“because children [are] first around women, women’s family roles and being feminine are more available” (Chodorow 1978).
Because of this she points out why male development is more complicated. Masculine roles are less readily available and the male child has to somehow replace his early identification with the mother to develop a more masculine gender role. The boy is required to develop his masculine gender role more consciously, through interaction with the mother (Chodorow 1978). Theorist Mitscherlich looked into the absence of the father and claimed that boys identify with a fantasy masculine role (Chodorow 1989). For a girl, her gender identification process is less conscious and more continuous. A girl can directly and immediately identify with their mother’s role, unlike boys’ can to their fathers. Chodorow believed that “internally the boy tries to reject his mother and deny his attachment” (Chodorow 1989:50).
Regarding Freud’s claim that girls reject their mother in favour of their father at some stage, Chodorow disagrees. She claims that “a girl cannot and does not completely reject her mother in favour for men”(Chodorow 1989:52) and the development of the gender identity with the mother is on going. Chodorow, along with other theorists, does not reject Freud’s view of the child turning to the father in search of the penis, but provides different “accounts of the nature and causes of her search”. (Chodorow 1978:115). She also thought that Freud’s penis envy hypothesis and penis baby equation is a complicated explanation. Chodorow suggests that instead of the rejection of the mother, the father acts as encouragement for the child when moving towards the appropriate gender role. The girl child is likely to maintain both her parents as love objects and rivals throughout the oedipal period. Freud also acknowledges this process, referring to it as the “complete Oedipus complex” (Chodorow 1978:121) Chodorow also points out that the strength of the female child’s relationship with the father is dependent upon the relative strength and quality of the relationship with the mother. Freud does however acknowledge that his theory for the Oedipus complex in girls is not so absolute. He accepts that in some cases the attachment to the mother is never given up completely (Neu 1991).
Both Freud and Chodorow would agree that the oedipal stage for a boy is crucial, enabling the boy to shift in favour of more masculine gender identification with the father. However, Chodorow focuses more on the absence of a father and how a boy’s gender identification is developed as a result. In comparison, Freud tended to focus on the gender identification coming solely from the father as a result of feelings for the mother. Chodorow believes that a boy will deny the relationship and attachment to the mother by identifying with a “cultural stereotype of the masculine role” (Chodorow 1978:176). She does however suggest, that in some cases (as Freud also claimed), boys may give up the mother in order to avoid punishment, which Freud would describe as fear of castration. For the female, Chodorow believes the identification process is relational, developing from a close relationship with the mother. The girl then becomes a separate individual through secondary identification (Chodorow 1978).
Chodorow agrees with Freud that a young girl will at some stage feel hostility (though not rejection) towards the mother, but for different reasons. She argues that both genders will become hostile towards the mother for not fulfilling their oral needs, arousing and then forbidding their sexual desires (Chodorow 1978). Similarly, Freud considers how all children feel that their “mothers give some cause for complaint” (Chodorow 1989:52), for too little milk, another child etc. If this is the case, however, Chodorow points out that Freud does not pick up on this hostility from the young male towards the mother as he does for girls.
Freud’s theory maintained that the Oedipus complex occurred as mirror opposites for the opposite genders. However Chodorow saw this as too simplistic and argued that the development during the oedipal stage is radically different for boys and girls. She emphasises the question of “how can similar experiences in boys and girls produce different results?” (Chodorow 1978:120). She suggests that girls enter the triangular Oedipus situation later than boys and in a different context. She also argues that girls do not give up the pre-oedipal relationship completely (Chodorow 1978:115)
Chodorow’s work does include reference to the Oedipus complex that was developed by Freud, although she has also criticised parts of it. She argues that in order for a girl to have the oedipal experience, she would have to have already identified her gender (Chodorow 1978:151). Therefore, although she criticises the theory here, she does seem to agree that the Oedipus complex occurs in order for gender identification to take place. From the work done by Freud and Chodorow on the Oedipus complex, it appears that they have broadly similar beliefs in what actually happens during it. Chodorow appears to accept the basis of Freud’s theories, but argues that feminists should make adaptations for a number of reasons, primarily Freud’s sexist beliefs and his “insistence on inequality” (Chodorow 1998:175), both being central to his theory. This possibly explains the differing emphases placed upon the dominance of the mother or father in the parenting role.
From the theories of both Chodorow and Freud on gender identity, there appear to be several differences, and only few similarities. However, they both base their theory around the idea of the oedipal crisis as developed by Freud. Chodorow’s theory has been regarded as useful when it comes to answering some of those questions raised by Freud’s work. However, her theory has received criticism. Chodorow’s work focuses on the idea of a heterosexual, two-parent family being the universal parenting environment. Her theory does not however, account for those children raised solely by single parents, whether male or female, who are just as likely to develop appropriate gender identities, nor those raised by same-sexed parents. From her theory, it is indicated that those children raised by same sex parents would likewise become homosexual, but this is clearly not the case (Mitchell 2000). Her theory also seems to appear limited to a particular model of family life, in which the mother is the more dominant parental figure, but takes no account of family situations in which, for example, the father has the more dominant role. Her theory appears to be very fixed with little flexibility to accommodate variations within the different family structures in society. Janet Sayers claimed that men and women are more mixed contrary to their psychological make up than Chodorow’s theory suggests and that femininity may conceal inner feelings of aggressiveness or assertiveness which are revealed only obliquely or in certain contexts (Brennan 1988 in Giddens 1993)).
In her book ‘The Reproduction of Mothering’ (1978), she acknowledges the ways in which the role of the woman had evolved and changed over time. She accepts that new generations of children are more likely to expect to spend much of their life in the labour force, rather than expecting the stereotypical mothering role (Chodorow 1978:175). However, whilst Chodorow appears to acknowledge this, she does not incorporate or adapt any of her theories in light of it. She continues to refer to the mother’s mothering role in the family as crucial in the development of the child’s gender identity. In contrast to this, it could be argued that although women are increasingly entering the labour force, many women, though not all, still largely dominate the father in the main parenting role.
Many have criticised Chodorow for her lack of empirical evidence produced and lack of cross-cultural comparisons. Her work suggested that women were psychologically driven to the mother. However, this may be disputed when considering the natural variations of mothering at different times and in different cultures, for example, communal patterns of mothering in some African Communities (Bilton et al 2002). Craib (1998) considered that Chodorow’s Object Relations theory to underestimate the complexity of the males’ inner object world. He claimed this complexity depended upon the complexity of the interjected relationship and the family provides this for both child sexes.
Chodorow’s work, along with others, such as Dorothy Dinnerstein and Jessica Benjamin, are seen by many as
“complementary to, rather than alternatives of the Lacanain interpretations of Freud’s theories” (Mitchell 2000).
Although Chodorow’s work seems to significantly differ in places to the work done by Freud, their theories are based around the same fundamental principles. One main difference observed was in Chodorow’s emphasis on the mother’s role. In her recent work, however, she has moved away from this focus on the mother. Whilst her work has received some criticism, it has nevertheless made important contributions to the understanding of the origins of gender identity.
Bibliography
Bauman, Z., 1990, Thinking Sociologically, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T., 1967, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge, London: The Penguin Press
Bilton, T., Bonnett, K., Jones, P., Lawson, P., Skinner, D., Stanworth, M., and Webster, A., 2002, Introductory Sociology, 4th Edition, Basingstoke: Palgrave
Burkitt, I., 1991, Social Selves: Theories of the Social Formation of Personality, London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Chodorow, N., 1978, The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis of the sociology of gender, London: University of California Press
Chodorow, N., 1989, Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory, UK: Polity Press
Craib, I., 1998, Experiencing Identity, London: Sage
Giddens, A., 1993, Sociology, 2nd Edition, Cambridge: Polity Press
Mead, G., 1934 (1972), Mind, Self and Society, London: The University of California Press
Mitchell, J., 2000, Psychoanalysis and Feminism, London: Penguin Books Ltd
Neu, J., 1991, The Cambridge Companion to Freud, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
