What do you think?
Rate this book
Critical Life Studies
식물의 사유
페미니즘 철학자와 식물성의 철학자의 만남
32편의 편지에 담아낸 식물 세계를 통한 사유
페미니즘 철학을 대표하는 루스 이리가레와 식물성의 철학을 선보이는 마이클 마더가 16개 주제를 담은 32편의 서신 교환을 통해 나눈 철학적 사유 『식물의 사유』. 이 책은 각기 ‘페미니즘(성차) 철학’과 ‘식물의 철학’이라는 화두를 중심으로 자신만의 독창적 사유를 전개해 온 두 철학자가 ‘식물 존재’를 통해 자연과 문화, 물질과 정신, 감각성과 초월성, 주체와 타자, 여성과 남성, 비인간과 인간 등 서구 형이상학을 지배해 온 이분법과 동일성의 사유를 넘어서려는 시도를 하고 있다. 2013년 11월부터 2014년 말까지 일 년 남짓 열여섯 개의 주제에 대해 서로의 생각을 편지로 교환한 것이 책의 뼈대를 이루고 있다. 일 년은 사 계절의 순환이 마무리되고 새로운 계절이 시작되는 시간이다. SNS와 이메일의 시대에 우편을 통한 편지로 대화를 주고받는 형식 자체가 식물의 발아와 성장과 개화와 결실의 시간을 닮으려는 저자들의 생각을 반영한다.
이 책은 철학자 두 사람이 나눈 편지를 엮은 것이다. 따라서 철학적 개념과 사유이 동원되지만, 전문적인 철학 서적에서는 만날 수 없는 생생한 개인적 체험을 들려준다. 루스 이리가레는 박사학위 논문을 책(『검경』, 1974)으로 출판한 뒤 라캉 정신분석학교에서 추방당하고 파리 뱅센 대학의 교수직에서 쫓겨났다. 그녀가 어떻게 자연 속에서 몸과 마음을 회복할 수 있었을까? 교통사고를 당한 후 요가 수업에서 배운 호흡법이 어떻게 그를 인도 철학으로 이끌었을까? 감각과 영혼을 결합하려는 그의 노력이 어떻게 매일의 시 쓰기로 나타났을까? 우리는 이 책에서 그녀의 철학적 사유와 결합한 내밀한 독백을 들을 수 있다.
마이클 마더는 뿌리 뽑힌 이민자로 세계를 떠돌아다니지 않을 수 없었다. 자신의 집 마당에서 식물이 뿌리 뽑히는 것을 보고 내면의 무언가가 복구될 가망 없이 영원히 상실되었음을 느낀 것이나, 빙설폭풍이 오타와 시에 불어 닥쳤을 때 도시적 삶의 취약성을 몸소 체험한 것이 어떻게 식물성에 대한 철학적 사유로 이어졌는지를, 우리는 알 수 있다. 철학을 삶의 맥락과 감각적 경험으로 다시 데려오는 이런 글쓰기를 통해 우리는 사유의 장소성과 신체성을 느낄 수 있다.
32편의 편지에 담아낸 식물 세계를 통한 사유
페미니즘 철학을 대표하는 루스 이리가레와 식물성의 철학을 선보이는 마이클 마더가 16개 주제를 담은 32편의 서신 교환을 통해 나눈 철학적 사유 『식물의 사유』. 이 책은 각기 ‘페미니즘(성차) 철학’과 ‘식물의 철학’이라는 화두를 중심으로 자신만의 독창적 사유를 전개해 온 두 철학자가 ‘식물 존재’를 통해 자연과 문화, 물질과 정신, 감각성과 초월성, 주체와 타자, 여성과 남성, 비인간과 인간 등 서구 형이상학을 지배해 온 이분법과 동일성의 사유를 넘어서려는 시도를 하고 있다. 2013년 11월부터 2014년 말까지 일 년 남짓 열여섯 개의 주제에 대해 서로의 생각을 편지로 교환한 것이 책의 뼈대를 이루고 있다. 일 년은 사 계절의 순환이 마무리되고 새로운 계절이 시작되는 시간이다. SNS와 이메일의 시대에 우편을 통한 편지로 대화를 주고받는 형식 자체가 식물의 발아와 성장과 개화와 결실의 시간을 닮으려는 저자들의 생각을 반영한다.
