Identity K

ADI2oo6 Dr.
Dave'sLab
Index ldentiq'K
IDENTITY KRITIK
INC SHELL 1-7 ALTERNATIVE(S):
L'NKS: F""li,T*,i,i,t' 33
Link Magnifier (SubjectPosition)-----. _.. -_-__-_ 8 Deconstructld.trt'tL 100-103
Anglo-Feminism_ 9 Deconstruct Gender 104
- -
Anri-lnrellecrualism to U n d oG e n d e r ios
ulscourse II performance/Repetition 106_l0g
E''.ntiu|i'|2-|4E;;a;.l;;*."".'*"i'.,,o,i,'.,1_"-i;;
remlnlsm 15-18 .Other'Narratives
ll0
G e n d e r- _
History - 20
Homogenization -- 2l A N S W E R ST o :
H u m a nR i g h t , - -- Il 2- l l 5
Hum aRni g hAc
t s t i v i sm ,.11 ilil*"; p."" 116-117
Identiry 25-27 P l a nS o l v e s I 18
I d e n t i r yM o v e m e n t s 2 8 - ' lI l d e n t i t yc a r e g t , ' i , i t i o nlL. e
, ,gi ri t I 19
r d e n t i r yp o r i r i c s
rncrusion_ -l: ]i t"'"' - i:i
Intersectionality __ 36
ru;,'"tl:ffi?;*",'*
l<lentitypolitics) Charye 122
Law PhysicalDiff-erence Matter 123
-Normativity 37 H u m a nR i g h t sC o o d f b r N o n - l i b c r aSl o c i e t i e s 124
-Jurisprudence 38
- R i g h t sG o o df b r P u b l i cD e l i b e r a t i o n 125
- R a c e- 19 C o l l e c r i v eR i g h t sG o o d | 26
Left/Liberalism-- -- 4 0 - 4I E x c l u s i o ni s n o t I n e v i t a b l e ll7- llg
"Man"/"Woman" 42-45 C u l t u r aT l ranslatioB n ad ll9_ l-tU
N a t i o n a ld e n t i t i e(sQ u i r i n ) 16-47
Particularity 4g AFFIRMATTVE:
P a t r i a r c h(yS i n g u l a r ) qS p*nl_ l . l l _l j - l
Race-.- 50 Perm SocialLocationKey
Rights-- 5l-55 P e r n rt b r F e m i n i s r n
Aff. li6
Sex
S t a t i cl d e n t i t y 62 P o s t m o d e r n i sBma d 138
S u b j e ci vt i t y 63 Focuson Dill'erenceBad t39
SupremeCourt 64 Multiculturalism Good l'10
'Terrorism'
65-66 [ J n i v e r s a l i t yG o o d lll
- A T : U . S .b r o u g h t' t e r r o r 'o n t o i t s e l f 67 -Social Movements lll
-AT: We can't forgive 'terrorist'acts 68 A c t i o nC o o d ll-l
VAWA 6c) Post-ldentiqBad l-11
Victimization 70 l d e n t i t y P o l i t i c sG o o d t+f,
V i o l e n c eA g a i n s tW o m y n 7| l d e n t i t yG o o d - -S o c i a lM o v e m e n t s l - 1 7 l-, l 8
ldentityGood Inclusion 149-l-s0
IMPACTS: I d e n t i t yP o l i t i c s- C r e d i b i l i t y * _ l5l
General 72-73 GenderCategories Good 152
71-78 Womyn's Movement/E,flbrts Good 153-154
U n i v e r s a l i t-y E x c l u s i o n 79 A - f: W o m y nD o n ' t t x i s t 155
U n i v e r s a l i t)l V i o l e n c e 80 System- Inescapable._ 156-r57
Logic of Apartheid 8l-82 Equalir"v- ) TranscendParticularify- 158
Ressentiment 83-84
SlaveMoraliry,Powerlessness 85-86
GenderBinaries 8l
Heterosexual IdealsBad 88
DiscourseShapesReality 89-92
DBH
ADI
ADI 2006 Dr. Dave'sLab
ldentitv K
Identitv Kritik Strateev Sheet
The main authorsin this file are Judith Butler and Wendy Brown, identity politics/identiflcation
critics. The
recurrent theme of this file is that identity formulated into universal categtries is a dangerous
happening.
Specifically,Judith Butler arguesthat f-eminism'sgreatestproblem has beenasserting'women'
into a common
interestgroup.That approachcreated'anunwittingregulationand reificationof genderrelations'.
reinfbrcinga
binary view of genderrelations in which human beings are divided into clear-cut groups, womyn
and men.
Ratherthan openingup possibilitiesfor peopleto chooseand embracerheirown individuaiities.identitypolitics
groups, like f-eminism'close options down. Butler suggeststhat we should 'undo gender'.
which can be
translatedinto a generaldeconstruction of identity, to enableflexible desires,resistance.and empowerment.
Part of deconstructingidentity requiresthe realizationthat identity is performatively
constituted.insteadof
establishing universalityfiom identity.The proliferationof gendersand subversiveconfusioncreatea necessar)'
action to breakdown gender/identityhierarchy.
Brown's scholarshipis somewhatsimilar to Butler. However,the argumentsin this file fbcus

on her work
emphasizingFriedrichNietzscheand currentpolitical problcms.Brown critically interrogatespow.cr.political
identity,citizenship.and politicalsubjectivity.Brown alsocapitalizes
the problemwith identitypoliticsbeinsa
very fbcused,anti-coalitional.resentfuleflbrt.
With this in mind. it was extremelydilficult to find identity-criticalliteraturethat cites the fbur court
cascsin
the resolution.That researchprobablyexistssomewhere. but we were more worriedaboutfinding the necessary
evidenceto havea good.structuredargument.First.thereare good links to generalapplicability
of tn. law that
prescribesidentity.Thereare also very good cardsaboutthe utilizationoflclentity
io createpolitical goals or
mobilization' You can choose to criticize the structure of government or mcrely criticize
the
representations/ideologyof identity.
Against PlannedParenthoodv. Casey,the alllrmative might havc a f-cminismor womyn's

empowermenr
ad'r'antage.
Againstthis, you may use the gender/'womyn'categoricsbad links. Also, there is a huge section
about the failure of f'eminism(as discussedabove).Against tJnited Statesv. Morrison,the
afllrmative might
also have f-eminismor womyn's empowermentadvantages. Specifically.there are 'violence
against*o*yn'
and VAWA links. With Milliken v. Bradley. the atlirmative will create identity categoriessuch as
racial
categoriesas thc core of their advantagerepresentations. Or, the afllrmativemay claim thit activism/rightsare
goodto desegregate. etc.Thereare cardsin the llle that arguethat anti-discrimination basedon the construction
of suchidentity is counter-productive.Finally. againstEx ParteQuirin. the ideologyof the aflrmative may be
foundedon constructingidentitiesof peopleof other countries.In this case,you may use old school ,r..u.ity'
or'foreign otherization'links.The point is to criticizethe liberalpoliticsof anv afrlrmative.
ADI 2006
Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
INC SHELL
Disciplinary power works with law and social constructionsto produceidentitiesas

categoriesthat normalize
social behavior.At the sametime, liberal discoursesof identitv continuouslyrecognizepolitical
identitiesfor
politicalinterests.
BROWN t993 (Wendy Brown is prof-essor of Women's Studiesat the Universityof California,SantaCruz.
"woundedAttachment."PoliticalTheory,vol.21, No.3, August1993,pp390-410,
JST.9R)
Although this ddtentebetweenuniversaland particularwithin liberalismis pottedwith volatile

conceits,
it is rather thoroughly unraveledby two fbaturesof late modernity, ,purr.,l by
developmentsin what
MarxandFoucault,
respectively,
revealasliberalism's
companion
powlrs:capiialism
anddisciplinarity.
On one side,the statelosesevenits universali
teres ical social ficlm
htw ntt o a heav ucratized flscallr
and hi arfbre te, a transn-rogrificationoccasionedb)' the
Iifi characteristicsof bureaucracy.6 On the other
side al subiectf'
nati
;disintegrationliom within and invasion
fiom without of lamily and community as (relatively) autonomoussites of social production
and
identification:
desir
u c t i o n so f
fan o1' behavi
unrepentantcrack mothers. work to conjure and regulate subjects
ugh classificato norm Operating ----'-
through what Foucault calls "an anatomy of detail." "dir.ipli,
(availablefbr politicizationbecausethey are deploycdfbr purpor., ui potiti"ut ..grtution)
'fhus. that crosscut
thafr
on right- fbr example,the welf'arestate'sproductionof welf-are
ts-themselves subdividedthrouu ed catcsories therl
so 1l tentially producepolitical identitv throush these
thesecategories. In this story,the alwaysimminentUui increasinglypoliti*lly -anif'est failureof liberal
universalismto be uniu".tul-th" t.un.pur.nt fl.ti.rn nf ,tut" ,nii.r*lity--combines with the increasins
individuationof socialsubi
tnorv ternmentsand disciplinar),productions.Together.
but orient iberal
excl fbrmation
production.however.is not linearor even but highly contradictor),: althoughthe termsof liberalis- a*
part of the groundof productionof a politicizedidentity that reiteratesyei exceeds
theseterms,liberal
discourseitself also continuouslyrecolonizespolitical identity as political interest-ac,rnu..sion-that
onstructlv I claims enenc
to Iture. Similarly,disciplinarypower manages
of neutralizing(re-depoliticizing)identit), through
normalizingpractices.As li ltv lnto vate ln
r conv ial identi ulato
trali nt clai
enerat
DBH
ADI \,
ADI 2006
DBH Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
lNC SHELL
ADi
This createsan inescapablesystemof ressentiment.This triumph of the weak as weak re-inscribesa culture of
suffering characterized
by powerlessnessand the inevitablefailure of marginalizedidentitiesto achievepolitical
goals.
BROWN 1993 (Wendy Brown is prof'essorof Women's Studiesat the University of California,SantaCruz.
"woundedAttachment," PoliticalTheory,Vol. 21,No. 3, August1993,pp390-4l0..lsToR)
Liberalismcontainsfrom its inceptiona generalized

incitementto what Nietzschetermsressentiment.
the moralizingrevengeof the powerless,"the triumph of the weak as weak."l7This incitementto
individualliberty and social egalitarianism.

which producesfailure turned to recriminationby the
subordinatedand guiltturnedto resentment by the "successful."Thereis one betweenthe individualism
that legitimatesliberalismand the cultural homogeneityrequiredb), its commitmentto political
universality.
This latterparadoxstimulates the articulationof politicallysignificantdifferences.
on the
lnst
its of rse even w
within-included-inthe terms of universalism.Premising itself on the natural equality of human beings,
liberalism makes a political promiseof universalindividual freedom in order to arrive at social equality
or achievea civilized retrievalof the equality postulatedin the stateof nature. lt is the tension between
in one of
two directions, depending on how the paradoxis brokered.A strongcommitmentto freedomvitiatesthe
fulfillment of the equalitypromiseand breedsressentiment as welfare-state
liberalisrn-attenuations
of
commitmentto equality.requiringheavystateinterventionism and economicredistribution, attelluates

the commitmentto freedomand breedsressentirnerrt expressed as neoconservative antistatism. racrsm.
chargesof reverseracism.and so forth. However,it is not only the tensionbetweenfreedomand
equality but the prior presumptionof the self-reliantand self-madecapacitiesof liberal subjects.
conioinedwith their unavoweddependence on and constructionby a variety of socialrelationsand
forces.that makes?ll liberal subjects.and not only markedlyclisenfranchised ones. vulnerableto
ressentiment: it is their situatednesswithin power.their productionby power.and liberaldiscourse's
denialof this situatedness and productionthat caststhe liberalsubjectinto failure.the failureto make
ofadi - m a k i n si s a s s u m e di n
. d e e di.s i t s a s s u
This failure,which Nietzsche callssuffering,mustfind eithera reasonwithin itself(whichredoubles the
failure) or a site of externalblame on which to avengeits hurt and redistributeits pain. Here is
Nietzsche's accountof this momentin the prclduction of ressentiment: For every suffererinstiltctively
seeksa causefor his suffering,more exactly,an agent;still more specificallyguilty agent who is
susceptible to suffering--in short,someliving thinguponwhich he canon somepretextor other,venthis
affects,actuallyor in effigy .... This ... constitutes the actual physiologicalcauseof ressentiment,
vengefulness, and the like: a desireto deadenpain by meansof affects... to deaden,by meansof a more
violentemotionof any kind, a tormenting,secretpainthat is becomingunendurable, and to drive it out
of consciousness at leastfor the moment:for that one requiresan afl-ect,as savagean affect as possible,
and,in orderto excitethat,any pretextat all.l8 Ressentiment in this contextis a triple achievement: it
producesan affect (rage.righteousness) that overwhelmsthe hurt. it producesa culprit responsiblefor
the hurt. and it producesa site of revengeto displacethe hurt (a placeto inflict hurt as the suffererhas
been hurt). Together these operationsboth ameliorate(in Nietzsche'sterms, "anaesthetize")and
externalize what is otherwise"unendurable."Now, what I want to suggestis that in a culturealready
streakedwith the pathosof ressentiment for thesereasolts,thereare severalcharacteristics of late
7.
IDENTITYK
INC SHELL
IBROWNI e93CONTTNUES...]
M y l i s t i n gi s
necessarily schematic.F irst.the phenomenon
that William Connollynames"increased global
ontin ineswith
of im
inherentin liberalcapitalistordersand consitutiveof ressentiment.lg Second,the steadydesacralization
of all regionsof life-whatWebercalleddisenchantment, what Nietzsche calledthe deathof God-would
appearto add yet anotherreversalto Nietzsche'sgenealogyof ressentiment as perpetuallyavailableto
"alternationof direction."In Nietzsche's account,the asceticpriest deployednotionsof "guilt, sin,
sinfulness, depravityand damnation"to "directthe ressentiment of the less severelyafflictedsternly
backuponthemselves... and in this way lexploitecll
the bad instinctsof all sufferersfor the pLrrpose of
self-discipline.
self-surveillance,and seif-overcoming.,,2oHowever.the desacralizing tencleniiesclflate
modernityunderminethe efficacyof this deploymentand turn suffering'sneedfor exculpationback
towarda siteof externalagency.Third. the increased fragmentation. if not disintegration.of all forms of
association until recentlynot organizedby the commoditiesrnarket--communities, churches, families-,
ssifi s scheme
nt secular
and n a k e d l vi n d i v
r ves, together add up to an incitentent to
ressentimentthat might have stunnedeven the finest philosopherof its occasionsancl logics. Starkly
accountable,yet dramatically impotent, the late modem liberal subject quite literally seetheswith
tv- now concerv both il -: tl
condition.where"reaction"acquiresthe meaningthat Nietzscheascribedto it. namelv.as an effectof

bsti -affirmation th
reinscribesincapacity.powerlessness.
and rejection.For Nietzsche,ressentiment itself is rooted in
on of reasor.ls.
norms. and ethics for deeds--
identitiesthemselvestake their bearingsin this reaction.A s Tracy Strong readsthis element
Nietzsche'sthoueht. doe c()m
lf self
ith
DBH
ADI j.
IDENTITY K
lNC SHELL
The identity structuredby ressentimentelevatesrevenge to the level of an ethical good and consumesthe
subiectwith its own subordination.This eventmakessufferinginevitable,without aff-rrmationof lif'e.
BROWI{ 1993 (Wendy Brown is profbssorof Women's Studiesat the University of California. SantaCrtz.
"wounded Attachment,"PoliticalTheory,vol. 21. No. 3, August 1993,pp390-410,JSTOR)
But in its attemptto displaceits suffering.identitystructuredb), ressentiment

at the sametime becomes
investedin its own subjection. This investmentlies not only in its discoveryof a site of blamefor its
on tnr
ri sh but alsoin th
reenactevenas thev redistribute the injuriesof marginalizationand subordination in a liberaldiscursive
orderthatalternately deniesthe very possibilityof thesethingsor blamesthosewho experience themfor
theirown condition.Identitypoliticsstructured by ressentintent
reverseswithoutsubverting this blanring
structure: it doesnot subjectto critiquethe sovereignsubjectof accountabilitythat liberalindividualisrn
PresuPPoses nor the economyof inclusionand exclusionthat liberal universalismestablishes. Thus
and requiringits sustainedrejectionby a "hostileexternalworld.,,25Insofaras what Nietzschecalls

slavemoralityproducesidentityin reactionto power.insofaras identityrootedin this reactionachieves
its rnoralsuperiorityby reproachingpower and actionthemselves as evil. identitystructuredby this
ethosbecomesdeeplyinvestedin its own impotence.even while it seeksto assuagethe pain of its
Powerlessnessthroughits vengefulmoralizing.throughits wide distributionof suffering.throughits
sufferingimposedby its historicallystructuredimpotencein the contextof a discourseof sovereign

individuals.is as likely to seek generalizedpolitical paralysis,to feast on generalizedpolitical
impotence,as it is to seek its own or collectiveliberation.Incleedit is more likely to punish ancl
reProach--"Punishment is what revengecallsitself:with a hypocriticallie it createsa good conscience
ion.26
3$d
ADI +
IDENTITYK
lNC SHELL
AND, the affirmative's stanceis the will that createsthe universal.which resultsin the oaranoideconomyof the
state-this universalismexiststo excludeand annihilate.
BUTLER 2000 (.lua;th, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at UC Berkeley, L'ontingency,
Hegemony,Universality,:Judith Btttler.,ErnestoLaclau and Slat,oj7,i_ek,yerso.)
=-^=Ti.- it
l ) a r i l n o l ( l p \ : l l o g ) j ' l l l w h r ( l r r t n r u s t r ( l ) c r r l c { l l yc s t r r l r l i s ljrt s o r r , . r l : r i r r rr , ,
'l,ordslriP
ancl[irndaqe'scction.As its arrnihilation bct:omcsolricctivr:to
it,tIris.universality''tiqrrretl..sa,,
,rfl-Jill;Ilil-ffi uf ,l"nrh is tlit: visi,. r[ rliis ncqari'c .arrrrc .r'
;;.;ir^.,,.5g2). N.r,.ly c l o c sr r n i v e . s a l i lsy< r ci r s . i l a s r r r : s ; r l i vrt t' .r r l
r1'',. asth.,,pr,,,',
iiilffiii:illlJilGilililiJil r,,ii *iiffiL,
1ltrrr:transiticlrtli<lrrl()I](lCXtr(]lll()t.,lffii'
-..---li!-..--:-?.
. .- rlitry,'rr',Il;lGli ,rls,,srr]rjcr.r
ro rrcqurion.
// VVI,1,,L.L7
DBH
ADI 6
IDENTITYK
I NC SHELL
lsregl.!
llutt 6( I-tW ct2N-(
Dmhf
AI}I +.
IDENTITYK
LINK MAGNIFIER: SUBJECT POSITION
They may win that they startfrom subjectposition,but eventhat shouldbe held suspect:it is merely another
tactic in the gameof political representation
that also falls victim to the impactsof the K.
Michaels2000 (WalterBennMichaelsis the Prof-essor of Englishand the Humanitiesat the JohnHopkins
University. "Political ScienceFictions" in New Literary History Vol 31 No 4 Autumn 2002)
And this essentializingof the subiect rrosition does not derrend on anv account of that nosition which
misht be called essentialist.It has nothing to do with the questionof what determinesthe subjectposition
(race. culture, sex, gender): it has to do only with the relevance of the subiect nosition, however
determined.You do not, in other to a race or a sex for
crucial--tw differ wit !4g. The conflict in a game involvesthe
ouestionnot of who is ri8ht but of who will win: what matters in a game is not what vou believeto be true
but which side vou are on. Indeed,the model of the game undoes Huntington'soppositionbctween the
questionof which sideyou are on and the questionof what you are. Ii on the colclwar model.the question of
which side vou are on is answered by what you think is true (rather than by what you are), on the
posthistoricist
model.the questionof which sideyou are on can only be a questionaboutwhat you are. Indeed,
the whole point of nosthistoricism--thewhole point, that is. of the commitment to difference--isto
understand all differencesas differencesin what we are and thus to make it seemthat the fundamental
question--thequestionthat separates the postideolclgical
left liom the postideologicalright--isthe question of
our attitude toward difference:the left wants to celebratedifference.the right wants to overcomeit.
DBI-I
ADI b
LINK: ANGLO-FEMINISM
Anglo-feminism is colonizing becauseit does not consider local knowledge. Its dominant values continue
subordinationof people.
BUTLER 2000 1:uOlth,Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature ar UC Berkeley C.ontingency,
,
Hegemony,universalie: JuclirhBurler, ErnesroLaclau and SluvoiZi:ek.yerso.\
r:llri'r t. rrrrivt-r-s.li1 a vl u , i r y st a k c s 1 - r l ^ r ri.r r ; r g i ' r . r r s v r r r \ .

/-'l'|rc
l l t r . o r r q lar c t : r ' t i r i ns < : ro [ ' r ' r r l l r l r : r lt . o n v c n t i o n si n : r l t , t . e q r r i z l r 6 lrl , , , r r r . . .
l r r t l c t l c lt'l t t :t : l l t i t r (t t ? t l l r l ol tr e r r r a < l i ' r v i t l r o rtrl tr c r : l a i r r lrr t : i 1 q1 : t o e . r r i z , . r i
1s
i t c l : t i l n . l h i t w l t a t o t r : h c s { r a t c rsv l r r r tl v i l l a r - r c, "l v i l rl r o ( l r e r ' o n r 6r ' ( , c o g r ) r z *
.bie :rs^ clair,i' [ll.ar1y, thcl.eis rtr.lcs j:r,n
.1' rrnivc.sality arcl lL sct.ol' 'orr.s {hat arc ir^,crkecli,' th<:rcc,,g,ritirilij'
s l l ( l l ( l i t l l t l s . l \ l o t r r r v c t , l l t t . t r . t s l r o I L l l 1 L 1 1 .(..,(l) t l s r , t t s l \( ) , t
:11 i1(r.l1.rli...tl
;,,,
r r . y r r r r l < t 'i t , i u r < lr , r ' l r a lti r r r ' i t < l r r g l l rt . t i r l i c , '.l ' h r r s ,I i r ' t l r r ,
cLlri'r t,
rv.rk,Iir'it r. c.rnPr:l.ors.rs.s,:r'crlirr trr,,.,l.iilf1,"rfiiiiliviii. r.
c n ; r c tl l r c ' , , r ' r 'u
y r r i v c r s a l i t yi t < ' n r r n r " l t c si,t r n u s j u
t l ) ( l c r q 61 s r : , 1
el tL:rrrs-
rry r rrnrrrrt
t rtrsstlrr-linguisticbr.rrck:r.s
it qlairn),i:u:l:ul*d[,::I!:,,,
! r(')r' \,r wc lnrQnt
I ) u t r l l l l r ( ) [ r c r w a 1 ' : w r r . l r o t r ttir.arrsl
| a r r s llrti.rr,
l r t i O r r lI, lIrr. .rrl'
c o r r J l 'r.r,:^.
r.r':11
t l r r ' r r s s . r t i r ' r r rl rl . r \ ' ( . r s i r l i r y , . : r r r ( . * ) : . i \ : r i ; ; i l ; r 1 . I f " i f i l j l , . ' f f f i ; n i . l ; f
::,:_."::.:_:j::5:l_::_=j:j :l.l.l:1 :1,.
_
ir,,.r , I , . c l r r t r ) ,l r a ss ( ) u q l r rt ( )
/ l,,.tl,,,
/ r r ' s t ; r t r ' l l ri.n r 1 , ,t,lrr r i , , . , , rl ' i , k i ' u l r.
: r t t t l. r g l r l sr r l r v ' r r r . r i ( o k i ' , N r s s l r . u r - r rw) i * r o u t .r a q a r r l t . t l r r :
Pr.r.r.iiirre
i'.r1,
],,rl'rtr 'l,'his.l]'rt ,
l.ti'rr. tJr ovt-'rridr,: th. nrolll,,rn rh,,tl,*+o{,,r.s_G_!,r
r.1e:.ra.ti..irl fi:urinisrr rl.es '.r rr'<-rcrst3rr-r.t rt,(aril_,,..1,G\-;;;;trr
t l t c l r , : r yi n r v l r i c l rI i : r n i r r i s r rl ,rr r l l l s
( ) r ( ( ) l l l l l l st ( , l . i . r r r ir twr ) ( lt r n ( k . l S t i l t rt(l ll ( , i l 1 : l s
l o k ( , l t sr , l t l r , . i r . . l i l r , t t i r . , r r , . /
DBFI
ADI q
IDENTITYK
LINK: ANTI-INTELLECTUALISM
Anti-intellectualismmakesdissentand anti-war sentimentimpermissible.Anti-intellectualismdistrustsilence

the left and legitimize the currentinternationalconflict and the suspensionof civil liberties.
BUTLER 2002 1:uaith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoricand ComparativeLiterarureat UC Berkeley,"Explanationand
Exoneration,
or What We Can Hear,"Theoryand Event,5:4,projectMuse.)
The feft responseto the war currentlywaged in Afghanistanhas run into seriousproblemsin part becausetheexplunutions
that the feft hasprovidedto the question,"why do they hateus so much?"havebeendismissedas so many exoneratictns of
the acts of terror themselves.This does not need to be the case.I think we can see,however,how moralistic anti-
intellectual trends counled with a distrust of the left as so manv self-flasellatinsfirst world elit€s
has Droduceda situation in which our verv canacitv to think about the grounds and causesof the
current global conflict is consideredimpermissible.The cry that "there is no excusefor Serrtember
becom which ifle anv seriousnubl U.S. foreisn
Dolicv has heloed to create a worltl in which such acts of terror are possible. We seethis most
dramaticallY in the susnensionof anv attemnt to offer balanced renorting on the international
the refi include i effort by Arundhati Roy (Iie
Guarrlian,9l29l0l)
andotherswithinthemainstream
U.S. press,
the unprecedentedsusnensionof civil liberties
for illegal immigrants and suspectedterrorists. the use of the flag as an ambiguous sign of
solidaritv with those lost on Septemberllth ancl with the current *ar, as if the svmrrathy with the one
translates.in a single svmbolic stroke. into supnort for the latter. The raw rrublic mockerv of the
Deacemovement, the characterizationof anti-war demonstrationsas anachronistic or nostalgic.
work to Droducea consensus of public oninion that nrofoundlv marsinali iment
and analvsis. nutting into question in a very strong wav the very value of dissent as nart of
contemnoraryU.S.democraticculture
DBH
ADI \D.
IDENTITYK
LINK: DISCOURSE
The misguidedappropriationof languageis the causeof oppression.Foftunately,we have the ability to interrupt
this entrenchmentof violent practices.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophy
at UC Berkeley,
Gencler
Trouble,
pg. la8)
ThepowerWittigaccords
to this"system,'
of language
is enormous.
concepts.
categories.
andabstractions,sheargues.caneffecta physical
and materialviolenceagainstthe bodiesthey clairnto crrganize and
interpret:"There is nothingabstractaboutthe powerthat sciencesand
theorieshaveto act materiallyandactuallyuponour bodiesandminds,
evenif the discoursethat producesit is abstract.It is one of the forms
o n e o f i t s e x e r c i s e sA
. l l o f t h e o p p r e s s e dk n o w t h i s p o w e r a n d h a v e h a d
t o d e a l w i t h i t . " 3 2 T h e p o w e r o f l a n g u a g et o w o r k o n b o d i e s i s b o t h t h e
causeof sexual oppressionand the wa), be)rondthat oppression.
L a n g u a g ew o r k s n e i t h e rm a g i c a l l y n o r i n e x o r a b r y :" t h e r e i s a p l a s t i c i t - y
hasa
Languageassumesand altersits powerto act upclnthe realthrough
locutionaryacts.which.rerreated,
becomeet'rtrenchedpracticesand.
f lan
identifiesthe subjectwho speaksfbr andasthe univcrsalwith the male
identifiesthe f-em
senseintrinsicto particularlanguages 'fhesc
or to language itself. asllmmctrical
positionscannotbe undcrstood to fbllow frornthe ,.nature"
of
menor women.fbr, as Beauvoirestablislred, no such..nature" exists:
"one mustunderstand that menarenot bornwith a facultyibrthe universal
andthat womenare not reducedat birth to the particular.'l'he
universalhasbeen.and is continually. at everymomcnt,appropriated
by men.It doesnot happen,it mustbe done.It is an act.a criminalact.
perpetrated by one classagainstanother.It is an act carriedout at the
l e v e l o fc o n c e p t sp ,h i l o s o p h yp,o l i t i c s .3" 4
DBF{
ADI \\
IDENTITY K
LINK: ESSENTIALISM
To adopt a stanceof, anti-essentialismis to believe that identity can easily changeand shift, and to believe
otherwisecreatesa disjunctionbetweenideology and identity.
Michaels 2000 (Walter Benn Michaels is the Prof'essorof English and the Humanities at the John Hopkins
University. "Political ScienceFictions" in ly'ewLiterary History Vol 31 No 4 (Autumn 2002)
The idea that what vou are is "a given that can't be changed" woukl, of course.be anathemato those
antiessentialistswho insist that identitv ("what you are") is rr".fo.matine--the *hol" point of its beine
nerformative is that it can be changed.At the sametime, however,it would be a mistake to imagine that
Huntington'soDDositionbetweenthe cultural and the ideolosicalwould be undone by the recoenilion tllat
the relative fixitv of the cultural is onlv relative,that cultural identitiesare. as we sav. more "mobile
he recognize he di t (so easilv) be
of a more powerful difference. the differcnce between ideolow and idcntitv. And, as I shall argue. the
commitment to the idea that identitiesare not fixed in no wav underminesthis difference:the debateover
whether identities are fixed. like the debate over whether differencesare cultural or rrhysical.should be
understoodinsteadas a wav of nrorrping it url, ur u *uv nf in.i.tine on th. nri-ut of id"r,titn-phyri.ol *
cultural,fixed or mobile--overideolosy.Tn chnnsebet*""n phvti"ai and fi*"d nr -obil" (or. we
might add in anticipation, between pure and hybrid) is to choose between ".rlt,rial.
two differeni accounts of identitv.
And End P ifferent accounts of identitv is alreadv to have ch
identitv itself.
DBH \2.
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: ESSENTIALISM
Categorical gender roles are normative, exclusionary, and forecloses intersectionality.

BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorofphilosophyat UC Berkeley,GenclerTrouble,pg.l8-19)
The contemporary feministdebatesover essentialism raisethe

questionof the universality of fernaleidentityand masculinist oppression
in otherways.Universalistic claimsarebasedon a commonor
sharedepistemological standpoint.understood asthe articulated
consciousness
or sharedstructures ofoppression or in theostensiblytranscultural
structures of f'emininity.maternity.sexuality.and/or dcriture
feminine.The openingdiscussion in thischapterarguedthatthis globalizing
gesturehasspawneda numberof criticismsfrcm womenwho
claim that the categoryof "women" is normativeand exclusionaryand
is invokedwith the unmarkeddimensions of classandracialprivilege
intact.In otherwords,the insistence uponthecoherence andunityof
the cateeorynf wo.en haseffectivelyrefusedtl-'emultipricitvof
of "w0men"areconstructed.
DBH
ADI Y3.
IDENTITY K
LINK: STRATEGIC ESSENTIALISM
Strategicessentialismis still a representational

politics that identifles"women" as its stablesubject.Despite
your intentions,this can only producemore exclusionand failure.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,prof'essor of philosophy
at UC Berkeley, Gencler Trouble,pg.
7-8)
Althoughtheclaimof universal
patriarchy
no longererrjoys
the
kind of credibilityit oncedid,the notionof a generallysharedconception
of "women," the corollaryto that fiamework,hasbeenmuch more
difficultto displace. cerlainly,therehavebeenplentyof debates: Is
theresomecommonality among"women"thatpreexists theiroppression,
or do "women"havea bondby virtueof theiroppression alone?Is
therea specificityto women'sculturesthatis independent of theirsubordination
by hegemonic, masculinist cultures? Are the specificityand
integrityof women'sculturalor linguisticpractices arwaysspecified
againstand.hence,withinthetermsof somemoredominantcultural
fonnation?lf thereis a regionof the "specifically f-eminine." onethat is
both differentiated fiom the masculineas suchand recognizable in its
dift'erenceby an unmarkedand,hence,presumeduniversalityof
"women"?The masculine/ f-emininebinaryconstitutes not onl),the
exclusivefiameworkin whichthatsoecificilvcanht:recopnizerJ h
in.uery othe.*ay the "spc.ificity"nf the f-eminine ir onc" againlully
decontextualized and separated off analyticailyand poritically1io-
the constitution of class.race.ethnicity.andotheraxesof powerrelations
thatbothconstitute "identity"andrnakethe singularnotionof
identitya misnomer. 4
My suggestion is thatthe presumed universality and unityof the
subjectof feminismis eff-ectively undermined by the constraints of the
representational discourse in which it functions.Indced.thc premature
insistence on a stablesubjectof f'eminism. u4derstood as a seamless cate
of women.inevitablygenerates multiplerefusals to acceptthe
c a t e g o r y .T h e s ed o m a i n so f e x c l u s i o nr e v e a lt h e c o e r c i v ea n d r e g u l a t o r y
c o n s e q u e n c eosf t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n e . v e n w h e n t h e c o n s l r u c t i o nh a s
h e e ne l a h o r a l e df o r e r n a n c i p a t o r yn u r p o s c s .l n d e e d .l h c l i a g m e n t a t i o n
w i t h i n f - e . i n i t . a n d t h " p a r u d o * i c a lo p p o r i t i o n t o f - e . i ' r i s m f i o m
"women"whom ferninismclaimsto represent suggestthe necessary
limitsof identitypolitics.T'hesuesestion thatf-eminism canseekwider
a subi : i r o n i cc o n
thatf-eministgoalsrisk failureby refusingto takeaccountof the
constitutivepowersof theirown representational claims.This rrroblem
is not amelioratedthroughan appealto the categor),of womenfor
merely"strategic"purposes. fbr strategies
alwayshavemeaningsthat
exceedthe ourposesfor which they are intended.In this case.exclusion
h an uni et i n s .B
conformingto a requirementof representational politicsthat feminism
e subi charces
DBH \1.
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: FEMINISM
Feminismconstructsa staticidentity in its claim to representwomyn

BUTLER 1990(Judith, professorof philosophy at UC Berkeley,Gencier pg. 163-164)
Trouble.
Categories oftruesex.discrete gender.andspecificsexuality have
the int of ref dealoff,
s. Th s of identi intsof
epistemicdeparturefrom which theoryemergesandpoliticsitself is
In the iblv sha
the interests. the perspectives. of "women." But is therea political
shapeto "women," as it were,that precedesand pretiguresthe poritical
elaborationof their interestsand epistemicpoint of view? How is that
identityshaped,and is it a politicalshapingthat takesthe very morphology
and boundaryof the sexedbody as the ground,surl.ace,or site
of-culturalinscription?what circumscribes that siteas "the female
body" ? Is "the body" or "the sexedbody" the firm fbundationon which
genderand systemsof compulsorysexualityoperate?or is "the body"
itself shapedby politicalfbrceswith strategicinterestsin keepingthat
body boundedand constitutedby the markersof sex'l
DBH \6
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: FEMINISM
The exclusionary feminism of the affirmative opens up new forms of oppressive hierarchies and exclusion.
BUTLER 1999 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenclerTrouble,preface,pg. vii-viii)
In 1989| was mostconcernedto criticizea pervasiveheterosexual

assumptionin feministliterarytheory.I soughtto counterthoseviews
that madepresumptions aboutthe limits and proprietvof ggnderand
restricted
the meaningof genderto receivednotionsof masculinity
practicesetsup exclusionary gendernormswithin feminism.often

with homophobic consequences. lt seemed to me,andcontinues to
seem,that f"rinim oughtto b" .u."frl not tn id"ulir. ..r1uin
of genderthat.in turn.producenew fbrmsof hierarch_y and "*trr.rtiont
exclusion. In particular,
I opposedthoseregimesol-trr-rth thatstipulated
thatcertainkindsof gende.ed cxpressions *ere fbundto be false.,t
derivative. andothers.trueandoriginal.'l'he pointwasnot to prescribe
a new genderedway of life that might thenserveas a modelfor
readersof the text. Rather,the aim of the text was to openup the fleld
t dictatine w h i c hk i n d so { - o o s s i b i l i t i
oughtto be realized. one might wonderwhatuse"openingup possibilities"
finally is, but no one who hasunderstoocl r.vhat it is to live in
thesocialworld as whatis "impossible," illegibrc,unrearizabre, unreal.
andillegitimateis likelyto posethatquestion.
DBH \v
ADI
IDENTITY K
LINK: FEMINISM
Representingwomyn through f-eminismbeforethe law ensuressubjectiFicationand is doomedto failure.

at UC Berkeley,
GenclerTrouble,pg.3-5)
For the most part,feministtheoryhas assumed that thereis someexistingidentitv.understood

throughthe
categorYof women.whonotonlyinitiates feministinterests
andgoalswithindiscourse.
butconstitutes
thesubject
for whompoliticalrepresentation
is pursued.
But politicsandrepresentation
arecontroversial
terms.On the one
hand, representationserves as the operative term within a political process that seeks to extend visibility and
l e g i t i m a c y t o w o m e n a s p o l i t i c a l s u b j e c t s ; o n t h e o t h e r h a n d , r e p r e s e n t a t i o ni s t h e n o r m a t i v e f u n c t i o n o f a
languagewhich is said eitherto revealor to distortwhat is assumedto be true aboutthe catesoryof women. For
men hasseemedn
to fosterthe politicalvisibilit)'of women.This hasseemedobviouslyimportantconsidering the pervasive cultural
conditionin which women'sliveswereeithermisrepresentecl or not represented at all. Recently,this prevailing
conceptionof the relationbetweenferninisttlreoryand politicshas come underclrallengefiom within feminist
discourse. T'hevery subjectof womenis no longerunderstood in stableor abidingterms.Thereis a greatdealof
materialthat not onlv questionsthe viability of "the subject"as the ultimate candidatefbr representation or.
indeed,liberation,but thereis very little agreement afterall on what it is that constitutes, or oughtto constitute.
the categoryof women.The domainsof politicaland lingLristic "representation" setout in aclvance the criterionby
which subjectsthemselvesare fbrmed, with the resultthat representation is extendedonly to what can be
acknowledged as a subject.In other words, thc qualificationsfor being a sr-rbject must llrst be met betbre
representation can be extended.Foucaultpointsout thatjuriclicalsystemsof power producethe subjectsthey
subsequentlv come to represent. I .luridicalnotionsof powe appearto regulatepoliticallit-ein pLrrelynegative
terms- that is, throughthe limitation,prohibition,regulation,control,and even "protcction" ol'individuals
relatedto that politicalstructurethroughthe contingentand rctractablcoperationof choice.But the subjecrs
re9ulatedb-v such strucluresare. by virtue of bcing subjectedto them. forrned,def-ined.and reproducedin
accordance with the requirements of thosestructures. If this analysisis right, then the juridical lbrmationof'
lansuageand POliticsthat represents women as "the subject"of l-eminismis itsell-a discursivefbrmationand
effect of a given versiono1'represenlational politics.And the feminist subjcctturns out to be discursivel)-
constituted by the ver-v-politicalsystemthat is supposcd to f-acilitate
its cmancipation. This becomespoliticallv
problematic if thats),stem canbe shownto proclLrce genclered subjectsalonga difterentialaxisof dominationor to
iectswho to bc'nrascLrline. an uncritical such o
emancipation of "women"will be clearlyself-def-eating. 'l'he
questionof "the subject"is crucial1brpolitics,and
for f-eministpoliticsin particular, because.juridicalsubjectsare invariablyproducedthroughcertainexclusionary
practicesthat do not "show" once the juridical structureof politicshas beenestablished. In other words.the
politicalconstruction of the subjectproceeds with certainlegitimatingand exclusionary aims.and thesepolitical
operationsare eff-ectively concealedand naturalizedby a political analysisthat takesjuridical structuresas their
foundation.Juridicalpower inevitably"produces"what it claimsmerel),to represenUhence,politicsmust be
concerned with this dual functionof power:thc juridicalandthe productive. ln eftect.the law produces and then
concealsthe notion of "a subjectbefbrethe larv" 2 iqorder to invoke that discursive formationas a naturalized
uentlv lerriti law's own resul . lt is not enough to
inquireinto how womenmight becomemoretully represented
in language
and politics. Feministcritiqueought
alsoto u w the ca "women."the subi inedbv the v
structures
of powerthroughwhichemancipation
is sought.
DBH \?
ADI
IDENTITY K
LINK: FEMINISM
Universalfeminist claims are a gatewayto colonjalization.

BUTLER 19901.tuOith, professorof philosophy
at UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,pg.6-7)
The political assumptionthat theremust be a universarbasisfbr

feminism,one which must be found in an identityassumedto exist
cross-culturally,often accompaniesthe notion that the oppressionof
womenhassomesingularform discerniblein the universalor hegemonic
structureof patriarchyor masculinedomination.The notion of
a universalpatriarchyhasbeenwidely criticized in recentyearsfor its
failure to accountfor the workings of genderoppressionin the concrete
cultural contextsin which it exists.where thosevariouscontexts
havebeenconsultedwithin suchtheories,it hasbeento find..examples"
or "illustrations"of a universalprinciplethat is assumedfiom the
start.That fbrm of f'eministtheorizinghascomeundercriticismfor its
effbrts to colonizeand appropriatenon-westernculturesto support
highly westernnotionsof oppression, but because they tendas well to
constructa "Third world" or evenan "oricnt" in whicl-rgenderoppression
is subtlyexplainedas symptomaticof an essentiar. non-western
barbarism.1'heurgencyof feminismto establisha universalstatusfbr
patriarchyin orderto strengthen the appearancc of r-cminism's
own
claimsto be representative hasoccasionallymotivatedthe shortcutto a
categorialor fictive universalityof the structureof domination.hcld to
producewomen'scommonsubjugated experience.
DBH ro
\0.
ADI
IDENTITY K
LINK: GENDER
Genderdoesnot exist-it is an illusion that is socially constructed.The assumptionthat genderis physicalor is

pre-inscribedby staticcharacteristicsis a hegemonicconformity to identity.
FELLUGA 2002 1oino,English, Stanford "Modules
University, on butler:
on Gender andSex,"Introductory
guideto Critical
Theory,
h-ttpiuww.p-tufos.edrlgldd-qtothjloryigst_dqt-i!l_tlt9-L6g{-qtesr'brr_r[:rgqd_s_r$.hlnl
)
Indeed, Butlergoesfarasto arguethatgender,asanobjective
natural
thing,does not exist: "Gender realiw is
Derformative which means. quite simnlv. that it is real onlv to the extent that it is nerformed'i
(llPerformalive27&).Gender, accordingto Butler,is aterial
and comDletelYa social construction" a fiction. one that. therefore. is orren to change and
contestation:"Becausethere is neither an 'essence'that gender expressesor externalizesnor an
obiective ideal to which gender asrrires;becausesende. is not a fu"t, th.ffi
of se ithout t would be no
a construction that regularlv conceals its genesis" (pe-!:fq..rmativell
271).That genesis is not corporeal
but performative (see49xtmodulq),
so that the bodv becomes its gender onlv "through a seiies of acts
which are renewed.revised.and consolidatedthrough time" llpejtormative" 2Tt).Bv illustratine the
artificial. conventional.and historical naturc of gender construction"Butler attemnts to criiique
the assumrrtions of normativeheterosexualitv: thosepunitivc rules (social,
familiat,
andlegat)that force
us to conform to hgge_mo-Ui
DBH \q
ADI
LINK: HISTORY
Are-articu1ationofhegemonv,insteadofahistorical/structuralapproachto
politics, allows for an interrogationof power and an understandingof socialrelations.
BUTLER 2000 1:ualth, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at UC Berkeley
, L'ontingency,
Hegemony,universaliN: .ludirh Butler',ErnestoLaclau and Slat,ojZi:ek,yerso.)
1 - t f t t t c s u b j c c t a l w u y s r n e c t s i t s l i m i t i n t h c s e l l l a m c P l i r r : t ' t, l r c r r t h r :
I s r r l , i e r i s f r r r r r l a r n t ' r r l : r l,l.yx r r r i r r r r o r l r r . l r i s l , ' ry ! t L : y l ! ! ! r l l - l J . L ' ! I i b l l t .
rhcrclsno Elitoricityto tlrc sutlicct,its lirnits,its irrticglalrilitr:
Nlorcovr:r',
i [ \ c a t c r p t t l t t ^ n r , t i t 'tnl r : r lt r l l l r i s t o l i t : rslt r r r g u li,r t r , r t l r i r t q , r l l rl-c] rl : r r r
r r v a i n t ' f T b r t , r i T i l f f i : i ; i f i r r r i i i l i n ul i n r i r t l r a t i s s l r r r l r r r r ' : irtlr s l , r l t r : t, l , t r ' r
llr('ll ( ()lrInIll orlrsclv(:s l() lI (usun( lr()n l)(:t!\'e('lI lll( lusloIlc.rl iln(l U)('
sr.u . Tiit,ffi;lT,ii.'i'
'l'his
p r o b l e r n o 1 ' a s t r u c t u r : r la p p r o a c l t t o t l r t : I b L r r r t t i n lui r n i t s o l ' i l r r '
sulrjcct 1;ec:orncs irnportant wherr wt: t:orrsiclcr' possilrlt:filrnrs ol ol'rposi-
t i , , r r I. f l l l E F i l l l l T i V t l r ' r ) s( ,l1l r(, l r i s l , , r ' i c rpr' l, s s i l , i l i tsi ,l i , r ' r t r t it,t l ; t t i . t rt l r ; t t
.";e 'ii,iilil,
_--
(|lI|CI1.|l(t.wltr.||tr.t'''.uffi.,'i..'iTu'..'TiI...uul
trltrrsl 't l
b c h , s i c i ' s .l l ' t h t f c i : i . s . t
l r o t l t t l o n t i r u u t r ' r ' i t n do l l p o s i t i o n; t l t r ' o r r s t r i r i r t . r l l ) _ l ' j l l , , 1 i : . ] : l : l _ : t ti1,
u l a b i i i t v . t l i e v c r v p o s s i b i l i t v o f c x D a n < l i n { t l i c l r o s s i l r l r :s i t c s o l
i r l t i t r r l ; t t i o rl ri r r ( r r s t i c t \ z C f u l l i t v \ r r r r i v t l s u rl i, trri l lb , t l , t t ' lt r r i r r c r i i t r r , r t l
l r y w l i e t h c l w c r r n r l e r s t a r r t l. h i s[ " r t ' ] cals s r r b j t : c t ' r ' l t . t n q r ' l l r t o t t r l rt i t r n .
I \ [ y r r t t , l t ' r ' s t : r n r rl i,rf r' lrr{c q r r n o r riys l l r ; r ti l s l r t ) r ' r n i r t i lvrct t r l , r l r t i t r t i s t i r
inirnrcnt consistsprcciscll, irr tlrc possibilitit:slbr_t'-rp4119[.Ug-Lb,:-dern!i-
..,,tl. r,g:,ti rs.o|ibcrjllJlil.tiltl9llrlglh-1ll*,_,lll"
i r r c ' l u s i v cr.n o r c ( l v n a m i c l r r r <rl n o l c c o r r c r c t c .[ [ ' t . l r c t r o s s i l r i l i t yl i r l s r r c ] r
-I+
:--
r'lr;utgc ts 1rr|rlttrlctl lry:l llrt-0rclta:tl ()v(r'(l('l(llrlillirll(ril r'l llrr sltttr-
n r : r l t t i s i r q r c tl ',,. r t l l t r ,/ , i / . , ' k : r r r rI l r l o l t g r t t ' o t r t l r , l r r \ , j r ' rot l ' t ; r r l i , ; t l

c l c r n o c l a c va r r r l o u t i r e t : o r r t i n r r i r rP u o l i t i c a l P r n r r r i s co [ ' l l r r ' ( ] r a n r s , i l L r r
n ( ) t i o n o [ ' l r c e r : n r o n yI.@ t s t l t t ' o r r c t a l . i o tt , ] i '
p o r ' v t : ri n t i r c J r o l i t i c a l[ i e l t l t : x t : l u s i v c l yi r r t r : r ' r r rrs. r l r l i s t ; r ' r t cl r l o r : sl v l r i t l r
lteg.'ttt,'rly cllll)hit-
vre with onc ilnotlter litr control ol policy clucsti()rrs.
sizes tltc witys ttt wlrttlt ol.lt'tltles t ' 1tt"1
lrowt't , . ._,
UtttlCrst:ltrlittg ol sot iAI lt'l:tllrtlts.itntl lo o l C l l ( ' s l r i l l r l l l ( ' W i t \ ' 5 l l l W lllt rl
,'t,
lffi;Fniliublc or sr,,ti,,l,il-liltiilliiii-ii s rvitIrin

verit.,rrs.irrrrtlrrr,
enrcrtt rltrrI tfVliilF6'r-t'll-TdfiIt|

trarrsformirt.iclt occurs not Inere f r 1 q t r - sr itr r m'l, r s i n l . t r ' , ' t ttt, f
u t
:i calise, lxrt ltrecisely througlt the ways in whit:l'r claily social ttrlatiotts att
rcirrticulnted, antl ncw conccptrtal lrorizolts ,rpcnetl ltp by atlornlltrtts cit
q[,crsi'e 1,':",ti.'.rJ Uvl iS'tq
DBH LO
ADI
ADI 20 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
r/lN\r' WOMO.hg1.lr?frTrot-\ ID€NINI( K
Political Communities that are based upon homogenized nature closes of spacesfor political action
Honig in 1992 (Bonnie,Associate

Professor
of Government
at Harvard
, ArendtandthePoliticsof ldentity,Feminists
Theorizethe
Political,pp.227)
From Arendt's perspective,a political cornmunity that constitutes itsell.

