Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:22:42.329Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Copula: The Logic of the Sexual Relation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2020

Robyn Ferrell
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that the slogans “A Woman's Right to Choose” and “The Personal is the Political” typify different traditions within feminist thinking; one emphasizing rights and equality, the other the unconscious and the personal. The author responds to both traditions by bringing together mind and body, and reason and emotion, via the figure of the copula. The copula expresses an alternative model of identity which indicates that value can be produced only in relation.

Let us say that the problem is violence. At its most naive: how can the sexual relation, which is supposedly full of love, be violent?

I mean the sexual relation in its resonances and ambiguity—to indicate the relation between the sexes, and the relation between lovers. In no way can the relation be confined to love, either heterosexual or homosexual, since it is often a contest. It cannot be reduced solely to a social relation, because in one of its aspects it addresses the most intimate subjectivity.

In a certain feminist lifestyle advocacy, those women who are in same sex relations avoid sexual violence by avoiding men, and those who are in heterosexual relationships strive to find the “right kind”—that is, relationships of respectful and supportive love—rejecting all signs of aggression, from sexist disparagement and emotional cruelty to sexual humiliation and physical assault, as “abuse.”

Strangely, this dichotomy does not explain the proximity of passion and aggression, whether in love between men and women or in same-sex relationships between feminist women. As rational counsel, it resists the important sense in which the erotic is, and is even valued as, the excess of the rational. And as an analysis of the oppression of women it defeats itself, for to insist on masculinity as violence itself, and/or on the sexual relation as properly governed by reason, seems to miss the point of both love and feminism.

Stranger still, feminisms, which set out to address and redress the oppression of women, have become rivalrous themselves. Are these aggressions a legacy of the intellectual world they must take place in (but if so, why is the academic world so full of passion, when it so thoroughly divorces ideas from affects?). Have we overlooked an aspect of the relation between sisters? Feminism has not addressed the question of aggression in feminism as anything more than contamination.

Perhaps, after all, the thing that feminism has not yet successfully addressed is love. The “battle between the sexes” has not rendered the ambivalence of the heterosexual relation. As a species of theory, feminism has relished the rigor of distinction and has not found it easy to tolerate the proximity of opposites.

And yet, in evoking the body, some feminisms approach closer to this difficulty. It remains to take up the relation between the body and the concept more thoroughly, in order to find out whether sexual difference could ever be philosophical.

Type
Research Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 15 , Issue 2: Special Issue: Going Australian: Reconfiguring Feminism and Philosophy , Spring 2000 , pp. 100 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by Hypatia, Inc.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aries, Philippe, and Beijin, Andree. 1985. Western sexuality: Practice and precept in past and present time. Trans. Forster, Anthony. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bataille, Georges 1962. Eroticism: Death and sexuality. Trans. Dalworthy, Mary. San Francisco: City Lights.Google Scholar
Beauvoir, Simone de. 1977. The second sex. Trans. Parshley, H. M.Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Bland, Lucy 1995. Banishing the beast: English feminism and sexual morality 1885–1914. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
Burke, Carolyn, Schor, Naomi, and Whitford, Margaret, eds. 1994. Engaging with Irigaray. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Chanter, Tina 1995. Ethics of eros: Irigaray's rewriting of the philosophers. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles 1991. Empiricism and subjectivity: An essay on Hume's Theory of human nature. Trans. Boundas, Constantin V. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Deleuze, Gilles 1994. Difference and repetition. Trans. Patton, Paul. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques 1982. The supplement of the copula: Philosophy before linguistics. In Margins of philosophy, Trans. Bass, Alan. Brighton: Harvester.Google Scholar
Diprose, Rosalyn 1994. The bodies of women: Ethics, embodiment and sexual difference. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrell, Robyn 1996. Passion in theory. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ferrell, Robyn 1999. The timing of feminism. Hypatia 14 (1): 38–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel 1987. The history of sexuality. Trans. Hurley, Robert. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
Gatens, Moira 1996. Imaginary bodies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grosz, Elizabeth 1989. Sexual subversions: Three French feminists. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Heidegger, Martin 1984. The metaphysical foundations of logic. Trans. Heim, Michael. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce 1993. An ethics of sexual difference. Trans. Burke, Carolyn and Gill, Gillian. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Irigaray, Luce 1996. I love to you. Trans. Martin, Alison. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia 1986. Women's time. In The Kristeva reader, ed. Moi, Toril. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Lacan, Jacques 1982. Encore seminars. In Feminine sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the école freudienne, trans, and ed. Mitchell, Juliet and Rose, Jacqueline. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Le Dœuff, Michèle. 1991. Hipparchia's choice: An essay concerning women, philosophy, etc. Trans. Selous, Trista. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Levi‐Strauss, Claude 1969. The elementary structures of kinship. Trans, and ed. Bell, James, Richard von Turner, John, and Needham, Rodney. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve 1984. The man of reason: “Male” and “female” in western philosophy. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Lloyd, Genevieve 1993. Being in time: Selves, gender and subjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Merleau'Ponty, Mautice 1962. Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Smith, Colin. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Oliver, Kelly 1993. Reading Kristeva: Unraveling the double bind. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole 1988. The sexual contract. London: Polity.Google Scholar
Stone, Laurence 1979. The family, sex and marriage in England 1500–1800. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.Google Scholar
Whitford, Margaret 1991. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the feminine. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar