Irigaray takes her previous chapter one step further and examines psychoanalytic theories of female sexuality through Lacan's symbolic order. In this sense, sex is defined not by any anatomical factors but by language. What will we find if psychoanalysis investigates the discourse surrounding sexuality itself?
What we see is that the discourse is dominated by males. Lacan goes as far as saying women have no unconscious except the one prescribed to her by man. If we look at Freud's phallocentric theories in this light wouldn't woman's "penis-envy" be a reflection of male narcissism?
If we accept the theses given above, we must accept that Freudian theory is accurate. Masculinity and femininity and the sexual development associated with each sex is correctly outlined by Freudian theory, because the division of the sexes is defined as such by men, a definition in which their female counterparts have had virtually no voice.
I reject the idea of the symbolic order. Rather, I should say, I cringe at the idea, and I'm not sure I fully understand it. Here we have reality being the product of discourse. I could think of counterexamples where I think the situation would be the exact opposite: discourse would be the product of reality. For instance, there are two sorts of people in this world: those that possess a y-chromosome and those that lack it*. This distinction exists irrespective of any discourse. However, one could facilitate discourse when discussing this distinction by delineating a descriptor** associated with each. Discourse on this subject was then modified as a response to reality rather than the other way around.
* After rereading that sentence it seems very gendered in itself, however I could not think of a more succinct way to say it.
** Bonus points for alliteration!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment