Abstract
Feminist theorists, writers, and artists have done much to bring mother–daughter relationships into representation and to reimagine the maternal beyond its traditional subservience to father–son dynasties. Amongst continental feminists, Luce Irigaray has made major contributions to this task. Within Anglophone feminism, too, feminist psychoanalytic thinkers have sought to rectify Freud’s overemphasis on the paternal and father–son relations. Nancy Chodorow’s important work in this area paints a portrait of contemporary mother-daughter relations which seems, at first sight, strikingly similar to Irigaray’s. Both thinkers suggest that mothers and their infant daughters experience a unique level of mutual identification. But under patriarchy—specifically, given exclusively female childrearing for Chodorow and the absence of any symbolization of female subjectivity for Irigaray—daughters are forced to turn to the father to achieve any psychical independence from their mothers. Bringing Irigaray and Chodorow together across their different intellectual contexts, this chapter compares and partially synthesizes their visions of the maternal and mother–daughter relations. By integrating their perspectives, we can move beyond the impasse between Lacanian and object-relations feminisms that dominated psychoanalytic feminist debates in the 1980s and 1990s.
Originally published in philoSOPHIA: A Journal of Continental Feminism 1, no. 1 (2011): 45–64, reprinted with permission.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sigmund Freud, Totem and Taboo and Other Works, ed. James Strachey (New York: Vintage, 2001).
- 2.
Teresa Brennan, “An Impasse in Psychoanalysis and Feminism,” in A Reader in Feminist Knowledge, ed. Sneja Gunew (New York: Routledge, 1991), 114–138.
- 3.
Jacquelyn Rose, Sexuality in the Field of Vision (London: Verso, 1986).
- 4.
Nancy Chodorow concedes that there is this problem with her earlier work. Nancy Chodorow, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989), 7. Her later work increasingly recognizes the importance of culture and language. See Nancy Chodorow, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989); Nancy Chodorow, Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond (London: Free Association Books, 1994); Nancy Chodorow, The Power of Feelings (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999).
- 5.
For some now-classic feminist criticisms of these discourses, see Parveen Adams, “Mothering,” m/f 8 (1983): 40–52; Janice Doane and Devon Hodges, From Klein to Kristeva: Psychoanalytic Feminism and the Search for the “Good Enough” Mother (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992); Denise Riley, War in the Nursery: Theories of the Child and Mother (London: Virago, 1983).
- 6.
For this objection to Lacanianism, see Brennan, “An Impasse in Psychoanalysis and Feminism,” 114–127.
- 7.
Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978).
- 8.
Ibid., 95.
- 9.
Ibid., 104.
- 10.
Ibid., 121.
- 11.
Ibid., 113.
- 12.
Ibid., 124–125.
- 13.
Ibid., 127.
- 14.
Ibid., 78.
- 15.
This can be obscured by the desexualized view of love-relations that Chodorow inherits from object-relations theory. Despite saying that infants are matrisexual, she in fact tends to describe them as mother-loving but says little about sexual drives, which she regards merely as “vehicles for personal contact” (Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, 47–48). I take it, though, that infants do relate erotically to their mothers, in the broad psychoanalytic sense of the erotic, as involving fantasy, bodily drives, and corporeal energies, as Chodorow also at times says (e.g., Nancy Chodorow, Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond [London: Free Association Books, 1994], 39).
- 16.
Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, 201–204.
- 17.
Ibid., 124.
- 18.
Sigmund Freud, “Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction Between the Sexes,” in On Sexuality, ed. James Strachey (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977b), 331–343.
- 19.
Sigmund Freud, “Female Sexuality,” in On Sexuality, ed. James Strachey (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977a), 366–392.
- 20.
Diana Tietjens Meyers, Subjection and Subjectivity: Psychoanalytic Feminism and Moral Philosophy (London: Routledge, 1994), 78.
- 21.
Luce Irigaray, “And the One Doesn’t Stir without the Other,” trans. Helene Vivienne Wenzel in Signs 7, no. 1 (1981): 60–67.
- 22.
Ibid., 60.
- 23.
Luce Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, trans. Gillian C. Gill (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993b).
- 24.
Ibid., 16.
- 25.
Irigaray, Sexes and Geanealogies, 18; Luce Irigaray, “‘Je—Luce Irigaray’: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray,” interview with Elizabeth Hirsh and Gary A. Olson, Hypatia 10, no. 2 (1995): 107–108; Luce Irigaray, “Thinking Life as Relation: An Interview with Stephen Pluhacek and Heidi Bostic,” Man and World 29 (1996b): 353.
- 26.
Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 195.
- 27.
This criticism of Irigaray may seem uncharitable. After all, she speaks of girls trying through doll play and whirling games to situate themselves in relation to their mothers, and trying to speak with their mothers as female-to-female. Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 97–99. Nonetheless, for Irigaray, the symbolic allows girls no resources to fulfill these attempts. When she says “Neither the little girl nor the woman needs to give up the love for her mother” she means that while in principle they need not do so, in practice they must. Ibid., 20.
- 28.
Jacquelyn Rose, Sexuality in the Field of Vision (London: Verso, 1986), 52.
- 29.
Ibid., 78.
- 30.
Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 85.
- 31.
Meyers, Subjection and Subjectivity, 81.
- 32.
Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, 108.
- 33.
Ibid., 167.
