Performativity | Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature

Performativity in Butler's view explains how gender identity constructs subjects and then is connected (often falsely or painfully) to ideas ... Jumpto Content Menu UserAccount PersonalProfile:SignIn or Create About ToolsandResources Subscribe CustomerServices News OxfordResearchEncyclopedias OxfordResearchEncyclopediaofLiterature OxfordResearchEncyclopedias Literature Advancedsearch Browse BrowsebySubject    AfricanLiteratures AsianLiteratures BritishandIrishLiteratures LatinAmericanandCaribbeanLiteratures NorthAmericanLiteratures OceanicLiteratures SlavicandEasternEuropeanLiteratures WestAsianLiteratures,includingMiddleEast WesternEuropeanLiteratures AncientLiteratures(before500) MiddleAgesandRenaissance(500-1600) EnlightenmentandEarlyModern(1600-1800) 19thCentury(1800-1900) 20thand21stCentury(1900-present) Children’sLiterature CulturalStudies Fiction Film,TV,andMedia LiteraryTheory Non-FictionandLifeWriting Poetry PrintCultureandDigitalHumanities TheaterandDrama BrowseAll Close ViewPDF Highlightsearchterm Save Cite Emailthiscontent ShareLink Copythislink,orclickbelowtoemailittoafriend Emailthiscontent orcopythelinkdirectly: https://oxfordre.com/literature/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.001.0001/acrefore-9780190201098-e-1079 Thelinkwasnotcopied.Yourcurrentbrowsermaynotsupportcopyingviathisbutton. LinkcopiedsuccessfullyCopylink ShareThis SignIn ArticleNavigation Subscribersignin Youcouldnotbesignedin,pleasecheckandtryagain. Username PleaseenteryourUsername Password PleaseenteryourPassword Forgotpassword? Don'thaveanaccount? SigninviayourInstitution Youcouldnotbesignedin,pleasecheckandtryagain. Signinwithyourlibrarycard Pleaseenteryourlibrarycardnumber Searchwithin... Articlecontents J.L.AustinandthePerformativeResponsestoAustin:RefinementsResponsestoAustin:DiscursivePossibilitiesFromPerformativestoPerformativityFeminist,Trans,andCriticalRaceTheoreticalResponsestoJudithButler’sPerformativityOtherAdaptationsofPerformativityDiscussionoftheLiteratureFurtherReadingNotesRelatedArticles ShowSummaryDetails PerformativityPerformativityJulieRakJulieRakUniversityofAlbertahttps://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1079Publishedonline:25March2021SummaryTheconceptofperformativityisfoundationaltothestudyofgender,butarguablynoconceptwithingenderstudieshasbeenmoremisunderstoodandmisapplied.Ajourneythroughthedevelopmentofperformativityasacriticaltoolfromitsbeginningsinlinguisticsandphilosophy,toitsfoundationalworkinpoststructuralismandthenitsgeneralacceptancewithinthestudyofgendershowshowandwhytheconceptofperformativityisatonceobviousanddifficulttograsp,connectedasitistoordinarylifeandspeechandtoabstracttheoriesofidentification,allatonce.J.L.Austinproposedperformativesasutterancesthatwerenotconstative,inthattheywerenotverifiable,famouslyarguingthatperformativesareillocutionary,becausethey“do”anactionastheyaresaidorwritten.Austin’sfocusincludedtheenvironmentorsceneoftheutterance,wherespeakersandsituationhadtomatchtheintentoftheperformativeinorderforittowork.Fromthenon,performativesbecamethesubjectoflinguisticsandspeechacttheory,andthenwereimportanttomanycriticaltheorists,notablyShoshanaFelman,Jean-FrançoisLyotard,JacquesDerrida,andJudithButler,allofwhomdevelopedpostmodernandpoststructuralapproachestolanguageandrepresentationwhichsawthatperformativesofferedanalternativeroutetothinkingabouthowmeaningisproduced.Poststructuralistsinterestedintheworkoflanguageandpoliticsfoundperformativeshelpfulforthinkingabouttheimpactandforceofstatements.JudithButler,whoinparticularisassociatedwithpoststructuralthinkingaboutperformatives,developedatheoryofperformativitywhichlinkedittowaysofdoinggender.Inherrethinkingofperformativityandgender,discourseandrepetitionconstructasenseofwhatgenderidentityis.PerformativityinButler’sviewexplainshowgenderidentityconstructssubjectsandthenisconnected(oftenfalselyorpainfully)toideasaboutsexassignment,bodiesandsexuality,althoughtheconstantrepetitionofgendernormscanresultinnewandunexpectedwaysofbeinggendered.PerformativityinButler’sworkisnotperformance,althoughithasbeenwidelyinterpretedthatway,becauseperformativitydoesnotassumethatasubjectpre-existsitsdiscursiveconstruction.Therepetitionandreiterationofgendernormsprovidesafictionofinteriorityandidentityforsubjects,althoughButlerleavesopenthepossibilityoftheremainder,orexcess,thathaspoliticalpotentialtomakeotherkindsofgenderidentities.Performativitywashotlydebatedwithinfeministtheory,queertheory,andtranstheorybecauseButler’sversionoftheconceptcritiquedtheworkofagencywhilestillinsistingontheimportanceofpolitics.Eventually,theconceptbecamecentraltonon-essentialistapproachestoidentityformation.KeywordspoststructuralismgenderidentityqueerfeminismlanguagespeechactssexdiscourseSubjects20thand21stCentury(1900-present)LiteraryTheory Performativityiswidely-invokedasaconceptingenderstudies,butitisaconceptthatisfrequentlymisunderstoodandmisapplied.Ajourneythroughthedevelopmentofperformativityfromitsbeginninginlinguisticsandphilosophyasacriticaltooltoitsfoundationalworkinpoststructuralismandthenitsgeneralacceptancewithinthestudyofgenderwillshowhowandwhytheconceptofperformativityisatonceobviousanddifficulttograsp,connectedasitistoordinarylifeandspeechandtoabstracttheoriesofidentification,allatonce.We“know”whatperformativesaremostoftenthroughthememorableimagesofthemcreatedbyJ.L.Austin,whooriginatedtheconcept.Butatthesametime,theworkofperformativityisnotalwayseasytofigureout,andthereisnowidespreadagreementaboutwhatexactlyaperformativeisandwhatitissupposedtomeanwithindifferenttheoriesofidentity. Intheessay“PerformativeUtterances,”J.L.Austinobservesthat“youaremorethanentitlednottoknowwhattheword‘performative’means...itisnotaprofoundword.”1GiventhatAustiniscreditedwithdevelopingtheconceptoftheperformativeutteranceinthefirstplace,hisacknowledgementthattheperformativeisarelativelytechnicaltermwithoutacleartrajectoryofeverydayusesattachedtoitisawisewaytobeginthinkingabouttheusestowhichtheperformative,andlaterperformativity,havebeenputinawiderangeofphilosophicandtheoreticalapplications,frompoststructuralapproachestolanguageandwriting,totheoriesofgender,toeconomics.Austin’soriginalconceptualizationofperformatives,givenasaseriesoflecturesin1955forHarvardUniversityandpublishedin1962asHowtoDoThingsWithWords,hasproventobeastonishinglygenerativeacrossmanyregisters,evenasAustin’soriginalideasabouttheperformativehavebeenadapted,contested,andevenabandoned.Performativity,anadaptationoftheperformativebestknowninJudithButler’searlyworkongenderandsex,marksanimportantwatershedinthestudyofliterarytheory,particularlyduringthe1990sastheorydrewmuchofitsenergyfromthestudyoflinguistics,andthenbecamepartofadebateaboutwhether—orhow—thestudyoflanguagecouldbeconnectedtopoliticalconcerns.Thedevelopmentoftheperformativeasaconceptliesattheheartoftheseconsiderations,anditsjourneythroughtheworkofmanytheoristshashelpedtoshapeinquiryabouttheworkoflanguageinsociallife. J.L.AustinandthePerformativeAccordingtoJohnSearle,Austin’sstudentandanimportantspeechacttheorist,J.L.AustinneverintendedHowtoDoThingsWithWordstobeabookandtoldSearlethathethoughtthathisHarvardlecturenoteswere“half-baked”and“notpublishable.”2PerhapsthatinformalandconversationalqualityanditstendencytoopenuppossibilitieswithoutdevelopingthemfullyexplainswhyHowtoDoThingsWithWordshasenduredasanunlikelyclassic,thesourceofdecadesofcontroversyaboutlanguageandwhatitcan—orcannot—do. Austenbeginswithachallengetophilosophersoflanguagewhofocusinhisviewtoocloselyonconstativestatements,thatis,thosethatdescribeorreportontheworld,andthereforearecapableofbeingverified.Suchstatementsarethereforeeithertrueorfalse,descriptiveornonsensical.But,Austinsays,thiswayofseeingstatementsasalwaysandonlydescriptiveislimiting.Therearestatementswhichareneitherdescriptiveoftheworldnorsubjecttotrue/falsetesting.Hecallssuchstatements(orutterances)performatives.3Performativesdoanactionastheyaremade;aperformative“isnotnormallythoughtofasjustsayingsomething.”4Inotherwords,aperformativesignalsthat“tosaysomethingistodosomething”orthat“bysayingorinsayingsomethingwearedoingsomething.”5Austin’sexamplesofperformativesincludechristeningashipwhilesmashingabottleagainstit,amarriagevowinaweddingceremony,orapromiseofsomekind.Statementssuchasthese,Austinsays,arenotdescriptive.Theyenactsomethingastheyaresaidorwritten.ForAustin,themaindifferencesbetweenstatementswhichdescribeandstatementswhichenactarebetweenlocutionarystatements,whichdescribeasituationandascribemeaningtoitinaconventionalsense,illocutionarystatements,whichinform,order,ordirectsomeonetoundertakeanaction(Austincalledthisquality“force”),andperlocutionarystatements,whichenactsomethingwhensomethingissaidbyconvincing,persuading,ordeterringalistener.6Perlocutionarystatements,whentheyaresuccessful,areperformative,ratherthanconstative,whichistosaythattheyachievesomethingratherthandescribesomething.Thedistinctionsbetweenthelocutionary,illocutionary,andperlocutionarywerenotfullydevelopedbyAustin,andthatsetthestageforsubsequenttheoristschallenging,extending,andinsomecasesrevisingwhatAustinhadsaidabouteachcategory. AustinspendsmuchofHowToDoThingsWithWordsdelineatingwhathastobeinplaceinorderforaperformativetobe“happy,”thatis,successfulinitsaimsandexecution,ratherthansimply“true,”atermwhichAustinthinksshouldbereservedforconstativestatementsratherthanperformativeones.Andso,whathappenswhenperformativesdonotwork?Whenperformatives“gowrong,”theyareclassifiedas“unhappy”becauseofthefailureofanyofthefollowingfactors:theperformativeprocedurehastobeconventional,andithastobeexecutedcorrectlyandcompletelybytheparticipants,whohavetheappropriatethoughtsandfeelingsduringtheprocedure.Theparticipantsintheperformativealsomustbetheappropriateonesforthesituation,andmustconductthemselvesaccordingly.7Aclassicexampleofahappyperformativeutteranceisthatofachristeningofaship,whenanofficialnamestheshipasabottleissmashedagainstthehull.Theperformativeenactsthesituation(theshipisnamedinastatement)inaceremonywithasetofrulesattachedaboutwhothespeakeris,whattheshipissupposedtobecalled,whosmashesthebottle,andsoon.Ifallgoesaccordingtoplan,theshipisnamedbecausetheperformativeissuccessful,or“happy.”Inanunhappyperformative,oneormoreelementsisnotappropriatetothesituation.Austin’sexampleofthisisasfollows:ifsomeonerandomlyrantoashipabouttobechristened,grabbedthebottle,andnamedtheship“Mr.Stalin”orsomethingotherthanwhattheshipwassupposedtobecalled,theperformativewouldbeunhappyandtheactionwouldnotbeperformedatall,despitethewordssaid,thebottlesmashed,andthepresenceofwitnesses.8Thepersonchristeningandthenameoftheshipwouldbewrongforthesituation,andsothewordsareheard,buttheshipisunnamed,evenasthebottlesmashesagainstit. Austinalsolistsinstancesof“misfires,”timeswhentheperformativeisintendedbytheparticipantstoenactsomething,butinfelicitiesresultingfromflawsorhitchesintheprocessrenderthesituationnullandvoid.9Therearealsootherkindsof“abuses”oftheperformativewhenthewordsareinsincerelyuttered(participantsarelying)ortheacttakesplaceonastageandsothewordscannotenactanythingbutaperformance,whichAustinseesasarepresentationorcommentarybutnotanenactment.Forinstance,someonecouldmakeamarriagevowof“Ido”butinfactbelying,ornotbewhotheysaytheyare.Themarriageisthereforenullandvoidbecausetheperformativeis“unhappy,”evenifotheraspectsofthesituationareappropriate. Alternatively,Austincallsaperformative“insincere”ifthewordsaresaidbutarepartofaperformance.Forexample,artistsAnnieSprinkleandBethStephensconductecosexualartperformancesinwhichtheyandotherparticipantsmakeavowto“marry”theearthasanexpressionoflovefortheenvironment.10Theresultismostlikelyanentertainingandthought-provokingevent,butstrictlyspeaking,amarriageceremonyisnotperformedbecausetheparticipantsmaynotallbethecorrectonesforthesituation(theearthmaynothavemadethevowandtheparticipantsmaynotseethemselvesasreallymakingavoweither).Moreover,alegaldefinitionofmarriagemaynothavebeeninuseandsoconventionsforamarriageceremonymaynothavebeeninplace,orthemarriagecouldbemerelyarepresentationofasituationratherthanasituationcreatedbythevowitselfbecauseitisaperformance.TheexampleshowsclearlythedifferenceforAustinbetweenperformanceandperformative,adistinctionthatwillbecomeimportantlater.SprinkleandStephensusetheirperformancestocritiqueheterosexistideasaboutmarriageandtoaffirmtheneedtoconnecttotheearthaspartofaradicalpolitics,andsotheyaimtoexploitthepowerofthemarriageperformative,andchallengethatpoweranditsexclusions.Butthewordstheyspeakareperformedandnotperformative:nothingnewisbroughtintobeingasaresult. ResponsestoAustin:RefinementsResponsestoAustin’sworkontheperformativefallintotwotypes:attemptsbylinguistsandspeechacttheoriststorefineAustin’sterms,andexplorationsofthediscursivepossibilitiesopenedupbytheideaoftheperformative.Intheformercategory,ÉmileBenvenistediscussesAustin’sworkinProblemsofGeneralLinguistics,acknowledgingtheimportanceofAustin’sworkontheperformativewhilecontestingAustin’sdescriptionofperformativeactsasmerelyverbs.ForBenveniste,theperformativenatureofstatementsliesintheirexistenceasacts,ratherthan“just”asverbs,becauseofwhothespeakeris,andsoratherthanfocusingonwhetheraperformativeis“happy”ornot,alinguistshoulddeterminewhatisuniqueaboutperformativestatementsinthemselves.11Benvenisteconcludesthatthequalityofaperformativeisthatitenactsitsownconditionswhenitissaid,unlikeanimperative,whichgivesanordersuchas“comehere,”orwhenonthetelevisionseriesStarTrek,NextGenerationCaptainJean-LucPicardsays“Makeitso,”astatementwhichaskssomeoneelsetoenactsomething.12ForBenveniste,theperformativeenactsatthemomentofspeaking.Anyotherstatement,suchasanorderorevenawarning,doesnotdothesamething.ItdoesnotmattertoBenvenistewhetheraverbispresentinthestatement;whatmattersisthatthecircumstancesarecorrectfortheperformativetobeenacted,includingtheauthorityofaspeaker.Andinthisformulation,thesocialandlinguistic“rules”ofaperformativeareabsolute,disallowingperformativesthatdonotactprecisely.13Thiswouldseemtobeafocusonlyontheperlocutionary,andadisallowingoftheillocutionaryasaperformative.Benvenisteassertsthisbecauseitallowsthedifferencebetweenconstativedescriptionsofasituationandtheperformativeactasthecreationofasituationtobemaintained.14 Inasimilarveinofcritiquebutwithafocusonillocutionaryacts,JohnSearleexaminesAustin’sclassificationrubrics,andfindsthemwantingbecauseofAustin’semphasisonillocutionaryverbssuchas“Iundertake”or“Iorder.”IllocutionaryactsneedwhatSearlecalls“anextralinguisticinstitution”inordertofunction,ratherthanthepresenceofcertainkindsofverbs.15ForSearle,thekeytounderstandinghowillocutionaryactsfunctionasperformativesistoassesswhathecallsthe“fit”ofwordstoactionsandthe“force”ofthewordsspoken.16Inotherwords,theillocutionaryappearstoprovideinformation,butitsconnectiontoaspecificsituationiswhatgivesforcetotheinformationsothatsomethingisenacted.Literally,anillocutionarystatementisanattemptto“getthehearertodosomething.”17Buttherearemanywaystogoaboutthis,andsonotallillocutionaryactsworkinthesamefashion.SearledoesnotthinkthatAustinrefinedtheillocutionaryenoughtoaccountfordifferenttypesofforcewithinaspeechact,andsoheproposesanewsetoftermstoclassifyillocutionarystatementsthatmotivatehearersindifferentwaysdependingontheforceinvolvedinthestatements.18Searle’spurposeforclassifyingstatementsintermsofforceandfitisawayforhimtoconfinethedelineationofillocutionaryactstotheareaof“naturallanguage”andeverydayspeech.Inhisview,philosophersseektoliftperformativesawayfromeverydayusageandplacethemintherealmofdiscourse,amovethatheunderstandstobeproblematic.19 ResponsestoAustin:DiscursivePossibilitiesThedevelopmentSearledecriesdoesrepresentthewaythatperformativescametooccupyacentralplaceinphilosophiesoflanguageandeventually,inpoststructuralliterarytheoryaboutgenderandsexualityaswell.JacquesDerrida,inhisessay“Signature,EventContext,”picksupAustin’semphasisonperformativesasactsofcommunicationinordertoarguethatwritingisalsoanactofcommunicationthatextendsthespeechact,evenasitworkstodestabilizetheideaofcommunicationasasimpletransmissionofmeaning.Inamovefamiliartoanyonewhohasreadabouttheworkofdeconstruction,DerridaendorsesAustin’sdiscussionoftheperformativeasaninstanceofcommunication,notingthatAustinliftstheworkofcommunicationawayfromtheconstative(true/false)statementsofphilosophy,totheideathatdiscourseisactuallyonlyaboutcommunicationandwhatstatementsdo,ratherthanwhethertheyaretrueornot.DerridalinksthispartofAustin’sthinkingtoFrederichNietzche’sownquestioningoftruthvaluesinphilosophy,andhesaysthatAustin’sanalysisoftheperformative“frees”it“fromthevalueoftruth.”ForDerrida,themostimportantthingabouttheperformativeisAustin’sideaofforce,whichDerridaconnectstotheoperationofthemark:“tocommunicate,inthecaseoftheperformative,ifinallrigorandpuritysomesuchthingexists...wouldbetocommunicateaforcebytheimpetusofamark.”20Theworkofdeconstructionatthisstageistodetachtruthvaluefromstatementsandtounderstand“force”astheconnectionbetweenthemakingofstatementanditsmark.ForDerrida,performativespointtothepowerofthemark,throughforce,tomakemeaninghappen,apartfromanyrecoursetorepresentativeeconomiesortranscendence.TheillocutionaryaspectofperformativesistheworkofwhatDerridacalls“spacing”or“difference,”whichheseesasthewrittenmark’simpactuponmeaning,aconstantslippagebetweenmark,force,andcommunication.Atthispoint,DerridapartscompanywithAustin,andcritiqueshimforhisattempttodefinewhatmakesaperformativehappy,sayingineffectthatAustinseesthepossibilityoffailureineveryutterance,butproceedstoexcludefailed,parasitic,and“non-serious”utterances(suchasthoseperformativesthataresaidaspartofastageplay)becauseheseeksapurityincommunicationthatDerridasaysisnotpossibletofind.Rather,DerridaproposestothinkaboutpreciselywhatAustinwouldexcludefromtheconsiderationofutterances,whichisthetendencyanyofthemhavetowardswhathecallstheiriterability,ortheirabilitytorepeat.Themarkiswhatcommunicatesaforce,anditinitselfischangedbythepresenceofothermarks,notbytheintentionsofaspeakerorevenbycontextstakingplacebeyondthemark.Derrida’sapplicationoftheperformativeutteranceassertsthatallutteranceshaveforce,andallmarkscanbeconsideredashavingperformativepotential,wheretheeffectsofanutteranceformpartofitsmeaning.Allutterancesarethereforecommunicative.Allarediscursive.Allmakemeaningthroughtheirownoperations,whichdissolvesthedistinctionbetweenlanguageandtheworld“beyond”it.Theperformativebecomesaninstanceofthelackofanoutsidetolanguage. Derrida’sshiftingoftheperformativetotheoperationsofalldiscoursehadaprofoundimpactonwhatintheearly21stcenturyiscalledthelinguisticturninphilosophyandliterarytheory.Languageitselfcouldbeanalyzednotasatransparentreflectionofmeaning,butasconstitutingmeaning.Writingwasnotjustanimitationofspeech,butperformativeasanactofcommunication,doingtheworkofmeaningmaking,aparasiticmeansofcommunicationthatappearstoservespeech,butthatinfactdetermineswhatkindofstatementsabouttheworldcanbemade.Thefactthatamarkcanberepeatedandcanproduceitsowneffects,thatamarkisiterable,removesthespeaker’sorauthor’sintentionfromtheforceofthemark.Whatmatters,then,isthecitationalityofamark,andthepossibility,asDerridaseesit,ofcitationalitysplittingfromtheoriginalmeaningofanevent,becausethemeaningofamarkisneverfullypresentwithinit.Citationalitycreatesnewmeaningsaspartofthemark’sowniteration.Theperformative’sabilitytoenactasitisspokenorwrittencouldthusbeunderstoodascentraltotheworkofdiscourse.Thewaybecomesopentothinkingabouttheperformativefarbeyondtheoperationsofthespeechact. ShoshanaFelman’sworkontheperformativeislesswellknownthanDerrida’s,butherapproachinfluencedsubsequenttreatmentsofthesubject.InTheScandaloftheSpeakingSubject,FelmantakesonBenveniste’sinterpretationoftheperformativeandassertsthatBenveniste’sideaofsymmetrybetweenperformativestatementsandenactmentsisamisreadingofAustin,because“ifthelanguageoftheperformativereferstoitself,producesitselfasitsownreference,thislanguageeffectisnonethelessanaction,anactionthatexceedsreferencesandmodifiesthereal.”21TheperlocutionarymodecreateswhatFelmancallsa“referentialexcess”betweenwhatissaidandwhatisenacted.22Statementsarepronetoslippage,andmeaningslipsthroughthem.ThisviewoflanguageascapableofexcessissimilartoDerrida’sideaofforce,butitowesmoretopsychoanalytictheoriesoftheremainder.Felmancallspsychoanalysis“thedomainoftheperformative”becauseofwhatsheseesastheproductivenatureofwhatAustintermed“misfires.”ReadthroughtheworkofLacanonfailure,Felmanseesmisfiresasamorepositivewaytothinkabouttheideaof“lack”inLacan,notasastatethatcanbedescribed,butasarepetitiveactionoftrying(andfailing):“theactoffailingthusopensupthespaceofreferentiality,”Felmanwrites,“notbecausesomethingismissing,butbecausesomethingelseisdone.”23Statementsthemselveswillmisfire,willfail,butthatdoesnotmeanthatthereisnoforcepresentwhenthereferentandthesignifiedfailto(completely)connect.TheworkofJudithButleronrepetitionwithintheperformativeowesmuchtothislineofthinking. FromPerformativestoPerformativityInThePostmodernCondition,Jean-FrançoisLyotarddepictstheperformativeasameasureofefficiencyandarhetoricalstrategyusedinthelegitimizationofpower.Henamestheideaofasystemthatcouldmeasureefficiencyas“performativity,”anotionthathethinksshouldbechallengedinthestudyofeducationgiventheconditionsofpostmodernityandlatecapitalism.24ThestudyofperformativitywithineducationandmanagementtheoryflowedfromLyotard’swork.25 Butinliteraryandculturalstudies,Lyotard’sthinkingaboutperformativitywaslessinfluentialthanJudithButler’s.Butler’scontributiontothescholarlydebateaboutperformativeshasbeenwide-rangingbecause,beginningwithherworkina1988essayforTheatreJournalandtheninherfirstbookGenderTrouble,heradaptationofperformativitymadeitintoananti-essentialisttheoryoftheconstructionofgenderidentityandgender’sconnectiontosexualorientationandsexuality.Performativityprovedtobeacentral(andinitiallycontroversial)conceptinthewiderreceptionofButler’swork,somuchsothatButlerhasherselfsaidthatmuchofherworkforthenextdecadeinvolvedclarifying,amendinganddefendingheruseofit.26 Butlerdevelopedperformativityasawaytochallengeassumptionsinfeministtheorythatsexandgenderarefixedconceptsconnectedtobiology.Initially,sheadaptedandfurtherdevelopedthephenomenologicalthinkingofSimonedeBeauvoirabouttheimportanceofactingtotheconstructionofgender—foundinBeauvoir’sfamousphrasefromTheSecondSexthat“oneisnotborn,butratherbecomesawoman.”27Ifoneacts“as”awoman,writesButler,“theappearanceofsubstanceispreciselythat,aconstructedidentity.”28Butlergoesontoask“inwhatsenses,then,isgenderanact”?29Thisquestionleadshertoconsidertheoriesofembodimentfromphenomenologyandanthropology,andtoconcludethatthereisnointeriorgender.Rather,“theperformanceofgenderisperformative,genderisan‘act’broadlyconstrued,whichconstructsthesocialfictionofitsowninteriority.”30Eveninitsearliestform,Butler’stheoryofperformativitymakesuseofAustin’sperlocutionarymode,transferringhisideaofactsorstatementsthatenactasituationratherthandescribeittotheconstructionofgenderitself. InGenderTrouble,ButlerdevelopsideasabouttheperlocutionarywithreferencetoFoucault’sworkondiscipline,subjectivityandthelaw,Derrida’semphasisonforcewithintheperlocutionary,andFelman’sideasaboutthepotentialofmisfires,allconnectedtogenderconstruction,sexualorientation,and(assheinsiststhroughherwork)theirever-presentpolitics.ButlerbeginswithFoucault’sdescriptionoftheworkingsofthelawonbodiesasinscriptiontotheworkofgenderidentification.ThekeyforButleristhatregulation,orthepresenceofthelaw,workswithinbodiesassoulorconscience,andsoitselfbecomesindiscernible,evenasitseffectscreatethedisciplineneededto“follow”thelawanddowhatitsays.Inasimilarway,“acts,gesturesanddesireproducetheeffectofaninternalcoreorsubstance...suchacts,gestures,enactments,generallyconstrued,areperformativeinthesensethattheessenceoridentitythattheyotherwisepurporttoexpressarefabrications.”31Sexualityisregulatedthroughsuchactsandgestures,whichButlersometimescallssurfaces,andthesecreate“aninteriorandorganizinggendercore.”32Surfacesandactsensurethatsexualityisconnectedtogenderandoperateswithinitas“theobligatoryframeofreproductivesexuality.”33Inotherwords,genderidentificationisabouttheplayofsurfacesandactsthatcreatetheconditionsofidentity,andgenderthenoperatesastheregulationofsexualityasbothareperformedtogether. Theworkofperformativity,therefore,isperlocutionarybecause“doing”gendercreatesinteriorityasaneffect,justasmakingaperlocutionarystatementcausessomethingtohappen.Butlerinsists,however,thatthedoingofgendercannotpresupposeasubject.Rather,thesubjectiscreatedastheeffectofgenderrepetition.Suchaprocessisnecessarilyincompletebecauseitismadefromtherepetitionof“anormthatcanneverbefullyinternalized.”34ThishasbeenthesourceofsomeconfusionaboutButler’sdescriptionofperformativity.Austinspendsconsiderabletimethinkingabout“unhappy”performativeswhenthespeakerisnotcorrect,orwhentheconditionsofastatementarenotallinplace.Buthedoesnotdiscussthepossibilitythatthereisnospeakeratall.Butlerdoesnotassumethattheremustbeaspeaker,andinthisherapproachtotheperformativeismuchlikeDerrida’s.Forthiscase,itisnotonlylanguagethatconstructsinteriority,butanydiscourseandanyact.ForButler,subjectsdonotperform,choose,orevenactouttheiridentities,althoughButlerdoessaythatthereisceaselessperformingofwhatshecallsstylesofgenderthatarepublicandsocial,allthetime.Rather,itistheperformanceofgenderednormsthatcreatesheterosexuality,whichneedsrepetitiontoshoreitselfup. Butler’semphasisonrepetitionowesmuchtoFelman’scharacterizationoftheperformativeasalwaysattempting,andalwaysmisfiring,creatingexcessintheprocess.Felman’sobservationthatsomethingunintendedcouldresultfromamisfirebecomesinButler’sworkatemporalizingoftheworkofgender.Butlercanclaimfromthisthatgenderconstructionhasapoliticsandcancreatealternatepossibilitiesforidentity,butthatconstructiondoesnotdependonthepresenceofanagenttomaketheprocesswork.ThisishowButlercanclaimthatgenderis“aconstructedidentity,aperformativeaccomplishmentwhichthemundanesocialaudience,includingtheactorsthemselvescometobelieveandperforminthemodeofbelief.”35Shecallstheperformative“discontinuous”andalso“anormthatcanneverbefullyinternalized.”36Thismakesrepetitioncentraltothepoliticsofperformativity,becausewhatisoftenperformedareoppressiveideasanddiscoursesaboutgendernorms. Butlerhasfiercelydefendedtheworkofrepetitionratherthanagencyinanyreadingofperformativity.InaninterviewwithLizKotz,Butlersaysthatthe“badreading”ofherworkassumesthatpeoplecanchoosetheirgendersastheychoosetheiroutfitswhentheygetupinthemorning,andperformgenderasastrategy.Butinthecaseofgender,“performativityhastodowithrepetition,veryoftenwiththerepetitionofoppressiveandpainfulgendernormstoforcethemtoresignify.Thisisnotfreedom,butaquestionofhowtoworkthetrapthatoneisinevitablyin.”37InBodiesthatMatter,Butlerturnsherattentionfullytotheideaofperformativityandrepetition,castingitasa“reiterationofanormorsetofnorms”thatisnottheatricalbutanenactmentofwhathasbeenrepeatedalready.SheidentifiesreiterationasimportanttoAustin’sandDerrida’sideasoftheperlocutionaryasbothenacting(Austin)andcitational(Derrida),ineachcasetakingitscuefromwhatwasalreadypresent.38Citationalityisboththesourceofpainfulrepetitionsofnormsthatcannoteverfullybeinhabited,andapracticethatwillexceedthetermssetforit.ButlerconsidersParisisBurning,thedocumentaryabouttheNewYorkdragballsceneinthe1980sbyJennieLivingston,asanexampleofthepainofrepetitionofgendernormsforthegayandtransmembersoftheballroomhouses,andoftheexcesseswithinthemthatenablethemtoescapetheconfinesofnarrowideasofgenderandofsexualityaswell.Throughcitationalityandreiteration,theperformativebothsetslimitsandcreates,in“thepublicassertionof‘queerness,’”adefiantandlegitimatingactionregardinghomosexualityandtheassumptionsaboutgenderwhichsurroundit.39Butler’slaterexaminationofhatespeechasanothertypeofperformativepicturedperformativesofthistypeascaughtbetweenhatespeechthatseekstowoundtheotherandthelawthatseekstoregulatehatespeech.Bothhavetheeffectofdeprivingtheotherofpowerandpersonalsovereignty.40 Feminist,Trans,andCriticalRaceTheoreticalResponsestoJudithButler’sPerformativityButlerherselfhasrespondedinvariouswaystofeministcritiquesofperformativity,includingthe“badreading”ofperformativityasselectiveagencyandfeministchallengestothelackofagencyinButler’sinterpretationofperformatives.41WhatButlerseesasthemostseriouschallenge,towhichsherespondedbywritingBodiesthatMatter,istheideathatperformativityitselfdematerializesthebodyanddepoliticizestheworkofgenderintheworldbecauseofitsanti-essentialiststance.42Shealsoadmittedina2017interviewthatthe“badreadings”ofperformativityandagencycouldhavemadeuseofsomeofherclaimsinGenderTrouble,althoughshedidnotintendthiswhenshewroteaboutperformativityatthetime.43 Morethoroughcritiquesofperformativityhavebeenmadewithinqueertheoryandtranstheory.InSecondSkins:TheBodyNarrativesofTranssexuality,JayProsserpointsoutthatqueertheory,asitdeveloped,hasreliedonthelivesoftranspeopleasanexampletothemandcreatesitsparadigmsbymakinguseoftranslivesandbodiesasexamples,usingtransidentityasawayto“institutionalizehomosexualityasqueer.”44Performativityanditscharacterizationofgenderidentityasconstructedthereforehavethepotentialtomisusetransidentityasanexpressionofqueerness,withoutthinkingaboutwhethertranspeopleseetheiridentitiesasfluid,constructed,orwithoutagency.45Butler’suseofdragasanexampleofcitationalityhasbeenusedtoclaimthattransidentityitselfmustbeunstableandsomustbereadas“queer”withinhomosexuality.ProsseriscarefultosaythatButlerherselfhasspokenagainstthistendency,andsheherselfhasdonesomorethanonce,butqueertheorynonethelesstookuptheideaoftheatricalityaspartofperformativity,andintheprocesscelebratedtranslivesandidentitiesasfluidandunstable,forqueertheory.46This,Prossersays,ledtotheassumptionthatButler’sdescriptionofdragismerelyanillustrationofperformativity,includingherdiscussionofthetransdragqueenVenusXtravaganzaandhowherdeathduringtheshootingofParisisBurningisusedasanexampleofambivalence.ButVenusXtravaganza’slife,anddeath,exceedthetermsofambivalenceandshouldnotbeusedmerelyasanexampleforqueertheoryandthetheatricalityofgender.47OthercritiquesofButlerfollowinasimilarvein,notablyRikiWilchins,whoarguesthatButler’sworkoniterationcoulddeprivetranspeople(andothers)oftheagencythatissooftendeniedtothemsocially.48VivianeK.Namastealsopointsoutthatfeministtheory“needs”transwomentoconstructwhatsexandgenderlooklikeandhowtheyshouldbecritiqued.JudithButler’sworkondragbeganthatinvestigation,whichwasabouttranspeoplebutnot,Namastesays,bythemorforthem.49SaoirseCaitlinO’Sheaarguesthatgenderdysphoria—theconditionofexperiencingone’sidentityasdifferentfromthesexassignedatbirth—representsachallengetoperformativityanditsanti-essentialistclaims.50DennisSchepdiscussesperformativesaspartofaButlerianindustry,atypeofhegemonythathastheeffectoflimitingtheworkandvarietyoftranslivesinitsrefusaltoseeessentialismaspartofapossiblestrategyofliberation.51 JackHalberstam—whohasdefendedandexplicatedButler’sworkonperformativitywithinqueertheoryandtranstheory­­­—hasnotedthatsometranstheoryhasgonebacktotheworkofButleronperformativityinordertoexploreitspossibilitiesfortranspeople.HalberstamcreditsButlerwithlayingthegroundworkthroughtheconceptofperformativitybecause“Butler’sconceptof“genderperformativity,despitebecomingthetargetofsomanytrans*critiques,actuallyfurnishedtrans*theoristswiththetheoreticalframingsnecessarytopushbackonessentialistaccountsofnormativeidentitiesandthefetishizinggazesooftendirectedattrans*bodies.”52AsforButlerherself,shehassaidthat“GenderTroublewaswrittenabout24yearsago,andatthattimeIdidnotthinkwellenoughabouttransissues.SometranspeoplethoughtthatinclaimingthatgenderisperformativethatIwassayingthatitisallafiction,andthataperson’sfeltsenseofgenderwastherefore‘unreal.’Thatwasnevermyintention.”Shehas,inthebookUndoingGenderandelsewhere,affirmedtransidentityasahumanidentityandidentifiedherselfaspartofthemovementfortransrights.53 Performativityhasalsobeencritiquedforitslackofawarenessofissuesaboutraceandracism,particularlyregardingBlacklivesandhistories.Omise’ekeNatashaTinsley,inthecontextofrethinkingtheideaoftheMiddlePassageandtheBlackAtlanticasaqueerformation,hasaskedofButler’sversionofperformativity,“doesthisqueersea[withitsantifoundationalmetaphorsoffluidity]haveacolor,though?”54TinsleypointsoutthatButler’sandEveKosofskySedgwick’searlyworkongenderdoesnotcharacterizebodiesasraciallymarked,anddoesnotrecognizethattherearewaystounderstandbodiesandgenderfluiditythatarenotpartoftheimaginaryoftheWhiteGlobalNorth.55AsSarahSalihhasobserved,inadditiontootherpoliticalproblemswithGenderTrouble,thetheoryofperformativitydoesnotrecognizeissuesconnectedtothepoliticsofraceintheconstructionofbodiesandidentities.AccordingtoSalih,ButlerinBodiesthatMattermerelytreatedraceasanadditionalregulatoryregimelikethatofgenderratherthanconsiderraceinitsownrightassomethingmorethantheeffectofrepetitionandcitationality.56Inresponsetosuchcritiques,Butlerhasalteredherpositiononraceandidentitytosomeextent.IntheintroductiontothetenthanniversaryeditionofGenderTrouble,Butlerwrotethatthattheblindlessofherargumenttotheimportanceofracetotheformationofidentityisaflawinthebook,andthat“thequestiontoaskisnotwhetherthetheoryofperformativityistransportableontorace,butwhathappenstothetheorywhenitcomestogripswithrace.”57Tinsleyrespondsthatthequestionshouldbepushedfurther,toaskwhatwouldhappenwhenqueertheories“startfromexplicitformulationsofracializedsexualityandsexualizedrace,ratherthanaddtheminaftertheorieslikeperformativityhavealreadybeenelaborated.”58Theresult,Tinsleysays,couldbeadecenteringofperformativityasthewaywithinqueertheorytounderstandidentityconstructionandanexplorationofothervectorsofidentityformation,includinghistoricallyandgeographicallyinflectedapproachestoraceandracism.InTinsley’sanalysis,queertheoristswhocontinuetodealwithperformativityneedtounderstandthattheyarestillparticipatinginthisworkofmakingBlackqueerlifeinvisibleaspartofmakingsuchatheory.“Tobecomeanexpansivelydecolonizingpractice,”Tinsleywrites,“queertheorymustadjustitsvisiontoseewhathasbeensubmergedintheprocessofunmarkingwhitenessandglobalnorthernness,”aworkthatwouldmakevisiblethepoliticsofperformativitywithinthehistoryofracismandwhiteness.59 OtherAdaptationsofPerformativityButler’stheoryofperformativityhashadaprofoundimpactinmanyfields,notablygenderandwomen’sstudies,legalstudies,andthestudyofliterature.Aperhapsunexpectedtake-upofperformativityhasoccurredinbusinessstudiesandeconomics,wheresomeofLyotard’sworkonperformativityasastrategyoflegitimationincapitalismisresurfacing.Butlerherselfhaswrittenthatperformativitycanupendsuchconceptsasthestateortheeconomy.60MichaelCallonhasusedperformativityasawaytoexplorehowtheideaof“theeconomy”isdiffuseandso“thereisnoonebestway,nosingleformoforganizationthatimposesitselfnaturallyandcompellingly,sotospeak,astheonlyoneabletoensuretheoptionalfunctioningofmarkets.”61Therefore,ratherthanmakinggrandtheoriesaboutmarkets,performativitynecessitateslookingathowandwhethertheyactuallyfunctioninareal-worldsense. Ingenderandsexualitytheory,JudithButler’sconceptofperformativityhasbecomefoundationalandisusuallydeployed(andcritiqued)withinButler’soriginalformulationoftheconcept.Ithasbeenadaptedinmanyways,includingJoséEstebanMuñoz’sideaofracialperformativitythatunderstandshowracialidentityanddiscriminationareexperiencedandlivedthrough,withoutresortingtoabstracttheoriesofidentityandidentitypolitics,andtheuseofButler’slaterworkonperformativitytounderstandhumanrightsdiscoursebeyondWesterncontexts.62 Alesser-known—andinteresting—extensionoftheperformativeexistsintheworkofEveKosofsky-Sedgwick.InTouchingFeeling,Sedgwickdiscussesutterancesthatlookliketheycouldbeperformative,butinfactconstituteanegationoftheperformativeintheirstructure.HerexampleisAbrahamLincoln’sstatementthat“wecannotdedicate,wecannotconsecrate,wecannothallowthisground”intheGettysburgAddress.Thestatementisnotamisfire,butsomethingthatSedgwicksaysisinthe“neighborhood”oftheperformative.63Suchutterancesdependontheexistenceofaperformativeutterance,butworkaroundthestatementsothatanactionisnotperformed(althoughevoked)andpossiblyevenrejectedifthestatementisdirect.Austin’soriginaldilemmasover“unhappy”performativesandmisfiresincludedanawarenessoftheproblemsofcontexttothemakingofanutterance. Ratherthandeclaringthatalllanguageisperlocutionary,Sedgwickdecidestotaketheworkofcontextseriouslytoseewhathappenswhentheperlocutionarydoesnotmisfire,butisusedtosidestepitseffects.IfsomeoneinclassicAustiniandeclarativetermssays“Idareyou”inordertogetsomeoneelsetodosomethingbyshamingthem,theshameisassumedtobewithintheperformativebecauseothersarethereaswell,witnessingthedare.Thespeakeroftheperformativeassumesthattheaudienceoftheutterancewillbeinagreementthatthereshouldbeadare.Butitispossible,Sedgwicksays,torefusetheattempttoshameandsaythatnotonlyisthat“not”me,butthatthemewillnotreceivetheimplicationofshameandwillnotassumethattheutteranceappliestothem.Thereplycouldbe,“whoareyouthatdaresme?”Thatwouldbeaninstanceoftheperiperformativeinaction,asarefusalthatdoesnotnegatetheoriginalstatement.64Periperformativesopenuppossibilities,Sedgwicksays,forthinkingaboutAlthusserianagencyasmorecomplexthanturningaroundintoideology(interpellation)orbeinga“badsubject”whodoesnotrespondinanywaytoanaddressfromideology.Thereisqueerpotentialintheperiperformativetoo,Sedgwickwrites,becauseitisawaytoaffirmthataqueerpersonmayloveacouplewhoareabouttobemarried,“but[they]justdon’twanttobeattheirwedding.”65Theperiperformativecandisplacetheperformativeworkofamarriagevow(whichisoneofAustin’sexamples)withoutnegatingthevowitself.ThespatialnatureofSedgwick’sneologismisdeliberate:theperiperformativeworksspatiallytodeflectordisplace,oritworksaroundtheperformative,butitdoesnotconstituteanegation.Itinvolvescontextfortheutterance.Itsimplymakessomestatementsmoreunpredictableandcomplexthananegationwould,andinthiswaysuchstatementsdonotenterintotheeconomyofincorporation,whereoppositionrequirestheoriginalstatementandthenbecomeslockedinarelationshipwithadominantstatementordiscourseforever.Thisishow“theperiperformativeis‘ordinarylanguage’undertheWordsworthianorCavellianunderstandingthatthemostordinarythingsforlanguagetobearecomplex,heterogeneous,reflective,mobile,powerful,andeveneloquent.”66 