非一之性：依利加雷的性差异理论研究
摘要
吕西·依利加雷（Luce Irigaray，1930－）是法国杰出的女性主义理论家，也是法国女性写作的重要代表人物。她是一个很有争议的人物，特别是围绕她是不是本质主义者的争论从上世纪80年代一直持续到现在。这样的争论不但没有使她的性差异理论黯然失色，反而使它显得具有巨大的潜力，因此，有不少学者从事依利加雷研究，从上世纪90年代开始，随着依利加雷翻译作品的陆续问世，学者们对她的理论有了更深刻的领会和理解，并在更大范围内展开了更全面的研究。
依利加雷的理论具有跨学科性，涉及哲学、精神分析学、语言学，也与西方文论、文化研究相关联。她的著作可分为三个阶段，第一阶段是对西方主体单一性的批判，第二阶段是建构女性主体间性，第三阶段是创造男女之间关系的新模式。本文把对依利加雷作品的阅读看成动态的阅读，将她思想的变化同女性主义政治运动和追求政治功效联系起来，将她在不同的情况下使用的不同方法和技巧看成是为了实现计划运用的战略。根据新批评的理论，对依利加雷的这种阅读也是一种细读法。本文运用到的论证方法主要有：
1）以点带面的方法，通过一个点向整体辐射，这个点就是“非一之性”，这个面就是“性差异理论”。“一”代表了一个性别、一个主体、一个上帝、一个逻辑、一个法则。依利加雷要挑战的正是这个“一”，而她极力主张的则是“二”和“多”。在她的作品中，“二”和“多”的意象随处可见，“非一之性”是她性差异理论的思想结晶。
2）比较的方法，将不同的代表人物进行比较，找出这些人物的相似性和相异性，并给予评价，也将性差异理论与有关的理论进行比较，找出它们的相关性，理清继承和发展的关系。
3）提出问题——分析问题——解决问题的方法，先引出评论界对依利加雷的批评或质疑，然后结合依利加雷相关的论述和不同评论家的看法进行分析，最后得出问题的结论。
本文在国外依利加雷研究的基础上提出了如下的看法：
1）我们应该根据依利加雷的战略意图和她对时代特征的把握来理解她的性差异理论以及她的性差异与其他差异之间的关系。
2）我们不应该把依利加雷的女性谱系看成是男性谱系的对立面，也不应该把她的女性神学看成是男性神学的对立面，她的谱系和神学既考虑到女人的发展空间，也考虑到女人与男人共享的空间。
3）依利加雷的女性言说不是要取代男性话语或创造一种全新的语言，它是一种既存在也不存在的言说方式，就像依利加雷对性差异在我们的文化中的情形所作的描述一样，她是要假定一个女性言说的地带来彰显女性的性差异。
4）依利加雷不是一味地谈论性别，而是把性属的问题也考虑进去了，但出于战略的考虑，她突出了身体、物质、自然的重要性，目的是要消除文化和自然的对立，防止重复将文化置于自然之上。
5）依利加雷的理论是一个开放的体系，需要在斗争和实践中修正和完善，实践的过程也是一个再认识的过程，而她的技巧和方法的运用会取得什么样的效果，这要视具体的情况而定，它与女性主义发展的程度、女性思想觉悟的提高等有关系。
6）依利加雷的性差异理论吸收了西方文论的成分，尤其是吸收了精神分析、解构主义和生态女性主义的思想，她的理论可以用于文学批评的实践或直接用于文本的分析。
除绪论和结语外，本文分为四章。
绪论部分先介绍依利加雷性差异理论产生的语境，接着论述她的性差异理论与西方文论的联系，然后是依利加雷研究的历史和现状，在此基础上提出本文的研究目的及学术价值。
第一章“非一之性：依利加雷的性差异伦理学”分为三节。第一节“性差异伦理学概说”着重说明依利加雷的性差异伦理学涉及两个有差异但没有等级制的性别，这种伦理学不同于将性别和性属问题排斥在外的传统伦理学。第二节论述“依利加雷对列维那斯的批判”，批判的焦点在于列维那斯把女人从伦理和宗教中排除，使他的伦理学不符合伦理的标准。第三节是“依利加雷对波伏娃思想的继承和发展”，涉及波伏娃思想的“两个来源”（萨特的存在主义和黑格尔的主奴隶辩证法），着重论述依利加雷继承和发展了波伏娃“女人是他者”这一思想。
第二章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性写作”包括“女性写作概说”、“主流话语的单一之性”、“女性写作的神秘主义”和“女性写作与女性身体的关系”四节。第一节介绍了女性写作的共性，这种写作将女性性别视为一个隐藏的、未知的然而却能够在文学书写中再现自身的实体，试图扰乱男性中心秩序，冲破传统的种种限制，拓展想象的空间，开辟叙事的新维度。第二节论述依利加雷对主流哲学话语和经典的精神分析学话语的揭露和剖析，这样的话语在同一的原则下运行，词语具有单一性、稳定性、不变性。依利加雷的女性写作涉及到“女性言说”和“不可言说的女性”，这两个内容分别出现在第四节和第三节，前者指依利加雷在男性再现话语以外开辟一个再现女人真实他性的新地带，使女人可以回归自我；后者指依利加雷将女性与上帝等同起来，运用神秘主义的否定法，说明在男性话语体系中无法再现女性的他性。
第三章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性谱系”包括“女性主体性与男性主体性”、“女人的自我之爱与男人的自我之爱”和“依利加雷的女性谱系”三节。第一节分析了依利加雷对主体性的论述及对女性必须成为主体的强调，第二节分析了依利加雷对自我之爱的论述及对女性要有自我之爱的强调。最能体现依利加雷的女人关系模式的是她的女性谱系。建构女性神学，从性差异的角度探讨男女之间的伦理关系，创造两个主体共存的文化，这是谱系的主要内容。第三节围绕这种谱系的三大特点论述，一是强调女人与神的关系，二是突出性差异，三是追求政治功效。
第四章“非一之性：依利加雷的本质主义”由两节构成，第一节论述“巴特勒的‘性属’与依利加雷的‘性别’”，对这两位批评家关注的焦点进行比较；第二节论述“依利加雷‘非一’的本质主义”，指出她的本质主义不同于形而上学的本质主义，既不是固定不变，也不是指一种本质，而是具有“非一”的特征。
结语部分在总结本文主要内容的同时，强调依利加雷的性差异理论具有“非一”的特征，具有解构和建构的双重含义，并注重了方法和技巧的运用，同时也指出，这一理论对文学艺术、对女性主义政治和理论具有参考价值。
Luce Irigaray is an outstanding feminist theorist and also an importantrepresentative of French ecriture feminine. She is a controversial figure, and aboveall, the debate about whether she is an essentialist or not began in1980s and lasts tillnow. Such a debate did not dim her theory. Instead, it laid bare the great potentials ofthe theory. Therefore, quite a few scholars are making studies of Irigaray. With theincreasing availability of translations of Irigaray’s works since the early1990s,scholars have a better understanding of her theory and undertake morecomprehensive studies on Irigaray.
Irigaray’s theory is cross-disciplinary, concerning philosophy, psychoanalysisand linguistics, and related to Western critical theory and cultural studies. Her workscan be divided into three stages. The first stage is the criticism of the singularity ofthe Western subject, the second stage is the construction of female intersubjectivity,and the third stage is the creation of the new model of male-female relations. Thisdissertation regards reading Irigaray as dynamic, associates the changes in herthought with feminist political movements and the pursuit of political efficacy, andconsiders her methods and techniques employed in different situations to be tacticsand strategies for carrying out her project. According to New Criticism, this readingis also a close reading. The argumentative methods used in this dissertation are mainly:
1) Spot-surface method, which is radiating the surface through a point. The pointis “This Sex Which Is Not One,” and the surface is “Theory of Sexual Difference.”The “One” stands for one sex, one God, one logic, one principle. What Irigaraychallenges is the “One,” and what she claims is “Two” and “Multiple”. In her works,images of “Two” and “Multiplicity” can be seen here and there.“This Sex Which IsNot One” is the crystalization of her theory of sexual difference.
2) Method of comparison. Through the comparison of different representativefigures, the dissertation tries to find the similarities and differences between themand to make judgements on them, and also through the comparison between hertheory and related theories, to identify their relevancy and making clear the relationsbetween theory-inheriting and theory-developing.
3) Method of raising-analyzing-solving the question. The dissertation firstintroduces questions or critiques directed to Irigaray in the critical world, thenanalyzing them in light of Irigaray’s correlative discussions and different critics’opinions, and finally draw a conclusion.
Based upon the studies on Irigaray abroad, this dissertation has put forward thefollowing views:
1) We should understand her theory of sexual difference and the relationshipbetween her sexual difference and other differences according to her strategicintentions and her grasping of the character of our age.
2) We should not consider Irigaray’s female genealogies to be the opposite ofmale genealogy, nor should we consider her female theology to be the opposite ofmale theology, as her genealogies and theology take into account both the space forthe women’s development and the common ground shared by the two sexes.
3) Irigaray’s parler femme does not aim to replace male discourse and to create abrand-new language. Instead, it is a way of speech which is said to exist and not toexist, just like Irigaray’s description of what sexual difference is like in our culture.Her purpose is to suppose a space of parler femme where woman’s genuineotherness is to be demonstrated.
4) Irigaray’s does not merely talk about sex, but she also takes into consideration the problem of gender. Strategically, she attaches importance to body, matter andnature, in order to remove the opposition between culture and nature and to preventthe repetition of privileging culture over nature.
5) Irigaray’s theory is an open-ended system, requiring to be revised andperfected in struggle and in practice, as the process of practice is also that ofre-knowing. As for the efficacy of her methods and techniques, it depends onconcrete situations, concerning the development of feminism and the raising ofwomen’s consciousness.
6) Irigaray’s theory of sexual difference absorbed elements of Western criticaltheory, especially thoughts from psychoanalysis, deconstruction and ecofeminism.Her theory can be used in the practice of literary criticism or used directly in textualanalysis.
This dissertation is divided into four chapters besides the introduction and theepilogue.
In the introduction, the dissertation first introduces the context in whichIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference came into being, then deals with the relationsbetween her theory and Western critical theory, followed by the discussion of thehistory and present situation of studies on Irigaray. On this basis, the dissertationputs forward its research purpose and academic value.
Chapter One,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference,” is made up of three parts. Part One,“Summary of Ethics of SexualDifference,” emphatically explains the differentiation of Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference from traditional ethics, which lies in that the former takes into accountthe two sexes with difference and without hierarchy while the latter excludes sex andgender. Part Two deals with “Irigaray’s Criticism of Levinas,” focusing on Levinasexcluding women from ethics and religion, making his ethics unable to reach ethicstandards. Part Three is “Irigaray’s Inherting and Developing de Beauvoir’sThought,” which concerns de Beauboir’s two sources (Satre’s Existentialism andHegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic). This part emphatically discusses Irigaray’sinheriting and developing the idea “Woman is the Other” from de Beauvoir.
Chapter Two,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine,” includes “Summary of Ecriture Feminine,”“Singularity of Dominant Discourse,”“Mysticism of Ecriture Feminine” and “Relations Between Female Writing andFemale Body.” Part One introduces the commonness of Ecriture Feminine. Thiswriting views the female sex as an entity which is hidden, unknown and yet canrepresent itself in literary writing. Female writing attempts to upset logocentrist order,break traditional boundaries, expand space of imagination and open up newdimensions of narration. Part Two discusses Irigaray’s exposition and anatomy ofdominant philosophical discourse and classical psychoanalytic discourse, which areoperated under the principle of the sameness and characterized by singularity,stability and immutability. Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine involves “parler femme”(speaking as woman) and “unspeakable woman,” which appear in Part Four and PartThree respectively, with the former referring to a new space opened up by Irigarayoutside male discourse, where women can represent their genuine otherness andreturn to their selves, and the latter referring to the identification of woman with God,using mysticist apophasis to show that woman’s otherness cannot be represented inmale discourse.
Chapter Three,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Model of Relations forWomen,” is made up of three parts:“Female Subjectivity and Male Subjectivity,”“Woman’s Self-love and Man’s Self-love” and “Irigaray’s Female Genealogies.” PartOne analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of subjectivity and her emphasis that womanmust become subject. Part Two analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of self-love and heremphasis that woman must have self-love. Irigaray’s female genealogies are the bestembodiment of her models of relations for women. The main content of hergenealogies are constructing female theology, exploring ethic relations between twosexes in terms of sexual difference and creating a culture of two subjects. Part Threedevelops around three characteristics of her genealogies, namely, stressing women’srelations to divinity, highlighting sexual difference and pursuing political efficacy.
Chapter Four,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Essentialism,” are madeup of two parts. Part One deals with Irigaray’s ‘Sex’ and “Butler’s ‘Gender’,”making a comparison of the two critics in the focuses of their attention. Part Twodeals with “Irigaray’s Essentialism Which Is ‘Not One’,” pointing out the difference of her essentialism from metaphysical essentialsim in that her essentialism is notfixed and immutable, nor refers to one essentialism, but is characterized by “notone”.
While making a summary of the dissertation，the epilogue emphasizes thatIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference is characterized by “not one”, has a doublemeaning of deconstruction and construction, pays attention to the use of methodsand techniques. It also points out that this theory is valuable to literature and art, andto feminist politics and theory
依利加雷的理论具有跨学科性，涉及哲学、精神分析学、语言学，也与西方文论、文化研究相关联。她的著作可分为三个阶段，第一阶段是对西方主体单一性的批判，第二阶段是建构女性主体间性，第三阶段是创造男女之间关系的新模式。本文把对依利加雷作品的阅读看成动态的阅读，将她思想的变化同女性主义政治运动和追求政治功效联系起来，将她在不同的情况下使用的不同方法和技巧看成是为了实现计划运用的战略。根据新批评的理论，对依利加雷的这种阅读也是一种细读法。本文运用到的论证方法主要有：
1）以点带面的方法，通过一个点向整体辐射，这个点就是“非一之性”，这个面就是“性差异理论”。“一”代表了一个性别、一个主体、一个上帝、一个逻辑、一个法则。依利加雷要挑战的正是这个“一”，而她极力主张的则是“二”和“多”。在她的作品中，“二”和“多”的意象随处可见，“非一之性”是她性差异理论的思想结晶。
2）比较的方法，将不同的代表人物进行比较，找出这些人物的相似性和相异性，并给予评价，也将性差异理论与有关的理论进行比较，找出它们的相关性，理清继承和发展的关系。
3）提出问题——分析问题——解决问题的方法，先引出评论界对依利加雷的批评或质疑，然后结合依利加雷相关的论述和不同评论家的看法进行分析，最后得出问题的结论。
本文在国外依利加雷研究的基础上提出了如下的看法：
1）我们应该根据依利加雷的战略意图和她对时代特征的把握来理解她的性差异理论以及她的性差异与其他差异之间的关系。
2）我们不应该把依利加雷的女性谱系看成是男性谱系的对立面，也不应该把她的女性神学看成是男性神学的对立面，她的谱系和神学既考虑到女人的发展空间，也考虑到女人与男人共享的空间。
3）依利加雷的女性言说不是要取代男性话语或创造一种全新的语言，它是一种既存在也不存在的言说方式，就像依利加雷对性差异在我们的文化中的情形所作的描述一样，她是要假定一个女性言说的地带来彰显女性的性差异。
4）依利加雷不是一味地谈论性别，而是把性属的问题也考虑进去了，但出于战略的考虑，她突出了身体、物质、自然的重要性，目的是要消除文化和自然的对立，防止重复将文化置于自然之上。
5）依利加雷的理论是一个开放的体系，需要在斗争和实践中修正和完善，实践的过程也是一个再认识的过程，而她的技巧和方法的运用会取得什么样的效果，这要视具体的情况而定，它与女性主义发展的程度、女性思想觉悟的提高等有关系。
6）依利加雷的性差异理论吸收了西方文论的成分，尤其是吸收了精神分析、解构主义和生态女性主义的思想，她的理论可以用于文学批评的实践或直接用于文本的分析。
除绪论和结语外，本文分为四章。
绪论部分先介绍依利加雷性差异理论产生的语境，接着论述她的性差异理论与西方文论的联系，然后是依利加雷研究的历史和现状，在此基础上提出本文的研究目的及学术价值。
第一章“非一之性：依利加雷的性差异伦理学”分为三节。第一节“性差异伦理学概说”着重说明依利加雷的性差异伦理学涉及两个有差异但没有等级制的性别，这种伦理学不同于将性别和性属问题排斥在外的传统伦理学。第二节论述“依利加雷对列维那斯的批判”，批判的焦点在于列维那斯把女人从伦理和宗教中排除，使他的伦理学不符合伦理的标准。第三节是“依利加雷对波伏娃思想的继承和发展”，涉及波伏娃思想的“两个来源”（萨特的存在主义和黑格尔的主奴隶辩证法），着重论述依利加雷继承和发展了波伏娃“女人是他者”这一思想。
第二章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性写作”包括“女性写作概说”、“主流话语的单一之性”、“女性写作的神秘主义”和“女性写作与女性身体的关系”四节。第一节介绍了女性写作的共性，这种写作将女性性别视为一个隐藏的、未知的然而却能够在文学书写中再现自身的实体，试图扰乱男性中心秩序，冲破传统的种种限制，拓展想象的空间，开辟叙事的新维度。第二节论述依利加雷对主流哲学话语和经典的精神分析学话语的揭露和剖析，这样的话语在同一的原则下运行，词语具有单一性、稳定性、不变性。依利加雷的女性写作涉及到“女性言说”和“不可言说的女性”，这两个内容分别出现在第四节和第三节，前者指依利加雷在男性再现话语以外开辟一个再现女人真实他性的新地带，使女人可以回归自我；后者指依利加雷将女性与上帝等同起来，运用神秘主义的否定法，说明在男性话语体系中无法再现女性的他性。
第三章“非一之性：依利加雷的女性谱系”包括“女性主体性与男性主体性”、“女人的自我之爱与男人的自我之爱”和“依利加雷的女性谱系”三节。第一节分析了依利加雷对主体性的论述及对女性必须成为主体的强调，第二节分析了依利加雷对自我之爱的论述及对女性要有自我之爱的强调。最能体现依利加雷的女人关系模式的是她的女性谱系。建构女性神学，从性差异的角度探讨男女之间的伦理关系，创造两个主体共存的文化，这是谱系的主要内容。第三节围绕这种谱系的三大特点论述，一是强调女人与神的关系，二是突出性差异，三是追求政治功效。
第四章“非一之性：依利加雷的本质主义”由两节构成，第一节论述“巴特勒的‘性属’与依利加雷的‘性别’”，对这两位批评家关注的焦点进行比较；第二节论述“依利加雷‘非一’的本质主义”，指出她的本质主义不同于形而上学的本质主义，既不是固定不变，也不是指一种本质，而是具有“非一”的特征。
结语部分在总结本文主要内容的同时，强调依利加雷的性差异理论具有“非一”的特征，具有解构和建构的双重含义，并注重了方法和技巧的运用，同时也指出，这一理论对文学艺术、对女性主义政治和理论具有参考价值。
Luce Irigaray is an outstanding feminist theorist and also an importantrepresentative of French ecriture feminine. She is a controversial figure, and aboveall, the debate about whether she is an essentialist or not began in1980s and lasts tillnow. Such a debate did not dim her theory. Instead, it laid bare the great potentials ofthe theory. Therefore, quite a few scholars are making studies of Irigaray. With theincreasing availability of translations of Irigaray’s works since the early1990s,scholars have a better understanding of her theory and undertake morecomprehensive studies on Irigaray.
Irigaray’s theory is cross-disciplinary, concerning philosophy, psychoanalysisand linguistics, and related to Western critical theory and cultural studies. Her workscan be divided into three stages. The first stage is the criticism of the singularity ofthe Western subject, the second stage is the construction of female intersubjectivity,and the third stage is the creation of the new model of male-female relations. Thisdissertation regards reading Irigaray as dynamic, associates the changes in herthought with feminist political movements and the pursuit of political efficacy, andconsiders her methods and techniques employed in different situations to be tacticsand strategies for carrying out her project. According to New Criticism, this readingis also a close reading. The argumentative methods used in this dissertation are mainly:
1) Spot-surface method, which is radiating the surface through a point. The pointis “This Sex Which Is Not One,” and the surface is “Theory of Sexual Difference.”The “One” stands for one sex, one God, one logic, one principle. What Irigaraychallenges is the “One,” and what she claims is “Two” and “Multiple”. In her works,images of “Two” and “Multiplicity” can be seen here and there.“This Sex Which IsNot One” is the crystalization of her theory of sexual difference.
2) Method of comparison. Through the comparison of different representativefigures, the dissertation tries to find the similarities and differences between themand to make judgements on them, and also through the comparison between hertheory and related theories, to identify their relevancy and making clear the relationsbetween theory-inheriting and theory-developing.
3) Method of raising-analyzing-solving the question. The dissertation firstintroduces questions or critiques directed to Irigaray in the critical world, thenanalyzing them in light of Irigaray’s correlative discussions and different critics’opinions, and finally draw a conclusion.
Based upon the studies on Irigaray abroad, this dissertation has put forward thefollowing views:
1) We should understand her theory of sexual difference and the relationshipbetween her sexual difference and other differences according to her strategicintentions and her grasping of the character of our age.
2) We should not consider Irigaray’s female genealogies to be the opposite ofmale genealogy, nor should we consider her female theology to be the opposite ofmale theology, as her genealogies and theology take into account both the space forthe women’s development and the common ground shared by the two sexes.
3) Irigaray’s parler femme does not aim to replace male discourse and to create abrand-new language. Instead, it is a way of speech which is said to exist and not toexist, just like Irigaray’s description of what sexual difference is like in our culture.Her purpose is to suppose a space of parler femme where woman’s genuineotherness is to be demonstrated.
4) Irigaray’s does not merely talk about sex, but she also takes into consideration the problem of gender. Strategically, she attaches importance to body, matter andnature, in order to remove the opposition between culture and nature and to preventthe repetition of privileging culture over nature.
5) Irigaray’s theory is an open-ended system, requiring to be revised andperfected in struggle and in practice, as the process of practice is also that ofre-knowing. As for the efficacy of her methods and techniques, it depends onconcrete situations, concerning the development of feminism and the raising ofwomen’s consciousness.
6) Irigaray’s theory of sexual difference absorbed elements of Western criticaltheory, especially thoughts from psychoanalysis, deconstruction and ecofeminism.Her theory can be used in the practice of literary criticism or used directly in textualanalysis.
This dissertation is divided into four chapters besides the introduction and theepilogue.
In the introduction, the dissertation first introduces the context in whichIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference came into being, then deals with the relationsbetween her theory and Western critical theory, followed by the discussion of thehistory and present situation of studies on Irigaray. On this basis, the dissertationputs forward its research purpose and academic value.
Chapter One,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference,” is made up of three parts. Part One,“Summary of Ethics of SexualDifference,” emphatically explains the differentiation of Irigaray’s Ethics of SexualDifference from traditional ethics, which lies in that the former takes into accountthe two sexes with difference and without hierarchy while the latter excludes sex andgender. Part Two deals with “Irigaray’s Criticism of Levinas,” focusing on Levinasexcluding women from ethics and religion, making his ethics unable to reach ethicstandards. Part Three is “Irigaray’s Inherting and Developing de Beauvoir’sThought,” which concerns de Beauboir’s two sources (Satre’s Existentialism andHegel’s Master-Slave Dialectic). This part emphatically discusses Irigaray’sinheriting and developing the idea “Woman is the Other” from de Beauvoir.
Chapter Two,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine,” includes “Summary of Ecriture Feminine,”“Singularity of Dominant Discourse,”“Mysticism of Ecriture Feminine” and “Relations Between Female Writing andFemale Body.” Part One introduces the commonness of Ecriture Feminine. Thiswriting views the female sex as an entity which is hidden, unknown and yet canrepresent itself in literary writing. Female writing attempts to upset logocentrist order,break traditional boundaries, expand space of imagination and open up newdimensions of narration. Part Two discusses Irigaray’s exposition and anatomy ofdominant philosophical discourse and classical psychoanalytic discourse, which areoperated under the principle of the sameness and characterized by singularity,stability and immutability. Irigaray’s Ecriture Feminine involves “parler femme”(speaking as woman) and “unspeakable woman,” which appear in Part Four and PartThree respectively, with the former referring to a new space opened up by Irigarayoutside male discourse, where women can represent their genuine otherness andreturn to their selves, and the latter referring to the identification of woman with God,using mysticist apophasis to show that woman’s otherness cannot be represented inmale discourse.
Chapter Three,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Model of Relations forWomen,” is made up of three parts:“Female Subjectivity and Male Subjectivity,”“Woman’s Self-love and Man’s Self-love” and “Irigaray’s Female Genealogies.” PartOne analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of subjectivity and her emphasis that womanmust become subject. Part Two analyzes Irigaray’s discussion of self-love and heremphasis that woman must have self-love. Irigaray’s female genealogies are the bestembodiment of her models of relations for women. The main content of hergenealogies are constructing female theology, exploring ethic relations between twosexes in terms of sexual difference and creating a culture of two subjects. Part Threedevelops around three characteristics of her genealogies, namely, stressing women’srelations to divinity, highlighting sexual difference and pursuing political efficacy.
Chapter Four,“This Sex Which Is Not One: Irigaray’s Essentialism,” are madeup of two parts. Part One deals with Irigaray’s ‘Sex’ and “Butler’s ‘Gender’,”making a comparison of the two critics in the focuses of their attention. Part Twodeals with “Irigaray’s Essentialism Which Is ‘Not One’,” pointing out the difference of her essentialism from metaphysical essentialsim in that her essentialism is notfixed and immutable, nor refers to one essentialism, but is characterized by “notone”.
While making a summary of the dissertation，the epilogue emphasizes thatIrigaray’s theory of sexual difference is characterized by “not one”, has a doublemeaning of deconstruction and construction, pays attention to the use of methodsand techniques. It also points out that this theory is valuable to literature and art, andto feminist politics and theory
引文
①参阅加里·古廷：《20世纪法国哲学》，江苏人民出版社，2005年，第418－419页。
②括号中依利加雷作品英文名称后跟有两个年份，前者表出该作品法文版出现的年份，后者表示该作品的英文版出现的年份。
①参阅于文秀：《后现代差异理论：“文化研究”的理论基石》，《天津社会科学》2003年第3期。
②参阅苏红军、柏棣主编《西方后学语境中的女权主义》，广西师范大学出版社，2006年，第22页。
①参阅加里·古廷：《20世纪法国哲学》，江苏人民出版社，2005年，第407、412页。
①参阅： Raman Selden et al, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory,4thed.(Beijing: Foreignlanguage Teaching and Research Press,2004) pp.128－129.
②见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.100-101.
①关于女性写作更多的介绍，见第二章第一节。
①参见：“Continental Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,30Jan.2008.
①（法）让—伊夫·塔迪埃：《20世纪的文学批评》，史忠义译，百花文艺版，2002年，第1页。
②参阅支宇：《文学批评的批评》，中国社会科学出版社，2004年，第20—25页。
①除了“列维那斯”外，国内还有“列维纳斯”、“莱维纳斯”等译名。
②见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.102-103.
①见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.103-104.
②关于“三组合”、“镜子”和“剩余项”的有关论述和评论，见本文第三章第三节。
③见：Mary Walsh,“Irigaray and Difference: Towards a Culture of Two Subjects,” Australian Feminist Studies18.40(2003), p.103.
①见第三章第一节。
②见：Margaret Whitford, ed., The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,1991) p.7.
③见：Philippa, Berry,“The Burning Glass: Paradoxes of Feminist Revelation in Speculum,” In Carolyn Burke,etc.(eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought (New York: ColumbiaUniverrsity Press,1994) p.231.
①Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.60.
①见第二章第四节。
②见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.102, p.103.
③见：Tina Chanter, Ethics of Eros: Irigaray's Re-Writing of the Philosophers (New York: Routledge,1995) p.78.
①关于依利加雷性差异理论更多的评论，参见：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference, Ithaca:Cornell University Press, chapter7.
②见：7Apr.2006.
①见：Tina Chanter (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Emmanuel Levinas (University Park: The PennsylvaniaState University Press,2001) pp.28-52.
①转引自：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1993) p.13.
①参见许丽萍：《对列维纳斯他者问题的几点思考》，杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究》（1），人民出版社，2005年，第183—184页。
①参见顾红亮：《责任与他者——列维纳斯的责任观》，载《社会科学研究》2006年第1期。
②参见孙向晨：《莱维纳斯的“他者”思想及其对本体论的批判》，载《复旦学报》（社会科学版）2000年第5期。
①这两篇论文分别收录在《性差异伦理学》(An Ethics of Sexual Difference)和《依利加雷读本》(TheIrigarayReader)中，本文的引用来自这两本书。
①依利加雷有一篇专门谈论迪俄提玛的文章，见： Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans.Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1993) pp.20-33.
①参见： Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991) pp.
178-180.
①参见：Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991) p.181.
①见：Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell,1991) pp.30-33.
①关于巴特勒的性属理论，见本文第四章第一节。
②关于依利加雷的本质主义，见本文第四章第二节。
①“自欺”是《存在与虚无》第一卷“虚无的问题”中的第二章，由“自欺和说谎”、“自欺的行为”和“自欺的‘相信’”三个内容组成，见萨特：《存在与虚无》，陈宣良等译，安徽文艺出版社，1998年，第82—112页。
②参见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.). Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) pp.14-15.
①参见本文第二章第三节。
②参见本文第二章第二节及第三章第三节。
①参见本文第三章第三节及绪论部分第三节。
①参见本文第二章第二节和第三节。
②参见本文第三章第三节。
③关于女性神学及“可感知的超越”的论述，参见本文第三章第三节。
①见《第二性》的第四章和第五章。
①关于依利加雷的女性谱系、女性神学以及“好奇”和“超越”概念的介绍和评论，均见本文的第三章。
①参阅叶嘉莹：《从西方女性主义文论看中国花间词》，15Oct.2004.
②以下对《美杜莎的笑声》的引用均出自张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年。
①参见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.), Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) p.89.
②参见：Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Theory (4thed.)(Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004) pp.141-143, pp.163-164.
①这里采用的是黄晓红的译文，见张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年，第198页。
①见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.100-101.
①“Apophasis.” Wikipedia.5May2008.25May2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis.
②“Mysticism.” Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.10Jan.2005.10Oct.2007.
①参阅第三章第三节。
①参阅第三章第三节及第四章第一节。
①转引自：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2002) pp.107-108；原文出处：Luce Irigaray (ed.）, Le souffle des femmes (Paris: Actioncatholique generale feminine,1996) pp.232－233.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.100, pp.102-123.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) pp.51-52.
①见：Toril Moi, Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary (London: Methuen,1985) pp.142-143.
①见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack, eds., Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) p.94.
②见：Ofelia Schutte,“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity,” Hypatia6.2(1991), p.65.
①参见：Ofelia Schutte,“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity,” Hypatia6.2(1991), p.68.
①参阅第二章第二节。
②参阅第二章第三节。
①参阅第一章第三节。
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.62.
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.63.
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) pp.65-66.
①见：Margaret Whitford,“Reading Irigaray in the Nineties,” in Carolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought (New York: Columbia Univerrsity Press,1994) p.26.
①在英语中，“Speculum”一词既表示“反射镜”，也表示“窥镜”。
②关于“燃烧的镜子”，见第二章第三节。
③关于神秘主义否定法的运用，见第二章第三节。
①转引自：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1993) p.13.
①参阅第二章第四节。
①参阅第一章第一节。
①参见：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2002) p.1.
①关于呼吸的重要性以及呼吸和说话之间的关系，见《东西方之间》的第三篇“Eastern Teachings”(东方教义)，另见本文第一章第一节的有关论述。
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.5;
①“performativity”一词有不同的译名，这里采用的是廖炳惠编著的《关键词200：文学与批评研究的通用词汇编》中的译文，江苏教育出版社，2006年，第182页。
①见：Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge,1990) pp.
136-141.
①见：Toril Moi, Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (London: Methuen,1985) pp.141-142.
①见：Elizabeth Meese andAlice Parker, eds., The Difference Within: Feminism and Critical Theory (Amsterdam;Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1989) pp.37-48.
②见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.72.
①参见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.61-64.
①William J. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought (New Jersey:Humanities Press,1980), p.155.
②见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.), Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006), p.38.
③参见：Naomi Schor,“This Essentialism Which Is Not One: Coming to Grips with Irigaray,” in Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought, eds. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor and MargaretWhitford (New York: Columbia University Press,1994) pp.59-60.
④参见第二章第四节。
⑤Jane Gallop,“Quand nos levres s’ecrivent: Irigaray’s body politic,” in Romanic Review74.1(1983), p.78.
①这两部著作的英文版均出现于1985年，其他主要著作出现在90年及2000之后。
①见：Carolyn, Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophyand Modern European Thought (New York: Columbia University Press,1994) p.28.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) pp.100-106.
①见：Carolyn Burke,“Romancing the Philosophers: Luce Irigaray,” in Minnesota Review,29,1987, pp.103-114.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.72.
②见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.20-21.
③见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.60.
①参见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.19-20.
①见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) p.46.
②同上，p.48.
③同上，p.49.
④见：Elana Gomel,“Hard and Wet: Luce Irigaray and the Fascist Body,” in Textual Practice,12.(2),1998, pp.199-223.
①见：Eluned Summers-Bremner,“Reading Irigaray, Dancing,” in Hypatia,15(1),2000, pp.90-124.
②见：PamelaAnderson,“Tracing the Sexual Difference: Beyond theAporia of the Other,”7Apr.2006.
①参见：“FeministAesthetics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,5Feb.2008.
1Abel, Elizabeth (ed.). Writing and Sexual Difference, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1982.
2Ambrosio, Francis J.(ed.). The Question of Christian Philosophy Today. New York:Fordham University Press,1999.
3Anderson, Pamela (ed.). Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Critical Readings. London:Routledge,2004.
4Armour, Ellen T. The Deconstruction, Feminist Theology, and the Problem of Difference:Subverting the Race/Gender Divide. Chicago: Chicago University Press,1999.
5Assister, Alison. Enlightened Women: Modernist Feminism in a Postmodern Age. London:Routledge,1996.
6Austin, John Langshaw. How to Do Things With Words. J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa(eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press,1975.
7Beattie, Christina Jane. God’s Mother, Eve’s Advocate: A Gynocentric Refiguration ofMarian Symbolism in Engagement with Luce Irigaray. University Park: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press,1999.
8Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Trans. H.M. Parshley. London: Picador,1988.
9Benhabib, Scyla and Drucilla Corner (eds.). Feminism as Critique: On the Politics ofGender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1987.
10Bergoffen, Debra B. The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Gendered Phenomenologies,Erotic Generosities. Albany: State University of New York Press,1997.
11Burke, Carolyn, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (eds.). Engaging with Irigaray:Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994.
12Brennan, Teresa. Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis. London-New York: Routledge,1989.
13Butler, Judith. Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,2000.
14---. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge,1990.
15---. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Matter of “Sex”. New York: Routledge,1993.
16Canters, Hanneke, and Grace M. Jantzen. Forever Fluid: A Reading of Luce Irigaray’sElemental Passions. Manchester: Manchester University Press,2005.
17Chanter, Tina. Ethics of Eros: Irigaray's Re-Writing of the Philosophers. New York:Routledge,1995.
18---(ed.) Feminist Interpretations of Emmanuel Levinas. University Park: The PennsylvaniaState University Press,2001.
19Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003.
20Cooper, Sarah. Relating to Queer Theory: Rereading Sexual Self-Definition with Irigaray,Kristeva, Wittig and Cixous. Bern: Peter Lang,2000.
21Cornell, Drucilla. The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography, and Sexual Difference.New York: Routledge,1995.
22Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
23Daller, Arleen (ed.). The Question of the Other. Albany: State University of New YorkPress,1989.
24Deutscher, Penelope. A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,2002.
25Eisenstein, Hester, and Alice Jardine (eds.). The Future of Difference. Boston: G. K. Hall,1980.
26Elliot, Patricia. From Mastery to Analysis: Theories of Gender in Psychoanalytic Feminism.New York: Cornell University Press,1991.
27Franklin, Sarah. Luce Irigaray and the Feminist Critique of Language. Canterbury:University of Kent,1985.
28Fuss, Diana. Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature, and Difference. New York: Routledge,1989.
29Fynsk, Christopher. Language and Relation: That There Is Language. Standford: StandfordUniversity Press,1996.
30Gallop, Jane. The Daughter’s Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1982.
31---. Thinking Through the Body. New York: Columbia University,1988.
32Gatens, Moira. Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality.Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1991.
33Griffiths, Morwenna (ed.). Feminist Perspectives in Philosophy. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press,1988.
34Grosz, Elisabeth. Irigaray and the Divine. Sydney: Local Consumption,1986.
35---. Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists. Sydney: Allen&Unwin,1989.
36---. Volatile Bodies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1994.
37Hampson, Daphne. After Christianity. London: SCM Press,1996.
38Hand, Sean (ed.). Facing the Other: The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Surry: Curzon Press,1996.
39Harasym, Sarah (ed.). Levinas and Lacan: The Missed Encounter. Albany: SUNY Press,1998.
40Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. Getting It Right: Language, Literature, and Ethics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1992.
41Heilbrun, Carolyn G. Toward a Recognition of Androgyny. New York: Nornton,1982.
42Howells, Christina. French Women Philosophers: A Contemporary Reader; Subjectivity,Identity, Alterity. London: Rouledge,2004.
43Huffer, Lynne. Maternal Pasts, Feminist Futures: Nostalgia, Ethics, and the Question ofDifference. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1998.
44Huntington, Patricia J. Ecstatic Subjects, Utopia, and Recognition: Kristeva, Heidegger,Irigaray. Albany: State University of New York Press,1998.
45Irigaray, Luce. An Ethics of Sexual Difference. Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1993.
46---. Between East and West: From Singularity to Community. Trans. Stephen Pluhacek. NewYork: Columbia University Press,2002.
47---. Democracy Begins Between Two. Trans Kirsteen Anderson. Longon: The Athlone Press,2000.
48---. Elemental Passions. Trans. Joanne Collie and Judith Still. New York: Routledge,1992.
49---. I Love to You: Sketch of a Possible Felicity in History. Trans. Alison Martin. New York:Routledge,1996.
50---. Je, tu, nous: Toward a Culture of Difference. Trans. Alison Martin. New York:Routledge,1993.
51---. Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1991.
52---. Sexes and Genealogies. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. New York: Columbia University Press,1993.
53---. Speculum of the Other Woman. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1985.
54---. The Forgetting of the Air. Trans. Mary Beth Mader. Austin: University of Texas Press,2000.
55---. Thinking the Difference－For a Peaceful Revolution. Trans. Karin Montin. New York:Routledge; London: Athlone Press,1994.
56---. This Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1985.
57---. To Be Two. Trans. Monique M. Rhodes and Marco F. Cocito-Monoc. New York:Routledge,2001.
58---. To Speak Is Never Neutral. Trans. Gail Schwab. London; New York: Continuum,2002.
59Irigaray, Luce and Sylvere Lotringer (eds.). Why Different? A Culture of Two Subjects. Trans.Camille Collins. New York: Semiotext(e),2000.
60Jacobus, Mary (ed.) Reading Women: Essays in Feminist Criticism. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1986.
61---. Women Writing and Writing About Women. London: Croom Helm,1979.
62Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1995.
63Jantzen, M. Grace. Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion.Manchester: Manchester University Press,1998.
64Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century FrenchThought. Berkeley: University of California Press,1993.
65Jeffner, Allen, and Iris Young (eds.) The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern FrenchPhilosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1989.
66Jones, Serene. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2000.
67Joy, Bill. Religion in French Feminist Thought: Critical Perspectives. London: Rouledge,2003.
68Joy, Morny. Divine Love: Luce Irigaray, Women, Gender and Religion. Machester:Manchester University,2006.
69Kemp, Sandra, and Judith Squares (eds.). Feminisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
70Krier, Theresa, and Elizabeth D. Harvey (eds.). Luce Irigaray and Premodern Culture:Threshold of History. London: Routledge,2004.
71Lacey, Nicola. Unspeakable Subjects: Feminism Essays in Legal and Social Theory. Oxford:Hart,1998.
72Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Trans. J.H. Bell, J.R. vonSturmer and R. Needham. London: Eyre&Spottiswoode,1969.
73Levinas, Emmanuel. Existence and Existents. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff,1978.
74---. Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,1981.
75---. Time and the Other. Trans. Richard Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press,1987.
76---. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,1979.
77Lipking, Lawrence. Abandoned Women and Poetic Tradition. Chicago: University ofChicago Press,1988.
78Lorraine, Tamsin E. Irigaray and Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy. Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1999.
79Macklem, Timothy. Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
80Maggie Kim, C. W., Susan M. St. Ville, and Susan M. Simonaitis (eds.). Transfigurations:Theology and French Feminism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1993.
81Martin, Alison. Luce Irigaray and the Question of the Divine. Leeds: Maney Publishing forthe Modern Humanities Research Association,2000.
82Meese, Elizabeth, and Alice Parker (eds.). The Difference Within: Feminism and CriticalTheory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1989.
83Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective. Sexual Difference: A Theory of Social-SymbolicPractice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1990.
84Moi, Toril. Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Methuen,1985.
85Mortensen, Ellen. The Feminine and Nihilism: Luce Irigaray with Nietzsche and Heidegger.Oslo: Scandinavian University Press,1994.
86Nelje, Kerstin. Christina Ramberg and Luce Irigaray: A Feminiht Analysis of Ramberg’sFemale Figures. Chicago: School of the Art Institute of Chicago,1990.
87Okin, Susan Moller, with respondents. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton:Princeton University Press,1999.
88Olkowski, Dorothea and James Morley (eds.). Merleau-Ponty: Interiority and Exteriority,Psychic Life and the World. Albany: SUNY Press,1999.
89Salih, Sara. Judith Butler: Essential Guides for Literary Studies. London: Routledge,2002.
90Schwartzer, Alice. Simone de Beauvoir Today: Conversations,1972—1982. London: Chatto,1984.
91Segal, Lynne. Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1999.
92Sellars, Susan. Language and Sexual Difference: Feminist Writing in France. London:Macmillan,1991.
93Still, Judith. Feminine Economies: Thinking Against the Marketplace in the Enlightenmentand the Late Twentieth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1997.
94Stockton, Kathryn. God between Their Lips: Desire between Women in Irigaray, Bront andEliot. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1994.
95Stone, Alison. Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
96Vasseleu, Cathryn. Textures of Light, Vision and Touch in Irigaray, Levinas andMerleau-Ponty. London: Routledge,1998.
97Warhol, Robyn R., and Diane Price Herndl (eds.). Feminisms: An Anthology of LiteraryTheory and Criticism. Houndmills; Basingstoke; Hampshire: Macmillan Press Itd,1997.
98Weiss, Gail. Body Images: Embodiment as Intercorporeality. New York: Routledge,1999.
99Whitford, Margaret. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine. New York: Routledge,1991.
100---(ed.). The Irigaray Reader. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991.
101Wolfreys, Julian, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.). Key Concepts in LiteraryTheory (Second Edition). Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006.
102Young, Iris Marion. Throwing like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy andSocial Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1990.
103Ziarek, Ewa Plonowska. An Ethics of Dissensus: Postmodernity, Feminism, and the Politicsof Radical Democracy. Stanford: Standford University Press,2001.
104Zylinska, Joanna. On Spiders, Cyborgs and Being Scared: The Feminine and the Sublime.Manchester: Manchester University Press,2001.
105[托名]狄奥尼修斯：《神秘神学》，包利民译，北京：三联书店，1998年。
106[英]弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫：《论小说与小说家》，瞿世镜译，上海：上海译文出版社，2000年。
107[德]黑格尔：《精神现象学》（上卷），贺麟、王玖兴译，北京：商务印书馆，1983年。
108[美]加里·古廷：《20世纪法国哲学》，辛岩译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2005年。
109[美]简·盖洛普：《通过身体思考》，杨莉馨译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2005年。
110[美]凯特·米丽特：《性政治》，宋文伟译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2000年。
111李银河：《女性主义》，济南：山东人民出版社，2005年。
112廖炳惠编著《关键词200：文学与批评研究的通用词汇编》，南京：江苏教育出版社，
2006年。
113[法]吕西·依利加雷：《二人行》，朱晓洁译，北京：三联书店，2003年。
114[美]罗斯玛丽·帕特南·童：《女性主义思潮导论》，艾晓明译，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，2002年。
115[法]米歇尔·福柯：《性经验史》（增订版），佘碧平译，上海：上海人民出版社，2002年。
116[德]尼古拉·库萨：《论隐秘的上帝》，李秋零译，北京：三联书店，1996年。
117[法]让－保罗·萨特：《存在与虚无》，陈宣良等译，合肥：安徽文艺出版社，1998年。
118[法]让—伊夫·塔迪埃：《20世纪的文学批评》，史忠义译，天津：百花文艺版，2002年。
119苏红军、柏棣主编《西方后学语境中的女权主义》，南宁：广西师范大学出版社，2006年。
120[挪威]陶丽·莫伊：《性与文本的政治》，林建法、赵拓译，长春：时代文艺出版社，1992年。
121[奥]西格蒙特·弗洛伊德：《性欲三论》，孙名之主编，北京：国际文化出版社，2000年。
122[法]西蒙·德·波伏娃：《第二性》（全译本），陶铁柱译，北京：中国书籍出版社，2004年。
123杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究（1）》，北京：人民出版社，2005年。
124杨莉馨：《西方女性主义文论研究》，南京：江苏文艺出版社，2002年。
125张岩冰：《女权主义文论》，济南：山东教育出版社，1998年。
126张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京：北京大学出版社，1992年。
1Adlam, Diana.“Introduction to Irigaray.” Ideology and Consciousness1(1977): pp.57-61.
2Anderson, Kirsteen H. R.“La Première Femme: The Mother’s Resurrection in the Work ofCamus and Irigaray.” French Studies56.1(2002): pp.29-43.
3Anthony, David.“Le Doeuff and Irigaray on Descartes.” Philosophy Today41.3(1997): pp.367-382.
4Apter, Emily S.“The Story of I: Luce Irigaray’s Theoretical Masochism.” NWSA Journal2.2(1990): pp.186-198.
5Armour, Ellen T.“Questions of Proximity: Woman’s Place in Derrida and Irigaray.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.63-78.
6Bacon, Hannah.“What’s Right with the Trinity? Thinking the Trinity in Relation toIrigaray’s Notions of Self-love and Wonder.” Feminist Theology15.2(2007): pp.220-235.
7Baker, Cynthia.“Language and the Space of the Feminine: Julia Kristeva and LuceIrigaray.” In Christina Hendricks and Kelly Oliver (eds.), Language and Liberation:Feminism, Philosophy, and Language. Albany; New York: State University of New YorkPress,1999: pp.367-392.
8Baracchi, Claudia.“Elemental Translations: From Friedrich Nietzsche and Luce Irigaray.”Research in Phenomenology35(2005): pp.219-248.
9Beaugrande, Robert de.“In Search of Feminist Discourse: The ‘Difficult’ Case of LuceIrigaray.” College English50.3(1988): pp.253-272.
10Berg, Maggie.“Escaping the cave: Irigaray and her feminist critics.” In Gary Wihl andDavid Williams (eds.), Literature and Ethics. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press,1988: pp.62-76.
11---.“Luce Irigaray’s ‘Contradictions’: Poststructuralism and Feminism.” Signs17.1(1991):pp.50-70.
12Berger, Anne-Emmanuelle.“The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and theIslamic Veil.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.93-119.
13Berry, Philippa.“The Burning Glass: Paradoxes of Feminist Revelation in Speculum.” InCarolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and ModernEuropean Thought. New York: Columbia Univerrsity Press,1994: pp.229-246.
14Boothroyd, Dave.“Labial Feminism: Body against Body with Luce Irigaray.” Parallax3(1996): pp.65-79.
15---.“The Touch of the Other on the Threshold of Sex: Or, the Skin between Levinas andIrigaray.” In Michael Syrotinski and Ian Maclachlan (eds.), Sensual Reading: NewApproaches to Reading and Its Relation to the Senses. Lewisburg; London: BucknellUniversity Press; Associated University Press,2001.
16Bostic, Heidi.“Luce Irigaray and Love.” Cultural Studies16.5(2002): pp.603-610.
17---.“Reading and Rethinking the Subject in Luce Irigaray’s Recent Work..” Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.22-31.
18Braidotti, Rosi.“Becoming Woman: or Sexual Difference Revisited.” Theory, Culture andSociety20.3(2003): pp.43-64.
19---.“The Ethics of Sexual Difference: The Case of Foucault and Irigaray.” AustralianFeminist Studies3(1986): pp.1-13.
20---.“The Subject in Feminism.” Hypatia6.2(1991): pp.155-172.
21Bray, Isabelle.“Not Woman Enough: Irigaray’s Culture of Difference.” Feminist Theory2.3(2001): pp.311-327.
22Burke, Carolyn.“Introduction to Luce Irigaray’s ‘When Our Lips Speak Together’.” Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society6.1(1980): pp.66-68.
23---.“Irigaray through the Looking Glass.” Feminist Studies7.2(1981): pp.288-306.
24---.“Romancing the Philosophers: Luce Irigaray.” Minnesota Review29(1987): pp.103-114.
25Caldwell, Anne.“Transforming Sacrifice: Irigaray and the Politics of Sexual Difference.”Hypatia17.4(2002): pp.16-38.
26Caze, Marguerite la.“Love, That Indispensable Supplement: Irigaray and Kant on Love andRespect.” Hypatia20.3(2005): pp.92-114.
27---.“The Encounter Between Wonder and Generosity.” Hypatia17.3(2002): pp.1-19.
28Chaplin, Sue.“Memory, Imagination and the (M)other: An Irigarayan Reading of CharlotteBront”s Villette.” In Avril Horner and Angela Keane (eds.), Body Matters: Feminism,Textuality, Corporeality. Manchester: Manchester University Press,2000: pp.225-233.
29Chatterjee, Ranita.“Of Footnotes and Fathers: Reading Irigaray with Kofman.” In Peter L.Rudnytsky and Andrew M. Gordon (eds.), Psychoanalyses/Feminisms: Suny Series inFeminist Criticism and Theory, and Suny Series in Psychoanalysis and Culture. New York:SUNY,2000: pp.55-68
30Cimitile, Maria.“The Horror of Language: Irigaray and Heidegger.” PhilosophyToday45.5(2001): pp.66-77.
31Colebrook, Claire.“Feminist Philosophy and the Philosophy of Feminism: Irigaray and theHistory of Western Metaphysics.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.79-98.
32Coombs, Margaret.“Wearing the Dog-Suit: Or the Irrelevance of Irigaray.” Critical Matrix8.1(1994): pp.127-135.
33Cooper, Sarah.“Luce Irigaray: Reading and Writing the Body.” In Julia Prest and HannahThompson (eds.), Corporeal Practices:(Re)Figuring the Body in French Studies. Oxford:Peter Lang,2000: pp.135-151.
34Craker, Tim.“Speaking Philosophy in the Voice of Another: Wittgenstein, Irigaray, and theInheritance of Mimesis.” In Naomi Scheman and Peg O”Connor (eds.), FeministInterpretations of Ludwig Wittgenstein. University Park: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress,2002: pp.65-94.
35Daggers, Jenny.“Luce Irigaray and ‘Divine Women’: A Research for Postmodern FeministTheology?” Feminist Theology: The Journal of the British&Ireland School of FeministTheology14(1997): pp.35-50.
36Davidson, Joyce, and Mick Smith.“Wittgenstein and Irigaray: Gender and Philosophy in aLanguage (Game) of Difference.” Hypatia14.2(1999): pp.72-96.
37Dellamora, Richard.“Apocalyptic Irigaray.” Twentieth Century Literature46.4(2000): pp.492-512; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.152-162.
38Deutscher, Penelope.“Between East and West and the Politics of ‘Cultural Ingénuité’:Irigaray on Cultural Difference.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003): pp.65-76.
39---.“Disappropriations: Luce Irigaray and Sarah Kofman.” In Dorothea E. Olkowski (ed.),Resistance, Flight, Creation: Feminist Enactments of French Philosophy. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,2000: pp.155-178.
40---.“French Feminist Philosophers on Law and Public Policy: Michele Le Doeuff and LuceIrigaray.” Australian Journal of French Studies34.1(1997): pp.24-44.
41---.“Irigaray Anxiety: Luce Irigaray and Her Ethics for Improper Selves.” RadicalPhilosophy80(1996): pp.6-16.
42---.“Mourning the Other, Cultural Cannibalism, and the Politics of Friendship (JacquesDerrida and Luce Irigaray).” Differences10.3(1998): pp.159-184.
43---.“Reviewing I Love to You: Sketches for a Happiness within History, by Luce Irigaray.”Hypatia13.2(1998): pp.170-174; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit:Gale,2003: pp.150-152.
44---.“The Only Diabolical Thing About Women...: Luce Irigaray on Divinity.” Hypatia9.4(1994): pp.88-111; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.128-140.
45Dutta, Nandana.“The Face of the Other: Terror and the Return of Binarism.” Inventtions6.3(2004): pp.431-450.
46Fayad, Mona.“The Problematics of Femininity: Irigarayan Representation in HananAl-Sheikh.” Phoebe2(1990): pp.4-9.
47Faulkner, Joanne.“Voices from the Deaths: Reading ‘Love’ in Luce Irigaray’s MarineLover.” Diacritics33.1(2003): pp.81-94.
48Felman, Shoshana.“Women and Madness: the Critical Phallacy.” Diacritics5.4(1975): pp.2-10.
49Fenves, Peter.“Out of the Order of Number: Benjamin and Irigaray toward a Politics ofPure Means.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.43-58.
50Ferguson, Ann.“Comments on Ofelia Schutte’s Work in Feminist Philosophy.” Hypatia19.3(2004): pp.169-181.
51Fermon, Nicole.“Women on the Global Market: Irigaray and the Democratic State.”Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.120-37.
52Ferreira, Maria Aline Seabra.“The Foreigner Within: Teaching The Rainbow with the Helpof Cixous, Kristeva, and Irigaray.” In M. Elizabeth Sargent and Garry Watson (eds.),Approaches to Teaching the Works of D. H. Lawrence. New York: Modern LanguageAssociation of America,2001: pp.39-56.
53Frain, Rose.“The Tic-Toc and the Infinite Mmmmmmmm: Debate on the Significance ofLuce Irigaray’s Writings.” Women”s Art Magazine62(1995): pp.24-25.
54Freeland, Cynthia A.“On Irigaray on Aristotle.” In Cynthia A. Freeland (ed.), FeministInterpretations of Aristotle. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,1998: pp.59-92.
55Freeman, Barbara,“Irigaray at the Symposium: Speaking Otherwise.” Oxford LiteraryReview8.1-2(1986): pp.170-177.
56Fuss, Diana.“Essentially Speaking: Luce Irigaray’s Language of Essence.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.62-80.
57Gallop, Jane.“Impertinent Questions: Irigaray, Sade, Lacan.” Sub-Stance26(1980): pp.57-67.
58---.“Quand nos levres s’ecrivent: Irigaray’s body politic.” Romanic Review74.1(1983): pp.77-83.
59Giardini, Federica.“Speculum of Being Two: Politics and Theory after All These Years.”Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003): pp.13-26.
60Gingrich-Philbrook, Craig.“Love’s Excluded Subjects: Staging Irigaray’s HeteronormativeEssentialism.” Cultural Studies15.2(2001): pp.222-228.
61Godway, Eleanor.“Phenomenology and the Frontiers of Experience: Merleau-Ponty andIrigaray.” Historical Reflections19.1(1993): pp.17-33.
62Gomel, Elana.“Hard and Wet: Luce Irigaray and the Fascist Body.” Textual Practice12.2(1998): pp.199-223.
63Green, Karen.“The Other as Another Other.” Hypatia17.4(2002): pp.1-15.
64Grosz, Elizabeth.“Derrida, Irigaray and Deconstruction.” Intervention20(1986): pp.70-81.
65---.“Irigaray and the Divine.” In Arleen B. Dallery and Stephen H. Watson (eds.),Transitions in Continental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press,1994:pp.117-28.
66---.“Irigaray’s Notion of Sexual Morphology.”In Shirley Neuman and Glennis Stephenson(eds.), Reimagining Women: Representations of Women in Culture. Toronto; London:University of Toronto Press,1993: pp.182-195.
67---.“Merleau-Ponty and Irigaray in the Flesh.” Thesis Eleven36(1993): pp.37-59.
68---.“On Irigaray and Sexual Difference.” Australian Feminist Studies2(1986): pp.63-78.
69Gunther, Renate.“Are Lesbians Women? The Relationship between Lesbianism andFeminism in the Work of Luce Irigaray and Monique Wittig.” In Owen Heathcote, AlexHughes and James S. Williams (eds.), Gay Signatures: Gay and Lesbian Theory, Fictionand Film in France,1945-1995. New York: Berg,1998: pp.73-90.
70Haigh, Samantha.“Between Irigaray and Cardinal: Reinventing Maternal Genealogies.”Modern Language Review89.1(1994): pp.61-70.
71Halsema, A.“Sexual Difference and Negativity: Irigaray, Derrida and Adorno.” In M.Pellikaan-Engel (ed.), Against Patriarchal Thinking. Amsterdam: Vu University Press,1992:pp.173-180.
72Hamburg, Paul.“Preoedipal Articulations: Clinical Reflections on Kristeva and Irigaray.”Psychoanalytic Review80.1(1993): pp.135-150.
73Hamera, Judith.“I Dance to You: Reflections on Irigaray’s I Love to You in Dilates andVirtuosity.” Cultural Studies15.2(2001): pp.229-240.
74Hammond, Marsha.“Vive La Différence: Luce Irigaray’s Interrogatory Alterity.”Humanistic Psychologist19.1,1991: pp.82-87.
75Hass, Lynda.“Of Waters and Women: The Philosophy of Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia,8.4(1993): pp.150-159.
76Hass, Marjorie.“The Style of the Speaking Subject: Irigaray’s Empirical Studies ofLanguage Production.” Hypatia,15.1(2000): pp.64-89.
77Hirsh, Elizabeth, and Gary A. Olson.“Je–Luce Irigaray: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray.”Hypatia10.2(1995): pp.93-115.
78Hodge, Joanna.“Feminism and Utopia: Irigaray Reading Kant.” Woman: A Cultural Review14.2(2003): pp.195-209.
79Hollywood, Amy.“Beauvoir, Irigaray and the Mystical.” Hypatia9.4(1994): pp.158-185.
80---.“Deconstructing Belief: Irigaray and the Philosophy of Religion.” Journal of Religion78.2(1998): pp.230-245.
81---“Divine Woman/Divine Women: The Return of the Sacred in Bataille, Lacan, andIrigaray.” In Francis J. Ambrosio, The Question of Christian Philosophy Today. New York,Fordham University Press,1999: pp.224-246.
82Holmlund, Christine.“I Love Luce: The Lesbian Mimesis and Masquerade in Irigaray,Freud and Mainstream Film.” New Formations9(1989): pp.105-118.
83---.“The Lesbian, the Mother, the Heterosexual Lover: Irigaray’s Recodings of Difference.”Feminist Studies17.2(1991): pp.283-308; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164.Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.71-83.
84Hong, Seung Hyun.“Using Luce Irigaray, Reading D. H. Lawrence’s The Plumed Serpent.”The Journal of English Language&Literature47.4.(2001): pp.1227-1243.
85Hooker, D.“Coming to Cressida through Irigaray.” South Atlantic Quaterly88.4(1989): pp.899-932.
86Huffer, Lynne.“Masturbating Dykes: Cixous, Irigaray, Leduc.” Sites: the Journal ofTwentieth Century Contemporary French Studies6.1(2002): pp.155-167.
87Ince, Kate.“Questions to Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia11.2(1996): pp.122-140.
88Ingram, Penelope.“From Goddess Spirituality to Irigaray’s Angel: The Politics of theDivine.” Feminist Studies66(2000): pp.46-72.
89Jagose, Annamarie.“Irigaray and the Lesbian Body: Remedy and Poison.” Genders.13(1992): pp.30-42.
90Jaarsma, Ada S.“Irigaray’s To Be Two: The Problems of Evil and the Plasticity ofIncarnation.” Hypatia18.1(2003): pp.44-62.
91Johnson, Pauline.“Feminism and Difference: The Dilemmas of Luce Irigaray.” AustralianFeminist Studies6(1988): pp.87-96.
92Johnston, Georgia.“Exploring Lack and Absence in the Body/Text: Charlotte PerkinsGilman Prewriting Irigaray.” Women’s Studies21.1(1992): pp.75-86.
93Jones, Serene.“This God which is Not One: Irigaray and Barth on the Divine.”In C. W.Maggie Kim, Susan M. St Ville and Susan M. Simonatis (eds.), Transfigurations: Theologyand the French Feminists. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1993: pp.109-142.
94Jones, Serene.“Divining Women: Irigaray and Feminist Theologies.” Yale French Studies
87(1995): pp.42-67.
95Kaminski, Phyllis H.“Mysticism Embodied Differently: Luce Irigaray and the Subject ofIncarnate Love.” Religious Studies and Theology17.2(1998): pp.59-79.
96Keenan, Dennis King.“Irigaray and the Sacrifice of the Sacrifice of Woman.” Hypatia19.4(2004): pp.167-183.
97Kozel, Susan.“The Diabolical Strata of Mimesis: Luce Irigaray’s Reading of MauriceMerleau-Ponty.” Hypatia,11.3(1996): pp.114-129.
98Kruse, E. Felicia.“Luce Irigaray’s ‘Parler-Femme’ and American Metaphysics.”Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society27.4(1991): pp.451-464.
99Kuykendall, Eleanor H.“Introduction to ‘Sorcerer Love,’ by Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.28-31.
100Lacey, Antonia.“Gendered Language and the Mystic Voice: Reading from Luce Irigaray toCatherine of Siena.” In Dor Juliette, Lesley Johnson and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne (eds.),New Trends in Feminine Spirituality: The Holy Women of Liege and Their Impact. Brepols:Turnhout,1999: pp.329-342.
101Leland, Dorothy. Lacanian Psychoanalysis and French Feminism: Toward an AdequatePolitical Psychology.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.81-103.
102Levitt, A.“The Pattern out of the Wallpaper: Luce Irigaray and Molly Bloom.” ModernFiction Studies35.3(1989): pp.507-516.
103Lorraine, Tamsin.“Irigaray and Con(Fusing) Body Boundaries: Chaotic Folly orUnanticipated Bliss?” In Arleen B. Dallery and Stephen H. Watson (eds.), Transitions inContinental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press,1994: pp.107-116.
104Mader, Mary Beth.“Book Reviews.” Signs Summer2005: pp.2274-2279.
105Martin, Alison.“A European Initiative: Irigaray, Marx, and Citizenship.” Hypatia19.3(2004): pp.20-37.
106---.“Irigaray and the Rhythm of Two.” Women in French Studies5(1997): pp.265-270.
107---.“Luce Irigaray and Divine Matter.” In Diana Knight and Judith Still (eds.), Women andRepresentation. London: WIF,1995: pp.132-141.
108---.“Luce Irigaray and the Adoption of Christianity.” Paragraph21.1(1998): pp.101-120.
109---.“Luce Irigaray and the Culture of Difference.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003):pp.1-12.
110---.“Report on ‘Natality’ in Arendt, Cavarero and Irigaray, Paragraph25.1(2002): pp.32-53.
111Martin, Betsan,“Luce Irigaray: Women Becoming Subjects for a Divine Economy.”Educational Philosophy and Theory29.1(1997): pp.60-75.
112Masland, Lynne.“In Her Own Voice: An Irigarayan Exploration of Women”s Discourse in‘Care Michele’ and ‘Lettere a Marina’.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature&Psychology21.3(1994): pp.331-340.
113McBride, Sam.“Reconceiving God: Luce Irigaray’s ‘Divine Women’.” In John C. Hawley(ed.), Divine Aporia: Postmodern Conversations About the Other. Lewisburg: BucknellUniversity Press,2000: pp.208-222.
114McDermott, Patrice.“Post-Lacanian French Feminist Theory: Luce Irigaray.” Women andPolitics7.3(1987): pp.47-64.
115McDonald, Dana Noelle.“Moving Beyond the Face through Eros: Levinas and Irigaray’sTreatment of the Woman as an Alterity.” Philosophy Today42(1998): pp.71-75.
116McGee, Patrick.“Writing as a Forbidden Pleasure: Irigaray, Lacan, Joyce.” In PatrickMcGee (ed.), Telling the Other: The Question of Value in Modern and Postcolonial Writing.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1992: pp.64-93.
117Mortensen, Ellen.“Irigaray and Nietzsche: Echo and Narcissus Revisited?” In KeithAnsell-Pearson (ed.), The Fate of the New Nietzsche. Brookfield: Avebury,1993: pp.229-247.
118Mulder, Anne-Claire.“Thinking about the Imago Dei---Minimalizing or Maximalizing theDifference Between the Sexes: A Critical Reading of Rosemary Radford Ruether’sAnthropology Through the Lens of Luce Irigaray’s Thought. Feminist Theology14(1997):pp.9-33.
119Muraro, Luisa.“Female Genealogies.” In Carolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: ColumbiaUniverrsity Press,1994: pp.317-333.
120Murphy, Ann V.“The Enigma of the Natural in Luce Irigaray.” Philosophy Today45.5(2001): pp.75-82.
121Murphy, Sara.“Mourning and Metonymy: Bearing Witiness Between Women andGenerations.” Hypatia19.4(2004): pp.142-166.
122Nicholson, Christina.“How to Believe Six Impossible Things before Breakfast: Irigaray,Alice and Neo-Pagan Negotiation of the Otherworld.” Feminist Theology: The Journal ofthe British&Ireland School of Feminist Theology11.3(2003): pp.362-374.
123Nye, Andrea.“The Hidden Host: Irigaray and Diotima at Plato”s Symposium.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.45-61.
124O’Connor, Noreen, and Joanna Ryan.“Promises and Contradictions: Lacan and Language,Irigaray and Kristeva.”In Noreen O’Connor and Joanna Ryan (eds.), Wild Desires andMistaken Identities: Lesbianism and Psychoanalysis. New York: Columbia University Press,1993: Article7.
125O’Dwyer, Shaun.“The Unacknowledged Socrates in the Works of Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia21.2(2006): pp.28-44.
126Oliver, Kelly.“Irigaray and Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy.” Hypatia16.1(2001): pp.100-102.
127Olkowski, Dorothea.“Body, Knowledge and Becoming-Woman: Morpho-Logic in Deleuzeand Irigaray.” In Ian Buchanan and Claire Colebrook (eds.), Deleuze and Feminist Theory.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2000: pp.86-109.
128---.“Chiasm: The Interval of Sexual Difference between Irigaray and Merleau-Ponty.” InLawrence Hasse and Dorothea Olkowski (eds.), Rereading Merleau-Ponty: Essays Beyondthe Continental Analytic Divide. Amherst;New York: Humanity,2000: pp.339-354.
129---.“The End of Phenomenology: Bergson’s Interval in Irigaray.” Hypatia15.3(2000): pp.73-91.
130Oppel, Frances.“Irigaray’s Goddesses.” Australian Feminist Studies20(1994): pp.77-90.
131Peel, Ellen.“The Irony of Women: Reflections of Irigaray.” Cincinnati Romance Review5(1986): pp.109-120.
132Perez, Emma.“Irigaray’s Female Symbolic in the Making of Chicana Lesbian Sitios YLenguas (Sites and Discourses).” In Laura Doan and Robyn Wiegman (eds.), The LesbianPostmodern.. New York: Columbia University Press,1994: pp.104-117.
133Pluhacek, Stephen.“To the Other as Other---Hearing, Listening, Understanding.”Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.45-56.
134Postl, Gertrude.“Of Ghosts, Commodities, and Women: Irigaray and Derrida.” PhilosophyToday43(1999): pp.62-67.
135Priest, Ann-Marrie.“Woman as God, God as Woman: Mysticism, Negative Theology, andLuce Irigaray.” Journal of Religion83.1(2003): pp.1-23.
136Quick, James Robert.“Pronom ‘She’: Luce Irigaray’s Fluid Dynamics.” Philosophy Today36.3(1992): pp.199-209; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003:pp.106-113.
137Raschke, Debrah.“To the Lighthouse ‘through the Looking Glass’: Woolf’s and Irigaray’sMetaphysics.” In Laura Davis and Jeanne McVicker and Jeannette Dubino (eds.), VirginiaWoolf and Her Influences: Selected Papers from the Seventh Annual Conference on VirginiaWoolf. New York: Pace University Press,1998: pp.288-293.
138Reader, John.“Deconstructing Autonomy: Towards a New Identity.” Ecotheology9.2(2004): pp.221-244.
139Reineke, Martha.“Lacan, Merleau-Ponty, and Irigaray: Reflections on a Specular Drama.”Auslegung14(1987): pp.67-85.
140Robinson, Hilary.“Beauty, the Universal, the Divine: Irigaray’s Re-Valuings.” In KatyDeepwell (ed.), Women Artists and Modernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1998: pp.159-174.
141---.“Irigaray’s Imaginings: Interpretation of the Writings of Luce Irigaray.” Women’s ArtMagazine61(1994).
142Rockwell, H.“An ‘Other’ Burlesque: Feminine Bodies and Irigaray’sPerformingTextuality.” Body and Society2.1(1996): pp.65-89.
143Salomonsen, Jone.“Love of Same, Love of Other: Reading Feminist Anthropologies withLuce Irigaray and Karl Barth.” Studia Theologica57.2(2003): pp.103-123.
144Sharp, Carolyn.“Divine Daughters of Divine Mothers: Luce Irigaray’s Search for Women’sOwn Divinity.” Feminsit Theology30(2002): pp.70-76.
145Shepherdson, Charles.“Biology and History: Some Psychoanalytic Aspects of the Writingof Luce Irigaray.” Textual Practice6.1(1992): pp.47-86.
146Schor, Naomi.“Previous Engagements: The Receptions of Irigaray.” In Carolyn Burke,Naomi Schor and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophyand Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994: pp.3-14.
147---.“This Essentialism Which Is Not One: Coming to Grips with Irigaray.” In CarolynBurke, Naomi Schor and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: FeministPhilosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994:pp.57-78; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.141-150.
148Schutte, Ofelia.“A Critique of Normative Heterosexuality: Identity, Embodiment, andSexual Difference in Beauvoir and Irigaray.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.40-62.
149---.“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity.” Hypatia6.2(1991): pp.64-76.
150Schwab, Gail.“Irigarayan Dialogism: Play and Powerplay.” In Dale M. Bauer and SusanJaret McKinstry (eds.), Feminism, Bakhtin and the Dialogic. Albany: State University ofNew York Press,1991: pp.57-72.
151---.“The French Connection: Luce Irigaray and International Research on Language andGender.” In Linda Longmire and Lisa Merrill (eds.), Untying the Tongue. Westport:Greenwood,1999: pp.13-24.
152---.“Women and the Law in Irigarayan Theory.” Metaphilosophy27.1-2(1996): pp.146-177.
153Sjoholm, Cecilia.“Crossing Lovers: Luce Irigaray’s Elemental Passions.” Hypatia15.3(2000): pp.92-112.
154Smart, Annie.“Luce Irigaray and the ‘Mutterdaemmerung’.” Psychoanalytic Studies2.4(2000): pp.385-394.
155Springer, Mary.“A Relativity of Angels: Wallace Stevens and Luce Irigaray.” WallaceStevens Journal14.2(1990): pp.153-166.
156Stanton, Donna.“Difference on Trial: A Critique of the Maternal Metaphor in Cixous,Irigaray, and Kristeva.” In Nancy Miller (ed.), The Poetics of Gender. New York: Columbia,1986: pp.157-182.
157Stephenson, Katherine.“Luce Irigaray.” In Eva Martin Sartori and Dorothy WynneZimmerman (eds.), French Women Writers: A Bio-Bibliographical Source Book. New York:Greenwood,1991: pp.229-243.
158---.“Luce Irigaray’s L’Ordre sexuel du discours: a Comparative English study on SexualDifferentiation in Language Use.” Semiotics1987: pp.257-266.
159Stockton, Kathryn.“God between Their Lips: Desire between Women in Irigaray andEliot.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction25.3(1992): pp.348-359.
160Stoller, Silvia.“Asymmetrical Genders: Phenomenological Reflections on SexualDifference.” Trans. Camilla R. Nielsen. Hypatia20.2(2005): pp.7-26.
161Stone, Alison.“The Sex of Nature: A Reinterpretation of Irigaray’s Metaphysics andPolitical Thought.” Hypatia18.3(2003): pp.60-84.
162Su, Tsu-Chung.“The Monstrous Other: Freud, Irigaray, Cixous, and the Mask of Medusa.”Studies in Language&Literature7(1996): pp.113-133.
163Summers-Bremner, Eluned.“Hysterical Visions: Kristeva and Irigaray on the Virgin Mary.”Women: A Cultural Review9.2(1998): pp.178-199.
164---.“Reading Irigaray, Dancing.” Hypatia15.1(2000): pp.90-124.
165Timoll, Andrea.“Antigone, Irigaray and the Archetypical Problematic: The ClassicalOpposition of Human and Divine Law.” Queens Law Journal19.2(1994).
166Trouard, D.“Eula’s Plot: An Irigararian Reading of Faulkner”s Snopes Trilogy.” MississippiQuarterly42(1989): pp.281-297.
167Van Buren, Jane.“Postmodernism: Feminism and the Deconstruction of the Feminine:Kristeva and Irigaray.” American Journal of Psychoanalysis55.3(1995): pp.231-243.
168Walker, Michelle.“Reason, Identity and the Body: Reading Adorno with Irigaray.” In DieterFreundlieb and Wayne Hudson (eds.), Reason and Its Other: Rationality in Modern GermanPhilosophy and Culture. Providence: Berg,1993: pp.199-216.
169Walsh, Lisa.“Her Mother Her Self: The Ethics of the Antigone Family Romance.” Hypatia14.3(1999): pp.96-125.
170Walsh, Mary.“Irigaray and Difference: Towards a Culture of Two Subjects.” AustralianFeminist Studies18.40(2003): pp.103-106.
171Walton, Heather.“Extreme Faith in the Work of Elizabeth Smart and Luce Irigaray.”Levende Talen16.1(2002): pp.40-50.
172Ward, Graham.“Divinity and Sexuality: Luce Irigaray and Christology.” Modern Theology12.2(1996): pp.221-237.
173Weinbaum, Alys.“Marx, Irigaray and Politics of Reproduction.” Differences6.1(1994): pp.98-128.
174Wenzel, Helene Vivienne.“Introduction to Luce Irigaray’s And the One Doesn’t Stir withoutthe Other.” Signs7.1(1981): pp.56-59.
175---.“The Text as Body/Politics: An Appreciation of Monique Wittig’s Writing in Context.”Feminist Studies7.2(1981): pp.264-287.
176Wheeler, Andrea.“Love in Architecture.” Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.105-116.
177White, Richard.“Elemental Passionss and the Nature of Love.” Philosophy Today43.1(1999): pp.143-148.
178Whitford, Margaret.“Essentially Speaking: Luce Irigaray’s Critique of Rationality.” InMorwenna Griffiths and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Philosophy.Bloomington; Basingstoke: Indiana University Press; Macmillan,1988: pp.109-130.
179---.“Irigaray’s Body Symbolic.” Hypatia6.3(1991): pp.97-110; in Contemporary LiteraryCriticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.100-106.
180---.“Irigaray and the Culture of Narcissism.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3,(2003): pp.27-42.
181---.“Luce Irigaray and the Female Imaginary: Speaking as a Woman.” Radical Philosophy43(1986): pp.3-8.
182---.“Luce Irigaray: The Problem of Feminist Theory.” Paragraph8(1986): pp.102-05.
183---.“Rereading Irigaray.” In Teresa Brennan (ed.), Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis.New York: Routledge,1989: pp.106-126.
184---.“Woman with Attitude: Conservatism of Luce Irigaray’s Views on the Woman Artist.”Women’s Art Magazine60(1994): pp.15-17.
185Wingenbach, E.“Sexual Difference and the Possibility of Justice: Irigaray’s TransformativePolitics.” International Studies in Philospohy28.1(1996): pp.117-134.
186Winnubst, Shannon.“Exceeding Hegel and Lacan: Different Fields of Pleasure withinFoucault and Irigaray.” Hypatia14.1(1999): pp.13-37.
187Xu, Ping.“Irigaray’s Mimicry and the Problem of Essentialism.” Hypatia10.4(1995): pp.76-89.
188Ziarek, Ewa Plonowska.“Toward a Radical Female Imaginary: Temporality andEmbodiment in Irigaray’s Ethics.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.60-75.
189Ziarek, Krysztof.“Between Techne and Poieses: Irigaray on Sexuate Experience.” ThinkingCulture, Thinking Drama. Evanston: Northwestern University Press,1999
190Ziarek, Krzysztof.“Love and the Debasement of Being: Irigaray’s Revisions of Lacan andHeidegger.” Postmodern Culture: an Electronic Journal of Interdisciplinary Criticism10.1(1999),22Feb.2008.
191波拉·祖潘茨·艾塞莫维茨：《露西·伊利格瑞：性差异的女性哲学》，金惠敏译，《江西社会科学》2004年第3期。
192顾红亮：《责任与他者——列维纳斯的责任观》，《社会科学研究》2006年第1期。
193海伦娜·西苏：《美杜莎的笑声》，张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年。
194孙向晨：《莱维纳斯的“他者”思想及其对本体论的批判》，《复旦学报》（社会科学版）2000年第5期。
195许丽萍：《对列维纳斯他者问题的几点思考》，杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究》（1），人民出版社，2005年。
196于文秀：《后现代差异理论：“文化研究”的理论基石》，《天津社会科学》2003年第3期。
②括号中依利加雷作品英文名称后跟有两个年份，前者表出该作品法文版出现的年份，后者表示该作品的英文版出现的年份。
①参阅于文秀：《后现代差异理论：“文化研究”的理论基石》，《天津社会科学》2003年第3期。
②参阅苏红军、柏棣主编《西方后学语境中的女权主义》，广西师范大学出版社，2006年，第22页。
①参阅加里·古廷：《20世纪法国哲学》，江苏人民出版社，2005年，第407、412页。
①参阅： Raman Selden et al, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory,4thed.(Beijing: Foreignlanguage Teaching and Research Press,2004) pp.128－129.
②见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.100-101.
①关于女性写作更多的介绍，见第二章第一节。
①参见：“Continental Feminism,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,30Jan.2008
①（法）让—伊夫·塔迪埃：《20世纪的文学批评》，史忠义译，百花文艺版，2002年，第1页。
②参阅支宇：《文学批评的批评》，中国社会科学出版社，2004年，第20—25页。
①除了“列维那斯”外，国内还有“列维纳斯”、“莱维纳斯”等译名。
②见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.102-103.
①见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.103-104.
②关于“三组合”、“镜子”和“剩余项”的有关论述和评论，见本文第三章第三节。
③见：Mary Walsh,“Irigaray and Difference: Towards a Culture of Two Subjects,” Australian Feminist Studies18.40(2003), p.103.
①见第三章第一节。
②见：Margaret Whitford, ed., The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,1991) p.7.
③见：Philippa, Berry,“The Burning Glass: Paradoxes of Feminist Revelation in Speculum,” In Carolyn Burke,etc.(eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought (New York: ColumbiaUniverrsity Press,1994) p.231.
①Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.60.
①见第二章第四节。
②见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.102, p.103.
③见：Tina Chanter, Ethics of Eros: Irigaray's Re-Writing of the Philosophers (New York: Routledge,1995) p.78.
①关于依利加雷性差异理论更多的评论，参见：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference, Ithaca:Cornell University Press, chapter7.
②见：7Apr.2006
①见：Tina Chanter (ed.), Feminist Interpretations of Emmanuel Levinas (University Park: The PennsylvaniaState University Press,2001) pp.28-52.
①转引自：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1993) p.13.
①参见许丽萍：《对列维纳斯他者问题的几点思考》，杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究》（1），人民出版社，2005年，第183—184页。
①参见顾红亮：《责任与他者——列维纳斯的责任观》，载《社会科学研究》2006年第1期。
②参见孙向晨：《莱维纳斯的“他者”思想及其对本体论的批判》，载《复旦学报》（社会科学版）2000年第5期。
①这两篇论文分别收录在《性差异伦理学》(An Ethics of Sexual Difference)和《依利加雷读本》(TheIrigarayReader)中，本文的引用来自这两本书。
①依利加雷有一篇专门谈论迪俄提玛的文章，见： Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans.Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1993) pp.20-33.
①参见： Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991) pp.
178-180.
①参见：Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991) p.181.
①见：Margaret Whitford (ed.), The Irigaray Reader (Oxford; Cambridge: Blackwell,1991) pp.30-33.
①关于巴特勒的性属理论，见本文第四章第一节。
②关于依利加雷的本质主义，见本文第四章第二节。
①“自欺”是《存在与虚无》第一卷“虚无的问题”中的第二章，由“自欺和说谎”、“自欺的行为”和“自欺的‘相信’”三个内容组成，见萨特：《存在与虚无》，陈宣良等译，安徽文艺出版社，1998年，第82—112页。
②参见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.). Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) pp.14-15.
①参见本文第二章第三节。
②参见本文第二章第二节及第三章第三节。
①参见本文第三章第三节及绪论部分第三节。
①参见本文第二章第二节和第三节。
②参见本文第三章第三节。
③关于女性神学及“可感知的超越”的论述，参见本文第三章第三节。
①见《第二性》的第四章和第五章。
①关于依利加雷的女性谱系、女性神学以及“好奇”和“超越”概念的介绍和评论，均见本文的第三章。
①参阅叶嘉莹：《从西方女性主义文论看中国花间词》，15Oct.2004
②以下对《美杜莎的笑声》的引用均出自张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年。
①参见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.), Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) p.89.
②参见：Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson, and Peter Brooker, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Theory (4thed.)(Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004) pp.141-143, pp.163-164.
①这里采用的是黄晓红的译文，见张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年，第198页。
①见：Elizabeth Grosz, Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists (Sydney:Allen&Unwin,1989) pp.100-101.
①“Apophasis.” Wikipedia.5May2008.25May2008http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophasis.
②“Mysticism.” Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.10Jan.2005.10Oct.2007
①参阅第三章第三节。
①参阅第三章第三节及第四章第一节。
①转引自：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2002) pp.107-108；原文出处：Luce Irigaray (ed.）, Le souffle des femmes (Paris: Actioncatholique generale feminine,1996) pp.232－233.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.100, pp.102-123.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) pp.51-52.
①见：Toril Moi, Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary (London: Methuen,1985) pp.142-143.
①见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack, eds., Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006) p.94.
②见：Ofelia Schutte,“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity,” Hypatia6.2(1991), p.65.
①参见：Ofelia Schutte,“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity,” Hypatia6.2(1991), p.68.
①参阅第二章第二节。
②参阅第二章第三节。
①参阅第一章第三节。
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.62.
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.63.
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) pp.65-66.
①见：Margaret Whitford,“Reading Irigaray in the Nineties,” in Carolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought (New York: Columbia Univerrsity Press,1994) p.26.
①在英语中，“Speculum”一词既表示“反射镜”，也表示“窥镜”。
②关于“燃烧的镜子”，见第二章第三节。
③关于神秘主义否定法的运用，见第二章第三节。
①转引自：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1993) p.13.
①参阅第二章第四节。
①参阅第一章第一节。
①参见：Penelope Deutscher, A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray (Ithaca:Cornell University Press,2002) p.1.
①关于呼吸的重要性以及呼吸和说话之间的关系，见《东西方之间》的第三篇“Eastern Teachings”(东方教义)，另见本文第一章第一节的有关论述。
①参见：Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill (Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1993) p.5;
①“performativity”一词有不同的译名，这里采用的是廖炳惠编著的《关键词200：文学与批评研究的通用词汇编》中的译文，江苏教育出版社，2006年，第182页。
①见：Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (London: Routledge,1990) pp.
136-141.
①见：Toril Moi, Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory (London: Methuen,1985) pp.141-142.
①见：Elizabeth Meese andAlice Parker, eds., The Difference Within: Feminism and Critical Theory (Amsterdam;Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1989) pp.37-48.
②见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.72.
①参见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.61-64.
①William J. Reese, Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion: Eastern and Western Thought (New Jersey:Humanities Press,1980), p.155.
②见：Julian Wolfreys, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.), Key Concepts in Literary Theory (SecondEdition)(Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006), p.38.
③参见：Naomi Schor,“This Essentialism Which Is Not One: Coming to Grips with Irigaray,” in Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought, eds. Carolyn Burke, Naomi Schor and MargaretWhitford (New York: Columbia University Press,1994) pp.59-60.
④参见第二章第四节。
⑤Jane Gallop,“Quand nos levres s’ecrivent: Irigaray’s body politic,” in Romanic Review74.1(1983), p.78.
①这两部著作的英文版均出现于1985年，其他主要著作出现在90年及2000之后。
①见：Carolyn, Burke, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophyand Modern European Thought (New York: Columbia University Press,1994) p.28.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) pp.100-106.
①见：Carolyn Burke,“Romancing the Philosophers: Luce Irigaray,” in Minnesota Review,29,1987, pp.103-114.
①见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.72.
②见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.20-21.
③见：Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164(Detroit: Gale,2003) p.60.
①参见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) pp.19-20.
①见：Alison Stone, Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress,2006) p.46.
②同上，p.48.
③同上，p.49.
④见：Elana Gomel,“Hard and Wet: Luce Irigaray and the Fascist Body,” in Textual Practice,12.(2),1998, pp.199-223.
①见：Eluned Summers-Bremner,“Reading Irigaray, Dancing,” in Hypatia,15(1),2000, pp.90-124.
②见：PamelaAnderson,“Tracing the Sexual Difference: Beyond theAporia of the Other,”7Apr.2006
①参见：“FeministAesthetics,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,5Feb.2008
1Abel, Elizabeth (ed.). Writing and Sexual Difference, Chicago: University of Chicago Press,1982.
2Ambrosio, Francis J.(ed.). The Question of Christian Philosophy Today. New York:Fordham University Press,1999.
3Anderson, Pamela (ed.). Feminist Philosophy of Religion: Critical Readings. London:Routledge,2004.
4Armour, Ellen T. The Deconstruction, Feminist Theology, and the Problem of Difference:Subverting the Race/Gender Divide. Chicago: Chicago University Press,1999.
5Assister, Alison. Enlightened Women: Modernist Feminism in a Postmodern Age. London:Routledge,1996.
6Austin, John Langshaw. How to Do Things With Words. J.O. Urmson and Marina Sbisa(eds.). Oxford: Clarendon Press,1975.
7Beattie, Christina Jane. God’s Mother, Eve’s Advocate: A Gynocentric Refiguration ofMarian Symbolism in Engagement with Luce Irigaray. University Park: Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press,1999.
8Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. Trans. H.M. Parshley. London: Picador,1988.
9Benhabib, Scyla and Drucilla Corner (eds.). Feminism as Critique: On the Politics ofGender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press,1987.
10Bergoffen, Debra B. The Philosophy of Simone de Beauvoir: Gendered Phenomenologies,Erotic Generosities. Albany: State University of New York Press,1997.
11Burke, Carolyn, Naomi Schor, and Margaret Whitford (eds.). Engaging with Irigaray:Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994.
12Brennan, Teresa. Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis. London-New York: Routledge,1989.
13Butler, Judith. Antigone’s Claim: Kinship between Life and Death. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,2000.
14---. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. London: Routledge,1990.
15---. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Matter of “Sex”. New York: Routledge,1993.
16Canters, Hanneke, and Grace M. Jantzen. Forever Fluid: A Reading of Luce Irigaray’sElemental Passions. Manchester: Manchester University Press,2005.
17Chanter, Tina. Ethics of Eros: Irigaray's Re-Writing of the Philosophers. New York:Routledge,1995.
18---(ed.) Feminist Interpretations of Emmanuel Levinas. University Park: The PennsylvaniaState University Press,2001.
19Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003.
20Cooper, Sarah. Relating to Queer Theory: Rereading Sexual Self-Definition with Irigaray,Kristeva, Wittig and Cixous. Bern: Peter Lang,2000.
21Cornell, Drucilla. The Imaginary Domain: Abortion, Pornography, and Sexual Difference.New York: Routledge,1995.
22Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2004.
23Daller, Arleen (ed.). The Question of the Other. Albany: State University of New YorkPress,1989.
24Deutscher, Penelope. A Politics of Impossible Difference: The Later Work of Luce Irigaray.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,2002.
25Eisenstein, Hester, and Alice Jardine (eds.). The Future of Difference. Boston: G. K. Hall,1980.
26Elliot, Patricia. From Mastery to Analysis: Theories of Gender in Psychoanalytic Feminism.New York: Cornell University Press,1991.
27Franklin, Sarah. Luce Irigaray and the Feminist Critique of Language. Canterbury:University of Kent,1985.
28Fuss, Diana. Essentially Speaking: Feminism, Nature, and Difference. New York: Routledge,1989.
29Fynsk, Christopher. Language and Relation: That There Is Language. Standford: StandfordUniversity Press,1996.
30Gallop, Jane. The Daughter’s Seduction: Feminism and Psychoanalysis. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1982.
31---. Thinking Through the Body. New York: Columbia University,1988.
32Gatens, Moira. Feminism and Philosophy: Perspectives on Difference and Equality.Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1991.
33Griffiths, Morwenna (ed.). Feminist Perspectives in Philosophy. Bloomington: IndianaUniversity Press,1988.
34Grosz, Elisabeth. Irigaray and the Divine. Sydney: Local Consumption,1986.
35---. Sexual Subversions: Three French Feminists. Sydney: Allen&Unwin,1989.
36---. Volatile Bodies. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press,1994.
37Hampson, Daphne. After Christianity. London: SCM Press,1996.
38Hand, Sean (ed.). Facing the Other: The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Surry: Curzon Press,1996.
39Harasym, Sarah (ed.). Levinas and Lacan: The Missed Encounter. Albany: SUNY Press,1998.
40Harpham, Geoffrey Galt. Getting It Right: Language, Literature, and Ethics. Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1992.
41Heilbrun, Carolyn G. Toward a Recognition of Androgyny. New York: Nornton,1982.
42Howells, Christina. French Women Philosophers: A Contemporary Reader; Subjectivity,Identity, Alterity. London: Rouledge,2004.
43Huffer, Lynne. Maternal Pasts, Feminist Futures: Nostalgia, Ethics, and the Question ofDifference. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1998.
44Huntington, Patricia J. Ecstatic Subjects, Utopia, and Recognition: Kristeva, Heidegger,Irigaray. Albany: State University of New York Press,1998.
45Irigaray, Luce. An Ethics of Sexual Difference. Trans. Carolyn Burke and Gillian C. Gill.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1993.
46---. Between East and West: From Singularity to Community. Trans. Stephen Pluhacek. NewYork: Columbia University Press,2002.
47---. Democracy Begins Between Two. Trans Kirsteen Anderson. Longon: The Athlone Press,2000.
48---. Elemental Passions. Trans. Joanne Collie and Judith Still. New York: Routledge,1992.
49---. I Love to You: Sketch of a Possible Felicity in History. Trans. Alison Martin. New York:Routledge,1996.
50---. Je, tu, nous: Toward a Culture of Difference. Trans. Alison Martin. New York:Routledge,1993.
51---. Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1991.
52---. Sexes and Genealogies. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. New York: Columbia University Press,1993.
53---. Speculum of the Other Woman. Trans. Gillian C. Gill. Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1985.
54---. The Forgetting of the Air. Trans. Mary Beth Mader. Austin: University of Texas Press,2000.
55---. Thinking the Difference－For a Peaceful Revolution. Trans. Karin Montin. New York:Routledge; London: Athlone Press,1994.
56---. This Sex Which Is Not One. Trans. Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,1985.
57---. To Be Two. Trans. Monique M. Rhodes and Marco F. Cocito-Monoc. New York:Routledge,2001.
58---. To Speak Is Never Neutral. Trans. Gail Schwab. London; New York: Continuum,2002.
59Irigaray, Luce and Sylvere Lotringer (eds.). Why Different? A Culture of Two Subjects. Trans.Camille Collins. New York: Semiotext(e),2000.
60Jacobus, Mary (ed.) Reading Women: Essays in Feminist Criticism. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1986.
61---. Women Writing and Writing About Women. London: Croom Helm,1979.
62Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press,1995.
63Jantzen, M. Grace. Becoming Divine: Towards a Feminist Philosophy of Religion.Manchester: Manchester University Press,1998.
64Jay, Martin. Downcast Eyes: The Denigration of Vision in Twentieth-Century FrenchThought. Berkeley: University of California Press,1993.
65Jeffner, Allen, and Iris Young (eds.) The Thinking Muse: Feminism and Modern FrenchPhilosophy. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1989.
66Jones, Serene. Feminist Theory and Christian Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,2000.
67Joy, Bill. Religion in French Feminist Thought: Critical Perspectives. London: Rouledge,2003.
68Joy, Morny. Divine Love: Luce Irigaray, Women, Gender and Religion. Machester:Manchester University,2006.
69Kemp, Sandra, and Judith Squares (eds.). Feminisms. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1997.
70Krier, Theresa, and Elizabeth D. Harvey (eds.). Luce Irigaray and Premodern Culture:Threshold of History. London: Routledge,2004.
71Lacey, Nicola. Unspeakable Subjects: Feminism Essays in Legal and Social Theory. Oxford:Hart,1998.
72Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Trans. J.H. Bell, J.R. vonSturmer and R. Needham. London: Eyre&Spottiswoode,1969.
73Levinas, Emmanuel. Existence and Existents. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague: MartinusNijhoff,1978.
74---. Otherwise Than Being or Beyond Essence. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,1981.
75---. Time and the Other. Trans. Richard Cohen. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press,1987.
76---. Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague:Martinus Nijhoff,1979.
77Lipking, Lawrence. Abandoned Women and Poetic Tradition. Chicago: University ofChicago Press,1988.
78Lorraine, Tamsin E. Irigaray and Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy. Ithaca:Cornell University Press,1999.
79Macklem, Timothy. Beyond Comparison: Sex and Discrimination. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,2003.
80Maggie Kim, C. W., Susan M. St. Ville, and Susan M. Simonaitis (eds.). Transfigurations:Theology and French Feminism. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1993.
81Martin, Alison. Luce Irigaray and the Question of the Divine. Leeds: Maney Publishing forthe Modern Humanities Research Association,2000.
82Meese, Elizabeth, and Alice Parker (eds.). The Difference Within: Feminism and CriticalTheory. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1989.
83Milan Women’s Bookstore Collective. Sexual Difference: A Theory of Social-SymbolicPractice. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1990.
84Moi, Toril. Sexual-Textual Politics: Feminist Literary Theory. London: Methuen,1985.
85Mortensen, Ellen. The Feminine and Nihilism: Luce Irigaray with Nietzsche and Heidegger.Oslo: Scandinavian University Press,1994.
86Nelje, Kerstin. Christina Ramberg and Luce Irigaray: A Feminiht Analysis of Ramberg’sFemale Figures. Chicago: School of the Art Institute of Chicago,1990.
87Okin, Susan Moller, with respondents. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton:Princeton University Press,1999.
88Olkowski, Dorothea and James Morley (eds.). Merleau-Ponty: Interiority and Exteriority,Psychic Life and the World. Albany: SUNY Press,1999.
89Salih, Sara. Judith Butler: Essential Guides for Literary Studies. London: Routledge,2002.
90Schwartzer, Alice. Simone de Beauvoir Today: Conversations,1972—1982. London: Chatto,1984.
91Segal, Lynne. Why Feminism? Gender, Psychology, Politics. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press,1999.
92Sellars, Susan. Language and Sexual Difference: Feminist Writing in France. London:Macmillan,1991.
93Still, Judith. Feminine Economies: Thinking Against the Marketplace in the Enlightenmentand the Late Twentieth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1997.
94Stockton, Kathryn. God between Their Lips: Desire between Women in Irigaray, Bront andEliot. Stanford: Stanford University Press,1994.
95Stone, Alison. Luce Irigaray and the Philosophy of Sexual Difference. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2006.
96Vasseleu, Cathryn. Textures of Light, Vision and Touch in Irigaray, Levinas andMerleau-Ponty. London: Routledge,1998.
97Warhol, Robyn R., and Diane Price Herndl (eds.). Feminisms: An Anthology of LiteraryTheory and Criticism. Houndmills; Basingstoke; Hampshire: Macmillan Press Itd,1997.
98Weiss, Gail. Body Images: Embodiment as Intercorporeality. New York: Routledge,1999.
99Whitford, Margaret. Luce Irigaray: Philosophy in the Feminine. New York: Routledge,1991.
100---(ed.). The Irigaray Reader. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers Inc.,1991.
101Wolfreys, Julian, Ruth Robbins and Kenneth Womack (eds.). Key Concepts in LiteraryTheory (Second Edition). Qingdao: China Ocean University Press,2006.
102Young, Iris Marion. Throwing like a Girl and Other Essays in Feminist Philosophy andSocial Theory. Bloomington: Indiana University Press,1990.
103Ziarek, Ewa Plonowska. An Ethics of Dissensus: Postmodernity, Feminism, and the Politicsof Radical Democracy. Stanford: Standford University Press,2001.
104Zylinska, Joanna. On Spiders, Cyborgs and Being Scared: The Feminine and the Sublime.Manchester: Manchester University Press,2001.
105[托名]狄奥尼修斯：《神秘神学》，包利民译，北京：三联书店，1998年。
106[英]弗吉尼亚·伍尔夫：《论小说与小说家》，瞿世镜译，上海：上海译文出版社，2000年。
107[德]黑格尔：《精神现象学》（上卷），贺麟、王玖兴译，北京：商务印书馆，1983年。
108[美]加里·古廷：《20世纪法国哲学》，辛岩译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2005年。
109[美]简·盖洛普：《通过身体思考》，杨莉馨译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2005年。
110[美]凯特·米丽特：《性政治》，宋文伟译，南京：江苏人民出版社，2000年。
111李银河：《女性主义》，济南：山东人民出版社，2005年。
112廖炳惠编著《关键词200：文学与批评研究的通用词汇编》，南京：江苏教育出版社，
2006年。
113[法]吕西·依利加雷：《二人行》，朱晓洁译，北京：三联书店，2003年。
114[美]罗斯玛丽·帕特南·童：《女性主义思潮导论》，艾晓明译，武汉：华中师范大学出版社，2002年。
115[法]米歇尔·福柯：《性经验史》（增订版），佘碧平译，上海：上海人民出版社，2002年。
116[德]尼古拉·库萨：《论隐秘的上帝》，李秋零译，北京：三联书店，1996年。
117[法]让－保罗·萨特：《存在与虚无》，陈宣良等译，合肥：安徽文艺出版社，1998年。
118[法]让—伊夫·塔迪埃：《20世纪的文学批评》，史忠义译，天津：百花文艺版，2002年。
119苏红军、柏棣主编《西方后学语境中的女权主义》，南宁：广西师范大学出版社，2006年。
120[挪威]陶丽·莫伊：《性与文本的政治》，林建法、赵拓译，长春：时代文艺出版社，1992年。
121[奥]西格蒙特·弗洛伊德：《性欲三论》，孙名之主编，北京：国际文化出版社，2000年。
122[法]西蒙·德·波伏娃：《第二性》（全译本），陶铁柱译，北京：中国书籍出版社，2004年。
123杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究（1）》，北京：人民出版社，2005年。
124杨莉馨：《西方女性主义文论研究》，南京：江苏文艺出版社，2002年。
125张岩冰：《女权主义文论》，济南：山东教育出版社，1998年。
126张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京：北京大学出版社，1992年。
1Adlam, Diana.“Introduction to Irigaray.” Ideology and Consciousness1(1977): pp.57-61.
2Anderson, Kirsteen H. R.“La Première Femme: The Mother’s Resurrection in the Work ofCamus and Irigaray.” French Studies56.1(2002): pp.29-43.
3Anthony, David.“Le Doeuff and Irigaray on Descartes.” Philosophy Today41.3(1997): pp.367-382.
4Apter, Emily S.“The Story of I: Luce Irigaray’s Theoretical Masochism.” NWSA Journal2.2(1990): pp.186-198.
5Armour, Ellen T.“Questions of Proximity: Woman’s Place in Derrida and Irigaray.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.63-78.
6Bacon, Hannah.“What’s Right with the Trinity? Thinking the Trinity in Relation toIrigaray’s Notions of Self-love and Wonder.” Feminist Theology15.2(2007): pp.220-235.
7Baker, Cynthia.“Language and the Space of the Feminine: Julia Kristeva and LuceIrigaray.” In Christina Hendricks and Kelly Oliver (eds.), Language and Liberation:Feminism, Philosophy, and Language. Albany; New York: State University of New YorkPress,1999: pp.367-392.
8Baracchi, Claudia.“Elemental Translations: From Friedrich Nietzsche and Luce Irigaray.”Research in Phenomenology35(2005): pp.219-248.
9Beaugrande, Robert de.“In Search of Feminist Discourse: The ‘Difficult’ Case of LuceIrigaray.” College English50.3(1988): pp.253-272.
10Berg, Maggie.“Escaping the cave: Irigaray and her feminist critics.” In Gary Wihl andDavid Williams (eds.), Literature and Ethics. Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press,1988: pp.62-76.
11---.“Luce Irigaray’s ‘Contradictions’: Poststructuralism and Feminism.” Signs17.1(1991):pp.50-70.
12Berger, Anne-Emmanuelle.“The Newly Veiled Woman: Irigaray, Specularity, and theIslamic Veil.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.93-119.
13Berry, Philippa.“The Burning Glass: Paradoxes of Feminist Revelation in Speculum.” InCarolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophy and ModernEuropean Thought. New York: Columbia Univerrsity Press,1994: pp.229-246.
14Boothroyd, Dave.“Labial Feminism: Body against Body with Luce Irigaray.” Parallax3(1996): pp.65-79.
15---.“The Touch of the Other on the Threshold of Sex: Or, the Skin between Levinas andIrigaray.” In Michael Syrotinski and Ian Maclachlan (eds.), Sensual Reading: NewApproaches to Reading and Its Relation to the Senses. Lewisburg; London: BucknellUniversity Press; Associated University Press,2001.
16Bostic, Heidi.“Luce Irigaray and Love.” Cultural Studies16.5(2002): pp.603-610.
17---.“Reading and Rethinking the Subject in Luce Irigaray’s Recent Work..” Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.22-31.
18Braidotti, Rosi.“Becoming Woman: or Sexual Difference Revisited.” Theory, Culture andSociety20.3(2003): pp.43-64.
19---.“The Ethics of Sexual Difference: The Case of Foucault and Irigaray.” AustralianFeminist Studies3(1986): pp.1-13.
20---.“The Subject in Feminism.” Hypatia6.2(1991): pp.155-172.
21Bray, Isabelle.“Not Woman Enough: Irigaray’s Culture of Difference.” Feminist Theory2.3(2001): pp.311-327.
22Burke, Carolyn.“Introduction to Luce Irigaray’s ‘When Our Lips Speak Together’.” Signs:Journal of Women in Culture and Society6.1(1980): pp.66-68.
23---.“Irigaray through the Looking Glass.” Feminist Studies7.2(1981): pp.288-306.
24---.“Romancing the Philosophers: Luce Irigaray.” Minnesota Review29(1987): pp.103-114.
25Caldwell, Anne.“Transforming Sacrifice: Irigaray and the Politics of Sexual Difference.”Hypatia17.4(2002): pp.16-38.
26Caze, Marguerite la.“Love, That Indispensable Supplement: Irigaray and Kant on Love andRespect.” Hypatia20.3(2005): pp.92-114.
27---.“The Encounter Between Wonder and Generosity.” Hypatia17.3(2002): pp.1-19.
28Chaplin, Sue.“Memory, Imagination and the (M)other: An Irigarayan Reading of CharlotteBront”s Villette.” In Avril Horner and Angela Keane (eds.), Body Matters: Feminism,Textuality, Corporeality. Manchester: Manchester University Press,2000: pp.225-233.
29Chatterjee, Ranita.“Of Footnotes and Fathers: Reading Irigaray with Kofman.” In Peter L.Rudnytsky and Andrew M. Gordon (eds.), Psychoanalyses/Feminisms: Suny Series inFeminist Criticism and Theory, and Suny Series in Psychoanalysis and Culture. New York:SUNY,2000: pp.55-68
30Cimitile, Maria.“The Horror of Language: Irigaray and Heidegger.” PhilosophyToday45.5(2001): pp.66-77.
31Colebrook, Claire.“Feminist Philosophy and the Philosophy of Feminism: Irigaray and theHistory of Western Metaphysics.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.79-98.
32Coombs, Margaret.“Wearing the Dog-Suit: Or the Irrelevance of Irigaray.” Critical Matrix8.1(1994): pp.127-135.
33Cooper, Sarah.“Luce Irigaray: Reading and Writing the Body.” In Julia Prest and HannahThompson (eds.), Corporeal Practices:(Re)Figuring the Body in French Studies. Oxford:Peter Lang,2000: pp.135-151.
34Craker, Tim.“Speaking Philosophy in the Voice of Another: Wittgenstein, Irigaray, and theInheritance of Mimesis.” In Naomi Scheman and Peg O”Connor (eds.), FeministInterpretations of Ludwig Wittgenstein. University Park: Pennsylvania State UniversityPress,2002: pp.65-94.
35Daggers, Jenny.“Luce Irigaray and ‘Divine Women’: A Research for Postmodern FeministTheology?” Feminist Theology: The Journal of the British&Ireland School of FeministTheology14(1997): pp.35-50.
36Davidson, Joyce, and Mick Smith.“Wittgenstein and Irigaray: Gender and Philosophy in aLanguage (Game) of Difference.” Hypatia14.2(1999): pp.72-96.
37Dellamora, Richard.“Apocalyptic Irigaray.” Twentieth Century Literature46.4(2000): pp.492-512; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.152-162.
38Deutscher, Penelope.“Between East and West and the Politics of ‘Cultural Ingénuité’:Irigaray on Cultural Difference.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003): pp.65-76.
39---.“Disappropriations: Luce Irigaray and Sarah Kofman.” In Dorothea E. Olkowski (ed.),Resistance, Flight, Creation: Feminist Enactments of French Philosophy. Ithaca: CornellUniversity Press,2000: pp.155-178.
40---.“French Feminist Philosophers on Law and Public Policy: Michele Le Doeuff and LuceIrigaray.” Australian Journal of French Studies34.1(1997): pp.24-44.
41---.“Irigaray Anxiety: Luce Irigaray and Her Ethics for Improper Selves.” RadicalPhilosophy80(1996): pp.6-16.
42---.“Mourning the Other, Cultural Cannibalism, and the Politics of Friendship (JacquesDerrida and Luce Irigaray).” Differences10.3(1998): pp.159-184.
43---.“Reviewing I Love to You: Sketches for a Happiness within History, by Luce Irigaray.”Hypatia13.2(1998): pp.170-174; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit:Gale,2003: pp.150-152.
44---.“The Only Diabolical Thing About Women...: Luce Irigaray on Divinity.” Hypatia9.4(1994): pp.88-111; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.128-140.
45Dutta, Nandana.“The Face of the Other: Terror and the Return of Binarism.” Inventtions6.3(2004): pp.431-450.
46Fayad, Mona.“The Problematics of Femininity: Irigarayan Representation in HananAl-Sheikh.” Phoebe2(1990): pp.4-9.
47Faulkner, Joanne.“Voices from the Deaths: Reading ‘Love’ in Luce Irigaray’s MarineLover.” Diacritics33.1(2003): pp.81-94.
48Felman, Shoshana.“Women and Madness: the Critical Phallacy.” Diacritics5.4(1975): pp.2-10.
49Fenves, Peter.“Out of the Order of Number: Benjamin and Irigaray toward a Politics ofPure Means.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.43-58.
50Ferguson, Ann.“Comments on Ofelia Schutte’s Work in Feminist Philosophy.” Hypatia19.3(2004): pp.169-181.
51Fermon, Nicole.“Women on the Global Market: Irigaray and the Democratic State.”Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.120-37.
52Ferreira, Maria Aline Seabra.“The Foreigner Within: Teaching The Rainbow with the Helpof Cixous, Kristeva, and Irigaray.” In M. Elizabeth Sargent and Garry Watson (eds.),Approaches to Teaching the Works of D. H. Lawrence. New York: Modern LanguageAssociation of America,2001: pp.39-56.
53Frain, Rose.“The Tic-Toc and the Infinite Mmmmmmmm: Debate on the Significance ofLuce Irigaray’s Writings.” Women”s Art Magazine62(1995): pp.24-25.
54Freeland, Cynthia A.“On Irigaray on Aristotle.” In Cynthia A. Freeland (ed.), FeministInterpretations of Aristotle. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press,1998: pp.59-92.
55Freeman, Barbara,“Irigaray at the Symposium: Speaking Otherwise.” Oxford LiteraryReview8.1-2(1986): pp.170-177.
56Fuss, Diana.“Essentially Speaking: Luce Irigaray’s Language of Essence.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.62-80.
57Gallop, Jane.“Impertinent Questions: Irigaray, Sade, Lacan.” Sub-Stance26(1980): pp.57-67.
58---.“Quand nos levres s’ecrivent: Irigaray’s body politic.” Romanic Review74.1(1983): pp.77-83.
59Giardini, Federica.“Speculum of Being Two: Politics and Theory after All These Years.”Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003): pp.13-26.
60Gingrich-Philbrook, Craig.“Love’s Excluded Subjects: Staging Irigaray’s HeteronormativeEssentialism.” Cultural Studies15.2(2001): pp.222-228.
61Godway, Eleanor.“Phenomenology and the Frontiers of Experience: Merleau-Ponty andIrigaray.” Historical Reflections19.1(1993): pp.17-33.
62Gomel, Elana.“Hard and Wet: Luce Irigaray and the Fascist Body.” Textual Practice12.2(1998): pp.199-223.
63Green, Karen.“The Other as Another Other.” Hypatia17.4(2002): pp.1-15.
64Grosz, Elizabeth.“Derrida, Irigaray and Deconstruction.” Intervention20(1986): pp.70-81.
65---.“Irigaray and the Divine.” In Arleen B. Dallery and Stephen H. Watson (eds.),Transitions in Continental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press,1994:pp.117-28.
66---.“Irigaray’s Notion of Sexual Morphology.”In Shirley Neuman and Glennis Stephenson(eds.), Reimagining Women: Representations of Women in Culture. Toronto; London:University of Toronto Press,1993: pp.182-195.
67---.“Merleau-Ponty and Irigaray in the Flesh.” Thesis Eleven36(1993): pp.37-59.
68---.“On Irigaray and Sexual Difference.” Australian Feminist Studies2(1986): pp.63-78.
69Gunther, Renate.“Are Lesbians Women? The Relationship between Lesbianism andFeminism in the Work of Luce Irigaray and Monique Wittig.” In Owen Heathcote, AlexHughes and James S. Williams (eds.), Gay Signatures: Gay and Lesbian Theory, Fictionand Film in France,1945-1995. New York: Berg,1998: pp.73-90.
70Haigh, Samantha.“Between Irigaray and Cardinal: Reinventing Maternal Genealogies.”Modern Language Review89.1(1994): pp.61-70.
71Halsema, A.“Sexual Difference and Negativity: Irigaray, Derrida and Adorno.” In M.Pellikaan-Engel (ed.), Against Patriarchal Thinking. Amsterdam: Vu University Press,1992:pp.173-180.
72Hamburg, Paul.“Preoedipal Articulations: Clinical Reflections on Kristeva and Irigaray.”Psychoanalytic Review80.1(1993): pp.135-150.
73Hamera, Judith.“I Dance to You: Reflections on Irigaray’s I Love to You in Dilates andVirtuosity.” Cultural Studies15.2(2001): pp.229-240.
74Hammond, Marsha.“Vive La Différence: Luce Irigaray’s Interrogatory Alterity.”Humanistic Psychologist19.1,1991: pp.82-87.
75Hass, Lynda.“Of Waters and Women: The Philosophy of Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia,8.4(1993): pp.150-159.
76Hass, Marjorie.“The Style of the Speaking Subject: Irigaray’s Empirical Studies ofLanguage Production.” Hypatia,15.1(2000): pp.64-89.
77Hirsh, Elizabeth, and Gary A. Olson.“Je–Luce Irigaray: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray.”Hypatia10.2(1995): pp.93-115.
78Hodge, Joanna.“Feminism and Utopia: Irigaray Reading Kant.” Woman: A Cultural Review14.2(2003): pp.195-209.
79Hollywood, Amy.“Beauvoir, Irigaray and the Mystical.” Hypatia9.4(1994): pp.158-185.
80---.“Deconstructing Belief: Irigaray and the Philosophy of Religion.” Journal of Religion78.2(1998): pp.230-245.
81---“Divine Woman/Divine Women: The Return of the Sacred in Bataille, Lacan, andIrigaray.” In Francis J. Ambrosio, The Question of Christian Philosophy Today. New York,Fordham University Press,1999: pp.224-246.
82Holmlund, Christine.“I Love Luce: The Lesbian Mimesis and Masquerade in Irigaray,Freud and Mainstream Film.” New Formations9(1989): pp.105-118.
83---.“The Lesbian, the Mother, the Heterosexual Lover: Irigaray’s Recodings of Difference.”Feminist Studies17.2(1991): pp.283-308; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164.Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.71-83.
84Hong, Seung Hyun.“Using Luce Irigaray, Reading D. H. Lawrence’s The Plumed Serpent.”The Journal of English Language&Literature47.4.(2001): pp.1227-1243.
85Hooker, D.“Coming to Cressida through Irigaray.” South Atlantic Quaterly88.4(1989): pp.899-932.
86Huffer, Lynne.“Masturbating Dykes: Cixous, Irigaray, Leduc.” Sites: the Journal ofTwentieth Century Contemporary French Studies6.1(2002): pp.155-167.
87Ince, Kate.“Questions to Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia11.2(1996): pp.122-140.
88Ingram, Penelope.“From Goddess Spirituality to Irigaray’s Angel: The Politics of theDivine.” Feminist Studies66(2000): pp.46-72.
89Jagose, Annamarie.“Irigaray and the Lesbian Body: Remedy and Poison.” Genders.13(1992): pp.30-42.
90Jaarsma, Ada S.“Irigaray’s To Be Two: The Problems of Evil and the Plasticity ofIncarnation.” Hypatia18.1(2003): pp.44-62.
91Johnson, Pauline.“Feminism and Difference: The Dilemmas of Luce Irigaray.” AustralianFeminist Studies6(1988): pp.87-96.
92Johnston, Georgia.“Exploring Lack and Absence in the Body/Text: Charlotte PerkinsGilman Prewriting Irigaray.” Women’s Studies21.1(1992): pp.75-86.
93Jones, Serene.“This God which is Not One: Irigaray and Barth on the Divine.”In C. W.Maggie Kim, Susan M. St Ville and Susan M. Simonatis (eds.), Transfigurations: Theologyand the French Feminists. Minneapolis: Fortress Press,1993: pp.109-142.
94Jones, Serene.“Divining Women: Irigaray and Feminist Theologies.” Yale French Studies
87(1995): pp.42-67.
95Kaminski, Phyllis H.“Mysticism Embodied Differently: Luce Irigaray and the Subject ofIncarnate Love.” Religious Studies and Theology17.2(1998): pp.59-79.
96Keenan, Dennis King.“Irigaray and the Sacrifice of the Sacrifice of Woman.” Hypatia19.4(2004): pp.167-183.
97Kozel, Susan.“The Diabolical Strata of Mimesis: Luce Irigaray’s Reading of MauriceMerleau-Ponty.” Hypatia,11.3(1996): pp.114-129.
98Kruse, E. Felicia.“Luce Irigaray’s ‘Parler-Femme’ and American Metaphysics.”Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society27.4(1991): pp.451-464.
99Kuykendall, Eleanor H.“Introduction to ‘Sorcerer Love,’ by Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.28-31.
100Lacey, Antonia.“Gendered Language and the Mystic Voice: Reading from Luce Irigaray toCatherine of Siena.” In Dor Juliette, Lesley Johnson and Jocelyn Wogan-Browne (eds.),New Trends in Feminine Spirituality: The Holy Women of Liege and Their Impact. Brepols:Turnhout,1999: pp.329-342.
101Leland, Dorothy. Lacanian Psychoanalysis and French Feminism: Toward an AdequatePolitical Psychology.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.81-103.
102Levitt, A.“The Pattern out of the Wallpaper: Luce Irigaray and Molly Bloom.” ModernFiction Studies35.3(1989): pp.507-516.
103Lorraine, Tamsin.“Irigaray and Con(Fusing) Body Boundaries: Chaotic Folly orUnanticipated Bliss?” In Arleen B. Dallery and Stephen H. Watson (eds.), Transitions inContinental Philosophy. Albany: State University of New York Press,1994: pp.107-116.
104Mader, Mary Beth.“Book Reviews.” Signs Summer2005: pp.2274-2279.
105Martin, Alison.“A European Initiative: Irigaray, Marx, and Citizenship.” Hypatia19.3(2004): pp.20-37.
106---.“Irigaray and the Rhythm of Two.” Women in French Studies5(1997): pp.265-270.
107---.“Luce Irigaray and Divine Matter.” In Diana Knight and Judith Still (eds.), Women andRepresentation. London: WIF,1995: pp.132-141.
108---.“Luce Irigaray and the Adoption of Christianity.” Paragraph21.1(1998): pp.101-120.
109---.“Luce Irigaray and the Culture of Difference.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3(2003):pp.1-12.
110---.“Report on ‘Natality’ in Arendt, Cavarero and Irigaray, Paragraph25.1(2002): pp.32-53.
111Martin, Betsan,“Luce Irigaray: Women Becoming Subjects for a Divine Economy.”Educational Philosophy and Theory29.1(1997): pp.60-75.
112Masland, Lynne.“In Her Own Voice: An Irigarayan Exploration of Women”s Discourse in‘Care Michele’ and ‘Lettere a Marina’.” Canadian Review of Comparative Literature&Psychology21.3(1994): pp.331-340.
113McBride, Sam.“Reconceiving God: Luce Irigaray’s ‘Divine Women’.” In John C. Hawley(ed.), Divine Aporia: Postmodern Conversations About the Other. Lewisburg: BucknellUniversity Press,2000: pp.208-222.
114McDermott, Patrice.“Post-Lacanian French Feminist Theory: Luce Irigaray.” Women andPolitics7.3(1987): pp.47-64.
115McDonald, Dana Noelle.“Moving Beyond the Face through Eros: Levinas and Irigaray’sTreatment of the Woman as an Alterity.” Philosophy Today42(1998): pp.71-75.
116McGee, Patrick.“Writing as a Forbidden Pleasure: Irigaray, Lacan, Joyce.” In PatrickMcGee (ed.), Telling the Other: The Question of Value in Modern and Postcolonial Writing.Ithaca: Cornell University Press,1992: pp.64-93.
117Mortensen, Ellen.“Irigaray and Nietzsche: Echo and Narcissus Revisited?” In KeithAnsell-Pearson (ed.), The Fate of the New Nietzsche. Brookfield: Avebury,1993: pp.229-247.
118Mulder, Anne-Claire.“Thinking about the Imago Dei---Minimalizing or Maximalizing theDifference Between the Sexes: A Critical Reading of Rosemary Radford Ruether’sAnthropology Through the Lens of Luce Irigaray’s Thought. Feminist Theology14(1997):pp.9-33.
119Muraro, Luisa.“Female Genealogies.” In Carolyn Burke, etc.(eds.), Engaging withIrigaray: Feminist Philosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: ColumbiaUniverrsity Press,1994: pp.317-333.
120Murphy, Ann V.“The Enigma of the Natural in Luce Irigaray.” Philosophy Today45.5(2001): pp.75-82.
121Murphy, Sara.“Mourning and Metonymy: Bearing Witiness Between Women andGenerations.” Hypatia19.4(2004): pp.142-166.
122Nicholson, Christina.“How to Believe Six Impossible Things before Breakfast: Irigaray,Alice and Neo-Pagan Negotiation of the Otherworld.” Feminist Theology: The Journal ofthe British&Ireland School of Feminist Theology11.3(2003): pp.362-374.
123Nye, Andrea.“The Hidden Host: Irigaray and Diotima at Plato”s Symposium.” Hypatia3.3(1989): pp.45-61.
124O’Connor, Noreen, and Joanna Ryan.“Promises and Contradictions: Lacan and Language,Irigaray and Kristeva.”In Noreen O’Connor and Joanna Ryan (eds.), Wild Desires andMistaken Identities: Lesbianism and Psychoanalysis. New York: Columbia University Press,1993: Article7.
125O’Dwyer, Shaun.“The Unacknowledged Socrates in the Works of Luce Irigaray.” Hypatia21.2(2006): pp.28-44.
126Oliver, Kelly.“Irigaray and Deleuze: Experiments in Visceral Philosophy.” Hypatia16.1(2001): pp.100-102.
127Olkowski, Dorothea.“Body, Knowledge and Becoming-Woman: Morpho-Logic in Deleuzeand Irigaray.” In Ian Buchanan and Claire Colebrook (eds.), Deleuze and Feminist Theory.Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press,2000: pp.86-109.
128---.“Chiasm: The Interval of Sexual Difference between Irigaray and Merleau-Ponty.” InLawrence Hasse and Dorothea Olkowski (eds.), Rereading Merleau-Ponty: Essays Beyondthe Continental Analytic Divide. Amherst;New York: Humanity,2000: pp.339-354.
129---.“The End of Phenomenology: Bergson’s Interval in Irigaray.” Hypatia15.3(2000): pp.73-91.
130Oppel, Frances.“Irigaray’s Goddesses.” Australian Feminist Studies20(1994): pp.77-90.
131Peel, Ellen.“The Irony of Women: Reflections of Irigaray.” Cincinnati Romance Review5(1986): pp.109-120.
132Perez, Emma.“Irigaray’s Female Symbolic in the Making of Chicana Lesbian Sitios YLenguas (Sites and Discourses).” In Laura Doan and Robyn Wiegman (eds.), The LesbianPostmodern.. New York: Columbia University Press,1994: pp.104-117.
133Pluhacek, Stephen.“To the Other as Other---Hearing, Listening, Understanding.”Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.45-56.
134Postl, Gertrude.“Of Ghosts, Commodities, and Women: Irigaray and Derrida.” PhilosophyToday43(1999): pp.62-67.
135Priest, Ann-Marrie.“Woman as God, God as Woman: Mysticism, Negative Theology, andLuce Irigaray.” Journal of Religion83.1(2003): pp.1-23.
136Quick, James Robert.“Pronom ‘She’: Luce Irigaray’s Fluid Dynamics.” Philosophy Today36.3(1992): pp.199-209; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003:pp.106-113.
137Raschke, Debrah.“To the Lighthouse ‘through the Looking Glass’: Woolf’s and Irigaray’sMetaphysics.” In Laura Davis and Jeanne McVicker and Jeannette Dubino (eds.), VirginiaWoolf and Her Influences: Selected Papers from the Seventh Annual Conference on VirginiaWoolf. New York: Pace University Press,1998: pp.288-293.
138Reader, John.“Deconstructing Autonomy: Towards a New Identity.” Ecotheology9.2(2004): pp.221-244.
139Reineke, Martha.“Lacan, Merleau-Ponty, and Irigaray: Reflections on a Specular Drama.”Auslegung14(1987): pp.67-85.
140Robinson, Hilary.“Beauty, the Universal, the Divine: Irigaray’s Re-Valuings.” In KatyDeepwell (ed.), Women Artists and Modernism. Manchester: Manchester University Press,1998: pp.159-174.
141---.“Irigaray’s Imaginings: Interpretation of the Writings of Luce Irigaray.” Women’s ArtMagazine61(1994).
142Rockwell, H.“An ‘Other’ Burlesque: Feminine Bodies and Irigaray’sPerformingTextuality.” Body and Society2.1(1996): pp.65-89.
143Salomonsen, Jone.“Love of Same, Love of Other: Reading Feminist Anthropologies withLuce Irigaray and Karl Barth.” Studia Theologica57.2(2003): pp.103-123.
144Sharp, Carolyn.“Divine Daughters of Divine Mothers: Luce Irigaray’s Search for Women’sOwn Divinity.” Feminsit Theology30(2002): pp.70-76.
145Shepherdson, Charles.“Biology and History: Some Psychoanalytic Aspects of the Writingof Luce Irigaray.” Textual Practice6.1(1992): pp.47-86.
146Schor, Naomi.“Previous Engagements: The Receptions of Irigaray.” In Carolyn Burke,Naomi Schor and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: Feminist Philosophyand Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994: pp.3-14.
147---.“This Essentialism Which Is Not One: Coming to Grips with Irigaray.” In CarolynBurke, Naomi Schor and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Engaging with Irigaray: FeministPhilosophy and Modern European Thought. New York: Columbia University Press,1994:pp.57-78; in Contemporary Literary Criticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.141-150.
148Schutte, Ofelia.“A Critique of Normative Heterosexuality: Identity, Embodiment, andSexual Difference in Beauvoir and Irigaray.” Hypatia12.1(1997): pp.40-62.
149---.“Irigaray on the Problem of Subjectivity.” Hypatia6.2(1991): pp.64-76.
150Schwab, Gail.“Irigarayan Dialogism: Play and Powerplay.” In Dale M. Bauer and SusanJaret McKinstry (eds.), Feminism, Bakhtin and the Dialogic. Albany: State University ofNew York Press,1991: pp.57-72.
151---.“The French Connection: Luce Irigaray and International Research on Language andGender.” In Linda Longmire and Lisa Merrill (eds.), Untying the Tongue. Westport:Greenwood,1999: pp.13-24.
152---.“Women and the Law in Irigarayan Theory.” Metaphilosophy27.1-2(1996): pp.146-177.
153Sjoholm, Cecilia.“Crossing Lovers: Luce Irigaray’s Elemental Passions.” Hypatia15.3(2000): pp.92-112.
154Smart, Annie.“Luce Irigaray and the ‘Mutterdaemmerung’.” Psychoanalytic Studies2.4(2000): pp.385-394.
155Springer, Mary.“A Relativity of Angels: Wallace Stevens and Luce Irigaray.” WallaceStevens Journal14.2(1990): pp.153-166.
156Stanton, Donna.“Difference on Trial: A Critique of the Maternal Metaphor in Cixous,Irigaray, and Kristeva.” In Nancy Miller (ed.), The Poetics of Gender. New York: Columbia,1986: pp.157-182.
157Stephenson, Katherine.“Luce Irigaray.” In Eva Martin Sartori and Dorothy WynneZimmerman (eds.), French Women Writers: A Bio-Bibliographical Source Book. New York:Greenwood,1991: pp.229-243.
158---.“Luce Irigaray’s L’Ordre sexuel du discours: a Comparative English study on SexualDifferentiation in Language Use.” Semiotics1987: pp.257-266.
159Stockton, Kathryn.“God between Their Lips: Desire between Women in Irigaray andEliot.” Novel: A Forum on Fiction25.3(1992): pp.348-359.
160Stoller, Silvia.“Asymmetrical Genders: Phenomenological Reflections on SexualDifference.” Trans. Camilla R. Nielsen. Hypatia20.2(2005): pp.7-26.
161Stone, Alison.“The Sex of Nature: A Reinterpretation of Irigaray’s Metaphysics andPolitical Thought.” Hypatia18.3(2003): pp.60-84.
162Su, Tsu-Chung.“The Monstrous Other: Freud, Irigaray, Cixous, and the Mask of Medusa.”Studies in Language&Literature7(1996): pp.113-133.
163Summers-Bremner, Eluned.“Hysterical Visions: Kristeva and Irigaray on the Virgin Mary.”Women: A Cultural Review9.2(1998): pp.178-199.
164---.“Reading Irigaray, Dancing.” Hypatia15.1(2000): pp.90-124.
165Timoll, Andrea.“Antigone, Irigaray and the Archetypical Problematic: The ClassicalOpposition of Human and Divine Law.” Queens Law Journal19.2(1994).
166Trouard, D.“Eula’s Plot: An Irigararian Reading of Faulkner”s Snopes Trilogy.” MississippiQuarterly42(1989): pp.281-297.
167Van Buren, Jane.“Postmodernism: Feminism and the Deconstruction of the Feminine:Kristeva and Irigaray.” American Journal of Psychoanalysis55.3(1995): pp.231-243.
168Walker, Michelle.“Reason, Identity and the Body: Reading Adorno with Irigaray.” In DieterFreundlieb and Wayne Hudson (eds.), Reason and Its Other: Rationality in Modern GermanPhilosophy and Culture. Providence: Berg,1993: pp.199-216.
169Walsh, Lisa.“Her Mother Her Self: The Ethics of the Antigone Family Romance.” Hypatia14.3(1999): pp.96-125.
170Walsh, Mary.“Irigaray and Difference: Towards a Culture of Two Subjects.” AustralianFeminist Studies18.40(2003): pp.103-106.
171Walton, Heather.“Extreme Faith in the Work of Elizabeth Smart and Luce Irigaray.”Levende Talen16.1(2002): pp.40-50.
172Ward, Graham.“Divinity and Sexuality: Luce Irigaray and Christology.” Modern Theology12.2(1996): pp.221-237.
173Weinbaum, Alys.“Marx, Irigaray and Politics of Reproduction.” Differences6.1(1994): pp.98-128.
174Wenzel, Helene Vivienne.“Introduction to Luce Irigaray’s And the One Doesn’t Stir withoutthe Other.” Signs7.1(1981): pp.56-59.
175---.“The Text as Body/Politics: An Appreciation of Monique Wittig’s Writing in Context.”Feminist Studies7.2(1981): pp.264-287.
176Wheeler, Andrea.“Love in Architecture.” Paragraph25.3(2002): pp.105-116.
177White, Richard.“Elemental Passionss and the Nature of Love.” Philosophy Today43.1(1999): pp.143-148.
178Whitford, Margaret.“Essentially Speaking: Luce Irigaray’s Critique of Rationality.” InMorwenna Griffiths and Margaret Whitford (eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Philosophy.Bloomington; Basingstoke: Indiana University Press; Macmillan,1988: pp.109-130.
179---.“Irigaray’s Body Symbolic.” Hypatia6.3(1991): pp.97-110; in Contemporary LiteraryCriticism, Vol.164. Detroit: Gale,2003: pp.100-106.
180---.“Irigaray and the Culture of Narcissism.” Theory, Culture and Society20.3,(2003): pp.27-42.
181---.“Luce Irigaray and the Female Imaginary: Speaking as a Woman.” Radical Philosophy43(1986): pp.3-8.
182---.“Luce Irigaray: The Problem of Feminist Theory.” Paragraph8(1986): pp.102-05.
183---.“Rereading Irigaray.” In Teresa Brennan (ed.), Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis.New York: Routledge,1989: pp.106-126.
184---.“Woman with Attitude: Conservatism of Luce Irigaray’s Views on the Woman Artist.”Women’s Art Magazine60(1994): pp.15-17.
185Wingenbach, E.“Sexual Difference and the Possibility of Justice: Irigaray’s TransformativePolitics.” International Studies in Philospohy28.1(1996): pp.117-134.
186Winnubst, Shannon.“Exceeding Hegel and Lacan: Different Fields of Pleasure withinFoucault and Irigaray.” Hypatia14.1(1999): pp.13-37.
187Xu, Ping.“Irigaray’s Mimicry and the Problem of Essentialism.” Hypatia10.4(1995): pp.76-89.
188Ziarek, Ewa Plonowska.“Toward a Radical Female Imaginary: Temporality andEmbodiment in Irigaray’s Ethics.” Diacritics28.1(1998): pp.60-75.
189Ziarek, Krysztof.“Between Techne and Poieses: Irigaray on Sexuate Experience.” ThinkingCulture, Thinking Drama. Evanston: Northwestern University Press,1999
190Ziarek, Krzysztof.“Love and the Debasement of Being: Irigaray’s Revisions of Lacan andHeidegger.” Postmodern Culture: an Electronic Journal of Interdisciplinary Criticism10.1(1999),22Feb.2008
191波拉·祖潘茨·艾塞莫维茨：《露西·伊利格瑞：性差异的女性哲学》，金惠敏译，《江西社会科学》2004年第3期。
192顾红亮：《责任与他者——列维纳斯的责任观》，《社会科学研究》2006年第1期。
193海伦娜·西苏：《美杜莎的笑声》，张京媛主编《当代女性主义文学批评》，北京大学出版社，1992年。
194孙向晨：《莱维纳斯的“他者”思想及其对本体论的批判》，《复旦学报》（社会科学版）2000年第5期。
195许丽萍：《对列维纳斯他者问题的几点思考》，杨大春、尚杰主编《当代法国哲学诸论题——法国哲学研究》（1），人民出版社，2005年。
196于文秀：《后现代差异理论：“文化研究”的理论基石》，《天津社会科学》2003年第3期。