The Future of Sexual Difference: An Interview with Judith Butler and Drucilla Cornell

Butler, Judith; Cornell, Drucilla; Cheah, Pheng; Grosz, Elizabeth

doi:10.1353/dia.1998.0002

Cited by 79 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessments of this type marked Irigaray's thought as a no‐go zone for many feminist philosophers and feminist theorists for several years. Judith Butler recalls that when she was in graduate school, ‘I was not interested in her [Irigaray] at all because she seemed to me to be an essentialist and that was a term we used quite easily then, when we thought we knew what it meant’ (Butler, Cornell, Cheah and Grosz 19).…”

Section: Essentialism Anti‐essentialism and Realismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple Readings of Irigaray's Concept of Sexual Difference

Hill

2016

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Luce Irigaray's project elaborates an original concept of sexual difference. While this concept is widely discussed in feminist philosophy, there are multiple readings of sexual difference and some of these are contradictory. This essay surveys the various readings of sexual difference in English. Foci include the debate over the status of essentialism, ontology, and the controversy over the primacy of sexual difference, including discussion of whether her oeuvre marginalizes differences of race and sexuality. I conclude by arguing that her thinking of difference is open to the future and non‐totalisable in principle. This means that, difference, the concept at the heart of her thinking of sexual difference, cannot be primarily oriented toward engendering sexual difference because it is necessarily open to engendering relations that cannot be predicted.

show abstract

Section: Essentialism Anti‐essentialism and Realismmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Multiple Readings of Irigaray's Concept of Sexual Difference

Hill

2016

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…These three reals thus each correspond to a world, but these three worlds are in interaction ' (2002b, p. 111). Some feminists of difference have read Irigaray's work subsequent to her early and predominantly critical philosophical interventions as regressively heterosexist (Butler, Cornell, Cheah, & Grosz, 1998). However, Irigaray is explicit in not reducing the couple to a familial unit of reproduction: 'Maternity-giving birth to a child-should remain an extra … surplus to any morphology ' (1994, p. 13).…”

Section: Sectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rendering Visible: Painting and sexuate subjectivity

Daley

2014

Educational Philosophy and Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this essay, I examine Luce Irigaray's aesthetic of sexual difference, which she develops by extrapolating from Paul Klee's idea that the role of painting is to render the non-visible rather than represent the visible. This idea is the premise of her analyses of phenomenology and psychoanalysis and their respective contributions to understanding art and sexual identity. I claim that Irigaray assembles an aesthetic of sexual difference that exceeds these familiar intellectual traditions, one that articulates the encounter of non-visible, material (human and non-human) forces that engender modes of sexuate being and becoming. I further claim that this encounter is the very matter of artistry and art-making.

show abstract

“…So either I don't have any ‘self or else I have a multitude of ‘selves’ appropriated by them, for them, according to their needs or desires” (Irigaray 1985b, 17). Because she accepts that woman is Other, she seems, as Drucilla Cornell and Judith Butler have complained, to invest too much in the patriarchal discourse which has defined women this way (Butler and Cornell 1998). To illustrate this I will first explore the continuity, which is also a place of discontinuity, between de Beauvoir's text and Irigaray's in relation to Sigmund Freud on female sexuality.…”

Section: Irigaray's Othermentioning

confidence: 99%

The Other as Another Other

Green¹

2002

Hypatia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

De Beauvoir and Irigaray are archetypes of two opposed feminisms: egalitarian feminism and radical feminism of difference. Yet a filiation exists between de Beauvoir's claim, that women is Other, and Irigaray's Speculum of the Other Woman. This paper explores the relationship between de Beauvoir's and Irigaray's notion of otherness. It argues that Irigaray deforms de Beauvoir's categories, and that de Beauvoir provides a more coherent prospect for the development of an authentic feminine subjectivity.

show abstract

The Future of Sexual Difference: An Interview with Judith Butler and Drucilla Cornell

Cited by 79 publications

References 4 publications

The Multiple Readings of Irigaray's Concept of Sexual Difference

The Multiple Readings of Irigaray's Concept of Sexual Difference

Rendering Visible: Painting and sexuate subjectivity

The Other as Another Other

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About