Intertexts

Intcrtcxa, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1998 Psychoanalytic Feminism Beyond the Phallus Catherine M. Peebles B i n g h a m t o n U n i v e r s i t y Psychoanalytic feminism is afield which has only begun to emerge over the past two decades, and the question of what constitutes its approach is still open. Works by Luce Irigaray, Juliet Mitchell, and Sarah Kofinan, as well as more recent explorations of the question of femininity in psycho¬ analytic theory such as Teresa Brennan’s Interpretation of the Flesh (1992), Jessica Benjamin’s The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism and the Problem of Domination and those gathered in Feldstein and Roofs FeminismandPsychoanalysis{19S9)havehadanimportantinfluence,both in their content and in their spurring more scholars to attempt to speak firom these two discourses simultaneously. As J. C. Smith and Carla J. FerstmanpointoutinTheCastrationofOedipus:Feminism,Psychoanalysis, andtheWilltoPower(1996),suchattemptsarestillinanearlyphase.The authorsholdthatthereisasyetnofielddeservingofthename“psychoana¬ lyticfeminism,”fortherelationbetweenthetwofieldsisstillbeingnegoti¬ ated, and with some difficulty: Theparadoxoffeminismandpsychoanalysisis...thattheexplanations areintermsofphallicpossessionorlack,seduction,andcastration,allof which seem to privilege the Oedipal structure. . . The relationship betweentraditionalpsychoanalytictheoryandfeminism,whileimportant for each, remains ambivalent at best. (17) Atthebeginning,then,awordonwhypsychoanalytictheoryis,orshould be,soimportantforfeministthought,andindeedviceversa.Howeverobvi¬ ous astatement it may be, it is nonetheless obligatory to emphasize that psy¬ choanalysisisfundamentallyadiscoursewhichexploressexualityanddesire, andfeministtheoryonewhichinterrogatesgenderdifferenceandidentity. Psychoanalytictheorycanoffertofeministthoughtinsightsintothepsychi¬ calworkingsofgenderedsexualities,especiallyintermsoftheroleofthe unconscious in the formation of an “identity” which can never again (after psychoanalysis) be understood as solid and unmovable. Feminist theory, for itspart,offerspsychoanalysisitsquestionsaboutandinsightsintodiffer¬ ence,particularlysexualandpoliticaldifferences,thusleadingtowhatEliza¬ beth Wright calls aspace for the transformations of both fields (Wright xiii).* There is thus aneed to review some fundamental psychoanalytic and feminist notions and to rethink the most pressing concerns confronting 1 4 4 Peebles—Psychoanalytic Feminism Beyond the Phallus 1 4 5 psychoanalytic and feminist discourses, in order to present what may be a crucial intersection for the thinking of the two at once. In order to approach one such intersection, Iwill devote asignificant part of this essay to an examination of the question of sexual difference in the works of Jacques Lacan and Luce Irigaray, works which have been cen¬ tral to debates vwthin both psychoanalytic theory and feminist thought. I will attempt to show the importance for psychoanalytic feminism of what Irigaray cdls an ethical sexud difference, and to explore the difficulties in¬ volved in thinking such arelation. The last part of this text will concern it¬ self with two of the most critical of these difficulties: the question of femi¬ nine jouissance and the question of love as they intersect in both Irigaray’s and Lacan’s thought. By way of introduction Iwill begin by briefly outlin¬ ing the background against which these questions have emerged. I . C o n t e x t Luce Irigaray’s Speculum, de I’autre femme (1974) and Ce sexe qui n^en est pas un (1977), and Juliet Mitchell’s Psychoanalysis and Feminism {\97A) inaugurated feminist engagements with psychoanalysis that went beyond an understanding of psychoanalysis primarily or solely as adiscourse which posits or seeks to reinforce the inferiority of women (for example, Simone deBeauvoir’s1949LeDeuxiemesexe,^andBettyFriedan’s1963TheFemi¬ nineMystique).WhileIrigarayandMitchellengageinafeministapproach topsychoanalytictheory,theychoosetodosofiromwithinthattheory,be¬ lieving that psychoanalysis, especially when informed by feminist inquiry, canoffercriticalinsightintothemanyquestionssurroundingsexualdiffer¬ ence. From the 1970s on, then, feminist writers begin to work within psy¬ choanalytic discourse while challenging it (Wright xiv-xix). In reading Iri¬ garay’s work (including her more recent texts where psychoanalysis plays a smaller role) as psychoanalytic as well as feminist, Iam implicitly arguing for an understanding of psychoanalytic feminism not as atheory nor as aset of common assumptions, but more loosely as afeminist thinking which is notenslaved(orduped)bythereignof^eegoanditsclaimsonunity, identity, equity, complementarity, and so on. In this sense, then, al¬ thoughIrigaray’sworksincethemid-eightiesisnotprimarilyorovertly concernedwithpsychoanalytictheory,itconstitutes(oroughttoconsti¬ tute)animportantcontributiontoit.Inconsideringpsychoanalyticfemi¬ nism,Iamconcernedwithsuchadoubleengagement,andwithworksthat performsuchanengagement.Ishallnotbetreatingatanylengththeasser¬ tion that psychoanalysis deserves the unequivocal censure of feminist thinkers. Iwould like to take amoment, however, to discuss precisely why I would underline the limitations of such arefusal of psychoanalysis firom a feminist perspective, for adiscussion of these lirmtations will help to clarify from the outset what is at stake in apsychoanalytic feminism. 1 4 6 I N T E R T E X T S Diana Tietjens...