Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I've got a file I'd trade, but it's from my backfiles and I'm not sure if it's the same one that's on Evazon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irigaray is a feminization of Lacanian theory. She argues that psychoanalysis as it stood was too overdetermined by phallocentricity and posits instead a regime based upon the 'two lips' system (vulva). She makes a discourse/politics accessibility argument that is deployed in debate in a similar manner to the relation between social death and policymaking in Wilderson debates (but she's much less polemic, again, that's how most people run it). Irigaray explicitly defends political engagement though, as she argues that using the law to bring about equality is a critical first step.

Most scholarly criticisms of her work argue that she is far too essentializing, for instance she argues at one point the e=mc^2 is a patriarchal equation because 'while it considers speed, it does not consider velocities that relate to women' (paraphrased). Elizabeth Grosz also writes about the relationship between Irigaray and Marx, but cards on that are...difficult to find. In the contemporary academic times there are a large amount of defenders of Irigaray, but most criticism has fallen off of the map (the heyday for that was in the early 80's), although most of her supporters tend to rely on more or less the same argument to defend against claims of essentialism (I don't remember the exact term, I believe it's Mimesis, but the gist is that 'she's not really totalizing, she's just using it to make a point' or something along those lines, my memory is a bit foggy).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irigaray is a feminization of Lacanian theory. She argues that psychoanalysis as it stood was too overdetermined by phallocentricity and posits instead a regime based upon the 'two lips' system (vulva). She makes a discourse/politics accessibility argument that is deployed in debate in a similar manner to the relation between social death and policymaking in Wilderson debates (but she's much less polemic, again, that's how most people run it). Irigaray explicitly defends political engagement though, as she argues that using the law to bring about equality is a critical first step.

Most scholarly criticisms of her work argue that she is far too essentializing, for instance she argues at one point the e=mc^2 is a patriarchal equation because 'while it considers speed, it does not consider velocities that relate to women' (paraphrased). Elizabeth Grosz also writes about the relationship between Irigaray and Marx, but cards on that are...difficult to find. In the contemporary academic times there are a large amount of defenders of Irigaray, but most criticism has fallen off of the map (the heyday for that was in the early 80's), although most of her supporters tend to rely on more or less the same argument to defend against claims of essentialism (I don't remember the exact term, I believe it's Mimesis, but the gist is that 'she's not really totalizing, she's just using it to make a point' or something along those lines, my memory is a bit foggy).

The history of psychoanalysis summarized in 9 words

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irigaray is a feminization of Lacanian theory. She argues that psychoanalysis as it stood was too overdetermined by phallocentricity and posits instead a regime based upon the 'two lips' system (vulva). She makes a discourse/politics accessibility argument that is deployed in debate in a similar manner to the relation between social death and policymaking in Wilderson debates (but she's much less polemic, again, that's how most people run it). Irigaray explicitly defends political engagement though, as she argues that using the law to bring about equality is a critical first step.

Most scholarly criticisms of her work argue that she is far too essentializing, for instance she argues at one point the e=mc^2 is a patriarchal equation because 'while it considers speed, it does not consider velocities that relate to women' (paraphrased). Elizabeth Grosz also writes about the relationship between Irigaray and Marx, but cards on that are...difficult to find. In the contemporary academic times there are a large amount of defenders of Irigaray, but most criticism has fallen off of the map (the heyday for that was in the early 80's), although most of her supporters tend to rely on more or less the same argument to defend against claims of essentialism (I don't remember the exact term, I believe it's Mimesis, but the gist is that 'she's not really totalizing, she's just using it to make a point' or something along those lines, my memory is a bit foggy).

What does that even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does that even mean?

Wikipedia:

"Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, in their book critiquing postmodern thought (Fashionable Nonsense, 1997), criticize Luce Irigaray on several grounds. In their view, she wrongly regards E=mc2 as a "sexed equation" because she argues that "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us"."

 

Also, shit source, but a longer excerpt

""S&B's main concern is with the way she uses hydrodynamics to underpin some pretty large assertions about sexual politics and the oppressed and marginalised situation of women. Her conclusions are, to put it mildly, somewhat underdetermined by the science she invokes.

Irigaray has famously argued that science is sexist; for example E=Mc2 is `a sexed equation'. The reasons she gives for believing this are extraordinary. The equation

"privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possibly sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather its having privileged what goes the fastest ... (quoted p. 100).""

http://www.personal.psu.edu/cpl2/blogs/powerforce/2009/04/discrediting-luce-irigaray.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How well are Irigaray's philosophies received in the debate community?

Most can't tell the distinction between Irigaray and something like Fem IR it seems, so about like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The quote is faked btw, she never said any of that & you'll get destroyed against a good Irigaray team if you quote that as a means of dismissing her because it'll just reinforce their links 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...