Gender Theory

Judith Butler, Luce Irigaray

Judith Butler sees gender as a social construct; Luce Irigaray emphasises the differences between the sexes. Both authors invite readers to see past what is made obvious. The two perspectives, respectively, allow readers to imagine a freedom from the social constraints placed on them through their bodies, then whips them, particularly women, into a righteous indignation after seeing their lives through the looking glass of custom, commodity and exchange.   

Central criticism of both authors seems to point to a utopian aspect to their arguments, as though they were writing in expectation that their imaginations and ponderings were actual reality. Perhaps they are. If the two women are visionaries of a sort and in their own manner, perhaps they are themselves living what to their critics and others seems irreal.

The role of women in society today is so comically outlined and prescribed, and yet too so nuanced that it is no wonder that women are said to appear to understand a language among themselves that at times puts men on guard. Even if Irigaray’s argument were to be factually refuted - that today’s women of modern society in the West are exchanged in just the same manner as Lévi-Strauss described was done in primitive societies – the structure and function of society today would nonetheless allow for an understanding of why Irigaray believes this, and might too provide a clear cut example that would support her views. There is scarcely a young woman in western culture who would feel comfortable agreeing to obey the man she marries. Still, many a young women dreams of being ‘given away by their fathers’ into the protective hands of their desired husbands-to-be. Is this society clinging to quaint custom? Or, is there some truth to Irigaray’s argument?

Irigaray’s critics accuse her of essentialising the feminine: she dares to define it. There is an unsettling irritation reserved for any person attempting to define anyone, or any gender. But Irigaray’s attempt may have been to actually free the feminine, the female, woman from the strictures of labels with which it, she, has been burdened, and to invite women to define themselves. 

Or, even to exist without labels, in much the same way as Butler suggests is possible.

Bibliography

Fuss, Diana J. Winter 1989.

“Essentially Speaking”: Luce Irigaray’s Language of Essence. In: Hypatia, Vol. 3, No. 3. French Feminist Philosophy.

Haas, Lynda. Autumn 1993.

Of Waters and Women: The Philosophy of Luce Irigaray. In: Hypatia, Vol. 8, No 4., pp. 150-159.

Leitch, Vincent B. (ed) 2001.

The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.