Outlines for a Revision of the Concept of Femininity in Analytical Psychology.

By PIA SKOGEMANN, Psyche and Logos, 1994

" This article contains a critical discussion and revision of four gendered couples of concept in analytical psychology: animus/anima, logos/eros, thinking/feeling and patriarchal/matriarchal consciousness. My critique takes its point of departure in the erroneous assumption that a certain “knowledge” about feminine and masculine properties becomes a metaphorical common denominator of the concepts leading to a mix up of levels.
The concepts in point can be released from this common denominator thereby lending themselves available as instruments related to different levels of theory. Following this revision theory is supplemented by the concept of the daughter archetype; this concept covering the establishment and the evolution of the “Ego-consciousness” of women plays an important role in the description of patterns applying to the processes of individuation of women. Viewed as functionally and phenomenologically different from the mother archetype, however, it is defined by a particular set of psychological properties. Ultimately features of transference/counter-transference related to the phenomenology of the daughter archetype are discussed.

There is a paradox in analytical psychology; on one hand Jung emphasizes the value of femininity to a degree that compares with certain feminist positions, on the other hand numerous of his remarks on women seem almost male chauvinist. When I published my first book Femininity in Growth in which I for the first time introduced the daughter archetype as a label for a type of phenomenology unaccountable for by existing concepts, I still believed that the concept could be contained within the existing theoretic framework. As I went on working with the concept I came to realize that this was not feasible without a general revision of all gendered concepts. The fact of the matter is that no concept exists that covers the formation of the individual feminine identity. There is just no room for a female ego or an evolution of a female consciousness in the most plain sense of the word, although it seems obvious that women have an ego just like all other people. Paradoxically this deficiency is overshadowed by the overwhelming preoccupation with the nature of “femininity”.

Put it this way: Jung generally depicts all sorts of differences and contradictions in
psychic functions in a symbolic way – as man and woman. He uses a gendered metaphor for Umwelt. Well, no wonder, people have always done that: When consciousness wants to realize something it can only do so through the realization of differences. It takes at least two to make a “room” for differences – and the most fundamental symbol of meaningful differences is man and woman. It is in our flesh and bones: We actually live in a gendered world.

We live in a time with changes in the relationship between the sexes. Nowadays you often hear men and women talking self evidently about their respective “feminine” and “masculine” sides referring to certain psychological qualities. Or it is said that “female values” should be strengthened in various social or cultural contexts. Everybody “knows” the meaning of femininity and masculinity. Everybody “knows” that masculinity has to do with being active, dynamic, thinking, productive, creative, and everybody “knows” that femininity has to do with being receptive, caring, conceiving, birth giving, feeling, closer to the psyche and “nature”.
When analysts of today are confronted with a statement like “my masculine/feminine sides”, however, it is often accompanied by a deeply rooted insecurity as to what it really means to be a woman/man – i.e. the subjective perception of psychosexual identity. This scenario is the opposite of what Jung described as he formulated the theories of analytical psychology: We are dealing with people who “know” exactly what it means to be a man or a woman but on the other hand are in doubt as to the presence of oppositely gendered sides of themselves.

Several attempts have been made to uncover the truth about the differences between the sexes; time and again interpretations of empirical material prove themselves non-neutral as they are invariably reflecting the views on human (female) nature held by the individual theorist. In therapy, anyhow, we are dealing with the interpretation of gender, with metaphors, symbols, with experienced differences.

Jung handsomely stated that psychological theories should not be dogmas but could at best strive to serve as instruments of knowledge. What I am endeavouring to bring into focus in this article is that this “knowledge” of what is masculine and what is feminine inevitably colours our way of thinking and inhibits our ability to see other than what we expect to see even where it is already showing. As I began to realize that this “knowledge” was standing in the way of a fruitful “non-knowledge”, over and over again I found myself dealing with analytical processes involving men and women that moved from a position of knowledge about masculinity and femininity combined with insecurity as to identity to a wider “non-knowledge” about masculinity and femininity but now combined with a new and more secure feeling of identity. Although my ideas of a revision originated in a lacuna in theory regarding women, I realized that men were often just as restrained by this “knowledge” of what is masculine and what is feminine.

As a point of departure for my revision it seems appropriate to make it clear that different kinds of differences exist: biological differences (man-woman), historic-cultural differences in gender roles and psychologically perceived differences attached to sexual identity and relationships with the opposite sex (referred to as masculinity and femininity). And eventually differences that are just differences with no relation, none whatsoever, to gender or sex. However, I do not believe that we shall ever arrive at the final truth about what these differences consist in nor shall we be able to define them clearly from one another. We are dealing with interactive systems, and the realization itself is limited by its own historic conditions. So instead of chasing the truths of what is masculine and what is feminine it might prove more fruitful to remain open to the impressive capacity of the human mind – the capacity to progressive change, to self transformation.

My notion of a constructive revision implies holding on to existing concepts but getting rid of the “knowledge” of gendered properties as a metaphorical common denominator of the four theoretic conceptual couples that really cover quite different areas of the psychic continuum. I see this as a basic error emerging from a sustained application of gendered conceptual couples at levels of theory where abstract descriptions of psychological properties, functions and principles are dealt with. Levels collapse in an unproductive way. (For a detailed discussion, see Skogemann 1992.) This revision allows the incorporation of a new concept specifically pertaining to women into theory, namely the daughter archetype." (p.97)

Back to Articles