### The Big Picture: Finding Connections and Challenging Ideas This book explores the theoretical backgrounds of Carl Jung and Luce Irigaray, suggesting they share common ground in philosophy. It argues that their work can be viewed within a collectivist framework, where the community is seen as the starting point for individuals. A key shared concern is the process of **individuation** – how people become distinct individuals. However, the author argues that while Irigaray picks up on Jung's idea of individuation within a collective context (even if unconsciously), she applies it specifically to the collective of women. A central argument is that women can only become individuated as specific members of a group when the collective they belong to is _itself_ individuated. The book also takes a critical look at Jung's ideas through the lens of Irigaray's "mimetic critique". It suggests that Jung's concept of individuation is limited by the masculine assumptions built into his idea of the collective unconscious. This perspective argues that many of Jung's notions, including individuation, are products of a masculine symbolic understanding tied to the collective unconscious and its archetypes, which ultimately prevents an authentic feminine voice from emerging in his system. So, in essence, the book is trying to build a bridge between Jung and Irigaray, finding their shared interests while also using Irigaray's work to point out potential limitations and biases in Jung's theories regarding the feminine. - **Further thought:** How does the idea of a collective needing to be individuated for individuals within it to become individuated resonate with your own experiences or observations of groups and communities? ### Individuation: Becoming Who You Are (and Maybe Who "We" Are) Individuation, for both thinkers, is generally seen as a process aimed at the **completion and wholeness** of an individual self or subject. It's often triggered by life circumstances and the need to recognize oneself as distinct from one's life involvements. Jung wrote extensively about this process. For Irigaray, however, individuation for women isn't just about fitting into some pre-existing, neutral pattern. She argues that it requires a **radical reinterpretation** and evaluation of the existing symbolic system, its structure, and its contents. She emphasizes that this process extends beyond the individual subjective level and directly addresses the masculine nature of the social collective, which she sees as the material expression of the symbolic. Therefore, for women, individuation means creating a **feminine symbolic** that is ontologically distinct from the masculine one. This feminine symbolic would grow out of the struggle for recognition of feminine difference. Interestingly, the author connects Irigaray's focus on the collective individuation of women to Jung's own commitment to collective individuation, citing his critique of National Socialism and the need to dis-identify from mass-rule and mass-mentality. So, while Irigaray focuses on the collective of women, the idea of a collective entity needing to individuate has roots in Jung's thought too. - **Further thought:** If individuation for a group requires a redefinition of shared meanings and symbols, what might that look like in practice for any collective identity? ### The Power of the Collective and the Symbolic A core assumption underlying the book's argument is that **groupness or collectivity comes before the individual**. The collective is considered the "ground of being" for the individual. The human psyche isn't just a self-contained, individual thing; it's also collective. The collective, in this view, is a potent force with a tendency to produce conformity. Collective attitudes and values, passed down through generations, play a big role in shaping individuals within that collective. One way the collective exerts its influence is through the **symbolic**. The symbolic is described as a mode of expression, a way we represent the world and interpret meanings. It's seen as the meeting point of body, psyche, and language. While Jung sees symbols as having complex and changing meanings, in contrast to signs with fixed meanings, Irigaray, drawing on a Lacanian notion, argues that the prevailing symbolic system is **masculine and patriarchal**. According to Irigaray's view presented here, this masculine symbolic represents power relations among men and assumes women's sameness rather than their difference. She claims that women lack a symbolic of their own. This masculine symbolic determines the ordering of the social world and the making of individual persons. - **Further thought:** Can you think of examples in culture where collective ideas or symbols about a group seem to influence how individuals within that group are perceived or expected to behave? ### The Masculine Bias and the Challenge of the Feminine The author argues that Jung's idea of individuation is shaped by masculine assumptions inherent in his concept of the collective unconscious