Construction of the 'Other': A Politics of Sexuality, with Special Reference to Freud and Irigaray (original) (raw)
Related papers
Cautionary Tales: Between Freud and Feminism
Constellations, 1999
Feminists have often turned to psychological knowledge in search of an adequate theory of gender, despite the ambiguous relationship psychology, in all its manifestations, has always had with politics. Mainstream psychology, with its theorizing of "individual differences" and popularizing of behavioral technologies, has long been a target of radical critique-which has made not the slightest blip in the steady growth of psychological "expertise" that, since 1945, has saturated Western culture with programs for individual change and development. Such programs have even played a part in encouraging collective political aspirations for subjective growth and renewal. Nonetheless, psychology's disciplinary project-one of treating all social conflict as amenable to individual solutions through the acquisition of skills and enlightenment-points more in the direction of its welldocumented role in producing agents of pacification than to practical help for personal liberation. 1 It has been precisely psychology's task in the modern world, as Derrida (glossing Foucault) has commented, to mask "a certain truth of madness … a certain truth of unreason." 2 As academic psychology's disdained yet closest rival, psychoanalysis has had a somewhat different cultural trajectory. Far richer in contradiction, far gloomier in social outlook, far more contentious in cultural debate, psychoanalysis (at least, in its classical form) promises not solutions to social conflicts, but a heightened awareness of their tragic inevitability. Traditionally, it has preferred to flaunt, rather than disavow, the conservative side of its reflections on the links between subjectivity and the "maladies" of modernity. Its pessimism of the intellect produces its own paralyses for those who wish to transform the links it describes (and helps reinscribe) between knowledge and power, sexed identity and social hierarchy. Certainly, feminism's relationship with psychoanalysis has always, and rightly, been troubled. Enthusiasm for and denunciations of Freud have preoccupied feminist agendas in almost equal measure. Such polarization is hardly surprising, if we try dispassionately to figure the contradictions-the seductions and the disappointments-of psychoanalytic narratives as they have been applied to our understanding of sexual difference. For that is the terrain, perhaps unfortunately, on which we so often encounter them today, and which I will be covering here. I say unfortunately, because it is here that psychoanalysis has moved farthest from what some of us see as its central strength: its potentially subversive individualism. The narratives grounding psychoanalytic theories of sexual difference have looked far from subversive to
Bridging the social and the symbolic: Toward a feminist politics of sexual difference
Hypatia, 2000
By clarifying the psychoanalytic notion of sexual difference (and contrasting it with a feminist analysis of gender as social reality), I argue that the symbolic dimension of psychical life cannot be discarded in developing political accounts of identity formation and the status of women in the public sphere. I discuss various bridges between social reality andsymbolic structure, bridges such us body, language, law, and family. I conclude that feminist attention must be redirected to the unconscious since the political cannot be localized in, or segregated to, the sphere of social reality; sexual difference is an indispensable concept for a feminist politics.
The Crisis of Gender and Sexuality
New Woman Fiction, 2000
The Crisis of Gender and Sexuality 117 [I]t must never be forgotten that the differences which nature has fixed between the sexes are insuperable. .. The protectors of 'true womanhood' insist on these differences; but the insurgents ought to insist on them too. It is not only useless, it is suicidal to deny them. .. The perpetual. .. unassailable differences, organic and functional, biological and psychological, between men and women are just the safeguard which may enable men without scruple and apprehension to make women their political peers. Women may safely be relieved from political disabilities simply because they can never become men. J. B. Bury, 'The Insurrection of Women' (1892) 1 At a time when even those sympathetic to the women's movement asserted rigid notions of sexual difference, if only to deflate conservative fears about the sexual anarchy that would follow in the wake of women's political emancipation, feminists challenged the biological and psychological premise on which the sex/gender equation was based. While in the motto to this chapter women's claim to citizenship is linked to their inalterable difference from men, New Woman writers, arguing for women's rights on the grounds of their essential sameness, suggested in their cross-dressing narratives that women could, in fact, become men. The last chapter explored the degree to which masculinity became the target of feminist anger. By seeking to incriminate virtually all contemporary men of inherent immorality, and by contrasting male sexual violence with the caring ethic of many women, writers mobilized gendered stereotypes about intrinsically 'male' and 'female' traits. At the same
Fear and envy: Sexual difference and the economies of feminist critique in psychoanalytic discourse
Science in Context, 1997
This essay examines Freud's construction of a mythical moment during early childhood, in which differences between male and female sexual identities are said to originate. It focuses on the way in which Freud divides fear and envy between the sexes, allocating the emotion of (castration) fear to men, and that of (penis) envy to women. On the one hand, the problems of this construction are pointed out, but on the other hand, it is shown that even a much-maligned myth may still provide food for thought.
