Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of Sex

In the Introduction, Butler includes three epigraphs. Two—from feminist critics Donna Haraway and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak—question whether bodies are truly bound by their skin and physical limits. The third, by poststructuralist philosopher Jacques Derrida, states, “There is no nature, only the effects of nature: denaturalization or naturalization” (1).

Butler establishes the foundations for their investigation of the relationship between the materiality of the body—the physical existence and reality of a body—and the performativity of gender. First, they address the often-invoked concept of sexual difference. Butler argues that sexual difference is not merely a result of material distinctions—like sex organs or physical characteristics—but is also shaped by discursive practices. The category of “sex” is normative and functions as a “regulatory ideal,” a term used by Michel Foucault that refers to ideas used to control behavior in a society. Therefore, “sex” not only serves as a norm but is actively self-regulating, producing and governing the bodies it seeks to control.

Sexual difference, Butler argues, is an ideal rather than a fact, a normative construct that materialized over time through regulated practices. Materialization gives a concept, such as sexual difference, concrete meaning in culture and society—in this case, simply being born with certain sex organs comes with created cultural meanings about gender and sexuality. These meanings are developed through repetition and only continue to exist through this repetition. However, the process of materialization is characterized by a continuous struggle, as bodies never completely conform to regulatory norms. As the process is highly unstable, regulatory practices can be turned against themselves, as is the case with practices of contestation aimed at challenging hegemonic norms. In this context, hegemony refers to a culture’s dominant ideology and norms, usually perpetuated by the ruling class, that is considered natural and inevitable rather than constructed.

Butler provides an initial definition of gender performativity as “the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names” (vii). This means that in society, public and private discourse dictates how bodies should conform to norms of sex and gender, and performativity is not a single act but a combination of this discourse and repeated cultural practices. Therefore, Butler is against an understanding of sex as fixed and biological. Instead, they conceive of sex as the product of a continuous process of performativity.

The process of assuming sex is one form of identification in society. Heterosexual norms simultaneously enable certain identifications while excluding others, thus creating a realm of excluded or abjected beings. Such beings are outside of society because they do not have the right to participate in key roles and activities. For example, LGBTQ+ people would be considered abjected beings in many societies where they are politically excluded, socially maligned, and/or the target of violence. However, Butler highlights the possibility of political mobilization that abjected categories retain, pointing out that acts of subversion are central to their understanding of performativity.

Furthermore, Butler explores the relationship between culture and nature, challenging traditional models of gender construction. They critically examine the assumptions inherent in constructions of gender, questioning whether the framing of gender in relation to sex—in which one’s sex organs define one’s gender—is implicitly masculinist. According to such framing, both matter and biological sex are considered passive and disorganized material elements that require active organization. Butler discusses how feminist scholars have called for a rethinking of the concept of nature, challenging the traditional understanding of nature as an inert entity in need of technological shaping and articulation. As the Derrida quote above states, nature can be thought of as a construct itself rather than an innate state. Thinking about nature classifies objects as “natural” or “manmade,” and masculinist points of view consider nature an empty vessel, devoid of meaning until it is shaped by man (built upon, used for resources, et cetera). Butler points to the fact that a historical understanding of nature is critical. They argue that the notion of “sex” is problematic and obscured by its image as a receptive, valueless mass.

Butler argues that if gender is a cultural construct, then sex is a normative ideal whose materialization is enacted through regulatory practices. The distinction between sex and gender used by most societies is problematic because it approaches sex as a fact that precedes language. Instead, for Butler, sex is part of the same process of identification and materialization as gender. For example, an infant starts to be defined once a doctor declares it “he” or “she”: “the girl is ‘girled’” (xvii).

Moving beyond the traditional oppositions such as gender/sex and discourse/matter, Butler proposes to approach matter not as a static mass but as a dynamic process of materialization over time. They argue that construction is a temporal process that operates through the reiteration of norms, during which sex is simultaneously produced and undermined. Butler emphasizes that traditional constructions of gender create an “outside,” which can offer possibilities for the redefinition of the relationship between sex and gender.

Using a Lacanian framework, Butler explores the act of assuming a sex. This discussion will be taken up again in Chapters 3, 4, and 5. In the Introduction, Butler only suggests that the act of assuming a gender is constrained by societal norms, particularly those related to heterosexuality. Although subjects may appear to be in charge of their choices related to gender, the sexed body is a product of identification practices governed by regulatory schemas. Agency, or the ability to act, emerges within the constraints of these norms, while performativity is the consistent reiteration of societal norms rather than a singular act. The concepts of “citation” and “identification,” central to Butler’s project in Bodies That Matter, are both related to the assumption of a sex and the symbolic law. The symbolic law, in Lacanian terms, refers to the structure of language and the social order that regulates meaning and subjectivity. It encompasses the shared system of symbols, norms, and rules that govern how individuals understand and relate to themselves and the world. Citationality refers to the practice of reiterating certain terms, phrases, and discourses over time to sustain the symbolic law. Butler argues that the symbolic law in society is mostly dictated by heterosexual hegemony, which leaves all bodies that fail to conform outside the established norms.

In the last part of the Introduction, Butler outlines the texts they will examine and the central themes they will explore in the book. The selected texts, ranging from Plato’s Timaeus to contemporary films and sexual theory, provide a diverse array of perspectives on the construction of gender and sexuality. Butler emphasizes that these texts challenge the established order of gender and sex dynamics in society by questioning the status of sex and its materiality.

In the first part of the book, Butler investigates the relationship between power relations and the formation of bodies. In doing so, they revisit traditional metaphysical positions from the perspective of contemporary critical theory. The first two chapters consider the role of heterosexuality in shaping the understanding of the sexed body. Butler also challenges common symbols and their relations to sexuality, such as the phallus and its physical counterpart, the penis.

In the third chapter and fourth chapters, Butler discusses the political dimension of identification practices, especially how identities relate to heterosexual hegemony. They also discuss how normative sexuality influences the understanding of the racialized body.

Part 2 turns to specific literary works, including Willa Cather’s and Nella Larsen’s fiction. The readings examine how these texts challenge normative gender and sexual expectations. In addition, Butler questions the disconnect between sexuality and gender, particularly in Cather’s fiction, and explores how Larsen’s novella Passing offers a way to rework the symbolic as a racially articulated set of sexual norms.

The final chapters engage with political discourse and theories of performativity, drawing on Slavoj Žižek’s work on Lacanian psychoanalysis. Butler considers the limits of mobilization of gender and racial norms, advancing the idea that excluded identities can be used to subvert the very norms they sustain. Finally, Butler argues that queerness can function as a site for the reconfiguration of the excluded as a political category. Ultimately, Butler aims to contribute to the redefining of social norms and discourse.