Normativity versus normalisation: reassembling actor-network theory through Butler and Foucault

IF 0.7 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Culture Theory and Critique Pub Date : 2020-06-22 DOI:10.1080/14735784.2020.1780623
J. Maze
{"title":"Normativity versus normalisation: reassembling actor-network theory through Butler and Foucault","authors":"J. Maze","doi":"10.1080/14735784.2020.1780623","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Judith Butler is often heralded as carrying on the legacy of Foucault, yet Butlerian normalisation is engrained in a sincere (mis)interpretation of Foucault. Foucault’s work on punitive measures defined a historically-limited domain by which one could map out a clustered network of power relations, or what he called a dispositif. By revisiting their differences and rethinking their relationship accordingly, one can piece together a methodological model that is immensely utilisable for actor-network theory (ANT). While Butler’s performativity allots agency to nonhuman entities – viewing it more as a dispersed field of agency – Foucault’s genealogy contextually places various power relations, particularly pertaining to material and immaterial nonhuman entities. More than just laying out a method for ANT though, highlighting their differences can help us rethink how we visualise the subject, the body, materialism and agency in very innovative ways while also gaining a deeper insight into what separates Foucault and Butler. Alongside this, we can see how their combined contribution helps ANT with (a) its lack of attention given to immaterial entities, (b) its reluctance to deal with identarian politics and (c) the divide between its more performative and its more practical branches.","PeriodicalId":43943,"journal":{"name":"Culture Theory and Critique","volume":"76 1","pages":"389 - 403"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Culture Theory and Critique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14735784.2020.1780623","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Judith Butler is often heralded as carrying on the legacy of Foucault, yet Butlerian normalisation is engrained in a sincere (mis)interpretation of Foucault. Foucault’s work on punitive measures defined a historically-limited domain by which one could map out a clustered network of power relations, or what he called a dispositif. By revisiting their differences and rethinking their relationship accordingly, one can piece together a methodological model that is immensely utilisable for actor-network theory (ANT). While Butler’s performativity allots agency to nonhuman entities – viewing it more as a dispersed field of agency – Foucault’s genealogy contextually places various power relations, particularly pertaining to material and immaterial nonhuman entities. More than just laying out a method for ANT though, highlighting their differences can help us rethink how we visualise the subject, the body, materialism and agency in very innovative ways while also gaining a deeper insight into what separates Foucault and Butler. Alongside this, we can see how their combined contribution helps ANT with (a) its lack of attention given to immaterial entities, (b) its reluctance to deal with identarian politics and (c) the divide between its more performative and its more practical branches.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
规范与正常化:通过巴特勒和福柯重新组装行动者网络理论
朱迪思·巴特勒经常被誉为继承了福柯的遗产,然而巴特勒的正常化根植于对福柯的真诚(错误)解释中。福柯关于惩罚措施的研究定义了一个历史上有限的领域,通过这个领域,人们可以绘制出一个权力关系的集群网络,或者他所谓的处置者。通过重新审视它们之间的差异并相应地重新思考它们之间的关系,人们可以拼凑出一个对行动者网络理论(ANT)非常有用的方法论模型。巴特勒的表演性将代理分配给非人类实体——将其视为一个分散的代理领域——而福柯的谱系在语境中放置了各种权力关系,特别是与物质和非物质的非人类实体有关。然而,这不仅仅是为ANT提供了一种方法,强调他们的差异可以帮助我们重新思考我们如何以非常创新的方式可视化主体,身体,唯物主义和代理,同时也可以更深入地了解福柯和巴特勒的区别。除此之外,我们可以看到他们的共同贡献如何帮助ANT (a)缺乏对非物质实体的关注,(b)不愿处理同一性政治,以及(c)其更具表现性和更实用的分支机构之间的鸿沟。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Culture Theory and Critique
Culture Theory and Critique HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
25.00%
发文量
6
期刊最新文献
Reading for the future: İstanbul Ansiklopedisi, a collection without origin ‘Military’ miracle drugs and the ‘pharmaceuticalisation’ of everyday life from below in the Cold War USSR The afterlife of uprisings in the work of Georges Didi-Huberman and João Moreira Salles’ No Intenso Agora. Of sacred animals: the limits of animal rights activism and political veganism in India Aesthetic (dis)pleasure in a war zone: complexities of US-military patronage of an ‘enemy’ Iraqi artist
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1