Thoughts on Butler and Barad

I totally agree with your sentiment about Barad, Kim K. The issue I grappled with in both reading her article as well as listening to her talk is one that we attempted to tackle as a class several “acts” ago: if an author’s work doesn’t read as coherent, does that mean that his or her argument isn’t sound, or does it mean that I as its reader need to do a better job of understanding and interpreting it? The level of coherence in any given work is subjective, and I am positive that the fact that I am not well versed on the subject matter Barad delves into contributes to my hesitancy to consider her work coherent. Because my experience with both physics and philosophy is limited, I found the topic of quantum entanglements and hauntological relations to be mind-boggling in and of itself. Then, the way in which her ideas were presented (both on paper and in person) only exacerbated my frustration with struggling to wrap my mind around these ideas and make connections between them and issues of gender and sexuality. I would have much preferred a format that was more traditional; if the work made more sense on a structural level, perhaps it would have allowed me to better understand its content.  But at what point is it the author’s responsibility to explain or justify their work and at what point is it my responsibility as a reader and interpreter to make sense of it on my own?

One thing that particularly frustrated me with last week’s class was that although Barad knew she was coming to a class on perspectives about sexuality and gender, she chose one of her papers that has (at least through my lens) no direct connection to issues of either gender or sexuality. Sure, there are metaphors embedded within the work, ideas we can connect to gen/sex studies, but then why not illuminate them for us in person? Why present to us the same paper we were asked us to read in preparation for class and then not elaborate on its ideas without being prompted? Even when Barad was asked when/why she chose to study physics in relation to gender studies, she dodged the question with an abstract answer that really didn’t lend any insight into why she is passionate about connecting these issues or how she feels they relate. I feel like we really could have benefitted from a discussion rather than an elongated Q & A because it would have allowed for ideas, suggestions, and comments to flow around the room about the connections between quantum physics and gender studies (connections which Anne kept prompting us to think about!). That being said, the Q & A did provide me with some ideas I'd like to consider more deeply, particularly her comments about "being different selves in different places" and the idea of when, why, and how we make what she refers to as "cuts." I look forward to the conversation we’re inevitably going to engage in on Tuesday, since I’m eager to unpack my thoughts and feelings about this experience with the rest of the class.