What do you think?
Rate this book
I Love to You
In this book, one of the foremost contemporary scholars in the fields of feminist thought and linguistics, explores the possibility of a new liberating language and hence a new relationship between the sexes. In I Love to You, Luce Irigaray moves from the critique of patriarchy to an exploration of the ground for a possible inter-subjectivity between the two sexes. Continuing her rejection of demands for equality, Irigaray poses the how can we move to a new era of sexual difference in which women and men establish lasting relations with one another without reducing the other to the status of object?
160 pages, Paperback
First published February 12, 1992
14 people are currently reading
391 people want to read
About the author
Luce Irigaray
66 books363 followersLuce Irigaray is a Belgian-born French feminist, philosopher, linguist, psycholinguist, psychoanalyst and cultural theorist. She is best known for her works Speculum of the Other Woman and This Sex Which Is Not One. Presently, she is active in the Women's Movements in both France and Italy.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
October 19, 2012
หลงรักแบบโคตรจะหลงรัก ไม่ได้อ่านหนังสือสอบ เพราะใช้เวลาสองวันเต็มกับการอ่านเล่มนี้
เราเคยอ่านอิริกาเรย์อยู่พักนึง แค่บทเดียวคือบทชื่อหนังสือ ซึ่งตอนนั้นอ่านไม่เข้าใจเลย มาคราวนี้หยิบมาอ่านเล่นๆ ตั้งแต่บทแรก แล้วพบว่ามันน่าสนใจมากๆ ประเด็นเรื่องความรักนี่มัน touching มากๆ สำหรับเรา โดยเฉพาะการพยายามพูดถึงมันในแง่มุมอื่นๆ ที่ไม่ใช่แค่รักหวานแหวว เรียนจบ แต่งงาน มีลูกมีเมียมีผัว แล้วชีวิตก็จบสิ้นกันที
อิริกาเรย์เริ่มต้นด้วยการอ้างว่าเฮเกลเป็นนักปรัชญาคนแรกๆ ที่มองความรักระหว่างชายหญิงว่าเป็นแรงงาน คำอธิบายแบบเฮเกลที่อิริกาเรย์สรุปมา มีอิทธิพลมหาศาลต่อพวกเฟมินิสต์มาร์กซิสม์ จนเราอ่านไปแล้วสงสัยมากว่า เฮเกลไปเขียนเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ตรงไหน ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่าง singularity กับ universality และการผลิตสร้างชุดความคิดที่บีบบังคับให้ผู้หญิงเชื่อว่าจุดหมายสูงสุดของชีวิตตัวเองต้องเป็นแม่และเมีย มันเป็นคำอธิบายเดียวกับที่พวกมาร์กซิสใช้เลย
ยังไงก็ตาม บทหลังจากนั้นก็สนุก เพราะเธอพยายามชี้ให้เห็นร่องรอยการครอบงำของระบบชายเป็นใหญ่ (พูดอย่างนั้นก็ได้) โดยเฉพาะในแง่ภาษา จุดพีคของเล่มคือข้อเสนอเรื่องการถอยห่างทว่าใกล้ชิด ความรัก 'ถึง' ใครบางคน โดยไม่ต้องทำให้เขาเป็นสิ่งของๆ เรา รักเขาโดยไม่ทำลายความเป็นตัวเขา รักโดยไม่ได้ลดทอนกันและกัน บนพื้นฐานของการฟังและการพูดคุย
มีรายละเอียดระหว่างนั้นมากมาย และมันนำมาสู่บทสรุปที่น่าสนใจมาก เราไม่ได้เชื่อแบบนั้นไปทั้งหมด แต่มันทรงพลังมากๆ สำหรับเรา อย่างน้อยที่สุด มันก็ไม่ได้นามธรรมจนเกินไป
----------------
การรัก 'ถึง' เธอ ('to' you): คือเว้นที่ว่างเพื่อก้าวผ่านจากอารมณ์สู่จิตวิญญาณ จากภายในสู่ภายนอก ฉันเห็นเธอ ฉันได้ยินเธอ ฉันรับรู้เธอ ฉันฟัง 'ที่' เธอ ฉันมองเธอ ฉันถูกกระตุ้นโดยเธอ ถูกทำให้ประหลาดใจโดยเธอ ฉันออกไปหายใจข้างนอก ฉันครุ่นคิดกับโลก น้ำ ดวงดาว ฉันคิด 'ถึง' เธอ ฉันคิดเธอ ฉันคิด 'ถึง' เรา: ถึงสองคน ถึงผู้ชายทุกคน ถึงผู้หญิงทุกคน ฉันเริ่มที่จะรัก รัก 'ถึง' เธอ ฉันกลับไปสู่เธอ ฉันพยายามจะพูด จะบอก 'แก่' เธอ: ความรู้สึก ความตั้งใจ ความมุ่งหมาย สำหรับตอนนี้ สำหรับวันพรุ่งนี้ สำหรับอีกแสนนาน ฉันขอ 'กับ' เธอ พื้นที่และเวลา สำหรับวันนี้ สำหรับในไม่ช้านี้ สำหรับชีวิต ของฉัน ของเธอ สำหรับชีวิตของคนมากมาย"- Luce Irigaray
