This study examines Luce Irigaray's oeuvre through the question of the divine, focusing upon her contention that women need a female divine if they are about to become subjects. It attempts to demonstrate that the issue of the divine should not be considered as one aspect of her thought but that it is central to her philosophy of sexual difference. Hence Irigaray's critique of patriarchy is presented as a critique of the dominance of a religion of masculinity that favours a single universal. Her proposal for two sexed universal divines is explored, along with her specific suggestions for female divine ideals. Particular emphasis is given to her engagements with Marx, Nietzsche, and Hegelianism, and to the mode of her adoption of Christianity. The study applauds the radical profundity of Irigaray's philosophy of sexual difference, while remaining critical of the universalism in her notion of the divine for the doubt it casts upon the realization of a sexed culture.
This book, originally published in paperback in 2000 under the ISBN 978-1-902653-30-3, was made Open Access in 2025 as part of the MHRA Revivals programme.
It is curious that, barring some notable exceptions, the general reception of Irigaray’s thought in the anglophone world has largely ignored the question of the divine or given insufficient attention to it. Where it is discussed, it does indeed tend to be considered as one aspect of her work or as one element in her proposals for a women's politics, and there is little emphasis upon its structural significance to her thought in all its stages. This study attempts to read her thought at each stage through the issue of the divine.
Irigaray’s thought has stimulated much debate, some of it heated by the place and moment of its reception. This chapter discusses a number of significant issues that have arisen in response to her work by outlining in general terms the manner in which it has been received. From this review it emerges that if Irigaray is to be given a fair hearing then her arguments must be read in the context ofthe philosophical discourse with which she is specifically engaging, although the temptation to reduce her thought to any particular discourse must be resisted. Furthermore, the allegations of essentialism levelled at Irigaray appear misplaced if she is read as a universalist thinker; her universalism be- comes apparent in the process of examining the question of the divine throughout the different stages of her oeuvre.
Irigaray defines patriarchy as a historical and masculine system devoid of value in the feminine. She treats patriarchy as a religious system in which its particular religions are merely symptomatic manifestations of this profound system of value from which the patriarchal conception of the subject ensues. This chapter aims to show that a notion of the divine as transcendent and hypostatized in the form of ‘God’ is the object of her critique of patriarchy given its structural significance to the constitution of the masculine subject she identifies in her earlier work.
Irigaray believes that women need ideals which are divine for their own well-being and in order to bring about a new era of sexual difference. This means that the female divine is a fundamental pillar in her attempt to construct a system beyond patriarchy since the argument she makes to support it structurally corresponds to her argument that women need a subjectivity and an identity of their own. Yet it is the notion of the divine which is pivotal for Irigaray since she deploys it for its philosophical association with the absolute, as that which constitutues a pre-requisite to subjectivity and upholds the female imaginary and its modalities. Hence she certainly envisages the female divine as the mainstay of the feminine, and may even privilege it in her model of sexual difference.
Irigaray’s treatment of certain Christian concepts, mysteries and figures is significant for her philosophy of the divine because of the way she adopts Christianity in order to attempt to create a female divine and subjectivity. Her adoption of Christianity is extremely challenging; it reveals the radicalness of her thought and is representative of her creative ability to carry through the consequences of her analysis of patriarchy. However, while this adoption is entirely consistent with her æuvre, it also highlights problematic issues within her philosophy: not least the need to make of gender differences a form of two universals if her logic of sexual difference is to hold.
It has been my aim in this study to show that Irigaray’s claim that a female divine is necessary if women are to become subjects poses numerous complex and interesting intellectual challenges. Hence, I have read her philosophy of sexual difference through the question of the divine. I have attempted to demonstrate the significance of the divine for any understanding of her thought and its relevance at each stage of her work. In the process I have put forward a reading of Irigaray as a universalist thinker who desires to bring about an era of sexual difference structured by two sexed divines, the feminine and the masculine. While not refuting her philosophy of sexual difference, I have criticized the feasibility of its realization through universalist divines.
This title was first published by Maney Publishing for the Modern Humanities Research Association but rights to it are now held by Modern Humanities Research Association.
This title is distributed on behalf of MHRA by Ingram’s. Booksellers and libraries can order direct from Ingram by setting up an ipage Account: click here for more.
