| Title | : | Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction |
| Author | : | |
| Rating | : | |
| ISBN | : | 041501400X |
| ISBN-10 | : | 9780415014007 |
| Language | : | English |
| Format Type | : | Paperback |
| Number of Pages | : | 228 |
| Publication | : | First published January 1, 1990 |
Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction Reviews
-
This is really one of the best books on Jacques Lacan I have ever read, if not the best --and I have read several (including two by Bruce Fink and two by Slavoj Zizek). Grosz does a fantastic job placing all of Lacan's major ideas into their properly Freudian context, and for me shed significant new light on the most important of them. In particular, she completely changed the way I look at such fundamental concepts as the Mirror Stage, the relationship between signification and the unconscious, and that "there is no such thing as a sexual relationship." The chapter titled "Sexual Relations" is an absolutely fascinating, devastating exploration on the difficult topic of sexual difference, and her discussion is really some of the most clearly written and insightful that I've come across.
If anything, I might criticize Grosz's tendency to forget Lacan's strenuous differention between the phallus and the penis. She clearly understands the distinction, but seems ready to ignore it when feminist critique calls for it. I also wouldn't say that this book is fully comprehensive. No book on Lacan is, but there's less discussion here than I'd expect on objet petit (a) or the four discourses (mercifully, in the latter case). But what the book does covery, it covers very well.
Lastly, I loved the last section of the book which deals with post-Lacanian French feminism. This is a remarkable area of thought that is nonetheless very hard to break into without formal academic training. I've been looking for a way in and this book really provides that. Personally, I enjoyed her discussion of Julia Kristeva much more than that of Luce Irigaray, whom I like but have a very hard time grasping. That may be just personal taste or simply because Irigaray is just much harder to understand.
This was a difficult read for sure, but if you're familiar with Freud and basic Lacan and take it slowly, this will be a very useful thing to read. -
Zeer zeer zeer goeie inleiding! Begin hiermee als je Lacan wilt leren ontdekken
-
Very lucid explication of some basic Lacan concepts (mirror stage, signification, phallus, etc.) and their ambiguous relation to feminism (at least as of the late 80s...). The section on sexuality was particularly good, as well as the last chapter where she lays out Kristeva and Irigaray's relationship to Lacan.
She is particularly critical of Kristeva, naming her the "dutiful daughter" (in other words, Kristeva uncritically accepts too much of Lacan, rendering a truly feminine space inarticulable). She does seem to side with Irigaray, but I think Grosz sees Irigaray's relationship to Lacan as too ambivalent (ambivalence is in that medium between love and hate) rather than, as Grosz would prefer, indifferent. Grosz thinks the proper feminist response to (Lacanian) psychoanalysis is an ambivalence of affect (a simultaneous disavowal/affirmation that is non-linguistic, and thus non-psychotic) which squares up with something like a deconstructive reading of Lacan "in the margins".
In other words, passing through love (Kristeva or Ragland-Sullivan), hate (anti-psychoanalytic feminists such as, presumably, Millett, Freidan, or Firestone), and ambivalence (Irigaray and Cixous) ends up with an indifference, a kind of laugh that keeps the seduction at bay, being able to gather insights from Freudo-Lacanian psychoanalysis while realizing the problematic grounds such insights are dependent upon. -
best introduction to lacan
-
This is one of the very best books I’ve read on Freud or Lacan. It serves as an excellent introduction to both thinkers, with each chapter treating a different subject within psychoanalysis by focusing, first, on two contrary views of the subject that can be found in Freud’s work, and second, by showing how one of these lines of thinking on the subject is further pursued by Lacan. This structure allows one to get a sense of Lacan’s views in relation to Freud without obscuring the other tendencies within Freud’s thought.
I don’t know that I have ever read a book that is as generous to Freud and Lacan, and as grounded in their texts, while at the same time being wholly critical of the ways in which they elevate historically and geographically limited conceptions of gender, sexuality, and family life into a priori structures. One really gets a sense of the value of psychoanalysis and of its limits, at least in the forms that it has had up ‘til now.
The readings of Kristeva and Irigaray towards the end of the volume are an extra treat. -
While Grosz's recounting of the basics and the stakes of Lacanian psychoanalysis within a feminist framework is useful for readers of both Lacan and feminist theory. However, the author's decision to avoid engaging with Lacan's French severely hinders the uninitiated reader's comprehension of some of Lacan's key concepts and terms. While Grosz is happy to define Saussurean terminology, she never clarifies that a "want-to-be" is a rather clunky punning translation (apparently suggested by Lacan himself) of manque-à-être, or lack in being. Grosz plops down rather chunky block quotes of Lacan without bothering to do the work of reading them, and instead plows on ahead with her own analysis. This causes a bit of confusion as to when Grosz is reading Lacan and when she is offering a new idea or moving on to a different concept.
Finally, Grosz's investment in a feminism of difference is appreciated, but even as she claims to eschew a reductionist biologism, she reduces men and women (and there are *only* men and women for her, despite her debt to Irigaray) to bodies positioned in a strictly binary relation to each other. In following Irigaray (but while simplifying Irigaray's investment in the body as somehow safe from "biology"), Grosz unreflectingly reduces woman to an "autonomous" position as the complement to man. There are benefits to this kind of differential model, of course, but Grosz doesn't spend much time wondering about the utility of a model like Freud's where woman, as Lacan puts it, does not exist, and certainly not as an essential "other" to man. In rushing to save woman from both biology (as though biologism could not itself be subjected to deconstruction) and from the ambiguity of her relation to masculinity, Grosz reifies the feminine (and the female) as other than the masculine (and the male). You can read the transphobia of her later work to see what conclusions this line of thinking produced. -
This is an excellent primer for someone like me, who needs to grasp the gyst of Psychoanalysis but actually studies something else (in my case, Literature). Grosz presents concepts in a clear and concise manner, and the feminist critique makes us feel a little less suffocated by all those propositions of women and girls as male's otherness and less-than.
-
Lacan is supposed to be too difficult to slog through, so I was directed by a woman in a tango class I briefly attended to read Elizabeth Grosz's book. It's still difficult, but rewarding. The part on sexuality has the best explanation of the oedipal complex I've ever read. Not apologetic, like some defenses of Freud, not dismissive, like others. A very balanced, reasonable analysis of Freud's position and Lacan's enhancements of that position.
-
It's pretty good, definitely less Kristeva-friendly than Toril Moi, but if you are not okay with psychoanalysis/the theory of phallus as being anything other than patriarchal stuff, you probably don't need this intro and can go right on into Iriragary or other folks
-
She's really good, interesting - and just about as difficult as Lacan. But always challenging.
-
More an exposition of reactionary anti-feminist elements in (Lacan/Freud/Kristeva’s) theory
-
This book was recommended to me by my professor during our class's discussion of Lacanian psychoanalysis and since I found his ideas both intriguing and confusing I decided to give this book a try. Though it is not the easiest read, I thought the author did an excellent job of providing a thorough and fair overview of Lacan's ideas. This exploration takes up most of the book, with the section detailing some feminist interpretation and criticism of his work coming at the end. This chapter details the ways in which Lacan's ideas have been utilized in defense and criticism of his theories. All in all, I think this is an excellent introduction to Lacan and the problematic issues his ideas have raised concerning patriarchy and feminism.
-
A pretty clear, even-handed approach to a notoriously convoluted body of work. Basic familiarity with Freud, if not Lacan, is not assumed, though some of the more productive passages in this book would be lost on readers who don't have some prior reading of those authors. Worth reading for the discussion of Kristeva's and Irigaray's divergent readings of Lacan.
-
A very well written, profound introduction detaching itself successfully from the superficiality of the majority of introductory endeavors.
-
I read this book with two questions in mind. 1) Given Lacan's claim that "there is no sexual relation", what sort of love relations are possible between gendered minds and bodies? 2) Is there a feminist reading of Lacan that seeks to deconstruct gender entirely, and if so what would such a gender-deconstructed world look and feel like?
1) The part of the book that addressed my first question was Chapter 5: Sexual Relations, namely the section titled "Anaclisis, narcissism, and romantic love". Grosz draws on Freud's account of adult love relations to explain two poles of a spectrum that men and women tend to occupy. If both poles are occupied then a "satisfying partnership"(127) can be attained. This book is worth reading if only for Chapter 5. Grosz expertly explains Freud’s account of proper love relations among male and female-minded individuals. However, as insightful as this formula is, I was expecting a feminist deconstruction of it that unfortunately never came, and I was left with a very unsettling resonation with a disturbing Freudian theory. In any case, Grosz’s presentation of Freud’s formula was so insightful and damning that I will explain my relation to it below in a rather confessional way.
So, men tend to embody 'anaclitic love' (i.e. other-oriented love) and women tend to embody 'narcissistic love'. “The anaclitic lover directs all his ardour and passion to a woman whose unique identity, ‘personality’, beauty, are his avowed love objects.”(129). Grosz quickly flips the script to indicate how in fact the male anaclitic form of love is secretly narcissistic, "anaclisis is not so much based on a valorization of her unique charms and attributes as much as in his position as lover."(127) She goes on, "the [male] lover transfers narcissistic self-regard onto the love object and is thus able to love himself, as it were, in loving the other. While claiming to love the woman desperately, the anaclitic lover strives for a recognition of his own active position.”(127) The passages in this section hit me like a sledge hammer. I felt completely implicated in this anaclitic form of love. For years my father has instilled in me that one should ‘love without expectation of love in return.’ This lovely maxim was imparted to me early on and I have carried it and developed it into my own (polyamorous) form of love, which is similarly based on loving because I love loving, not because the other person loves (only) me back, not because I get a 'return on my investment'. When Grosz wrote about anaclitic love that, "it is the loving attitude itself that he desires. He desires to be in love, and to be active in his idealization of the other; his passion is to be out of control of his passion"(130) I was shook. My attachment to the ‘mature’ even ‘enlightened’ form of love that I have become so enamored with was revealed to me as narcissistic. The anaclitic form of love is not really directed towards one particular woman as a love object. The anaclitic lover is in love with the process of loving itself. So the 'return on investment' that I have been so quick to disavow actually comes back to me in the form of a narcissistic pride that I take in the act of loving. Grosz was also able to speak to how I took my father’s philosophy of love (which was highly monogamous), and turn it into a polyamorous form of love, “The anaclitic lover makes this kind of passionate commitment not once, to a rare, exceptional woman – as he professes – but to a large number of women with whom he forms a number of serial romantic liaisons” (131). This is because the anaclitic lover is not attached to one particular person, but the loving feeling that he maintains. I was left at the end of this passage with a number of unanswered questions and some foundational beliefs of mine examined from a clear and very troubling [Freudian] lens. My main question now is this: is it a problem that this ‘enlightened’ form of (polyamorous) love is secretly narcissistic? What other forms of love are there?
The section goes on to describe woman’s properly ‘narcissistic’ form of love, which I found highly troubling in a different way. Grosz writes that while men HAVE the phallus, women compensate for their lack of a phallus (i.e. castration) by attempting to BE the phallus (i.e. the object of desire) for men, “woman, in recognizing her castration, attempts to make her whole body take on the role of the object of (the other’s) desire. She strives to affirm her position as desirable for the other, as the phallus for the other.”(127). Grosz carries on, “the narcissistic woman is described [by Freud] as … bound up with the desire to be loved. What threatens her most is the loss of love. She becomes especially dependent on men who may withhold or withdraw love. The strength or degree of the other’s love for her is the measure of her own value or worth. Her aim is thus to catch, and keep, one or many lovers as a testimony of her value. (128) One of the reasons I found this passage interesting is because it outlines a feminine polyamorous position. Woman’s ‘narcissistic’ love depends on the desire and recognition from her male counterparts. The more male suiters she has, the more narcissistic love she receives. Grosz finishes her double reversal by explaining how woman’s narcissistic love is fundamentally other-directed and therefore anaclitic, “His desire is kept alive because he never truly has her. It enables her to maintain her apparent independence. She can feel confident insofar as she is wanted. Ironically, her (secondary) narcissism is fundamentally other-directed, based on the other’s evaluation of her. Her narcissistic position is in fact anaclitic!” (131).
I found this all very troubling for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the assignment of these (pretty grim) forms of love to each gender. Can we not all experience each of these forms of “love”? Yes, unfortunately I identified myself in both. Can Freud/Grosz really speak for woman (and men for that matter) in such a damning way? I don’t know. What I do know is that I was left with a sick feeling and a yearning to address my second question concerning the deconstruction of gender entirely.
2) The second question of mine was whether, as a good Lacanian, I should be striving to deconstruct gender entirely, was addressed in Grosz’s review of Julia Kristeva’s work in contradistinction to Luce Irigaray’s work. Each other these feminist thinkers with their own reading of Lacan. Kristeva sees that the formation of gender comes from the infantile orientation to the phallus, and is thus inexorably father-oriented and patriarchal. “For [Kristeva], feminism should aim at the annihilation of all identity, especially sexual identity. … The very dichotomy man/woman as an opposition between two rival entities may be understood as belonging to meta-physics. What can identity or even sexual identity mean in a new theoretical and scientific space where the very notion of identity is challenged … what I mean is … the demassification of the problematic of difference.” (167). Gender, for Kristeva, has dubious beginnings, produces dubious effects, and should be overcome.
Irigaray on the other hand, seeks to think apart from the phallocentric organization of life, language and gender. She seeks to uncover a position in which the feminine can stand on her own as not simply not-male, but as female. Not -A, but B.
Given the disturbing formulation of masculine and feminine ‘anaclitic’ and ‘narcissistic’ so-called “love” outlined above, I cannot help but be drawn towards Kristeva’s position of deconstructing gender entirely. What new forms of love would be possible amongst de-gendered subjects?
