I think that the theory of bisexuality does help explain some of the consequences of the Oedipus complex, as stated by Bersani. However, I disagree with the notion that “nothing is more important than the relative strength of the masculine and feminine sexual dispositions in each of us, in the determination of our lifelong sexual identity.” I think that there are so many more factors, such as family and society, which can, to a large degree, influence how we view ourselves in terms of sexual identity. I also come to question Freud’s tendency to omit an explanation as to what extent the effect of one’s Oedipal desire affects one after childhood.
While reading about the various identities within the Oedipus complex, I found some possible connections with Don Quijote. According to Freud, there is “ a fantasmatic desiring woman within the man and a fantasmatic desiring man within the woman.” This could be an explanation as to why Don Quijote sees Dulcinea, who is described as a manly, peasant-farm girl, as a beautiful woman. Don Quijote’s femininity, or homosexuality, is attracted by Dulcinea’s masculinity, or homosexuality. This would prove Freud’s theory that “in heterosexual intimacy, there is a repetition of this bisexuality.
Definitely agree with you about the first part! I was pretty surprised to see that, and I wrote about that in my blog post as well. It was especially confusing because Freud himself said how hard it was to psychologically define sexual identity, and we're learning in this class how, clearly, we cannot say "nothing is more important" for ANY factor.
ReplyDelete