and in the daylight i don’t pick up my phone cause in the daylight anywhere feels like home

we're discussing the concept of agency in my gender and latina/o migration course and we referenced the work of a feminist theorist that i read about in my feminist theory course last semester. i thought i'd share the summary of the portion of the work that i read. this summary inlcudes arguments by judith butler and saba mahmood.


This week, Butler and Mahmood each look at the concept of agency and its implications in politics and performance. Their arguments intertwine with one another to review and rework what we consider to be autonomy and the ways in which one can embody and use that self-determination to negotiate their positions, as well as indirectly influence authoritative structures, within their particular social and cultural context. It is necessary to remember that the notion of the subject and its agency is bound to socially constructed definitions. Therefore, it is always up for reworking and resignifying.

Butler argues, “…if the subject is constituted by power, that power does not cease at the moment the subject is constituted, for that subject is never fully constituted, but is subjected and produced time and again. That subject is neither a ground, nor a product, but the permanent possibility of a certain resignifying processs…” (13) Just as one’s identity is premised upon the citation and performance of ever-changing social norms, the agency of the individual must be realized uniquely through the ability to act [with or without prerogative]. The subject does not precede the social/cultural and must be fluid, because, “If the ability to effect change in the world and in oneself is historically and culturally specific, then the meaning of agency cannot be fixed in advance, but must emerge through analysis of the particular concepts that enable specific modes of being, responsibility and effectivitiy.” (14) If a stable subject were to be required, it would need a clear definition. This would clearly separate the defined from its constitutive outside. Therefore, there is no way to contest the political realm if the subject is excluded.

She goes on to say that, “critique of the subject is not a negation or repudiation, but rather a way of interrogating its construction as a pregiven foundationalist premise (9)” From a Western point of view the wearing of the veil seems to be either a submission to or opposition to authority. However, we must think about the various consequences of a single action. The women’s’ participation in compliance with social norms is meant to create a social order that is safe and works for them.

Butler points out, ‘there is no possibility of “undoing” social norms that is independent of the “doing” of norms; agency resides, therefore within this productive reiteratability.’ (20) Mahmood suggests that the actions of these women have numerous consequences that we might not be able see from our own cultural/social standpoint. She argues that these women are partaking in this socially normative behavior in order to manipulate their environment--in order to make it work for them.

Mahmood critiques feminist thought and the consensus in general when she argues that everyone believes that what any one person wants is freedom--they want to be able to determine their actions and how they choose to live their lives. As Butler argues, “…instead of simply reading such acts as moments of opposition to, and escape from, dominant relations of power, they should also be understood as reinscribing alternative forms of power that are rooted in practices of capitalist consumerism and urban bourgeois values and aesthetics.” (9) It can be said that the Egyptian women are not acting as the subordinate, but instead are seeking out the ways in which they are able to accept and negotiate the social relations of power in their society.

As Butler suggests, the concept of agency is a political prerogative. The ability to initiate action and have that action unfold is the effect of political privilege. The action alone will not allow for it to be acted out. It requires a particular authority and privilege in order for the subject’s desire to be carried out. Because of this prerogative, Mahmood argues, it is necessary for the women in Egypt to rework their social conditions by subscribing to the socially normative behaviors of their particular cultural space. We are required to look beyond their subscription to understand the [good and bad] consequences that we may not be able to understand or even see at first glance. Upon taking a closer look, however, one is able to identify that their performance of these norms is strategic and is not just about the self, but is a challenge to the dominant structures of authority.

I think both Butler and Mahmood carry particularly significant and interesting arguments. I haven’t really stopped to think about the ways in which conforming to social norms can still be ways to assess and manipulate power. The women in Egypt are wearing the veils to retain this sense of power over their situation. They wear the veil to avoid sexual violence and harassment, to fulfill their individual desire to be modest, and to curb the behavior of the men that surround them. This is an examination of their particular cultural and social context and their ways of acting out their agency. The women in Egypt are stabilizing the structures, but they are doing it in a way that favors themselves. This is fascinating to me. The manner in which society and cultural norms influence our behavior and recreate the defined categories is interesting as well. Sometimes, it’s difficult to remember that our actions have unintended consequences that we never get to see.

sweeter dreams.
k