Ever since the publication of her collection of political essays »Precarious Life« (2005), motivated by the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Judith Butler has devoted more attention than ever to the conflicts in contemporary international politics. »Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time,« the lecture she held on May 18, 2007 in the University of Hamburg’s Ernst Cassirer Hall is a good example.¹ Recalling Butler’s early publications in the realm of Gender Studies, it appears as if her most recent texts are an attempt to honor the claim (which she also sets for herself) that queer theory should not limit itself to sexual politics, but also confront issues like global conflicts, post-colonial history and radical democracy. As is well-known, the latter was at the center of Butler’s philosophical practice in her exchange with Ernesto Laclau and Slavoj Zizek,² and hence, in a sense, Butler’s media narrative has come full circle.

In »Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time«, Butler deals with one of the oldest myths of Modernism, according to which the secularization of lifestyles continues unabated. Butler proposes deconstructing this myth. In an interview in Hamburg with Nina Schulz, she also proposes an alternative concept of Modernism that not only aims to leave behind the Western story of progress, but also recognizes the different temporalities of the globe’s plural cultural threads: »I believe that, if our ›Modernism‹ is to have any meaning at all, it should be regarded as a constellation of differing temporalities. This is not about demanding an assimilation of certain secular norms, but about contextualizing the history of secularism in its specific effects.«³ A critical genealogy is called for, thus Butler’s demand, so that secularism does not act with the authority of totalizing enlightenment, burying other histories underneath it that then would only be perceived as inferior, backwards and in need of help. Thus, the project of Modernism becomes an effective means for fighting wars as well. A genealogical analysis would allow for a reassessment of cultural power relations, pointing the way to alternative solutions to conflicts.

Especially as a Queer theorist, Butler tries to sound an insistent warning – in view of the increasing influence of queer politics in the West – of a monopolization of lesbian and gay projects by a national or even international rhetoric that is nothing but a continuation of colonialism under a progressive banner – »particularly if this state power tries to set off minorities against each other and to instrumentalize sexual political progress as a means to support civilizational norms that justify the war against Islam.«⁴ Christianity, which is according to Butler the foundation of America’s secular project, is not only a central reference in anti-Islamic positions taken by George W. Bush, Nicolas Sarkozy or the Pope. If we take a look at the theory hype last year, we find that not only is Giorgio Agamben’s re-reading of Benjaminic messianism fascinated by Christian emotion, but that Alain Badiou’s and Slavoj Zizek’s meta-universalist theories are interested in linking rationalist enlightenment to a religious act of liberation. In this context, Butler’s position could be regarded as a Derridaist gesture of caution in view of the totalizing practice of the universal. Just as Derrida glimpsed Stalinism in the realization of communism, Butler sees the imperialist danger in a secular project that – in spite of its rhetoric of liberating sexual minorities and women – has spawned torture practices and their representations. In her ethical philosophizing on precariousness and injury, on photography and representation, she moves ever closer to Susan Sontag. Evidence of this is found in »Torture and the Ethics of Photography,« an essay on the same topic, which was recently translated into German.⁵

Unfortunately, genealogy as a demand remains more abstract in »Sexual Politics, Torture, and Secular Time,« whereas the effects of the American project of secularization are unequivocal. According to Butler, it is conspicuous that it is not only Islamism, but also the US military that appears misogynist and homophobic. Demands for a critical reconstruction of the »First World« perspective are also evident in so-called »New Feminism,« the title of a book published by Marina Grzinic and Rosa Reitsamer, which calls for a materialistic historical genealogy as viewed from the perspective of the Balkan states, one that contextualizes Western feminism. The message is clear, as Grzinic recently stressed on the panel of the Berlin feminism event »Femmes’R’Us«: the history of »First World« humanism is not natural nor is it ahistorical. With or without Christianity.

Thus, Butler counters the secularization project’s structuralist criticism of religion with a practical perspective. And in doing so, she comes surprisingly close to Deleuze-Guattari’s formula: »The question is not what it means but how it works.« If, for instance, the Pope motivates homophobic or anti-Islamic politics, he is not in the wrong because he is demonstrably a Christian but because he is demonstrably wrong, Butler says. During the discussion following the Hamburg lecture, she reacted along similar lines to a comment by a critical listener who cited as an example of »pre-modern tendencies« in Islamism the stoning to death of homosexuals in Iran. »We can criticize this violence without calling it pre-modern. Is torture in the USA modern? I believe these temporal differences create the hierarchies of the humane, and they appear brutal and have become totally useless,« according to Butler. But a woman who identified herself as a lesbian feminist dug deeper: Couldn’t Butler possibly imagine secularization as the sole basis for queer politics and thus criticize the situation of women in Iran? Butler’s response: »If we want to adhere to the concept you just mentioned – that of lesbian feminism – we have to admit that its history and usage has passed through many churches, synagogues and the liberal theology in Latin America. Many lesbians and gays in church organizations continue to fight this battle and are seeking for ways to unite their sexuality with their faith.«

So, is it all a matter of context? If so, it is a downright provocation to go ahead and contextualize Butler’s approach as well. For instance, in relation to the Queer Studies that were established as a white, Western discipline despite their interdependence with Postcolonial Studies, giving them the opportunity to connect to the »equally imperialist human rights project of secularism.« Butler named homosexual anti-Islamist Pim Fortuyn as an example for this »exploitation of queer politics in the name of freedom.« Putting it in a European context, where anti-Americanism and anti-Islamism stand opposite each other as do a secular right wing and a homophobic re-actualization of the Christian faith, is much more complicated – not to mention putting it in a German context with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Directives for action unfortunately remained abstract during that long afternoon in Hamburg. The post-structuralist philosopher once more acknowledged that it is not about longing for never-ending harmony in a (also very Western) dream of pluralism. Conflicts are part of the affirmation of life and society. She said it is in the hands of the individual not to let these develop into war scenarios, but to enable other venues of negotiation.

 

Translated by Jennifer Taylor-Gaida

 

---