Butler’s ‘queer’ theory and its legal consequences

Any gender represents certain style of communication, and any communication is organized with a certain aim. When this aim is the highest of all, communication becomes political and leads to formation of norm. This idea has been expressed by Aristotle , and it may be confirmed that in this formula Aristotle has spoken about homosocial nature, which presupposes communication of state men only, without any inclusion and access of women into this process. He kept to the thought that silence is the best appearance a woman may have.

Of course, such metaphor is used in this work only as an introduction into a topic which has become a stone corner for resolution of many legal and social issues. And this is not initially feminism as a phenomena; it is Sex and various trends having roots in this notion. The process of discovering the concealed notions and events has not been capable of opposing any significant alternative to the decades of political theory based on men. Elimination of the clearly seen forms of colonial exploitation, in its turn, has only underlined societal division on the basis of sex.

Sex has ultimately become the class / classification sign, sexual relations have substituted productive relations, and historically specific forms of child birth are now perceived as the means of production. Analytical opposition of 're-distribution' policy and 'acknowledgment' policy, which has been offered by Fraser, has caused a series of interesting debates. Butler has become an author whose theory is opposed to the principal Fraser's statement which refers sexuality and its movements to cultural acknowledgment only. Butler states that the mere existence of the so-called mainland" with normalized (not normal, but normalized!

) heterosexuality is possible for the account of the scorned political and sexual 'suburbs'. While heterosexual “mainland" is characterized by the traditional division of the labor rights between the two sexes, this division is also possible to be seen due to the already mentioned 'suburbs'. Institutionalization of this division of labor rights is possible only for the account of such 'queers' existence. In other words, 'acknowledgment' in this case is inevitable; though it may be expressed in negative articulated or unarticulated form.

'Due to the significant role which the scorned sexualities play in functioning of the sexual order of political economy, creating a fundamental threat to its productivity, it would be a mistake to refer such production of sexualities to cultural issues only. '  Economic is directly connected with the reproduction, and as a result it is also connected with the reproduction of heterosexuality. Non-heterosexual forms of sexuality are not only left behind the curtains, but their suppression appears to serve a kind of a norm.

We, thus, speak here about specific means of cultural reproduction and exchange, which is aimed at supporting stability of sex, heterosexuality of desire and natural character of family. The accent, which Butler makes on sexuality has somewhat different meaning if compared with the similar works of Fraser and McKinnon. The queer theory created by Butler has been aimed not at evaluating the normative priorities of power and the role of sexuality in connection with the basic human rights, but the research of how a norm is created through invention of various pathologies, and the process of norm depending on pathology.

However, even in such deep aspect of considering the queer theory created by Butler, it is possible to clearly see the legal consequences which sex and sexuality plays in the world states and systems. As it has been noted, any political and philosophic (social) analysis should not only define the answers to questions what to do, and how to do, but who should do this. In the feministic theory of politics, which is directly correlated with the queer theory, the issue of the power subject faces interesting epistemological problem.

This problem is expressed in the question – on what basis political unity of women is possible? What can become the principle of this unity (or division) and should it be considered as the opposition to patriarchy? An attempt to see patriarchy as 'enemy', which is capable of mobilizing women away from their class, national or age characteristics, has failed, simultaneously becoming the source of  transferring the accents from analyzing the powerful domination of men onto the analysis of original female problems, which are usually reflected in the categories of female experience.

While Butler has been developing her queer theory, feminists have been located at the very beginning of female experience' re-evaluation. The problem which feminist theory has faced can be illustrated by the fact that even attempts to classify house work as a form of employment, and not the form of expressing love, have caused opposition. Thus, female experience should not only be acknowledged, but should also be used as the basis for critics.