Abstract
Sexual difference is structured by a binary system, one of whose terms, almost invariably the masculine one, is always privileged. In The Second Sex,1 Simone de Beauvoir describes this binary system as the duality of Self and Other. Societies, she argues, are organized on the assumption that man is self and woman other, the consequences being always deleterious to women. This conception of alterity is echoed by Shoshana Felman, for example: ‘[t]heoretically subordinated to the concept of masculinity, the woman is viewed by man as his opposite, that is to say, as his other, the negative of the positive, and not, in her own right, different, other, Otherness itself’.2 Woman then tends to be constructed negatively in an androcentric society. She is defined by what she lacks and enters history with a piece missing. Such conception of an incomplete other subordinated to a masculine self is the point of departure of Luce Irigaray’s Spéculum de Vautre femme.3 In her reading of Freud’s lecture on femininity, she points out that, for Freud, sexual difference comes down to the simple fact that the male has an obvious sex organ, not the female. Female difference is then perceived as an absence or the negative of the male norm. Woman is not only the other but man’s other, his negative or mirror-image, man’s specularized other which has meaning only in relation to him. ‘Caught in the specular logic of patriarchy, woman can choose either to remain silent, producing incomprehensible babble (any utterance that falls outside the logic of the same will by definition be incomprehensible to the male master discourse) or to enact the specular representation of herself as a lesser male.’4
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (1949; Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972).
Shoshana Felman, Diacritics (1975), quoted in K. K. Ruthven, Feminist Literary Studies: An Introduction (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), p. 41.
Luce Irigaray, Spéculum de l’autre femme (Paris: Minuit, 1974).
Toril Moi, Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (1985; London: Routledge 1988), p. 135.
Julia Kristeva, Etrangers à nous-mêmes (Paris: Gallimard, 1988), pp. 17–18.
Victor Shklovsky, ‘Art as Technique’ (1917) in Lee T. Lemon and Marion J. Reis (eds), Russian Formalist Criticism: Four Essays (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1965), p. 13.
Coral Ann Howells, Jean Rhys (New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1991), p. 140.
Linda Hutcheon, A Theory of Parody: The Teachings of Twentieth-Century Art Forms (New York: Methuen, 1985), p. 56.
Wayne C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), p. 235.
Analepsis: ‘any evocation after the fact of an event that took place earlier than the point in the story where we are at any given moment’. See Gérard Genette, Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980), p. 40.
Copyright information
© 1998 Sylvie Maurel
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maurel, S. (1998). The Ironic Other. In: Jean Rhys. Women Writers. Palgrave, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27006-4_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-27006-4_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave, London
Print ISBN: 978-0-333-68394-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-27006-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)