A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 6.

2+3 (1994) d i f f e r e n c e s:
ELI ZABETH GROSZ
ELIZABETH GROSZ
The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire:
An Interrogation of Teresa de Lauretiss The Pr actice of Love
Beyond Phallic Desir e
The recent publ i cati on of Teresa de Laureti ss l ong-awai ted
book, The Practice of Love: Lesbian Sexuality and Perverse Desire, provi des
an i deal occasi on to reect on the i mpact of gay, l esbi an, and queer theory on
the ways i n whi ch psychoanal ysi s i s currentl y pol i ti cal l y uti l i zed, and on the
troubl ed and troubl i ng rel ati ons between sexual l y transgressi ve practi ces
and the practi ces of theoreti cal producti on. De Laureti ss text can be seen as
the cul mi nati on and poi nt of i ntersecti on of the femi ni st fasci nati on wi th
psychoanal yti c theory whi ch emerged twenty years ago, and the more recent
pol i ti cal erupti on of queer pol i ti cs i n the 1990s. Thi s book al l ows many
cruci al questi ons to be framed and asked wi th the i ncreasi ng urgency they
deserve. I n thi s paper I wi l l focus pri mari l y on the methodol ogi cal and
theoreti cal rel ati onshi p between psychoanal ysi s and femi ni st and l esbi an
theory as thi s i s arguabl y the most i ntense si te for femi ni st theory i n i ts
confrontati on wi th the speci ci ti es of l esbi an (as wel l as worki ng cl ass,
i ndi genous, and thi rd worl d) subjects.
The Practice of Love i s an attemptperhaps the nal one
1
to
bri ng psychoanal ysi s to account for i ts own most strategi c and vul nerabl e
bl i nd spots, i ts poi nts of greatest el i si on or repressi on: i ts by now wel l -
d i f f e r e n c e s 275
recogni zed fai l ure to account for, to expl ai n, or to acknowl edge the exi stence
of an acti ve and expl i ci tl y sexual femal e desi re, and, more parti cul arl y, the
acti ve and sexual femal e desi re for other women that denes l esbi ani sm.
Thi s book i s a cal l for psychoanal ysi s to be accountabl e to a l esbi an consti tu-
ency for both i ts (hi therto i nadequate) characteri zati ons of femal e and l es-
bi an desi re and for i ts potenti al to probl emati ze and to surpass i tsel f and
thereby provi de the raw materi al s for a better account. At the same ti me, i t i s
al so a cal l to attenti on for l esbi ans, and especi al l y those who have di sdai ned
or avoi ded psychoanal yti c theory for i ts presumpti ons about women. I t shows
that i n i gnori ng the contri buti ons of psychoanal ysi s to thi nki ng desi re, espe-
ci al l y l esbi an desi re, women have abandoned the preemi nent cul tural di s-
course of desi re.
There i s a cl uster of psychoanal yti c terms that have proven to be
a thorn i n the si de of al l femi ni sts, dati ng from the i ncepti on of psychoanal y-
si s i tsel f: the Oedi pus compl ex, the castrati on compl ex, peni s-envy, the
status of the phal l us, the paternal metaphor or Name of the Father, the
symbol i c order, and so on. The questi on faci ng femi ni sts who are i n some
way sti l l attracted to or fasci nated by psychoanal yti c theory i s whether to
accept these terms as they stand, and to expl ai n them i n pol i ti cal and soci al
termsthus provi di ng as an acceptabl e descri pti on the (perpetual re-)i n-
stal l ati on of patri archal val ues whi ch such terms i mpl y and produceor
whether to chal l enge, probl emati ze, and abandon these terms al together,
ei ther repl aci ng them wi th more acceptabl e al ternati ves or movi ng beyond
them; or, more recentl y, and wi th more sophi sti cati on, to do both together,
bri ngi ng out the tensi on between them and the paradoxes, apori as, and
poi nts of contradi cti on that such a tensi on may generate. At stake here i s
more than the val ueprovi si onal or l ong-termof psychoanal yti c theory,
that i s, the questi on of whether femi ni sts shoul d or shoul d not abandon a
di scourse that pai nts so bl eak a pi cture of womens contai nment wi thi n the
psychi cal norms of mascul i ni ty. I t al so affects the i ntel l ectual and pol i ti cal
status of femi ni st theory i tsel f.
I s i t a readi ng practi ce, a practi ce of i nterpreti ng patri archal texts
di fferentl y, afrmi ng the capaci ty of every text (however phal l ocentri c or
patri archal i t may be) to be read otherwi se? Or i s i t a practi ce of the produc-
ti on of al ternati ve or di fferent knowl edges, whose goal may be ei ther the
producti on or revel ati on of new objects usi ng gi ven i nvesti gati ve proce-
dures
2
or the devel opment of di fferent methodol ogi cal procedures? These
key pol i ti cal and ethi cal questi ons remai n cruci al l y al i ve and i n need of
conti nual afrmati on i f femi ni st theory i s to devel op and transform i tsel f
276 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
producti vel y through the prol i ferati on of i denti ti es and subject-posi ti ons,
the pl ethora of speaki ng subjects and mul ti pl e perspecti ves, through the
fragmentati on and questi oni ng of i ts basi c goal s and assumpti ons rai sed by
the emergence and i nsi stence of i ts others l esbi ans, women of col or,
worki ng cl ass women, neocol oni al subjects.
I f psychoanal ysi s has been so useful for femi ni st theory and i ts
parti cul ar concerns, can i t remai n so for l esbi an theory and i ts di sti ncti ve, i f
someti mes overl appi ng, i nterests? Can theoreti cal frameworks whi ch have
been i nstrumental i n the devel opment of present-day femi ni st theory be
presumed to be of the same or si mi l ar i nterest to l esbi an theory? At stake
here i s an assessment of the overl apor l ack of i tbetween the i nterests of
femi ni sm and those of l esbi ani sm. I ndeed for too l ong there has been a
presumpti on that femi ni st i nterests i ncorporate and i ncl ude those of l esbi -
ans, that femi ni sm i s a more general and generi c category representi ng the
i nterests of al l women, and that l esbi an i nterests are a more speci c and
l ocal sub-category of femi ni st concerns. Such a model assumes a fundamen-
tal conti nui ty between femi ni sm and l esbi ani sm, a rel ati on of general to
parti cul ar that overl y homogeni zes thei r rel ati ons and i s i ncapabl e of under-
standi ng the di ssi mi l ari ti es, the space of separati on and di fference, that
di vi de them. Such a model assumes an i ncl usi ve and encompassi ng femi -
ni sm, a femi ni sm representati ve of, or at l east capabl e of representi ng the
i nterests of al l women, a femi ni sm that i s stri ctl y speaki ng i mpossi bl e. For a
femi ni st posi ti on to be equal l y i ncl usi ve of al l women i s to i nsi st on a femi -
ni sm of bl and general i ty, a banal i zed or vul gar femi ni sm, whi ch i ncl udes al l
but speaks to no one group i n i ts parti cul ari ty, a muted and depol i ti ci zed
femi ni sm. I f femi ni sm no l onger represents i tsel f as the pri vi l eged di scourse
of and for al l women but i nstead openl y acknowl edges and afrms i ts par-
ti cul ari ti es, i ts representati on of the val ues and commi tments of some groups
but not al l , then the someti mes compl ex and i ntri cate negoti ati ons between
(whi te, mi ddl e cl ass, heterosexual ) femi ni sm and i ts equal l y parti cul ar oth-
ers, i ncl udi ng l esbi ans, can begi n.
Lesbian Desir e in a Psychoanalytic Fr ame
The rel ati onshi p between psychoanal ysi s and femi ni sm has al -
ways been fraught wi th compl i cati ons, qual i cati ons, hesi tanci es. From
Jul i et Mi tchel l s and Luce I ri garays earl i est femi ni st i nvesti gati ons of the
rel evance of psychoanal ysi s to understandi ng the experi ences and struc-
tures governi ng womens psychi cal and sexual l i ves, i t has been wel l recog-
d i f f e r e n c e s 277
ni zed that there are major hurdl es to be overcome, and expl anati ons to be
devel oped regardi ng those el ements of psychoanal yti c theory that were
unassi mi l abl e to femi ni st concerns. Whi l e the more sexual l y neutral propo-
si ti ons Freud devel oped (those regardi ng the unconsci ous, the noti on of
i nfanti l e devel opment, the typol ogy of di sorders, hi s understandi ng of psy-
chi cal agenci es, etc.) seemed to be easi l y i ncorporabl e i nto a femi ni st frame-
work wi thout too much pol i ti cal coni ct, there were a number of unpal atabl e
asserti ons many femi ni sts found di fcul t to swal l ow, those whi ch character-
i zed women onl y i n terms of thei r compl ementary and supporti ng rol e
regardi ng the pri vi l eged and (pseudo-)autonomous posi ti on accorded to
men and mascul i ni ty, the presumpti on of a tel eol ogi cal l y copul ati ve and
reproducti ve sexual i deal , and the asserti on that womens most grati fyi ng
source of sexual sati sfacti on i s the compensatory rel ati on to a chi l d. I n short,
the probl em was, and remai ns, the structure of the contai nment of women i n
categori es and concepts rel evant to men. The structure whi ch de Laureti s,
fol l owi ng and modi fyi ng I ri garay, descri bes as a regi me or system of sexual
i ndi fference i s one whi ch can onl y vi ew women i nsofar as they are compa-
rabl e to or commensurabl e wi th men; i t i s such i ndi fference that refuses to
grant femal e sexual i ty or femal e geni tal i ty any authori ty, agency, or acti vi ty,
any form or coherence or desi re of i ts own. I t consequentl y reduces femal e
sexual i ty and geni tal i ty to the status of castrati on, l acki ng the very organ that
i s gi ven presence i n men. Woman i s man mi nus the phal l us, and thus wi thout
the benet of i ts consequences; she l acks the capaci ty to i ni ti ate, to acti vate.
I t i s no sur pr i se that i n such a model l esbi ani sm must be ei ther
r educed to the ter ms whi ch gover n heter osex ual i ty, wi th the l esbi an l over
assi mi l ated to a mascul i ne nor m (Fr euds hypothesi s of the mascul i ni ty
compl ex as a consti tuti ve i ngr edi ent i n the l i fe hi stor i es of hi s l esbi an
pati ents), or the l esbi an r el ati on must be r egar ded i n desex ual i zed ter ms,
as a r egr essi on to the mother -i nfant r el ati on or a r el ati on of nar ci ssi sti c
mi r r or i ng. Lesbi ani sm has been l eft l ar gel y unex pl ai ned by psychoana-
l yti c theor y (and, for that matter , al l the other mal e di scour ses that have
i nuenced the questi ons ex pl or ed i n femi ni st theor y). And i t seems as i f
thi s ar ea of obscur i ty i s not si mpl y conti ngentl y or acci dental l y obscur ed
thr ough over si ght or negl ect, but r ather , as i f thi s bl i nd spot i s consti tuti ve
of the psychoanal yti c pr oj ect. I f psychoanal ysi s has pr obl ems i n i ts ac-
counts of (heter osex ual ) women and ( nor mal ) femi ni ni ty, these pr ob-
l ems ar e ampl i ed and consol i date a poi nt of consti tuti ve i ncoher ence
and confusi on when i t i s the topi c of l esbi ani sm and not j ust (heter o-
sex ual ) femal e sex ual i ty that i s bei ng addr essed.
278 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
These probl ems have been wel l -recogni zed, even among Freuds
most fervent supporters. Thi s recogni ti on has not resul ted i n the abandon-
ment of psychoanal yti c theory as i rrel evant to theori zi ng l esbi ani sm how-
ever; on the contrary, i t has l ed to renewed attempts to make psychoanal ysi s
more amenabl e to such a project. Psychoanal ysi s has remai ned the pre-
ferred, though certai nl y not the excl usi ve or monopol i sti c, di scourse of
sexual pl easure and sexual desi re wi thi n l esbi an theori zi ng.
3
I t i s now ti me,
I bel i eve, that certai n epi stemol ogi cal and pol i ti cal questi ons be asked: Why
do we need psychoanal ysi s to thi nk l esbi an desi re? What are the l i mi ts of i ts
expl anatory power regardi ng subjecti vi ty and desi re, the poi nts beyond
whi ch i t ri sks i ncoherence and contradi cti on? And who are the subjects i t i s
unabl e to t i nto i ts expl anatory schemas? What i s at stake i n tryi ng to i ncl ude
what was previ ousl y excl uded, to pl ace at the center what was margi nal i zed,
to expl ai n and anal yze what was i nexpl i cabl e and unanal yzabl e? I s i t to try to
recuperate a theoreti cal or epi stemophi l i c (l i bi di nal ) commi tment i n the
l i ght of psychoanal yti c theorys mani fest i nadequaci es? I s i t an attempt to
stretch psychoanal ysi s beyond i ts l i mi ts of tol erati on? I s i t an attempt to
l egi ti mi ze l esbi an practi ces, to ensure that they are amenabl e to some ki nd
of anal ysi s and expl i cati on, even i f that i s beyond the usual terms provi ded by
psychoanal ysi s? I s i t to broaden the noti on of desi re to open i t up to the
appropri ati on and use of women, and parti cul arl y, l esbi ans? To broaden the
noti on of desi re such that perversi ty i nstead of normal i zati on becomes i ts
expl anatory framework? Or i s i t to shore up and support a di scourse whose
ti me has come, an attempt to resurrect a theoreti cal paradi gm faci ng i ts
l i mi ts? The questi on whi ch needs to be asked here i s: Does de Laureti s
functi on to provi de a pol i ti cal rati onal e and credi bi l i ty for psychoanal ysi s as
i t l i es dyi ng? Does she, and do other l esbi an theori sts who have tri ed to
appropri ate psychoanal ysi s for l esbi an projects, serve to prol ong the agony
of thi s dyi ng di scourse, gi vi ng i t hope for remi ssi on when i n fact i t shoul d be
buri ed?
De Laureti ss book cl earl y demonstrates that the femi ni st and
l esbi an fasci nati on wi th psychoanal ysi s i s not onl y understandabl e, but has
provi ded both wi th a number of i nsi ghts unavai l abl e anywhere el se, a seri es
of key questi ons, methods of anal ysi s, and concepts whi ch have become
i ntegral to much work bei ng wri tten wi thi n femi ni st and l esbi an ci rcl es. She
i s abl e to bri ng these femi ni st and l esbi an i ssues to bear on psychoanal yti c
di scourse, and whi l e her book does not ai m to convi nce l esbi ans and others
that they shoul d be i nterested i n psychoanal ysi s, she does assume that
psychoanal ysi s has provi ded and shoul d perhaps conti nue to provi de an
d i f f e r e n c e s 279
understandi ng of i ntri caci es of the subjecti ve psyche, the structure of fan-
tasy, and the modal i ti es of desi re and sexual pl easure. Most si gni cantl y,
psychoanal ysi s can be l i nked to l arger soci al , cul tural , and pol i ti cal i ssues. As
l ong as a psychoanal yti c account of l esbi an desi re avoi ds certai n theoreti cal
temptati ons and pi tfal l s, de Laureti s mai ntai ns that i t can be of great val ue i n
understandi ng the personal passi ons and the psychi cal structuri ng that con-
sti tutes l esbi ani sm.
Some of her hesi tati ons and suggesti ons can hel p provi de cri teri a
by whi ch to judge the success or fai l ure of vari ous expl anati ons and accounts
of l esbi an desi re i n i ts di fferent forms and types. For exampl e, de Laureti s
qui te ri ghtl y resi sts the tendency to romanti ci sm and utopi ani sm i n much
wri ti ng about l esbi ans and l esbi an desi re whi ch l eads to a nostal gi a for the
l ost (pre-Oedi pal ) mother-chi l d rel ati on or the fantasy of an i magi nary sym-
bi osi s wi th the mother.
4
I n i nsi sti ng on the necessi ty of an Oedi pal i zed rather
than a pre-Oedi pal or i magi nary structuri ng to l esbi an desi re, de Laureti s
i nsi sts on the fundamental l y adul t, geni tal , and sexual nature of l esbi ani sm,
agai nst a tendency to see l esbi ani sm as a non-sexual i zed woman-l ovi ng. I n
emphasi zi ng the post-Oedi pal or mature nature of l esbi ani sm, i n refusi ng to
accord the i dea of psychi cal or l i bi di nal regressi on to pre-Oedi pal forms of
l ovi ng, de Laureti s i s not suggesti ng that the pre-Oedi pal or i magi nary i s
uni mpor tant or i r r el evant but mer el y that i t must be symbol i cal l y or
Oedi pal l y overcoded, that our access to the pre-Oedi pal i s al ways medi ated,
i ndeed produced, onl y through the Oedi pal . Moreover, i n i nsi sti ng on the
adul t, geni tal nature of l esbi an desi re, de Laureti s probl emati zes the noti on
of the l esbi an conti nuum rst devel oped by Adri enne Ri ch, a concept of the
fundamental conti nui ty between l esbi an rel ati ons and the (non-sexual or
non-geni tal ) rel ati ons between al l women whi ch has been used by some,
usual l y heterosexual , femi ni sts to el i de the very real pol i ti cal , soci al , eco-
nomi c, and sexual di fferences between l esbi ans and non-l esbi ans. I n i nsi st-
i ng on the di sti ncti vel y eroti c and geni tal rel ati ons between women that
characteri ze the structure of l esbi an sexual desi re, de Laureti s refuses mod-
el s of desi re proposed by psychoanal yti c theory whi ch see femal e sexual
desi re as acti ve onl y accordi ng to the noti on of the mascul i ni ty compl ex and
i ts correl ati ve concepti on of peni s-envy. Such model s can, at best, and hi ghl y
probl emati cal l y, expl ai n mascul i ni zed or butch l esbi an sexual i ty, but are
unabl e to account for the non-mascul i ne or femme l esbi an.
