Introduction: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
“Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi, first appeared in 1992 in the Journal of Gender Studies, explores the concept of femininity through the lens of feminist literary theory, engaging with thinkers like Luce Irigaray, Julia Kristeva, and Jacques Lacan. Moi critiques the essentialist and sometimes ahistorical tendencies of feminist theories that align femininity with particular biological or cultural markers, emphasizing the importance of analyzing femininity as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems. She evaluates competing feminist approaches, such as Irigaray’s advocacy for a distinct feminine signification system versus Kristeva’s psychoanalytic interpretations, and underscores the necessity of situating such theories within broader socio-political contexts. The article’s significance lies in its rigorous critique and its call for a feminism that transcends restrictive notions of femininity, making it a landmark contribution to feminist theory and literary criticism.
Summary of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
- Critique of Essentialist Feminism:
Toril Moi critiques essentialist feminist theories that align femininity with fixed biological or symbolic characteristics. She challenges Luce Irigaray and Elizabeth Grosz’s proposal of an autonomous feminine signification system, arguing that such ideas are inherently restrictive and risk becoming “ahistorical” frameworks (Moi, 326). Moi emphasizes that femininity must be understood as a construct shaped by patriarchal systems and historical contexts rather than an intrinsic or essential quality. - Comparison of Theoretical Perspectives:
Moi contrasts Luce Irigaray’s assertion that language is fundamentally “phallocentric” and thus necessitates a separate feminine economy of signification with Julia Kristeva’s psychoanalytic perspective, which sees Lacan’s theory of the phallus as a non-gendered, structural absence. According to Moi, Irigaray’s interpretation assumes the phallus “represents the penis,” while Kristeva and others argue it signifies a “transcendental” concept of difference that both genders relate to but cannot fully embody (Moi, 326-327). Moi critiques Grosz for presenting feminism almost exclusively through an Irigarayan lens, a move that risks “closing down debates that need to be opened up” (Moi, 326). - Rejection of Restrictive Feminine Ideals:
Moi strongly critiques Irigaray and Hélène Cixous for advancing notions of femininity that impose restrictive frameworks. She finds Irigaray’s biologically influenced metaphors, such as the “two lips,” to be reductive and argues that they force femininity into rigid forms (Moi, 329). Similarly, she critiques écriture féminine for advocating an aesthetic ideal rooted in specific cultural and historical contexts, questioning its accessibility and relevance. Moi asserts that such frameworks risk reinforcing patriarchal ideas rather than dismantling them, stating that “femininity is a patriarchal problem” and should not become a feminist question (Moi, 334). - Femininity as a Patriarchal Problem:
The article emphasizes that femininity is a construct designed to perpetuate patriarchal systems rather than an inherent identity. Moi calls for feminist theory to move beyond debates over femininity, focusing instead on dismantling the structural inequalities that shape women’s lives. She argues, “Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do” (Moi, 334). For Moi, the feminist project should prioritize inclusivity and equity rather than adhering to prescriptive ideals of femininity. - Interdisciplinary Approach to Feminism:
Moi concludes by advocating for an integration of psychoanalytic theories with socio-political analysis, critiquing écriture féminine for failing to engage with the material realities of women’s lives. She states, “Such analyses must be integrated with the study of the specific social, political and economic determinants of women’s lives and texts” (Moi, 333). While acknowledging the insights psychoanalysis offers, Moi urges feminists to ground their theories in historical and social contexts to create a more inclusive and impactful feminist praxis.
Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
| Term/Concept | Definition/Explanation | Context in the Article |
| Femininity | A construct shaped by patriarchal systems, historically and socially contingent, rather than an inherent or essential quality. | Critiqued as a patriarchal problem; Moi calls for its analysis rather than its acceptance as a feminist category (Moi, 334). |
| Phallocentrism | The idea that language and culture are centered around the phallus as a symbol of difference and authority. | Irigaray critiques it as inherently oppressive; Moi explores alternative feminist engagements with this concept (Moi, 326). |
| The Phallus | A Lacanian concept signifying the primary marker of sexual difference, transcendent and unattainable by either sex. | Differently interpreted by feminists like Irigaray (as the penis) and Kristeva (as a structural absence) (Moi, 326-327). |
| Écriture Féminine | A style of writing emphasizing fluidity, openness, and embodied experience, often associated with Hélène Cixous. | Moi critiques it for being idealistic and ahistorical, limiting its relevance to broader feminist praxis (Moi, 329-333). |
| Autonomous Signification | Irigaray’s proposal for a feminine system of meaning that exists independently of the phallocentric symbolic order. | Moi critiques this as biologically reductive and reliant on essentialist assumptions (Moi, 327-329). |
| Empty vs. Full Difference | Lacan’s notion of sexual difference as structurally “empty” (without fixed meaning) vs. Irigaray’s “full” (biological) view. | Moi advocates for the former as more adaptable to feminist critiques of sexual difference (Moi, 328). |
| Strategic Essentialism | The deliberate use of essentialist arguments to achieve political aims, particularly in feminist theory. | Irigaray’s approach is discussed as strategically essentialist; Moi critiques its limitations (Moi, 326-327). |
| Psychoanalysis in Feminism | The application of psychoanalytic theories to understand sexual difference and subjectivity. | Moi urges integrating psychoanalysis with socio-political analysis for feminist theory (Moi, 333). |
| Patriarchal Construct | A system of values and meanings imposed by patriarchal authority to sustain gender hierarchies. | Femininity is framed as a patriarchal construct, not inherently feminist (Moi, 334). |
| Gender and Symbolic Order | The organization of social and cultural meaning based on binary gender roles and phallocentric language. | Moi critiques Irigaray’s approach for failing to engage with broader social and political implications (Moi, 327-329). |
Contribution of “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi to Literary Theory/Theories
- Deconstruction of Essentialist Feminist Theories:
Moi critiques the essentialist underpinnings of theories like those of Luce Irigaray, emphasizing that femininity is a socially constructed concept rather than an innate quality. This challenges essentialist feminist interpretations in literary and cultural theory, pushing for a historically grounded understanding of gender constructs (Moi, 326-328). - Critique of Phallocentrism and Psychoanalytic Feminism:
Moi engages with Lacan’s concept of the phallus and feminist critiques of psychoanalysis. By differentiating between Lacan’s “empty” and “full” signification of sexual difference, Moi highlights the importance of understanding gender in terms of structural absence rather than biological determinism, contributing to feminist psychoanalytic approaches (Moi, 326-327). - Analysis of Écriture Féminine:
Moi critiques Hélène Cixous’s concept of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and tied to specific aesthetic and cultural contexts. Her argument that feminine writing risks perpetuating exclusionary ideals expands literary theory’s understanding of gendered textual practices (Moi, 329-333). - Interdisciplinary Integration in Feminist Theory:
The article calls for integrating psychoanalytic insights with socio-political and historical analyses to address the broader determinants of women’s lives and texts. This interdisciplinary approach contributes to feminist literary theory by bridging gaps between psychoanalysis, history, and politics (Moi, 333). - Challenging the Canonization of Feminist Thinkers:
Moi critiques the tendency to valorize certain feminist theorists (e.g., Irigaray) while dismissing others (e.g., Kristeva). This challenges literary theory to adopt more inclusive and balanced evaluations of feminist contributions (Moi, 326). - Reframing Femininity as a Patriarchal Construct:
Moi positions femininity not as a feminist question but as a patriarchal problem requiring critical analysis. This reframing influences literary theory by encouraging scholars to deconstruct gendered constructs in texts and cultural representations (Moi, 334). - Feminism Beyond Textual Practices:
By critiquing the focus on textual and aesthetic ideals (e.g., écriture féminine), Moi advocates for feminist theories that prioritize broader social and political transformations, enriching feminist literary criticism with a focus on structural change (Moi, 334).
Examples of Critiques Through “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
| Literary Work | Key Themes in the Work | Critique Through “Femininity Revisited” |
| Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex | Existentialist feminism; equality between sexes; critique of gender roles. | Moi aligns more with Beauvoir’s approach, advocating for social, political, and economic equality over restrictive ideals of femininity (Moi, 334). |
| Hélène Cixous’s The Laugh of the Medusa | Advocacy for écriture féminine; celebration of feminine writing and difference. | Moi critiques Cixous’s idealization of feminine writing as overly romantic and rooted in a specific cultural aesthetic, limiting its universal applicability (Moi, 329-333). |
| Julia Kristeva’s Revolution in Poetic Language | Psychoanalytic theory of the semiotic; maternal influences on language and creativity. | Moi defends Kristeva’s view of sexual difference as structurally empty and critiques Grosz’s reduction of Kristeva’s work to patriarchal compliance (Moi, 326-328). |
| Elizabeth Grosz’s Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction | Feminist critique of Lacanian psychoanalysis; alignment with Irigaray. | Moi criticizes Grosz’s uncritical reliance on Irigarayan feminism, arguing that it oversimplifies Lacan’s theories and stifles debates by conflating feminism with one perspective (Moi, 326-327). |
Criticism Against “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
- Lack of Practical Solutions for Feminist Praxis:
Critics argue that while Moi deconstructs essentialist feminist theories and critiques concepts like écriture féminine, she offers limited guidance on how to integrate her proposed interdisciplinary approach into practical feminist activism. - Potential Undermining of Feminist Solidarity:
Moi’s critique of influential feminist theorists like Luce Irigaray and Hélène Cixous has been seen as divisive. Some argue that her focus on exposing flaws in their theories may detract from the broader feminist goal of collective action against patriarchy. - Insufficient Engagement with Marginalized Perspectives:
Moi’s focus on psychoanalytic and Western feminist theories has been critiqued for marginalizing non-Western and intersectional feminist perspectives, which could provide richer and more diverse analyses of femininity. - Overemphasis on Psychoanalysis:
Some critics believe Moi places excessive emphasis on psychoanalytic theories, which may alienate feminists who question the relevance or utility of psychoanalysis in addressing contemporary feminist concerns. - Abstract and Theoretical Approach:
Moi’s critique of concepts like phallocentrism and écriture féminine has been described as overly theoretical, making it difficult for readers without a background in psychoanalysis or literary theory to fully engage with her arguments. - Dismissal of Écriture Féminine as Ahistorical:
Moi’s characterization of écriture féminine as overly idealistic and rooted in specific cultural contexts has been critiqued for underestimating its potential to inspire new forms of feminist expression and creativity. - Rejection of Feminine Writing as a Political Tool:
Moi’s critique of Cixous’s écriture féminine has been seen as dismissive of its potential as a strategic tool for subverting patriarchal language and power structures.
