# 249: Intellectual Trouble
Story behind the Passage
Today in our feminist philosophy reading circle we read Butler’s Gender Trouble. We did not read it because I like reading Butler. Whenever you do something on gender ‘anything’ you still have to include her. Of course, this is bullshit. Nobody has to do anything. This is already part of the trouble Butler would probably agree on. People think they have to do xyz because society supposedly wants them to do xyz. That is part of the performative element of gender, I suppose. But I felt a responsibility to also include her in this broad potpourri of thinkers. And we had quite a good discussion, no doubt.
Part of the discussion, actually a large part, revolved around the issue of complexity. That was not an accident because I certainly triggered it. There are days when I feel like just moderating and there are days when I just feel like not moderating at all. The latter days prevail which is why, after all, I am not a good teacher. I just do not care about it anymore which makes it more fun to not moderate and talk instead. Whenever I do theoretical stuff, I can offer my perspective and others listen — or they do not. I am not saying anybody has to believe or share what I say. This is a common misunderstanding. Especially if you are passionate about something, people usually feel the pressure of agreeing with you. I do not care about agreement. I just want so say what I say when I make the decision to say it.
When it comes to Butler, I just do not see much value in what she writes except for the fact that she published these thoughts earlier than most other thinkers. Since I love innovation, that is quite a plus. But the point really is, and that was what I threw into the debate today, for me, clarity of thinking goes along with clarity of writing. If you are not there yet, if you cannot put complex thoughts on paper in easy and short sentences, I recommend: Think more! I know that this is going to piss people off and I know that some will say: “Well, there is no value in simple language and too simple to no thinking at all either” — fine. It is just my personal take on this, that is all.
The real issue I actually want to write about, however, is: the publishing business behind it. Yes, it does not matter if you write complex or less complex, good or bad stuff, as long as people buy it. If your name is Butler and you somehow made it to fame with your first book, your stuff is going to get published because the presses will make money with it. It is that simple. I am not criticizing or blaming anybody for it. And I congratulate anyone who gets published by decent presses. I am just saying this because I want people — especially humanities scholars — to be aware of the fact that publishing is a business and that you should look into that kind of stuff before celebrating presumably outstanding thinkers for their writing. There are so many factors that lead to them being published which have 0 (zero!) to do with the quality of their thinking or their style, except for the fact that both of these things contribute to their unique personal brand. There is quite a lot of this, especially when it comes to style, in the branding of Butler.
My Learnings
“The surprise over this is perhaps attributable to the way we underestimate the reading public, its capacity and desire for reading complicated and challenging texts, when the complication is not gratuitous, when the challenge is in the service of calling taken-for-granted truths into question, when the taken for grantedness of those truths is, indeed, oppressive.” Do you SEE what I MEAN?
Here is a simple test, in case you know Butler:
What does she stand for?
What is her major contribution?
Why would you recommend her texts to a friend?
Write down your answers on a sheet of paper.
See — if you are now looking at approximately one to three words as the answers to each of these questions, why is she nowhere able to say this in a crystal-clear way? I do not even mind that she adds another 400 or so pages to whatever her key idea is. As long as you find it somewhere, that is ok. But I do not find it anywhere. Instead, she talks about the fact that “the text asks” (xi). So, it is not even HER asking, it is the TEXT asking questions about gender, sexuality, and so on. Of course, I am being provocative here but I am simply raising the question whether or not there are limits to raising questions if you meticulously prevent giving answers.
Today, when it came to this issue, I mentioned how coaching is a billion dollar industry that is based on the technique of asking questions. And good-old Socratic dialogue works the same way. So, I am a total fan of asking questions, no doubt. Every true intervention in the world that makes people grow can be traced back to a question. This also applies to research. It all starts with a question. If you do not have one, you have no goal. It can be that the question is a thesis. Still, you have something to (re)search for. And if you do not have that, you can fill your pages and nobody will ever get frustrated because you made sure you do not even raise any expectations of answering them.
Remember that the origin of human life still is a big question.
Or think of the brilliant question of Ronald Coase: “Why do firms exist?” He won the Nobel Prize for answering it — ot just for raising the question. Still, the question in and of itself was remarkable because it was so simple. And it was simple because it was so comprehensive, so fundamental. It is the same with Darwinian theory, as someone in the group mentioned today. Yes, asking the question of “why do some species survive and others do not?” is really crucial. Knowing the answer will help you explain 80% of all powerplay questions — be it in business, politics, or in gender relations. I am not saying you have to like this or that answer. It is all about knowing one possible framework that answers many questions. Then you can build on it and come up with your own questions.
There might not be any new answers but there is always room for asking old questions in a new context.
As you know, I am deeply frustrated with the status quo of curiosity. I am sure this is a sign of me getting old. Or it is simply a birth defect, I do not know. I get up every morning and so many questions pop up in my head. Mostly, they are of an experimental nature. The logic is usually the same, now that I think of it. It has nothing to with a particular problem. But it usually does have to do with solving problems. My questions are usually tied to a certain problem solution. So, you might say, I do not start with a question, I start with an answer. That is true in one way. In another way, there is a question immanently linked to starting with an answer as the solution to a problem, namely: Will this solution work out?
I do share Butler’s view of the ability of the reading public to understand more complexity than some people might think. In general, however, simplicity is a human need. Our brains simply like processing stuff that is not too complex. Again, I am aware that there is no common definition of simplicity. Even in the cognitive sciences, there is no agreement on what ‘simple’ actually means for different people. That is the beauty and the curse of human beings being different. But there are moments in which all humans see something and immediately jump on it because it is simple! Even even this thing is simply wrong according to empirical evidence, people jointly like and prefer it.
As Ockham’s Razor law also makes us aware, there is much danger in preferring the simple over the complex — whatever any of these mean. And if you read Butler in order to get some extra lessons in “how to read complex stuff” — fine, go ahead, practice. What I simply want to prevent people from thinking is that you have no voice in the public, even in intellectual and scholarly discourse, if you do not write in this convoluted style. Again, there is zero correlation between style and brain. There is, however, a certain attitude towards your readers. If you claim you are writing in order pass on knowledge and if this knowledge has something to do with power relations (which especially gender studies people usually do), then it might be worth a second thought to make that knowledge accessible to more people than just a limited circle of intellectuals. If you neglect this, you are provoking others to “translate” your words in some way. As we all know: In a world of fake news, translation, even if it is well-intended, can only do so much.
There is nothing more valuable than the original words of original thinkers.
Reflection Questions
1) Do you agree with Butler’s statement that the reading ability of the public is underestimated?
2) What is your definition of a “public intellectual”?
3) Judith Butler claims that gender is a matter of performance — how do you think about this?