InanessayonCavafyandProust,SedgwickreprisesherargumentfortheperiperformativeandprovidesanotherevocativeexampleofanAmericansenatorwho“intends”toresignbecausehehasbeenoutedasgay,butwhoinfactdoesnotactuallyresignfromhisoffice.67InherreadingofthepoetryofCavafy,sheobservesthatperiperformativeshavearelationtoaffectandemotionthatAustin’sdelineationoftheperformativesoughttoexclude.Becauseperiperformativeutterancesareaboutnotdoing,orintendingtodo,orfeelingbadaboutdoingsomethingperformative,theyfalloutsidetheboundariesoflegaldiscourse,whichiswhatunderwritestheAustinianideaoftheperformativeutterance,withitsstrictconditions.Theperiperformativecanallowforthepresenceofaffectandemotion,andeven—Sedgwicksays—subjectivityinitsevocationofsmall,inconsequential(perhapsqueer)things.68Inthisvein,AnnaPolettiofferstheperiperformativeasawaytoquestioncommonassumptionsinlifewritingstudiesabouttheperformativenatureofautobiography,normallypresentedasapowerfulargumentforreadingthestoriesofmarginalizedsubjects.69Butdoallnarrativesactasperformatives?Areallstoriesabouttheconstructionofsubjectiveagency?PolettiusestheperiperformativetounderstandhowJonathanCaouette’sautobiographicalfilmTarnation,afilmwhicheschewsdominantdiscoursesandmethodsaboutfilmproductionandnarrativeconstructioncritiques“theperformativepoweroflifenarrativewhilestillseekingtomaketruthclaimsaboutthelivedexperienceofitsauthor.”70ThecollageworkofCaouetteandhisuseoffictionalpersonaeasawaytoget“around”performativesmakeanotherkindofstorythatsignalstheexistenceofanarrativebutdoesnotgiveintoitsassumptionsorpolitics. Asaconceptfoundationaltomuchthinkinginlinguistics,philosophy,genderstudies,andtheoriesofeconomicsandorganizations,performativityhasrepresentedawaytounderstandtherelationshipbetweenutteranceandaction,languageandpolitics.ItsdevelopmenthasrunfullcirclefromthelivelyimagesofJ.L.Austin,toalynchpinoftheoriesofgender,totheperhapsunexpectedappearanceofperformativityasaminordiscoursewiththepossibilitytocounteractwhatdominantideologieshavetosayaboutidentity,andtomakeaffectpartofperformativity’swork. DiscussionoftheLiteraturePerformativesarefirstdiscussedinJ.L.Austin’sHowtodoThingsWithWords.ReactionstoAustin’sdelineationofperformativestaketwopaths:linguistssuchasÉmileBenvenisteandJohnSearlesoughttorefineAustin’srelativelyvaguecategorizationofconstative,illocutionary,andperlocutionaryactstobetterdescribehowperformativesenactastheyarespoken,andphilosophicresponsestotheperformativemadeitfoundationalforpoststructuralisttheoristssuchasShoshanaFelman,JacquesDerrida,andJean-FrançoisLyotardtothinkabouttherelationshipsbetweenlanguageandrepresentation.Performativeswereparticularlyimportanttothesetheoristsbecausetheyappearedtoshort-circuittheideaofrepresentationitself,sincetheirpurposeistoenactextra-linguisticallyratherthandescribeasituation.Felman’sapproachconnectedtheworkofLacantospeechacttheorytoarguethatperformativescreateanexcessastheyenact,particularlyiftheydonotsucceedintheiraims.Derridaemphasizedtheimportanceofforcewithinperformativesandsawforceasessentialtodescribinghowamarkcanbemadethroughtheworkofthetrace.Lyotardunderstoodperformativesasillocutionaryandperlocutionaryatthesametime,seeingthemasexamplesoftheworkingsofpowerinlatecapitalism,creatingaseriesofdiscoursesaboutefficiency.ThemostimportanttheoristofperformativityafterAustinisJudithButler,whoseworkonperformativityinherearlybooksongenderprovedtobehighlyinfluential.Herdescriptionofperformativityastheformationofgenderidentitywithoutagency,asgendernormsarerepeatedonthesurfaceofthebodyandthentakentobepartofinteriority,combinedtheworkofAustin,Foucault,Lacan,Felman,andDerridaandconnectedittoatheoryofgenderidentitythatresistedessentialistcharacterizationsofwomanhoodthatwereprevalentinfeministtheoryandpolitics.Althoughhertheoryofagencywasatfirstoftenmisunderstoodoropposed,performativitybecameanimportantnon-essentialistwaytounderstandhowgenderisaconstruction,andsopotentiallycanbethoughtofandlivedoutinnon-normativeways.Laterworkonperformativityresistedaneasyincorporationofitintotranstheory,contesteditsfoundationinassumptionsaboutwhitenessasunmarkedcorporeality,appliedittotheoriesofeconomicsandmanagementaspartofacritiqueofgrandmodelsand,intheworkofEveKosofskySedgwickontheperiperformative,returnedtoitsearlybeginningsinJ.L.Austintoaskwhetheritispossibletothinkaboutaffectandagencyaroundtheenvironmentofaperformativeutterance. FurtherReadingAustin,J.L.HowtoDoThingsWithWords.Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1962.Benveniste,Émile.ProblemsinStructuralLinguistics.TranslatedbyMaryElizabethMeek.Miami:UniversityofMiamiPress,1971.Butler,Judith.GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofGenderIdentity.London:Routledge,1990.Butler,Judith.BodiesThatMatter:OntheDiscursiveLimitsof“Sex.”London:Routledge,1993.Butler,Judith.ExcitableSpeech:APoliticsofthePerformative.London:Routledge,1997.Callan,Michael.“Performativity,MisfiresandPolitics.”JournalofCulturalEconomy3(2010):163–169.Derrida,Jacques.“Signature,Event,Context.”InMarginsofPhilosophy.TranslatedbyAlanBass,308–330.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982.Felman,Shoshana.TheScandaloftheSpeakingBody:DonJuanwithJ.L.Austin,orSeductioninTwoLanguages.PaleAlto,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1980.Kotz,Liz.“TheBodyYouWant:LizKotzInterviewsJudithButler.”Artforum(1992):83–89.Lyotard,Jean-François.ThePostmodernCondition:aReportonKnowledge.TranslatedbyBenningtonGeoffandBrianMassumi.Manchester,UK:ManchesterUniversityPress,1979.Namaste,VivianeK.“UndoingTheory:The‘TransgenderQuestion’andtheEpistemicViolenceofAnglo-AmericanFeministTheory.”Hypatia24,no.3(2008):11–32.Prosser,Jay.SecondSkins:TheBodyNarrativesofTranssexuality.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998.Salih,Sarah.“OnJudithButlerandPerformativity.”SexualitiesandCommunicationinEverydayLife.EditedbyKarenE.LovaasandMercileeM.Jenkins,55–67.London:SAGE,2006.Searle,JohnR.“HowPerformativesWork.”LinguisticsandPhilosophy12,no.5(1989):535–558.Sedgwick,EveKosofsky.TouchingFeeling:Affect,Pedagogy,Performativity.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2003.Sedgwick,EveKosofsky.TheWeatherinProust.Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2011.Tinsley,Omise’ekeNatasha.“BlackAtlantic,QueerAtlantic:QueerImaginingsoftheMiddlePassage.”GLQ:AJournalofGayandLesbianStudies14,no.2–3(2008):191–215.Notes1.J.L.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords(Cambridge:HarvardUniversityPress,1962),21.2.ScottLash,“PerformativityorDiscourse?AnInterviewwithJohnSearle,”Theory,CultureandSociety32,no.3(2015):141.3.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,6.4.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,6–7.5.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,12.6.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,108.7.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,14–15.8.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,23.9.Austin,HowtoDoThingsWithWords,17–18.10.BeatrizPreciado,“EcosexualMarriagewithAnnieSprinkleandBethStephens,”JeudePaume.11.ÉmileBenveniste,ProblemsinStructuralLinguistics,trans.MaryElizabethMeek(Miami:UniversityofMiamiPress,1971),233–234.12.StarTrekNextGeneration,1,“EncounterAtFarpoint,”DirectedbyGeneRoddenberry,airedSeptember28,1987,CBS.13.Benveniste,ProblemsinStructuralLinguistics,236.14.Benveniste,ProblemsinStructuralLinguistics,238.15.JohnSearle,“ATaxonomyofIllocutionaryActs,”ExpressionandMeaning:StudiesintheTheoryofSpeechActs(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1979):9.16.Searle,“ATaxonomyofIllocutionaryActs,”4.17.Searle,“ATaxonomyofIllocutionaryActs,”2.18.Searle,“ATaxonomyofIllocutionaryActs,”12–18.19.Lash,“PerformativityorDiscourse?,”146.20.JacquesDerrida,“Signature,Event,Context,”MarginsofPhilosophy,trans.AlanBass(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1982):308.21.ShoshanaFelman,TheScandaloftheSpeakingBody:DonJuanwithJ.L.Austin,orSeductioninTwoLanguages(Stanford,CA:StanfordUniversityPress,1980):53.22.Felman,TheScandaloftheSpeakingBody,54.23.Felman,TheScandaloftheSpeakingBody,57.24.Jean-FrançoisLyotard,ThePostmodernCondition:AReportonKnowledge,trans.GeoffBenningtonandBrianMassumi(Manchester,UK:ManchesterUniversityPress,1979),62–63.25.JeanPascalGond,LaureCabantous,NancyHarding,andMarkLearmonth,“WhatDoWeMeanbyPerformativityinOrganizationalandManagementTheory?TheUsesandAbusesofPerformativity,”InternationalJournalofManagementReviews18,no.4(2016):440–463.26.SeeJudithButler,GenderTrouble:FeminismandtheSubversionofGenderIdentity(London:Routledge,1990),iv;andJudithButler,BodiesThatMatter:ontheDiscursiveLimitsof“Sex”(London:Routledge,1993),x.27.SimondeBeauvoir,TheSecondSex,trans.ConstanceBordeandSheilaMalovanyChevallier(NewYork,AlfredA.Knopf,2010):283.28.JudithButler,“PerformativeActsandGenderConstitution:AnEssayinPhenomenologyandFeministTheory,”TheatreJournal40,no.4(1988):520.29.Butler,“PerformativeActs,”526.30.Butler,“PerformativeActs,”528.31.Butler,GenderTrouble,172–173.32.Butler,GenderTrouble,173.33.Butler,GenderTrouble,173.34.Butler,GenderTrouble,178–179.35.Butler,GenderTrouble,179.36.Butler,GenderTrouble,179.37.LizKotz,“TheBodyYouWant:LizKotzInterviewsJudithButler,”Artforum(1992,November),83–84.38.Butler,BodiesthatMatter,12–13.39.Butler,BodiesthatMatter,20.40.Butler,ExcitableSpeech:APoliticsofthePerformative(London:Routledge,1997),81–82.41.Butler,BodiesthatMatter,7.42.Butler,BodiesthatMatter,x–xi.43.JuliePhelps,“JudithButleronPerformativityandPerformance,”CounterPulse,September18,2017.44.JayProsser,SecondSkins:TheBodyNarrativesofTranssexuality(NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1998),5.45.Prosser,SecondSkins,21–22.46.Prosser,SecondSkins,28;andseeCristanWilliams,“GenderPerformance:TheTransAdvocateInterviewJudithButler,”TheTransAdvocate(2014,May1);andSaraAhmed,“InterviewwithJudithButler,”Sexualities19,no.4(2016):490.47.Prosser,SecondSkins,47–49.48.RickiWilchins,QueerTheory,GenderTheory:AnInstantPrimer(LosAngeles:AlysonBooks,2004),103–104.49.VivianeK.Namaste,“UndoingTheory:The‘TransgenderQuestion’andtheEpistemicViolenceofAnglo-AmericanFeministTheory,”Hypatia24,no.3(2008):12.50.SaoirseCaitlinO’Shea,“‘I,Robot?’Orhowtransgendersubjectsaredehumanised,”CultureandOrganization26,no.1(2020):1–13.51.DennisSchep,“TheLimitsofPerformativity:ACritiqueofHegemonyinGenderTheory.”Hypatia27,no.4(2012):869.52.JackHalberstam,“TowardaTrans*Feminism,”BostonReview,January182018.Halberstamusestrans*asthetermfortransgenderedidentityinthisarticle.53.CristanWilliams,“GenderPerformance:TheTransAdvocateInterviewJudithButler.”TheTransAdvocate,May1,2014.54.Omise’ekeNatashaTinsley,“BlackAtlantic,QueerAtlantic:QueerImaginingsoftheMiddlePassage,”GLQ:AJournalofGayandLesbianStudies14,no.2–3(2008):204.55.Tinsley,“BlackAtlantic,”204–205.56.SarahSalih,“OnJudithButlerandPerformativity,”inSexualitiesandCommunicationinEverydayLife,ed.KarenE.LovaasandMercileeM.Jenkins(London:SAGE,2006),63–65.57.Butler,GenderTrouble:TenthAnniversaryEdition(NewYork:Routledge,2014),xxvi.58.Tinsley,“BlackAtlantic,”205.59.Tinsley,“BlackAtlantic,”205–206.60.JudithButler,“PerformativeAgency,”JournalofCulturalEconomy3(2010):147–161.61.MichaelCallan,“Performativity,MisfiresandPolitics,”JournalofCulturalEconomy3(2010):163–169.62.JoséEstebanMuñoz,“FeelingBrown,FeelingDown:LatinaAffect,thePerformativityofRace,andtheDepressivePosition,”Signs:JournalofWomeninCulture&Society31,no.3(2006):678–679;andMargaretWetherellandChandraTalpadeMohanty,TheSAGEHandbookofIdentities(NewburyPark,UK:SAGE,2010),121.63.EveKosofskySedgwick,TouchingFeeling:Affect,Pedagogy,Performativity(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2003),68.64.Sedgwick,TouchingFeeling,69–70.65.Sedgwick,TouchingFeeling,72;emphasisinoriginal.66.Sedgwick,TouchingFeeling,75.67.EveKosofsySedgwick,“Cavafy,ProustandtheQueerLittleGods,”inTheWeatherinProust(Durham,NC:DukeUniversityPress,2011)54–55.68.Sedgwick,“Cavafy,”58.69.AnnaPoletti,“PeriperformativeLifeNarrative:QueerCollages,”GLQ:AJournalofGayandLesbianStudies22,no.3(2016):365–366.70.Poletti,“PeriperformativeLifeNarrative,”360.RelatedArticlesIntentionGendersSexualitiesRhetoricRaceandEthnicity OxfordUniversityPress Copyright©OxfordUniversityPress 2022. PrintedfromOxfordResearchEncyclopedias,Literature.Underthetermsofthelicenceagreement,anindividualusermayprintoutasinglearticleforpersonaluse(fordetailsseePrivacyPolicyandLegalNotice). date:29March2022 CookiePolicy PrivacyPolicy LegalNotice Credits Accessibility [178.128.63.162] 178.128.63.162 Signintoannotate Close EditAnnotation Characterlimit500/500 Delete Cancel Save @! Characterlimit500/500 Close Save