Representative Quotations from “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi with Explanation
| Quotation | Explanation | Theoretical Perspective |
| “Femininity is a patriarchal problem. Feminists must therefore be able to analyse the phenomenon more persuasively than any patriarch could ever do.” (Moi, 334) | Moi argues that femininity is not a feminist issue but a construct of patriarchy, needing deconstruction rather than adoption. | Feminist critique of essentialism and patriarchal constructs. |
| “Irigaray’s call for equality between the sexes presupposes the establishment of what one might call ‘full’ difference, as opposed to the ’empty’ difference advocated by a Juliet Mitchell or a Julia Kristeva.” (Moi, 327) | Moi contrasts Irigaray’s biologically grounded view of sexual difference with Kristeva’s more abstract and structural approach. | Psychoanalytic feminism; critique of essentialist theories of difference. |
| “Irigaray’s vision of a feminine structure of signification risks reducing femininity to an anatomical metaphor, such as substituting the two lips for the penis.” (Moi, 329) | Moi critiques Irigaray’s reliance on biological metaphors, arguing that it limits feminist theory to essentialist frameworks. | Feminist literary theory critique; rejection of biologically essentialist metaphors. |
| “Écriture féminine… shows no interest at all in the specific social, political, and economic determinants of women’s lives.” (Moi, 333) | Moi critiques Cixous’s feminine writing as overly idealistic and disconnected from material realities. | Critique of écriture féminine; integration of socio-political and materialist feminist analysis. |
| “Feminists like Julia Kristeva argue that Lacan’s theory of the phallus implies that neither sex can ever fully possess or embody the phallus.” (Moi, 326) | Moi highlights Kristeva’s non-essentialist interpretation of the phallus as an abstract signifier, challenging phallocentric ideas. | Psychoanalytic feminism; structural interpretation of sexual difference. |
| “Why should feminism remain faithful to the patriarchal project of gendering the world?” (Moi, 332) | Moi questions the binary constructions of masculinity and femininity and their imposition in feminist theory. | Feminist critique of binary gender constructs. |
| “Grosz’s unspoken reliance on Irigaray’s authority conceals the gaps separating various strands of contemporary feminism and ultimately closes down debates that need to be opened up.” (Moi, 326) | Moi critiques Elizabeth Grosz’s approach as overly reliant on Irigarayan feminism, limiting critical debate within the field. | Critique of feminist exclusivity; call for broader, interdisciplinary feminist dialogue. |
| “No specific ‘meaning’ of difference can be posited a priori; in different historical and social situations, the ’empty’ category of difference will be filled with vastly different material.” (Moi, 328) | Moi argues for a historically and contextually grounded understanding of sexual difference, rejecting fixed or universal meanings. | Historical materialism in feminist theory; critique of ahistoricism. |
| “The notion of femininity, as an ideal, risks excluding women who do not or cannot conform to its aesthetic or cultural expectations.” (Moi, 329) | Moi critiques the exclusivity inherent in concepts like écriture féminine, which may marginalize women outside specific contexts. | Feminist inclusivity; critique of restrictive ideals of femininity. |
| “In my view, Simone de Beauvoir’s vision of a society in which every woman and every man has equal access… provides a better starting point for the liberation of all women than Cixous’s libidinal economies.” (Moi, 333) | Moi contrasts Beauvoir’s practical approach to liberation with Cixous’s aesthetic idealism, favoring the former for feminist progress. | Existential feminism versus écriture féminine; prioritizing socio-political over aesthetic strategies. |
Suggested Readings: “Femininity Revisited” by Toril Moi
- Soussloff, Catherine M., and Bill Nichols. “Leni Riefenstahl: The Power of the Image.” Discourse, vol. 18, no. 3, 1996, pp. 20–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41389418. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Moi, Toril. “Femininity revisited.” Journal of Gender Studies 1.3 (1992): 324-334.
- Moi, Toril. “Feminism, Postmodernism, and Style: Recent Feminist Criticism in the United States.” Cultural Critique, no. 9, 1988, pp. 3–22. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1354232. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.
- Moi, Toril. “Representation of Patriarchy: Sexuality and Epistemology in Freud’s ‘Dora.’” Feminist Review, no. 9, 1981, pp. 60–74. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1394915. Accessed 13 Dec. 2024.