Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:18:49.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Examination of Irigaray's Commitment to Transcendental Phenomenology in The Forgetting of Air and The Way of Love

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 March 2020

Anne Van Leeuwen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although sexual difference is widely regarded as the concept that lies at the center of Luce Irigaray's thought, its meaning and significance is highly contested. This dissensus, however, attests to more than merely the existence of a recalcitrant conceptual ambiguity. That is, Irigaray's discussion of sexual difference remains fraught not because she leaves this concept undefined but because the centrality of sexual difference in fact marks a complex and unstable nexus of phenomena that shift throughout her work. Consequently, if Irigaray is indeed the preeminent thinker of sexual difference, this is not in virtue of her recurrent appeal to a monolithic, readily digestible concept but rather somehow despite the absence of precisely this gesture. In this paper, I will attempt to elucidate the peculiar preeminence of sexual difference in Irigaray's work by identifying her persistent, though largely unexamined, commitment to transcendental phenomenology. Indeed, I attempt to show that the complex of phenomena of sexual difference emerges in L'oubli de l'air and The Way of Love as a modulation of Heidegger's own revision of transcendental phenomenology. In this sense, the peculiar preeminence of sexual difference does not mark the centrality of a concept but Irigaray's amplification of this Heideggerian gesture.

Type
Found Cluster on Luce Irigaray
Information
Hypatia , Volume 28 , Issue 3 , Summer 2013 , pp. 452 - 468
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 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

Bernet, Rudolf. 1990. Husserl and Heidegger on intentionality and being. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 21 (2): 136–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernet, Rudolf, Kern, Iso, and Marbach, Eduard. 1993. An introduction to Husserlian phenomenology. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Chanter, Tina. 1995. Ethics of eros. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Colebrook, Claire. 2000. Is sexual difference a problem? In Deleuze and feminist theory, ed. Buchanan, Ian and Colebrook, Claire. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Critchley, Simon. 2008. Heidegger for beginners. In On Heidegger's being and time, ed. Levine, Steve. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dastur, Françoise. 1998. Heidegger and the question of time. Trans. Nicholson, Graeme. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books.Google Scholar
Dastur, Françoise. 2000. Phenomenology of the event: Waiting and surprise. Hypatia 15 (4): 178–89.Google Scholar
Fielding, Helen. 2003. Questioning nature: Irigaray, Heidegger and the potentiality of matter. Continental Philosophy Review 36 (1): 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1972. On time and being. Trans. Stambaugh, Joan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 2002. Identity and difference. Trans. Stambaugh, Joan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 2007. Das ende der philosophie und die aufgabe des denkens. In Gesamtausgabe band 14: Zur Sache des Denkens, ed. von Herrman, Friedrich‐Wilhelm. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.Google Scholar
Hodge, Joanna. 1994. Irigaray reading Heidegger. In Engaging with Irigaray, ed Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1965. Philosophy as rigorous science. In Phenomenology and the crisis of philosophy, ed. Lauer, Quentin. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1983. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. First book. Trans. Kersten, Fred. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1989. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy. Second book. Trans. Rojcewicz, R. and Schuwer, A.Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1990. The idea of phenomenology. Trans. Alston, William P. and Nakhnikian, George. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1983. L'oubli de l'air. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1999. The forgetting of air. Trans. Beth Mader, Mary. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2002. The way of love. Trans. Bostic, Heidi and Pluhácek, Stephen. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Kisiel, Theodore. 1985. On the way to Being and Time. Research in Phenomenology 15: 193–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moi, Toril. 1985. Sexual/textual politics: Feminist literary theory. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mortensen, Ellen. 2003. Touching thought: Ontology and sexual difference. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Murphy, Ann. 2001. The enigma of the natural in Luce Irigaray. Philosophy Today 45 (5): 75–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbock, Anthony J. 1995. Home and beyond: Generative phenomenology after Husserl. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Alison. 2006. Luce Irigaray and the philosophy of sexual difference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taminiaux, Jacques. 1985. Dialectic and difference. Trans. Crease, Robert and Decker, James T.Atlantic Highlands, N.J.: Humanities Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ziarek, Krzysztof. 2000. Proximities: Irigaray and Heidegger on difference. Continental Philosophy Review 33 (2): 133–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar