Abstract

Beginning with a definition of 'ethos' as one's dwelling place and 'ethics' as the practice of that which constitutes one's 'ethos', this thesis explores the relation between the production of meaning, embodiment and difference in the philosophies of Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger. The aim is to explore the possibility of an ethics of sexual difference evoked by Foucault's and Derrida's re-reading of this philosophical tradition. ;The frame for my analysis is established by outlining Foucault's approach to ethics, showing how he cannot account for sexual difference within his proposed aesthetics of self. The economy of difference which Derrida finds in operation under the motif of differance promises an ethics of difference which would include women. But, as he doesn't account explicitly for embodiment, Derrida has attracted the criticism that either differance is a co-option of the 'feminine' or has nothing to do with 'real-life women'. Drawing on my reading of Derrida's approach to difference, but highlighting the problem of embodiment, I return to the tradition with which Derrida and Foucault are engaged in order to locate the body of woman. ;My reading of Hegel's philosophy establishes that, for him, ethical action is based on the social constitution of the body as a sign of the self. This is drawn from his theory of the sign and his discussion of the mechanism of habit formation. I bring this reading to bear upon his discussion of 'ethical life' and sexual difference in the the Phenomenology of Spirit. ;The chapter on Nietzsche's philosophy begins with a reading of the relation between language, moral evaluation and the social constitution of the bodily self. I argue that Nietzsche's aesthetics of self is an ethics of difference pitted against a morality which assumes sameness and equality of outcome. Focusing on his notion of the 'pathos of distance' necessary for 'self-overcoming', I then locate the role of 'woman' within this ethics. ;My reading of Heidegger's early work finds that his analysis of Dasein's temporality allows for the conditions for the possibility of an ethics of difference against the normalising discourses of the 'they'. However, the distinctions he uses in this analysis are problematic as is his neglect of the question of embodiment. I bring my critique of these distinctions to Heidegger's claim that Dasein is sexually neutral and that sexual difference is an ontical 'dispersal into bodiliness and sexuality'. ;I conclude that, through their critiques of the social model of exchange between self-present individuals, all these theorists have something to offer an ethics of sexual difference. But only insofar as they do not forget the body of woman