頁籤選單縮合
題 名 | The New Sexual Ethics of Luce Lrigaray=伊希迦黑的新兩性倫理 |
---|---|
作 者 | 朱崇儀; | 書刊名 | 國立中興大學臺中夜間部學報 |
卷 期 | 1 1995.11[民84.11] |
頁 次 | 頁115-127 |
分類號 | 194 |
關鍵詞 | 伊希迦黑; 新兩性倫理; Luce irigaray; New sexual ethics; |
語 文 | 英文(English) |
中文摘要 | 本論文首先點出政治自覺之性別差異倫理的迫切性。伊希迦黑所著《性別差異的 倫理》(英譯本出版於 1993 年)就提出了這樣一個迥異於現行的父權倫理。藉由重新概念 化時空觀念,伊氏從另一個觀點重讀了柏拉圖、亞理斯多德、笛卡兒、史賓諾沙等人的哲學 經典。在伊氏對界限、地域以及聯結的重新思考中,人體成了封套、物質界限、或是疆域, 賦與每個人她或他的地位。 換言之,對伊氏而言,真理、倫理,以及靈性皆需從差異出發。他們的出發點是一共識,亦 即每個人體皆有性別差異,可區分男女。她拒絕推翻性別差異,接納德希達式的雙性(實偏 男性)。 之後筆者評估伊氏新兩性倫理的實際可行性。雖然伊氏對哲學經典的重讀有趣又充滿想像力 ,卻仍然受限於白人中產階級所尊奉的異性戀傾向,並未考慮同性戀的可能性。由於急於想 要建構一個烏托邦社會,她也忽略了其它文化可能有的干擾。假設她的性別差異理論真想在 政治倫理的地盤攻城略地,她必須承認同性戀的存在。同時,假設她繼續假定她的讀者對西 方的哲學經典非常熟悉的話,這樣的假定亦將阻擋了它的流傳度。 |
英文摘要 | My paper first points out the urgency of a politically engaged ethics of sexual difference. Luce Irigaray's An Ethics of Sexual Difference (English translation of Ethique de la Difference Sexuelle, published 1993) provides such an ethics different from the current, patriarchal one. Through recon-ceptualizing the concepts of space and time, Irigaray rereads the classical philosophical texts of Plato, Aristotle, Decartes, and Spinoza, etc., from a different perspective. In the Irigarayan rethinking of limit, place, and link by images such as "place," "envelope," and the maternal-feminine, human bodies are envelopes, material limits, boundaries, which give each person his or her place. In other words, for Irigaray, truth, ethics, and spirituality begin from difference. They begin from the recognition that every living human body is sexed, male or female, and that Divinity, enveloping mortals and at least partially enveloped in them, inhabits the copula of masculine and feminine in their interaction and difference. She rejects the collapse of gender difference into the Derridean sort of doubly sexed, predominantly male Everyperson, together with the "pseudo-neutrality which believes that it is possible to definitively annul one gender, the question of gender, of the genders." I then assess the practicability and the applicability of the new sexual ethics she proposes. Despite Irigaray's interesting and imaginative reading, her rereading of western philosophical writings is still limited to and premised on the white and middle-class paradigm of heterosexuality. She does not take into consideration the possible homosexual scenario. Eager to construct a utopian world, she overlooks probable interventions from other cultures. If her "theory" of sexual difference is to be an intervention in the political-ethical space, as well as in time, she has to recognize that sexuality is bound up in sexual difference in more than one paradigmatic way. That is, she should take into consideration the existence of homosexuality, or whatever other forms of sexuality. If Irigaray continues to presuppose her readers to be familiar with the western classical philosophical texts, such as sumption would hamper its reception. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。