It is notoriously difficult for Anglo-Saxons to understand the French, as their way of talking is oblique and not literal. In this way, the whole of French philosophy is opaque to literalists, who can pontificate and object until their bovines greet them at the dusk, but will not make any progress. For the unsophisticates: she is playing with an idea. “Perhaps…” and “Let us suppose…” introduces a playful modality. Already, you need to assume she isn’t making an analytical statement of the sort that are most common in America, when you are trying to advance an argument. So, if we keep in mind that she is not American, or British, what is the argument that she is really trying to advance? Well, the speed of light stands for something else. It is in fact related to Western notion that male sexuality is primarily visual. To decode the puzzle: the primacy of male sexuality is a sexed equation. Are we aware that Irigary is concerned with sexuality as it relates to gender? She is not your typical, puritanical USA feminist, in that she is totally concerned with sex. So, if she is concerned with discussing sexuality, rather than criticizing science, which is in fact what she is doing, what might she be obliquely suggesting? To recap: she doesn’t think that sexuality should be given over to the primacy of the viewer who is nominally male.
So the statement itself is meaningless. Its just yet another way to say that sexuality should not be viewed from a male perspective. Uh, ok. Next . . . . . .
What the explanation points out — and I agree with this — is that translations can easily be misunderstood given that we all talk and think in cultural contexts. Anyone who speaks another language knows that. (I speak German and how Germans speak and think still amazes me sometimes.)
Oh what the hell? Did a malarkey truck turn over somewhere close to this thread?
The original nonsensical statement makes more sense than the “explanation”, which is nothing more than attempt to brown-nose with an air of sophistication.