เราเคยอ่านอิริกาเรย์อยู่พักนึง แค่บทเดียวคือบทชื่อหนังสือ ซึ่งตอนนั้นอ่านไม่เข้าใจเลย มาคราวนี้หยิบมาอ่านเล่นๆ ตั้งแต่บทแรก แล้วพบว่ามันน่าสนใจมากๆ ประเด็นเรื่องความรักนี่มัน touching มากๆ สำหรับเรา โดยเฉพาะการพยายามพูดถึงมันในแง่มุมอื่นๆ ที่ไม่ใช่แค่รักหวานแหวว เรียนจบ แต่งงาน มีลูกมีเมียมีผัว แล้วชีวิตก็จบสิ้นกันที
อิริกาเรย์เริ่มต้นด้วยการอ้างว่าเฮเกลเป็นนักปรัชญาคนแรกๆ ที่มองความรักระหว่างชายหญิงว่าเป็นแรงงาน คำอธิบายแบบเฮเกลที่อิริกาเรย์สรุปมา มีอิทธิพลมหาศาลต่อพวกเฟมินิสต์มาร์กซิสม์ จนเราอ่านไปแล้วสงสัยมากว่า เฮเกลไปเขียนเกี่ยวกับเรื่องนี้ตรงไหน ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่าง singularity กับ universality และการผลิตสร้างชุดความคิดที่บีบบังคับให้ผู้หญิงเชื่อว่าจุดหมายสูงสุดของชีวิตตัวเองต้องเป็นแม่และเมีย มันเป็นคำอธิบายเดียวกับที่พวกมาร์กซิสใช้เลย
ยังไงก็ตาม บทหลังจากนั้นก็สนุก เพราะเธอพยายามชี้ให้เห็นร่องรอยการครอบงำของระบบชายเป็นใหญ่ (พูดอย่างนั้นก็ได้) โดยเฉพาะในแง่ภาษา จุดพีคของเล่มคือข้อเสนอเรื่องการถอยห่างทว่าใกล้ชิด ความรัก 'ถึง' ใครบางคน โดยไม่ต้องทำให้เขาเป็นสิ่งของๆ เรา รักเขาโดยไม่ทำลายความเป็นตัวเขา รักโดยไม่ได้ลดทอนกันและกัน บนพื้นฐานของการฟังและการพูดคุย
มีรายละเอียดระหว่างนั้นมากมาย และมันนำมาสู่บทสรุปที่น่าสนใจมาก เราไม่ได้เชื่อแบบนั้นไปทั้งหมด แต่มันทรงพลังมากๆ สำหรับเรา อย่างน้อยที่สุด มันก็ไม่ได้นามธรรมจนเกินไป
----------------
การรัก 'ถึง' เธอ ('to' you): คือเว้นที่ว่างเพื่อก้าวผ่านจากอารมณ์สู่จิตวิญญาณ จากภายในสู่ภายนอก ฉันเห็นเธอ ฉันได้ยินเธอ ฉันรับรู้เธอ ฉันฟัง 'ที่' เธอ ฉันมองเธอ ฉันถูกกระตุ้นโดยเธอ ถูกทำให้ประหลาดใจโดยเธอ ฉันออกไปหายใจข้างนอก ฉันครุ่นคิดกับโลก น้ำ ดวงดาว ฉันคิด 'ถึง' เธอ ฉันคิดเธอ ฉันคิด 'ถึง' เรา: ถึงสองคน ถึงผู้ชายทุกคน ถึงผู้หญิงทุกคน ฉันเริ่มที่จะรัก รัก 'ถึง' เธอ ฉันกลับไปสู่เธอ ฉันพยายามจะพูด จะบอก 'แก่' เธอ: ความรู้สึก ความตั้งใจ ความมุ่งหมาย สำหรับตอนนี้ สำหรับวันพรุ่งนี้ สำหรับอีกแสนนาน ฉันขอ 'กับ' เธอ พื้นที่และเวลา สำหรับวันนี้ สำหรับในไม่ช้านี้ สำหรับชีวิต ของฉัน ของเธอ สำหรับชีวิตของคนมากมาย"- Luce Irigaray
May 30, 2024
Quest’opera di Luce Irigaray restituisce ai lettori un concetto di amore slegato dall’idea di possesso, con una grande potenza espressiva, quasi poetica. È anche certamente un libro rivolto alle donne, che secondo Irigaray sono le custodi della comunicazione, del dialogo. Tramite questo testo infatti si tenta «dotare le donne di una coscienza propria nella vita privata e pubblica, e di mediazioni che permettano loro di esercitarla». Ciò che promuove la scrittrice dunque è una fuga delle donne dalla cultura patriarcale, che ha sempre relegato la figura femminile ad un ruolo marginale nella società civile e politica. Irigaray si rivolge alle insorte, agli spiriti in rivolta, e lo fa spesso plasmando un nuovo genere di linguaggio - neologismi (come fa Donna Haraway ad esempio) - che sia realmente una casa, un luogo