Julia Kristeva and Luce Irigaray have differences in each of their philosophical foundations. However, do these two women agree that a fear of a female body has different forms of women’s oppression in Western culture? Julia Kristeva verbalizes about bringing the body back into the discourses in the human sciences, the significance of the maternal body, and about abjection. Luce Irigaray verbalizes about the “new” feminine language to allow women to express themselves verbally. Both women suggest that changing the dominant discourse on female sexuality and maternity is necessary to end women’s oppression. Overall, do these suggestions offer a convincing alternative to the traps, confines, and pitfalls of the patriarchal language of sexual difference?
…show more content…
After that, she studied how patients with senile dementia used grammar and language, which sparked her interest in ways that men and women use language differently. Irigaray credits Simone de Beauvoir as an inspiration to her own work, and how Western culture precedes women as the Other like in Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex.” In reading more about the Western culture, Irigaray reveals that “at the core of each thinker’s texts is a fundamental matricide and continued repression of sexual difference.” (Irigaray 203). She basically argues that the attitude toward nature and women’s bodies derives from the male sexuality that follows a model of tension and release. (Irigaray 204). What she is saying in her work is that the male perception is what is important. Irigaray does not believe that women are destined to be inferior due to differences in biology, and does not believe that any subject should be solely determined by his or her biology. (Irigaray 205). This means that it undermines the language of the sexual differences between men and women. The sexuality of a female has been sexualized by men and the sex is removed as a property of the women. Freud took this as an object of sexuality of his discourse by stating, “he did not carry out an analysis of the presuppositions that bear upon the production of discourse insofar as sexual difference is concerned.” (Irigaray 209). The questions that raised from this was about …show more content…
Julia Kristeva kept talking about bringing the body back from a human sciences point of view. Her stand point of view was about the maternal order of things that have already been marginalized and the ending of things in society. Luce Irigaray talked about the feminine language and the importance of becoming two separate laws, so women and men could express themselves respectively. What argument is being made here is that by getting rid of the defilement of women, there can be a new language of sexual difference in the world. Both women offer up different ways in which they see is right. They have different paths in which they want to take in the language of differences in men and women. In the end, Luce Irigaray makes a good point about language being separated, so that both men and women can express themselves. As for Julia Kristeva, she just wanted the things to be the same and just to bring back the maternal order of how it is now in society. Which is why I went with Luce Irigarary because having separate languages for both men and women would be the best thing for expressing both sides of the
After that, she studied how patients with senile dementia used grammar and language, which sparked her interest in ways that men and women use language differently. Irigaray credits Simone de Beauvoir as an inspiration to her own work, and how Western culture precedes women as the Other like in Simone de Beauvoir’s “The Second Sex.” In reading more about the Western culture, Irigaray reveals that “at the core of each thinker’s texts is a fundamental matricide and continued repression of sexual difference.” (Irigaray 203). She basically argues that the attitude toward nature and women’s bodies derives from the male sexuality that follows a model of tension and release. (Irigaray 204). What she is saying in her work is that the male perception is what is important. Irigaray does not believe that women are destined to be inferior due to differences in biology, and does not believe that any subject should be solely determined by his or her biology. (Irigaray 205). This means that it undermines the language of the sexual differences between men and women. The sexuality of a female has been sexualized by men and the sex is removed as a property of the women. Freud took this as an object of sexuality of his discourse by stating, “he did not carry out an analysis of the presuppositions that bear upon the production of discourse insofar as sexual difference is concerned.” (Irigaray 209). The questions that raised from this was about …show more content…
Julia Kristeva kept talking about bringing the body back from a human sciences point of view. Her stand point of view was about the maternal order of things that have already been marginalized and the ending of things in society. Luce Irigaray talked about the feminine language and the importance of becoming two separate laws, so women and men could express themselves respectively. What argument is being made here is that by getting rid of the defilement of women, there can be a new language of sexual difference in the world. Both women offer up different ways in which they see is right. They have different paths in which they want to take in the language of differences in men and women. In the end, Luce Irigaray makes a good point about language being separated, so that both men and women can express themselves. As for Julia Kristeva, she just wanted the things to be the same and just to bring back the maternal order of how it is now in society. Which is why I went with Luce Irigarary because having separate languages for both men and women would be the best thing for expressing both sides of the