Luce Irigaray and divine matter
137
sexes,8 whereby the inside∕outside dialectic operates within the horizon of an
elemental materialism with cosmological scope. In an interview, ‘L’autre de
la nature’, she says:
Quand je parle de nature, je ne reprends pas Ie sens que ce terme a
generalement dans la culture Occidentale: nature humaine, nature de
Fame, nature psychique (...) Il faut retrouver la nature en deςa ou
par-deɪa notre tradition socio-culturelle. Retoumer aux elements cos-
miques: Ie feu, Fair, Γeau, la terre, souvent oublies et en meme temps
Surexploitds dans notre univers technocratique. Elements materiels,
physiques, indisρensables a la vie, Constitutifs du corps et de son
milieu, Ie plus souvent refoules des discours qui font Ioi. Comme Ie
feminin?9
Who knows the implications of this futuristic return to the elements?
Elizabeth Gross has argued that it is a textual strategy, the elementary particles
being emblems rather than substantial units or the basic data of reality.10 They
have a metaphorical rather than referential status, facilitating a terminology
for the passional and for a corporeal sexual difference denied in dominant
discourse. The latter point is undoubtedly true, as Irigaray does make poetic
use of the language of the elements. But to construct any strict differentiation
between reference and metaphor is to misconstrue Irigaray’s use of language,
and not only Irigaray’s.ɪ' For while it would be patently absurd to claim for
her discourse of the elements the status of a truth scientifically understood the
mythical is deemed to have as much potential purchase on reality as so-called
contemporary scientific discourses, confined as they are to a certain herme-
neutic circle or cultural imaginary. We might construe this imaginary as
Nietszchean-inspired, with its emphasis on chance, accidenζ multiplicity,
8 Irigaray’s philosophy has always entailed a certain reclaiming of materiality; in Ce Sexe qui
n’en estpas un, Paris, 1977, her project is described thus: ‘Pour chaque philosophe—⅛
commencer par ceux qui ont determind une dpoque de Fhistoire de la philosophic—iɪ faut
repdrer comment s’opdre la coupure d’avec la ContiguItd matdrielle, Ie montage du systdme,
Pdconomie SpdcuIaire ’ (p. 73).
9 Sorcieres, XX, 1980, 14-25.
10 Irigaray and the Divine, Sydney, Local Consumption Occasional Paper, IX, 1986.
11 Irigaray is of course operating within the parameters of the post-structuralist discourse on
language and she has various ‘styles’ but perhaps the most apt summary of her own use of
language is to be found in this comment she makes upon Christ: ‘Meme ses paroles visent
d toucher pɪutðt qu’ h prouver ou convaincre’ (Amante Marine, Paris, 1980,194). Not that
she is to be seen as a Messianic figure!