badly misunderstood portions of Speech Act Theory. In short, some people are phony sometimes and some phony-ness is real. All the world's a stage, yadda yadda. Butler basically uses it to say gender is purely social. If you're in lit crit or LGBT studies, you'll generally see her name attached to it. There, I just saved you 3 terribly written books.

I concur whole-heartedly. The introduction to the subject matter discusses who and what it is involved with, but does not define the idea. Then in the second paragraph, talks about how it is used. That is utterly useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.105.188 (talk) 14:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Same here. I consider myself well-read and of slightly more than average intelligence, and having read the introductory paragraphs three times I'm none the wiser. --Matt Whyndham (talk) 09:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it is virtually impossible to deduce what performativity is just from reading the article, and that is bad. (I managed to get a glimpse by reading gender performativity.) Marked as unclear. Perhaps some examples could be provided as an illustration. GregorB (talk) 10:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I would characterize the above two objections as succumbing to the Lake Wobegon effect, wherein it is assumed that, because one is oneself above average, anything that defies one's immediate comprehension must be nonsensical. This article clearly needs improvement, but not from the vantage point of a world in which everyone is of "above average" intelligence. Some ideas actually are intricate and difficult. --Afrofuturist (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, cut the crap. The General Theory of Relativity is complicated. The question "To what extent does language produce social norms & customs, rather than the other way around?", is not conceptually complicated. It could be studied using the tools of science, and both the methodology and the findings could be described in clear language that an average person would easily understand. But that's not the way that "Critical Theory" cultists approach issues. Their way consists of writing hundreds of pages of buzzword-saturated pseudo-intellectual babble that serves only two functions: To obfuscate, and to polemicize. With zero empirical research and zero logical deductions to be found. And at the end of their word-salad, they always, always conclude (how convenient) with support for the pre-established dogmas their ideological clique. This article is about one of those buzzwords. The problem with this article is that instead of taking a "third-person narrator" view to the cultists and their use of the buzzword, it tries to explain the buzzword as if it was a serious term used in good faith, and as if the cultists' claims should all be taken at face value and be passed off as encyclopedic facts.

Jean-François Lyotard
I would like to advise that Jean-François Lyotard also has a connection with "Performativity" (Dahlberg & Moss, Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education, RoutledgeFalmer, 2005, p.6). Perhaps he could be a source to clarify some of the confusion. Anita-o-Anita (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)