- 34.
Luce Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter and Carolyn Burke (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 69.
- 35.
Elizabeth B. Silva and Carol Smart, “The ‘New’ Practices and Politics of Family Life,” in The New Family? (London: Sage, 1999), 1–12.
- 36.
Shirley Nelson Garner, Claire Kahane, and Madelon Sprengnether, eds., The (M)Other Tongue: Essays in Feminist Psychoanalytic Interpretation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985), 20.
- 37.
Chodorow, The Power of Feelings.
- 38.
Christine Battersby, The Sublime, Terror, and Human Difference (London: Routledge, 2008), 159.
- 39.
Luce Irigaray, “A Natal Lacuna,” Women’s Art Magazine 58 (May/June, 1994): 11–13.
- 40.
Irigaray’s strategy of mimesis presupposes that such reimagining is possible, but she seems reluctant to concede that writers and thinkers other than herself have ever engaged in it.
- 41.
Karoline Günderode‚ cited in Battersby, The Sublime, Terror, and Human Difference, 123.
- 42.
Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 18.
- 43.
Luce Irigaray, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, trans. Carolyn Burke (London: Athlone, 1993a).
- 44.
Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 18.
- 45.
Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, 215, 218.
- 46.
Doane and Hodges, From Klein to Kristeva, 85.
- 47.
Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, Chapter 2.
- 48.
Ibid., 28.
- 49.
It may be objected that men can share in breastfeeding if the mother expresses her breast milk. Even so, the baby will still attach principally to the person who feeds him or her skin-to-skin; few mothers exclusively express except for medical reasons.
- 50.
For example, Adams, Mothering.
- 51.
Luce Irigaray, I Love to You, trans. Alison Martin (London: Routledge, 1996a), 27, 41.
- 52.
Nancy Chodorow, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989), 101.
- 53.
Irigaray, Sexes and Genealogies, 189–191.
- 54.
Chodorow, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory, 155; Chodorow, The Power of Feelings, 274.
- 55.
Chodorow, The Power of Feelings, 271.
- 56.
Luce Irigaray, To Be Two, trans. Monique M. Rhodes and Marco F. Cocito-Monoc (London: Athlone, 2000), Chapter 3.
Bibliography
Adams, Parveen, “Mothering.” m/f 8 (1983): 40–52.
Battersby, Christine, The Sublime, Terror, and Human Difference. London: Routledge, 2008.
Brennan, Teresa, “An Impasse in Psychoanalysis and Feminism.” In A Reader in Feminist Knowledge, ed. Sneja Gunew. New York: Routledge, 1991, 114–138.
Chodorow, Nancy, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1989.
———, Femininities, Masculinities, Sexualities: Freud and Beyond. London: Free Association Books, 1994.
———, The Power of Feelings. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999.
———, The Reproduction of Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.
Doane, Janice and Devon Hodges, From Klein to Kristeva: Psychoanalytic Feminism and the Search for the “Good Enough” Mother. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.
Freud, Sigmund, “Female Sexuality.” In On Sexuality, ed. James Strachey. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977a, 366–392.
———, “Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction Between the Sexes.” In On Sexuality, ed. James Strachey. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977b, 331–343.
———, “Totem and Taboo” and Other Works, ed. James Strachey. New York: Vintage, 2001.
Garner, Shirley Nelson, Claire Kahane, and Madelon Sprengnether, eds., The (M)Other Tongue: Essays in Feminist Psychoanalytic Interpretation. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
Irigaray, Luce, “A Natal Lacuna.” Women’s Art Magazine 58 (May/June, 1994): 11–13.
———, An Ethics of Sexual Difference, trans. Carolyn Burke. London: Athlone, 1993a.
———, “And the One Doesn’t Stir without the Other.” Translated by Helene Vivienne Wenzel. Signs 7, no. 1 (1981): 60–67.
———, I Love to You, trans. Alison Martin. London: Routledge, 1996a.
———, “‘Je—Luce Irigaray’: A Meeting with Luce Irigaray.” Interview with Elizabeth Hirsh and Gary A. Olson. Hypatia 10, no. 2 (1995): 93–114.
———, Sexes and Genealogies, trans. Gillian C. Gill. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993b.
———. “Thinking Life as Relation: An Interview with Stephen Pluhacek and Heidi Bostic.” Man and World 29 (1996b): 343–360.
———, This Sex Which Is Not One, trans. Catherine Porter with Carolyn Burke. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1985.
———, To Be Two, trans. Monique M. Rhodes and Marco F. Cocito-Monoc. London: Athlone, 2000.
Meyers, Diana Tietjens, Subjection and Subjectivity: Psychoanalytic Feminism and Moral Philosophy. London: Routledge, 1994.
Riley, Denise, War in the Nursery: Theories of the Child and Mother. London: Virago, 1983.
Rose, Jacquelyn, Sexuality in the Field of Vision. London: Verso, 1986.
Silva, Elizabeth B. and Carol Smart, “The ‘New’ Practices and Politics of Family Life.” In The New Family? eds. Silva and Smart. London: Sage, 1999, 1–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stone, A. (2021). Mother–Daughter Relations and the Maternal in Irigaray and Chodorow. In: Bueskens, P. (eds) Nancy Chodorow and The Reproduction of Mothering. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55590-0_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-55590-0_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-55589-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-55590-0
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)