and its archetypes. These are seen as products of masculine symbolic understandings, which the author claims prevents an authentic feminine voice from being articulated in Jung's system. Irigaray's work offers a radical critique of the foundational assumptions of Western philosophy and psychoanalysis, arguing they have a fundamental masculine bias. She explicitly states that any theory of the "subject" has been appropriated by the "masculine". This means the very concept of what it means to be a self or a subject has been defined through a masculine lens, which she believes is often based on a metaphysics of "sameness" or "one-ness" that privileges the masculine and reduces the feminine to an adjunct or the "other of the Same". Jung is presented as operating within this framework, where the masculine is often privileged over the feminine. His discussion of the anima (the feminine in a man) and animus (the masculine in a woman) is seen as reflecting this. The anima is described as potentially unsettling or disagreeable in a man, and the animus as a "corruption" of the masculine ideal when present in a woman. Body-type, in this interpretation, becomes a "value determinant" for these inner figures, implying that the feminine present in a male body is devalued, while the masculine present in a female body is compromised. The author claims this shows that the feminine is "axiologically appropriated by the masculine". - **Further thought:** How might the historical dominance of masculine perspectives in fields like philosophy and psychology have shaped the very ideas we use to understand ourselves and others? ### Mimesis: A Strategy of Subversion How does Irigaray challenge this dominant masculine symbolic? One of her key strategies is **mimesis**, or mimicry. But this isn't simple copying. It's a deliberate, ironic, and subversive practice. Irigaray consciously assumes the voice of the "irrational feminine" – the very voice that Plato (and arguably Jung) associated with disorder and sought to avoid. By mimicking this stereotypical representation, she aims to disrupt the established "codes" of philosophical and psychoanalytic theory. This deliberate imitation is a way of "converting a form of subordination into an affirmation". She suggests women should strategically use this assigned feminine role, not to perpetuate it, but to exploit how women are characterized within masculine discourse. It's a way of working from _within_ the masculine symbolic to challenge its assumptions and destabilize it. The goal is "onto-symbolic ungrounding" – subverting the idea that everything is based on a single, masculine principle (the metaphysics of the Same). Through this subversive mimesis, Irigaray seeks to open up the possibility for an "external otherness" – a feminine identity and symbolic that is not merely an internal difference contained and defined by the masculine, but something ontologically distinct. This is seen as an avenue towards ontological independence for the feminine. - **Further thought:** Can mimicry or parody be powerful tools for social or cultural critique in other contexts? How does intentionally playing into a stereotype challenge its power? ### Sexed Bodies and Ontological Difference A crucial element in Irigaray's thinking, highlighted by the author, is her insistence on the importance of the **sexed body**. Unlike Jung, who may refer to the body more generally, Irigaray emphasizes that a body is _always_ a "sexed" body. She argues for the **ontological difference** between differently sexed/gendered bodies. This is a fundamental distinction for her. For Irigaray, female embodiment is interpreted and represented through the masculine symbolic, which often figures the female body as lacking something (like the penis, in Freudian terms). Women internalize this view, which is collectively valued as if it were universally true. Irigaray calls for an **affirmation of female anatomical difference**. She sees "woman" not as a mere natural kind (like a tree) but as a **genre** – a complex socio-cultural-biological type shaped by anatomical specificities. This genre "woman" is, in her view, ontologically irreducible and materially different from the masculine, even though the masculine symbolic has tried to define it as derivative or an "other of the same". The sexed body is seen as a fundamental condition of interpretation; bodies think and come up with ideas and values. Luce Irigaray valorizes the female body as a "site of origin," distinct from the male body. Reclaiming the feminine body for women is seen as essential for creating a feminine symbolic/imaginary. - **Further thought:** How do societal attitudes and symbolic meanings about different types of bodies (sexed, racialized, disabled, etc.) influence how individuals with those bodies are perceived and perceive themselves? ### The Need for a Feminine Divine For Irigaray, the masculine symbolic/imaginary has been profoundly shaped by the idea of a masculine God – the God of the Fathers. She argues that just as men have projected