【作者】 方亚中；

【导师】 程锡麟；

【作者基本信息】 四川大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2014， 博士

【摘要】 吕西·依利加雷（Luce Irigaray，1930－）是法国杰出的女性主义理论家，也是法国女性写作的重要代表人物。她是一个很有争议的人物，特别是围绕她是不是本质主义者的争论从上世纪80年代一直持续到现在。这样的争论不但没有使她的性差异理论黯然失色，反而使它显得具有巨大的潜力，因此，有不少学者从事依利加雷研究，从上世纪90年代开始，随着依利加雷翻译作品的陆续问世，学者们对她的理论有了更深刻的领会和理解，并在更大范围内展开了更全面的研究。依利加雷的理论具有跨学科性，涉及哲学、精神分析学、语言学，也与西方文论、文化研究相关联。她的著作可分为三个阶段，第一阶段是对西方主体单一性的批判，第二阶段是建构女性主体间性，第三阶段是创造男女之间关系的新模式。本文把对依利加雷作品的阅读看成动态的阅读，将她思想的变化同女性主义政治运动和追求政治功效联系起来，将她在不同的情况下使用的不同方法和技巧看成是为了实现计划运用的战略。根据新批评的理论，对依利加雷的这种阅读也是一种细读法。本文运用到的论证方法主要有：1）以点带面的方法，通过一个点向整体辐射，这个点就是“非一之性”，这个面就是“性差异理论”。“一”代表了一个性别、一个主体、一个上帝、一个逻辑、一个法则。依利加雷要挑战的正是这个“一”，而她极力主张的则是“二”和“多”。在她的作品中，“二”和“多”的意象随处可见，“非一之性”是她性差异理论的思想结晶。2）比较的方法，将不同的代表人物进行比较，找出这些人物的相似性和相异性，并给予评价，也将性差异理论与有关的理论进行比较，找出它们的相关性，理清继承和发展的关系。3）提出问题——分析问题——解决问题的方法，先引出评论界对依利加雷的批评或质疑，然后结合依利加雷相关的论述和不同评论家的看法进行分析，最后得出问题的结论。本文在国外依利加雷研究的基础上提出了如下的看法：1）我们应该根据依利加雷的战略意图和她对时代特征的把握来理解她的性差异理论以及她的性差异与其他差异之间的关系。2）我们不应该把依利加雷的女性谱系看成是男性谱系的对立面，也不应该把她的女性神学看成是男性神学的对立面，她的谱系和神学既考虑到女人的发展空间，也考虑到女人与男人共享的空间。3）依利加雷的女性言说不是要取代男性话语或创造一种全新的语言，它是一种既存在也不存在的言说方式，就像依利加雷对性差异在我们的文化中的情形所作的描述一样，她是要假定一个女性言说的地带来彰显女性的性差异。4）依利加雷不是一味地谈论性别，而是把性属的问题也考虑进去了，但出于战略的考虑，她突出了身体、物质、自然的重要性，目的是要消除文化和自然的对立，防止重复将文化置于自然之上。5）依利加雷的理论是一个开放的体系，需要在斗争和实践中修正和完善，实践的过程也是一个再认识的过程，而她的技巧和方法的运用会取得什么样的效果，这要视具体的情况而定，它与女性主义发展的程度、女性思想觉悟的提高等有关系。6）依利加雷的性差异理论吸收了西方文论的成分，尤其是吸收了精神分析、解构主义和生态女性主义的思想，她的理论可以用于文学批评的实践或直接用于文本的分析。除绪论和结语外，本文分为四章。绪论部分先介绍依利加雷性差异理论产生的语境，接着论述她的性差异理论与西方文论的联系，然后是依利加雷研究的历史和现状，在此基础上提出本文的研究目的及学术价值。第一章“非一之性：依利加雷的性差异伦理学”分为三节。第一节“性差异伦理学概说”着重说明依利加雷的性差异伦理学涉及两个有差异但没有等级制的性别，这种伦理学不同于将性别和性属问题排斥在外的传统伦理学。第二节论述“依利加雷对列维那斯的批判”，批判的焦点在于列维那斯把女人从伦理和宗教中排除，使他的伦理学不符合伦理的标准。第三节是“依利加雷对波伏娃思想的继承和发展”，涉及波伏娃思想的“两个来源”（萨特的存在主义和黑格尔的主奴隶辩证法），着重论述依利加雷继承和发展了波伏娃“女人是他者”这一思想。第二章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性写作”包括“女性写作概说”、“主流话语的单一之性”、“女性写作的神秘主义”和“女性写作与女性身体的关系”四节。第一节介绍了女性写作的共性，这种写作将女性性别视为一个隐藏的、未知的然而却能够在文学书写中再现自身的实体，试图扰乱男性中心秩序，冲破传统的种种限制，拓展想象的空间，开辟叙事的新维度。第二节论述依利加雷对主流哲学话语和经典的精神分析学话语的揭露和剖析，这样的话语在同一的原则下运行，词语具有单一性、稳定性、不变性。依利加雷的女性写作涉及到“女性言说”和“不可言说的女性”，这两个内容分别出现在第四节和第三节，前者指依利加雷在男性再现话语以外开辟一个再现女人真实他性的新地带，使女人可以回归自我；后者指依利加雷将女性与上帝等同起来，运用神秘主义的否定法，说明在男性话语体系中无法再现女性的他性。第三章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性谱系”包括“女性主体性与男性主体性”、“女人的自我之爱与男人的自我之爱”和“依利加雷的女性谱系”三节。第一节分析了依利加雷对主体性的论述及对女性必须成为主体的强调，第二节分析了依利加雷对自我之爱的论述及对女性要有自我之爱的强调。最能体现依利加雷的女人关系模式的是她的女性谱系。建构女性神学，从性差异的角度探讨男女之间的伦理关系，创造两个主体共存的文化，这是谱系的主要内容。第三节围绕这种谱系的三大特点论述，一是强调女人与神的关系，二是突出性差异，三是追求政治功效。第四章“非一之性：依利加雷的本质主义”由两节构成，第一节论述“巴特勒的‘性属’与依利加雷的‘性别’”，对这两位批评家关注的焦点进行比较；第二节论述“依利加雷‘非一’的本质主义”，指出她的本质主义不同于形而上学的本质主义，既不是固定不变，也不是指一种本质，而是具有“非一”的特征。结语部分在总结本文主要内容的同时，强调依利加雷的性差异理论具有“非一”的特征，具有解构和建构的双重含义，并注重了方法和技巧的运用，同时也指出，这一理论对文学艺术、对女性主义政治和理论具有参考价值。更多还原

【Abstract】 Luce Irigaray is an outstanding feminist theorist and also an importantrepresentative of French ecriture feminine. She is a controversial figure, and aboveall, the debate about whether she is an essentialist or not began in1980s and lasts tillnow. Such a debate did not dim her theory. Instead, it laid bare the great potentials ofthe theory. Therefore, quite a few scholars are making studies of Irigaray. With theincreasing availability of translations of Irigaray’s works since the early1990s,scholars have a better understanding of her theory and undertake morecomprehensive studies on Irigaray.Irigaray’s theory is cross-disciplinary, concerning philosophy, psychoanalysisand linguistics, and related to Western critical theory and cultural studies. Her workscan be divided into three stages. The first stage is the criticism of the singularity ofthe Western subject, the second stage is the construction of female intersubjectivity,and the third stage is the creation of the new model of male-female relations. Thisdissertation regards reading Irigaray as dynamic, associates the changes in herthought with feminist political movements and the pursuit of political efficacy, andconsiders her methods and techniques employed in different situations to be tacticsand strategies for carrying out her project. According to New Criticism, this readingis also a close reading. The argumentative methods used in this dissertation are mainly:1) Spot-surface method, which is radiating the surface through a point. The pointis “This Sex Which Is Not One,” and the surface is “Theory of Sexual Difference.”The “One” stands for one sex, one God, one logic, one principle. What Irigaraychallenges is the “One,” and what she claims is “Two” and “Multiple”. In her works,images of “Two” and “Multiplicity” can be seen here and there.“This Sex Which IsNot One” is the crystalization of her theory of sexual difference.2) Method of comparison. Through the comparison of different representativefigures, the dissertation tries to find the similarities and differences between themand to make judgements on them, and also through the comparison between hertheory and related theories, to identify their relevancy and making clear the relationsbetween theory-inheriting and theory-developing.3) Method of raising-analyzing-solving the question. The dissertation firstintroduces questions or critiques directed to Irigaray in the critical world, thenanalyzing them in light of Irigaray’s correlative discussions and different critics’opinions, and finally draw a conclusion.Based upon the studies on Irigaray abroad, this dissertation has put forward thefollowing views:1) We should understand her theory of sexual difference and the relationshipbetween her sexual difference and other differences according to her strategicintentions and her grasping of the character of our age.2) We should not consider Irigaray’s female genealogies to be the opposite ofmale genealogy, nor should we consider her female theology to be the opposite ofmale theology, as her genealogies and theology take into account both the space forthe women’s development and the common ground shared by the two sexes.3) Irigaray’s parler femme does not aim to replace male discourse and to create abrand-new language. Instead, it is a way of speech which is said to exist and not toexist, just like Irigaray’s description of what sexual difference is like in our culture.Her purpose is to suppose a space of parler femme where woman’s genuineotherness is to be demonstrated.4) Irigaray’s does not merely talk about sex, but she also takes into consideration the problem of gender. Strategically, she attaches importance to body, matter andnature, in order to remove the opposition between culture and nature and to preventthe repetition of privileging culture over nature.5) Irigaray’s theory is an open-ended system, requiring to be revised andperfected in struggle and in practice, as the process of practice is also that ofre-knowing. As for the efficacy of her methods and techniques, it depends onconcrete situations, concerning the development of feminism and the raising ofwomen’s consciousness.6) Irigaray’s theory of sexual difference absorbed elements of Western criticaltheory, especially thoughts from psychoanalysis, deconstruction and ecofeminism.Her theory can be used in the practice of literary criticism or used directly in textualanalysis.This dissertation is divided into four chapters besides the introduction and theepilogue.In the introduction, the dissertation first introduces the context in whichIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference came into being, then deals with the relationsbetween her theory and Western critical theory, followed by the discussion of thehistory and present situation of studies on Irigaray. On this basis, the dissertationputs forward its research purpose and academic value.Chapter One,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference,” is made up of three parts. Part One,“Summary of Ethics of SexualDifference,” emphatically explains the differentiation of Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference from traditional ethics, which lies in that the former takes into accountthe two sexes with difference and without hierarchy while the latter excludes sex andgender. Part Two deals with “Irigaray’s Criticism of Levinas,” focusing on Levinasexcluding women from ethics and religion, making his ethics unable to reach ethicstandards. Part Three is “Irigaray’s Inherting and Developing de Beauvoir’sThought,” which concerns de Beauboir’s two sources (Satre’s Existentialism andHegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic). This part emphatically discusses Irigaray’sinheriting and developing the idea “Woman is the Other” from de Beauvoir.Chapter Two,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine,” includes “Summary of Ecriture Feminine,”“Singularity of Dominant Discourse,”“Mysticism of Ecriture Feminine” and “Relations Between Female Writing andFemale Body.” Part One introduces the commonness of Ecriture Feminine. Thiswriting views the female sex as an entity which is hidden, unknown and yet canrepresent itself in literary writing. Female writing attempts to upset logocentrist order,break traditional boundaries, expand space of imagination and open up newdimensions of narration. Part Two discusses Irigaray’s exposition and anatomy ofdominant philosophical discourse and classical psychoanalytic discourse, which areoperated under the principle of the sameness and characterized by singularity,stability and immutability. Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine involves “parler femme”(speaking as woman) and “unspeakable woman,” which appear in Part Four and PartThree respectively, with the former referring to a new space opened up by Irigarayoutside male discourse, where women can represent their genuine otherness andreturn to their selves, and the latter referring to the identification of woman with God,using mysticist apophasis to show that woman’s otherness cannot be represented inmale discourse.Chapter Three,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Model of Relations forWomen,” is made up of three parts:“Female Subjectivity and Male Subjectivity,”“Woman’s Self-love and Man’s Self-love” and “Irigaray’s Female Genealogies.” PartOne analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of subjectivity and her emphasis that womanmust become subject. Part Two analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of self-love and heremphasis that woman must have self-love. Irigaray’s female genealogies are the bestembodiment of her models of relations for women. The main content of hergenealogies are constructing female theology, exploring ethic relations between twosexes in terms of sexual difference and creating a culture of two subjects. Part Threedevelops around three characteristics of her genealogies, namely, stressing women’srelations to divinity, highlighting sexual difference and pursuing political efficacy.Chapter Four,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Essentialism,” are madeup of two parts. Part One deals with Irigaray’s ‘Sex’ and “Butler’s ‘Gender’,”making a comparison of the two critics in the focuses of their attention. Part Twodeals with “Irigaray’s Essentialism Which Is ‘Not One’,” pointing out the difference of her essentialism from metaphysical essentialsim in that her essentialism is notfixed and immutable, nor refers to one essentialism, but is characterized by “notone”.While making a summary of the dissertation，the epilogue emphasizes thatIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference is characterized by “not one”, has a doublemeaning of deconstruction and construction, pays attention to the use of methodsand techniques. It also points out that this theory is valuable to literature and art, andto feminist politics and theory更多还原