Irigaray contra Einstein
French feminist and social theorist Luce Irigaray has issues with Einstein’s theory of relativity:
Is E=Mc² a sexed equation? Perhaps it is. Let us make the hypothesis that it is insofar as it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us. What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation is not directly its uses by nuclear weapons, rather it is having privileged that which goes faster.1
When, exactly, was it determined that speed is inherently masculine? Did I miss that bulletin? Somebody better hurry up and tell those female Pakistani fighter pilots.
As a result of the random and opportunistic application of scientific theories in her work, Irigaray earnt for herself a chapter-long drubbing in Sokal and Bricmont’s recommended science-based attack on French postmodernism Intellectual Impostures.
C’est la vie, I guess.
CITATIONS:
1. Luce Irigaray, Parler n’est jamais neutre. Paris: Éditions de Minuit, 1987, p.110. (Quoted in and translated by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont, Intellectual Impostures, London: Profile Books, 1998, p.100.)
Comments
21 Comments so far
It’s not that speed is “inherently masculine”. It’s that e=mc^2 deals with the speed which has the biggest number attached to it — the fastest speed. I don’t think it’s particularly hard to see what “privileging large numbers” has to do with masculinity. “Size matters” and all that.
Not to defend Irigaray, who I haven’t read (and don’t plan to). But your attack was sloppy.
Ah, “What seems to me to indicate the possible sexed nature of the equation … is having privileged that which goes faster.” The connection that Irigaray is making seems fairly clear.
She may be on to something.
Please check out these references which in one way or another deal with the topic of Conscious Light or the formula: C=E=MC2 C being consciousness.
Or put in another way the relationship between consciousness and the body (whatever it is altogether), and how right left-brained patriarchal western man has always been at war with the body or the feminine Pleasure Dome principle–the culture of the senses and everything that springs from the left side of the body and its right-brained equivalent psyche which by its very nature enters into free psychic participation in the World Process–the patterns that connect.
The Latin word for left is sinister—the prejudice runs hell deep.
In and of itself, untempered by Wisdom (especially the Wisdom of the Heart),the patriarchal mind always cuts things up.
1. http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.html
2. http://www.adidamla.org/newsletters/newsletter-aprilmay2006.html
3. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2
4. http://www.dabase.org/spacetim.htm
5. http://www.mummerybook.org
Plus the same communication made visually to the entire body-mind prior to the left-brained thinking mind which always categorizes and objectifies everything and thereby asserts CONTROL.
1. http://www.adidabiennale.org
Plus this reference describes the current state of the world created in the image of the left-brained, deeply psychotic, objectifying, control mind that now “rules” the world.
1. http://www.ispeace723.org
No, she is not “on to something” and neither are you. Please note that this website is dedicated to philosophical issues, not random religious quackery or exercises in esoteric word games. Concerns about the “the left-brained, deeply psychotic, objectifying, control mind” of the Western patriarchy are best taken back to the “feminine Pleasure Dome” or somewhere else where the inmates are suitably indoctrinated (or sedated).
What a strange response—the kind I would expect from a rabid culture wars right winger or a fan of Ayn Rand.
Do you really think that this extraordinary art was produced by a quack?
1. http://www.adidabiennale.org
Even the fabrication and mounting process of the pieces themselves involved cutting edge technology from the most innovative art production company in the USA. A company which charges mega-bucks for its services. Would such a company work for “quacks”?
Would Adi Da’s (quack) Biennaale Art be curated and endorsed by a former Biennale curator. And by high government officials in Italy?
Adi Da’s print maker is widely acknowledged as the premier exponent of his craft in the USA. Do leading print makers work for “quacks”?
Do you really think that the theatrical work The Mummery Book was produced by a “quack”? You might like to check out this appreciation of The Mummery Book by a professor of English Literature.
1. http://global.adidam.org/books/mummery.html
Adi Da is a graduate of both Columbia and Stanford universities. In 35 years he has quite literally invesitigated every possible area of human activity and knowledge. It was never ever the usual academic left-brained
analysis that dominates the academy.
This reference describes the OPEN ENDED PROCESS of consideration which he engaged in all of his investigations–a process that was always prepared to go wherever necessary to find a summaryn Understanding.
1. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#prologue
Altogether Adi Da has produced the most complete and philosophically sophisticated canon of philosophical writings ever produced on this planet. His work has considered everything from how to consciously prepare yourself to become a parent
1. http://www.dabase.org/small.htm
right through to how to consciously participate in the dying process.
1. http://www.easydeathbook.org
2. http://www.adidam.org/death_and_dying/index.html
Consciously participate in the dying process?
Impossible of course by any of the usual western mis-understandings of death.
Speaking of the Pleasure Dome this essay describes what Adi Da means by a Pleasure Dome culture.
1. http://www.dabase.org/restsacr.htm
Yes I am completely serious when I use the phrase “left-brained, deeply psychotic, objectifying, control mind”—the Not Two Is Peace books provides Adi Da’s comprehensive assessment and critique of the “culture” created in the image of such a collective mind.
1. http://www.ispeace723.org
IF,IF you read the essays on that sight you might begin to understand how horrific our “culture” really is.
You might like to check out these endorsements of Adi Da’s Art.
http://www.aboutadidam.org/testimonials/art_architecture/index.html
Please take a minute to consider the logical construction of your argument: Various people like person X’s artwork, therefore person X’s philosophical/religious conjectures are authoritative. Even if we were to overlook the fact that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premise, we’d still have to deal with the flagrant appeal to (dubious) authority.
[One of your posts got held up in the spam - too many links -so the chronology here is a little bit mixed up and I'm repeating myself]
Your entire case here rests upon one enormous appeal to authority – person X says A, B, and C, therefore A,B and C are correct. That simply is not philosophy, it’s a fallacy. That the authority you appeal to refers uses the title ‘Avatar’ makes it all the more ridiculous.
The fact that you can’t make an argument in your own words without falling back on the authority of person X and the support of ‘English professors’ and ‘high government officials in Italy’ is a strong indication that either
a) you don’t understand the argument yourself, or
b) the argument is weak (or non-existent), but you’re a person X fetishist and just don’t care.
Either way, if you can’t state your case without an appeal to the magnificence of your guru you’re not going to get any sympathy here.
The fact that it is observably correct is enough justification for E=mc^2. The equation, and the full body of theory which it signals, have been exhaustively tested using the scientific method over the past century, and had already been so verified in 1987 at the time of Irigaray’s above public humiliation.
Warmth and empathy should not be valued over correctness. Among those who have never wanted for food or security, there have always been the few who pose absurd questions and answer them with stupid conclusions. A prediction’s validity derives solely from whether it agrees with reality, with no regard for whether it reminds hobbyists and lay commentators of penises or vaginas.
There is no inherently “large number” in the speed of light. The fact that we see it as involving a large number is simply due to the fact that we use small chunks as our units of distance and relatively larger chunks for our units of time. The speed of light is equally “One light-year per year.”
[...] because it is ignorant, nonsensical or just comical. An example of this could be the feminist Irigaray claim that E=M*C2 is a sexed equation because speed somehow is a masculine attribute. Or the [...]
Matt, I think that argument is a little redundant. Obviously, when we use terms like ‘large’ and ’small’ we do so within a human field of reference.
Most people would agree that the pyramids are large, wouldn’t they? But if we look at them from a cosmic perspective, they are infinitesimally small. So which makes more practical sense – to refer to the pyramids as ‘absolutely tiny’ or ‘bloody huge’ (with the later evaluation containing an implicit assumption that it is a judgment made from a human point of view)?
As N. Van Allen noted e=mc^2 is abstractly and empirically correct which is what actually counts. As for physics obsession with big quantities being part of a male obsession with large penises does anyone actually take that claim seriously? The speed of light is scientifically interesting because it is a limit and a lot of interesting stuff happens at limits. Limits by their nature tend to be very small or very large although this can be relative. I do have sympathy with Matt Crawford’s point. The universe does not revolve around humans and so physicists frequently have to abandon human field of references whether it be to examine the massiveness of the universe and the galaxy or the minuteness of the quantum world. There is some selective attention here on Irigaray’s part as she ignores ‘privileged’ values that are small. For example physicists apparently ‘privilege’ absolute zero above many other higher temperatures.
The quote from Luce Irigaray is often cited, and I can see why. It does sound silly, but I would like to read a larger passage. What came before and after? Unfortunately, this and the many other websites and books citing this use only the little quote.
Does it matter that it is a question? Is it not OK to ask questions? She asks a question, uses “perhaps,” says something is possible, but she does not make any definite statement. It does not sound, from the tiny passage given, as though she would really argue this point, just that she is considering the question. Given that many people do not truly understand e=mc2, or at least not to the point of being able to prove or test it, and rely on authorities to tell us it is correct, I do not see why it is *such* a silly question to ask (being skeptical about appeals to authority, you know). I fail to see how this stands alongside Hegel and others “misadventures” on the site.
“For example physicists apparently ‘privilege’ absolute zero above many other higher temperatures.”
Privileging the stationary and passive? I always knew thermodynamics was for sissies…
Intellectual Imposters is hardly a book that deals with the material fairly; as Ruth points out, it quotes this one passage from Irigaray, obviously ridiculous taken out of context, to somehow show postmodernism is bunk. Shouldn’t anyone with a philosophy background see how fallacious this is?
The entire book is full of straw men attacks such as this. A book whose primary critique is “postmodernists abuse science they don’t understand” is rather hypocritical coming from people who don’t understand postmodernism and yet who see themselves fit to critique it.
What’s even more worrisome is that this is the kind of thing used by all sorts of unsavory types to put others off of feminism and other social criticism, which is probably a lot of damaging than an inappropriate metaphorical reference to quantum theory. On the other hand, none of the creationists (as far as I know) will abuse a postmodern work to try and attack science.
This is not to say that there isn’t a whole lot of bogus material, the language isn’t at times unnecessarily indecipherable and certain misunderstood concepts aren’t abused, but this is in no way unique to postmodernism.
“Intellectual Imposters … quotes this one passage from Irigaray, obviously ridiculous taken out of context..”
Would anyone care to substantiate the claim that the Irigaray quote is taken out of context? It’s one thing to make this assertion, but perhaps if we were given some evidence in support of it, we could get somewhere with it.
Personally, I find it hard to imagine any context in which it would make sense …
I’m just reading Sokal and Bricmont’s Fashionable Nonsense and the chapter on Irigaray. They don’t take things out of context but put in enough of the text for us to get its full drift. There are pages of arrant nonsense throwing in Physics and Mathematical concepts which she manifestly doesn’t understand. E=mc^2 is just a short one out of many. The two scientists are very careful not to claim more than what they specifically illustrate. Their demolitions are absolute but closely focused.
They leave it to us, I suppose, to leap to wider conclusions. There is no doubt in my mind that the only reason people copy and paste great chunks of scientific formulae they (a) don’t understand and (b) can have no relevance to psycho-analysis (no not even as metaphor) into their writings is to overawe the weak-minded, ie those that equate profundity with opacity. Proponents of various branches of the postmodern religion will say, “OK, there was no sense in using all that maths, but nevertheless these writers have much to tell us”. Why not tell us without the obfuscation, then? Actually, when one penetrates the opacity barrier what you are left with are either banal aperçus or speculative flights of fancy which either appeal to the reader or not. They certainly don’t contribute to knowledge. Or am I being too male?
Carver says: “….. A book whose primary critique is “postmodernists abuse science they don’t understand” is rather hypocritical coming from people who don’t understand postmodernism and yet who see themselves fit to critique it. ”
Not necessary. The point is only that postmodernists abuse science. I could add, that if you understood it, it wouldn’t be postmodernism.
I have some patience for psychoanalysis, feminism and postmodernism. But the last term is in fact too broad to mean very much today, other than describing a position that views modernism as a “project” that begins with the Enlightenment. That being the case, might one not argue that postmodernism is antithetical to the very idea of science? In which case, the postmodernist appropriation of pseudo-science is a kind of pointed pastiche. Anyhow, I;’m off on a tangent because what I really wanted to say was that I have approached Irigaray with some patience, but find her so mind-numbingly narcissistic and self congratulatory, and the obfuscatory rhetoric simply covers over a lack of clarity. Give me Freud any day – he may be sometimes misguided, but boy does he write clearly and beautifully!
Chris,
You rationale is a fallacy you refute logic as mathematics not philosophy; which puts you in agreement with John but then you attack his argument for not being rational (logical) your argument is just as implicit as John’s but you cannot see/acknowledge it?
the century is Deluzian.