Abstract

This dissertation mediates between political theory, feminist critique, and continental ethics by presenting Irigaray's critique of Western philosophy and politics. I argue that Irigaray's work provides an analysis of the conceptual framework structuring and legitimizing the organization of power in modern democracies. Like other continental philosophers such as Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, and Emmanuel Levinas, Irigaray focuses on the way difference has been excluded from the Western tradition. However, her discussion of sexual difference as a difference between two non-hierarchical terms distinguishes her not only from liberal social contract theory, but from postmodern critiques of liberalism. ;I argue that both liberal theorists such as Hobbes and Rawls, and postmodern thinkers such as Derrida and Levinas, share the common premise that any political order must repress and hierarchize difference in order to found itself. Irigaray's most significant contribution to political philosophy is to place this certainty about foundational violence in question. Her analysis of sexual difference permits her to develop an alternative account of the foundation and aims of political order. In her account, order emerges through and aims at a creative encounter between uniquely embodied individuals. Such a community recognizes the particular needs of its members through the establishment of sexuate rights. This framework more adequately reflects the human experience of plurality than the neutral procedures characteristic of liberalism. In this way, Irigaray's work contributes to current debates on democracy and difference by providing an account of how difference can be recognized within the community without lapsing into incoherence or excessive fragmentation