Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative by Judith Butler

Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative Reviews

• 
  Ike Sharpless

  Great ideas - catastrophically obscurantist delivery.
• 
  Parlei

  Judith Butler makes an important contribution here by emphasizing the stakes of power and agency in speech-act theory. She revisits key authors in speech-act discourse, such as J.L. Austin and Althusser, revising many of their theories which posited language too conventionally (Austin) or posited language as issuing from a sovereign or divine (otherwise non-human) agent (Althusser). In doing so, Butler questions the presumption that hate speech always works; this is not to minimize pain suffered as a consequence, but “to leave open the possibility that its failure is the condition of a critical response.” (19) A key term which she introduces to the equation is the notion of speech-act's "efficacy," or the presumption that speech-acts always somehow works. The inclusion of Toni Morrison's parable about young children playing a cruel joke on an old woman represents beautifully the way that power and agency can be subverted, and that language, as a kind of 'Schrodinger's' bird in the children's hands, is both a nonliving system and a 'living' thing which is contingent upon something beyond itself, particularly beyond anything you or I could contain.
  
  Ultimately, this relates to the term 'Excitable' of her book, which she appropriates from law discourse to emphasize her point about language: "My presumption is that speech is always in some ways our of our control… Untethering the speech act from the sovereign subject founds an alternative notion of agency and, ultimately, of responsibility, one that more fully acknowledges the way in which the subject is constituted in language, how what it creates is also what it derives from elsewhere." (15-16) This is then tied into the concept of injurious speech, namely: hate speech, (mis)naming, and interpellation in ways that subverts a subject (e.g. the famous Althusserian scene of the policeman 'hailing' a subject; the subject, upon responding, then inscribes him/herself in guilt). The question becomes: when and how does an utterance perform meanings beyond that which is stated? Are we rendering more power to hate speech by regulating/legislating against it, thus calling it into a more privileged existence than it had before? And ultimately, what kind of language 'ought' we use--I ask, furthermore, how should that 'ought' be rendered?
  
  Disagreement with Butler ultimately comes from a worldview which sees race, sexuality, and sexual performance as even issues, and which does not define 'hate speech' beyond what is currently the norm in today's liberal-political schema; her arguments are nonetheless strong. I do appreciate her inter-systematic approach in using supreme court decisions, law, censorship, and other culturally-derived spheres to make her arguments. This webpage has a good summary of her arguments:
  http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/theatre_...
• 
  Sofie Amalie

  Jeg tror jeg forstod den? 😅
  
  Ingen tvivl om at Judith Butler er utroligt klog og der er helt klart noget viden i den her bog, som jeg kan bruge til min SRP, men det er nok også lige niveauet over en gymnasieelev. 😆
• 
  Nahid Dolatshahi Piroz

  "At forblive uvillig til at genoverveje sin politik på grundlag af spørgsmål, der stilles, er at vælge et dogmatisk standpunkt på bekostning af såvel livet som tænkningen."
• 
  Alberto Grandi

  "Basterebbe solo pensare al modo in cui la storia del fatto di vedersi attribuire un nome ingiurioso sia incarnata nel corpo, come le parole entrino nelle membra, modellino il gesto, pieghino la spina dorsale. Basterebbe solo pensare a come gli insulti razziali o di genere vivano e prosperino nella carne della persona cui sono rivolti, e a come questi insulti si accumulino nel tempo, dissimulando la loro storia, assumendo la sembianza della naturalità, configurando e restringendo la doxa, che vale come realtà."
• 
  Victoria Olsen (tid til tanker)

  Fantastisk. Intet mindre kan gøre det. Jeg har allerede brugt Butler til en million universitetsopgaver, og jeg har tænkt mig at bruge hende til en million mere 😎 (overdrivelsen fremmer forståelsen😂👏🏻)
• 
  Rachele

