This sex which is not one

In Closing

2008-12-09T02:10:00.000-08:00

After finishing this book, I believe the central theses of this book was that the true nature of women’s sexuality has thus far not been fully understood, that the present (at the time the book was written) understanding of women’s sexuality is phallocentric, that psychoanalysis of women’s sexuality has denied women a voice in the matter and in fact gone as far as denying their sex altogether, and that this has lead to women’s sexuality being suppressed, and it has indirectly resulted in the subjugation of women. Furthermore, this book elucidates the importance of diction in discourse, shows how discourse can change and even define our understanding of reality, and shows how linguistic analysis can be a powerful critique of hard science, and demonstrates this by applying linguistic analysis on the works of Freud, Lacan, and other psychologists.

Pornography

2008-12-09T01:03:00.000-08:00

The sex industry seems to be one of the gray areas amongst feminists. There doesn’t seem to be a consensus as to whether it is liberating to be able to play such a role for women, or degrading. Irigaray seems to have a pretty set position on this. She seems to take the latter stance.

She argues that the porn industry puts women in a subservient position to men, that what they do is what men want, and often the scripts are even written by men. In the language of our classroom, the porn industry forces women to conform in response to the gaze. Irigaray argues that even if women have “twenty orgasms”, it serves the purposes of a man, and furthermore it goes on to reinforce the notion the man is the only one capable of bringing pleasure to the woman.

One thing I’ve noticed the conservative media often do is to take any instance where a woman chooses to put her body out there, even though the point of the act is not sexual in nature, and to spin it in such a way as to make it seem that what a woman is doing is pornographic and degrading, and insinuate that she has nothing to offer other than her body to the act. One extreme case of this I remember seeing recently was when Obama girl was on the O’reilly show. O’reilly told her that all she did was take a script written by a man and flop around up there exposing her body. He seems to miss the obvious satire.

Nevertheless, in my opinion it shows that popular conservative opinion seems to coincide with that of Irigaray on the subject.

2008-12-08T22:23:00.000-08:00

Irigaray argues that women are a commodity. They are traded between societies as a commodity. Furthermore, it seems that men can participate in the exchange of women but not with women. They are valued for their reproductive ability, a valuable utility to any man. Since commodities are the most basic form of capitalist wealth, we can interpret what women mean in a capitalist society.

Based off of these facts we can analyze the status of women in such social orders. They can be seen in three classes: the mother, the virgin, and the prostitute. The mother can not be exchanged as a commodity since they have both natural (reproductive) value and use value. They are private property in the name of the father because of their ability to reproduce. The virgin is pure exchange value. The prostitute possesses only use value, and that is appropriated by a man.

In India it seems to be an even sadder state of affairs. It seems as though women possess almost negative value, even the virgin, in very traditional Indian society. The woman's family pays the mans family a dowry to take her off their hands. As an anecdote, my mom's second-cousin was married off this way. The husband's family did not deem the dowry large enough. In response, they poisoned my mother's cousin to the point of near-death. Luckily that marriage was nullified very quickly.

2008-12-08T19:56:00.000-08:00

One of the questions in this book that I found interesting was "How can one be a woman, and an analyst, and a professor, for example? How can one engage in speaking as a woman when some people do the talking and others listen."

To this Irigaray replies, "the form of your question is interesting in and of itself. It means something like this: how can one be a 'woman' and be 'in the street.' That is, be out in public - be public, and still more tellingly, do so in the form of speech. We come back to the question of the family: why isn't the woman, who belongs to the private sphere, always locked up in the house?"

I think Irigaray's response was a little harsh for what seems to be a sincere question. The rhetorical rebuke doesn't do much to answer the question, though it may have put the questioner off, and it's a question that I think merits an explanation.

Irigaray, as speaker, is playing what I would consider a traditionally masculine role. Throughout her book women are portrayed as those without a voice; the disenfranchised. As a professor, analyst and speaker it seems clear that she has transcended that role. The original question in this light seems to make sense. Is Irigaray speaking as a woman, or is she merely playing out a masculine role? If it is the former, how does she reconcile the fact that she is speaking as a woman in a traditionally masculine role. If there is no need for reconciliation, does that mean that the feminine has already entered a traditionally masculine sphere? I think these question are deeper than they seem, and I feel as though that sentiment is validated by the fact that these questions were discussed to an extent in class. I feel as though she should not have dismissed them in the way that she did.

Reality as a consequence of discourse

2008-12-08T18:32:00.000-08:00

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!!

The role of diction in modern thought

2008-12-08T16:43:00.000-08:00

The role of diction in modern thought is made very obvious by studying Freud. The phallocentric framing of sexuality seemed to deny the feminine sex altogether. Rather, femininity was understood only as a complement to masculinity, and the defining attributes of femininity were described as some sort deficiency or atrophy in context to the masculine sex. Freud's theory was validated, or at least given more credence, in the minds of many through his authoritative use of the language of anatomy and physiology. His theory has denied a fuller understanding of female sexuality, and has even defined what femininity is supposed to be through a masculine lens, repressing a fuller expression of female sexuality.

The diction you use, and even the language you speak influences the way you think. That in itself is a fascinating concept. It is interesting to see how Freudian theory was given the authority of science, yet its fallibility is transparent through linguistic analysis. This makes me wonder what other scientific theories may be liable to similar deficiencies. I also think that many of these pitfalls may be avoided through the incorporation of mathematics. Though I have had friends tell me that some professors have claimed that not even our mathematics is objective, I do not see how that can be.

One specific thing Irigaray mentions is that contraception and abortion allows women to choose when to be mothers, challenging the societal doctrine that equates womanhood to motherhood. This challenge to societal doctrine allows the possibility to change the social status of women. However, it seems that the popular media can portray anything from a masculine perspective. Birth control has now been reduced to hormone control, as Sarah Haskins hilariously points out:

Psychoanalysis of the female sexuality

2008-12-07T17:10:00.000-08:00

According to Freud both sexes undergo a similar libidinal development at a young age. The sensation a boy gets from penile stimulation the girl gets from clitoral stimulation which acts as a “truncated penis”, while the vagina remains undiscovered. Freud argues that this sort of active masturbation, and in fact all libido, is masculine. The development of the feminine sexuality occurs as the girl’s sexuality becomes more passive. This is a natural outcome of Freud’s theories, which are all based on the assumption that the girl suffers from penis-envy.

Freudian analysis holds that once a girl learns about the male sexual organ and juxtaposes it with hers, her clitoris seems insignificant. This develops into an oedipal complex as the girl desires her father to give her a penis. She only takes her feminine role once she shifts her sexual focus on her vagina, which becomes a receptacle for the long-coveted penis. Her desire for a penis is then replaced by a desire to reproduce and give birth to a boy so the woman can be compensated by transferring to her son all the ambition which she has been obliged to suppress in herself.

It is important to note that according to Freudian analysis female sexuality stems from penis-envy, and penis-envy should be interpreted in the anatomical sense.

Karen Horney interprets female sexuality differently. Though her theory still incorporates penis-envy, it is not due to some anatomical defect but rather is a “defensive symptom, protecting the woman from the political, social, and economic condition that is hers.” Furthermore, the girl discovers her vagina at a much younger age, though due to cultural taboos about incest and her desire for her father she suppresses this discovery.

Other female psychologists such as Klein has similar theories, but the understanding of female sexuality was looked at from a masculine standpoint for a long time.

This sex which is not one

2008-12-06T18:51:00.000-08:00

I feel it's appropriate that the first post here be titled the same as the book (and the blog). Reason being, the book's bewildering title now makes sense.

Irigaray argues that female sexuality has been defined based on masculine parameters. The clitoris is a “little penis” pleasant to masturbate as long as there is no castration anxiety for the “boy-child”, and the vagina an envelope for the penis. In this sense the female erogenous zones are reduced to nothing more than a “clitoris-sex” which can not compete with the male sex organ, or a “hole-envelope that serves to sheathe and massage the penis.” When looked at in this context women are nothing more than a prop for males to fulfill their sexual fantasies, and though women may take pleasure in this act it is a “masochistic prostitution” to the desire which is not woman’s. Irigaray states that women’s desires have been suppressed and even forgotten with history, and one would have to dig deep down to an archaic civilization to fully understand women’s sexuality.

Women’s sexual organ, which has been reduced to no sexual organ at all, is actually more than one sexual organ in Irigaray’s view. Women can receive pleasure from many things – vaginal and clitoral caress fondling of the breasts, touching the vulva, spreading the two lips, stroking the posterior wall of the vagina, brushing against the mouth of the uterus, etc. Many of these are things our culture associate with normative sexuality. Irigaray argues that women’s sexuality actually goes beyond this: a “woman has sex organs more or less everywhere.” And this last fact explains the title of the book.