How do writers on the unconscious use language and literature to help explain the workings of the mind?

Psychoanalytic theory has progressed to a study on language and its implications on the
unconscious of individuals. It is through articulation, or rather, our lack of articulation that psychoanalysts
can determine our true unconscious wishes and desires. Based on Freud’s understanding of the human
psyche and our tendencies to repress those desires we deem to be socially unacceptable, theorists have
attempted to explore that which we repress and what affect it has on the individual as well as his role in
society. Julia Kristeva, influenced by Lacan and Freud, explores how language which theoretically should
free us and permit us to fully express all our desires and beliefs in fact limits us and prohibits us from
being aware of them. That is, Kristeva argues that language perpetuates our unconsciousness of our own
desires. Helen Cixous similarly argues for the same point, but from a more feminist angle. Influenced by
Kristeva’s theory that the current linguistic semiotics do not permit individuation, Cixous believes that the
current linguistic structure is masculine dependent and cantered, thus making it impossible for the feminine
voice to be heard. Both theorists argue that our current language inhibits us from self exploration and
understanding of our own minds.

Julia Kristeva asserts that social functioning is split between the referent (what she calls the
symbolic) and the instinctual energies and drives within language (what she calls the semiotic). Kristeva
explains that the symbolic is “the aspect of language that allows it to refer (systematic, propositional, rule
bound, tied to the social order, dependent on functional separation between the subject and the object, and
capable of existing independently of its own referent)”1, whereas the semiotic is only known when it
breaks through the symbolic, and “bears the trace of the user’s own body and of the mother’s own
protolinguistic presence”2 That is, the semiotic is the vocal babble without structure and order that every
individual has before they acquire language, and that they add to language as a form of individuation. It’s
the rhythm and tone which we uniquely use as a form of expression, whereas the symbolic is the grammar,
syntax and structure. By defining the symbolic and the semiotic, Kristeva moves on to explain that the
semiotic challenges the symbolic, even though they are dependent on each other. Without the symbolic we
would have babble and confusion, but likewise, without the semiotic language would lack purpose, or even
be impossible as there would be no driving force to give reason to speak. The traditional semiotics doesn’t
consider the speaking subject to be a person, but instead some “ideal” subject that exists as an abstract
concept, outside the realm of experience. Kristeva challenged the omission of the speaker’s role by

1
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism p. 2166
2
The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism p. 2166

1
showing that the speaker is motivated by forces such as the unconscious and the body. In doing this,
Kristeva argued that traditional semiotics has no place for things such as desire, or play. Her version of
semiotics deals with the theory of the split subject, in which the division of the subject into
conscious/unconscious, or societal constraints/libido functions with the natural linguistic split between the
signifier and the signified. The interaction between the semiotic and the symbolic constitutes the process
that makes signification and subjectivity possible, but a paradox arises as this position is both subversive
and confirming, making the subject unstable and unfixed. This makes the speaking subject both the
disrupter and unifier of meaning. Essentially Kristeva is trying to point out that our current language
structure limits the speaker’s ability to convey their desires. There seems to be no linguistic representation
for individuation, as the subject of a sentence is completely detached from the speaker. Kristeva attempts
to bring language and the body together in order to allow the individual to gain another format of
expressing desires and individuality. She attempts to show how the appetites and desires repressed by the
conformist rules of language still influence the subject unconsciously. Kristeva seems right in arguing that
our current language structure leaves the subject of a sentence detached from its speaker, but even in
creation the semiotic and the symbolic, she doesn’t seem to explain how this would help us to understand
the unconscious. By creating new terminology, we simply make a shift in where we place the unconscious’
presence in a sentence. Now it lies in the semiotic utterances that occasionally prevail over the symbolic
every day speech. But how does this help to understand the unconscious desires we repress? Kristeva
would point out that in creating a new dimension for the individual, the repression they face from the
confines of language would lessen, as now there exists another format in which they can connect their
desires to their speech.

Similarly to Kristeva, Helen Cixous argues that language operates in polarities. That is, the word
“master” can only be identified or defined in relation to the word “slave”, just as “woman” can only be
defined and identified in relation to “man”. Cixous’ main point is that there is a lack of feminine discourse,
which ultimately forces women to speak within the constraints of a completely masculine language. She
explains that language is “phallogocentric” (a combination of Phallocentric, being that the phallus centres
the structure of language; and Derrida’s Logocentric, being that the structure of language relies on speech
being privileged over writing in Western Culture) and is based on primacy of certain terms in binary
positions. That is, a phallogocentric culture is structured by binary positions like male/female, order/chaos,
language/silence, in which the first term is valued over the second. These binary positions function to

2
define our world and interpret literature, but they restrict the secondary terms in relation to and as
dependents on the primary. Cixous urges the woman to “Write yourself. Your body must be heard. Only
then will the immense resources of the unconscious spring forth”3 as she believes that if women express
themselves using their bodies as the medium for communication they will acquire their own individual
voice free of the masculine constraints that language imposes. Essentially, Cixous is proposing an ecriture
feminine (feminine writing) that exists free of the phallogocentric modern language, without structure and
not bound to the masculine economy that extenuates the repression of the woman. An obvious perceived
problem with Cixous’s ecriture feminine is that there is no way to define it in our masculine language. It is
as if it does not exist as there is no way of explaining it in the phallogocentric language which we mobilize
ourselves and function in. In The Laugh of the Medusa Cixous attempts to call attention to the fact that she
cannot explain her true thoughts and emotions by writing in contradictions, thus exposing the inadequacy
of our current masculine-based language. Similar to Kristeva’s proposed semiotic dimension to language,
Cixous’ ecriture feminine suggests that women extend to a new dimension in order to better understand
and articulate themselves. Cixous seems justified in her claims that we exist in a phallogocentric world,
which firmly accentuates the repression of the female with its polar structures. But how does writing ones-
self from the body (as she suggests) allow women to break free from the masculine mold? More over, once
liberated from the masculine language, how can they continue to function within it, while encouraging an
existence outside of it? Surely it would be a far greater repression to break free of the masculine confines
of language only to subserviently sink back into it in order to function within society. One could argue that
the submission each woman would admit in doing so would almost be a step backward from what Cixous
seems to be advocating.

Both Kristeva and Cixous admit that our current language is inadequate for psychoanalysis and self
understanding. It limits the expression of the unconscious thus denying each individual the opportunity of
self awareness. While Kristeva argues that language perpetuates a lack of self knowledge by distancing
ourselves linguistically from our own desires, Cixous argues that half of our species (the female) live in a
repression from their own self understanding due to an inability to communicate. It seems that both
theorists advocate that language limits the ability for individuation and thus an understanding of that which
each individual represses from society within the unconscious of their minds. On a social level, Kristeva’s
ideas imply that we exist as a collective with no real understanding of individuality as language shapes us
into being, and language is influenced and dictated by our society. The child’s acquisition of language ends

3
Cixous, Helen. The Laugh of the Medusa. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism p.2043

3
the drive energies that connect the baby to its mother, and isolate him with nothing but repressed appetites
and desires which influence the individual without the chance of acknowledgement. Cixous’ theory implies
that half of our society is incapable of properly articulating itself and is thus in a state of anguish and near
delirium constantly. This also leads to an isolation of the individual and also an alienation of the female for
her inability to express herself socially within the confines and expectations of the phallogocentric
language. Both Kristeva and Cixous essentially agree that the current language structure fails to allow the
individual to express themselves in a manner which would allow them to acknowledge their beliefs and
desires, be them conscious or unconscious.

4
Works Cited:

Leitch, Vincent B. (General Editor).The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism.W.W. Norton &
Company Inc. 2002

Seminar Notes