Luce Irigaray, in her essay “The Power of Discourse and the Subordination of the Feminine,” suggests that language, as it sits now, is a dichotomy between masculine and feminine. This dichotomy functions on the masculine overriding the feminine, continually suppressing and censoring the feminine (796). This dichotomy resembles the societal structures described in Bourdieu’s “Distinctions,” where classes and groups of people are continually struggling against each other. In this case, the masculine is the upper class that possesses the ability to determine taste, or in this case the “logic” (796) between masculine and feminine discourse, and the feminine is the lower class that is subject to the upper class’ tastes, or “logic.” Yet, Irigaray suggests that women need to break from this structure and create a new structure, because even if they reach a position of power in the old dichotomy they are still “within a logic that maintains [the feminine] in repression, censorship, nonrecognition” (769). Therefore, women need to break from this dichotomy to fully realize the feminine’s logic. In this new way of thinking “there would no longer be either a right side or wrong side of discourse, or even of texts” (797). Yet, I think that transition into this new form of thinking/discourse is more difficult than Irigaray presents. If we read Irigaray’s text alongside Bourdieu’s text, women would need to gain a position of power to implement this new form of thinking/discourse, since its those groups and people in power that are able to set the rules for society (according to Bourdieu). Yet, Irigaray does not think that gaining power in the traditional dichotomy would help form this new discourse since women would still be “within a logic that maintains [the feminine] in repression, censorship, nonrecognition.” Yet, Irigaray does not fully establish a way in which discourse can break from the masculine/feminine dichotomy, making me question on how she hoped to achieve this new form of discourse. If it is not through the traditional way of class and group struggle that Bourdieu discusses, how does Irigaray hope to reach the new form of discourse?
– Sean Ettinger
Meaning and Pleasure2014 
Engaged post, Sean. Typically smart and interesting–so thanks.
The crucial move Irigaray makes (one that’s quite hard to get) is that her alternative is NOT a separate or other discourse exactly–particularly if by “other” we mean completely different or separate. This would be impossible, according to her, because language always already makes women’s desire, and women’s pleasure “unintelligible.” Her answer, instead, is in the section on “jamming the theoretical machine.” And she wants to do this by a kind of double-speak–more on that in class! Great work, here.
LikeLike
I think it would be interesting to compare what Irigaray and Bourdieu would say when comparing the power that a single wealthy man has over society compared to a single wealthy female. Obviously Irigaray would argue that due to the language construct of our society the man would have more power because he is actually able to use language to its full potential. However, Bourdieu sees classes as a way of maintaining power so if both of these people were in the same class would they have the same amount of power? Or does the fact that one is male and the other female put them higher up on the hierarchy in society? I think this would be an interesting concept to look at if we were to read the two texts side by side because I do not think this was an issue that Bourdieu was thinking about at the time of writing this concept.
Another interesting thing would be seeing Irigaray’s believe on quality vs quantity when it comes to social change. Are 100 women in the middle class more or less powerful than 1 woman in the upper class when it comes to brining about social change? I think this is another area where Irigaray and Bourdieu might bump heads because I believe Bourdieu would say that the 1 in the upper class has the most power and the biggest chance of enacting it which means she has a better chance of bringing about social change. However, I think Irigaray would argue that 100 women acting together has a better chance of disrupting the social machine than one person would so therefore they have more power when it comes to changing they just need to use it. These ideals are also very similar to Foucault’s who believes everyone has power they must simply use it in order to realize how much.
LikeLike