.Critical reading takes place when students write and revise text reviews.

EXAMPLE:

Assignment: You’ll notice on the “Schedule & Assignments” section of our syllabus that you’ll be doing a total of four text reviews (2-3 pages each). The
only book you must review is Butler’s Excitable Speech (you'll have choices among books for the other reviews). To get the idea clear on what a text review is, you need to bring a draft of your review on Excitable Speech next week, 1/30. You’ll workshop it in class with a small group of classmates. Your review must contain the following elements: Student's Draft:
 
   Judith Butler’s overall concept for her novel, Excitable Speech, is that speech and language, no matter how injurious, must not be regulated in any way.  Butler explains how words and language have a certain indelible history.  Although a word may have an original, inoffensive meaning, Butler contends that certain words carry years of hateful, hardened baggage, difficult to unpack.

   Butler suggests another problem with controlling hate speech is that “the state produces hate speech” (77).  Butler means that the state makes and maintains the domain of what is and what is not acceptable speech.  In other words, Butler is saying that the government has the power to deprive us of our constitutional rights but the public does not have the power to deprive fellow members of their constitutional rights.

   Next, Butler elaborates on how certain regulations construct just the violations they are looking for.  This is especially visible in chapter 3 when Butler asserts that the military views self-ascription as a homosexual as an act because the regulations against self-ascription as a homosexual in the military dictate it as such.

   These ideas are relevant to LGBT representation in the regard that Butler seems to be warning LGBT people to look closer at politics.  Butler is trying to say that LGBT people should carefully prioritize their rights, especially when it comes to speech legislation.  So many people push for laws against hate speech, but have they ever thought that the government is depriving our rights in turn by passing such laws?  The best way for LGBT people to gain equality is to use our free speech to its fullest extent.  LGBT people have to learn to fight fire with educated fire.  When people call a gay man a “fucking faggot”, what might he do?  Most people chant against hate speech and push for legislation.  The best way to fight discrimination is to concede that it exists and say, “Yes I am.  Got a problem with that?”  Educated rebuttal is key!  As for gays in the military, Butler provides the reader with a great point against regulation.  The public and the LGBT community must recognize that regulations can often create unforeseen violations such as self-ascription as a homosexual in the military.  Butler suggests being prudent in seeking equal representation.

   Butler appeals to the reader’s logic throughout the book by citing previous research and dissecting various conjectures with intellectual care.  She also applies metaphor in her explanation of definitions having a certain temporal sedimentation.  This helped me figure out where she was coming from and gave me a quasi-visual basis unto which I could recall when reflecting on her ideas.  Butler employs the use of potential cause and effect when discussing sovereign performatives relating to how the state produces hate speech.  This helps me understand how, by letting states control speech, people consent to fewer rights and more discrimination.

   A shortcoming is Butler’s complex language.  I missed some important concepts as a result of not being able to understand her writing.  The best way for the reader to cope is to keep a dictionary close at hand and read the text numerous times.  It may also be wise to consult reviews of the text to get an idea of what the text means to others.

   As a Sociology major, I have strong convictions against hate speech, yet I think that I must appreciate my first amendment rights, and also let others enjoy theirs.  The only way to combat hateful speech is with educated rebuttal, not by enacting potentially limiting legislation, controls, and censorship.

 

Comments and Rubric:

J___,

You do a creditable job of explaining how the “state produces hate speech,” and this could serve as a model for you identifying and summarizing other ideas, which you only briefly touch upon. By the by, why do you believe that Butler says speech must not be regulated in any way? Your term “educated rebuttal” is an interesting and useful one--but do you see why “Yes I am. Got a problem with that?” is an example of excitable speech (quick, based on gut-reaction, continues an unproductive argument) than educated rebuttal? You’ve got a start on how to do rhetorical analysis, but brief examples would help, as you demonstrate with your explanation of how Butler uses cause-effect to help you grasp what she’s saying. Could you provide an instance when you’ve used educated rebuttal effectively? If you revise again, consider these points. Always document the sources you use, even when we all know we’re reading the same book. Have you got the workshop responses your classmates gave you, so they can receive credit?

GRADE: C (revision for a better grade is optional)
 

strong okay weak no credit                                              Criteria
. . X . You summarize ideas that you feel are especially important in the book
X . . . You explain why you find these ideas relevant to the questions of how LGBT people are represented, and how they represent themselves
. . X . You evaluate specific rhetorical techniques you think Butler uses effectively
. X . . You observe any shortcomings you find in the text, and suggest how you think readers should deal with those shortcomings
. . . X You comment on how these ideas have some impact or relevance to your own experiences
? ? ? ? You provide evidence that you have revised your work to incorporate feedback from readers
. . X . You edit carefully for correct MLA documentation, format, and conventions of edited American English

Student's revision:
 

  Judith Butler’s overall concept for her academic study, Excitable Speech, is that speech and language, no matter how injurious, must not be regulated through legal channels.  Butler is concerned with the many repercussions that could ensue due to speech legislation and infringements on individuals’ rights.  Her study is a warning to everyone to be wary of the freedoms we choose to curtail through government regulation.

   Butler explains how words and language have a certain indelible history.  She uses sedimentation as a metaphor for how meanings and definitions of words collect and evolve over time.  Although a word may have an original, inoffensive meaning, Butler contends that certain words carry years of hateful, hardened baggage, difficult to unpack.  Words and names have this “repetition that congeals, giving the name its force” (Butler 36).  It seems that Butler sees all words and names in a structuralistic sense.  Yes, they may have injurious connotations today, but how can we possibly phase them out of use?  Ours is a society that is “nominalistic” as Butler puts it.  The legal limitations imposed by hate speech legislation would throw our society, which innately relies on labels, into linguistic, and quite possibly social, disorder.

