Interview with Judith Butler

 

Queer philosopher and feminist writer Prof. Dr. Judith Butler took the time to visit Ankara to give a lecture as a part of the 5th International Meeting Against Homophobia on May 15th, 2010. Knowing that we will see her only once in a life time, here we credit each word and breath that come out of her mouth to last till who knows when.

Of course, we all have to struggle in two directions at once. We demand equality, and that means that we demand that our intimate relations be recognized as having equal value with straight relationships. We fight against discrimination on the basis of our demand for equal treatment. And in this way, we seek to achieve a kind of “normality”. I suppose as well that if the choices are either to “be normal” or “to be pathological” we have to choose “normality.” But maybe this framework can be put into question, since striving to “be normal” is about conformity, effacing difference, and achieving invisibility. So the second direction in which we strive must be to establish our difference, to let people know the complexity and specificity of sexuality, of modes of love and attachment, and of new communities with different norms about how sexual practices can take place. We have to insist on equality, but also be recognized for whatever differences characterize our lives.

 

I think there are some queer theorists, such as Michael Warner, who do argue that queer is the antonym for normal. For me, and perhaps also for the late Eve Sedgwick, queer is not a term of identity, but a mode of affiliation. The importance of “queer” as a term is that it brings together all sorts of people, regardless of their gender or sexuality, to fight homophobia. This last characterizes a non-identitarian alliance, and for me it remains the most powerful sense of queer.

 

It seems to me that homophobia is what we struggle against, not heterosexuality. After all, we are not in the business of judging people for their sexuality, and neither do we want to be judged. So although we have to oppose obligatory heterosexuality –or heteronormativity– we do so because it is coercive, not because it is heterosexual. So many queer lives are characterized by periods of straight and gay encounters or relations, and bisexuals have to be included in whatever more affirmative ideas of sexuality we develop. As a result, we have to consider that there are certain kinds of “gay practices” that happen with heterosexual relations, and certain strains of heterosexuality that appear within gay relations. So it is important not to be a purist in matters of sexuality, or unwittingly to engage in our own form of policing actions. The point is not to be judged for sexual fantasy or practices that hurt no one, and the point is to expand a queer community to fight for the rights of sexual and gender self-determination, equality before the law, and a fuller recognition with society in general.

 

Well, I am never fully at home wherever I am placed, and that includes in my own various homes, including “queer theory.” But I would not disavow this affiliation. It is important to the work I have done, and there is now a new generation of queer theorists and queer studies scholars who are working on questions of nationalism, racism, immigration politics, and sexual politics. Sometimes it seemed to me that some colleagues wanted very strongly to distinguish queer theory from feminism. But I do not think that is possible. After all, gender discrimination is a term that applies to anyone who does not do their gender in the “normal” way – and that includes women and men and those who belong to neither category. We need to expand our alliances, not restrict them.

 

I consider that it is important to fight the pathologization of homosexuality, transgender, bisexuality, intersex, and genderqueer social appearances. So again, this struggle against pathologization by the law or, indeed, the complicit practices of psychiatry have to be fought by all of us. We need ways of describing all these gendered and sexual social realities that give them specificity and relieve them all of moral and pathologizing judgments. So perhaps I am against pathologization without being exactly for normalization. I want us to find ways to break out of this particular framework, since the point is that all these lives need to flourish. And flourishing is a much stronger goal than ‘normalization.’ One can be different, and flourish in one’s difference.

Feminism is a complex terrain, and those who focus on fighting pornography sometimes forget how very important erotic visual culture is for sexual minorities. I want feminism to return to its strong traditions of struggling for freedom in the context of complex alliances. Many feminists do precisely that.

 

Again, I would say that the struggle for gay marriage is an important one since it seeks to establish the equality of straight and gay relationships. The problem with the struggle is that it also comes to value marriage as the most important way of organizing sexual or intimate relations. And this usually brings with it assumptions about shared property and monogamy. A radical sexual movement has to struggle for equality, to be sure, but we also have to remain supportive of those other forms of relationships that do not fall under the category of “marriage.”

 

Family is, of course, a different matter, and I note that in some countries it is easier to extend rights of marriage to couples regardless of their gender than it is to legalize adoption for gay parents or to extend equal rights of parenting to members of the same gender (using gender in that legal way). So these matters are complex.

But let us remember that the households or the kinship systems that provide for the caring of children are not always the same as families, and they do not necessarily correlate with relations of marriage. So we need to be able to defend, for instance, “households” or “modes of kinship” that reduce neither to the marriage or the family form.

 

Moreover, the presumption of monogamy remains a profound problem, more often valued as an ideological ideal than any kind of viable social practice. The hypocrisy on this issue that defines mainstream marriage is something that alternative sexual communities have tried to find another way of living. Let us presume that sexuality does not always take a monogamous form, and neither does it always fit neatly into the categories of “heterosexual” and “homosexual.”

 

I do not have much of a feeling about that need, since it is not my need. I am just living my life and thought.

 

I think that “queer” is the kind of term that travels – no one owns it. If it works in a given context, then that becomes interesting, and if it is appropriated for reasons that could not be foreseen, then it is not exactly an “imported good” but a term and a discourse that takes on new life. Like any term, it can be subject to commodification and normalization, so it needs to be thought about critically, and not just a site for celebration.

 

I never know where the work is going, and I am not always sure how the texts work once they arrive in another language or, indeed, another political time zone. I presume that when works are read in different parts of the globe that they become different works. Every work is “packaged’ but the question is whether the work can work in ways that exceed the packaging. I wrote for those I do not know and cannot name.

 

I am most interested to know how I can be of use, and what I stand to learn. So I am studying in advance of my trip, and hope to understand the specific terms of the struggles there. I hope to be changed by what I see and learn. And I thank you for this opportunity to arrive.

 

. This interview was done in dedication to Judith Butler's visit to Ankara in 2010