Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:04:39.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Irigaray's To Be Two: The Problem of Evil and the Plasticity of Incarnation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Ada S. Jaarsma
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Increasingly, feminist theorists, such as Alison Martin and Ellen T. Armour, are attending to the numerous religious allusions within texts by Luce Irigaray. Engaging with this scholarship, this paper focuses on the problematic of evil that is elaborated within Irigarayan texts. Mobilizing the work of Catherine Malabou, the paper argues that Malabou's methodology of reading, which she identifies as “plastic,” illuminates the logic at work within Irigaray's deployment of sacred stories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 18 , Issue 1: Special Issue: Feminist Philosophy and the Problem of Evil , Winter 2003 , pp. 44 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © 2003 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armour, Ellen T. 1999. Deconstruction, feminist theology, and the problem, of difference: Subverting the race/gender divide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi, and Butler, Judith. 1994. Feminism by any other name: Interview. A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6 (2 & 3): 27–61.Google Scholar
During, Lisabeth. 2000. Catherine Malabou and the currency of Hegelianism. Hypatia 15(4): 190–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1975. Aesthetics: Lectures on fine art, trans. Knox, T. M.Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hegel, G. W. F. 1977. The phenomenology of spirit, trans. Miller, A. V.Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1989. Equal to whom? Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies (2): 59–76.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1991. Marine lover of Friedrich Nietzsche, trans. Gill, Gillian C.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993a. An ethics of sexual difference, trans. Burke, Carolyn and Gill, Gillian C.Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993b. Je, tu, nous: Toward a culture of difference, trans. Martin, Alison. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993c. Sexes and genealogies, trans. Gill, Gillian C.New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993d. This sex which is not one, trans. Porter, Catherine with Burke, Carolyn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1996. I love to you: Sketch of a possible felicity in history, trans. Martin, Alison. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1999. The forgetting of air in Martin Heidegger, trans. Mader, Mary Beth. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2001a. From The forgetting of air to To be two, trans. Bostic, Heidi and Pluhacek, Stephen. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2001b. To be two, trans. Rhodes, Monique M. and Cocito‐Monoc, Marco F.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jantzen, Grace M. 1999. Becoming divine: Towards a feminist philosophy of religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Serene. 1995. Divining women: Irigaray and feminist theologies. Yale French Studies. 87: 42–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, Catherine. 1998. Christianity. In A companion to feminist philosophy, ed. Jaggar, Alison M. and Marion Young, Iris. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1989. The Lévinas reader, ed. Hand, Sean. Maiden, Mass.: Black‐well Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2000a. Deconstructive and/or “plastic” readings of Hegel. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain. 41 (2): 132–41.Google Scholar
Malabou, Catherine. 2000b. The future of Hegel: Plasticity, temporality, dialectic, trans. During, Lisabeth. Hypatia. 15 (4): 196–219.Google Scholar
Martin, Alison. 1998. Luce Irigaray and the adoption of Christianity. Paragraph 21(1): 101–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Alison. 2000. Luce Irigaray and the question of the divine. Leeds, England: Maney Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. The intertwining—the chiasm. The visible and the invisible, ed. Lefort, Claude, trans. Lingis, Alphonso. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Oliver, Kelly. 2001. Witnessing: Beyond recognition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Ward, Graham. 1996. Divinity and sexuality: Luce Irigaray and christology. Modern Theology. 12 (2): 221–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warminski, Andrzej. 1987. Prefatory postscript: Interpretation and reading. Readings in interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar