Butler and James

What I took away from Butler’s Imitation and Gender Insubordination is that human classification cannot necessarily be applied to the most fundamental elements of life, as gender and sexuality are too complex to be fully understood. While Butler succeeded in accentuating this claim, she did not articulate the pros and cons of a world in which desire is uninhibited by normative social practices. She continuously (and justifiably) picks apart our current binary system, but does not explain how an absence of – or alternative to – the system would strengthen or weaken society. Such clarification would have put her argument in context with the larger social and political issues that stem from gender constructions.

While I found James’ essay Uncle incredibly powerful, I was unable to identify the point she was trying to make. At first I thought that Jake's seemingly ‘homosexual’ behavior was a product of raw, youthful desire (as opposed to homosexuality). I then thought back to Bersani's idea of sexual identification - if you identify with your mother, you like women, if you identify with your father, you like men. According to this principle, Jake is a homosexual, as he identifies with his uncle. However, I feel that providing Jake with a sexual orientation does not comply with James’ conception of free-flowing desire. Thus, Bersani’s principle undermines James' essay, as it veils her broader implications.