Advertisement

Theories of sexual difference

  • Sellers Susan
Chapter

Abstract

In Freud’s later work, as in the work of Jacques Lacan, the Oedipal crisis serves as an explanation for the way an individual’s desire, created and maintained through the (lost) object/(m)other, and acting as a strong motivating force on the individual, is organised according to a pre-established social and symbolic system. The phallus, as object of the castration law, is emblem (first signifier) of this division. In his ‘Three Essays on Sexuality’,1 Freud argued that there is no natural difference between the sexes, and he stressed that boys and girls must learn to perceive themselves as different and to desire others. Drawing on Freud’s theory, Lacan makes two further points which are important here. Developing Freud’s insistence that normality is at best an idealised fiction, Lacan suggested that a child’s adoption of a sex and gender role is neither intrinsically linked to biological sex, nor, once a role has been accepted, is it necessarily secure. Secondly, since the boy, unlike the girl, possesses a physical equivalent of the phallus, the girl’s relationship to the symbolic order is complicated in a way that the boy’s is not. The fact that the girl has no means of representing within herself even her lack — she has no penis to embody the phallus that stands both for the lost object/(m)other and for the act of signifying this — places her in a problematic relation to the symbolic code since, Lacan suggested, she cannot herself figure within its order and thus only exists according to man’s definition of her there.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Sigmund Freud, ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’ (1905), in On Sexuality, The Pelican Freud Library vol. 7, (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977) pp. 45–169.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See, Claire Duchen, Feminism in France: From May ‘68 to Mitterrand, (London: Routledge, 1986) p. 41Google Scholar
  3. 1.
    Christine Delphy’s essay ‘Protofeminism and Antifeminism’, translated in Toril Moi’s reader French Feminist Thought (Oxford: Black-well, 1987) pp. 80–109, similarly attacks Annie Leclerc as representative of a position valuing biologically-derived differences at the expense of material, social and political actionGoogle Scholar
  4. 3.
    Julia Kristeva, About Chinese Women (1974), translated by Anita Barrows (London: Marion Boyars, 1977)Google Scholar
  5. 4.
    Julia Kristeva, ‘A New Type of Intellectual: The Dissident’ (1977), in The Kristeva Reader, Toril Moi (ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) pp. 292–300, translated by Séan Hand.Google Scholar
  6. 9.
    Julia Kristeva, ‘Women’s Time’ (1979), in The Kristeva Reader, pp. 187–213, translated by Alice Jardine and Harry Blake.Google Scholar
  7. 10.
    Luce Irigaray, ‘This Sex Which Is Not One’, in This Sex Which Is Not One (1977), translated by Catherine Porter (Cornell University Press, 1985) pp. 23–33.Google Scholar
  8. 11.
    Luce Irigaray, ‘Sexual Difference’, in French Feminist Thought, Toril Moi (ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987) pp. 118–30, translated by Séan Hand.Google Scholar
  9. 13.
    Luce Irigaray, ‘Volume-Fluidity’, in Speculum of the Other Woman (1974), translated by Gillian C. Gill (Cornell University Press, 1985) pp. 227–40.Google Scholar
  10. 16.
    Hélène Cixous, ‘Sorties’, in The Newly Born Woman, translated by Betsy Wing (University of Minnesota Press and Manchester University Press, 1986) pp. 63–132.Google Scholar
  11. 17.
    Hélène Cixous, ‘Extreme Fidelity’, in Writing Differences, Susan Sellers (ed.) (Milton Keynes: Open University Press, and New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1988) pp. 9–36.Google Scholar
  12. 19.
    Hélène Cixous, Le Livre de Promethea (Paris: Gallimard, 1983).Google Scholar
  13. 20.
    Hélène Cixous, Vivre l’orange (Paris: Editions des femmes, 1979).Google Scholar
  14. 21.
    Hélène Cixous, L’Histoire terrible mais inachevée de Norodom Sihanouk roi du Cambodge (Paris: Théâtre du Soleil, 1985).Google Scholar
  15. 22.
    Hélène Cixous, L’Indiade ou l’Inde de leurs rêves (Paris: Théâtre du Soleil, 1988).Google Scholar
  16. 25.
    Eugénie Lemoine-Luccioni, Partage des femmes (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1976).Google Scholar
  17. 26.
    For an interesting discussion of Lemoine-Luccioni’s insistence on the dangers of a feminism seeking sexual equality and her belief that women must claim our difference ‘as-not-all’ see Alice Jardine, Gynesis (Cornell University Press, 1985) pp. 169–71.Google Scholar
  18. 27.
    Annie Ernaux, La Femme gelée (Paris: Gallimard, 1981).Google Scholar
  19. 29.
    Marie Cardinal, Autrement Dit, with Annie Leclerc (Paris: Editions Grasset, 1977).Google Scholar
  20. 32.
    Benoîte Groult, Ainsi soit-elle (Paris: Editions Grasset, 1975).Google Scholar
  21. 33.
    Chantal Chawaf, Le Soleil et la terre (Paris: Editions Pauvert, 1977).Google Scholar
  22. 34.
    Michèle Perrein, La Chineuse (Paris: Editions Julliard, 1970).Google Scholar
  23. 35.
    Marguerite Duras and Xavière Gauthier, Les Parleuses (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1974).Google Scholar
  24. 37.
    Michèle Montrelay, L’Ombre et le nom: sur la féminité (Paris: Editions de Minuit, 1977).Google Scholar
  25. 40.
    Madeleine Chapsal, Une femme en exil (Paris: Editions Grasset, 1978).Google Scholar
  26. 41.
    Julia Kristeva, ‘Talking About Polylogue’, with Françoise van Rossum-Guyon, in French Feminist Thought, Toril Moi (ed.) (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987) p. 111–17, translated by Séan Hand.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Susan Sellers 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sellers Susan

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations