3.5 / 5 stars.
In this book, Irigaray seems to revisit Nietzsche’s project of finding ways to the Übermensch. Although she explicitly denounces his ways of inquiry, she concretizes, with a heavy Heiddegarian undertone, what could be, according to her, the way to a human being that follows or adheres more closely to its natural inclinations.
Rather than playing out, in ways that many before her have done, the dichotomy between ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ — in which being human is denounced in favor of perpetually becoming — she claims that being is inherently becoming without, however, completely doing away with a certain human “origin” and, in some ways, even essence(s) (even though she mentions the word essence only once and seems to denounce it). This human origin must be found in our sexuate being and becoming that is driven by desire, desire to explore, discover and grow incessantly. However, she claims, our society — including a tradition of metaphysical thinking that has fundamentally shaped our ways of thinking about and relating to the world — keeps on blocking this free and natural desire as it values more and seems to give primacy to modalities of relationality constituted by a subject-object hierarchy. This specific subject-object orientation is what characterizes masculine relationality, which might implicitly explain the way Irigaray considers this society to be patriarchal.
Thus, Irigaray advocates relating to the world independently of “superstructures” that preliminarily define the way we look at and feel with the world, as the sight and touch are considered the primary senses through we (should) familiarize (with) the world. This does not mean Irigaray embraces the primacy of these senses. Rather, she wants us to go back to relating to the world freely, thereby focusing on our growth and child-like exploration of the world. This is possible only if we desire regardless of traditional or preformulated ideas about the world.
Throughout the book it does not become very clear, however, to what extent these ideas about “origin” and essence should be deconstructed or left behind (without being thoughtlessly destroyed as we should be thankful for what has been done and thought throughout history). This is mainly caused by Irigaray’s ambiguous treatment of biological sex and gender. Although Irigaray claims that we should go beyond all that (western) thought, philosophy and metaphysics has given us, she remains caught in the same forms of archetypical reasoning, as she claims the rendezvous between man and woman, as two sexuate beings that unity through loving desire (preferably in a subject-subject form of relationality), is the place where a new human being (that goes beyond the current human being in a similar way but not as the Übermensch) can and will originate. Rather than completely deconstructing western metaphysical, binary thinking she keeps standing the gender binary, claiming that they are biologically fundamental to our natural, sexuate becoming. As such, Irigaray does, in my opinion, still leave no space for a proper (in the sense of the word that signifies that which is closest to oneselves) sexuate becoming that would include all modalities of sexuality, such as non-binary gendered beings and trans-people.
Nevertheless Irigaray’s book can be helpful in generating new ways of thinking about the western metaphysical tradition in a more socio and unfortunately less political way. Her chapter (8) about language as constitutive of our becoming can be a fruitful means of thinking new worlds through creating a new word that is closer to our proper desire and natural becoming. Although there is no mention of poetry in this chapter, i read this chapter as proposing to embrace a poetical (rather than instrumental) “use” of language that allows for new and exploratory ways of relating to the world. Also, parts of chapter 11 lead me to concretely and beautifully understand forms of jealousy caused by a conception and practice of love as a desire to control the other (in a way similar to what bell hooks contributes to toxic masculinity in her The Will to Change) instead of desiring their natural growth and thus letting them be. All in all a good read as part of deconstructing the hegemonic ideas within western metaphysics, a slight feminist revision of old ideas that, however, must not be taken as an endpoint as it remains caught in the same pitfalls it aims to contest.