I

TIll' HONDS Or- LOVr

I
I
recognition to the other, and to rediscover the lost tension between
self and other. This tension. a fragik balance, to be sure, can only be C H APT E R T H R E EII
sustained through the lived experience of recognition, the meeting of
separate minds. I have argued that the longing for recognition lies
beneath the sensationalism of power and powerlessness, that the un-
recognizable forms often taken by our desire are the result of a
complicated but ultimately understandable process-a process which
explains how our deepest desires for freedom and communion become
implicated in control and submission. From such desires the bonds of
love are forged.

Woman's
Desire

THE DISCUSSION OF erotic domination has shown

how the breakdown of the tc'mion between assertion
and recognition becomes associated with the polariza-
tion of gender identity. Male and female each adopt one
side of an interlocking whole. This one-sided character
of differentiation evolves in response to the mother's
lack of subjectivity, with which the girl identifies and
the boy dis identifies.
This chapter will foclls on woman's lack of subjectiv-
 IIiL Bll~l>~ llf I l)\'I.
F ~7 \Voman \ I>l..~irl

ity, particularly sexual subjectivity, and on the consequences of the wanted, to the subject, she ",h" desires. The problem that heud laid
traditional sexual clHnpleIlll'ntarity: man cxpresses desire and wmnan before lIS with all too painful clarity was the elusiveness of woman's
is the object of it. We will explore why woman's missing desire so sexual agency. He proposed, in fact, that femininity is constructed
often takes the form of adoring the man who possesses it, why women through the acceptance at sexual paSSIvity. According to Freud's the-
seem to have a propensity for what we may call "ideal love"-a love ory of feminine development, the little girl starts out originally as a
in which the woman submits to and adores an other who is what she "little man." She loves her mother actively until she discovers, in the
cannot be. To do this, we will have to turn back to the Freudian world oedipal phase, that she and mother both lack the phallus. She becomes
of the father, where women are defined by the lack of what men feminine only when she turns from the mother to her father, from
possess: the very emblem and embodiment of desire, the phallus. In activity to passivity, in the hope of receiving his phallus; her effort to
Freudian theory the phallus simultaneously signifies power, difference, get the missing phallus leads her into the position of being the fathers
and desire: and as hearer of the phallus, the f.lther repre,,nts separation object. I
frnIll the Illother. MnfL'l)\'Cr, the Lither's power and the I1lale I1l0I10P- For Frcud. wOIIlan's rCIlUIlci.ltioll of sexual agency and her accept-
oIl' of desire are const.lI1dy justified on the grounds dut they ar,' the ance of ohJect st.ltus are the vcry hallmark of the feminine. And though
only route to individuality. we illay refust' his definition, we arc nC'vertheless oblit!cd to cllnfronr
Naturally, I qUl'sti(Hl this justificatiun: but a nmvincing .lfglltl1eIlt the painful flCt that evell todelY, tl'IlliIllI1lty contlllUt's to he IdclltIflcd
ag.l1nst It rCl}uires us sinlldtaneollsly to acknowledge and criticize the with p.lssivity, with being the object of SOIllCllIlC else's deSIre, With
father \, power. As wc reconstruct how the initial rel.ttionship to the having no active desire of one's OWll.~
Lither informs desire. we will also deconstruct cbssic.d psychoanalytic At times we are shocked by how much the reality of woman's
theory. in particular. the idea that woman's destiny-her lack of condition differs frotu what we, in our minds. have long since deter-
subjectivity-is determined hI' her lack of a I,,'nis. As I will demon- mined it should be. Evcn the more modest demands !'lr equality that
strate, it is not anatomy, but the totality of a girl's relationship with we take for granted have not been realized. So it was when two
the father, in a context of gender polarity and unequal responsibility psychologists, one of them the mother of a newborn boy, strolled by
for childrearing, that explains woman's perceived "lack." Finally, I the hospital nursery to peer through the glass at the other newborns.
will suggest a possible alternate rnude of rcprcscntation to challcnge Of course each bassinette had a pink or biue label pwclaiming the
the hegemony of the phallus as the sole embodiment of desire. swaddled baby's sex. which would otherwise be indecipherable (what
cunfusion Illight that bring!). But astonisiul1CIlt overcamc thell1 when
they looked at the first pink label. Expecting to find the counterpart
THE PROIlLEM OF WOMAN'S DESIRE to the blue one, which proudly announced, "I'm a boy'" they found
instead, "It's a girl!" Further examination forced them to confirm what
Perhaps no phrase of Freud's has been quoted more often than "What they at first refused to believe: all the boys were "I" and all the p;irls
does woman want?" To my mind, this question implies another: "Do were "It." The infant girl was already presented to the world not as
women want?" or better yet, "Does WOInan have a desire?" By this a potential "I," but as an object, "It." The sexual difference was already
revision I mean to shift attention from the object of desire, //lhat is interpreted in terms of complementary and unequal roles, subject and
 THE nONIl!-. 01 IOVr Woman's l){"~ir('
R9

object. The aspect of will, desire, and activity-all that we might finally chooses her to be the angel-mother who will oversee his domes-
conjure up with a subject who is an "I "-was assi!!:ned to the male tic bliss. Woman is to accept the' abrogation of her own will, to
gender alone. surrender the autonomy of her body in childbirth "nd lactation, to liw
Freud cautioned against the easy equations of femininity with pas- for another. Her own sexual feelings, with their incipient threat of
sivity, and masculinity with activity, yet he did in the end conclude selfishness, passion, and uncontrollability. arc a disturbing possibility
that the circuitous path to femininity culminates in the acceptance of that even psychoanalysis seldom contemplat"s.
passivity. If our received idea of femininity excludes activity-that to In any case, once sexuality is cut loose from reproduction, a goal
be a woman is to be unable to say, "I want that"-is it any wonder the era of sexual liberation has urged upon our imagination, woman-
that many have agreed that the phallus stands not just for male desire, hood can no longer be equated with motherhood. But the alternative
but all desire? Thus Juliet Mitchell, who accepts Freud's understanding image of the femme fatale does not signify an active subjectivity either.
of feminine passivity and male desire. proposes that we must logically The "sexy" WOIllan-an ilna~l' that illtimidatl'~ w, nnt'n whether or
also accept the singularity ,)f the phallus in representing desire. * Only not they strive to cnnfllnn to ie-is sc..'xy. but as object. not as SUbjl'Ct.
by acknowledging the power llf the phallus, she argues, can we finally She expresses not so much Izt'f desire as her pleasure in bein~ desired;
uncover the origins of woman's submission. the deep psychic roots of what she e,\joys is her capacity to ,'voke desire in tlw other. to attract.
patri.Hch y. Her power lines IH)[ reSIde in her I,)wn passion. hut in her acute
Admittedly we have no female image or symbol to counterbalance d,'sirabilitv. Neither the power of the mother nor that of the' sexy
the Illonllpllly of till' phallus in representing desire. Though the ima!!:e woman can, as in the case of the father, be described as the puwer of
of Wllman is associated with motherhood and fertility, the mother is a sexual subject.
not articulatl'd as a sexual su~ject, one who actively desires something If woman has no desire of hl't own, she must rely on that of a man.
for hersdf-quite the contrary. The mother is a profoundly desexual- with potentially disastrous conscqul'nces for her psychic life. For
ized figure . And we must suspect that this desexualization is part of Freud, woman is doomed to envy the embodiment of desire that will
her more general lack of subjectivity in society as a whole. Just as the forever clude her, since only a man can possess it. Desire in woman
mother's power is not her own, but is intended to serve her child, so, thus appears as envy-perhaps only as envy. And indeed, we know
in a larger sense, woman docs not have the freedom to do as she wills; that Inany WUIllen enter into love relationships with mCll in ordl'r to
she is not the Sl,bject of her own desire. Her power may include control acquire vicariously something they have not got within themselws.
over others, but not over her own destiny. We have only to think of Others try to protect their autonomy by resisting passionate involve-
the all-sacrificing, all-perfect, and all-knowing Agnes who waits pa- ment with men; because their sexuality is bound up with the fantasy
tiently while David Copperfield marrics foolishly, is widowed, and of submission to an ideal male figure, it undermines their sense of a
separate self. As Jane Lazarre describes in 0" LOI'i",~ lvfm: "There is
a connection for me b"tween the ability to feel autonomous, to feci
*For the mother the ph:.d lus ccprcSC'nts hC'r lack. what she dcsirl'S for her completion;
confidently creative, and a fear of certain kinds of love. The love,
foc the father It represents what he'has and is and does. Thus ie stands for both male especially when it includes passionate sexuality, undermines my ability
and female desire. \ to be myself, pulls me away from open channels, reawakens in me a
- f
THl' HONUS 01- 10\'F 'HI \\' milan'" DL'\in'
91

,lesire to succumb to the ferocious power of my tatl",r's needs."- The idea that little girls develop their femininity through direct
Insofar as a woman's desire pulls her toward surrcnder and self-denial, identification with the' mother is quite persuasi\'l' an,1 well docu-
she often chooses to curb it altogether. mented. But it docs not add reS' the other problem that penis envy was
Let us ackn owledge the partial truth of Freud's gloomy view. The meant to explain-the absence of woman's desire. Certainly the little
equation of masculinity with desire, femininity with object of desire girl whose femininity is formed in the im~ge of a desexualized mother
does reflect the existing situation; it is not simply a biased view.' may well feel this lack of an emblem at desire. But thIS ollly shlfr;
Woman's sexual agency is often inhibited and her desire is often the problem back a generation. To what, then, do we attribute th~
expressed by choosing subordination. But this situation is not inevita- mother's lack of sexual subjectivity? Where docs absence of deSIre
ble; it has come into being through forces that we intend to understand originate' Why docs femininity appear linked to passivity' And why
and counteract. We do not need to deny the contribution of "nature" do men appear to have exclusive rIghts to ,exual agellcy. so that
or anatomy in shaping the conditions of femininity; we have only to Wunlt'I1 seck their Jesirc in nll'n, hoping to h.1Vl' it be rl'nl~llizL'd
argue that the psychological integration of biological ,,'ality is larg"ly thnmgh th~ 'gl'nc), of an other'
dw work of cuhure-of social arrangl'nlcilts that we (all Ch;Ul~l' or Thc eI11phasis in contl'I11pnrary (Cllllllislll nn the Ilh'nrity \\'(lITlCIl
direct. gain fro III their It1Dthen tcnds to gloss over tht' prnhlcI11 uf desirL.'1 <. )th.'
COlltcmp(lrary psychoanalytic feminists have ~\ml' SOlI h.' distance ;trand of femillist politics holds that \\'l' (",n Oll!-' avoid sexu.ll objec-
toward uncowring the work of culture underlying the femimnt' C,)li- tification and p.lssivity by giving up llIl sex altl1gctill'r. This n.:lccriull
dition. They have argued that the cultural institution of women's bCl!;an with attacks Ull pornu~raphy. bur it often cxtl'nded tn .111
mothering is the key factor in gender dlve!opmenr. In opposition to ('x~oriatil)n of all heterosexual activity and nuny forl1l~ nf hnnlosexu.ll
Freud, they argue that girls achiew their gender idemity not by activity, until not much wa, left unwndemned. In the df,)rt to "xtri-
repudiating an initial masculinity. but-since children inevitably iden- cate women from the status of sexual Obj,'ct. feminism mIlS the risk
tify with their first caregivcrs-by identifying with their mothers. of leaving all sexuality behind. 1O
The feminist position relies on the theory of core gender identity The puritanical tendencies within the feminist movement are often
which shows that children consolidate a fixed unalterable sense of linked to a tendency to elevate the desexualized motha whose hall-
gender in the first two years of life. well before the onset of the ocdipal mark is not desire bur nurtllrance. The "gentler sex" is [hllS exalted
complications Freud described. It also shows that maternal identifica- by the pwponcnts of an e,senti al femilline nature. The result is a simpl ,'
tion is the initial orientation for children of both sexes. As we saw in reversal of idealization, from father to mother; it is a position that ends
the preceding chapter, girls sustain the primary identification with the up glori(ying the sexual deprivation to which women have been
mother while boys must switch to an identiflcation with the father.' subjected. In reclaiming the mother's importance, thef(' is a tendency
This analysis of early gender identity has, in America at least, largely to give unwitting support to this reactive idealization of the feml,-
replaced Freud's view that maternal identifIcation is not truly femi- nine." Certainly it is important to revalue what has been wnmen s
nine, that only the penis wish and the passive love of the father are domain; bur feminist theory cannot be satisfled with a simple reversal
feminine. It has also led to the revaluation of the mother, whose that leaves the terms of the sexual polarity intact. For the same reason,
influence Freud neglected. R it cannot be satisfled simply with conquering men's territory for
 THE BONOS OF IO\'f
r 93 Womau's Dt.'!llre

women. The task is more complex: it is to transcend tht' opposition necd of so complicated a process to explain the change. Would not
of the two spheres by formulating a less polarized rdationship between the little girl fed an inner impulse toward heterosexuality, toward
them. loving her father, even without the wish to g~t the phallus vicariously
The ideali7ation of motherhood, which can be found in both anti- for herself! Horney disputed the idea that true femininity develops
fcminist and feminist cultural politics, is an attempt to redeem only through penis envy; that the narcissistic rather than erotic motive
woman's sphere of influence, the power of the apron strings." How- is the only basis for woman's sexuality; that woman is only motivated
ever, it pursues this end by idealizing woman's desexuali'zation and to get the phallus, not to give or express something of her own.14
lack of agency. This attitude toward sexuality preserves thc old gender All of these issues were debated at some length in the twenties, and
system, so that freedom and desire remain an unchallenged male do- were then taken up again in the second wave of feminism. For the
main , leaving women to be righteous but dc-eroticized, intimate and moment, l~t us focus on Mitchell's response to Horney's challenge. It
caring, but pleasureless. And it fails to understand rill' underlving force fails, slit- says, because it counters the theory of pt'nis t'nvy with the
of desire that ratifies male power. the adoration that hdp: to' creat,. claim that femininity and heterosexuality do not net'd to be explained,
it l'v~r anew. that tllt'V arc innate. This view denies Frcud's fundamcntal illSi~ht that
WOI1ll'1l ~ are made. not born. that fl'lnininity is a conlplex crc;tion of
unconscious mcntal ht~. Thl' assumption of innate t~'l11ininity takes llS
PENIS ENVY-THE CAUSE
away from the psychological and cultural rotlts of our scxuallife, and
ironically (for Horney was concerned above all with the influt'nce of
liut what arc the unconscious sources of that desire' Whence comes culture on the psyche) returns us to biology.1I
that adoration of male power' Let us look more closel)' at that persist- Mitchell, I believe, is right to say that W(' must acknowledge the
ent challenge to the femini st argulllent-penis envy. power of the phallus and its hold on the unconscious. She has argued
For Freud, as we have seen, the little girl begins as a "little man," well that male power cannot be divorced from its roots in the preroga-
and only becomes femininc when she turns from the mother to the tive of the father and his sexual dominion over women. But Mitchell
father in search of a penis. Actually, Freud offers sevcral explanations is misled by her idealization of Freud. By following him so faithfully,
for why the little girl drops her mother in favor of her father: the little Mitchell, too. winds up equating the father's power with his possession
girl turns to love of her father as a refuge from her penis-less state, of the phallus-the lone instrument of separation, the thing that comes
now wishing to be the passive object who can receive his phallus; she between mother and child, forcing the child out into the world and
turns to her father because she has no knowledge of her own organ, forbidding the stagnation of incest. 16 Thus for Mitchell, as for Freud,
the vagllla, or of its potential for active sexual gratification; she rejects it is inevitable that woman should covet this emblem of power and
her mother in anger and disappointment for not having supplied her desire, that she should reject her mother in favor of her father. As
with the essential organ. In any case, she enters her oedipal conflict, Mitchell sums up, "She makes the shift from mother-love to father-
propelled by the great discovery of the "lack" she shares with hcr love because she has to, and then with pain and protest. She has to,
mother. The mothcr becomes thc depriving (evcn castrating) figurc, because she is without the phallus. No phallus, no power-except
and the fathcr, the figure of dcsire." those winning ways of getting one."17 But Mitchell cannot tell us, as
The early critics of penis cnvy, likc Karen Homey, questioned the Freud could nor, why the phallus and the father have this exclusive
 THE BONDS OF I OV l'

95 Woman's Dcsin'

power. this monopoly on desire. subjectivity. and individuation. She

forecloses the possibility of answerinf'; this question by secinf'; the from the strict oedipal view, the father is not powerful simply because
oedipal world. the world in wlllch the mother "has no absolute he has a phallus, but became he (with his phallus) represents freedom
strt'l1f';th" and the "f.1ther is truly powerful, " as the whole world.!S from dependency on the powerful mother of early infancy. In the
But we have already elucidated why the oedipal world is not the preoedipal world, the father and his phallus are powerful because of
whole world. We have seen that differentiation of self and other bef';ins their ability to stand for separatIOn from the mother. The phallus, then.
in infancy and evolves in preoedipal conflicts; so does the assumption is not intrinsically the symbol of desire, but I>(,[OIll<'S so because of the
of gender identity-long before the oedipal "switch" from mother to child's search for a pathway to individuation." The dIfference IS
father. Current psychoanalytic thought gives far more attention to simply between attributing the power to the phallus and attnbutmg
preoedipal life than Mitchell's analysis would indicate: and there the it to the father-the symbol of power versus the actual bearer of
mother's power and its impact on the child appear in a different Iif';ht.!" power. . . .
To take jmt one example. the French analyst .ranine Chasseguct- [n Mitchell's view. the father is stIli, as It were. attached to the
Sll1irgel has demonstrated that Freud's description of woman as cas- phallus. which. ill ilsell: represents sexual power and the ability to
trated and powerless-a catalogue of lacks-is the exact opposite of enforce separation. In the other view, conversely, the syr,"bohc power
the little child's unCllnscious image of the mother. While the little boy of the phallus develops as an extension of the father s power: the
Jnay consciously represent the mother as castrated, clinical evidence phallus is llOr a thing ill itself which the ~irl envies the moment ,he
reveals that ullconsciously the boy sees this Il10ther as extreIl1t'ly pow- realizes she hasrr't got one. This is the position [ WIsh to elaborate. [
erful. ~() She does Ilot appear lacking a sexual organ; rather her vagina recogllize. of coms:', the phenomellon that Freud callet! penis envy, but
is known and f~'ared for its potential to re-engulf the boy. whose little I int~rpret it as an expression of the girl's effort to identify with the
penis would be f.1r too small to satisfy it. (As an illustration of this father as a way of establishinf'; the separateness that IS threatened by
fear. consider a three-year-old boy who, shortly after inquiring in identifying with her mother. "
detail about his mother's genitals and how babies are born, became Chasseguet-Smirgel's idea that the phallus serves to beat back the
panic-stricken at the end of his bath when the plug was pulled: he now mother" grasps the double nature of the father's power to represent
feared that he or his toys could be sucked down the drain.) The girl, difference: it is a defense against the mother's fearful power alld It IS
too. sees her mother as powerful and her wish for her father's penis an expression of the child's innate striving to individuate. But there
signifies the desire to "beat back the maternal power."'! is one problem with this idea: it implies that the establishment of
The meaning of the penis as a symbol of revolt and separation independence from the mother has a predominantly hostile and defen-
derives, then, from the fantasy of maternal power, not maternal lack. * sive coloring. This antagonistic picture obscures the posrtrve SIde of
For psychoanalysts like Chasseguet-Smirgel who have moved away

*Chas!'>t'gut't-Smir~t'l and ht'r colll';}gut'!'> have .~trcsst'd tht' cluld's conflict WIth the women prt'occupitd with the penis wish frequently descnbe their morh.t'c as c~ntrollJT1g,
Intrusive, controlling m(ltht'r of tht' anal pt'riod,22 Certainly the mother they have in physically intrusive, and sexually restrictive. In American pSY,:hoa~al.yt~c,~vntIng wc less
mind, tlll' motfIt'c of disClpllllt', clt'anlim's~, and tOllet rrailllng, who subjects rht' child's frequently t'llcounter an anally controlling mother than a narClSSl~tlC ~10thl'r, who
body to her rule, necessarily amuses revolt (ho\vl'vt'r UllcoIlKlUm). I have obsecvt,'d that Impedes sepacatlon because sht' fantaslz{'~ the daughtcr a~ an t'xtenslon ot .h~'rsclf-an
orally controlling mother, shall we say, indulgent, overmvnlved, but obltvlous.
 THt:. HaND:"! OF 1.0\'[ Woman's I )l'sin'
97

becoming independent in the relationship with mother-becoming a like her father, and the eldest ot three girls. She sought help in dealing
mnre active partner in (affectionate) interaction with her." The striv- with the painfd end of a lor.g marriage to an older man who she felt
ing to individuate is not just an expression of hostility toward depen- had completely controlled her. She consciously saw her submission as
dency; it also expresses love of the world. Whether hostility or love an extension of her relationship to her father, whom she adored yet
predominates depends largely on the circumstances in which the child vaguely resented. In Lucy's recollections, which are quite vivid, the
grows up. antithesis stands out between her father, the active, desiring su~ject, and
The fantasy of dangerous maternal omnipotence may well be intensi- her mocher, the restrictive prohibitor of desire.
fied by specific conditions of mothering (widespread in much of In one session Lucy discussed a dream of having something rubbery
Western society) that trap mother and child in an emotional hothouse between her legs which she must squeeze when she has to put on the
and make it difficult for either Olll' of them to accomplish separation." brakes while driving in a car. She associates to images of both father
This is the context in which the father and his phallus become a weapon and mother. First she thinks of the rubbery thing as a penis, then as
(or the embattled self struggling to difft'rentiate. But as we have seen in a diaphragm. She mentions a childhood dream in which sht' was
the analysis of erotic domination, using fiT<' to fight fire-using the attacked by a man with a knife. Then she associates to the recollecti,1Ils
fantasy of om' omnipotent parent (or organ) to subdue the other that she has often brought up of her mother interfering with her
one-does not solve the real problem o( difft'rL,ntiation, which is to masturbation. She then returns, un thl' tiwm.e of humIlIation. to re-
break out of omnipotence altogether. We must find a (orm of differen- member how her father would telS<' her while swimming, ducking hn
tiation that does not involve exchanging om' master for another. head and splashing her until sht' was in teors and enraged. He would
Chasseguet-Smirgcl, having identified ~he dt"'p unconscious roots of persist just a little too long, until she was upset, Jnd then laugh at her.
phalhc power in fear and envy of the mmh,'r, belieYt's she has hit She recalls how he would mock her mother until, in silent protest, she
bedrock. But feminist critics draw a different conclusion about the left the room. She then veers back to a memory of her mother
relationship between paternal and maternal power, They do not accept expressing disgust at the behavior of two teenagers caught having sex
the inevitability of defensive differentiation; rather, they see the neces- in the park. Then she thinks of pressing her legs together to control
sity of challenging the existing gender arrangements. her urine flow, as her mother had taught her, and thinks again of the
rubbery thing, this time as the rubber panties a child wears over diapers
to keep them from leaking. Here is a not uncommon female constella-
CHOOSING THE FATHER tion, involving resentment of maternal prohibition complicated by a
fear of paternal intrusion. *
Once we take the view that the father-not the phallus-is the locus
of power, we may scrutinize more critically the daughter's relationship
to him.
Let us consider the experience of a woman who was a "father's "'This is, of course, a classic Q('dipal constellation; what I am emphasizing, however, is
the preoedlpal roots of chis configuratIon: the girl repudiates her mother and identifies
daughter," who as a child used her identification with her father to
with her father in the interest of csC'aptnf,t maternal control. but this prt'oedipai solution
achieve liberation from a controlling and intrusive, although de- leaves her without maternal protection from tlll' rhmucning gCllItai fantaSIes impirtJ
meaned, mother. Lucy was a successful professional woman, a lawyer by the oedipal father.
.' p

TIlE HONDS or LO"F 99 \'\' oman\. I )l'o;in'

In her first description of her problems, Lucy had talked about her ness and tyranny of his which had poisone,l her childhood and
difficulty with being female, her sense of exclusion from the female raised bitter storms, so that even now she woke in the night
bonds in her family, her preference for male friends, and her sense of rrenlbling with rage and remcI1lbt.'[t,d some cUI11Inand of his;
being like her father, whom she loved a great deal. Her mother had some insolence: "Do this," "Do that,"' his donllnance: his "Sub-
told her two things about her infancy: th;t when she was still in the mit to me."2b
crib Lucy would masturbate frequently and her mother would stop her
from doing it; and that when her mother tried to hold her she would Lucys core fear was the fear of violation and intrusion, a fear that was
squirm away. She could remember being severely reprimanded by her expressed in vigilant attempts to maintain her privacy in her family
mother when she found her at the end of a nap with her hands between and a preoccupation with "finding a space" for herself in adult life.
her legs. Reflecting on these recollections she said, "Maybe that's Both her mother's control and intrusion, and her father's seduction and
where I got the idea of not wanting to be a girl." The central point domination. appeared to coalesce in this fear. And yet. the basic
of this statement. I think. was that she did not wish to be like her direction that Lucy had choscH thrllughpllt her lift' was to fl:icct her
rl1othcr, who njeeted sexuality and desire in flvnr of control and nl0thef in f1VO[ of her father. as an object not only of lllvf' hut of
self-control: she did not wish to be her. to be close to her and therefore identification. Hc was the ont' with the exubl'r.ll1Ct', the .1geIlCY, the
controlled by her. Ifshe were a boy and could disidentify with mother. L'XCitCI1lt'llt, and the desire that Lucy W.iS trying to protect 1I1 hendf
she would not have to repress her sexuality, she Clluld have her pleasure frmn hllIniliation and prohibition. Hi;, TccogIlltinn of her as his t:l\'or-
and autonomy. A boy who experiences humiliation by his mother wdl ite child, his letting her be like hUll, was crucial.
turn to his father and strive to be like him-free of mothers control. Lucy had unequivocally made the choice to beat back maternal
By \vishing to be a boy, Lucy was pursuing a simibr strategy. power with paternal power. to find liberation in the t:tther. But to do
The childs struggle for autonomy takes place within the realm of this she wa~ always having to struggle against her father-his cnI11-
the body and its pleasures. Thus, the mother who does not experience mand of and contempt for her, her mother. and women in general.
her own will and body as sources of pleasure, who does not enjoy her Lucy's choice had led her to a common daughter's dilemma: How to
own agency and desire, cannot recognize her daughter's sexuality. But be a subject in relation to her father (or any man like her father), How
ill turning away frmll such a rnothcr to her father, the girl is oftcll to be like her lather and still be a woman' Her identification of
laced with the dilemma that he will 'hold her down." force her to feminilllty with submission, exemplifi,d by her Illother, had prevailed
submit, humiliate her with her Icmininity. demean her. She fears he in her l11<lrriagc and left her confused about her identity afterward.
will treat her as she has seen him treat her mother. Virginia Woolf Lucy's dilemma suggests how problcnutic it is for a woman to identify
has described such a daughter's passionate struggle with her father in with her father as a mode of separarion when the f.1ther-mothcr
To liz .. L(~hllzous..: relationship is one of inequality, when the mother is not a subject
herself, but is nevertheless a power over her daughter. This use of the
For no one attracted her more; his hands were beautiful, and his father is a solution that is part of the problem. It leads to that recurrent
feet, and his voice, and his words ... his saying straight out before split between autonomy and sexuality that is so visible in the lives and
everyone, we perish, each alone, and his remoteness .... But the politics of women today.
what remained intolerable, she thought ... was that crass blind- Despite the drawbacks, however, there is no doubt that Lucy drew
 THE HONDS OF lOVE lIXI
r 1111 Woman's Dl'sire

a certain strength from paternal identification. Under the circum- from the fact that he is big, but also that he represents a solution to
stances, she chose the parent who would provide her with a sense of the child's inner conflict. As we saw in our discussion of recognition
personal power. But again, if we understand this choice only as an in chapter 1, rapprochement is a vital transition point in psychic life. *
attempt to beat back the mother, we still do not have the whole story It can be seen as the great fall from grace, when the conflict between
about desire. We still need to understand what is so erotic about this self-assertion and separation anxiety brings forth an essential ambi va-
paternal power. Let us turn to that point in life when the father lence.'" In rapprochement the child first experiences his own activity
becomes the image of liberation from maternal power, when he and will in the context of the parents' greater power and his own
becomes the one who recognizes and embodies desire. limitations. This power relationship-and the realization of his own
helplessness-comes as a shock, a blow to the child's narcissism. The
child's seli-esteem must be repaired by the confirmation that the child
THE MIRROR OF DESIRE call do real things in the real world. The child "Iso st",ks to repair it
through identifIcation, a particular kind tlf oneness with rhe pt'rson
Recent ,,'search and theory now concur that gender identity devcIops who embodies the power one now feels lacking.
in the second year of life and is well established by the third-much But-note well-in my view this identific"tion is more than just
carlit'r than Freud thought. 17 The child', awarem'" of the diffen'nce a con1pt'nsatloll for a perct.'ivl'd loss. The child is .lIst) hecoming: con-
bl't\Vl'en mother and father, now reformulated as gendl'r diflrrence, sciolis of will and agency, of bemg the one who desires. The child
coincides fatefully with rapprochement. It is this conjunction which wants mor<' than simplt' satisfaction of l1<'ell. Ratl1<'r, <'"ch want ,'x-
shapes the symbolic role of the father and his phallus. pn.'ssl's the dt.sire to be recognized as <l subject: ab()vl' and hl'YOlh.l tht.
BrieRy, this is what I propose: what Freud called penis envy, the thing itself that is wanted, the child wants recognition of her will, of
little girl's masculine orientation, really reflects the wish of the tod- her desire, of her act. Nothing is mOTe characteristic of this phase than
dler-of either sex-to identify with the father, who is perceived as the reiteration of the word "want." Where the fourteen-month-old
representing the outside world. Psychoanalysis has recognized the said "banana" or "cracker" and pointed, the twenty-month-old says
importance of the boy's early love for the father in forming his sense "Want that!" uninterested in naming the object itself. Recognition of
of agency and desire; but it has not assigned a parallel importance to this wanting is now the essential meaning of getting what you asked
the girl's. This early love of the father is an "ideal love": the child for. The child's tendency to feel that her ego is on the line ewry time
idealizes the father became the father is the magicalnurror that reflects she asks for some paltry thing often mystifies the parent. But this
the self as it wants to be-the ideal in which thc child wants to insistence only becomes stronger in each new phase of self-assertion.
recognize himself." Under certain conditions, this idealization can
become the basis for adult ideal love, the submission to a powerful
other who seemingly embodies the agency and desire one lacks in 'lkcauSC' of [he many ISSUl'S rh:u wllverp;c at rlm point thi S phasl' IS gradually as~unl1ng
oneself. the thl'ofeticai s(aCU~ of a "rapprochement complex," vying in tht'ontical lmporu,nn'
wah [he Oedipus cllmpll'x. Whc11, In rapprochemcnt. tht' father first begins to represent
The idealized father solves the paradox of the rapprochement phase, freedom. sl'paration, and d<" stre. this is not !Oimply an ~arlier ver'iion of the Oedipu'i
the paradox of the child needing to be recognized as independent by coOlplt'x. Th<.' father hal' is not a rcscrictlV(' authom y, not a limit to tltt' chilJ\ <it'sm',
the very person he depends upon. The father's power derives not only but rather a modd for it. wh<.'re3s (he oedtpal fathr:r IS both.
 ------
>
I HE IHJNI>S Of 10\' [
10.1 \Vomall\ Dl'!Ioin'

When the c1nld has a tantrum uver which shoes she will wear, the the infant. Still, it has been observed that whatever hl'r style of play.
lIr~ency st,'ms from the need tu be an agent who can realize her own when rhe morher is the parent who comes and goes, she is the "curious-
plans, incencions, and mental images, The rapprochement phase, then, making" outside parent..12 We shall have to await the results of current
inaugurates the first in a long series of struggles to achieve a sense of changes in parenting to sec whar happens when the father is the
agcncy, CO be recognized in one's desire, primary parent and these elements are reshuffled: for example, when
This understanding of rapprochement offers a great insight inco the the father stays home but his play is aggressive and novel, when the
problem of woman's desire. What is really wanted at this point in life mother is the outside parent, yet soothing and holding. Perhaps parents
is recognition of one's desire; wha!,)s wanted is recognition that one wi!! ultimately integrate the aspects of holding and excitement. At
. is a subject, an .agent who can will things and make them happen. And present, however, the division between the exciting, outside father and
at this very point, where desire becomes an issue, the realizations of the holding, inside mother is still ,'mbedd"d in the culture.
gender difference first begin to take hold in the psyche. Now each No nutrl"T what rheon; VOH fC.llL the father is always the way infO
parent may fepreSt'nt (lne o;;idt' of the mCllt.ll nmflicr benveen indepc:n- the world. In sc.nl1e (OIltc;npurary delivery rOOIllS. the father i~ lIterally
dence an,l lkpendl'ncl'. And the child will 'Irticulate this diff,'fl'nCl' encouraged to cut the llIllhdical cor ..L He is rhr..' hbL'T.ltor, the pruver-
between t1wm symbo\icdly-especially the tatiwr's diffl'renCL' fmm bial klli'ght in shining .1fI1l0r. The devaluatioll ,'f the mother th.lt
the mother. Here begins the child's rdationship with the t:lther that inevitahiy accompJ.nil:s rhe ilfealiziltion PI' the fathef, howe vcr, gives
h" been adduced tn explain the power of the phallus It is a relatillllship the t~lthcr's role .1S liberator a spl'cial twist t~)r \votl}eIl. It I11t'.ll1S that
that-in tlll'o,v ,IS well .IS practice-continues to be llramatically their necessary identification with their 111otlll'r:-., \vIth l'xistin~ ft'mi-
diffen'nt t,lt boys and girls. ninitv, is likdv tn ~ubvert their strll~gle for int.leptlHknce.
Long bd~)fl' thi~ sytnholic consciousllr..'SS t)f gl'ndl'r bl'~ins. the (athl'f TI;l' asynlln;'try "f the bth,'r" rol~' for boy and ~irl t",ldll'rs. tllt'
is experienCl'd in his total physical Jnd emotional behavior as the tact that little girls cannot as readily utilIze the tather in their separa-
exciting. stimulating. sep"ratl' other. Fathers' play with infants differs tion from the 'mother or defend against feelings of helplessness, has,
trom mothers: it is more stimulating and novel, less soothing and with few exceptions, been accepted as inevitable in psychoanalytic
accurately tuned. lo Fathers often introduce a higher level of arousal literature." The observation that little f!;irls in rapproch,ment become
in early interaction-jiggling, bouncing, whooping. The father's nov- more depressed .1I1d lose mnn.~ of their txplnratory enthusiasm th.111
cIty :md complexity. as opposed to the mother's smoother, 111l)rl' bovs. is notld by M.lhll'r as a bct of lit~,. Accordin~ to Mahler. the
contained pby. have been characterized as an a~g:rcssive nl0dc of bl);' succeeds in ' escaping tilt' depressiw mood of rappruchenlt'llt by
bd,avi,)r that "fostt'rs dif!~'renti"tion and individuation." \I Fathers, virtllc of his "greater lnotor-nlindl'dness," his pleasufe in active..", ag-
whethl't it is because of their f!;reater sen,,' of bOl!ily separateness. or
their identificatil\ll with their own fathers. tend toward such excitinJl;
I.
grl'ssiw strivin~s. In light of little boys' wdl-kllown tascination with
motor vl'hicles, we Blight call chis till' tendency to l'rO(lm t'n)()t1l I'room
play. Thus. tram the beginnin~, fathers "'present what is outside alld their way thr"u~h rappmcheIllent. !.Iut this activity is a symptom, lIot
different-they mediate the wider world. the cause of the boy's success in denying hdplesslIess or the little girl's
Playfulness is, of course, not absent in mothers, but it is morc often depressed confrontation with it.
eclipsed by their tilllction as re~ulator. Mothers are more likely to be Feminist theorists explain this difference by noting the mother's
found quieting, soothing, nursing, stabilizing, containing, and ltoldilll greater identification with the daughter, and her greater willingness to
I

THE HONDS OF LOVE lOS

bolster the son's than the daughter's independence.lI This is doubtless In the boy's mind, the magical father with whom
true; but it is equally important to observe that boys resolve the possesses the oIllnipotence that he would like to have.
conflict of independence by turning to someone else. This other is through identification is now substituted for the more cc
conventionally the father, though most any male substitute or symbol to be recognized directly by the primary parent on \\
will do as the other object of identification. Ernest Abelin, who dependent. The boy can enjoy the fantasy that he is be:
observed the toddlers in Mahler's study, argued that the father plays toward the mother, and not her helpless baby; he can no
this role more for the boy than for the girl. Recognition of himself as part of a triangle, rather than a dyad; he becomes
in the father is what enables the boy to deny helplessness, to feel he himself as acting like father toward mother. And the m<
is powerful, to protect himself from the loss of the grandiosity he to confirm his fantasy, acknowledge his identification, s
enjoyed in the practicing phase." When the boy is not actively playing "little man." She has only to say, as did one mother to I
daddy. he flies about, announcing his new name-Superman. old, "You and Daddy are as alike as two peas in a pod,"
Paternal recognition thus has a defensive aspect; with it the child boy fervently replied, "Say it again, Mommy'"
denies dependency and dissociates himself from his previous maternal The ilna~('s of separation and dcsire are thus joinC"d
tie. The father's entry is a kind of deus ex mocizillo that solves the or more accurately, in his ideal. Presumably, the fat
insoluble conflict of rapprochement, the conflict between the desire to experienced by both boys and girls as the miginal rep
hold onto mother, and the desire to flyaway. The child wants to solve ('xcitenlcnt and otherness. Now. J.~ the child bl'gin~ tn
this problem by becoming independent without the experience of loss. and the exciten1ent as his llr her l)Wn innt'f desirl', he or
And the "solution" to this dilemma is to split-to assign the contradic- recognition from this exciting other. While the child d
tory strivings to different parents. Schematically, the mother can be- recognition from both parents at this time, the cxcitinf
come the object of desire, the father the subject of desire in whom one one the child wishes to be lik.-. Desire' is intrinsically I
recognizes oneself." Separation-individuation thus becomes a gender point, to the striving for freedom, for autonomy, but t
issue, and recognition and independence are now organized within the
frame of gender.
This is the point where the distinction between subject and object, thl' conditions presumed by thl'i .1CCllUnt? Thl')' do not IiVl' With ilK
the I and the It, acquires meaning. Abelin postulates that in this phase, In stc-reocypical t"lmi lit.'~ With a cnnwlluonal sexual llivision of I ~
forgottc-Il [hi!> obJl"ctlon; hur I dunk tholt Jitl~'rt'ncl's 111 p'iychic lit-wIn
excitement is no longer felt as emanating from the object CIt is so
from the specific SOCIal arrJngeIllcnts ni" pl'r!>onJI lif~' have co bt' undel
attractive"). Desire is now a property of the self, one's own inner desire background of the dominant cultUrl' and Its gendl'r ~[ructurl', as n
("I desire it")." And the father now becomes the symbolic figure ab~tract model of plrsonal and st'xuallifl'. Thc flgurl's of mother and f
representing the I who "owns" desire, desire for the mother. * ideals, but they need nor bl? played by "biological" nlnthers and fat
women and Illen. Tht.' f.uher of rapprochl'Illent is such .111 ideal. The m
ideal symbolIcally to represent separatIon and agency. whl'ther the fa
present or not. One could ~ay that die figure of the father IS accompa
'" Although this account of the father's role gives greater weight to object relations than notation. such as "present" or "absent," which will have 1Il1porcance II
[0 the genital differmce, it still assumes a heterosexual, two-parent family. What about betwel"ll the individual's father and tlu' one that i'i generally [('cog-llI:l
the fact that a large proportion of the children in our society do not grow up under as The Father. \'/
TIn liO!\lJ)~ OJ 1.0\'1' tIl7 Woman '.. Dt.\ire

realized in the context of a po\Vt'rfu! connection. The wish to be like I regard the identificatory, homoerotic bond bttween toddler son
the father, the identificatory impulse, is not merely a defensiw attcmpt and f.1ther as the prototype of ideal love-a love in which the person
to tlt'feat the mother-it is also the basis for a Ill'Il' kind ~F IOl'e. 40 [ seeks to find in the other an ideal image of himself: In rapprochemem,
su~?:est we call this idcl/ f!fir,uory I"l'('. the child who is beginning to confront his own helplessness can
Identification now plays a central role in recognition and desire. comfort himself with the belief in parental omnipotence." In this
"Bein?: like" is the chief means by which a child of this age can parental power, he will seck to recognize the power of his own desire;
acknowledge the subjectivity of another person, as the well-noted and he will elaborate it in the internally constructed ideal. The father-
phenomenon of parallel play implies. The clement of pleasure in an son love affair is the model for later ideal love, just as the conflict of
other is ga;ned through likeness-"We are both drinking juice from rapprochement between independence and helplessness is the model
blue cups." For the toddler, "being like" is perhaps second only to conflict that such ideal love is usually called upon to solve. And
physical intimJCY in emotional importance. The father's subjectivitv underlying both identilicatory love and ideal loV(' is the saml' desire
:lppn'ciatcd through likl'nt's~-"I all1 bt'ing Daddy." Loving ;)onlt'-
io;; for rt'Ct)gnitillll.
one heclllsL' they arc diff~'rcnt-object lovl'- Il:1.s nllt yet come vlCW,
.
Lnving- SllIlwune who i::, the source llf.~oodllcss is
. 3lrc3dv well t'stab-
lished-"r lnvl' Yl1U; you ~ive me fUl)tL" But the first [urIll llf loving THE MISSING FATHER
S<lmCollC..' as J ~ub.i('ct . .lS an admind agcnt, is this killli of idl'utificJ[llry
Illvl. 4 ! The little boy's identificawry love It)f his lather is the psvclllllog.c..J
III tllL' boy's st"rv. idcntificarory love is the matrix of crucial psychic foundation of tht' idl'alizatioll of male power and autonomous in-
~trl1ctun's dUrIng rappnlChelllt'nt. The stron~ mutual attraction be- dividuality. This ideali1.atiLm remains untainted hy submissillll as i(mg
tween fJ.thcr Jud ~lll1 allllws for recognition .lnd idl'lltificltioll. a a; the wllndertiti, t'xciting father says, "Yes, you arc like me." The
'pecial erotic relationship." In rapproehemcnt, the littk boy's "low route to becoming the I who desires lead! throll(;h identification with
affair with the world" (of the earlier practicing stage) turns into a him. Thus, I bl'lieV(', I;,r w"mt'n. the "II1i"in~' father" i, the kcy tll
homoerotic love affair with the f.1tlwr, who r,'I""'<I'IIt, the world. The their tnissin~ desire. and to its return in the..' t~lrtn of masochism: Bv
boy's idenlIfic..tllfY l(lvc for the father, his wish to be recognized as n:col1strl1ctin~ tilt.' way in which tIl!.' f1ther i~ missing for the girl. \V~.
like him, is the erotic engin, behind separation. The boy is in love with be~~n to uncover an explanation for Wlllllall'S "lack .,~ that P;()"S 'beyond
his ideal. and thruu~h his ideal he begins to set' himself as J subject pents envy.
of desire. Thrnu~h this homoerotic love he creates his masculine The psychoanalytic discussion of the father-daughter rt'lati,)lJ,hip
identity an,1 maintains his narcissism in the face of helplessness. * has bel'll notably thin compared to that "fbovs and tllt'ir fathers." The
common psychoanalytic line OIl ,,'xual di!f~renct' is that the boy has

tllt' farher, IS not rht' cqUlv.tlcnr of

". emph.Nzl that thi s illtJ.1, till' h\llllllt'TOtJC loYl' of
till' "m'~atl\"t' Ot'diPUS c(lmpll'x," as Fr('ud caIltdit, in winch tht' boy idc-nufies with I,w('" for rhe fath(. in Crllllp Psyrl'(l!CI,I?Y amI rllf Alldlysi,( (I/rI't' /;:('(1. H For Frc-ud, rhls love
tht' mother and ra~~ivd}" dC'~irl's till' fatlltr. Tim lovl". which rakes rhl' father as "like" st.'rWs to t:xplam the mas~ Identification with and the surrc:ndt'r ro tht' idt'al leadl'r. As
ol~il'('t 10 support of actlvlty, corresponds to Frcud's dcscription of the boy's preo('dlpal we shall ~el" woman's search for idenClficJ.tory love lihwiS(. oft(.n ll'ad~ til subnllSswn.
, p

