Date: Thu, 08 Jun 1995 11:54:02 -0500 (EST)
From: HAAS <HAAS-AT-ithaca.edu>
Subject: Irigaray; Chanter; Essentialism


Hi everyone..  glad to see the discussion on Chanter continuing.. I'm sorry I
dropped out for awhile, I've moved again and I'm feverishly working on two
deadlines.. sigh..

Anyway, I did read the whole Chanter book last week and I think we need to
start/continue this discussion of essentialism, since Chanter uses it as a sort
of key to talk about everything else in her text..

As I understand it, Chanter wants to take the essentialsm debate back through
the grounds of the split between sex/gender.. a discussion in the first
chapters that was very helpful to me..  That what we do when we seek equality
(following Beauvoir).. as Irigaray says, exacts a high price.. beinglike a
man.. and that can only take us so far.. because we are, in fact, different,
and as LI says, require different laws, symbols, etc.. if we are ever to have
our own voice..  So then Irigaray concentrates on the "sex" part of that
sex/gender split.. or doesn't split them..  and it's not that she is not for
fighting for equal pay, etc.. but her project is geared toward the sexual
difference of woman and hdow that has been elided from philosohy's discourse..
and as Chanter suggests.. with the emhasis on gender.. has also been elided
from much feminist discourse..

The charge of essentialism comes, it seems to me, from LI's concentration on
sex.. on sexual difference.. and we need to discuss this point thoroughly
because if we don't understand the stakes of sexual difference, we are destined
to mis/read Irigaray.  I sorta feel like Spivak, who advises we should stop
"chatting about essentialism" and move on..  becuase the hunting down and
shooting down of "essentialists" doesn't seem like a very productive project..
but Chanter's point is that essentialism has been the way to attack LI and
thereby keep sex.. sexual difference.. out of the debate, allowing gender to be
the primary discussion.  An interesting point..

What Chanter suggests is that "sex" is perhaps not as "essentializing" as some
charge it to be (and, for instance, I think Judith Butler has gone a long way
towards questioning that one).. and certainly in Irigaray's hands, sexual
difference.. and woman.. is not treated as monolithic.  

These are random thoughts to keep the discussion going, sorry if they're not
very sensical..  what do the rest of you think..  even if you haven't read
Chanter, there's *a lot* of literature out there about essentialism and LI.. 
let's bat this around for awhile..

As far as scheduling goes, what I suggested is we spend at least three weeks on
each chapter.. but if we end up needing to spend more on any one place, I
think we should.  A few weeks ago, I posted all the meta-texts about Irigaray
and essentialism..  if you can't get Chanter, perhaps you could read some of
those.. let me know if I need to repost the bib.

Lynda Haas

P.S. I have some coments on the Piano discussion too, which I'll save for next
time.

_____________________________________________________________________________
Lynda Haas     					"What a surprise...
Writing Program                                   my will chose life"
Ithaca College                                     --Ada (The Piano)
haas-AT-ithaca.edu



     ------------------