Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
Conversations is an important collection of interviews in which Luce Irigaray discusses the full range of her work and ideas with leading academics in the fields of Continental Philosophy, Feminist Theory and Critical Theory. Covering all the key topics that have been central to her work in the last thirty years, such as feminism, spirituality, difference, politics, education, and ‘being two', this book offers essential insights into Irigaray's career as one of the world's most important contemporary thinkers.
Topics and theorists approached include: philosophy, universality and difference, motherhood and gendered subjectivities, cultivation of desire and love, the other and others, globalization and ethics, politics and human rights, spirituality and religion, and, of course, being and becoming woman.
Irigaray, before a real dialogue with Luce Irigaray became possible. It was an imagined relationship which sought to question how to cultivate being-two in architecture. The question you have already asked me: How can we build bridges between two in architecture? (see Dialogues, p. 115) is one that I have continued to think about. Irigaray and Wheeler: Being-Two in Architectural Perspective 69 Could you suggest some examples of practicing being-two in architecture, notably with a democratic
became ﬂesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory as of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth’ (NRSV). It is our understanding that French editions of the Bible may translate logos (‘Word’) as either Verbe or parole, but that verbe is the translation upon which most often rely. Yet, in your article, you choose a translation of John 1:14 that uses parole. In addition, you favour the use of parole in your text. Would you comment on your choice of parole? How does the
of the same sex, but also of homosocial encounters, those constituting relations between co-workers, between friends, between members of the same team, or members of a group or organization. Is it not the other who is the same sex as I am still radically other to me, unknowable by me, invisible to me, harbouring a secret from me, in just the same way as the sexually different other? L.I.: I talked about the most basic, universal and irreducible difference, but not about the ‘most intense’
differences. S.P. and H.B.: In a woman, how can one separate the characteristics resulting from her sociocultural oppression, and the characteristics which reﬂect, so to speak, her ‘being’? L.I.: It is important to distinguish characteristics of the oppression already codiﬁed in the culture and those that the woman continues to create herself each day. Both suppose a hierarchy between the genders. For example, the linguistic practices which unequally value that which is related to the masculine
102 Daly, Mary 102 daughter 11, 65, 67, 89–90, 154–5 death 2, 7, 14, 26, 115, 127, 148, 160 Deleuze, Gilles 47–8, 79 Descartes, René 117 democracy 4, 68, 70, 82, 126, 128, 149–50; democratic 14–5, 17, 69, 71, 81, 148–9 deny (to) 8, 101 dependence 45, 49–50, 157 depth 113, 123 desire [44 occur.], see in particular: desire between (the) two 65, 112; relational desire 145; sexual desire 59, 65 destiny 5, 7, 157 determine (to) 55, 77, 91; determination 3 develop (to) 86, 90–1, 129, 148, 155–6,