Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-857cdc78dc-q6rzt Total loading time: 0.281 Render date: 2022-05-16T06:43:55.738Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true }

Article contents

A Revolution of Love: Thinking through a Dialectic that is Not “One”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Abstract

Luce Irigaray argues that the way to overcome the culture of narcissism in the Western tradition is to recognize sexuate difference and to refigure subjectivity as sexuate. This article is an attempt to unpack how Irigaray's philosophical refiguring of love as an intermediary works in this process of reimagining subjectivity as sexuate. If we trace the moments in Irigaray's philosophy where she engages with Hegel's dialectic, and rethinks this dialectical process via the question of sexual difference and a refiguring of love, a clearer reading of her work as groundbreaking and ultimately refiguring our (Western) ontological structures becomes possible. Consequently, if we do not understand Irigaray's radical reformulation of love, we will miss her larger ontological project and fail to properly appreciate her comments on other types of difference—for example, differences of race, tradition, religion. This article argues that as we begin to appreciate the ways in which Irigaray refigures both love and thought as the intermediary, an intermediary that fundamentally disrupts phallocentric binary logic, we can begin to imagine how refiguring the most intimate human experience of love can lead us toward the realization of an ethical political community in which difference in all forms is nourished.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boulous Walker, Michelle. 1998. Philosophy and the maternal body. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Boulous Walker, Michelle. 2006. An ethics of reading: Adorno, Levinas, and Irigaray. Philosophy Today 50 (2): 223–38.Google Scholar
Boulous Walker, Michelle. 2016. The present of reading: Irigaray's attentive listening. In Slow philosophy: Reading and the institution. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
Byrne, Jean. 2008. Enlightenment between two: Luce Irigaray, sexual difference and nondual oneness. PhD dissertation, University of Queensland.Google Scholar
Cheah, Pheng, and Grosz, Elizabeth. 1998. The future of sexual difference: An interview with Judith Butler and Drucilla Cornell. Diacritics 28 (1): 1942.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Penelope. 1994. “The only diabolical thing about women …” Luce Irigaray on divinity. Hypatia 9 (4): 88111.10.1111/j.1527-2001.1994.tb00651.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth. 2011. Becoming undone. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2000. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist‐feminism in the late twentieth century. In The cybercultures reader, ed. Bell, David and Kennedy, Barbara M.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985. Speculum of the other woman. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993a. An ethics of sexual difference. Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993b. Je, tu, nous. Trans. Alison Martin. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1996. I love to you. Trans. Alison Martin. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2000. Democracy begins between two. Trans. Kirsteen Anderson. London: The Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2002. Between east and west. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2004. Key writings. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jones, Rachel. 2011. Irigaray. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2011. Changing difference. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine, and Ziarek, Ewa. 2012. Negativity, unhappiness or felicity: On Irigaray's dialectical culture of sexual difference. L'Esprit créateur 52 (3): 1125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Simone. 2004. Irigaray's Eastern turn: The Tantra of an ethics of sexual difference. Rhizomes 9. http://www.rhizomes.net/issue9/roberts.htm (accessed September 21, 2016).Google Scholar
Roberts, Laura. 2015. Cultivating difference in Luce Irigaray's Between East and West. In Building a new world, ed. Irigaray, Luce and Marder, Michael. London: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 1994. Mother's body, father's tongue: Mediation and the symbolic order. In Engaging with Irigaray, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 1998. Sexual difference as a model: An ethics for the global future. Diacritics 28 (1): 7692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 2011. Beyond the vertical and the horizontal. In Thinking with Irigaray, ed. Hom, Sabrina L., Rawlinson, Mary C., and Khader, Serene J.Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Secomb, Linnell. 2007. Philosophy and love: From Plato to popular culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Alison. 2006. Luce Irigaray and the philosophy of sexual difference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Switzer, Adrian. 2008. Text as morphological excess: Irigaray's psychoanalytic works. Symptom 9. http://www.lacan.com/symptom/?p=45 (accessed October 3, 2016).Google Scholar
Toye, Margaret. 2012. Donna Haraway's cyborg touching (up/on) Luce Irigaray's ethics and the interval between: Poethics as embodied writing. Hypatia 27 (1): 182200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 2003. Irigaray and the culture of narcissism. Theory, Culture & Society 20 (3): 2741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A Revolution of Love: Thinking through a Dialectic that is Not “One”
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

A Revolution of Love: Thinking through a Dialectic that is Not “One”
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

A Revolution of Love: Thinking through a Dialectic that is Not “One”
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *