“I said yes, I will yes” (Ulysses)
Submission has been an ongoing debate throughout the late centuries. After the entrance of Modernity, the gender and identity crises has entered into the already existing discussion between man and woman. We may ask, what is the point that legitimizes the dominance of one sex over the other. Or in a more general perspective, what right is given to a human being to rule over another. This question can be asked in many areas; slavery, child-labor, capitalism, communism, etc. This essay takes this question to analyze the two articles of Luce Irigaray and Helene Cixous that create a debate about women, female sexual identity and dominance of the male phallus. ‘the Sex which is Not One’ and ‘The Laugh of Medusa’ dive into the realm of the female to show us the problems that have long been existing before modernity, but have only become an issue recently because of the changed orders of society that has occurred after the emergence of modernity. The two texts seem to support each other in many ways, one of which is the focus of the Phallocentric System and the Silence System of women. However, the texts are also different on the narrower perspective, in which while Irigaray focuses more on the sexuality of the sexes, Cixous focuses more specifically on women and how women can accomplish themselves in the writing arena.
Irigaray and Cixous use the concept of Phallocentric Understanding and the Silencing of Women to intertwine these two ideas in expressing the repression of women and what women could do to break away from the primitive, almost scholastic understanding of women. Throughout their essay, they seem to call out for the women by showing how the male dominates and controls the female in many ways and thus creating an identity for the female that is based solely on the perspective of the male. In this sense, their essay’s seem to support each other and create a similar atmosphere of looking into the problem of women being repressed by the phallocentric system
In her article, Irigaray goes against Freud’s and Lacan’s theories of Sexual relations by proposing feminine sexuality that is referring to the very self of the female and therefore breaking the feminine imagery from the dominated phallocentric system of masculine parameters in understanding the concept of sexuality. Since Freud and Lacan have constructed their theories “within the dominant phallic economy” (p.24), Irigaray tries to break away from this theory in search of creating the feminine sexuality separate from the phallocentric understanding. Irigaray seems to see the Freudian perspective on female sexuality as a symbol of the patriarchal order that perceives the female gender as a lack of something and therefore not existing. In this sense, her rejection of Freud and Lacan points to breaking away from any connection between the two sexes-i.e. she says that although binaries, man and woman do not exists only if the other exists, because each has a self that makes the existence possible. She says in her article, “man’s desire and women’s are strangers to each other” (p.27). Further, into the paragraph, we understand that the concept of equality is impossible in Irigaray’s understanding, simply because men and women have a difference that cannot be compared because of the different understandings of these differences. Therefore, “exploitation of women is based upon sexual difference and can only be resolved through sexual difference” (in ‘Equal or Different?’).
In her article, Cixous claims that women have been repressed and forced down from writing just like they have been repressed in expressing their femininity and female sexuality by the phallocentric system. The women have been identified as the Other, the Outcast by men who have been controlling the social, political, academic, religious realms of the world. Men have used public venues such as God, medicine, law, writing, publishing to write a history that is centered on the phallocentric system and the silencing of women. She urges on her same-sex to write just like she is doing, and not allow anything nor anyone to hold them (the women) back from expressing their feeling and thoughts of themselves and their lives. The expression of the self, Cixous seems to say will give the women the identity that they have so long kept inside themselves because of male dominance. She provides an example of the issue of a publication, and how this area is once again dominated by men and male writers who keep the reins of women’s narratives in their hands. It is the male who decide what will be published and what not of a women’s writing. In her article, she talks about the writing sphere and how it has become an industry of the phallocentric entity when she says, “imbecilic capitalist machinery, in which publishing houses are crafty, obsequious relayers of the imperatives handed down by an economy that works against [women];…Smug-faced readers, managing editors, and big bosses don’t like the true texts of women—female-sexed texts. That kind scares them” (p.2041). In this sense, Cixous says that the economic power is in the hands of men, which is why they can easily control the capacity of women and what they can accomplish within the public institutions that are in connection with women. The identities of women have been shaped by men in almost all areas, like art and literature, in such a level that women have now become to identify themselves according to the borders drawn by men, thus the dominance of the Phallocentric System and the silencing of women. She says very Clearly in her essay, “ The history of writing is confounded with the history of reason…It has been one with the phallocentric tradition” (p.2043) Everything that has been related is masculine; the stories, voices, perspectives, theories, perceptions, etc.; and because of this, the voice that would express the standpoint of women have been silenced by the dominance of the male. She writes about how the ‘lack’ of certain things has placed the women in an invaluable position, not only in the public power sphere but also in the private sector that is thought to belong solely to women.
An example is the sexual organ of the male-female. The lack of the male sexual organ in the women has caused the women to be seen as the weaker sex and therefore the incomplete one. Because of this understanding; women are cast out of love and identified as the giver without receiving anything; thus being the one who has to sacrifice for those who will suck the life out of the women to use up whatever he needs. In doing so, the women, Cixous seems to say, are silenced of their voices, their passions, desires, and ideas, for the phallocentric system draws the borders of the female sexuality between two concepts: either being an outcast whore or a loving and giving domesticated mother. Because of these perspectives, Cixous calls for women to write and express that which they have kept inside themselves and to do this not only for ourselves but also as a support to out same sexes.
The two texts, albeit their very similar perspective on women, are different in their methodology of writing. While Irigaray focuses solely on the specific problem that is dominated by the male-namely the sexuality of the female; Cixous takes a broader perspective to express the problem and also suggests a method on how to solve this problem: writing.
Irigaray defines the sexuality and pleasure of the female by focusing only on the female body that is not a single sexual organ unlike the male but has many parts that also create the sexuality and pleasure for the female. (p.28). She claims that the body of the woman is not a single organ, and therefore the pleasure could be gained from more than one part of the body. The reason for this she states that if the female sexual organ were a single one, this would confirm the views of the male and the logic of the “primacy of the phallus” (p.31). Here, Irigaray manages to create an alternative definition for the feminine, a definition that rejects the male dominance of the phallus. (p.28-29) By doing so, Irigaray creates the ‘other’ identity of the woman, and this otherness that is positioned in the sexuality of the female body becomes the route to finding the alternative. Irigaray seems to say that for the female to find a space, to befit itself within the world, the man should be excluded. In this sensei, she seems to reject heterosexuality and motherhood as “masochistic prostitution of the (female) body to a desire that is not her own” (p.25). In this sense, the construction of Irigaray’s female society is rhetorically and politically narrow, although it reflects the problems that lie in the traditional understandings of the sexual relations. Ultimately, it appeals only to a specific group within the female gender, and it does not speak for the women and men who are heterosexual and are concerned with inequality.
Cixous writes about the problems of women in a broader perspective than Irigaray, and because of this, she does not seem to support certain aspects of Irigaray. For instance, Cixous’s views and urges on women to write about their stories connect with all groups of females and genders-male, female, heterosexual. In her essay, she says, “The act of writing for women and by women is imperative because “there has not yet been any writing that inscribes femininity” (p.2042). Here she seems to argue that when women take the pen in their hand, they will cause a ‘rupture,’ similar to the one Derrida talks about. In the lines, she talks about rupture when she says, “…Writing which, when the moment of her liberation has come, will allow her to carry out the indispensable ruptures and transformations in her history…” (p.2043) And this rupture will evoke trouble, cause men to think about women and their position in the lives of women, resulting in these evocations giving women authority and power. According to Cixous, “Women’s imaginary is inexhaustible, like music, painting, writing: their stream of phantasms is incredible,” and if women put it out, they would destroy their social and political oppression, which has confined them for centuries (p.2040). She talks about the only way women will be able to establish themselves as individuals within society is through writing, when she says, “break out of the snare of silence” and gain “access to her native strength” (p.2044). By writing, Cixous says, that women can change the views on women that have been established in history by men and male-dominated perspectives, that deems women as weak, soft, compliant and created only to fulfill the needs and desire of men and to procreate children. Cixous says that by writing about the stories and feelings, women can change and therefore rewrite history and place themselves as female identities within this history. To do this, she says, “Write your self. Your body must be heard” (p.2943). Both the texts are good evocations for women to understand their position in the past and present. They both present similar problems: the dominance of the male over the female in such an extent that the female disappears not just physically but also psychologically and mentally and is replaced by an identity created solely from the perspective of the male. In this sense, the texts support each other in defying the phallocentric systems and giving the women the voice they need. However, it is important to read the text closely to find the solutions to the problems and to gain the perspectives of not just single groups, but a general view to narrow the scope.