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.
A glance at the endorsements of Shepherdson's Vital Signs immediately affirms the significance of this book. Judith Butler states categorically that “Shepherdson tackles some of the most difficult and pressing problems in psychoanalysis and feminism”; Joan Copjec proclaims “[t]his book is a revolutionary examination of French feminism”; and Leo Goldberger, editor of Psychoanalysis and Contemporary Thought asserts that “Charles Shepherdson brilliantly illuminates the theoretical specificity of psychoanalysis as a unique knowledge base, focusing on topics of particular interest within feminist theory and clinical practice.” After reading Shepherdson's book, it became clear that such striking endorsements were no exaggeration; Vital Signs provides an extraordinarily lucid account of Irigaray and Kristeva. And the final chapter on Foucault demonstrates that while Lacan and Foucault are not in every sense compatible, they are not incompatible (as is so often argued).
Shepherdson maintains that the “distorted reception” these influential theorists receive results from their interpretation “through an inappropriate paradigm.” This paradigm, as Shepherdson argues, is the all too familiar distinction between “the social construction of gender” and a “biological reductionist” approach. More succinctly, he contends that within this paradigm both the scholarly and clinical contribution of psychoanalytic theory as it relates to feminist theory—particularly French feminism—is virtually lost. Rather, he argues that psychoanalysis must be understood on its own terms—that it is only by