Day: September 10, 2024

Introduction: “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  

“To Paint the Invisible” by Luce Irigaray, first appeared in the journal Segni e Comprensione in 2001, is a groundbreaking piece of feminist philosophy, offering a radical reinterpretation of the role of painting and the painter, challenging traditional notions of representation and visibility. Irigaray argues that art can and should serve as a means to “paint the invisible,” to give expression to the unspoken, the marginalized, and the often-overlooked experiences of women. Her essay has had a profound impact on both literary theory and feminist studies, inspiring new approaches to understanding the relationship between art, language, and subjectivity.

Summary of “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  

1. Engagement with Merleau-Ponty’s Philosophy
   Luce Irigaray critiques Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s essay Eye and Mind (1964) for its focus on the visible and its neglect of the tactile, arguing that perception is deeply intertwined with touch and the materiality of the body. Merleau-Ponty, according to Irigaray, emphasizes vision as a dominant sense, missing the essential role of flesh in shaping perception:

“Our culture has wanted to master life, thus flesh, including through seeing.”

• Critique of Western Philosophy’s Vision-Centric View
  Irigaray critiques the Western philosophical tradition, particularly figures like Merleau-Ponty and Sartre, for their emphasis on vision as a tool for domination. She argues that this view reduces perception to a mechanism of control, turning vision into an objectifying force:

“For Western philosophers such as Sartre or Merleau-Ponty, seeing is not a way of contemplating but of seizing, dominating and possessing.”

• The Interplay Between Vision and Flesh
  Irigaray explores the complex relationship between vision and touch, asserting that seeing itself is a tactile act that involves being touched by light and colors. This embodied form of vision is what Merleau-Ponty overlooks:

“Seeing amounts to being touched – by light, by colors, and in a way, by the world and by the things.”

• The Role of Sexual Difference in Perception
  Irigaray emphasizes the importance of recognizing sexual difference in perception, suggesting that the failure to acknowledge the presence of another subjectivity (specifically feminine subjectivity) leads to a closed, solipsistic worldview. She criticizes Merleau-Ponty’s lack of recognition of sexual difference and its implications for perception:

“The existence of two subjectivities opens new spaces created by their difference… animated by the existence of the subjects and the relation between them.”

• Shared Perception and Relational Seeing
  Irigaray explores the idea that perception is altered when shared with another, suggesting that seeing as a relational act involves a mutual exchange between two subjects. This relational aspect of vision goes beyond mere reflection or reproduction of the visible:

“My perception itself is modified because it is shared with the other.”

• Critique of Scientific Thinking
  Irigaray challenges the scientific model of perception, which she argues reduces the body to a mechanical instrument and ignores the relational and lived aspects of perception. She criticizes Merleau-Ponty for not fully breaking away from this model in his philosophical work:

“It is not true that sciences ‘do not take situation and embodied relations into account,’ but it takes these into consideration in a manner irrelevant to the economy of our flesh.”

• The Invisible in Painting and Perception
  One of Irigaray’s key arguments is the role of the invisible in painting and perception. She suggests that the task of the painter is not merely to represent the visible but to evoke the invisible—those relational, immaterial aspects of existence that cannot be captured by sight alone:

“The invisible takes part in our everyday relations with the world, with the other(s)… The painter’s task would be to suggest the invisible by a certain use of forms and colors.”

• Critique of Merleau-Ponty’s Concept of Chiasm
  Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s concept of the chiasm, arguing that it remains a solipsistic exchange between the self and itself rather than an interaction with an Other. She insists on the need for recognition of the Other in perception:

“The chiasm to which Maurice Merleau-Ponty refers takes place between him and himself… there is no longer a redoubling of perspective on the world which would compel him to keep his own perception open.”

• The Painter’s Relationship with the World
  Irigaray questions Merleau-Ponty’s view that the painter’s role is to capture the visible essence of the world, suggesting instead that true artistic perception should engage with both the visible and invisible aspects of existence. She stresses the interconnectedness of the painter and the world:

“The painter does not merely look at the world but attempts to feel something of its existence.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  

Term/Concept	Definition	Application in the Text
Phenomenology	The philosophical study of the structures of experience and consciousness.	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology for privileging the visible over the tactile, overlooking the materiality of flesh in perception.
Flesh	A concept used by Irigaray to emphasize the material, tactile aspects of human perception and existence.	Irigaray argues that perception is not purely visual but involves the “flesh” or the tactile, challenging Merleau-Ponty’s emphasis on vision.
Chiasm	A concept from Merleau-Ponty describing the intertwining of the seer and the seen.	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s use of chiasm, arguing it remains a solipsistic relation, failing to acknowledge the presence of another subjectivity.
The Visible and the Invisible	The distinction between what can be perceived by the senses and what lies beyond sensory perception.	Irigaray focuses on the “invisible” aspects of perception, such as emotions, relationships, and the unknown, which she believes are overlooked by Merleau-Ponty’s emphasis on the visible.
Sexual Difference	A key concept in Irigaray’s work that emphasizes the recognition of distinct male and female subjectivities.	Irigaray argues that Merleau-Ponty fails to account for sexual difference in his phenomenology, leading to a lack of recognition of the Other in perception.
Self-Affection	The ability to feel oneself touching and being touched, integrating both active and passive experiences.	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s focus on self-affection as solipsistic, emphasizing the need for relational perception with another subject.
Relational Perception	Perception as an act shared between two or more subjects, influenced by their interaction.	Irigaray suggests that perception is modified when shared with another, contrasting this with Merleau-Ponty’s more individualistic view of perception.
Inter-subjectivity	The interaction and mutual influence between different conscious subjects.	Irigaray advocates for a relational perception that acknowledges the presence of another subject, which she argues is neglected in Merleau-Ponty’s framework.
Symbiosis	A close, often interdependent relationship between two entities.	Irigaray describes Merleau-Ponty’s perception as being too symbiotic with the world, failing to differentiate between self and other, leading to a lack of true relational perception.

Contribution of “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  to Literary Theory/Theories

• Feminist Theory and Sexual Difference
• Contribution: Irigaray’s essay makes a significant contribution to feminist theory, particularly through her emphasis on sexual difference. She critiques the male-dominated Western philosophical tradition, particularly Maurice Merleau-Ponty’s failure to account for feminine subjectivity. By foregrounding sexual difference, she highlights how male-centric views of perception exclude other forms of relationality and embodied experience.
• “The existence of two subjectivities opens new spaces created by their difference… animated by the existence of the subjects and the relation between them.”
• Impact: This critique emphasizes the need for a feminist rethinking of philosophical and literary approaches to perception and subjectivity, advocating for the inclusion of women’s embodied experiences in both theoretical and practical discourse.
• Phenomenology and Embodiment
• Contribution: Irigaray extends and critiques Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology, particularly in terms of his treatment of vision and touch. She argues that perception is not just visual but involves the tactile, material flesh of the body. By doing so, Irigaray brings attention to the embodied nature of experience and perception, which phenomenology often neglects.
• “Seeing amounts to being touched – by light, by colors, and in a way, by the world and by the things.”
• Impact: Her emphasis on embodiment and the flesh broadens phenomenological inquiry, highlighting the interrelation between body, senses, and world. This challenges the primacy of sight as the dominant sense in philosophical and literary explorations of perception.
• Psychoanalytic Theory
• Contribution: Irigaray engages with psychoanalytic ideas, particularly through her critique of Merleau-Ponty’s reliance on self-affection and his lack of differentiation from the maternal world. She positions his approach as one that is narcissistic and solipsistic, which inhibits the relational development necessary for perceiving the Other as truly distinct.
• “He lacks the space-time, the available corporeal matter thanks to which it would be possible for him to perceive the other as other in the present, including what, in this other, will remain invisible to him.”
• Impact: Her critique introduces psychoanalytic concepts of subject formation and the importance of relationality in the development of a healthy, differentiated self. This view informs psychoanalytic literary theory, particularly in discussions of intersubjectivity and the role of the maternal in shaping identity.
• Relational Aesthetics
• Contribution: In her critique of vision, Irigaray advocates for a relational approach to perception and aesthetics. She argues that perception is not a solitary act but a shared experience shaped by the presence of the Other. This view aligns with relational aesthetics, which emphasizes the social and intersubjective dimensions of artistic creation and perception.
• “My perception itself is modified because it is shared with the other.”
• Impact: Irigaray’s emphasis on shared perception broadens the scope of relational aesthetics, suggesting that not only art but all acts of seeing and perceiving are inherently relational and transformative when shared between subjects.
• Deconstruction
• Contribution: Irigaray’s approach can be seen as a form of deconstruction, particularly in her dismantling of the hierarchical binaries of vision/touch, active/passive, and subject/object. By critiquing Merleau-Ponty’s privileging of the visible, she deconstructs the idea that sight is the primary means of knowing and controlling the world, offering instead a more fluid, relational understanding of perception.
• “Instead of contemplating living beings and entering in communication, in communion with them, we have been willing to dominate them by naming, understanding, reducing them to their aspect or form.”
• Impact: This critique contributes to deconstruction by challenging fixed binaries in the philosophy of perception, advocating for a more dynamic, non-hierarchical interaction between self and Other, subject and world.
• Ecocriticism and Environmental Philosophy
• Contribution: Irigaray’s critique of vision and emphasis on the invisible also resonates with ecocriticism, as she calls for a deeper, more relational engagement with the natural world. She argues that perception should not be about mastering or dominating nature but about being in communion with it, recognizing the invisible forces that sustain life.
• “We co-belong to this living world and we exchange, indeed sometimes reverse, the roles between us.”
• Impact: This view contributes to ecocriticism by challenging anthropocentric perspectives on nature and advocating for a more interconnected, reciprocal relationship between humans and the natural world.
• Postmodernism
• Contribution: Irigaray’s work aligns with postmodern critiques of totalizing narratives and singular perspectives. Her emphasis on the invisible, the unsaid, and the unseen challenges the Western philosophical tradition’s focus on representation, control, and mastery of the visible world. She advocates for an openness to difference, fluidity, and the unknown in both perception and relationships.
• “A simple criticism to the formal aspect of our tradition cannot reach such a transformation. The matter is of entering an other co-belonging and co-existing.”
• Impact: This contribution aligns with postmodernism by questioning established epistemologies and embracing multiplicity, ambiguity, and relationality in how we understand the world and the Other.
• Aesthetic Theory: The Role of the Invisible in Art
• Contribution: Irigaray offers a novel contribution to aesthetic theory by foregrounding the role of the invisible in painting and artistic perception. She argues that the task of the painter is not only to capture the visible but to evoke the invisible aspects of existence, such as relationships, emotions, and immaterial forces.
• “Is the task of the painter to reproduce the visible in order to allow it to be seen… Or would it rather be to allow us to perceive, thanks to specific materials and gestures, that which language and music… do not allow to be perceived? Especially of the invisible.”
• Impact: This contribution enriches aesthetic theory by expanding the focus of art from representation to suggestion and evocation, proposing that true artistic expression involves engaging with both the visible and invisible dimensions of reality.
• In conclusion, To Paint the Invisible contributes to multiple areas of literary and philosophical theory by challenging traditional perceptions and advocating for a more embodied, relational, and inclusive understanding of perception, subjectivity, and art.

Examples of Critiques Through “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray

Literary Work and Author	Critique Through Irigaray’s Concepts	Relevant Concept from Irigaray
Oedipus Rex by Sophocles	Irigaray’s critique of Merleau-Ponty’s solipsistic perception can be applied to the Oedipal focus on self and fate. Oedipus’ attempt to “see” and control his fate leads to blindness—both literal and figurative. This reveals the limitations of relying solely on vision and the exclusion of relational knowledge with others.	Solipsism of Vision: “He lacks the space-time… to perceive the other as other in the present” and emphasizes relational perception.
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	Gatsby’s obsession with Daisy and the green light can be critiqued using Irigaray’s ideas on the fetishization of vision. Gatsby reduces Daisy to an object of sight and desire, failing to perceive her as a subject with her own agency. His inability to engage with the “invisible” emotional depths of relationships leads to his downfall.	Fetishization of the Visible: “Seeing is not a way of contemplating but of seizing, dominating, and possessing.”
Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad	Irigaray’s critique of vision as a tool of domination could be applied to Marlow’s journey into the “heart” of Africa. His perception of Africa and its people is mediated by a colonial lens that seeks to dominate and control, rather than enter into a relationship with the Other. This results in the dehumanization of the colonized.	Domination via Perception: “Western philosophers… reduce the world to their aspect or form, seizing and dominating through vision.”
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen	Using Irigaray’s concept of sexual difference, the relationship between Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy can be critiqued. Initially, both characters view each other through the lens of societal norms and prejudices, but their relationship evolves as they come to recognize each other as unique subjects, allowing for a true connection.	Sexual Difference and Relational Perception: “The existence of two subjectivities opens new spaces created by their difference… and the relation between them.”

Criticism Against “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  

• Overemphasis on Sexual Difference: Some critics argue that Irigaray’s focus on sexual difference risks essentializing gender, reinforcing binary distinctions between male and female subjectivities. This could limit more fluid or intersectional understandings of identity and subjectivity, leaving little room for non-binary perspectives.
• Ambiguity in Language and Concepts: Irigaray often uses complex, poetic, and ambiguous language, which can make her arguments difficult to follow or interpret. This style, while intentionally challenging traditional grammar and logic, may obscure her core points and alienate readers who seek clearer theoretical frameworks.
• Limited Engagement with Visual Art Practices: Although Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s emphasis on the visible in relation to painting, some critics may argue that her own engagement with visual art practices is limited. She doesn’t offer a deep analysis of actual works of art, focusing instead on philosophical abstraction.
• Critique of Merleau-Ponty May Be Overstated: Some may argue that Irigaray’s critique of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology—especially her claim that he neglects the role of flesh and relationality—may be overstated. Merleau-Ponty’s emphasis on the body and the intertwining of subject and world is, in itself, a significant move toward recognizing embodied perception.
• Neglect of Intersectional Factors: Irigaray’s theory primarily focuses on sexual difference, but it largely ignores other dimensions of difference such as race, class, and ethnicity. Critics may suggest that her arguments would benefit from a more intersectional approach, addressing multiple axes of identity beyond the male/female binary.

Representative Quotations from “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray  with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Seeing amounts to being touched – by light, by colors, and in a way, by the world and by the things.”	Irigaray challenges the dominance of vision by emphasizing that seeing is a tactile experience, suggesting that perception involves both seeing and being touched by the world.
“Our culture has wanted to master life, thus flesh, including through seeing.”	Here, Irigaray critiques Western philosophy’s tendency to control and dominate through vision, reducing the material, embodied experience of life to something that can be mastered.
“The existence of two subjectivities opens new spaces created by their difference.”	This quote emphasizes Irigaray’s key concept of sexual difference, where recognizing the other as different (rather than the same) creates new relational and perceptual possibilities.
“For Western philosophers such as Sartre or Merleau-Ponty, seeing is not a way of contemplating but of seizing, dominating, and possessing.”	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s and Sartre’s emphasis on vision, suggesting that their conception of vision reinforces hierarchies of domination rather than fostering relational understanding.
“The chiasm to which Maurice Merleau-Ponty refers takes place between him and himself.”	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s concept of the chiasm (the intertwining of seer and seen), arguing that it remains solipsistic, confined to the self rather than engaging with the Other.
“The invisible takes part in our everyday relations with the world, with the other(s).”	Irigaray emphasizes the role of the invisible (emotions, relational dynamics, immaterial aspects of existence) in shaping our everyday interactions, which are often overlooked by philosophy.
“My perception itself is modified because it is shared with the other.”	This quote highlights Irigaray’s view that perception is inherently relational and that sharing an experience with another subject transforms how one perceives the world.
“Life as such never can be reproduced as it is.”	Irigaray critiques the notion of artistic reproduction, asserting that life, with all its relational and invisible aspects, cannot be fully captured through visual representation.
“We co-belong to this living world and we exchange, indeed sometimes reverse, the roles between us.”	This quote highlights Irigaray’s emphasis on interconnectedness and co-belonging in the world, where human and non-human life forms engage in mutual exchanges and relationships.
“To criticize ‘scientific thinking that does not take situation and embodied relations into account’ seems to remain a behavior too mental and negative.”	Irigaray critiques Merleau-Ponty’s rejection of scientific thinking, suggesting that his critique remains too intellectualized and doesn’t fully embrace embodied, relational ways of knowing.

Suggested Readings: “To Paint The Invisible” by  Luce Irigaray 

1. Irigaray, Luce. The Ethics of Sexual Difference. Translated by Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill, Cornell University Press, 1993. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9780801481369/the-ethics-of-sexual-difference/
2. Irigaray, Luce. To Be Two. Translated by Monique Rhodes and Marco Cocito-Monoc, Athlone Press, 2001.
   https://www.amazon.com/Two-Continuum-Impacts-Luce-Irigaray/dp/0826459063
3. Irigaray, Luce. The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger. Translated by Mary Beth Mader, University of Texas Press, 1999.
   https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292724941
4. Fielding, Helen. Irigaray, the Sublime, and Beauty: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
   https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030233122
5. Di Stefano, Christine. Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory. Cornell University Press, 1991.
6. Irigaray, Luce. Speculum of the Other Woman. Translated by Gillian C. Gill, Cornell University Press, 1985.
   https://www.amazon.com/Speculum-Other-Woman-Luce-Irigaray/dp/0801493307

Introduction: “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall

“Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall first appeared in 1988 in the Hypatia journal. This seminal article significantly impacted the fields of literature, literary theory, and criticism by offering a feminist interpretation of Plato’s Symposium. Irigaray and Kuykendall challenged the traditional patriarchal readings of the text, focusing on Diotima’s speech and her unique perspective on love and immortality. Their analysis introduced new ways of understanding gender roles, desire, and the power dynamics within philosophical discourse, contributing to a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of classical texts.

Summary of “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall

• The Role of Love as a Demonic Intermediary: Luce Irigaray argues that Plato’s Symposium portrays love as a demonic intermediary. She critiques the two contradictory positions attributed to Diotima by Socrates: one that depicts love as a mediator between lovers, guiding them toward immortality, and the other that reduces love to a tool for reproduction, which risks separating lovers. Irigaray favors the conception of love as a demonic intermediary that fosters continual progression towards perfection in love.
  “Love is designated as a theme, but love is also perpetually enacted, dramatized, in the exposition of the theme.”
• Dialectics and the Role of the Intermediary: Unlike typical dialectical methods, Diotima’s approach in Symposium focuses on the intermediary without negating or reducing it. Instead of moving from one term to another to arrive at synthesis, Diotima highlights the intermediary that bridges opposites, such as ignorance and wisdom, poverty and wealth, mortality and immortality. This intermediary, love, is never eliminated and symbolizes continuous movement and becoming.
  “Her dialectic does not work by opposition to transform the first term into the second, in order to arrive at a synthesis of the two.”
• Love as a Seeker and Philosopher: Diotima emphasizes that love, or Eros, is not a god but a demonic force, an intermediary between gods and humans. As the child of Poverty and Plenty, love is always seeking and incomplete. This demonic nature allows love to connect gods with humans, facilitating communication, divination, and initiation. Love’s philosophical nature makes it a seeker of wisdom, positioning it between knowledge and ignorance, beauty and ugliness.
  “Eros is a seeker after wisdom [a philosopher], and being a philosopher, is midway between wise and ignorant.”
• Procreation as a Path to Immortality: Diotima teaches that love’s goal is not merely procreation, but to bridge mortality and immortality. Love itself is fecund before any physical procreation, ensuring immortality in the living. She stresses the beauty and divine harmony necessary for true procreation, as it brings forth immortality through beauty and love, not simply the act of reproduction.
  “The aim of love is to realize the immortality in the mortality between lovers.”
• The Reduction of Love’s Demonic Character: Irigaray notes that Diotima’s teaching shifts from seeing love as a mediator to a method for achieving immortality through procreation. This move diminishes love’s demonic, intermediary nature, replacing it with a teleological focus on reproduction, solidifying love’s role as a means to an end rather than a perpetual becoming.
  “Love loses its divinity, its medium-like, alchemical qualities between couples of opposites.”
• Philosophical Love and the Pursuit of Beauty: Diotima describes love’s progression from physical attract ion to the appreciation of beauty in souls, knowledge, and eventually, the contemplation of beauty in its pure form. This journey transforms love from attachment to a single body to a love of all beauty, ultimately leading to wisdom.
  “From the attraction to a single beautiful body he passes, then, to many; and thence to the beauty residing in souls.”
• Love’s Political and Collective Role: In the second part of Diotima’s speech, love’s intermediary function is canceled, and it becomes subordinated to a telos, particularly in its political role in organizing society and family. Love is transformed into a political tool, distancing itself from its original demonic character of eternal becoming and mediating between opposites.
  “Love becomes political wisdom, wisdom in regulating the city, not the intermediary state that inhabits lovers.”
• Hierarchization of Beauty and the Loss of Divine Love: The hierarchy of beauty, from physical to intellectual, marginalizes love between men and women in favor of male homoerotic relationships and the pursuit of higher knowledge. Irigaray critiques this shift, which subordinates physical love to intellectual achievements, ultimately sacrificing the intermediary role of love in favor of transcendence.
  “Beauty of body and beauty of soul become hierarchized, and the love of women becomes the lot of those who… seek the immortality of their name perpetuated by their offspring.”
• Conclusion: The Sublimation of Love: Irigaray concludes that Diotima’s speech initially places love as a mediator of divine becoming but later reduces it to a tool for achieving immortality through fame or procreation. This reduction risks losing the transformative power of love and its function as a continuous mediator between mortality and immortality. “In the course of her speech she reduces a bit this demonic, medium-like function of love; so that it is no longer really a demon, but an intention, a reduction to intention, to the teleology of human will.”

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall

Term/Concept	Explanation	Context in the Article
Demonic Intermediary	A mediating force between two extremes, such as mortality and immortality, poverty and wealth, or ignorance and knowledge.	Love is described as a demonic force that bridges opposites, serving as a connector between the divine and human, symbolizing the constant process of becoming.
Dialectic	A method of argument or reasoning involving the exchange of ideas, usually structured by the opposition of two or more concepts.	Diotima’s dialectic is distinct from traditional forms (like Hegel’s) in that it maintains the intermediary without negating it, emphasizing continuous progression and mediation between opposites.
Teleology	The philosophical study of purpose or design in natural phenomena, where things are directed toward an ultimate goal or purpose.	Diotima’s speech shifts from viewing love as a process of becoming to a teleological quest for immortality through procreation, which Irigaray critiques for limiting love’s transformative potential.
Philosopher-Lover	A figure who is not wise but constantly seeks wisdom, positioned between ignorance and knowledge.	Love, personified as Eros, is described as a philosopher, always in pursuit of wisdom, but never fully possessing it, embodying the search for truth and beauty.
Mediation	The act of being an intermediary or agent that facilitates communication or connection between two entities.	Love, in Irigaray’s interpretation of Diotima, acts as a mediator between mortals and immortals, and between lovers themselves, allowing for the continual becoming of love and wisdom.
Transmutation	The process of transformation or change from one state to another, particularly in a philosophical or spiritual sense.	Love enables the transmutation between opposites (e.g., ignorance to knowledge, mortality to immortality) without fully erasing the distinction between them, maintaining the intermediary.
Immanence vs. Transcendence	Immanence refers to the presence of the divine within the material world, while transcendence refers to existence beyond the physical realm.	Irigaray critiques how Diotima’s love moves from a focus on immanence (the becoming within the lovers) to transcendence (attaining immortality through offspring or fame), reducing love’s transformative power.
Procreation	The act of reproduction, often seen as a path toward immortality in the context of love and relationships.	Diotima initially stresses procreation as the way love leads to immortality, but Irigaray emphasizes that love’s fecundity exists even before physical procreation, connecting it to a divine intermediary.
Hierarchy of Beauty	A classification that ranks different forms of beauty (e.g., physical, intellectual) in order of importance or value.	Diotima’s speech suggests a progression from physical beauty to intellectual and spiritual beauty, which Irigaray critiques for marginalizing the role of women and physical love in favor of intellectual pursuits.
Eros	In Greek philosophy, Eros is the god of love, often representing passionate desire. In Diotima’s speech, Eros is portrayed as an intermediary force.	Eros is used to illustrate the intermediary role of love in philosophical and metaphysical pursuits, existing between the mortal and immortal, between wisdom and ignorance.

