The Concept of Penis Envy - Literature review Example

Concept Of ‘Penis Envy Creation Of Patriarchal Mind of the of the Introduction Women have achieved great heights in the society today. They have proved that they are capable of handling any responsibility, and can compete as fiercely as men can, in any field of work. However, even in the modern and developed society of today, women still struggle to get past the prejudice and discrimination with which they are treated. Even though the intensity of women’s suppression has decreased compared to the past, it still exists. Women have always been a victim of humiliation, torture and inferior treatment at the hands of men. Blaming the victim, that is the women, for their miserable condition, victimization and suffering has been in practice since along time (McLellan, 1995, p. 73). However, what really gave a valid acceptance to this practice was Sigmund Freud’s concept of ‘penis envy’. The practice of blaming women for their suffering became a sort of legitimate practice after Freud introduced his idea of ‘penis envy’ (1904) based on the study of his female clients (McLellan, 1995, p.73). The art of ‘blaming the victim’ (women) was so strongly legitimated by this concept that it became a psychological law of mainstream therapy even in the developed and modern world (McLellan, 1995, p. 73). Women were often treated in such a negative way that they subconsciously used to feel that they deserve the misery. However, due to lack of evidence and weak logic, the concept of ‘penis envy’ was criticized and rejected very strongly by feminists and some male psychologists. Due to the timely and intelligent contribution from feminists and male psychologists, the concept of ‘penis envy’ was weakened and uprooted from the minds of the people so strongly that today, it has got reduced to nothing but a mere ‘concept,’ and is known as a theory which was once introduced by Freud under his misogynist, narrow minded and patriarchal attitude. The Concept Of Penis Envy The concept of penis envy has been an integral part of Sigmund Freud’s theory of ‘Oedipus Complex’ (Kahn, 2002, p.72). Freud described the Oedipus complex as girl’s “erotic desire for father coupled with confusing, ambivalent, angry rivalry with mother” (Kahn, 2002, p. 72). More importantly, one of the major reasons for the development of this complex in girls is the lack of penis. According to Freud, both boys and girls think that it is a sign of inferiority and incompleteness not to have a penis (Kahn, 2002, p. 68). Girls think that as they do not have penis, they are inferior to men and are the owners of incomplete body (Kahn, 2002, p. 68). Hence, they always suffer from identity crisis as they have to live with a body that they feel is incomplete and weak. Also, the lack of penis makes them feel ‘different’ from their father and hence, incapable of forming a similar camaraderie with them as boys do (Kahn, 2002, p. 68). This further increase the feeling of inadequacy in them as girls do not find any other means of getting close to their father, which they subconsciously desire (Kahn, 2002, p. 68). Hence, girls develops a feeling of ‘penis envy,’ which becomes a life long struggle for them and makes them suffer from psychological and emotional problems (Kahn, 2002, p. 68). In this way, Sigmund Freud developed a concept of penis envy and in doing so, devalued women and their existence as nothing but a weaker and inferior version of men. However, it did not take long for the feminists and male psychologists to thwart his idea as completely illogical and immature. Feminist Reaction Freud’s concept of ‘penis envy,’ because of its patriarchal approach, became well known as the theory of ‘sexual politics’ (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). Feminist Kate Millett coined the term ‘sexual politics’ to explain her views on patriarchal system, which influenced Freud’s concept (2000, p.178). According to Millett, Freud’s approach towards his work was anti-feminist and boasted of understanding women, while in reality, his conclusion on female clients were always based on his prejudice against them (2000, p.178). Freud believed that girl’s rejection of their clitoris and mothers (other woman), is nothing but a reaction to the feeling of inferiority due to lack of phallus (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 142). Freud was of opinion that girl’s attraction towards their fathers and later, towards other men, is due to the lack of phallus (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 142). They try to feel complete by associating themselves with men. He also stated that to compensate the lack of phallus, women prefer giving birth to a son, so that they can ‘live’ a life of ‘man’ through him (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 142). But still, women’s struggle with their identity do not end as their husbands do not like the women’s habit of treating them like infant and reducing them to immature beings in their domestic life (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). Through these ideas in the concept of ‘penis envy,’ Freud reduced women to maladjusted human beings who are never successful at accepting their own body and being. For these ideas and concept of ‘penis envy,’ Freud not only attracted criticism from women, but was also criticized by many male psychologists. However, the strongest and powerful rejection of ‘penis envy’ came from the feminists. Freud’s concept of ‘penis envy’ and the idea of women’s body as incomplete were viewed as misogynistic and patriarchal by the feminists (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). Feminist Horney (1939) believed that the feminine traits