The psychoanalysis theory is based on Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytical principles rooted in psychology. This makes Freud’s work the starting-point of modern thought about masculinity and the earliest scientific accounts of the development of masculinity (see Connell 1995:8; Langa 2012:49). According to Whitehead (2002:23-26), even though Freud did no systematic work on masculinity studies, as the “founding father” of psychoanalytical theory, his early work has influenced conceptions of masculinity to this very day. Focal to my current research is the conclusion of all the debates within the psychoanalysis movement that climaxed in 1911 by the split between Freud and Adler (see Connell 1995:15). Their main focus was towards a theory of masculinity.
Psychoanalysis is therefore useful as a theoretical tool in analysing relationships through which masculine identities are created and reproduced.
Freud’s main argument was based on an understanding that adult sexuality and gender identity are not fixed by nature but are constructed through a long and conflict-ridden process (Connell 2001:9). Connell (2001a:10) further notes that one of Freud’s major hypotheses was that human beings were constitutionally bisexual and that masculine and feminine currents coexisted in everyone, hence, masculinity can never exist in a pure state since layers of emotion coexist and contradict each other. Whitehead (2002:24) observes that Freud argued that the underlying assumption is that children are not born with a social and cultural identity, but that this is formed as a direct consequence of their contact with others, in particular parents. Hence, Freudian theory postulates that infants came to recognise their biological sex mainly through observing parents and in the process, children begin to resolve the complexities of either feminine or masculine constructions (Whitehead 2002).
David Barlow and Mark Durand (2009:17-20)—in Abnormal Psychology demonstrate that Freud in his theory arrived at a conclusion that all young boys (from age 3 to age 5 or 6) undergo psychosexual conflicts which is characterised by early genital self-stimulation. As a result, the boy lives in a fantasy to kill his father and, unknowingly, to marry his mother.
In view of this, Stephen Frosh (1994) indicates that we arrive at what Freudian theory has termed –the oedipal stage of development which is viewed as pivotal in the establishment of gender identity and sexual orientation. Depicting this process vividly, Barlow and Durand (2009) stress that Freud saw the boy child as entering the Oedipus complex of loving his mother and desiring her as his sexual object. As a result, he starts to develop jealousy and resentment towards the father who is viewed as a rival for the mother‘s attention, but these feelings induce fear in the boy child. To relive this fantasy, they highlight that Freud suggests:
All young boys relive this fantasy when genital self-stimulation is accompanied by images of sexual interaction with their mothers. These fantasies in turn are accompanied by strong feelings of envy and perhaps anger toward their fathers, with whom they identify but whose place they wish to take. Furthermore, strong fears develop that the father may punish that lust by removing the son’s penis—thus, phenomenon of castration anxiety (Barlow and Durand 2009:19).
At the same time, Freud termed the counterpart conflict in girls the “Electra complex”
where he viewed the young girl as wanting to replace her mother and possess her father.
Central to this is the girl’s desire for a penis, so as to be more like her father and brothers—hence the term ‘penis envy’ (Barlow and Durand 2009:19). Critiquing Freud’s view, Langa (2012:48-50) insists that masculinity is neither biologically determined nor simply a product of social stereotypes and expectations. It involves a complex and difficult process of psychic constructions, marked by anxiety and contradictions.
2.1.1 Criticisms of Psychoanalysis Theory
Freudian theory has met a number of criticisms.19 First, as early as 1911, Adler, being among the very first, criticised Freud, arguing that the theory of repression was mechanistic observing that the feminine was associated with weakness and hence, devalued by culture, setting up an internal contradiction between masculinity and femininity. As a result, the adult personality is thus formed out of compromise and exists under tension (Connell 2001:16-17). This would then suggest that men are the superior sex. On similar grounds, further critiques were later picked up by Marxist and feminist psychoanalysts. For instance, the attempt to synthesize Marxist economic analysis and Freudian sexual science brought light to the ideology of “authoritarian family” as the site where the production of class society and patriarchy is accomplished (see Connell 2001).
Put simply, Langa (2012:51) questions: “Is Freud’s theory sexist?” In addressing this question, some feminist theorists have problematised Freud’s idea of the Oedipus complex and the girl’s desire for a penis. In this case, for Edley and Wetherell (1995:43), masculinity is seen largely as a positive identity, while femininity is constructed as something negative or a ‘failed’ form of masculinity. Feminist scholars have also argued against Freud’s social construction of femininity as one that has contributed to male dominance and patriarchy as a ‘norm’ (Whitehead 2002:24-25). According to Langa (2012:51-52) “Freud’s theory would consider men to be active, assertive, competitive, rational, goal orientated and aggressive as a consequence of the resolution of the Oedipus complex, the inference then being that all of these qualities are less developed in women
19 Equally important to note, other scholars working in the area of masculinity within the field of psychology have found Freud’s theory useful. For instance, Langa (2012) has argued for the value of the psychoanalysis theory as a relevant framework of research in exploring the lived or subjective experiences of being and becoming masculine.
because of a less dramatic oedipal resolution.” I also argue that the desire of girls for a penis in Freud’s theory would further portray women (femininity) as incomplete without the male (masculinity).
Second, in relation to constructs of masculinity Whitehead (2002:25) has shown that in the process of castration anxiety, the boy suppresses being feminine by rejecting the mother’s love. Critically refuting this part of Freud’s theory, Connell for instance insists that Freudian theory of psychoanalysis is radically incomplete stating:
The worth of psychoanalysis in understanding masculinity will depend on our ability to grasp the structuring of personality and the complexities of desire at the same time as the structuring of social relations, with their contradictions and dynamisms (2001:21).
Hence, constructions of gender identities (and masculinities for that reason) within the web of factors that contribute to the complexities that are frequently mentioned by social science theorists require an investigation of structures of social relations. Psychoanalytical theory is therefore limited in analysing the effect of social, cultural and religious ideologies on identity constructions. Whitehead and Barrett (2001:24) has mentioned that any critical examination of Freudian theory, or indeed psychoanalysis itself, needs, then, to be interpreted with one eye on the fluidity of the concepts under discussion. This therefore introduces the need to interrogate representations of masculinity that sit at the heart of psycho-social constructions of masculinity. Central to psychoanalytical theory are traditional masculine notions that call men to avoid expressions of emotions and to accept weakness as feelings associated with femininity, this taking central part in most cultural socialisation for boys and men. At the heart of this study is the need to interrogate some of the traditional masculine representations as stereotypes that encourage men to live removed from the persona.
Third, what the focus of my study is concerned most with is the ‘fear’ and the ‘anxiety’
that is found at the core of masculine identity formation in relation to a theoretical construct of masculinities. As argued by Langa (2012:50), in his theory, Freud seems to suggest that the formation of masculinity is primarily connected to boy‘s fear of castration and that the identification with fathers is largely defensive, arising out of the need to defend against castration anxiety. The question that this raises is whether feminine ‘suppression’ as a mechanism for dealing with masculine fears of ‘castration’
does end with boyhood or men continue to live with fear and anxiety throughout their lives as adults. The answer is simple and yet complex, in that psychoanalysis offers a means of understanding how the internal realm of fear and anxiety seems to interweave with the external tensions of realities as men negotiate masculine identities in the process of searching for a sense of ‘security’.
Addressing this notion of fear and anxiety, Langa (2012:50) draws on several theorists who indicate that the fear of castration does not disappear but continues to threaten to engulf the masculine subject, who continuously lives under the threat of a possible psychic disintegration. Citing Whitehead, Langa (2012:50) has shown that any fear of castration could lead to ‘masculine anxiety’, which is the fear of collapse in self-identity as a man. To this I add, that fear of castration at times might be as a result of dissatisfaction with the masculine self. In a discussion that points to the fragile nature of masculinities, Langa (2012:50) goes further in explaining why men experience pressure to display their
‘manliness’ in front of other men; through, for example, engagement in risk-taking behaviours in order to prove that they are not castrated, but still men. This is an interesting phenomenon in itself in that it demonstrates the complexities that exist as masculinities are constructed and reproduced. This study therefore seeks to explore further the contours of possible contradictions apparent in such constructions of emerging forms of masculinities among Christian men in South Africa. As I will show below, exploring changes in gender/social roles leads to such contradictions. In the subsequent section, I investigate how sex role as a category of understanding the social genderedness of a society has informed understandings of masculinities.