Lacan vs Cixous

“The Mirror State…” is essentially Lacan’s reinterpretation of Freud’s theories. Basically, Lacan proposes that infants pass through a stage at an early point in their lives which gives rise to their mental representation of an “I.” This stage, referred to as “The Mirror State” occurs in infancy when our image is reflected in a mirror, prompting a greater level of self-understanding. The infant immediately identified with the image, which Lacan likes to call a “gestalt,” or figure from which a series of disparate elements or parts combine to form a greater significance. Acting as the infants developing perceptions of self, the gestalt should not be viewed as final representation of the infant’s existing state but instead an “imago” or “Ideal-I” it will continually strive to create for the rest of their life. Lacan, however, believes the identification with the Ideal-I is never possible, as the child will never be able to conform to the imago to a complete extent. Perhaps this unattainability of the self-concept projected in the Mirror Stage is what leads to disappointments from reaching our anticipated potential later in life. Our shortcoming in fulfilling our projected “Ideal-I” reveal an important point Lacan’s theory – that the relationship between the child and image does not immediately imply a unity or agreement between the two. Instead, the “I” formed in the mirror stage works to guide the infant formation of self in the right direction, which is why Lacan refers to its “orthopedic” function. The initial contrast the child experiences with his/her fragmented self and the wholeness of the image is taken as a threat. The resolution becomes the infant’s attempt to empathize with the image. In this sense, the “Ideal-I” described in the mirror stage is the foundation of our egos, which mediate the interaction between child’s psyche and external world. In other words, the Ego is formed as a result of a conflict between the child’s supposed visual manifestation in the mirror and his/her emotional experience in reality.

In “The Signification of the Phallus,” Lacan designates the phallus as a divine symbol of power. Of course, he is referring to the symbolic implications of the phallus representing male power as opposed to the literal sense of word as an organ. He starts this essay by outlining the castration complex, a stage in a child’s psychosexual development. In this stage, the children identify their mother’s desire and worship of the phallus. A child will therefore attempt to fulfill her mother’s desire and act as a phallic object for the mother. This desire to satisfy the mother continues until the father intervenes and the child’s aspirations are thwarted and the child accepts castration, which marks the resolution of the Oedipal complex. Lacan goes on to say that the phallus is the signifier of the desire of the Other (woman). According to Lacan, the phallus endows men with more than just an anatomical difference, but a set of privileges that women cannot enjoy. Whereas for men the phallus represents an intrinsic possession of power, for women the phallus represents an absence of something. Without this essential piece their lives are rendered incomplete. He suggests that women require men in order to fulfill their phallic desires, further immortalizing man as the dominant half of the whole in a relationship. As women/the Other feel incomplete and inferior without the status bequeathed by a phallus, Lacan’s theory reinforces the concept of Penis Envy in Freudian psychoanalysis. Penis envy, or the female child’s desire for a penis and the power it represents leads to a girl’s sexual desire for her father, who has a penis (this sequence in psychosexual development is also known as the Electra complex). Lacan makes sure to address homosexual relationships in his essay as well. Male homosexual relationships are not driven by the same desire due to the lack of phallus for women/the Other in heterosexual relationships. Staying true to his theory, Lacan claims that there is an absence of satisfaction in lesbian relationships for there is no party to fulfill phallic desires. This theory, through incredibly androcentric and sexist, emphasizes Lacan’s adamant belief in the dependence on a phallic symbol in a relationship.

Freudian psychoanalysis has always been a subject of feminist debate for it’s undeniable androcentrism. Lacan’s essays are no different as they too perpetuate this male centered arguments and ideas. Helene Cixous revises Lacan’s theories by dismissing their oppressive attitude towards defining women in relation to men. In “The Lack of the Medusa,” Cixous uses her feminist perspective to debunk the castration complex. Cixous rejects the notion that women are defined by their phallic desires an encourages the emergence of a “New Woman” that “writes herself.” Women, through the power of language, speech, and writing are able to strive towards their Ideal-I without the disturbance of masculine oppression. For Cixous, language is the most effective source of empowerment for a feminine self-creation. This theory, though perhaps too idealistic, makes room for women to realize their significance, something they are not entitled to in Lacan’s theory with their lack of phallus (and consequently, power). Through the desire and willingness to write, women can embrace their lack of phallus and distinction from men rather than be burdened for it: women can break out and be emancipated from their male-dominated positions in society. In addition, Cixous refutes Lacan’s view that lesbian or female-female relationships are innately lacking in satisfaction by praising their merits for empowerment. Speaking out against the inherent masculine bias in psychoanalytic theory, Cixous advocates for the liberation of women through the use of language, something a lack of phallus cannot repress.

Lacan and Cixous present directly opposing views – one based on fundamental psychoanalytic theory pioneered by Freud and another based on feminist enfranchisement. Personally, I’m more inclined to side with Cixous’ ideas – not only because psychoanalysis and stages of psychosexual development are now considered outdated and without scientific verification but simply because I agree that women and their identities should not be defined solely in accordance with their phallic counterparts in men.