"What is this UFA?" The more the question comes up, the harder it is to answer. Once someone suggested that it should be answered by means of negations: "UFA is not a dog," "UFA is not cup of tea," "UFA is not a flat wrench"... Because the tao that can be defined is not the real tao.
UFA is not a thing
Since its establishment, UFA has drifted between defined entities, movements, and ideologies. It was set up by a group of women activists associated with Lesbian Coalition (LBT), participants of various independent feminist and queer movements, anarchofeminists, feminists, and NGO activists. Its roots reach back to anarchofeminism, queercore and Riot Grrrl punk movements, the idea of Queer Nation, and, of course, queer theory. Rather than stick to one inspiration, UFA drew on many: for instance, the basic principle on which it operates-the absence of hierarchies and equal access to power-derives from anarchism.
In all this UFA is an embryo (not a child, for it is still evolving) conceived at a critical turning point in the political (not in the sense of party politics) and social activity of nonheteronormative women in Poland. In the 1990s, a substantial number of lesbians and bisexual women was involved in Polish feminist organizations without revealing their psychosexual orientation.
At the time, neither they themselves nor the movement as a whole recognized the need for change in the situation of nonheterosexual women as a significant postulate among other feminist postulates. In the mid-1990s, there emerged anarchofeminist groups like Women Against Discrimination and Violence, which also drew many openly nonheterosexual women. At the turn of 2004/2005, a modest but rather vocal movement called Lesbian Coalition (LBT) was established by feminist lesbians and bisexuals who immediately formed a pact with one of the major feminist groups.
UFA believes that without feminism there would have been no queer. Therefore it does not reject the term "woman" used to denote a group of people the society identifies as women, whose discrimination throughout the ages is a social fact. Yet UFA is also aware of the pervasiveness and power of the heterosexual norm; it remembers that in the 1970s it was the lesbian feminists who noted that they, like everyone else, are immersed in the context of an unexamined heterosexuality.
An outsider's perspective, as Joanna Mizielińska has emphasized, is very valuable. That is why UFA deliberately and self-reflexively locates itself in the liminal space between the mainstream and that which it excludes, alternately gazing from the outside in from the inside out. From this position it is possible to see more and with greater clarity. Hopefully it is also possible to accomplish more-if only because UFA can draw into its projects people who are unlikely to stray into an anarchist squat, but who may stray into UFA's space, for instance elderly women from the Muranów district.
One of UFA's basic goals was to create a space that fosters contacts and collaboration between groups that do not usually meet. Such a space must be open and unrestricted by prior assumptions. It has an infrastructure (a furnished place and legal status
that can be used by any person or group interested in non-profit work) but no structure. Instead, it has a system of interconnected objectives which can potentially be implemented by any member of the collective, since all members have equal access to knowledge (there is no knowledge restricted to one person or group).
It is difficult to say whether UFA is a group, a place, or a milieu. Its shape is fluid and continually changing: from a gallery it changes into a space for workshops, from a club into a cinema, from a café into a library. Under one roof there is room for meetings, discussions, workshops, conferences, art events (exhibitions, film shows, performances), a computer room with a free internet café and hotspot, a library, a zine reading room, and a screen printing workshop. If required, the space can also serve as a children's corner, a rehearsal room, a photo lab, or a veggiebanquet hall. When necessary, UFA becomes dispersed; a free electron, it visits other spaces.
UFA practices a creative eclecticism: it combines analysis with theory and practice, ecology with antidiscrimination initiatives, economics with sexuality, and art with everything, because it is certain that unless we see art within the social, political, and economic context, we may come to believe in the existence of "real art" unburdened by any ideology, and its antithesis-deviant "make-believe-art" like women's art or gay art.
That UFA came into being at a transitional moment, on Halloween, a night that belongs to ghosts, at the turn of October and November 2007, is no accident.
UFA is not a cool occasion for private socializing
Neither cool nor private, UFA sees the danger involved in the liberal notion of "privacy" and the attendant call for the freedom of expressing one's identity in the private sphere but not in the public sphere. To be a "Polish citizen" one has to cut oneself down to size because this costume only fits a handful of people well, and, as Rafał Majka points out, it perfectly "masks the ideological domination of heteronormativity, androcentrism, as well as social conservatism." The capitalist economy reinforces this mode of self-expression by offering a menu with something appealing for every queer person, provided that it can be purchased on the Internet and delivered in a sealed envelope.
The illusion of freedom in private life circumscribes the pursuit of freedom in the public sphere. What UFA advocates instead is, first, a constant questioning of one's lifestyle and "private identity," searching for the factors that determine it and their social context.
Second, it believes in carrying out onto the street everything that is supposed to happen in the privacy of the home.
UFA is not a parrot
One of the effects of Poland's decades-long isolation from the social changes that took place in Western Europe is the willingness to submit to symbolic colonization. It is not only the imported model of economic relations that has now become so desirable but also the western way of thinking about the world. This openness to colonization is also apparent in the social movements of the last two decades. In addition to the brotherly or sisterly (financial and other) assistance, these movements often accept a conceptual apparatus and methods of operating developed in completely different conditions than our own, and ill-suited to the Polish reality. UFA says: don't eat fast food-cook your own.
UFA is not an NGO
In recent months, a discussion has been going on in the Polish NGO sector (and I use this expression knowingly) concerning the so-called NGOization, i.e. a process of specialization and professionalization of non-government organizations. NGOization constitutes a perfect means for curtailing systemic change, all the more effective because it is being used in a society that, according to various studies, is characterized a very low level of social trust, low levels of cooperative spirit and little openness to compromise. NGOs, which get paid in advance to plow their rigidly defined fields, do not offer a good model of cooperation; instead, their presence leads to ghettoization (the isolation of the NGO sector and the construction of target groups for particular projects). What the NGOs ignore is the fact that the real problem lies elsewhere. On the other hand, entrusting the job of finding cures for social ills to "activists" allows us to preserve a clear conscience and simultaneously enjoy some peace and quiet.
NGOs are a key element of capitalist neoliberalism; restricted to narrow fields of operation, one-dimensional, lacking a broader vision for change, they are encouraged to compete with each other. Above all, they are dependent on the sponsors and thus on the sponsors' vision of the world and decisions about what to finance. Since the sponsor is either the state or the super-state in the form of the European Union, the adjective "non-governmental" or "independent" is a sham. We should really speak about "dependent organizations."
No less illusory is the conviction that the NGOs are a school of democracy, for these associations and foundations copy the corporate management structure, with presidents, project managers, and volunteers. External to this group are the clients or beneficiaries of the projects. In organizations engaged in women's issues which are managed by women the structure is the same, though one might expect their members to have learned the lesson from the centuries of inequality and discrimination.
Yet another illusion is the faith that change can be achieved through media gestures: billboard campaigns, internet actions, and articles in the mainstream press. To begin with, in order to be absorbed by the media, like advertisements, such gestures cannot transgress the public norm enforced by the media; in effect, they represent nice, clean, asexual figures whose difference is only expressed in the caption, if at all. Second, the captions or slogans call for tolerance, that is, for the "endurance" of the other's presence rather than acceptance. Third, since the campaigns and actions adhere to the homonorm, they avoid that which is shamelessly and exuberantly gay and/or unhygienic, sad, or dark. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the problem of the limited target group and the assumed passivity of the recipient. There is no room for dialogue, communication, and real understanding.
In view of the above, receiving a grant for a campaign like "Let Them See Us," or for the operations of one group, may turn out to be a disaster rather than a success. That is why UFA insists on working for change on a level below the local-on the interpersonal level-and not within the limitations of a single project but holistically: whoever encounters UFA also encounters a message that is both broad (present in every manifestation of UFA) and unobtrusive (for it does not take the form of advertising)-a message about equality, cooperation, social responsibility, and strategies of resistance in many areas, from art to ecology.
UFA does flirt with the "system": whenever it implements a project sponsored by the government, it tries to violate the informal agreement that usually binds the receiving organization and its beneficiaries: the UFA members engaged in such projects are not "project coordinators," "experts," or "volunteers"; in addition to their knowledge and skills they transfer their non-mainstream perspective (manifested in the topics covered in the project, the space in which it takes place, as well as the appearance and behavior of the members conducting the project, etc.).
UFA is not a drawer
Heteronormativization is a team of horses in which sex, gender, sexual orientation, and identity are well matched and pull the cart peaceably and logically. But such a team can only take us to one destination: a close, dark, and restricted place, somewhat like a drawer. Nonheterosexuality does not make us free from the heterosexual norm. On the contrary, by allowing ourselves to be cut to size, pressed, and folded, we have a chance of ending up in one of society's top drawers. A pleasing appearance, monogamy, belief in true love and economic success are the price of a queer person's acceptance. Once paid, the queer person stops being queer and becomes a predictable, easily managed liberal subject, a citizen like others. The attendant benefits (the sense of belonging and security, including legal security, and of one's own uniqueness) really are something to be proud of. After centuries of being deprived of an identity and a century of the pathologization of homosexual identity, now is the time of gay pride. In the identity of Polish lesbians and gay men, the element of pride is muted (even the annual parade is not a Gay Pride Parade but an Equality March), and gives way to the legend of "exclusion and marginalization" that serves as the foundation for an entire identity. Yet whether rainbow-hued or gray, a drawer is still a drawer. UFA encourages people to get out of it, leaving behind an incongruous vision of the nonheterosexual individual who is just like everybody else, is pushed away by everybody else, and still wants to be just like everybody else.
UFA is not a closet
In the course of the last year, the topic of "queer vs. the Polish question" has repeatedly come up in discussions in the virtual and real world. The same accusation was repeatedly made: that in the Polish context the term "queer" is a convenient cloak for those who are afraid to define themselves as gay or lesbian. Fair enough: "queer" does sound trendy and has no identifiable meaning in Polish. It could serve as a name for a gay club, and in fact a club named Queer recently opened in Warsaw. It was advertised as "a tasteful place for 'men and a handful of exceptionally nice ladies'" as well as "normal (read bent) guys." Such a narrow definition of the target group, which simultaneously normativizes and excludes, seems to be the best possible illustration of the way Polish people understand "queer" (we are talking here about a small group that at least has some inkling of what the term means). No Polish translation is likely to catch on, and, in fact, there is no need for a translation, for the moment its meaning is unpacked from the mellifluous English language it will lose its popularity.
Accusations that UFA is hiding behind the queer cloak miss the mark. Not only does UFA not conceal its non-normative preferences, but it insists on doing the opposite: it speaks about them constantly and demonstrates them at every turn-without waiting for special occasions. Yet it opposes terrorizing into coming-out, public or private, which in gay and lesbian politics has the status of the key moment of individual identity formation, the revelation of the deepest personal truth, something everyone owes not just to themselves but to the entire "LGBT community" (?)-in fact to society as a whole. The coming-out is both a normativising declaration of belonging ("I am part of a collective united by certain traits and/or experiences") and a declaration of exclusion ("I am not like you; I am in a minority; you as the majority decide that I do not belong to you"). UFA finds both the meanings of this compulsory symbolic gesture unacceptable.
UFA is not a dictionary of proper Polish usage
UFA does not speak like everybody else. It avoids the masculine word forms commonly used in Polish (a heavily gendered language), but neither does it use the feminine endings alone, nor resort to using feminine and masculine variants divided by a slash (e.g. "actors/actresses"). Instead, it has decided to use the form "actresses_ors." The feminine verb or noun form comes first, emphasizing our rejection of the masculine subject's universality, followed by the masculine ending. The horizontal line between them leaves room for a whole spectrum of other possibilities between the two poles. The result is an indefinite word with a choice at the end, ready for every gender and identity. Thus UFA attempts to practice the possibilities outlined by Judith Butler: "If gender itself is naturalized through grammatical norms, as Monique Wittig has argued, than the alteration of gender at the most fundamental epistemic level will be conducted, in part, through contesting the grammar in which gender is given."
When the reader's gaze trips over the awkward word, there is a moment of surprise and, possibly, of reflection on language habits that are all too often transparent and invisible to the users. Here is yet another effective means to meddle with reality.
UFA is not peace and quiet
Crisis is healthy; crisis gives change a chance. If, as some say, queer theory is an antitheory in a state of constant instability, then UFA practices it most effectively when it balances on the edge between various forms of action, various ideas about what it should be, and even between presence and absence. The fact that in the Polish reality it is an alien body and tries to cultivate that alienness greatly contributes to its instability. This means it can forget about a grant that would enable it to hold on to its basement space for several years, and about getting Gazeta Wyborcza
"Wdech" prize for cultural initiatives.
