Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“The Separation That is Not a Separation But a Form of Union”: Merleau-Ponty and Feminist Object Relations Theory in Dialogue

  • Theoretical / Philosophical Paper
  • Published:
Human Studies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is the place that I have set out to examine, the separation that is not a separation but a form of union.

–Winnicott, Playing and Reality (1971).

Abstract

We often think of normal childhood as a progressive development towards a fixed—and often tacitly individualistic and masculine—model of what it is to be an adult. By contrast, phenomenologists, psychoanalysts, sociology of childhood, and feminist thinkers have set out to offer richer accounts both of childhood development and of mature existence. This paper (1) draws on accounts of childhood development from phenomenologist Maurice Merleau-Ponty and object relations theorist D. W. Winnicott in order to argue that childhood development takes place in “transitional spaces”; (2) explores typical gendered patterns in the formation of selfhood that “split” relationality and separateness into the “feminine” and the “masculine”; and (3) offers a phenomenology of perception, love, and objectivity in order to show the manner in which, contra individualistic and masculine visions of adulthood, maturity requires an embrace rather than eschewal of ambiguity, and the capacity to continue to dwell in the transitional space between relatedness and separateness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See also Freud’s discussion of the child’s fort-da [gone-there] game (1961a: Chap. 2) and Simms’ discussion of “object permanence” (2008: Chap. 4).

  2. For insightful discussions of the importance of a Hegelian conception of recognition in early childhood development that closely engage with Winnicott’s work, see Benjamin (1988: 25–48 and passim) and Honneth (1995: 95–107). For excellent discussions of Merleau-Ponty’s work on childhood development in the context of Hegelian recognition, see Maclaren (2008) and Russon (2015: Chap. 6). See also Laing (1965: Pt. I).

  3. For a discussion of Mead in dialogue with Winnicott on the topic of recognition, see Honneth (1995: Pt. II).

  4. For a phenomenology of subjectivity as a dynamic process of emergence that draws primarily on Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy, see Marratto (2012).

  5. These four authors are largely in accord about major issues coming out of object relations theory. Each, however, makes a distinct contribution. Chodorow—a sociologist and psychoanalyst—took up object relations theory in a distinctly feminist way to examine the different patterns of differentiation between boys and girls, paying special attention to problems for mothers in a sexist society. Gilligan—a psychologist—used these insights to criticize the limitations of traditional conceptions of morality and to advance a feminist “care” ethics. Keller—a geneticist and historian and philosopher of science—used these insights to discuss problems of domination and objectivity in the hard sciences, as we shall see in Part Three below. Finally, Benjamin—a psychoanalyst—uses a feminist object relations theory to analyze patterns of domination and submission in adult romantic and sexual life.

  6. Though there is evidence that biological factors do contribute to certain abilities and preferences—for example, spatial abilities are linked to the prenatal exposure to androgens, which are present in higher or lower levels in both males and females—it is also widely understood that socialization encourages or discourages the development of the child’s natural inclinations into concrete skills in profound ways (see, for example, Yilmaz 2009 and Li and Wong 2016).

  7. I am inspired in this discussion by Bredlau’s discussion of guiding a child in petting a dog (2017, 95).

  8. See also Merleau-Ponty’s discussion of free action, in which, he argues, it is impossible to ultimately distinguish “the contribution of the situation” and “the contribution of freedom” (2012: 480). I explore this ambiguous nature of freedom further in McMahon (2019). 

  9. On the ways in which perception opens and maintains a lived distance between self and things, see Bredlau (2010).

  10. On perception as a dialogue between subject and object, see Merleau-Ponty (2012: 134) and Evans and Lawlor (2000: 4). On the “mooded” nature of perception, see Heidegger (1962: 174–181) and Russon (2003: 43–47). On the education of perception, see Elkins (1996: 56).

  11. See Merleau-Ponty’s discussion of the “silent thesis” of perception (2012, 54).

  12. On eros as an experience of foreign invasion, see Carson (1986, 63–70).

  13. On this double sense of “realize,” see Maclaren (2008: 81).

  14. On this point, I am grateful to insightful comments from Shannon Hoff in personal conversation.

  15. See Hegel’s discussion of the contradictory dynamics of “lordship and bondage” (1977: 111–118). Benjamin takes up this dynamic in her psychoanalytic account of gender relations (1988: Chap. 2), and Bredlau takes it up in her phenomenological account of men’s and women’s sexuality (2018: Chap. 4).