of vanity and envy were regarded by Freud as expressions which were rooted in ‘penis envy’ in women (Alpert & Spencer, 1986, p.90). He also stated that women lacked sense of creativity, social intelligence, morality and vigor (Nye, 1989, p. 117). Feminists stated that Freud’s conclusions were not based on study of emotionally and psychologically healthy women who never displayed maladjustment or symptoms of ‘penis envy’ (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). His concept was based on the emotionally unhealthy women who went to him for a treatment (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). According to feminist Friedan, Freud forgot to realize that his female clients were raised and lived in Victorian society, which was well known for being oppressive and negative towards women (1997, para.6). Friedan also stated that Freud’s idea are not applicable to free and independent women of America (1997, para.6). Moreover, his conclusions were based on very few cases and were not universal in nature. It has also been observed that healthy and normal females do not develop the symptoms or behavior patterns which formed the basis for ‘penis envy’ (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). This shows that there is no evidence for the concept of ‘penis envy’ in clinical field (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). Moreover, the validity of ‘penis envy’ was not successful even through nonclinical methods (Boles & Hoeveler, 2004, p. 143). This proves that Freud’s concept is a result of his prejudice against women and not as a result of genuine study. Moreover, not only feminists but many of the male psychologists also rejected Freud’s concept of penis envy as baseless and influenced by his prejudiced mind. Criticism From Male Psychologists According to Kahn (2002), Freud’s “belief in male superiority and intrinsic superiority of everything masculine, including penis,” had played a major role in him developing such a misogynist concept of ‘penis envy’ (p. 68). According to psychologist Erik Erikson, every woman has a productive inner space, which needs to be explored and brought to her conscious mind, while treating her (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). He thought that compared to this inner space of women, the concept of penis envy was very weak and unimportant (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). However, Freud’s narrow approach and patriarchal beliefs had blinded him to the potential of women (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). According to psychologist Williams (1977), Freud made a mistake by misinterpreting the feeling of deprivation experienced by women at the hands of patriarchal and oppressive society as “resentment at not being a boy” (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). Williams believed that women’s emotional maladjustment was a result of fear of their productive inner space being left empty and unfulfilled in the society which was male dominated and oppressive in nature (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). Hence, Williams stated that women’s struggle with her identity is not related to ‘penis’ or lack of it, but with the inheritance of social order of patriarchy, where she learns that while the male ends up getting a respectable and dominant position, she is reduced to an inferior being whose wishes and opinions are crushed under the male domination and expectations (Sibaya & Nicholas. 2008, p.222). Freud’s ignorance and misinterpretation of women’s psychology is evident from the records of one of the cases that Freud handled in year 1892. Lucy R., a 30 year old governess, came to Freud with the complaint of depression and loss of sense of smell (Parker, 2003, p. 62). From his records of the case, it is evident that Freud had given a motif of ‘conflict’ to the case on the very first day, even before knowing all the details of the case (Parker, 2003, p. 63). Later, Freud concludes that her traumas are result of a repressed desire of gaining affection from her male employer (Parker, 2003, p. 64). However, as Lucy R. knew that gaining affection from him was not possible, she developed psychological problems as manifestation of those desires (Parker, 2003, p. 64). However, Freud’s conclusion of the ‘repressed desire for employer’ has no logical basis. As soon as Lucy R. agreed that that might be the case, he thought that the case is solved and ignored Lucy R’s desire and wishes for freedom from a life of a governess, who was dominated by her employer and was annoyed by children who she was taking care of (Parker, 2003, p. 67). According to Appignanesi and Forrester (1992), instead of waiting for some time to draw conclusion regarding the case, Freud was eager to fit the case in his theory of ‘Oedipus complex,’ as was his approach with all the female clients of his (Parker, 2003, p. 67). Instead of solving Lucy R’s problem, he imposed upon her that her repressed desires were responsible for her condition (Parker, 2003, p. 67). He ignored that Lucy’s social situation of being a woman under the domination of her male employer, and victim of the society which forced her to take responsibility of a dead woman, were responsible for her conditions. Hence, woman’s emotional maladjustment and psychological problems, which were born out of oppressive patriarchal system, were completely misunderstood by Freud as resentment for men and ‘penis envy’. However, with the help of broad approach and strongly driven feminist theorists, new approach to understanding women emerged and developed a positive approach to understand women. Development of New Approaches The faults in the psychoanalytical concept of ‘penis