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
- Irigaray, Luce. Ethics of Sexual Difference. Translated by Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill, Cornell University Press, 1993. https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/
- Plato. The Symposium. Translated by Benjamin Jowett, Project Gutenberg, 2008.
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1600 - Whitford, Margaret. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine. Routledge, 1991.
https://www.routledge.com/Luce-Irigaray-Philosophy-in-the-Feminine/Whitford/p/book/9780415025181 - Plato. Complete Works. Edited by John M. Cooper, Hackett Publishing, 1997.
https://www.hackettpublishing.com/plato-complete-works - 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/ - 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/ - 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/
- Grosz, Elizabeth. Volatile Bodies: Toward a Corporeal Feminism. Indiana University Press, 1994. https://iupress.org/9780253208626/volatile-bodies/
- 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 - Moi, Toril. Sexual/Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. Routledge, 1985.
https://www.routledge.com/Sexual-Textual-Politics-Feminist-Literary-Theory/Moi/p/book/9780415280115