by Conor Jedam
In this paper, I provide an overview of Hélène Cixous’ work regarding écriture féminine and women’s libidinal difference. Following that, I discuss the potential risks in The Laugh of the Medusa and interrogate them in order to discern how the work informs the roles of discourse and difference. Cixous’ description of masculine and feminine libidinal economies as well as her celebration of women’s libidinal difference have been subject to criticism from figures within feminist philosophy, and as such, we must approach Cixous’ project carefully and thoughtfully. Firstly, I evaluate the criticisms from feminists who argue that her work appeals to a feminine essence. Then, I investigate the concern that Cixous’ project operates within the dominant patriarchal discourse, as suggested by its supposed reliance on oppositional thought. Ultimately, I come to an understanding of the strength of écriture féminine as a strategy for the construction of a new symbolic while raising concern about its limitations. In particular, I note that écriture féminine is not universally accessible and, by relying on the combination of the masculine and feminine, risks the exclusion of subjects who exist outside these terms.
Cixous’ project in The Laugh of the Medusa, is largely to advocate for écriture féminine, or women’s writing, as a method for expressing the feminine, thereby posing a challenge to the monosexual phallic economy.[i] She sees that this masculine libidinal economy has dominated all discourses, to the detriment of the values and expression of the feminine libidinal economy.[ii] Furthermore, due to the repression of the feminine, woman has been trapped within the masculine symbolic and associated with concepts like the unexplorable dark continent, the abyss and Medusa.[iii] These two kinds of logic, the feminine and masculine libidinal economies, are central to Cixous’ work, so I will attempt to describe them here charitably.
Cixous associates the masculine libidinal economy with concepts like theory, order and reason, as well as restraint and limitation.[iv] As such, the masculine libidinal economy is characterised by its reverence towards the law, or the symbolic.[v] So, masculine subjects are granted the possibility of success within the social sphere as long as they uphold the values of the masculine libidinal economy.[vi] This entails the repression of sensuous embodiment and passion, because of their association with generous giving without the expectation of return.[vii] Moreover, the masculine libidinal economy is characterised by a sense of indebtedness, particularly to the mother, whose generosity provides a connection to pre-symbolic intersubjective relations.[viii] This gives rise to a perpetual sense of anxiety about incurring loss.[ix] So, the masculine libidinal economy is driven by ongoing exchange for the sake of accumulation.[x] In this way, masculine subjects are engaged in the project of quelling their fear of indebtedness by ensuring they grow their personal pool of social, political and cultural assets. They would rather have others indebted to them, than be in a position where they owe. This is in order to achieve two things. Firstly, an independence from others, and secondly, a dominant position over others. This imbues intersubjective relations with a degree of conflict. In contrast, the feminine libidinal economy is characterised by generosity.
For Cixous, the feminine libidinal economy is associated with notions of disorder, abundance and generosity.[xi] Cixous thinks feminine subjects maintain a connection to pre-symbolic notions of sensuous embodiment, desire and passion.[xii] Feminine subjects are not troubled by indebtedness and do not engage in an exchange economy. Rather, giving is divorced from an expectation to receive.[xiii] The feminine libidinal economy is guided by a loving and giving desire and can also be associated with the nurturing quality of the mother who cares for the child without expecting a return on investment.[xiv] Hence, it is subversive and irreverent to the law, and reveals the possibility of relations outside the existing symbolic.[xv] Additionally, it is not an economy which represses that other than itself, and its expression does not entail a reversal of dominance. Importantly, for Cixous, these two economies do not necessarily align with each individual subject’s gender. Rather, under patriarchy, women are more likely to possess the traits of the feminine libidinal economy, while men are likely to align with those of the masculine libidinal economy.[xvi] Next, I describe the roles Cixous gives to écriture féminine.
The task of écriture féminine is to carve a place for women in the symbolic, thereby constructing a new symbolic.[xvii] It functions both to express and celebrate that which has been historically repressed by the patriarchal symbolic, as well as manifest new ways of understanding relations to others. It is a writing which embraces the feminine libidinal economy, and as such, is a writing that involves embodiment. Cixous sees language as a bodily function, and therefore an apt avenue through which to subvert masculine bodily repression.[xviii] While the task is to construct a symbolic which includes the expression of the feminine, écriture féminine is not necessarily carried out exclusively by women, and Cixous points to examples written by men.[xix]
In constructing a new symbolic, écriture féminine also must deconstruct the patriarchal mythology which has restricted women to the monstrous other.[xx] Cixous argues that the absurdity of these notions, which express patriarchal fear, will be exposed through écriture féminine. This allows for a rejection of the structures of repression upheld by the masculine libidinal economy. Through écriture féminine we can see that woman is not Freud’s dark continent, nor is the Medusa really a threatening and vile monster. When we see Medusa as she is, “[s]he’s beautiful and she’s laughing.”[xxi] Importantly though, Cixous is not working to instate the feminine as the dominant force in a new monosexual economy, but rather advocating for a new symbolic that is characterised by bisexuality.
Unlike the patriarchal symbolic, which is monosexual, Cixous’ new symbolic is bisexual, in the sense that through écriture féminine it celebrates women’s libidinal difference alongside masculinity.[xxii] This writing exists in the space between the feminine and the masculine and is to be used by both kinds of subjects. In this way, Cixous is offering an alternative to the sexual indifference of monosexual phallocentrism. This alternative is bisexual by virtue of its recognition and celebration of sexual difference, which she distinguishes from opposition.[xxiii] This recognition and acceptance of the other also serves the function of dissolving the struggle that the masculine law of exchange sets up in intersubjective relations. In other words, écriture féminine can express relations characterised by generosity which are not troubled by a fear of loss, or the anxiety incurred by a sense of indebtedness. So, this goes beyond women’s liberation. Cixous contends that while it is the case that due to historical and cultural circumstances, women will gain greater benefit from this bisexuality, the monosexual order has, in fact, also worked against men by instilling them with a fear of castration.[xxiv] Those who can express through écriture féminine, predominantly women through their connection to body, have the ability to sow disorder and bring an end to what Cixous terms the, “Phallic period.”[xxv] While the picture that Cixous paints is very compelling, some feminists have taken issue with her appeal to femininity.
Femininity plays a central role in The Laugh of the Medusa, and there are certain passages of the text which appear to suggest a feminine essence. There is a tension brought about by Cixous’ enthusiasm for particular feminine characteristics alongside a multitudinous, unbounded, yet to be defined conception of the feminine. At once she celebrates women’s connections to embodiment, maternity and care as well as women’s “infinite richness” and “inexhaustible” imaginary. [xxvi] She appeals to feminine traits while also holding that femininity is yet to be defined and resists definition. It can be unclear whether she is in favour of reclaiming the Medusa as a feminine symbol or destroying the system which produced her. While these tensions seem to indicate an inconsistency in Cixous’ thought, they can be reconciled when we understand her project as a strategy for the construction of a new symbolic.
When Cixous states “[i]n women there is always more or less of the mother who makes everything all right, who nourishes,”[xxvii] and claims that there is a “first music from the first voice of love which is alive in every woman,”[xxviii] it certainly seems like she is listing and rejoicing in essential qualities. However, if we take The Laugh of the Medusa as a cultural critique, as I think we ought to, we can see that what Cixous is describing is not a feminine essence. If Cixous’ project was actually appealing to essences, these features would need to exist prior to culture, and for this reason, I think it is unfair to charge her with essentialism. Instead, she is describing the features of a cultural and social context which has been historically dominated by the monosexual phallic economy. In other words, it is not that connection to embodiment, maternity and care are essential features of womanhood, but rather that culture has inscribed certain subjects with these associations and described these subjects as ‘feminine’ and ‘woman.’ This cultural context involves the coding of men as masculine and women as feminine. However, Cixous sees that these terms need not be synonymous. As Susan C. Jarratt argues, Cixous “envisions a possible future in which difference is not tied ontologically to sex,” and as such, her project with écriture féminine is not essentialist but strategic. [xxix] This does create a new problem for Cixous, in that her project seems to operate within culture, which is to say that it operates within the patriarchal order. Some critics take issue with this and fear that Cixous’ appeal to femininity and her project of écriture féminine are “bound up in the very system they claim to undermine.”[xxx] In the final section, I investigate this concern.
For some critics, Cixous’ apparent celebration of difference is concerning insofar as it indicates an oppositional system like those apparent in the reigning monosexual phallic economy.[xxxi] These oppositions, such as culture/nature, mind/body, reason/passion and so on, are products of this culture. So, to celebrate women’s libidinal difference in opposition to men’s equivalent is to participate in the patriarchal order that Cixous is attempting to disrupt.[xxxii] For this reason, Ann Rosalind Jones argues that “what we need to do is to move outside that male-centred binary logic altogether.”[xxxiii] I agree with Jones in this regard, but I also see that ultimately Cixous’ project is interested in the same goal, albeit through a route which involves, at least initially, some participation in patriarchal ideas.
It is vital to understand that what Cixous is describing is a strategy, as Jarratt suggests, for the eventual installation of a bisexual order in place of the current monosexual one.[xxxiv] Cixous diagnoses the Phallic period and provides a description for how to challenge it through écriture féminine. As a useful strategy, it is necessary that Cixous’ project operates within patriarchy in order to disrupt it. We can understand those who practice écriture féminine as secret agents within patriarchy who bring down the structure from the inside. They do so by expressing irreverence for the law which maintains it. It is not the case that Cixous is advocating for the celebration of women’s libidinal difference as an end, but rather as a means to begin the explosion of the old symbolic. Expression of difference is merely a necessary tool for the demolition of a monosexual economy which only recognises man. As I understand Cixous, once we arrive at the new symbolic, a recognition of sexual difference will not be necessary. Sex can become divorced from one’s status among others. While we should be cautious of écriture féminine as a strategy which adopts elements of patriarchy, I do not feel that this is a sufficient reason to discount Cixous’ project entirely, as ultimately, she is interested in moving beyond oppositional systems, at least with regard to sex and gender. However, we should still be critical of any strategies which claim to be able to undertake such immense and crucial work.
Despite my relative lack of concern regarding the objections discussed above, Cixous’ project still contains problematic elements. Firstly, écriture féminine is not a strategy that is universally accessible and so any progress which is made risks leaving others behind. This is particularly relevant with regard to subjects who experience multiple kinds of oppression. Secondly, I am sceptical of Cixous’ bisexual writing. As a strategy which seeks to combine elements of the masculine and feminine, it seems to advocate for both together, rather than all. In this sense, it runs the risk of excluding and silencing those who exist outside these binary terms.
In The Laugh of the Medusa, Cixous describes how the masculine libidinal economy dominates discourse and represses the feminine libidinal economy in order to maintain monosexual phallocentrism. Through écriture féminine, she suggests that subjects can express and celebrate the repressed feminine, thereby challenging the symbolic law through irreverence. While some critics see that Cixous is appealing to feminine essence, I instead see that she is merely appealing to femininity as it is constructed by patriarchal culture and society. While this entails that she is working within this culture in order to carry out its destruction, this is not reason to discount écriture féminine. Instead, I see that Cixous is committed to a project which must express the feminine and celebrate women’s libidinal difference in order to construct a new symbolic which moves beyond oppositional structures of sex and gender. While it is evident that Cixous’ work does entail risks which must be acknowledged and evaluated, her project provokes critical reflection on our understanding of patriarchy as entrenched in discourse, as well as the role of difference.
Conor is currently an undergraduate student completing a Bachelor of Arts with an extended major in Philosophy and minor in Gender Studies at the University of Queensland. His academic interests include feminist philosophy, environmental philosophy and aesthetics. In his spare time, he can be found enjoying live music.
ENDNOTES
[i] Susan Sellers, Hélène Cixous: Authorship, Autobiography and Love (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996), 5.
[ii] Hélène Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” Signs 1, no. 4 (Summer 1976): 879. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173239.
[iii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 884-885.
[iv] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 891.
[v] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 891.
[vi] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 886.
[vii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 893.
[viii] Sellers, Hélène Cixous, 8.
[ix] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 885.
[x] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 888.
[xi] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 884; Anu Aneja, “The Medusa’s Slip: Hélène Cixous and the Underpinnings of Écriture Feminine,” Lit: Literature Interpretation Theory 4: 17-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10436929208580093.
[xii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 876.
[xiii] Aneja, “The Medusa’s slip,” 18.
[xiv] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 893.
[xv] Sellers, Hélène Cixous, 8.
[xvi] Sellers, Hélène Cixous, 4.
[xvii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 880.
[xviii] Sellers, Hélène Cixous, 6.
[xix] Sellers, Hélène Cixous, 11.
[xx] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 884-885.
[xxi] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 885.
[xxii] Aneja, “The Medusa’s slip,” 18.
[xxiii] Aneja, “The Medusa’s slip,” 18.
[xxiv] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 884.
[xxv] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 886.
[xxvi] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 876.
[xxvii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 882.
[xxviii] Cixous, “The Laugh of the Medusa,” 881.
[xxix] Susan C. Jarratt, “The First Sophists and Feminism: Discourses of the “Other”,” Hypatia 5, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 33. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3809908.
[xxx] Ann Rosalind Jones, “Writing the Body: Toward an Understanding of L’Ecriture Feminine,” Feminist Studies 7, no. 2 (Summer 1981): 253. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177523.
[xxxi] Jones, “Writing the Body,” 255.
[xxxii] Robert Con Davis, “Cixous, Spivak and oppositional Theory,” in Hélène Cixous: Critical Impressions, ed. Lee A. Jacobus and Regina Barreca (Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1999), 169-170.
[xxxiii] Jones, “Writing the Body,” 255.
[xxxiv] Jarratt, “The First Sophists and Feminism,” 33.
WORKS CITED
Aneja, Anu. “The Medusa’s Slip: Hélène Cixous and the Underpinnings of Écriture Feminine.” Lit: Literature Interpretation Theory 4: 17-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10436929208580093.
Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” Signs 1, no. 4 (Summer 1976): 875-893. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3173239.
Davis, Robert Con. “Cixous, Spivak and Oppositional Theory.” In Hélène Cixous: Critical Impressions, edited by Lee A. Jacobus and Regina Barreca, 165-186. Amsterdam: Gordon and Breach Publishers, 1999.
Jarratt, Susan C. “The First Sophists and Feminism: Discourses of the “Other”.” Hypatia 5, no. 1 (Spring 1990): 27-41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3809908.
Jones, Ann Rosalind. “Writing the Body: Toward an Understanding of L’Ecriture Feminine.” Feminist Studies 7, no. 2 (Summer 1981): 247-263. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177523.
Sellers, Susan. Hélène Cixous: Authorship, Autobiography and Love. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1996.
Featured photo by Alexis Brown on Unsplash
EXORDIUM 