,on the basis of a prior, shared, and stable identity threatensto closc (hcr
spaces of politics, to hornogenizeor repressthe plurality and rnultiplicity
thatpolitical action postulates. Attcmp-tqIg_overy-9-ll:*t!g!pl!{gliqy or rnul-\
tiplicity, Arendt warns, Ttrj! res,ul!.iti _11!gl_!gli!!ol gt the public rcalnr I
ibelf and the "arbitrary dorninationof all others," or in "thc cxchangeol'
thereal world for an imaginary one whcre thesc others would simply not /
exist."a6 The only way to prevent such an exchange is by protccting the
spaces of politics in the nonidentity, the hcterogeneityand discontinuityof
plitical cornmunities,and alsclin the resistanccsof thc sclf to the nornral-
izingconstructionsclf sub.lectivityand tl.rcirr.rposition of autonorny(and per-
hapseven to the formation of sex/gender identities into binary catcg()rics
of malc and lbrnalc, nrasculineand f'eminine).1'he self's agonistic ill-fii:)
tedness is a source of the generationof power, a signal that there alc sites\
fromwhich to genera(e(alternative)performativity(ies).
It is this care for differcnce and plurality as conclitionsof politics and;
actionthat accountsfor Arendt's hostility to thc nation-state,whosc rcpug- |
n a n "t d e c i s i v ep r i n c i p l e " i s i t s " h o m o g c n e i t yo f p a s t a n d o r i g i n . ' " A n d i t
mightalso account-lqr-_h-e!s"rle-Lrqe:[r1hq*s-ubj-c-c-t_ of-ir-Icnrinisl-politic.: Ar-
__-:i
endtwould havc been quite wary of any proclamationof honrogenertyin /
uwomen's
e x p e r i e n c c , "o r i n " w o r r r c n ' sw a y s o f k n o w i n g . " s l . r cw o u l d h a v e I
beencritical of any feminist politics tl.ratrclies on a categoryof wonran that
a s p i r etso o r i m p l i c s a u n i v e r s a l i t yt l r a t b e l i e s ( o r p r o h i b i t s ,p u n i s h c s .o r
silences) significantdiJ-fercnces and pluralitieswithin-and cvcn rcsrstanccs
to-the boundsof the catecorv itself.
MBFI 1\
ADI
LINK: HUMAN RIGHTS
Human rights are in betweenthe particular and universaland easily becomeunconventionalterms that enable
exclusion-gay/lesbian rights prove.
BUTLER 2000 1:uOith.Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at UC Berkeley, C.ontingency,
Hegemony,universality: Judith Butler',ErnesroLaclau antl Sluvoj Zi:ek,yerso.)
irr a way th:rt pt:scrvcs tlre pariicularit c ' s s t r t t q g l e . o r r c s l r t ' l i k sr r r

i t \ v , r V l l r i l l l l t : t ) l ) r ' r t ' : t r l r l y r l r s n r r s s t ' r:lr * 1 r f f i l t s i t } t r | o r .
'lCsllilrr
l i l t l q l r y l r t r r n l r r |r i q l r t s ' , , , r , . r ' , ' i r' \ r , r , 1 i il l, ' s l r r r n r a r r
rielrts', wc ureicon[r'onti:r]r,vitlr:r-sl.rangenciehllorrrirrg o1' tlrt' ,.,r,ivcr.r,,l
a
i tl;)l::l lrrl.l . l ' l tt(c) nr ro,.nl .rr rnr:.sItuulrr r( :tt li oonr r i:tt(cl flSi c! -ct ,(,i1v :l iyl,l v^nt.nr .ct l rat l t lhr (o) rt lrgsl ]l trti licr}t/v l r r . <i r: l t : r r t i t i.c s
a
arrrrlsrarrrnr:r1ir:al 'srrbstant:es',
thcy :rr.caiso i,r the riiiil fiiiil-yi,ig ,,r,,1
, u , . v , . trl,r r .' l n r r r l r r r1' , *r , L , v i -
l r t t r r qr l r r : r l i l i rl'r, y1o r r t ; r r r o { l r t (' rl :l r ' : r r ' lI yr o
a
t h c t ' t t r t c ' t t rl t r o l r i l i z a t i o ns c c k st o c x l x ) s j ct h c c o n v c n t i o n a lI i r n i l a t . i o r rosl
t l t t ll t t t t r t l t nt,l t c t t r t ' mt l r a ts t : t st l r c l i m i t so n t l r t :r r r r i v t . r ' sl earl i r r :ol rl i r r t r l r -
t t ; r l i r , t r r l r r r v .l l r r l r l , , F f i i i i i f r f r l i i l i i l i ' l r l r . s r ., , , r 1 1 , . 1 1 ] ] , 1 , . q
-.
ttottrts ol r t r t t v c t s : t l t t Vr l , r r . sr t r r l l r t t ' t l t t t l c l i t r l l r t . f t r . r r ) f u . s ( . 1 r l,l r ! . t ( . 1 ) t l
althouqh it r.locsmean entering into thzrtsitu:rtion in lvlricir the c:onvcn-

'l'his
tional mcaning becornesLrnconven(ion:rl(or catachrestic). tloes ttot
: : r l
mean thaf wc liavi a pi:iorl iEcotirlE-I6T tnte r ctiterion ol univcrsality

It clocs suggest,howeveq that conventional at'rd exclttsionary nolms ol
',"1
urrrverszilitvcarr. tlrrouult rra,*"r
l i r l r n u l l t i o n s, r l t t t r i v e l s : t l i ttvl u t l l x l ) { ) s r t l r r l i m i t c t l : t n t l t ' x c l t t s t o t tll t r
f. ., ,
DBH
ADI .1n
Lt '
IDENTITYK
LINK: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVISM
Human rights activism createsan anti-political identity that seeksto have pure defenseof the powerlessagainst
the stateor particularpolitical institutions.The rights discourseseeksto focus on rights, excluding dimensions
of constitutionalityor democraticorder.
BROWN 2004 lWenay, professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof California,Berkeley,"'-fhe Most
We Can Hope For...': Human Rightsandthe Politicsof Fatalism."TheSouthAtluntic p 45 | -463,ProjectMuse.)
Quarterly,103.213,
For the most part, human rights activism refuses the nolitical mantleon which I am insisting.Rather,it
eral f as someth ntinolitics-a and the
nowerlessagainstpower. a pure defenseof the individual asainst immenseand notentiallv cruel or
desDotic machineries of culture. state" war. ethnic conflict. tribalism. natriarchv. and other
mobilizations or instantiationsof collectivenower against individuals. Moreprecisely,
human rights
ke their a mor tered on itical
d i s c o u r s e o f c o m p r e h e n s i v e i u s t i c e . E v e n a s l g n a t i e l ft i t l e s h i s f i r s t l e c t u r e" H u m a n R i g h t s a s p o l i t i c s ' ,a n d
recognizes that "humanrightsmustacceptthat it is a fightingcreedand that its universalclaimsu,ill be resisted"by whatever
authorityis its particulartarget.the politics he identifiesare in the pragmaticeffectsof what he forthrightlyidentifiesas a
moral order of things: "l'lumanrights is the languagethat systematicallyembodies
[the] intuition [that each individual is
entitledto equalmoral consideration], andto the degrecthat this intuitiongainsinfluenceover the conductof individualsand
states.we can say that we are makingmoral progress"(4). In additionto the explicitclaint aboutmoral equality,international
human rights are also premisedon the immoralityof politically inducedsuffcring.flnlike constitutionallv derived
and nationallv enforced hishlv specified lEnd Page 4531rights in liberal democratic orders. human
ri8hts are cast in terms of the moral inviolabilitv of "human dignitv" anrl the denrivation or
detrradation of this dignitv that thev are understood to protect against. uumanrights,in lgnatieff's
understanding, do not prescribewhat is good or right but ratherdependon agreement"aboutwhat is insufferably,inarguably
w r o n g " ( 5 6 ) : T h e u n i v e r s acl o m m i t m e n t ism p l i e db y h u m a n r i g h t s c a n b e c o m p a t i b l ew i t h a w i d e v a r i e t yo f w a y s o f
livingonly iI'the universalism i m p l i e di s s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l v m i n i m a l i s t . I l u r n a nr i g h t sc a n c o m n r a n du n i v e r s aal s s e n t
o n l y a s a d e c i d e d l y" t h i n "t h e o r yo f w h a t i s r i g h t ,a d e t l n i t i o no f t h e m i n i m u r nc o n d i t i o n fso r a n y k i n d o f l i l ' ea t a l l . H u m a n
riEhts is onlv a svstematicagenda of "negative libertv." a tool kit against opnression.a tool kit
t individ must be f thev seefit withi and
relieious beliefsthat thev live bv
DBH 44
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: HUMAN RIGHTS ACTIVTSM
The anti-political identity of human rights discoursefails to empower individuals. If anything, the rights as
shieldsplaceslimits on political agencyand autonomy.
BROWN 2004 lWenay,professor of politicalscience
andwomen's
studies
at the University
of California,
Berkeley,"'The Most
We CanHopeFor...':HumanRightsandthePoliticsof Fatalism,"
TheSouthAtlanticQuarterly,103.213,p
45l-,163,ProjectMuse.)
But it is not at all clear that human rights discourse actuallv secures theautonomy and agency
lgnatieffpromises; rather,this discourse offers a form of protection for individuals that may trade one
form of subiection for another. an intervention by an external agent or set of institutions that
Dromises to protect individuals from abusive state power in part bv replacing that nower. (A recenr
and very literalcaseof suchan exchange was, of course,the intervention in lraq by the UnitedStatesand Britain,
commencing in spring2003andcontinuing throughthepresent, whichcarriedtheflagof humanrightsandwhichlgnatieff,
in severalmajorpressvenues. hasat timesdefended asa humanrightseffort.;!)
While the replacement may or may
not be a Dositive one from the standpoint of reducing suffering. it does not follow that it
necessarilv nroduces agencv or "helDs people to help themselves." Moreover,to the extentthat human
rightsareunderstood as the abilityto protectoneselfagainstin.justice
anddeflneone'sown endsin lif-e,this is a fbrm of
"empowerment" that fully equatesempowerment with liberalindividualism._5-As such,the rrromise of rights to
enable the individual's canacitv to choosewhat one wishes to live and die for does not address the
istorical d econom ints in which th
choice within these constraints and thus largclv codifies these constraints. Irinally,if rights Dromise
a shield around individuals, the "rightlEnd Page;t551 to choose the lif-erheyseefit to lead"(57),this shield
constitutesa iuridical limit on regimeswithout empowering individuals as nolitical actors;rather.
ir
is an instanceof what IsaiahBerlin calledand lgnatieffendorsesas "negativeliberty,"the right to be let aloneto do as one
w i s h e s( 5 7 ) . A s h u m a nr i g h t sd i s c o u r s d e r a w sa l i n e b e t w e e nt h e s p a c eo f ' t h e i n d i v i d u atl o c h o o s eh o w s h eo r h e w a n t st o
l i v e a n d t h e s p a c eo f p o l i t i c s ,w h a t l g n a t i e f l ' c a l l s" c m p o w e r m e n ti"s l o c a t e di n t h e f b r r n e r .I n h i s f r a m i n g ,h u m a nr i g h t s
discourse t h u s n o t o n l y a s p i r e st o b e b e y o n dp o l i t i c s( n o t w i t h s t a n d i nhgi s o w n i n s i s t e n cteh a t i t i s a p o l i t i c s ) b , ut carries
implicitly antipoliticalaspirationsfor its subjects that is, castssub.jects as yearningto be fiee ol'politics and, indeed.of all
c o l l e c t i v ed e t e r m i n a t i o nosf e n d s . ( 2 ' I h utsh, e m o r a lv a l e n c eo 1 ' h u m a n
r i g h t s ,a s w e l l a s i t s p o s i t i o n i n g
o 1 ' m o r a l i t iyt u t s i d eo f
andabovepolitics,inflectsand positionsin its imagethe individualhumanthat rightswould empowerand therebyproduce.
DBH 2)
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: IDENTITY
Identity is an illusion that is createdby different perfbrmancesand roles within society.The belief in a natural
behaviorthat createsidentityis createdby societalcoercions,suchas the creationofabject, unlivablebodies.In
order for us to challengethe marginalizationof peoples,we must interrogatethe constructionof identity that
forms the basisof suchexclusion.
FELLUGA 2002 1oino, English,StanfordUniversity,"Modules on butler:on Genderand Sex," Introductorl,guitle to Critical
Theory,ll t tP:i.rl n'u'.purdrie:.
eciirr'gu
itlctoth*oryi$endcrand 'rrr
scx oilrilcs,'birt
leigcnilerscr
.htnrl.)
I' on Gender and Sex JUDITH BUTLER questions the belief that certain sendered behaviors are
natural. illustrating the ways that one's learned performance of gendered behavior (whatwe
commonly associate
withf'emininity is an act of sorts. a performance. one that is imposed
andmasculinity)
urron us bv normative heterosexualiw. Butler thusoffers whatsheherselfcalls"a more radical use of the
ion th social than the subiect of
constitutive acts" (llP-edbtmalivel 27-0-). In otherwords, Butlerquestionsthe extentto which we can assumethar a given
individualcan be saidto constitutehim- or herself;shewondersto what extentour actsare determinedfbr us, rather,by our
placewithin languageand convention.She fbllows postmodernist and poststructuralist practicein using the term "subject"
( r a t h e rt h a n " i n d i v i d u a l "o r " p e r s o n " i)n o r d e rt o u n d e r l i n et h e l i n g u i s t i cn a t u r eo 1 ' o u rp o s i t i o nw i t h i n w h a t J a c q u e sL a c a n
terms the -symbolic,order.the systemof signs and conventionsthat determinesour perceptionof what wc see as reality.
Unlike rheatricalacting,Butler arques that we cannot even assume a stable subiectivitv that qoes about
DerforminE various gender roles; rather. it is the verv act of Derforming gender that constitutes
who we are (see,thensxt madule e-11- ped-qmativity).Identitv itselt fn, Butler.jl an illusion retro
createdbv our nerformances:"In onrlositionto theatrical or nhenomenoloqicalmodelswhich take
the Senderedself to be prior to its acts.I will understandconstituting acts not only as constituting
the identifv of the actor. but as constituting that identifv as a compelline illusion. an obiect of
heliet' (l'PelfQrmat-ivq"
Ul) That belief (in stableidentitiesan<Jgenderdifferences) is, in fact,compelled "bv
social sanction and taboo" (llPerforyariyg:: 271).so that our belief in "natural" behavior is reallv the
result of both subtle and blatant coercions. One effect of such coercions is also the creation of that
which cannot be articulated. "a domain of unthinkable. abi-eJ.t.unlivable bodies" 1Bo<{!et xi) that.
throu8h abiection bv the "normal" subiect helrls that subiect to constitute itselft "This zone of
uninhabitabilitY will constitute the definine limit of the subiect's domain: it will constitute that site
of dreaded identification aeainst. which-and bv virtue of which-the domain of the subiect will
circumscribe its own claim to autonomv and to lifc" (B<ttlies 3). Thisrepudiation is necessary fbr thesub.ject
to
establish"an identification
with the normativephantasmof 'sex"'(B<ttl!e;,, but, because the act is not "natural"or
"biological"in anyway,Butler uses that abiected domain to question and "rearticulate the verv terms
3). Bv unrlerlining the artificial. nroscribed. and
@1lctie;
performative nature of gender identitv. Butler seeks to trouble the definition of gender.
challenEins the status quo in order to fieht for the rishts of mareinalized identities (especialy gayand
lesbianidentitv).
DH$4
Affi$ 45.
IDENTITYK
LINK: IDENTITY
Identity is simply an attempt to end plurality by creating a hegemonic stance that erasesother identities.
Affirming the incoherenceof identity is key to bettersocietalconnectionsacrossdifference.
CONNOLLY 2000 (Bill,chairatJohnHopkins "Politics,
University, Power
andEthics:
A DiscussionBetween
JudithButlerand
W i l l i a m C o n n o l l y , "T h e o r ya n d E v e n t , 4 : 2p, r o j e c tM u s e . )
This raisesthe political questionof the cost of articulatinga coherentidentity position by producing,excluding,and
repudiatinga domainof abjectedspectersthat threatens the arbitrarilycloseddomainof subjectpositions.Perhapsonlv bv
risking the incalrerezce of identitv is connection nossible (p. la9). I interpretrhis formularionro mean rhat
DeoDleoften becomeprofoundlv attached to the identities that inhabit them. that the abiection of
someother identitv possibilitiesoften becomestempting as a meansto securethe self assuranceof
vour own. and that an ethos of rrlurality is ant to be both fragile antl uneven in nart because
DeoDleoften refuseto run identitv risks to cultivate connectionsacrossdifference.Thisfbrmulation,
ro
me, addresses simultaneously the importanceand difliculty of a generousethosof public life, and it disclosesthe elementof
fragility that may persistin such achievementsif and when they are achieved.'fhe risks are more palpablethan those
a c k n o w l e d g ebdy m a n y s e l f - - p r o c l a i mperdo p o n e n tosf p u b l i cv i r t u e .O n e t h i n k so 1 ' l i b e r acl o m m u n i t a r i a nasn d n e o - K a n t i a n s
here. The theme also may also help to explain why some non-Kantian,cultural conservatives are so eagerto bond the
identitiesthey prol-essto the truth of identity itself. Nietzsche calls this an instance of the of
"immoralitv
moralitY." meaning in this context the immoral demand to treat the identitv you nrofess as if it
dictates itv itself so that it can
tom ments ln to cre i t y . O n et h i n k so f t h e C h r i s t i a n
R i g h ti n t h i s c o n t e x tt,h o u g ht h e r ea r em a n y C h r i s t i a nw
s h o o p p o s et h o s et e n d e n c i eisn t h e n a m e9 f C h r i s t i a nl o v e .A n d o n e
thinksas well of thoseacademics who identifysame-sexmarriageand f-amilieswith the demiseof westerncivilizationitself-.
DBH
ADI 1v
IDENTITY K
LINK: IDENTITY
The establishmentof identity depends on self-understandingfound at the core of the individual. This
assumptionis basedon truth claims that utilize discourseto constructnorms basedon physical appearanceor
actions.Genderidentity provesthat this can createdangerousregulatorytheorizing.
BUTLER 2000 (:uoitn,MaxineElliottProfessor of Rhetoric
andComparativel,iterature ..politics,
ar UC Berkeley, powerand
Ethics:A DiscussionBetweenJudithButlerand William Connolly,"TheoryanclEvent,4:2,projectMuse.)
(Judith Butler): There are severalinterestingpoints that you raise,anctI think I may be able to answer them
best by
p r o c e e d i nm
g o r eo r l e s sc h r o n o l o g i c a l l Y
y .o u a s kw h e t h e rI m i g h tb e w i l l i n g t o r e t h i n kt h e c r i t i q u eo f c o r ei d e n t i t yn o w t h a t
GenderTroubleis ten yearsold. And my answerto this questionis two-fold: first, it seemsimportantto realizethai GImade
an argumentagainstthe notion of core genderidentity,especiallythe view of Robert Stoller, an ego-psychologist who
claims that one might find the truth of genderin an ostensiblyinterior'core'genderidentity.The secondis that identity
itselfmav becomeexrreriencedas a 'core.'butthat is only to sav that a certain discourseof the core
conditions our self-understanding, sometimes .ft.
evenessentiailv. **ron t ,rnrror"A Btott"rtvffi
it set uD a very sDeculative.even metanhvsicalDostulateas the criterion bv which the truth
be know ASSUIn ts non- re somehowstr
lm of a This struckme, and continuesto strikeme, as a needlesslyand
dangerouslv.egulatorv view *hi.h .setsiets up the 'e*pert'
up the 'exrrert'
as the
as the one
one who
who has
has sDecial
snecialknowledge
knowleds. about
? ^ 'core.'
one's I
a core that is onlv known throuqh its annearance. but is said to be not onlv distinct ";;;i
from the apnearances bv which it is evitlenced. but is said to act causailv to nroduce such
aDDearances.My view was, and remains,that sometimes gender does come to feel like a 'core.' or it
hrecomesavailable to us through the discourse of the'core'or, asyouyn.,rr"lt.uy,it is',acquired.,,So I don,t
disputethat it can,fbr somepeople.cometo reallyf'eellike a core,andeven,throuchthe metaphor of the core.cometc)
structuretheirself'-understanding essentially. But that is, of course, different from saving that it "is" one. and J
don't think we have anv wav to actuallv sav the latter and know it to be true. The regulaton'
doctri ich I am s to do with th im it makes.a truth-
claim
c r a r m that
r n a r sseems
e e m sto
t o be
D e made preciselv
m a d e D r e c i s e l \bv
, b vthe
t h e nsvchologist
n s l c h o l o g i s fwho (leri
r t r h odevisesand institutesthe theorv. S o
I suppose my complaintis not unlikeFoucault's in thefirst volumeof Thelli,strtrvr.t Scxuulit.ywhere he wonders how and
why sex becamethe innermostsecretthat we arecompelledtcl exposeto the psychological
establishment.
But morethan that,
it seemsimportant
to acknowledge that if a core gender contains the criterial truth of gender. then it is
possible to announce about another nerson that the truth of their qender
is manifested bv tleir
acts or can be hat the truth woman ls
her core femininitv -- whichshedenies-- o. that the t.uth of a fe-inine+r,M .u."
femininitv -- whichsheaffirms.And it mav be that the senders which inhabit persons and which they
neouslvi don't oui to establi ionsof masculi
that the discourseof truth which assumegthe stabilitv of those terms. antl relatesthem as thoush
thev were mutuallv exclrrsive.is itself an idealiration of e tain
(uninhabitable)
heterosexualitv"and so not to be embracedwithout oualification.Thisisnorrosaytharthe
idealizednorms of heterosexualityare not conditionsof pleasure.They most surely are. But what becomesinterestingis
when thesepleasuresare not exactlymanif-ested
by the bodiesand gendersthat one expects,or wherecertainreversalsmake
clearthat heterosexuality
doesnot belongexclusivelyto heterosexuals.I think this point hasbeenmadeabouthomosexuality
mostemphaticallyby Eve Sedgwick:homosexualityis not the propertyof homosexuals.
DBH
ADI 44
LINK: IDENTITY MOVEMENTS
Establishingan identity constructsa violent, forced meaningthat is controlledby its producer.Anti-domination

efforts are an exampleof identity-formationthat becomesdominatingand dangerous.
BUTLER 2000 (:uaith'MaxineElliottProfessor of Rhetoric
and Comparative Literature , (;ontingency,
ar UC Berkeley
Hegemony,Universality:.lutlith Butler, ErnestoLac.lauand SlavoiZi:ek.yerso.\
i s n c r , , s s r r lrir, r . t l r i:sr r . ot i s v r r r l r o l i z ; r l il o r r
7/.\\,.lnl r : r k r . i r l : r ,i s. ,: .r , , . r
i / u l u lt l l l ! l u s l l t l. r r r r r ' l t ( )onl
r r qr vv. llrriiccl lrrr rrt.rl or o
l ) r ) s i l i-r l rt (Il i v cclltl,. ru rr rrll,..rrssl tl ( . ((..cc\s. .. ;.i;,j,. .
- : '
,:,,-E_lf J
_f (siurri ficcI) tLri r--iig-fi

-
-=r-+1€
hc nn,r,ilil!,-1li c (sigrrili i t r ) t l r ; r t i l r r s r . s{ . ) r r r
iulrt
ll$(]1lllll,',t^ljttitlrc
Iratit canrroilniilit-,T11,cunity
unitythat
thatit prorlucr
prorluccs.
wlt-cn
rlrcs,rcial
fbltiJs
ri rr*s, .c. c. kt *( }rt|j0. \ l(|liu. :(| :| l; l| ,| ri ,rl,z..,r,r,,n. ,,.t, , . | l l '
,,
_.r
r s i r l . r t l r t . s . r : i . l rL lr i, s) r r( .r ir)-
/ r- l t
o l s v r n l , o l i z : r r i o n . l , u t . t : t : innrsr l<e:lsc l o n
: ] , l l : . , ] 1, , l l l , , l , t !11rrr11!ys,tlrar
l l b s t i r l r((. , tltat
a ssubstance, t l r : r tis
i s at
: r t .,
,ln(p..,t,,a".0,,
nS Olll 1o l). r,m.trr er'l
,r,lr..u. l,^.r--iillit-il. r,
lnt]w..a...@rejtrclicialancl1lItolliclosicstlrat
estatrlishthe 'Jews' or an.thcr ethnir: minorrty
as thc .c.rrs., ,,i' ,,,-,a.,.,,y
cif'sor:ialanxieries.lbr Zi'ck, tlfSfU]g{ryomcnt
erncrscs*tr.,, *" ,..i
c2ll )I'
ribut
l)owcrs ol (lornlnatlon throtre]r our plirticilta_

;,"
DBH Lb
ADI
ADI 2 0 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
The politicizatton of a particular identity into the universal will always fail-this attempt splits coalitions.
political wills, and resultsin an empty ineradicableplace.
BUTLER 2000 1:uaith, Maxine Elliott Professor of Rhetoric and Comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, c'ontingency,
Hegemony, universalitv: Judith Butler', Ernesto Laclau and slaroi Zi:ck.yerso.\
// I'aclau's most sustained disc:ussionol universality in rclation to the

/ present political dema'cls of p.rticularism takes placc i. fimancipanon\s)
(1996),1(twhere l.reseeksto rieri'e a c.nception of 'nivcrsality fr'm the
chair.r of equivalence, a concept th:rt is central to l,Ierlemony
and Social.i.rt
strateEt,ptrblished a clecadc
earlier.rn limancipation(.r),
LaclauattcmPts
k)
showthat
l$lleljl :t..y l^.ti."l@,
e}g.l]Ltoacincve selt-
@od
to be ..e that is tiet'l to a spccifi<:content, snr:h as gcnder,.o,,,, o,
ls o_Jxrrslltutlve lilcomplcteness).
tt? l]y it "_
"i',tu. ?f i,,t
r c l a t i r i n sI n
. o t l r c ' w o . r l sa, n r d t ' r 1 i r y -.l"rt t s r i i u r e at t , . " , u r t i' L * l t i J F i , , i , .
l i r r r nu l i m i t l t : ssst : to [ ' o t l r c li c l c n t i t i c s . ' l ' h :dritt i c r u r ( : ci s s l r r :irr i t : t li r rr l r c
( ( ) l l l l i ( ' ( ) t t , ; t (| l t u ,t,,ffi' i-.a *- .2
L : r < : l : r r rl'iso i n t o l ' r c : l i : r t - r r <hr c: r t : i s S l u r s s u r cl a t l r t . r ' t l r a r Ir I c u c l , a r r r l r l r i s ."-l'a f,q 7t 7l-t i :F{
-=
i r t r l r l i t : sl l t a t l l i c t l i f J t : r ' t ' n t : cwsl r i c l r c o r r s t i t r r t r(:l n t l i r r v r L r i r r l r l r ' l i r n ittl)r c
Cr
al -
---1
l;
ul t I
^
!:!
TJ
Ai
":l,lElt
.,1 ! 1 . - l c l <
9t{)
ul
.i'c
Er'l
p o s i l i r r ur i [ ' i c l < , : n t . 2i tl1l c' n o t i r i n a r y i n r : ] r : r r a c 1 c;rr,r r ctl l r a . t l r c l , l r c l o n g t < r :l ;l^ Ft- :1 ElEl-l;
a =
.: l.: 6
l; l3l*l" =
l- l-'
a f i c l r l o l ' o p r : r ' i r t i o nt h : L tl a c k s l o t a l i [ y . ( ) r r u r n i g l r t âl -l=
:tEt- :IO F
Plolilirlrlr.iLr-rrrrc
- iFtl :dtl .5
' tN I U
a g a i n s t t L r r l:r r r P t :o f I I e g c l ' s P l r i l o s o l t h y : t s ' t o t ; r l i z i n g ' , 1r r7r r r o l nc rniqlrl _ a a
i- .11 - ! t l ;. -
. nt - 'otr l3lYlv"li
tr
lxlll=l i
€r$
: l l s ot r r l l t ll h a t l , i r t ' l : r ror [ l c r s a p ( ) s l s t n l c l r ] r ' , l l irst 'tr r i s i r rcr r' f S l r r r s s r r li tr 'r l l r i : 'uq.c -17 3\
r l i s r : u s s i o rl r ,r r t s r r c l rr l c l r a t c :osn r l r c s t a t t r so { ' t o l l r i i l y ; r , r , l r i l t ' t l r c:rr r t .
CD
u,
c - lC l t r
tarlt;.l :. 3| " , *
/lz
;-
(( il+
l?|El
3lElE
;\
i l n l ) o r t a n t , t a k t :r r si r r u t r o { l r e rr i i r c c t i o n .I t r a t 1 11. r 1 1 s\ v1 c' , : l r c , I l r < ' l i c r r ul;l-
O
t: |
li l<if;l- * - -
c^
I t { l r ( l c l l r c I Itth a ( l h c f i t : l t lo l ' c l i f l i t r c r r t i arl ' < ' l r r t i t i nl isr r r r rr v l r i r : l ri u n , i r r r r la l ] >.E
* | 2l--
-.- - l ! l r !
p a l t i t : r r l a . ri r' k : n t i t i c sc r n e f { l c r n r r s t l r c l i n r i t i t : s s l.v l o l c o v r : r ,t l r c ' i r r < . r i r r r -

!;
-' ' -
I cl-li
-l Ol >
Et^ t-
rl!l-c
'5 | br]l:
o
Fcr
..
o
l:lEt :l:
l! til;l{
=T,
??
OG
r;ElEl:
: F
c vo
alaltr
1 , 1t l i
5lil 5l-r "
- l
--o Oa.
G=
tl7, lu
?u ztztt ; l;l:l 5 X
V l r r t l r c c o r n c si n t c r i : s l i r r gi s t h t : r t t l t :t h a t t l r i , sI i r r r i t l c s fsi c l d o i r l i f l i . r
,
'l-l-
t-tL
o* - l=lil =
- k t . i l -
c n t i a l l y l r n s c r l r l c f i n i l i o r r s p l a y s l o r l , a c l a r r i r r ( l r c l l r c o r ^ i z l r r i o ror l ol.9l" i t3l.:t tr

!>
t !.t 1
9: l F = f"lll:
runivr:rsir.lily. \4/lrcrrthc chltin of' cc|rivalcnr:eis oPclali<'nuilizctl:r.sa.polit-
: Elt=
I*O
'=:l ' l| J> t : +:
IL
ic:alcatere-or1', it rctlrrirt:stlurt particrrlar irlcnt.iticslrt:krrowlcrlgctlrrrt tlrcv L l+l-l- tLe

'-
' e l ? l t n O
" | |^
l=1
CQ
* El={r
F, .r
s h a r c r v i t h o t l r e r s L r r : il cr l c n t i t i e st l r e s i t u ; r t i o no l r Lr r e < r c s s : r riinl vc o l n p J r ' 1 c :t!t!
el ilclP
'l'hey u ts-
9 1- l u l : -,
clctettniriation. i t r c l i t r t d i t m e r r t a l l vt h e s c t o f < l i l J c l c r r c rlsr v l v i r i t ' l r
e1:lrl:
1
^,4
( Fa
tlrcy t:mt:rer:,iiritl llris sct o[' rliflcrcncesconstitrrlcslhl stnrc:rrrr':r]
Jla,lt q- . -
lfallrts -^ I
of'1hr: rkrrnain of political sociirlitl,.If any sudr ltar.tit.rrlar.irlcrlitvsctl<s

*d
6 ! l
-t
- l t s
7 t /
I
';- € w. lrlalC
t lOlLl/
F=
a!,
crj'L
O
:= I E I T I J la
i-
,
-
tr: r-rnivcrsalizcits o\,r,nsituation witlrout rccognizinu tltlt oIitr:r.srrtlr -u falYl=
- t r
6 t: r;rz
I l - | F I
iclentiticsltt-citrllni<lc,atllritlr,.,rll - -t
m;i;.
m c l l n i l ) g ; r r r r l ; l l . r c t ' rrrrl r r r v c r s t i ritlys c l l . ' l ' 1 r , . r r r r i r . r ' r ' s l r l i .zl. u;tLi r-r r r
--'--
|llrr.tit'rrlar.iiiiW.{|nl('|l|l,r:rq|tllrllt'r,tt.|iti<,tr,
;',*i;s Tviii,ilT[L]liiT,,.
louncl,:Lccorclirrgto l,aclau, it is as an'emlrty ltut ir-rcr:r<lir:irblc lila.c'
(p. 5B). lt is not a presumcrl or a priori r:onclition lhat rniuht lre <liscrx'-
erecl anrl alticulatecl, anrl it is not tlre itlcal o1' achievinq ir,conrpiete lisr
'.i*+
o['anv and all Particularisrnswhich ivoulcl lrc unilicrI l>y n slur.'cl c.r-
collsututes 1
,,
DBH 44.
ADI
Identity basedmovementsthat attemptto createa universalbasedon their ideologieswill always fail. Insteadof
politicizing identity in this way, we should embrace a different universal that is unconditionally open to
difference,recognizesthe incompleteness of political action, and is not groundedin subject-formation.
BUTLER 2000 lluaith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterarureat UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,Universality:Judith Butler, ErnestoLacrttuand sravoiZizek.yerso.\
/ | , " ' r i t ^ t , t e r r si r i s r l r a ta n u l i t i c a l, , r g a n i z a r i o rwr i l r p , , s i rt l r c p . s s i l , l r

/ 'fillinq
of tlrat Plecc as zrn ideal, it is equally incvitable rhat it will liiil to
-
.lo,.n.IVlu.l,^t thir l"ilur..n.nnt b. di.".tly pu.ru.,l nr th" iiil,,,-f
potltlcs, rt does plochrce a value - incleed, the v:rlrre6{'ulivers:tlity t[at
tffirrs the aim of politics rnust therr chense
it r."-r,.it,t gllig. to n.q.rn.rgro,l"t
source of its zrlliancewith other such political lnovcr-ncn1s. "l
what islicn-
t.icaltri all terms in an
cquivalenti:il cliain . . . r:an only bc tlte

the cornmunity,whidr
surc coukl only bc tlrc r.estrltof'orro morc clifierql:._gpggiLl1lre_Uits

l r t l r c f ' l h r r : s s. l t h e
Lirrda Zcrilli explainsLaclau's conccption of' tlrc universal in tlrcsetcrnrs:

"l'his univcrsalisrnis not ( )ne: it is not :r tr...*il]i,-,e.r,.uncthi,
lbrrn) to which inrlividuals acieclc. llrt. iarheitl
o f ' a u r c s c : r t c lrt:t t t t h c o h c i : l r o l < l c ro l ' : r r t l i l r s t : n c t ' . ' l l t Z t : r i l<l il t ' l i l vs l r o r v s
( ' , i r l r l o t l r u l c r l r r c t ' r l t o t l r t : L l r : l t r r i a l t l { c a l , a r r r i s u g g ( ' s 1 st l r l t l l r r : t u r i v t ' r ' s l , l

* ' i l l r r o t l r t : { i i t r r r c l t : < li r r , r l i r r r u i s t i r ; t , r ' p s 1 ' t : l t i . r , ; o r t , l i t i o n o 1 ' r l - t l i r l ] l f , t .
l \ l . r ' c r r v r r i,t w i l l n , , t l r c l i J t r t t tl lr s . rr i q t t l : t t i v ci , l , ; t l .. r u t o l ) i ; r l ll " r s t t r l : t l i ( , r t .
w l r i r : l r t r a n s c c n r l s 1 h t , lrn r l i c u l a r , l l r t will alwlys l,c'politit:rLllr';irtit'rtl;rlcti
rclations ol' rli{lllcntc' ( p . l 5 ) . l i r n l ) h : r s i z i n q n ' l t i t t L r t l l r t t t t : r r r t sl l t r " p a r ' -
a s i l i < :l L l t a c l r r r r r . ' r r 1 ' o [ ' l l r ct r n i v c r s i r l t o s o l n c p a r l i c u l i u , Z t ' r i l l i : r l g r r c s l l r : r t
t l r t ' r r r r i v t ' r s r l r v i l l l i t : f t r t r r r r lo n l y e z t l r c r ' l u i i r t o l p a r t i t r r l a r s \ l s c l l ' . 4 1 1 6 \
DBH 3o,
ADI
Political self--representation/representation
does not constituteeflective resistance.This representationalways
alreadyhomogenizesthe subaltern,effectingviolenceand effacement.
BUTLER 2000 lluaith,MaxineElliottProfessor of Rhetoric
and Compararive Literature
at UC Berkeley
, oontingency,
Hegemony,uniyersality: Judith Butler, ErnestoLaclau antl slavtj Zizek,yerso.)
'
/ / l l n t t l r i si s a l i r n i t c t lv i t . r r , r r,i r , l , , r r i : , l i s n r , , , rur,pl r i t . lirr s , . l l 1 l (t.6: a
i t llrrl
, colonized emerges:ls n subject accorclingto norms thzrtirrt: r.ccognizably
Eurocentric. According t. Gayatri chakrzivorty Spi'ak, '.'iverslrlism,
as
eof
ishcd life which ca.'ot berarticrrlatedby the ]i.rot-:ertric calesorv .f

'Ihe the
sublect. l'he narrativ.
sub.ject. narrative oi
of p,,liti.al selF .
o
ccrtain dffiGiil"\ in hcr vicw, t.rt it does rrot pro'rrle ail th:rt
lW.s.-n',i.,.r;ffi.,,
z ) p t ^ : r k i, ' " S l l r v a kr c r n e r k s ': i t i s i m p o s s i l r l c l i , r .r h c l i r . r r c l ri n r t : l l ertr r a l s
[re fi:rri'u nrai'l1, to l)clcuze ..cl cl
<lesirctliatwouldinliabittIretlrtrtarneclsubiccffi.
.x,'l usion c,l rlrt.liTl6ilir urle(I ol l r(.rof li;,1 ;1, )i() ccrrI rr I
Lclthe producti.' .1' Iiu.,rpeetriffirn
cca.not
a n n ( l ( ssl)cirk'.
pclk' S SPrv:rk
p i v u k does 'ot mean by this claimTattlEllTralr:e.n
,t6cs.'@css her clesircs,form political allia'ces, .r makc c,lt.r:rily
anclpoliticallysienificanteflects,b't that .,1uitl4.Ornr.a,t..,r..1,-
tualization of aecncy, her agency remair
lt
ln
cnltrrral rr;rnslaticrnon the part of li'irst world i.tellt'rturrtr.'

//WvSlp
DBH
ADI 7\
IDENTITYK
LINK: IDENTITY POLITICS
Identity politics is the basisof modernity, capitalismand class-these political movementsfragment coalition
building, especiallythrough their difl-erenttheoriesof subjectivitythat createnorms againsteachother. The left
remainsfragmentedand weak for transformatorypolitics.
BROWN 1999 lWenOy,professorof political scienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof California.Berkeley."Resistine
Left melancholy,"Bounclary2,26.3,p 19-27,projectMuse.)
Two familrar answersemergefrom recentquarrelsand reproacheson the Left. The first is a set of social and political
formationsvariouslyknown as culturalpoliticsor identitypolitics.Herethe conventionalchargefrom one portionof the Left
is thatDolitical movements rooted in cultural identifv-racial. sexual. ethnic. or gendered-not
onlv elide the fundamental structure of modernitv" capitalism. and its fundamental formation.
class.but fragment left political enereiesand interestssuch that coalition building is impossible.
The secondculprit also hasvariousnames poststructuralism. discourseanalysis,postmodernism, trendy literarytheorygot
u p a s p o l i t i c a la n a l y s i s . ' l ' h em u r d e rc h a r g e sh e r e a r e a l s o t a m i l i a r :P < l s t f o u n d a t i o n a l t h e o r i e s o f t h e s u b i e c t .
truth. and social rrrocesses
undermine the possibilitvof a theoreticallv coherentand factuallv true
account of the world. and also challenqethe Dutativelvobiective grounds of left norms. Togerher or
these two phenomena are held resnonsiblefor the weak, fragmented, and disoriented
separately,
character of the contemnorarv Left. This much is old news.But if readthroughthe prisrnof lefi melancholy,the
elementof displacement in both setsof chargesma),appearmore starkly,sincewe would be fbrcedto ask: What aspectsof
left analysisor orthodoxyhave wilted on the vine fbr its adherentsbut are sa1'eguarded from this recognitionthroughthe
scornful attentionheapedon identity politics and poststructuralism? Indeed. what narcissisticidcntillcationwith that
orthodoxyis preservedin the lamentover the loss ol- its hold on young leflistsand the loss of its potencyin the political
field? What love for the promisesand guarantees that a left analysisonce held is preservecl.
as responsibilityfbr the tattered
conditionof thosepromisesand guarantees is distributedonto debasedothers?And do we herealsoseea certainthingnessof
the t,eft take shape,its reificationas somethingthat "is," the tantasticalmemorythat it once"was." at the very momentthat
it so clearlvis not/one?
DBH
ADI ?2.
IDENTITYK
LINK: IDENTITY POLITICS
The failure of the left's identity politics is due to an anachronismthat doesnot allow it to effectively constructa
political project to sufficiently alter the current political order. Additionally, its factionalist tendenciesdo not
allow it to overcomesectarianismthat becomesdeadlyto its transformativegoals.
BROWN 1999 lWendy, professorof political scienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof California,Berkeley."Resistins
L e f t m e l a n c h o l y ,B" o u n d a r y2 , 2 6 . 3 , p 1 9 - 2 7 p
, r o j e c rM u s e . )
Now let us bring thesespeculations abouta melancholicLeft back to Hall's more forthrightlypoliticalconsiderations about
the troublesof the contemporaryLeft. lf Hall understands our failure as a Left in the last quartercenturyas a failure
within the Left to apprehend
this time, this is a failurethat is only reiterated and not redressedby our complaintsagainst
thosewho are succeeding
(liberalcentrists,neoconservatives,
the Right)or bv our complaints against one another
(antiracists. feminists, queer activists, postmodernists, unreconstructed Marxists). In Halt,s
understanding,
this failure is not simrllv the consequenceof adherenceto a particular analytic lE'no
Page231 orthodoxv the determinismof capital,the prirnacyof class althoueh it is certainlv that. Rather"this
failure results as well from a particular intellectual straitiacket-an insistenceon a materialism
that refuses the importance of the subiect and the subiective. the question of stvle. and the
problematicof language.Andit is the combinationof thesetwo that is deadly:
"Our sectarianism,"
Hallarguesin theconclusionof TheHardRoutlto Reneytul,
not onlv arisesfrom a defensiveness toward the
agendasfixed bv now anachronisticpolitical-economicformations (those of thel9l0s andof 1945)but
"is also due to a certain notion of nolitics. inhabited not so much as a theorv. more as a habit of
mind. We go on ins a unili ible nolitical
we call othe economic' or 'capital.' unfolding to its nreordained end. whereas,as Thatcherismclearly
shows,Dolitics actuallv works more like the logic of language: vou can alwavs nut it another wav if
vou trv hard enough.'o Certainlv the course of caDital shanes the conditions of possibilitv in
Dolitics. but nolitics itself "is either conducted ideologicallv. or not at all." or. in anorherof Han's pirhy
formulas,"Politics doesnot reflectmajorities,it constructsthent."(r It is importantto be clear here.Hall claims not that
ideologydeterminesthe courseof globalizationbut that it harnesses it fbr one political purposeor another.and when it is
successful, the politicaland economicstrategiesrepresented by a particularideologywill bring into being certainpolitical-
e c o n o m i cf o r m a t i o n sw i t h i n g l o b a l c a p i t a l i s d t e v e l o p m e n t sN: o w w e a r e b e g i n n i n g. . . t o m o v e i n t o a " p o s F F o r d i s t "
society what sometheoristscall disorganizedcapitalism,the era of "flexible specialisation." One way of readingpresent
d e v e l o p m e n it s t h a t" p r i v a t i z a t i o ni"s T h a t c h e r i s m w ' sa y o f h a r n e s s i nagn d a p p r o p r i a t i ntgh i s u n d e r l y i n gm o v e m e nw
t ithin
a specificeconomicand politicalstrategyand constructingit within the termsof a specilicphilosophy.It has succeeded. to
s o m ed e g r e ei,n a l i g n i n gi t s h i s t o r i c a pl , o l i t i c a lc, u l t u r aal n d s e x u a"l l o g i c s "w i t h s o m eo f t h e m o s tp o w e r f u tl e n d e n c i eisn t h e
contemporarylogicsof capitalistdevelopment. And this. in part,is what gives it its supremeconfidence,its air of ideological
complacency: what makesit appearto "have historyon its side,"to be coterminouswith the inevitablecourseof the future.
The left, however,
instead of rethinkine ,ls economic"political and cultural strateeiesin the light of
this deeper. underlving "logic" of dispersal and lEndpage2,t;tliversification(which,afterall.neednor
necessarily
be an enemyof greaterdemocratization), simnlv resists it. lf Thatcherismcan lay claim to it, then we must
have nothing to do with it. Is there any more certain way of renderingyourself historicallyanachronistic:7 If the
contemnorarv Left often clings to the formations and formulations of another epoch.one in which
the notion of unified movements.social totalities. and class-basednolitics appeared to be viable
catePoriesof nolitical and theoretical analvsis" this means that it literallv renders itself a
conservativeforce in history-one that not onlv misreadsthe present but installs traditionalism in
the verv heart of its praxis. in the rrlacewhere commitment to risk and unheaval belongs.Benjamin
sketchesthis phenomenonin his attackon Kiistner,the subjectof his left melancholyessay:"This poet is dissatisfied,
indeed
heavy-hearted. But this heavinessof heart derives from routine.For to be in a routine means to have sacrificedone's
idiosyncrasies,
to haveforfeitedthe eift of distaste.And that makesone heavv-hearted."8
DBH
ADI vv.
ADI 2006 I
/
o.o*n
,, ..,(_ ,,lor*,t,,
f ,,,r.r,,
IDENTITYPOLITICSARE A REACTIONTO THE DECENTRALIZATION
OF POWERCHARACTEzuSTIC
OF LATE MODERNITY.
Browno95 (WendyBrown is professorof Women'sStudiesat the Universityof Califbrnia,Santa

Cruz..,Statesof
Injury: Powerand Freedomin Late Modernity,"Copyright1995by PrincetonUniversitypress,ISBN
0-691-02gg0-
3,p34-5)
Dis<tricttltttirtn. Arrothcr collscqLrcncc of postmodcrtrity's tlcccrltcrttrg

rncl diflusion of porvcr-its cutlri.lit.qationof powcr-is that wc arc toclav
vcry suscclltiblc to slrrplv gctting lost. Itr FrcclricJarncson's rcading, in-
sofirr as bcing lost lltc:tr1s bcing r'r,ithout (fixccl) lllcans of orictltatiott,
postntodcnrity rcnclcrs this coltclititttr a trortnal {caturc of ottr worl,l:
W h a t i s s t r i k i n g e b o u t t h c r r c w L r r t r a r rc n s c r n b l c s a r o t t t r d l ) a r - i s. . r s t h a t t h c r c
i s d b s o l u t a l yn o l ( r s p ( , c t i t ) t :a / r r l / . N t > t o n l y h a s t h e s t r c c t c l i s a p p c a r c d ( t h a t w a s
-I'his
e l r - c a r l yt h c t r s k o i n r o d c r n i s n r ) b u t a l l i r r o f i l c s l t a v c c l i s a p p c e r c c a
l s well. is
b c w i l d c r i n g , a l d I u s c c x i s t c n t i t l b e r v i l c l e r n ' r c nitn r h t s t r c w F r ) 5 t m ( ) L i c r sl )p J c c
t c r n i a k c e f l r a l d i a g n o s i s o f c h e l o s s o i o u r a b i i i t y t o 1 ; o - r i t i o rot r i r s c / v t ' u' ' i t h i n t h i s
()f r
s p a c ca n d c o . q t t i t i u c lnyr a p l r . T h i s i s t h e n p r o j e c t c d b a c k o n t h e e r l c r g e n c c
global, multiplttonal culture that is decentered and cenuot be visualizcd, a
1o
culture in whrch olte cannot positiorl oneself.
Stanlcy Aronowitz otTcrs a similar rcadir:rg of thc effcct of cietcrritorieliz-

on the "patterns of everyday lifc' It means ' rhrt
ation of production
wc havc lost a scnsc of placc."ll In thc abscnce of orienting inst$lnlsnts,,
t o r v c r t " c . x i s t e r r r i ebl e r r i l d e r r n c n r "i n h r b- 4i -t r r r t s o f p o : ' 1 4 1 4 ! s g r 1 1 - 1
]r_r.r-ly-sls=lS:gl!
lil-b,t'tuti'rsLpggltflll-ry9,r...-o_1'p:shru-uvs-p.ul"[ig{
E:lg::ggGE-id.'ntirics" in ordcr to know/irlvcnt .who' rl'hgrc,.
lJffi ... -nr"'"i" q-gl,-' tl''9hi.t9!i.{tv -:.Ll!::{.1''Sryg-sf
gglqaiityt
.g&4qr'$l r3!g-gqldc!'
E !,--sstl*"L-gr 6-dgiri tr -.pqLq$ --P!.!ll-r-t.l.-a- :9.!-!! .9{
J 6 r r i o n - r n d o f r e r rr s c n s co [ f i ] i e r i o n o r c o n r m u n i t y - r v i t h o u t l s g g g -
-^ " b f ' ;;6LGa;.m6;ffi*'-t
"-""""-"'--r'- rhc world in which onc is situetcd'Iden-
"f <----------l--
tity politics pcrmlti Positioningrvtthout temporrt or :P{trl-nlq-;l. P-iq[ I
(M,rrxian) tlq:-t:g4Y-t:: t"Q
rcvcils its proximity to (lib,.'rrl)U!9lcq! group-polrttcs'lr) th.ll-Mllc!j-
.rsscrr i o n an J p fg {$tt y 1," l-strI sct-s-. ap .
@.'
p
;;; c r r s icss
pcars l.'*;.
lcss eass I. rrra[.t
ttd.al politicalEiponse
p.ilti*1
e d t c r l p o l l t l \ ' : . l ."tpo"te
lr c s p o n s c to
io
t o postmodernity
p than a synrp-
sy'rrP
F - + * - - : - -=-=:___^__
---*'--"'----;'
'^r
tilftfircftpG;ati
om of lts ruD p ttuurrees sJ. rI lndddisorre[t, c- :l l' \|.lcSt sq. 1-; :A s nruch
dlissoor lrci nctnl ltl igl g3rc;t"A-
d n t t t c ha s v m P t o mof
r symptom ol a
x
;;;;
ccrtaln powe tt , ..a..r, oiii,-ta."t;tvJ r ' - - - - - - - y politics
politics may
may /
also
also bc
bc read
read
".*;leis""ss
as a reacnon co posrrrrodcrnity'scross-cuhuralnreldingsand appropnr-
tions, as well as its boundlesscon-rmodification of cultural practicesand
icons. Identity politics ernggc-s-ga-rtly rs3I9-{!19-}:ll9t[qr wo-rdsJo-al
e n s c m b l co I d i ' t i n c t l v p o s t m o d c r na s s r u l t s u p o n t h e t n - r c g r l t y9 J - m o L l - .
: _-*:--*--;--*':-l-
ernist
----- communltres producing collective identr-t1
- 1
UBH t\.
ADI
ADI2006 Dr. Dave's Lab
IDENTITY K
LINK: INCLUSION
Full inclusion is not possiblebecausethere will always be an external to a political movement.

Mouffe in 1992 (Chantal,PoliticalProfessorfor the CollegeInternational
de Philosphiein Paris,Citizenshipand Identity,October,
pp.28-32)
$"irst,*h* lx"rlitical
r*rmmunityshorrlrdtt* eonc*ivcdas a rlirenrnivnsurfarn
flnd not &$*n empiric*l rrfererlt. Politicsis ab*ut the consriturionof rlre palitical
cornrnunitl*,no[ $$rnethin$thxt takenplace insitle the pllitical communitl,.Th*
p*liticnl cCImmr"tnill', a$ a surf'aceaf inscripri$nof'a muhiplicirl' *f tlemands
rvh*re I t'wc" is con*tituted. rcquircs the cCIrrrlativeid*a of the c*mrn$n g$od,
but n crJmnr$ngood rcnceived aEa vanishing ptlint, $$rnrthi$g to which rce
tnust {onstantl}'ref*r but that {an nrvrr tlc re*ched"In sucha virw the comrnon
$ood funetions, sn thr unr hand, a$ a "stlqisl irnrginarl"': rhat is, the verv
impossibilityof ucl,iel'ing full rcpm$entalirlngives ta it the rok of a hnrirr:n
that is the e*neliti*n of p<xsibilityof nny rrprr$enration within the spacethat it
delimirs. On the sther hand, the id*a of th* t:ornm()ng**d speci{irsrvhar *-e
can call. fbllau'i*g l{'ittgenstein, a .'granrr}lilr of cnnclucr"rhar cCIincidesnirh
the allegian(* to lhe constil.utive*rhic*-gxlilical principlcs af madern drnioc-
rary: likrty and equalitv for all. ]'et, since thtrseprinciples are open t$ milny
cornpsti$Sint*rprttationr, one hnste a{knowledgethat a f ully inclusive;xrlitical
cnmmunit)'cantlsver be realired.There will alrr,ays b* a'"cetnstitutive
ru$ide,'"
an exterior to the c*nrnrunit)'that ir she vnr\, c*n*litiun of irs existence.It is
cruciel [o recognirr thnt, sincr to m]nstru{til '"wr'"it i: nruessaryt$ distinguish
it frorn a **them,"and sinceall fnrms of-c*nsensusarr based$R actstlf *xclusion,
thc condition ol pcssibilitynf thr plliti*al cnrnmunityis at th* sanretimc thr
conditionof irnprssibility*f its full r*alimti*n.
DBH
ADI 7b.
IDENTITYK
LINK: INTERSECTIONALITY
Their intersectionalapproachto feminism is a failure and alwaysaccompaniesthe constructionof static

identities.
BUTLER 1990(Judith, professorof philosophy
at UC Berkeley. pg. 182-183)
GenderTrouble,
Even within the theoriesthat maintain a highly qualified or situated

subject,the subjectstill encountersits discursivelyconstituted
environmentin an oppositionalepistemological fiame.The culturally
enmiredsubjectnegotiatesits constructions,evenwhen thoseconstructions
are the very predicatesof its own identity. In Beauvoir,fbr
example,there is an "l" that doesits gender,that becomesits gender.
but that "1," invariablyassociated with its gender,is nevertheless a point
of agencyneverfully identif-rable with its gender.That cogitois ncver
fully of the cultural world that it negotiates,no matterthe narrowness
ofthe ontologicaldistancethat separates that subjectfrom its cultural
predicates. The theoriesof feministidentit)'that elaboratepredicates
of color.sexuali invariablvclose
with an embarrassed "etc." at the end of the list. Throughthis horizontal
trajectoryof adjectives.thesepositionsstriveto cncompass a situated
subject.but invariabl)zlail to be complete.This failure.howc.ver. is
instructive:what politicalimpetusis to be derivedfiom the exasperated
occurs at t h l i n e s 'T. 'h i s i s a s i u no
exhaustionas well as of the illimitableproccssof signiflcationitself.It
is the supplement. the excessthat necessarily accompanies any cllort tcr
positidentityonceand for all. This illimitableet cetera.however"ofl-ers
itselfasa newdeparture fbr feminist politicaltheorizing.
DBH
ADI 3b
IDENTITY K
LINK: LAW NORMATIVITY)
LEGAL FORMALITIES PROSCRIBEIDENTITIES AND WHAT IS CONSIDEREDA NORMAL HUM\'N.

THESE CATEGORIESALSO DEFINE WHAT IS ABNORMAL. AND WHAT IS NON-HUM\'N.
CLARKE 2005 (JESSICA A. CLARKEis LawClerk,Hon.shiraA. Scheindtin,
U.s. District
court for the southern
Districtof New York.J.D. 2003,Yale Law School."AdversePossession
of ldentity:RadicalTheory,Conventional
Practice," (c)2005University
Copyright of Oregon,OregonLawReview2OOS,
84 Or.L. Rev.563,p texis)
lne loeatnat actln8as lt" ls enoughto cont'erlegalrecognitionforcesconfrontationwith questionsaboutpropefty,

marriage,parenthood, and segregation that are usuallybracketed.In order to say whetheror not someoneis "acting
as if." courtsmustdefinethe exactcontoursof what it meansto act as the archet),pical owner,spouse,parent,white
person.man.or woman.As observedby legalrealists.this processis not merelydescriptiveof what the archet),pe is:
t h i sP r o c e sisn e v i t a b l yi n v o l v e sn o r m a t i v jeu d g m c n t sa b o u tw h a tt h ea r c h e t ) , pseh o u l db e .
Courts are generallyresistantto outright declarationson highllr politicized normative questions.Status-based

f o r m a l i s mP r o v i d e sa w a y t o a v o i d e n g a g i n gi n n o r m a t i v ed e b a t et h r o u g ho b f u s c a t i o nn: o r m a t i v ep r c m i s e sa r e
d i s g u i s e da s i n s c r u t a b ldeo c t r i n a l [ * 6 1 9 1 o r n a t u r a rl i g h t s i d e a s .C o n t r a c t - b a s er e
d a l i s ma v o i d st h e s eq u e s t i o n s
v o l u n t r ' e r i sm : alreadv ar
relevantIegalfbrmalit-v.
B o t h f b r m a l i s ma n d r e a l i s ma v o i d n o r m a t i v cq u e s t i o n w s i t h a p p e a l st o " r u l e n e s s "l :e g a li n s t i t u t i o nasr e n o r m a t i v e

becauserules are essentialto completeness. closure,success,and consensus.L,egalformalit), provides a sell'-
referentialanswerto cluestions regardingwho is a legal owner. wifb. parent.or white person.'l-heor.vneris the
p e r s o nw h o e x c l u d e tsr e s p a s s ew r si t h e . j e c t r n eanct t i o n s . ' f h ew i f e i s t h e w o r n a nw h o i s l i s t e da s a c l e p e n d e o nn t her
husband's tax return.'I'heParentis the personwho signsthe consenttbrrn fcrrthe chilclto undergosurger-v. A rvhite
m a n i s s o m e o n ew h o . i o i n st h e m i l i t a r y a n d v o l e s .' f h e s ec l a i m a n t sa r e e n g a g e di n a s p c c i f i cs o r t o f m i m i c r r :
m i m i c r Yo f l e S a l l yd e f i r r e dr i g h t s .d u t i e s a. n d f b r m a l i t i e sT. h e n e t w o r ko f l e g a lf o r m a l i t i c sc r e a t e st h e " r e a l i t i e so" f
ownership.marriage,parenthood, and identit),.
-fhe
theory of performativitycan exposethesenormativequestionsthroughtransparentparody.Butler'sparadigm
c a s eo f g e n d e rn o r n r si s i l l u s t r a t i v eG. e n d e rn o r m sa r e r i g i d l y e n f b r c e d- c o n f i n i n gi n t w o r e l a t e dw a y s .F i r s t ,t h e y
i m p o s ee x p e c t a t i o nosf p a r t i c u l a sr o c i a lr o l e s o n t h o s cd e f l n e da s " m e n " o r " w o r n e n . "S e c o n d t, h e y p u r p o r tt o
classifyall of humanityinto one categoryor the other.Butlerexaminesgenderas a historicalstrateey:"a strategyof
survival" fbr a culture that dependson two genders.rrasculinityand f'emininity,to rnaintainits hegemonyand
t r a n s m i ti t s n o r r n s .n 2 9 9 G e n d e ra n d s e x h i d e t h e i r h i s t o r i c a cl o n t i n g e n c yb y a p p e a l i n gt o o r i g i n s i n s c i c n c e ,
biology,or naturalfact.Genderedperfbrrnances becomecompulsoryand everyrepetitionincreases the credibilityof
the gendersystem:"the authorsof genderbecomeentrancedby their own fictionswherebythe constructioncompels
one'sbelief in its necessityand naturalness." n300 Punishrnent is the resultof choosingnot to confbrm to gender
r u l e s 'O s t r a c i s mi s a c u l t u r a ls t r a t e g y":t h o s ew h o l a i l t o p e r f o r mt h e i rg e n d e rr i g h t a r e r e g u l a r l yp u n i s h e d .n" 3 0 l
The need fbr gender classilicationsin the face of arnbiguousnatural/socialphenomenais reminiscentof the
formalistimpulsetowardsa [*620] gaplesssystenrof total legalclassification. Butlel writes,"discretegendersare
p a r t o f w h a t ' h u m a n i z e s ' i n d i v i d u awl si t h i n c o n t e m p o r a rcyu l t u r e . "n 3 0 2 T h o s ew h o f a i l t o m e e tt h e c l e f i n i t i o n of
eitherman or woman.fbr example.the intersexual" thoseborn with both or neithermale and f-emalesexualorgans.
are consideredmonstrousand inhuman"creaturesthat needto be surgically"fixed" to rneetthe deflnitionof either
"man" or "wonran"for acceptance as human.
DBH 7+
ADI
IDENTITY K
LINK: LAW. JURISPRUDENCE
JUDICIAL DOCTzuNEPRIVILEGESPUBLIC PERFORMANCES

OF SOCIAL NORMS DESPITETHE
FACT THAT THE REALITIESUNDERLYINGTHESENORMS ARE JUST OUR PRO.IECTIONSOF
WHAT WE THINK NORMALSHOTJLD BE.
CLARKE 2005 (JESSICAA. CLARKEis Law Clerk,Hon. ShiraA. Scheindlin,U.S. DistricrCourtfor the Southern
Districtof Nevr York. J.D. 2003, Yale Law School."AdversePossessionof ldentity:RadicalTheory,Conventional
Practice,"Copyright(c)2005Universityof Oregon,OregonLaw Review2005,84Or. L. Rev.563,p lexis)
As a theoreticallens.neitherstatus-based fbrmalismnor contract-based realismis sufflcientto

bring adversepossessionand analogousdclctrinesinto fbcus. l]owever, both fbrmalism and
realism contributeinsights.Although status-based formalism is allegedlyretrograde,there is
nonetheless the sensethat squatter's rightsare protectedbecausethe squatteris actuallythc true
"owner"and hasa prelegalright to recognition.The privatecontractmodel alsoexplainsa great
deal. Squattersmust communicatetheir intentsto be owners,and there must be acquiescence
lrom other potentialowners.But two-partycontractprincipleswould demandmore than mere
silenceas a manif-estationof acceptance. T'heremust be anotherangle.Why do thcsedoctrincs
have a notorietyrequirementthat the squatterheld him or herselfout to the public at large'?
Why are third-partyinterestsrelevant'?Why do courtsexaminemimicry of legal lbrmalities"
suchas tax returnsand voting recordsas evidenceof "holding out"'?'l'hesedoctrinesrecognize
: m i m i c r vo f n o to n l v t h c s o c i ing ol-ownership.marriagc,parenting.
and whiteness.but alsomimicry of specificlegalrights"duties.and fbrmalities.
.ludith Butler's idea of perfbrmativityis a crucial theoreticallens through which to examine

thesedoctrines.n254 Butler developshcr theor)'ol-pcrlbrmativityin the contextol'gcndcr.t{er
[*611] startingpoint is the theorythat "oneis not born.but rather.becomesa woman"through
socialization.n255 But Butler'stheory goesbeyondsocial constructionism. For her. genderis
constitutednot just throughsharedsocialunderstandings. but "througha st)'lizedrepctitionof
acts."n256 A person"does"his or her genderthroughspecch,dress,mannerisms. and so fbrth.
Butler critically questionsa divisionthat many f-eminists

make between"sex" as biologicaland
"gender"as social.n257 For Butler.genderhasno essence. original.or idealfbrm. and neither
does sex. n258 Gendersand sexespurport tcl be natural and essential.but the), are both
constitutedby "tacit collectiveagreementto perfbrm.produce.and sustaindiscreteand polar
genders."n259 Kenji YoshinoexplainsButler'sargument:"ratherthan conceivingof cultureas
a simple overlayon nature.culture must be seenas the very realm throughwhich we fashion
our conceptof the natural... . Genderis actuall),constituting
the thing w'hoseefl'ectit appearsto
be." n260
Although shedoesnot deny biology. Butler seeksto anal)'zehow we come to understandthe

"biological." "material."and "natural" dimensionsof the bod)' as gendered.n261 Cultural
conventionsplace limits on the possibilitiesthat we have fbr understanding
our embodiment.
and we reproducethoseconventionswhen we adopt them in order to understandour bodiesas
"male" or "female." Enacting gender is a way of "taking up" l*612] certain cultural
possibilities.n262
DBH g?2
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: LAW (RACE)
AMERICANLAW MISCONSTRUES
THE CONCEPTS OF RACEAND ETHNICITYINTO BIOLOGICAL
CATEGORIES
THAT ERASEPEOPLEWHO DON'T FIT INTO THEM.
COOMBS 1995 lvary Coombsis Professor,University of MiamiSchootof Law. "A COLLABORATTVE WORK WITH
BERKELEY W O M E N ' SL A WJ O U R N A LR
: E V I E WE S S A Y I: N T E R R O G A T I NI G
D E N T I T YN
, ' ,O T E SO F A W H I T EB L A C K
WOMAN:RACE,COLOR,COMMUNITYBy Judy Scales-Trent. Copyright(c) 1995 The Regentsof the Universityof
Californiaon behalfof African-American Law & PolicyReportAfrican-American Law & PolicyReport,Fall,1995,2 Afr.-
Am. L. & Pol'yRep.222,p lexis)
Americanlaw and culturalattitudesabout mixed-racepeoplecan only be understoodin their historicalcontext,

ConcePtionsof race developedin tandem with. indeed in large part as a justification fbr. slaveDr.nl0 Race was
d i c h o t o m i z e db,u t t h e d i v i d i n gl i n e w a s b e t w e e nt h e a l l e g e d l yp u r ew h i t e a n d a n v o n ew i t h e v e n" o n e d r o p " o f b l a c k
b l o o d .t h a t i s , a r u l e o f h y p o d e s c e nnt l. I T h u s ,a c h i l do f a b l a c kf - e m a l sel a v ea n d a w h i t e s l a v eo w n e rw a s s t i l l b l a c k .
no matterhow fair-skinnedshemight be, and.because slavestatuspassedthroughthe mothcr.that child was legallyher
father's"black"slave
andobscuredthe interracialsexthat broughtthentinto being.n I 2
l : v e n t h o u g h t h c c o n c c p t i o n o l r a c e r v a s b i o l o g i c a l a n d c s s c n t i a l . t h e c r i t c r i a l b r d c t c r m i n i n g a p c r s o n ' s r a c e \ \ c r c d i v e r s c a n Ichl cc o n l l i c t i n g .
p r o h l c m a t i cI.n t h e l a n d m a r k
o t l t c o m eo f t h c c a s ci n l h c t t u m e do n a p p c a r a n c et h: c p l a i n t i l ) ! 'l o n g .s t r a i r h lh a i r a n d c o p p c rc o l o r l i e c d t h c n r .n i 5
Both ancestryand color assumethat raceis a biologicalquality.Neil Gotanda.amongothers.has suggested that
race is somethingmore akin to culture or to a sharedexperienceof racial oppression.nl6 Scales-'l'rent advocates
f * 2 2 6 J a s i m i l a rt r a n s f b r m a t i oonf o u r c o n c e p t i o nosf r a c i a li d e n t i t yi n t o a t b r m o f e t h n i c i t v b : l a c k A m e r i c a n sa r e o
ntZ
lnsof-aras race is conceivcdof as a culturalphenomenonor an ethnicity.ancestryand aopearance becomeless
s i s l r i t l c a nitn c l a s s i f - v i naSp e r s < tans h l a c ko r w h i t e .I n s t e a da. p e r s o nw o u l c lm o r c l i k e l ) ,b e d e e m e db l a c ki n p r o p o r t i u n
t o h i s e x P e r i e n c eosf r a c i a ls u b o r d i n a t i o n l. 8 h i s k n o w l e d g eo f a n d p a r t i c i p a t i oinn A f i i c a n - A m e r i c a cnu l t u r e o . r his
c o m m i t m e ntto t h a tc o m m u n i t yA. p e r s o n 'bs l a c ki d e n t i t ym i g h tb e c a l l e di n t oq u e s t i o nb ) , h i s s c t c i o - c u l t u raasl s o c i a t i o n
w i t h w h i t e n e s sH . e c o u l d i n t h e o r y b e s o " a s s i m i l a t e da"s t o n o l o n g e rb e t r u l y b l a c k . n l 9 l n d e e d ,S c a l e s - ' I ' r e n t
d e s c r i b ehse ro w n c o n c e r nt h a th e r l o v eo f " w h i t c "c h a m b em r u s i cm i g h tc a l l i n t oq u e s t i o nh e r b l a c k n e s sn.2 0
'I.hcb|ackcontmunityalsomightidcntilj'sonrcon
a s i l r n c l u d c sI h o m a sa n d o t h c r sr v i t h h i s v i c r v s .n 2 6
When we conceiveof race as a continuumor even as a set of parallelcontinua.we still are imaginingrace in
terms of black and white. When I was a child. I learned(and had later to unlearn)that there were five races:black.
w h i t e . r e d 'b r o w n "a n dy e l l o w .n 2 7 W h i l e t h e s c i e n t i s t iucn d e r p i n n i n gosf t h i s r a c i a ls c h e m ea r ea b s u r dt.h e - vs t i l l a f T e c t
currentconceptions of race.Tlre problemsof conflatingancestry.ph)rsicalf-eatures. and culturenoted [+22gl abovefbr
blacksalso apply to Hispanicsand Asian Americans.n28 Added to thesef-actors are the complexitiesof languageand
of distinctivesub-identities suchas Cubanor Korean.n29 Intermarriage occursas well. and a given individualrna),be.
o n a n y o r a l l o f t h e c o n t i n u aw. h i t ea n d b l a c ka n dN a t i v eA m e r i c a na n d l . a t i n a . T h em a p p i n ge, v e ni f i t c o u l db e d o n e .
w o u l dr e q u i r ea m u l t i - d i m e n s i o ngarli d .
Other categoriesof identity are sirnilarly complex. Even sex is not quite dichotomous.for there are
hermaphrodites and transsexuals who cannoteasilybe pigeonholedby sex or gender.n30StandardAmericanreligious
categories--Jewish, Catholic, Protestant--similarly obscure intricacieswithin n3 I and acrossn32 those categories.
J u d a i s mi m p l i c a t ersa c e ,e t h n i c i t yn, a t i o n a l i t ya,n dr e l i g i o n n. 3 3 S i r n i l a cr o m p l e x i t )s,u r r o u n dsse x u a il d e n t i q ,n. 3 4
DBH 7q,
ADI
ADI 2006 DBH Dr. Dave'sLab
LINK: LEFT/LIBERALISM ADI IDENTITYK
Left liberalismsuffersfrom 'left melancholy'.which is the narcissisticemphasison miserableemotionsdue to

the left's failure to come up with alternativesto the currentpolitical order.Becauseof this anxioustrap, the Left
is distractedfrom the present,destroyingany possibilityof transformation.
BROWN 1999 lWendy, professorof political scienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof Califbrnia,Berkelev."Resisrins
L e f t m e l a n c h o l y ,B" o u n d a r y2 , 2 6 . 3 , p 1 9 - 2 7 p
, r o j e c tM u s e . )
For the lasttwo decades,culturaltheoristStuartHall has insisted that the "crisis of the Left" is due neitherto
internaldivisionsin the activistor academicLeft nor to the cleverrhetoricor funding schemesof the iight- nather,he has
charged,this ascendancy is consequentto the Left's own failure to arrnrehend the character of the age and
to developa political critique and a moral-political vision anpropriate to this character.ForHalt.the
rise of the Thatcher-Reagan
Right was a symptomratherthan a causeof this failure,just as the Leftts dismissive or
susniciousattitude toward IEndPagel9l cultural politics is for Hall a sign not of its unwaverins
pnnclDles but of its
its anachronistic
anachron habits off thought
thousht and its fears and anxieti
those habits. But whatis thecontentanddynarnic of thesefearsandanxieties? How wouldwe w e b e s i nt o o l u m bt h e s e ?
l m p o s s i b l teo e x p l o r ee x h a u s t i v e liyn t h e s ef e w p a g e sI, w a n t t o c o n s i d ej ru s t o n ed i r n e n s i o on f t h e m .a d i m e n s i o nt h a tm a n y
decadesearlierWalter Benjamintermed"left melancholy."As most readerswill know, Benjaminwas neithercategoricalll,
nor characterologically opposedto the value and valenceof sadnessas such, nor tcl the potentialinsightsgleanedfrom
b r o o d i n go v e r o n e ' s l o s s e sI.n d e e d h , e h a d a w e l l - d e v e l o p eadp p r e c i a t i oonf t h e p r o d u c t i v ev a l u eo 1 ' a c e d i as.a d n e s sa,n d
m o u r n i n gf o r p o l i t i c a la n d c u l t u r a lw o r k , a n d i n h i s s t u d yo f C h a r l e sB a u d e l a i r eB, e n j a m i nt r e a t e dm e l a n c h o l i ai t s e l fa s
somethingof a creativewcllspring.But le/i melunt'holfis Benjamin'sunambivalentepithetfbr thc rcvolutionaryhack who
is, finally, attachedmore to a particularpolitical analysisor ideal- .even to the failure of that ideal than to seizing
p o s s i b i l i t i efsb r r a d i c a lc h a n g ci n t h e p r e s e n tI.n B e n j a m i n ' se n i g m a t i ci n s i s t e n c o
e n t h e p o l i t i c a lv a l u e o f a d i a l e c t i c a l
historicalgraspol"'the time of the Now," left melancholv represents not onlv a refusal to come to terms
with the rrarticular character of the present.that is. a failure to understand historv in terms other
than "emDtv time" or "pr<lgress.t'[t signifies,aswell,a certain narcissismwith regard to one's Dast
Dolitical attachments and identitv that exceeds anv contemporarv investment in nolitical
mobilization.alliance,or transformation.l The irony of melancholia,of course, is that attachmentto
the obiect of one's sorrowful loss sunersedesanv desireto recover from this loss.to live free of it
in the Dresent.to be unburdened by it. This is what renders melancholiaa persistentcondition. a
state.indeed.a structureof desire.rather than a transientresnonseto death or loss.ln Freud's l9l7
meditation o n m e l a n c h o l i ah,e r e m i n d su s o f a s e c o n ds i n g u l a rf c a t u r eo f m e l a n c h o l i al t: e n t a i l s" a l o s so f a m o r e i d e a lk i n d
[than mourning]. The objecthasnot perhapsactuallydicd, but hasbeenlost as an ob.iectof love." Moreover,Freudsuggesrs,
the melancholicsubjectwill often not know preciselywhat aboutthe object has been loved and lost "this would suggesr
that melancholialEnd Page 201 is in some way relatedto an object-losswhich is withdrawn from consciousness, in
c o n t r a d i s t i n c t i ot o
n m o u r n i n g ,i n w h i c h t h e r e i s n o t h i n ga b o u t t h e l o s s t h a t i s u n c o n s c i o u s . " J . ' I hleo s s p r e c i p i t a t i n g
melancholiais more oftenthan not unavowedand unavowable.Finally,Freudsuggests that the melancholic subiect-
low in self-resard.desnairine.even suicidal-has shifted the reDroachof the once loved obiect 1a
reproachwaged for not living up to the idealizationby the beloved)onto itself. thus preserving the love or
idealization of the obiect even as the loss of this love is experiencedin the sufferins of the
melancholic. NowwhywouldBeniamin use this term, andtheemotional economyit represents,
to talkabouta
particularformationon and of the Left? Beniaminneveroffersa preciseformulationof left melancholy.Rather,he
deploysit
as a term of opprobrium for thosemore beholdento certain long-held sentimentsand obiectsthan
to the nossibilitiesof nolitical transformation in the nresent. Benjamin
is particularty
atruned
to rhe
melancholic'sinvestmentin "things."ln TheOrigin of GermanTragic:Drama,he arguesthat "melancholy betravs the
world for the sake of knowledge,,'here suggesting tharthe loyaltyof the melancholicconverrsits truth (..everyloyal
vow or memory")aboutits belovedinto a thing, indeed,imbuesknowledgeitselfwith a thinglikequality.Anotherversionof
this formulation:
"In its tenacious self-absorption lmelancholvl embraces dead obiects in its
contemplation."Moresimply,melancholvis loyal "to the world of things." sugsestinsa certain logic dn !
Iv
of fetishism-with all the conservatism
and withdrarvalfrom humanrelationsthat fetishisticdesireimplies @fl{
within the melancholic logic.3 In his critiqueof Erich Kiistner,a left-wingpoet from the Weimar Republic,in which
he first coinsthe phrase"left melancholy,"Benjaminsuggests
that sentiments themselves become things for the
IDENTITY K
LINK: LEFT/LIBERALISM
IBROWN 1999CONTTNUES...I
left melancholicwho "takes as much pride in the traces of former spiritual goodsas the bourgeois
do in their material goods."4We come to love our left passionsand reasons.our leii analvsesand
convictions.more than we love the existing world that we nresumablv seek to alter with these
terms or the future that would be aligned with them. Left melancholv,in short, IEndpage
!g Benjamin.s
2ll namefor a mournful. conservative.backward-looking attachment to a feeling, analysis. or
relationship that has been rendered thinelike and frozen in the heart of the putative leftist.Fprerd
ishelpful thenthis condition presumablvissuesfrom someunaccountableloss.someunavowablv
here,
crushed ideal. contemnorarilv signified bv the terms /e17.sacialisn. Marx. or /zayerrrezl.Certainlv
the losses.accountableand unaccountable.of the Left are manv in our own time. The literal
disinteeration of socialistreeimesand the lesitimacv of Marxism mav well be the least of it. We
are awash in the loss of a unified analysisand unifiecl mo
inviolable predicates of nolitical analvsis and mobilization. in the loss of an inexoraLle and
scten ard movement of historv. and in the loss of a viable alternative to the nolitical
economv of capitalism. And on the backsof theselossesare still others:We are without a sense of an
inte d oft local. left itv: we are without hof
the r: we are w tarichm I vision to
Thus. we suffer with the senseof not onlv a lost movementbut a lost historical moment: not only a
lost theoreticaland emnirical coherencebut a lost wav of life and a lost courseof pursuits
DBH
ADI 4t
IDENTITYK
LINK: .'MAN"/"WOMAN"
If Feministmovementscontinueto createuniversalnotionsof a "woman" it will only enforcedestructive

genderbinaries.
BUTLER 1988lluaitn,Assistant
Professor
of Philosophy
atGeorgeWashington,
Performative ActsandGenderConstitution:
An
E s s a yi n P h e n o m e n o l o gayn dF e m i n i s t T h e o rTy h
, e a t r eJ o u r n a lv. o l . 4 0 ,N o . 4 ,p p . 5 1 9 - 5 3 1 )
Ths fenninistappr*priation of the phenomenologic*ltheory $f csnstitution might

ernploy the noti$n $f an s$fin a richly ambiguou*sens€.if ths perssnalis a category
x'hich expand$te include the ruider p:triricaland socialstnr{tures, then the scf$sf
the genderedsubiectwoultJ be similarly expansive.Ciearly, there are pslitical acts
which arq deliberateand instrumentalactionsof political organieing.re$i$tanceeol-
leetive int*ruention with the br*,ad aim of instating i rlrore iust set of social and
potriticalrelations"There are thus aetswhich are donc in the nflme of women, and
then there art actsin and o{ thernselves,apart frorn any instrurnent*l consequence,
th*t challengrthe categoryof women itself. Indeed.one or.rghtto csnsiderthe futility
of a politicalprogramr*"hichs{qk$radicallyto transfsrrnthe socia}situationof women
withaut first deterrniningwhetherthe rategarycf w*nran is sociallycnnstructerlin
sucha way that to be a wornanis, by d*finition, to be in oppressedsituation,In
"n
an underst*ndabledesire to f*rge bonds of solidarity, ferninist discoursehas often
relitd uFon the eategoryof wornan ss a universalpresupporitinn of rultural expe-
rieneewhich, in its universalstatus.providesa falx* ontologicalpr*mise of evenhral
political solidarify. In a cultur* in which th* fals* universalof 'ma.n'has for the rnost
part bgen pre$uprlosedas coextensivewith humannessitself, feminist theory has
soughtwith succetstr: bring femalerpecificifyinto vi*ibilityand to rewrite the history
of culture in terms whirh acknnwledgethe Fras&nce,the influence,and the op
pressionof women.Yet,in this effort to combatthe invisibili$' of wcmen asa category
ferninists run th* rislq CIfr*r:lderingvisible a cat*gorv *-hirh mey sr rnay not be
representatil'eof the csncet* lives*f wornen.Ax feminist$,we havebeenlesseaggr.
I think, to consider the status cf the category itself and, indeed" t$ discem the
conditinnsof oppressionwhich issuefrom &n un*x&rnin*drepr*ductioncf gender
identities which sustain discretennd binary cat*gorie*of man and wornan"
DBH 12.
ADI
ADI 2 0 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
t,\ NlA'. \lv..lDMkNtl \D€NTI'rYb.
The permanent opennessof the term ttwomanttallows for a senseof enhancedagency

9vtt;eP
*ut+r in 1992 ( Judith,MaxineElliot Professorin the Departmentof Rhetoricand ComparativeLiteratureat UC Berkeley,
ContingentF oundations, FeministsTheorizethe Political,pp.16)
p-l catcg rrv ol

fgt:l rylt ty, il :llv,_!g-!!fg!-ott ly, tryoqeb re-leqSins thc
*or""n'fro*TTiieA iiie*ientthat sornethinC li9jg9!-?' beconres 'olf i!.l!-c
tt* T*- p*TIr: { ?JAs i gniiicatio", !ills iefg-rqa1-r
s then
no!-,fixeEl,
@1i
possibiliticsfor new configuratio4;qf 1!rc191 4 becoryrepllq:s&le.ltr a scnse,
wLratwontcn signify has been taken lbr grantedftlr too lQlg, and what has
'referent' of the tcrnr has been "fixecl," norrnalized,ir.n-
treenfiied as the
nrobilizecl,paralyzedin positions of subordination.In effect, thc signified
has becn conflatetlwith thc refcrent, whcreby a set of Irleaningshave been
taken to inhcre in the real nature of wolrlen thetnsclves.To- tecast the-re-
l-qJcnt4=s-!he.sig4jl!e{.4{!o-aq1ht2qlzc the catcgtry of wonren
o1 sa-[cgtrard
as a sirc of possiblcr9rig11i1."ti.nsis to expand ttre pussi!2!llligaolwl-ral-it
lu-roAns to be a wolnan altd in this Scnseto c<lndition ancl cnable an etlhanccd
s e n s co f a g e n c y .
DBfJ
ADI 4i,
IDENTITY K
LINK: "WOMAN"
The term "woman" needs to be constantly exposed,deconstructed,and reconstructed to avoid the

subordinationthat it induces
Butler in 88 (Judith,AssistantProfessorof Philosophyat GeorgeWashington,PerformativeActs and GenderConstitution:An
Essayin Phenomenology and Feminist
T h e o r y ,T h e a t r eJ o u r n a lV, o l . 4 0 ,N o . 4 ,p p . 5 1 9 - 5 3 1 )
$ut it is onE thing t$ u$e the terrn and know its ont*logical insuf$eienry and quit€
another tu articulatea normative vision f*r f*minist theein-which *elebrates$r Em&n-
cipatesn$ e$s€nce,a nilture. sr a shared {nltur&l refllity which {sn$ot be found. The
sption I arn defending is not to redescribe the wnrld fnrm the pCIintuf view of wurnsn.
I don't know what that psint *f vier*' is. but whatevrr it is, it is nnt singular, and
not nrine to espouse.It wtuld unly be half-right to clsim that I arn interest*d in h*w
the phenoment)n of a rnen"s$r &.otrnen'spoint nf vierv gets mnstituted, frrr while I
dn thinh that fh*oe prints *f vienr* are, indeed, socially constituted, and that a
reflexirneSsnealCIgyof ths$€ points of r,'ien'is irnp*rtant tei dr:, it is not primarily the
Srnder epi$ternsthat I am interested in sxp$$inS,deconstrueting,*r rrconstmctins.
Indeed, it is the pre$uppo$ititn of the catqg*1.*CIfwornan itself th*t reqr:iresa critical
genealogyof theeomplexinstitutianalanddiseursiv*meansbywhich itisc*nstituted.
Although ssrte feminist literary crifies sugg*st that the Fresupposition of *exual
differen*e is neerusary for all discnur**, that positicn rei*ies senual rliffer*nce as the
founding moment of cultur* and pre*ludes an analvsis not only uf hun sexual
difference is constituted to begin with but h*w it is enntinuously eCInstituted.both
by the nrastuline tr*dition that preernFts the univers*l point $f \.ien. and
\ theise
fsminist pasitions that cnnstnuctthe univ*cal categ*rr_1. nl$orner'
of in the name eif
expressingor. indeed, liberating a subjectedclass.A.s fuucault clairned ahsut those
humanist efforts to liberate the eriminxlieerj subject. the suhiect that is freed is evsn
m$rc de.cplyshackl*ri than originnlly thought ^n
DEI"{
ADI 4.\
ADI2006 Dr. Dave'sLab
LlNll- : rlwoM*,stl |D€NTITY L
A concreteperceptionof a "woman" only allows for factionalizedidentities,it needsto be left open for
redeployment.
EufVee^
Bu+Cer in 1992 ( Judith,MaxineElliot Professor
in theDepartment of RhetoricandComparative
Literatureat UC Berkeley,
ContingentFoundations,
FeministsTheorizethePolitical,pp.I 5-l6)
rv.(!]]!-t'e_qriar,!ll,
it igqrru as iI_therqis_sou-epo_litic_al,neg,e_ssi_ry
to spcax
as and k>r wonren,and r would not contestthat necessiti.s*;it, lt,r,r
is
ilie way iir whi..hilp."."ntatio'al politicsoperates, ancrin thiscountry.rrb-
bying effbrlsare virtuallyirnpossible withoutrccourseto i<Icntitvpolitics.
so we agrecthat ggmonstrati.ns and legislativeeff.rts an.t radicair'ovc-
rlqlll nqqil !,o 111a\9qlatln5 iry t[c 441119--q1f,.1yornen
qllt this nccessityIreeclsto be rcconcileclwith another.
The rninute that
the categoryet wrnrcn,is iqvoked as de.sct:ib[ng.thc.co'stitu-ertlylol
which
Lt-'1lll\:P."5_ j'] internal clebate invaria_blybggilq rl_"_.!;hE_r!g11.
1clptive c9n!eni irrttla l!im!jil!c. iheia are rhose who craim inar rherc
is an ontological spccificity to wor.nerras childbearerstlrat fbrrns
thc basis
df a specil'iclcgal and political intcrcst in reprcscntatron,and thcn therc
are
otherswho undcrst:tncl lnaternityto be a social relationthat is, uptJcrcurrert
socialcirculmstallces, thc spccilic anclcross-cultural situatigl 6l- wopren. Antl
there arc those who seek rccourseto Gilligan anclclthersto establish
a lcr'
i n i n e s p e c i l - i c i ttyh a t r n a k e si t s c l f c l e a r i n w o m c n ' s c o n r r . n u n i t i e s
or ways ol
k n o w i n g . B u t w c r y { i ' r c t h a t s p e c i l i c i t yi s a r t i c u l a t c c lt,h e r e i s
rcsistance
and factionalizationwithin thc very constitucncythat is supposcclr,r
be ,r,i
f . : ! b , y t h c . r ' t i c u l a t i o no f i 1 sc o ' n r o n c l c m e n t .I n t h e c a r l y ' l 9 g O s ,t h e l ' c ' r -
i n i s t " w e " r i g h t l y c a m c u n d e r a t t a c kb y * u i . , " n o f c o l o r w h o c l a i r r c d
th.t
t h e " r v e " w a s i n v a r i a b l yw h i t e , a n c l h a l t h a t , , w c ' ,t h a t w a s r l r c a l t t o
sclliciily
thc ttlovetttentwas the vcry sourceof a painl'ul factionalization.'l'hc el'fbrt
to charactcriz.e a l'ernininespecificitythrough recoursero nlaternlty, whcthcr
b i o l o g i c a lo r s o c i a l , p r o d u c e cal s i r n i l a r f a c t i o n a l i z a t i o na n d c v e n a c h s a
vowal of fcttlinisnraltogcther.For sr"rrclyall wcrmcnare 1ol urgtScrs:
sorlc
cannot be, sclnreare too young or too ol<ito bc, sorncchoosc not to bc. ancl
for sornewho arc rn.thers, that.is not neccssarilythe rallying
l.rointof thcir
p o l i t r c i z a l i t ri n
rrlcrrrirrisrrr.
I wo,ld argue that any .-l'lort to give univcrsal .r specif'iccontent to
the category of worner, presu'ring that that g'arantee ol'solidariry rs
re-
cltrirerlin udvortc:e, will necessarilyproilucefactionalization,anclthat ,.i,.len
can never holclj1-r]lgj:,Ig'lying_gr<u-n{_irt a
*Jy'. ltl.p-9.1q1-9l.lelqrture
E-r' i ni s poti t i c al r'o ucn'en t . @i1c qi-qgorF_ are-ncri i i, r".i t!-.,. r. r, p
.Ihis
ti-vc, buq q]y:ly!_rlqg14r1e,_a141_a1l!9!1r -ex9_l!!_i9,l4ly. is not to sav
that the tcrm "wouren" ought not to be usecl,or that wc ought to ann()unce
the cleathof the category. On the contrary, if feminism presupposes -that
'w_og_enlje{gl4!c!_q,!
ulqq,qglgtuqle_fief{ of {{&1"!q", r, one_t! at cannot
be totalizedor surnmarizedby a descriptiveidentity category,then the very
tenri
-tieco-mes
a siie c,r perytnea+per!44 Fg,!9ac_@ltjty .-I woultl DBH
iigue tiratttrerrftl@qnS *!r!.f.n_"I.,{9:_.._.Iien-;aiir" termoughtto be
safeguarded,
f ii;A ;s
- an_cl
ah
prized, indSe{ thqLl[ii !_"jE!q!a]Itftf tgqC[i_ j],&
i" "
f- ADI
lq-J-lstulct- th"qtT.
" " "1 " 14"j s,"{9!
deconstrucr the
;;bJect of feminGm is not, then, to censureits usage, but, on the contrarv,
to releasethe term into a future of multiple significations,to emancipateit
frortrthe maternalor racialistontologiesto which it has been restrict,'rl.and
to give it play as a site where unanticipatedrneaningsmight con'reto bear.
46
Dr. Dave'sLab
ADI 2006 tD.gNTtTYF-
LINK: NATIONAL IDENTITIES (OUIRIN)
and separatefiom Arnerican

Securitydiscoursenecessarilycreatesforeign racial/culturalidentitiesas infectious
identities,making easierto judge.
of Newcastle,U'K' Writing
CAMpBELL 1998 (David, Professorof Internationalpolitics at University
of MinnesotaPress)
Security; Unitecl StaiesForeign Policy and the Politics of ltlentity. University
"\"h"il i.iqJl '.liF {*': 'ri:{::r"'!
f i:r..:"*;tgf;it'i*,rti."' i::l't:*i+*;j *"-eritrt-1,.sfrtrlir,il:
l.r'pt\ti,'.lILs,.'tjf \[S),.1Ui']\t* th,.lt, 'ti:hrri.l'*.1'!:r'iii.h l{^'pflr.5t"fiTiilic'fi1*;i;; }-r;"'i' 11';
: '
$.\"*rltl:*sV t llt*ili:j:t::\!.s. t:$ilt !:,,'i'iituttlilr.'-.i il"*' il"t'*Fr}i;.u.ri]rVl'tli*Xli';:':i
' i : a t h + r i 1 r 1 , i . 1 i . ;t il it .c - ' E ti -1 1 r i i " } i
i i n u , n * " : s \ . 1 i l . q ' {\ .' :t r . ' . t h l h i $ . i * i * r l t \ i . 1 gl l , . r f - f l : , * l
-
i.t,.-rj1-*-I'tt: srll:".t.t",lil.-:r-: li:,t: ::*-'li r,i.\ :i1\;-lx'."1i. iln';il9\t. ":'" ti;i\:'ii' r r:- nr'11:1t
*t;i''
thir.* *qr,:.li$i i:{...!a:tt\"1:: L:1.',:iitr;'ul$itt*-.tirt: r:l.ii*':' r*::uit"*th*i*d}ii]i.
r-:f tilt'*-'.**
hiltri.":::t. {.\i 5{:::}cti'li::* *:cJ:}.\lll X-'ilil,}t!.''*i. i:l tht i:u.i*lY$rili
lir"l':'ri'. lil. :'.1;:-1fl ti:r: \lft;:'i;i:r" r' I j''n'
tt-;:'iUi.i-i. n \ - { . \i . ' i , t - : i i - . . li . l i " r , - r . t l i : t '
'.r f }t'
rf isJi:i\, :!*.::*it:",::*,r-t iitt"* " r-tii*r*11,, :il'q.r-]iii. l:rr' :':r;i,i {hr^' i;"j
lss**ri:r11,*g tri1:hlr,i nii\,;{il{-,.r.;"ti,l$nl:{r-,i-it, ii-rr,.i}Tit:\,'rr.};.l}}*,.'i.};t'-;t'i-r.
'
lht u"trur*r.s.\)r... tilr. Su*lir,tl:ii*:.,*ir:,.iiil\ri*{ t-yiii}r-*.t ir"ei}trh.:r. tt'. qr\1.'tl
*l\\itiil:il.*i lqt;\i.-{r.,:S*i 1.li S-tll.\- l1- ,i',r'i\ ,,"-u
I o:5 r}itfi91;.i,f'Ul t'tlr-'it :Yl;ii'il'i it['
f'-;i*:i':-l i'irtr"'t{li'"ilt-t" '1
.t {it-:tlt*l.f"lc rit \\rg*t".. th* r""rlilfl-.i:i*,'ri r."*ir";*llt:fl:r'irl
i'''o til! {ii'i.lr',.i1'-i {.;i:i!*'l i"l ;i"{rrri:-
iu.r:.\iil rt: x*\11,ti:itl ,.): :.fr-':i\i r--rr"r.:.i1:;r"'i
tiro .\: .,uitt-.l:!:\r' r iI .i$i:tll..'5. i-.i;trt'lh.''\t] ;q$ii ,"\.,T-'t'-ril".rlI'r iii:'-r'ttf 5*l il'':q
It:'u*''" '*':
li\:".-i-li\ri i"'r-.r*it-.'\\.tllt :n;r-rrLi3.i:;i;i:'*" !:-*titl-:: i1;x'ir5-rt-";sl1=' "'l'1"
titt'tl-
i$tj'$ril\sl\\- -.-iliirfr';lr. s\\.1:;\itr.t* ,'.\tr:i-;l:lr, **::.rq;ii*;1ii-l*
1r\rrli"i. it""rt-titrl:*fl.;rn;* ;'rtiiq'r iLi}tq'r: " \ t * * +
Ssr[\d,..{s:*llt:.,l}:.i.: {--tyt*:tl *}tt- I-irlr*:
thfn"ii.:pl: Iii3,1lt-'5lif*-l: $:.:l'tl \\'i"itltr'i\ t:':r::1":i"itf:it:tt'*i\ :l\!nll"i1'rv'i lt{ 1' ;;l
! 1 r - s 1 r " ' t' 'i r l t l * ' r ! l i 1 ' "
j i i l i ' . i 0 , : , : q ' t ] " . t - ' i l l $ i l { !l 1
ItStnS u,i l$f:: i:r'til..: it il]i.1h , rf
titT:*.sll:rf"lt\.n:$ili lI,rf ts w.]llilri:i ;-iliti1iri..i{iu\;Jlri ."'l ll".i},li* r11lt.'itt}'
\\:Riii i"itsgl*stl. l.te Llv:* i:f l:rr.i il>{it\'. ;i}i*1"1#:"!ic til -3r"l-n$t'=t'*S3lq'ir,t. i-lir.}l1t' ttl
tit f;'!**i*n. ilt*J*L:t*i tr'r tr'lJi-
\".rr n:u*r:if,.. :s:g:l1'**t L.** *i\trii:q-lt\ ii!rlfl
llrrl\" rr!- . "'-.,'ifOts".\ L: \.\rj rt[r- t\ir{ I"h*- "r.u'*-, ,iht-ref4h. :{ I*Ft-if li *".q*rf
Aq i:t:-
*ItrL'$$i\$*u* ::r it" o*lq:,i [+,'ln:*;, i$s.'l"rri* i:i nr"g'*ttjl"t- u]:t;l..!'i*fitli''*i
,.\":t}l pi151-r*\r-t
lui l}t* tlilh" iulr!"1u,! J'*1r'lr;li ti\ s'{--\'Lit-
{:illlrl .$*}S**>f ,.}f,tini$it
r l l J l i { : l l t o l r " l .l r $ t : ' t ; i . " DBH
J'h. r.:.-i.:i'r-uiirt:"oi :*i*':i$li\' ..'a ::1{."
'liii{'
Jrl"it:'ifi'il- i'{:itt;\{i}} tt''
":$:-
ADI
f Sc"- *i-
Sln. l'lvtt ;t i:* rc\lt-r'it'{^$ f:i,rltt l'3i:....i .l*;-'.lf*:qj iui-'t ii* *:$lgla"'itit".
''li,Xls**
'
'.
l e 6 . . l i " * q l : . s t i - k l S \ i U '! i l r ' r ! . . ' : . ' | ' ; : l l r l f f h i l
' : l
ri+15:I\Si:"- isux!r
' r ^ ' ' t . : l* , r ' i
4v
\ i . - i ] $ s . i i t l = : i i , i : * S \ . - - o . i . ] g i i , . - i . 'l ui $ 1 r i . . 1 i : * r . . . . . s I: . 1 n U ; h t - } n '
ADI 2006 tlo€sfOulftS) Dr.Dave's
Lab
tt$-\p, NnTrosnr,,1WNT - - : - " " - - . - - 1pg$nf\\c-
<-*.
pweww \qqbcoNrlNu61
llf*t lt rt:ltl+li$.t frry1"1'q'y
r,jfi{{jrt+i}*\;tl* in r.l-ltrg|r.th;*{ tht,-'f*l$+"" ;rro'
**v*r gu*rxtl*rlrt&xt th* "tnlr" sre rirsh[r J**r;;ii. '
i;:qrs*ll-l$er*,ttrR
llptr*trngi in terrrrr rrt lhi* l*5pc.;lntl r.plrtr rs-ithsimiiar flgurx-
tirnx r-r{r.rllrc:r$rs$. m;tnt r.rfth* fttun 1.*;1,rn-rl
m*irr**tr in f lt* "\rlrr.ri-
(-*r\ $\$lrir:Rr:* hxr,*: hwn p*rf*rm.rtiv*h' r:r)$rstitul*.J.In r:haplr'r i,
*{.]tr!\tl*l th*:s* s**nt*nts itm c{rn:+iqierecl;
rtr rvi}} rui{n*s h*rr, the Llen-
tiil'*i tht' -'ts"uq:"
Anrtrir*n n"*ti*rurlr h*l h**x ini!*lrtrxj tu * ,lirn:*r-
ri r"r *i*nr'Ifrl v * i itttllrtr tv r-{ifiertrnt'*.
DBH 4+
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: PARTICULARITY
The Politics of PureParticularismcan be self-defeatingwhen it forcesindividualsto negotiatetheir identities.

LACLAU 1 9 9 7 l E r n e s t oW
, r i t e ro f H e g e m o n ay n d S o c i a l i sStt r a t e g y , T h U
e s e so f E q u a l i t yD
, i a c r i t i c sY
, ol.27,No.t. pp.2-t2)
Thanhymr.ludith. trlnrg*lyfrgrrswith ymr.["ctmecompiement yn*r an*lysiswith &rse

rssierk$.Thc.firct cons*rn$ft* rnlationshipbetw*enequaliryalrddifftrence.Nol *nly da
I think that tlesc two no{io*s *re $o{ inccmpatiblebur I woufil sven Sd that dle
proliferationof diffurew*six thepreconditionfar ths*xpanxi*nnf thelogicof eqnality.
To sny that two tlringsnre equal*i.e., equivaleiltto erch othcr in sorn* rc$poct$*
prs$uppsscs that&sy erediffersntfrem cacho{herin someotherrsspert${otfucrwisethers
xould be no qunlity txrt identity)"In thc p*rlitical{ield equalityis a typeof dlscourxe
whichries ts deelwithdifferences; it is n wayof organizingrhem,if ynr want.Tr a.ssert"
for instancc,*re rightof all n*tisnalminsriti** ts self-d*tsrmin*ti*nis tu assrrttharthrse
minoririesarecquivalenl{or equal}to sach*ther. As a generalrule I wouldsaythatthe
morefragmented a socialidentityis, the les*it nverlapswith rhe*ornrnuniryass wholc,
andthr mnrcit will havet<lnegntiuleits laca$onwirtrinthatcommunityin termsof rights
(i.e.,in termsnf a discourse of equalitywhichtranscends ttx grtrupin qrestion).Tharis
why I thinkthatapolitic*afpureparticulnrism is selfdefeating.Onrheotler handI think
it k rccessaryto diffemntiatrthooe*ituation"r in whichan anti-egalitarialrpaliticctakes
plasethrcughth$ imposition$f s domin*nrand uniform c*nsn (this is the sitvstion
confrontedtodayby multicr*lturalstruggl*sin the Anglo^Saxon*nrld) frorn thosein
whichthediscriminationmke*placeby vi*lently assertingdiffe.rences, &sin theideaaf
"$spsratedeyelopment*"which csn$drutedthe core of apartheid.This meansthat,
dcpnding on 0tecircum*ta*crs,*qualitycanleadro a reinfbrcerfirntof ths wcakcning
of differcncss.
DBH 4b
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: PATRIARCHY
The identification of patriarchy as a singular, totalizing enemy only adopts the strategy of the oppressive
colonizer.
BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg. r 8 - 1 9 )
Beauvoirand lrigarayclearlydiffer over the fundamentalstructures by

which genderasymmetryis reproduced,Beauvoirturnsto the failed
reciprocityof an asymmetricaldialectic,while Irigaraysuggests that
the dialecticitselfis the monologicelaboration of a mascnlinist signifying
economy.AlthoughIrigarayclearlybroadensthe scopeof feminist
critiqueby exposingthe epistemological, ontological, and logical
structures of a masculinist signifyingeconomy,the powerof her analysis
is undercutpreciselyby its globalizingreach.Is it possibleto identify
a monolithicas well as a monologicmasculinist ecclnomy that
traverses the arrayof culturalandhistoricalcontextsin whichsexual
differencetakesplace?ls the f-ailureto acknowledgethe specificcultural
operations of genderoppression itselfa kind of epistemological
imperialism, onewhich is not ameliorated by the simpleelaboration of
culturaldifferences as"examples"of the selfsame phallogocentrisrn?
The effortto include"other" culturesas variegateda'nplif-ications of a
globalphallogocentrism constitutes an aopropriative actthatrisksa
repetition of the self:aggrandizinggestureof phallogocentrism. colonizing
underthe signof the samethosedifl-erences thatmightotherwise
call thattotalizingconceptintoquestion. 23
Feministcritiqueoushtto explorethe totalizingclaimsof a masculinist
signifyingeconom),. but alsoremainself'-criticalwith resoect to
the totalizinggesturesof f-eminism. The effortto identif.vthe enem_v as
singularin form is a reverse-discourse thatuncriticallyrnimicsthe
strategyof the oppressorinsteadof off-eringa differentsetof terms.
Thatthe tacticcan operatein feministand antif'erninist contextsalike
suggests thatthecolonizinggestureis not primaril),or irreduciblvmasculinist.
It canoperateto eff'ectothcr relationsof racial,class,and heterosexist
subordination, to namebut a f'ew.And clearly,listingthe
varieties of oppression, as I beganto do, assumes theirdiscrete, sequential
coexistence alonga horizontalaxisthatdoesnot describe theirconvergences
withinthe socialfield.A verlicalmodelis similarly
insufficient; oppressions cannotbe summarilyranked,causallyrelated,
distributed amongplanesof "originality"and"derivativeness." 24 Indeed,
the field of power structuredin part by the imperializinggestureof
dialecticalappropriation exceedsand encompasses the axisof sexual
difference,offeringa mappingof intersecting diff'erentialswhich cannot
be summarilyhierarchized eitherwithinthetermsof phallogocentrism
or any othercandidatefor the positionof "primary conditionof oppression."
Ratherthanan exclusivetacticof masculinist signifyingeconomies,
dialecticalappropriation and suppression of the Otheris one
tacticamongmany.deployedcentrallybut not exclusivelyin the service
of expanding andrationalizing the masculinist domain.
08, 4q
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: RACE
THE SUPREMECOURT MUST RECOGNIZERACE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIONIF WE ARE EVER

TO OVERCOME THE OPPRESSIONTHAT RESULTS FROM AN ESSENTIALIZED"TECF{NOCRATIC
NOTION OF IT.
DAVIES & SEUFFERT 2000 (MargaretDaviesis SeniorLecturerin Law at the FlindersUniversityof South
Australia,and Nan Seuffertis Senior Lecturerat the Universityof Waikato."Knowledge,ldentity,and the
Politicsof Law,"Copyright(c) 2000 HastingsCollegeof the Law, HastingsWomen'sLaw Journal,Summer,
2 0 0 0 ,1 1 H a s t i n g W
s o m e n ' sL . J .2 5 9 ,p l e x i s )
The courts'problematictheor)'of racecontinuesto plaguerecentjurisprudenceby threateningto

deprivedeservingindividualsof protectionliom discriminatorlractivit),.But the impact of the
courts'theorieson raceis evenmore gravethanthis. Accordingto RobertGordon.
[*848]
The power exertedby a legal rcgime consistsless in the fbrcc that it can bring to bear against
violatorsof its rulesthan in its capacityto pcrsuadepeoplethat the world describedin its images
and categoriesis the only attainableworld in which a sanepersonwould want to live. nl64
As such.a major stepin the dismantlingof the racialstratiflcationof our nationwill come fiom
exPlicitrecognitionby the courtsthat raceis a socialconstruction.not an inherentpart of human
existenceor a scientificf-act.Only then will we be able to rccognizeracial division as nothing
more than a subjectiveand irrationalperceptionthat oppresses us all: onl), then will our nation
setout on the pathtowardsequalit),fbr all of its people.
DBh"$ 5o'
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: RIGHTS
Liberal reform facilitates rights that only guarantee autonomy and choice. However, imperialism,
postcolonialism,and superpowerdomination is inevitablewithin this framework. Instead
of creatingrights fbr
particularidentities,we shouldbegin with peopleas agentsas the besttool to oppressiverights.
BROWN 2004 lwendy, professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the University
of California,Berkeley,.,,TheMost
W e C a n H o p e F o r ' . . 'H
: u m a n R i g h t s a n d t h e P o l i t i c sFoaft a l i s m ,T"h e S o u t h A t l a n t i c e u a r t e r l y ,
103.213,p451-463,proiectMuse.)
t
the ex the dark. on this
vtew,
tive-
t
'l'hey
urses. simDlv exDand autonomy and choice. I have
suggested otherwiseand in decidingwhetherthe reductionof rrtt"ring p-rnir.a ty nrn1o hts is the "most we can hope
fbr," I havearguedthat we must take accountof that which rightsdiscoursedoesnot avow about itsell.
It is a politicsand it
organizes
politicalspace,
oftenwith theaimof monopolizing
it. It also stands as a critique of dissonant political
proiects. converges neatlv with the requisites of liberal
imrrerialism and slobal free trade. and
well. If th is defined man sufll
individ ts ive state an rl
this But i osed as unchecked
and imnerialis
nd ds from the
reaching remedv for IEnd page 46I I in iurtic" defi.recl as .s,rfferine und as svstem]Jil
disenfranchisement from colla borative self-s0vernance
DBH
ADI v\.
IDENTITYK
LINK: RIGHTS
Rights are commonly linked to liberation projects-this activism continuesis anti-political, but still suarantees
legitimatingliberal imperialism.
BROWN 2004 lwendy,professor of politicalscience
andwomen'sstudies
at the University
of California, ..'l'heMost
Berkeley.
WeCanHopeFor'..':HumanRightsandthePolitics of Fatalism,"
TheSouthAtlanticQuarterly,103.213, project
p 451-463, Muse.)
We returnto thequestion with whichwe began:If humanrights activism is an antipolitical nolitics of suffering
reduction that c.onfieures a particular kind of subiect and limns a particular poliiical future, is the
yieldof thisinternational
justiceprojectthe"mostwe canhopefor"?Erp..lultygi*n tt'..xtent to whicha recently renewed
vigorin Americanimperialism hasbeentheagentof suchsuffering (fromits Guant6namo Baygulagto its invasions of lraq
andAfghanistan to its continuedsupportfor increasinglybrutallsraelipractices of occupation)wliile drapingitselfin the
mantleof humanrighrs,one wonders whether the nroiect of more directlv challengingsuch imperialism
and suDDortinE indiqenous efforts to transform authoritarian. despotic. and corrupt nostcolonial
regimes might be at least as critical. WhenDonaldRumsf'eld declares 'ferrorism
that "the War on is a war for
humanrights,"ashe did in spring2002,preparing Anrericans fbr waron Iraqwhileturningtheirattcntion awayfiorn both
thepostwarchaosin Alghanistan andthesteadydismantling of theirown civil liberties. we arereminded of thedifficultyof
tryingto engage in bothkindsof projects simultaneously.!lt is notonly thatRurnsfeld hasco-opted the language of human
rightsfor imperialist
aimsabroadandantidemocratic oncsat home,but thatinsofar as the "liberation" of Afrrhanistan
and lraq deliver ishts to th ulations it
ts of ts discou
rom I liberal .!(.i tJere,the disingenuousness of Ignatiells insistence,that
h u m a nl E n d P a g e4 6 0 1r i g h t sc a m p a i g n as r e n o t c q u i v a l e ntto i n s t a l l i n gl i b e r a l i s ma n d t h e c o n d i t i o n so f f r e et r a d ef b r t h e
regimesthey aim at, materializes as more thana problemof intellectualdishonestv.
DBH
ADI Ctz.
IDENTITYK
LINK: RIGHTS
Rights are effective in controlling the subjectsto whom they're assigned.Insteadof reducing suffering, rights
becomeanti-politicaland they repel effectiveprotectionof individuals.
BROWN 2004 lwenOy, professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof Califbrnia,Berkeley,"'The Most
W e C a n H o p eF o r . . . ' : H u m a nR i g h t sa n dt h e P o l i t i c so f F a t a l i s m ,T
" h eS o u t hA t l a n t i cQ u a r t e r l y , 1 0 3 . 2 1p34, 5 1 - 4 6 3 p, r o j e c tM u s e . )
To appreciatefurther how rights can simultaneouslyshield subjectsfrom certain abusesand become tactics in their
disempowerment, we might returnto a point mentionedin passingabove,namelythat rights are not simDlv attached
to Kantian subiects.but rather produce and regulate the subiects to whom thev are assisned.a
Thus,in its very promise to protect the individual against suffering and permit choice for
individuals. human rights lEndPage4591discourseproduces a certain kind of subiect in need of a
certain kind of nrotection.of course,suffering and abusealso nroduce subiects.often traumatically
so and I am bv no meanssuggestingthat leaving individuals vulnerable to such things is a morallv
or noliticallv sunerior production to that of human rights discourse.Nor,again,
amI contcsting
theextent
to which humanrightscampaignsmay actuallylimit certainkinds of abuseand altercertainpolicies.Rather,the noint is
mere rerJucti or Dro natureof the
reductionor protectionis itselfproductiveof politicalsubjectsand politicalpossit,ltiiies.
:r.st as abuseiftelf is nevergeneric
but alwayshas particularsocialand subjectivecontent,so the matterof how it is relievedis consectuential. Yes. the abuse
mustbe stoppedbut by whom.with whattechniques,
with whatunintended
ef}-ects,
andaboveall, unlbldingwhatpossible
futures?
The rrragmatist. moral. and antiDolitical mantle of human riqhts discourse tends to eschew.
even renel. rather than invite or address these questions.
DBH q3.
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: RIGHTS
Rights do not secure protection from the state's power or reach. Rights are actually an extension of
governmentalitybecausethey becometacticsand vehiclesfor domination.
BROWN 2004 lWenOy,professor of politicalscience
andwomen's
studies
at theUniversityof California, "'The Most
Berkeley,
We CanHopeFor...':HumanRightsandthePoliticsof Fatalism,"
TheSouthAtlanticQuarterllt,
103.213,p 45l-463,ProjectMuse.)
what we havelearnedin the lastcentury:if rights secure the possibilitv of living without fear of exnress
state coercion. thev do not therebv decrease the overall nower and reach of the state nor do thev
enha itizenrv to determi socra
economic.and Dolitical iustice.This is above all becausepower doesnot onlv come in sovereignor
iuridical form and becauserishts are not iust defensesaeainst social and nolitical nower but are"
as an asnectof qovernmentalitv.a crucial aspectof power's arrerture.As such,they are not simrrly
rules and defensesaqainst power. but can themselvesbe tactics and vehiclesof governanceand
domination. Even free speech,or perhaps.especiallyfiee speech,in an age of corporatelyowned and governmentally
beholdenmedia,can deepenthe sub.iection
of the populaceto undemocraticdiscoursesof power, at the santetime that it
permitslotsof talkins.
DBH e4
ADI
LtN v:.Ptt7ilT;
THEIR GENERICNOTION OF LINIVERSAL RIGHTS IS THE MOST HOLLOW OF EMPTY

PROMISES.
Brown, 95 (WendyBrown is prof'essor

of Women'sStudiesat the Universityof California,SantaCruz.,,Statesof
Injury: Powerand Freedomin Late Modernity,"Copyright1995by PrincetonUniversitypress,
ISBN 0-69l -02990-
3, p97-8)
But an inquiry into thc relarionshipbctween identity formatron

and
rights claims in late-twenticth-centurypolitics requiresmore
than regrs-
tering the indeterminacy and contingency of rights. Those concerned
with emancipatorypolitical practiccsin or-rrtime confront as wcll
a set of
paradoxesabout rights, perhaps the cenrral onc of which is this:
The
g:g:tionof the lj-beratoryor e"gal.itari?n
forcc of rights is alw41r_]:fl.t@
cartyand.culturaily
cauy and culturarrycrrcunrsc.bcd;
crrcumscribed:rights
rights h.rve
haveno
no inhercnt politicalscmr_
inhercnt political scmr_
r s g 4 $ : - I s U l g h t s n c c e s s a r l \o p e r l r c i n r r r d a s a n a h i s t o r i c r l . r c"i1311;
: l l \ t -
uJlural,
ical contexts
a n d h i s tg r i c : Ir v i c i s i i t u d c s r. n J r h , . G i , i s s - i t r - r a ; * , . . i ai;;; rr..
_€sdsr:!&ll,"g:e!ti "l
of
:' "..9. !b=r_auIi& J; ff. rlJ_6i_,-.;r_l lry L q..iE.
histopgal and-srcial sp;--tfi!]i'Jgh,, q political discourse"r of
!llc_gqr11- r.'_1, thc gcneri c. .rn d u n i vcrs.rL"p.rr-q_-?s a
] ! l U : r ' | . . - d - o xb c t w , t ' r rr h - t ' - u t t i v c r 'i..rlli o r na n c lt f r t ' l o c a lc t - t t ' r,-rfi r r s h t s
e'-.,!p';* ;;;;;
1qe.r1 6,*[u,.a-qp*r _i"'; ;;',f,.," n,pol,r
lcvcl: \X/hilc- rights
11r1 fllly-ra!1 ,rs.,n ,"dl.rfrui!tri..io... of cnrancr!.rrrorr
. l t ( ) r c n l n r l r ( n ti r )l u \ t r ) r ) r h . iA n i i i . . r l r c i r . i l R i { l r r sr . r ) o \ . c l l r c l ) t
, , r .t l r , r
s t r L r q q l fco r r i g h t sb v s u b j c c t so f c o ] o r i a ld o ' - r i n l t i o , s u c h : r s
l . l a c ks o L r r h
A1ricansor Palesrinians
&gq!4!qry
=
;;;
."pt,r." at liberalinstituriot.rs ceascro
b e l i b e r a la s s o o ' a s f h c v a r c : r t t a i r c c l .r6t i s c x p r c s s c da s w c l l
i, theirory
that rigl.rtssousht bv a politicaly defincd,{'ro]ip c.gnfcrrcd
+.rc upon crepo-
ttrt.ta.d tndttdrolrr ., ,h. ,.,.,o,.,.,.i,,!..8.,rr.,, *-" .u..."o,
lr.,nEfr*
h,t.', l9l]:s r'e-::s:r_ rt.rdaissot"esl,rGffi
11g,, itfl or social
spatrrl
its_'
"-1s.-o., the
lcr.l,!ghrt rrr,'r."rp.'iu",rl,<rr" in-i*irJioiariorr or
':tl,t tttl r,hor"tt-r
.nil*"@ilEjl
$"ttoo.n':.
Ir,qhrs._ rybjcllfrl_
ncrp to_consrrrure rhc subjccrsc?.].kgjnal!gd 1 orke1._ !qs: .ohr.ioLrs
e<a4p i el rvou!|k-qh e;GFr t ; frei spc;F;;h ;t-, ;-. f. 4![GEC
-q$.' r!9*'speqch' 1lg@ffi #;; -",, ; o.
rhe righr io priur. u.i ti! Fr;;;;Fr;ils h*ilFa
r?macr,,;il y ;;;; ;
those.differenriallysituatedin the murky spheredemarcated ,;the
o."r. "
tion .and lincs o{_:g.irl
as
_social
pri_
stratifica_ DBH
dsqgtqg_lto,l_l,r_jryryi ,1l*-*"rrd
gEglg4te-lbqss--pgwers3r.rdlines. A"d wG-n tE-iiernporaf
mensions of the pr;;o*
,i.,h"r, ,,
and spatiai ai-'
01.h; universalisticidiom and partiiuraristic
ADI
force of rights are com.bined, *.."n,99_S]tj9_glc3llJ!f9_f!?pg!:t-b_iltfy
of
;3yTg_-gll1nsse.neric abog! tl5fg!g!el". tr. l,t!l;;3h9, rit,1.
"Gs
!o
ilnse treu9.&.rrhem
col1Qr!o1s.-
or ag4';ilr..r" rspliffia ?!ali,;,oirhe-
socialp-owers,and poligicaldiscourscswiili- whicli
qb
Tlt_otl.rt
Lq-gy_enyglCc*sr_WhS]f !_bs-y_rlrterdict.
A DI 2 0 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
LINK: SEX (BIOLOGY)
The assumptionthat sex is a biological categoryis a violent constructionof norms-sex is not a bodily
convention,but rathera cultural norm that is createdover time and is entirely fluid. The constructionof this sex,
especiallythrough language,only imposeslinguistic norm that makesdominationinevitable.
FELLUGA 2002 loino' English, StanfordUniversity,
"Modules on butler:
on Gender gui1eto ('rirical
andSex,"Introcluctnry
Theory,
hUp.,,n'tt d91afisex;lla.Juies:ttu_tl_qlgeldllrclJU:d.)
Butlertakesher formulationsevenfurtherby questioningthe very distinctionbetweengenderand sex. In the past,feminists
regufarlymadea distinctionbetweenbodily sex (the corporealfactsof our existence)and gender(the socialconventions
that
determinethe diff'erencesbetweenmasculinifyand f'emininity).Such f'eministsacceptedthe fact that certain anatomical
differencesdo existbetweenmen and women but they pointedout how most of the conventionsthat determinethe
behaviors
of men and women are, in fact, sociul gender constructionsthat have little or nothiing to do with our corporeal
sexes.
ins t al li xlsa cat I cat
Butl tha ton us In
wavs th our of co I iffercnces are aff
conventions. For Butler,sex is not "a bodilv given on which the construct of sender is artificiallv
lm orm whi s the of bodies" (Botliq;l_3; my italics)
Sex,for Butler'"is an ideal construct which is forciblv materialized through time. It is not a simDle
bod wnereDv regulatorv norms mat t^^-.t
2). Butler here

etermined
lan that le even articulate sex wit
linguistic norms: "there is bodv which me time a fr
formation of that body" (812rlrc,r
l0). (Seethe lntloduclionto (lgnde14pd Sex fbr T'homasLaqueur'sexplorationof the
diff-erent
waysthatscience
hasdetermined o u r u n d e r s t a n d i nogf b o d i l ys e x u a l i t ys i n c et h e a n c i e n G
t r e e k s .T
) he verv act
of i c a l n o r m s , a c c o r d i n gt o B u t l e r .A s
tttsext
she a fant installed at a
there ta
" ( B o d i q ; 5 ) . N o n e t h e l e s st h, a t f l c t i o n i s c e n t r a lt o t h e
establishmentofsubjectivityand humansociety,which is to tuy that,evenso, it hasmaterialeffects:"the'l'neither precedes
nor folfowsthe processof this gendering,but emergesonly within and as the matrix ol'senclerrelationsthemselves"(B.4ies
7) lst stable it does bv alwavs r
boundaries (anda zoneof abjection)
through the endlesslv reneated nerformative acts thai mark us as
one sex or another. t'Sex" veiled n artificial that is
subiect--.![Qchange. Butler'sproject,then, is "to'cite'the law in order to reiterateand coopr irs power. to expose the
heterosexualmatrix and to displacethe effectof its necessity"(dC</tg,t
l5).
DBH 1to.
ADI
IDENTITY
K
LINK: SEX
Discursivesexualcategoriescreatea violently oppressiveheterosexuality.

BUTLER 1990(Judith, professorofphilosophy at UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,pg. la7-148)
"Sex."thecategory.
compels "sex."thesocialcont'iguration
of bodies.
throughwhatWittigcallsa coercedcontract.
Hence. thecategory
of"sex" is a namethatenslaves. Language "castssheaves ofrealityupon
the socialbody,"but thesesheaves arenot easilydiscarded. Shecontinues:
"stampingit and violentlyshapingit." 29 Wittig arguesthatthe
"straightmind,"evidentin the discourses of the humansciences.
"oppressall of us,lesbians, women,andhomosexual men" because
they "take for grantedthat what foundssocietJ-. an),societ)r.is heterosexuality."
30 Discourse becomes oppressive ',vhenit requiresthatthe
speakinssubject.in orderto speak.participatein the very termsof
that oopression- that is. take fbr grantedthe speakingsubject's
own i mpossibi I ity or unintelI i gibiIity. Thi s presumptive heterosexual ity.
sheargues. f'unctions within discourse to cornmunicate a threat:
"'you-wiIl-be-strai ght-or-]'ou-wi I l-not-be. "' 3 I Womcn.lesbians. and
say men.sheargues.cannotassume the positionof the speaking subject
withinthe linguistics)'stern of compulsory hcterosexualit)'.To
speakwithin the systemis to be deprivedof the possibilityof speech;
hence.to speakat all in thatcontextis a perfbrmative contradiction,
the linguisticassertion of a selfthatcannot"be" within thc lansuase
that assertsit.
DBH
ADI 6+
IDENTITYK
LINK: SEX
Sex as a categoricaldistinctionis arbitraryand a site of domination.

BUTLER 1990(Judith, professorofphilosophyat UC Berkeley, Gender Trouble,
pg.la6)
Is therea "physical"bodypriorto theperceptuallyperceived

body?
An impossible questionto decide.Notonlyis thegatheringof attributes
underthecategory of sexsuspect. butso is theverydiscrimination
ofthe"features"themselves. Thatpenis.vagina. breasts.
andso
n the bodv frv the cateu

"disunity."a fragmentation and compartmentalization.and a retluction
of erotogeneity.No wonder,then,that Wittig textuallyenactsthe
"ovefthrow"of the categoryof sexthrougha destructionand fiagmentation
of the sexedbody in The LesbianBody. As ..sex"fragmentsthe
body,so the lesbianoverthrowof "sex" targetsas modelsoj'domination
thosesexuallydiff-erentiated normsof bodiryintegritythat dictate
what "unifies" and renderscoherentthe body as a sexedbody.In her
theoryandfiction,wittig showsthatthe "integrity"and"unity" of the
body.oftenthoughtto be positiveideals,servethe purposes of fiagmentation.
restrictioann
. dd o m i n a t i o n .
\
DBH
ADI 5b
ADI 2006 Dr. Dave's Lab
IDENTITY K
LINK: SEX
The mythic unity of sex and physical features violently oppressesthose that fall outside of this mistaken order.
BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professor of philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg. 144-146)
Wittiq understands "sex" to be discursivel), producedand circulated

bli a systemof significations oppressive to women.gays.andlesbians.
Sherefusesto takepartin this signifyingsystemor to believein
the viabilityo1'taking up a reformistor subversive positionwithin the
system,to invokea partof it is to invokeand confirmthe entiretyof it.
As a result,the politicaltask shefbrmulatesis to overthrowthe entire
discourseon sex,indeed,to overthrowthe very grammarthat institutes
"gendsp"- or "fictive sex!'- as an essentialattributeof humans
andobjectsalike(especially pronounced 'l'hrough
in French).25 her
theoryand fiction shecallsfbr a radicalreorganization of the description
ofbodiesandsexualities rvithoutrecourse to sexancl,consequently,
withoutrecourse to the pronomialdifferentiations that
regulate and distributerightsof speechwithinthe matrixof gentler.
Wittig understands discursive categories like "sex" as abstractions
fbrciblyimposeduponthe socialfield.onesthatoroducea secondorder
or reified"reality."Althoughit appears thatindividualshavea
"directperception" ofsex, takenas an objectivedatumofexperience,
wittig arguesthatsuchan ob.iect hasbeenviolentlyshapedinto sucha
datumandthatthe historyandmechanism oj'thatviolentshapingno
longerappears with thatobject.26 Hence."sex" is the realitv-erfect of a
rocessthat i bv that I t h a t a o o e a r si
"sex."andso "sex" is perccived to bethe totalit),of whatis. uncaused.
but onl-vbecause the causeis nowhereto be seen.wittig realizes that
herpositionis counterintuitive, but the politicalcultivationof intuition
is preciselywhatshewantsto elucidate, expose,andchallenge:
Sexis takenas an "immediategiven.""a sensible given."..r;hysical
features."belongingto a naturalorder.But whatwe believeto be a
physicalanddirectperception is only a sophisticated andm-vthic
construction. an "i maqinaryrfbrmation."which reinterprets physical
features(in themselves as neutralas othersbut markedby a social
s.vstem).throughthe networkof relationships in whichthe),are
perceived.27
"Physicalfeatures"appearto be in somesensethereon the far side
of language, unmarkedby a socialsystem.It is unclear,however.that
thesefeaturescould be namedin a way that would not reproducethe
reductiveoperutionof'the categorie,s of'sex. The.se numerous.feulure,s
gainsocialmeaningand uniflcationthroughtheirarticulation within
the categoryof sex. In otherwords,"sex" imposesan artificialunity on
an otherwisediscontinuous setof attributes.As both discursiveand perceptual.
"sex" denotesan historically contingent epistemic regime.a
languasethat forms perceptionby lbrcibly shapinethe interrelationships
throuehwhich oh),sicalbodiesareperceived.
DBH
ADI 6q,
IDENTITYK
LINK: SEX
A feminism based on sex reproduces regulatory power relations.

BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg.122-123)
Foucaultexplicitlytakesa standagainstemancipatory or liberationist

modelsof sexualit)'in The Historyof Sexualit),because the),
subscribe to a juridicalmodelthatdoesnot acknowledge thehistorical
productionof "sex" as a category.that is. as a mystilving.'effect"of
powerrelations.His ostensible problemwith feminismseemsalsoto
emergehere:Wherefeministanal),sis takesthe categoryof sexand.
thus,according to him, the binaryrestrictionon sender.as its pointof
departure.Foucaultunderstands his own projectto be an inquiry irrto
how the categoryof "sex" and sexualdifTerence areconstructed within
'fhe.iuridical
model
of law whichstructures the leministemancipatory modelpresumes. in
his view,thatthe subjectof emancipation, .,thesexed
body" in some
sense,is not itselfin needof a criticaldeconstruction. As Foucault
remarksaboutsomehumanistetfortsat prisonrefbrm,the criminal
subjectwho getsemancipated may be evenmoredceplyshackled
thanthe humanistoriginallythought.'l'obe scxed,fbr Foucault. is to
be subjected to a setofsocialregulations. to havethe law thatdirects
thoseregulations residebothasthe lbrmativeprincipleof one'ssex,
gender,pleasures, anddesiresandasthe hermeneutic principleof selfinterpretation.
The categoryof sexis thusinevitablyregulative. and
any analysiswhichmakesthatcategoryoresuppositional uncritically
extendsand fuftherlegitimatesthat regulativestrategyas a power/
knowledgeregime.
DtsH
ADI w
IDENTITYK
LINK: SE)VGENDER
Upholdinga genderbinarybasedon sexis flawedandrestrictive.

BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorofphilosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg.g)
Althoughthe unproblematic unity of "women" is often invokedto consrrucr

a solidarityof identity,a split is introduced in the feministsubject
by thedistinctionbetweensexandgender.originallyintended to dispute
thebiology-is-destiny formulation. the distinctionbetweensex
nder \ \ h a t e v e rb i o l o g i c a li n t r a c t a b i l i t
s e xa p p e a rtso h a v e . g e n d ei sr c u l t u r a l l c. vo n s t r u c t ehde: n c c . g e n d iesr
neitherthe causalresultof sexnor as seeminglyfixed as sex.The unity
ofthe subjectis thusalreadypotentiallycontested by thedistinction
thatpermitsof genderas a multipleinterpretation of sex.7
If genderis the culturalmeanings thatthe sexedbod_y assumes.
id ro fbllow a s e xi n wav. J'aken
to its loBicallimit.the sex/genderdistinctionsuggests a radicaldiscontinuit),
betweensexedbodiesand culturallyconstructed qenders.
Assuminglbr the momentthe stabilityo1'binary sex,it doesnot fbllow
thatthe construction of "men" will accrueexclusivelyto the bodiesof
malesor that"women"will interpretonly f-emale bodies.Further.even
if the sexesappearto be unproblematically binaryin theirmorphology
andconstitution (whichwill becomea question). thereis no reasonto
assume thatgendersoughtalsoto remainastwo. g l'he presumption of
a binarygendersystemimplicitlyretainsthe belief in a mimeticrelation
of genderto sexwherebygendermirrorssexor is otherwise
restrictedby it. Whenthe constructed statusof genderis theorizedas
t ofsex tself bec
with the consequence thatmanand masculine mightjust aseasily
signify a femalebody as a maleone,and womanandfbmininea male
body as easilyas a f'emaleone.
DBH
ADI b\.
LINK: STATIC IDENTITY
The subject is always already incomplete. This incompletion porlrays the premises of democracy and the
exclusionof people.
BUTLER 2000 (:uAith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at [JC-'Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,Universali4t:JuclithButler. ErnesloLaclau and SlavojZi:ek,yerso.)
f - l , t y r r n r l e r s l a r r d i n og f t h e v i e w o f ' h e g e r n o r r yr : s t a l r l i s h c r l l r ,l vi l n c s l o
lLaclarr rnrl Clrantll Moufl'e in Ilegemonl'and,locialist.,gLntlep)' (1!)tliltl r-
thal clcmor:ratic polities 1re constilrrtcclthrortgh exclttsirtns tltltl tctrtrn ttt
'l'lr:rt
h a u n t t h e p o l i t i e s p r e c t i c a t e c lr r p o n t h c i r a b s e t ' t r : e . l ratlrrlirrg
.tilffi th; rd;ln ,,1=tl;
ol
txcludcd forces arncxpansion arrd rearticulatiori ol' tlrc iliisic 1'rtt--trtisst:s
dernocracviiiell. C)ne claim that l,aclau irntl ZiZck ritakt: in l-ltuil srtlrse-
.fr,nt *ilE.\qr i,s tha"t tl)e {irrtnation ol- irny clt:ntot:t'aticl'rttljl)'*jl.
tlr"t l*,1't ;il,r.1@
anyparticula.r.lirlElli,r,t-,,--ili,iliiTitu,
irrcleecl,
6 t , , n r I l t ' t , \ ' [ - l r c r e u r c , h o w t ' v c t .c l i v c r g t : n w t a y s o l t t n t l ,r ' s t a r r t l i r l tgl r l t t
'irtctim];letion' irt
irrcernlrlr:tiorr.I unclerst.rio<[ tlrc ol' thc srrlricct-llosilittrr
tlrc [irllowingw - a y s : ( l ) a s t h e f i t i l u r c o l ' a n y P a r t i t t r l . i l i L l ' t i t r r ] . r l j , ,tror
r l c s c r i b c t l r c l r o l i u l i r t i o t t i t r c l t l t r s c n t s ;( 2 ) t h a t c r ' ' c l y s r r l r i c t i s t o r r s t i -
l ) ( ) i n tl o c s t l r b l i s hl l r t : [ i r n c l a m c n t a rl l i { I ' c r c n c cb c t u ' c c r tt l t c . \ ] l l r r i s s t 'i ri u r -

inilct:tcclwork ol' 1,:rclattatrtl Morrl]-c:rncllt more l lcgclillri tltcot'r'oI lltt'
s r r l r . j c t ri nt w h i r : l r l r l l c x l c l n a l r c l r t i o t r s a r e : r 1I c a s t i t l c t r i l v t r l l l r s -
Irrrnrrrblr:irrto ittlclri:rl orrc:s.
Onc otlxrr way o['cxliat"t"g l]It*i,l!:ornpltrtion' o1' tlitr strlricctis trr
,,st affi ;t l t,sc,l, ,,t fi.c lu t i rt ti 1I svt l r. Irrra I1't i t'
ircc()unt ot' l. ZlLck lt'.tsstttlgcstr:<l a.ncl[,nt:latt lr:rslreltielll' lQtt'crl
( l r a t L l r cl , a c a t t i a n ' l t r : a l ' i sl r t t t a t t o t l t < : r ' t t a mfrt :r t ' t l t i s ' i n t : o r r t l t l t ' t i o titt'r, t t l
b-._-r.l--#
t h a t t : v c r y s u b l i : c t ,r ' c q a l c l l t : sos[ ' i 1 s s o c i a l : r n c ll r i s t o r i c n lc o r t c l i l i o r r si ,s

'l-h<:
Ei;-[illrc--""e po.stulatc o[' irtr:onc:lrrsivent-'ss. .-:::---
strbjct:t ,,,liili
.''.._----j#
(:onlcs u)to cxlstcilcc tlu()ttulr th(''l)lu l s o l l e w l l o i j ( l i ) r ( l l l t s t o r Y 1 sl l ( ' ( c s -
r l i s t r r r r t 'ltr:o m t h c c o n < l i t i o n so f i t s o w t
DBh{
ADI bz
A DI 20 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
LruK I Svbs€cTl{lTY ID€NT'TY K
In order to gain subjectivity,all preconceivednotions of the "subject" must be abandonedfor

redeployment
€urv€2
Buttg in 1992 ( Judith,MaxineElliot Professor
in theDepartment l-iteratrrre
of RhetoricandComparative at UC Berkeley,
Foundations,
Contingent F'eminists
TheorizethePolitical,pp.I a-I 5)
T:'Jiffi
,o"ililJ*:Jffi jfoi*?.1ifloo*,#JT.;lllliii;
.ii'+i,'H
rs not a "bidding farcwell" to the subjtct per
se, but, rar.'er,a ca, to r-ew.rk
that noti.n outsicrethe terms of an epistcmologicar
given. But perhapsFou-
cault is not rearly postrn.dern;afier all, rris is
'rhere an analytic..,t[ nut,ern power.
is, .f course, tark about the treathof'the subject,
but r,rfti./l subject
i s t h a t ?A ' d w h a t i s t h c s t a t u so f t h e u t t c r a ' c c
t h a t a n n o u n c e si t s p a s s r n g ?
w h a t s p c : r k sr r r w r l r i r rt l r c s u b j c c ti s t r c a d ' /
T h r r tt h c r c i * , , ' . p " . r . i n g . . " n , r
clear, for how ersc coulcrthe rrtter.nccbc
hearcr?So crearly, thc creathof
that subjectis n.t the end o| agency,of spcech,
or or.politicai crebatc,.frrerc
is thc rgfrain that, just now, y4lcq_r1cy11g1
are be*ginnin&roi\ssuntct[e pl,ace
ol'subjects' postrnoclc!-!-p-grrliqrrcrtrrr"-^Lols-t,r.announcc-that-1he-sub.i.ect
iq_qgirq(thcre is r, Jiti"i"'." b;a;;"tr p;.irions
of posrsrrucruralis'rwhich
clainr lhat the sub.icct.rrzrvzr existcd, anrl p.st'rocrcrn p.sitions whrch craim
that the sub.jcctorrct:had intcgrity, ttut no
longer A."51 S."""."" tt.,i,
.g.orp.
consplracyagainst wo'ren a'd ather discnrranchis"i ", "
who are now
o n l y b e g i n n i n gt o s p e a ko n t h c i r o w n b e h a l f .
B u t w S i i t p r c c i s e l yi s r . e a n t
by this' and h,ow do !tq-rlcc--o=qllt*!9ll!lg-yqry-
sq9!tc*s!1ic-t!'x
ali:'l !11'thc_srlb.ycct
! r l i t ' j l l t . u t .l ] f W t ' s t c r ni u r . c r i i i ' U r " - s q ! r ! , r y r h c , , r . i z cht ty d t , r r i a A n
/ ' d r u r . ' L , i l y a t r s p r v i l k" a ' t r v u r i . r r s l l r c r r r i s t s
. f P . S t C . r . r r i a l i t y s. .u, r e r y
therc is a cautio'.r-ferecrhere, trratin thc very
str.uggret.warcl cnrranchise_
rnent and cternocrarizarlglLryc_,l]]]gnt *r,,pi-tr* *;jiT;t"r"Lr-;fa;;l;;",i""
l* ry"9l,.t:f-,"j:
WJIIK
9!trrr!r-',;i;. ;n; ";0,!,, n. *uv rr,,t,ro-n,
i,raion
! Lt'.tq E[ ]! u ccts. Through wh.r
exclusiclnsllas thc f'eminist ":rry!gg9ur!_pry{rt!q!_9li [j
rutrr"t t""l ..rnstructcd,and h.w ciclth'se
ex-
c l u d e dd o r n a i n sr c t u r n . t oh a u ' t t h c " i n t c g r i t y "
a n d . , u n i t y , 'o [ t h e f c r ' i n i s t
"we"'1 And how is it
, 1l3t g]19vcry gqlgg!1,.y_, rhe subjccr, the ..we..,that is
'lrr,,;r...*
t11r rhc .rt' ioti.larirf.
:_:1f..'-": 1,'_tc1rcsuin",l f'trrl,r,--rc r5e vcry
' l . 1 t i i ] r i f r ' : t r l r r r i s s u P p . s c dr - t ; u c t ' . ' . I ) . w o r r c . w i r r r r ( ) h c c r r r n cs u l r i i . t . r s
.n rne rn.derw1 h rr c r rr e q u i r e sa n d p r o d u c c sa n a n t e ' ' r
regi.n of abjection.
()r'rnustfcr'inisr, becorrea process
which is scrf-criticalaLout thc proccsscs
that produceand destabilizeidcntity categories?
T9 AkS_tq_gols!{uc.rron ol
the sub ct:rs_apolrh,c_{ljpb]g11_ilqgr!_ryt_!l_L-ro,.,.,"
n.i*,ilGriway w,rth
tlg-rylDg; to deconsrru.t
ttr" *bj.cr l
"i;a.;*^r",.r.
concept;on the c.ntrary, deconstructionir,plies rhe dr#Tw6y
onty ttrat wc suspendall
cornnritmentsto that to rvhicrrthe tcrm, "the
sub.iect,,'rel,ers,
a'd that we
considerthe linguistic functions it serves
in the conso|crationancrconcear_
ment of authority. To deconstructis not to
negateor to drsmiss,but to call
into queslion and, perhaps nrost imp.rtantly,
ro open up a term, Iike the
srrblcct'to a reusagci)r reder)loyr'e't that prevrously
has not been auth.-
DBH
nzerl.
ADI
bv
IDENTITYK
LINK: SUPREMECOURT
THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SUPREMECOURTRECOGNIZESRACIAL AND ETHNIC GROUPS

DISPLACES THOSEWHO LIE OUTSIDETHE BOLINDSOF WHAT IS CONSIDERED NORMAL.
DAVIES& SEUFFERT2000(Margaret Daviesis SeniorLecturer in Lawat the Flinders
University
of South
Australia, and Nan Seuffertis SeniorLecturerat the University of Waikato."Knowledge, ldentity,and the
Politics of Law,"Copyright (c) 2000Hastings Collegeof the Law,HastingsWomen'sLawJournal,Summer,
2 0 0 01
, 1H a s t i n gs
W o me n 's
L .J.2 5 9 ,p l e xi s)
The failureto learnfrom the pastand acknowledgethe extentto which race is a social constructalmost led to an
uniust result in ShaareTefila Congregationv. Cobb. nl47 ln that case,the United StatesDistrict Cour-tfor the
Districtof Marylanddismissedchargesagainsteightprivatedefendants for violationsof t'ederallaw arisingfrom the
defendants'allegeddesecration of a congregation
s synagogue.
One of the key issuesin the casecenteredon whetherthe delenclants'alleged actsconstitutedracialdiscriminationin

v i o l a t i o no f 4 2 t J . S . C .1 9 8 2 ,f o r t h e d e f ' e n d a nat sd m i t t e d l vp e r c e i v e Jde w sa s a r a c i a l l -dvi s t i n c g
t r o u n .S e c t i o n1 9 8 2
providesthat "all citizensof the United Statesshall havethe sameright. in every Stateand'I'erritory,as is enjoyed
b y w h i t e c i t i z e n st h e r e o ft o i n h e r i t .p u r c h a s el ,e a s es, e l l ,h o l d , a n d c o n v e yr e a l a n d p e r s o n apl r o p e r t y . "n l 4 8 T h e
congregationaverredthat desecration of the synagoguestemmedfiom racial pre.iudiccand deprivedthem of the
r i g h t t o h o l d r e a l a n d p e r s o n apl r o p e r t yn. l 4 9 A s b o t h t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t a n d t h e F o u r t hC i r c u i t( i n a f f l r m i n gt h e
l o w e r c o u r l ) h e l d . 1 9 8 2w a s n o t m e a n t1 o a t t a c ht o " s i t u a t i o n si n w h i c h a p l a i n t i f Ti s n o t a n r e m b e ro 1 -a r a c i a l l y
d i s t i n c tg r o u pb u t i s m e l e l yp e r c e i v e dt o b e s o b ) ' d c f e n d a n t s n . "l 5 0 A s J e w sd i d n o t c o n s t i t u t e a racially,distinct
group,the courthad to sustainthe defendants'I 2(b)(6)nrotion.
In their rulings,the two courtsfailed to recognizeraceas a socialconstruction,ratherthan as a scicntillcl'actor an

i n h e r e net l e m e n to f h u m a nc x i s t e n c e".A l t h o u g hw e s y m p a t h i z ew i t h a p p e l l a n t 'pso s i t i o n , "t h e c o u r t n o t e d ." \ r ' e
c o n c l u d et h a ti t c a n n o ts u p p o r at c l a i mo f r a c i a ld i s c r i m i n a t i osno l e l yo n t h e b a s i so f d e f ' e n d a n t s ' p e r c e p toi foJne u s
a s b e i n gm e m b e r so f a r a c i a l l yd i s t i n c g t r o u p .T o a l l o w o t h e r w i s ew o u l d p e r m i tc h a r g e so f r a c i a ld i s c r i r n i n a t i otnc r
ariseout of nothingmorethanthe subjective.irrationalperceptions of def'endants." n l5l Straneely.the courtdid not
realizethat all discriminationsuits ariseliom thesesenseless misperceptions; as the racial-prerecluisite caseshave
taught us, racial categoriesthemselvesare arbitrar),productsof human will. The poignant words of Judge
W i l k i n s o n ' ps a r t i a cl o n c u r r e n cpee r f - e c t lcya p t u r e d
t h i sc r i t i q u eo f t h e m a . j o r i t vy i e w : " A l l 1 * 3 4 0 , r a c i a lp r e j u d i c ei s
t h e r c s u l to f s u b j e c t i v ei ,r r a t i o n apl e r c e p t i o n sw,h i c h d r a i n i n d i v i d u a l so f t h e i r d i e n i t y b e c a u s eo f t h e i r p e r c e i v e d
e q u i v a l e n caes m e m b e r so f a r a c i a lg r o u p . "n 1 5 2
A l t h o u g ht h e S u p r e m eC o u r tu l t i n r a t e l rye v e r s e tdh e f : o u r t hC i r c u i t ,i t s r e s o l u t i o n
o l ' t h ec a s er e m a i n e dp r o b l e m a t i c :
The SupremeCourt itself failed to establishan unambiguous test fbr 1982violationsand choseto ignorethe lorver
courts'definitioo n f r a c e .n l 5 3 W r i t i n g l b r t h e m a j o r i t y ,J u s t i c eW h i t e s u g g e s t etdh a t 1 9 8 2d i d p r o t e c tp l a i n t i f l ' s
f r o m i n t e n t i o n adl i s c r i m i n a t i o sn o l e l y b e c a u s eo f t h e i r " a n c e s t r yo r e t h n i cc h a r a c t e r i s t i c sn.l"5 4 H o w e v e r ,h i s
opinionneverexplainedhow this phrasecould apply to Jews,who arguablyconstituteneithera distinctracenor an
e t h n i cg r o u p .n l 5 5 F u r t h e r m o r e t h, e C o u r tm a d en o m e n t i o no f J u d g eW i l k i n s o n ' s u b j e c t i v e - p e r c e p ttieosnt .w h i c h
acknowledges raceas a socialconstruction. Adoptionof sucha test- which reflectsthe realityof racialcategories -
would "avoid[] the problemof deflning ancestryor ethnicityby expandingthe scopeof racial discriminationto
includesubjectiveperceptionsof groupsas race.Jews would qualify underthis test regardlessof their statusas a
religiousgroup becauseJewishpeopleareperceivedas a race."nl56 Instead,the SupremeCourt stubbornl),refused
to acknowledge raceas a socialconstruct.nl57 ln so doing.the Court left the door openfor it to continueto engage
in gamesof racial determinationthat can onl), place excessivediscretionin the hands of judges and lead to
Perversions of justice. whereby - fbr example- Indiansare declarednonwhitefbr the purposeof den),ingthem
c i t i z e n s h i pb.u t d e c l a r e d
w h i t ef o r t h e p u r p o s eo f d e n y i n gt h e m l 9 8 l r e l i e fw h e nt h e - vf a c ed i s c r i m i n a t i o n .1 5 8
DBH bq.
ADI
IDENTITYK
LINK: .TERRORISM'
The stateeffectively creates'terrorists' to legitimize its violent retaliation and slaughter.A grand narrative is
createdwhere the U.S. posits itself as the victim within the internationalpolitical domain,allowing it to act
aggressively.
BUTLER 2002 1:uOith,Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoricand ComparativeLireraturear UC Berkeley,"Explanationand
Exoneration,
or What We Can Hear," Theoryand Eyent,5:4,projectMuse.)
Our own acts of violence do not receive graDhic coverage in the Dress.and so thev remain acts that
are tusuned
iusti 'ense.
m the name of selt'-del-ense.
but also iustified by a noble ins out
of terrorism. Recently,it is reportedthat the NorthernAlliance may have slaughtered
slaushtt a village:will this be investigated
and, if confirmed,prosecuted as a war crime?
in the it ir ed as na of war. but the
. We castigate ourselves for n<lt aiming better. but we do
not take the sign of destroved life and decimated peorlles as something for which we are
rcsponstule.or Inoeeo u
understand
nd w that
how that decimation works to confirm
contirm tthe U.S. as Derformi
atrocities. Our own acts are not considered terrorist. And there is no history of acts that
releyant to the self-understandingwe form in the light of these terrible events.Thcreis no relevanr
prehistoryto the eventsof Septemberllth, sinceto beginto tell the story a diff-"r"nt*uyJo usk how thingscameto this. is
alreadyto complicatethe questionof agencywhich, no doubt, leadsto the f-earof moral equivocation.In order to
condemn theseacts as inexcusable. absolutely wrong" in order to sustain the affective structure in
which we are. on the one hand,victimized and, on the other,engaqed in a righteous cause of rooting out
terror. we hhave to start the storv with the experienceof violenccwe suffered.We have to shore urr
the and from the hat mi tnv
terin t t l r r
narrative ithin t itical ts
art of wound that w ffered. th it that
position. This decenterinqis nreciselvwhat we seekto rectifv throush a recenterins. A narrative
the enorm issisticwound o
, accordingly,
is not to enter into internati,onalcoalition
where we understand ourselvesto be working with institutionallv establishedroutesd co,n.sensus-
buildinq. We relegatethe UnitedNationsto a secondorderdeliberativebody.anil insistinsteadon Americanunilateralism.
And subsequentlywe ask, Who is with us? Who is againstus'/ As a resulr,we resrrond to the exDosure of
vulnerabilitv with an assertion of [J.S. "leadershin." showing once again the contemDt we have for
international coalitions that are not built antl led bv us. Such coalitions do not conflict with US,
suDremacY. but confirm it. stoke it. insist unon it. with long-term implications for the future shape
and possibilitv of slobal cooneration.
DBH b6
ADI
IDENTITY K
LINK: .TERRORISM'
The hegemonyof the stateis formulatedthrough its control of discourseand how it can be g5sd-"1s1rorist" is
utilizedto legitimizeviolenceandjustify violent 'nationalself-defbnse'.
BUTLER 2002 1:uaith, MaxineElliottProfessor
of Rhetoric
andComparativeLiterature "Explanation
ar UC Berkeley, and
Exoneration, projectMuse.)
or WhatWe CanHear,"TheoryanclEyent,5:4,
The articulation
of this hegemony takes nlace in partthrough producing a consensus on what certain
terms will mean, how thev can be used. and what lines of solidaritv are imrrlicitlv drawn throush
this use. We reserve"actsof terror"fbr events
suchastheSeptemberllth attackson theU.S.,distinguishing
theseactsof
violencefromthosethatmightbejustifiedthroughforeignpolicydecisionsor publicdeclarations
of war.On theotherhand,
these "declarati the Bush admi
positionsthe militarv resnonseas a iustified act of self-defense.In themeanrime,there is ambiguifv
introduced bv the verv use of the term "terrorist" which is then exrrloitedby various Dowersat
warwith indenendence movementsof variouskinds.Theterm "terrorist" is used,fbrinsrance, bv the
lsraelistate to describeanv and all Palestinian
acts of violence.but none of its own. The term is also
used by Putin to describethe Chechenstrugglefor independence,
which then castsits own acts clf violenceasainstthis
provinceas iustified acts ional self-d .S.. bv usins t itself
exclusivelvas the sudden and indisnutablevictim of violence.and there is no doubt that it has
suffered violence. terrible violence. The pointI would like to underscore hereis thata fiame forund".rtuffi
violenceemerges in tandemwith the experience, andthat the frame works both to preclude certain kinds of
ouestions. certain kinds of historical inquiries. and to function as a moral iustification foi
retaliation. It seemscrucialto attendto this frame, sinceit decides. in a forceful way. what we can hear.
whethera viewwill betakenasexplanation il, .*on"rution, whetherwe canhearthedifl-crence.
andabidebv it.
DBH
ADI bb
IDENTITYK
AT: U.S. BROUGHT 'TERROR' ONTO ITSELF
Claiming that the U.S. broughtthe 'terrorist' attackson to itself is an assertionof American superiority.This
view placesthe stateas omnipotentand subordinatesother agents.
BUTLER 2002 1:uaith. Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoricand ComparativeLiteratureat UC Berkeley,"Explanationand
or What We Can Hear,"Theoryand Eyent,5:4,projectMuse.)
Exoneration,
No doubtthereareformsof left analvsis whichsay simnly that the U.S. has reaped what it has sown. or
.S. ha is state of ev as closedexplanations,
simplv
other wavs of assertingU.S. prioritv. and encodingU.S. omnipotence.Theseare also explanations
that assumethat theseactions orisinate in a sinsle subiect. that the subiect is not what it appears
to be. that it is the U.S. who occuniesthe site of that subiect.and that no other subiectsexist or. if
thev exist. their agencvis subordinatedto our own. In otherwords,nolitical naranoia of this kind is
lust another articulation
iculation of tl.l
[J.S. sunremacv. Paranoia is fed bv the fantasv of omninotence. andwe
see this evidenced in some of the more extreme explanations of this kind, i.e. the attacks on September llth wcre
masterminded by the CIA or Mossad,the lsraelisecretpolice.It is clear.though,that bin Ladendid apprenticeto thc CIA
a n dt h a tt h e U . S .s u p p o r t etdh eT a l i b a ns i n c et h e 1 9 9 0 sw h e ni t w a sd e e m e ds t r a t e g i c a l luys e f u l . ' l ' h e sl ei n k sa r en o t p r e c i s e l y
causalexplanations, but they are part of an explanatoryfiamework.l'hey do not translateinto the notion that the U.S. did
these acts. but one can see how the connectionbecomesthe occasionfor thc causalreduction.and a certain oaranoia
amplifiesitselfby seizinguponpart of a broaderexplanatorypicture.
DBFI b+"
ADE
IDENTITYK
AT: WE CANNOT FORGIVE .TERRORIST'ACTS
We are not about exculpating those who commit violent acts. Your assumption paralyzes historical
understandingand a necessaryquestioningof our responsibilityto better understandthe agency of 'others',
making the violent cycle of revengeinevitable.
BUTLER 2002 1:uoith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoricand ComparariveLiteraturear UC Berkeley,"Explanationand
Exoneration,
If we believethat to think radicallv about the formation of the current situation is to exculnate
those who committed acts of violence.we will freeze our thinking in the name of a questionable
moralitv. Butif we rraralvzeour thinking in this way. we will fail moralitv in a different way. We
will fail to take collectiveresnonsibilitvfor a thoroush understandins of the historv which brines
us to this iuncture. We will. as a result. deprive ourselvesof the verv critical and historical
resourceswe
current cycle of revenge.
DBH
ADI bB
IDENTITY K
LINK: VAWA
POLICYMAKERSRHETORICAROLINDTHE VIOLENCEAGAINST WOM\'N ACT ERASESPEOPLE

WHO LIE OUTSIDETHE BOUNDSOF TRADITIONALIDENTITYFORMATIONS.
CRENSHAW 1994 (\\iillianrs.l(irnbcrl* ('rcnshan'."Mappingthe Margins:Intersectionality,
Identify
tr>oNitics,
andViolenceAgainstWomenof Color".In: MarthaAlbertsonFineman,RixanneMykitiuk,F.ds.The
PublicNatureof PrivateViolence.
(NewYork:I{oLrtl-eggq,
1994).p. 93-118.)
Nol only do race-basedpriorities function 1oobscurethe problenrofviolence suf-feredby womon ofcolor: certain rhctoricalstrategiesdirected
a l p o l i t r c i z r n gv i o l e n c ea g a i n s tw o n r e nm a y a l s or e p r o d u c ct h e p o l i t i c a lm a r g i n a l i z a t i o on f w o m e n o f c o l o r . S t r a t e g i e lsb r i n c r e a s i n g awareness
o l d o m c s t i cv i o l e n c ct e n d t o b c g i n b y c i t i n g t h e c o m m o n l ys h a r e da s s u r r r p t i otnh a t b a t l e r i n gi s a p r o b l e ml o c a t e di n t h e f a n r i l yo f t h e " o t h e r " -
n a m e l y .p o o r a n d / o rM i n o r i t y l a m i l i e s . l h e s t r a t e g yt h e n l i r c u s e so n d e m o l i s h i n gt h e s t r a w m a n . s l r e s s i n gt h a t s p o u s a a l b u s ea l s o o c c u r si n
r v h i t ee l i t e c o m m u n i t i c sS . o m ea u t h o r i t i e sa r c c x p l i c i t i n r e n o u n c i n gt h e l l s t c r c o t y p i c am l y t h s a b o u tb a t t e r e dw o m e n " ( W o m e n a n d V i o l e n c e
I Iearings. I 99 I . pt 2. p. | 39 ). A faw commsntalorshave evcn transfbrnredthc nrcssagcthat batlering is not exclt,slve/ya problcm of the poor or
nrrnority conrntunitics into a claim that it equal11'aflccts alI raccsand classcs( Ilorgmann I 990). t hat battering occurs in lantiIies ol' alI races
a n d a l l c l a s s e ss c c m st o b c a n e v e r - p r c s c ntlh c m eo f a n t i - a b u s ec a m p a i g n s(.W o n t e na n d V i o l e n c el l e a r i n g s ,l 9 9 l p t . l . p . l 0 l : p t 2 . p p . t i 9 .
1 3 9 ) . I r i r s t - p c r s o an n o c d o l e sa n d s t u d i e s .l i r r e r a n r p l e -c o n s i s t c n t l ya s s e r t h a t b a t t c r i n gc u t s a c r o s sr a c i a l .e t h n i c .e c o n o m i c .c d u c a t i o n a
. nd
r c l i g i o u sl i n e s .( W a l k e r l 9 t i 9 . p p . l 0 l - 2 : S t r a u s(.j c l l c s a n d S t e i n n r c t z l g l l p 0 . 3 1 . C l a r k 1 9 8 7 .p . l t i 2 n . 7 ' 1 ) . C o u n t l e s s f i r s t - p e r s o n
storiesbeginwith a statementlike. "l was not supposedto be a batteredwife. The inference.of course.is that there
ls a more likely vision of a batteredspouse.one whoseraceor classbackgroundcontrastswith the identitvof the
speakerto producethe irony. Playing on the contrastbetweenmyths about and realitiesof violencefunctions
eflectivelyto challengebeliefsaboutthe occurrence of domesticviolencein Americansociety.
Yet this tactic is tricky business.one that may sinrultaneouslly reil_vand erase"othered"women as victims of
domesticabuse. It is clear, on one hand, that attackingthe stereotypesunderlyingdominant conceptionsof
domesticviolenceis both a feministand antiraciststrategy.By pointingout that violenceis a universalproblem.
elites are deprivedof their false security,while non-elitefamilies are given reasonnot to be unduly defensive.
Moreover, all batteredwomen may well benefit from knowing that they are tar from alone. But there is,
nonetheless, a thin line betweendebunkingthc stereotypical beliefsthat onl-vpoor or minority women are battered.
and pushingthem asideto fbcuson victimsfbr whom mainstreampoliticiansand mediaare more likel),to express
c o n c e r nW
. h i l e i t i s u n l i k e l yt h a t a d v o c a t eisn t e n dt o p l a y i n t o s u c hs e n s i b i l i t i e s - a n
i tdi s e v e n l e s sc l e a rw h e t h e r
favorableresponses reflectthesesensibilities-the rhetoricaboutand representations of batteredwomen producedby
powerelitesprovidesomegroundsfbr concern.
An illustrationof this troubling possibjliqris lbund in the remarksof SenatorDavid Cohen in supportof the
V i o l e n c eA g a i n s tW o m e nA c t o f 1 9 9| . ' ' S e n a t oC r o h e ns t a t e d :
[Rapesand domesticassaults]are not limited to the streetsof our inner cities or to thosef-ewhighl),publicized
casesthat we read about in the newspapers or seeon the eveningnews.. . . It is our mothers,wives. daughters.
s i s t e r sf .i i e n d s .n e i g h b o r sa.n dc o w o r k e r w
s h o a r eb e i n gv i c t i m i z e d . l 8
SenatorCohen and his colleagueswho supportthe Act no doubt believe that they are directing attentionand
resources to all women victimizedby domesticviolence.Despitetheir universalizing rhetoricof "all" women .they
wereableto empathizewith femalevictimsof domesticviolenceonl)' b), lookingpastthe plight of "other"women.
and b), recognizingthe familiar facesof their own. The strengthof the appealto protectour" mothers,wives,
daughters. and sistersmust,on somelevel,be its raceand classspecificity.After all, it has alwaysbeensomeone's
mother,wif-e,daughter,or sisterwho hasbeenabused,even when the victim was imaginedto be Black, Latinaor
poor.The point hereis not that the ViolenceAgainstWomen Act is particularistic on its own terms.but that.unless
the senatorsand other policymakersconsciousl), examinewhlr violenceremainedinsignificantas long as it was
understoodas a minorit-vproblem.it is unlikel)' that women of color will shareequally in the distributionof
resources and concern.It is evenmore unlikely"however.that thosein power will be forcedto confrontthis issue.
As long as attemptsto politicizedomesticviolencefocuson convincingelitesthat this is not a "minority" problem
but their problem. any authenticand sensitiveattentionto the experiencesof minority women will probably
continueto be regardedasjeopardizingthe movement.
DBH
ADI w.
IDENTITY K
LINK: VICTIMIZATION
Individualswho are affectedby violenceare only understoodas victims. Suchvictimization is re-entrenchedby

institutionalpractices.
Jenness in 1999 ( Valerie, Chair and Professorof Criminology, Law & Society, Sociology, Managing Differencesand Making
Legislation: Social Movementsand the Racialization,Sexualization,and Gendering of FecleratHate Crime Law in the U.5., 1985-
/ 9 9 8 , S o c i a lP r o b l e m sp,p . 5 4 8 - 5 7 1 )
A sn{ial{on$tru{lisnist approa*h t$ vi$imixatlondevtr*s&fialyti{attrnti$nto the social

prilee$$c$by wttichp*iTfln$lxeom* rrcognixablr,knsry&,snd underst*odssvictimg,$sstlBsstd
tu injur*dpers$ns {HslneinandMiiler l9S0;tnsrkel$9}}. Thi*appruach t* rfie${udy$f vidir$-
irationis basrdon tht nCItiorl thatmcanin$d$*$n${inhrr* in ubje*s.but is conferedupon
themastheyareint*rpr*ted. organfued"andKpresentrd thr*ughs*rislintrranionby soeially
lqitimate collectivt*{xsr$,in thisccsrso{ialmovement d(:tivi$rs
anrllegis!*tor$"ensascd whar
Lostke{1991:}0?} calls-pe*pleprodu{tion." {Stherart$r$,erpuiallyrhernedia, alsoplayrole
in thc constru{tiCIn
$f hatt crinc andharrcrirnrli*irns. [e.g.,Sestlggg rln the "Iruneuadran-
$le"'l)$ocialconstructisni*s arcpanicularly interestedin undrntanding thedefinitisnal prn-
cesses thatresultin arsigning viclim$tatu$ to rcmeindividuals andgrCIupr, but n*t lo other$.
Suchprocrss$are$iilcalbrcau**,onc*d*ignatrd,virrirnstatuscarieswith it distinnunder-
standingl of thr saci*lrelations thatsuruounti theindividual, aswellat hislherrelalionship ro
a lergersacialpnobl*m. Amongotherthingp,the labfl of rriaimunderscor*s the irrdividual's
$tatusdsan iniurtd persunharmd by forcesbeynndhislhrresntrCIl; dramatires rhr injr-lred
or hnrmedperson's sssrntial innncrncs; rsndrr$hsrihimworlhyof others" csnccrnald ami*.
t&${t;anrJnftenrtsulttin legalrefnrmdrsignrdln *ddrrsstheanendant $ffi{l pnoblern {$alitein
antJMiller 1990;L$$ekelfg}; Weed1995|.Thh appr*achdcpansradicallylmrn conven-
tionalfr:rmulstions nf viciltniration
andallcwsr:$Io re{oncrptualizr virrimirationin termsof
i:rteraefonal,diseursivr,*nd institutionalpracticr$,
DBH
ADI
4.
IDENTITYK
LINK: VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMYN
Identity politics creates identity categoriesthat overlook differences within groups. This results in anti-
intersectionalmovementsthat disregardsdifferent dimensionswithin identity. Theseefforts will fail and make
violenceagainstpeopleinevitable.
CRENSHAW 1994 (Kimberle Williams, Acting Professorof Law, University of California ar Los Angeles,"Mapping the
Margins:f ntersectionality,
IdentityPolitics,and ViolenceAgainst Womyn of Color," The Public Neture of Private Violence,p. 93-
I18, http:,'/rvrvw.hsph.lrarvard.cclur'Organizations,'heirlthnetiWo(.'ifbrninisnrsrcrcnshau,.htrnl.)
The embrace of identitv politics,however. has been in tension with dominant conceptionsof social
iustice. Race. gender. and other identifv categoriesare most often treated in mainstream liberal
discourseas vestigesof bias or domination-that is. as intrinsicallv negative frameworks in which
rks t marstna ! Accordine to this
understanding. our liberatorv obiective should be to emrrtv such categories of anv social
siqnificance.yet implicit in certain strands of feminist and racial liberation movements,for example.
is the view that the social nower in delineatinsdifferenceneed not be the nower of domination; it
can instead be the source of political empowermentand social reconstruction.The oroblem with
identifv politics is not that it fails to transcend difference,as somecriticscharge, but rather the
oDDosite-that it frequentlv conflatesor ignores intra sroup differences.In the context of violence
aEainstwomen. this elision of difference is nroblematic. fundamentallv becausethe violence that
manv women exDerienceis often shapedbv other dimensionsof their identities.such as race and
class.Moreover,iqnoring differenceswilriz groups frequentlv contributes to tension arrrazgqrourrs.
another Droblem of identitv nolitics that frustrates efforts to noliticize violence against women.
Feminist liticize of women an
of DeoDleof color' have frequentlv nroceededas thouqh the issuesand experiencesthev each detail
occur on mutuallv exclusiveterrains. Al-though racism and sexismreadilv intersect in the lives of
real neonle.they seldomdo in feminist and antiracist practices.Andso,whenthepractices expound identity
as "woman" or "personof color" as an either/orproposition,they relegatethe identityof women of color to a locationthat
r e s i s t tse l l i n g .
DBH
ADI
4-l
IDENTITYK
IMPACT: GENERAL
The boundariesplacedon the body are convertedto the social.

at UC Berkeley, Trouble,pg. 166-167)
Gencler
Douglas'sPurity and Dangersuggeststhat the very contours

: body" are establishedthroush markinssthat seekto establi
specificcodesof cultural coherence.Any discoursethat establishesthe
iesof t
certaintaboosregardingthe appropriatelimits. postures.and modes
of exchangethat deflne what it is that constitutesbodies:
ideasabout separating,purifying, demarcatingand punishingtransgressions
have as their main function to imposesystemon an inherently
untidy experience.It is only by exaggeratingthe difl'erence
betweenwithin and without, aboveand below. male and f-emale.with
and against,that a semblanceof order is created.55
AlthoughDouglasclearlysubscribes to a structuralist
distinction
betweenan inherentlyunruly natureand an order imposedby cultural
means,the "untidiness"to which sheref-erscan be redescribedas a
regionof culturalunrulinessand disorder.Assumingthe inevitably
binary structureof the nature/culture distinction,Douglascannot
point towardan alternativeconfigurationof culturein which suchdistinctions
becomemalleableor proliferatebeyondthe binaryfiame.
Her analysis,however,providesa possiblepoint of departurefbr
understanding the relationshipby which socialtaboosinstituteand
maintainthe boundariesof the body as such.Her analysissuggests that
what constitutes the limit of the bod),is nevermerelymaterial.but
ace-the skin. i icallvsi{rnifr
transgressions: indeed.the boundariesof the bod),become.
within her anal)'sis.the limits of the socialper se.A poststructuralist
appropriationof her view might well understand the boundariesof the
body as the limits of the sociallyhegemonic.In a varietyof cultures,she
maintains,therearepollutionpowerswhich inherein the structureof ideasitself and
svmboli which shoul
is a tvne of is not likel

the linesof structure.cosmicor social"are clearlludeflned.
A pollutingpersonis alwa)'sin the wrong. He [sic] hasdeveloped
somewrong conditionor simpl)rcrossedover someline which
acementun
for someone.56
DBH
ADI az,
IDENTITYK
IMPACT: GENERAL
Sexualcategorizationinflicts physicalviolence.
BUTLER 1990-(judith, professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,pg.
l6l)
Noteaswellthatthecategoryof sexandthenaturarized institution

ofheterosexuality
areconstructs,
sociallyinstituted
andsociallyregulated
fantasies
or "fetishes,"
notnaturalcategories,
butpoliticalones(categories
that provethat recourseto the "natural"in suchcontextsis
alwayspolitical).Hence,the body which is torn apaft,the warswaged
amongwomen,aretextualviolences,the deconstruction of constructs
thatarealwaysalreadya kind of violenceagainstthe body,spossibilities.
DBH 77.
ADI
UNIVERSALITY BAD
Universalityis problematic,especiallybecauseof its inability to include differenceor be applicableholistically.

BUTLER 2000 1.luaith,Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,universaliry;Judith Butler, ErnestctLaclau und slavoiZi:ek.yerso.)
t 1.,,,
t r'tr,ttwc crn col'e to sonre
ltreliminary conclusions :ibout IIegel,s
///
lrrott-clurc hcrc: (l) rrni'crszrlity is a name wJrich unclcrc,,c,ssie'i{i,,^nt
accnr:lls and r.eversals of' meaning, ancl cannot lie recluceci
to zrnvof rts
co.stit.tivc 'rnorn.rrrs'; (2) it is i^cvitably hauntecl b), tlrt.
trace ,rf the
Pzrrtic'lar thi.g to which it is opp.secl, ancl this takes thc ftrrm (a) ol a
spcctral cloubling.l'ur.riversality, ancr (b) a clineine
, of tlrat Partic.lar
tlrrne t. urrivcrsaliryitsel{,exposing the formalism of its
claim as ,..cr:.s-
sarily inrpurc; (3) the relzrtionol'universality to its cultural
articrrlation rs
insupt:r:iblc; this rnearrs tliat irny lra.nscrrlturalnotion o[-
tlrc rrnivt:rs:rr
will lr<:sP.ctralizcd and slainecl by tlre cultural norms it
l)urports to
transce'cl; anrl (4) no 'otro. of ''iversality .a' rest e:rsily
wiihi' thc
tt.ti1r11crl lr sinrlc 'r'rlturc'. sincc tlit: very conc.pt oI
,' rr'ivarsalit), corn-
l ) c l sa n r r n t l c r . s t l r r r r l i r r gcorl r l t u r cl i s a r c l : r t i o no f c x c l r i i n g ca n c la t ; r s ko f
t r a . s l a t i . n . I r r r . r r n s w h i c l r w c r n i e l r t c r L l rH c g t ' l i a r r l r u t r v l r i r : l r
IIr:e.i
h i r n s e l l ' c l i cr l- r o rt r s c- i t b e c o n r c sn c c c s s a r yl o s t r . l l r c r r o I i o r ro l . : r ( l i s ( r r c r ( .
a n r l < : n t i t a t i v e r ' c : r r l t u r c c' :sr s c n l i a l l yo t h c r r o i t s e l I i n a c l t : l j r - r i t i 6 p a l
r.el,,
tiorrshiPr,vithallcrity.tlAncl hcrc wc rlrc not rclirrnns trr ole t:trllrrr<.
rvhiclr
clefines itst'lf' ovcr :tnrl aqairrstanol/nr,fbr that lcrrnrulation
lrrc.scrr,<"s tlrc
n o l i o n o f " r : r r l t u r . c ' a sa w h o l i s m . ( ) n t h r : c o n l r i u . ) ,r.^ , , . , , , . . s c c ] i i n t
ro
a p P r o a c ht h t : n o t i o n o f ' c u l t u r t : i n t c r r n so I n c l c l i n i n e
l t r o l r i r : n ro [ . l n t r r s _
l a t i o r r ,o n r : w h i r - l ri s s i e n i l i c a n t l y , r c l : t r ctror l h c
l r r o l r l e r ror l cr.,ss-t.rrllrrr.;rr
tri'rrsl:iti.rr lhat tht: c()rr.eJ)t.f'rr.ivcrsarity 1,2,..' r,ec,,,r,,,
//rrn L4-x,
DBH +1
ADI
UNIVERSALITY BAD
The universal exists solely to vanish the individual that does not share the same ideology-this results in
annihilation.
BUTLER 2000 1:uAith, MaxineElliottProfessorof Rheroricand ComparativeLiterature
ar UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,universality. Judith Butler, ErnestoLacleu antl slavoi Zizek,yerso.\
lf //Altt-t"rrul, ,!rtl.w.$a.lity
zrtlirsl clcnorecllhar whit:lr is self-irlt:nrir:al
ro rrll
I h u n r l t n l t e i n t r 5 , i t l o s e s t h a t si e l f -: liclcntity
id
c lccl n
l l tl ti tyv a
as a cconscquencc
su oue
cncc o
onscq off . .irts
itls rrelusal
e f li lrscar ll 1
,,,
tcr
it becglncsnot only sp.lir
h c l w c e na r ro l ] i t . i aa
l r r < al rut it beconrcsclisrrrcrn_
bereclinto an csta
tc
@ raclicallyrffir'cscnlc(l lry tl,r, eei;r,,I

willclrthettrlir,crslllclonot'i,"t.-,iIM.,,
,
tg,,ltttilrriltlti.rr]it, lr,,ttltirir'ot n'ntrtrihilnti,,.r
ll.nrn*lli.l,,,,r,:o-uiig
Fy
canberk:rivecl: itsannihilation isnilrilism.
r' Llceel's r.,,-irL, .*rq.ti.rii
.
i' tr,,.nililiiii,
We...'(rar.a.51)4r.
l'l egeldescribes thc nilrilisticconsec; ur:nct:s
o{' lornr:rl rroli6r,rs
6l' rr1i-
vers.lity i. ur.plric .errns.'l', tlrc cxtc't tlrat.ni'crslrlitv [Li]s t,
i,,,1,,t.i,
" - l , r ' , , .1, . , , 1 1 . 1 . , ' , . , y , r r , l, ,
,r,.rr,,,r
n l e n t l t l rr()srlllty t o partlcul:rrlty,
t t t l s t l l t t y to l t e r t i c u l : r r i t v . ll.contlrrucs
i t . c o n l i r r u c s lt()
t r ll)c
r e rar\!
r r r l rto r r r r . i r r r : r rj.l , . ,
r r :rnil.lltt!s_!!tc
veryhostilitybiwhir:h
it fuf-r*t.,t- tL,"ffif
V a n i s h i n g , : i r l ccl l t l t c t st h a t n e g a t i o n ,l l r t i t i s s o [ L r r c l a n r c n t a ] l v
tlcncrr<l-
e n t l r p o n t h : i t .v a ' i s h i n s t h a t w i t h o . ( t l r r r tv : r n i s h i ' q i t n , , r u l t l r , ,, , , , 1 ] , i , , , r .
W i t l r o r r t t l r i t t v ; r r r i s l r i n gi n r n r t . r l i i r < w
. yt,. r r r i g l r rs : r y .u j r i r z ts. r: r l i t v i r s . l l '
;..1,l ;il.'. ffiGmr way, univcrsality is nothi's rvitho.r its varrish-
i n g w h i c h r r r r : L r r si .r i I l e g e l i t r .
,q.
On cc t l re t ra rrsiir rcc ot' i' <livi clual li ti.-i;;;;;;;;;l;crrfiiTT-m
;
o p c r a t i o ' o f a b s t r a c t r r n i v e r s : r l i t y , , r r i v c r s ; r l i it 1y s . l f - v a . r r i s l r o s : r s
il
conccpt whiclr is sairl to irrr:h-rcle all such lifb: 'this vanislreclirnmr:tliar:r.is
t h c r r r r i v r : r s ar vl i l l i t s c l f ' 'f u a r a . 5 9 4 ) . LYl+3
//
DBH +{
ADI
ADI 2006
Dr. Dave'sLab
UNIVERSALITY BAD
Universality that seeksabsolutefreedom destroysindividuality
and particularity-destruction,
extermination.
and metaphoricaldeathis the result.
BUTLER 2000 (luoith, Maxine Elliott Professor of Rhetoricand comparariveLiteratureat UC Berkeley
Hegemony,
universality:JutrirhButler,ErnestoLaclauancrSlavojZizek,yerso.\ , Contingency,
\ A l r a r i n r P i i c a l i o nrsl o c sr l r i sc r . i t i r l r r c
f- o l . l b r . r n : r l i s lr,rlrv r . l b l r l r r . r l r i n l , _
' : r g - r ] t r n r v e r s a r r t iyr p ' r i t i c a l t c r m s ? 1 1i s i r n P . r t a ' 1
t. remcml>cr.tlrar
lor lleeel, t'c kcy ternrs or'his
lrhilosophic;rl'ocarrurarl,:rr.cr-t-hcar.scrl
scveral times, anrl tirut nc:irly evc.y
timt .hcy arc uttcrccl they itc.cr.rrc, ;r
cliflbrentmciining of reversca prior 'r-'is
onc. is espccrarlytruc,.r' rr.,'r.rrs
s t t c h a s ' t r n i v t l r : s a l i t ya' n c l ' a c t ' , l t t
2 l s 6 6 l ' , c o r r s t : r o r r s ' r : s sr r, ' t l , s c l l -
co'st:io,sness'. 'lllre sectio. entitrc<r'Abs.lrrtc
Frccrlor. anrr .r-i:rr'r, irr
Thc llte.nontutologl' q/'"5)ml tlraws u'on prior co'(.cptr().s
'1. tlr. clcccla.
it considc|spr.ciscll' wlrar an inilivicluar
c : r n t l o u r r < l r : rc . n r r i r i . n s o 1 .
stalc lcrror. l)rawing on tlrr: Iircnclr
r{cvorution, IJe:gcrrrnrrr:rstiurrls -- tlr.,
inilivitlual ns irrcatralrle6l ar:lion rrrlri..l,/.\ .^,. "--
, i.) qiill,
_ , . . u t t r r r t l r v r t l u ;orfl. l r i s".r,,,p,[ilijiq,il
o n . t r: L r . . l l - l 1Iy, l r i -n. . ; r st l r , .
norrrrol actron1.lr:rt eovt:rnecl n"g"t'r 1".ui.*, cri.x,,,.ri,rri .r. lvorrii' trrt.
^'d Iirrrd:rs.r's.ction. [.rrrr]crc'nclili.ns
.Ll:rl']rirl 'r- statctt:rr.r.,rr,
t
g;gr o[icr:r whiclr
const:iottstrcss ltrs l<.rst its c:rpir.iry 191'-..og!ljjr,,'.r
-;.,t*H*+:
]s r : r n ( l l nr t) v ( . 1 . ,,,
..* i r q . r i r rist l' ( p , r r . l5rB . lt;.
tlr:'rr.rttiviclual
. . # . - ^ ' i . l | l ( | | | \ | . 5 u | I { l ( . l : [ w'rks
. .. . r.1),lt.lloY.{lr l ( . q I | | | a'rr
i . r t ' l rli'cs
t r l r t ;urrclt:r.^
rll. r..eirrcr,r4ri.]r r:ails
ffi-,iiiiili",r
,t,.tffi
c n u l s t l t e r t r t n r ci r r r l i -
rs r;r<lgrllr
W tr H.gtl. t1,.,,,tlv,1...1
tIrî.oi.i,lJi^n
a n t r - ( l e c c L l l e l l r u c t t d U J j s e l l ,nyo t l r i n g n e s st h a t c o m e , so l . a r r o t l r i r r g r r r r s s .
ln his vicw,th. r,,iF*oF,t.ffi
cleathfuara. 360)
]]tl.!lifie1il-g.I,tlterel'ore,dead, but thjs
and me:rninss.'fhiit individuals
n of 'Ierior 6. rn. ,uk.rol-ffi]i.
qecdgrntii well-.locum.tt..l. Ivffi
sttrwivcd, but they are not 'i'divi<luals' in a'y normative sense.
!.rr"r oulrn
vv r rl, DBH
oil recognitron
o
(rLL(r)'
ion ancl
t ( ' e r t s .JuLrr'^,vrcruars
ancr of oi the powcr to externalize themst:lves tli..,,iuh
s u c h r ' d r v r c r u a r soecome
r r e t o m e nullrtres
n u l r i t i c swhose
w l r o s c sore
s o r cn c t i s to
4q!,b
Deprivecr
lJeprlvf
t o nullify
n r r i l i f v tlre
trr..
ADI
*orld thot h"
tlis?,, tlie answcr Hecel olfers is that it is ,the emi)ty point
of. the
absolutelyfree self', 'thg,coldesluqclmearre-iGfalt clcatt.r.r,,
no niore sie-
qL.
tl"oa ot q,.bb;gJJrr-t"*g* ^ -*O",,r,
"in."":thon -..ygt"g6il
UNIVERSALITY BAD
anddeniessociabilitybetweenhumans.This is merely'formal' freedomthat

Abstractuniversalityis narcissistic
deniesconcreteexperience.
BUTLER 2000 1;uAith,Maxine Elliott Professor of Rhetoricand Comparative
Literarureat UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,
universality,ludithButler,ErnestoLaclauanclSlavojZizek.yerso.)
'fhrrs,
( Hegel olr.jectsto tlre ficrrnulation of' abstract universality bv
| ,laiminq
that it is solipsisticand that it denies thc Iunclamental sociabil-
ity of humans: 'for that is.just what {ieedom is: being at home witir
onescl{' in one's otheq clepcnding upon onesel{, and beinc one's own
tleterminant . . .. Freedom fin this abstr;rctsensel is only prcscnt rvhcrc
tlrcre is no otlier lor mc that is not nryself'(para. 24, (tsalz2). 'l'his, rs
in IJr:gel's vicw, a melely 'lorrnal' freedom. Iior lrceclorn to bccomc con-
cretc, thoueht rnust 'immersc itself in Ilrc ntatter'.Subscc;ucntly hc will
czrution :rsalnst lbrrns of empiricism whit:h hold tlrat onc contrilntcs
nothing to the ol-r.jcct,but mcrcly trar:cs thc irrrrnanent I'ealurcslhnt it
rlisplays.Hcgcl will conchrclc tlrat not only is the thinkins scll' Iirrrda-
rnr:ntally rclatecl to what it sceks to knorv, but tire fbrnral sell loscs its
'lormillism'
once it is understood thzrt the proclrrction zrnrlexclusion o1
l h e ' < : o n c r t : l e ' i s z i n e c c s s : r r yp r e c o n c l i l i o n I b r t h e l n b r i c a t i o n o { ' 1 h t '
l i r r r n a l . O n n v e r s < : l 1l h; c c o n c r e l c c r i l n n o tb c ' h a t l ' o r r i t s o w r r , a r r r l i t r s
ctlually vain to disavr-rr.l'thc act ol'c:ognition tlrlrt clelir,,t'rs thc crrnt:rc1t'lo
tlre htrnrarr rnincl as an olr.jectof knowlcrlsc. lr/lr|lb
)
DBH ++.
ADI
UNIVERSALITY BAD
It is impossible
to createa universalthatwill be applicable
to all cultures.
BUTLER 2000 1.luaith,Maxine Elliott Professor of Rhetoricand Comparative
Literatureat UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,
Universality;,ludithButter,ErnestoLaclauancl slavo.jZizek,yerso.)
-/ ,rt
( [ hc implir:atron of' this view is ttrat any effbrt to estitlrlislrr.rnivcrsalitv
lls l r : t r r s c e n t l e n, rl f t u l l r r r a l l ) o r m s s c c n l sl r r b e i m p o 5 s i l l l eA
. ltlr,rrrulr
' I
t , r t l c r . a r r t<l lr c
nation as simplc unities, it cloesnot lbllow that the univcrsality rvhiclr
crosscscrlttrrcs oa a.n"rc". t
I
I tlrcrelblc trarrsccnclculture itsel{.In Lict, il'IIescl's notion oi'rrnivers:rl-
I t ) ' t s l ( ) l ) l o v ( ' g o { x lt t t t t l r rr o r r t l i l i o r r s , , [ ' l r y l r r .i tul l t r r r t ' sl r r t l v l c i l l : r t i r r e
nationll bounrlarics, it lvill ha,,'i:to becorne a univi:rsality {orgccl thr.ouglr
l l r c w o r k o [ ' c r r l l u r a l t r a . r r s l l t i o nA . n c l i t w i l l n o t b r : p o s s i b l t :t o s c t t l r t :
' l r o r r n c l : i r i cosl ' t h c c u l t . u r r :isn < p e s t i o r r i,r si f o n e c u l t u r c ' sn o t i o n o f ' u n r -
vcrsality corrlclbc translalccl into anotlrcr's. flult.ures arc not bounrlcrl
cntilics;themoclcofrl.reircxchiingcis,i,'|actffirt-
+^- -
trty.'-11rvc lrc to bcuin to rctltink rrniversaliwin lcrnrs <tf tlris t'onstitutivcr
+
a c l o [ < : r t l t r t t t' a
. rla n s l a t i o n , ' " v l ri si cs]or n r e t l r i r rI gh o ; l r -t o r r l r k r . t ' l t . l lrrrl c r
, -,,'_:gg-,llrr.'.
c o l 1 1 r ( ) r y r L r snso r a t c l t ' , r l , r g i c , rl l L t r - r l : r t . r , j i ' l r r r t r l - l i r r r l L l t ' I i s i o t t . l l r l ]
t' 'irrrJcMTb
DBH 43
ADI
UNIVERSALITY = EXCLUSION
Universalitymakesexclusioninevitablebecauseit is in constantchangefrom abstractness

to concreteness.
BUTLER 2000 1:uaith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiterature at UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,universality: Judith Butler, ErnestoLaclau and SlavojZizek,yerso.)
r
rrniversality
l]Y1,li:*..,rhc'inrernal.form,of wi[ proveto ]re,ir will
' (ro.r)'c\c rrc 11'13164 to the co'crete form of rrniversalir.yas
well. IJcgêl
t h c n b c g i ' s t r o b . i e c to v e r t l y t o t ' c
bifurcation.r'thc'crson that th.
abstraclion of' nnivcrsarity rccf ires: "'l'
is thinr;ingas tltc .subjcct,ar-rd
sincc I.rn:rt the same tirne in all my
s c n s a t i o n s , ' o t . i o r r sr,r r r " t " r , , , t a , . ,
tho.sht is present everywherc ir.nclpervacles
:ril tliese de tcrrnirations as
{theirl <:atcg.rv'(par^. 20; br:rckets ir tra.sl:rtio.). T.}rc positi'e
'l'^tl.rrrs or-thc
rrrlr.rircs
thc .xclrsi,,rr
of *,t..r i*fffiilLfilili*
,ttttivcr):rl
lronl thc s e l l I o . i t s d e f i . i t i . n . U ' i v c r s a l i t y i n i t s a . r r s t r ^ clti r r r ' t l r r r "
s t l t c l e v e l o i ' a l r s t r a t : t i o" r r
%
recluircrl iit,' tl,
What is uni'crszrlt
not6&ifrlifiiilfiilrt:uns ro evcry pcrsorr.ln<let,,l,i[.u,c c:arrsa1.rlrar
tl"..ptfl", rtl@ yr'* l!;Gl;;;;llG,
r'sr) llertilur l(i cvcr.yp"r's.,rr,we 1,,t'
t:lrtifictl a ''i'cr.slrl
i
r r n i r t r : s a l i t y . l . l r r i s r, l r < ,
al)str:rctrcqllu-clllorlt on urrivcrsaliryprodut:cs a sitrrati,xr
ip lvlrir,l, inll
f;';
DBH ?q,
,f;Fl
uNIv.gut5^,uT(
+V \or€r\Y€ ID€NTI.(Y K
Universalities create a clash of cultures which erupts in violence, the concept of Universality needsto be
left permanently open .
9'rtfueZ
Htrin 1992 fJudith,MaxineElliot Professorin the Departmentof Rhetoric and ComparativeLiteratureat UC Berkeley,
ContingentF oundations,FeministsTheorizethe Political, pp.7-8)
[. LIow is it that we nright grouncla theory or politics in a speechsrtLlzrliolt

or subjectposition which is "universal," rvhen the very categoryof the uni-
versalhas only begun to be exposeclfor its own highly ethnocentricbiascs'/
H-qs11nany"U.!ffgpql!'".-_ :ggLlgql qrl1!'lS_qbal-e-xleutj.s-*cgl-1qi{sonfJict
q!!9$4!ga-b1e_p the_clashing_,-o,l a sglS!_plr-lq!fg_d.andintransiCqnt__::q!i-
versalities," a conflict which cannot be negotiatcdthrougl'rrecoursc to zl
Juliuially imperialiSt notion of 1he flu1i1,c1s3!l'q1,-l-41he-1, wl&lfwil:l oiily
G"sijlved througli suChrccourscat the cost of violcnce'?Wc have, I think,
frltnessedthe conccptualand rnateriatviotcuCsof thisi'actice in thc Unitecl
States'swar against lrac1,in which thc Arab "other" is understoodkt be
radically "outside" thc univcrsal structurcsof' rcason and cletrtocracyand.
h e n c e ,c a l l s L o b e b r . o u g hfto r c i b l y w i t h i n . S i g n i f i c a n t l y ,t h c U S l i a d t o a b
rogate the denrocraticprinciplcs of political sovereignty aucl frcc speech,
anrongothcrs, to cf'f'cctthis forcible return of Iraq to the "dcrnocr-atic"lblcl.
a n d t h i s v i o l c n t n x r v c r e v c a l s ,a n r o u go t h e r t h i n g s ,t h a t s u c h n o t i o n so f u n i -
versalityare installcclthrough thc abrogationof thc very universalprinciples
to be inrpIementcd. w{lf4g1o llI:a! lglSl r[g$'"ryL.A ir,t1._:,_l1lj'
iality more gencrally, it is perhapscspeciallyurgcnt to undcrscorcthe very
c a i e g o r yo f t h e " u n i v c r s i r l "a s a s i t c o f i n s i s t c n ct o n t q s ta n c lr e s i g n i l i c a t i ( ) 1 1 . / '
Ciuen ihe contestcclcharactcrlof the tcrm,,tut,,r.rirJfronr thc start a pro-
cedural rlr substantivcnotiotr of the universal is of treccssityto itnl)osq 11
c u l t u r a l l yh e g c r n o n i cn o t i o n o n t h c s o c i a l l ' i e l d .T o h e r a l dt h a t n o t i o n t h c n
as the philosophicalinstnrrnentthat will negotiatebctwccn con{.lictsol. l.lttwct'
is precisclyto sal'cguardanclrcpntclucea position of hegernonicpower by
installingit in the rnetapoliticalsite of ultirnatenornrativity.
I( rnay at first seenrthat I agnsirnply calling lbr a rnore concreteand
internallydiverse "universality,"]a rnore synthetic and inclusive notion of
the universal, and in that way comnritted to the very foundationalnotion
that I seekto undcrmine.But my task is, I think, signilicantlydifferent from
that which would articulatea comprehensiveuniversality.In the first piace,
such a totalizingnotion could only be achievedat the cost of producing new
and further exclusions.The term "universality" would have to be left per-
nranentlyopen, pcrmanentlycontested,permanentlycontingent,in brder not
kr foreclosein advancefuture clainrsfor inclusion.Indeed,from my position
and from any historicallyconstrainedperspective , any totalizing cor"rcept
of
the universalwill shut down rather than authorizethe unanticipatedand un-
anticipatable,,claims that will be made under the sign of "the universal." In
this sense,,ijg n913e4g_away with the category, but try,Lngto lelieve rhe
q4tegoly_ol!!:&tudgqqlqllt_Wqisht in order to render it as a_sire_of+er-
11aqe_t!_p9!rt i c a_l_g
o ntestJ
$o.
DBH
ADI
IDENTITY K
IMPACT: LOGIC OF APARTHEID
Identity Politics recreatethe logic of apartheid.

LACLAU 1992 (Ernestois a professorat the University of Essexwhere he holds a chair in Political Theory.
"Universalism,Particualrism,and the Questionof ldentity" in Octobea Vol 6l (Summer 1992)
There is a secondand perhaps more imp,orrantrtra$onwhy pure partic-

ularism is self-deleadng.Let us aecept,fr:r th* sake of ersumsnr, the above-
mentioned preestablishedharmony a$ prssible.ln rhar ca$s,the yrrinus parric-
ularisms would not bc in antagonisticreladon, but would coexisrin a ceiherent
whcle. This hypothesirshowr why ttre {trsument fur pure perrieularismis ulti-
mately inconsistenl. For if each idendry is in a differeniial, nonantagonistic
reladon to all other idenddes,then the identi*y in quesrionir purely diffirendal
and relative: it presupposesnot only the presenceof all rhe other identitiesbur
also the total ground that constitutesthe difference$(r diffcrences.f.ven worse,
we know very well that the reladonsbetweengroup$are cCInsdtuted as relations
of power-i.e", that eaehgroup is nnt only differenr from the others but that,
in many case$,each consdtute$such difference on the basiscf the exclusion
and subordination. Now, if n particularity ssser$ it*lf a$ m€rc pardcularity, in
a purely differendal reladon with other particularides,it is sancrioningthe sraru$
quo in Power relations betweenthe groups. This is exactly the notion of -'sep-
arate development$"as formulated in ap*rtheid:only the differential aspectis
stressed,while thc relatieinsof powtr *n which the latter is basedare sysremar-
ically ignored.
This lastexampleis imporunt. Coming from a discursiveuniverse-South
African apartheid*opposire that of the new particularisrns,ir noneth€le$sre-
vealsthe $ameambiguitiesin the csnstructionof difference,and it thur sugge*rr
n way to undersHnd a generally disregarded dimen*ion of rhe relationship
betweenparticr.rlarismand univer*alism.The basicpoinr is this: I cannor as$ert
a differential identity without distinguishingit fmm a conrexr,but in the process
I am assertingthe contexl as well. The oppositeis alsotrue: I canneitdestrtrya
context without alsodestroyingthe identity of the particular subjecrwhn carrir$
out the destruction"It i* a well-known historicalfact that an opp,csitionalforce
whoseidendty is constructedwithin a certain systemof pr:wer is bnund up with
that system; it rnay prrvent the full cCIn$tirution of identiry, but, at the $am€
time, it is its condition of existence.And any victory against rhe sysrernalsei
destabiliaesthe identitv of rhe victorinusforce"
DBH
ADI BI
ADt 2006 Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
IMPACT: LOGIC OF APARTHEID
This logic of apartheidextendsbeyondthe dominantgroups,to the minds of the oppressed,wherethey accept

subjugationin the absenceof a more radicalvision of democracy.
LACLAU 1992 (Ernestois a professorat the University of Essexwhere he holds a chair in Political Theory.
"Universalism,Particualrism,and the Questionof ldentity" in October,Vol 6l (Summer 1992)
I do not have *pace to explore the varioue theorerical dimensions of rhis

alternadve, but I want to derive three impnrtant political conelusions from it.
First, the construction of differential identities on the basis of total closure is
viableor progressivepolitical alternative.k would be a reacrionarypolicy,
lot 3
for instance,in contemporary WesternEurope, for immigran* from Noithern
{frica or Jamaicato refuse ts participatein WesternEuiopean instirutions on
the basisthat their cultural identity ii different and rhat European institutions
are not their concern. In this way, all forms of subordination and exctusion
rvould be consolidatedunder the excuseof mainmining pure idenrities. The
Iogic of apartheid is not only a discourseof domin"it'g.orps; it can also
permeatethe identitlgs.of the oppressed.The democrari. pi*eiu can be deep.
ened and expanded if it is made accountableto the demandsof a large section
the population*minorities, ethnic groups,erc.*traditionally exclubed frorn
9f
it' In this sense'liberal demccratic tfieory musr be deconstructed.Originally
conceived ftrr far rnore homogeneoussocieties,this theory war based on rit
kii9: of unexpressedassumptionsthat no longer pertain. Present social and
political strugglescan help us move in rhe diredlen of *** democraticpracric€s
and a new democratictheory that are fully adaptedto the presentcircumstances.
That political pardeipadon{ianlead to politicaland socialinregration is cmtainly
true, but political and cultural segregariunismcan produce exacily rhe rame
rcsult.In any{a$e,thr dcclineof rheinmgrationist
abiliticsof thc Westernstare$
rnahespoliricalconfarmirma rather unlikelyourcome.
DBH 82.
ADI
ADI 2006
DBH Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
IMPACT: RESSENTIMENT ADI

The inability of the personof ressentimentto forget manifestsinto a paralyzingand life negatingforce.
ZUPANCIC 2003 (Alenka.TheShorte,st Shttdrnt'.,Vi,,/--r./rt,'r
l'hilosophyof the Tu,o.Massachusetts:
MIT, 2003.pg.
s6-6
r)
There rs also an important differencebetween forgivrng anrl ory of the body"). And Nietzscheanoblivion is not so much an
(what Nietzschecalls) forgetting. Forgivenesshas a lterverselva1,or effacementof the traumatic encounter as a preservationof its ex-
involving us even further ir-rdebt. To forgive somehow always rrn- ternalcharacter,ofits foreignness,
ofits otherness.
plies to pay for the other, and thus to use the very occurrence ofin- In Unftrshionoble Secondpiece ("On rhe Uriliry and Lia-
Observations,
iury and its forgivenessas a new "engagementring." Nietzsche bility of History for Life"), Nierzschelinks the quesrion of forget-
makesthis very point in relation to Christianity: the way God hasfor_ ting (which he employs as a synonym for the
ahistorical) to the
givenour sins has been to pay fbr them, to pay for them with ].Iis own questionof the act. Forgetting,oblivion, is the very condition of
"flesh." Thrs is the fundamental perversityof Christianity:while possibility fbr qr..;g1,_in rhe strong senseof rhe word. Memory (the
forgiving, it simultaneouslybrandishesat us tlle cross,the instru- "historical")
is cternal
sleeplcssness
and alert insonrnia, a statein which
ment of torture,the memory of the one who sufleredand died so that no great
thing can happen, and which could even be said to serve
r,r'ecould be forgiven, the memory of the one who paid for us.
this very purpose. Considering the common conception according
Chrlstianity{brglves,but doesnot forget.
to which memory is something monumental that ,.fixes',certain
One could saythat,with the eyesof'the sinnerfixed on the cross,
events,and closesus within their horizon, Nietzscheproposesa sig-
lorgiving crearesa new debt in the very processofthis act.It forgives
nificantly different notion. It is preciselyas an eternal openness,an un_
what was done, but it doesnot fi>rgivethe act of forgiving itself.On
ceasingstreom, that memory can immobilize us, mortify us, make us
the contrary,the latter establishes a new bon<land a new clebt.It is incapableof action.
Nietzscheinvites us to imagine the extreme ex_
now inlinjte mercy (as the capacityof forgiving) that susrainsthe
ample of a human being who does not possessthe power to forget.
infinite debt, the debt as infinite. The debt is no longer brought
Such a human being would be condemned to seebecoming every
about by olrr actions;it is brought about lry tlre at:toiforgiving us
where: he would no longer believe in his own being, would see
theseactions.Weare indebted for forgrvt:ness. The infinite capacity everything flow
apart in turbulent particles,and would lose himself
to forgive rnight well become the infbrnal flarne in which we "tern- in
this stream of becoming.He would be like the true student of
per" our debt and guilt. This is why Nietzschecolnters the concept Heraclitus.
A hr.rmanbeing who wanted to experience things in a
of forgiving with the concept of for6ettin6 ("a good exarnple of'this thoroughly
historical manner would be like someone forced to
in modern tirnes is Mirabeau, who had no memory for insults and
go without sleep.,8Memory holds us in etemal motion_it keeps
vile actions done to him and was unable to forgive simply because
opening numerous horizons, and this rs preciselyhow rt immobr-
he-forgot").?o
lizes us, forcing us into frenetic activity.Hence, Nietzscheadvances
This is perhaps the moment to examine in more detail what
a thesisthat is as out of tune with our time as it was with his own:
Nietzschean"forgetting" is actuallyabout.What is the capacityof "every
living thing can become healthy, strong and fruitful only
forgettingasthe basisof "greathealth"?Nietzscheclaimstharmem-
within a defined horizon; if it is incapable of drawing a horizon
ory entertains some essentialrelationship with pain. This is what
around itself and too selfish,in turn, to encloseits own perspectlve
he describesas the principle used in human "mnemotechnics":
within an alien horizon, then it will feebly waste away or hasten
"lf something is to stayin the memory ir must be burned in: only to
its timely end."teOf course,Nietzsche'saim here is not to preach
that which never ceasesto hurt staysirr the memory."rT Thus, if
narrow-mindedness and pettiness, nor is it simply to affirm the
memory is essentiallyrelatedto pain (here it seemsthat Nietzsche
ahistorical againsthistory and memory. On the contrary, he clearly
claims the opposite of what psychoanalysisis claiming: thar trau-
statesthat it-i-so:]y by thinking, reflecring, comparing, analyzing,
matic eventsare the privileged oblects of repressrcn;)'er pain is
and synthesizing (i.e. only by means of rhe power ro urilize rhe pasr
not the same thing as trauma, iust as "forgetting" is nor rhe same
for lif, , and to reshapepast eventsinto history) that the human
be-
thing as repressing),then forgetting refers aboveall ro rhe capaciry
ing becomesproperly human_yet, in the excessof history, the hu-
not to nurture pain. This also means the capacitynot to make pain
man being ceasesto be human once again, no longer able to create
the determining ground of our actions and choices.What exactly
gllnven-t. This is why Nierzscheinsists that "every grear historical
is-p_ain(not so much physical pain, but, rather, the "mental pain" €vent"
is born in the "ahistorical atmosphere,,,that rs to say,rn con_
that can haunt our lives)? It is a way in which rhe subject inrernal-
ditions ofoblivion and closure:
rzesand oppropriotes some traumatic experienceas her own bitter
treasure.In other words, in relation to the traumatic event, pain is Imagine a man seizedand carried awayby a vehementpassionfor
not exactly a part of this evenr,bur alreadyirs memory (the "mem a woman or for a greatidea;how his world changes!Looking back-
6a
IDENTITY K
IMPACT: RESSENTIMENT
ward he feels he rs blind, listening around he hears what is unfa_

only in terms of'knowledge). It could be worthwhile to
miliar as a dull, insignificant sound; and those things that he contemplate
perceives at all he never before perceived in this way; so palpable the role playedby the imperotive of memory. Could we nor saythat one
and near, colorful, resonant, illuminated, as though h. *..e of the fundamenral reasonsfbr the difliculty of Hamlet's
position is
"pp.._
hending it with all his sensesat once.All his valuations are changed precisely the structural incompatibility of memory and action_
and devalued; . . . Ir is the most unjust condition in the world, nar_ thar is ro say,rhe fact that acrion uhirnarely always ,,betrays,,mem_
row, ungrareful to the past, blind to dangers, deaf to warnings;
a ory? And do we nor encounter something similar in
tiny whirlpool of life in a dead sea of night and oblivion; the wider
y.t
t h i s c o n d i t i o n - a h i s t o r i c a l , a n t i h i s t o r i c a l t h r o u g h a n d t h r o".rJ
phenomenon of melancholy (in the play,Harnlet is actually
ugh_ said to
is not only womb of the unjust deed, but of every just deed as well; be "melancholic") asa never-endinggriefthat keepsalive,
through
and no artist will create a picture, no general win a victory, and no pain, the memory of what was iost?Aclditionally,although
we can
people gain its freedom without their having previously desired recognize in this kind of melancholy a forrn of fidelity
(for in_
and striven to accomplish these deeds in iust such an ahistorical
stance-to use Nietzsche'swords_fidelity to ,'a woman or
condition. . . . Thus, everyone who acts loves his action infinitely a great
idea"), rhis kind of fidelity, bound ro memory, sliould
more than it deserves to be loved, and the best deeds occur in such be distin
an exuberance of love that, no matter what, they must be unwor_ guished from fidelity to the very event of the encounter wirh this
thy of this love, even if their worrh were otherwise incalculably wontan or idea. Contrary to the first form, this second form
of fi_
great.ro delity implies and presupposesrhe power to forget.
Of course, this
does not mean to forget in the banal senseof no longer remember
If we read this passage carefully, we note that the point is not simply ing the person or the idea in question,but in the sensethat
forget
-opens
that the capacity to forget, or the "ahisrorical condition,,'is the con_ ting liberates the potential of' the encounter itself,
ancl
dition of "great deeds" or "events." On the conrrary: it is the up-precisely through rts "closure"-the possibilityof
pure a new one.
surplus of passion or love (for something) that brings about this
If we return to the question of the asceticideal, we can easilysee
closure of memory, this "ahistorical condition.', In other words,
it is its link to the imperative of memory: the "sleeplessness"it generares
not that we have first to close ourselves tvithin a defined horizon
in is very closelyrelated to the stateofbeing "everlastinglyawake" that
order then to be able to accomplish something. The closure takes
Nietzsche identifies as one of the essentialfeatures of the ascetic
p-lacewith the very ("passionate") opening toward something (..a ideal. The same is true of frenetic activiry as the very impossibil-
woman or a grear idea"). Nietzsche's poinr is that if this surplus
pas ity of actually acting and of the obsessionwirh the fact that every,
sion engages us "in the midsr of life," instead of rnortifying us, it
tlring that happensto us, or everythingwe do, has to be registered
does so via its inducement of forgetting. Indeed, I could menrion
a sonttwhere.
qurte common experience here: whenever something important
happens to us and incites our passion, we tend to forget a.nd dismiss
the grudges and resentments we might have been nurturing before.
Instead of "forgiving"those who might have injured us in the past,
we forget and dismiss these iniuries. If we do not, if we,,work
on
our memory" and strive to keeP these grudges alive, they will most
probably affect and mortify our (new) passion.
It could also be interesting to relate Nietzsclte's reflections from
the quoted passage to the stoly of Homlet,in which tbe imperative to
remember, uttered by Hamlet's father's Ghost, plays a very promi-
mel, the Ghost repeats to Hamlet, thus
mel Remember
nent role. Remember
engaging him in the singular rhythm that characterizes the hero of
this play-that of the alternation between resigned apathy and fre-
neric activity or precipitate actions (his killing of Polonius, as well
as that of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern; his engagement in the duel
with Laertes . . .). This movement prevents Hamlet from carrying
out the very deed hls father's Ghost charges him with. Many things
have been said and written about the relationship between action
and knowledge in this play, and about how knowledge
Hamlet from acting. Although the two notions are not unrelated, tt
prevents
DBH
might be interesting to consider this also in terms of memory (not
ADI s1
lhJflTY u_
ADI 2006 ,, /.L
brown
i- S,f,vl rî[4i '':t
0wtri!,,o,:y',.?
THE REACTION TO OPRESSIONBY POLITICIZED IDENTITY ONLY INSTILLS POWERLESSNESSINTO

ITSELF.
Brown, 95 (WendyBrown is professorof Women'sStudiesat the Universityof California,SantaCruz."statesof

Injury: Powerand Freedomin Late Modernity,"Copyright 1995by PrincetonUniversityPress,ISBN 0-69l-02gg0-
3, p72-4)
Of course, Zarathustra'sexceptionaiityin what he is willing to con-

front and bear, in his capacitiesto overcomein order to create,is Nretz-
sche'sdevice for revealingus to ourselves.The ordinary will. steepedin .
the economy of slave morality, devisesnleans llg-g.t r4-gM nEbn-
it"lua"d to r,l*t tttr d;GA"--;-.r* that reiteratethe cause of the
-ffiqli,that continuallv reinfect the narcissisticwound to its c3p3-
ciousness inflicted bv the past. "Alas," says Nietzschc, "every prisoner

isoned will rcdecmshimselt
becomes a fbol; and the imprisoned himself toolishly.'
foolishly.":ti
-foolish becauseit does not resolve
FroB this foolish redemption-foolish resolve-t
the
,, ill'" ."-.^. l - ' , ' t^ - l . . m a k c s a - w ' o r l di n i t s i m a t e - i s born thc wrrth oI
revenge:
"that which was" is the name of the stonc [the will] cannot move. And so he
moves stoncsout of wrath and displeasure,and he wreaks revengeon what-
evcr does not feel wrath and displeasureas he docs. Thus the will, thc libera-
tor, took to hurting; and on all who can suffer he wrcaks revengefor his
inability to go backwards.This . . is what reuengeis'.the will's iil will against
time and its "it was."3e
Rcvcnqc as a "rcf,ction," a subsritutc For rhe crprcity to act. proJucc>

idcntituri6oth bound to thc historv thar produccd it rnd asa reproachto .
the present which embodics that hislgrv. The wilLh:rt "took to hurtine'j
in its own impotence against its past becomes (in the florm of an identit,v
whosc very existence is due to hcightened consciousnessof the immov-
ability of its "it was," its history of subordination) a will that makcs not
o n l y a p s y c h o l o g i c a lb " , . @ a prrcticc thrt-
reiterates the existence of an identitv rvhose present past ls one of rnsrs-
tentlv Lrnredeemable iniurv. This past cannot be redeemed unless thc
t,jiity .;t;. t" b.'-;tt.a-rn rt, and it cannot ceaseto bc invested rn it
without giving up its identity as such, thus giving up its economv of
avenging and at the sanlc time perpeturting its hurt-"whcn he then stills
the pain of the wound he at the sarnetime infectsthe wortnd."ao
In its emergcncc as a protest against mrrginalization or subordination.
ooliticized idcntitv thus becomes attached to its own exclusion both be-
c a u s ci t j s T i E m i s e d o n t h l s e x c l u s t o n t o r l t s v e r y e . \ i s t c n c ea s i d e n t r t v a n d
becarlse-the formatio" of id""tit,t' ,t th. t as exclusron.-
DBH bo
ADI
rD€Nr\T{ t_
ADI 2006 r /-)
brown
I g9ot* 45 Cot-rTrP
vvs"7
ausmcnts qr "altcrs rhe dircction of the suffcring" entailed in subor4irr,a-

tlon or n-rargrnahzatr!,j!!y-finding a site of blame for it. But in so doinq,.
---t---:--:-
#
It installs its pain ovcr its unrcdecmcd history in the vcry foundation of its
n n l i t i r e l r l a i m i n i t s d e m :
pglitical claim, in its dcmand for rccognition n d f o r r e c o p n i t i o n as
a s idcntit)'.
i d c r r t i t v . l o c a t i n q a stte
I n locating
In site
off bblanie
l a m e ffontsor rts p sv e r iits
over
o w e r l c s s r - r c so
oowerlcssltcss ts past-a
p a s t - a past
p a s t of
o f injurl',
l n j u r ) t , .l
. l prst
p r s t as
a sa
.o
hurt will-and ]o.rti,l f
p,r\-g!$!!S_ssin thc prcscttr,it cortvcrrsthis rcasgryg-ljSa!-Slbicizing-r
hq11 c,r-cn
fgl_tlrf,g_pu14ics of rccrirllinatiorr tl.rat scckr lo-avglfgel]E
w h r l e i t r c a f f i r m s i t , . d i s c u r s i v e l vc o d i f i c si @
:nunciates itsclf. makcs clairns for itsclf, oniy by crrtrcnchinq.
if,ttotr, and with rt thc loss of futurity characteristic of t
same way, the gcncralizcd olitical im e n c cp r o d u c c dh g h c u b i q u i -

discontinuous netw itical and economic
power is rcite."tcd in the investments oflatc .crn democracy s prl-
rnarv oopositional p o l i t i c a l formations.
DBH
ADI Bu.
ADt 2006 Dr. Dave's Lab
IDENTITY K
GENDER BINARIES IMPACT
Gender binaries serveas a gender regulation and thosethat act of thosebinaries are punished.
Butler in 88 lluOitn,AssistantProfessorof Philosophyat GeorgeWashington,PerformativeActs and GenderConstitution;An
Essayin Phenomenology and Feminist
TheoryT, h e a t r eJ o u r n a lV, o l . 4 0 ,N o . 4 ,p p . 5 1 9 - 5 3 1 )
As a c*nsequencsrfrendercannot be understnsdas * rsltrwhich either €xpressc$

*r disguise$an interitrr o$€lf,'whether that 's*lf is a*nc*ived a$ spxedor n$t. As
performsncex'hich is perfcrmadve-&etrd*r i$ an '&ct.nbrontJlyronstrusd, which
cCInstructsthe swial Sction*f it* *wn F$y{hol$$italinterir:ri$. As opFo$edtoa view
sucha$ [rving Coffrnan's*'hieh positsa $etfwhirh *$$ume*and exshanse$variCIus
'rQle$'within the complex
sociale.xpectations of the 'gam*' of modern life,rl I arn
suggestingthat this sElfis not $nly irwtrierably 'out*ide,' r*)n.stitutedin soeialdis-
course,but that the ascriptipnuf interirarityis itself a publically mgulatedand sanc-
tioned farrn of essenc*fabrication.Send*rs, then, can be neither true nur false,
neithtr rs&l nsr apparent.And yet, qrnei* curnpelledttr live in a world in which
gender*e$nstituteuniveicalsignifiers,in r+.hichgenderis stabilized.poiarieed"ren-
dered discretearrd intrnctabl*, In effect, g*nder is marle tn cnrnply with a mndel of
truth and falsity '*.hichn$t only c*ntradictsits ow'nperform*tive fluidity" but servrs
a soqialpoliry o{ gendtr regulationand c*ntrol. Perfirrmingone's gender wrong
initiatesa set of punishmentsboth *bvi*us and indir*$. and perfrlrrningit well
provirles the reassurancethat there is arr essentialismof gender identify after all.
Thatthis reas$uran{e is sneasilydisp}acedbv anxiety,thatculturr soreadilypunishes
or urarginalie*stha,*ervhc fail to perform the illusian of genderessentialismshould
be sign enoughthnt on s{}meler,*l there is socialknax,ledgethat the truth or falsity
of gtnder is nnly sociallycompelledand in n$ s€n$eontologicallynec*ssit*tEd"t{
DBH
ADI 8+,
IDENTITYK
IMPACT: HETEROSEXUAL IDEALS BAD
Imposition of heterosexualnorms is guaranteedto fail miserably.

BUTLER 1990-(Judith, professor
of philosophyat UC Berkeley, Gencler pg. 155)
Trouble,
My ownconviction is thattheradicaldisjunction positedby Wittig

betweenheterosexualityand homosexualityis simply not true,that
there are structuresof psychichomosexualitywithin heterosexualrelations,
and structuresof psychicheterosexualitywithin gay and lesbian
sexualityand relationships.Further,thereare other power/ discourse
centersthat constructand structureboth gay and straightsexuality;
heterosexualityis not the only compulsorydisplayof power that
informs sexuality.The ideal of a coherentheterosexualitythat wittig
describesas the norm and standardofthe heterosexualcontractis an
impossibleideal,a "f-etish,"as shehersel{'points out. A psychoanalytic
elaborationmight contendthat this impossibilityis exposedin virtue of
the complexityandresistance of an unconscious sexualitythat is not
alwaysalreadyheterosexual. In this sense,heterosexualityotlers normative
sexualpositionsthat are intrinsicallyimpossibleto embody,and
the persistentfailureto identifyfully and without incoherence with
thesepositionsrevealsheterosexuality itself not only as a compulsory
law, but as an inevitablecomedy.Indeed,I would ofrer this insightinto
heterosexuality as both a compulsorysystemand an intrinsiccomedy,a
constantparody of itself. as an alternativegayl lesbianperspective.
DBH 8s
ADI
IDENTITY K
DISCOURSE SHAPES REALITY
Languageis a repeatingsetof actsthat createsfictitious ideasof fact. Our resistanceis key to questioningthese
misperceptions.
BUTLERl990(Judith,professorofphilosophyatUCBerkeley,Gende p rgT. 1r o4u6b- 1l e4,7 )
Languageeainsthe powerto create"the sociallyreal" throughthe
locutionaryactsof speakingsubjects.Thereappearto be two levelsof
reality,two orrjersof ontology,in wittig's theory.Sociallyconstituted
ontologyemergesfiom a morefundamentalontologythat appearsto
be pre-socialand pre-discursive. whereas"sex" belongsto a discursively
constitutedreality(second-order), thereis a pre-socialontology
that accountsfor the constitutionof the discursiveitself-.Sheclearly
the st
structures orior to the speakingsubjectthat orchestrate the formation
of thatsubjectand his or her speech. In her view,therearehistoricallv
contingentstructures characterized as heterosexual and compulsory
thatdistribute the rightsof full andauthoritative speechto malesand
denythemto f-emales. But this sociallyconstituted asymmetry disguises
andviolatesa pre-social ontologvof unifiedandequalpersons.
The taskfor women,Winig argues,is to assume the positionof the
authoritative, speakingsubject- whichis in somesensetheirontologicallv
groundcd"right"- and to overthrowboth the categoryofsex
andthe systemof compulsory heterosexuality thatis its origin.
Languaqe.for wittig, is a setof acts.repeatedover time.that produce
'ects
that ived as "f'acts."
considered. the repeatedpracticeof namingsexualdifferencehascreated
thisapp"aran"e of natu.aldiuition.'rhe"naming'of se* is an uct of
dominationand comrrulsion. an i nstitutional izedr;erfbrmati ve that
bothcreates and legislates socialrealityb_vrequiringthe discursive/
perceptual construction of bodiesin accordwith principles of sexual
difference. Hence,wittig concludes, "we arecompeiledin our bodies
and our mindsto correspond. f'eatureby feature.with the ideaof
n a t u r e t h aht a sb e e ne s t a b l i s h ef odr u s . . . ' m e n ' a n d' w o m e n ' a r ep o l i t i c a l
categories. and not naturalfacts."28
DBH Aq
ADI
IDENTITYK
The repetitionof significationis key to agency.

BUTLER 1990(Judith, professorofphilosophyat UC Berkeley, pg. 184-185)
GenderTrouble,
As a process,significationharborswithin itself what the epistemological

discourserefersto as "agency."The rules that governintelligible
identity,i. e.,that enableandrestrictthe intelligibleassertionof an "r,"
rules that are partially structuredalong matricesof genderhierarchy
and compulsoryheterosexuality,operatethrough repetition.Indeed,
when the subjectis saidto be constituted,that meanssimply that the
subjectis a consequence ofcertain rule-governeddiscoursesthat govern
the intelligibleinvocationof identity.The subjectis not determined
by the rulesthroughwhich it is generated becausesignificationis not a
foundingact,but rathera regulatedprocesso{'repetitionthat both conceals
itself and enfbrcesits rulespreciselythroughthe productionof substantializing
effects.In a sense.all significationtakesplacewithin the
orbit of to reDeat:"
t tv of a variati
significationnot only restrict.but enablethe assertionof alternative
bversionof i
becomespossible.The injunctionto be a given genderproducesnecessary
f'ailures,a variety of incoherentconfigurationsthat in their multiplicity
exceedand defy the injunction by which they are generated.
Further,the very iniunctionto be a given gendertakesplacethrough
discursiveroutes:to be a goodmother,to be a heterosexually desirable
object,to be a fit worker,in sum,to signify a multiplicityof guarantees
in response to a varietyof differentdemandsall at once.The coexistence
or convergence of suchdiscursiveinjunctionsproducesthe possibility
of a complexreconfiguration andredeployment; it is not a
transcendental sub.iect who enablesactionin the midstof sucha convergence.
Thereis no self that is prior to the convergence or who
maintains"integrity" prior to its entranceinto this conflictedcultural
field. Thereis only a taking up of the toolswherethey lie, wherethe
very"takingup" is enabled by thetool lyingthere.
DBH qo
ADI
IDENTITYK
Genderidentity is an illusion maintainedthrough discursiveactsof control.

at UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg.173-174)
According to the understandingof identificationas an enactedfantasy

or incorporation,however,it is clearthat coherenceis desired,
wished for, idealized,and that this idealizationis an effect of a corporeal
signification.In other words,acts.gestures,and desireproducethe
effect of an internalcore or substance,but producethis on the surfaceof
the body, throughthe play of signifying absencesthat suggest,but
neverreveal,the organizingprinciple of identity as a cause.Suchacts,
gestures,enactments,generallyconstrued,are perfbrmativein the sense
that the essenceor identity that they otherwisepurport to expressare
fabricationsmanufacturedand sustainedthrough corporealsignsand
other discursivemeans.That the genderedbody is performativesuggests
that it hasno ontologicalstatusapartfiom the variousactswhich
constituteits reality.This alsosuggests that if that reality is fabricated
as an interior essence,that very interiority is an ef1-ect
and function of
a decidedlypublic and socialdiscourse. the publicregulationof fantasy
through the surf-ace politics of the body, the genderbordercontrol
that diff-erentiates
inner fiom outer,and so institutesthe "integrity,'
of the subject.In other words,actsand gestures,articulatedand enacted
desirescreatethe illusionof an interiorand organizinggendercore,
an illusiondiscursivelymaintainedfbr the purposesof the regulation
of sexualitywithin the obligatoryframe of reproductiveheterosexuality.
lf the "cause"of desire,gesture,and act can be localizedwithin
the"self"of theactor,thenthepoliticalregulations anddisciplinary
practiceswhich producethat ostensiblycoherentgenderare effectively
displacedfrom view. The displacement of a politicaland discursive
origin of genderidentityonto a psychological"core" precludesan
analysisof the politicalconstitutionof the genderedsubjectand its
fabricatednotionsaboutthe ineffableinteriority of its sex or of its
trueidentity.
DBH 4t,
ADI
IDENTITYK
This debate round, an exchange between and of evershifiting identities, is the most effective source of personal
and political agency.
BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg. 161-162)
But herewe might ask: Whatis left whenthe body renderedcoherent

throughthe categoryofsex is disaggregated, renderedchaotic?Can
this body be re-membered, be put backtogetheragain?Are therepossibilities
of agencythat do not requirethe coherentreassembling of
this construct?Wittig's text not only deconstructs sex and offersa
way to disintegrate the falseunity designated by sex,but enactsas well
a kind of difflse corporealagencygenerated from a numberof different
centersof power.Indeed.the sourceof rrersonal and politicalagenc-y
comesnot fiom withinthe individual.but in andthroughthe complex
culturalexchanges amongbodiesin which identityitselfis evershifting.
indeed.whereidentityitselfis constructed. disintegrated.and
recirculated only withinthe contextof a dynamicfleld of culturalrelations.
J'o be a womanis. then,for Wittig as well as fbr Beauvoir,to
becomea woman.but because this processis in no sensefixed.it is possible
to becomea beingwhom neithermannor womantrul)'describes.
This is not the figureof the androgyne nor somehypothetical ..third
gender,"nor is i1a transcendence of the binary.Instead.it is an internal
subversionin which the binary is both presuoposed and rrrolitbrated to
the pointwhercit no longermakessense.The tbrceof Wittig'sfiction,
its lingLristic
challenge, is to offer an experience beyondthe categories
of identity,an eroticstruggleto createnew categories from the ruinsof
the old, new wayso1-being a bodywithinthe culturalfield,and whole
ncw languages o l-description.
$t,
IDENTITYK
GENDER: PERFORMATIVE
Genderis a performancethat escapesthe arbitrarynorms constructedthrough repeatedactsof normalization.

BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophyat UC Berkeley,
GencJerTrouble,pg. 179)
Genderought not to be construedas a stableidentity or locus of

agencyfrom which variousactsfollow; rather,genderis an identity
tenuouslyconstitutedin time, institutedin an exteriorspacethrough a
stylizedrepetitionof acts.The effect of genderis producedthroughthe
stylizationof the body and,hence,must be understoodas the mundane
way in which bodily gestures,movements,and stylesof variouskinds
constitutethe illusion of an abiding genderedself. This formulation
movesthe conceptionof genderoff the groundof a substantialmodel
of identity to one that requiresa conceptionof genderas a constituted
socialtemporality.Significantly,if genderis institutedthroughacts
which are internally discontinuous,then the appearance of substanceis
preciselythat, a constructedidentity, a performativeaccomplishment
which the mundanesocialaudience,includingthe actorsthemselves,
cometo believeand to performin the modeof belief'.Genderis alsoa
norm that can neverbe fully internalized;"the internal" is a surfacesignification,
and gendernormsarefinally phantasmatic, impossibleto
embody.If the groundof genderidentityis the stylizedrepetitionof
actsthrough time and not a seeminglyseamlessidentity, then the spatial
metaphorof a "ground" will be displacedand revealedas a styrized
conf-rguration, indeed,a genderedcorporealization of time. The abiding
genderedself will then be shown to be structuredby repeatedacts
that seekto approximatethe ideal of a substantialgroundof identity,
but which, in their occasionaldiscontinuity,revealthe temporarand
contingentgroundlessness 'l'he
of this "ground." possibilitiesof gender
transformationare to be found preciselyin the arbitraryrelation
betweensuchacts,in the possibilityof a failureto repeat,a de-formity,
or a parodicrepetitionthat exposesthe phantasmatic ef-lectof abiding
identity
asa politicallytenuous construction.
$%
IDENTITYK
GENDER = PERFORMATIVE
Genderis an intentionaland performativeact.

at UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,pg.177)
If the body is not a "being." but a variableboundary"a surfacewhose

permeabilityis politicallyregulated.a signifyingpracticewithin a cultural
field of genderhierarchlrand comzubqlLlreterosexualitlz. then
what languageis left for understandingthis corporealenactment.gender.
that constitutesits "interior" significationon its surface?Sartre
would perhapshavecalledthis act"a styleof beins.',Fouc
of existence."And in my earlierreadingof Beauvoir.I suggest
that genderedbodiesare so many "stylesof the f'lesh."Thesestylesall
neverfully self-styled,for styleshavea history.andthosehistoriescondition
and limit the possibilities.Considergender.for instance.as a
le. an
where"performative"suggests a dramaticand contingent
constructionof mean ing.
DBH
ADI q'\,
IDENTITY
K
GENDER= PERFORMATIVE
Genderis a performance,
regulations
on genderarearbitrarilycreatedfor coherence.
BUTLER 1990(Judith, professor
of philosophy
atUCBerkeley, Gencler
Trouble,pg.3l-32)
enderedsell,whatthe
psychiatristRobert Stollerrefersto as a "gendercore." 3g is thus produced
alon establi
of coherence.As a result,the exposureof this fictive productionis
conditionedby the deregulatedplay of attributesthat resistassimilation
into the readymadeframework of primary nounsand subordinate
adjectives.lt is of coursealwayspossibleto arguethat dissonant
adjectiveswork retroactivelyto redefinethe substantiveidentitiesthey
are saidto modify and, hence,to expandthe substantivecategoriesof
genderto includepossibilitiesthat they previouslyexcluded.But if
these e nothi thant contins
superfluous.
In this sense lreefloatins
attribu br wc'ha t the su lbct of u
is perlormativel),produoedand compelledb), the regulatory
practicesof gendercoherence.Hence,within the inheriteddiscourse
of the metaphysicso1-substance,genderprovesto be perfbrmative-
that is- constifrttinrr the idr.ntitrz if ic nrrrnnrrorl rn ha I^ +1"i..---^
alw thou{r isht be
saidto preexistthe deed.The challengefbr rethinkinggendercategories
outsideof the metaphysics of substance
wiil haveto considerthe
relevanceof Nietzsche'sclaim in on the Genealogyof Moralsthat..there
is no 'being' behinddoing,efrecting,becoming;'the doer' is merelya
fiction addedto the deed- the deedis everything."39 In an application
thatNietzschehimselfwould not haveanticipatedor condonerl, we
might stateas a corollary:Thereis no genderidentit),behindthe
DBhI
Ar,*H
%
IDENTITYK
Genderis createdthrough a "stylized repetitionof acts" which allows for transformation.

BUTLER 1988ltuOitn, Assistant
Professorof Philosophy
atGeorge Washington,Performative
ActsandGender
Constitution:
An
Essayin Phenomenology
and FeministTheory,TheatreJournal,vol.40, No.4, pp. 519-531)
WhenSirnonede S*auvoircleims,"on* i$ nst bsrn. but" rathrr, he{snrrs a htstytaR,"

she is appropriatingand reinteqpretingthis doctrinc of con$titutingacts from the
ph*nomenologicaltradition.l In this sen$e,gendrr is in no lllay a stableidentity or
Iocnl sf agen{y{rom which variousactsproceedn;rather,it is *n identity tenuously
con$titutedin tirne**n identity institutedthrcugh a sglied rclrsfitisnofcefs"Furthea
genderis instituted through the stylieati*n of the body and. hence,rRustbe under-
st*ad as the mundaneway in which bodily gestures"rnovements,and enartments
of variouskinds constitutethc illusion of an abidinggenderedself.This fnrmulation
movesthe c*neepfion*f genderoff th* ground of a substantialm*del of identitv to

onethat requiresa concepfionof a constitutedsoeaal femporality.
Significantly,if gender
is instituted through actsrvhich ar* internally disruntinsous, then the apptarawe af
sulstcncei* preciselythat, a cnnstructedid*ntitv, n perforrnativeacc*mplishment
which the rnundanesocialaudience,including the actnrstherns*lve$,cemeta betieve
and to perform in the rnodesf belief.If the pound of genderidentity is the st1'lieed
repetition of acts through tirne, and nnt a seeminglvsearnlessidentity, then the
passibilitiesof gendertransformaticnareto befaund in the arbitraryrelatinnbetweEn
such acts,in the possibilityof a different s*rt r:f repeating,in the breakingar sub"
ver$it"erepetitisnsf thet sfyle"
DBH
ADI 4ta.
IDENTITYK
The body is a materialitythat is fluid in meaning,which allows it to be an embodimentof possibilities.

BUTLER 1988 1:ualtn,AssistantProfessorof Philosophyat GeorgeWashington,PerformativeActs and GenderConstitution:An
E s s a yi n P h e n o m e n o l o gayn dF e m i n i sTt h e o r y ,T h e a t r eJ o u r n a lv, o l . 4 0 ,N o . 4 ,p p . 5 1 9 - 5 3 1 )
fvterleau-Fontymaintainsnot only that the bcdy is an historicalidea but a s*t CIf

possibilitie*to be continu*tly r*alixed. ln clainringthat th* body is an historicalidea,
hlerleau-Pontymean* that it gains its meaningthrough 6 coilcret€and histnric*lly
m*diated rxFre$sisrlin the world. That the body ir a set of poxsibilitie*signifies(a)
that its appeardncpin the wCIrld,for perception,i$ nnt prcdeterminedby sornernann€r
of int*rior e$$ence,and {b} that its csncr*ts expressionin the world rnunt be un*
derstoodas the taking trp and rendering specificof a set of historical pm*ibilities.
Hence, th*re is an agencv which is under:sto*das the processof rendering such
possibilitiesdetermi.nate.Thesepo*sibilitie$are neerssarilyconstrainedby available
historiealc*nvenfions. The body is nst a self-identicalor merely facticmateriality;it
is a mat*riality that bearsmeaning,if nothing else,and the rnanneraf thk bearing
is fundamtntallv drarnltic. By dramatic I mean only that the body is not merely
matter but a continual and intessant nurferfulieixg of possibilities.One is not simply
a body, but. in $omevery ltey $sns€"one does gneis body and, indeed, nne dges
one'sbodv dif{erentlykom one'scnntemporaries and frsm one"sembodiedprsde-
ces$ors*nd *uccsssorsas well.
It is, however, fl€arly unfortunate grarnmarto claim that there i$ a 'urr' or an 'I'
that does its body" as if a disemb<diedagencvprecededand directedan embodied
exterisr.Moreappropriat*, I suggest,would bea voctbulary that resiststhr substance
metaphyricsof subiect*verbforrnationsand reliesinsteadoR&n ontologr of present
participles.The 'l' th*t is its body is" o{ necexsity,* mode of embodying, and the
'what'
that it ernbodiexis possibilitie*.But hereagainthe gramrnarof the formulation
misl*ad*, fnr the pcssibilitiesthat are emberdiedare no,tfundamentally exterior or
ant*cedentto the pro{e$s*f *rnbodying itself. .Asan intentionally organiz*d rnate-
riality, the bCIdyis alwavs an embsdying cf prssibilities hath condititned and cir*
cumscribedbv historicalcsnvention"In othrr words. the body is a historicalsituation.
as Seauvoirhas clairned,and is a manner of dcing, drarnatining,and rryrdunng a
historicalsituatisn.
DBH
AB$ q+.
hLW€p-=WzPMRTI{€ \etr$TtTY L-
If identitiescan be constantly performed it can serve as resistanceto gender binaries which allow for new
political spacesto occur "
Honig in 1992 (Bonnie,Associate

Professor
of Govemment
at Harvard
, ArendtandthePoliticsof ldentity,Feminists
Theorizethe
-226)
Political,pp.225
'l
lris notion of an agonisticpolitics of performativitysituatcdrn the sclf-
evidences of the private rcalm is explored UV tq{llt pytler' who lircuscsttr
particularon the constructionand constitution of s-91-aqd,gelder' Butler
Unmasks the constation-ds5clibsd by Arendt as the rnindless,tiresome.and
oppressive rcpctitionof the univtlcal cycles of nature-in the private realltr,
asrrcrfornativitiesthat claily produce sex alcl gender idcntities.'l'hcseper-
formances, Butler argues,are the cnforced productsof a regulat,ivql!!!q!lce
of niniiy gcnclerconstitution lqlr-t-c.rqdj,nand-by a lllrqtelS!9lUAi--c-9-ntrast.''
But theseacts are "internally discontinuous";the identitiesthey produceare

trot "seamless."Thc "multiplicity and discontinuityof the referentIthe selfl
rnocks and rcbels againstthe univocity of the sign [sex/gender]." This means
that thcre are "possibilities of gencler transformation" in these spacesof
mockery and rebellion, "in the arbitrary relation between such acts, in the
possibility of a differcnt sort of repeating."or A subversive repetition might;
perforntatively produce alternativc sex and gender identities that would pro-
liferate and would, in their proliferation (and strategic deployment), contest
and resist the reified binaries that now regulate and seek to constitute, ex-
haustively,the identitieso[ sex and gender. :
'Ihe
strategy,then, is to unmask identitiesthat aspireto constation,to
deauthorizeand redescribethem as performative productions by identifying
Spacesthat escapeor resistadministration,regulation,and expression.These,
are spaces of politics, spaces (potentially) of perfbrmative freedom. Here
its mechanisms
tgtlglll!91&_lg-ll tbr pflveteJealm because the sorcialand
oT nffiTlizall_o_Lcqllllqntlylatl to-asbiev-e-the*p-edect which Ar'
clo-s-urc:-s
endt attributes to them, too readily, without resistance.This failure of the
sociai to rea)ize its arnbitions means that it is possible to subvert the con'
cretized, petrified, reified, and naturalized identities and foundations that
paralyze politics and to broaden the realm of the actionable, to resist the
sedimentationof performative acts into constative truths and to stand by the
conviction that in politics and in identity, it is not possibleto get it right,
'Ihis
irnpossibility structurcsthe necds and the repressionsof Arendt's public
and private realms. And it provides good reasons to resist ancl to p.ob}-
rnatizc any politics of identitY.
DBH
ADI
1b
IDENTITYK
POST-IDENTITY
We can escapethe limitations of identity politics by embracinga differentialbelongingcharactertzedbyfluid

ideologicalpositionings.
ROWE 2005 lRimeeCarrill,Assistant Professor of Rhetoric
attheUniversityof lowa,NLI/SA
Journal17.2l5-46,Muse)
Above I argue that the presumptionof belonging that undergirdsdominant identity formations, such as rvhitenessand heterosexuality.
erasesthe choicesthat we make around our belongingsrvhich are constituativeof our identities. This erasurefixes identity. however
unintentionally.in individualisticterms: "l am." The transtbrmativepossibilitiesof a "politiCS Of lOCation" are limited by such
ovcrsights.I'he abscnceof critical interrogationsof thc conditionsof possibilityfor hegemonicmodesof belongingpfoducgs tWO
erasurescritical to forging resistiveor transformativemodesof belonging:agencyand accountability.rt
erascsagencybecauseit positionsthe scholar/critic/activistas always alreadl belongingto a group. but fails to call attcntionto the r.va1sin
which sub.icclsncgotiatcthe hcgemonichailingsand/or counterhegemonic affiliationsthat s/he pcr/fbrms.This move" in turn.
tionsof condition
the process of identity formation. Whitcnessand heteroscxuality. fbr instance."interpellare"
sub.jccts
to and throughthe
privilcges
ol'belonging
to thcscidentitlgroups.Ilere I rvishro posean alternative mode of interpellation: differential
belonging, to callattcntionto therval'sin whichwc arealrcadyconstitutedin andthroughoftcnoverlooked
modcsol'bclonging. anci
alsoto suggesl
a resistivccommand. In tcnrrso1-thclattcr.ChelaSandoval
writcsin Methodolog.v
o.[theOppresserlof
a "differcntial"form
of'rcsistancc.
or consciousness.
whichweaves between and among oppositional ideologies and. unbound by an)t
one Darti IV Or an consistenc enabled
by its fluidity. As such.cliff-erential
rcsistancc
strivcslur Althusscr's"horred-lbrbut unachieved1960s''scicncc
of.icleologr'"'
in lhat i1
is "thc citizcn-subiectwho intcrpcllatcs.who calls up idcolo-uy"'
(3 l). She wrircs: I think of rhis activitl of consciousness as
'difl'erential.'
asit enablesmovement 'between and among' ideological positionings. . . . thc difftrcntial
insofar
rcprescnts
thcvarying:itsprcscncc
cmcrges
ou1of'corrclations.
intensitics. criscs.
.lunctures, Yet the differential depends on a
form of au
is thus perfbrmative.(2000,58)Sandovalcompares differentialconsciousnessto the clutch in an automobile.
the mechanismthat permitsthe driverto decide.fiommomenr
1tlmoment.how the engine'spower is used.whenyouuse
thc clutch.you IEnd Page 321 momentarilydiscngagcand then recngagethc gcars.crucial lo thc car'smovcmentand your ability to
controlit. It is this rnovcmentacrossideologicalpositioningsthat Iwish to dralt to bclonging.Differential belonging, likc diffcrcntial
consciousncss.
allows us to move amongdifferentmodesof belongingwithout feelingtrappedor boundb), any one
in particular. ll Ih. point is not to bc correct.consistcnt. or comlbrtable.Wc nccd not. or cannot.bc the samepersoncverywherc in
dill'crontcommunitics.on dillercnl occasions.at dill'crentlimcs in our lives.We may movc amongvariousslagcsof bclongingthroughoul
our livcs.Our rclationalnccdsmay shill over timc and acrossspace.And as we movc amongthesesites,the contradictions and criscsthat
ariscare most instructivcof'our bccoming.(...continued....t Dif-ferential belonging calls us to reckon with the wa)rs in rvhich
we are oDDressed azicl privileged so that we may place ourselves where we can have an impact and where rve can
shareexperience.The ke.vto diffbrentialbelongingis that )'ou do not have to be someone.in terms defined b),
identity politics,in ordcrto do thepolitical
rvorkthatdili'ercntial
belonging
cntails.'Ihe
conf'lation
bctwccn andpolitics
idcntity is
unnecessarily lirriting. Ir'orinstance.someof my'white lernalestudents.when wc readbrilliantwoman-oflcolortheorists.rvorrl that thcl
cannotproduce such theory becausethey iLrenot as opprcssed.Thcy' worry about thcir privilege. But good theory docs not arise naturall)
liom dark skin. It arisesnot mcrch'liom erpericnceso1-opprcssion but fiom grapplingrvith thoseexperienccs and thcir largcrsocialand
p o l i t i c acl o n n c c t i o n sI n. t e r r o g a t i n g t h e p o l i t i c s o f o u r b e l o n g i n g i s s o m e t h i n g t h a t a n y o n e c a n d o a n d a l l o f u s s h o u l d
do. regardless of the degree to which we are privileged. Good critical/lcministtheory emergesf'rom placing ourselvesrn
communityrvith visionsof social.iusticc.Placingourselvestherewith a certainopennessand the intentionof bcing translbrmed.When wc
placeourselveswith pcopleawareof theiroppression. we beginto seehow wc are implicated.to wranglcwith thc connections betu,een
privilege and oppression,not as abstract concepts but as constituting "our" lives. As we engage in differential belonging and the
consciousness that arisesfrom it. women of privilegecan build a more radicalfeministvision throughtheir belongingin communitiesof
difference.
DBH
ADI 1q
k t I 6P*f 1t!Q:\€hNiT &wuT DENIr-(Yk
ADI 2006
brown lz6NfrrJ
THE ALTERNATIVEREPLACESIDENTITYPOLITICSWITH A ONE THAT AFFIRMS TO THE

TRANSITIVENATUREOF IDENTITYAND DESTROYSTHE FORMULATION OF IDENTITY AS A FIXED
POSITION.
Brown, 95 (WendyBrown is professorof Women'sStudiesat the Universityof California,SantaCruz.,,States

of
Injury: Powerand Freedomin Late Modernity."Copyright1995by PrincetonUniversitypress,ISBN 0-691-02gg0-
3, p75-6)
what if ir were possibleto incite a slight shift in the characrerof poiiti-

cal expressionand political claims common to much politicizedidentrty?
w n l r if
What t t we s-g,llj#-lo_lqpplant
w c ssought
o u g h cto
t o ssuu p p l l n c the langrrageof "I am"-with its defensive
.lo:rI. g1}d"rriry, irr ir"rrirr.rr."o.r rh. fi*iffi
( T h i s i s a n " l w a n r " t h a r d i s r i n g u i s h c s l G"g*+:ffi

l T f l r o ma l i b c r a fe * p E - - r . n o f
r.l"in,.l-.-r. br .tit,r. of irr fi*u.jnS o
whrr rt we were to rehabilitatethe nremory of desue within
lfrtr"-+
identificatory proccsscs,rhe moment in desire-cither "to have,,or ..ro
be"-prior ro irs woundine?a2What if ,,wanting ro bc', or ,,
. r n c . r o r n r r r l a r l o no t t d u n r l t v a s f l . x c d p o s i t i ( ) n .
and,is
and as hly.iqg @r:
having nccgssarv nccessarv rno.rl r.o.rl Ertrllil.tF@
.1trffi'e;en xll;;;;ffi; \^";
tio.r" " a ""h@speakins
, i " i , r.trd !ri.
subiectinrcllisible
f;
.n.l lo.rr.blc.aiilr r.ffi
"4*ir.."fib-*.,
ot--delirci";; fi;e;;; ;;".., tity, then this project mieht in-
W"ffi'.r
way revcaled as neither so.r".eign rur. corrcl*i.re eveilili
as an "1.'. lnThoE if fram
c o n s t r u c r i o r. r" u 1 d b "
ffior.a bv the logics of rancor .nd,ressetttiment.
Sucht slightshifrin th..hr.*r*ift rse of idcnr
n d s o I r h i s r _ o r i c oa rl u r o p i a nr u r D s
made by a nosralglg {4_blg\gfflfrrlqanist Lcft as qLellas rhe reacionar
r.,d .l it i t.,s..r.r,r
our r r r r ul,, o,, p,,l i,i., r. d lddifillii d;.. d-btl},=T-G hr
"
Rather than ng or seeking to t...tr..'nd i.l"trriF investmentsliE
rcplacerncnt-evcnrhc rd'i
pansive moments in the genealogy-Fide"titv ro.mition , ,..olilu of

moment pnor to lts reclosurergainsiFitswrnt, prioi-to tl.re
p:rr, ^r-*?i!h irr ,_orr...ig?tuhiq.!i,ritu,, .rr.6li.h".iTEio,rshi.,.h fo4
g,!osure and throuqh ete'ra r-rcpe1t,:s grrg-Ej!. tto*-il[h t-J!i]o-.rr ti c
"
DBH
rrsclr pe lnvlgorared by
suc fiom ontoloqical claims
tnesekrnds ot morc cxpresslypolirical oncs. claims that. rarher than
ing blame fi
dis_
escnt,inhabircda nclcrt.Illy ,gonirrrc-
ADI
rof fuSitrg an alternativefuture?
loO.
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE: DECONSTRUCT IDENTITY
Equality within the law is faulty becauseit alreadypresupposes

who will make it use of it
BUTLER 1997 1:uAitn,Writer of Bodiesthat Matter anclGenclerTrouble,The Usesof Equality,Diacritics,y o1.27, No.l . pp. 2-
t2)
S4ualityis, of coursc,a $lr&ngr$sn$cptwhrn thoughtln driio*l io rhi$ m*l ta

model &at I take to b* derivd fmrn your &inki*g on this i$srn. as well as Chant*l
lvlouffe's)-Squality*ould ntlt heihex;uatirationof givrn differsnces. Thntformulation
suggtststhatdiffcrcncssar*nobeun&r$toodsstintamfitnttospe*ificitixorprticulsi-
ties"And ttm point sf n futural re-elaborntionof th* notisn of equalitywould bc ro hpld
o$t {hepos*ibility thatwe ds *ot yet kn*w who or whatmight rnaken claim to oquality,
wheresnd wbentbedoctrineof equalityrnightapply,and{rar *e field of its operarion
is neithergiven nor closed.The volafility of tfu Eqrxl PrrtectionClau$ein the US
Constituticngiveseviderree of this in Enintcrcslingrxay.Is it thecEsethntthos*whoare
qddres$ed by 'hate $pc*ch"are dcpriv*dof their abilitiesto panicipalcequallyin the
publics$ere? Sonrefeminist$,suehasCatharincMrcKinnonrrrguetharpornogrrphy
ottghtto beopposedbecnuse it prod$*e$snepisternieatrnoryherein whichwonrenorenot
qntitlcdto exercisetheir rightsof cqualHeatnxntandprrticipation.AlthoughI opposr
M*cKinnon"sview (andherunderstanding crftheperforrrxiveoper*tionof representa-
tion), I do rpprcciatetlm way in which ttre doctrineof equalitybecome*a site of
$ante$tfltisttwithin rcssnfI.JSeon$titutisnaldebatcc"trt*uggcsttthat we do not yet know
whenandwtprn theclaimm nqualitynrightsmnrgc,andit holdnout rhepomibility for
s futuril articulationof that do*rrine.
$o, in on€ $en$e,then, it $esm$that thc nstion of equality wculd procerd
undernmtadcally if weclairnto lmcrvin ndvancewhonrightmakeuseof its claim,*nd
whatkindsof issw* fall within its purview.Arxdrhisrelatesto theided of anirnpo*sible
inclusiverwss: whois includednmongthorcwh* mighrmakorheclaimto cquality?What
kindsof isruesurdermlnethc very r*.sribility of cert*ingrCIups makine*ucha claim?
DBH
ADI (ol.
IDENTITY K
The deconstructionof identity opensup a new form of liberatorypolitics.

at UC Berkeley, pg. 189-190)
GenderTrouhle,
The deconstructionof identity is not the deconstructionof politics;

rather,it establishesas political the very terms throughwhich
identity is articulated.This kind of critique brings into questionthe
foundationalistframe in which feminism as an identity politics has
beenarticulated.The internalparadoxof this foundationalismis that it
presumes,fixes, and constrainsthe very "subjects"that it hopesto represent
and liberate.The task hereis not to celebrateeachand every
new possibilityqua possibility,but to redescribe thosepossibilitiesthat
alreadyexist, but which exist within cultural domainsdesignatedas
culturallyunintelligibleand impossible.If identitieswere no longer
flxed as the premisesof a politicalsyllogism,andpoliticsno longer
understoodas a set ofpractices derivedfiom the allegedintereststhat
belongto a setof ready-madesubjects,a new configurationof politics
would surelyemergefrom the ruinsof the old. cultural configurations
of sexand gendermight thenproliferateor, rather,their presentproliferation
might then becomearticulablewithin the discoursesthat
establishintelligibleculturallife, confoundingthe very binarismof
sex,and exposingits fundamentalunnaturalness. What other local
strategiestbr engagingthe "unnatural" might leadto the denaturalization
ofgender assuch?
DBH
ADI IOZ,
IDENTITY K
By stuffing unlimited sexualdiscoursesinto the categoryof identity, it can explodeand be destroyed.

BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble, pg. 163)
Themoreinsidious andeffectivestrategy it seemsis a thoroughgoing

appropriationand redeploymentof the categoriesof identity
themselves,not merely to contest"sex," but to articulatethe convergence
of multiplesexualdiscourses at the siteof "identity" in orderto
renderthat category,in whateverform, permanentlyproblematic.
DBH
ADI 't3
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE: DECONSTRUCT GENDER
Systemsof oppressioncan be maintainedby individuals,but hegemonicsocial institutionsneedto transformin

order to counteractoppression.
BUTLER 19881:uaitn, Assistant
Professor
of Philosophy
atGeorgeWashington,
Performative ActsandGenderConstitution:
An
Essayin Phenomenology
and FeministTheory,TheatreJournal,Vol.40,No.4, pp. 5 l9-531)
Can pl*enomenology as$ist a fendnist reronstruction uf the *edimented charact*r

sf $*r. g*nd*r, &nd s{xrta}ity at t}re lerel of the body? In the first place, the phe-
nCImenslssicalfocus sn the yarior,rsact$ by x'hich er,rlfuralid*ntity i* constituted and
assumed provides a fulicitsus starting poirlt for the ferninist effort to understand the
mundans rnanner in which bodies gct saftsd into gendmt. The formulation of the
body as a mode of dramstizing trr enacting p*s$bilities sffers a lryay to understand
h*lw a rultural c$nvention is embodisd and enacted. But it s*erns difficult, if nat
irnpcssible, to imagin€ a way to mnceptualiee the scale and systernic character of
uromen'$ oppre*sinn from a theoretical p*sition which takes constituting acts tn be
its point of departure. Although individual acts do work to rnaintain and reproduce
systems eif oppression, *nd, indeed, any theorv nf per*onal political responsibility
pre$upposes such a view, it doesn't feillow that oppression is a sole consequence of
such acts. One might argue that without hurrran beings whose various acts, largely
construed, produce and maintain opp*ssitc canditions, those canditions would fall
away. but note that the relation between acts and eonditions is neither unilateral nor
unmediated" There are socialcqntext* and conventions within which certain act$not
nnly become peissiblebut become conceivable as *cts al all. The transformation of
sociai relations becornesa matter. then, of transfnrming h*gemanic social conditians
rather than the individual act$ that are spah.nsd by thns& canditions. lndeed, one
runs tht risk of addressing the merely indirect, if not epiphenomenal, reflection of
those conditions if one rernains rsctricted to a politics of acts.
DBH
ADI /o{
ADr 2006 Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITY K
ALTERNATIVE: UNDO GENDER
Destroyinggendercategoriesis key to political changeand ending gender-based

violence.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophy at UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,preface,
pg.xxiii-xxiv)
Whensuchcategories comeintoquestion.
therealit),of genderis
alsoputintocrisis:it becomesunclearhowto distinguish therealfrom
theunreal.
Andthisis theoccasion in whichwe cometo understand
that what we taketo be "real," what we invokeas the naturalized
knowledgeof genderis, in fact,a changeable and revisablereality.call
it subversive or call it something else.Althoughthis insightdoesnot in
itselfconstitute a politicalrevolution, no politicalrevolutionis possible
withouta radicalshift in one'snotionof the possibleandthe real.
And sometimes thisshiftcomesas a resultof cerlainkindsof practices
thatprecede theirexplicittheorization, andwhichprompta rethinking
of our basiccategories: what is gender,how is it producedand
reproduced, whatareits possibilities? At thispoint.the sedimented
ld of gender"reality"is unders
madedifl-erentl), and.indeed.lessviolently.
The point of this text is not to celebratedragas the expressionof a
trueandmodelgender(evenas it is importantto resistthe belittling
o1-dragthat sometimestakesplace),but to showthat thc naturalized
knowledgeof genderoperates asa preemptive andviolentcircumscription
of realitv.To the extentthe gendernorms(idealdirnorphism,
heterosexual complementarity of bodies,idealsand rule of properand
impropermasculinity andf-emininity, manyof whichareunderwritten
by racialcodesof purityandtaboosagainstmiscegenation) estabrish
whatwill andwill not be intelligiblyhuman.whatwill andwiil not be
considered to be "real."theyestablish the ontologicalfield in which
bodiesmay be eivenlegitimate expression.If thereis a positivenormative
taskin GenderTrouble,it is to insistupontheextension of this
legitimacyto bodiesthathavebeenregarded as false,unreal,and unintelligible.
Dragis an examplethatis meantto establish that..reality"is
not asflxed as we generallyassumeit to be.The purposeolthe example
is to exposethetenuousness of gender"reality"in orderto counter
the violenceperfbrmed by sendernorms.
DBH
ADI
IDE.
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE : REP ETITION
We must locatestrategiesof subversiverepetitionto affirm local possibilitiesof interventionthat resistnotions

of static.naturalidentities.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophyat UC Berkeley, GenderTrouhle, pg. 187-188)
I havetried to suggestthat the identity categoriesoften presumed
to be foundationalto feminist politics, that is. deemednecessaryin
order to mobilize feminism as an identity politics, simultaneously
work to limit and constrainin advancethe very cultural possibilities
that feminism is supposedto openup. The tacit constraintsthat produce
culturally intelligible "sex" ought to be understoodas generative
political structuresratherthan naturalizedfoundations.Paradoxically,
the reconceptualization ofidentity as an effect,that is, as producedor
generated, opensup possibilitiesof "agency"that are insidiouslyforeclosed
by positionsthat take identitycategories as foundationaland
fixed. For an identity to be an effect meansthat it is neitherfatally
determinednor fully artificial and arbitrary.That the constitutedstatus
of identityis misconstrued alongthesetwo conflictinglinessuggests
the ways in which the feministdiscourseon culturalconstruction
remainstrappedwithin the unnecessary binarismo1'fieewill and
determinism.constructionis not opposedto agency;it is the necessary
sceneof agency,the very terms in which agencyis articulatedand
becomesculturallyintelligible.The criticaltaskfbr f-eminismis not to
establisha point of view outsideof constructedidentities;that conceit
is the constructionof an epistemological modelthat would disavowits
own culturallocationand.hence,promoteitself as a globalsubject,a
positionthat deployspreciselythe imperialiststrategies that f-eminism
ought to criticize. The critical task is, rather,to locatestrategiesof subversive
repetitionenabledby thoseconstructions,to affirm the local
possibilitiesof interventionthroughparticipatingin preciselythose
practicesof repetitionthat constituteidentity and.therelbre,present
the immanentpossibilityof contestingthem.
DBH
ADI loa
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE : PERFORMANCE/REPETITION
In order to fight for the rights of the oppressedidentities,the repetitionof performativeactsthat do not conform
to a pre-constructed norm is necessary.
FELLUGA 2002 1nino,English, Stanford ..Modules
Universiq,, on butler:On GenderandSex,"Introductory
g,uide
to Critical
Theory,l_r-ttp:,',rr,'n'r.r'.p__tirdue-cduguidslo"lbsutssgti;1g]rhcLmsdulss1b_u!9rSglds{)sr.hid.)
Butler underscoresgender's constructed nature in order to fight for the rights of oDDressed
identities. those identities that do not conform to the artificial-though strictlv enforced-rules
that govern normative heterosexualitv.If those rules are not natural or essential,Butlerargues,then
thev do not have anv claim to iustice or necessitv.Sincethose rules are historical and relv on their
continual citation or enactmentbv subiects.then thev can also be challengedand changedthrough
alternative performative acts. As Butlerputsit, "lf the 'realitv' of gender is constituted by the
Derformanceitself. then there is no recourseto an essentialand unrealized 'sex' or 'gender' which
" (l'Psdormaliv-ell
278).For this reason. "the transvestite's
gender is as fullv real as anvone whose perfermance complies with social exDectations"
( llPe(.olmatiyell
278).
DBH
ADI l6+.
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE : PERFORMANCE/REPETTTION
Social reality is in constantchange-language createsreality, but actively changesit when different namesare
pronounced' This is how our bodies are also in flux, especially in its relation to gender. In order for a
transformativepotential,continuousrepetitionof the body's actionsis necessary.
FELLUGA 2002 1nino,English, Stanford
University,
"Moduleson butler:on Gender andSex,"Introductory
guideto Critical
Theory,http,lvn,W^pur.due. &g$g*rilrrodrrlesrLrutlergerrclersex.irtnr
l.)
ll: On PerrbrmativityJUDITH BUTLER is influencedby Lacanianpsychoanalysis, phenomenology(Edmund Husserl,

MauriceMerleau-Ponty, GeorgeHerbertMead,etc.),structuralanthropologists (ClaudeLevi-Strauss, Victor Turner,Clifford
Geertz,etc.)and speech-acttheory(particularlythe work of John Searle)in her understanding
of the "performativiq,"of our
identities.Allof thesetheoriesexplorethe ways that social realitV is not a given but is continually created as
an illusion "through language.gesture. and all manner of symbolic social sign" (*pe&u0at1y9_jzal.
a
good examplein speech-acttheory is what John Searleterms illocutionaryspeechu.t Jhor. ipeech acts that actuallydo
somethingrather than merely represenlsomething.'l'he classicexample is the "l pronounceyou man and wife" of the
marriageceremony.In making that statement,a personof authoritychangesthe statusof a couplewithin an intersubjective
communiry,thosewords activelv change the existence of that coupleby establishing a new marital realitv:
the words da what thev sav. As Butlerexplains, "Within srreechact theory" a performative is that
discursivenractice that enactsor nroducesthat which it names,'@odie; )1. A sneechact can
rlroduce that which it names. however. onlv bv reference to the law (or theaccepted norm,code,or
contract),
which is cited or reneated(andthusp"rform"d)in ffte pronouncem . Burfertakesthfstormufatfon
furtherby exploringthe ways that linguisticconstructions
createour reali4tin generalthroughthe speechactswe participate
in everyday. By endlesslyciting the conventionsand ideologiesof the socialworld aroundus, we enactthat reality;in the
Derformative act of sneaking.we "incorDorate" that realitv bv enacting it with our bodies.but
that "realitvtt nonethelessremains a socialconstruction(atonestepremoved
fromwhatLacandistinguishes
from realityby the term. "!he Rgal").In the act of performingthe conventionsof reality,by embodyingthosefictions in our
actions,we makethoseartificialconventionsappearto be naturaland necessary. By enactingconventions, we do makethem
"real" to some extent(after all, our ideologieshave "real" consequences for people)but that does not make them any less
artificial. In particular,Butler concernsherselfwith those "genderacts" that similarly lead to materialchangesin one's
existenceand even in one'sbodily self: "One is not simply a body, but, in some very key sense,one doesone'sbody and,
indeed,one doesone'sbody differentlyfiom one'scontemporaries and from one'sembodiedpredecessors and successors as
well" ('l!9rfpra41iy,-e-l
27-2).Like the perfbrmativecitation of the conventionsgoverningour perceptionof reality, !fu
enactment of gender norms has "real" consequences.including the creation of our sense of
subiectivitv but that does not make our subiectivitv anv less constructed. We maybelieve
thatour
subjectivityis the sourceof our actionsbut Butler contendsthat our senseof independent, self'-willedsubjectivityis really a
retroactiveconstructionthat comesaboutonly throughthe enactmentofsocialconventions:"gendercannotbe understoodas
a role which eitherexpresses or disguisesan interior'self,'whetherthat'sell- is conceivedas sexedor not. As performance
which is perfbrmative,genderis an'act,'broadly construed,which constructsthe social fiction of its own psychological
interiority"(llPerformative" 'act.'
-279).Butler therefore understands gender to be "a carporeals/y/2. an as
it were" (llPertsr-n1-a1ive"'-2:!2).
That stvle has no relation to essential"truths" about the bodv but is
strictlv ideological. It hasa historythat existsbeyondthe subjectwho enactsthoseconventions:The act that one does,
the act that one performs,is, in a sense,an actthat hasbeengoing on beforeone arrivedon the scene:Hence,gender is an
act which has been rehearsed.much as a scrirrt survivesthe particular actors who make use of it.
but which requires individual actors in order to be actualized and reproduced as realitv once
asain." (l'P-erlbmatLye.'.'272-)
What is required for the heggplgny-_gt_heteroLq_ryn-a!-iy-estandards to
maintain nower is our continual renetition of such gender acts in the most mundane of dailv
activities(thewaywe walk,talk,gesticulate,
etc.).ForButler,the distinction betweenthe nersonal and the
Dolitical or betweenprivate and public is itself a fiction designedto support an opnressivestatus
quo: our most Dersonalacts are, in fact,continuallv being scrinted bv
Legemonicsocial conventions
and ideolosies.
DBH lcq.
Anl
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE: ENDING CYCLE OF REVENGE
In order to end the violent cycle of revenge, we must seek justice through non-violence and a collective
responsibilityfor internationalcommunity. This includesan unconditionalopennessto 'other's' narrativesto
betterunderstandthe root of violence,ending violence,and enablingbetterglobal possibilities.
BUTLER 2002 (luAith, Maxine Elliott Professorof Rhetoricand ComparativeLiteratureat UC Berkeley,"Explanationand
or What We Can Hear," TheoryanclEyent,5:4,projectMuse.)
Exoneration,
We ask these latter questionsnot to exoneratethe individualswho commit violence, but to take a different sort of
responsibilityfbr the global conditionsof justice.As a result,it makessenseto follow two coursesof actionat once: it is
surely importantto find those who plannedand implementedthe violence,and to hold them accountableaccordingto
internationalwar crimes standardsand in internationalcourtsof law, regardlessof our skepticismabout such institutions
(skepticismcan furnishgroundsfor reform).In pursuinga waywardmilitary solution,the U.S. now perpetrates and displays
its own violence,offering a breedingground for new wavesof young Muslims to join terroristorganizations. This is poor
thinking, strategicallyand morally. lgnoring its imageas the hatedenemy for many in the region,the U.S. has effectively
respondedto the violencedone againstit by consolidatingits reputationas a militaristicpower with no respectfor lives
outsideof the f-irstworld. That we now resrrond with more violence is taken as "further proof' that the
U.S. has violent and anti-sovereigndesignson the resion. To remember the lessonsof Aeschvlus
and refuse this cvcle of revengein the name of iustice means not onlv to seek legal redress for
but t of how s becomeform
to form it anew, and in the direction of non-violence.Our collectiveresnonsibilitvnot merelv as a
nation. but as nart of an international communitv based on a commitment to equalitv and non-
violent cooperation. requires that we ask how these conditions came atrout. and to endeavor to
recreate social and nolitical conditions on more sustainins grounds. This means.in part,hearing
. And it well bein s
from our supremacv, in both its right and lefi wing forms. Can we hear at once that therewere precedents for these
events,and to know that it is urgentthat we know them, learnfrom them,alter them, and that the eventsare not iustifiedbv
virtue of this history and that the eventsare not understandablewithout this history?Onlv then do we reach the
disDositionto set to the "root" of violence.and besin to offer anothervision of the future than that
whi uates vi the name of denvins it. offerinp i
DBH
ADI l0q.
IDENTITYK
ALTERNATIVE: .OTHER' NARRATIVES
In order to de-centerthe blind view of the masternarrative,we must be unconditionallyopen to the narrativeof
the lives of 'others'. This deeplyinterrogatesfirst-worldism and can createbetteroutlooksof oppression.
BUTLER 2002 (luaith,MaxineElliottProfessor of Rhetoric
andComparative Literature
at UC Berkeley,
"Explanation
and
Exoneration,
Perhapsthe cannol be heard at all, but I would still like to ask: can we find another meaning. and
a f, ins of narrative w ol
J I
donotmeanthatthestoryoru.i''guttu.l..a'n.uldnotbetold.Ioono.tn
shouldnot be told.Thesestorieshaveto be told, andthey arebeingtold, despitethe enormous traumathat undermines
narrative capacityin theseinstances. But if we are to come to understand ourselves as global actors. and
actin8 within an historicallv established field. and one that has other actions in plav. we will need
to emerge from the narrative perspective of U.S. unilateralism and, as it *ere,
!!L]!!@
structures. to consider the wavs in which our lives are profoundly imrrlicated in the lives of others.
M y f i i e n d s o n t h e l e f t j o k e a b o u t h a v i n g l o s t t h e i r f i r s t w o r l d c o m p l a c e n c y . Y e s , t h i s i s t r u e . Br e
u st dt oo rweei tn o w s e e k
asa wayof healingfiom thiswound?Or do we allowthechallenge to firstworldcomplacency to standandbeginto builda
differentpoliticson its basis?My senseis thatbeing onen to the exrrlanations. Doorly circulated as thev are
in the U.S. isht he tock of as come to take t
us in a different order of resnonsibilitv
sibilitv. The abilitv to narrate ourselvesnot from the first Derson
alone. but from, say,the positi<ln of the third. or to receive an account delivered in the seconcl.can
actuallv work to exnand our understanding of the forms that elobal Dower has taken. But instead
of ntoa -worldism.w
at exnlanation.as if to exrrlain these eventswould accord them rationalitv. as if to exnlain these
eventswould involve us in a svmpathetic identification with the opnressor.as if to understand
these events would involve buildins a iustificatorv framework for them. Our fear of
iew belies r that we will
contagious.becomeinfected in a morallv Derilousway by the thinkins of the nresumedenemv.tsut
why do we assumethis? We claim to havegoneto war in orderto "root out" the sourcesof terror,accordingto Bush,but do
we think that finding the individualsresponsible for the attackson the U.S. will constitutehavinggottento the root? Do we
n o t i m a g i n et h a tt h e i n v a s i o no f a s o v e r e i g cn o u n t r yw i t h a s u b s t a n t i aMl u s l i m p o p u l a t i o ns,u p p o r t i n tgh e m i l i t a r yr e g i m ei n
Pakistanthat activelyand violently suppresses free speech,obliteratinglives and villagesand homesand hospitals,*itt not
fbstermore adamantand widely disseminated anti-Americansentimentand political organizing?Are we noi, strategically
speaking,interesledin amelioratingthis violence?Are we not, ethicallyspeaking,obligatedto stop its furtherdissemination.
to considerour role in instigatingit, and to foment and cultivateanothersenseof a culturallyand religiouslydiverseglobal
p o l i t i c acl u l t u r e ?
DBF{
ADI lt0.
IDENTITYK
AT: PERM
Whenpoliticalgroupsattemptto includethoseof variousdifferences,

its politicsarealreadypredetermined
whichdestroystheirattempts.
BUTLER 19971.luOitn,Writer
of Boclies
thatMatter
andGender Trouble,The
Usesof Equatity, yol.27,No.l.
Diacritics, pp.2-
12)
W* a* askedto begin:rsonver$eti$* on squ*lit}i,snd{rlrth* prublernof rc*eprable

andunaeceptable differ*nces.I hardly k*sr'* whercto begin,and tlrinh ttratyou would
probahlyjoio meln t$esen$e $f un$&re thatfollowsfwm being*slcedtodecidewhatkindr
of diffeisneesought to be includedin sn idealpoli*y, a$d what kinds of differcnces
underrnine thevcry por*ibilityof polity,pcrhape cventbev*ry idcalitywithoutwhichno
dsmocraticnotisnof polity ca$pmceed.I am a bir perplexedaswell by rh* que*tianof
rvhetheror not the neitionof inclusionandexelusion,whieh I know har occupiedyour
wott fur s*ttx {iureilow, is strictlycuuul*terlt{rtlw rlotiunof rqunlity.$* prlup I will
$tilt by offeringaseti:f distinctionsbetwwn"inclusivene$s" &nd'"quatity."It Jeernsto
nre that inclusivtnn$sis an idea!, a$ ideal thar is impos*ibteto rratlar, but who*e
unrcalimbility nevertheless governrth* way in whieh a radicaldemocraticproject
proeeds.
I gatherthatsn* of thctt&son$" or thekeyrca*on,why inclusive$es$ is boundto fiait
is precisely bmaussths vsriousdifferencesrhatarr to beincludedwithin tlx pclity are
not given in advsnc$"They {re, crucially. in the proce*sof being fonnuistedand
elaborated- andthattheluis no way to eirrum*crihein advancethefonn thetan idml of
itlclusiveness,wnuldtake.This spsnness or inc*mplct€ne$$ thatconstitutes the ideatof
inclusionis preciselyaneffectof theunreatiesl$tttusof whatis or will bethecont*ntof
wh*t is to beincluded.In thisscnsc,tben,inclusiona* anide l rnustbecon*titutcdby its
own impossibility;indsed,it must be comrninedts ite own impossibilityin ordcr to
pocced along$repathof renlimtiqn.
DBH
ADI (rz.
IDENTITY K
AT: PERM
The postethnicera focusesthe bettering of people'slives, focusing on differencesdiverts attention from

building effective coalitions.
Palumbo-Liu in 2000 (David,Professor
of Comparative
Literatureat Stanford
University,
Assumetl
ldentities,
NewLiterary
History,
pp.765-780)
Besidesthis generalaversionto speak any longer about identity, there is the specificallv political move
prorrosedbv severalsocial critics to move "bevond identitv" and. in particular. into a ,.nostethnic"era.
These proposalsdo not necessarilycome from the right; indeed, some of the more eloquent and persuasive
advocatesfor this position identify themselveswithin a tradition of leftist (if not radical) thought. For these
critics of "identitv politics." the real issue of bettering the lives of people can onlv take place if we set
aside the distinctions identitv politics seemsto .x upon. and work together on a common platform of
-fhose
economic rishts. associatedwith this position include Todd Gitlin, Richard Rorty, David Hollinger,
MichaelTomasky,and others.Eachin his own way hasarguedthat the progressivemovementof the New Left
was compromisedby the emergenceof identity politics. These critics argue that, whatever salutarv value
feminist. queer. or critical race and ethnic studieshave had. thev have causedthe left to veer off-track
and into the minutiae of finer and finer distinctionsof specialinterest qrouDs.each claiming priority or,er
the others.This blocks anv effectivecoalition buildins.
DBH
ADI trz
IDENTITYK
AT: PERM
Thegapbetweenuniversalism andparticularism
is unbridgeable,andthe attemptto do sowill inevitablyleadto
socialfragmentation
andclash.
LACLAU 1992(Ernestois a professorat theUniversityof Essexwherehe holdsa chairin PoliticalTheory,
"Universalism,
Particualrism,
andthe Questionof ldentity"in October,Vol 61 (Summer1992)
This st*ry seemsto be leading t$ ;rn ineviuble cnncluci*n: the chasm

betweenthe universaland the particular is untlridgeable.Thh sutemenr is the
s-am€as sayingthat the universalis no more than a particular that has become
dominant*that there is no way of reachinga reconciledsociety.And, in actual
fact, the spectacleof the rocial and pclitical strugglesin the 1990scnnfronts us
wirh a proliferation of particularisms,while the point of view of universalityis
increasinglyput asideas an old-fashionedrôralitarian dream. I want ro argue,
however,that an appealtCIpure particularisrnis no solutiqrnrCIthe problenrswe
are facing in,conternporarysocirties.The assertionof pure partiiularism, in-
dependtnt of any content and of any appealro a universality,is a self-defeating
enterprise. For if it is the only acceptednormarive principle, it confronrs us
with an unsolvableparadox. trcan defend the right of sexual,racial,and nat"ional
minorities in the name of particularism,but il particularism is the only valid
principle, I have to acceptalso the rights ro selidetermination of all kinds of
reactionarygroup$ involved in antisocialpractices.Moreover!as the demands
of various group$
_willnecessarilyclash with each other, we have to appeal to
somf mor€ general principles-if not $omekind of pree$r.ablithed harmony*
in order to regulate such clashes.In acrual fact, there is no perticularisrnthar
does not appeal to such principlesin the consrructionof its own identity. These
principles may be progressive-such as the right of peoples ro self-
determination*or reactionary*such a$ so{ial Darwinism or rhe righr to
Lrs*nsrnum*but they are alwaystherr, snd fbr es$entialrea$on$,
DEfJ
ANF il1.
IDENTITY K
AT: PERM
A politics of pure particularism is impossiblebecausethere are always appealsto universal principles

Zerilli in 1998 (Linda, Professorof Political Scienceat Northwestern,The UniversalismLl/hichis not One, Diacritics, pp 3-20)
The claim to difference, Laclau arsues in chapterstwo and four of Emancipation(s),imbricates

multicultural groups in the very universalismthey refuse. "The assertion of pure particularism.
enterprise" [261.Laclau sives two reasonsfor this claim. First. in a cemplex society (like the United
States)"no grouD leads a "monadic existence" but is situated in a larger context. The identitv of the
rticulated in an "ela
relationswith other erouDs" [481.not in snlendid isolation from them. Theserelationswill be "resulated
bY norms and DrinciDleswhich transcend the narticularism of azy sroup" [481.such as the lansuage of
rishts. Moreover. savs Laclau. the verv assertionof the riqht of grouns to their difference is alreadv an
aDDealto some universal nrinciole: "there is no particularism which does not make an appeal to such
princinles in the constructionof its identitv" 1261.What this meansis that difference.when it is assertedin
the political spaceand discourseof rights,is necessarily entangledin the logic of equivalence:"lf it is asserted
that all particular groups have the right to respectof their own particularity,this meansthat they are equal to
eachother in someways" [49]. fhe only casein which the logic of pure differencewould not be contaminated
by the logic of equivalence, assertsLaclau,would be in a societyin which "all groupswere differentfiom each
other. and in which none of them wantedto be anythingother than what they are. . . . It is not fbr nothing that a
pure logic of difl-erence--the
notionof separate developments--liesat the root of apartheid"[a9]. IEnd Page8]
DBH
ADI (tf
IDENTITYK
AT: COALITIONS PERM
The focus on absoluteunity within coalitionsmaintainsstaticidentities.Our approachconfirms all identities

and allows for a fasterand further reachingactivism.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,professorof philosophy
at UC Berkeley,
GenrlerTrouble,pg.19-21)
The insistence in advanceon coalitional',unity',as a goal is, in eithercase,alwaysinstitutedat a conceptuallevel,
assumes that solidarity.whateverits price.is a prerequisite provisional unities might emerge in the context of
for oolitical action. But what sort of politics demandsthat concrete actions that have purposes other than the
kind of advancepurchaseon unity? perhapsa coalition articulation of identity. Without the compulsory
needsto acknowledgeits contradictionsand take action expectationthat feministactionsmust be institutedfrom
with thosecontradictions intact.Perhapsalsopart of what some stable.unified. and agreed-uponidentity. those
dialogic understandingentails is the acceptanceof actions might well get a quicker starl and seem more
divergence.breakage.splinter.and fragmentation as partof congenial to a number of "women" for whom the
the often tortuous processof democratization.The very meaning of the catesory is permanentl)'moot. This
notion of "dialogue"is culturallyspecificand historically antifoundationalistapproach to coalitional politics
bound. and while one speaker may feel secure that a assumes neitherthat "identity"is a premisenor that the
conversation is happening, anothermay be sure it is not. shapeor meaningof a coalitionalassemblage can be
The power relationsthat condition and limit dialogic knownprior to its achievement. Becausethe articulation
possibilitiesneed flrst to be interrogated. Otherwise,the of an identitywithin availableculturalterms instatesa
modelof dialoguerisks relapsinginto a liberalrnodelthat definition that foreclosesin advancethe emergenceof
assumesthat speakingagentsoccupy equal positionsof new identityconceptsin and throughpoliticallyengaged
power and speakwith the samepresuppositions aboutwhat actions, the fbundationalist tactic cannot take the
constitutes"agreement" and "unity" and,indeed,thatthose transtbrmation or expansion of existingidentityconcepts
arethe goalsto be sought.lt would be wrongto assumein as a normative goal. Moreover, when agreed-upon
advancethat there is a category of "women" that simply identitiesor agreed-upondialogic structures,through
needsto be filled in with variouscomponents of race,class, which alreadyestablished identitiesare communicated.
age.ethnicity,and sexualityin orderto becomecomplete. no longerconstitute the themeor subjectof politics.then
'l-he
assumption of its essential
incompleteness permitsthat identities cancomeinto beingand dissolvedepending on
category to serve as a permanently available site of the concrete practices that constitute them. Certain
contested meanings.The definitionalincompleteness of the political practicesinstituteidentitieson a contingent
categorymight then serveas a normativeideal relievedof basisin orderto accomplish whateveraims are in view.
coerciveforce. Is "unity" necessaryfor effbctivepolitical Coalitional politics requires neither an expanded
action? Is the prematureinsistenceon the goal of unity categoryof "women" nor an internallymultiplicitous
preciselythe causeof an ever more bitter tiagmentation self that offers its complexity at once. Gender is a
among the ranks? Cerlain forms of acknowledged complexity whose totality is permanently defened,
fragmentation might facilitatecoalitionalaction precisely never fully what it is at any given juncture in time. An
becausethe "unity" of the categoryof women is neither open coalition. then. will affirm identities that are
presupposednor desired. Does "unity" set up an alternatel),institutedand relinquishedaccordingto the
exclusionarynorm of solidarityat the level of identitythat purposesat hand; it will be an open assemblagethat
rulesout the possibilityof a setof actionswhich disruptthe permits of multiple convergencesand divergences
very borders of identity concepts, or which seek to without obedienceto a normativetelos of definitional
accomplishpreciselythat disruptionas an explicitpolitical closure.
aim? Withoutthe presupposition or goal of ,,unity,"which
DBFf
ADf ilb.
IDENTITYK
AT: COALITIONS PERM
The search for an effective coalition dooms that political struggle before it even begins.
BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenclerTrouble,pg.lg)
Someeffortshavebeenmadeto formulatecoalitionalpolitics
whichdo not assumein advancewhatthe contentof ,,women,, will be.
They proposeinsteada set of dialogicencounters by which variously
positionedwomenarticulateseparate identitieswithin the framework
of an emersentcoalition.clearly,the valueof coalitionalpoliticsis not
to be underestimated, but the very form of coalition.of an emerging
and unpredictable assemblage of positions.cannotbe figuredin
adygnge. Despitethe clearly democratizing impulsethat motivates
coalition building.the coalitionaltheoristcaninadvertently reinsert
herselfas sovereignof tlre processby tr-vingtoassertan idealform for
coalitionalstructuresin advance.onethat will effectivelyquarantee
unit)'asthe outcome.Relatedeffbrtsto determinewhat is and is not
thetrueshapeof a dialogue.whatconstitutes a subject-position.and.
mostimportantly. when"unity" hasbeenreached. canimpedethe selfshaping
andself'-limitingdynamicsof coalition.
D8H
ADI
UT:
IDENTITY K
AT: PLAN SOLVES
LEGAL PROTECTIONS
FOR PERFORMANCES
OF RACE OR SEX ONLY SERVE TO RIGIDIFY
CONFORMITY.
CLARKE 2005 (JESSICAA. CLARKEis Law Clerk,Hon. Shira A. Scheindtin, U.S. DistrictCourtfor the Southern
Districtof New York. J.D. 2003, Yale Law School. "Adverse Possessionof ldentity:Radical Theory, Conventional
Practice,"Copyright(c) 2005 University
of Oregon,OregonLaw Review2005,84 Or. L. Rev.563,p lexis)
Property,marriage,parenthood.racial segregation.and the sex/gendersystemcan be understood

s that neoole kee
nouse: ownlne DroDerlv-forming intimate relationships,raising families, and identifying as
material s of individuals'
lives." and we shouldpausebefbreacceptingrigid legal def-rnitions of theseintimate personal
tieedoms.n477 The doctrinesol performancereification give courts the job of adjudicating
whether people were reall), keeping house or merel), pla)ring house. Mere play is an
inappropriateposture:theseare seriousinstitutionsthat requireuniversaladherenceto maintain
their [*654] cultural hegemony.BuI, if the number of available legal forms and their
concomitantbundlesof rights and dutiesare not normativelyacceptable. then thesedoctrines.
thosefbrm are not ble either.
The law ma), protect public performancesof property. mariage. parenthood,race. and sex. but
theseprotectionsare likely to come at a cost.Socialactorswill be requiredto hold themselves
out to the public as conformistson a consistentand continuousbasis.If the perfbrmanceis not
seamless. protectionwill be denied.Such confbrmit),is likel), to stifle individualcreativityand
diflu ial o1-olavf.ul
hyl ttg.
IDENTITY K
AT: IDENTITY CATEGORIZATIONLEGIT
IDENTITYCATEGOzuESARE REALLY RELIANTON THE SOCIALFORCESTHAT CREATETHEM.

THEREARE NO ESSENTIALQUALTTIES
TO IDENTITY.
COOMBS 1995 (Vary Coombsis Professor,University of MiamiSchoolof Law. "A COLLABORATIVE WOBK WITH
BERKELEYWOMEN'SLAW JOURNAL:REVIEWESSAY:INTERROGATING IDENTITY,',
NOTESOF A WHITEBLACK
WOMAN:RACE,COLOR,COMMUNITYBy Judy Scales-Trent. Copyright(c) 1995 The Regentsof the Universityof
Californiaon behalfof African-American
Law & PolicyReportAfrican-AmericanLaw & PolicyReport,Fall, 1995, 2 Atr.-
Becauserace is so overwhelminglyand pervasivelyimportantin American law and culture,

however,it is often hard to seeits contextualnature.The contextualityof identity ma)' be more
easilyexaminedin the first instancethroughother.lesspolitically charged.identitycategories.
suchas disabilit),or religion.Here,as elsewhere,I acknowledgethat analogiesamongidentit)'
categoriesare always imperfect.n94 Nonetheless.there are commonalitiesat a conceptual
level (fbr example.issuesof authorit),to categorizearisefor all identities),and so long as we
bear in mind the risk of f.alseanalogiesand of buryingothers'concernsunderan appropriative
claim that we are all similarly oppressed.such analogiescan help us gain a deeper
understanding of the processof identityconstruction.
Considerboth the meaningand the salienceof the categoryof disability.As MarthaMinow has
noted,disability is inherentl),contextual:one is disabledonly insofar as the situationmakes
certainphysicalattributesproblems.In a world in which ramps and other accommodations
were universal.using a wheelchairrather than legs would be a dif-ferencerather than a
handicap.n95
Religion providesan even clearerexampleof contextuality.The meaningand importanceof being Jewish,for

example,vary wildly. n96 I do not think aboutit at all when I go to a movie on Fridaynight, but that fact might
meanto an OrthodoxJew that I am, though fbrmally Jewish,the religiousequivalentof a race-traitor.My brief
marriageto a gentile,perfbrmedby a willing Refbrmrabbi,would not be recognizedby an OrthodoxJew: in fact,
it would be groundsfor treatingme as if I were dead.My senseof myself as Jewishmakesme shiverwhen I read
aboutthe Aryan Nation.My identityas a progressive Jew fbrcesme into complicatedself-analysis[*240] when I
reactto anti-Semitism by African Americans,or to the Intiladaand the responseof the Israeligovernment.I feel a
connectionwith, even a responsibilityfor, the statcof lsraelvery difl'erenttiom my reactionto the activitiesof
China or France.Yet I also f'eeluncomfortable with the notionthat I havea right to immigrateunder lsraelilaw
becauseof my great-grandmother's wholly-lived Jewish identity in a Russianshtetl. Furthermore,though
intellectuallyI rejectthe very notionof biologicalrace,I find myselfthinkingthat someone"looks Jewish,"when
they have my dark coloring and my father'shookednose.n97 Indeed,I understandwhy Jews can be seenas
imperfectlywhite, particularlyin those times and placeswhere they have been racially excluded.n98 | am
inspired,moreover,to reflecton my complexreactionsto claimsof Jewishgroup identityin part by my readingof
Scales-Trent's musingson issuesof racialsolidarityand individualismin the African-Americancommunity.n99
Scales-Trent'sbook illustratesthe f'luidity, contextualityand complexityof identity.nl00 She

uses the metaphor of Navajo skinwalkersto explore "how we all 'skinwalk'--changeshapes.
identities.from time to time. duri i v e s . "n l 0 1
By reminding us of the importance of context, Scales-Trentencouragesus to resist the
seeminglynatural impulse to categorizepeople into those rigid. oversimplified classifications
nl02 that the law tendsto imposeand then reif.v.
DBH il1
ADI
IDENTITY K
AT: MIXED-RACECATEGORIESSOLVE
MIXED RACECATEGOzuES ARE POLITICALTOOLSTHAT ONLY INCREASEDIVISIONSAND THE

IDEAL OF SO-CALLEDOBJECTIVEIDENTITYCATEGOzuZATION.
COOMBS 1995 lvary Coombsis Professor,Universityof Miami School of Law. "A COLLABORATIVEWORK WITH
BERKELEYWOMEN'SLAW JOURNAL:REVIEWESSAY:INTERROGATING IDENTITY,''
NOTESOF A WHITEBLACK
WOMAN:RACE,COLOR,COMMUNITYBy Judy Scales-Trent. Copyright(c) 1995 The Regentsof the Universityol
Californiaon behalfof African-American
Law & PolicyReportAfrican-AmericanLaw & PolicyReport,Fall, 1995, 2 Att.-
The recognitionof the categorymixed-racemight seema wa), of recognizingcomplexit),and

iplicitv.of allowins indivi insist on social and legal recosnition of their own self-
experiencedcomplex racial identit)'. nl I I Yet there are wider political implications.As the
politicsof [*243] biracialitLmakeclear.identi[, is constructedsimultaneously as a categor],and
as an assignmentof individualswithin that categor),.nll2 The rules of hypodescentdictatethat
biracial people will otherwisebe consideredblack, not white. nl13 Becauseof the extent of
interracialsex in America, particularlyin the antebellumSouth, the vast majority of Afiican
Americans.regardless of color. are descendants of whitgs as well as Blacks.nl14 Statistical
of the n ks have fbr t boundaries
and t and academicenrollments.as well as nubli
assessments of the reality and significanccof the black experience.What cost might there be to
thosewho identifr k tthe vastmaiori i c a l l vm i x e d - r a c ei f) t h e c e n s u s
addeda mixed-racccategoqr?nl l5 Doesthe mixed-racecategorymake senseas a new racialor
ethnicnl16 category.or is it simplya way of avoidingthe implicationsof being(seenas) black'l
Will the recognitionof a mixed-racecategoryerodeor entrenchthe white racismembeddedin the
existingcategories and the meansby which peopleare assignedto them?
ln effect,to extendScales-Trent's analogyof raceand geography,peopleseekingrecognitionas

mixed-raceare scekingto secede.as individuals.from blackness. nl17 Simultaneously, they call
into questionthe boundariesl*2441 that have beendrawn aroundthe country of whiteness.by
questioningthe credentialsof many of its citizens.When and how and to what extent such
secession shouldbe recognizedis a politicaland strategicquestion.not merel),one of discovering
and proclaimingthe truth of an identit),.
DBH
ADI 12e.
IDENTITY K
AT: LEGAL OBJECTIVITY
THE PHANTOM OBJECTIVITY INHERENT IN TRADITIONAL NOTIONS OF LAW SERVE TO

INSULATE A PRIVILEGED VIEWPOINT FROM CRITICISM.
DAVIES & SEUFFERT 2000(Margaret Davies is Senior Lecturer in Law at the Flinders Universityof
SouthAustralia,and Nan Seuffertis SeniorLecturerat the Universityof Waikato."Knowledge,
ldentity,
andthe Politics
of Law,"Copyright
(c)2000Hastings Collegeof the Law,Hastings
Women's
LawJournal,
Summer, 2000,11 Hastings
Women's p
L.J.259, lexis)
The traditionalview of the objectivityof knowledgeis ver),commonin legaldiscourse.wherean
authoritativepicture of law. not open to fundamentalchallenge.is consideredcrucial. n36
Positivistlegaltheoryhas beenbasedon the possibilityof describinglaw as it is, n37 while legal
formalism presumesthat there is an objective solution to legally-defineddisputes.n38 The
dominantview of law is that it can be ob.iectivel),
identifiedand appliedneutrally.I-ike traditional
scientists.legaltheoristsand practitionershaveassumedthat thereis a legal "view fiom nowhere.'
In law. as elsewhere."perspectives' which are from somewhere.rather than fiom the assumed
"nowhere'of the professional white male.areregardedas inherentl)'biased.
Within this traditionalfiamework.law may be open to appropriatesortsof challenges.The idea

behindliberal law reform is that incrementalchangesto the legal systemneedto be madeto keep
pacewith alterationsin the socialenvironment.but that the s)'stemitself is perf-ectl)'
capableof
overseeingsuchchangein a neutralfashion.n39 In otherwords.internal l*267] criticismbased
on acceptanceo1-fundamentallegal ideals. including the ideal of objectivit)'. is generally
acceptable within the system.while a challengeto thc basicpremisesof law and legalobjectivity
is not.
Many f-eministcritiquesof law are essentiallyan appliedf-eministepistemology.Feministshave

argued that legal "objectivity' is neither trul), objective. nor apolitical. For instance,
reasonableness is not an ob.iectivetest becauseit presupposes
a particularkind of legal subject,
one modeledon the "benchmarkman." n40 Some l-eministcritiquesof legal objectivity have
arguedthat changingthe contentof legal knowledgewould result in standardswhich are more
objective,a standardwhich is inclusiveof women'sexperienceand knowledgeas well as that of
men. n4l Suchargumentsare analogousto the feministcritiquesof masculinebias in scienceand
in the socialsciences.Other critiqueshavefocusedon the artiflciality of the objective/subjective
distinction in law. CatharineMacKinnon, for instance.has arguedvery persuasivelythat the so-
called "objective'position is necessaril)'assumedby a subiectand is in realit), onl)' a method of
protectinga privilegedpoint of view. n42
DBH lzl.
ADI
ADI 20 0 6 Dr. Dave'sLab
I P€N{IT( k_
AT: ID POLITIX -'A
In order to overcome the univocal nature of identity, one must "proliferate the differences" within our
identities"
Honig in 1992 (Bonnie, AssociateProfessorof Governmentat Harvard, Arendt and the Politicsof Identity, FeministsTheorizethe
P o l i t i c a lp, p . 2 3 1 )
Thc
r r ' , rrnore
u r s powcrful ancl
puwurrul a enrpowering
'tt e r'powenng o
defense against
e r e n s ea g a l n s t sSchole'r, orr R
choleur, o Richl
ich,
, indeed. against any identity politics, is t. resist the irresistible. n.t bv
vatizingit but by unnraski.ngthe would-be irresistible, homogenc.us,
ativeanclunivocal idenlity in t;uestionas a performative
.procluction,
:tured,{iagnrented,ill-fitting, and incornplete,the seclir-nentecl and nor at,
seamlcss productof a nrultifudcof pelforrrrances and behaviors,the nat-
izedproduct rf innumcrablerepetitions.'I-his is Arcndt's stratcgy lbr
oweringthc "we hold" of the Declarationagainstthe coercivc violence
thatdocurncnt's"self'-eviclent truths." why not usurp this strategyol.em-
t o u n r ' a s k , s u b v e r t ,a n d r e s i s tt h e v i o l c n t c l o s u r e so l t h e u n i _
y and self-evi<lence assurnedby some .lewislrancl f'enrinistnolitics ol
ity?
: The strategyhcre is t. thcorizc a .lewishncssthat is not honrogenizrng
a fenrinisnrthat docs not cf'faceclifl'erencclbr the sake ol-an equality
sameness. The sgql-qgy-here--is--tr-r*prolil-cr.atc.-clif!:t_e_nge rathcr rhari reify
3nd the rcsult nright be the empoweringcliscovcryor insistcnccthat there
ways to cl. .ne's .Jeu,ishncss, nrany ways to cl. one's gcnder.rT
[S Trny
pThe homogcniz-ing inrpulseof'sonre (so-called)private-rcah-n iclcntiticswouldi
iDe weakcned
ilie w eakcneri a and
n r l tthat
l r r t rwould
v o r r l r l aliow
: r l l n . ' , ffor
n r greater
a r a - r ^ - . r i tclifl-erentiation
-{^-^-+:^+:--- ^-.r
and .. .
contesta I
,l
l,lility withur thc franrc of the "iclentities,' thernselves. ,
DBH lzz,
ADI
IDENTITYK
AT: PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES MATTER
The cultural and racial differencesthroughouthumanityshouldare easily deemednot crucial.

Michaels 2000 (Walter Benn Michaelsis the Professorof English and the Humanitiesat the John Hopkins
University. "Political ScienceFictions" inl{ew Literary History Vol 31 No 4 (Autumn 2002)
Whereverwe want to locateourselveson this axis, however(and it is by now no doubt obviousthat the point of
this paper is to attack the axis and not to argue for one or another position along it), we can see that the
movementfrom the clashof ideologiesto the clashof civilizationsshouldbe understoodas a movementfrom
the universalistlogic of conflict as differenceof opinionto the posthistoricistlogic of conflict as differencein
subjectposition.From this perspective,the rise in the United States of racial and cultural difference as
emblems or
emDlems of olllerence
difference as
as szcl,
szcft might
might be understoodas
lre understood as a rehearsal
rehearsalfor
for the
the end
entl of ideological
ideolosical difference.
difference.
And science fiction which (with its reconfiguration of the racial other as the alien other) undermines racial
elessbe underst
theoretical model. Thus on the one hand. as we have alreadynoted.the contrast with the alien makes the
urrrerencesnerween
between numans look absolutely trivial. 'fhe
ivial. I he heroine of-
of Butler's Xerutgenesisis Afiican
American.and the trilogy's cast of human characters(Asian. Latino. white) meetsmost current standardsof
diversity.but the differencesin human skin colors and hair textures may be rendered [End Page 6541
insiqnificant (madeto look like ditferencesin, say,heightand weight)when the humans are iuxtaposedwith
talking. tentacledseaslugs.I In this sense.the confrontation betweenhuman and alien seemsdesignedto
disDelthe notion that the rrhvsicaldifferencesbetweenhumans--thedifference between races--couldbe
crucial. On the other hand,the contrastwith the alien makesphysicaldifl.erenceuniquelyrelevant"sincethe
definingdifl-erencebetweenhumansand aliensis the differencein their bodies.Thus althoughXenogene.si.s is
relativelyuninterestedin both the categoriesof difl-erence--racialand cultural--thathavetendedto dominatethe
field of posthistoricistconflict, it is absctlutelyuninterestedin the categoriesof ideologicaldifferencethat
dominatedthe cold war--capitalist and communist,liberaland marxist.
KBfl t27.
IDENTITYK
AT: HUMAN RTGHTS GOOD FOR NONLIBERAL SOCIETIES
The claim that human rights are key to justice in nonliberalsocietiesis counter-productive.This createsa zero-
sum situationwhere individuals obtain social/politicalpower, which is antitheticalto the original project to be
anti-political.Additionally, this extensionof rights promotesdemocracy,which createsconflict with tolerance.
BROWN 2004 lwendy' professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the Universityof California,
Berkeley,..,TheMost
We Can Hope For...': HumanRightsandthe Politicsof Fatalism,"TheSouthAtlantic 103.213,p
451-463,project
Quarterly, Muse.)
Taken together,Isnatieffs three claims about the political possibilitiesset in motion by human rights far from
representing
the m i n i m a l i s mwith which *. b.gun-are building block
can tn a difli istribu r and ice in nonli . If this
so. it hist tion histo w
rights would constitute IEnd P a g e 4 5 8 1 r
is for rc nart than the nla
from which democracvstarts rather than ends.Not orrtni
with tgnatieff's
ownnotionof rights as a form of protection from power and conflict as well as witilTf
corollarv claim for tolerance as the abilitv to
rlolitics-ttre retreatfrom the problemof collectivepower-that the right to live as one wishespromises.Moreover,it
introdu resolved interval between the expressly moral and antinolitical discourse of
human rights and a noliticizationthat this discourseis claimed to promise perhaps
mostimporra",[E
formulates nolitical and social nower as a zero-sum game: rishts asainst culture or the state
becomea measureof rrowertaken awav from them what the individual has. the institutiomsdon't
get. Few modernthinkersstill subscribeto this fbrmulationof power.
Even apart tiom the Foucauldianinsieht into the
regulatorydimensionof rightsthat challengesit an insightinto the productionof subjectsand subjectification juridical
by
discourse thereis the patentempiricalfact that Americanshaveneverhad so many rights(eventhe lawyerscan'tteep track
of them) and so little powerto shapecollectivejusticeand nationalaims-
Dtsh"h
ADI
l-L y',
IDENTITY K
AT: RIGHTS GOOD FOR PUBLIC DELIBERATION
Rights do not create spacefor local political deliberationbecauseit assumesthat transcendentalmorality or

govemmentalinterventionalwaysalreadycreatestolerance.
BROWN 2004 lwenOy, professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the Universif of California,Berkeley,"'The Most
We Can Hope For...': Human Rightsandthe Politicsof Fatalism,"TheSouthAtlantic p 451-463,projectMuse.)
Quarterly,103.213,
Ignatieffsthird claim aboutwhat rights incite beyondprotectionagainstsufferingpertainsto their creationof "a world of
genuinemoral equality among human beings" (95). For democratsof any stripe, such a world is anotherone of those
incontestable goods,but Ignatiefftakesthis point furtherthan it may go: "A world of moral equalityis a world of conflict,
deliberation,argument,and contention"(95). While this appearsto link his argumentthat rights .*po*", individualsto
prospectsfor democraticdetermination of governingvalues,we mustask what makesrights-those markersof the desirenot
to suffer,to live as and for what one individuallychooses,
and to insistthat one'schoicesbe tolerated-a vehiclefor bringing
us togetherro debateaboutvaluesand ends?If rights constitute something of a shield against power.
including incursions and coercions by other individuals. if rishts pive us the canacitv to be left to
our own devices.what makes them into a conduit for gathering us into argument and contention
about governing
about sov norms or ends? ! Indeed,
the historical tension between a Dremium placed on
individual libertv and a nremium Dlacedon governancehas been lived as the conflici befween
ce4t4ifuE?land centrirretalimrrulsesin democratic thousht and nractice for most of its history. rt
took shapein an older languageas the battlebetweenrepublicanvaluesand more libertarianones, in the mid-nineteenth
throughmid-twentiethcenturiesas a debatebetweensocialistand liberalaspirationsfor democracy,and more recentlyin
argumentsbetweenliberal individualistsand liberalcommunitarians.
Rights, especiallythoseas dependenton a universal
moral vocabularyas humanrights are, hardlv guarantee local Dolitical deliberation about how we should
live together; indeed,thev mav function nrecisely to limit or cancel such deliberation with
transcendentalmoral claims. refer it to the courts. submit it to creedsof tolerance.or secure an
escapefrom it into private lives.
DBH
ADI
tz.f
IDENT]TYK
AT: COLLECTIVE RIGHTS GOOD
collective rights threatenindividual rights, guaranteeingstatetyranny.

BROWN 2004 (Wendy,professorof politicalscienceand women'sstudiesat the Universiq,of California,Berkeley,..'TheMost
We Can Hope For.'.': Human Rightsandthe Politicsof Fatalism,"TheSouthAtktntic p 451-463,projectMuse.)
Quarterly,103.213,
The oddnessof this narrativeis explainedin part by an appreciationof what lgnatieff is seekingto staveoff, namely,a
left tilt to humanrightsprojectsthat would eitherinsiston the primacyof rightsto iood, shelter,and healthcareor that would
argue'moremodestly,that civil and politicalrightsmustbe supplemented by suchsocialor economicrights.tgnatieffobjects
to such a tilt not only becauseit makeshuman rights campaignsmore politically ambitiousand thus less immediitely
efficaciousor realizable,which would be a reasonable objectionfrom a piagmatist,but becausehe fearswhat he tellingly
calls"collectiverights."(Thereis, of course,no inherentreasonfor regardinga right to shelteror food as more of a collective
right than the right to free speechor freedomof assembly.PresumablyIgnatieffdesignatessuch rights as collective,not
becausethey are awardedcollectively,but becauseoftheir cost to the collectiveor p".hupr even beciusethey figure us as
collectivelyresponsiblefor one another.)Collective riqhts, he insisrs,threaten the individual azd erode the
leeitimacv of rights. with regardto theformer,tgnatiefrargues,
"individuat riehts without collective riehts
mav be
ne di
otrncutt to exerclse.but collective
tive rights without individual on
While the formulationof collectiverights in the absenceof individualonesin the post-Communist
nost-Com world seemssomethingof
a strawman,it is clear what the metonymic slide
ide is for tgnatieff:
the right to food and shelter means the
state will orsanize or nrovide them. and if the state is in this business.we are in the land of state
if we are in of state ism. individual ri sic to
fre" ente.n.ise and free trade-are nresumed to be limited. with regardto the tatter.Ignatieffclaimsthat
"rishts infl het define irable as a ri ins the
lesitimacy of a defensiblecore of rights" 1lo;.
DBH
ADI
t2b.
IDENTITY K
AT: EXCLUSION IS NOT INEVITABLE
A societywithout any exclusionwould be impossiblebecauseall decisionsare madein a predeterminedterrain.

LACLAU 1997 (ernesto,Writer of Hegemonyand Socialist
Stategy,The Usesof Equality,Diacritics,Yol.27,No.l. pp. 2-12)
My secondrenr&rkNncsfirs th*q$estionsfexeluriot.I agruewith youthattheideal

of total equalityi* unreschabl*nnd,alss"ttrata rocirty witlroutany kind uf exclusi*n
rvouldbea p*ychoticnniveiue.WhBtI wouldllkc to sddis rh&rtlm necdfor*xclusionis
inscribedin thc $n$t{ltt of nll decisionmaking.As I hav* uied to showelsCIwhcre, a
decision,in orderto ben decision,hast$ betnkeni$ a stnrcturellyundrcidablcterrsin-
oth€ntri$e, if thedecisicnwaspredctermined by thestructurelr wouldnst bemydcci$on.
Thepreconditisncf a fuisian is thatactuclehoimis noralgorirhmicallyprcfigurcd"Bu[
in thatcass,if thedreisionis l* srvnground,th* disc&fidsdaltemative$haveb*n simply
putaside,thntis,excludsd"If we passfmrnindividuslrocolle*rivedrcisionsthisiseven
moreclear.for theercludedalumativeeouldhavebeenpref*nd by wrtain gmlps cf
peoplc,and soexclusiqn*hc*s a dimenxionof rcpressionwhich wasc*nsealedh the
individualdecinion.I woultladdthata societywithnut*xclusionsis impossiblefor moce
basicreasonsthanbeingnnempiricallyunrcmhableideal:it is nl*ologicallyimpoosible
asfar asthesocinlis con-structed thronghdecisionstakenin anundecidable terrain.We
candealasdcmocratically aspossiblewith exclusicn{for in*ancc,thmughthf principle
of majority,or thr*ughthcprotrctionof minoritiesi,butthir cannotconcealdw factthat
politics is, to a largeex$nt, a serienof nqgotiationsaroundthe principleof rxclusion
whichis alwoystfrertastheinerudicable terrainof thnsocial.As usuel,delerrdfiarroesr
nfgdtif).
$ /7 7.
IDENTITYK
AT: EXCLUSION IS NOT INEVITABLE
A standardcannotbe appliedto what differencesmay be excludedfrom social struggle,all is dependenton

context.
LACLAU 1997 lernesto, qnd Socialist
Writerof Hegemony Strateg,t,The
Usesof Equality, yol.27,No.l. pp.2-12)
Diacritics,
This lesds rnc to rny third mrn*rlq" Wc havc been asked for a criteriqn to detsrrnine
tht ss diffsrences which sre ac€epteble frsrn thtxe which src mlt- Naw, this can be
int*rprcted in vEriour wsy$" trtcrruld involve. for in*tsnse, thc rcque*t firr a strict ethical
criterisn. independent af any csntsxt. If ir was so. the only pac*ible answer would be ttpt
ns such critsrion could be given" It crruld atrsobe x questicn about sccial ethics-narncly,
\r.hat diffcr€rrce$ ate c*rnpatiblc with thc m'tual worhi*g* of a cociery. Thi* would be a
more pertimnt questinn becilus€ it rnakes possible a historicbt an$wer. The gist nf my
answsr would bc ra s{y thst the very critcrion nf whal is ssceptable or nrrais thc locus of
a muluphclty cf sccral xtnrggles und that tt rs rrm!fig to try to grve any hnd at
dssontoxtuelixsd re$pcrns,e. Obviously this is nl:t nn an*ui&r m rhc question -'how would
you draw tlre frtrnticr bc(woen the ccccptabls and ths not sscsptabte in Wcstern Europcan
*cciefss today?." hui i( allaws us to et lea"st discriminste betwecn pertincnt and
nonperti nent questions.
The contextof politicalstrugglesis alsopredetermined

beforeany attemptsof inclusionare made.
BUTLER 1997 ltuaitn, Writer of Botlie.s
that Mattarund GenclerTrouble,The Usesof Equality,Diacritics,y o1.27, No. | . pp. 2-
ll)
I tftink thar you are right in cldming tftst no decision can bc a docision if it is
determincd in advarrcir by a $tructurc of s{}me kind. For there ro b* a docision rneans that
tlrsre mu$t be s$fir€ contingency, rrhich is n<:t the ssrne {rs s&ying that tlrcre must be radical
contingency' I take it $mr the relntiv* detcrmin*tion tlf struqtrlre is rtrhat diffnrsnLiatcs a
positiOn such as yonrs ficm a more cldstentiatrist or conventionally liberal individualist
vicw qrn dccisicn mnking. Indeed" is it na* pnssible tn elaborate a nodon qf "6sn1sa1'"-
lnvokd in your respon$e to the questi*n *rf how be$t to decidc wfint ought and ought not
tc he included in a polity and the inadmissibility of cenain .'differcncss"? It seern* clear
that I decontextlrstie&d flnswer to the que$ti(}n of what nughr rmt to bc inclsded is
impocsible' and I thinkthatthccffirrr roels,bsrateprincipteslhaearc rdicajlyc.nntext-frce,
as somc -"proceduralisrs"' scch t*: d*r, is sirnply to embed ttr* Eontcxt in tlre principle. and
then to rarify the principle s*l thst its embedded c$ntext is no longrr legibl*. ^{.nd yet, this
still lcavcs t"tswirh aquandary-since trwould irnngite thnrycu findthe Derrjdeanqrrcation*
raissd in'"$ignature, Evenr* C{}nrsxt'- *bour the ..iltimitabitiry" of contexts r(} b* persua-
sive" *s I do" I think llrar c$$texts are in sorns u.ays produccd by dcisions, that is" that there
is a certain redoublingoldecisi*n mskins in the situ*ti*n {the csnrext?}in which one i*
aslcad tn decids qrhat kinds of differe nc.esoughr not to be lncluM in * given poliry, Thcrc
is first tlrc deci*icn to mark rrr d$imit (h* contex,r in wtric*r *uch a deqision will be madc,
md thcn there is tte markingoff of certain kindsof difference*as insdrnis*ible- The firsr
decision is n<rt itsplf without e c$fltext, fotrt i:t w*uld be *ubject ro *rc sarne infinite
rcgrcssion as *te second, sirrce there nrrxrld be ner orig.in*l or deflning contcxt that is nat
et once delimitsd by * fuisinn trf some kind.
$ t7b
lDeNrIfl |
AT: TRANSLATION BAD
Translation,especiallyto allow the subalternto speak,is key to pinpoint violence of episteme.

BUTLER 2000 lluaith, Maxine Elliott Professor of Rhetoric and comparative Literature at UC Berkeley
, Contingency,
Hegemony,Universality:Judith Butler, ErnestoLaclau ancl SlavojZi:ek,yerso.)
o r r t k n . w i n s h o w 1 o r c a < l { o l t } r r :m o } r i l i t y o f ' t h i s k i r r c lo f c x ( , l u s i o n ,
rvithout itssuming in aclva.rrcr: th:rt lhc lrzrnsl:r1or,s 1-rointvyill bc to ltring
t l r i s w r i t i n g i r r l o l i r r n r s o { e r g c r r c yl e e i } r ] c1 o a r r l \ n g l o - l i r r r o J r e i u irr i i r l i -
cttctl?IIlthisstltistl,tWlr,u,t:rniQlrtslt1,.
is prcciscly to blirr$ into r.r.liel(lreGrrr-t,rrrvcrqtii\cr,!!!c,91111511g11r:rr
, , r , ' n r i g l r tk r r , ' r vt l r r o r r g l rl ' , . ] r , . r )r r r p t u r . , . s ,r,rl l r r . r . : , t i r , ! ) .f t: ldr lci r r e
o|3llg4gn". VW 410-4?
:r,'t,'tr,,.s ,//
DBI.N
ADI l7q,
trr6NT\r{ K
AT: TRANSLATION BAD
Translationdecreases
the dominantsphereof the master'slanguage-it is a counter-colonialist possibility.
BUTLER 2000 1:uatth,MaxineElliottprofessorof Rheroricand comparative Literature at UC Berkeley, Contingency,
Hegemony,universality. ./udith Butler, ErnestoLacluu and slat,oiZizek.yerso.)
i t s c o u r r r . r - t o l o r r i n rrirstl- r s s i l r i llihr yr .,i r . r i s , ,

'1/ /([''xrpa(n
) :si (l .a ri:!^:tnJt,ty.
lsl l ( : l l m t l s o l r v l r : r tt l l r t L r r r r i n i t r r lti t n { t l i r r l c t : r r r l r : r n t l l ( . I. l i , r r o l
, m'i;;;
srrl.rorctn:ltcdculture rcmltins thc siimc thr: occ:asiono['h anslirtion.
Iil,l
arrrlreclcploycrl 'l'tuis,
in thatcontexto{'suborrlination. tLo-i lJhatri,,,'.
t r r t P l r r s i s , , tr lrr , . s j - l i t t i n og l t l r t . s i q n i l i , . r . itrl r r . i o l r , r r i rtr.lo r r t t , xsl, . r . k "
lol
slrora'tlrat t.lremasler -- to use Ilt:gclia.n pa.r.ranc.c l.se:s sornc of'hi'
_
t.,'"",",'t'l',t''
(clor.rble.
l ( J t t l ) l eMir'csis
l v. l l ) r ( . ) i n
t lit r r r . l l i ' rt r,,lirlrl,.."'-n.,''t.,l'
.ntr,,ll]:,,.t l r r l i s P l i r , . , . r n to. rl r {t l r t . l i r . s1t r , r - ror r;. ,i'clccrl.
irrri,.t,,l.
tffil-tl cs ol clispl.ccl'cnls thirt
1l () srI ch l.r:rriSl:ft io n w'rth, r u t, il ritt nJnTit r,, r-iil ru r

i s ; , l ; r , , . m , . rorTt - f l r , ol r . i q i n : rrlv i t l r o r rltr n e
DBH
ADI lEo.
IDENTITYK
PERM
Perm-do both. The universalis an openpossibilitythat cannotbe separatedfrom particularity.The universal

may exist as lacking an objective,but is a preconditionfbr particularity. Additionally. the universal is key to
knowledge,in tandemwith local-thought.
BADIOU 2004 lntain,Cenrer of ContemporaryFrenchPhilosophicalStudies,"Eight Theseson the Universal,"November 19,
http: www.lacan.com
badeight.htm.;
T H O U G H T l S T H E P R O P E R M E D I U M O F T H E U N I V E R S A L B y " t h o u g h t " ,I m e a n t h e s u b j e c ti n s o f a r a s i t i s
constitutedthrougha processthat is transversal relativeto the totalityof availableforms of knowledge.Or, as Lacanputs it,
the subjectin so far as it constitutesa hole in knowledge.Remarks:a. That thoughtis the propermediumof the universal
meansthat tlot as un if it takes obiect or of e
universal is essentiallv 'anobiective'. It can be exnerienced only through the nroduction
1o,
reproductron)
reproduction) or a tratectorv of thought. and this traiectorv constitutes (or reconsritutes)
of a subiective
vdisnosition.
rrl,urrrrurt. nHere are
t , r t sa l e two
l w o typical examples:
typlcal e x a m p l e s :tthe universality
ne u off aa m
n l v e r s a l l t yo mathematical proposition
a t h e m a t l c a lp r o p o s i t i o n ccan only
an o be
nly b experienced
ee bv
x p e r i e n c e db y
inventing or eff-ectively reproducing its proof, the situated universality of a political statement can only be
experienced
throughthe militant practicethat efTectuates it. b.'fhat thought,as subject-thought,
is constitutedthrougha processmeans
that the universalis in no way the resultof a transcendental constitution,which would presuppose a constitutingsubject.On
the contrary,the oDening un of the nossibilitv of a universal is the Drecondition for there beins a
subiect-thought at the local level. -l'hesubjectis invariablysummonedas thoughtat a specificpoint of that procedure
throughwhich the universalis constituted.
The universal is at once what determines its own Doints as
surrlEcr-rrruusfl]s
S U ts an irtual recollectton ol those
anu rne vlrtual Doints.t'hus
those rroints.l'husthe central
central dialectic
dialectic at work in
the universal is that of the local. as subiect. and the global. as infinite rlrocedure.This
infinite nrocedure. This dialectic
di is
thou . c o n s e q u e n t l yt h, e u n i v e r s a l i toyf t h e p r o p o s i t i o n
" t h e s e r i e so f p r i m en u m b e r sg o e s
on forever"rcsidesboth in the way it summonsus to repeat(or rediscover)in thoughta uniqueproof tbr it. but also in the
global procedurethat,fiom the Greeksto the presentday, mobilizesnumbertheoryalong with its underlyingaxiomatic.'fo
putit another
way,the universalitv of the practical statement"a country's illegal immiqrant workers
must have their rights recosnized bv that country" residesin all sorts of militant effectuations
litical
s ofw ibes the State a S. c. That
the processof the universalor truth - they are one and the same - is transversalrelative to all availableinstancesof
knowledgerneansthat the universalis always an incalculableemergence, ratherthan a describablestructure.By the same
token, I will say that a truth is intransitiveto knowledge,and even that it is essentiallyunknown.This is anotherway of
explainingwhat I mean when I characterize truth as unconscious.I will call particular whatevercan be discernedin
knowledgeby meansof descriptivepredicates.But I will call singulur that which, althoughidentifiableas a procedureat
work in a situation,is nevertheless subtractedfiom every predicativedescription.Thus the cultural traits of this or that
populationare particular.But that which, traversingthesetraits and deactivatingevery registereddescription,universally
s u m m o n sa t h o u g h t - s u b j e ci st ,s i n g u l a r .
DBH
ADI \qt.
IDENTITYK
PERM
Perm-do both. The universalmay be endorsedas an incompleteevent that is bound to the infinite. Since the
subjectmay be incorporatedin this multiple-being,rights may also be addressedas infinite occurrenceswithin
democracy.
BADIOU 2004 lAtain, Centerof ContemporaryFrenchPhilosophicalStudies,"Eieht Theseson the Universal,"November 19.
http://www.lacan.com/badeight.htm.)
EVERY UNIVERSAL SINGULARITY REMAINS INCOMPLETABLE OR OPEN All thisthesis

requiresby way of commentary concernsthe mannerin whichthe subiect. the localization of a universal
sinsularitv. is bound uD with the infinite. the ontoloeicallaw of beine-multiple.on thisparricular
issue,
it is Dossibleto show that there is an essentialcomnlicifv betweenthe rrhilosonhiesof finitude. on
the one hand. and relativism. or the negationof the universal and the discrediting of the notion of
truth. on the other. Let me put it in termsof a singlemaxim:The latent violence. the presumptuous
arro8ance inherent in the currently nrevalent concerrtionof human rights derives from the fact
that theseare actuallv the rishts of finitude and ultimatelv - as the insistenttheme of democratic
euthanasiaindicates- the rights of death. Bv wav of contrast. the evental concentionof universal
singularities,asJean-Francois Lyotard
remarkeci
in TheDi//'ererd,
requires that human rights be thought of
as the riehts of the infinite.
$ tT.
IDENTITYK
PERM
Perm-do both. The universal is infinitely open to a multiplicity of subjects.Recognizingthis, we can have
political stancesthat end the attachmentto identity.
BADIOU 2004 lntain, Centerof ContemporaryFrenchPhilosophicalStudies,"Eight Theseson the Universal,"November 19,
http://www.lacan. ight.htm.)
com/bade
UNIVERSALITY IS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE FAITHFUL CONSTRUCTION OF AN

INFINITB GENERIC MULTIPLE What do I mean bv eeneric multiplicitv? Quitesimply,a subset
of the situation that is not determined bv anv of the predicatesof encvclopedicknowledge;tharisto
say,a multiple such that to belong to it. to be one of its elements,cannot be the result of having an
identitv. of nossessinganv particular propertv. If the universal is for evervone"this is in the
precise sense that to be inscribed within it is not a matter of possessinganv particular
determination. This is the case with nolitical gatherinss. whose universalitv follows from their
indifference to social.national. sexual or qenerationalorisinl with the amorous couple. which is
universal becauseit producesan undivided truth about the differencebetweensexuatedpositions;
with scientifictheory,which is universalto the extentthat it removeseverytraceof its provenancein its elaboration;or with
artisticconfigurationswhosesubjectsareworks,and in which, as Mallarmeremarked,the particularityof the authorhasbeen
abolished,so much so that in exemplaryinauguralconfigurations, such as The Iliad and The Odyssey,the propername that
underliesthern- Homer - ultimatelyref-ers back to nothingbut the void of any and every subject.Thus the universalarises
accordingto the chanceof an aleatorysupplement.It leaves behind it a simnle detached statement as a trace
of the dis-annearanceof the event that founds it. It initiates its procedure in the univocal act
throush which the valenceof what was devoid of valencecomesto be decided.It binds to this act a
subiect-thousht that will invent consequencesfor it. It faithfully constructs an infinite seneric
multiplicitv, which,by its very opening,is what Thucydidesdeclaredhis written historyof the Peloponnesian war - unlike
s i s t o r i c apl a r t i c u l a r i t-yw o u l db e : , " s o m e t h i n fgo r a l l t i m e " .
t h el a t t e r 'h
DBH
ADI \%.
IDENTITYK
PERM
WE HAVE AN ETHICAL OBLIGATIONTO ASSERTOUR POSITIONWITH CERTAINTY,BUT THAT

DOESNOT EXCLUDETHE POSSIBILITYOF IT BEINGOPENTO QUESTION.
DAVIES& SEUFFERT2000(Margaret Daviesis SeniorLecturer in Lawat the Flinders
University
of South
Australia, and Nan Seuffertis SeniorLecturerat the University of Waikato."Knowledge, ldentity,and the
Politicsof Law,"Copyright (c) 2O0OHastings Collegeof the Law,HastingsWomen'sLawJournal,Summer,
2000 1, 1 H a s t i n gs
Wo me n 's
L .J.2 5 9 ,p l e xi s)
That which Brown appearsto regard as a weaknessin feminist standpointtheory - that it at

somepoint meanssuspendingour interrogationof identity construction- we would regard as a
necessarymoment in any political action. "We' (whoeverthat is) also need to suspendour
interro8ationof ourselvesand our justificationfor our knowledgeif we areto savanythingat all
with certaintlz.Suspension is indeedrequired.especiallyin law wherethereis an imperaiiveto
make decisions.nl71 Ho*.u...th. f-u.tthut it ir n.."sury u, ro-. rtug. to stop, iake stock,
and proceedas if the world were much simplerthan we know it to be. doesnot meanthar all
questionswill stop forever,or that any decisionmadewill excludefurther future examination.
Nor doesthis suspendingof questioningnecessarilyinvalidateour action:that would only be
the case if we assumed,like traditional ethical approaches,that we require some non-
contradictor)'groundingfbr our approach.As Brown herselfargues.the "postmoderncondition"
are cau[ ver In an lnlrnr lex
specificityand contestable meaningsor subject-positions. nl72 It doesmeanthat we must take
responsibilit),
for ourselvesand our knowledge.We cannot l*2gi-l disown knowledgeon the
ground that it is unethical:at its core it is ethical. As white women. we cannot disclaim
responsibilitylbr the privilegewhich a racistsocietyand legal systemconf'ersupon us. perhaps
unfbrtunatelY,we can never expectour thoughtsand actionsalways to be perf-ectl),synthesized
nchallene to be alwavsooento ouestion.alterationand revisi
Particular.we have a responsibility continuallyto reviseour understanding
of the
engagement with it in resoonse to non-mainstrealn culturalinformation.
DBH
ADI t".{
trexsrtil L
ADI 2006
brown i;ltnt:il
NEE'D BOTH AN
THE zuCHEST ACCOUNTS OF RACIAL AND/OR GENDE,RFORMATION
SUBJECTIVITY'
UNDE,RSTANDINGOF SOCIAL LOCATION AS WELL AS POWER-CONSTRUCTED
California, SantaCruz' "states of

Brown, 95 (Wendy Brown is professorof women's Studiesat the University of
Press,ISBN 0-691-02990-
Injury: power and Freedomin Late Modernity,"copyright 1995by PrincetonUniversity
3 , p 11 8 - e )
Whilc critic.rlthcorics of gender, racc, rnd scxualitv prob,rblr crnnor
glllpense entirelv with a notiol--gf subi..t potitio", of

oower of the subicctentailedbv this notion arealsoinadequateto the
"trd
ries. Consequently,much contemporary critical
eorv has moved to augment the Marxist a subordinationa9g
functlon of s.ocialTo:ltioninF, Post:Marxist feminist theoIv., for e-xam-.
n l e f i o r r r e sthe
ple, the n o l ' i t i c an
politicalaroblem l r o b l e m of
o f women both a s a problemoi con-
w o m e n both
_ s r r ufigures
ctcdsubjcctivities(locaI,particu1,.@iq&tIq
srhiectivities llocel n:rticrrler unfixable. alwavs exceeding the
"**;;,1
denotati,oniof woman o-i
denotaii6iloTE5rnan women) andas oneof social
oiwomen) positioning(name-
social positioning (name-
a b l e .taneibie
able. vet a
t a n e r b l evet l w a v sa
always abstract, p o t e n cd
b s t r a c t a, potent designation
eslgnatlon vacuateo
evacuated
e of
dt a
any
ny
o a r t i c u - l "i.. t h a b i t r n t ) .I f " i d e n t i t v " " o c c u r s , ' i s n a m e d o r p r o d u c e d .a r
r h e ooint
the n o i n t where
w h e r e these
t h e s etouch.
t o u c h . wherc
w h e r c thct h c particulars o f sublect
o a r t i c u l a r sof formation
s u b i e c tformatlon
l.,GiGct
rntersect wrth social stratltlcatlon
with vectors of soclal such as race or qender,
stratification sucn gender, tnen
then
tne rrcncst rccouncso[ racial formation or gcndering will prevail whcn
-_
subjectivicy positio4ing
and socialposi
FIilnt-tnA-sociil tion in g are fi gu rej- imu]taneously.r'' Mo
d ssimultaneouslv.3e Morre
@simply ri-g"iztn€ ihe importancc of both analytic registers,lhi
requires i such thaisocial "positionine" is formulated as
rt of subiect production and the ction of subiectivitvis
rted as an element in the ma$ng o-f qocla,lhierarchy and political
dqmiJ:alrsn.-
DBH
/.1Dl t36
rD.enrrf\ K
ADI 2006
brown
Ptry^
F'EMINISTSCAN BE VICTORIOUS IN THEIR ENGAGEMENT WITH THE STATE THROUGH

LINDERSTANDINGOF THE WORKINGS OF MASCULINIST POWER.
Brown, 95 (WendyBrown is professorof Women'sStudiesat the Universityof California,SantaCruz...States

of
Injury: Powerand Freedomin Late Modernity."Copyright1995by PrincetonUniversityPress,ISBN 0-691-02gg0-
3.pl96)
However important "the fairilv" remains-particularly in lts

absence-in constructing the gendered unconscious, it is decreasingly
the daily supcrintendent of masculine dominance in late modern rife. To-
dav, u'omen's str for social.pol ic freedom in the
(lirited $ates ry.. ,.r"r*. i" t
"f4."
rvhether these concern issuesofDovertv.
"r "ir
)overty, welfare benefits and regulations.
-
-'+.< -
rrr vrtro fcrtrIrzation. a!ql!r!-D.l ay care, surrogacy,liEna-cc iepi6ducrrue
',i;i'.?:;f
i,*r,"
education. or emplovment..From what I have argued
-a-!i]urqaqt"e-aqq1-o_n,
about the historical lesaciesand contemporary reworkings of masculi-
nrsm in state po\.'!'ers,it is ciear that there gg_da11gg11"ll_sglsld9!{g
loo5itr,e
rorh. r,.r"
1rE;iAq-luil
r n a l c o o m r n a n c e l t s e l f, m a s c u l l n l s t s t a t e p o w e r . c o n s e q u c n t t o i t s m u l t i -
pJe.and qnsvs-temati
c com po:lJiotr,_tr.-tr.rhGG]ili6ii' Eo,h .*-
ptg;;;;a.m*;-u iil";; .@
strategicaI I v ourmancuvcr]rs conrcmporar)' masculiniiluiEl.---
DBH 1Vb.
AB!
IDENTITY K
K ) ESSENTIALISM
Turn. The post-modernistsare essentialists.

Feminismis a critique of staticnotionsof genderand biology,
which meanswe solvethe K.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine,American feminist, scholar,Yale educatedlawyer, teacherand activist,
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" inchicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:687.)
The Stl$trlodern critique *f feminixm $esutst* nsrumethat tle

"tsomên'nof fem.inist the*ry &re ell the $&me?homngeneous, a
uniforrn u{dt. I do not knaw whera they got this idea either" Nct
from Ine. They dnnntsey. This n$tio$ thnt e"sryone m$st be th*
ssmeto hsve sccss$ta tlte label u'w{}men"is not an idea that opsrate$
in femklist th*ory ta my knawledge. That unifnrmity is a standard
theuretiselprsperty of a categuryd*es aot mean that it is feminism's
canceptnf wamen. lffomen, in feministthe*ry, &rsconcrete;they are
$ot ahstract" They &re nst ssn $r gsnder, they are marked and
defined and cantrolled by it. Gender, in feminist analysis,is also
abservedt* be pawerfully binary in society,but not exclusivelyso;
power divisians nre r:bservedttr exist within sex-definedgroups as
well a$betw*en thern,$oelsoin the feministtheory nf gcnder.
Of cour$e, feminism in fine sen$s started the critique of
universality esf,urrently practicedby shuwinghaw women are left out
$f the hurnan *pisteme" We tonk the critique rlf sacietyas socially
cunstructedto a new dnpth by showing h*w eve$ samething often
thaught by others tn be bialogical-sexuality*is srciatr,and draws
powsr }ines" Feminismthus dnes$ot "&s$ums,'or'r it rnther builds, its
**\ffomen." From w$mea
trhu sncially exi*t. Slhen ferninism rnakes
it$ "womsn* frsrn the grcund $p, srlt of particularities,from practice,
rather than frsm the t*p dorr*, cut nf abstrnnti*ss end prior theory,
the nn*caltredesssntielitrfl prnblnm cnRRotscf,ur.:t The clairn that
feminism is essentialistalsn servesto *bscurs the fnrmative role *f
woms$ *f csl*r and }e*bians?a$:&rlg ath*rs, in eyery part of the
ftminist thc*ry dis*usrnd. They nsmuch as any, and m$rs than rnostn
sreatedthe w$msnnsrnovsmexrt'sn and femi:d$rnn$, **rffsmen,on
DBH tr+
ADI
ADt 2006 Dr. Dave'sLab
IDENTITYK
Postmodernismis wrong for three reasons.

MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine,American feminist, scholar,Yale educatedlawyer, teacherand activist.
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" inchicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:687.)
Iluring the saxnstwsnty-five ysar peri*d thnt this theary and

prectifis have besn onssingo& trend in therry called posmrldernism
has besn wsrking on und*ing it. Its mnin target is, precisely,reality.
Pastm*dernism,X$flills.rguq*$r msrs narr$wly, the centrfll epistemic
tendency in it that I &m fncusing $n*dereslizes social reality by
ignoring it, by refusingtn be eccCIuntable ta it, Lnd, in a s*mewhat
new msver by openly r*pudiating any csrlnection with s"n {tit}' by
claiming"it" is not there"
Postmodernisrnis a ffaS Sown by a diverse congeries,mctley
becauseiack tlf unity is their credn and they feel no need ta be
consistent. Part nf the pr*blem in caming to grips with
pnstmodernisn:is that, pretendingtc be profnund while being merely
ubscure{marly are fo*lsd}, nlntherhg subjectswith wcrds, its seH-
Brnclairnedpractitio*er$fairly *ften don't saymuch of anything.u A
third parl sf the problern is that ssme csrnmentatars credit
p*stmndernismwith ideas that serinussritical traditions ariginated
and have lnng practiced" Fsr nxample:'usalkin has been one af thn
few }egal writers wiling tu expl*re postmodernissuessuch as the
s*cial canstruntic*r:f renlity,the rnle nf ideology,nnd the problemof
sncialcritique"'n[ Jack Bnlkin d*es expluret]ese themes,cnx]ingt}at
work pnstmadern, br*t l*gal femislists have been explorlng them in
depth fnr about thirty ysaffi, as have Marrists and some tr*galrealists,
beginning long betbre, to &&nnenxl some" Anather pert of the
problem is thnt pastm*dernism stenls frnm femininm-claiming for
example that tbe critique *f nbjectivity is a postmcdern inright-axrd
cnveri*g its larceny by *ubsumi*g femi:dsm &$ a subprnvin*e *f
pastmodernism.\r
DBH
ADI \ 38.
IDENTITYK
FOCUS ON DIFFERE,NCE BAD
What is difference,and so what?Not respectingdifferencedoesn't subtractfrom our ability to analyze

hierarchy.This leadsto a slippery slopethat won't legitimize any struggle.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine,American feminist, scholar,Yale educatedlawyer, teacherand activist,
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" inc-hicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:687.)
Nice neutrel wsrd: differ*nc*, and it has alt that French

srsdibility" Nsver rnind that differnnsss san rimply be fragmented
universnls.It dnssn'timprsvs ons's nbility to analyx*hisrar*hyas
sccially c$xlstnrctedtcl add rnsrs pieces called differences if the
differcnsssare seenas binlngicallydeterminedto begin with. Yau
cenhavea biolsgicalth*cry clf racejust like ysu csn havea biological
thecry af gender, and ysu?vs Ssttsn equally $owhere in terms of
disrnantlingsosialhierarchy. Fut enothers&Y, if w*men d$n't exist,
becausethere are unly particulnrwornen:maybe Blask people don't
existeither,becaussthcy are dividedby sex, hsbably lesbia$scan't
exist either, becausethey are divided by race and class;if wonnen
dsn't exisl, w$man-identifiedwomen surely dannt exist, except in
their heads.We nrereducedta individuals,which,of all caincidence$,
is whsre liberalism places $s. With its affirmafinn of \#emen's
csmmsnalitiesin a13their diversity,it is feminisrnthat rejectsthe view
that *\ilomann'is e prs-sncial,i.e., bir:lagicallydeterrnin*d,category
ffld the n*tinn that all womsn are the s&me. Feminisrn and
essentialismcannotocfltlpythc sarne$Sace.
DBH
ADI \?q.
IDENTITYK
MULTICURTURALISM GOOD
Your view of the world is politically normative and ignores the fact that feminism crossesmulticultural
boundaries.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine, American feminist, scholar, Yale educated lawyer, teacher and activist,
"PointsagainstPostmodernism"in Chicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:687.)
Multisulturalism is n politically n{}r{nstive ver$ion CIf the

nmthrcpnlogicaln*ticn nf *ulturel r*lstiyi*m prsffiised $n the view
u*thataXlculturesare
equally\us.lid."xs
The S$$trnodernver$ionsf the
multiculturalixt critique &$$$me$that the $peeksr takes their swn
culture end its valuest$ be valid, and criticieessther sl*tures &nm
th* standpnint of their sws. Ferninism, h*wever, qus$tions the
cultural validity CIf subnrdinating womell tn mer anywhere.
Feminismdoe$not ass$msthnt *'sthsr" cultursssn are to be measured
againstthe validify of their olryn:bscauseferninism d*es not assurne
that enyonsosculture, includin&their swn, is vntid. Hnw sould \rye?
Hefe$sesof lucal differencessas they ars call*d,t. are often simply a
defenserlf male polvsf,in its locnl guise. Mals p$wer virtually always
epp*s"rsin local guises;ons might hazardthat there nre noftring but
Itlcal guisesfor male p*wer. The fact ihat they ere lscal does not
improvethem.
DBH pfo
ADI
IDENTITYK
UNIVERSALITYGOOD
Universalitycanbe a positiveforcethatopensup newformsof resistance.

BUTLER 1999(Judith,professor
of philosophy
at UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,preface,
pg.
In turn, I havebeencompelledto revisesomeof my positionsin

GenderTrouble by virtue of my own political engagements. In the book, I
tend to conceiveof the claim of "universalit)r"in exclusivenegativeand
exclusionaryterms.However, I cameto seethe term has important
lcu ntial and o cate asl
worked with an extraordinarygroup of activistsfirst as a boardmember
and then as board chair of the InternationalGay and LesbianHuman
RightsCommission(1994- 7), an organizationthat represents sexual
minoritieson a broadrangeof humanrightsissues.ThereI cameto
understandhow the assertionof universalitlzcan be proleptic and performative.
conjuringa realitythat doesnot )'et exist.and holdingout
ibilitvfor vergenceof
arrived vlew
definedas a future-oriented laborof culturaltranslation.13 More
recently,I havebeencompelledto relatemy work to politicaltheory
and,onceagain,to the conceptof universalityin a co-authored book
that I am writing with Ernestof,aclauand Slavojz.iz.ekon the theoryof
hegemonyand its implicationsfbr a theoreticallyactivistLeft (to be
publishedby Versoin 2000).
DBH r4r
s-Dl
IDENTITY K
UNIVERSALISM GOOD-SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
Differenceswithin politics is not basedupon identity but on disagreements,Universalismis neededto

advancesocialmovements.
Lottin2000 l e r i c , P r o f e s s o r o f A m e r i c a n S t u d i e s a t t h e U n i v e r s i q , o f V i r gA
i nfitae,r l c l e n t i t y , p o l i t i c sT:h e R e t u r n o f
L/n iver sa I ism, N ew LiteraryH i story,pp.665-67S)
In what I considersomethingof a breakthrough essayfbr Walter Benn Michaels. "Political ScienceFictions"

(in this issue).one finds sunerb clarifications of the basic point. Michaels condemns (once aeain) any
political positionsthat depend on the categorv of identitv--from Pat Robertson'santi-Semitic lunacv all
the wav over to antiphobic, antiessentialistconstructionsof difference--notbecause(as he argued [End
Page 6671 in Our America) they're illogical, but becausethey do not necessarilytheorize the moment of
ideologicalantagonismor political stance.Basinq vour nolitics on difference. he quite rishtlv observes.
doesn't make it antasonisticto anvthins. iust different from all other nositions.It's the moment of what
Michaels calls "disagreement" that constitutes politics. and disagreement is not a differential or
particularist category but a 'runiversal" one. By which Michaelsmeansthat you believeyour position is
right not becauseof your group'sparticulardiflbrencefiom othersbut because(politically speaking)of its
assumedsameness: you believewhat is right is right for everyone,not just your particularmovementor group.
Political positionsare still not lbundationalor given, of course,but come out of the historicalexperienceof
humancommunities;no one cantell (andso who cares?)whetheror not they are True: and thoughone believes
them right lbr all. they'redefinitely not guaranteedto be right for all time. But as Michaels shows.and as
Laclau elaborateswith greater political imnact. thev're universalsall the same.and thev're the important
if not the onlv thine on which to stake vour claim. It is right at this point that the conceptualclarity Michaels
allbrds dependson a ccrtain occlusionof history,practice,even ideology.Yet as Laclau and manv others
have argued. some kind of universalismis rroliticallvnecessarvto advancea rroliticsof social movements
bevond the recosnition of nure difference: and for Laclau. is alreadv logicallv entailed in anv identitv
movementanvwav. Justwhatthis universalismis supposed to look like is the burningquestion.
DtsH
ADI tr-12.
NC(\^) 6Oop lraeN!fi 1q
Action is what makes up the selfqvithoutaction the self has no identitv .
Honig in 1992 (Bonnie, AssociateProfessorof Governmentat Harvard, Arendt qnd the Politics of ldentity,FeministsTheorizethe
Political, pp.2l9)
".':: Wtrenthey act, Arendt's actorsa{g-reborn.to Through innovativeaction

and speech, they "show who they are, reveal actively their unique pcrsonal
identities and thus make their appearance in the human world."'t Their mo-
.mentaryengagementin action in the public realm grants to them identities
,lhatare lodged forever in the stories told of their heroic performances by
thespectatorswho witness then.r.Prior to or apart from action, this self has
no identity;it is fragmented,discontinuous,indistinct, and most certainly
uninteresting. A life-sustaining,psychologicallydetermined,trivial, and im-
itablebiological creature in thc private realm, this self attains identity-
.becomes a "who"-by acting. For the sake of "who" it might become, it
risksthe dangers of the radically contingcnt public realm wherc anything
canhappen,where the consequcncesof action are "boundless" and unpre-
dictable,where "not lif'e but the world is at stake."16In so doing, it forsakes
the comforting security of "what" it is, the roles and features that define
(andevendetennine)it in the private realm, the "qualities, gifis, talentsand
shortcornings, which [it] rnay display or hide," and the intentions,motives,
andgoalsthat characterizeits agency." f'hus, Arendt's actorsare never self-
sovereign. Driven by the despotismof their bodies (and their psychologies)
in theprivaterealm, they are ncver really in control of what they do in the
publicrealnr,either.This is why, as actors,they nust be courageous.Action
is spontaneous, it springs up er nihilo and, most disturbing, it is self-sur-
p r i s i n g":[ ] t i s m o r e t h a n l i k e l y t h a t t h e ' w h o ' w h i c h a p p e a r ss o c l c t r r l ya n d
unmistakably to others, remains hiclclenfrorn the person hirnself."'n
DBH t Yg.
ADI
IDENTITYK
POST.IDENTITYBAD
The rejection of identity closesoff opportunity for political mobilization and pluralization.Post-identitytreats
all identity as oppressiveand doesnot allow for an anti-dominanteffbrt.
CONNOLLY 2000 (Bill, chairat JohnHopkinsUniversity,"Politics,Powerand Ethics:A DiscussionBetweenJudithButlerand
William Connolly,"Theoryand Event,4:2,ProjectMusb..1
(Bill Connolly) One impressivething about Gender Trouble was its creative and detailed elaborationof the
Foucauldian idea that the demand to securea "true identitv" or "a core" identifv is entangled
with ugly nrocessesthat closeoff the developmentof a nlurality of identities on the same social
field. That which was thoughtby many to providethe basisand guideto ethicswas,therefore,itself saidto be entangledin
the politicsand power of ethics.One way of puttingthe point in GenclerTrouble(1990)was to saythat "the displacement of
a political and discursiveorigin of gender identity onto a psychological'core' precludesan analysisof the political
constitutionof the genderedsubjectand its fabricatednotionsaboutthe ineffableinteriorityof its sex or of its true identity-"
( p . 1 3 6 ) .T h i s b o o k o p e n e du p i m p o r l a n ti s s u e st h a t h a d b e e nc l o s e dd o w n , i n c l u d i n gt h e p o s s i b i l i t yo f p u r s u i n ga n e w
p l u r a l i t yo f s e x u a a
l n d g e n d e rp r a c t i c e sl .t a l s op l a y e da c r u c i a lr o l e i n h e l p i n gt o m o b i l i z ea n d e n e r g i z ea n e n t i r ep o l i t i c a l
movement.But it is has nonetheless been taken by some of its critics, even by some who supportgay and lesbian
-l-hey
rights. to have deleterious consequences. sometimesassertthat it treats all identity as if it were
opDressive, or tharit does not sufficientlv aprrreciatethe pleasuresand attachmentsto identitv we
find ourselvesimnlicated in, orthatit diminishesthe capacitv to evaluatedifferent claims to identitv
ethicallv, or thatit makes it difficult to identifu the political enereiesfrom which to nroceed in
rrushine for a nluralization of identities,or thatit makes it difficult to see how to mobilize such
energiesin dominant constituencies who are askedto resDondto new pressuresfor Dluralization.
*BH
ADI IVV.
IDENTITYK
IDENTITY POLITICS GOOD
Identity politics can be a necessarycondition for political agency and survival.

BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,preface, pg. xxvi)
If I wereto rewritethis book underpresentcircumstances, I would

includea discussionof transgender and intersexuality, the way that ideal
genderdimorphismworks in both sortsof discourses. the clifferentrelations
to surgicalinterventionthat theserelatedconcernssustain.I
wouldalsoincludea discussion on racialized sexualityand,in particular,
how taboosagainstmiscegenation (andthe romanticization of crossracial
sexualexchange)areessentialto the naturalizedand denaturalized
fbrmsthat gendertakes.I continueto hopefor a coalitionof sexual
minoritiesthatwill transcend the simplecategories of identity.thatwill
refusethe erasure clfbisexuality. thatwill counterancldissipate the violence
imposedby restrictive bodilynorms.I wouldhopethatsucha
coalitionwouldbe basedon the irreducible complexit-y of sexualityand
i c so f d i
andthat no one *ill be too quick to reducepowertc,hierarchyand to
refuseits productivepoliticaldimensions. Ilvenas Ithink thatgaining
recognition lbr one'sstatusas a sexualminorityis a difficulttaskwithin
reisningdiscourses of law.politics.andla'.,guage. I continueto consider
it a necessitv for survival.I'he mobilization of identitycatesories fbr the
purposes of politicization alwaysremainthreatened b-vthe prospect of
identitybecominqan instrument o1-thepoweroneopposes. That is no
reasonnotto use.andbe used.by identity.There is no politicalposition
purifledof power.and perhapsthat impurit-vis what nrodu."t u*"nru ut
the potentialinterruptionand reversalof regulatoryregimes.'r'hose
med "unreal" elessI hold
ns ln c( bv that
surprise. This book is writtenthenas partof the culturallife
a c o l l e c t i v set r u u nueto ha
in increasing the possibiliti"tfbr u liuablelif-"fbr those*ho liue..r,
tr)' to live.on the sexualmarqins.l5
DBH
ADI t{s
IDENTITY K
ID POLTX GOOD
Identity politics hasbeensuccessfulin the pastas a meansto gain political representationand protectionthat
shouldbe the gaugeto the political efficacy of our politics.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine,American feminist, scholar,Yale educatedlawyer. teacherand activist.
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" in chicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:687.)
ilSy $wn wsrk provids$ just sl:s ill*stration of how this

philos*phical eppr$ash fif theory frcm-the-grsund-up has bsen
prsductivs is prnctiss. This theory, applied! prodused the ctaim fsr
sexual harassme$tas a tregalclaim firr sex discriminatian"* $o nnw,
when a trycmanis sexuffIlyharassednnd she speaksof iq that is not
simply il lrysmnn$p€eki$gin a different voics; sr nerrating her subjeci
experis$cesf her situntiun. Sheis sayingwhat happenedto hsr. And
what happened tu her* when it hnppens, is n$w authoritatively
recsg&iuedin law as inequality on the basis of sex, that is, as il
vialati*n uf wumenrs hurnan rights. The ciyil remedy undsr the
Violence Against Wcmen A*t usesthe samelogic to recognisethat
raps and battering can he practicesof sex discrimination.: Similarly,
Andrea llwurkin's and rnJ- pr*posed law that pornography be
recagniuedas a practise of sex discrjrninationis basedon the realities
of the experienc$of wssnenviolated througb the making and use of
pornogrephy. L3rldsr it, wsrnenostestimony about their abuse
through p$ntography would he recognized as evidence, so that
pornsgraphy is legally seentc do the injuries that it does in reality.t
The $ameapprnachprnduwd the argumant,adoptsd by the Secnnd
Circuit, that when reps is an act rf g*nocide in fact, it is a$ act sf
genccide in law" That is, sexuallyviulating w$men becausethey are
wornen nf a particular ethnis or nnliginusc$$rmunity airns ta destrny
that summunitv.*
r+6
ADt 2006 Dr. Dave's Lab
IDENTITY K
IDENTITY GOOD-SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
A common identification of political ideals can create a collective identity that does not eliminate
differences but equalizesthem.
Mouffe in 1992 (Chantal,
PoliticalProfessor
for theCollegeInternational
de Philosphie
in Paris,Citizenship
andldentitv,October.
pp.28-32
)
If we try t$ put t$gether $altrshiltt"s vicws r+ith whar I said earlier c$n-
crrnin$ the principle* nf nrwlern d*m*rcracya$ a nrru rrgim*, w{ ciln say tkel
in a liberal democratic regime, thr res publiea i* csn*tituted by rhr political
principl*saf sucha regim*: equalitl'a*d likrty fbr all. Nfw* put iurh & contenr
in Oakeshott"snotion tf the re* publiea,w* can affirm rhnr rhe cosditi*ns to he
subxribed ttr and raken into aceountin thc proce$sof acting as cirirens arr ro
be undt"rstur'das the exigencyof trratins thJ others as fre* a'ndqual prrsons.
It is evident, how(vrr, thtrt this can bc intrrpreted in rnfrnydifferent waysand
can lead ttl comprting forrns of identifi{ati$$" s'$r instance,a radical democratic
interprrm$un *'i[ tmphi$irr the $umerou,{$o(ial relat.ionswhrre relarions of
tlominaticn existand must be rh*llengedif the principlesof liberty and *qualiry
tre to,appll,' Theref<rretitieenship as a ftrrrn of politieal identity cannot be
neutrsl hut will prrsrnl a vari*t1'nf modes according{$ thr cornpetinginrer-
pretati*ns trf the res publica that {on$true rhat idenrity and rhr t1'peafarticu-
lation that is estatrlishetlamnng differenr subjecrprsirions nf the agenr. The
crtatio$ of prlirical idrntitir* xs radical d*mocrarie eirirens, for insiance. de-
pcnds nn a collective fslrm +f id*nrificati{in im$ng the democraric dcm*nds
ftrund in a variety sf mnvemrnts:rh$sr of wnnren,"w*rker*, hlachx,gay$,the
ecnlogical,as wcll a* againstother furmr CIfsubordination.f his is a coiception
of citirenshipthat, through a rommon idenrificatisnwith a radicaldemocratic
interprr[ation of the principlesof lib*rry and qualiry,ainr* at eonsrrucringa
**1*'e," a ehain of cquival*nc* amsn$ rheir deminds $o a$ l* articulatr them
through the principle of democratic-*4tiir.*{rne*. }t rnust be stressedthat such a
relation of rgufru,lrruedeict nst elirninate dSfurewe*fsr rhat would tre simple
idtntitv. It is only in*ofur as qlenrquraticdiff*nencr$ ilrc oppus*.clro forcru *r
discour*esthat negateall *f them that thss'ediffbrencr* **n be Eubstitutedfor
*ach oth*r. T.het is, th* "we" sf th* radical demrocraticfbrces i* crearedhy the
dclimitadon nf a fronrier, rhc designati$ncf a "th*m"; it is not s h<lrnngeneous
'*1r'r,"predic*red
on the idtnrity af itn csmpCInrnts.Throtrgh the principle of
equival*nc*, ff typ{ of c*u:lmonalityis createdthat dsru nsr erasepluraliiy and
difference$and rhar respeemdiv*me fnrms uf indivielualiry,
DBH
ADI rY+
IDENTITY K
IDENTITY GOOD-SOCIAL MOVEMENTS
The modern form of a political community is createdwhen differencesare placed asideand a common
political identify is adopted.
Mouffe in 1992 (Chantal,PoliticalProfessorfor the CollegeInternational
de Philosphiein Paris,Citizenshipand klentity,October,
pp.28-32)
$tc$nd. rt'ith rexperttt: citizenship,w* find that the pr*rious con$idfra(i$ns

haue imp*r$n[ implicati*ns feir th* undcr$tanding rf our idenrir], a$ citi]ens.
The penpective that I ilrn propoxingenvirase${irirrnship *$ e fsrm of poli*cal
identity that is creatrd through identificati*n r$ith the polirieal principl*s of
rnodcrn pluralist dcmocracy,i.*-, thc a$Krti{rn*f liberty and *quality fior all. By
th*t I meal) allegiance{o a $et of rules artd praetice*th;rt construe a rpecific
knguagt gamt, the l*nguageuf modcrn demrxratic citizenship.A eitilen is not,
in this periiFe{ti}'eus* in liberulism, s$mr$n( who is the passiverecipient nf
rights snd $'ho enloysthe protection*f the lau,'.It is a cCIrnrnon p*litiml identiry
ol lcrsons whn might be engageclin manf diffrrrnt {ommunitiesand who have
differing conceprieinsCIf tlre gCItxl-hut -**h* a{crpr *ubmissiun t* cer!.ainau-
thoritative rules nf conduct. Thnse rules ar* nst instrurilefits fur achi*ving a
c$mrnon purpose*since rh* it{e* eif a substantivecornmcn gocd has been
discarded*but eonditi*nxthat individualsmurt $bssrvein ch*osing and pur-
*uing purp)$rs of their *wn. I c*nsid*r thur the refler:ti*nson civil isrwiation
developredhy Michael oakesh*tt in o* Humsn cr;nr*.ucf are verf prrrinent hme
b*caus*tlrev c*n help us fcrrrnulatethe kind of bund that sh*uld exist arnong
citirens in a wav thxt rcconriles frsrd*rn with authority. For Oakeshott, the
pilrticipants in a civil assrxiaticnor snciera$arr linl**d by the authoritv of rhe
conclitionssptcifi'ing their c*mrn$n {}!-"puhlir" con(frn. These consistin a
nranifolclaf rulcs or rulelike pre*criprions rhat he ffilln "'res public*" and rhtr
specify n*t perftrr$tancr:ibut ronditinns tr tre suhncribedto in choosinf,
ller-
fornrancer. Aceording tcl *uch a view, what is required to belong to a polilical
cornmunity is rhe at{sptan{r of spe*lfic language of eil'il intercoursr! the res
publica. The identifieatiCInwith thore rules crea(esa esrnrnon p*liricat idenrirl,
flrn{}n$ Frrsc}n$qrthcrwisccngageclin many dif$er*nt fnterpri$rx and (omrnu-
'fhis
niti*s. motlern fCIrrn*f p:lltical **mmunity i* held togcrhm nor. by a
substantivqicleeof the {omm$n S$adhur Frys c$rnrnsnbund, a public cone{rR.
lt ix thrreftrre a communitv winhout r d*frnire shaBr and in continuCIusrecn-
ac[mfn("
DBH rYI
ArI
IDENTITY K
IDENTITY GOOD: INCLUSION
The unevennatureof a hegemonicstructureallows variousidentitiesto contestthe exclusionwithin the

hegemonicstructure.
LACLAU 1997 lnrnesto,Writer of Hegemonyand Socialist
Strateg,,,TheUsesof Equality,Diacritics,yol.27,No.l. pp.2-12)
Thisgivesrn* a $tafiingpainrm beginsCIrn€ ${rrtof respsnssto Se glrertionsinvolvrd

in ourexchange"What differene*sarc ac{epebleor nsnscsiptehle?ll/e bothaglwcthct
thequestitmcennotbenn*wsrsd$ut$idsenys$nkxt and.&l$o.fhatthenntionof eontrxt
is far rrom bcingax unplubl$matit ore. lf contert$"hu*cver" arc ccm*titutedth* way I
su8,8,est"you have vnrimts advantag**:{l} you can mske c$rnpadblcthc uldrnatr
instabilityof limits with actuallimitation*;{?} youhaveccrtainrulm ro dccidcwhn will
countasa valid inclnsionor ercluninn,it will deperdon theactualhegemonicconfigu-
rationaf certainctnnmunirylt3) thir hegem*niccrnfigurntionis nol a simpledatuffibut
theresultof tlrctransientarticulationbetween concrete contfntmd univemdirationof rhe
communitythmughthe csnstnrctiunof alimitwhichha*nonsccssery linktothateontenti
$at tegennnicconfigurnfionis atwaysoFentosontc$tefion rnd change.In thiswaywe
canrcacha moredernocratic view tfumin thecascin whichthchegemonic configuratisn
de[nndedo$ a {x}ncontingent link berweencontext-limitingtcmsritution functionand
a$t$alconteiltplayingthatrolsof limit (4) finally.rheuncvsnnss$ rhathegemonic games
introducewithin diffcrential socialidentitiesallow* us to solvc somcof rnc apodas
cCInnsct€d to the"playnf diffbrences." and&llowsusto flppro&sh tlx logicthroughwtrictr
thu*ediflerencesflIEcon$titutcdin our actualpoliticalwodd"I wait lbr your neaction.
The identityof individualsare constantlybeingredeployedin attemptsat inclusion.

BUTLER 1997 lluaitn, Writer of Boclie.s
that Matterantl GentJerTrouhle,TheUsesof Equality,Diacritics,yol.2l , No.l. pp.2-
t2)
I very rnuch agree with yaur *'srrnulation trf thc l.ogic of oqulvalence. narnely, as a
"'proce$$ by which rlre tlifferentisl n-*ture of all ide*rity is at rtr,e sarns aime Ess19nedand
subvertcd-" A&d I worxier urhether rhinking atxrut equivalcnce drrcs ntst signi{icantty alrcr
rhe kinds cf quandaries trrought up lry the qucstien of equaliry" rt $llrsy$ scemed t6l rfie
*hat you anrd Ch.ental Mouffe rverc trying to underssore a $trustura.l opcnness (and, tence.
a "Itafr*itructuralisrn") in ttrc problern of identiry th.ct rrculd fft (}n{;c hgnor the place nf
idenrity in conternpora.ry politicnl frrrrnnticns antl yet dislx:*ror its foundational or
"ontologicsl" claim" I g&th€r t&at drc point aboui co,ritingency that ycru raisc in rlrc
$ubsequent parng:raph speaks tp ttre question *f id*nrity nnd *quivatenc* as well: t<r tlr*
axi*{tt t*lar s.ll idendries foil r<r he futly strusture{r. t}rey *rc each equa'lly {although not
$uh*te$dvely or ""cnti**lly--) frrrrned tFrrough tl* same con*titutive faiture. Tlrir'^*arrre-
ne*s" ic intcrcsting *ince it is rpt trr be rigorxrusly understood in terrnsof agiven.tsntent"
*f identity. (}n the c$ntrau." ir is whst guxrrantess the fnilure of nny given .-c{rntcnt" trr
successfutrly $ay claim to thc $tetus crf thc onrologicnl or whsl t csll thc -'fourud,arionel."" I
understtnd ttlar you se*Ic resourse l{} I"-*can tn cxplain thi* lac'k nr frilur:e. and thet i*
probably u"h*rc I w*rulsl diff*r with y<xr. a diffsrencn in ernptr*sis, sin*n I rhink rhar *re
feilure ofanyxubjectf'ormationissn*ffeslofits it*r*bili*y" irshaving tobe f,orrnedin:ime,
again *nd again. (!ne nright say. via Alrhuss*r. rh&r ttrc ritu*l through whi*h subjocrs are
forrncd ix nlways subje*t ro s,r€rs$ting or & tapse by r,oirtuc of this neer*ssity to r*p*ar and
reinstqltr it*elf.
DBH
ADI dq
IDENTITY K
IDENTITY GOOD: INCLUSION
An identity-based,universalstrategyof redeploymentcan createan alternatepolitical community

BUTLER 19971tuaitn, Writer of Bocliesthat Matter anclGenderTrouble,TheUsesof Equality,Diacritics,Yol.27,No.l. pp.2-
t2)
But I dn won&r whn*trsr failure" far both of us. dnes nnt bectrme a kin<l of univerual
condition {and limit}sf subjcct fnrrnetiern; array in which we ssill scek tc nsscrt as$trunon
c$nditi$$ whietr flssumcs a tran$c*nd€ntnl *tetu$ in rslation ru particular differenee$. To
ltre extent ths:" ntl mattcr what our "diffbren*e,'" l,rrr*,nrealwnys. gnly prrrrig/Ip consrituted
asourselves{and this" asaresultofsurbeingconsdruted withinnfield of tliflbrcndarions},
and to what extsnt ,srt r*'e alss b*rqr*d tngether thrcrugh this "failure"? llour does rJre
limitation cn rubject constitution becoms. cdtlly, a nsrtrs srlurce nf community or
urllectivity crr&pra$llrned condition<lf univclsatityl l would tike ro know nrore abouthaw
a contextual rrc*nssity is estahli*hal. ls there a backgrnund or co$text tlral formx thc
tcrluou$ yet neaes$arf/ h<rrieon of what sre call "conter.t"? Would the contex,t that is alscl
partially destnrctured* that does not yet fully {rs$ume lhe status of thc ontologieal, also
have a necessity thet, strictly spcx.king, isn't a logical rrn caussl ne*essity. but perheps a
historical nccessity of sorne lcind? Is it a sparialiaed hiatorical necessity {Benjemin
thought that post-telcology histary woLrld havc ro bc re*d in I landssaps)? Aryl whnt are
the sonditions undcr whictt such a necessity becornes readablc trr us as su*h?
I gathcr thal in your nertion of dernacrutic hegemony, there will nlways tre o radical
incotnrncnsurability hetrrrecn conlsl:t and uni\rersalizaticn" but thst fhe twq will alsc
dways engender nne another in sorne way. Ttre democratic rssk wo$ld bc to keep any
given univqrsaliuation of csntent from becorning a flnal one, fhat is, freim rhutring dorlrn
the t*mparal horizon. thc futunnl horiron of universaliznticln irself" If I understand this
ccrrectly" thcn I agree with it whoteheartedly.
DBlI
ADI /so.
IDENTITY K
ID POLTX = CREDIBILTY
Women's identity politics are accessedfrom the way that we exist in our own reality. Allowine us to sain the
ultimate form of credibility.
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" in Chicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:6g7.)
Fernini$m m&de a b*ld clalsn in W'estern philosaphy: women can

s,cce$ss$r o\sn rsalify becsus* rve live it; slightly mnre brsadly, that
iivins e subnrdinatedststu$can givn ons awss$to its reality" Not
reality wi$t e cepit&lR-this particulars$cialrealiry. Sincewomen
wsrs nct playlngp$wsr Se$rs$cr trying tCIwin esedemicdebates,we
did not clairn privilege" Ws simply claimed the reality of lryornen;s
expericncs as a gr$rt$d ta stand on and moye from, a$ a basis for
consciollspclitical action. As it talrned sut, snce rescued from
ffagrant invisibility, wotrlell's realities c$uld nften be dmurnented iri
uther weysand nearly &nyCI$s provsd nble tn understa.ndthem with a
Little sympathetic npplicatis$. Wnmen t$rned the realities of
powsrlsssne$$into & form sf pslrysr: credibility. And reality
$upp$rtedus. W'hatwe seid was sredible becauseit was rsa.l. Few
psople clairned that lrom*n wfir* nat rriolated in the way$ \ryshad
fcund or did nst sscupy a sss$ndclassstatusin swiety. Nat ma$y
*penly disputedthat what we had uncoyereddid, in fact, exist. What
\ryasss"idinsieadwnsthat in saciety,nothi*g realXyexists.
DBT{
ADI lt.
IDENTITYK
GENDER CATEGORIES GOOD
Expansion of normative gender categories helps to disrupt the current, static notions about identity.
BUTLER 1990 (Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,GenderTrouble,pg.2l-24)
Inasmuch as "identity"is
assuredthroughthe stabilizingconceptsofsex. sender.and sexuality.
the very notionof "the person"is calledinto questionb-vthe cultural
emergence of those"incoherent"or "discontinuous,' genderedbeings
who appearto be personsbut who fail to conformto the gendered
normsof culturalintelligibilit)'b)zwhichpersons aredefined.
"lnt.lligible"g"nd"* a." thot" *hi.h in ror" sent" inrtituteund
maintainrelationsof coherence and continuit),amongsex.qender.
sexualpractice. anddesire.In otherwords,the spectres of discontinuit.v
andincoherence. themselvesthinkableonly in relationto existing
normsof continuityandcoherence, areconstantly prohibited anJproduced
by the very lawsthat seekto establishcausalor exrrressive lines
of connection amongbiologicalsex.culturallyconstituted genders.
andthe "expression"or "effect" of both in the manif'estationof sexual
desirethroughsexualpractice.
The notionthattheremightbe a "truth"of sex.as Foucaultironically
termsit, is producedpreciselythroughthe regulatorypracticcsthat
norms.The heterosexualization
of desirerequiresand institutes
the
production of discreteandasymmetrical
oppositionsbetween
"f-eminine"and"masculine." wheretheseareunderstood asexpressive
of "male"and"female."The culturalmatrixthroughwhich
attributes
genderidentityhasbecomeintelligiblerequiresthatcertainkindso1'
"identities" cannot "exist' r h a ti s . t h o s ei r r u h i c h g c n d e rd o e sn o t l b i l o w
l i o m s c x a n d t h o s ci n w h i c h t h e p r a c t i c c so l ' d e s i r cd o n o t ' . l b l l o w , '
f i o n r e i t h c rs e x o r s c n d e r ." l ; o l l o w " i n t h i sc o n l e r t i s a o o l i t i c a lr e l a l t o n
o l ' e n t a i l m e nitn s l i t u t c db v t h c c u l t u r a l a w st h a tc s l a b l i s ha n d r c g u l a t e
t h e s h a p oa n d m c a n i n eo t s e x u a l i t l .l n d e c d .p r e c i s e l V because ceftain
kindsof "genderidentities"fail to confbrmto thosenormsof cultural
intelligibility.they appea.only as d.uelnpmentalfailureso, roeical
impossibilities fiom withinthatdomain.Theirpersistence and proliferation.
however.providecriticalopportunities to exposethe limitsand
i m so f t h
withinthe very termsof that matrixof intelligibilityrivalandsubversive
matricesof genderdisorder.
H I EZ.
IDENTITYK
WOMYN'S MOVEMENT GOOD
The women's movementis not a seriesof universalclaims it is a seriesof particular claims that is ground in
historicalcontingencies.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine, American f.eminist,scholar, Yale educated lawyer, teacher and activist,
"PointsagainstPostmodernism"
in Chicago-KentLaw Revie**vol. 75:6g7.)
"Women" was not an abstractcategory. "Women" in feminist theory, in contoursand content,was thus,
as a theoreticalmatter,formally largely new. Its contentwas the substantiveexperiencethat women in
all their particularitiesand variations had. Not becausethe theory correspondedto this reality, but
becauseit was constitutedby it. This was not a generaltheory of particulars,it was a theory built of
theseparticulars:a particulartheory. It was built on, and accountableto, women's experiencesof abuse
and violation. Its groundedconstructionand engagedaccountabilitywas not a postureit adoptedor a
flag it flew. It was what it was madeof', what it did. It did not purport to be the one true accountof how
everythingreally is. It claimedto be accurateand accountableto the social world that constitutedit. It
relatedto the reality it theorizedin this new way.
FBH\s3
ADI
IDENTITYK
WOMYN'S MOVEMENT GOOD
The true value in the particularity of the women's struggle is not in being the same, but in celebrating
differences.
MACKINNON 2000 (Catherine,American feminist, scholar, Yale educatedlawyer. teacher and activist.
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" inchicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:6g7.)
Thus women ars transforming the dsfinition of equality not by

making Gurselvesthe sarneas men! entitled to violate and silence,or
by reifying women's sc*called differences,but by insisting that equal
citize$ship must include what women nesd to be human, including a
right not to be sexually violated and silenced. This was done in the
Bosnian caseby recogniuingethnic particularity, not by denying it.
Adapting the words of the philosopher Richard Rorty! rile are unatittg
the word woman a uunameof a way of being human"nnl*lVe are
challengingand changingthe processcf knowing and the practice of
power at the sametime. In other words,it works.
DRH
Aul /t-tJ.
IDENTITY K
AT: WOMYN DON'T EXIST
The idea that there is no suchthing as "women" tendsforget the fact that feminism only highlights gender,
but
still understandsthat other issuesexist.
"PointsagainstPostmodernism" in Chicago-KentLaw Review vol. 75:6g7.)
Femin-tsrn has alsn $ever:ta my kn*wledge,had what is calied a

*xnonwau$al"
salTative,rl'at least I havennl lffs d$ not sey that
genderis a$ there is" We have nevsr $eidit explainseverything. lile
have$s"idthat gsndsr is big erl,dpsrv*$ivs,nsynr not there, thaf it has
a shspeend resulsritiessnd lawsnf rnotion to it, and that it explainsa
Iot-rnuch athenwisemissed,unexplaisred. It is a feature af m$st
sverythi$$,Fstrasivelydenied" That doesmst mean that everything
lcdu-c9st$ gs$der,that it is the cnly rsg$larity or the only explanatian
for things,the si:rgleseu$sof everythins,sr the oaly thing there. It is
also worth repeating tlat sexual poLitics,in feminism, is $CIt an
overarchingprssxisting geller&lthe*ry that is appealedto in order to
understand sr explain, but & constantly proviiianal ana1trrui$ in the
proce $ af beingmadeby the sscialrealitiesthat produce(d)it.
D6;;
.qDl /;s.
IDENTITY K
SYSTEM = INESCAPABLE
Representational
politics and the systemis inescapable.
BUTLER 1990(Judith,professorof philosophyat UC Berkeley,
GenderTrouble,pg.g)
iuridicalst
constitutethe contemporaryfleld of power: hence"there is no position
outsidethis field. but only a critical genealogyof its own legitimating
practices.As such,the critical point of departureis the historicalpresent,
as Marx put it. And the task is to formulatewithin this constituted
frame a critique of the categoriesof identity that contemporaryjuridical
structuresengender,naturalize,and immobilize.
DBFI
Aur t 9L,
IDENTITYK
SYSTEM = INESCAPABLE
Escapefrom power relationsis impossible,it can only be redeployed.

BUTLER 1990(Judith,professor of philosophyat UC Berkeley, pg. la8)
GenderTrouhle,
Forpo*er to bewithdrawn. poweritselfwouldhaueto beunderstood
as the retractableoperationof volition: indeed.the heterosexual
contractwould be understoodto be sustainedthrough a seriesof
choices.just as the socialcontractin Locke or Rousseauis understood
to presupposethe rational choiceor deliberatewill of thoseit is said
to govern.If poweris not reducedto volition.however,and the classical
liberal and existentialmodel of freedomis refused"then power relations
can be understood.as I think the),oughtto be. as constraining
. Hence.powercan be
neitherwithdrawnnor refused.but only redeplo)zed. Indeed.in my
view. the normativefocusfor gay and lesbianpracticeoughtto be on
the subversiveand parodicredeployment of powerratherthanon the
impossiblef-antasy of its tull-scaletranscendence.
0.":
ADf tr+,
IDENTITY K
EOUALITY ) TRANSCEND PARTICULARITY
If equality is adoptedas a value within politics it can be usedto transcendparticularities.

R a n c i e r e i n 1 9 9 2 ( J a c q u e s , F r e n c h P h i l o s o p h e r a n d E m e r i t u s P r o f e s s o r o f P h i l o s o p h y a t t h e U n i v e r s i w o f p aorl i tsi.c s a n c l
[dentification,and Subjectivization,October,pp. 5S-6a)
Are thtrt universal l'alue$ tren$rending pardcular ldenrificati*nsl If we

are to break cut of *lt drsp*rate ckbare hetweenuxiversalit.yrnd iclentity,we
nru*t answtr tlat the *nly universalin politics is equulity.But we firu$tadd that
equalit"yis not * value given in :he rss{n{q of F{urnanity*r Xeas$n.fquality
exi$t$.and makesunil'ersalvalt-rrsexi$l,to rhe rxt*nr tlr*r ir is enacred.nquality
is nut a value tti which one appcalx; it is a uni,".ersalrhat nrust be *uppo*d,
verified, nnd demonsrrat*ciin *ach eme. Llniverualiryis not rhe *ddns- nf the
community ttl which particular situationsere $pp(l${d: it is, first *f ell, a logieal
{rPf,rflt{rr.The mrxlt nf pff'enivirynf'Tnrth nr l}niv*rsality in
Jxrlirirsic-thn
discursiveand praeriealr*nstru{ti$n nf a pn$*rnicalveriscariCIn, a casc,a dem-
onstration" Tht place of truttr is n*t the placc *f a ground or an ideal; ir is
alrvavsa loFus.the place *f a xub.i*ctivirati*nin an arsumentafive plnt. lts
language is aln'*ys idiamatic, r,rhich,on thc contrsry, do*s not mean rribal.
\t'hen oppressedsroup$ ser o{.ltto fi:rpen'ith a ;*rons. thr1, m*1' appealtrr Man
or Hunran Bting. Bur the universalitxis not in theix {$nc{prs;ir is in the way
of dcnronsrratingthe con*equrn(e$that frrllor+frorn this*from thr w*rker
bcing a citie*n. the black heing a human heing, and so cn. T'he logical scherna
ol"stxial protc$t, generallyspraking, rna.r.. he surnmeduF as ferllows:Dc w* or
rrot bel*ng to tht catcg*ry of men trr citiern* r:r human lreingr,and what
9t-**
fnllows from thisl The univtrsality ir nct- encl{isedin ritirrn nr ftum*n}rinp it
is inl'nlvsd in the -'t*'hatfoll*ws," in its di*cursiveanri pra(tical enactment.
t59

Identity K

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Identity K

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

ADI2oo6 Dr.

Brown's scholarshipis somewhatsimilar to Butler. However,the argumentsin this file fbcus

Against PlannedParenthoodv. Casey,the alllrmative might havc a f-cminismor womyn's

Disciplinary power works with law and social constructionsto produceidentitiesas

Although this ddtentebetweenuniversaland particularwithin liberalismis pottedwith volatile

Liberalismcontainsfrom its inceptiona generalized

individualliberty and social egalitarianism.

commitmentto equality.requiringheavystateinterventionism and economicredistribution, attelluates

condition.where"reaction"acquiresthe meaningthat Nietzscheascribedto it. namelv.as an effectof

But in its attemptto displaceits suffering.identitystructuredb), ressentiment

and requiringits sustainedrejectionby a "hostileexternalworld.,,25Insofaras what Nietzschecalls

sufferingimposedby its historicallystructuredimpotencein the contextof a discourseof sovereign

r:llri'r t. rrrrivt-r-s.li1 a vl u , i r y st a k c s 1 - r l ^ r ri.r r ; r g i ' r . r r s v r r r \ .

Anti-intellectualismmakesdissentand anti-war sentimentimpermissible.Anti-intellectualismdistrustsilence

Categorical gender roles are normative, exclusionary, and forecloses intersectionality.

The contemporary feministdebatesover essentialism raisethe

Strategicessentialismis still a representational

Feminismconstructsa staticidentity in its claim to representwomyn

In 1989| was mostconcernedto criticizea pervasiveheterosexual

practicesetsup exclusionary gendernormswithin feminism.often

Representingwomyn through f-eminismbeforethe law ensuressubjectiFicationand is doomedto failure.

For the most part,feministtheoryhas assumed that thereis someexistingidentitv.understood

Universalfeminist claims are a gatewayto colonjalization.

The political assumptionthat theremust be a universarbasisfbr

Genderdoesnot exist-it is an illusion that is socially constructed.The assumptionthat genderis physicalor is

n r : r l t t i s i r q r c tl ',,. r t l l t r ,/ , i / . , ' k : r r r rI l r l o l t g r t t ' o t r t l r , l r r \ , j r ' rot l ' t ; r r l i , ; t l

lffi;Fniliublc or sr,,ti,,l,il-liltiilliiii-ii s rvitIrin

enrcrtt rltrrI tfVliilF6'r-t'll-TdfiIt|

Honig in 1992 (Bonnie,Associate

From Arendt's perspective,a political cornmunity that constitutes itsell.

LINK: HUMAN RIGHTS

irr a way th:rt pt:scrvcs tlre pariicularit c ' s s t r t t q g l e . o r r c s l r t ' l i k sr r r

althouqh it r.locsmean entering into thzrtsitu:rtion in lvlricir the c:onvcn-

mean thaf wc liavi a pi:iorl iEcotirlE-I6T tnte r ctiterion ol univcrsality

LINK: IDENTITY MOVEMENTS

Establishingan identity constructsa violent, forced meaningthat is controlledby its producer.Anti-domination

_f (siurri ficcI) tLri r--iig-fi

l)owcrs ol (lornlnatlon throtre]r our plirticilta_

LINK: IDENTITY MOVEMENTS

// I'aclau's most sustained disc:ussionol universality in rclation to the

p a l t i t : r r l a . ri r' k : n t i t i c sc r n e f { l c r n r r s t l r c l i n r i t i t : s s l.v l o l c o v r : r ,t l r c ' i r r < . r i r r r -

c n t i a l l y l r n s c r l r l c f i n i l i o r r s p l a y s l o r l , a c l a r r i r r ( l r c l l r c o r ^ i z l r r i o ror l ol.9l" i t3l.:t tr

ic:alcatere-or1', it rctlrrirt:stlurt particrrlar irlcnt.iticslrt:krrowlcrlgctlrrrt tlrcv L l+l-l- tLe

of'1hr: rkrrnain of political sociirlitl,.If any sudr ltar.tit.rrlar.irlcrlitvsctl<s

LINK: IDENTITY MOVEMENTS

/ | , " ' r i t ^ t , t e r r si r i s r l r a ta n u l i t i c a l, , r g a n i z a r i o rwr i l r p , , s i rt l r c p . s s i l , l r

cquivalenti:il cliain . . . r:an only bc tlte

surc coukl only bc tlrc r.estrltof'orro morc clifierql:._gpggiLl1lre_Uits

Lirrda Zcrilli explainsLaclau's conccption of' tlrc universal in tlrcsetcrnrs:

o f ' a u r c s c : r t c lrt:t t t t h c o h c i : l r o l < l c ro l ' : r r t l i l r s t : n c t ' . ' l l t Z t : r i l<l il t ' l i l vs l r o r v s

( ' , i r l r l o t l r u l c r l r r c t ' r l t o t l r t : L l r : l t r r i a l t l { c a l , a r r r i s u g g ( ' s 1 st l r l t l l r r : t u r i v t ' r ' s l , l

LINK: IDENTITY MOVEMENTS

ishcd life which ca.'ot berarticrrlatedby the ]i.rot-:ertric calesorv .f

cnltrrral rr;rnslaticrnon the part of li'irst world i.tellt'rturrtr.'

Browno95 (WendyBrown is professorof Women'sStudiesat the Universityof Califbrnia,Santa

Dis<tricttltttirtn. Arrothcr collscqLrcncc of postmodcrtrity's tlcccrltcrttrg

Stanlcy Aronowitz otTcrs a similar rcadir:rg of thc effcct of cietcrritorieliz-

Full inclusion is not possiblebecausethere will always be an external to a political movement.

Their intersectionalapproachto feminism is a failure and alwaysaccompaniesthe constructionof static

Even within the theoriesthat maintain a highly qualified or situated

LINK: LAW NORMATIVITY)

LEGAL FORMALITIES PROSCRIBEIDENTITIES AND WHAT IS CONSIDEREDA NORMAL HUM\'N.

lne loeatnat actln8as lt" ls enoughto cont'erlegalrecognitionforcesconfrontationwith questionsaboutpropefty,

Courts are generallyresistantto outright declarationson highllr politicized normative questions.Status-based

Ths fenninistapprpriation of the phenomenologicltheory $f csnstitution might

Thanhymr.ludith. trlnrglyfrgrrswith ymr.["ctmecompiement ynr an*lysiswith &rse

A sn{ial{on$tru{lisnist approah t$ vi$imixatlondevtrs&fialyti{attrnti$nto the social

As a cnsequencsrfrendercannot be understnsdas rsltrwhich either €xpressc$