Fracturas identitarias: las crisis de identidad inherentes

Psychoanalysis has been heavily critiqued by feminists scholars for its inadequacy in theorising the feminine and the failure to explain female subjectivity, as both psychological models of subjectivity are based on the development of the boy child.¹⁷ The French feminist writer Luce Irigaray, for instance, highlights how the dominance of the phallocentric

psychological model of Freud and Lacan marks female sexuality as inherently lacking (Irigaray, L. 1985: 23).¹⁸ This “nothing to see” approach, acquires even more significance in the highly visual Western society where the male sex is interpreted as a symbol of unity, purpose and strength (ibid 24-26). Irigaray proposes a ‘female imaginary’ that, similar to the

‘masculine imaginary’, imitates the meaning of the ‘sex’. In this case women could be read as plural and fluid (ibid 28). For Irigaray, this difference in male and female sexuality, points to the fact that, “woman’s desire would not be expected to speak the same language as man’s”

17 Judith Butler, Jacqueline Rose, Juliet Mitchell, Elizabeth Grosz, Rosi Braidotti, Teresa DeLaurentis, Jane Gallop, Nancy Chodorow, Helene Cixous, Lucy Irigaray to just name a few

18 See Lacan Seminar IV, XI

(ibid 25). She, therefore, questions male-centered structures of language and underline the importance of finding a feminine specific language to counter the Western phallocentric culture (Running-Johnson, C. 1999: 248)

Kristeva, to counter the male dominated structure intrinsic in Lacan’s symbolic order, instead chooses the concept of ‘abjection’, by forming a theory of subjectivity where the subject remains incomplete, open and disjointed.¹⁹

She combines semiology, representation and psychoanalysis to posit an interconnection between the body, subjectivity, textuality, and showing how the abjection of the maternal body is the necessary precondition leading to the “narcissism of the Mirror stage” (Wright, E. 1998:

194; Tyler, I. 2009: 80-81). Abjection can then be read as an effort to counterbalance the dominance of Lacan’s psychoanalytical theories during the second half of the twentieth century, highlighting the role of the mother in the formation of subjectivity.

The notion of abjection, with its recognition that subjectivity is a ‘dynamic’ process and it is always incomplete and fragmentary, will play a pivotal role in this investigation. Abjection will also be essential in the understanding of ambivalent and contrasting feelings experienced by spectators when confronted with De Bruyckere’s fragmented figures. Recognising the possible sources of these contrasting feelings may help us comprehend why De Bruyckere’s sculptures of body fragments may cause both fascination and feelings of repulsion and disgust.

Furthermore, abjection gives an insight into the role these affects may play in the constitution of our very subjectivities. In Kristeva’s theory, the maternal body, in tune with Freudian and Lacanian psychoanalytical models, occupies a central position, as abjection originates in the separation from the mother when the child establishes him/herself as an individual subject. In her theory, the mother and child initially form a continuous body. During the separation and formation of boundaries between mother and child, an intermediate zone of resistance remains, that does not belong to either of them. This un-allocated content troubles the subject’s sense of identity and is the site of abjection. Abjection is the reassertion of this forgotten and repressed time, when the struggle to establish individuality meant giving up the safety of an all-encompassing relationship with the primary care giver. Abjection, therefore, is always a reminder of this primary secret and violent refusal of the maternal body, and will always be a re-enactment of this primary separation. The abject is something that sickens us, inducing strong bodily reactions. These responses, even if caused by different objects, are

19Although Julia Kristeva is known for being ambivalent towards feminism, her theories have been widely used by feminists to explain and re-define women’s role in society.

activated when the perceived boundaries between the world and us, or between others and us are endangered (Kristeva, J. 1982: 7).

The ‘unconscious content’, according to Kristeva, is not ‘safely’ repressed and stored away, but drifts at the edge of the subject’s self-definition, making the distinction between object and subject impossible. Ultimately, subjectivity will never form and the subject will never feel ordered and knowledgeable, as the safe boundary between unconscious and conscious is always incomplete (ibid 7). This process of establishing the boundaries between inside and outside, (the integrity of the body), is itself a bodily process, and with that in mind, Kristeva is drawing attention to the instability and fragility of the boundaries that constitute the single person. For her, the rejection of the ‘by-products’ of the body, like vomit, urine, tears and blood, is a desperate attempt to reinforce subjectivity (ibid 3). Abjection then, is the anxiety and rejection we have towards everything that crosses those boundaries, causing us to question the process of separation and creating uncertainty. However, there is more at stake than the loss of “the clean and proper body”, as abjection is the destabilisation of all systems of meaning, order and truth. What causes abjection is everything that “disturbs identity, system, order. What does not respect borders, positions, and rules? The in-between, the ambiguous, the composite” (ibid 4). For this reason, Kristeva’s subject may never be able to fully exist in the semiotic order, as s/he fluctuates between the pre-Oedipal and Oedipal stages.

In the 1990s, a wide range of literature emerged which focused on the abject, especially on the maternal as a site of disgust, as a powerful tool for analysing art, cinema and popular culture, and in order to point out the misogynistic representation of women.²⁰ Imogen Tyler, sees in this re-introduction of the maternal through the abject, a possible reason for the interest raised by abjection as a concept in feminist theory (Tyler, I. 2009: 80-81). Many feminist writers such as Mary Russo, Barbara Creed, and Imogen Taylor acknowledge and support the transformative and subversive potential of abjection as a tool with which to challenge and change social relations (ibid 84). Creed, for instance, recognises the importance of theories based on abjection, as they provide the opportunity to analyse the prevalent fears and fantasies contained and perpetuated in “our cultural imaginary” (Creed, B. 2003: 166).

However, abjection has been condemned for perpetuating the concept rather than

challenging the perceived abject standing of women. Critics of Kristeva' s writings, claim that

20 Creed, B. (2003). The Monstrous-Feminine: Film, Feminism and Psychoanalysis, London& New York: Routledge.

Fletcher, J. and Benjamin, A. (1990). Abjection, Melancholia and Love: The Work of Julia Kristeva, London & New York:

Routledge.

her theory of subjectivity formation does little to challenge patriarchal psychoanalytic paradigms and it has been denounced, as lacking connections to women (Walker, M. 2002:

125). Several feminists (Wittig, M., Butler, J.) have criticised the focus on the maternal for excluding those women who are not childbearing. They have also highlighted a series of problems in adopting the matricidal logic of Kristeva’s notion of abjection as ‘a feminist theory’, in which the maternal takes up the position of a subject that cannot speak (Tyler, I.

2009: 86). These scholars tend to privilege a reading of abjection that includes social and political components as well, also because abjection influences the creation of both the individual and the social body through the exclusion of particular subjects (ibid 79).

Moreover, positioning the mother as the primary focus of abjection is not only fiction but has real repercussion on the lived body and may even encourage violent disgust towards the maternal body (ibid 95). As Donna Haraway observes, this theory is never far away from the lived body and, therefore, the matricide in Kristeva’s abjection risks making women believe their own abjection (Haraway, D. 1992: 299; Butler, J. 1993: 190).²¹