L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes
When Gilligan uses the figure of Demeter at the end of the first chapter of In a different voice, it is to serve as an allegory of a feminine experience and vision that differs from that of men, and which would not have not been heard or recognized in dominant thought and language. According to her,...
محفوظ في:
| المؤلف الرئيسي: | |
|---|---|
| التنسيق: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| اللغة: | Français |
| منشور في: |
2025
|
| الموضوعات: | |
| الوصول للمادة أونلاين: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
cairn-REP2_037_0101 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
cairn |
| language |
Français |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/Cairn/ |
| topic |
Care cycle féminisme lecture voix Care cycle feminism reading voice |
| spellingShingle |
Care cycle féminisme lecture voix Care cycle feminism reading voice De Gandt, Marie L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| topic_facet |
Care cycle féminisme lecture voix Care cycle feminism reading voice |
| description |
When Gilligan uses the figure of Demeter at the end of the first chapter of In a different voice, it is to serve as an allegory of a feminine experience and vision that differs from that of men, and which would not have not been heard or recognized in dominant thought and language. According to her, this feminine sphere covers a universe of values and a vision of human development that are specific to women – which she designates as an ethic of concern, attachment and attention to others (according to the different meanings of the notion of Care). Thus, Gilligan assigns to women a characterization which seems to reconnect with the Rousseauist vision of a harmony between the sexes which is based on the partition into two distinct naturals and which assigns to women irrationality, emotion and artifice – values that the feminists of the 1970s will reverse to make these sub-values counter-values. Yet, in her reading of the myth, Gilligan seems to essentialize and reduce the voice of women: the philosopher ignores the plurality of women’s conditions that is displayed in the text of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. We can re-read it by proposing another vision of Care, which degenders it, from the perspective developped by Joan Tronto in Moral Boundaries or Elsa Dorlin in Dark Care: de la servitude à la sollicitude. We will then offer another vision of Care, which supposes another definition of voice, as a practice of reading instead as an art of listening. Our reading, focusing on the narrative and stylistic particularities of the Homeric Hymn, can feed theories of materialist feminism while putting into practice a conception of reading as an experience of otherness, both an exercise in empathy and an attention to literary ambivalence. Like most critics, Gilligan reduces the complexity of the story told by the Homeric Hymn: not only does she leave aside the literary complexity of a story with multiple narrative threads, but she also pays little attention to the complexity of the various female characters within the story. Against a reading which essentializes a feminine experience of the world supposed to be outside civilization (in the line of nineteenth-century essentialism, relying on Bachofen’s misogyny, Engels’ maternalism, or Lou Andréas-Salomé’s cosmic mystic), this myth can be read as a display of the plurality of feminine experiences, which articulates, in a very complex way, sex, age, class (and race – we will see that the question of genos is also an important underlying theme in the hymn). Instead of an ethics of feminine solicitude, the Homeric Hymn calls us to reconnect with an ethics of attention to language, attention to its ambivalence and to the interpretation that we make in the language and through the forms that the experiences of “minoritized” subjects take or receive in language. The Homeric Hymn also invites us to think about the place of literature in contemporary philosophies, based on a reflection on the relationship between voice, dis/identification and responsibility that myth makes particularly complex. In undoing our usual ways of reading, it debunks norms more than it explains their order. The blurring goes even further, since the writing of the hymn, devoid of authorship, also blurs our habit of a subjectivized relationship to language: with the myth, must/can we think a voice without origin, and without genre? |
| author |
De Gandt, Marie |
| author_facet |
De Gandt, Marie |
| author_sort |
De Gandt, Marie |
| title |
L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| title_short |
L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| title_full |
L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| title_fullStr |
L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| title_full_unstemmed |
L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes |
| title_sort |
l’hymne à déméter, care et féminismes |
| publishDate |
2025 |
| container_title |
|
| container_issue |
|
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-recherches-en-psychanalyse-2024-1-page-101?lang=fr https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.3917/rep2.037.0101 |
| _version_ |
1877246510725332992 |
| spelling |
cairn-REP2_037_0101REP2Recherches en psychanalyse https://shs.cairn.info/revue-recherches-en-psychanalyse-2024-1-page-101?lang=fr https://doi.org/10.3917/rep2.037.0101 L’Hymne à Déméter, Care et féminismes De Gandt, Marie2025 CarecycleféminismelecturevoixCarecyclefeminismreadingvoicefre Recherches en psychanalyse | 37 | 1 | 2025-02-13 | p. 101-117 | 3075-2817 REP2_03734 When Gilligan uses the figure of Demeter at the end of the first chapter of In a different voice, it is to serve as an allegory of a feminine experience and vision that differs from that of men, and which would not have not been heard or recognized in dominant thought and language. According to her, this feminine sphere covers a universe of values and a vision of human development that are specific to women – which she designates as an ethic of concern, attachment and attention to others (according to the different meanings of the notion of Care). Thus, Gilligan assigns to women a characterization which seems to reconnect with the Rousseauist vision of a harmony between the sexes which is based on the partition into two distinct naturals and which assigns to women irrationality, emotion and artifice – values that the feminists of the 1970s will reverse to make these sub-values counter-values. Yet, in her reading of the myth, Gilligan seems to essentialize and reduce the voice of women: the philosopher ignores the plurality of women’s conditions that is displayed in the text of the Homeric Hymn to Demeter. We can re-read it by proposing another vision of Care, which degenders it, from the perspective developped by Joan Tronto in Moral Boundaries or Elsa Dorlin in Dark Care: de la servitude à la sollicitude. We will then offer another vision of Care, which supposes another definition of voice, as a practice of reading instead as an art of listening. Our reading, focusing on the narrative and stylistic particularities of the Homeric Hymn, can feed theories of materialist feminism while putting into practice a conception of reading as an experience of otherness, both an exercise in empathy and an attention to literary ambivalence. Like most critics, Gilligan reduces the complexity of the story told by the Homeric Hymn: not only does she leave aside the literary complexity of a story with multiple narrative threads, but she also pays little attention to the complexity of the various female characters within the story. Against a reading which essentializes a feminine experience of the world supposed to be outside civilization (in the line of nineteenth-century essentialism, relying on Bachofen’s misogyny, Engels’ maternalism, or Lou Andréas-Salomé’s cosmic mystic), this myth can be read as a display of the plurality of feminine experiences, which articulates, in a very complex way, sex, age, class (and race – we will see that the question of genos is also an important underlying theme in the hymn). Instead of an ethics of feminine solicitude, the Homeric Hymn calls us to reconnect with an ethics of attention to language, attention to its ambivalence and to the interpretation that we make in the language and through the forms that the experiences of “minoritized” subjects take or receive in language. The Homeric Hymn also invites us to think about the place of literature in contemporary philosophies, based on a reflection on the relationship between voice, dis/identification and responsibility that myth makes particularly complex. In undoing our usual ways of reading, it debunks norms more than it explains their order. The blurring goes even further, since the writing of the hymn, devoid of authorship, also blurs our habit of a subjectivized relationship to language: with the myth, must/can we think a voice without origin, and without genre?Cuando Gilligan utiliza la figura de Deméter al final del primer capítulo de In a different voice, es para servir como alegoría de una experiencia y visión femenina que difiere de la de los hombres, y que no habría sido escuchada ni reconocida en el pensamiento y el lenguaje dominantes. Según ella, este ámbito femenino abarca un universo de valores y una visión del desarrollo humano propios de las mujeres, que ella designa como una ética de preocupación, apego y atención a los demás (según los diferentes significados de la noción de Care). Así, Gilligan asigna a las mujeres una caracterización que parece reconectar con la visión rousseauista de una armonía entre los sexos que se basa en la partición en dos naturales distintos y que asigna a las mujeres la irracionalidad, la emoción y el artificio – valores que las feministas de los años 1970 se invertirá para hacer que estos subvalores sean contravalores. Sin embargo, en su lectura del mito, Gilligan parece esencializar y reducir la voz de las mujeres: la filósofa ignora la pluralidad de condiciones de las mujeres que se muestra en el texto del Himno Homérico a Deméter. Podemos releerlo proponiendo otra visión del Care, que lo degenera, desde la perspectiva desarrollada por Joan Tronto en Moral Boundaries o Elsa Dorlin en Dark Care: de la servitude à la sollicitude. A continuación, ofreceremos otra visión del Care, que supone otra definición de voz, como práctica de lectura y no como arte de escuchar. Nuestra lectura, centrada en las particularidades narrativas y estilísticas del Himno Homérico, puede alimentar las teorías del feminismo materialista y al mismo tiempo poner en práctica una concepción de la lectura como una experiencia de alteridad, a la vez un ejercicio de empatía y una atención a la ambivalencia literaria. Como la mayoría de los críticos, Gilligan reduce la complejidad de la historia que cuenta el Himno Homérico: no sólo deja de lado la complejidad literaria de una historia con múltiples hilos narrativos, sino que también presta poca atención a la complejidad de los diversos personajes femeninos dentro del himno. Frente a una lectura que esencializa una experiencia femenina del mundo supuestamente fuera de la civilización (en la línea del esencialismo decimonónico, basándose en la misoginia de Bachofen, el maternalismo de Engels o la mística cósmica de Lou Andréas-Salomé), este mito puede leerse como una muestra de la pluralidad de experiencias femeninas, que articula, de manera muy compleja, sexo, edad, clase (y raza; veremos que la cuestión del genos es también un tema subyacente importante en el himno). En lugar de una ética de la solicitud femenina, el Himno homérico nos llama a reconectarnos con una ética de la atención al lenguaje, de la atención a su ambivalencia y a la interpretación que hacemos en el lenguaje y a través de las formas que toman las experiencias de los sujetos “minorizados”. El Himno homérico también nos invita a pensar en el lugar de la literatura en las filosofías contemporáneas, a partir de una reflexión sobre la relación entre voz, desidentificación y responsabilidad que el mito vuelve particularmente compleja. Al deshacer nuestras formas habituales de lectura, desacredita las normas más que explica su orden. La confusión va aún más lejos, ya que la escritura del himno, desprovista de autoría, también desdibuja nuestro hábito de una relación subjetivada con el lenguaje: con el mito, ¿debemos/podemos pensar una voz sin origen y sin género?Lorsque Gilligan utilise la figure de Déméter à la fin du premier chapitre de In a different voice, c’est pour allégoriser sa représentation d’une expérience et d’une vision féminines différentes de celles des hommes, qui n’auraient pas été entendues ni reconnues dans la pensée et le langage dominants. Cette sphère féminine recouvre selon elle un univers de valeurs et une vision du développement humain qui sont propres aux femmes, ce qu’elle désigne comme une éthique de la sollicitude, de l’attachement et de l’attention aux autres (selon les différents sens que l’on peut donner au Care). Ce faisant, Gilligan assigne aux femmes une caractérisation qui semble renouer avec la vision rousseauiste d’une harmonie entre les sexes qui repose sur la partition en deux naturels distincts et assigne aux femmes l’irrationalité, l’émotion et l’artifice – partage de valeur que les féministes des années 1970 renverseront pour faire de ces sous-valeurs des contre-valeurs. Mais, dans sa lecture du mythe, il semble que Gilligan essentialise et réduise la voix des femmes : la philosophe néglige la pluralité des conditions de femmes que le mythe déploie dans le texte de l’Hymne à Déméter – et que l’on peut relire en proposant une autre vision du Care, qui le dégenrise, dans la perspective qu’élaborent notamment Joan Tronto dans Un monde vulnérable ou Elsa Dorlin dans Dark Care: de la servitude à la sollicitude. Nous proposerons, à leur suite et à partir du mythe de Déméter, une autre vision du Care, supposant une autre définition de la voix, comme pratique de lecture plus que d’écoute. On peut faire de ce mythe l’aliment d’un féminisme matérialiste, à partir d’une attention au texte homérique et à ses particularités narratives et stylistiques – particulièrement ici la structure narrative du récit enchâssé. C’est alors une autre attention à l’altérité, et à la forme des voix différentes, qui sera mise en pratique par notre interprétation : lire des textes antiques c’est faire une expérience de l’altérité qui nous renvoie au cœur de ce que la littérature apporte à la pensée, un exercice d’empathie certes, mais surtout une attention aux formes-sens, à la polyphonie du langage, et à l’ambivalence littéraire. Car Gilligan, comme la plupart des critiques, réduit la complexité de l’histoire que raconte l’hymne homérique : elle laisse de côté non seulement la complexité littéraire d’un récit aux multiples fils narratifs, mais aussi la complexité des personnages féminins qui peuplent le récit. Contre une lecture qui essentialise une expérience féminine du monde censée être hors de la civilisation (lecture qui renoue avec un essentialisme du XIXe siècle nourri par les travaux de Bachofen autant qu’avec le maternalisme d’un Engels, ou la mystique cosmique d’une Lou Andréas-Salomé), ce mythe peut être lu comme le déploiement d’expériences féminines plurielles, qui articulent, de façon très complexe, sexe, âge, classe (et race – nous verrons que la question du genos est aussi sous-jacente). Contre une vision de l’éthique de la sollicitude féminine, l’hymne homérique nous appelle à renouer avec une éthique de l’attention : attention au langage, à sa capacité d’invention et d’ambivalence, ainsi qu’à l’interprétation que nous faisons dans le langage et à travers les formes que prennent ou reçoivent les expériences des sujets « minorisés » dans la langue. Il nous invite aussi à penser la place de la littérature dans les philosophies contemporaines, à partir d’une réflexion sur le rapport entre voix, dés/identification et responsabilité que le mythe rend particulièrement complexes. Dans sa façon de défaire nos habitudes d’assignation, il déjoue davantage les normes qu’il n’en explique l’ordre. Il va même au-delà, puisque son écriture dénuée d’auctorialité défait aussi notre habitude d’un rapport subjectivé au langage : avec le mythe doit/peut-on penser une voix sans origine, et sans genre ?Quando Gilligan utiliza a figura de Deméter no final do primeiro capítulo de In a different voice, é para servir de alegoria a uma experiência e visão feminina que difere da dos homens, e que não teria sido ouvida nem reconhecida no pensamento e na linguagem dominantes. Segundo ela, esta esfera feminina abrange um universo de valores e uma visão de desenvolvimento humano específicos da mulher – que designa como uma ética de preocupação, apego e atenção ao outro (de acordo com os diferentes significados da noção de Care). Assim, Gilligan atribui às mulheres uma caracterização que parece reconectar-se com a visão rousseauniana de uma harmonia entre os sexos que se baseia na divisão em dois naturais distintos e que atribui às mulheres irracionalidade, emoção e artifício – valores que as feministas da década de 1970 reverterá para tornar estes subvalores contravalores. No entanto, na sua leitura do mito, Gilligan parece essencializar e reduzir a voz das mulheres: a filósofa ignora a pluralidade das condições das mulheres que é apresentada no texto do Hino Homérico a Deméter. Podemos relê-lo propondo uma outra visão do Care, que o degenere, a partir da perspectiva desenvolvida por Joan Tronto em Moral Boundaries ou Elsa Dorlin em Dark Care: de la servitude à la sollicitude. Ofereceremos, em seguida, uma outra visão do Care, que supõe uma outra definição de voz, como prática de leitura e não como arte de escuta. A nossa leitura, centrada nas particularidades narrativas e estilísticas do Hino Homérico, pode alimentar teorias do feminismo materialista ao mesmo tempo que põe em prática uma conceção da leitura como experiência de alteridade, ao mesmo tempo um exercício de empatia e uma atenção à ambivalência literária. Tal como a maioria dos críticos, Gilligan reduz a complexidade da história contada pelo Hino Homérico: não só deixa de lado a complexidade literária de uma história com múltiplos fios narrativos, como também presta pouca atenção à complexidade das diversas personagens femininas dentro da história. Contra uma leitura que essencializa uma experiência feminina do mundo supostamente fora da civilização (na linha do essencialismo do século XIX, apoiando-se na misoginia de Bachofen, no maternalismo de Engels ou na mística cósmica de Lou Andréas-Salomé), este mito pode ser lido como uma exposição da pluralidade de vivências femininas, que articula, de forma muito complexa, o sexo, a idade, a classe (e a raça – veremos que a questão do genos é também um importante tema subjacente no Hino). Em vez de uma ética da solicitude feminina, o Hino Homérico convoca-nos a reconectarmo-nos com uma ética da atenção à linguagem, da atenção à sua ambivalência e à interpretação que fazemos na linguagem e através das formas que assumem as experiências dos sujeitos “minoritizados”. O Hino Homérico convida-nos também a pensar o lugar da literatura nas filosofias contemporâneas, a partir de uma reflexão sobre a relação entre voz, des/identificação e responsabilidade que o mito torna particularmente complexa. Ao desfazer as nossas formas habituais de leitura, desmascara as normas mais do que explica a sua ordem. A indefinição vai ainda mais longe, pois a escrita do hino, desprovido de autoria, também obscurece o nosso hábito de relação subjectivada com a linguagem: com o mito, devemos/podemos pensar uma voz sem origem, e sem género?Cairn free access |