Most usages of “deconstruction,” “problematic,” and “performative” have nothing to do with how Big Name Theorists use them.
—-True.
Authority is not for Authors.
by
Tags:
Comments
3 responses to “Authority is not for Authors.”
-
I was underwhelmed at the other side of this link at the lack of perspective? Was this an attempt at PoMo by example? lol
LikeLike
-
Sorry. 😄
The “art of Aphorism “ posts little somewhat ironic at times statements. Sometimes his statements are a little bit more profound. This one wasn’t as ironically profound as it was just a statement that I agree with.
Particularly “performativity”. Most people use this word in a derogatory sense, as if it means that a person is being in authentic. I hear it all the time. These people think that they’re being all academic and intellectual by using the word, but I find that most of them don’t even know what it means in the developed theoretical sense. I understand it to me in the actuality of the individual in its movement or motion.
So, how I understand it it is very similar to being genuine and authentic, not its opposite.
-
Interesting. My take is more from the perspective if JP Sartre or Judith Butler.
In the case of Sartre’s waiter, his performance is of that as waiter, restricting his broader self. I see this at work, where acusations of not ‘acting’ professional are relatively common.
In the case of Butler, it’s performing or expressing, but it cuts both ways. One could either perform to conform with external expectations or to conform with one’s own sense of self (whastever that translates to). The later case would comport with an authenticity claim: For example, Eddie Izzard is a CIS-male who performs as a transgender, dressing with female accoutrements.
LikeLike
-
-
The Veritable Counsel 
Leave a Reply