Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:35:28.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Paternity, Enframing, and a New Revealing: O'Brien's Philosophy of Reproduction and Heidegger's Critique of Technology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Lorraine Markotic
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article seeks to demonstrate the importance of the philosophical work of Mary O'Brien. It does so by showing how O'Brien's work counters Heidegger's strict differentiation between the ancient Greek metaphysics of presence and modern technological thinking. O'Brien's ideas indicate two critical lacunae in Heidegger's interpretation of the ancient Greeks: the latter's attempt to secure paternity and their overlooking of birth as a form of unconcealment. According to O'Brien, the way in which we understand and experience human reproduction influences both our sense of self and our sense of continuity. According to Heidegger, the way in which things are brought forth or unconcealed is fundamental to our being‐in‐the‐world. Neither O'Brien nor Heidegger lived to see the current advancements in reproductive technology, but both would consider them significant and meaningful beyond their social, political, and even ethical implications. Furthermore, recent reproductive technology draws attention to birth as revealing—although as increasingly Enframed. Rapid changes in reproduction may reveal Enframing as Enframing, and also show that technology is not something that we can simply master. But for this to occur, we must take into account the radical critique and rethinking of Heidegger's philosophy implied by O'Brien's thought.

Type
Articles
Information
Hypatia , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , Winter 2016 , pp. 123 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 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

Belu, Dana S., and Feenberg, Andrew. 2010. Heidegger's aporetic ontology of technology. Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 53 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigwood, Carol. 1993. Earth muse: Feminism, nature, and art. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Chanter, Tina. 2001. The problematic normative assumptions of Heidegger's ontology. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Cimitile, Maria. 2013. The gift of being, gift of world(s): Irigaray on Heidegger. In Women and the gift: Beyond the given and all‐giving, ed. Joy, Morny. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1983/2001. Geschlecht: Sexual difference, ontological difference. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Glazebrook, Trish. 2001. Heidegger and ecofeminism. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1977a. The question concerning technology. In The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1977b. The turning. In The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1977c. The word of Nietzsche: “God is dead.” In The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1977d. The age of the world picture. In The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin. 1977e. Science and reflection. In The question concerning technology and other essays. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Holland, Nancy J. 2001. “The universe is made of stories not of atoms”: Heidegger and the feminine they‐self. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2001. From The forgetting of air to To be two. In Feminist interpretations of Martin Heidegger, ed. Holland, Nancy J. and Huntington, Patricia. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2008. Sharing the world. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 2007. Ecrits: The first complete edition in English. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Mui, Constance L. 1999. Sartre and Marcel on embodiment: Reevaluating traditional and gynocentric feminisms. In Feminist interpretations of Jean‐Paul Sartre, ed. Murphy, Julien S.University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Mary. 1981. The politics of reproduction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
O'Byrne, Anne. 2010. Natality and finitude. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar