Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Thomas Teo

Femininity

  • Kareen R. Malone
  • Shannon D. Kelly
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5583-7_108

Introduction

Femininity as a concept within critical psychology is inseparable from the foundational relationship of critical theory to feminism (Bradotti, 1994), to its notion of reflexivity (Morawski, 1994; Parker, 1999), and to its interrogation of the subjective effects of the encounter of the body with familial others and culture (Alsop, Fitzsimons, & Lennon, 2002). Femininity as a conceptual category is sometimes subsumed by gender, a contextual and interdependent intersection of being sexed (Connell, 1987; Scott, 1996). Femininity as a subset of gender is considered an attribute yet is also destabilized by the subject’s attempts to manage or construct an identity. Critical psychology troubles the usual binaries of gender (e.g., femininity/masculinity), assuming that there are more fluid notions at play (Butler, 1990; Jagose, 1996). Critical psychology, understanding the feminine qua gender, reveals social and political ends but assumes a more sociological notion of the Other...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Adams, P. (1979). A note on the distinction between sexual division and sexual differences. m/f, 3, 51–57.Google Scholar
  2. Alsop, R., Fitzsimons, A., & Lennon, K. (2002). Theorizing gender. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  3. Barad, K. (1999). Agential realism: Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 1–11). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Benjamin, J. (1996). Master and slave: The bonds of love. In J. O’Neill (Ed.), Hegel’s dialectic of desire and recognition (pp. 209–222). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bohan, J. (Ed.). (1992). Seldom seen, rarely heard: Women’s place in psychology. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bradotti, R. (1994). Nomadic subjects: Embodiment and sexual difference in contemporary feminist theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Burmin, E. (Ed.). (1998). Deconstructing feminist psychology. London: Sage Press.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Butler, J. (1993). Bodies that matter. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Chodorow, N. (1998). Feminism and difference: Gender, relation, and difference in psychoanalytic perspective. In B. McVicker, N. Clinchy, & J. Norem (Eds.), The gender and psychology reader (pp. 383–395). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cixous, H. (1976). The laugh of the medusa (K. Cohen & P. Cohen, Trans.). Signs, 1, 875–893.Google Scholar
  12. Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  13. Copjec, J. (2003). Imagine there’s no woman. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  14. Domenici, T., & Lesser, R. (1995). Disorienting sexuality. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Flax, J. (1993). Disputed subjects: Essays on psychoanalysis, politics, and philosophy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Fox- Keller, E. (1995). Reflections on gender and science (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franz, C., & Stewart, A. (Eds.). (1994). Women creating lives: Identities, resilience, & resistance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  18. Gallop, J. (1989). Moving backwards or forwards. In T. Brennan (Ed.), Between feminism and psychoanalysis (pp. 127–39). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Gergen, M. (Ed.). (2001). Feminist reconstructions in psychology. Narrative, gender & performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Hare-Mustin, R., & Marecek, J. (1990). Making a difference: Psychology and the construction of gender. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Henriques, Hollway, Urwin, Venn, & Walkerdine. (1998). Changing the subject: Psychology, social regulation and subjectivity. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Irigaray, L. (1985). Speculum of the other woman (G. C. Gill, Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Irigaray, L. (1990). This sex which is not one. In C. Zanardi (Ed.), Essential papers on the psychology of women (pp. 344–351). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Jagose, A. (1996). Queer theory: An introduction. New York: New York Universities Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kristeva, J. (1990). Women’s time. In C. Zanardi (Ed.), Essential papers on the psychology of women (pp. 374–398). New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lacan, J. (1998). On feminine sexuality: The limits of love and knowledge (B. Fink Trans.). New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  27. Lacan, J. (2001). Homage to Marguerite Duras, on Le ravissement de Lol V. Stein, (Peter Connor, Trans.) in Durasby Duras, (pp. 222–229). City Lights Books, San Francisco, CA, 1987.Google Scholar
  28. Laqueur, T. (1990). Making sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Layton, L. (2004). Who’s that girl? Who’s that boy?: Clinical practice meets postmodern gender theory, Second Expanded Edition (Bending psychoanalysis book). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Lichtenberg-Ettinger, B. (2006). The matrixial borderspace (Essays from 1994–1999). Minneapolis, MN (Minnesota): University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  31. MacKinnon, C. (1967). Feminism unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Milner (1978). For The Love of Language, (Ann Banfield, trans.). New York: St Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  33. Morawski, J. (1994). Practicing Feminisms, reconstructing psychology: Notes on a liminal science. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  34. Morel, G. (2011). Sexual ambiguities (L. Watson, Trans.). London, MI (Michigan): Karnac.Google Scholar
  35. Parker, I. (1999). Critical psychology: Critical links. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 1, 3–18.Google Scholar
  36. Riviere, J. (1929). Womanliness as masquerade. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 10, 303–313.Google Scholar
  37. Rose, J. (1986). Sexuality in the field of vision. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  38. Scott, J. (1996). ‘Gender: A useful category of historical analysis’. In J. Scott (Ed.), Feminism and History (pp. 152–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Soler, F. E. (2006). What Lacan said about women. New York: The Other Press.Google Scholar
  40. Shepherdson, C. (1999). Of love and beauty in Lacan’s Antigone. Umbr(a), 63–80.Google Scholar
  41. Tong, R. (1998). Feminist thought: A more comprehensive introduction. Colorado: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  42. Vance, C. (1992). Pleasure and danger. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Wilkinson, S. (Ed.). (1996). Feminist social psychologies: International perspectives. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Wright, E. (2000). Lacan and post-feminism. Cambridge, UK: Icon Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of West GeorgiaCarrolltonUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyDuquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA