Gender repertoire body, mind, and bisexuality

Elise, Dianne

doi:10.1080/10481889809539254

Cited by 38 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But this melding contradicts what psychoanalytic feminist theorists claim to know about gender development (Rubin, 1975;Dinnerstein, 1976;Chodorow, 1978Chodorow, , 1979Chodorow, , 1994Fast, 1979;Benjamin, 1988Benjamin, , 1995Flax, 1990;Dimen, 1991;Goldner, 1991;Elise, 1998Elise, , 2000. Melancholy gender would be a stronger theory if it allowed for these sex differences in lived experience rather than seeing preemptive foreclosure and unavowed loss as rough equivalents.…”

Section: Unavowed Loss and Melancholy Femininitymentioning

confidence: 68%

“…In contrast, I shall argue, first, that foreclosure and loss of the same-sex object-choice are not necessarily the same. Then, using psychoanalytic feminist theory (Rubin, 1975;Dinnerstein, 1976;Chodorow, 1978Chodorow, , 1979Fast, 1979;Benjamin, 1988Benjamin, , 1995Flax, 1990;Elise, 1998Elise, , 2000, I shall also show that unavowed loss is a common feature of female development, while preemptive foreclosure is more typical in male development.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender

Jay

2007

Studies in Gender and Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Unavowed Loss and Melancholy Femininitymentioning

confidence: 68%

mentioning

confidence: 96%

Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender

Jay

2007

Studies in Gender and Sexuality

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…She cites her own excellent paper in this journal (Elise, 1998) and Kernberg's (1991) paper on the polymorphously perverse features of the early mother-infant relationship that are a "crucial aspect of normal sexuality" (p. 340). Eschewing the binary classical model of dominance and control, sadism and masochism, and embracing intersubjective fluidity of gender give way for both sexes to a greater degree of freedom and plurality.…”

Section: mentioning

confidence: 96%

Breakthroughs and Phallacies: Commentary on Paper by Dianne Elise

Abpp¹

2001

Psychoanalytic Dialogues

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Elise, in her own erudite and engaging way, addresses the question, "Why won't he really talk to me?" Underpinning her core argument, Elise posits that a "masculine sense of self is felt to be dependent on an impermeable psychic boundary that is not to be penetrated." In coining male impenetrability as the "citadel complex," however, Elise introduces a lexicon of battle, polarization, and defense. And it is around this arena of her argument that Wrye raises most of her questions. First, Wrye questions if Elise's conceptualization of a penetrating nipple forcing "Unlawful Entry" into the vulnerable young male psyche reflects the lived, body-based experience of nursing mothers and babies. She also raises the question of whether Elise is describing normal "good-enough" or pathological mothering and fathering? Is she talking about a psychoanalytic model that emphasizes the biological differences between the sexes as opposed to the particular dynamics of the nursing couple? Does Elise's model privilege more binary gender-identity models than models of gender pluralities? Wrye suggests that the paper might actually have been developed as three smaller theoretical papers with more clinical "flesh" on each of the three strands: (a) the forces of bodily development on the male psyche; (b) its role in the establishment of gender identity; and (c) the "law of the father" in the course of separation-individuation. RE THERE ANY FEMALES AMONG US WHO WOULDN'T RELUCTANTLYtestify to having retired once or twice into the psychoanalytic Acl oset to mutter, in sheer frustration, "That guy Gray is right.

show abstract

“…In a developmental line-a temporal sequence-mother is first, primal, primary; Her sensual care maps each child's sexual body (Bollas, 2000;Laplanche, 1987Laplanche, , 1992Stein, 1998). This development of sexuality is taking root within the early, relatively undifferentiated self-other matrix, the "nursing couple" (Elise, 1998b(Elise, , 2001. For development to proceed, this early dyadic matrix needs to give way to encompass the presence of a third-someone (or even something) that is competing for the mother's attention.…”

Section: Desire For the Mother/the Mother's Desirementioning

confidence: 98%

Reclaiming Lost Loves: Transcending Unrequited Desires. Discussion of Davies’ “Oedipal Complexity”

Elise¹

2015

Psychoanalytic Dialogues

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this discussion I address the multidimensionality embedded within the oedipal phase of development and contend that the elaboration and working through of unrequited oedipal longing within the transference-countertransference matrix is one of the most profound gifts of an analysis. The child's confrontation with thwarted desire (generationally) for either parent is central to the development of the mind, the personality, and one's erotic life. I also argue that the experience of oedipal exclusion becomes not solely a response to a generational boundary but to a gender boundary discouraging same-sex love. I speak for retaining a conceptualization of an oedipal complex without losing any of the complexity of individual experience. In describing our oedipal lineages for erotic life as resting upon an interwoven layering of maternal and paternal oedipal desires, my aim is to continue a project to rehabilitate the oedipal concept from heteronormative presumptions and from being (mis)understood in a reductive manner that alienates rather than engages. OEDIPAL NEGATIVITYHistorically, the oedipal complex has too often not been presented nor understood in its richness and variability but reduced to a formulaic depiction of heterosexual development based on the presumed psychology of the boy. Not surprisingly, many have reacted "negatively" to this limited view, resulting in a negative conception of the oedipal concept. Understandable objections arise to the privileging of male development and of heterosexual ("positive") object choice, with homosexuality ("negative") relegated to a weak second, a dark inverse, a passing phase on the way to normative "health." Yet, as Davies (this issue) points out, a "wholesale extradition" (p. 269) of the oedipal complex would be an unfortunate outcome. I am in complete accord.It is important to keep in mind that much recasting and elaborating of the oedipal concept has been done over decades by many analytic thinkers in each of the major psychoanalytic models. The continued centrality of the oedipal constellation both in development and in analytic treatment is attested to by contemporary analytic theorists from various theoretical perspectives. Certainly this holds for Contemporary Kleinians and Freudians. Many Relational theorists, along with Davies (

show abstract

Gender repertoire body, mind, and bisexuality

Cited by 38 publications

References 16 publications

Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender

Melancholy Femininity and Obsessive—Compulsive Masculinity: Sex Differences in Melancholy Gender

Breakthroughs and Phallacies: Commentary on Paper by Dianne Elise

Reclaiming Lost Loves: Transcending Unrequited Desires. Discussion of Davies’ “Oedipal Complexity”

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About