Advertisement

The Logos of Life and Sexual Difference

Irigaray and Tymieniecka
  • Agnes B. Curry
Part of the Analecta Husserliana book series (ANHU, volume 89)

Keywords

Sexual Difference Feminist Philosophy Inte Llectual Endeavor Individua Lity Line Archive 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, Analecta Husserliana, Volume LXX: Impetus and Equipoise in the Life-Strategies of Reason: Logos and Life, Book 4 (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000). Hereafter most citations in text as LL followed by page number.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    This formulation is in response to a clarification made by Irigaray in an interview. See Elizabeth Hirsh and Gary A. Olson, “Je Luce Irigaray: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray,” Elizabeth Hirsh and Gaetan Brulotte (trans.), JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 16.3 (1006), accessed via JAC Online, http://www.cas.usf.edu/JAC/163/irigaray.htmlGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    At the start of an interview for a literary theory journal, Irigaray attempts to reframe the whole process by making the following prefatory remarks: “Before going to the questions I want to make a comment useful for you and, I think for many American readers and especially for many feminist readers, male and female, worldwide. I think that in the United States my books are read mainly in literature departments. But they are philosophical books and I think that there is a great deal of misunderstanding about them because the heart of my argument is philosophical, and literary scholars are not always prepared to understand this philosophical core. Along these lines, I want to say that the questions you pose are tied to your literary training and that the audience, moreover, is literary. These are questions that speak only to certain aspects of my work.” “Je Luce Irigaray: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray,” Elizabeth Hirsh and Gaetan Brulotte (trans.), JAC: A Journal of Composition Theory, 16.3, 1996, online archives, http://www.cas.usf.edu/JAC/163/irigaray.htmlGoogle Scholar
  4. 6.
    Luce Irigaray, “The Civilization of Two,” Why Different?: A Culture of Two Subjects, Luce Irigaray and Sylvére Lotringer (ed.), Camille Collins (trans.) (New York/Boston: Seniotext(e), 2000), p. 71.Google Scholar
  5. 7.
    Alison Stone, “The sex of nature: a reinterpretation of Irigaray’s metaphysics and political thought. (Luce Irigaray’s concept of essentialism),” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 18:3 (2003), pp. 60–84. Accessed on HighBeam Research.Google Scholar
  6. 8.
    Cecelia Sjöholm, “Crossing Lovers: Luce Irigaray’s Elemental Passions,” Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy, 15(3) (Summer 2002): 93–94.Google Scholar
  7. 9.
    Luce Irigaray, I Love To You: Sketches for a Felicity Within History, Alison Martin (trans.) (New York: Routledge, 1996), p. 47.Google Scholar
  8. 10.
    Elizabeth Hirsh and Gary A. Olson, ““Je Luce Irigaray”: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray,” Elizabeth Hirsh and Gaetan Brulotte (trans.), JAC Online 16.3 (1996), http://www.cas.usf.edu/JAC/163/irigaray.htmlGoogle Scholar
  9. 11.
    Stone, op. cit.Google Scholar
  10. 12.
    Luce Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, Gillian C. Gill (trans.) (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993), p. 108.Google Scholar
  11. 13.
    Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, p. 108. The continuation of the discussion cancels out the qualifier: “Winter does not destroy summer, it allows the sap to flow down into the earth and take new root. Can we imagine the sap remaining eternally fecund at the top of the tree? This is not sure. Nature tells us the opposite. But, apparently, men have forgotten this lesson.”Google Scholar
  12. 14.
    Luce Irigaray, Democracy Begins Between Two, Kirsteen Anderson (trans.) (London: Althone Press, 2000), pp. 111–112, cited in Stone.Google Scholar
  13. 16.
    Luce Irigaray, I Love To You: Sketch for a Felicity Within History, p. 11.Google Scholar
  14. 17.
    Luce Irigaray, “The Civilization of Two,” Why Different?: A Culture of Two Subjects, Luce Irigaray and Sylvére Lotringer (ed.), Camille Collins (trans.) (New York/Boston: Semiotext(e), 2000), p. 72.Google Scholar
  15. 18.
    For Irigaray’s ethics, the sexually different couple is the paradigm of community. It is in the couple that “sensible desire must become potentially universal culture, where the gender of the man and of the woman may become the model of male human kind or of female human kind while keeping to the singular task of being this man and this woman. In realizing the transition from nature to culture, from the singular to the universal, from sexual attraction to actualizing gender, the couple formed by the man and the woman ensures the salvation of the community and of nature, both together. It is not merely their pleasure which is at stake but the order of the becoming spirit of the entire community and the conservation of nature as macro-and microcosm, as human species and gender.” I Love To You, p. 28. As such, no level of human beingness can be understood as simply natural; “the order of cultural identity, not only natural identity, must exist within the couple, the family, the State.” I Love To You, p. 23.Google Scholar
  16. 19.
    Luce Irigaray, “Different From You/Different Between Us,” Why Different?: A Culture of Two Subjects, p. 86.Google Scholar
  17. 20.
    Irigaray, I Love To You, p. 11.Google Scholar
  18. 21.
    Luce Irigaray, Why Different? A Culture of Two Subjects, p. 58.Google Scholar
  19. 25.
    Luce Irigaray, I Love To You, p. 8.Google Scholar
  20. 26.
    Ibid., p. 10.Google Scholar
  21. 27.
    Ibid., p. 30.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Agnes B. Curry
    • 1
  1. 1.Saint Joseph CollegeWest Hartford

Personalised recommendations