English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to compare the anthropology of gender by Vasil Rozanov and the ethics of sexual difference by Luce Irigaray, to identify similarities and distinctions between these theories, and to assess their role in the development of the gender studies. Theoretical basis combines the comparative method and the gender approach, which is based not only on describing the difference of statuses, roles and other aspects of men’s and women’s lives, but also on overcoming the androcentrism in the contemporary world. Originality of the work consists in the fact that, in the context of the gender studies, the special philosophical and anthropological comparison of the gender concepts by Rozanov and Irigaray were carried out for the first time. This allowed reckoning Rozanov’s theory in essentialism, and Irigaray’s theory in anti-essentialism. The article also reveals the similarity in the anthropology of gender by Rozanov and the ethics of sexual difference by Irigaray in terms of sexuality concept, analyzes and details their main ideas. Conclusion. The important similarity between Rozanov’s and Irigaray’s concepts is the assertion of female subjectivity as equivalent to male one. The female equivalent of sexuality by Rozanov manifests itself in the concept of "cunnicentrism", but by Irigaray, it is in the metonymy of "two lips". The methodological basis of their concepts is the insuperable opposition of "masculine" and "feminine". Rozanov seeks to identify "masculine" and "feminine", but Irigaray rather concentrates on their radical distinction. According to Rozanov, sexual differences are determined biologically or metaphysically, which defines their eternal and unchanging nature. In turn, Irigaray argues that phallocentric culture is the condition of sexual differences, which may be overcome with changing linguistic structures. The fundamental similarity of the anthropology of gender and the ethics of sexual difference is that not only "masculine", but also "feminine" principles are sexualized in them. Thus, Rozanov in his style and attention to physicality is surprisingly close to the modern gender anthropology and may be regarded as its forerunner. At the same time, the influence of Irigaray’s philosophical concepts on the contemporary gender studies is that she was the first to point out the need to create a woman’s other discourse that respects sexual difference and revealed the problematical character of singling out the distinctions between the female different and any other different in it.

THE ANTROPOLOGY OF GENDER BY VASIL ROSANOV AND THE ETHICS OF SEXUAL DIFFERENCE BY LUCE IRIGARAY