Nancy Chodorow's book, "The Reproduction of
Mothering: Psychoanalysis and the Sociology of Gender," stands as a
significant achievement within both psychoanalytic and feminist theory. It
delves into questions central to understanding family dynamics and the construction
of gender: Why do women primarily undertake the role of mothering and
childcare? How is women's mothering perpetuated across generations? And how do
the personalities of boys and girls evolve due to the predominance of women in
the role of mothering? "The Reproduction of Mothering" provides
insightful answers to these inquiries, significantly broadening our
comprehension of these complex phenomena. It is a rare work that prompts
readers to reconsider social realities after engaging with its ideas. While its
style may be occasionally technical or obscure, its argument holds considerable
importance for anyone interested in family dynamics and personal life. It
deserves widespread readership.
Chodorow initiates her exploration by highlighting a
common oversight in many sociological and psychological accounts, which often
conflate the biological and socially constructed aspects of women's mothering.
While acknowledging the biological aspects such as pregnancy, childbirth, and
lactation, these accounts overlook the socially constructed dimension—the
continued expectation for women to bear primary responsibility for childcare.
Consequently, they tend to perceive women's mothering as biologically ordained
and thus theoretically unremarkable. However, Chodorow argues that the socially
constructed aspect of mothering involves specific relational abilities, such as
empathizing closely with others and intuiting their unspoken or unconscious
needs. By dismissing the socially constructed nature of mothering, analyses
fail to explore why women, rather than men, develop and exercise these
relational abilities in child rearing.
In her introduction, Chodorow positions her work as a
contribution to feminist discourse. While this assertion may hold some truth,
readers are prompted to ponder why a scholar of considerable talent and
research acumen, hailing from a field ripe for offering novel perspectives on
society and gender roles, confines herself to reinterpreting theories from
another discipline, namely psychoanalysis. Moreover, Chodorow's
reinterpretations occasionally fall prey to the same pitfalls of
generalizations and unwarranted assumptions that she critiques within the
theories she examines.
Nevertheless, Chodorow's work does possess merit. Her
exhaustive research and interpretations of psychoanalytic thought are
commendable. After meticulously exploring and subsequently dismissing
biological and instinctual theories, as well as conventional feminist and
sociological approaches, which seek to elucidate women's primary responsibility
for parenting, Chodorow pivots to presenting psychoanalysis as the most cogent
framework for understanding gender relationships and roles—albeit through her
own reinterpretations. Yet, she too is susceptible to overarching assumptions
prevalent in analytic literature. For instance, she posits that a boy represses
qualities he perceives as feminine within himself, subsequently rejecting and
devaluing women and femininity in the social sphere.
Chodorow later critiques analysts, particularly male
ones, for overlooking mothers' engagements beyond their relationship with their
infants and their potential desire to moderate its intensity. Instead, they
juxtapose infants' movements toward differentiation and separation with
mothers' efforts to maintain symbiosis, as though all mothers had no interests
or commitments beyond their babies.
She delves into the oedipus complex and its resolution,
highlighting the complexities girls face. While most women emerge from their
oedipus complex erotically heterosexual—oriented toward their father and men as
primary erotic objects—heterosexual love and emotional commitment are less
exclusive. Men tend to remain emotionally secondary. Moreover, girls develop a
foundation for "empathy" ingrained into their primary self-definition
in a way that boys do not.
Chodorow critiques Freudian accounts for their
androcentric perspective on the psychological roots of women's mothering. While
Freud and his followers acknowledge women's desire for babies, they interpret
it through a masculine lens. According to Freudian tradition, a young girl
initially exhibits "masculine" tendencies by directing her sexual
orientation towards her mother. The theory suggests that the discovery of
anatomical differences, particularly penis envy, leads the girl to seek
validation from her father and desire a child as a symbolic substitute for a
penis. Thus, femininity is defined by its lack of masculinity, and desires for
heterosexual relationships or children are seen as compensatory for not
possessing a penis. In this framework, femininity remains incomplete,
characterized by a longing for what it lacks—masculinity.
Chodorow's own analysis of femininity remains rooted in
the Freudian framework but diverges significantly from traditional Freudian
perspectives. She argues that gender identity is primarily shaped by the
construction of an inner object world during the early years of life, within
the context of family relations. However, unlike traditional Freudians,
Chodorow proposes a different developmental process. She suggests that all
children initially perceive themselves as united with and sexually oriented
towards their primary caregiver, typically the mother. Both boys and girls must
gradually separate from this initial bond and develop a sense of individual
identity. Boys, in particular, must establish a masculine identity distinct
from their mothers, while girls must transfer some of their initial attachment
to their mothers to male figures, usually their fathers.