5
I n character-
i zi ng l esbi ani sm as the acti ve sexual desi re of a woman for another woman,
de Laureti s questi ons the useful ness of any model whi ch reduces or expl ai ns
away womens desi re i n mal e terms, or sees l esbi ani sm as a mode of i mi ta-
280 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
ti on or emul ati on of heterosexual rol e model s. But i n refusi ng to mascul i ni ze
womens desi re for other women, de Laureti s does not l urch i nto the posi ti on
whi ch tri es to reject psychoanal ysi s i n i ts enti rety because i t reduces women
to ei ther passi vi ty or mascul i ni ty. She represents psychoanal ysi s as sti l l the
most vi abl e di scourse of desi re, the most potent account of subjecti vi zati on.
I n order to understand de Laureti ss cl ai ms regardi ng psycho-
anal ysi s, two pi votal terms i n her very detai l ed and el aborate argument need
some expl anati on: the noti on of perverse desi re, and the noti on of the l esbi an
feti sh (whi ch i n many ways feeds i nto and el aborates the metaphor of the
l esbi an phal l us put forward i n Judi th Butl ers anal ysi s and i n my anal ysi s of
l esbi an feti shi sm devel oped i n the pages of differences).
6
De Laureti ss expl i ci t goal i s the devel opment of a formal model
of perverse desi re (xi i i ), by whi ch I understand her to mean a general model
capabl e of adequatel y expl ai ni ng al l the vari ous modal i ti es of l esbi an desi re
(whether butch or femme, top or bottom, sadomasochi sti c or va-
ni l l a, whether the real l i fe experi ences of subjects, or the l mi c, theatri -
cal , poeti c, or l i terary representati ons, a model whose parti cul ar detai l s need
to be l l ed i n and modi ed accordi ng to the subjects parti cul ari ty). I n order
to devel op such a formal model , de Laureti s needs to speci fy what she means
by the noti on of perverse desi re, and how thi s i s rel ated to and di ffers from
the normati vel y heterosexual understandi ng of sexual i ty and desi re that
pervades the practi ce of psychoanal ysi s. There i s al ready a tensi on i n Freuds
wri ti ngs between an acceptance of the tel eol ogy of heterosexual copul ati on
and reproducti on, and the perpetual undermi ni ng of the natural ness or
i nevi tabi l i ty of thi s sexual tel eol ogy through hi s understandi ng of the consti -
tuti ve functi on of the devi ati ons or vi ci ssi tudes of sexual ai ms, objects, and
sources of eroti c pl easure.
7
I n readi ng Freud through the work of Jacques Lacan, Jean La-
pl anche, and a number of femi ni st theori sts, de Laureti s proposes a nega-
ti ve theory of the perversi ons, a theory of sexual i ty as i nherentl y perverse,
non-normati ve, i mpossi bl e to deni ti vel y separate from ei ther normal i ty or
neurosi s. I f perversi on i s, as Freud suggests, a devi ati on from an i nsti nctual
acti vi ty, the i nsi nuati on of a gap between a dri ve and i ts ai ms and objects,
then all sexual i ty i s a devi ati on, al l desi re perverse, al l pl easure an amal gam
of heterogeneous component dri ves whi ch refuse any si mpl e subordi nati on
to geni tal and reproducti ve functi ons. Heterosexual geni tal and reproducti ve
sexual i ty are onl y the tenuous resul ts of the repressi on and reorderi ng of the
heterogenei ty of dri ve i mpul ses. I f one emphasi zes the perverse si de of
Freuds unresol ved ambi val ences regardi ng the nature of human sexual i ty,
d i f f e r e n c e s 281
as de Laureti s, fol l owi ng Lapl anche, proposes, then the pecul i ari ti es of
heterosexual normal i ty are thrown i nto stark rel i ef. I f, i nstead, one empha-
si zes Freuds normati ve understandi ng, then cl earl y i t i s the perversi ons, and
parti cul arl y homosexual i ty, whi ch are i n need of expl anati on:
Thus perversion, and homosexuality in particular, has a pecu-
liarly paradoxical status in Freud: both central and yet disruptive;
necessary and yet objectionable; a deviation from the norm and
yet more compatible with positive social goals; degrading of hu-
man relationship and yet more pleasurable than civilized sexu-
ality; regressive or involuntary and yet expressive of an originary
intensity of being. (25)
What i s both i nteresti ng and puzzl i ng about de Laureti ss specu-
l ati ons on the negati ve trace of the perversi ons (28) i s her cl ai m that such
a negati ve theory of the perversi ons wi l l prove as useful an expl anatory
model for homosexual desi re as the posi ti ve or normati ve theory i s useful for
expl ai ni ng heterosexual desi re.
8
I n short, her presumpti on i s that the am-
bi val ence surroundi ng Freuds two contradi ctory understandi ngs of sexual -
i ty can be to some extent r esol ved by separ ati ng the two model sthe
normati ve, heterosexual model , from thi s theory of desi re as perversi onso
that one can expl ai n perverse desi re and the other normal desi re. Thi s
tends to mute the cutti ng edge of Lapl anches extrapol ati on from Freud that
the devi ati on i s what both enabl es and undermi nes the norm, that the per-
versi ons are al so capabl e of characteri zi ng all forms of (human) sexual i ty
and all forms of desi re. Lapl anche cl ai ms that the sexual dri ve per se i s
i nsti tuted by way of a (devi ant) retraci ng of psychi cal and bi ol ogi cal pro-
cesses mapped i ni ti al l y by bi ol ogi cal or i nsti ncti ve processes. Where i n-
sti ncts requi re a real object for sati sfacti on and for the materi al mai ntenance
of l i fe, the dri ve i nsi nuates a fantasy object i n pl ace of the i nsti ncts real
object, a fantasy object whose powers of attracti on rapi dl y outstri p and
i ncorporate the real . Sexual i ty i s i n i tsel f a devi ati on, a departure from the
real , from bi ol ogy, from necessi ty, i nto the meanderi ng detours of fantasy.
On the other hand, thi s separati on i s what i s necessary for de Laureti s to
accept as rel evant the formal structures Freud proposesthe Oedi pal sce-
nari o, the noti on of castrati on, and the phal l uswhi l e transformi ng the way
they operate and how they are commonl y understood. Thi s i s necessary for
her to di fferenti ate her account of l esbi an desi re from Lapl anches more
general understandi ng of the perversi ty of al l desi re. Thi s separati on of the
normati ve from the perverse i s the condi ti on for de Laureti ss project for
282 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
rethi nki ng the sexual speci ci ty of l esbi an desi re; but at the same ti me, i t
i nvol ves unravel l i ng preci sel y the process of sel f-undoi ng Freuds two ac-
counts of sexual i ty set up for each other. And thus i t i nvol ves unravel l i ng
preci sel y the tensi on that has so attracted femi ni sts and others to psychoana-
l yti c di scourse.
Splitting at the Seams
I cannot hope to adequatel y cover much of de Laureti ss hi ghl y
i ntri cate arguments regardi ng the structure of perverse desi re. I nstead, I wi l l
focus on what I bel i eve i s the most di sti ncti ve and contenti ous of her cl ai ms,
her l i nki ng of l esbi an desi re to the structure of feti shi sm. De Laureti s devel -
ops as convi nci ng an anal ysi s of the genesi s and structure of l esbi an desi re
usi ng the psychoanal yti c framework as has been yet attempted. I f she i s
unabl e to accommodate l esbi an desi re wi thi n thi s framework, then i t seems
unl i kel y that i t can be done. I n a sense, her text i s a test or l i mi t case for
psychoanal ysi s. Gi ven that the standard Freudi an account of the Oedi pus
compl ex and peni s-envy are not abl e adequatel y to expl ai n l esbi an desi re,
can a modi ed, transformed, or sel ecti vel y rewri tten versi on, one, for ex-
ampl e, whi ch repl aces the pri vi l eged rol e of repressi on as the mechani sm of
defence whi ch most abl y resol ves the Oedi pus compl ex, fare better as a mode
of expl anati on?
Thi s i s de Laureti ss gambl e, her wager: that i f psychoanal ysi s i s
to remai n rel evant to understandi ng l esbi an desi re, i ts foundati on i n mal e
and heterocentri c pri vi l ege must be overcome, and al ternati ves, devi sed
from wi thi n i ts frame, put forward. I f these or si mi l ar transformati ons are to
succeed, then psychoanal ysi s may be abl e to retai n i ts pol i ti cal rel evance i n
the face of the pol i ti cal di spersi on that postmodern cul ture effects. I f, on
the other hand, i t must be ei ther so drasti cal l y modi ed as to become a
di fferent theory, no l onger recogni zabl y that psychoanal ysi s based on the
pri vi l ege of mascul i ni ty, the phal l us, or heterosexual coupl i ng, then perhaps
i t i s ti me that the amount of energy and effort femi ni sts, l esbi ans, and gays
have i nvested i n psychoanal ysi s mi ght be better i nvested i n other theoreti cal
approaches and i ntel l ectual endeavors.
De Laureti s devel ops her anal ysi s of l esbi an feti shi sm from a
detai l ed readi ng of Radcl yffe Hal l s The Well of Loneliness and Cherr e Mor-
agas Giving Up the Ghost. I t i s on her rereadi ng, or rather, her revi si on of the
status and nature of the concepts so careful l y ti ed together i n an apparentl y
i nextri cabl e cl uster i n Freuds account of Oedi pal i zati onthe noti on of cas-
d i f f e r e n c e s 283
trati on, the paternal phal l us, the concept of peni s-envy, and the mascul i ni ty
compl ex. I t i s cl ear that these concepts must ei ther be abandoned (and i f they
are, psychoanal ysi s as a whol e must go wi th them i nsofar as the Oedi pus
compl ex i s not onl y the nucl eus of the neuroses, but al so the center of a knot
whi ch ti es together Freuds understandi ng of sexual i ty wi th hi s understand-
i ng of the unconsci ous), or they must be stretched and contorted so as to be
abl e to accommodate femal e, or l esbi an, desi re. Thi s l atter i s preci sel y the
task de Laureti s sets for hersel f: how to take one strand of Freuds ambi val ent
asserti ons and l eave the al ternati ve.
For exampl e, i t i s si gni cant that the noti on of castrati on i s com-
posed of two strands: the noti on of the (potenti al or actual ) amputati on of the
chi l ds geni tal organs as puni shment for sexual transgressi on (a noti on
whi ch must be di sturbi ng to femi ni sts, whether the di sturbance i s di rected to
Freuds theory or the patri archal cul ture i t purports to descri be), and a noti on
of the prohi bi ti on and abandonment of the pre-Oedi pal , i ncestuous attach-
ment of the chi l d to the mother. I n more orthodox readi ngs of Freuds work,
these two cl ai ms are i ntri catel y l i nked: the prohi bi ti on on desi ri ng the mother
has force and effect onl y because the (boy?) chi l d i s threatened wi th castra-
ti on, that i s, wi th femi ni zati on. De Laureti s tri es to extri cate these two
strands from each other, to thi nk a noti on of castrati on i n whi ch the chi l ds
desi re i s di sentangl ed from the desi re of the mother (whi l e sti l l remai ni ng
l i nked to i t), as Freud suggests, but where amputati on does not necessari l y
entai l the pri vi l egi ng of the peni s or of mascul i ni ty as the onl y acti ve form of
desi re. Unl i ke some l esbi an theori sts who wi sh to di spl ace, to move beyond,
the noti on of castrati on (or to read i t i n l i ngui sti c rather than corporeal
terms), de Laureti s mai ntai ns that some noti on of castrati on must be re-
tai ned, and that some noti on of phal l us needs to be devel oped. But these can
no l onger be si mpl y l i nked to the presence or absence of the peni s, as Freud
suggests, and Lacan, i n spi te of hi s deni al s, al so afrms.
9
Coupl ed wi th her di sentangl ement of the pri macy of the peni s
(and parti cul arl y the paternal peni s) from the castrati on compl ex i s de
Laureti ss attempt to expl ai n the noti on of l esbi an desi re, not i n the terms
most sui ted for di scussi ng neurosi s
10
repressi onbut i n those whi ch may
be more appropri ate for perverse pl easure: di savowal and feti shi sm. Fol l ow-
i ng the work of Leo Bersani and Ul ysse Dutoi t, she suggests that perhaps the
very structure of desi re i tsel fal l desi remi ght be characteri zed as feti sh-
i sti c, i nsofar as i t both afrms and deni es a foundi ng pri mal object of desi re
whi l e creati ng a substi tute for i t. That substi tute i s the seri es of (endl ess)
objects that are taken, i n Lacani an parl ance, as the cause of desi re, i ts
284 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
moti vati on or tri gger. Li ke de Laureti s, Bersani and Dutoi t want to di sti n-
gui sh the feti sh from the phal l us, or rather, from the peni s that the mother i s
assumed to have had, and l ost, and that the father i s demonstrated as pos-
sessi ng. They cl ai m that the feti shi st does not see the feti sh as the mi ssi ng
(maternal ) peni s but as somethi ng separate and di fferent, a si gn or tal i sman
or, perhaps better, a metonym rel ated to the peni s but i n no way resembl i ng
i t.
11
The feti sh i s not a repl acement peni s; rather, i t i s a fantasy-phal l us
(225), an object/si gn i nvested i n fantasy wi th the status of phal l us (=object of
desi re). I t does not repl ace, resembl e, or compensate for the mi ssi ng peni s,
whi ch i s i rrevocabl y gone, a functi on of the castrati on of womens narci s-
si sm and body-i mage rather than anatomy. Rather i t functi ons onl y on the
recogni ti on, the afrmati on, of castrati on. I t i s onl y i f the subjects desi re i s
detached from i ts rst l i bi di nal objects that the perverse freedom of desi re to
range over al l manner of objects wi th a great vari ety of sexual ai ms becomes
possi bl e. I n thi s sense, castrati on i s the condi ti on of perversi on as much as of
neurosi s or normal i ty.
De Laureti s needs to di si nvest the noti on of castrati on from the
amputati on of bodi l y organs, and to see perverse desi re i n terms of di savowal
rather than repressi on i n order to expl ai n how the phal l us can be detached
from the father and paterni ty, and to be abl e to provi de an account of l esbi an
desi re beyond the mascul i ni ty compl ex. Where di savowal i s al so cl earl y
i nvol ved i n Freuds account of the mascul i ni ty compl ex (i n whi ch the gi rl
di savows her castrati on and cl i ngs to the bel i ef that one day the stunted
cl i tori s (or l i ttl e peni s) wi l l grow), i t i s a questi on of what i s di savowed. I n the
case of the mascul i ni ty compl ex, i t seems, the gi rl di savows her own cas-
trated condi ti on and retai ns a competi ti ve, mascul i ne rel ati on to acti vi ty.
I n the case of the l esbi an, however, i t i s not her castrati on that she di savows
(the l esbi an accepts that she i s a woman who desi res a woman, not a woman
who desi res to be a man). I t i s rather the absence or l oss of another womans
body (i n the rst i nstance, the mothers body)the separati on of mother and
chi l d that i s part of the nexus of terms consti tuti ng castrati onshe must
di savow and di spl ace onto a feti shi sti c substi tute (236), a si gn that qual i es
or modi es a womans body, whi ch consti tutes for her the l ure of l esbi ani sm:
. . . what the lesbian desires in a woman...is indeed not a penis but a
part or perhaps the whole of the female body, or something
metonymically related to it, such as physical, intellectual, or emo-
tional attributes, stance, attitudes, appearance, self-presentation
and hence the importance of clothing, costume, performance, etc. in
d i f f e r e n c e s 285
lesbian subcultures. She knows full well she is not a man, she does not
have the paternal phallus (nor would her lover want it), but that does
not preclude the signication of her desire: the fetish is at once what
signies her desire and what her lover desires in her.... In short, the
lesbian fetish is any object, any sign whatsoever, that marks the
difference and the desire between the lovers: say, the erotic signal of
her hair at the nape of her neck, touching the shirt collar or, as J oan
Nestle also suggests, big-hipped, wide-assed womens bodies. It
could be the masquerade of masculinity and femininity of the North
American butch-femme lesbian subculture. . . . (22829)
De Laureti s does not deny the noti on of castrati onfor to do so,
she cl ai ms, i s to abandon the ri ght to symbol i c and si gni fyi ng efcaci ty and
geni tal or orgasmi c maturi ty. What i s castrated, what i s both l ost and di s-
avowed, covered over and di spl aced, i s a l ovabl e or desi rabl e female body.
Here de Laureti s, as others before her have done, l ocates the (retrospecti ve?)
effect of castrati on on the earl i er narci ssi sti c sel f-representati on that accom-
pl i shes an ego and ego-i deal for the subject. Castrati on does not so much
sever the gi rl from a geni tal organ of her own as transcri be or rewri te an
earl i er l oss, the l oss of a femal e body (her own, or that of the mother). I n the
case of Stephen Gordon, for exampl e, i t i s the mothers i ncapaci ty to desi re
Stephens body, her fai l ure to nd i t femi ni ne that performs a wound or
castrati on of Stephens (i magi nary) body-i mage. I n de Laureti ss readi ng, the
narci ssi sti c probl em for Stephen i s not that her body i s phal l i cl y castrated;
her body i s too phallic, too mascul i ne to be desi red.
12
What she mourns i s the
l ost femal e body. What l ures and attracts her are the feti sh repl acements of
thi s l ost body (whi ch may, but need not be understood as the maternal body;
the body l ost i n Stephens case i s her own femal e body), the i rresi sti bl e
attracti on of manni sh cl othi ng, and the conventi ons governi ng mascul i ne
bodi l y gai t and habi t wi thi n her cul ture. These are among her parti cul ar
l esbi an feti shes. The feti sh i s a di spl acement of the bodi l y di spossessi on that
consti tutes the castrati on that the gi rl suffers.
13
Thi s feti sh cannot be i denti -
ed wi th the object of l esbi an desi re (the woman) but i s the subjects means
of access to and mode of attracti on for the l ove-object. And i deal l y, the feti sh
i s what i n turn i nduces an i nterest from the l ove-object. No doubt there are
a potenti al l y i nni te number of si gns, trai ts, gestures, manneri sms that pose
the l ure Lacan attri buted to the objet petit a. These strange attractors whi ch
si gnal the i nducements of the eroti c object to a desi ri ng subject are those
speci al detai l s that attract a woman to a woman.
14
286 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
Si gni cantl yand thi s i s a measur e of the i mpr ovement de
Laureti ss model of l esbi an desi re has over competi ng model sshe i s abl e to
expl ai n both the si mi l ar i ti es and the di ffer ences between butch and
femme sexual posi ti ons usi ng her account of l esbi an feti shi sm. I n the case
of the butch l esbi an, paradi gmati cal l y represented by the gure of Stephen
Gordon, de Laureti s suggests that the l ure of manni sh cl othi ng and the
trappi ngs of mascul i ni ty are hardl y surpri si ng gi ven that i t i s the si gni cati on
of mascul i ni ty whi ch, i n our cul ture, most readi l y and di rectl y represents
acti ve sexual desi re for the femal e body:
The reason seems too obvious to belabor: not only is masculinity
associated with sexual activity and desire, imaged in the erect
penis and its symbolic or ritual representation in the phallus;
but, more to my immediate point, in a cultural tradition perva-
sively homophobic, masculinity alone carries a strong connota-
tion of sexual desire for the female body. That is the lure of the
mannish lesbiana lure for her and for her lover. The fetish of
masculinity is what both lures and signies her desire for the
female body, and what in her lures her lover, what her lover
desires in her and wi th her . (243)
The butch l esbi an does not desi re to be a man, or envy what i t
i s that men have (the peni s) but rather takes as her own si gni ers of desi re
that have hel ped characteri ze mens desi re.
15
Her model of l esbi an feti shi sm
i s al so capabl e of qual i fyi ng the posi ti on of the femme as wel l , for just as the
manni sh woman i s abl e to take the si gns of mascul i ni ty as feti sh-objects, so
too the femme takes the si gns of femi ni ni ty, someti mes i n parodi ed form,
as a feti sh, as both her mode of attracti veness for another and as what
provi des her wi th sati sfacti on. De Laureti s sees thi s femi ni ni ty as a hyper-
femi ni ni ty, a mode of recl amati on and restagi ng of the l oss and recovery of
the femal e body:
The exaggerated display of femininity in the masquerade of the
femme performs the sexual power and seductiveness of the female
body when offered to the butch for mutual narcissistic empower-
ment. (264)
The same can be sai d for al l the vari ous scenari os of l esbi an
desi re, whatever parti cul ar forms i t may take. I n l esbi an sadomasochi sm too,
i t i s the questi on of the status, val ue, and control of the femal e body that i s at
stake, and the i mpl ements of sexual desi re whi ch serve as feti shes. What
d i f f e r e n c e s 287
l esbi ans share i n common, de Laureti s suggests, i s that i n al l these cases
perverse desi re i s sustai ned on fantasy scenari os that restage the l oss and
recovery of a fantasmati c femal e body (265). The fantasy scenari os wi thi n
whi ch the feti sh functi ons are al ways, or structural l y, a restagi ng of the l oss
or abandonment of the femal e body. Thi s i s what di sti ngui shes l esbi an, or
perverse, desi re from the structures and desi res whi ch mark stereotyped
heterosexual i ty: a ki nd of pri mal scene of di spossessi on by whi ch l esbi ani sm
i s structured as both compensati on and resi stance.
16
Lines of Flight
There i s no doubt that The Practice of Love i s a si gni cant book.
I t represents an i ntri gui ng l ast-di tch effort to preserve psychoanal yti c theory,
to retai n the cri ti cal and radi cal edge that theory achi eved when rst taken
up by femi ni sts as the di scourse of subjecti vi ty and desi re. I am not convi nced
that de Laureti s has succeeded, al though I suspect that those perhaps l ess
di si l l usi oned wi th the pol i ti cal and theoreti cal i mpl i cati ons of too heavy a
rel i ance on psychoanal yti c theory woul d nd the project more appeal i ng and
qui te convi nci ng. My concerns are not about the qual i ty of de Laureti ss work
but more about the capaci ty of the framework of psychoanal ysi s to expl ai n
preci sel y that whi ch i t must excl ude i n order to consti tute i tsel f as a mode of
knowl edge.
One of the major strategi es of the 1970s and 1980s i n femi ni st
theory has been the i mpressi ve capaci ty of some femi ni sts to extend one
model of power, parti cul arl y a mascul i ni st text, so that i t covers domai ns and
objects hi therto l eft out or unthought, whi ch thus consti tute a poi nt of bl i nd-
ness or vul nerabi l i ty for that model (domesti c l abor for marxi sm, l esbi an
desi re for psychoanal ysi s, femi ni ne modes of di sci pl i ne or ethi cal sel f-regu-
l ati on for Foucaul t). Whi l e an i mmense amount of (someti mes producti ve
and rewardi ng) femi ni st thought, i ngenui ty, and l abor has gone i nto thi s
project of stretchi ng or extendi ng the tol erabl e boundari es of mal e di s-
courses so that they may be made useful for or amenabl e to femi ni st projects,
i t i s not cl ear what the l ong-term benets are of conti nui ng to prop up or
support a di scourse whi ch has wel l -recogni zed probl ems. Perhaps the major
drawback of such an approach i s the cl ai m that the objects or concepts
negl ected or excl uded by these mal e di scourses are not si mpl y (passi vel y)
forgotten through a ki nd of oversi ght. Domesti c l abor, l esbi an desi re, femal e
di sci pl i ne are acti vel y excl uded concepts, concepts whose excl usi on condi -
ti ons the el d i n whi ch they functi on as bl i nd spots. These concepts that are
288 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
l i teral l y unthi nkabl e i n thei r gi ven frameworks i nvol ve ei ther a contradi c-
ti on i n the theoreti cal model i nvol ved, or a space i ncapabl e of bei ng theoreti -
cal l y col oni zed by that framework. Attempts to t women, or i n de Laureti ss
case l esbi ans, i nto these frameworks i s bound to be i ntel l ectual l y prot-
abl eone l earns an i mmense amount about these frameworks, and thei r
l i mi ts i n the processbut i n the l ong run, they prove i mpossi bl e.
I n order to take on and producti vel y uti l i ze Freudi an and La-
cani an di scourses i n a context where they not onl y have mani fest shortcom-
i ngs but al so a systemati c commi tment to these shortcomi ngs for theoreti cal
coherence, de Laureti s must both face and expose what i s probl emati c about
psychoanal yti c di scourses, and then show that these probl ems are not so
overwhel mi ng that they entai l the abandonment of i ts frame. Her cri ti cal
endeavor of chal l engi ng the vari ous uses of psychoanal yti c theory by other
femi ni sts, l esbi an, or gay theori stswhi ch I bel i eve i s the most powerful part
of her booki s necessari l y bound up wi th (an i mpl i ci t) recuperati ve project,
that of i nsul ati ng psychoanal ysi s from the i mpl i cati ons of femi ni st and l es-
bi an cri ti ci sms, keepi ng i t propped up when i t i s onl y wi th major transforma-
ti ons, transformati ons whi ch have uncl ear and ambi guous effects, that i t can
mai ntai n i ts expl anatory power i n the case of i ts excl uded others.
Her uti l i zati on of psychoanal ysi s has been i ngeni ous, and I be-
l i eve that her account of feti shi sm (whi ch for me i s not real l y adequatel y
separated from a Lacani an noti on of the phal l us as mobi l e, not ti ed to ei ther
the peni s or mascul i ni ty) provi des a compl ex and qui te pl ausi bl e model for
expl ai ni ng some of the styl es and ori entati ons of l esbi an desi re; but thi s
expl anati on i s bui l t at consi derabl e cost, both to theori es of l esbi an desi re
and to psychoanal ysi s. Whi l e I do not have an al ternati ve account of l esbi an
desi re to offer i n pl ace of the l abor of l ove she undertook i n produci ng thi s
book and i n devi si ng a theory of l esbi an desi re based on a rereadi ng (but
actual l y a reworki ng) of psychoanal ysi s, what I can offer i s some (sympa-
theti c) cri ti ci sm, proffered i n the spi ri t of one commi tted to a broadl y si mi l ar
project.
My most general concerns are preci sel y about the status of psy-
choanal yti c di scourse (i n i ts vari ous permutati ons), and de Laureti ss rel i -
ance on i t as the sol e expl anatory framework i n her account of the structuri ng
of l esbi an desi re. I t i s a si mi l ar concern I have for other femi ni st projects that
take psychoanal yti c expl anati ons as the paradi gm or norm for what consti -
tutes an expl anati on. I t seems to me that one must be aware of a certai n
ethi cs of readi ng, an ethi cs of the appropri ati on and use of di scourses. One
cannot si mpl y buy i nto a theoreti cal system (especi al l y one as compl ex and
d i f f e r e n c e s 289
as systemati cal l y concei ved, i n spi te of i ts i nconsi stenci es, as psychoanal y-
si s) wi thout at the same ti me accepti ng i ts basi c i mpl i cati ons and foundi ng
assumpti ons. I am not here suggesti ng that one must al ways read Freud wi th
the vi ew to accepti ng i t al l , but rather, that when one uses a di scourse for
ones own purposes i t i s never enti rel y cl ear whi ch of i ts i mpl i cati ons or
assumpti ons are i ncompati bl e wi th ones own. Probl emati c i mpl i cati ons
cannot be contai ned and prevented from i nl trati ng those consi dered un-
probl emati c. I t i s not cl ear, more speci cal l y, that one can uti l i ze a whol e
range of Freuds concepts (about fantasy, desi re, pl easure, sexual i ty, etc.)
wi thout accepti ng that whi ch underl i es and l i nks themthe castrati on com-
pl ex, the pri macy of the phal l us, the rel ati ons of presence and absence
governi ng the sexes. Thi s i s what de Laureti ss strategy seems to be, and,
i roni cal l y, i t i s thi s wi sh both to have ones cake and eat i t, both to castrate
and preserve psychoanal ysi s, whi ch characteri zes the feti shi sts use of di s-
avowal .
De Laur eti ss r evi si oni sm i s ai med at thr ee tar get concepts: the
noti on of castr ati on, the centr al i ty of r epr essi on and the concept of the
mascul i ni ty compl ex, a cl uster of concepts whi ch deser ve r i gor ous i nter r o-
gati on. I t r emai ns uncl ear to me how one can cl ai m to accept the fr ame-
wor k of Oedi pal i zati on, the noti on of the pater nal phal l us, the concept of
castr ati on and yet l ocate castr ati on as a mi r r or -stage or i magi nar y bodi l y
di spossessi on. Thi s, even i n Fr euds ter ms, cannot be a castr ati on, even i f i t
anti ci pates and makes castr ati on possi bl e, even i f castr ati on r etr ospec-
ti vel y i nects i ts meani ng and status. And i t r emai ns uncl ear how, i n
cl ai mi ng that i t i s the psychi cal str uctur e of di savowal r ather than r epr es-
si on whi ch char acter i zes l esbi an desi r e, what i mpl i cati ons thi s has, for
exampl e, wi th r espect to the noti on of the unconsci ous for l esbi ans. Or i s i t
that di savowal exi sts al ongsi de of r epr essi on? I n thi s case, why i s the
di spossessi on of a femal e body the obj ect of di savowal r ather than r epr es-
si on, and why i s thi s one obj ect of di savowal al one si gni cant for l esbi ans?
Whi l e I cer tai nl y agr ee wi th de Laur eti s that the mascul i ni ty compl ex i s not
an adequate model for under standi ng l esbi ani sm because i t subsumes
women under phal l i c nor ms, i t i s uncl ear that the feti sh i s any l ess phal l i c
i n i ts str uctur e and i mpl i cati ons. Her model of the feti sh, whi ch she openl y
r el ates to Butl er s use of the noti on of l esbi an phal l us, entai l s an attempt
to detach the phal l us fr om i ts metonymi c connecti ons wi th the peni s, to
detach the phal l us fr om pater ni ty and author i ty and thus to r ender i t mor e
mobi l e.
17
But i f the feti sh i s j ust as i mpl i cated i n mascul i ni ty as the phal l us,
then a theor y whi ch di spl aces the mascul i ni ty compl ex wi th feti shi sm does
290 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
not necessar i l y l eave l esbi ani sm any better off. Thi s i s somethi ng she
seems to r ecogni ze, at l east i n her di scussi on of Naomi Schor s account of
femal e feti shi sm (269), wher e she admi r es Schor s i ntel l ectual honesty i n
both posi ti ng femal e feti shi sm and at the same ti me questi oni ng i ts pol i ti cal
and str ategi c val ue as a di sr upti ve ter m wi thi n the psychoanal yti c cor pus.
Perhaps more di sconcerti ng than her revi si oni st use of psycho-
anal ysi s i s the potenti al effect of usi ng psychoanal ysi s for theori zi ng l esbi an
desi re i tsel f. De Laureti s seems to be proposi ng the possi bi l i ty of a speci c
l esbi an psychol ogy, an aeti ol ogy of l esbi ani sm that di sti ngui shes the struc-
ture of l esbi an desi re from the structures of heterosexual i ty not si mpl y i n
terms of a di sti ncti on between l ove-objects but al so i n terms of di fferent
body-i mages and representati ons, and thus a di fferent symbol i c and i magi -
nary. I f thi s i s the case, then she i s (i mpl i ci tl y) commi tted to a concept of a
l esbi an psychol ogy. But here we must ask i f i ndeed there i s a systemati c
di fference of the ki nd de Laureti s suggestsa common di spossessi on of a
femal e body and the desi re to (re)attai n i twhi ch separates l esbi ans from
heterosexual s. I f there i s such a di fference, moreover, thi s seems to prob-
l emati ze the posi ti on of those women who become l esbi ans, whi ch, i roni -
cal l y, i s how she characteri zes hersel f (xi x). Just as the femi ni ne l esbi an
consti tutes a poi nt of bl i ndness for both orthodox psychoanal ysi s and some
l esbi an appropri ati ons of i t,
18
de Laureti s seems to have di fcul ty accounti ng
for those l esbi ans who have become l esbi ans. Do these l esbi ans undergo a
change i n psychol ogy (a transfer from repressi on to di savowal )? Or are they
si mpl y repressed l esbi ans who had to awai t thei r chance for sexual pl easure
and desi re (whi l e sufferi ng under heterocentri c i deol ogy)? But i f one i s to
grant such women an accepted status as l esbi ans, then how can de Laureti s
account for the apparent mobi l i ty of (perverse) desi re? How i s i t that not onl y
can heterosexual women someti mes convert to l esbi ans, but the converse i s
al so true: some women become heterosexual . Do these women, or those
who l abel themsel ves as bi sexual change thei r psychol ogi es and the struc-
ture of thei r desi re whi l e i n l esbi an rel ati onshi ps? I f there i s a systemati c
di fference i n the structure of desi re between l esbi ans and heterosexual
women, how can such mobi l i ty be accounted for? Unl ess there i s a common
structure of desi reor at l east a very broad conti nuum on whi ch both l esbi an
and heterosexual womens desi res can be l ocatedthe openendedness of
desi re i n i ts ai ms, objects, and practi ces cannot be adequatel y expl ai ned.
Moreover, whi l e I can see the strategi c val ue of focussi ng on
butch - femme rel ati ons as those whi ch, when l i ved out by womens bod-
i es, consti tute a transgressi on of the natural i zi ng effects of heterosexual
d i f f e r e n c e s 291
gender rol es, and whi l e I can see how her anal ysi s of the manni sh woman
i s pi votal i n de Laureti ss chal l enge to the model of the mascul i ni ty compl ex,
I remai n worri ed about model s of l esbi an sexual i ty and desi re that focus
pri mari l y on these rel ati ons at the expense of others. I have si mi l ar reserva-
ti ons about the strategi c val ue of a noti on l i ke the l esbi an phal l us, l esbi an
di l dos, and vi ri l e di spl ay; whi l e they do have the effect of unsettl i ng or
di squi eti ng presumpti ons about the natural al i gnment of the peni s wi th
soci al power and val ue, they do so onl y by attempti ng to appropri ate what has
been deni ed to women and to that extent remai n ti ed (as we al l are) to
heterocentri c and mascul i ne pri vi l ege. Such modal i ti es remai n reacti ve,
compensatory. Thi s i s more or l ess the presumpti on that must be drawn from
de Laureti ss ascri pti on of an i nadequate mi rrori ng of the femal e body by the
mother. The feti sh i s compensati on for thi s l ost femal e body, maki ng sexual
access to (other) womens bodi es possi bl e.
I do not want to suggest that de Laureti ss project i s a usel ess one
or a waste of ti me. On the contrary, i t i s an i mmensel y i mportant project
whi ch needs to be pushed further and further to i ts very l i mi ts, as de Laureti s
has hersel f pushed psychoanal ysi s to i ts l i mi ts of tol erati onthe l i mi ts of
knowing sex or knowing desire whi ch Foucaul t i nvesti gated i n terms of i ts
l i nks to power and knowl edge and modes of subjecti vi zati on. Her work has
enabl ed thi s questi on to be pl aced on the pol i ti cal agenda: What i s the
(pol i ti cal ) val ue and functi on of ri gorousl y understandi ng, theori zi ng, l es-
bi an desi re and l esbi an psychol ogy? Whi l e cl earl y i t may be, as de Laureti s
cl ai ms, a mode of rethi nki ng ones own fantasi es, of understandi ng onesel f
better (xi v), of understandi ng onesel f i n terms other than those whi ch con-
rm the majori tari an heterosexi st concepti on of desi re, pl easure, and power,
i t must al so be recogni zed that by pl aci ng l esbi an desi re under the mi cro-
scope of i ntel l ectual , sci enti c, or di scursi ve i nvesti gati on, i t i s thereby
i ncreasi ngl y i nvested wi th a wi l l to know that may be part of the very tami ng
and normal i zati on (even i f not heterosexual i zati on) of that desi re.
19
Thi s
depends to a l arge extent on the status and effects of the di scourses one uses.
Perhaps now i s the ti me to rethi nk whi ch di scourses these shoul d be.
ELIZABETH GROSZ i s Di r ector of the I nsti tute of Cr i ti cal and Cul tur al Studi es, Monash Uni ver si ty,
Austr al i a. She i s the author of Volatile Bodies. Toward a Corporeal Feminism (New Yor k:
I ndi ana, 1994) and i s co-edi tor , wi th El speth Pr obyn, of Sexy Bodies, for thcomi ng fr om
Routl edge.
292 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
1 Thi s wi l l be my major ar gument i n
thi s paper that psychoanal ysi s i s
i ncapabl e of pr ovi di ng an account
of femal e sexual desi r e and that
thi s fai l ur e i s consti tuti ve.
2 For exampl e, the extensi on by
mar xi st-femi ni sm of a mar xi st
fr amewor k of pr oducti ve l abor
onto the domai n of domesti c l abor ,
or the extensi on by psychoanal yti c
femi ni sm of (Fr eudi an, Lacani an,
Kl ei ni an etc.) psychoanal ysi s onto
the domai n of femal e or l esbi an
sexual i ty.
3 I n addi ti on to de Laur eti ss wor k,
the wr i ti ngs of Judi th Butl er and
Judi th Roof must be menti oned as
r el evant.
4 Such a fantasy of whol eness, har-
mony, and compl eti on i n the i magi -
nary mother-chi l d dyad i s a rewri t-
i ng of the major sources of tensi on
and bodi l y upheaval that character-
i ze the i nfants earl i est rel ati ons
wi th the mother. I n descri bi ng thi s
as a peri od of corporeal fragmenta-
ti on and i ncapaci ty, and i n l i nki ng
the structure of the i magi nary order
to frustrati on and aggressi vi ty,
Lacan provi des a necessari l y sober-
i ng counterbal ance to thi s retro-
specti ve i deal i zati on.
5 . . . wi th r egar d to l esbi ani sm, the
mascul i ni ty compl ex has l i ttl e or
no expl anator y power , for i t fai l s to
account for the non-mascul i ne
l esbi an, that par ti cul ar gur e that
si nce the ni neteenth centur y has
bafed sexol ogi sts and psychoana-
l ysts, and that Havel ock El l i s
named the womanl y woman, the
femi ni ne i nver t (de Laur eti s, xi i i ).
6 See Butl er and Gr osz.
7 Fr euds equi vocati on wi th r egar d
to thi s i ssuewhether a nor mal
sexual i nsti nct, phyl ogeneti cal l y
i nher i ted, pr eexi sts i ts possi bl e
devi ati ons (i n psychoneur oti c
i ndi vi dual s) or whether i nsti nctual
l i fe i s but a set of tr ansfor mati ons,
some of whi ch ar e then dened as
nor mal , i .e., non-pathogeni c and
soci al l y desi r abl e or admi ssi bl ei s
a sour ce of conti nued but ul ti -
matel y i nsol ubl e debate (10).
8 What i f one set out to pur sue a
theor y of sexual i ty al ong the nega-
ti ve tr ace of the per ver si onsl et us
say, feti shi sm? Such theor y mi ght
not, per haps, account for the ma-
jor i ty of peopl e, but then the posi -
ti ve theor y of sexual i ty does not
ei ther ; and then agai n, the noti on
of the major i ty of peopl e i s as
tr oubl ed as the noti on of the nor -
mal . . . (28).
9 Her questi on i s posed under the
r ubr i c of the negati ve theor y of
the per ver si ons :
What i f, then, one wer e
to r efr ame the questi on of the
phal l us and the fantasy of castr a-
ti on i n thi s other per specti ve pr o-
vi ded by Fr euds negati ve theor y,
so to speak, of the per ver si ons?. . .
[T]he two l esbi an texts under di s-
cussi on [Hal l s and Mor agas]
speak fantasi es of castr ati on; but
they al so, and ver y effecti vel y,
speak desi r e; and thus they ar e
ful l y i n the symbol i c, i n si gni ca-
ti on. Yet the desi r e they speak i s
not mascul i ne, nor simply phal l i c.
But agai n, i f the phal l us i s both the
mar k of castr ati on and the si gni er
of desi r e, then the questi on i s,
What acts as the phal l us i n these
l esbi an fantasi es? (222)
10 Whi ch de Laur eti s r ather myster i -
ousl y di sti ngui shes fr om hyster i a,
al though hyster i a can onl y be
under stood as a par ti cul ar for m or
type of neur osi s.
11 De Laur eti s quotes a cr uci al pas-
sage fr om Ber sani and Dutoi ts
anal ysi s:
The cr uci al poi nt
whi ch makes the feti shi sti c object
di ffer ent fr om the phal l i c symbol
i s that the success of the feti sh
depends on i ts bei ng seen as au-
Notes
d i f f e r e n c e s 293
thenti cal l y di ffer ent fr om the mi ss-
i ng peni s. Wi th a phal l i c symbol ,
we may not be consci ousl y awar e
of what i t stands for , but i t attr acts
us because, consci ousl y or uncon-
sci ousl y, we per cei ve i t as the
phal l us. I n feti shi sm, however , the
r efusal to see the feti sh as a peni s-
substi tute may not be si mpl y an
effect of r epr essi on. The feti shi st
has di spl aced the mi ssi ng peni s
fr om the womans geni tal s to, say,
her under cl othi ng, but we suggest
that i f he doesnt car e about the
under cl othi ng r esembl i ng a peni s
i t i s because: (1) he knows that i t
i s not a peni s; (2) he doesnt want
i t to be onl y a peni s; and (3) he
al so knows that nothi ng can r e-
pl ace the l ack to whi ch i n fact he
has r esi gned hi msel f, (Ber sani
and Dutoi t, 6869; qtd. i n de
Laur eti s, 224).
