Introduction
Psychoanalytic theory is the personality organization theory, and the personality growth processes that direct psychoanalysis, a therapeutic approach for psychopathology treatment. Sigmund Freud first set out the psychoanalytic theory in the late 19th century; it has undergone several adjustments since his study. During the last third of the twentieth century, the psychoanalytic theory came to full popularity as part of the stream of critical debate regarding psychiatric therapies since the 1960s, even after Freud’s death during 1939. Freud had abandoned his brain research and physiological experiments and changed his attention to consciousness research and associated psychological qualities make up the mind, and to therapy using free association and manipulation phenomena. His research stressed the identification of events in childhood that could affect adult mental functioning. His study of genetics and then of the behavioral factors gave its attributes to the psychoanalytic theory. His ideas started to gain popularity, starting with his 1899 publication of The Interpretation of Dreams.
The use of psychoanalytic and psychoanalysis began long ago in the English language. The latter is the older phrase, which at first indicated simply ‘relevant to the human psyche’s study.’ However, with psychoanalysis emerging as a distinct therapeutic procedure, both terms have come to describe it. Although both continue to be used, the usual term today is psychoanalytic. Human beings are represented as having sexual and violent drives through the reach of psychoanalytic lenses. Psychoanalytic theories consider psychological actions deterministic. It is driven by irrational powers, by the unconscious, and by instinctual and biological drives. Psychoanalytic psychologists do not believe in free will because of the deterministic existence.
Part One: Gender Differences and Personality Development
Research shows that the first theoretical construction of psychoanalytic feminist criticism is based on the study of the development of female personality from two perspectives: physiological structure determinism and sexual instinct determinism. In the past, psychoanalysis majorly focused on psychiatry and psychology fields in the lives of women in an attempt to explain their development in mental processes and gender differences. Later, the emergence of other psychoanalytic schools such as Karen Horney and Jaques Lacan began criticizing overemphasis on the biological factors of female psychology in the work of Sigmund Freud. Replacing biological orientation with sociocultural orientation, their view of women in psychoanalysis extends beyond the scope of psychiatry and psychology to all fields of culture and develops from an unconscious system of female sexual psychology into a highly influential gender theory.
First, Sigmund Freud put forward the theory of castration complex and penis envy through tracing the childhood experience of women as the basis for his interpretation of female personality and the establishment of the whole theory of female psychology. According to Freud, during the first two periods of the psychological development-oral stage and the anal stage-there was no difference between male and female children in the ways and means to satisfy the sexual instinct, so psychological development also showed the same characteristics. However, when children reach the third stage-the, pre-genital stage-girls begin to recognize the differences between male and female sex organs and develop intense contrary stem envy and penis envy. According to Freud, women feel that they have been unfairly treated from birth because their pieces have been cut short, exposing them to undeserved setbacks, something that makes most of the young girls blame their mothers for giving birth to them as women but not men[1]. Freud seems to have over-emphasized the role of sexual jealousy. But this is only just one study, so it’s important to explore more cultures, both Western and avuncular.
Freud’s view of female people during his time stirred many controversies and kept on evoking considerable debate in the contemporary world. According to him, “Women oppose change, receive passively, and add nothing of their own”[2]. This statement makes women develop an inferiority complex that makes their life uncomfortable. Women tend to develop a permanent sense of inferiority because failure to have male reproductive organs hurts their self-esteem.
Freud did not have enough empirical evidence for supporting his idea of penile envy or castration. As Jonathan Culler states: In Freud’s theory, women are supplementary and parasitic. Defining the female mind by phallus envy is undoubtedly the manifestation of phallus logocentrism. Although the theorists of Lacan’s school refuted this viewpoint, arguing that the feature of male fertility is not phallus, they use male phallus as the pure symbol of fertility pattern, thus affirming this structure again[3]. According to Luce Irigaray in “This Sex Which Is Not One,” a woman is not one who has a vagina, but one who lacks phallus and her essence is defined by this deficiency[4].
Secondly, Freud came up with the theory of father complex based on penis envy and castration complex. The little girl cut off her attachment with her mother because of her Yin – stem jealousy and castration complex. She turned her attention eagerly to her father and entered the so-called Oedipus stage, or the father’s elaborate scene, full of desire for her father. The little girl initially hoped that her father would generously give her a penis. Later, when that hope was dashed, she looked forward to having her child to satisfy herself. As Freud states, the power of a girl is increasingly confident by the penis-child equation[5].
Further, Freud argues that women go on with their daily activities without giving up on the idea of acquiring penises by having children. As he contends that if the woman’s wish for a child had been fulfilled, she would have been thrilled, especially if she had given birth to a boy who had brought the penis she had longed for so long[6]. In Freud’s mind, maternal virility and creativity became the symbol of the pursuit of male genitalia. Based on his androcentric prejudice, it is wrong for Freud to think of equality between men and women.
Chodorow (1978) argued against ‘Anatomy is Destiny’ as it was submitted by Freud. According to her, genitalia cannot be used alone in teaching children about differences in gender. It should be incorporated with relational and societal factors[7]. She was opposed to Freud’s biological standpoint, arguing that his statement concerning female people failed to consider cultural differences[8]. Other scholars, such as Pervin, affirmed Chodorow’s argument by saying that most of the direct analytic observations made by Freud were centered on middle and upper-class patients. His bias in selecting the class of patients is apparent in the 1970 investigation into his case studies. During the inquiry, Brody (1970) noted that all of Freud’s cases were from the upper and middle-class[9].
Part Two: Gender Acquisition and Social Construction
The second theoretical construction of psychoanalytic feminist criticism is based on the study of the development of female psychology from two different perspectives: gender acquisition and social structure. These perspectives have always been the center of psychoanalytic criticism. Since the 1950s, the Freudian psychoanalysis has faced a lot of criticism from, precisely because of ‘Oedipus complex,’ ‘phallic worship’ and phallic centrism. When the second wave of feminism started in the late 1960s, both feminists and Freud held no significant differences. However, from the mid-18th century to the early 19th century, different feminists began criticizing Freud’s work[10].
Psychoanalytic theories cover prejudice against women while maintaining the conventional superiority of men in society under the guise of science. According to Freud, we hardly know anything about masculine and feminine traits and what anatomy says about the same[11]. Basing his arguments on philosophy, Freud started from the premise of biology, termed the cultural differences between male and female as an inevitable result of physiological differences and neglected existence of innate masculinity and femininity. The subjectivity of his theory is apparent. For instance, Ruthven believes that if the dominant view of women in the world has to be changed, then we first have to change the habitual look that women’s nature is determined by their physical characteristics.
A study conducted by Paula Nicolson shows that psychological science does not question situational factors and power relations. However, it provides a basis for degrading women and explaining their subordination in society through the methodology of discrimination, which is labeled as science[12]. Another feminist- Millett-was also critical of Freud’s phallic cult. She argued that the concept of phallic worship confuses sexual traits with anatomy and biology. Therefore, it is understandable that they sexually subjugated women. If such prejudices are confirmed by science, then the sexual revolution can proceed with[13]. If psychoanalysis theory is always constructing a narrative of the growth from boys to men and an exposition of the structure of the male subject, social psychology, and individual psychology, then it does not provide a practical discussion of the growth and formation of a female question.
According to the aforementioned views from various feminists, patriarchy is a social, family, ideological, and political system. Men either directly suppress women or use customs, habits, languages, traditions, and education to determine the status of women. Therefore, assigning male and female roles is not innate, but it is based on acquired culture. Feminists question the tendency of psychology to treat individuals as nonsocial and non-historical beings by isolating their psychological lives from the broader socio-political context. The result is a search for solutions to human problems in the individual’s ego, submissive to the demands of the social status quo[14].
According to Kate Millett, the relationship between male and female gender has historically been one of dominance and subordination[15]. In Sexual Politics, this feminist analyzed the work of several male writers such as Jean Le Balcon. According to Le Balcon, if people want ultimate freedom, they must smash the chains that they have made by their own hands in their blind acceptance of universal concepts. One of the most dangerous is a sex cage. He tells the audience that sex is at the heart of all the problems the contemporary society. All the efforts for liberation will only take us back to the original anxiety unless we address the issue of sexual politics and understand the source of the morbid madness of power and violence.
Psychoanalytic feminists such as Elena sisu, Julia Kristeva and Lucy Liggeri reject the content of biological determinism like psychoanalytic pan-sexism, emphasize the influence of morality and social association, and believe that social culture is an essential driver of personality development. According to Jeanne Marece, the analysis of gender psychology cannot be taken away from the interpretation of these factors[16]. Therefore, these feminists believe that the relationship between men and women is ultimately political. Men support women through sexual politics, which is the primary strategy to maintain patriarchy. No matter how soft the expression of sexual politics is today, it is probably still the most pervasive thought in our culture and embodies its most profound and most fundamental view of power.
Part Three: Gender Subjectivity Construction and Female Discourse
The psychoanalytic feminist criticism borrowed many study methods and approached to psychoanalytic criticism. The most common female critics of this theoretical construction were Juliet Mitchell, Gayle Rubin, Kate Millet, Julia Kristeva, Elaina Sisu, and Lucy Iggy. French leaders such as Kristeva, Sisu, and Igerry maintain close contact with psychoanalysts such as Lacan and Jacques Derrida. They have flirted with male thinkers from Plato and Descartes to Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan and Jacques Derrida[17]. For the past few years, feminist critics have been trying to create another feminist psychoanalysis that will not focus on improving Freud’s theories, but instead focuses on the development and construction of gender identity[18].
The Oedipus complex is an essential concept because it is in the Oedipus stage that the sexes are divided, something that explains why Rubin sees it as a device for producing ‘sexual personality.’ According to him, before the Oedipus stage, there was no psychological difference between boys and girls, and that maternal labor caused them to love their mothers, in the same way[19]. By the time a child reaches the Oedipus stage, he/she was able to determine sexual differences and incest taboos. In order to meet the demands of gender roles, boys identify with their fathers, while girls emulate their mothers, making them passive, little heterosexual women who struggle to put up with their inferior rights. If a child completes the Oedipus stage successfully, then he/she become a normal man or woman. In contrast, the Oedipus complex will remain with the child for the rest of his life, becoming a “sexual quirk” or “homosexual.”
Rubin proposed the use of feminism in transforming the field of human reproduction by means of the Cultural Revolution to liberate women and every other person from the bondage of the concept of gender that restricts personality development. The social system has had various additional functions that should be systematically stripped away. Therefore, the objective of feminism ‘should not be to eliminate men, but to eliminate the social system that produces gender discrimination and gender difference’[20]. She advocates for change of division of labor so that children are cared for equally and to ensure that their initial sex selection is intersex[21].
The psychoanalytic feminists such as Christie Eva, Judith Butler, and Mitchell illustrate the feminist cultural construction and psychoanalysis related to biological sex, original gay lust taboo as well as other critical theory. They put forward the gender-based analysis of the training theory and gender parodying political strategy[22]. According to Ristiva, there are two symbolic orders in psychoanalysis: one that is dominated by father name, penis, and law, and the other one represented by the repressed female world. The former is similar to the Apollonian order in the western cultural tradition and represents the law of language. The latter is identical to the Dionysian order, and it represents language, rhythm, and harmony, and is closely related to the body and drive. Gender itself is formed by the repetition of behaviors that are always trying. They are close to the ideal of identity that has some kind of material foundation, but their occasional incoherence reveals the rootlessness of that foundation[23].
By absorbing Derrida’s Deconstructivism and Lacan’s post-structuralism psychoanalysis, Kristeva holds that women are always in an undefinable marginal position. Therefore, it essential to eliminate the binary opposition of patriarchy. Mitchell inherited the traditional psychoanalytic castration theory and affirmed the guiding significance of psychoanalytic criticism on the gender difference between men and women. It is only the writing behavior that can change the enslaved relationship among women, and that is why Kristeva endowed women writing with the particular function of female liberation[24].
Sisu came up with a slogan of the female body writing. She believed that female writing was completely different from male writing. Men wrote to pursue worldly fame, while women only had their bodies[25]. However, she established women’s liberation on their body writing and limited gender equality to the scope of language and body subversion, so their efforts on women’s liberation and gender order reconstruction could only lead to utopia in the end. They believed that women will not remain silent anymore but will keep on fighting for their liberation through writing, which was more pronounced compared to their male counterparts.
Another feminist, Ehrlich, faulted Freud’s idea of patricide as the basis of human civilization by saying that “all civilization in western culture is matricide.” According to her, Christian culture saw God as the producer of all things, and that man became the only symbol of civilization and culture. She advocates for a change in the patricidal culture to find a unique way to express women to liberate women[26].
Although advocates of this form of feminism tend to oppose biological determinism, psychoanalytic feminism, because it focuses on the special female personality, is also assumed essentialist. That is to suggest that they are profoundly different from men and women. Either criticized as essentialist or not, this dimension does not limit women to either the job or the home sphere. Alternatively, it highlights the emotional ties that form in all everyday social interactions
Conclusion
Psychoanalysis offers a form of diagnosis and analysis, not necessarily one that is positive or liberator. By developing an impulses theory and the pseudo-rational forces, which drive and convince us. The notion that we are unconscious rather than visible to ourselves, incapable of full self-knowledge or actualization-mastery, psychodynamic theory often questions the rationalistic, humanist ego and suggests that our ethical personalities and political structures are not perfectible, revealing the unsustainability of both. It cannot be assumed that the unconscious is necessarily either a countercultural or a traditional power but an erratic one, often-encouraging insurrection or resistance, often intransigence and, at other times, rigid border protection.
Psychoanalytic promotes a feminist critique of the obdurate aspects of patriarchal social relationships by providing insight into the nature of subjectivity and the animating illusions of social life, including the symbolic ties and inner forces that under-gird identity and bind sex topics to relationships of supremacy and subservience. Psychoanalytic feminist attention to the core components of society, to the nuclei of sexual inequality and group membership, helps to understand the perpetuation of masculine dominance and enables feminist thinkers to formulate potential corrective steps, obstacles, change routes or ethical interruptions that go to the center of political life and beyond and do not merely work on them.
Bibliography
Beauvoir, Simone D. The Second Sex. New York: Random House, 1986.
Brody, Benjamin. “Freud’s case-load.” Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice 7, no. 1 (1970), 8-12. Accessed March 10, 2020. doi:10.1037/h0086554.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990.
Chodorow, Nancy J. The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender, Updated Edition. Oakland: University of California Press, 1999.
Cohen, Ralph, editor. The Mirror and the Vamp: Reflections on Feminist Criticism. New York & London: Routledge, 1980.
Culler, Jonathan. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism After Structuralism. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983.
Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, 1983.
Freud, Sigmund. “Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes.” Last modified 1925. https://www.aquestionofexistence.com/Aquestionofexistence/Problems_of_Gender/Entries/2011/8/28_Sigmund_Freud_files/Freud%20Some%20Psychological%20Consequences%20of%20the%20Anatomical%20Distinction%20between%20the%20Sexes.pdf.
Freud, Sigmund. Collected Papers Volume 4. New York: Basic Books, 1959.
Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-analysis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989.
Gallop, Jane. Thinking Through the Body. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Heidbreder, E. “Freud and psychology.” Psychological Review, 47, no. 3 (1940), 185-Accessed March 10, 2020. doi:10.1037/h0056150.
Irigaray, Luce. This Sex Which Is Not One. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Millett, Kate. Sexual Politics. 1970.
Paula Nicolson, Feminism and Psychology, Rethinking Psychology. Newcastle: Sage Publications, 1995, p.123.
Pervin, Lawrence A. Personality: theory and research. USA: John Wiley & Sons, 1989.
Ruthven, K. K. Feminist Literary Studies: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Showalter, Elaine. “Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness.” Critical Inquiry 8, no. 2 (1991), 179-205. Accessed March 10, 2020. doi:10.1086/448150.
Suzzi, Guillermo. “Reseña de: Rubin, G. (1975). “The traffic in women: notes on the ‘political economy’ of sex.” Palavras, no. 2 (2016), 013. Accessed March 10, 2020. doi:10.24215/24689831e013.
Tong, Rosemarie P. Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction. London: Hachette UK, 2013.
Vindhya, U. “Feminist Challenge to Psychology. Issues and Implications.” Psychology and Developing Societies 10, no. 1 (1998), 55-73. Accessed March 10, 2020. doi:10.1177/097133369801000104.
[1] Sigmund Freud, Some Character-Types Met with in Psycho-Analytic Work, in Joan Riviere ed., Collected Papers of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 4, New York: Basic Books,1959, p. 323.
[2] Sigmund Freud, Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinctions Between the Sexes, in Joan Riviere ed., Collected Papers of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 5, New York: Basic Books, 1959, p. 192.
[3] Jonathan Culler, On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983, p.167.
[4] Irigaray, Luce, This Sex Which Is Not One, Cornell University Press 1985
[5] Sigmund Freud, Some Psychological Consequences of the Anatomical Distinctions Between the Sexes, in Joan Riviere ed., Collected Papers of Sigmund Freud, Vol. 5, New York: Basic Books,1959, p. 195.
[6] Sigmund Freud,” Femininity,” in J. Strachey ed., New Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis, New York: W.W. Norton, p.135.
[7] Chodorow, N. (1978) the reproduction of mothering. USA: University of California Press.
[8] Pervin, L.A. (1989) Personality theory and research. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. p150
[9] Brody, B. (1970) ‘Freud’s case-load,’ Psychotherapy, Theory, Research, and Practise. Vol. 7 (1), Spring 1970, 8-12
[10], Jane Gallop. Thinking Through the Body. Columbia University Press, p197
[11] K. K. Ruthven, Feminist Literary Studies: An Introduction, London: Cambridge University Press, 1984. p.36
[12] Paula Nicolson, Feminism and Psychology, Rethinking Psychology, Newcastle: Sage Publications, 1995, p.123
[13] Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1970, p253 smoothly
[14] U. Vindhya,” Feminist Challenge to Psychology: Issues and Implications,” Psychology and Developing Societies,10.1 (1998), p. 71.
[15] Kate Millett, Sexual Politics, 1970, p253
[16] Jeanne Marecek,” Gender, Politics and psychology’s Ways of Knowing,” American Psychologist, 50 (1995),
[17] Ralph Cohen, The Mirror, and the Vamp: Reflections on Feminist Criticism. P280
[18] Showalter, Elaine Feminist Criticism in the Wilderness, 1991 p.256
[19], Gayle S. Rubin, The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,1975, p65
[20] Gayle S. Rubin, The Traffic in Women: Notes on the ‘Political Economy’ of Sex,1975, p.65
[21] Ibid p.66-70
[22] Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, New York: Routledge, 1990, p.141.
[23] Ibid p. 144
[24] Tong, Rosemarie Putnam, Feminist Thought: A More Comprehensive Introduction, p.180
[25] Ibid p. 185
[26] Eagleton, Terry. Literary Theory: An Introduction.p146