envy’ led many theorists to explain the development of women in different light. The lack of evidence and lack of strength in the psychoanalytical theory of Oedipus complex led to weakening of the theory with passing time (Lerman, 1986, p.3). Hence, in recent years the concept of ‘penis envy’ from Freud’s psychoanalysis has nearly vanished from the psychological therapies, even when the psychoanalytical concepts like repression, unconscious and resistances are still in practice (Lerman, 1986, p.3). However, the concepts of ‘penis envy’ and ‘unconscious repression’ were so strongly ingrained in the minds of people that it took a lot of strength from feminists and theorists to remove the impressions from the minds of people completely (Lerman, 1986, p.3). What really helped to remove the impact of ‘penis envy’ from the minds of common people and also the therapists was the downgrading of significance of Oedipal theory by different psychologists and therapists. People in the field of psychoanalysis tried to repair the concept of ‘penis envy’ but it was in vain as the concept was so flawed that no amount of repair could bring it out of its flaws (Lerman, 1986, p.3). There were no possibilities of psychoanalysis doing any good for women and hence, women felt a need of new approach to understanding their psychology. This gave birth to the development of new personality theories which opened the field of psychology to new insights and released the psychologists and therapists from the clutches of psychoanalysis. Theories of Personality Supporting Feminism A prominent theory, which is completely free of psychoanalysis influence, is the feminist personality theory by Miriam Greenspan (Lerman, 1986, p.15). Greenspan has based her study and viewpoint of development of women on the basis of relationship between the therapist and client, and not on the theoretical structure (Lerman, 1986, p.15). Greenspan’s approach towards women is positive, and she has kept women central to her theory (Lerman, 1986, p.15). The strength of Greenspan’s theory is that it is not developed on the basis of a narrow perspective of specific culture or environment, but on the basis of vast experiences she had with the female clients in her practice (Lerman, 1986, p.15). She has stressed that if one is to understand women, then one has to consider the diversity and complexity of women’s lives and react to it, rather than judge her from narrow perspectives (Lerman, 1986, p.15). Moreover, the interaction of internal and external view of women clients is given consideration by Greenspan when forming a viewpoint about them (Lerman, 1986, p.15). In this way, Greenspan has given a very strong and positive feminist personality theory for development of women. Moreover, the role of the society in the development of personality was further popularized by Albert Bandura, through his social learning theory. Bandura (2001) developed a theory of social learning through which he stated that personality is a result of social structure and hence, it is formed as a result of influence by the society in which a person lives (Engler, 2009, p. 235). Bandura stated that people behave in a certain way if they believe that they will get positive reaction (reward) for that behavior (Engler, 2009, p.239). This explains the submissive behavior of women as they are conditioned into thinking that they will be accepted and loved by others only if they behave in passive, docile and submissive way in this patriarchal society. Hence, Bandura’s theory helps in throwing a light on women’s misery and can help in forming a strong feminist personality theory. Conclusion The literature review regarding feminist view of Freud’s concept of ‘penis envy’ shows that this concept was developed out of a misogynist and patriarchal beliefs of Freud and hence, was of no use for healthy development of women’s personality. However, with the positive theories like ‘social learning theory’ and Greenspan’s feminist personality theory, people were freed from the clutches of prejudiced and patriarchal concept of ‘penis envy.’ Hence, in the modern world of today, women’s social and persona conditions have improved and they are being treated as complete beings, and not just incomplete version of men. References Alpert, J. & Spencer, J.B. (1986). Morality, Gender, and Analysis. In J. Alpert (Ed.). Psychoanalysis and women: contemporary reappraisals (pp. 83-112). HilLsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Boles, J.K. & Hoeveler, D.L. (2004). Historical Dictionary Of Feminism (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow press, Inc. Engler, B. (2009). Personality theories: An Introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Friedan, B. (1997). The Sexual Solipsism of Sigmund Freud, In The Feminine Mystique. Retrieved from http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/friedan.htm Kahn, M. (2002). Basic Freud: Psychoanalytical thought for the twenty first century. New York, NY: Basic Books. Lerman, H. (1986). From freud to feminist personality theory: getting here from there. Psychology of women quarterly, 10, 1-8. Millett, K. (2000). Sexual Politics. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. McLellan, B. (1995). Beyond Psychopression: a feminist alternative therapy. North Melbourne, AUS: Spinifex Press. Nye, A. (1989). Feminist Theory And The Philosophies Of Man. New York, NY: Routledge. Parker, I. (2003). The ego in Lucy. R: notes on conflict in one of Freud’s first cases. Psychodynamic practice, 9 (1), 61-70. Sibaya, P.T. & Nicholas, L. (2008). Personality. In L. Nicholas (Ed.), Introduction to Psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 214-228). Cape Town, SA: UCT Press. Read More