abitabile dalla soggettività femminile. L’esclusione delle donne avviene infatti in primo luogo nel linguaggio, dove il plurale è sempre maschile, il generico è sempre maschile, le cariche rilevanti sono sempre al maschile (Segretario di Stato vs segretaria). Serve dunque una rivoluzione linguistica, prioritaria rispetto a quella cognitiva, che consenta di parlare, di dialogare. Veniamo poi a un concetto fondamentale, quello del dialogo tra uomini e donne. Diversamente da altre filosofe femministe, Irigaray sposa un “femminismo della differenza” che non propone tanto una parità, un’uguaglianza, tra uomini e donne, ma una diversa valorizzazione della differenza di genere:
«volersi uguale al'uomo è un grave errore etico, perché così facendo la donna contribuisce a cancellare la realta naturale e spirituale in un universo astratto al servizio di un solo padrone, la morte. Oltre al proprio suicidio, la donna priva così l'uomo della possibilità di definirsi come uomo ossia come persona sessuata, naturalmente e spiritualmente»
Questo passaggio è fondamentale per comprendere il pensiero di Irigaray. È infatti il riconoscimento della dualità , dell’alterità (riprendendo le tesi di Levinas), del diritto di esistere, il cardine del pensiero filosofico di Luce Irigaray. Attorno a questo cardine ruotano le varie considerazioni circa la necessità di un nuovo “diritto”, il diritto cioè all’adempimento del proprio genere, dal quale siamo sempre segnati. Il genere infatti implica un “negativo” indica il nostro limite, ciò che ci segna fin dalla nascita:
«il mio del soggetto è già segnato, sempre, da una disappropriazione: il genere»
Ogni pretesa di totalità nell’esistenza umana è dunque negata dall’identita sessuata. Ecco, su questo punto sorgono molti dubbi: in primis, è molto dubbia questa teoria, perché sembrerebbe suggerire che senza “l’altro” o “l’altra” la natura umana non possa essere completa. Il secondo dubbio è: perché considerare il genere come una disappropriazione, quando di fatto sembra essere già una nostra proprietà (certamente non una proprietà intenzionalmente ottenuta, ma pur sempre proprietà)? Su questo punto rimangono molti dubbi, sembra quasi che Irigaray sia rimasta al mito dell’androgino di Platone, ma è certamente affascinante il fatto che il genere sia considerato come “limite”, e credo che questa concettualizzazione sia utile per definire meglio la natura umana, che è sempre limitata. Ed è anche estremamente interessante il modo in cui Irigaray considera il genere:
«Io non è mai semplicemente mio, in quanto appartiene a un genere”
Ecco, al di là dell’idea in sé che può piacere o non piacere, è certamente vero che nella nostra natura c’è sempre una componente che non controlliamo, il genere biologico è una di queste. Ed è estremamente importante sottolineare che il genere porta con sé non solo tratti somatici, ma anche diversi modi di pensare, di comprendere il mondo, diversi modi di vivere l’amore, di giocare, e via dicendo.
Veniamo ora alla riflessione forse più poetica e interessante di tutto il libro: “amo a te”. Cosa significa quest’espressione? Perché Irigaray vuole ricostruire un’espressione così apparentemente innocua e banale come “Ti amo”? Per via del fatto che quest’ultima espressione ha un difetto, il complemento oggetto, che denota la persona amata come un possesso, un bene di cui disporre. Riconoscere l’alterità, l’irriducibile sostanza dell’altro, significa modificare quest’espressione e utilizzare al suo posto l’a te.
Amo a te significa:
«Ti riconosco» significa che sei differente da me, che non posso identificarti, identificarmi a te, né controllare il tuo divenire. Io non sarò mai il tuo padrone. E questo negativo è ciò che mi permette di andare verso di te.
«Ti riconosco» suppone che io non possa vederti total-mente. Tu non mi sarai mai completamente visibile, ma, grazie a questo, ti rispetto come differente da me. Quello che non vedo di te mi spinge verso di te se tu ti preservi, e se la tua energia mi permette di preservare e di elevare la mia energia insieme a te. Vado verso di te come verso ciò che non vedrò ma che mi attira, come il cammino di un divenire, di un progresso. Questo progresso non significa un allontanamento dalla carne, dal mio corpo, dalla mia storia. Vado verso ciò che mi permette di divenire pur restando me stessa(o).
La trascendenza, quindi, non è più estasi, uscire fuori da sé verso un completamente-altro inaccessibile, oltre-sensi-bilità, oltre-terra. È rispetto dell'altro che io non sarò mai»
Ecco, in queste poche righe potete notare l’immenso potere delle parole di Irigaray. È difficile commentare delle frasi così dense di significato, perché non saprei cos’altro dire. Una cosa sola vale la pena notare: “questo negativo è ciò che mi attira a te” significa che questo non-controllo, questa non-conoscenza dell’altro, è ciò che ci spinge all’attrazione. Lungi dall’essere un limite, un ostacolo, questa grande alterità che separa gli uomini dalle donne costituisce una forza d’attrazione incommensurabile. Ed è proprio questa forza che ci spinge nella direzione dell’a te, del dialogo, dell’incontro. Dunque questa trascendenza del
limite non comporta un’ascesi, una riflessione sui massimi sistemi o altro, questo limite trascendentale produce l’amore per come lo conosciamo sulla terra. Adoro, in questo senso, un’altra frase del libro:
Certo, noi siamo spirito, ci hanno insegnato. Ma cos’è lo spirito se non un mezzo perché la materia sbocci nella sua forma, nelle sue forme? Cos’è lo spirito, se piega il corpo a un modello astratto che non gli si addice?
«volersi uguale al'uomo è un grave errore etico, perché così facendo la donna contribuisce a cancellare la realta naturale e spirituale in un universo astratto al servizio di un solo padrone, la morte. Oltre al proprio suicidio, la donna priva così l'uomo della possibilità di definirsi come uomo ossia come persona sessuata, naturalmente e spiritualmente»
Questo passaggio è fondamentale per comprendere il pensiero di Irigaray. È infatti il riconoscimento della dualità , dell’alterità (riprendendo le tesi di Levinas), del diritto di esistere, il cardine del pensiero filosofico di Luce Irigaray. Attorno a questo cardine ruotano le varie considerazioni circa la necessità di un nuovo “diritto”, il diritto cioè all’adempimento del proprio genere, dal quale siamo sempre segnati. Il genere infatti implica un “negativo” indica il nostro limite, ciò che ci segna fin dalla nascita:
«il mio del soggetto è già segnato, sempre, da una disappropriazione: il genere»
Ogni pretesa di totalità nell’esistenza umana è dunque negata dall’identita sessuata. Ecco, su questo punto sorgono molti dubbi: in primis, è molto dubbia questa teoria, perché sembrerebbe suggerire che senza “l’altro” o “l’altra” la natura umana non possa essere completa. Il secondo dubbio è: perché considerare il genere come una disappropriazione, quando di fatto sembra essere già una nostra proprietà (certamente non una proprietà intenzionalmente ottenuta, ma pur sempre proprietà)? Su questo punto rimangono molti dubbi, sembra quasi che Irigaray sia rimasta al mito dell’androgino di Platone, ma è certamente affascinante il fatto che il genere sia considerato come “limite”, e credo che questa concettualizzazione sia utile per definire meglio la natura umana, che è sempre limitata. Ed è anche estremamente interessante il modo in cui Irigaray considera il genere:
«Io non è mai semplicemente mio, in quanto appartiene a un genere”
Ecco, al di là dell’idea in sé che può piacere o non piacere, è certamente vero che nella nostra natura c’è sempre una componente che non controlliamo, il genere biologico è una di queste. Ed è estremamente importante sottolineare che il genere porta con sé non solo tratti somatici, ma anche diversi modi di pensare, di comprendere il mondo, diversi modi di vivere l’amore, di giocare, e via dicendo.
Veniamo ora alla riflessione forse più poetica e interessante di tutto il libro: “amo a te”. Cosa significa quest’espressione? Perché Irigaray vuole ricostruire un’espressione così apparentemente innocua e banale come “Ti amo”? Per via del fatto che quest’ultima espressione ha un difetto, il complemento oggetto, che denota la persona amata come un possesso, un bene di cui disporre. Riconoscere l’alterità, l’irriducibile sostanza dell’altro, significa modificare quest’espressione e utilizzare al suo posto l’a te.
Amo a te significa:
«Ti riconosco» significa che sei differente da me, che non posso identificarti, identificarmi a te, né controllare il tuo divenire. Io non sarò mai il tuo padrone. E questo negativo è ciò che mi permette di andare verso di te.
«Ti riconosco» suppone che io non possa vederti total-mente. Tu non mi sarai mai completamente visibile, ma, grazie a questo, ti rispetto come differente da me. Quello che non vedo di te mi spinge verso di te se tu ti preservi, e se la tua energia mi permette di preservare e di elevare la mia energia insieme a te. Vado verso di te come verso ciò che non vedrò ma che mi attira, come il cammino di un divenire, di un progresso. Questo progresso non significa un allontanamento dalla carne, dal mio corpo, dalla mia storia. Vado verso ciò che mi permette di divenire pur restando me stessa(o).
La trascendenza, quindi, non è più estasi, uscire fuori da sé verso un completamente-altro inaccessibile, oltre-sensi-bilità, oltre-terra. È rispetto dell'altro che io non sarò mai»
Ecco, in queste poche righe potete notare l’immenso potere delle parole di Irigaray. È difficile commentare delle frasi così dense di significato, perché non saprei cos’altro dire. Una cosa sola vale la pena notare: “questo negativo è ciò che mi attira a te” significa che questo non-controllo, questa non-conoscenza dell’altro, è ciò che ci spinge all’attrazione. Lungi dall’essere un limite, un ostacolo, questa grande alterità che separa gli uomini dalle donne costituisce una forza d’attrazione incommensurabile. Ed è proprio questa forza che ci spinge nella direzione dell’a te, del dialogo, dell’incontro. Dunque questa trascendenza del
limite non comporta un’ascesi, una riflessione sui massimi sistemi o altro, questo limite trascendentale produce l’amore per come lo conosciamo sulla terra. Adoro, in questo senso, un’altra frase del libro:
Certo, noi siamo spirito, ci hanno insegnato. Ma cos’è lo spirito se non un mezzo perché la materia sbocci nella sua forma, nelle sue forme? Cos’è lo spirito, se piega il corpo a un modello astratto che non gli si addice?
Want to read
January 23, 2013Review to come.
Prologue to Love Between Us
"We were two: a man and a woman speaking in accordance with our identity, our conscience, our cultural heritage, and even our sensibility."
Luce Irigaray
Love in Sexual Difference
It's not "I love you"
It finds love in difference.
It's "I love to you".
Lucian Irigaraye
For the Love of Epicurus
"What blessings that book creates for its readers and what peace, tranquillity, and freedom it engenders in them, liberating them as it does from terrors and apparitions and portents, from vain hopes and extravagant cravings, developing in them intelligence and truth, and truly purifying their understanding, not with torches and squills and that sort of foolery, but with straight thinking, truthfulness and frankness."
Lucian of Samosata
Prologue to Love Between Us
"We were two: a man and a woman speaking in accordance with our identity, our conscience, our cultural heritage, and even our sensibility."
Luce Irigaray
Love in Sexual Difference
It's not "I love you"
It finds love in difference.
It's "I love to you".
Lucian Irigaraye
For the Love of Epicurus
"What blessings that book creates for its readers and what peace, tranquillity, and freedom it engenders in them, liberating them as it does from terrors and apparitions and portents, from vain hopes and extravagant cravings, developing in them intelligence and truth, and truly purifying their understanding, not with torches and squills and that sort of foolery, but with straight thinking, truthfulness and frankness."
