Book Reviews

Mtsr16,4_f5_398-404 1/26/2005 5:08 Page 398

BOOK REVIEWS

Amy Hollywood, Sensible Ecstacy, Mysticism, Sexual Diﬀerence, and the Demands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. xv + 369 pp. ISBN 0226349519 (cloth); ISBN 0226349527 (pbk.); $55.00 (cloth); $19.00 (pbk.)

T. N G

Amy Hollywood examines French thinkers including Bataille, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Lacan and Irigaray, in order to outline the development of mysticism, transcendence, history and feminist theory. Following Bataille and de Beauvoir’s lead, Hollywood focuses on medieval mystics, using Angela of Foligno and Teresa of Avila as models of mysticism and for feminist theory. Bataille and de Beauvoir uphold these women in particular as ideal mystics, thus shaping the later development of contemporary theory on religion and gender. Hollywood’s work functions on several levels. First, it is a historical look at the development of mysticism. It also traces the historical development of thinking about mysticism in terms of gender from Bataille and Irigaray to Hollywood’s own analysis. Second, it is a comparative study that opposes medieval mystics to contemporary thinkers, and the “experiencers” to the writers about the experience. The dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity comes into play here. This study is also comparative in the sense that while the theories of Bataille, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Lacan and Irigaray are presented genealogically, they are also contrasted. Hollywood thus creates a tension that leads to deeper exploration of theories. Third, it is a methodological study that questions not only how we read contemporary theory, but also how we also read medieval mystical female writings. This book is divided into three parts. Part one focuses on Bataille as well as on Sartre’s opposition to Bataille as a “new mystic.” Hollywood notes the critical relationship between Bataille and Sartre, and their preoccupation with the reconﬁguration of the mystic. In a brief comparison of the two thinkers, Hollywood argues that Sartre’s misinter- pretations of Bataille’s concept of experience leads to false conclusions about Bataille’s political leanings as well as religious theories. Hollywood

  399

attempts to rectify what she perceives as Sartre’s mistaken interpreta- tion of Bataille’s writings. Hollywood argues that Bataille writes an imaginative experience rather than a true experience. Self-annihilation is key to Bataille’s understanding of eroticism, mysticism and religion (p. 46). Hollywood uses Bataille’s writings about Angela of Foligno to exemplify her argument. In particular, Hollywood looks at Bataille’s writings about the crucifixion, and how her understanding of his writings change the way we should read mysticism as ethical action. She provides an evaluative critique at the end of this section, in which the problems with Bataille’s comparison of Foligno’s identification of suffering to his own is addressed. Part two deals with the gendering of mysticism by adding to Bataille de Beauvoir’s and Lacan’s ideas about subject and subjectivity. Foremost in this section is the exploration of what it means to be (en)gendered from a psychoanalytic perspective. Hollywood traces out the implica- tions of castration and virility in relation to assigned “feminine” and “masculine” roles, concluding that women cannot help but be relegated as the Other, as something “not man,” and insinuating a lack that is related to iconic depictions of the phallus. Part three deals more explicitly with feminist theory, concentrating on the work of Irigaray. Hollywood argues that Irigaray writes in the same fashion as early mystics in order to understand Christ in relation to the feminine. Here Hollywood draws conclusions about what it means to be woman and how woman has operated as Other historically. While Irigaray calls for a reconstruction of Christianity by way of new images in order to establish equality, she also calls for a deconstruction of religion, presenting us ultimately with a paradox. Hollywood argues that history, particularly politics, culture and the economy, also influence reconstructions of religion, showing us that we can only create images according to what our surroundings will allow (p. 218). What initially appears to be problematic throughout the volume is the lack of defined terms. Upon first reading Sensible Ecstasy, it seems that key terms are left either vaguely defined or altogether undefined. This apparently allows Hollywood to make links between thinkers that may have otherwise seemed to belong to different contexts. As one reads further and becomes familiar with the thinkers addressed here, however, lack of definition facilitates the development of terms. The problem, it turns out, is not Hollywood’s inability to present defined terms, but the refusal of Bataille, Sartre, de Beauvoir, Lacan and Irigaray to use terms in a definitive way. The underlying theme throughout this work is that theories are in a constant state of flux. While Hollywood