Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:12:30.739Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sex of Nature: A Reinterpretation of Irigaray's Metaphysics and Political Thought

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Alison Stone
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I argue that Irigaray's recent work develops a theoretically cogent and politically radical form of realist essentialism. I suggest that she identifies sexual difference with a fundamental difference between the rhythms of percipient fluids constituting women's and men's bodies, supporting this with a philosophy of nature that she justifies phenomenologically and ethically. I explore the politics higaray derives from this philosophy, which affirms the sexes’ rights to realize the possibilities of their rhythmically diverse bodies.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 18 , Issue 3: Special Issue: Women, Art, and Aesthetics , Fall 2003 , pp. 60 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 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

Aristotle, . 1976. Ethics. Trans. Thomson, J. A. K. and Tredennick, Hugh. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender trouble: feminism and the subversion of identity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies that matter: On the discursive limits of “sex”. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chanter, Tina. 1995. Ethics of eros: Irigaray's rewriting of the philosophers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cheah, Pheng, and Grosz, Elizabeth. 1998. Of being‐two: Introduction. In Irigaray and the political future of sexual difference, ed. Cheah, Pheng and Grosz, Elizabeth. Special issue of Diacritics 28(1): 3–18.Google Scholar
De Beauvoir, Simone. 1997. The second sex. ed. and trans. Parshley, H. M.London: Vintage.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Penelope. 1997. French feminist philosophers on law and public policy: Michele le Doeuff and Luce Irigaray. Australian Journal of French Studies 34(1): 24–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gatens, Moira. 1996. A critique of the sex/gender distinction. In Imaginary bodies: Ethics, power and corporeality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Haslanger, Sally. 2000. Feminism in metaphysics: Negotiating the natural. In The Cambridge companion to feminism in philosophy, ed. Fricker, Miranda and Hornsby, Jennifer. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hass, Marjorie. 2000. The style of the speaking subject: Irigaray's empirical studies of language production. Hypatia 15(1): 64–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hayles, N. Katherine. 1992. Gender encoding in fluid mechanics: Masculine channels and feminine flows, differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 4(2): 16–44.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1970. Philosophy of nature. 3 vols. ed. and trans. Petry, M. J.London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1971. Philosophy of mind. Trans. Wallace, William and Miller, A. V.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1975. Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art. 2 vols. Trans. Knox, T. M.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. Phenomenology of Spirit. Trans. Miller, A. V.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1967. Being and time. Trans. Macquarrie, John and Robinson, Edward. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hirsh, Elizabeth, and Olson, Gary A. 1995. “Je‐Luce Irigaray”: A meeting with Luce Irigaray. Hypatia 10(2): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodge, Joanna. 1994. Irigaray reading Heidegger. In Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern European thought, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985a. Speculum of the other woman. Trans. Gill, Gillian C.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985b. This sex which is not one. Trans. Porter, Catherine. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1989. Is the subject of science sexed? Trans. Carol Mastrangelo Bové. In Feminism and science, ed. Tuana, Nancy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993a. An ethics of sexual difference. Trans. Burke, Carolyn and Gill, Gillian C.London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993b. Je, tu, nous: Toward a culture of difference. Trans. Martin, Alison. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993c. Sexes and genealogies. Translated by Gill, Gillian C.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1994. Thinking the difference: For a peaceful revolution. Trans. Montin, Karin. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1996. I love to you: Sketch of a possible felicity in history. Trans. Martin, Alison. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1999. The forgetting of air in Martin Heidegger. Trans. Mader, Mary Beth. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2000a. Democracy begins between two. Trans. Anderson, Kirsteen. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2000b. To be two. Trans. Rhodes, Monique M. and Cocito‐Monoc, Marco F.London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2000c. Why different? A culture of two subjects: Interviews with Luce Irigaray. ed. Lotringer, Sylveré. Trans. Collins, Camille. New York: Semiotext(e).Google Scholar
James, Susan. 1992. The good‐enough citizen: Citizenship and independence. In Beyond equality and difference: Citizenship, feminist politics and female subjectivity, ed. Bock, Gisela and James, Susan. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1929. Critique of pure reason. Trans. Smith, Norman Kemp. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1975. Early writings. Trans. Livingstone, Rodney and Benton, Gregor. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
McDowell, John. 1996. Mind and world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moi, Toril. 1994. Simone de Beauvoir: The making of an intellectual woman. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1990. Beyond good and evil. Trans. Hollingdale, R. J.Harmond‐sworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Sandford, Stella. 2001. Feminism against “the feminine.” Radical Philosophy 105(Jan/Feb): 6–14.Google Scholar
Schor, Naomi. 1994. This essentialism which is not one: Coming to grips with Irigaray. In Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern European thought, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Schutte, Ofelia. 1997. A critique of normative heterosexuality: Identity, embodiment, and sexual difference in Beauvoir and Irigaray. Hypatia 12(1): 40–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwab, Gail. 1998. Sexual difference as model: An ethics for the global future. In Irigaray and the political future of sexual difference, ed. Cheah, Pheng and Grosz, Elizabeth. Special issue of Diacritics 28(1): 76–92.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1992. Inequality reexamined. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Spinoza, Benedict. 2000. Ethics. ed. and trans. Parkinson, G. H. R.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Alison. 1999. Hegel's theory of natural sexual relationships. In Hegel and feminism, ed. Sandford, Stella and Stone, Alison. Special issue of Women's Philosophy Review 22(autumn): 35–57.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. London: Rout‐ledge.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1994. Reading Irigaray in the nineties. In Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern European thought, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. Columbia: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar