Hidden Subjects: Rereading Eve and Mary

Abstract

Eve and Mary are two archetypes that persist within our culture at its most profound level despite world views imposed by Enlightenment and post-Enlightenment thought. Since these figures are impossible to expel from our imaginations, revisiting them in the light of contemporary ideas of identity and gender might prove to be a useful means of understanding their cultural impact. In this article extracts from the work of Hélène Cixous, Luce Irigaray and Julia Kristeva are discussed which feature our two archetypes, framing them through the lens of gender critique. Their work clearly illuminates the status of these figures within our realities, and drawing on their observations, suggestions are made as to how we might re-figure both Eve and Mary as the true subjects of the foundation narratives they inhabit.     

Life, death and (inter)subjectivity: realism and recognition in continental feminism

I begin with the assumption that a philosophically significant tension exists today in feminist philosophy of religion between those subjects who seek to become divine and those who seek their identity in mutual recognition. My critical engagement with the ambiguous assertions of Luce Irigaray seeks to demonstrate, on the one hand, that a woman needs to recognize her own identity but, on the other hand, that each subject whether male or female must struggle in relation to the other in order to maintain realism about life and death. No one can avoid the recognition that we are each given life but each of us also dies. In addition, I raise a more general, philosophical problem for analytic philosophers who attempt to read Continental philosophy of religion: how should philosophers interpret deliberately ambiguous assertions? For example, what does Irigaray mean in asserting, ‘Divinity is what we need to become free, autonomous, sovereign’? To find an answer, I turn to the distinctively French readings of the Hegelian struggle for recognition which have preoccupied Continental philosophers especially since the first half of the last century. I explore the struggle for mutual recognition between women and men who must face the reality of life and death in order to avoid the projection of their fear of mortality onto the other sex. This includes a critical look at Irigaray’s account of subjectivity and divinity. I turn to the French philosopher Michèle Le Doeuff in order to shift the focus from divinity to intersubjectivity. I conclude that taking seriously the struggle for mutual recognition between subjects forces contemporary philosophers of religion to be realist in their living and dying. With this in mind, the lesson from the Continent for philosophy of religion is that we must not stop yearning for recognition. Indeed, we must even risk our autonomy/divinity in seeking to recognize intersubjectivity.     

The search for evidence: Psychoanalytic practice and the male imaginary

In this paper, I will attempt to discuss the future of psychoanalytic practice in the wake of the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence’s (NICE) embrace of ‘evidence’-based practice. In 2005, NICE, whose task is to regulate the provision of health care across the National Health Service, adopted positivistic evidence-based protocols as the sole proof of the effectiveness of psychotherapy. Despite the success over the past 40?years of psychoanalytic and humanistic therapies in primary care and psychotherapy departments of psychiatric hospitals, NICE insists on restricting therapy, to those who can claim effectiveness as a result of using the data from client questionnaires commonly described as ‘outcome measures’ and it has gone on to promoting new modalities many of which have been imported from the States. As a consequence, most of the provision of psychotherapy in the public sector currently, whether as part of the National Health Service or the voluntary sector, has embraced evidence-based practice’ and many training organisations are promoting it, which will, in time, have an effect on private practice. I use some of the threads of the work of the feminist psychoanalyst Irigaray and others to understand this turn to positivistic science and how it can be understood as an instance of the retrenchment of the ‘male imaginary’ and a re-installation of the values of detachment and mastery. I query whether there are some problems within current theory, practice and institutionalisation which interfere with the emergence of a more progressive psychoanalytic practice.     

Introduction

Abstract

The introduction to the special issue situates the five following essays in the context of historical and contemporary theological reflection on maternality. It addresses the fraught connection between sexuality and maternality in the Christian theological imagination and argues that the maternal body has often functioned as a bridge between the opposed arenas of Word and flesh, God and humanity, and eternity and time. The introduction concludes by using the figure of the Virgin Mary as a lens to consider the theological themes of birth, grief, the incarnation, sacrifice, and Eucharist. Mary’s body, site of the incarnation, allows connection, mediation, contiguity, and congress to occur. As such, it also functions as a bridge between theology and sexuality.     

Is Mother Other?

Abstract

The discourse of maternality figures a contentious site for feminist theology. If figured in terms of a fecund womb, maternality risks reinscribing women in a masculine symbolic order of world-making that has long conflated women’s differences with motherhood, narrowly defined in terms of fecundity. After considering the ways identifying female sexual difference with motherhood reifies a masculine model of subjectivity, this paper turns to Lynne Huffer’s reading of feminist psychoanalyst Luce Irigaray to suggest that maternality has the potential to interrupt the self-same movement of masculine discourse and engender an ethical space of difference of and for the other. Examining Irigaray’s interweaving of maternality with pleasure to create space for women’s desires, this paper concludes that the ambiguity of desires through which maternality is constituted challenges the care-driven, natality-centered discourse of maternality itself. As a scene of unresolved desire between flesh and discourse, immanence and transcendence, self and other, maternality can be narrated to disrupt views of mother as origin that would otherwise return motherhood to a figure of sameness and to construct a possibility of desire for intersubjective becoming that is at once beyond narration and entirely concrete. Maternality thus presents desires unrecognizable within a prevailing symbolic framework in a way that bears witness to the disruptiveness of those desires and engenders radical alterity.