I knew this would come--the day when I'd have to try to understand the Discoball of Feminism(s).
My favorite course this term is a 4 hour class called Staging the Text. The general format is to spend the first two hours in two large groups (led by students) discussing our reading assignments which usually consist of two readings of theory and two different plays. The second two hours, we break into small groups and attempt to stage a scene or two from given plays using the theory we have studied.
I chose to lead this past week for one reason, or rather, for one play--"Waiting for Godot" by Samuel Beckett. Theatre of the Absurd. I love it! (The other play was Agatha Christie's The Mousetrap.) But I hadn't bothered to review our theory readings first. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination" by Judith Butler. Can I just say, particularly for those who have worked their way through Judith Butler, Whoa! It wasn't/isn't that I actually disagreed with her points, I just struggled and struggled to understand them. Take for example this sentence...
"To claim that there is no performer prior to the performed, that the performance is performative, that the performance constitutes the appearance of a "subject" as its effect is difficult to accept."
I understand why I resisted delving into feminism before; it truly is like trying to understand a second language.
However...
What I found particularly useful in this article was her differentiation between one's "gender" (descibing an acted out, conditioned sexual behavior) and one's "sex" (biological anatomy). Bulter argues there is no natural "gender", only learned/perceived choices to make--but these are artifically limited.
On to "compulsory heterosexuality". At first, I diagreed with this concept. But she argues it well by pointing out, "It is a compulsory performance in the sense that acting out of line with heterosexual norms brings with it ostracism, punishment, and violence, not to mention the transgressive pleasures produced by those very prohibitions."
For me, who is fond of dabbling in psychology, I think I liked best her concept of "psychic excess", or all the freedom/choices we shove down deep into our subconscious when we simply act out/perform a chosen gender role. I think that what Butler is saying is that because of the pressure to behave in prescibed roles for gender identity, heterosexuals will subvert choices that they deem as homosexual, and homosexuals may also subvert choices they deem as heterosexual. "Psychic excess" is the result of this freedom/choices which never go away, but inevitably pops up in various forms--usually negative, trapping the individual spirit. I THINK that is what she's on about. And I must say I agree with it--not just on sexual levels, but on many magor identity levels, ie. family roles, religious roles, etc.
So,...have you been Waiting for Godot? Yes, my group did stage a few scenes with an all female cast (something which the Beckett Estate doesn't allow). Changed Godot from a he to a she and minorly twicked a couple of other things to reset it in an "all female world". Unavoidably we fell into "performing" stereo-types of the female gender--though we tried not to. I was just curious wanted to see what would happen. I wanted to SEE it and FEEL it...and this is my conclusion.
When you take the men out of Godot, you lose its inherent comedic element. That is not to say that it can't be replaced, but I think it would take some clever and innovative thinking. I think the humor in Godot pivots on a certain gender-based interpretation of reality. Hummm.
But I'd like to finish on a quote from Tracy C. Davis in her article on "Questions for a Feminist Methodology in Theatre History":
"Making the invisible visible in female and male experience is the route of insight into all culture--not because it addresses an imbalance, but because it is more all-encompassing."
(Teacher, are we done? Can I leave now?)
