Response Paper on Luce Irigaray’s “The Blind Spot of An Old Dream of Symmetry”
Whereas Julia Kristeva not only approves of Freud’s insights but also expresses her perspective on his psychoanalytic theories, Luce Irigaray opposes to Freud’s psychoanalytic theories on the interpretation of femininity, the oedipal phase, the castration, the penis-envy and so on. “The Blind Spot of an Old Dream of Symmetry” is Irigaray’s reinterpretations of Freud’s essays on “Femininity,” etc. It reveals that Freud’s perspectives are unpersuasive and doubtful. Irigaray satirizes that there are blind spots on Freud’s insights because they are only based on patriarchal preference. There are two reasons why Freud regards female as a passive figure. First, female always plays a passive role in the sexual union. Second, female’s sex cell is passive than male’s sex cell in the sexual union. But in Irigaray’s view, Freud’s insights are uncertain because “the male is active only in the single act of sexual union” (17). When female breast-feeds her children, she is more active than male. In this essay, I would like to talk about three issues: the statement of little girl is a little boy in Irigaray’s view, Freud’s theory on the change of love object, and the position of the female and the position of child in Freud’s view.
First, I would like to reveal the reasons why female is inferior to male in Freud’s view and to show Irigaray’s oppositional viewpoint on it. In Irigaray’s work, “The Little Girl Is (Only) a Little Boy, ” she mentions that in Freud’s view, the definition of woman is “A man minus the possibility of (re)presenting oneself as a man” (27). It shows that the little boy becomes the little girl because of losing phallus in the phallic stage. Hence, female must suffer more painful life than male. In Irigaray’s view, it reveals that “The desire for the same, for the self-identical, the self (as) same, and again of the similar . . . to put it in the desire for the homo . . . male, dominates the representational economy” (26). It shows that Freud pursues a fiction－ that the little girl is a little man is just to satisfy the male’s interest, to construct the patriarchal domination. It also ignores the importance of “sexual difference.”According to Irigaray, ‘“Sexual difference’ is a derivation of the problematic of sameness” (26). It shows that Freud’s perspective with a blind spot because the truth is, the male or the female is different individual subject. In my view, Freud’s interpretation on the female reveals that female must tolerate suffering in her life; that is “women have fewer social interests than male” because she doesn’t have a penis (26). But I think it is an excuse to dominate female in the patriarchal society. I think it is very ironical in Freud’s view because Freud said that he uses the method of science to differentiate between the male and female. But why does Freud still emphasize that the little girl has a smaller penis? Why does Freud mention that the little girl’s autoeroticism is like the little boy’s penis masturbation? Does Freud misunderstand the biological science? It shows that Freud’s view on the female: the female is inferior to male is unpersuasive and ambiguous. Freud would rather emphasize the value of phallus than assert the importance of sexual difference.
Secondly, I would like to point out the differences of “change of object” between the girl and the boy to reveal that Freud’s view is uncertain. According to Freud, “A boy’s mother is the first object of his love, and she remains so too during the formation of his Oedipus complex. . . . For a girl too her first object must be her mother. . . . But in the Oedipus situation the girl’s father has become her love-object” (31). In Irigaray’s view, why must the girl go from “her masculine phase” to the feminine? In my view, why does not the boy go through the process of the change of object? Why must the girl turn to her father as her love object? In my view, it is irrational because her father doesn’t do anything good to the girl. According to Freud, the reason is that her father has the phallus, but her mother doesn’t have one. And the girl found that both she and her mother don’t have the penis so the girl is angry to her mother and changes her love object to her father. It is nonsense. Does the girl forget that her mother is the only person who takes cares of her when she is a baby? Why must the girl envy the penis in the phallic stage? According to Irigaray, “If one loves, desires one sex, one necessarily denigrates, detests the other. What is more, with only one sex being desirable, it becomes a matter of demonstrating how the little girl comes to devalue her own sex by devaluing her mother’s” (40). According to Freud, The little girl becomes melancholic “because she does not know what she is losing in discovering she and her mother are castrated” (68). In my view, Freud’s theory reveals that both the girl and her mother are castrated by the patriarchal society; that is: the female is oppressed by the male in the patriarchal society. It also reveals that the female figure is an object to support the patriarchal economy, to endure the generation of human beings. But it is satiric because the female’s reproducing capacity is ignored and even becomes a tool to support the patriarchal society.
What’s more, I would like to mention that the position of female and the position of child in Freud’s view. For Freud, “Woman is nothing but the receptacle that passively receives masculine product” (18). It reveals that the female is a passive and obedient figure who must accept all request the patriarchal society requires her to do. Female can’t refuse the irrational requests because woman plays a passive role in the patriarchal society. In my view, it reveals that female is a suppressed figure because her rights are all taken away by the male. According to Freud, “If the little girl, the woman, is to become ‘fully’ a woman, the desire for a child must replace the wish to have a penis” (73). It reveals that the child is a substitute for the wish of penis. In my view, the fact is that the female wants to acquire the right, the privilege rather than the phallus. But Freud claims that the value of penis and female desire for the phallus. For Freud, “The child— and it is ardently hoped it will be a boy—appears merely to be a penis-product and penis substitute” (74). In my view, it also reveals the reason why the mother always treats her son better than her daughter in the traditional patriarchal society. I think it is a little bit masochistic and ironic. Does the mother forget the pain－her mother always treated her brother better than herself when she was a girl? Why does the girl continue to do this thing to her daughter? Besides, if the female only wants to bear the boy, and then the species of human being will be extinct. Because the fact is only the female can bear the children.
To sum up, Irigaray’s reinterpretation of Freud’s essays on “Femininity” not only makes us rethink the femininity but also shows the female is oppressed by the male in the patriarchal society.
Whereas Julia Kristeva not only approves of Freud’s insights but also expresses her perspective on his psychoanalytic theories, Luce Irigaray opposes to Freud’s psychoanalytic theories on the interpretation of femininity, the oedipal phase, the castration, the penis-envy and so on. “The Blind Spot of an Old Dream of Symmetry” is Irigaray’s reinterpretations of Freud’s essays on “Femininity,” etc. It reveals that Freud’s perspectives are unpersuasive and doubtful. Irigaray satirizes that there are blind spots on Freud’s insights because they are only based on patriarchal preference. There are two reasons why Freud regards female as a passive figure. First, female always plays a passive role in the sexual union. Second, female’s sex cell is passive than male’s sex cell in the sexual union. But in Irigaray’s view, Freud’s insights are uncertain because “the male is active only in the single act of sexual union” (17). When female breast-feeds her children, she is more active than male. In this essay, I would like to talk about three issues: the statement of little girl is a little boy in Irigaray’s view, Freud’s theory on the change of love object, and the position of the female and the position of child in Freud’s view.
First, I would like to reveal the reasons why female is inferior to male in Freud’s view and to show Irigaray’s oppositional viewpoint on it. In Irigaray’s work, “The Little Girl Is (Only) a Little Boy, ” she mentions that in Freud’s view, the definition of woman is “A man minus the possibility of (re)presenting oneself as a man” (27). It shows that the little boy becomes the little girl because of losing phallus in the phallic stage. Hence, female must suffer more painful life than male. In Irigaray’s view, it reveals that “The desire for the same, for the self-identical, the self (as) same, and again of the similar . . . to put it in the desire for the homo . . . male, dominates the representational economy” (26). It shows that Freud pursues a fiction－ that the little girl is a little man is just to satisfy the male’s interest, to construct the patriarchal domination. It also ignores the importance of “sexual difference.”According to Irigaray, ‘“Sexual difference’ is a derivation of the problematic of sameness” (26). It shows that Freud’s perspective with a blind spot because the truth is, the male or the female is different individual subject. In my view, Freud’s interpretation on the female reveals that female must tolerate suffering in her life; that is “women have fewer social interests than male” because she doesn’t have a penis (26). But I think it is an excuse to dominate female in the patriarchal society. I think it is very ironical in Freud’s view because Freud said that he uses the method of science to differentiate between the male and female. But why does Freud still emphasize that the little girl has a smaller penis? Why does Freud mention that the little girl’s autoeroticism is like the little boy’s penis masturbation? Does Freud misunderstand the biological science? It shows that Freud’s view on the female: the female is inferior to male is unpersuasive and ambiguous. Freud would rather emphasize the value of phallus than assert the importance of sexual difference.
Secondly, I would like to point out the differences of “change of object” between the girl and the boy to reveal that Freud’s view is uncertain. According to Freud, “A boy’s mother is the first object of his love, and she remains so too during the formation of his Oedipus complex. . . . For a girl too her first object must be her mother. . . . But in the Oedipus situation the girl’s father has become her love-object” (31). In Irigaray’s view, why must the girl go from “her masculine phase” to the feminine? In my view, why does not the boy go through the process of the change of object? Why must the girl turn to her father as her love object? In my view, it is irrational because her father doesn’t do anything good to the girl. According to Freud, the reason is that her father has the phallus, but her mother doesn’t have one. And the girl found that both she and her mother don’t have the penis so the girl is angry to her mother and changes her love object to her father. It is nonsense. Does the girl forget that her mother is the only person who takes cares of her when she is a baby? Why must the girl envy the penis in the phallic stage? According to Irigaray, “If one loves, desires one sex, one necessarily denigrates, detests the other. What is more, with only one sex being desirable, it becomes a matter of demonstrating how the little girl comes to devalue her own sex by devaluing her mother’s” (40). According to Freud, The little girl becomes melancholic “because she does not know what she is losing in discovering she and her mother are castrated” (68). In my view, Freud’s theory reveals that both the girl and her mother are castrated by the patriarchal society; that is: the female is oppressed by the male in the patriarchal society. It also reveals that the female figure is an object to support the patriarchal economy, to endure the generation of human beings. But it is satiric because the female’s reproducing capacity is ignored and even becomes a tool to support the patriarchal society.
What’s more, I would like to mention that the position of female and the position of child in Freud’s view. For Freud, “Woman is nothing but the receptacle that passively receives masculine product” (18). It reveals that the female is a passive and obedient figure who must accept all request the patriarchal society requires her to do. Female can’t refuse the irrational requests because woman plays a passive role in the patriarchal society. In my view, it reveals that female is a suppressed figure because her rights are all taken away by the male. According to Freud, “If the little girl, the woman, is to become ‘fully’ a woman, the desire for a child must replace the wish to have a penis” (73). It reveals that the child is a substitute for the wish of penis. In my view, the fact is that the female wants to acquire the right, the privilege rather than the phallus. But Freud claims that the value of penis and female desire for the phallus. For Freud, “The child— and it is ardently hoped it will be a boy—appears merely to be a penis-product and penis substitute” (74). In my view, it also reveals the reason why the mother always treats her son better than her daughter in the traditional patriarchal society. I think it is a little bit masochistic and ironic. Does the mother forget the pain－her mother always treated her brother better than herself when she was a girl? Why does the girl continue to do this thing to her daughter? Besides, if the female only wants to bear the boy, and then the species of human being will be extinct. Because the fact is only the female can bear the children.
To sum up, Irigaray’s reinterpretation of Freud’s essays on “Femininity” not only makes us rethink the femininity but also shows the female is oppressed by the male in the patriarchal society.
全站熱搜
留言列表
{{ article.title }}