Lacan and Cixous… Oh My!

Jacques Lacan’s two essays, “The Signification of the Phallus” and “The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function,” contributed much to psychoanalytic theory. In “The Mirror Stage…,” Lacan argues that a beginning stage that occurs in infants, the mirror stage, is used by individuals to create self-identification. As infants, when we look in the mirror, we understand ourselves – this identification occurs in a stage before language ever exists. This mirror stage is used, or attempts, to connect an individual and reality. It is through seeing one’s own image in a mirror that representation of a divided self as an “I” formed. The image is a gestalt, which in psychology is a sort of pattern or figure, from which the rest of their “self” will emerge. It’s not merely a reflection of themselves at the current time, but rather something more significant in that it is the image they will lust to be for the rest of their lives – this is because it is the first identification of the infant with an image and is the foundation for the rest of the subsequent images to come. This image is referred to as the “imago,” and is an external image separated from the infant. As it is separate from the infant when they look in the mirror, there is a connection between the image through the infant’s identification with it. The imago is referred to as the “Ideal-I,” an image that the individual will pursue for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, it is impossible to ever completely embody this perfect image, as we as humans are imperfect beings by creation. It’s ironic that in the mirror stage we see our perfect selves, but then we spend the rest of our lives never truly achieving this form. :( I definitely agree with Lacan, though, because as children we live a carefree life of happiness that never truly is achieved in adulthood. The problems associated with the world weigh down upon us now in a way they never did in childhood. I would go as far as to say that our quest to obtain that perfect Ideal-I is really a quest to head back to infancy and it’s raw energy and life. This mirror stage is used to prove the existence of an ego that relies on other things, not necessarily our “selves.” These other things are considered “others,” and in the mirror stage the “other” is the “Ideal-I,” and all of the egos actions are in an effort to achieve that Ideal-I, a supposed perfect self!

Lacan’s other essay, “The Signification of the Phallus,” argues that the phallus is the transcendental signifier, and a method of accessing what is the symbolic (or language). There is, however, a different between being and having a phallus – being male alone does not necessarily guarantee the symbolic power of the phallus. We use it to attempt to approach the Real as it is similar to the image of power evoked from physical phallus; however, the two are not related in terms of the male organ. Lacan states that men are in possession of the phallus; thus, they draw the love and attention of those without the phallus (namely, women). The phallus represents the signified – in this case, desire is brought forth through language. Language is the key symbol. The desire creates a gab, which is only fulfilled through using the phallus to take attention away from the Other (which is the object itself that the man or the subject desires). So the phallus is the signifier of the desire of the Other. And women find this signifier of desire in the male. This reminds me a Derrida in that the man requires the woman and the woman requires the man in order to address each other’s desires – it continues in a cyclical way forever. It is the man, however, that is able to harness the power of the phallus and thus become their true “self.” As the mother/women desire the phallus, they must lack it. The phallus thus represents the absence of something. As women/the Other lack the phallus, they are incomplete, and are involved in this exchange and attempt to gain the power found through the phallus. This lack relates to Lacan’s idea of the Oedipal complex, which has to do with the lack of the phallus and thus the need to desire it, and how the various members attempting to gain the phallus impact the family.

But wait, it gets better! You’re probably wondering: where do homosexuals play into this dynamic? What if there isn’t a woman involved, but rather two men, or vise versa?! Never fear, Lacan is here. It is believed that male homosexual relationships have penises and phalluses, and thus not the same desire through a lack of a phallus that the women or “Other” have. Without a phallus, the women in lesbian homosexual relationships encounter disappointment in that neither of them can satisfy the desire of the other. A lack of phallus equals a lack of desire that equals a lack of love between the two. In a way, perhaps Lacan is stating that male homosexuality is considered more satisfying than female homosexuality. In my opinion, this is incredibly sexist, although not to the extent of Freud. Lacan places too large a role on the phallus and its absence in women, which creates a separation between the two and subjugates women to a position of submissiveness because they require men more than men require women.

Helene Cixious, however, would disagree with Lacan. Cixious, whose theory states that it is only through writing that women are able to escape their oppressed condition, believes that it is within the bounds of language that reality can be achieved. It is language itself that has the ability to empower an otherwise subjugated people – women. Individuals can gain their own significance through the power of language, not through the phallus (after all, they don’t have one!). It is up to women to reclaim their rights through writing, and Cixious does not believe that the existence of a phallus should play an innate role in defining a place for women. Thus, she revises Lacan in that it is through a desire and need to write, rather than for the phallus, that women can gain power and escape from their lowly position. They need to break out of the continuous cycle of needing men. Women are also unique from men, but this uniqueness does not emerge because of how women have always been under the control of men. The conflict that Lacan describes in the goal of harnessing the phallus is detrimental, Cixious would argue. It stops progress rather than satisfies desire. They use their body and its movements to portray their thoughts and desires – there is no object that signifies them like a phallus, no lack. Their desire comes from wanting to be whole with a partner, rather than having a sort of lack or “penis/phallus envy.” Cixious also believes that it is the relationship between one woman and the other woman that is beneficial to both, rather than detrimental – this parallels Lacan’s claim that homosexual female relationships are unsatisfying. In addition to refuting “The Signification of the Phallus,” Cixious also refutes “The Mirror Stage…” in that she does not believe in an eternal image of a perfect self that one must spend the rest of their life struggling to achieve. Women have their own signifier, similar to the phallus, which is seen when they speak. They do not have an individual lust to achieve perfection, but rather they are connected to each other in the fact that they are all women. They don’t lack because they can write, and they have each other. As we can see through her energetic writing, Cixious embodies the “New Woman.” Martin Luther King, Jr. would be proud that she is following in his idea that: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” She most certainly is speaking out against the psychoanalytic oppression.