Talk:Luce Irigaray
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality. Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
I moved this tag from the main page! Please put WikiProject tags in talk pages in future :) VivaEmilyDavies 22:59, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Sexed equations and bombastic utterances
What, nothing in here about Irigaray's assertion that E=mc^2 is phallocentric? Nor her related claim that science cannot formulate an accurate model of turbulence because it refuses to acknowledge the Awesome Power of the Vagina? 85.64.246.205 21:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Silly "criticism" sections
I removed the Sokal digression a couple months ago. I apologize that my edit summary was not descriptive... I would not normally do that: the poor summary was a glitch either by the software or by my brain, though I can't remember which now. (I had been experiencing problems with "save" timing out in the past, so the bad summary may have been a second try after I removed whitespace too).
In any case, I continue to be uncomfortable with spurious (less generous would be "moronic") criticisms stuck into articles on academics. Actually, not just academics: I've seen the same thing in technical topics, like ones about computer programming. There's this really terribly wrong idea of "balance" that floats around that every presentation of a topic has to have a critic or criticism. But the notability of academics is not firstly the fact that someone or another has criticized their thinking... in fact, any thinker notable enough for an article has probably acquired critics, since that's the nature of academia. It's in the nature of the beast, however, that every thinker who has been moderately widely read, has a dozen professors and hundreds of graduate students, who have written something criticizing some aspect of their thought. Heck, I've probably published something with criticism of Irigaray, albeit passing criticism... I don't want whatever little essay I published in grad school in this encyclopedia article.
I certainly think that whatever Sokal writes is notable in the article about him, or about his books in which the criticisms are stated, or like that. But the article on a criticized subject should not have the criticism unless it speaks in some notable way to their reason for notability. In this case, it's just barely plausible to qualify under that criterion. The stated issue about 'E=mc^2' and phallocentrism is roughly relevant to something actually in Irigaray; actually I'm not sure about that, since I can't recall that in Irigaray—it seems plausible that she comments something like that though. In contrast, there had been something in the Lacan article that said something like "Sokal says that even though he never read Lacan, he's sure it's gibberish" (which was utterly non-notable).
If some editor can make a plausible case that the passing criticism actually relates to Irigaray's notability, I guess it's not so terrible for the article. Not great, but maybe bearable. Such a case, of course, should not be: "Irigaray is wrong, and readers must be alerted to the fact". Right or wrong, it's not our job to ferret out the truth of philosophical claims. Absent a level of plausibility, I'll probably take out the paragraph as non-notable. LotLE×talk 00:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason Irigaray came to my attention was due to the mentioned criticisms of such (hilarious) statements. I think that when something you have said becomes so widely discussed and commented, it becomes notable enough for inclusion in the article. --Lost Goblin 19:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Whether it was right or wrong, the attack on Irigaray by Sokal and Bricmont was certainly memorable. Since Sokal and Bricmont are well known figures, it does a disservice to readers of the Irigaray article not to let them know that they criticised her. Mentioning Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms is not the same as saying that they are correct; that can be left to the reader to judge.
-
- The argument that Lulu made for deleting the mention of Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms is in my opinion not convincing, since they are primarily about Irigaray's alleged misunderstanding of scientific concepts generally, and Irigaray's views on science are certainly one reason for her notability. Skoojal (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] CNRS and other affiliations
Like many people, I've never been able to find evidence of Luce Irigaray on the CNRS website or documents. Does anyone have a citation from CNRS to corroborate the claim that she's affiliated?
I'm adding mentions of universities at which she's recently taught. Shom02 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)shom02
[edit] what about Freud?
there is nothing here about Freud? He was one of the biggest influences of Irigaray!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.104.23 (talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC).
