On the Father
‘Revealed as I am, sinful in my begetting, sinful in marriage, sinful in shedding of blood!’
Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
Contents:
1. Introduction
2. Freud & Oedipus
3. Jung & Electra
4. What now?
5. The State & the Father
6. Drugs & Marx
7. Conclusion
1 Introduction:
In The Origin of the Family, Private Property & the State, Friedrich Engels argued that the monogamous family structure grew as a consequence of the capitalist system of production. He writes of the newly developed male patriarch, “In the family, he is the bourgeois; the wife represents the proletariat. ” In this debate we seek to examine, undress and murder this male patriarch, hereby referred to as ‘the Father.’ How does the Father develop as a Psychosexual relationship? How do certain political ideologies establish a new Father?
It is proper to acknowledge that we shall, from here onwards, approach this debate from the perspective of European capitalist cultural hegemony. As Engels describes, pre-capitalist society was communal and non-patriarchal, and some societies of this form exist today. Crucially however, the creation of the global economic network has spread the monogamous family structure to virtually all the nations of the Earth, and it is the most prevalent form of human experience today. We will thus take it assumed for this to be the universal context of our debate, even if contrary examples exist.
2 Freud & Oedipus
The oedipal complex relates to the male child’s conflicting desire and inability to have sex with the Mother, thus displacing the Father’s position in the patriarchal structure. According to Sigmund Freud, the oedipal complex is a psychological structure passed down from generation to generation. Its origin is with the suppression of the primal ‘horde’ state of nature where the male competes violently with other males for the sexual domain of the women in a tribe. This moral conscience is internalized as the ‘id’ of the psyche. Since this is not conducive to a functioning society, tribespeople break away, placing taboo upon relations between members of the inner tribe. However, male desire for the sexual domain results in a complex which must be suppressed. Thus the intergenerational transmission of taboo exists to induce collective disgust on wrong behaviors. This moral conscience is internalized as the ‘superego’ of the psyche. An ambivalent attitude towards the Father protects the male, but simultaneously prevents him from actualising his oedipal desire.
Freud claims the male outgrows the oedipal complexes as he leaves the phallic stage of development (Ages 3 - 6), yet its influences on his beliefs and behaviors remain. The combination of a prohibition and a desire for incest, the male seeks to reconstruct the oedipal arrangement in other relations, projecting the psychological functions of the Mother or Father onto other people, primarily romantic partners. If, for instance, the Father was critical or emotionally unavailable, the result may be an excessive desire for emotional validation, interpreting neutrality as rejection. Conversely, a physically dominant and rivalrous Father may incur the male to seek possessive and controlling partners. Adjacent behaviors are caused by relations with the Mother. Since under the patriarchy, the Father holds dominant control, the patriarchal status quo is perpetuated by these complexes, perpetuating the expectation of submission on the woman.
3 Jung & Electra:
Carl Jung introduced the electra complex in women. The female child competes for the Father’s affection with the Mother, and in doing so comes to resent the Mother. These complexes may troublingly perpetuate themselves. A particularly dominating Father may cause undealt resentment in the son, who in turn may replicate the dynamic in his own family, creating the complex in the grandson. Similarly, the Electra complex may intensify a woman’s desire for the male partner’s validation, inducing competition in the granddaughter.
To Jung, there exist other parts of development which inform the psycho-sexual state of the child; the anima, which represents the ideal masculine based on the Father archetype, and the animus, which represents the ideal feminine based on the Mother archetype. The child must acknowledge the presence of both and move past the domination of either one. Otherwise, the result is dysfunction: Unemotional and overly avoidant, (anima), or overly dependant, (animus).
4 What Now?
Given the above information, would it be advantageous for society to abolish the two gendered parental roles? Advancements in technology have made it possible to eliminate the Father from the reproductive process; our question however, is whether it is possible to eliminate the Father from the psyche?
Despite the complexes that may result from the Father-image, is this image nonetheless a necessary part of the formation of the psyche? It is probable that Carl Jung would answer positively to the latter. For Jung, the goal of human life, and thus what psychoanalysis must facilitate, is individuation. Individuation is the process of integrating the conscious and unconscious in the psyche to achieve wholeness. Jung believed that this unconscious is built on the foundations of a collective unconscious, composed of universal, trans-historical archetypes; two of critical importance being the Father and Mother image. Therefore, individuation necessitates harmonizing these archetypes. For Jung, each positive archetype has an associated ‘shadow,’ which is dysfunctional. If the Father archetype is built on order and authority, its shadow is tyranny and neglect. If the Mother archetype is built on nurturance, and nature, its shadow is devourance or smothering. Thus, a balanced psyche must have a balanced internalization of both the Father and Mother archetypes, in order to extract that which is conducive to individuation and reject the ‘shadow’ of the archetype. Within this Jungian framework, what would be the consequences of eliminating the Father? Is it desirable to eliminate related complexes? Or would it severely hinder the process of individuation? What effects would this have on the Mother archetype? If Simone de Beauvoir’s definition of the woman applies, that “Humanity is male, and man defines woman, not in herself, but in relation to himself; she is not considered an autonomous being”, then is the Mother not simply and only all that the Father is not and cannot be? Can the Mother archetype remain if the Father is eliminated?
We can address this question through Judith Butler’s work on the Freudian concept of the Phallus. For Freud, there exists a pre-oedipal phase which is built upon an imaginary triangle between the Mother, the Child, and the Phallus. The Phallus is the imaginary symbol of power, placed onto the male sexual organ and is the signified of sexual difference. As the Child understands itself to be a part of the Mother, the Child desires the Phallus to satisfy the Mother’s desire and lack of the Phallus. This creates a tripartite triangle, in which the Father intervenes and symbolically castrates the Child, male or female, by being the Mother’s object of desire over the Child. This symbolic castration begins the oedipal phase of development.
Butler argues that the performance of gender establishes our internal gender identity, rather than vice-versa. To them, the Father and Mother archetypes do not have to exist, but can be imaginary figures. Butler argues that the existence of same-sex lesbian relationships, in which a woman can take up the Phallus, suggests that the Phallus is moldable, and not constant as described by Freud & Jung. If the Phallus can morph, then is it possible to remove the Father archetype’s intervention of the pre-oedipal phase? Thus, doing away with the symbolic castration, the Mother is now defined not in contrast to the Father archetype, but to the Child. What occurs if our pre-oedipal phase is not intervened with? Do the Mother & Child become one entity?
Beyond its role within the formation of a whole psyche, one may argue that the Father archetype is necessary for the functioning of an orderly society. If the Father is abolished, will the individual lose the superego, leading to disorder in society? In other words, is the threat of punishment necessary for the functioning of society? Can the internal sense of order and authority only happen through the internalization of the Father image? Is the Father archetype static? Could society change the Father image through reorganizing the family structure? Can a new Father archetype be established if the monogamous family structure remains?
5 The State & the Father
“The rich father who can afford the cost of candy as well as food for his children: but if he cries out ‘Freedom!’ and allows his child to choose only what is sweet, eating only candy, not pea soup and bread and eggs, so his child becomes weak and sick: is the rich man who cries ‘Freedom!’ the good father?”
David Foster Wallace, Infinite Jest
A manifestation of the complexes studied above is the projection of the Father archetype onto the state. For example, note the propensity of Authoritarian regimes to represent their leaders paternally. Much like Plato’s soul-city analogy, we can posit a family-state analogy, wherein the state takes on the Father archetype. The state thus serves to protect, ensure order, and nourish its offspring, the citizens, endowing the state with certain authoritative rights; for example, the state can impose restrictions on access to commodities or rights. You cannot purchase cigarettes or drive a car until a certain age and some substances are altogether banned. This is Paternalism in a nutshell; people are not trusted to make certain decisions for themselves, thus the Father-state must decide for them.
In Plato’s city state, the ruler class is trained to be proficient in philosophy and mathematics. After the age of fifty, they can become practicing members of the ruling class, ‘the Philosopher Kings.’ Their legitimacy comes from their knowledge of the platonic good, a perfect concept which only exists imperfectly in our world. For Plato, justice relies on all classes of society performing the function they are best suited to. Thus, Plato criticizes democracy as the non-educated classes imposing their self-interest on the community. Moreover, a lack of education allows for easy manipulation from a charismatic leader.
However, liberalism presents criticism to the liberal position. For instance, John Stuart Mill argues that no one is justified in suppressing the views of another in a functioning civil society; “If all of mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, that he, if he had the power, would be in silencing mankind.” While censorship is not necessarily inherent to paternalism, it may be argued that paternalist governments tend, and have the right to censor. Fellow liberal, Isaiah Berlin, argues for ‘value pluralism,’ which accepts irreconcilable conceptions of the good, which cannot be shown to be objectively superior from each other. Hence, the state ought to be a neutral arbiter, with no moral agenda of its own. Can the state remain a neutral arbiter when an ideology rises which is an existential threat to the state? It seems clear that a functioning democracy ought to combat fascism in its citizens, but this intrinsically requires some degree of Paternalism.
6 Drugs & Marx
Paternalism in the state has practical implications on current policy debate. For example, the drug debate is influenced by the Father archetype. Father forbids drugs, saying that they are dangerous for his children; might he really fear that new perspectives will arise, contradicting or questioning the state-imposed conception of the good? The hippie & beat movements of the 1960s and 70s offered new Father figures which were contrary to the state’s moral prescription, such as John Lennon and Allen Ginsberg. Similarly, paternalism affects the debate over reproductive rights. The Father maintains domain over a decision made by the family, in opposition to female agency. Analogously, the archetype of the Father as represented by the state assumes this domain, and is thus given the justification to control these rights.
In this prompt we have established that Paternalism, being rooted in the Jung/Freud complexes, is patriarchal. If you think Paternalism is a good form of government, or paternalistic policies are justified, does its patriarchal character challenge its justifiability? Marxism responds to this question by questioning whether the Jung/Freud complexes are constant, and if they cannot be abolished through economic reform. Marxism questions the static nature of concepts in history, and argues that among other institutions, the family structure is a consequence of the capitalist condition. Engels predicted that the reintroduction of women into the workforce by the Communist revolution would allow for a return to the ‘horde’ state of nature, in which children are raised collectively without set fatherly or motherly figures.
Can the abolishment of the monogamous patriarchal family allow for a new Paternalism that is not rooted in patriarchy?
7 Conclusion
To conclude, we will ask you to consider your relationship with your own Father. This won’t be shared at the debate, but may be fruitful nonetheless. Is your Father, and the biological/familial relationship you share, necessary, considering the many consequences outlined above? Would you have befriended your own Father, had you lived in a community where he shared no explicit parental responsibility over you, and had no Father archetype associated with him? Is our love for our Fathers enough to allow it to remain imposed on all in our societies? Can we not progress to new, better archetypes for both the Father & the Mother? Does the Father archetype corrupt the men who undertake the position? Is it futile to construct a new Father if the Father is inherent? Do you wish to be a Father or a Mother? Do you believe you will be able to overcome any of the shortcomings of your own upbringing?
In killing the Father, will we be revealed as we are? Sinful in our begetting, sinful in marriage and sinful in shedding of blood?