Irigaray characterizes her own project as taking place in threestages: first, deconstructing the masculine subject; second,figuring the possibility for a feminine subject; and third, construingan intersubjectivity that respects sexual difference (Irigaray 1995a,96). Sexual difference, in her view, is not a system ofdomination to be overcome but a cultural process and practice to beachieved and nourished; the actual relations of domination andsubordination that characterize Western politics, society, history,literature, language, and law, epitomize for Irigaray the reign ofsexual indifference, the fraternal order of equalbrothers/citizens that is inattentive to the self-division of nature,its immanent sexual differentiation. Irigaray's writingsimplicate Freud in this culture of sexual indifference, his work asymptom of masculine metaphysics and its dream of self-identity andself-mastery. I will discuss Irigaray's understanding ofsexual indifference further below, after first describing andelucidating her style of writing.
For example, although Beystehner makes the assertion that Freud's data were not scientific, she also points out that the theory is not only still in use after an entire century, but it has influenced many more theories as well. The author describes the theory of psychoanalysis fairly well.
Irigaray's writing style is often mimetic, an approach that sheclaims has been “historically assigned to thefeminine” (Irigaray 1985b, 76) and therefore that she adoptsdeliberately in order to “try to recover the place of herexploitation by discourse” (Irigaray 1985b, 76).Irigaray's writing does not proceed propositionally, laying downtheses and supporting arguments, nor is it formulated throughconventionally linear explanations. This is not to say, ofcourse, that she does not draw conclusions or that her writing is emptyof insight. But these insights are reached by mirroring the textshe is reading, allowing it to play out its tensions andcontradictions, juxtaposing, transfiguring, and intensifying its crisesand putting its parapraxes (its textual and conceptual slips of thetongue) on display. Her writing is driven by the vagaries of theauthor before her, and makes appear, or unmasks, the structuring forcesof the text and its impasses and limits. This reading strategygoes to work on the unconscious logic of a text, revealing theauthor's underlying fantasies and anxieties by amplifying andreflecting them, and thereby attempting to loosen the masculine hold onthe symbolic by conveying its unstated postulates and conversing from adifferent perspective. Intently attentive to the signifer, to the wordsand silences of psychoanalytic texts, she aims to retrieve the bodilyin language, something underlying symbolic processes of representation,and to invent a new language and imagine new forms.
Irigaray's insistence on her own speech is especially crucialgiven Freud's reprimand to women: “you are yourselvesthe problem” (Freud 1968 , 113). Freud's lecture hadventured to address the question of sexual difference, and hadendeavored to complicate rather than simplify our perceptions andcertainties concerning its meaning and status. Irigaray, however,by retrieving and replaying Freud's voice, attempts to show thathe remains caught up in certainties and dogmatisms about sex, so thatultimately his discourse is one of sexual indifference, as Iwill discuss next. Freud is thus not the master ofIrigaray's essay: his words do not so much determine hertrajectory as reveal their own (freely) associative character, his ownunmastery, the egoic and identificatory fantasies that haunt his textson femininity.
Freud, Sigmund | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Also, she claims that psychoanalysis "can be applied in practical ways," which is a rather vague description of the theory's usefulness. In her conclusion, Beystehner uses a quote from Freud, in which Freud implies that he has based psychoanalysis on his observations of both himself and others.
Sigmund Freud's Theories | Simply Psychology
Beauvoir's misgivings about Freud's account offemininity stem from two sources, a feminist suspicion that women, inpsychoanalytic discourse, are understood on the basis of a masculinemodel, and an existentialist conviction that humanbeings are self-defining, choosing themselves through theirown actions. Following her existentialist convictions, Beauvoirinsists that even when women abdicate their freedom, they do so asagents responsible for their own destinies, not merely as passivevictims following a developmentally determined fate. Followingher feminist convictions, Beauvoir recognizes that women'schoices may be constrained by powerful social and bodily forces, butinsists that women nonetheless bear ultimate responsibility forrealizing their own possibilities by emancipating themselves. Herreading of Freud is thus largely directed against the perceiveddeterminism of psychoanalysis and less against the idea of anunconscious per se, although she does want to defend the notion of aunitary subject at the origin of choice, insisting that “psychiclife is not a mosaic, it is a single whole in every one of its aspectsand we must respect that unity” (Beauvoir 1989, 44), asupposition that certainly limits the affinities between existentialismand psychoanalysis. Nonetheless, Beauvoir's dispute withFreud appears to be less about whether constraint is part of our beingin the world, and more about where that constraint is located:psychoanalysis locates constraint internally, in the constitution ofthe psyche itself, not only in the situations of social life, whereasBeauvoir locates it externally, in the cultural forces that impact eventhe most intimate sense of our own agency. Beauvoir thus claimsthat her own interpretations of women's femininity will disclosewomen in their liberty, oriented freely by the future and not simply explainedby a past. She thereby ratifies the promise of existentialism forfeminism.
Dream Moods: Dream Theories: Sigmund Freud
Even in Freud's circle, not all analysts agreed withFreud's assessment and there were debates concerningwomen's sexuality and the roles of castration and penis envytherein, notably among Karl Abraham, Ernest Jones, Helene Deutsch, andKaren Horney. Horney in particular argued for an inherentfeminine disposition that is not merely a secondary formation premisedon castration and she took issue with the ostensible effects of penisenvy and women's supposed feelings of inferiority. As withsome later feminist criticisms of Freud, Horney attempted to retrievefemale sexuality, and by extension a valid form of feminine existence,by appealing to a genuinely independent nature and holding cultureculpable for women's subordinate status. By thusreasserting the primacy of biological and social forces, however,Horney disputes precisely the idea that is central to Freud'shypothesis and that marks psychoanalysis as a unique field of inquiry,that of a distinctive psychical realm of representation that isunconscious.
Sigmund Freud . Sigmund Freud (May 6, 1856 - September 23, 1939) was an Austrian neurologist who founded the psychoanalytic school of psychiatry.Colby (1960) concludes that if analysts themselves cannot concur that a certain observation is an example of a certain theory, then the regulations that govern psychoanalytic interpretation are undependable (p.
Sigmund Freud - CrystalinksIn spite of Freud's view that this theory represented his greatest insight and success, it has very much failed in the eyes of most of today's critics. Finally, many people feel that a major flaw of psychoanalysis is that, according to Farrell (1981), "it appears to encourage analytic and psychodynamic practitioners to overlook the place and great importance of ordinary common sense" (p.
SparkNotes: Sigmund Freud: Context55). Eysenck (1986) maintains:
I have always taken it for granted that the obvious failure of Freudian therapy to significantly improve on spontaneous remission or placebo treatment is the clearest proof we have of the inadequacy of Freudian theory, closely followed by the success of alternative methods of treatment, such as behavior therapy.