No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Asymmetrical Genders: Phenomenological Reflections on Sexual Difference
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 March 2020
Abstract
One of the most fundamental premises of feminist philosophy is the assumption of an invidious asymmetry between the genders that has to be overcome. Parallel to this negative account of asymmetry we also find a positive account, developed in particular within the context of so-called feminist philosophies of difference. I explore both notions of gender asymmetry. The goal is a clarification of the notion of asymmetry as it can presently be found in feminist philosophy. Drawing upon phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty, Levinas) as well as feminist difference theory (Irigaray), I argue that a gender asymmetry does exist that cannot—as in the first assumption—be transformed into symmetry.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Hypatia , Volume 20 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Contemporary Feminist Philosophy in German , Spring 2005 , pp. 7 - 26
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2005 by Hypatia, Inc.
References
Battersby, Christine. 1998. The phenomenal woman: Feminist metaphysics and the patterns of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
de Beauvoir, Simone. 1953. The second sex. Trans. Parshley, H. M.New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. Situating the self: Gender, community, and postmodernism in contemporary ethics. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bergoffen, Debra B. 1997. The philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Gendered phenomenologies, erotic generosities. Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1998. Bringing body to theory. In Body and flesh: A philosophical reader, ed. Welton, Donn. Maiden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Bordo, Susan. 1993. Unbearable weight: Feminism, Western culture, and the body. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Braidotti, Rosi. 1994. Of bugs and women: Irigaray and Deleuze on the becoming‐woman. In Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern European thought, ed. Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret, eds. 1994. Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist philosophy and modern European thought. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chanter, Tina. 1995. Ethics of eros: bigamy's rewriting of the philosophers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conradi, Elisabeth. 2001. Take care: Grundlagen einer Ethik der Achtsamkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 16491909. Les Passions de l'Ame. In Ćuvres de Descartes, ed. Adam, Charles, and Tannery, Paul, Vol. 11. Paris: Leopold Cerf.Google Scholar
Giuliani, Regula. 1997. Der übergangene Leib: Simone de Beauvoir, Luce Irigaray, und Judith Butler. Phänomenologische Forschungen: Neue Folge 2 (1): 104–25.Google Scholar
Gürtler, Sabine. 2001. Elementare Ethik: Alterität, Generativität und Geschlechterverhältnis bei Emmanuel Lévinas. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
Gürtler, Sabine. 1997. Gipfel und Abgrund: Die Kritik von Luce Irigaray an Emmanuel Lévinas' Verständnis der Geschlechterdifferenz. In Phänomenologie und Geschlechterdifferenz, ed. Stoller, Silvia and Vetter, Helmuth. Vienna: WUV‐Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Halsema, Annemie. 2005 (forthcoming). Phenomenology in the feminine: Irigaray's relationship to Merleau‐Ponty. In Irigaray and sexual difference, ed. Silverman, Hugh J. and Bergoffen, Debra. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Halsema, Annemie. 2000. The nature of gender: Irigaray and Merleau‐Ponty, paper presented at the 25th Annual Meeting of the International Merleau‐Ponty Circle, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Heinämaa, Sara. 2005 (forthcoming). Verwunderung und sexualle Differenz: Irigarays phänomenologischer Cartesianismus. In Feministische Phänomenologie und Hermeneutik, ed. Stoller, Silvia, Vasterling, Veronica, and Fisher, Linda. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Held, Virginia. 1993. Feminist morality: Transforming culture, society, and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hirsh, Elizabeth, and Olson, Gary A. 1995. “Je—Luce Irigaray”: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray. Hypatia 10 (2): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Husserl, Edmund. 1989. Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenalogical philosophy. Second book: Studies in the phenomenology of constitution. Trans. Rojcewicz, Richard and Schuwer, André. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huygens, Christiaan. 188819501944. Cosmologie. In Ćuvres complètes, Vol. 21, ed. Hollandaise des Sciences, Société. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 2001. To be two. Trans. Rhodes, Monique M. and Cocito‐Monoc, Marco F.New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1997. Einander Transzendente. Die Vermählung von Wort und Fleisch. In Phänomenologie und Geschlechterdifferenz:, ed. Stoller, Silvia and Vetter, Helmuth. Vienna: WUV‐Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1993. An ethics of sexual difference. Trans. Burke, Carolyn and Gill, Gillian C.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce. 1985. Speculum of the other woman. Trans. Gill, Gillian C.Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Krewani, Wolfgang N. 1992. Emmanuel Lévinas: Denker des Anderen. Freiburg, Munich: Karl Alber.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1998. Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Trans. Lingis, Alphonso. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Levinas, Emmanuel. 1969. Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Trans. Lingis, Alphonso. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.Google Scholar
Liebsch, Burkhard. 2001. Zerbrechliche Lebensformen: Widerstreit ‐ Different ‐ Gewah. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindemann, Gesa. 1993. Das paradoxe Geschlecht: Transsexualität im Spannungsfeld von Körper, Leib und Gefühl. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. 1968. The Visible and the invisible. Trans. Lingis, Alphonso. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Merleau‐Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Smith, Colin. London, New York: Routledge. Muraro, Luisa. 1999. Jenseits der Gleichheit. In DIOTIMA: Jenseits der Gleichheit: Über Macht und die weiblichen Wurzeln der Autorität. Trans. Dorothee Markert, and Antje Schrupp. Königstein: Ulrike Helmer.Google Scholar
Nagl‐Docekal, Herta. 2004. Feminist Philosophy. Trans. Vester, Katharina. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Piussi, Anna Maria. 1993. Die Bedeutung/Sichtbarkeit des Weiblichen und der Logos der Pädagogik. In Der Mensch ist zwei: Das Denken der Geschlechterdifferenz, ed. Diotima, . Philosophinnengruppe aus Verona. 2nd ed. Vienna: Wiener Frauenverlag.Google Scholar
Pluhacek, Stephen, and Bostic, Heidi. 1996. Thinking life as relation: An interview with Luce Irigaray. Man and World 29: 343–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal thinking: Toward a politics of peace. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Simons, Margaret A., and Benjamin, Jessica. 1999. Beauvoir interview (1979). In Beauvoir and The second sex, ed. Simons, Margaret A.Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Stoller, Silvia. 2005. Geschlechtlichkeit. In Wörterbuch der phänomenologischen Begriffe, ed. Vetter, Helmuth. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.Google Scholar
Stoller, Silvia. 2001. Reflections on feminist Merleau‐Ponty skepticism. Hypatia: A Journal of Feminist Philosophy 15 (1): 175–82.Google Scholar
Stoller, Silvia. 2000. Merleau‐Ponty im Kontext der feministischen Philosophie. In Merleau‐Ponty und die Kulturwissenschaften, ed. Giuliani, Regula. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar
Stoller, Silvia, and Vetter, Helmuth, eds. 1997. Phänomenologie und Geschlechterdifferenz. Vienna: WUV‐Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Stoller, Silvia, Vasterling, Veronica, and Fisher, Linda, eds. 2005 (forthcoming). Feministische Phänomenologie und Hermeneutik. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann.Google Scholar
Tarassow, Lev. 1999. Symmetric, Symmetric! Strukturprinzipien in Natur und Technik. Trans. Rudolph, Rolf. Heidelberg: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.Google Scholar
Tommasi, Wanda. 1993. Die Versuchung des Neutrums. In Der Mensch ist zwei: Das Denken der Geschlechterdifferenz, ed. Diotima, . Philosophinnengruppe aus Verona. 2nd ed. Vienna: Wiener Frauenverlag.Google Scholar
Waniek, Eva, and Stoller, Silvia, eds. 2001. Verhandlungen des Geschlechts: Zur Konstruktivismusdebatte in der Gender‐Theorie. Vienna: Turia and Kant.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Bernhard. 2000. Das leibliche Selbst: Vorlesungen zur Phänomenologie des Leibes, ed. Giuliani, Regula. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Bernhard. 1997. Fremdheit des anderen Geschlechts. In Phänomenologie und Geschlechterdifferenz, ed. Stoller, Silvia, and Vetter, Helmuth. Vienna: WUV‐Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Bernhard. 1995. Deutsch‐französische Gedankengänge. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Bernhard. 1987. Phänomenologie in Frankreich. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Waldenfels, Bernhard. 1980. Der Spielraum des Verhaltens. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Wendel, Saskia. 2004. Der Körper der Autonomie. Anthropologie und “gender.” In Endliche Autonomie, ed. Autiero, Antonio, Goertz, Stephan, and Striet, Magnus. Munster: LIT.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret. 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. New York: Rout‐ledge.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 1997. Intersecting voices: Dilemmas of gender, political philosophy, and policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by