You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
Cynthia Burack, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at George Washington University, has written a thoughtful, critical contribution to the fields of political theory, feminist theory, and psychoanalysis. Her thesis, she says, is that for some time now women have typically been characterized as warm, nurturing caregivers with a fundamentally enhanced capacity for attachment and compassion. Feminists, however, are considered full of rage and devoid of the feelings that are “natural” to women. Asks Burack, how, then, have feminists dealt with this dualism and, more specifically, with what she calls, following Hume, the “disagreeable” passions? Burack claims that what has too often been deemphasized or missing from discussions of women's psychology is an understanding of women as ambivalent: both empathic and enraged, loving and hating. She shows how the selective use and interpretation of early psychoanalytic ideas by feminists has deemphasized or denied the disagreeable passions of rage, envy, greed, hatred, and aggression in women and in their relationships. One of the important unintended negative consequences of this omission may be that feminists have reproduced “a patriarchal horror of enraged women” (p. 112). Evaluating the contributions of such feminist theorists as Carol Gilligan, Nancy Chodorow, Jessica Benjamin, and Dorothy Dinnerstein from this perspective, Burack argues that feminist social theory can be repaired and enhanced through the integration of the pathbreaking work of