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
- 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
- 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/
- 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 - Irigaray, Luce. The Forgetting of Air in Martin Heidegger. Translated by Mary Beth Mader, University of Texas Press, 1999.
https://utpress.utexas.edu/9780292724941 - Fielding, Helen. Irigaray, the Sublime, and Beauty: Towards a Feminist Aesthetics. Palgrave Macmillan, 2020.
https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030233122 - Di Stefano, Christine. Configurations of Masculinity: A Feminist Perspective on Modern Political Theory. Cornell University Press, 1991.
- 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