Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 09:48:09 -0700 (PDT) From: J Poxon <poxon-AT-saclink.csus.edu> Subject: Re: Irigaray on the couple On Thu, 13 Feb 1997, Phyllis Kaminski wrote: > I'm working on a on feminist theology paper on the body--using > Irigaray--and I have just > finished reading I love to you--My question concerns Irigaray's use of > the saving love of the couple--is she falling back to a heterosexist norm > for the couple--or is there still an opening for same sex love-- Phyllis, How are you? You might want to take a look into the list archives, from sometime during the 95/96 academic year (sorry I can't be more specific, but it's been long enough that I just don't remember exactly when it was): We kicked this question around for a while then, with people expressing a whole range of views on the issue. I for one have been troubled by this question, and at the time of our earlier discussion I argued that Irigaray's use of the heterosexual couple as a figure for redemptive love _is_ heterosexist--a position that I still pretty much identify with, although I've heard some folks argue pretty persuasively that Irigaray sees the heterosexual couple as a figure for the kind of coming to terms with radical otherness that is necessary in any love relationship. Still, that argument reminds me of the Lacanian "the phallus is not the penis" argument, to which Jane Gallop, I think (and others, of course!) replies "Yes, but it's not _not_ the penis, either!" Which is to say that the use of the heterosexual couple as a dominant metaphor for redemption, for genuine encounter with otherness, may very well be unable to escape the heterosexist baggage that many of us seem think attends its use. In any case, I'll see if I ca help track down the dates of last year's discussion for you. Take care. Judith Judith Poxon co-moderator, french-feminism poxon-AT-saclink.csus.edu --- from list french-feminism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005