Symptom and Evidence: Feminism as a Form of Psychoanalysis
https://doi.org/10.58186/2782-3660-2022-2-5-51-90
Abstract
For about sixty years, feminism has been in a complicated relationship with psychoanalysis. On the one hand, psychoanalysis deals with topics important to feminism, and many of its ideas could be rethought. On the other hand, the substantive contradictions between feminism and psychoanalysis hinder their productive collaboration. This article proposes that the problems faced by the project of feminist psychoanalysis arise not so much from the differences as from the similarities between these two discourses. The feminist view is based on the basic foundations of psychoanalysis. The structure of society in feminism is understood in the same fashion as the psychoanalytic unconscious. Feminist discourse aims to “capture” a symptom and offer it up for interpretation. At the same time, the interpretive apparatus of feminism differs from psychoanalytic theory for it is based on an internally coherent system of prescriptions. So long as the symptom is successfully interpreted, political involvement is something that feminism has hopes to achieve. Thus individual cases are taken as analogous to the “conscious” in psychoanalysis and the system of prescriptives the “unconscious”. In such a way a “collective” political subject can be formed. Since psychoanalysis and feminism find the causes of the symptom in different areas that do not intersect they come into conflict.
The introduction briefly describes the context of the study. The first section introduces the concepts of description and prescription and analyses feminism’s theoretical foundations. The author comes to the conclusion that the foundations of feminism could be thought of as a system of prescriptives. The second section examines the structures that feminism and psychoanalysis share and how they come into conflict. In the third section, feminism is compared with queer theory, and the differences between the two are used to bring together the idea of a collective political subject. In conclusion, the main strategies for strengthening feminist discourse are considered. Particular emphasis is given to the project of feminist epistemology. The materials used in the article are academic and journalistic articles written by feminists, blog posts and comments from discussion platforms, and a single public interview.
About the Author
E. Vivich
National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE); A. V. Poletaev Institute for Humanitarian Historical and Theoretical Research (IGITI)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena Vivich
Moscow
References
1. Braidotti R. Izobrazheniya tela i pornografiya reprezentatsii [Body-Images and the Pornography of Representation]. Logos. Filosofsko-literaturnyi zhurnal [Logos. Philosophical and Literary Journal], 2022, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 104–122.
2. Dahl N. O. A Prognosis for Universal Prescriptivism. Philosophical Studies, 1986, vol. 51, pp. 383–424.
3. Denisova K., Krasilnikova A., Uzarashvili L. Prekratit’ beg po krugu: feministskie avtorki i perevodchitsy protiv androtsentrizma [Stop Running In Circles: Feminist Authors and Translators Against Androcentrism]. Logos. Filosofsko-literaturnyi zhurnal [Logos. Philosophical and Literary Journal], 2022, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 1–12.
4. Fem Unity. URL: http://vk.com/club77503163.
5. Feminizm Shelter [Feminism Shelter]. URL: http://vk.com/feminizmshelter.
6. Feminizm: naglyadno [Feminism: Visually]. URL: http://vk.com/feminism_visually.
7. Ferrando F. Feministskaya genealogiya estetiki postchelovecheskogo v vizual’nykh iskusstvakh [A Feminist Genealogy of Posthuman Aesthetics in the Visual Arts]. Logos. Filosofsko-literaturnyi zhurnal [Logos. Philosophical and Literary Journal], 2022, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 123–161.
8. Gerchikov D., Roydman A. Neprimirimost’ i obmen znaniem mezhdu psikhoanalizom i feminizmom [The Irreconcilability and Sharing of Knowledge between Psychoanalysis and Feminism]. Stasis, 2022, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 198–226.
9. Gerdes K. Performativity. TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 2014, vol. 1, no. 1–2, pp. 148–150.
10. Gray F. Jung, Irigaray, Individuation. Philosophy, Analytical Psychology, and the Question of the Feminine, New York, Routledge, 2008.
11. Haraway D. Situativnye znaniya: vopros o nauke v feminizme i preimushchestvo chastichnoi perspektivy [Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective]. Logos. Filosofskoliteraturnyi zhurnal [Logos. Philosophical and Literary Journal], 2022, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 238–271.
12. Hare R. M. The Language of Morals, London, Oxford University Press, 1972.
13. Jung C. G. Arkhetipy i kollektivnoe bessoznatel’noe [Archetypes and the Collective Unconscious], Moscow, AST, 2019.
14. Kak otkazyvat’? Sovety psikhologa: kak nauchit’sya govorit’ “net” [How to Learn to Say No? Advice From a Psychologist]. Khoroshii psikholog [Good Psychologist]. URL: http://psikholog-khoroshii.rf/kak-govorit’-net/.
15. Kogda muzhchine prikhoditsya… [When a Man Have to…]. Svoboda byt’ soboi (SBS) [Liberty of Being Oneself (LBO)]. URL: http://vk.com/wall-127038608_160012?hash=146e382a81afe1220b.
16. Lacan J. Seminary. Kniga 1. Raboty Freida po tekhnike psikhoanaliza [Le séminaire. Livre 1. Les écrits techniques de Freud], Moscow, Gnozis, Logos, 2009.
17. Luepnitz D. Beyond the phallus: Lacan and feminism. The Cambridge Companion to Lacan (ed. J.-M. Rabate), New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 221–237.
18. Marine S. B., Lewis R. “I’m in This for Real”: Revisiting Young Women’s Feminist Becoming. Women’s Studies International Forum, 2013, vol. 47, pp. 11–22.
19. Mitchell J. Feminism and Psychoanalysis at the Millenium. Women: a cultural review, 1999, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 185–191.
20. Rudy K. Queer Theory and Feminism. Women’s Studies: An inter-disciplinary journal, 2000, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 195–216.
21. Sen A. K. The Nature and Classes of Prescriptive Judgments. The Philosophical Quarterly, 1967, vol. 17, no. 66, pp. 42–62.
22. Soler C. The paradoxes of the symptom in psychoanalysis. The Cambridge Companion to Lacan (ed. J.-M. Rabate), New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 85–102.
23. Srinivasan A. What should feminist theory be? Radical Philosophy, 2022, no. 202, pp. 48–61. URL: http://radicalphilosophy.com/interview/what-should-feminist-theory-be.
24. Svoboda Byt’ Soboi (SBS) [Liberty of Being Oneself (LBO)]. URL: http://vk.com/womens_freedom.
25. Ty tak chuvstvitel’na. Tak emotsional’na… [You’re So Sensitive. So Emotional…]. FemUnity. URL: http://vk.com/wall-77503163_288727.
26. Zhenshchina ne dolzhna govorit’ “net”: kak obshchestvo zapreshchaet tebe otkazyvat’ [A Woman Should Not Say No: How Society Forbids You to Say No]. Feminizm: naglyadno [Feminism: Visually]. URL: http://vk.com/@feminism_visually-zhenschina-ne-dolzhna-govorit-net-kak-obschestvo-zapreschaet.
27. Zherebkina I. Roman s isteriei: ot feministskogo postlakanovskogo psikhoanaliza k novym issledovaniyam isterii [An Affair with Hysteria: From Feminist Post-Lacanian Psychoanalysis to New Studies of Hysteria]. Stasis, 2022, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 14–38.
Review
For citations:
Vivich E. Symptom and Evidence: Feminism as a Form of Psychoanalysis. Versus. 2022;2(5):51-90. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.58186/2782-3660-2022-2-5-51-90
Views:
284
Email this article 