English 5522 - Literary Theory and Criticism
Why Go Only Halfway With Freud?
It is difficult for me to find relevant substance for literature today in Cixous, especially because of her insistence on using Freudian terminology to illustrate what she is selling. I appreciate all that the feminists have accomplished in literature. However, I don't know that Cixous does more than confuse spirit with gender.
Much of Freud's work is antiquated to the point that I almost feel embarrassment toward the philosopher who leans too heavily upon him. Personally, I've never had erotic feelings toward my mother and have never feared castration. I digress. I will explore some of what I found interesting in Cixous.
She speaks of male and female sexuality as a language or "code." This, to her, is foolishness. Femininity is "infinite and mobile complexity" (2049). Wow. But what about masculinity? It seems that she sees masculinity's aim for social success as reason to believe it has limits. This is why women must get the word out about themselves! Writing like a male is suicide. By writing like a woman, "woman will return to the body which has been more than confiscated from her" (2043). But again, what about men? Have we always been free to express ourselves? Or have we, too, been held captive by hyper-morality or backward thinking? Thank you, Walt Whitman for showing the man that he can celebrate his body. Cixous acts as though men are social masterbaters, free to parade around the city with mighty phalluses in hand. Women, on the other hand, must act in secret in order to "attenuate the tension" (2041).
Cixous also makes mention that men have caused women to hate each other. Gosh, I wish she would have elaborated upon that concept with some qualification. And what is this "infamous logic of antilove" she talks about (2042)?
Nevertheless, at least one brainless male poet, a traitor of sorts, let something of woman slip. This was a detriment to the phallocentric system. A failure. Now we must contend with "escapees"-women writers writing their Self (2043). It is possible that in speaking so sarcastically, I mean Cixous's meaning. I should explore this idea of writing the self.
She believes that when woman writes her self, her "naphna will spread" (2043). Does she mean the aspect of femininity that is characteristically emotive? Explosive (i.e., as her reference to masterbation)? If this is so, I agree. Woman should write self, that is, write truth. In writing male, she denies herself of the potential for writing what is real.
A final question might bring me back to my initial comments on Freud. Why is Cixous willing to speak in terms of phallus, but refuses to speak in terms of yonic symbolism? Is this by accident? Or is she further stressing her point that we cannot contain femininity within Saussure's signifiers? Why not? Can the vagina not potentially carry as much weight as the penis? Women have the capacity to swallow this male organ of power. Why should this tool not be a symbol to represent that which is capable of overpowering 'A'? The vagina will no longer be known as 'not-A', but will demand to be referenced as 'B'? In turn, the penis, nothing more than a grotesque, abnormally swollen clitoris, will be 'not-B'.