이 책은 철학자 두 사람이 나눈 편지를 엮은 것이다. 따라서 철학적 개념과 사유이 동원되지만, 전문적인 철학 서적에서는 만날 수 없는 생생한 개인적 체험을 들려준다. 루스 이리가레는 박사학위 논문을 책(『검경』, 1974)으로 출판한 뒤 라캉 정신분석학교에서 추방당하고 파리 뱅센 대학의 교수직에서 쫓겨났다. 그녀가 어떻게 자연 속에서 몸과 마음을 회복할 수 있었을까? 교통사고를 당한 후 요가 수업에서 배운 호흡법이 어떻게 그를 인도 철학으로 이끌었을까? 감각과 영혼을 결합하려는 그의 노력이 어떻게 매일의 시 쓰기로 나타났을까? 우리는 이 책에서 그녀의 철학적 사유와 결합한 내밀한 독백을 들을 수 있다.
마이클 마더는 뿌리 뽑힌 이민자로 세계를 떠돌아다니지 않을 수 없었다. 자신의 집 마당에서 식물이 뿌리 뽑히는 것을 보고 내면의 무언가가 복구될 가망 없이 영원히 상실되었음을 느낀 것이나, 빙설폭풍이 오타와 시에 불어 닥쳤을 때 도시적 삶의 취약성을 몸소 체험한 것이 어떻게 식물성에 대한 철학적 사유로 이어졌는지를, 우리는 알 수 있다. 철학을 삶의 맥락과 감각적 경험으로 다시 데려오는 이런 글쓰기를 통해 우리는 사유의 장소성과 신체성을 느낄 수 있다.
360 pages, Paperback
Published August 25, 2020
22 people are currently reading
366 people want to read
About the author
Luce Irigaray
66 books365 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 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 26, 2016
The previous reviewer has clearly had little contact with philosophy in general and apparently no contact with the previous works of the authors of this collaboration, so his one star rating is neither charitable nor warranted. In short, the book is a radical challenge to a dominant thread of traditional metaphysics--but if your worldview is saturated by that traditional perspective (and it likely is whether you are aware of that or not), you may not be able to identify the case being made in this book immediately. Another way to put it is that this book is part of the growing body of works that aim to de-center the human from it's traditionally privileged position in order to rethink our relations to the larger world from a radically new perspective--one that recognizes the perpetual and inherent mutual interdependence of all living systems as well as these systems dependence upon the elements. It is a call for a communion with plant life and a recognition of our dependence upon it. Where the previous reviewer was confused by the presentation, I found the writing to be a refreshing departure from the formulaic and typically quite dry philosophical style. Irigaray in particular, writes in a way that is emotionally engaging and builds stories that resonate deeply if you have a minimal background in the subject matter to draw upon. Marder's writing style is a little bit closer to the drier academic type of writing that he was undoubtedly trained in but even he manages to depart from that type of presentation to flourish in more interesting ways. I suppose, if we are to learn anything from the previous reviewer, it is that, if you have no contact with this subject area you may want to start with something a little more introductory. However, I'm sure many will be able to identify the promise of this work without such background. For those of you that don't quite get in on a first past, perhaps it would be advisable to return to it after having done some preliminaries. In any case, it is a book that deserves to be reread.
November 29, 2025
I kinda wanted more from this! I totally acknowledge that this was huge in terms of its intervention in the world of western metaphysics but as a work of ecocritism maybe not as much? Like I feel like both authors engaged with questions new materialists and posthumanists have been thinking about for decades without actually fully engaging with their ideas (but again, this might be an audience thing). Also, for a book that’s invested in dismantling the nature/culture division this book often seems to (maybe unconsciously?) reaffirm this binary. However, there are some great parts, especially Marder’s chapter on breathing and his discussion of how to talk about plants after deconstruction. I was especially interested in how the kinds of plants that are represented and appreciated in literature can reinforce biases against “simpler plants.” Overall, would recommend giving this a skim if you’re interested in plants and a serious read if you’re into philosophy!
February 2, 2020
This book, the product of a letter exchange between the two authors, satisfies to some degree the yawning gap in contemporary literature embodying the lack of research being completed on the philosophy of plants and the natural world. On this topic Michael Marder has contributed substantially, and although Luce Irigaray is occupied foremost in her work with feminist psychoanalysis, she too has offered many auspicious insights into the topic.
The book itself takes the form of two essays, one by each of the authors. Irigaray's manner of writing is disarmingly sincere, not only in the comfort she exhibits in sharing personal anecdotes from her difficult childhood but also in the frequent references she makes to nature spiritualism (especially unexpectedly, these references occur without the slightest hint of malice). I found Marder much less engaging as a writer, however his contribution to the volume was much more theoretically dense. While Irigaray supplicates us to reconsider the concept of nature in the light of its feminist connotations, Marder launches much more directly into his work of thinking vegetal being on behalf of plants.
This distinction can be clarified further by remarking that, while Irigaray approaches the topic as a psychoanalyst, Marder does so as a phenomenologist, and the differences between their contributions seemingly embody both the similarities and differences between these two disciplines. Irigaray's essay is guided by loose autobiography, interspersed with comments on nature and plant life, reminding us of her psychiatric training at Jacques Lacan's L'Ecole Freudienne. Marder's essay on the other hand attempts, as does much of his other work, to approach plant life from the perspective of plants, reminding us of his early training in Heideggerian phenomenology (concerned as it is with marking the connection between an understanding of Being and a form of life).
Although an enjoyable read on its own, the book seems to function as an 'instance of the fingerpost', directing us towards both of the contributors' other publications on the subject (Irigaray makes frequent reference to her infamous Speculum of the Other Woman). In my view, the authors have here wasted an opportunity to combine their exceptional talents in the name of producing new knowledge (rather than reiterating their preexistent work).
The book itself takes the form of two essays, one by each of the authors. Irigaray's manner of writing is disarmingly sincere, not only in the comfort she exhibits in sharing personal anecdotes from her difficult childhood but also in the frequent references she makes to nature spiritualism (especially unexpectedly, these references occur without the slightest hint of malice). I found Marder much less engaging as a writer, however his contribution to the volume was much more theoretically dense. While Irigaray supplicates us to reconsider the concept of nature in the light of its feminist connotations, Marder launches much more directly into his work of thinking vegetal being on behalf of plants.
This distinction can be clarified further by remarking that, while Irigaray approaches the topic as a psychoanalyst, Marder does so as a phenomenologist, and the differences between their contributions seemingly embody both the similarities and differences between these two disciplines. Irigaray's essay is guided by loose autobiography, interspersed with comments on nature and plant life, reminding us of her psychiatric training at Jacques Lacan's L'Ecole Freudienne. Marder's essay on the other hand attempts, as does much of his other work, to approach plant life from the perspective of plants, reminding us of his early training in Heideggerian phenomenology (concerned as it is with marking the connection between an understanding of Being and a form of life).
Although an enjoyable read on its own, the book seems to function as an 'instance of the fingerpost', directing us towards both of the contributors' other publications on the subject (Irigaray makes frequent reference to her infamous Speculum of the Other Woman). In my view, the authors have here wasted an opportunity to combine their exceptional talents in the name of producing new knowledge (rather than reiterating their preexistent work).
November 13, 2018
Gave up. Much to esoteric for me, I guess. really lost interest pretty quickly as I had no idea what the book was about other than author lost her job and coworker friends, unfriended her, Seemed some kind of argument I cam in the middle of and have no clue as to what it was about, but was about to be dragged in to.. No thanks. But maybe this book will be understood by those it is written for? Don't know and don't care...
November 16, 2021
This book has an unusual structure, and the philosophical terminology was opaque to me in spots. (I struggled in particular with Luce Irigaray's use of the term "sexuate," and I'm still not sure I entirely understand why it's crucial to her thinking.) Overall, though, I found the book absorbing; it opened up different ways to think about humans' relationship to plants and to nature in general (and about what plants and nature are, outside of how humans label them or think about them).
The book consists of two monographs with identical chapter titles, written by two different authors. I chose to read pairs of chapters: Irigaray's chapter 1 followed by Michael Marder's chapter 1, and so on. This turned out to be a good way to do it. The two different takes on the same broad topic were illuminating when read side by side.
In his epilogue, Marder mentions the challenge of making oblique responses to Irigaray's words rather than engaging in a straightforward dialogue, which would risk becoming all about human verbal interaction, outside of the language of plants. I tend to agree with Marder that the structure of the book needed to be what it is in order to represent one example of the different types of human relationships (with other humans and potentially with plants) that it discusses.
I've been thinking a lot lately about writing that's at the very edge of what can be expressed in words (mostly poetry). I was surprised and appreciative to find that this book is a good example of how people can try to communicate with each other at the limits of the sayable.
The book consists of two monographs with identical chapter titles, written by two different authors. I chose to read pairs of chapters: Irigaray's chapter 1 followed by Michael Marder's chapter 1, and so on. This turned out to be a good way to do it. The two different takes on the same broad topic were illuminating when read side by side.
In his epilogue, Marder mentions the challenge of making oblique responses to Irigaray's words rather than engaging in a straightforward dialogue, which would risk becoming all about human verbal interaction, outside of the language of plants. I tend to agree with Marder that the structure of the book needed to be what it is in order to represent one example of the different types of human relationships (with other humans and potentially with plants) that it discusses.
I've been thinking a lot lately about writing that's at the very edge of what can be expressed in words (mostly poetry). I was surprised and appreciative to find that this book is a good example of how people can try to communicate with each other at the limits of the sayable.
November 20, 2025
I wish this had been organized more as a back-and-forth rather than each co-author being given one half of the full text (intimations are made towards publisher restrictions). Nevertheless, I think it manages to gesture at alternate modes of living even if it never fully articulates them. Irigaray, for her part, does not stray far enough from her usual haunts, and what is meant as a meditation on the category of the vegetal ends up mostly being yet another rumination on sexual difference (and her dream of a final reconciliation, one which I remain suspicious of), which is frankly disappointing. She perhaps offers some notes on a being-with in general which would extend to all life, at the very least, but these remain sketches at best. Marder's section is more explicitly a rumination on plant life, but while I am suspicious of his early move to attempt to grant ethical value onto them by "elevating" their status via capability (insofar as peas can communicate), I am much more intrigued by the seemingly "inverse" move, which is to - via Aristotle - bring out the "vegetative" aspect inherent in the being of all humans. We are much more alike than we think, therefore, not because plants can "talk" just like us, but because our organic systems are much more extra-consciously receptive than we usually give them credit for.
January 29, 2024
an approach to the topic of plant philosophy and plant-human-ethics in a rather free and monological form.
unfortunately, what is meant to be an exchange or conversation turns out to be the loose arrangement of two texts without being much involved in the other. both texts could stand by themselves, thus the 'conversational' arrangement seems artificial. the way how the topic is approached throughout the 16 chapters and the themes given to each of them clearly fits better to luce irigaray's style. the second part by michael seems a bit hollow and superficial; the personal style doesn't suit his philosophy nearly as well as it does for irigaray's.
unfortunately, what is meant to be an exchange or conversation turns out to be the loose arrangement of two texts without being much involved in the other. both texts could stand by themselves, thus the 'conversational' arrangement seems artificial. the way how the topic is approached throughout the 16 chapters and the themes given to each of them clearly fits better to luce irigaray's style. the second part by michael seems a bit hollow and superficial; the personal style doesn't suit his philosophy nearly as well as it does for irigaray's.
February 24, 2025
3.5…. Some good stuff in here but a little too steeped in continental philosophy pour moi! Again with the Heideggerian worlding (expressed here as “lived hermeneutics”) but still nothing of worlding in the postcolonial context, despite botany being a wildly imperial practice. But in 2014 at the beginningish of critical plant studies this must’ve a banger!
August 8, 2017
The book begins with an impossibly dense forward in the form of a letter from one co-author to the other, which assumes a familiarity with the author's work and philosophy without really explaining either. This makes sense, as both parties would presumably already have established this information between them, but I'm not sure that it serves as a particularly effective opening for the general reader.
The next chapter is biographical in nature and is far more readable - but it still assumes that we know of the author's previously published book and how its publication caused her ostracization from society. This ostracization is repeatedly emphasized, but other than knowing that she lost a job and some colleagues/friends, it's really not clear how she was "expelled from any establishment" and had to resort to living in nature. After finishing this book, I have no idea what "Speculum" was about or why it was controversial.