Contribution of “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall:  to Literary Theory/Theories

• Feminist Literary Theory: Questioning the Absence of Women’s Voices
  Irigaray critiques the absence of women’s direct voices in philosophical dialogues. Diotima, though portrayed as a wise figure, is only heard through Socrates, reinforcing patriarchal mediation of women’s knowledge. This critique aligns with feminist literary theory, which often questions the marginalization of women in literature and philosophy.
  “She does not participate in these exchanges or in this meal among men. She is not there. She herself does not speak. Socrates reports or recounts her views.”
• Psychoanalytic Theory: Love as a Demonic Force and Desire
  By presenting love as a demonic intermediary, Irigaray offers an interpretation that ties love (Eros) to psychoanalytic concepts of desire and the unconscious. In psychoanalysis, desire is a driving force that is never fully satisfied, always pushing toward an ideal that can never be attained—echoing Eros’ constant seeking of beauty and wisdom without ever possessing them.
  “Love is a demon—his function is to transmit to the gods what comes from men and to men what comes from the gods.”
• Post-Structuralism: Challenging Fixed Binaries
  Irigaray’s reading of Diotima challenges the structuralist binaries often found in Platonic philosophy, such as ignorance/wisdom, poverty/wealth, and mortality/immortality. Post-structuralist theory emphasizes the deconstruction of binary oppositions, which is reflected in Irigaray’s insistence that love functions as an intermediary, never fully belonging to one side or the other.
  “Eros is therefore intermediary between couples of opposites: poverty-plenty, ignorance-wisdom, ugliness-beauty, dirtiness-cleanliness, death-life, etc.”
• Phenomenology: Love as Continuous Becoming
  Irigaray’s interpretation positions love as a process of continuous becoming rather than a fixed state or goal. This idea is closely linked to phenomenological theory, which emphasizes the importance of experience, process, and perception in shaping human existence. The ongoing progression of love reflects the phenomenological focus on lived experience rather than static truths.
  “Everything is always in movement, in becoming. And the mediator of everything is, among other things, or exemplarily, love.”
• Deconstruction: Interrogation of Teleological Thought
  Irigaray deconstructs the teleological nature of Diotima’s speech, which reduces love to a means of achieving immortality through procreation. Deconstructionist theory often critiques the notion of linear progression toward a single goal, focusing instead on the multiple, shifting meanings that arise from intermediary processes. Irigaray’s emphasis on love as an intermediary opposes the fixed end goals presented by Diotima.
  “She reduces a bit this demonic, medium-like function of love; so that it is no longer really a demon, but an intention, a reduction to intention, to the teleology of human will.”
• Ethics of Sexual Difference: Critique of Male-Dominated Philosophical Discourse
  Irigaray’s work is often associated with the ethics of sexual difference, which critiques the dominance of male perspectives in philosophical traditions. In Sorcerer Love, she highlights how Socrates controls and filters Diotima’s wisdom, underscoring the absence of women’s authentic voices and experiences in male-dominated discourse. This aligns with her broader critique of the erasure of sexual difference in Western philosophy.
  “Socrates reports or recounts her views. He borrows her wisdom and power, declares her his initiator, his pedagogue, on matters of love, but she is not invited to teach or to eat.”
• Queer Theory: Interrogation of Normative Reproductive Narratives
  Irigaray critiques the normative focus on reproduction in Diotima’s speech, which places procreation as the ultimate goal of love. This critique resonates with queer theory, which often challenges heteronormative and reproductive-centered narratives of relationships. By emphasizing love’s demonic and transformative potential outside of procreation, Irigaray disrupts traditional expectations of love and relationships.
  “Procreation and generation in beauty—these are the aim of love, because it is thus that the eternity and imperishability of a mortal being manifest themselves.”
• Political Philosophy: Love as a Tool for Social Regulation
  In the latter part of Diotima’s speech, love transitions from an intermediary force to a tool for societal regulation and political order. This shift aligns with theories of political philosophy that explore how personal relationships and desires are shaped by societal and political goals. Irigaray critiques this transition, showing how love becomes a mechanism for maintaining social hierarchies and order.
  “Love becomes political wisdom, wisdom in regulating the city, not the intermediary state that inhabits lovers and transports them from the condition of mortals to that of immortals.”

Examples of Critiques Through “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall

Literary Work	Critique Through “Sorcerer Love”	Key Concepts from Irigaray’s Work
The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald	The love between Gatsby and Daisy can be critiqued through the lens of Diotima’s conception of love as a demonic intermediary that fosters transformation. Gatsby’s pursuit of Daisy is driven by desire for an idealized beauty, yet it is rooted in material and superficial goals, not true becoming.	Intermediary love: Gatsby’s love for Daisy is not transformative or intermediary; it is fixated on possession, contradicting the idea of love as a process of becoming and seeking immortality beyond wealth.
Wuthering Heights by Emily Brontë	Heathcliff and Catherine’s relationship could be examined as a failed embodiment of Diotima’s love, where love becomes destructive rather than generative. Their relationship does not lead to immortality or wisdom but instead is consumed by possessiveness and revenge, illustrating the danger of love without mediation.	Lack of mediation: Their love lacks the intermediary demonic function, transforming into obsession and vengeance, missing the potential for transcendence and mutual growth described by Diotima.
Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen	Elizabeth and Darcy’s relationship evolves through stages of misunderstanding and prejudice. Using Irigaray’s idea of love as a mediator between opposites (ignorance and wisdom), their love could be seen as a transformative process, moving from prejudice to mutual respect and intellectual connection.	Transformation through love: Their relationship reflects the potential of love to mediate between ignorance and wisdom, illustrating a progressive transformation akin to Diotima’s intermediary love.
Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare	The impulsive, fatal love between Romeo and Juliet can be critiqued as a misunderstanding of Diotima’s notion of love. Their love seeks fulfillment through death rather than the intermediary process of becoming, missing the opportunity to engage in a transformative relationship that transcends mortality.	Misinterpretation of love’s purpose: Romeo and Juliet’s love is focused on immediate satisfaction and ultimate death, contrary to Diotima’s idea of love as a means of achieving immortality through ongoing transformation.

Criticism Against “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall  

• Overemphasis on Feminist Critique: Some may argue that Irigaray’s feminist critique of Diotima’s absence in the dialogue overshadows other philosophical insights of Plato’s Symposium. By focusing too heavily on the lack of women’s direct voices, Irigaray might neglect other layers of the philosophical discussion on love and metaphysics.
• Reduction of Diotima’s Teachings to a Binary: Irigaray tends to frame Diotima’s teachings as a dichotomy between love as a generative force for immortality and love as a mere tool for reproduction. Critics may argue that this simplifies Plato’s complex exploration of love and misses the nuances of how love functions in both a philosophical and practical context.
• Selective Reading of Platonic Love: Irigaray’s reading selectively focuses on the demonic and intermediary aspects of love, while neglecting the more transcendent and idealized forms of love that Plato emphasizes later in the dialogue. Some might view this as a one-sided interpretation that doesn’t fully engage with Plato’s broader vision of Eros as a pursuit of the divine.
• Philosophical Inconsistencies: Irigaray’s critique introduces a tension between her interpretation of love as an ongoing process of becoming and Plato’s more structured philosophical teleology. Critics may point out that Irigaray’s insistence on perpetual becoming conflicts with Plato’s notion of love leading to higher knowledge and the ultimate vision of beauty, creating philosophical inconsistencies.
• Neglect of the Ethical Dimensions of Love: Irigaray’s analysis tends to focus more on the metaphysical and intermediary aspects of love, potentially overlooking the ethical implications of Diotima’s teachings about love’s role in fostering virtue and justice in both personal relationships and the polis (society). Critics may argue that a more balanced reading would explore these dimensions in greater depth.
• Undue Focus on Gender Dynamics: While Irigaray’s feminist reading is central to her critique, some may argue that her focus on gender dynamics risks overshadowing other philosophical themes in the dialogue, such as the nature of wisdom, knowledge, and the soul. This may result in a narrower interpretation of the text.

