Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T02:52:18.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Donna Haraway's Cyborg Touching (Up/On) Luce Irigaray's Ethics and the Interval Between: Poethics as Embodied Writing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Margaret E. Toye
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, I argue that Donna Haraway's figure of the cyborg needs to be reassessed and extricated from the many misunderstandings that surround it. First, I suggest that we consider her cyborg as an ethical concept. I propose that her cyborg can be productively placed within the ethical framework developed by Luce Irigaray, especially in relationship to her concept of the “interval between.” Second, I consider how Haraway's “cyborg writing” can be understood as embodied ethical writing, that is, as a contemporary écriture feminine. I believe that this cyborgian “writing the body” offers us a way of both creating and understanding texts that think through ethics, bodies, aesthetics, and politics together as part of a vital and relevant contemporary feminist ethics of embodiment. I employ the term “poethics” as a useful way to describe such a practice.

Type
Open Issue Content
Information
Hypatia , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , Winter 2012 , pp. 182 - 200
Copyright
Copyright © 2012 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

Balsamo, Anne. 1999. Reading cyborgs, writing feminism. In Cybersexualities, ed. Wolmark, Jenny. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Bartkowski, Frances. 1989. Feminist utopias. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Betcher, Sharon. 2001. Putting my foot (prosthesis, crutches, phantom) down: Considering technology as transcendence in the writings of Donna Haraway. Women's Studies Quarterly 29(3/4): 35–53.Google Scholar
Bolt, Barbara. 2007. Material thinking and the agency of matter. Studies in Material Thinking 1(1): 1–4.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Nomadic subjects. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 2002. Metamorphoses. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Carolyn. 1994. Translation modified: Irigaray in English. In Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern european thought, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Cheah, Peng, and Elizabeth, Grosz. 1998. The future of sexual difference: An interview with Judith Butler and Drucilla Cornell. diacritics 28(1): 19–42.Google Scholar
Cornell, Drucilla. 1992. The philosophy of the limit. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Daniels, Jessie. 2009. Rethinking cyberfeminism(s): Race, gender, and embodiment. Women's Studies Quarterly 37(1/2): 101–24.Google Scholar
Davis, Kathy. 2007. Reclaiming women's bodies: Colonialist trope or critical epistemology? Sociological Review 55(1): 50–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deutscher, Penelope. 2002. The politics of impossible difference. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Fielding, Helen. 2003. Questioning nature: Irigaray, Heidegger, and the potentiality of matter. Continental Philosophy Review 36(1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gray, Chris. 1997. The ethics and politics of cyborg embodiment: Citizenship as a hypervalue. Journal for Cultural Research 1(2): 252–8.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991a. A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology, and socialist‐feminism in the late twentieth century. Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge. 149–81.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1991b. Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Simians, cyborgs, and women. New York: Routledge. 183–201.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1997. Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_OncoMouseTM. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 1998. How like a leaf. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2000. Birth of the kennel. Paper presented at the European Graduate School, Media & Communications Graduate and Post‐Graduate Studies, Saas‐Fee, Switzerland. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/haraway/haraway-birth-of-the-kennel-2000.html (accessed January 10, 2011).Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2003a. Companion species manifesto. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2003b. Interview with Donna Haraway. In Chasing technoscience, ed. Ihde, Don and Selinger, Evan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Haraway, Donna. 2008. When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hayles, N. Katherine. 2006. Unfinished work: From cyborg to cognisphere. Theory, Culture, and Society 23(7–8): 159–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh, E. and Olson, G.A. 1995. ‘Je—Luce Irigaray’: A meeting with Luce Irigaray. Hypatia 10: 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This sex which is not one. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993. An ethics of sexual difference. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1995. ‘Je—Luce Irigaray’: A meeting with Luce Irigaray. Hypatia 10(2): 93–114.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2000. To be two. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joy, Morny. 2006. Divine love. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1991. Strangers to ourselves. Trans. Leon S. Roudiez. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Miller, Elaine P., and Cimitile, Maria C. 2007. Introduction. In Returning to Irigaray, ed. Cimitile, Maria C. and Miller, Elaine P.Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Sandoval, Chela. 1999. New sciences: Cyborg feminism and the methodology of the oppressed. In Cybersexualities, ed. Wolmark, Jenny. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Schueller, Malini Johar. 2005. Analogy and (white) feminist theory: Thinking race and the color of the cyborg body. Signs 31(1): 63–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 2007. Reading Irigaray (and her readers) in the twenty‐first century. In Returning to Irigaray, ed. Cimitile, Maria C. and Miller, Elaine P.Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 1991. Irigarayan Dialogism: Play and Powerplay. In Feminism, Bakhtin and the Dialogic, ed. Bauer, Dale M. and McKinstry, Susan Jaret. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Rhonda. 2003. “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” technology, and questions of ethics. Australian Feminist Studies 18(40): 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shields, Rob. 2006. Flânerie for cyborgs. Theory, Culture, and Society 23(7/8): 209–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Alison. 2006. Luce Irigaray and the philosophy of sexual difference. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toye, Margaret. 1999. Care of the self or care of the other: Towards a poststructuralist ethics of pedagogy. In Critical ethics: Text, theory, and responsibility, ed. Rainsford, Dominic and Wood, Tim. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Toye, Margaret. 2010. Towards a “Poethics of love: Poststructuralist ethics and literary creation. Feminist Theory 11.1 (April 2010): 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ziarek, Ewa. 1998. Toward a radical female imaginary: Temporality and embodiment in Irigaray's ethics. diacritics 28(1): 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziarek, Krzysztof. 2000. Proximities: Irigaray and Heidegger on difference. Continental Philosophy Review 33(2): 133–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziarek, Krzysztof. 2007. A new economy of relations. In Returning to Irigaray, ed. Cimitile, Maria C. and Miller, Elaine P.Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar