The Paradoxical Nature of Lacanian and Freudian Theory in Hélène Cixous’ “The Laugh of the Medusa”
Hélène Cixous is the ultimate girlboss as she cites and subverts the psychosexual theories of Sigmund Freud & Jacques Lacan to vindicate her argument for feminine modes of writing.
French writer Hélène Cixous’ essay entitled “The Laugh of the Medusa”1 skyrocketed second-wave feminism in a manner unlike ever seen before. In her essay, she creates a form of writing that is founded on the feminine mind and body, coining it “écriture féminine” — characterized by boundless writing in which gaps, breaks, and silences in the text symbolize female vocal suppression, calling for the uplifting of these voices. While her text and writing style advocate for female agency in the literary realm, Cixous paradoxically bases her notions in her piece “The Laugh of the Medusa'' and model “écriture féminine” on the philosophies of Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud. This choice appears to contradict the entire purpose of her feminist writing but, in actuality, does the exact opposite. Through utilizing the psychoanalytical theories of men such as Jacques Lacan and Sigmund Freud, Cixous subverts the phallocentric role of the male author and literary canon—thus, advancing and solidifying her feminist voice.
Hélène Cixous is considered one of the mothers of post-structuralist feminist theory. Having written numerous poems, novels, plays, and essays, she has become a widely known and appraised feminist thinker. Her most notable work, “The Laugh of the Medusa”, urges women to write in which Cixous draws a connection between women’s writing and women’s bodies. She proclaims, “Write! Writing is for you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it” (Cixous 1870). By connecting the female body to female authorship, Cixous is able to intertwine two symbols of womanhood that are often controlled and dominated by men, and instead, propel women to take them back. In her essay, she emancipates women not only from masculine modes of writing but from the patriarchy. This connection of writing to the feminine body is explored further as Cixous states that there “is always within [a woman] at least a little of that good mother’s milk. She writes in white ink” (1874). This imagery of “white ink” (1874) acting as a symbol for breastmilk demonstrates the significance of Cixous’ argument in that by reuniting a woman with her body in a phallocentric world, she achieves a sense of wholeness. This notion of wholeness as maintained by Cixous, can only fully be achieved when a woman’s mind and body are congruent with one another. To breastfeed is a fundamental element of womanhood; therefore the analogy of breastmilk to ink argues that writing equates to femininity likewise to breastfeeding. Cixous speaks honestly and strongly about the patriarchal society and leads by example through her writing as she grants other women the same liberty that she has taken. She presses, “Write, let no one hold you back, let nothing stop you [...] Smug-faced readers, managing editors, and big bosses don’t like the true texts of women — female-sexed texts. That kind scares them” (1870). By speaking on the literary confinement that women were subjected to, “The Laugh of the Medusa” validates these oppressions and utilizes them for the greater good—as calls to action. She challenges the phallocentric rhetoric by proposing her feminine model of writing “écriture féminine”. Her creation of a mode of writing designed specifically to combat female oppression directly mirrors her motive in writing “The Laugh of the Medusa”. By affirming a woman’s role in literature, Cixous simultaneously affirms a woman’s role in society—commencing the dawn of second-wave feminism.
Hélène Cixous’ “écriture féminine'' is a token of femininity, yet is largely derived from the psychosexual and linguistic development theories of men. Jacques Lacan’s psychoanalytic theories in which he conceptualizes The Symbolic, The Imaginary, and The Real, aid Cixous’ argument. She links feminine writing with the Lacanian Real, an inaccessible theoretical ground in which one’s perceptions mediate one’s understanding. By relating feminine writing to Lacan’s notion of The Real, she acknowledges its lack in the literary, therefore signifying the importance of her advocacy. Cixous explicitly cites Lacan describing, “Lacan preserves [Freudian ideology] in the sanctuary of the phallos (ø) “sheltered” from castration’s lack! Their “symbolic” exists, it holds power — we, the sowers of disorder, know it only too well. But we are in no way obliged to deposit our lives in their banks of lack” (1877). Here, Cixous directly pushes back at the Freudian and Lacanian study of castration. She also directly references Lacan’s 1958 essay as she satirically points out “Haven’t I read the “Signification of the Phallus?”” (1884). In this text, Lacan alleges that the phallus is a ‘Signifier’ —an object to evoke a concept or idea—before it is an organ. Cixous reverses Lacan’s notion that the phallus is the privileged Signifier and instead, hands the role over to a notable patient of Sigmund Freud as she asserts, “You, Dora, you the indomitable, the poetic body, you are the true “mistress” of the Signifier!” (1879) By casting the role of the “privileged” (1879) Signifier to a woman, Cixous undermines Lacan’s reverence of the phallus and bestows a feminist light on the outdated phallogocentric literary. She pushes back on Lacan’s androcentric ideologies by poking fun at his text, a subtle manner of deconstructing the phallus in the rhetoric. Cixous boldly establishes that she is unafraid to make known that she has done her research and is prepared to prove her argument against all masculine limitations. Lacan’s Symbolic Order is defined as a separation “between self and (m)other, of law and patriarchal social codes, and of loss and associated desire” (Leitch et al. 17). Cixous speaks on this Lacanian separation between Woman and ‘Other’, stating in regards to women, that at times, “she others herself” (Cixous 1875). This notion of a woman “other[ing] herself” (1875) details the oppressive nature of a patriarchal society wherein women find themselves out of touch with their feminine identity; through “other[ing] herself” (1875), a woman is consequently cast as her own worst enemy. Furthermore, Cixous asserts that the ‘feminine’ is on the margins of the Symbolic, directly referencing Lacan’s Symbolic Order stating, “it is by writing, from and toward women, and by taking up the challenge of speech which has been governed by the phallus, that women will confirm women in a place other than that which is reserved in and by the symbolic, that is, in a place other than silence. Women should break out of the snare of silence. They shouldn’t be conned into accepting a domain which is the margin or the harem” (1874). By utilizing Lacan’s theories to encourage women to “break out of the snare of silence” (1874), Cixous dismantles these patriarchal bounds and conveys the notion of ‘feminine’ as an entity of its own—wholly separate from the phallus.
“The Laugh of the Medusa” along with Hélène Cixous’ feminist argument also references the viewpoints of Sigmund Freud. As Freud could be considered Lacan’s muse, in that Lacanian studies frequently revolve around Freudian thought, it only makes sense that Cixous is determined to critique and deconstruct Freudian ideologies. Sigmund Freud’s psychosexual theories often put men and their developments at the forefront, analyzing females only in relation to men. In many of his philosophies, he strongly references classical Greek mythology, often choosing clever myths that belittle or villainize women. Such is demonstrated in his study of the myth of Medusa who freezes men to stone after staring at them. Freud connects the myth of the Medusa to decapitation as a form of castration, thereby characterizing women, yet again, as lacking rather than whole. By titling her essay “The Laugh of the Medusa”, Cixous reclaims the Medusa archetype and posits her in a position of power in lieu of a villainous seductress, allowing Medusa and Cixous to have the last laugh. She further contests Freud’s depiction of Medusa stating, “And she’s not deadly. She’s beautiful and she’s laughing” (1778). By subverting Freud’s misrepresentation of Medusa, she restores Medusa as a feminist icon instead of an envious man-hater. Cixous largely references Freud’s theory of castration in which he attests that a male child feels protective of his penis after discovering the anatomical differences between the sexes while female children suffer from the Freudian ‘castration complex’ —-characterized by penis envy and perceiving themselves as incomplete. In response to this ostensibly absurd theory, Cixous argues that the feminine has thus remained in a position of Otherness in Western phallogocentric culture and literature, upholding the need for revolution. She ridicules his misogynistic presumptions mocking, “Castration? Let others toy with it. What’s a desire originating from a lack? A pretty meager desire” (1884). Cixous derides the Freudian notion of castration, reducing it to a “pretty meager desire” (1884) rather than something by which a woman is harmed. As she utilizes and deconstructs the notions of Freud, she uplifts and solidifies her own. She further commentates on the castration theory stating that “if [men] believe, in order to muster up some self-importance, if they really need to believe that we’re dying of desire, that we are this hole fringed with desire for their penis — that’s their immemorial business” (1882). As seen in this quotation, Cixous takes substantial importance in countering Sigmund Freud’s perceptions by adding a female perspective to his argument; Freudian theory rarely focalizes femininity, doing so only concerning men, hence why Cixous deems it crucial to conclude how these male-centered ideologies harm women. Sigmund Freud’s theory of psychoanalysis places a substantial focus on repression and its effects on one’s identity which Cixous refutes by stating that Freud and his followers are “consumed [...] by a fear of being a woman”, (1877) continuing that “if psychoanalysis was constituted from woman, to repress femininity (and not so successful a repression at that) [...] its account of masculine sexuality is now hardly refutable” (1877). She craftily dismantles Freudian theory, declaring that his theories of feminine repression are “not so successful” (1877) therefore, cunningly applying Freud’s notions against himself in a manner that shrewdly proves the significance of her own. By shining a spotlight on the effects of Sigmund Freud’s prejudicial notions, Hélène Cixous advances her own feminist argument as she utilizes Freud’s misogynistic conceptions to enforce why “The Laugh of the Medusa” is long overdue.
Hélène Cixous’s backbone of her arguments lies in the numerous mentions of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan which compels one to question if the male influences on this feminist text discount its purpose. While her reasoning surely relies on Freudian and Lacanian thought, it in no way detracts from the prominence of her message. Instead, she utilizes these theorists to expose the extent to which the feminine has been mistreated in literature and profess the necessity for reformation. She speaks to the benefits of women writing on both the literary and the individual woman stating that by “writing her self, woman will return to the body which has been more than confiscated from her” (1873). The bodies of women, along with their freedom of speech, have long been restricted by the phallus—precisely exemplifying the essentiality of Cixous' call for emancipation. This quotation speaks on the usage of writing as a form of reconnection, asserting that the only way a woman can reunite with her body is through the process of writing; hence the creation of her “écriture féminine” is an attempt to allocate space in the literary canon for female writing. She claims, “Let the priests tremble, we’re going to show them our sexts!” (1878) Through combining the words “sex” and “text”, Cixous establishes the purpose of her “écriture féminine” —in that it reconciles “sex” (being gender) and “text” as one, producing a sense of wholeness and inclusivity in literature. “Écriture féminine” seeks to reside in the realm of The Real instead of The Symbolic, therefore by breaking the bounds of masculine writing, she subverts the “otherness” of the feminine. Without providing textual evidence from Freud or Lacan, Cixous’ arguments would not nearly be as impactful as they are. Freud and Lacan are undercut as she unequivocally ridicules their psychological practices, voicing that they lure young girls with “flashy signifiers” (1884), selling them “the same old handcuffs, baubles, and chains” (1884). She further mocks, “Which castration do you prefer? Whose degrading do you like better, the father’s or the mother’s? Oh, what pwetty eyes, you pwetty little girl. Here, buy my glasses and you’ll see the Truth-Me-Myself tell you everything you should know. Put them on your nose and take a fetishist’s look [...] at your body and the body of the other. You see? No? Wait, you’ll have everything explained to you, and you’ll know at last which sort of neurosis you’re related to” (1884). By exposing the practices of acclaimed theorists, particularly Sigmund Freud, Cixous uncovers the predictability in Freud’s so-called “psychology” and suggests that perhaps the problem isn’t with these women, but with these men; perhaps there are more productive methods of psychology rather than projecting one’s own experiences onto every woman. These means pinpoint Cixous’ motive in writing “The Laugh of the Medusa”, as there is more than enough psychosexual babble from male theorists in the literary canon, and not nearly enough writing at all from women. Through utilizing and breaking down the suppressive theories of these men, she places herself on the same playing field as them; therefore, becoming the exact kind of woman in the rhetoric that she vouches for.
While at first read, it appears wholly counterintuitive to cite androcentric notions to support a feminist argument, but Cixous reverses this perception by utilizing these conceptions to her advantage, thereby uplifting her argument and disbanding theirs. Though many of Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan’s psychosexual theories focus on the male body, Cixous undermines this narrative as she highlights the female body. Hence, Freudian and Lacanian arguments are cited solely for Cixous to subvert them and bring forth her own. Rather than being defined as ‘lacking’, Hélène Cixous endeavours to ensure that “woman” is made whole again—a state in which she never should have left—ultimately contradicting Freud and Lacan’s confining notions through her confirmation that in “one another we will never be lacking” (1886).
thank you for reading my literary library. your support never goes unrecognized or unappreciated. as always, if you have anything to add to the conversation: comments, questions, praise, contrarian perspectives… don’t hesitate!
from my heart to yours, kara koblanski. <3
Cixous, Hélène. “The Laugh of the Medusa.” The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism, edited by Williams, Jeffrey J., et al., editors, W.W. Norton, 2018. pp. 1869-1886.