THE no~])s or 1. 0\'1=. 11)9

one love object (the mother) and the girl has two (must shift from ing to identify with their fathers and thereby find recognition of their
mother to father). 13m at times it appears as if the boy has two and own desire' Little girls in this phase express the wish I~)f a penis, J
the girl has none.'. When we turn to the little girl's story, we find suggest, for the same reason that boys cherish thcirl-becausc they sec
no coherent explanation of the elements of gender, individuation, and it as the emblem of the father who will help them individuate. Like
paternal identification. Either the father's importance to the girl is boys, in their anxiety over separating from mother they are looking
ignored (as in maternal identification theory) or he is no more to her for an attachment figure who will represent their moV<' away from
than the possessor of the penis she wants (as in classical theory). infant dependency to the great outside. This figure is the father, and
Roiphe and Galenson have been the leading contemporary expo- his difference is symbolized and guaranteed by his different genitals.
nents of the idea that toddler girls suffer from penis envy.41 They claim One consequence of female mothering is that fathers often prefer
to norice the same signs of depression in eighteen-month-old girls that their boy infants; and, as infants respond in turn to partntal cues. boy
Mahler noted- subdued mood, withdrawal, dedine in curiosity and inf1nts tend to form an intense bond with their fat he". " The father
responsiveness tow<lrd othc:r:-.-but thcy attribute it to the new ~t'llital recognizes himself in hi, son. sn's him as the ideal boy he' would h.lve
awan.'tlCSS father th.m to separation isslles. The girls they nbscrvt'd been: >0 idelltificatory love plays its part on the parent" "de from the
attempted to ,'mulate their f1thers, appropriated his objects ('"stealing" beginning. The lather's own disidentification with his n"'ther. and his
his pens- which, they t;\ikd to "bserVl', boY' dn ,., well). an,1 Y.\ri- continuing nccd to J.sst'rt diffcft'ncc froIll womt'I1, make If llifficult for
llusly expressed the wish fur a penis. Rlliphe ,1Ild GaleIlSlln wnclnde him to recognize his daughter as he ,Ioes his son. \2 He i, mote likely
that FrCHtl was right, penis dol'S structure t~l11il1inity. The l'vi-
('I1Y)' to set' hcr as a swC'ct adorablc thing. it I1a~c('l1t sex objcct.
til'ncC', the), .ugUl', pllints to an "early genit<ll phasc" in whIch ~irls Consequently we sec that little girls often cannot llr may not lise
suffer from t~'elin~s of castration. a further proof that the genital drive their COJ1llt'crion with the fathcr, in eithl'r its defellSlVt' or constructive
is the main f,>rce behind g"nder d,ve!npment." I am willing tll credit aspects (that is, w deny helplessness or to t~,rge a sense of separ,lIe
their "vidence that toddler girls display considerable Interest in father sclfllOod). The father's withdrawal pushes the girl back to her mother;
and penis, just as earlier critics of Freud did not deny that penis envy the consequent turning inward of her aspirations for independence and
was readily observable."" But wily dn gir)' want the penis' And is tlll'ir her an!-!:cr at nonn.cof!;nitioll l'xplain her dl'pressive rl'spon~e to the
awarCIless l1f lack the I1lJ in cause of girls' depression? There is no rapprochement C<)nflict. Thus little girls are conti-on ted 1lI0re dir"ctly
questi,)ll that the symbol is important, and that it will go on to be more by the difficulty of separating from mother and th"ir own helplessness.
so. But what dlles it repn'scnt? Unprotected by the phallic sign of gender difference. unsupported by
I interpret the desire for the penis as evid" nce that littk' girls are an alternate relationship, they relinquish their entitlement to desire. It
se"king the same thing as little boys, namely, identification with tlll' is tempting to counter this deflation by emphasizing the girl's capacity
father of separation, the representative of the outside world.'o What for sociability or for future motherhood, a rationalization that has
Galellsoll and Roiphe scc as l~vidC'nc{' of a castration reaction I sec :\s some truthY But alas, we know that Illany girls are left with a lifelong
a roadblock in the toddler girl's separation from mother and identifi- admiration for individuals who get away with their sense of omnipo-
cation with father. But to see the situation this way one must first tence intact; and they express their admiration in relationships of overt
assume that girls do, in fact, need their fathers, an idea that escapes or unconscious submission. They grow to idealize the man who has
Galcnson and Roiphe altogether. Why not assume that girls arc seek- what they can never possess-power and desire.
 .
~--

\\'oman's Dl'sire-
" H E H O ND S Of LOVE 1111 111

Although the psychoanalytic theory of female development has not If the renullciation takes plac.... too ~oon. ht..lwtv .... r, \vitht.mt full Idcll-
yet recognized the importance of the missing fatiwr , clinicians have tification, it is compromiscc1 by repudiation (l[ idealization.
begun to realize the girl's equ.1 need to iden~ify with her father and This point has particular relevance for girls; since, as we know, the
the consequences if he is unavailable fo r such identification. Galenson girl's identification with the fathn is typically rdllSed, her luw is
and Roiphe actually come rather close to uncovering the real issue. commonly tainted by envy and submission. We know that on the level
They cite a case in which a little girl was deeply depressed by her of daily life, when the desire to identify goes unanswered, envy takes
father's unavailability; they conclude that "the missing element ... was irs place. Envy is often a signal of thwarted identification. The longing
not simply his phallus; it was in great part the exci tement and erotic for the missing phallus, the envy that has been attributed to women,
nature of their relationship, which had earli er been attached to the is really the longing for just such a homoerotic bond as boys may
father in 10 10 and now was identified as em anating from his phallus achieve, just such an idcntificatory love. This is whv there are so many
in particular." q This change of focus from the exciting [trher in stories of woman's love being directed toward a her;, snch as she herself
gem'ral to his phallus in particular is preciSl'ly what happens when the would be-the wish f(l[ discipl eh'h,d. ser\'in~ an idol, submission to
father himSl'lf is " missing"-that is, when he is absent. not invulvl'd, an ideal. '
or uffers seduction rather than identification. The girl struggles to This desire tll[ a homoerotic bond mav also illllminate the "'male
crl'att' the identificatiun with him out of whole cloth: and the svmbol masochistic fantasy which Freud flllll1d ;mon!' many of hi, p.ltienb.
thus takes the place of the concrete relationship uf recognitioll that she In this fantasy, reported bv Freud 111 his f,unou> e".tv "A Cluld Is
,
nl1SS('S. " Being Beaten." the wUlll.n witnesses or overhears a ch'ild be1l1~ pun-
I conclude that the little girl's "lack" is the gap left in her subjectiv- ished by a father. Invariably, tht' child, with whom she identifies, turns
ity by the missing father, and that this is what the theory of penis envy out to be a boy.17 In Illy view, it is the wOlllan's wish to hI' !iI.:t' the
presumed to explain. The fact that gIrls, lih boys, seck a relationship powerful father, and to be recognized by hilll as !iI.:I', that the fantas"
of identificatory love with the father also affects our explanation of simultaneously punishes and gratifies. The more COllllllon variety ~f
another aspect of female development that puzzled Freud. Repeatedly adult ideal love, a woman's adulation for the heroic man who rejects
he came back to the question of why the little girl "switches" to her love for freedom, can also be traced back to this phase of life, and to
father in the oedipal phase, a shift Freud could only explain as the girl's the disappointments a girl usually suffers.
narcissistic desire to gain the penis for herself. It is now possible to Bm would it be possible for the girl to make what is 1101 Ira.'
transpose this explanation as follows: the preoedipal girl's identifica- represent her own desire' Could an identification with the father allow
tory love becomes the basis for later heterosexual love; when the girl her to make desire and agency her own' The girl's wish to identify
realIzes she cannot he the father , she wants to have him. Thus we can with the father, even if satisfied, leads to myri;d problems nnder th~
agree with Irene Fast's theory of gender differentiation, which suggests present gender system. As long as the mother is not articulated as a
that boys and girls alike (ideally) go through a phase in which they sexual agent, identification with the father's agency and desire will
play out their identification with the opposite sex, after which they appear fraudulent and stolen; furthermore, it conflicts with the cultnral
are able to renounce it and recognize it as the prerogative of the image of woman as sexual object and with the girl's maternal identifi-
other. 56 This recognition, coupled with the preceding identification, cation. It will not jibe with what she knows about her position in her
enables the child to feel heterosexual love, love of what is different. father's eyes. And once the rdationship between father and daughter