Representative Quotations from “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Love is a demon—his function is to transmit to the gods what comes from men and to men what comes from the gods.”	This emphasizes the role of love (Eros) as a demonic intermediary, bridging the gap between the mortal and immortal, the human and the divine. Irigaray interprets this as a key feature of love’s role in constant becoming and transformation.
“She does not participate in these exchanges or in this meal among men. She is not there. She herself does not speak.”	Irigaray highlights the absence of Diotima’s direct voice, which serves as a critique of patriarchal structures in philosophy. Diotima’s wisdom is mediated through Socrates, reflecting how women’s voices are often excluded or filtered through male figures in intellectual traditions.
“Everything is always in movement, in becoming. And the mediator of everything is, among other things, or exemplarily, love.”	This quote reflects the philosophical idea that love is not a fixed state but a continual process of becoming. Love is portrayed as the force that mediates transitions and changes between states, such as ignorance and knowledge or mortality and immortality.
“Procreation and generation in beauty—these are the aim of love, because it is thus that the eternity and imperishability of a mortal being manifest themselves.”	Irigaray explains Diotima’s view that love leads to immortality through procreation and beauty. However, she critiques this by arguing that love’s true purpose lies beyond mere reproduction, emphasizing that the process of love itself fosters a form of divine immortality before any physical procreation occurs.
“Love becomes political wisdom, wisdom in regulating the city, not the intermediary state that inhabits lovers and transports them from the condition of mortals to that of immortals.”	This statement critiques how love, instead of remaining an intermediary force, becomes a tool for social regulation and political order. Irigaray sees this shift as a loss of love’s transformative potential, reducing it to a mechanism for maintaining societal structures.
“He is neither mortal nor immortal: he is between the one and the other. Which qualifies him as demonic.”	This quotation reinforces the notion of love (Eros) as a liminal figure, existing between extremes such as life and death, wisdom and ignorance. This intermediary status makes love “demonic” in the sense of being a force that transcends boundaries and facilitates ongoing transformation.
“Love loses its divinity, its medium-like, alchemical qualities between couples of opposites.”	Here, Irigaray critiques how the transformative and mediating power of love is lost when it is reduced to a mere tool for reproduction. She argues that this shift in Diotima’s teaching removes love’s spiritual and alchemical properties, which previously allowed it to transcend and unite opposites.
“Socrates reports or recounts her views. He borrows her wisdom and power, declares her his initiator, his pedagogue, on matters of love, but she is not invited to teach or to eat.”	This reflects Irigaray’s feminist critique of how women’s knowledge is appropriated and mediated by men. Diotima’s wisdom is essential to Socrates’ understanding of love, but she is not given a direct voice or presence, highlighting gendered power dynamics in philosophical discourse.
“From the attraction to a single beautiful body he passes, then, to many; and thence to the beauty residing in souls.”	This quote illustrates Diotima’s philosophy of love, where love evolves from the physical attraction to one body to the appreciation of beauty in many forms, ultimately leading to the recognition of beauty in souls and knowledge. Irigaray engages with this idea to explore how love can transcend mere physical desire.
“The aim of love is to realize the immortality in the mortality between lovers.”	Irigaray interprets this as love’s role in enabling immortality not just through reproduction, but in the ongoing relationship between lovers. She highlights that love can confer a form of immortality through its transformative and regenerative qualities, even within mortal relationships.

Suggested Readings: “Sorcerer Love: A Reading of Plato’s Symposium, Diotima’s Speech” by Luce Irigaray and Eleanor H. Kuykendall

1. Irigaray, Luce. Ethics of Sexual Difference. Translated by Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill, Cornell University Press, 1993. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/
2. Plato. The Symposium. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Project Gutenberg, 2008.
   https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1600
3. Whitford, Margaret. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine. Routledge, 1991.
   https://www.routledge.com/Luce-Irigaray-Philosophy-in-the-Feminine/Whitford/p/book/9780415025181
4. Plato. Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing, 1997.
   https://www.hackettpublishing.com/plato-complete-works
5. Irigaray, Luce. This Sex Which Is Not One. Translated by Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke, Cornell University Press, 1985.
   https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/
6. Stone, Alison. Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge University Press, 2006.
   https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/luce-irigaray-and-the-philosophy-of-sexual-difference/
7. Irigaray, Luce. An Ethics of Sexual Difference. Translated by Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill, Cornell University Press, 1993. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/
8. Grosz, Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press, 1994. https://iupress.org/9780253208626/volatile-bodies/
9. Cavarero, Adriana. In Spite of Plato: A Feminist Rewriting of Ancient Philosophy. Translated by Serena Anderlini-D’Onofrio and Aine O’Healy, Polity Press, 1995.
   https://www.wiley.com/en-us/In+Spite+of+Plato%3A+A+Feminist+Rewriting+of+Ancient+Philosophy-p-9780745611733
10. Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. Routledge, 1985.
    https://www.routledge.com/Sexual-Textual-Politics-Feminist-Literary-Theory/Moi/p/book/9780415280115

Introduction: “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

“Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle first appeared in 1985 in the influential French feminist journal, Questions Féministes. This seminal work has had a profound impact on the fields of literature and literary theory, challenging the traditionally masculine-dominated paradigms of scientific inquiry and knowledge production. By interrogating the ways in which gender biases have shaped scientific discourse, Irigaray and Oberle paved the way for feminist scholarship to examine the intersections of science, culture, and power.

Summary of “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

• Gender and Scientific Discourse: The article explores the idea that scientific discourse is not neutral but influenced by gender. It critiques the assumption of objectivity in science, arguing that male dominance in the field shapes the way scientific knowledge is constructed and presented. The subject of science, traditionally considered neutral, is actually sexed, meaning that the discourse of science is inherently shaped by masculine perspectives (Irigaray, 1985).
• Epistemological Differences: Irigaray discusses the challenges in bringing together different scientific disciplines, as each operates within its own closed system of knowledge. She questions the universalism in scientific thought and the exclusion of subjective perspectives such as gender, particularly the ways in which masculine epistemologies dominate scientific inquiry (Irigaray, 1985).
• Critique of Scientific Neutrality: The article critiques the concept of neutrality in science. Irigaray argues that science often claims to be neutral and objective, but this “neutrality” is a façade that masks the underlying male-dominated structures. She calls for an acknowledgment of sexual difference in scientific practice and discourse (Irigaray, 1985).
• Revisiting Psychoanalysis and Scientific Models: Irigaray critiques Freud’s psychoanalytic models, which are based on thermodynamic principles that align more with masculine sexuality. She proposes that feminine sexuality might be better understood through models like Prigogine’s dissipating structures, which emphasize exchanges with the external world, contrasting with the closed, equilibrium-driven models of classical science (Irigaray, 1985).
• Feminine Sexuality and Scientific Models: The paper emphasizes the need for scientific models that better reflect feminine sexuality, critiquing how traditional models align more closely with masculine experience. It suggests that feminine perspectives could lead to a different understanding of subjects like biology, economics, and linguistics, which currently lack attention to sexual difference (Irigaray, 1985).
• Impact on Language and Logic: Irigaray discusses how formalized scientific language, logic, and syntax inherently reflect masculine ideals. She challenges the universality of linguistic and logical structures in science, proposing that a differently sexualized language could better express gender differences, rather than perpetuating masculine norms (Irigaray, 1985).
• Cultural and Historical Bias: The article also explores the historical and cultural roots of masculine dominance in science, tracing this bias back to philosophical traditions that have shaped modern epistemology. The influence of paternal figures in the formation of scientific discourse is scrutinized, suggesting that matricidal tendencies underlie the exclusion of feminine perspectives (Irigaray, 1985).
• Subjectivity and the Scientist’s Role: Irigaray raises questions about the scientist’s own subjectivity and the schism between personal desires and professional scientific practice. She critiques the notion that science can be separated from the scientist’s identity, particularly when it comes to issues of gender and sexuality (Irigaray, 1985).
• Call for a New Epistemological Framework: The article concludes with a call for the development of an epistemological framework that acknowledges sexual difference and integrates feminine perspectives. Irigaray argues for a science that is not dominated by masculine ideals, but one that is inclusive of the feminine, challenging the very foundations of scientific knowledge and its structures (Irigaray, 1985).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

Literary Term/Concept	Explanation	Context in the Text
Epistemological Subject	Refers to the subject of knowledge or scientific inquiry, which Irigaray argues is historically male and linked to power structures.	Irigaray questions how the subject of science is constructed as male, exploring how this influences scientific discourse and knowledge production. The subject’s sexual differentiation is crucial to the discourse of science.
Schize	A split or division, particularly the fragmentation of the subject or a split between different spheres (science, politics, art, etc.).	Irigaray uses the concept of “schize” to describe the division within the subject who engages in science, love, and politics separately, and how this separation is pre-programmed by scientific imperialism.
Scientific Imperialism	The dominance of scientific discourse and its claim to universal truth, often excluding or marginalizing other forms of knowledge and discourse.	Science is portrayed as an imperial force that organizes knowledge and power. Irigaray critiques this system, arguing that it fails to recognize the subject’s personal, gendered, or sexual dimensions.
Sexual Difference	The theory that male and female subjectivities are different and that these differences are ignored or suppressed in traditional discourse, including science.	Irigaray challenges the neutrality of scientific discourse by suggesting that it is aligned with male perspectives and ignores female subjectivity and sexuality. This creates a gap in scientific knowledge and understanding.
Dissipative Structures	A scientific concept, particularly from thermodynamics, referring to systems that maintain order by exchanging energy with their environment.	Irigaray contrasts male-oriented models of equilibrium in science (based on Freud’s libido theory) with the idea of dissipative structures, which she suggests might better represent feminine sexuality and its fluidity, crossing thresholds rather than maintaining static order.
Feminine Language	A concept suggesting that there could be a language or mode of discourse that reflects feminine subjectivity and sexual difference, distinct from dominant male discourse.	Irigaray explores the idea that current language and scientific discourse exclude or limit feminine expression. She raises the possibility of a differently structured, sexually differentiated language that could provide women with a voice within discourse.
Subject/Object Division	The distinction between the subject who observes and the object of observation, common in scientific methods, which Irigaray critiques as being inherently gendered.	Irigaray critiques this division in science, suggesting that it hides the subject’s involvement in the object of study. She argues that the masculine subject pretends to be neutral, but is deeply involved in and shapes the object of science, reinforcing gendered assumptions.
Paternal Language	The idea that socially accepted language, including scientific discourse, is organized according to patriarchal structures, limiting the role of maternal or feminine language.	Irigaray suggests that the mother’s role in language development has been erased, and that the dominant language remains paternal. She questions how this affects women’s participation in discourse and proposes that maternal contributions to language have been systematically excluded.
Matricide	A metaphorical term referring to the erasure or suppression of the maternal in the foundation of cultural and linguistic structures.	Irigaray speculates that beneath the foundational myth of the father’s murder (as in Freud’s Totem and Taboo), there is a more fundamental matricide — the suppression of maternal influence in culture, language, and science. This suppression has consequences for the structure and production of discourse, including scientific discourse.

Contribution of “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle  to Literary Theory/Theories

• Feminist Critique of Epistemology: The article critiques traditional epistemology by questioning the neutrality of scientific knowledge. Irigaray argues that science is dominated by a male subjectivity, creating a “scientific imperialism” that excludes female perspectives. This challenges the assumption that knowledge production is objective, contributing to feminist epistemology by highlighting the gendered nature of knowledge production.
  Reference: “The subject of science is sexed” (p. 73-74), challenging the universality of the scientific subject.
• Psychoanalytic Feminism: Irigaray critiques Freud’s libido theory, which she argues is based on masculine sexuality, rooted in the principles of tension-release and energy conservation. She contrasts this with the idea of “dissipative structures,” suggesting feminine sexuality operates differently, without the same emphasis on equilibrium. This contributes to psychoanalytic feminism by offering a critique of Freud’s male-centric model of sexual desire and applying it to scientific discourse.
  Reference: “The ‘science’ of psychoanalysis rests upon the first two principles of thermodynamics…isomorphic with respect to masculine sexuality” (p. 81).
• Gendered Language Theory: The article argues that language, including scientific discourse, is structured according to patriarchal norms, excluding feminine expression. Irigaray proposes the idea of a differently “sexualized language,” which would allow for the expression of sexual difference. This theory contributes to feminist linguistics by suggesting that current languages and discourses are male-dominated and calling for the development of a language that reflects female subjectivity.
  Reference: “Is there, within the logical and syntactico-semantic apparatus of standard discourse, an opening or some degree of liberty for the expression of sexual difference?” (p. 84).
• Structuralism and Poststructuralism: Irigaray critiques the structuralist focus on binary oppositions in scientific and linguistic models, such as subject/object and nature/reason. She argues that these binaries are gendered, with the male subject positioned as the neutral, rational observer. This critique aligns with poststructuralism’s questioning of fixed structures and meanings, contributing to theories that deconstruct the binary frameworks that underlie much of Western thought.
  Reference: “Syntax is dominated by identity to, expressed by property and quantity…” (p. 79-80).
• Critique of the Subject in Science (Poststructuralist Theory): Irigaray questions the subject’s role in scientific discourse, arguing that the subject of science is not neutral but is shaped by male-dominated power structures. This critique of the subject aligns with poststructuralist theories that question the fixed, autonomous subject in favor of a more fluid, context-dependent understanding of subjectivity.
  Reference: “The subject of science is sexed…imperialism without a subject” (p. 75-76).

Examples of Critiques Through “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

Literary Work	Critique Focus	Relevant Concept from Irigaray	Reference from the Text
Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein	Masculine Science and the Erasure of the Feminine. Frankenstein’s creation bypasses natural reproduction, excluding the feminine.	Scientific Imperialism and Matricide: Science erases the feminine and maternal in creation processes.	“The erasure of the maternal…the matricide which could be deciphered at the origin of our culture” (p. 86).
Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wallpaper	Gendered Epistemology and the Dismissal of Female Knowledge. The protagonist’s experience is dismissed by male-dominated medicine.	Gendered Language Theory: Science and discourse dismiss the female subject’s experience and voice.	“The discourse…is organized according to masculine norms, limiting the role of maternal or feminine language” (p. 85).
Virginia Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own	Feminine Expression and the Creation of a Female Space in Discourse. Woolf argues for intellectual independence for women.	Feminine Language: The need for a language and space that reflect female subjectivity and sexual difference.	“Is there a language…that allows for the expression of sexual difference?” (p. 84).
William Shakespeare’s Macbeth	Gendered Division of Power and Language. Macbeth embodies male power, while Lady Macbeth’s influence remains indirect.	Subject/Object Division: The male subject dominates, while the female is marginalized and excluded from direct participation.	“The subject (typically male) is not neutral…it is gendered and actively shapes the object of study” (p. 79).

Criticism Against “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

1. Lack of Empirical Evidence for Gendered Science: One critique could be that Irigaray’s argument relies heavily on theoretical constructs without providing empirical evidence to support the claim that science is inherently male-dominated or that its methods are shaped by male subjectivity.
2. Essentializing Gender Differences: Irigaray’s focus on sexual difference has been criticized for reinforcing essentialist views of gender. Critics argue that by emphasizing inherent differences between male and female subjectivities, she risks perpetuating binary and reductive notions of gender.
3. Overgeneralization of Scientific Practices: Some may argue that Irigaray overgeneralizes the practices of science by suggesting that all scientific knowledge production is patriarchal. This critique holds that science is a diverse field, and not all scientists or disciplines are shaped by male perspectives or practices of exclusion.
4. Ambiguity in Defining Feminine Language: Irigaray’s proposal for a “feminine language” remains vague and underdeveloped. Critics may argue that while she calls for a new form of discourse reflecting female subjectivity, she does not clearly define what this language would look like or how it could be implemented in practice.
5. Neglect of Intersectionality:
   Irigaray’s work has been critiqued for focusing predominantly on gender while neglecting other factors such as race, class, and sexuality that also shape scientific discourse and knowledge production. This lack of intersectionality limits the scope of her critique.
6. Philosophical Abstraction and Accessibility: The highly abstract and philosophical nature of Irigaray’s writing may make it difficult for some readers to engage with or apply her ideas. Critics might argue that her dense theoretical language can alienate those outside academic circles or those seeking concrete changes in gender equality within science.

Suggested Readings: “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle

Representative Quotations from “Is the Subject of Science Sexed?” by Luce Irigaray and Edith Oberle with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“The subject of science is sexed.”	This statement encapsulates the central argument of the essay: scientific discourse is not neutral but shaped by masculine subjectivity, with gender playing a key role in knowledge production.
“In the language of science, there is neither I nor you nor us.”	Irigaray criticizes the lack of personal pronouns in scientific discourse, which she argues contributes to the erasure of subjectivity and gendered perspectives in science.
“Our subjective experiences or our personal convictions can never support any proposition [enonce].”	This critique targets the perceived objectivity of scientific knowledge, which disregards subjective or personal experiences, particularly those related to gender or the feminine.
“An imperialism without a subject.”	Irigaray describes science as an imperial force that exerts power and control over knowledge, but without acknowledging the specific (male) subject shaping this power structure.
“Men have always been the ones to do the speaking and writing in the sciences, philosophy, religion, politics.”	This quotation highlights the historical exclusion of women from the realms of science, philosophy, and politics, reinforcing male dominance in these fields.
“Is there a language… that allows for the expression of sexual difference?”	Irigaray raises the question of whether current language and discourse, including that of science, allow for the expression of female subjectivity and sexual difference.
“The masculine imaginary… requires the maintenance of a state of equilibrium.”	She critiques Freud’s model of sexuality, based on principles of energy conservation and equilibrium, which she argues reflects a male perspective and excludes feminine modes of experience.
“The creation of language… on the part of the maternal was erased at the origin of our culture.”	This quotation refers to the erasure of maternal contributions to language and discourse, pointing to the cultural suppression of female voices in favor of patriarchal structures.
“Psychoanalysis rests upon the first two principles of thermodynamics… isomorphic with respect to masculine sexuality.”	Irigaray critiques Freud’s theories of sexuality, suggesting that they reflect masculine, not universal, experiences and that they are aligned with the closed systems of thermodynamics.
“The subject of science is not neutral… it is gendered and actively shapes the object of study.”	Irigaray critiques the idea that the subject of science is neutral, arguing instead that the male subject influences how knowledge and scientific inquiry are constructed.