Part II    Psychodynamic Theories64
fei75766_ch02_019-071.indd 64  02/19/20 08:59 AMadopting anincreasingly more rigidstance. Bythe1920s, hewasinsisting thatpsy-
chological differences between menandwomen wereduetoanatomical differences 
andcould notbeexplained bydifferent socialization experiences (Freud, 1924/1961). 
Nevertheless, healways recognized thathedidnotunderstand women aswellashe
didmen. Hecalled them the“dark continent forpsychology” (Freud, 1926/1959b, 
p.212). Inhisfinalstatement onthematter, Freud (1933/1964) suggested that“if
youwant toknow more about femininity, enquire from yourownexperiences oflife
orturntothepoets” (p.135). Thedepth (andunconscious nature?) ofhissexism 
isrevealed inthisstatement. “You” refers, ofcourse, nottoanyperson, butaman. 
Considering thatFreud based nearly allhistheorizing oncasestudies ofwomen, it’s
astonishing thathenever thought toaskthem directly about theirexperiences.
WhywasFreud unable tounderstand women? Given hisupbringing during the
middle ofthe19thcentury, parental acceptance ofhisdomination ofhissisters, aten-
dency toexaggerate differences between women andmen, andhisbelief thatwomen 
inhabited the“dark continent” ofhumanity, itseems unlikely thatFreud possessed 
thenecessary experiences tounderstand women. Toward theendofhislife,hestill
hadtoask,“What doesawoman want?” (E.Jones, 1955, p.421). Thequestion itself 
reveals Freud’s gender biasbecause itassumes thatwomen allwant thesame things 
andthattheirwants aresomehow different from those ofmen.
Feminist theorists likeJudith Butler (1995) havecritiqued thegender norma -
tivity (after theOedipus complex isresolved, boysbecome masculine menandgirls
become feminine women) andheterosexism ofFreud’s theorizing. IntwoofFreud’s 
works, “Mourning andMelancholia” (1917) andTheEgoandtheId(1923), he
argued thatpartoftheprocess offorming ourcharacter (ourego)isfirstthegrieving, 
andthenthesubstitution oflostloveobjects withother objects. Thatis,theboymust 
grieve the“loss” ofhismother asaloveobject, andsubstitute itwitherotic lovefora
woman. Conversely, thegirlmust grieve thelossofherfather andeventually substi -
tutethiswithloveforamale romantic partner. 
Inheressay “Melancholy Gender—Refused Identification” (1995), Butler takes 
Freud’s original ideas andturns them upside down, asking thequestion: “What does
theegodowithlostsame-sex attachment?” Obviously asyoung children wealsoform 
strong attachments tooursame-sex parent. Sheargues thesuperego willnoteasily 
allow theegotoform compensatory attachments tostand inforlostsame-sex objects, 
however. Whynot?Freud’s ideaisthatthese lostobjects areinvested withlibido. 
Society disapproves ofsame-sex libidinal attachment, andsotheegoisunable, or
struggles, toproduce appropriate andsatisfying substitutes forlostsame-sex objects 
thatmight helptheidfeelbetter. Inthiscase, theidbecomes trapped in“melancho -
lia.”Theidcannever fullyresolve thegrief.
If,inFreud’s gender normative/heterosexual theory, girlsandboysmust repress 
theirdesire fortheiropposite sexparent, inButler’s refiguring, thepsychic action is
evenharsher. Children must repudiate feelings ofsame-sex love.Indeed, sheargues, 
cultural prohibitions against homosexuality operate asafoundation forgender and
heterosexuality. Thisisespecially trueforboysandmen. Masculine heterosexual gen-
deridentity, sheargues, isakindofmelancholy, reflecting thedisavowal oftheir
attraction toother men, andtheunfinished business ofgrieving thelossoftheirsame-
sexparent. Inthisway,Butler provides afascinating critical engagement ofFreudian 
theory tounderstand gender andsexuality. Final PDF to printer