  ???
• 
  Joseph Sverker

  Excitable speech is a fairly odd book in many ways. Butler takes on a very difficult task. On the one hand she tries to argue, despite taking much support herself on that theory, that speech acts are not necessarily ‘acts’ when it comes to hate speech and pornography. Instead, she argues that hate speech is not an ‘act’ in itself. It is inconsistent with the theory iteslf, for Butler, if hate speech would be an ‘act.’ But in this she does not reject the idea of performativity in speech (that would certainly be blowing a gargantual hole in her own foot), rather, she points out that the people arguing for hate speech as a speech act is not understanding the uncertainty in the context of speech. What is meant by that is that speech (like all things performative for Butler) is never able to establish itself fully. There is always a failure in meaning in the hate speech, and even derogatory words is in constant need of negotiation of meaning. When that is the case, hate speech needs to be recognised as hate speech before it can be deemed to be hate speech. In that way no speech can be hate speech prior to the judgement.
  
  Having done that, Butler, however, does not want to argue that one can freely defame one’s other. It is certainly the case that words can hurt for Butler, but that does not lead her to argue that hate speech is the same as physical violence for example. The main problem in the book is, I suppose, that when Butler locate the meaning of lagnuage in discoursese and power structures rather than directly in the speaker, she undermines individual responsibility for speech. She acknowledges this problem, but I am not completely convinced that she argues strongly enough for how to solve it.
  
  A very interesting and valuable point, for me, in this book is how Butler stresses the materiality of speech. Speech never stops to be material she says. Speech comes from the the body in the speaker, travels in the physical waves and is taking in in the physcial body of the receptor. However, what speech does, and this is a point I find original, is that it works to detract from its own physicality. The focus in communivation is always on the meaning, and never on the means. In that way speech undermines the body, while being completely dependent upon the body. Speech acts as if it is immaterial, whilst it is fully material.
  
  Bulter does not make this connection, but what I think is that this way of seeing speech makes it very interesting to compare the differences between music and dance. Music does in a way affirm speech in that it makes speech even more immaterial. Music, at least to me, masks itself as something ephemeral, mystical and transcendent. It does, in a way, want to separate itself from it material roots of the musical instruments, create a whole that is greater than the sum of its part. However, music provokes the body into movement. And in dance, music (and speech) is actually made corporeal. Or, more carefully put, the incorporreality and transcendence of music and speech is unmasked by dance. In that way dance is the more ‘true’ artform, if ‘truth’ is the same as unmasking things as they really are.
• 
  Bee

  I gave it two stars, not for the content, but for the writing style.
  It's extremely dense, overly complicated and hardly accessible to people who are not familiar with her field. Which is a shame with this book, because as far as I understood it, it's a very pertinent analysis. However I am so uncertain about having understood the actual meaning that I won't comment further on this.
  Also, I made the mistake of trying to read this translated in my mother tongue at first. Her analysis of language is so tied up in english vocabulary and speech that part of its significance gets lost in another language.
  
• 
  Nated Doherty

  When people criticize Butler for this book, it makes me think they are stupid, also it makes me want to punch them. (is that hate speech?) Anyway, it's very interesting, deep book. About law and speech (and consequently the way we live in the world all). Illuminating.
• 
  Johannes

  I never finished this. This book represents my very mixed emotions about contemporary academia. I can't really stand it, but I also feel terribly guilty for not putting the effort into knowing it and being able to express why I can't stand it.
• 
  Fluffy Singler

  Judith Butler's writing can be very dense and difficult to read. This book is a little more accessible than some of her work, but you definitely have to have the vocabulary in her subject matter to follow it. If you do, you will find this work very valuable and worthwhile.
  
  
• 
  Daniela

  Butler deviously pixes up pragmatics with ever-changing-fuild-never-congealed entity view! The result: bamboozling gibberish!
• 
  Nat Baldino

  Read alongside J.L. Austin's How To Do Things with Words.
  
  And who said that early Butler wasn't clear and concise? This definitely was. If only this line of thinking was present for GT
• 
  Guilherme Smee

  Ler um livro de Judith Butler, para um homossexual, pode substituir muitos anos de terapia. Sim, os textos dela não são fáceis, e a maioria em inglês, mas aqueles capazes de dar uma chance à educação e ao pensamento crítico, conseguirão entender. Neste livro, Excitable Speech, um baita dum livro que devia ser traduzido ao português depois do "queimem a bruxa", fala exatamente sobre isso: até onde o discurso de ódio é ético e moral? Até onde ele deve ser regulado pela lei, pelo Estado e pela sociedade? Esse livro me fez entender bastante como minha sexualidade foi construída e desconstruída social e culturalmente, principalmente pelas teorias de Freud sobre censura e autoridade, algo que já era minha hipótese aqui corroborada pela Bubu. Butler explica como o discurso, a censura, a autoridade, a violência fragilizam certas identidades e cortam a sua agência e autonomia, desconsiderando-as socialmente. Isso vale não só para homossexuais, mas negros, indígenas, mulheres, latinos, pobres e tantos outros. Ela mostra como a agência do discurso influi numa censura implícita, que não está no papel, mas faz parte do habitus - termo estabelecido por Pierre Bourdieu - da sociedade. Butler também explicou minha paranóia e minha fobia social através da situação do "dont ask dont tell" do exército americano, no qual as pessoas ficam desterritorializadas, deslegitimadas, sem ter para onde fugir por ter sua identidade negada. Se dizer homossexual nos exército americano induz a um monte de segregação e que é ainda mais fragilizada na imaginação do soldado gay, que produz imagens de culpa e de castigo pelo fato de ser quem é e pelos desejos que tem. Para Butler, o desejo homossexual na sociedade atual produz o que Paul Ricoeur definia como o Circuito Vicioso do Inferno, ou seja, um círculo vicioso de desejo e interdição infinito, que acarreta em altas doses de culpabilidade e não-merecimento de participar da sociedade por aquele que "sofre" desse desejo. Essa transformação da homossexualidade em culpa e, portanto, na base do sentimento social, ocorre quando o medo do castigo parental se generaliza como o medo de perder o amor de outros. A paranóia, para Sigmundo Freud, é a maneira pela qual esse amor é consistentemente reimaginado como sempre quase retirado, e é, paradoxalmente, o medo de perder esse amor que motiva a sublimação ou introversão da homossexualidade. Ela também fala de performatividades soberanas, que guiam conduta tanto moral quanto de gênero dos seres humanos e, portanto, moldam a sociedade através de poder e autoridade. E, de tanto ela falar em discurso, em discurso de ódio, em censura, ela acaba falando de silêncio e silenciamento, tanto físico, como espiritual, como moral e psicológico das minorias, mas principalmente dos homossexuais, que foram erradicados da História e continuam sendo perseguidos por gente que não tem paciência e nem capacidade de ler um livro da Bubu. Seja ele em inglês ou em português. E tenho dito.
• 
  Giuliana Petrucci

  Assunto importante e interessante ,mas é hermético (trancado, impossível de acessar). A escrita ta desnecessariamente densa e não é por causa da tradução. O desencadeamento dos argumentos é que são intransponiveis.. às vzs da pra pegar umas ideias. E é mt densa a quantidade de autores e suas teorias que ela usa no caminho pra opiniar e traçar as próprias teses, que são de difícil compreensão.
  
  Mas resumindo o livro, eis o post que fiz no meu instagram @crocodicas:
  
  👉Já ouvir falar dos Atos de fala do filósofo John Austin?
  
  💬 É a ideia de que a linguagem não serve apenas para descrever situações e sensações. Vai muito além: nossas falas são também atos, performances que tem intenções e muitas vezes buscam obter ou provocar algo em alguém.
  
  Como exemplos temos as perguntas, as ordens, os pedidos, os desabafos, os conselhos, as frases de amparo. As ordem e os pedidos mobilizam e requisitam. Os conselhos oferecem alternativas. As frases de amparo buscam tranquilizar.
  
  É nessa linha que Judith Butler analisa os discursos de ódio. As palavras tem o poder de ferir, elas acessam a nossa vulnerabilidade, já que estamos submetidos à linguagem e precisamos dela para existir como humanos. 🤯
  
  Mas ela não só nos constitui; a linguagem pode ameaçar nossa existência.
  
  Butler afirma que o discurso de ódio não apenas comunica ideias ofensivas, mas coloca em ação a própria mensagem que ele comunica.
  
  Há, no entanto, a possibilidade de se apropriar da ofensa e ressignificá-la, como aconteceu com a palavra "bicha" pela comunidade gay. Vemos isso no documentário no Youtube: "Bichas - O documentário".
  
  O termo era embutido de um sentido pejorativo, mas sua repetição pelos proprios sujeitos a quem a ofensa era direcionada criou um sentido de resistência e apropriação. Então por que não correr o risco e mergulhar dentro de um termo, se apropriando dele e batendo no peito pra ser o que se é? Isso o que Butler quer dizer com o caráter de insurreição da linguagem! Uma verdadeira disputa pela polissemia.
  
  Existem muitos exemplos mobilizados pelos movimentos sociais dessa ressignificação! E Butler considera esse discurso inssurrecionário como alternativa às injúrias e ofensas.
• 
  Mélanie

  Judith Butler, philosophe spécialiste des études de genre, analyse les discussions, souvent passionnées, sur la génèse de la violence verbale dirigée contre les minorités. Soulignant l'ambivalence du "hate speech" et de la possibilité de le retourner et d'ouvrir l'espace nécessaire d'une lutte politique et d'une subversion des identités.
  Judith Butler nous propose de puissants instruments pour repenser les questions soulevées par les débats sur la pénalisation des discours de haine.
• 
  Indumugi C

  If someone convinced you that reading Judith Butler's work is difficult, this is your cue that it is not. This is the first time I picked up her work, and it was eye-opening, and brilliant. I'm going to go on a reading spree of her other books. Excitable speech investigates language as a scene of injury than its cause. In particular, she argues that utterances can attain a resignification over time, and such an insurrectionary speech becomes a necessary response to injurious language.
• 
  Shane

  A series of case studies on what constitutes 'speech', with an emphasis on American law and society. Unfortunately burdened with a lot of jargon, the content is very strong, particularly when it explores the role of the body in speech, and how hate-speech can be framed. Excellent at times.
• 
  Hilal Işık

  Unfortunately, for me it was the most difficult and unpleasant read from Butler ever. Strong content, horrible manner of telling.
• 
  Pietro

  ' una delle poche "maitre à penser" in circolazione..
• 
  Emre vs.

  Alternatif bir "counter-speech" üzerine, nefret söylemi analizi.
• 
  Kermy

  en realidad serían 3,5.
  
  ‘¿quiénes somos “nosotros”, que no podemos existir sin el lenguaje, y qué significa “ser” en el lenguaje?’
• 
  Denisse Martínez

  Necesario para comprender mejor el tema de los discursos de odio.
• 
  Jessica Chretien

  Really such an important book. Not until I read this particular piece of Butler did I really begin to understand Butler's conception of performativity & iteration & repetition.
• 
  Robert Høgh

  Jeg er enig med Butler i alt, hvad hun skriver. Men jeg forstår ikke, hvorfor hun skriver på sådan en kompliceret måde. Hendes pointe er meget simpel. Det kan selvfølgelig også være, at jeg tager fejl, og pointen i virkeligheden er så kompleks, at jeg ikke forstår den
• 
  Malcolm

  Although I try to keep up with Butler's work much of it descends into a sense of post-modern analysis without clear options for action, this is a pleasing exception. It is also, of all the work I have read of her's in the last 15 years or so the one, that gets (or perhaps stays) closest to her origins in rhetoric and centres explicitly on the performativity of the speech act itself. As a result, there is a clear and lucid introductory chapter outlining the basis of her work in rhetoric and linguistics, and close readings of hate speech, of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy in the US armed forced towards serving gays, and the dangers of self (or as she calls it, implicit) censorship. The introduction, 'On Linguistic Vulnerability', is worth the price of the book itself. It has been about 12 years since I first read this, and I keep going back to it (especially the Inroduction): a sure sign that it valuable.