"„In the late twentieth century, after all, we are ourselves literally embodied writing technologies. That is part of the implosion of gender in sex and language, in biology and syntax, enabled by Western technoscience.“ Donna J. Haraway (1991), Simians, Cyborgs and Women. The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books, p. 128. These thoughts were the stimulus for this paper’s effort to treat the notions of ‘sex’, ‘gender’ and ‘identity’ through the controversial points of view, emerged among the feminist writings of the 1970s, the historians and psychoanalysts of the 1980s.While post-stucturalists like J. Butler are passing from gender denaturalization to the undoing of gender, brain scientists speak about a potential underestimation of innate biology at its equation with the anatomical sex; hormones and neurochemicals, constantly changing the brain state, not taken into account. ‘Gender’ constitutes in this sense the key term that is being posed and reposed, thought and rethought, done and undone. My paper will be thus divided into three parts that shall refer to a critical vision of gender categories in various discursive domains. First part will treat the intrinsic introduction of gender as notion during the feminist movements of the 1960s and 1970s in an effort to contest the naturalisation of the bipartite sex difference of men from women, male from female, in multiple arenas of struggle. Despite having passed from the ‘biological’ (sexual difference) to the ‘ontological determinism’ (desire) through the ‘social constructivism’ (power), the notion of “gender” remains trapped within the oppressive Western binarism culture/nature, and therefore the second part will explore the new ways of thinking gender that emerge in the 1990s towards a deconstruction or denaturalisation of this notion; that is, gender as representation and as subjective identity. Although Butler’s theory of performativity did succeed not only to disqualify normative analytical categories leading to univocity, such as sex or nature, but also to release both genders and their social frame of reference from any determinism, the third part will not only show in what extent this very notion of gender (as doing) is nowadays again in crisis but also inquire the possible explanations for the impoverishment of gender and therefore for the necessity of its undoing. A mysterious elsewhere will emerge as a sort of agency that motivates us and establishes our sexuality, whose full meaning we ignore. The innate neurochemical biology of Brizendine will thus broaden up the cognitive fields and open new perspectives of rethinking gender, the mysterious elsewhere and -why not?- biology itself. "
This paper aims to challenge the assumption of the law's impartiality to gender. Gendered identity is constructed and confined by social discourse, and is expressed through homogenizing binary gender norms which prescribe the ‘appropriate’ means of gender performance. The definition of the ‘feminine’ role expected of women is given by men, who in a patriarchal modern society are the dominant gender. I will examine what ‘performativity’ means in terms of gender discourse, and analyse how exclusionary this can be for the gender dysphoric and the transsexual. I will look at the relevant legislation for allowing them legal acknowledgement of their acquired gender, and provide commentary on its ineffectiveness because it perpetuates the gender binary dichotomy. Pursuant to this, I will deconstruct how girls become ‘feminine’; a learning process which crystallizes in childhood rather than any innately biological attributes they may have. I will consider how society responds to deviance from these gender-appropriate norms with condemnation and pathology; none more demonstrably so than in the case of women who kill.
Toward a critical relational theory of gender
Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 1991
This article analyzes and critiques the construct of gender as a psychoanalytic and cultural category. Without succumbing to a nonpsychoanalytic notion of androgyny, the argument developed here challenges the assumption that an internally consistent gender identity is possible or even desirable. Beginning with the idea that, from an analytic perspective, the construct of "identity" is problematic and implausible, because it denotes and privileges a unified psychic world, the author develops a deconstructionist critique of our dominant gender-identity paradigm. It is argued that gender coherence, consistency, conformity, and identity are culturally mandated normative ideals that psychoanalysis has absorbed uncritically. These ideals, moreover, are said to create a universal pathogenic situation, insofar as the attempt to conform to their dictates requires the activation of a false-self system. An alternative, "decentered" gender paradigm is then proposed, which conceives of gender as a "necessary fiction" that is used for magical ends in the psyche, the family, and the culture. From this perspective, gender identity is seen as a problem as well as a solution, a defensive inhibition as well as an accomplishment. It is suggested that as a goal for analytic treatment, the ability to tolerate the ambiguity and instability of gender categories is more appropriate than the goal of "achieving" a single, pure, sex-appropriate view of oneself. C ONTEMPORARY PSYCHOANALYTIC THINKING ABOUT GENDER has resulted in a profound critique of Freud's phallocentric theories of male and female development. While there is no simple consensus among the many competing perspectives now being developed, most