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.
Psychoanalysis is in the throes of transition and suffers in diverse quarters from a case of postmodern jitters. We are casting aside old paradigms and approach the new with trepidation. We fail to see that deconstruction is a practice rather than an end in itself. The bridge from the old to the new is yet to be completed. This response to reviews of Sexual Subjects: Lesbians, Gender and Psychoanalysis argues that psychoanalysis is not value free in theory or practice, nor can it be. Attempts to deconstruct psychoanalytic concepts of gender and sexuality aim, rather, at delineating values and demonstrating just how they are reflective of a particular siruation in place and time. The deconstruction of gender does not preclude the study of development—a development that is grounded in the analytic decoding and attribution of meaning to experience rather than morphology or critical stages. A hermeneutic-constructivist psychoanalysis is not necessarily at odds with a developmental approach to narrative. Moreover, a theory that acknowledges the performative aspects of gender can simultaneously account for “internal representations” that result from our specific historicities, our intersubjective, fantasized relationships. The deconstruction of gender binaries—the historical imposition of gendering on aspects of experience, desire, and identity that are culturally but not essentially related to constitutionally based sexual differences—does not necessitate the dismantling of a frame of self-systems, or the language that may be best suited for describing an individual's experience.