User talk:Altaalt/sandbox

Alida's Peer Review

Bodies That Matter

I agree that the prose in "This concept is linked to..." should be made more accessible, as the language is quite dense and could be unclear to readers. I would suggest minimizing the jargon within the paragraph and unpacking the quote immediately before it. For instance, what is "iterability"? Perhaps draw from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citationality#cite_note-1. Is there another way to describe “undeterminedness” and “to-be-determinedness”? What is “contestation”? The article seems to use abstract terms that are both vague and difficult to comprehend.

Excitable Speech

Responding to your Sandbox comment, the article does mention what Foucault’s argument was in that paragraph you are referring to (see: “strict sexual mores of 19th-century Western Europe”). Perhaps focus instead on clarifying the section that says: “Extending this argument using Derrida and Lacan, Butler claims that censorship is primitive to language, and that the linguistic I is a mere effect of an originary censorship.” This sentence still has quite a bit of jargon, and it does not explain how Butler has built upon the ideas of Derrida and Lacan (i.e. what were their arguments)? For a minor copyedit, you could clarify the sentence by changing it to "Extending this argument using Derrida and Lacan's theories,” "ideas," or "arguments."

Another part to focus on could be to unpack the last quote in this section: "If speech depends upon censorship, then the principle that one might seek to oppose is at once the formative principle of oppositional speech." The article would benefit from explaining the phrase "oppositional speech," which refers to speaking against something. I would suggest going back to the to quote Butler's sentence prior to the already quoted material (see: existing citation):

“The critical task is not simply to speak ‘against’ the law, as if the law were external to speech, and speech the privileged venue for freedom…”

The article could explain more clearly that, in order words, Butler argues there is no clear divide between speech versus what is being spoken against; instead, she thinks oppositional speech originates from a place of censorship because it encourages one to speak out or against something (and therefore actually reproduces the very language that censorship attempts to control (similarly to how, as Foucault argues, social restrictions in the 19th century encouraged the discourse of sexuality).

Undoing Gender

I support your comment about giving context to the words “human” and “less-than-human” to show what Butler is discussing here. It might be important to take a look at her original text again, as I would suggest expanding this section by mentioning how she builds upon G. W. F. Hegel’s ideas (you could link to the Wikipedia page about Hegel or Hegelianism):

“The Hegelian tradition links desire with recognition, claiming that desire is always a desire for recognition and that it is only through the experience of recognition that any of us becomes constituted as socially viable beings. … Certain humans are recognized as less than human, and that form of qualified recognition does not lead to a viable life. Certain humans are not recognized as human at all, and that leads to yet another order of unlivable life. If part of what desire wants is to gain recognition, then gender, insofar as it is animated by desire, will want recognition as well. But if the schemes of recognition that are available to us are those that “undo” the person by conferring recognition, or “undo” the person by withholding recognition, then recognition becomes a site of power by which the human is differentially produced.” (Butler 2)

In other words, the article could provide more information about how she is extending Hegel’s ideas about how desire comes from a place of desiring recognition, as she argues that gender is also closely linked to recognition (in the case that gender is “animated by desire”). Thus, she believes this recognition is about the need for humans to be recognized as humans (rather than as "less-than-human").

Reception

I would also suggest expanding on her response to criticisms because the first sentence in this section does not give any summary or examples. However, you may have trouble accessing the document within the current source that is cited, as it seems to only show a preview unless you have a login account. Perhaps look around for other sources as well.

Also, the second source that is cited in this section is in a non-English language. Perhaps, again, try to find additional sources to make the information accessible (it might be important for your own fact-checking). It is unclear whether this second paragraph is referring to how Butler defended herself in the preface to her 1999 book (as mentioned in the section’s first sentence), or if she defended herself in some other scenario/space (if so, when/where?). It could be useful to expand on how she defended Islam and/or tried to refute Schwarzer’s accusations.

Adorno Prize Affair

I checked the citation and the text “she did not take attacks…” is quoted from the article, but indeed not as a direct quote from her (i.e. she did refer to herself in third person). The article should make this distinction. I hope my peer review suggestions are helpful! Aso4530 (talk) 11:38, 21 April 2019 (UTC)