Questions Concerning the Phallus (What? What did I say?)

Eric Notaro

ENGL 601

Eric Heyne

February, 20, 2012

Bressler Chapters 6 and 12: Response

I found the pairing of these chapters to be particularly thought provoking. I found myself wondering how Freudian explanations of sexuality, and the subsequent literary theory approaches that branched off from it, might be seen in the light of a society that is now more accepting to homosexuality and a more open spectrum of sexuality and gender identity. What little I knew about Lacan prior to the reading was always complicated by the fact that the theory that surrounds him is a symbol that arise from the Phallus (my god, too easy.) I felt it odd that he utilized the phallus as a symbol of power and dominance. I thought his theories, while part of the overall discourse in theory, were probably adapted or reimagined to suit a less male-centric image. Because of this, I was surprised to see Bressler presenting Lacan as a figure who “rescued” Freud from his male-dominant perspective. Perhaps this merely comes from a misreading of the text or a lack of a wider and more sophisticated knowledge of his theory, but it seems to me like he would be someone that theorists more centered on gender and sexuality would avoid because of that central idea of the phallus as a dominant ideal. I'll be entering class with a number of questions related to this idea: have there been methods reconciling Lacan's ideas with a more gender-inclusive theory? Am I perhaps putting too much emphasis on the phallus (despite the fact I only have a cheap mid-sized sedan—I'll stop now) as a literal image and not taking something crucial and perhaps more inclusive into account? Has he been criticized for this at all? The criticism against psychoanalysis, at least what was summarized in the chapter, seems targeted squarely at Freud and less so at his successors. I'd be curious to see if there is any aimed at Lacan and his phallus.

To incorporate Derrida into this discussion, it seems as though Lacan's utilization of a male symbol suggests a huge binary. Even if his use of the symbol is less about directly expressing that binary, it seems like it draws on distinct gender symbolism for it to be effective. Further, doesn't the breakdown of binaries imperil any attempt to make a clear and concrete distinction between conscious and subconscious? Perhaps I'm making an assumption that these two theories are supposed to work in tandem with one another rather than being distinct schools of thought that may not agree on particulars. Still, psychoanalysis is supposed to be versatile enough to use along other literary theories since it lacks a particular aesthetic. Yet here's a problem: to try and utilize a Freudian/Neo-Freudian interpretation of a text on one hand and a Poststructuralist based theory in the other creates a circular problem. On one hand, you are arguing from distinct classifications of the mind [consciousness/subconsciousness; the tripartite of id, ego and superego]; with the other, you are utilizing theories that require neat and distinct classifications to melt away into more nuanced qualities. Doesn't that create an epistemological problem? Your approach literally requires there both a binary between subconscious and conscious to exist and yet simultaneously requires binaries to conveniently disappear when tackling the concerns of theory that relies on Poststructuralism. I hope I'm articulating my concern well enough here and not babbling incoherently or basing my entire concern on a misunderstanding that could be answered with a sentence fragment.

To close on slightly less abstract concerns, I found it interesting that the criticism section for Queer theory seemed to be largely comprised of those that took issue with homosexuality in of itself—at least that's how it came across. I imagine more conservative critics (both academically and/or politically) might take issue with an emphasis on contemporary understanding of gender and sexual identity as something to insert into literature without perceived merit. In the same way that the young and inexperienced Freudian sees sex everywhere, might a young and inexperience Queer theorist see a homosexual implication everywhere they look? Just as sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, sometimes a buddy cop film really is just meant to be two buddies who happen to be cops. Of course, just as with any literary movement, it seems like new forms of criticism arise as a way to reflect a new understanding of the world, be it scientific or cultural.

- Eric Notaro