Content deleted Content added
m →Criticism: removed red ink; corrected typo |
→Feminist criticism: Isolating the two words from their context gives an intentionally distorted impression of what Sylvia was expressing about her husband. |
||
Line 268:
[[Psycholinguistics|psycholinguist]] and [[culture theory|cultural theorist]] [[Luce Irigaray]] "ridicules" through "mimicry and exaggeration" these representations of femininity posited as natural and proper by Lacan.<ref>{{cite book |last= Irigaray|first=Luce |date=1985|author-link=Luce Irigaray|title=Speculum of the Other Woman|publisher=[[Cornell University]] Press |isbn= 978-0801493300}}</ref> Irigaray accuses Lacan of perpetuating [[Phallocentrism|phallocentric]] mastery in philosophical and psychoanalytic discourse.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Irigaray|first1=Luce |date=2011 |title=Cosi Fan Tutti|journal=Continental Aesthetics Reader}}</ref> Others have echoed this accusation, seeing Lacan as trapped in the very phallocentric mastery his language ostensibly sought to undermine.<ref>[[Jacqueline Rose]], "Introduction – II", in Juliet Mitchell and Jacqueline Rose, ''Feminine Sexuality'' (New York 1982) p. 56</ref> The result, [[Castoriadis]] would maintain, was to make all thought depend upon Lacan himself, and thus to stifle the capacity for independent thought among all those around him.{{r|n=Roudinesco 1997|p=386}}
In an interview with anthropologist James Hunt,
===Incomprehensibility===
| |||