The subsequent chapters go on to discuss breathing, water, world myth, literature, and democratic leadership as they relate (tangentially) to nature and plants, but they do so in a meandering, disordered manner that makes the author's actual argument difficult to identify. As far as I was able to discern, the core message in this part of the book is about approaching the plant kingdom as forms of life, as opposed to commodities, and seeing what that can teach you about yourself and others. It's a nice idea, but there's very little that's expounded upon here in an instructive way - the message itself is instead obscured by extensive philosophical musings, and it would have been better served by some more practical suggestions about implementing her philosophy.
Another key takeaway is humanity's failure to regard itself as a "living being among others" and instead choosing to dominate nature. This is a valid concern, and one which I share - but what one is supposed to do with that information is not clear. Instead we are given more peripherally-related discourse about human reproduction, energy, and blood.
As an aside, never before has a book so soundly defeated my Kindle's dictionary. This may be due in part to the author coining her own words (i.e., "sexuate") without defining them, at least in this volume. I only found that this was a concept/term of her own invention by looking it up online.
The second author of this book takes over at pretty much exactly the halfway point. He also talks quite a bit about his own previously published work, "Plant-Thinking." He is concerned with valuing plants as their own autonomous life forms and extending an ethical responsibility towards them beyond simply harvesting them. The crux of his argument seems to be about appreciating the life-giving nature of plants and incorporating that appreciation into one's entire worldview. Again, this is a good idea, but I'm not sure that we needed such an extended, roundabout analysis of breathing, allergies, and Greek philosophy to get there.
Maybe this just wasn't for me. Maybe it went over my head, and this review betrays my total ignorance of philosophy and metaphysics. After all, some of these authors' other works have reviewed well on Goodreads. But I was hoping for something more useful, rather than abstract and theoretical. I wanted to engage with this book, as I find some of its core ideas interesting and potentially important, but the circuitous, overblown prose of both authors ultimately prevented me from doing so.
Thanks to the publisher for providing a review copy through NetGalley.com. There were few OCR errors in my review copy, though none of the footnotes worked. Hopefully that would be addressed in the retail version.
The next chapter is biographical in nature and is far more readable - but it still assumes that we know of the author's previously published book and how its publication caused her ostracization from society. This ostracization is repeatedly emphasized, but other than knowing that she lost a job and some colleagues/friends, it's really not clear how she was "expelled from any establishment" and had to resort to living in nature. After finishing this book, I have no idea what "Speculum" was about or why it was controversial.
The subsequent chapters go on to discuss breathing, water, world myth, literature, and democratic leadership as they relate (tangentially) to nature and plants, but they do so in a meandering, disordered manner that makes the author's actual argument difficult to identify. As far as I was able to discern, the core message in this part of the book is about approaching the plant kingdom as forms of life, as opposed to commodities, and seeing what that can teach you about yourself and others. It's a nice idea, but there's very little that's expounded upon here in an instructive way - the message itself is instead obscured by extensive philosophical musings, and it would have been better served by some more practical suggestions about implementing her philosophy.
Another key takeaway is humanity's failure to regard itself as a "living being among others" and instead choosing to dominate nature. This is a valid concern, and one which I share - but what one is supposed to do with that information is not clear. Instead we are given more peripherally-related discourse about human reproduction, energy, and blood.
As an aside, never before has a book so soundly defeated my Kindle's dictionary. This may be due in part to the author coining her own words (i.e., "sexuate") without defining them, at least in this volume. I only found that this was a concept/term of her own invention by looking it up online.
The second author of this book takes over at pretty much exactly the halfway point. He also talks quite a bit about his own previously published work, "Plant-Thinking." He is concerned with valuing plants as their own autonomous life forms and extending an ethical responsibility towards them beyond simply harvesting them. The crux of his argument seems to be about appreciating the life-giving nature of plants and incorporating that appreciation into one's entire worldview. Again, this is a good idea, but I'm not sure that we needed such an extended, roundabout analysis of breathing, allergies, and Greek philosophy to get there.
Maybe this just wasn't for me. Maybe it went over my head, and this review betrays my total ignorance of philosophy and metaphysics. After all, some of these authors' other works have reviewed well on Goodreads. But I was hoping for something more useful, rather than abstract and theoretical. I wanted to engage with this book, as I find some of its core ideas interesting and potentially important, but the circuitous, overblown prose of both authors ultimately prevented me from doing so.
Thanks to the publisher for providing a review copy through NetGalley.com. There were few OCR errors in my review copy, though none of the footnotes worked. Hopefully that would be addressed in the retail version.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews