Talk:Judith Butler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Judith Butler article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Excitable Speech

This is tricky. Austin doesn't think that words have locutionary or illocutionary force i.e. 'bull' doesn't do a darn thing by itself. It's only by being embedded in an utterance that it can start to have illocutionary force. If Butler has advanced the thesis that words apart from utterances have these properties then either she is departing from Austin (radically I might add) or she is citing in error. Or, more plausibly, whoever wrote that section just overlooked that bit.

[edit] Philosopher Bio

So, I tried to make a philosopher bio thing for her and it didn't post, but when I go into the history and click on the most recent one, then it shows it to me. What's going on? Does someone not like the philosopher bio thing? 66.102.80.219 13:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, now it shows up. Does anyone have any idea of what people (if any) have been influenced by Judith Butler? 66.102.80.219 13:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Controversy

One controversy about Butler is her personal/political stance as it relates to feminism. She has criticized mainstream feminism for overemphasizing sexual behavior--making issues of personal choice political. She herself has quite openly pursued sexual relationships with students--a violation of both academic ethics and most university policies. She has been defended by her prominence, and her sexuality, whereas a less-famous male colleague who engaged in similar pursuits would not be tolerated. The whole issue is dealt with, in a sort of code, in her book Gender Trouble but she has not succesfully shown how violations of such public codes are anything other than an exercise of her class/cultural priviledge.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user 66.65.116.205 (talk • contribs) 1 February 2007, 13:08 (UTC).

That's too funny. I guess one might argue that the mores themselves are flawed and just because she escapes persecution doesn't make it wrong for her to violate them. I'm just throwing that out there.

I see no evidence such a "controversy" exists. Can either of you point to published articles about this alleged "controversy"? csloat 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Influences

I removed several names because I don't think they are important or crucial influences, and the list as it stands is very long and not very useful as a quick summary. I also reordered the names from most to least important influences on her work (i.e. Foucualt first, then the French Feminists, etc.). Here are the names I removed and why:

  • Laplanche -- She discusses him in Giving an Account of Oneself, but he is neither crucial to her own position in that book and completely absent in her early work
  • Levinas -- Again, she discusses him in Giving an Account but he is not central to her argument nor present in her other works.
  • Benjamin, Kripke, Kierkegaard - As far as I know she doesn't really discuss these thinkers except very periperally.

If you can please demonstrate why these are substantial influences for reasons I have maybe overlooked, I would appreciate it... Becuase we really do need to trim this list down...--Agnaramasi 13:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Butler is moving away from the focus on gender that was her earlier work to turn to questions of ethics and violence. This is where thinkers such as Levinas, Laplanche, and others are becoming crucial. I agree you'll only see the influence of Benjamin in talks and seminars she's giving now, not in books she's published (yet). Whether Laplanche is a crucial ongoing influence could be debated, but he is important to her argument in Giving an Account of Oneself to frame the question of responsibility with which she concludes the book. The one thinker who must be on this list is Levinas. His thinking is crucial to her argument in Precarious Life and returns again with great importance in Giving an Account of Oneself and will be an ongoing influence in her thinking. -- Rebecca Kennison 15:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well until there is published work indicating that Benjamin is a pivotal influence, I will remove him. Laplanche, in relation to her work as a whole, is only peripheral, and so I will remove him as well (she really focuses on Foucault and Adorno in formulating her concluding argument about responsibility and critique at the end of Giving an Account). I will also remove Kripke and Kierkegaard as they are also either entirely or mostly absent from her published work. Please keep in mind that this is supposed to be a short list of obvious, predominent influences... so in removing these names I am not saying they have no interesting or relevent connections to Butler, but that for the purposes of this summary box they are just not major enough to be included. --Agnaramasi 16:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Levinas must be included in this list. His name has become more and more influential for those in phenomenology and especially for those in ethics. While he is on the periphery of Butler's work in Giving an Account, his work is seminal in C20 ethics and is considered a predominant influence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asras55 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Longest sentence

There is a bit in the article that states that she apparently has the longest english sentence. "She has been noted for writing the longest sentence in the English language" Is there reference or link to what the sentence is? Is anyone able to source it and contribute it to wikiquote so that it can be linked? (Washboardplayer 03:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


I have my doubts about this. Has anyone ever read Dummett's Philosophy of language. He has sentences that exceed a page and a half of printed page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.200.138.191 (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms

It would be inappropriate to include Nussbaum's criticisms of Butler without including the flood of responses to Nussbuam's article (including those from Gayatri Spivak, Drucilla Cornell, and Seyla Benhabib, among others). I'm sure this is just an oversight, but it deserves to be remedied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asras55 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, please add these! This will be a great contribution to the article. The problem is simply that none of the regular editors know much about this controversy. A one sentence summary of each critic's response to Nussbaum with a proper references will be improve the dubious "criticisms" section enormously.--Agnaramasi (talk) 07:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butler on Crews

I am considering adding a mention of how Butler found one of Frederick Crews's comments homophobic, and what Crews said about that. I think this is both interesting and relevant. However, I anticipate that, if I do add it, someone is immediately going to delete it. So maybe this would be a good moment for someone to say why this incident should not be mentioned in the article. Skoojal (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it being mentioned so long as it is demonstrably WP:Notable.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's notable. That exchange received quite widespread notice. Since no one is objecting, I'll probably add it soon. Skoojal (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I have just restored Crews's comment about Butler, following its deletion. The reason given for the deletion - that this is not an article about Crews - was absurd. If that argument was correct, then every reference to the criticism that Butler has received would have to be deleted. As for it not being clear what the comment was, I will fix that shortly (the person who complained about that could have done it him or herself). Skoojal (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
What reliable source states that this name-calling with Crews is notable? You asserted the exchange received "widespread notice" but I've never heard of it before and you haven't offered any evidence of that. I don't see the relevance of this point, and we still don't know from what you wrote anything new about Butler -- what did she actually say? Where is the quotation? All you have is a link to a summary of the discussion that provides little detail (and it's not clear to me who authored the summary or whether it is published in any reliable source). That there might have been an argument between two people in 1998 is not notable, even if the people involved (or at least one of them) are notable. All that you've added is some soapboxing by Crews without much real context. This stuff does not belong here. csloat (talk) 05:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
With all respect, the fact that you have not heard of something before does not mean that it is not notable. If you want evidence that it received widespread notice, try an internet search. Your suggestion that Frederick Crews is not a reliable source is surprising to me. Are you accusing him of making the whole thing up? I strongly doubt that he would do that. As for your other points, your suggestion that one of these two people (which one?) is not notable is mistaken; they are both very notable, and the fact that they made criticial comments about each other, in 1998 or any other year, makes a difference. Skoojal (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I never said Crews wasn't notable; I said this alleged exchange of insults is not notable. You imply that reliable secondary sources attesting to notability can be found with an "internet search," yet you yourself are unable to come up with a single reliable source. All you have is a self-published summary of a conference panel from ten years ago. csloat (talk) 18:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There does not appear to have been any 'exchange of insults' per se. Crews may have found Butler's remarks about him insulting, but I don't believe that he said so in as many words. Crews probably did not intend his remarks about Butler as an insult. Surely it doesn't need to be explaned why one well known writer suggesting that another well known writer's comments are homophobic is notable? Skoojal (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Surely it does. csloat (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
In this particular case, it is notable because it was an incident that 'has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject', to quote the page on notability. Skoojal (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, then, let's see evidence of the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. An article in the Chronicle of Higher Education focused on "The Great Butler-Crews Smackdown of 1998" should do the trick. csloat (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any problem with its inclusion, so long as it is indeed notable. Notability should be demonstrated in the reference itself. I suggest finding a secondary source which attests to the notability of the incident and gives some background and analysis showing its significance.--Agnaramasi (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
There is more information about what happened here: http://www-english.tamu.edu/pers/fac/myers/bad_writing.html Skoojal (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A blog entry does not establish notability or verifiability. See WP:V. csloat (talk) 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
That was not a blog entry. It was re-published from a widely read magazine. Skoojal (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the link doesn't establish notability. The Weekly Standard is a neoconservative magazine with its own agenda. The notability of the event is not demonstrated merely by this magazine's attempt to use it to attack and discredit Butler.--Agnaramasi (talk) 21:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that neoconservative magazines can never be used to establish notability? Why not? I'm not aware that wikipedia has a policy specifically about neoconservative magazines - if it does, could you please direct me to it? The page on reliable sources notes that, 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed.' It does caution against sources widely acknowledged as extremist. To my knowledge, that does not include The Weekly Standard. Skoojal (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly I am not suggesting that. In this case, however, I do not think that the mention by a single editorial specifically aimed at attacking and discrediting Butler in a neoconservative magazine sufficiently establishes notability. The article seems to be trying to take advantage of an obscure incident to condemn Butler and her work more generally. If this event was reported as news by the Weekly Standard, and not merely in an opinion piece, perhaps that could establish notability. Other sources are needed though, IMO.--Agnaramasi (talk) 13:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia's criteria for notability are rather loose. 'A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject' potentially makes many things notable. Especially since 'These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.' 'IMO' stands for in my opinion, and if it is a matter of opinion, I don't see how that settles anything. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I didn't notice it was a reprint; in any case if we do use magazines they should be linked directly, not a reprint on somebody's blog. But there is no way we can use Weekly Standard on this issue, especially since the attack on butler is not the main focus of this article at all. csloat (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
What difference does it make that it is not the main focus of the article? It is significant that the Standard found the incident important enough to mention. Skoojal (talk) 04:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
No it's not. Not everything that rag happens to mention in an offhanded way like this deserves encyclopedic attention. This is an article about an academic and you're trying to add a pretty vague summary of a verbal exchange that took place ten years ago. Should every random argument Butler ever got into in every conference she attended be mentioned here? The fact that her and Crews apparently misinterpreted each other (or not, I really can't tell from the summary) is just not that important or significant. The fact that the Weekly Standard saw fit to mention it as a way of attacking academics is not that important. The only reason you seem to want to include it here is the vague whiff of homophobia-related scandal, much like your attempts at editing the Foucault page. Why not read some Judith Butler (or her critics) and discuss the actual points made in published literature and talked about by other academics? csloat (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Commodore Sloat, if, as you have hinted, you do not find Judith Butler herself to be notable, I'm not sure why you should care what does or does not go into an article about her. Presumably, if Butler is not notable, the correct thing to do would be to delete this article entirely, not to focus on particular details such as this one (I usually avoid discussing people's motives with them, but since your reasoning appears to be inconsistent, I can hardly avoid this here). As for my motives, you read them quite wrongly. A little thought about the matter should suggest that there are numerous different reasons why someone might want this incident mentioned. I will not discuss different issues with you here. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
If you refuse to read or understand what I have written that is fine but please do not distort it or put words in my mouth; it is highly annoying. I never said Butler was not notable, as you should know, nor do I particularly care what your motives are. Since you refuse to deal with the actual arguments I made, I assume you are conceding them. csloat (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
If you do not care what my motives are, you should not have speculated about them. Your main argument seems to be that the exchange is not significant. It is signifcant, because accusations of homophobia can under certain circumstances destroy people's reputations. That one noted writer tries to damage another noted writer's reputation in this way is a fact worth recording. Skoojal (talk) 07:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I would once again really appreciate it if you stop putting false words in my mouth. It is disconcerting; it is also extremely uncivil. Thank you. Now, if you would please indicate which source indicates that one noted writer tried to damage another noted writer's reputation, we can proceed from there. The Weakly Standard article you cite does not claim that at all. All we have is a vague summary of an exchange that may have taken place ten years ago at a conference. Lots of silly things get said at conferences; few of them are encyclopedia-worthy. If you can point me to the front-page article in the Chronicle of Higher Education (or, hell, even a letter to the editor there) foregrounding this as an important debate as I suggested earlier, we might have something to talk about; otherwise, it really doesn't matter who called whom a poopy-head. Why are you wasting our time with this nonsense? csloat (talk) 08:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I did not knowingly put false words in your mouth. You did say that the incident was not significant. I have nothing else to say about this, except that it is inappropriate to continue this discussion while a request for comment has been placed. Skoojal (talk) 08:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are 2 related and simple policy issues here. First is sourcing. The Weekly Standard piece is partisan, in fact it is a questionable source (as it is political opinion). Secondly notability is not established by trivial references in a newspaper op-ed. There may also be a BLP issue here, so unless solid, third party, non-partisan sources can be found to verify this and discuss it with some depth it aint notable enough for the encyclopedia--Cailil talk 18:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Most news sources, including mainstream ones, are partisan in one way or another, so I don't find this relevant. That the reference is 'trivial' is just an assertion. Skoojal (talk) 07:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
[1] It seems you've added this even though 3 editors have requested that you better demonstrate notability here. I'm afraid I am unconvinced by this source as it is a panel paper presentation - if it were notable this remark could be found in a normal reliable source, like a Jstor or project muse record of a published journal article or book. I'm opening an RFC on this for outside in-put. BLP is a very serious matter for the encyclopedia, please don't take this personally, the addition of contentious material to biographies of living people need to be done with extreme care and in the spirit of "do no harm"--Cailil talk 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
The reliable sources page indicates that, 'Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed.' The Weekly Standard is a mainstream news organization by most standards. The article does not say Project Muse must be used as a source, but for what it is worth the following http://www.google.com/search?q=%22frederick+crews%22+butler+homophobic&hl=en&safe=off&start=20&sa=N suggests that something may be there (the Muse page is listed at the bottom of the search results). I do not have access to Project Muse, but those who do should be able to check Cailil's claim that it cannot be found there for themselves. As for do no harm, the incident has already been reported, so I am not sure what harm it would do anyone's reputation to mention it in a wikipedia article. Skoojal (talk) 03:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Skoojal, I didn't claim "it wasn't on project Muse" - your building a strawman there. Also I didn't and never have at any time said that elibraries like Muse or Jstor had to be used as sources - please don't misrepresent my remarks. As it happens I have access to Muse and I was able to find the same piece by Crews there[2]. I also found mention of it in piece by Michael Bauerlein who wrote an apology for Crews' criticism of Freud and for "resisting theory" in general[3] (I haven't found this cited anywhere yet) however the fundamental notability problem is still there. What's notable about 2 academics sniping at each other at a conference - nothing except the Weekly Standard's appropriation of the event to attack Judith Butler. Secondly by definition The Weekly Standard is not mainstream - it's niche, it's a neoconservative paper - let's face it is not the London Times or New York Times or even the Irish Times and it does not have the same or similar reputation for fact checking and accuracy as any of these papers (that doesn't mean these 3 examples are perfect btw). I'm not saying that in every situation the Weekly Standard isn't good enough as a source - I am saying in this case better sources are needed. As regards "do no harm" - see Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism and WP:BLP in general. What Crews says is that Butler made a remark about "community standards" which he claims is code for homophobia - which he claims was a debating tactic to shut his argument down. That's a "contentious claim about a third party" and that's why I opened the RFC. Also as Commodore Sloat requested above could you indicate where this has been noted as an important or significant debate - I'd like to see this. If you can show how this really is notable and significant I wouldn't have a problem ith being in the article 9as long as it was give due weight and recorded neutrally) but Crews history of criticizing theorists from Freud to Showlater makes it look like a run-of-the-mill Fredrick C Crews comment about (another) Freudian he doesn't agree with--Cailil talk 14:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
BTW thank you for pointing out that the link to the Weekly Standard was broken below--Cailil talk 15:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
The article in question is by Mark Bauerlein, not 'Michael Bauerlein.' If indeed it does mention Butler's comments about Crews and Crews's comments about Butler, then surely it does show the incident to be notable. If you could say more about the content of that article for the benefit of those who do not have access to it, that would be helpful. Your account of the exchange is somewhat muddled - it was Crews who apparently mentioned 'community standards' and Butler who then apparently interpreted that as homophobic. There's not much to be said about The Weekly Standard; like it or not, neoconservatism is an important part of the political mainstream in the United States. Skoojal (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - you are right it is Mark Bauerlein (I must have been thinking of Michael Bérubé when I was typing). And yes my synopsis was a little rushed. As Bauerlein outlines it Butler said she "mistrusted [Crews] appeal to community standards" and that Crews had "a desire for respectability". Crews then decides that she accused him of homophobia (that she euated "community standards with homophobic discourse). He then claims she used codewords to infer that he was homophobic in order to shut down his argument.
Bauerlein's piece is about resisting theory and how Crews regards Freudians as blank-pseudo-scientists and how American academia "harbors several headquarters of false or misdirected learning". He does use Butler and Crews as one example. He also uses John Caputo's obituary of Derrida and Crews attacks on Poststructuralism and how he has been frustrated by the American academy. Problem in this case is Bauerlein's piece is an article written about Crews and it incidentally mentioned his spat with Butler - in other words it's not about Butler Versus Crews. The piece might be notable on Crews page for general use in Crews' bio, but unless it is cited by other mainstream articles about this argument between Crews and Butler it may not be good enough. We have no idea about how widely accepted this view is or how widely disputed. Also it would probably constitute OR, and breach WP:UNDUE to use it alone.--Cailil talk 20:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually it would be fair to note that Bauerlein's position on deconstruction and critical theory in general is relevant. His position being against (ie resisting) theory which is, for better or worse, the global mainstream in academia--Cailil talk 21:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with you about most of this. I don't think that it is important that the article is not primarily about Crews's dispute with Butler. Nor do I think there is a need to find other articles citing this one. I doubt that it counts as original research. You may perhaps be right that this incident would be better mentioned in the article about Crews, however. Skoojal (talk) 00:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The article not being about Butler or a serious discussion of her conflict with Crews makes it a WP:NOR and a possible WP:COATRACK issue. Skoojal, BLPs and biographies are minefields. One has to be very very clear that rumours and/or minor incidents are recorded in an encyclopedia article when (and only when) they are of encyclopedic value and when they "do no harm." Adding this issue is - as outlined below in the RFC - questionable form a notability, BLP and sourcing perspective. Additionally it would become a coatrack to hang tangential, non-notable criticisms of the subject upon.
The reason I'm being so sticky here is because this is a biography article and there is a responsibility on WP to get its biographies strictly within policy. About WP:NOR "you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." My point above is this the Bauerlein article is not about Butler and Crews argument. In fact it's not about Butler - and that's where the problem with using it here is--Cailil talk 14:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This debate is over as far as I'm concerned. I effectively conceded a while ago by refraining from further editing the article. I still disagree with some of your arguments, but that no longer has a bearing on the Butler article. Skoojal (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Just a point of clarification this isn't a debate - it's about site policies and standards for inclusion in biographies of living persons. If this issue is closed I will also close the RFC as comment would be unnecessary--Cailil talk 16:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Judith Butler & Frederick C Crews

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requesting comment from uninvolved users on the above this discussion started by User:Skoojal in order to include contentious information in this BLP article about Judith Butler. After 2 weeks of discussion, 3 editors have asked Skoojal to provide further evidence of the notability of this information. User:Agnaramasi, User:Commodore Sloat and User:Cailil were unconvinced of the notability of the remarks published [4] in a reprint from an op-ed from the neoconservative Weekly Standard (op-ed dated 1999).

On March 8th Skoojal added the same information[5] sourcing it from a conference panel paper given by Crews and published on human-nature.com (paper dated 1998).

In my view these are questionable sources. If Crews' and Butler's argument was notable it would be discussed in reliable third party sources - ie books or journal articles. It would be discussed in a number of different publications, rather than just Crew's own panel paper and an op-ed in a neoconservative paper. Also if it was very notable it might have been discussed in sources more recently than 9 years ago. The relevant policies are:

  • WP:N - notability is not established by trivial references - it requires multiple reliable sources dealing with an issue in some depth.
  • WP:V - questionable sources are sources that are self-published or 'extremist'. Contentious material contained in questionable sources should not be used on WP and remarks about third parties should not be used on WP.
  • WP:BLP - Wikipedia:BLP#Sources "Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims."

Please review the sources and the policies as regards whether Skoojal's edit should be added. Please note that this is a discussion and not a !vote. Thank you for your time--Cailil talk 12:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RFC closed see above thread--Cailil talk 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Viviane Namaste's critique of Butler - "Tragic Misreadings"

Hey people, just a suggestion: why isn't Viviane Namaste's critique of Butler (notably Gender Trouble and Bodies that Matter) included in the critical response to her work? This can be found in her book Invisible Lives: The Erasure of Transsexual and Transgendered People (University of Chicago Press, 2000), or, alternatively, as an earlier article in Brett Beemyn and Mickey Eliason, eds., Queer Studies: A Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Anthology. New York: New York University Press, pp. 183-203.


More info about Invisible Lives here: http://oneofthesethings.blogspot.com/2008/02/namastes-invisible-lives.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.10.173.55 (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason why this isn't included; please add it!!--Agnaramasi (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)