Lucian of Samosata
November 29, 2016
this book was ok but i feel like luce was kinda strapped 4 cash
September 22, 2020
Irigaray makes an argument for women’s meaningful inclusion in civil law as a means towards subjective actualization and individuation along with men. Contra Hegel, rather than becoming lost in feminine privations, impulses, and narcissisms, women need to be included in culture and language in order to participate in loving relationships with men.
This cogent plea unfolds from Irigaray’s belief in the necessity of a new universal value of mystic dualism to surpass the other universal value of patriarchy. That this new cosmology lies beyond metaphysics or beyond an oppositional dialectic as she claims, remains to be shown.
Irigaray’s political ideal about working towards instituting both men and women’s subjectivity takes the form of a reformist project within the liberal republic. This project, she claims, came out of conversation with the Italian communist party, although I find it difficult to make an explicit link between this project and communism. She emphasizes that language and civil law should be more accommodating to the individual rights and responsibilities of male and female subjects, in order that men and women are better able to enter into dialog with one another, rather than being determined by traditional concerns over possession. Irigaray makes the case for a turn towards biopower over sovereign authority, although this was surely already the norm in many capitalist countries at the time the book was published. The turn towards individualist liberty means, to her, that “civil authority will become a service and not a power.” Authority is not a power?
What Irigaray seems to miss in her defence of cosmic dualism is the singular, irreducible experience of the individual speaking body; existence as sexual difference as such.
This cogent plea unfolds from Irigaray’s belief in the necessity of a new universal value of mystic dualism to surpass the other universal value of patriarchy. That this new cosmology lies beyond metaphysics or beyond an oppositional dialectic as she claims, remains to be shown.
Irigaray’s political ideal about working towards instituting both men and women’s subjectivity takes the form of a reformist project within the liberal republic. This project, she claims, came out of conversation with the Italian communist party, although I find it difficult to make an explicit link between this project and communism. She emphasizes that language and civil law should be more accommodating to the individual rights and responsibilities of male and female subjects, in order that men and women are better able to enter into dialog with one another, rather than being determined by traditional concerns over possession. Irigaray makes the case for a turn towards biopower over sovereign authority, although this was surely already the norm in many capitalist countries at the time the book was published. The turn towards individualist liberty means, to her, that “civil authority will become a service and not a power.” Authority is not a power?
What Irigaray seems to miss in her defence of cosmic dualism is the singular, irreducible experience of the individual speaking body; existence as sexual difference as such.
October 7, 2017
A very interesting read
May 16, 2022
Beautifully written but transphobic and outdated. Still, some of the ideas are still relevant and could stand up to a queer reinterpretation.
November 8, 2024
“Certo noi siamo spirito, ci hanno insegnato. Ma cos'è lo spirito, se non un mezzo perché la materia sbocci nella sua forma, nelle sue forme?”
January 26, 2024
"I Love to You" is a book filled with many complications, yet it invites us to ponder on subjectivity, language, and sexual differences that have historically influenced our perceptions of love and desire. The challenge presented is to love without diminishing the other to our own subjectivity, our world, our language... That is the ultimate task.
"I love to you means I maintain a relation of indirection to you. I do not subjugate you or consume you. I respect you (as irreductible). I hail you: in you I hail. I praise you: in you I praise. I give you thanks: to you I give thanks for... The "to" is the sign of non-immediacy, of mediation between us." Luce Irigaray (1996). I love to you, p. 109.
"I love to you means I maintain a relation of indirection to you. I do not subjugate you or consume you. I respect you (as irreductible). I hail you: in you I hail. I praise you: in you I praise. I give you thanks: to you I give thanks for... The "to" is the sign of non-immediacy, of mediation between us." Luce Irigaray (1996). I love to you, p. 109.
June 10, 2007
luce's stance is that the phrase "i love you" is part of the possessive nature of love in western society today, based on the possession and oppression of women by men. introducing "to" makes it more honest as an expression of one's feelings without necessitating reciprocity.
September 12, 2008
Of all Irigaray I like this the least because it is so hetero-centered...like an essentialist essay on gendered politics, so close and yet, not
May 24, 2012
Provocative feminist ideology. Heteronormative leaning. Great passages on what it is to listen. Not sure what to make of this text.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews