Toward a theological ethics of sexual difference: Luce Irigaray and Søren Kierkegaard on mediation and intersubjectivity between man and woman
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through engagement with the later writings of Luce Irigaray, and with select writings of Søren Kierkegaard, we develop a Kierkegaardian ethics of sexual difference – an account of intersubjectivity between man and woman that is indebted to the thought of each. In the third phase of her writings, Irigaray develops her vision of an ethical relationship between man and woman. She defines sexual difference in terms of the irreducibility of man and woman to each other and defines the ethics of sexual difference in terms of an acknowledgment of the mystery and difference of the sexuate other. This acknowledgment is expressed through wonder, through the caress, and through respect for the other's breath. These make it possible that the interval of difference might become a threshold of encounter. While Kierkegaard's writings are shaped by patriarchal convictions – woman is defined in terms of man and is elided as subject in her own right – we discern in these writings (specifically, in the letters of Judge William from 'Either/Or', Part II) a theory of human becoming that is amenable to Irigaray's account of the human as two. We argue that Judge William and Irigaray share an account of the self as a lived and imaginative tension between actual and ideal. Embracing Irigaray's account of the human as two within the Judge's framework of human becoming enables us to affirm the possibility of a Kierkegaardian theory of sexual difference. This provides the basis for a Kierkegaardian ethics of sexual difference. In 'Works of Love' Kierkegaard develops an account of love centred on God as the middle term – God as one who creates each person ex nihilo, who relates to each per
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".