Paul Ricoeur and Judith Butler are towering figures in contemporary thought, each offering a powerful account of how human beings understand themselves. Ricoeur develops the concept of narrative identity, where the self achieves coherence through storytelling. Butler, in contrast, advances the theory of performativity, where identity—especially gender—is not a stable essence but the repeated effect of discursive acts. Comparing their views exposes the tension between continuity and disruption, coherence and fluidity, in theories of selfhood.
Ricoeur: Narrative Identity as Continuity Through Time
For Ricoeur, articulated in Time and Narrative and Oneself as Another, identity is configured through narrative. Human beings are temporal, and we make sense of our lives by emplotting events into stories. This produces:
-
Sameness (idem) – the enduring traits and patterns of identity.
-
Selfhood (ipse) – the capacity for change, promise, and responsibility.
Narrative identity mediates these poles, offering a sense of self that is both continuous and open. Crucially, this identity carries an ethical dimension: stories help us assume responsibility and orient ourselves toward “the good life, with and for others, in just institutions.”
Butler: Identity as Performativity
Butler, most famously in Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies That Matter (1993), rejects the notion of identity as a coherent narrative. Instead, she argues that identity is performative: it is constituted by repeated acts, gestures, and discourses. Gender identity, for instance, is not a fixed essence but an iterative performance regulated by social norms.
Performativity destabilizes the idea of a unified self. What we call “identity” is always provisional, contingent, and vulnerable to disruption. Rather than aiming for continuity, Butler foregrounds instability and resistance, exposing how norms construct subjects while leaving space for subversion.
Convergence: Language, Power, and Selfhood
Despite their differences, Ricoeur and Butler intersect in important ways:
-
Mediation through language: Both see the self as shaped by discourse—Ricoeur through narrative configuration, Butler through discursive performativity.
-
Non-essentialism: Neither views identity as a natural or pre-given essence.
-
Ethical and political stakes: Ricoeur links narrative to justice; Butler links performativity to critique and emancipation from oppressive norms.
Contrast: Coherence vs. Disruption
The differences are sharp:
-
Continuity vs. Instability: Ricoeur emphasizes the coherence of narrative identity across time, while Butler highlights its fragility and constructed nature.
-
Ethical Aim vs. Deconstructive Critique: Ricoeur seeks ethical orientation in narrative unity; Butler resists normative closure, exposing how identities are produced and policed.
-
Narrative Horizon vs. Discursive Iteration: Ricoeur situates the self in the horizon of storytelling; Butler situates it in the iterative repetition of norms.
Why the Comparison Matters
This dialogue between Ricoeur and Butler captures a crucial tension in contemporary thought:
-
Do we need narrative continuity to live responsibly and ethically, as Ricoeur suggests?
-
Or must we resist the illusion of coherence, recognizing identity as a site of contestation and performance, as Butler argues?
In today’s debates about gender, politics, and digital selfhood, both perspectives remain indispensable. Ricoeur highlights the ethical need for self-constancy, while Butler reminds us of the dangers of treating identity as fixed.
Between Story and Performance
Ricoeur and Butler illuminate complementary truths: identity is both narrated and performed, both ethically oriented and socially constructed, both continuous and unstable. Taken together, their theories invite us to embrace the complexity of selfhood—where narrative and performance intersect in the ongoing work of becoming who we are.