[edit] bibliography
this bibliography is lacking most of her works. What's going on? Just a few that are missing (not nearly all, and I'm just referring to her books, not her many articles): Je, Tu, Nous ce sexe qui n'est pas un parler n'est jamais neutre L'ethique de la difference sexuelle "le Corps-a-corps avec la mere" This entire article honestly needs to be reworked by someone who knows Irigaray. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.210.90.180 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Incorrect characterization of arguments
The article said:
- Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's Fashionable Nonsense criticizes Irigaray, as a general example of what they believe is the anti-scientific tendency of "postmodernism". They cite her analyses of E = mc² as a "sexed equation" (because it privileges the speed of light) and her argument that fluid mechanics has been neglected by "masculine" science that prefers to deal with "masculine" rigid objects rather than "feminine" fluids.
This paragraph contains a very tendentious summary of of Irigaray's argument about fluid mechanics and an incorrect summary of the Sokal/Bricmont criticism of it.
First, Irigaray's argument. In the passages cited by Sokal and Bricmont (on pages 102–106 of the 1997 Profile Books edition), Irigaray does not claim that science is masculine, nor that rigid objects are masculine, nor that fluids are feminine. These claims appear in N. Katherine Hayles' interpretation of Irigaray quoted on page 101. Hayles' interpretation, in my opinion, goes considerably beyond what Irigaray says in the extracts that Sokal and Bricmont quote, and I don't think it deserves mention here. (Unless we're going to cite it as an example of the way caricatures of Irigaray have become well known among people who haven't read her work at all.)
Second, the Sokal/Bricmont criticism. This has nothing to do with the "anti-scientific tendency of postmodernism". Sokal and Bricmont's criticism is that Irigaray is incorrect about the history of the development of solid and fluid mechanics and has misunderstood the source of the difficulty of finding solutions to the equations of fluid mechanics.
I've rewritten the paragraph as best I can so that it's fair to both sides without making it any longer than it deserves to be. Gdr 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good work! The rewritten version reads much better, and is more encyclopedic. I suspect Sokal and Bricmont are among that large group of people who criticize Irigaray (and most of the folks they "criticize") without having read her. But your language is neutral and clear. LotLE×talk 20:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. (But you're being unfair to Sokal and Bricmont. They quote more than three pages of "The 'mechanics' of fluids" and they imply that they have read the whole essay, although they have understandable difficulties with Irigaray's highly allusive language, hence their need to consider interpretations such as Hayles's.) Gdr 20:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- While I appreciate your effort, I'm not convinced the changes are a clear improvement, and I'm not sure why would you delete the link. One can agree or disagree with 'Fashionable Nonsense', but I think the previous version represents its criticism more accurately. --Uriel 10:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the link because I did not use the Dawkins review as a source for the revised paragraph. I worked directly from the Sokal & Bricmont book.
Why do you think the previous version was a better characterization of Sokal and Bricmont's criticisms? I have looked carefully and I can find nothing about the "anti-scientific tendency of postmodernism" in the Luce Irigaray chapter. Please be specific. Gdr 13:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] False claim
This article currently claims that Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont admit to not having read Irigaray. No such admission appears in their chapter on Irigaray in Fashionable Nonsense, which contains a number of quotations from Irigaray's books and articles. The claim appears to be clearly wrong. Skoojal (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- The admission by Sokal and Bricmont is not in their book itself, but in other statements they have made after the book. I know that's hand waving without a citation; but I concede that such a digression is going too far afield in any case (so would rather just remove the caveat that dig up a cite). However, anything beyond a mere statement that S&B do criticize is really straying too far. Articles on academics should really, really focus on discussion within their own fields, not just digress into vague ranting by people who don't like general fields of inquiry. In any case the weird claim (that S&B don't even really make) about "sexed equations" is just too irrelevant for inclusion.
- However, you are right that my edit earlier today was the wrong one. A simple mention of a well known popular text that mentions Irigaray negatively is fine to include, as long as it's not belabored. Readers are free to read the linked article on Fasionable Nonsense if they are so inclined. LotLE×talk 03:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Antoinette Fouque
The article describes Antoinette Fouque as a feminist leader. I'm not sure that Fouque considers herself a feminist (Theodore Zeldin says in An Intimate History of Humanity that she rejects the label), so possibly this should be changed.
The description of Hélène Cixous as a feminist is also open to question.
Skoojal (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
