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

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.