Penetrating Psychoanalytic Theory: Reply to Commentary

Butler seeks an explanation as to why the “metaphysically vexed notion” of core gender identity continues to be valued. I agree with Butler that this concept has very much to do with the normalization of (certain) sexuality. I previously offered a critique of the theory of core gender identity as it specifically relates to females and to the concept of “primary femininity” (Elise, 1997). A complete answer to Butler's question—involving an explication of much of psychoanalytic history and theory—would require an effort beyond my abilities in this reply. This question has been artfully addressed, however, by Harris (1991) and Sweetnam (1996). Our current compromise seems to include recognition of the paradoxical need for both a fixed and a fluid sense of gender.

As for myself, core gender identity is a concept that I have encountered, not created or embraced, in my attempts to penetrate the psychoanalytic corpus with my own thinking. I need to enter the body (of literature) presented to me by my forebears in order to affect that body. Otherwise, I would be having theoretical intercourse with another body of thought, and my proposed partner would remain unmoved. Hopefully, my penetration will influence the shape of this particular body of knowledge (even if this works slowly in the way that water alters the contours of rock).

I believe we do learn something when we register in writing patients' expressions of their affective experiences. Our work as clinicians focuses us on the attempt to understand each individual psyche. The utterances of our patients are the matrix from which our theories are generated. Case material is invaluable in bringing theory alive both literally and figuratively. I concur with Butler that case examples do not prove anything. I consider clinical material to be overemphasized as “scientific data” in the psychoanalytic literature when I believe that people are persuaded, or not, by the theoretical elaboration; cases are