their ideals onto a masculine divine, women need their own aspirational ideal, a **feminine divine**, to become free, autonomous, and sovereign. She sees this feminine divine as a necessary "mirror" for women to become women, mirroring Feuerbach's idea that God is the mirror of man. This isn't about inventing just "any old divine," but one that is inspiring and faithful to the possibilities inherent in girls and women _before_ they are appropriated by the masculine symbolic. This quest for a feminine divine is deeply connected to her project of creating a **feminine-feminine symbolic/imaginary**. This new symbolic would emerge from the struggle for recognition and affirm the female body. It would allow women to develop an "authentic individuated subject position". Part of this project involves recovering and re-evalizing obscured or lost aspects of female ancestry and mythology, such as the mother-daughter relationship. The Demeter-Persephone myth is offered as an example of a story that can be re-read to provide aspirational ideals and dignity to the female body and mother-daughter bonds, in contrast to masculine-paternal interpretations. This is seen as integral to developing a feminine divine. - **Further thought:** How do cultural ideas about the divine or ultimate ideals shape our understanding of human nature and possibilities, particularly along gender lines? ### The Unconscious: Masculine Domain or Room for Two? Jung's concept of the **collective unconscious** is noted as one of his most controversial distinctions. The text correlates Jung's collective unconscious with Lacan's symbolic/imaginary. Jung, at times, seems to figure unconsciousness itself as feminine, needing to be escaped by the masculine principle (Logos). However, the author notes a potential problem: if the collective unconscious is truly "unknown," can we really make sex/gender claims about it? The argument presented is that our understanding of the unconscious, as seen through the symbolic/imaginary, is filtered through the biases of the masculine symbolic. What we perceive as the sex/gender status of the unconscious might actually be a "mirror image of phallic self-importance" – a consequence of how the masculine symbolic, centered on the phallus/Logos, interprets a domain it claims as its own. Direct knowledge ("savoir") of the unconscious's internal properties is seen as impossible; we can only know it indirectly through its effects ("connaitre"). Irigaray challenges the idea that women's relation to the unconscious is questionable or that they lack one. She argues that the masculine symbolic/imaginary prevents women from accessing their own unconscious, which she links back to the maternal-feminine origin. Her project of creating a feminine-feminine symbolic/imaginary is precisely aimed at allowing women access to their own unconscious, unmediated by masculine narcissism. This suggests a possibility of _two_ ways of relating to the symbolic and, more radically, the potential for _two different symbolics_ (masculine and feminine) to which both men and women would relate, each influencing perceptions of the unconscious. - **Further thought:** If our understanding of the unconscious is shaped by cultural symbols, how might different cultures or historical periods have conceived of the unconscious differently? ### Essentialism: A Sticky Wicket The accusation of **essentialism** is often raised against both Jung and Irigaray. For Irigaray, this criticism often stems from her focus on female anatomy and the idea that she might be positing fixed, universal characteristics for all women based on biology. The book suggests that for Irigaray, "woman" isn't a natural kind with a timeless essence, but a complex genre shaped by biology and culture. Her use of terms like "the feminine" or "the female" is part of her mimetic strategy to highlight how the masculine symbolic constructs these categories. The author proposes rethinking essence not as a fixed set of properties, but through an "Originary Essence View" (drawing on Aristotle), where essence is an explanatory mechanism encompassing social, symbolic, and biological factors that contribute to identity. From this perspective, women's essence is seen as fluid and mobile, partly derived from the masculine symbolic but also propelled towards their own ideal horizon (the feminine-feminine). This view allows for group identity while acknowledging individual uniqueness. The debate around Irigaray is noted as having settled somewhat around the concept of **strategic essentialism** – using seemingly essentialist claims for political purposes, even if one doesn't believe in inherent, fixed essences. However, concerns about her focus on heterosexuality and universality still remain for some. - **Further thought:** Is it possible to talk about shared experiences or characteristics of a group (like women) without falling into essentialism? Where is the line between recognizing commonalities and imposing universal definitions? ### Master, Slave, and the Struggle for Recognition Underpinning the discussion of Jung and Irigaray, particularly their relationship and critique, is the concept of **Hegel's Master/Slave Dialectic**. This describes a struggle for recognition. The author sees this dialectic enacted in several ways: in Jung's ideas of psychological functions and the quest for self-identity; in Irigaray's critique of philosophy and psychoanalysis; and in the comparison between Jung as a representative of the masculine paternal symbolic and Irigaray as the mimetic voice protesting dependency on that symbolic. The feminine/woman is often cast in the role of the Slave, defined and constituted by the Master (the masculine/man). The Slave seeks recognition and realizes her own "self-certain truth" – that her identity doesn't have to be defined solely by her work for the Master. For Irigaray, the instability of the subject position offered to women by the masculine symbolic forces them into the position of Hegel's Slave, unable to bargain or achieve a genuinely independent voice. Achieving this requires the recognition of women's subjugation by men and the willingness of the Master to "cede something of their power". This is framed as a collective challenge for both women and men, ultimately requiring a profound recognition of **two-ness** (the existence of two distinct, non-hierarchical sexes/genders). - **Further thought:** How might power dynamics, similar to the Master/Slave dialectic, play out in other social relationships or group interactions? ### Clinical and Social Echoes The ideas discussed have real-world implications, both in therapeutic settings and broader society. Irigaray points out the sense of loss and powerlessness some women feel in psychoanalysis, which she links to being interpreted within a system structured by a masculine symbolic. The speaking position of women in such a setting can be unstable because the language and framework are defined by a "phallic presence". Irigaray's work, and the project of creating a feminine-feminine symbolic, is seen as gesturing towards a stable place from which women can speak, both inside and outside therapy. Achieving individuation for women, in this view, depends on establishing a genuinely _own_ speaking position. The author suggests that Jung's views on the feminine, and even interpretations of myths by Jungian analysts, can reflect and reiterate commonly held masculine assumptions about women. This highlights how the issues aren't just abstract theories but manifest in how individuals are understood and treated. This struggle for recognition and the challenge to the masculine symbolic is presented as a collective matter, requiring men to address their own "men's business" and potentially recover a "masculine unconscious" that has been obscured by the dominance of the phallus. This would involve a significant shift away from phallic domination in understanding the psyche. - **Further thought:** What changes might be needed in therapeutic or professional settings to ensure that diverse voices and experiences, particularly those historically marginalized, can be genuinely heard and validated? ### Wrapping Up and Looking Ahead This exploration reveals a complex interplay between philosophy, psychology, and the critical lens of feminist theory. We've seen how Jung and Irigaray, despite coming from different backgrounds, touch upon similar themes of individuation, the collective, and the shaping power of symbolic systems. However, Irigaray offers a powerful critique, arguing that these systems and the concepts they produce, including individuation, have been fundamentally shaped by a masculine bias that marginalizes or defines the feminine in relation to the masculine. Her project of creating a feminine-feminine symbolic, fueled by the strategic use of mimesis and the quest for a feminine divine and female genealogy, is presented as a necessary path for women's individuation and the recognition of ontological difference. This challenges not only psychological theories but also fundamental philosophical assumptions about being, identity, and difference. There's certainly a lot to think about here! **Ready to explore further? Here are some questions that might spring to mind:** 1. How might Irigaray's concept of a "feminine divine" be understood and potentially manifested in contemporary secular contexts or non-Christian traditions? 2. Could Jung's idea of archetypes be reinterpreted in a way that accounts for the critiques of masculine bias without abandoning the concept entirely? 3. What specific "forgotten ancestry" or mythic narratives might be relevant for retrieving and refiguring a feminine genealogy in different cultures? 4. Beyond sex/gender, how do other aspects of identity (like race, class, sexuality, disability) intersect with and challenge dominant symbolic systems and concepts of individuation? (The sources briefly touch on intersectionality). 5. How can the "onto-symbolic ungrounding" that Irigaray proposes be practically pursued in everyday life, beyond academic or artistic expression?