Juliet Mitchells Application Of Psychoanalytic Theory English Literature Essay

This piece will examine Mitchell’s essay, by critically analyzing the feminine narrative in psychoanalysis influenced by the Bakhtinian concept of the carnival, applying the hysteric to women in the early novel, the application of the symbolic in defining an alternative universe, and briefly discussing Wuthering Heights.

Firstly, Mitchell’s foremost point is that on feminine narrative in psychoanalysis. Psychoanalysis is the practice of investigating the way one’s mind works, and then using it as a method of treatment to cure various psychological or emotional ailments. The patient recounts certain incidents affecting their psyche. The psychoanalyst is then able to offer a solution to the incident. Through analysis of incidents affecting the patient, the psychoanalyst applies the respective theory and, “…intrudes, disrupts, offers the ‘anarchic carnival’ back into that history…” (Ibid, 426) The carnival referred to here is that of the Bakhtinian notion of deception. Mikhail Bakhtin states that in every level of society, deception is at play where there are multiple levels of power and resistance at work. These forces of deception are what allow people in a society to, put on masks and play certain roles. [1] Thus, because of this deceptive nature of communication, any form of action in society is never constant, always being in a state of flux. Mitchell mentions this flux in her statement where she says, “What can you do but disrupt a history, and re-create it as another…?”(Ibid, pg. 426) What Mitchell means here is that there is already an alteration of events, through multiple retellings of one’s history.

However, when Bakhtin’s carnivalesque element is put into play, the history of the patient is not only replaced with an alternate one, but also that there is no single correct form of history present. With the elements involving a patient’s history being always in a state of flux, the disruption and creation of multiple histories is imminent. Now if one adds the element of femininity, the issue becomes even more complex. If there is a disruption of history at play, what happens to a woman speaking about her issues, in a phallocentric setting? Mitchell is concerned about the effect that a male-oriented language has on a female subject. If there is already so much disruption in the shaping of one’s history, then for a woman it becomes a momentous task to express herself freely in a society that has been shaped according to the norms of men. Also, if the woman subject is being studied by a woman analyst, the analysis becomes even more questionable. Both women have been bred in a society adhering to the rules of the male. This means, that the method of communication and also of expression then strictly falls into the realm of the male. A woman attempting to understand her own history is thwarted by the loss of true communication in the feminine sense.

Secondly, Mitchell explains the plight of a woman attempting to create her own history, by looking into the involvement of women in the early period of the novel. Here as well, women were attempting to carve a niche into an ultimately male dominated realm. This was quite successfully done with the advent of the novel during the seventeenth century, where a vast majority of the authors were women. The introduction of women writers was further accentuated by the very essence of their actions. It was radical enough that women were beginning to express themselves, but it was another thing altogether that they were doing this through the medium of writing. In doing so, they were successfully creating, “…what critics today call the ‘subject in process’.” (Ibid, 426) Thus, Mitchell explains that in order for women to establish a history, they were doing so by expressing during a state of flux. Here something akin to psychoanalytic practice is at work, where the subject is consciously able to re-create a history of herself. According to Mitchell, in the midst of a rising bourgeoisie wrought under the clutches of capitalism, a woman’s life was constrained to, “Domesticity, personal relations…” (Ibid, 426) One facet of a woman’s history is preset. But, there is a conscious endeavour to write another form of history; this time it is written from the perspective of the woman. This is not a form of history replicated in the midst of a therapy session in a psychoanalyst’s office. Here the woman subject is in control of shaping her own history. As Mitchell further illustrates, “The novel is that creation by the woman of the woman or by the subject who in the process of becoming woman….” (Ibid, 426) The subject, being the woman, is able to understand the numerous difficulties of the subject of her work which is also the woman, therefore successfully being able to express her concerns.

By expressing oneself during a transitional time-frame, in this case during the creation of the bourgeois class, the woman is defining her qualities, her abilities and her boundaries, “…where women are, why women have to write the novel, the story of their own domesticity, the story of their own seclusion within the home…”(Ibid, 426) In doing so, the woman is classifying herself within a given domain, but she is doing so based on the constraints imposed on her by the patriarchal element, thus the Bakhtinian concept of deception. The woman is expressing, but with a mask of social hindrance, further limiting the effectiveness of her message. This is further proved by Mitchell’s discussion of the ‘discourse of the hysteric’. The phenomenon of the hysteric is where the woman accepts and rejects the organization of sexuality under a patriarchal realm. As Mitchell further clarifies, there does not exist, “…a thing as female writing, a ‘woman’s voice. There is the hysteric’s voice which is the woman’s masculine language…” (Ibid, 426) Again, here the Bakhtinian ideology is at work. The woman knows that she must talk in a masculine voice, thus the woman consciously constructs her argument within the framework of a phallocentric world. Thus, there is a “deceptive” nature to her presentation, but it is all the more necessary in gaining a patriarchal audience that is willing to listen.

In addition to this, Mitchell further clarifies the hysteric using the moment of the symbolic. The moment of the symbolic according to the Lacanian school of thought is, “…where sexuality is constructed as meaning…what was not symbolized, becomes organized…” (Ibid, pg. 428) Before a child is made aware of the sexual hierarchy in a patriarchal setting, the atmosphere is that of the carnival. Moreover, before the child is aware of a phallic presence, it is only concerned with the presence of the mother. The mother is a source of nourishment and satisfaction and the child sees no other. The child is free of notions of gender definitions and borders for the respective sexes. This is known as the pre-Oedipal, where between the duration of three to five years, there are libidinal and ego development. [2] Freud simply states that the transitioning period is when the child is aware of the male member, “At the point in which the phallus is found to be missing in the mother, masculinity is set up as the norm…” (Ibid, 428) Further defined in the Lacanian model, the child is made aware of a phallic presence that is dominating, and also is made aware of the further responsibilities of the mother that are not just limited to the child, but also to the dominant male figure in the family. According to Lacan, the father figure is introduced in a symbolic sense through the medium of language, where communication and expression is that of a phallocentric nature. Having made aware of two poles of sexuality, the carnival is replaced by “the point of organization”. At this point, because the child is also increasingly acquiring the ability to communicate, it inevitably takes on the essence of a phallocentric means of communication.

Now, one has to be careful in discerning the role that a woman plays in this largely patriarchal construct. Mitchell states that one cannot have the oedipal, without the pre-oedipal, where the former represents an ordered sexual hierarchy and the latter represents a space without any frontiers and constraints, i.e. carnival. These two concepts are complementary of each other, because without one the other cannot function. It is only possible for the child to realize gender constraints, having experienced a state of the pre-Oedipal. Likewise, it is only possible for a woman to yearn for the carnival, having been constrained to the domain of the church and all the constricting forces at work that accompany this controlling body. Therefore, Mitchell claims that one cannot yearn for a pre-Oedipal, carnivalesque setting in present society, because the carnival and the church are already deeply ingrained in the conscious of every individual. She further explains that, “You cannot choose the imaginary, the semiotic, the carnival as an alternative to the symbolic…”(Ibid, 428) A feminist who wants to have her body of work accepted in the symbolic, and organized structure, cannot give an alternative of a society lacking social constraints. She further elaborates that since feminism has been defined in a phallocentric setting, the means to reach an “alternative symbolic universe” is by working within the given space that the pre-Oedipal and the Oedipal share. This is parallel to her discussion of the female novelist and her need to be hysteric in order to gain acceptance.

Mitchell illustrates an effective alternative symbolic universe, by using the example of Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights. The novel is clearly a critique of the symbolic, but is far more effective because it works within a male-oriented language. Bronte was published under a male pseudonym, which gave her work an even better stronghold in the reading male populace. Bronte is able to criticize the clichéd romantic gentleman Lockwood possessing characteristics of a fierce exterior and heart of gold, as being, “…a foppish gentleman…who think he loves all the things the romantic gentleman is supposed to…” (Ibid, 429) Because she is male, she is not outright rejected for her portrayal.

Furthermore, the story of Catherine has a hysteric tone to it. Catherine loves Heathcliff, but cannot take pleasure from it, having already been imposed of the patriarchal constraint on her. Heathcliff is introduced by the father as a sibling to her, and is therefore a forbidden fruit. The Oedipal is at play here where clear cut gender definitions have been drawn. Continuing in the patriarchal tradition, Catherine marries Edgar Linton, “Edgar provides an illusion of complimentarity.” (Ibid, 429) However, holding true to the hysteric tradition, in the end Bronte rejects this relationship by killing Catherine. Here Bronte’s ability to question the patriarch is the strongest. By deliberately killing Catherine, Bronte asks if whether the only way a woman can acquire her needs is by simply ceasing to exist. She doesn’t have a choice but either to follow, “…the hysteric’s ambiguous choice into a femininity which doesn’t work…” (Ibid, 429), this pertains to Catherine marrying someone not of her choice. The other option is to finally be united with Heathcliff, after suffering death, which is very much an ineffective state.

In conclusion, Mitchell’s essay effectively brings together her four primary concerns: literature, gender politics, psychoanalysis and feminism. In doing so she is successfully able to draw parallels between the limited ability of a woman under a patriarchal construct to the complex machinations of a pre and post Oedipal affected society. In order to encompass a wholesome argument, instead of a radical feminine approach, Mitchell suggests an alternative symbolic universe, where while simultaneously working within the borders of a phallocentric society, a woman is still able to express her femininity.