12 De Laur eti s cl ai ms that Stephens
r evul si on of her own body i mage,
captur ed i n a ki nd of pr i mal
scene i n vi ewi ng her own body i n
a mi r r or , i s too phal l i c a body,
r ather than, as cl assi cal psycho-
anal ysi s woul d r epr esent her , a
woman under the sway of the
mascul i ni ty compl ex, a woman
envi ous of the peni s:
What Stephen sees i n
the mi r r or (the i mage that estab-
l i shes the ego) i s the i mage of a
phal l i c body [de Laur eti s cl ai ms],
whi ch the nar r ator has taken pai ns
to tel l us was so fr om a ver y young
age, a body Stephens mother
found r epul si ve. Thus, si nce the
other per son who ser ves as model
of bodi l y desi r abi l i ty i s Stephens
mother , the i mage of her sel f that
Stephen sees i n the mi r r or does not
accompl i sh the amor ous capti va-
ti on of the subject or offer her a
fundamental l y nar ci ssi sti c exper i -
ence, but on the contr ar y i ni cts a
nar ci ssi sti c wound: that phal l i c
body-i mage, and thus the ego,
cannot be l oved, cannot be
nar ci ssi sti cal l y i nvested because i t
i s phallic (24041).
One wi th a mor e or tho-
dox psychoanal yti c bent mi ght
per haps r espond by cl ai mi ng that
the pr obl em for Stephens r epr e-
sentati on i s that, whi l e her body
may be i maged or si gni ed as
virile, nonethel ess, what i t l acks,
what pr events i t fr om attai ni ng the
status of the phal l i c body i s the
absence of the ver y si gni er (the
i magi nar y, detachabl e peni s) that
si gnal s her femal e status. Her
per sonal mi ser y comes, i n her own
eyes, fr om her bei ng nei ther pr op-
er l y femi ni ne nor pr oper l y mascu-
l i ne, fr om her l acki ng the si gni er s
of femi ni ni ty (as de Laur eti s af-
r ms) and the si gni er s of mascu-
l i ni ty (the phal l us).
13 I n her char acter i zati on of thi s
sense of bodi l y di spossessi on, de
Laur eti s l ur ches per i l ousl y cl ose to
i mpl yi ng that i t i s the mother who
i s i n a sense r esponsi bl e for the
daughter s sense of bodi l y di spos-
sessi on. Thi s i s cl ear i n her di scus-
si on of the genesi s of Stephen
Gor dons body-i mage, and i n her
mor e gener al char acter i zati on of
what i t i s that the gi r l di savows.
Such an i mpl i cati on i s di stur bi ng
i nsofar as i t l eaves the father out of
the account of the or i gi n of l es-
bi an desi r e, when i t seems cl ear
that the father s posi ti on must have
some effect on the psychol ogy of
the daughter , whether she be-
comes heter osexual or a l esbi an.
And i t i s pr obl emati c i nsofar as any
model whi ch bl ames the mother
(al though her posi ti on i s not as
cr ude as attr i buti ng str ai ghtfor -
war d bl ame) must i tsel f expl ai n
the mother s posi ti on as wel l , and
how i t i s that she i s unabl e to
nar ci ssi sti cal l y val i date the
daughter s embodi ment:
Fai l i ng the mother s
nar ci ssi sti c val i dati on of the
subjects body-i mage, whi ch con-
sti tutes the i magi nar y matr i x or
r st outl i ne of the ego, the subject
i s thr eatened wi th a l oss of body-
ego, a l ack of bei ng. (262)
294 The Labors of Love. Analyzing Perverse Desire
Mor eover , i f thi s di spos-
sessi on occur s i n the i magi nar y or
pr e-Oedi pal or der s, i f i t i s a conse-
quence of the mother s r el ati on to
the i nfant daughter s body, we
must ask i f thi s i mpl i es ther e i s
such a thi ng as a di sti ncti vel y
l esbi an ego or l esbi an body i mage.
14 I t r emai ns uncl ear why thi s hi ghl y
suggesti ve model , not necessar i l y
of l esbi an desire as de Laur eti s
cl ai ms, but mor e of l esbi an attr ac-
ti on, i s not as appr opr i ate for men
and heter osexual women as i t i s
for l esbi ans. That str ange el usi ve
thi ng that attr acts one per son to
another (whether the attr acti on
cul mi nates i n a sexual r el ati on or
not) coul d be thought i n ter ms of
thi s ver y speci c noti on of feti sh
that de Laur eti s devel ops.
15 I f the l esbi an feti shes ar e often,
though cer tai nl y not excl usi vel y,
objects or si gns wi th connotati ons
of mascul i ni ty, i t i s not because
they stand i n for the mi ssi ng peni s
but because such si gns ar e most
str ongl y pr ecoded to convey, both
to the subject and to other s, the
cul tur al meani ng of sexual (geni -
tal ) acti vi ty and year ni ng towar d
women. Such si gns can al so most
effecti vel y deny the femal e body
(i n the subject) and at the same
ti me r esi gni fy (her desi r e for ) i t
thr ough the ver y si gni cati on of i ts
pr ohi bi ti on (263).
16 De Laur eti s cl ai ms an i nher ent
pol i ti cal status to l esbi an sexual -
i ti es, and par ti cul ar l y for the feti sh
of mascul i ni ty whi ch seems to me
r ather di stur bi ng and pr obl emati c:
. . . the si gns of mascu-
l i ni ty ar e the most vi sual l y expl i ci t
and str ongl y coded by domi nant
di scour ses to si gni fy sexual desi r e
towar d women, and hence thei r
gr eater vi si bi l i ty i n cul tur al r epr e-
sentati ons of l esbi ani sm, whi ch
cor r el ates to thei r gr eater effecti v-
i ty i n a pol i ti cal use of r ever se
di scour se (264).
Whi l e I do not want to
deny that i n speci c contexts l esbi -
ani sm, and par ti cul ar l y the adop-
ti on of the si gns of mascul i ni ty,
may per for m a tr ansgr essi ve func-
ti on, ther e seems to be nothi ng
i nher entl y tr ansgr essi ve about any
par ti cul ar sexual i ti es or desi r es. I t
i s not cl ear whether de Laur eti s
wants to cl ai m that gr eater vi si bi l -
i ty consti tutes gr eater pol i ti cal
effecti vi ty (whi ch seems a r ather
dubi ous pr i nci pl e) or whether she
wants to suggest that womens
adopti on of pr eci sel y those sexual
posi ti ons i s tr ansgr essi ve her e and
now. Thi s agai n seems to me con-
di ti onal on the context: wher e the
butch l esbi an may cer tai nl y tr ans-
gr ess the expectati ons of a str ai ght
communi ty, i n the context of l es-
bi an soci al l i fe, i t i s cl ear l y a mode
of confor mi ty to a set of shar ed
i mages or feti shes.
17 We need not just to r efuse to
anchor our sel ves rmly on one or
the other si de of the pater nal phal -
l us, but to l oosen our sel ves fr om i t
al together , and to r eal l y fol l ow
thr ough the i dea of a mobi l i ty of
feti shi sti c or per ver se desi r e by
gi vi ng up the conveni ence of no-
ti ons such as osci l l ati on and
undeci dabi l i ty (269).
18 I ncl udi ng my own ear l i er attempts
( Lesbi an ), as de Laur eti s cor -
r ectl y ar gues.
19 I devel op thi s ar gument i n consi d-
er abl y mor e detai l i n a paper pr e-
sented to the MLA i n 1992 ( Ex-
per i mental Desi r e ). A l onger
ver si on of thi s paper i s for thcom-
i ng i n The Subject, a vol ume edi ted
by Joan Copjec.
d i f f e r e n c e s 295
Ber sani , Leo, and Ul ysse Dutoi t. The Forms of Violence: Narrative in Assyrian Art and Modern
Culture. New Yor k: Schocken, 1985.
Butl er , Judi th. The Lesbi an Phal l us and the Mor phol ogi cal I magi nar y. differences: A J ournal
of Feminist Cultural Studies 4.1 (1992): 13370.
de Laur eti s, Ter esa. The Practice of Love: Lesbian Sexuality and Perverse Desire. Bl oomi ngton:
I ndi ana UP, 1994.
Gr osz, El i zabeth. Exper i mental Desi r e: Bodi es and Pl easur es i n Queer Theor y. The Subject.
Ed. Joan Copjec. London: Ver so, for thcomi ng.
------------------------. Lesbi an Feti shi sm? differences: A J ournal of Feminist Cultural Studies 3.2
(1991): 3954.
Ri ch, Adr i enne. Compul sor y Heter osexual i ty and Lesbi an Exi stence. Blood, Bread and
Poetry: Selected Prose 19791985. New Yor k: Nor ton, 1986. 2375.
Works Cited