This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
For example, E. Grosz, “A Thousand Tiny Sexes: Feminism and Rhizomatics”, inGilles Deleuze and the Theatre of Philosophy, ed. C.V. Boundas and D. Olkowski (London: Routledge, 1994), 187–210; R. Bradotti,Towards a New Nomadism, ibid., at 159–186; R. Bradotti,Patterns of Dissonance (Cambridge: Polity, 1991); R. Bradotti,Nomadic Subjects (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994); E. Grosz,Volatile Bodies (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana Press, 1994); E. Grosz,Space, Time and Perversion (London: Routledge, 1995).
I. Irigaray,This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1985), 140.
Irigaray is less ambiguous: “I prefer to speak, in the plural, of women’s liberation movements”,supra n.2; “It is, of course, indispensable for women to conduct a molar politics ... But it is dangerous to confine oneself to such a subject ... ”, G. Deleuze and F. Guattari,A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia (London: Athlone Press, 1992), 276.
L. Irigaray,An Ethics of Sexual Difference (London: The Athlone Press, 1993), 5.
E. Grosz,Sexual Subversions (Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1991).
M. Whitford,Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine (London: Routledge, 1991). She indicates that she uses the term “polis” without literal referent because that from which women are excluded obviously varies.
P. Patton, “Gilles Deleuze 1925–1995”,Radical Philosophy 76 (March/April 1996), 2.
G. Deleuze and M. Foucault, “Intellectuals and Power”, in M. Foucault,Language, Counter-Memory, Practice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1977), 205–217.
M. Hardt,Gilles Deleuze: An Apprenticeship in Philosophy (London: UCL Press Ltd., 1993), 76. The argument, from Spinoza, that the intellect cannot be given priority over the body is important in the consideration of sex/gender and will be discussed further.
Seesupra n.1; for a less sympathetic treatment, see A.A. Jardine,Gynesis: Configurations of Woman and Modernity (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
G. Deleuze and C. Parnet,Dialogues (London: Athlone Press, 1987), 16.
G. Deleuze,Negotiations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1995), 136.
Supra n.11, at 17.
For the links between these positions in the wake of the events of May 1968, see S. Plant,The Most Radical Gesture: The Situationalist International in a Postmodern Age (London: Routledge, 1992).
Supra n.11, at 13.
L. Irigaray,Speculum of the Other Woman (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985).
C. Battersby,Gender and Genius: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics (London: The Woman’s Press, 1989).
Ibid., at 211.
Ibid., at 210.
B. Massumi,A User’s Guide to Capitalism and Schizophrenia (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT, 1993), 90.
Supra n.3, at 68.
M. Foucault,History of Sexuality: Vol 1 (London: Penguin, 1978).
Supra n.21, at 5; also for discussion on concepts, see G. Deleuze and F. Guattari,What is Philosophy? (London: Verso, 1995), ch.2.
Elizabeth Grosz makes this point with respect to Deleuze: E. Grosz,A Thousand Tiny Sexes, supra n.1, at 193; she states, “Deleuze and Guattari’s understanding of micropolitics, their affirmation of localised concrete nonrepresentative struggles, struggles without leaders, without hierarchical organisations, without clear cut program or blue print for social change, without definitive goals and ends, confirms, and indeed borrows from already existing forms of feminist struggle even if it rarely acknowledges this connection.”
Supra n.12, at 184.
C. Battersby, “Just Jamming: Irigaray, painting and psychoanalysis”, in K. Deepwell,New Feminist Art Criticism (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1995), 128–137.
M. Gatens,Imaginary Bodies: Ethics, Power and Corporeality (London: Routledge, 1996).
M. Le Doeuff,Hipparchia’s Choice: An essay concerning women, philosophy etc. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).
Supra n.6, at 102.
Ibid.
T. Chanter,Ethics of Eros: Irigaray’s Writing of the Philosophers (London: Routledge, 1995), 8.
M. Le Doeuff,L’Etude et le rouet (Paris: Seuil, 1989) in M. Whitford,Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine (London: Routledge, 1991).
Supra n.6.
Ibid., at 12.
Ibid., at 21.
Ibid., at 213.
G. Deleuze,Spinoza: Practical Philosophy (San Francisco: City Light Books, 1988).
Supra n.9.
Supra n.12, at 140.
Supra n.9.
Grosz,supra n.1.
Supra n.38, at 17–18.
Supra n.9, at 57.
Supra n.28, at 133.
Supra n.38, at 17.
Spinoza,Ethics III, 2, (and II,13, schol.), supra n.38,( at 18.
Ibid. at 18.
Ibid., at 21.
Ibid., at 22.
Ibid., at 97.
Ibid., at 25.
Ibid., at 123. He returns to this theme:supra n.3, at 253. This prefigures a number of themes in “1730 Becoming-Intense, Becoming-Animal, Becoming-Imperceptible”, such as the reference to girls in terms of speeds and slowness (at 271); becoming-music (at 299).
Supra n.38, at 124.
Ibid., at 125.
Supra n.12, at 7.
A.P. Colombat, “A Thousand Trails to Work with Deleuze”,Substance 66 (1991), 10–20.
G. Deleuze and F. Guattari,Mille Plateaux (Paris: Les Editions de Minut, 1980), 189, citedsupra n.57.
Supra n.57.
Ibid., at 12.
R. Bogue,Deleuze and Guattari (London: Routledge, 1989), 90.
Supra n.2, at 141.
A. Cavarero,In Spite of Plato: A Feminist Rewriting of Ancient Philosophy (Cambridge: Polity, 1995).
For concerns that, with reproductive technology, women are moving from a feudal state to post-industrialisation without gaining subjectivity, see R. Bradotti,Nomadic Subjects, supran.1.
Supra n.11, at 2.
Ibid.
Jardine,supra n.10.“
Supra n.1.
R. Bradotti, “Discontinuous Becomings”, in R. Bradotti,Nomadic Subjects, supra n.1, at 111–123.
R. Bradotti, “Gilles Deleuze 1925–1995”,Radical Philosophy 76 (March/April 1996), 3–5.
Supra n.21, at 86.
Ibid., at 87. Deleuze and Guattari do not believe that there can be a “becoming-man” because the masculine is viewed as a molar category; both men and women must go through a becoming-woman.
J. Butler,Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge, 1990); J. Butler,Bodies that Matter (London: Routledge, 1993). Butler is more subtle in her analysis of sex, gender and sexuality and the relationship between feminist and queer theory.
Supra n.28, at 149.
Supra n.38, at 126.
N. Hartsock, “Foucault on Power”, inFeminism/Postmodernism, ed. L. Nicholson (London: Routledge, 1990), 166. I am appropriating an expression used to describe Foucault’s position which was originally from A. Memmi,The Colonizer and the Colonized (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967).
L. Irigaray, “The Envelope: A Reading of Spinoza, Ethics, ‘Of God’”,supra n.4.
Grosz,Volatile Bodies, supra n.1.
Supra n.28.
Ibid., at 97.
Ibid. Cavarero also explores this fantasy in her reworking of some of the central character of Greek myths. Acknowledging her debt to Irigaray, she emphasises the link between this male fantasy of auto-genesis and philosopher’s emphasis on death,supra n.63.
Supra n.28, at 49.
For a critique of false consciousness being a parody of more subtle Marxist concepts of ideology, see T. Eagleton,Ideologies (London: Verso, 1991).
Challenging the “naturalisation” of rape, Marcus argues that, “Masculine power and feminine powerlessness neither simply precede nor cause rape; rather rape is one of culture’s many ways of feminising women ... To take male violence or female vulnerability as the first and last instances in any explanation of rape is to make the identities of rapist and raped preexist the rape itself.” S. Marcus, “Fighting bodies, fighting words”, in J. Butler and J. Scott,Feminists Theorize the Political (London: Routledge, 1992), 391.
supra n.28, at 79.
W. Brown,States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Chichester: Princeton, 1995), 187.
C. Tilly, “War making and state making as organised crime”, in P. Evanset. al., eds.,Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); N.O. Brown,Love’s body (Wesleyan: Wesleyan University Press, 1957); both cited in W. Brown,States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity (Chichester: Princeton, 1995).
C. Battersby, “Music and repetition” (unpublished paper presented at University of Warwick, 1996).
Supra n.38, at iii.
Supra n.28.
L. Irigaray, “Women, The Sacred, Money”, in L. Irigaray,Sexes and Genealogies (New York; Columbia University Press, 1993), 75.
Supra n.63.
A. Lingis, “The Society of Dismembered Body Parts”, inDeleuze and the Transcendental Unconscious, ed. J. Broadhurst (Pli: Warwick Journal of Philosophy, 1992), 5 and 6.
Ibid. (emphasis added).
Brown,supra n.87, at 189; for a similar analysis of the hidden sexual contract within the work of the social contract theorists: C. Pateman,The Sexual Contract (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988).
L. Irigaray, “Commodities among Themselves”, in Irigaray,supran.62, at 196.
M. Whitford,Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine (London: Routledge, 1991), 190.
G. Deleuze, “He Stuttered”, in Boundas and Olkowski,supra n.1.
M. Jay,Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century French Thought (California: University of California Press, 1993), 529.
Supra n.88.
For discussions of this whole debate, see N. Schor, “The Essentialism which is not one: coming to grips with Irigaray”, inEngaging with Irigaray, ed. C. Burke, N. Schor and M. Whitford (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994), 57–78;supra n.32, at ch.1.
Supra n.6, at 101.
Ibid.
G. Deleuze, “Letter to a harsh critic”, insupra n.12, at 6: “I saw myself as taking an author from behind and giving him a child that would be his own offspring, yet monstrous.”
Supra n.99, at 537.
Deleuze and Guattari,supra n.3, at 276.
R. Bradotti, “Of Bugs and Women: Irigaray and Deleuze on the becoming-woman”, in Burke, Schor and Whitford,supra n.101,( at 117.
Supra n.87.
She also turns the tables on Nietzsche, showing hisressentiment against women, because of the pain he feels in being incapable of auto-genesis. For discussion of L. Irigaray,Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzche (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), see F. Oppel, “Speaking of Immemorial Waters: Irigaray with Nietzsche”, inNietzsche, Feminism and Political Theory, ed. P. Patton (London: Routledge, 1993), 88–109.
“I have no intention of proceeding here with some reversal of the pedagogic relation, in which, possessing the truth about women, or a theory about women, I might sit before you and answer for woman.” (120); “To claim the feminine can be expressed in the form of a concept is to allow oneself to be caught up again in a system of masculine representations, in which women are trapped in a system of meaning which serves the auto-affection of the (masculine) subject.” (122),supra n.2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Richardson, J. Jamming the machines: “Woman” in the work of irigaray and deleuze. Law Critique 9, 89–115 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699909
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02699909