UFA is not a president on a ladder
UFA believes in the antihierarchical principle, questioning all set boundaries (of identity and convention). Its every move has a political dimension, and serves the goal of changing power relations. To exclude no-one is the basic assumption. Hierarchies form in every community; they take the shape of informal ladders of major or minor importance. When this process takes place within groups engaged in erasing inequalities (such as feminist or anarchist groups), it is particularly offensive. Therefore UFA consciously acts in a nonhierarchical way, elects no leader, and attempts to proximate the ideal of direct democracy. The collective makes decisions on the basis of consensus: instead of voting, it seeks the optimal solution for everyone. It recognizes no taboos: every issue and every problem can be discussed. Every voice is worth as much as all others and must be listened to. Difficult? Very, particularly since the feelings of all those present need to be respected. Impractical? Yes, for sometimes the conversations take a very long time. Impossible? Possible.
The ambition to avoid discrimination also means that we have to look at ourselves with a critical eye all the time: am I taking advantage of my higher social rank based on my education, youth, external appearance that comes close to the cultural ideal, seniority in the collective, a network of attractive friends, a valued talent or skill, or even the awareness of the flaws of the "system," which makes me feel superior and infallible?
UFA is not a good girl
Sexuality is one of the issues central to UFA. Unlike in many feminist discussions, sexuality is not treated as inseparable from sexism and oppression. According to Giddens, sexuality is a space of fundamental political struggle as well as a means to emancipation. For at least 7000 years (this is the period on which we have relevant historical sources) sexuality-or more precisely, the control of sexuality-has served as the foundation of patriarchal systems of social stratification in which women and (other) sexual others were relegated to the margins. UFA expands the equation of sex, reproduction, and power which add up to totalitarianism by adding the economic context, for, on the one hand, it sees a connection between prosperity and reproductive rights, and, on the other, it criticizes the strategy of the "economic emancipation" of gays and lesbians. UFA works to liberate sexuality from its entanglement in commerce and politics. And above all, to disentangle it from the Catholic ethics which in Poland has the status of the only proper ethics.
UFA is not my life
UFA is an entity that, more than any other entity I am aware of, embodies my idea of the world as it should be. Perhaps this is due to the fact that I co-created it from the very beginning, investing not only my work but also my heart. UFA is worth the blood, sweat, and tears. In my life it has also been a testing ground, as well as an experiment I conducted on myself, which makes it all the more valuable in my eyes. I have undergone a difficult evolution from a near fusion with UFA (which was detrimental for both sides) to the present state when I follow my own path which is parallel and often intersects with UFA's. After belonging to the UFA collective for a long time, I have now resigned while remaining its most faithful fan. This entire text is not the official UFA manifesto but my own subjective and partial praise song for UFA. UFA is not my life-long live UFA!
UFA is not a pair of comfortable slippers
Do you want to see change? Do it yourself. Not with EU money or taxes paid by your fellow citizens, for then the change is only make-believe, while the system remains the same.
UFA is not what is
"By reproducing the existing reality, you reiterate the mistakes of a thousand generations," say I. "Veer off course," UFA replies. For instance, consider the possibility that the work of NGOs is not a solution to social problems but one of those problems; that making art dependent on the market kills art's development, while making education a pillar of the state kills the freedom of knowledge. All three phenomena effectively limit perspectives and diffuse the explosive potential of social movements, art, and critical thought.
Or else, UFA suggests, stop to consider whether acting within the existing legal framework can be effective. The law-even the valuable antidiscrimination law or that which regulates registered partnerships-remains a product of age-old social, cultural, and economic relations which it, in turn, supports. We come full circle. To stop going round in circles we sometimes have to act outside the law or even against it, for instance, by multiplying "bad subjects"-entities and social relations which the law has no way of embracing.
As a principle, UFA prefers revolutions to reforms, and at some point (though not yet) it may enjoy demolishing the Master's house instead of dismantling it brick by brick. But it already believes in such relatively unpopular ideals and values as real democracy, education through experience, the exchange of skills, and sharing knowledge on the basis of horizontal cooperation, not vertical dependence. It acts as if the changes it wants to bring about were already here. Hence the insistence on the principles of rotating responsibilities, equal access to knowledge, and shared accountability, which allow UFA to operate as a piece of the world that functions on alternative principles of its own.
UFA is not it at all
UFA is very good at undermining the Cartesian ontology of "clear and distinct" subjects. Indistinctness and illegibility are among its many names. It constitutes a memento about the nature of the world which we all too often want to see as well-ordered and legible (while some, alas, even believe in such a world and try to fit others into their vision). UFA, then, is not "this" or "that"; it is Gandhi's dream.
UFA is not a product
"Be yourself, choose Pepsi"-individualism today is part of the market offer. UFA asks: is the only version of pluralism we can afford the pluralism of lifestyles sold on the market in a wide range of colors and sizes? And should the choice of a particular lifestyle depend on the effectiveness of marketing strategies? UFA opposes the vision of diversity guaranteed by the free market economy-freedom you can have, provided you can afford it.
It is no less critical of the commodification of difference, that is, using difference to increase sales. Such commodification, predicated on the aestheticization of difference, does guarantee a degree of acceptance in everyday life. According to this rule, one can have a different orientation as long as one looks pretty. In UFA this rule does not apply, and that is what makes it sexy.
UFA is not a piece of pie
UFA is a sensitive ecosystem (and maintaining its equilibrium is all the more difficult because the external conditions change very fast). Keeping this ecosystem alive requires a great deal of responsibility (first and foremost, for implementing collective decisions), transparency (e.g. making sure that every important piece of information is easily available to all members of the collective), remembering not just oneself but others, taking initiative ("if you think you have nothing to do in UFA, this is proof of the reverse"), and resilience, for that is what allows you to be efficient when doing things that do not interest you personally. A survival school of deep democracy.
The problems are not only inside but also outside. All those features of UFA that make it unique-heterogeneity, non-exclusiveness, lack of clear boundaries, ambiguity, and elusiveness-also make it unrecognizable. For a time, it existed as a phantom, recognized by neither feminists, anarchists, nor lesbians and gay men. It was too unstable and unsafe for people from the "communities"-groups organized around at least one shared feature, bound by social and often topographical ties (headed for the same meeting places). UFA has opted out of the key projects organized by the "LGBT movement"-and when it does join, it has more, though not everything, in common with sections of the feminist movement. In addition, it refuses to be trendy; it is difficult to show off and bluff in UFA; one is more likely to get messed up by its crumbling cement floor. That is why UFA will probably not become the center of a community. But many communities orbit around it and cross paths.
UFA is a difficult vision for hard times. It emerged as a tool for social change, for transforming the Polish society into something closer to a real participant democracy without hierarchies, and fostering social responsibility and equality. Birthing a new vision of social bonds is painful. The road it has chosen is rocky but if it does not follow its founding ideals, it will prove that change is harder than we think and then it will cease to exist. This may happen, since failure is calculated into every bold experiment in a hostile environment.
UFA is not a single-track railway
UFA was once aptly compared to an octopus. First, its shape and color continually change, and second, its arms reach out wherever they can. Its aim, the comprehensive change of social relations, can be achieved by giving up the vision of the world built on a single aspect such as gender, sexual orientation, or class. It thus carries out a critique of the system of inequalities under which we live, always trying to keep within sight the entire complex of various types of discrimination that intersect, overlap, and become intertwined with other problems, such as hierarchical power, economic injustice, and the entanglement of power and information in sustaining the relations of normativizing violence.
Encounters with UFA should derail the mind from the straight and narrow track. They should encourage gays and lesbians to reflect on their community's norms: how good and how useful are they? UFA whispers into the ears of animal rights activists that they can also protect themselves against a sexist vision of the world. It offers the elderly women visitors vegetarian and vegan recipes, and tells them about the conditions in which animals live in the meat and milk factories.
UFA is not an idea for changing the world
It is only a method, a kind of practice. An attempt to break down the opposition between theorizing (and thus dissolving the problem through its analysis) and acting (and making the problem concrete, so as to identify with precision and resolve it). This is no social utopia but an effort to initiate real social change.
UFA is not LGBTIAQF...
The name UFA initially meant Unidentified Flying Abject, but this version soon proved inadequate. Other interpretations included: Urząd Feministycznych Atrakcji (Office of Feminst Attractions), Uśrodek Fingowania Atrap (Center of Faking Smokescreens), Uniwersalna Fioletowa Alternatywa (Universal Lavender Alternative), Undergroundowa Fikcja Absolutna (Underground Absolute Fiction), Ustrojstwo ds. Faktów Aktualnieniezidentyfikowanych (Thingamajig for Unidentified Facts), Uniseksualna Formacja Artystyczna (Unisexual Artistic Formation), Uaktywnianie Form Amorficznych (Activation of Amorphic Forms), Ugrupowanie Feministyczno-Anarchistyczne (Feminist-Anarchist Group), Utopijna Frakcja Abstrakcjonistek (Utopian Fraction of Women Abstractionists), and Uwolnij Fantazję (Free Your Fanatasy). But no matter how many names we invent, we won't say everything about UFA. Adding new letters will not solve the problem either: some letters have been present from the start, others are trailing at the end, some are missing. The only way to achieve inclusiveness is to give up name tags and registration plates.
In the so-called LGBT movement it is common to imagine queer as a "sort of better LGBT," in other words, an effort to make over the dated essentialist-ethnic identity politics based on the assumption of an exclusive majority and excluded minority. UFA draws no lines between the "discriminating" and "discriminated" to avoid hostility between groups and individuals who could achieve more by working together. According to UFA, queer is a way to emphasize many kinds of social inequality so as to provoke the reflection that every one of us is both a victim and perpetrator of discrimination, and that all of us suffer as a result. If we think about it, we are all queer, including the elderly woman from Muranów. And this seems to be a good point of departure.
UFA is not an amoeba
It may be as shapeless as an amoeba, but it is much more energetic. Here is an excerpt from the UFA calendar: in the 8 days between February 28 and March 7, 2010, UFA hosted an exhibition titled TranStories
by Magda Malinowska; people painted banners for the Warsaw Manifa (the International Women's Day march); rehearsals were held for Orlando: A Trap?, Barbie Girls Cabaret,
and Opera Buffa
by the Theater of People with Schizophrenia; a photo session took place for the Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V
project; there was a discussion "Why do we need porn?" which involved a confrontation between feminist and nonheteronormative pornography; Queerslam gave a concert; the Great Revolutionary Pre-Manifa Party was held (and was moved to Komuna Warszawa out of respect for the neighbors); the theatrical group Teraz Poliż (Lick Now) gave a performance; participants of the project We, the Women of Muranów
met several times, as did the members of the Warsaw Consumers Cooperative and the initiators of the project She Rocks
designed to encourage girls to make their own music; a series of filmmaking workshops were held called FilmufQa
; LGBT people with hearing impairment met; English classes for women over 50 were continued; the woman-friendly free internet café operated. Of course there was a meeting of the collective. And at the end of the busy day of March 7, everyone marched in the Manifa.
A list of the events that took place in UFA between the fall of 2007 and the spring of 2010 (in English) is posted at:
I thank Agata Chełstowska for her support and collaboration.
I. Filipiak, "Kontrakt albo seks," Ośka Biuletyn 1 (10/2000); B. Umińska, "20 pytań i 100 możliwości, czyli jak to się ma toczyć?" Ośka Biuletyn 2 (11/2000).
This was partly caused by the political situation at the time: it is easier to reach an agreement since the Polish right and the conservative Pole look askance at both formations and treat the terms "feminist" and "lesbian" as synonyms. In addition, Polish feminism is evolving: leaving behind the memory of the Second Wave, it no longer adheres to the practice of concealing or openly cutting itself off from lesbianism. Unlike in France, feminism in Poland draws very young women, particularly students and recent graduates. They often initiate actions in the public space (marches, rallies, pickets). They are ready to combine the struggle against political, economic, and reproductive discrimination against women with the struggle against discrimination on the basis of psychosexual orientation; these postulates do not seem antithetical to them; neither do they see political discrimination as an absolute priority. Many are open about their homosexuality, while their choices about working for the LBTIQ movement or the feminist movement are made on a very individual level. On the other hand, even nonheterosexual women who do not declare feminist sympathies are often disappointed at the stance adopted by some gay activists who give the impression that they have never heard about lesbians, or who simply forget about their existence. Frequently nonheterosexual women who want to change the world find that they have more in common with feminists and anarchofeminists than with gay men.
UFA has a foundation to take care of the dreary paperwork that is inevitable if one wants to romance with the system. The management of the foundation rotates and is subject to the collective.
Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge, p. xix.