can we find a language that escapes the phalogocentrism that characterizes Western metaphysical discourse (Derrida)
If we can only perceive the world through language, then it will play a significant role in changing it
holds especially true for the language of philosophy
Marx: use value and exchange value of the female body.
Irigaray’s contribution
philosophical discourse constitutes the discourse on discourse, thus it is precisely the discourse that must be questioned.
Mimicry
how would an alternative feminist philosophical discourse be?
we have to use a discourse, there is only this one
create a new one? according to Derrida this is impossible, but also dangerous because it may just introduce an additional logocenter
For Irigaray, mimicry is the solution imitate or mimic the philosophical discourse, undermining it from within
thus deconstruct male (phal)logocentric discourse
undermine and deconstruct the very logos that is at play
perpetual process that stays within the language (which we cannot escape) but that tries to uncover the hidden agendas at work
between dichotomizing
between enunciation and utterance
In Lacan’s words: capitalize this bar between the signifier and signified
Women on the market
Phalogocentric economy: results from the exchange of women, a precondition for the market economy
why is it women that are exchanged?
Levi-Strauss states that they are scarce commodities (male polygamy makes women always scarce, plus not all women are equally desirable)
but Irigaray argues that there is actually an equilibrium between female and male births, and that most desirable men are also a minority, and that women could as well also have a tendency to polygamy.
thus why are men not objects of exchange among women?
this argument is thus a good example of naturalization. there is no field with more tendency to naturalize things as the one that constitutes the background for feminism’s gender debates
Sex and gender
dichotomy assumes that our biological makeup defines as either men or women, gender roles are cultural constructs relatively independent of our sexes
how far is the concept of gender strange, bc can one actually device gender roles completely independent of the biological setup:
are women biologically not prone to polygamy? or has this been so determined by the symbolic order that created gender roles
is the exchange of women natural or cultural?. if such difference is so well delineated
it is women’s bodies that are essential to social life and culture BUT because they become objects in the market circulation of their bodies, they are left out of this process.
if men were made part of such economy, would they disappear. or is the market a male phenomenon
Marx vs./and Lacan
Marx: the use value pf the female boy (reproduction) is turned into its exchange value and women are thus made invisible and devided
participation in society makes the body of a woman submit itself to a speculation, through which it transforms into an exchange object
this aspect coexists with the natural body of a woman
so, two aspects: the natural body and the exchangeable body (mimetic expression of masculine values). This split denotes a pathological state.
Female sexuality
economy of desire is men’s business
women must maintain the material substratum of desire in her body, but she can can never access to it.
this economy subjects women to a schism without any possible profit to them and without any way to transcend it.