Session 7: Eros and the Feminine
Chair: Peggy Manouka
Anima Disavowal: Intimacy and Female Perversions
Terrie Waddell
Media Studies Program,
La Trobe University,
Bundoora, Australia
In a purely Jungian framework, the anima archetype
embraces qualities associated with stereotypical notions of 'the feminine'
in men, while its counterpart the animus is linked to 'the masculine'
aspect of women. Despite the problematic nature of Jung's rigid male/female
categorisation of these motifs, his insistence on the integration of,
as opposed to separation from, the feminine as essential to psychological
health, was progressive. To contemporary audiences/readers, the contra-sexual
aspects of anima and animus are best understood as culturally and psychologically
imposed or devalued patterns of emotional behaviour.
In the sexually charged
films under discussion in this paper, the internal Other is destructively
rejected by each of the protagonists. In Intimacy (Patrice Chéreau,
UK/France/Germany/Spain, 2001) this disavowal is expressed through
the fusion of cruelty and apathy that the central male character Jay
(Mark Rylance) initially inflicts on his lover Claire (Kerry Fox).
Jay's coldness toward Claire, and the desire for intimacy she represents,
eventually develops into a form of intense attachment. His oscillation
throughout the film, to and from any form of intimacy, highlights the
self-deception involved in avoiding the emotional vulnerability epitomised
by the anima. Female Perversions (Susan Streitfeld, USA/Germany, 1996)
demonstrates the way in which the anima can be renounced by women,
in this case the tenaciously career driven Eve (Tilda Swinton). Despite
her professional posturing and sexual bravado, Eve senses that the
phallocentrism she fosters is ultimately destructive. Only by acknowledging
that part of herself she believes to be anathema to her ambition, is
she is able to reach a sense of psychological stability and self-awareness.
The imagery and narrative trajectory of both texts, allows for an unambiguous
reading of how vehement renunciations of the anima ultimately lead
to potent confrontations with the archetype.
Erotic Conceptions of the Feminine in Russian Cultural
Tradition
Marina Novikova
Strathclyde University, Glasgow, Scotland
In the majority of western and
post-Soviet Russian gender studies we find the idea of the dominant feminine
nature as one of the most powerful base of Russian cultural tradition. Basically,
the culturological image of Russia embodies a subconscious feminine element,
so – called
assembled maternal archetype (Russia = Mother – land = Saint Rus =
Virgin Mary), whereas Western World represents the idea of the masculine,
individualised culture. However, Russian concept of “feminine” has
its unique specific character, which greatly diversifies from the gender
cultural models of Western Europe. I mean the irreconcilable opposition
between “spiritual” and “fleshly”, “high” and “low”, “divine” and “diabolical” put
into the basis of Russian philosophy of gender. In this sense, Russian “feminine” – culturally
and historically – is destined to represent highest spiritual and moral
values while the “underground”, sensual part of existence happens to
be dramatically neglected. As a consequence, there is a deep de-erotisation
of feminine nature in Russian culture (widely reflected in Russian
philosophical, literary and visual arts traditions), which traces still
remain obvious in post-Soviet contemporary cultural environment. Undoubtedly,
the main reasons for such an intense opposition between body and soul
lays inside the orthodox aspect of Russian culture, where a woman initially
played a part of “spiritual guide” – protecting, inspiring, saving
a man, and, even, often sacrificing herself in a name of a higher needs.
(Russian Mother of God, Saint Sofia, La Belle Dame in Block's poetry
etc). Meanwhile, absolutely the same idea of denial of physiological,
erotic and sensual values lays in the basis of the ideology of Socialist
Realism, which represents a woman as a favourite object of state ideological
manipulation, whose “real lover” is replaced by the idea of social
power and high social status. What is a true nature of such a coincidence?
Does it mean that the socialist theory “borrowed” its ideological concept
of gender from the Russian orthodox tradition? If so, what is the profound
meaningful coherence between them? And, above all, was the beginning
of 20 th century the real short period of the erotic liberation in
Russian history and culture? “Silver age of Russian sensuality”, did
it, actually, exist?