The mother's role in shaping her children's psychological
development is crucial. She influences how her children approach the tasks of
separation and identity formation based on her feelings towards them and her
own gender identity. For boys, achieving a masculine identity involves a
radical break from the initial merging with the mother. They must come to
perceive themselves as fundamentally different from their mothers, and their
mothers often play a role in reinforcing this differentiation. The attainment
of masculine identity requires boys to reject the pre-oedipal fusion with the
mother and establish themselves as separate individuals. Despite this
separation, the mother remains a significant love object for boys, albeit in a
different context that aligns with their masculine identity. This transition
from pre-oedipal merging to a more independent identity is essential for boys'
psychological development and understanding of gender roles.
The developmental process for girls differs from that of
boys in significant ways. As girls begin to perceive themselves as separate
from their mothers, they often retain a sense of likeness or identity with
them. Unlike boys, girls do not need to completely sever their sense of oneness
with their mothers; instead, they tend to mitigate it while adding an oedipal
relationship with their fathers. The mother's attitude towards her daughter as
a sexually similar being encourages the girl to maintain some degree of
closeness with her. This sense of oneness can be both desired and feared by the
girl, as it may feel more intense and overwhelming compared to boys.
Girls often find support in their fathers as they
establish some distance from their mothers. They begin to view their fathers as
love objects while still holding onto their early love for their mothers.
Unlike boys, girls do not need to entirely repress their early sense of oneness
with their mothers. Instead, they retain aspects of the pre-oedipal situation,
resulting in a more complex inner object world characterized by an emotional
triangle.
While boys often experience themselves as separate
entities due to their radical break from the pre-oedipal situation, girls
maintain a strong sense of themselves in relation to others. This relational
sense of self becomes the basis for their empathetic abilities, which are
crucial for mothering. Women, in their role as mothers, reproduce the emotional
triangle established during their childhood. They find in their family dynamics
echoes of the relationships they had with their parents, especially with their
mothers and fathers.
Chodorow's account sheds light on various aspects of
gender construction and personality development that previous theories have
failed to adequately address. It helps explain why women tend to experience
themselves in relation to others, while men often perceive themselves as
separate entities. Additionally, it elucidates why women tend to be more
emotionally expressive and in touch with a range of feelings compared to men, who
may exhibit greater emotional control or repression.
Furthermore, Chodorow's account helps elucidate some of
the problematic aspects of masculine and feminine personalities and sheds light
on the difficulties in relationships between men and women. The pattern of
masculine development she outlines helps explain why masculinity can often be
defensive and rigid, leading to fear of intimacy and emotional expression.
Conversely, women's desires for intimacy and their abilities to maintain
various types of intimate relationships are rooted in their developmental
experiences. Overall, Chodorow's account provides valuable insights into the
psychological dynamics underlying gender differences and interpersonal
relationships.
Chodorow's argument invites scrutiny on several fronts.
While some critiques are less pressing, her singular focus on the mother-child
relationship in the pre-oedipal phase poses significant challenges. Freud's
model has been faulted for neglecting relationships beyond the family and experiences
post-oedipal stage. By prioritizing the pre-oedipal period, Chodorow redirects
psychoanalytic inquiry from a phase where children engage meaningfully with the
external world back to one where such connections are minimal. This reinforces
the nuclear family's prominence, potentially overlooking broader relational
dynamics.
Acknowledging the importance of early maternal bonds,
it's worth questioning whether a child's identification and relational
capacities remain more adaptable than Chodorow suggests. Freud wrote amidst the
rise of middle-class nuclear families, while Chodorow's era sees such
structures in flux. Her theory assumes stable nuclear families, yet
contemporary realities include diverse family forms. While these family
archetypes persist in our psyche, understanding gender and personality
necessitates theories applicable to single-parent setups or shared parenting
post-divorce.
Further, the nature of Chodorow's described family
structure prompts inquiry: to what extent does it possess internal dynamics
versus external influences? Chodorow proposes a self-replicating sex/gender
system within families, but her framework lacks elements conducive to change.
Transformation, it seems, arises from external forces like economic shifts or political
movements. This renders her family system a dependent variable, necessitating
examination of changes in family dynamics vis-a-vis broader societal shifts.
To enhance psychological acuity, historical specificity
should be integrated, revealing how social contexts shape gender and
personality formation within families. Such insights are vital for dismantling
gender norms. Chodorow advocates redistributing parenting duties for gender
parity, yet its impact on gender identity remains uncertain. While professional
couples may adopt such practices, entrenched cultural norms could limit change.
Understanding how family dynamics versus broader cultural forces shape gender
identity in early childhood is crucial.
Lastly, Chodorow's work prompts inquiry into the
interplay of social and biological factors in gender development. While she
asserts gender as socially constructed, the nexus between personality and
biology remains open. Biological disparities, such as nursing capabilities,
exist, potentially influencing personality predispositions. Exploring the
intricate links between body, mind, and societal structures is imperative for a
comprehensive understanding of gender and personality.
No comments:
Post a Comment