Butler begins section 2 “Prohibition, Psychoanalysis, and the Production of the Heterosexual Matrix” by illustrating the complexity surrounding the issue of patriarchy as a historical culture and modern universalizing concept. She comments on how a repressive law gains its origins and how the corresponding narrative may, in the end, provide justification for the law it actually opposes. Butler notes, “This ideal [patriarchy] tends not only to serve culturally conservative aims, but to constitute an exclusionary practice within feminism, precipitating precisely the kind of fragmentation that the ideal purports to overcome” (49).
I. Structuralism’s Critical Exchange
Butler begins by analyzing Levi-Strauss’ structuralist discourse in which a kinship structure is based on women, seen as gifts given from one clan to another through marriage (52). Described as a “phallogocentric economy,” Levi-Strauss’ masculine cultural identity is established through an “overt act of differentiation between patrilineal clans” (54). Butler argues, “In effect, the relations among patrilineal clans are based in homosocial desire, a repressed and, hence, disparaged sexuality, a relationship between men which is, finally, about the bonds of men, but which takes place through the heterosexual exchange and distribution of women” (55). Levi-Strauss’ argues that incest is not a reality, but a “cultural fantasy.” (57).
II. Lacan, Riviere, and the Strategies of Masquerade
In this section, Butler begins by illustrating issues of gender in Lacan’s theory of language. She contrasts the differences in “being” the Phallus and “having” the Phallus. To “be” the Phallus is to be the object and also reflects that desire. Lacan argues, “For women to ‘be’ the Phallus means, then, to reflect the power of the Phallus, to signify that power, to ‘embody’ the Phallus, to supply the site to which it penetrates, and to signify the Phallus through ‘being’ its Other…confirmation of its identity” (59). In addition, Butler also takes note of the “Symbolic order (which) creates cultural intelligibility” by comparing the position of men, “having” the Phallus, and the position of women, “being” the Phallus” (60).
Butler also describes Riviere’s psychoanalytic description of “womanliness as a masquerade,” based on one’s attempt to hide masculine characteristics. I was interested in this theory, and the question posed by Butler, “Does masquerade, as Riviere suggests, transform aggression and the fear of reprisal into seduction and flirtation?” (65). Riviere’s comments on the parallels of homosexual men and “masked” women are also interesting.
III. Freud and the Melancholia of Gender
Butler describes Freud’s psychoanalytic explanation of mourning and melancholia in section 3. Freud believes that when dealing with a loss, one’s ego integrates aspects of the other’s personal characteristics. Butler writes, “This process of internalizing lost loves becomes pertinent to gender formation when we realize that the incest taboo, among other functions, initiates a loss of a love-object for the ego and that this ego recuperates from this loss through the internalization of the tabooed object of desire” (79). Butler also introduces Freud’s idea of the Oedipal complex in this section, which Freud believes can be either positive (same-sex) or negative (opposite-sex). (81).
IV. Gender Complexity and the Limits of Identification
In this section, Butler acknowledges the complexity of the previously outlined gender identification theories. In summary, Butler writes, “In the Lacanian framework, identification is understood to be fixed within the binary disjunction of ‘having’ or ‘being’ the Phallus” (89). Referring to Lacan’s Law of the Symbolic, Butler argues, “The possibility of multiple identifications suggests that the Law is not deterministic and that ‘the’ law may not even be singular” (91).
V. Reformulating Prohibition as Power
In the concluding section of part 2, Butler writes, “An even more precise understanding is needed of how the juridical law of psychoanalysis, repression, produces and proliferates the genders it seeks to control” (97). It was her intention to use psychoanalytic theory to critique the issue of incest taboo and used Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Riviere, and Freud to understand this complicated issue.
Although Part 2 of Butler’s Gender Trouble was as complicated as Part 1, I look forward to tomorrow’s class to unpack her work.
1 comment:
Laura,
Thank you for an extensive and informative summary of Part 2 of Gender Trouble. I agree with you that it took just as much effort to break down and analyze this section as it it did with Part 1, but hopefully bringing all of the response papers together in class will make things easier.
One thing that was confusing to me throughout the reading so far was the referral to structuralism. When I looked it up, I found that thought it began in linguistics, structuralism was also part of a philosophical movement, more specifically, the existential movement in France in the 1960s. One of the main points of structuralism, is that "how we discursively conceive of ourselves, or anything, for that matter, is dependent on contexts found within historically contingent systems" (Wikipedia). This makes a lot of sense given Butler's focus on social construction and the importance of context. Based on what I know, Butler's ideas were considered quite groundbreaking. I wonder, however, if her ideas were considered equally radical in France or among people who were more familiar with structuralism..
Post a Comment