   Butler elaborates on how certain regulations construct just the violations they are looking for.  This phenomenon is especially visible in the introductory chapter and chapter 3 when Butler suggests that the military sees naming oneself a homosexual as a negative act because the regulations against self-ascription as a homosexual in the military dictate it as such.  Butler believes that society puts enough negative emphasis on other forms of speech acts involving the LGBT community without involving the state to impose further limitations.  These actions should not be considered negatively performative, and that’s why Butler states, “this very extension of state power (referring to the military regulations) comes to represent one of the greatest threats to the discursive operation of lesbian and gay politics” (22).

   Butler raises another striking point when she brings AIDS education into the light.  Once again, certain individuals in society narrowly view this universal problem as exclusive to the LGBT community.  In turn, they see educating the mainstream (i.e. students) about AIDS prevention as offensive and “explicit sexual education” (Butler 22).  Butler contends that the aim of sex education is not to insight offensive or inappropriate sexual acts or the infection of HIV/AIDS, but rather to promote awareness and the existence of the disease.

   In addition to this point, Butler suggests that another problem with controlling hate speech is that “the state produces hate speech” (77).  By this she does not mean that the government wills into reality the slurs and hateful language that exist but rather that the state makes and maintains the domain concerning what is and what isn’t acceptable speech.  Butler is concerned that by proliferating state and legal control of speech and by fighting to limit certain expressions and discourses, we are essentially reducing our rights.  It is ironic to think that by pushing to expand our rights to be free of discrimination and live a life in the “pursuit of happiness,” we are in fact disposed to further limitations of those rights and perhaps more susceptible to discrimination by the state itself.

   These ideas are relevant to how society represents LGBT people and how LGBT people represent themselves in the regard that Butler warns LGBT people to look closer at their politics.  From what I’ve gathered, I believe Butler is trying to say that LGBT people should carefully consider their rights, especially when it comes to speech legislation.  So many people push for laws against hate speech, but have they ever thought that the government is depriving our rights in turn by passing such laws? Perhaps the best way for LGBT people to gain equality is to utilize our free speech to its fullest extent.  LGBT people have to learn to fight fire with educated fire.  The best way to fight discrimination is to acknowledge that it exists and to fight with reason and aplomb.  Educated rebuttal is the key!

   Finally, in regards to gays in the military, Butler provides the reader with a great point against regulation.  The public and the LGBT community both must recognize that regulations can be harmful and can often create unforeseen sanctions as illustrated by naming oneself homosexual in the military.  The extension of state power could very well offset the LGBT community’s campaign for equality and freedom by reducing everyone’s rights.  “Strategies devised on the part of progressive legal and social movements thus run the risk of being turned against those very movements by virtue of extending state power...” (Butler 24).  Butler is saying to be prudent in terms of seeking equal representation and that perhaps LGBT people must rethink how they wish to represent themselves.

   Butler appeals to the reader’s logic throughout the book by citing previous research and dissecting various theories and conjectures such as her many citations of Austin throughout the study.  An example of this is her discussion on Austin’s ideas of illocutionary speech in the introduction (Butler 25).  In addition to this, her metaphor of definitions and meanings having a certain temporal sedimentation in the introduction to the text helped me figure out where she was coming from and gave me a quasi-visual base that I could recall when thinking about various concepts such as how the word “gay” has evolved from a happy meaning to a derogatory term or even a term that homosexual men use to label themselves.  Butler also illustrates potential cause and effect when discussing sovereign performatives and how and why the state produces hate speech.  This helped me understand how, by letting the state control speech legislation, people open the doors to fewer rights and more discrimination and, ironically, deprive themselves of their rights on a larger scale.

   One perceived shortcoming that I found in the text is the complexity of Butler’s language.  Her research and concepts were often difficult to comprehend.  Yet, the reader must look deeper into the text to find that, perhaps, Butler has a purpose with this language.  How do you feel when you read this text?  Helpless, tongue-tied, put down?  Yes.  This is exactly how a person feels when they cannot fight back against harmful, injurious speech.  Butler is inviting the reader to question what she’s saying, to translate, so the reader can apply educated rebuttal.  It is a pretest for the many fights that are ahead.  Yet, there will be no hateful speech thrown back, only valid and sound arguments.  So, perhaps this language is a shortcoming at the start, but certainly by the end, with some reflection and application to the larger scheme of Butler’s movement, the reader will understand that Butler is only further trying to provoke thought on the issue of “fighting back.”

   I have an emotional and intellectual connection with Butler’s study.  I identify with her concerns and inherent fear that perhaps the LGBT community is bringing itself down by pushing for more control by the state over what everyone can and cannot say.  I fear what the effects of speech legislation could be if it falls into the wrong hands.  I have a connection to this study because I live in a time of social and civil unrest that resonates to every corner of the globe.  I live in a time when my very words, no matter how benign, could be used against me to say that I am not a patriotic American.  I live in a time that I must fear not only losing my rights as a gay man, but also as a whole individual.  We as a society must realize that legislation will only take us so far.  It has much more potential to take us backwards, and the domino effect of limitation imposing limitation could be detrimental to us all.  So what is the final translation of Butler for me?  I think it goes something like this:  “For God’s sake, let’s learn to fight back ourselves!”

Work Cited

Butler, Judith. Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. NY: Routledge, 1997.