References

  • Bacon, F. (2000 [1620]). The new organon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Bailey, D. (2017). Teaching preschool is hard: Embodiment, ideology, fallibility and futurity. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Michigan.

  • Benjamin, J. (1988). The bonds of love. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent–child attachment and healthy human development. London: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredlau, S. (2010). A respectful world: Merleau-Ponty and the experience of depth. Human Studies,33, 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredlau, S. (2017). Perceiving through another: Incorporation and the child perceiver. In K. Jacobson & J. Russon (Eds.), Perception and its development in Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology (pp. 81–98). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bredlau, S. (2018). The other in perception: A phenomenological account of our experience of other persons. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butler, J. (1988). Performative acts and gender constitution: An essay in phenomenology and feminist theory. Theater Journal,40(4), 519–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carson, A. (1986). Eros the bittersweet. Princeton: Princeton UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chodorow, N. (1990). Gender, relation, and difference in psychoanalytic perspective. In C. Zanardi (Ed.), Essential papers on the psychology of women. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correll, S. J. (2004). Constraints into preferences: Gender, status, and emerging career aspirations. American Sociological Review,69(1), 93–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronenberg, D. (1979). Dir. The brood. Canadian Film Development Corporation.

  • De Beauvoir, S. (1948). The ethics of ambiguity. Trans. Bernard Frechtman. New York: Philosophical Library.

  • De Beauvoir, S. (2009 [1949]). The second sex. Trans. Constance Borde and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier. New York: Vintage Books.

  • Dewey, J. (1944 [1916]). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Free Press.

  • Elkins, J. (1996). The object stares back: On the nature of seeing. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, F., & Lawlor, L. (2000). The value of flesh: Merleau-Ponty’s philosophy and the modernism/postmodernism debate. In F. Evans & L. Lawlor (Eds.), Chiasms: Merleau-Ponty’s notion of flesh (pp. 1–20). Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, R. H., Brunn, S. T., Doss, K. M., & Patterson, C. J. (2018). Children’s gender-typed behavior from early to middle childhood in adoptive families with lesbian, gay, and heterosexual parents. Sex Roles,78, 528–541.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frenkel-Brunswick, E. (1949). Intolerance of ambiguity as an emotional and perceptual personality variable. Journal of Personality,18, 108–143.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freud, S. (1961a). Beyond the pleasure principle. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

  • Freud, S. (1961b). Civilization and its discontents. Trans. James Strachey. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

  • Fromm, E. (1956). The art of loving. New York: HarperPerennial.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fromm, E. (1969). Escape from freedom. New York: Henry Holt & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graf, N., Brown, A., & Patten, E. (2019). The narrowing, but persistent, gender gap in pay. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/gender-pay-gap-facts/.

  • Guenther, L. (2011). Subjects without a world? A Husserlian analysis of solitary confinement. Human Studies,34, 257–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guenther, L. (2014). The concrete abyss. Aeon, 16 April. Retrieved August 13, 2018, from https://aeon.co/essays/why-solitary-confinement-degrades-us-all.

  • Hegel, G. W. F. (1977 [1807]). Phenomenology of spirit. Trans. A. V. Miller. Oxford: Oxford UP.

  • Heidegger, M. (1962 [1927]). Being and time. Trans. Macquarrie and Robinson. New York: Harper & Row.

  • Heidegger, M. (1993 [1954]). The question concerning technology. In D. F. Krell (Ed.), Basic writings (pp. 307–342). New York: HarperCollins.

  • Hochschild, Arlie Russel with Anne Machung. (2003). The second shift. New York: Penguin.

  • Honneth, A. (1995). The struggle for recognition: The moral grammar of social conflicts. Trans. Joel Anderson. Cambridge: Polity Press.

  • Jacobson, K. (2011). Embodied domestics, embodied politics: Women, home, and agoraphobia. Human Studies,34, 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, K. (2012). Heidegger, Winnicott, and The Velveteen Rabbit: Anxiety, toys, and the drama of metaphysics. In P. Costello (Ed.), Philosophy in children’s literature (pp. 1–20). Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson, B. (2011). Doing adulthood in childhood research. Childhood, 19(1), 101–114.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1982). Feminism and science. Signs,7(3), 589–602.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, E. F. (1985). Reflections on gender and science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laing, R. D. (1965). The divided self: An existential study in sanity and madness. New York: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N. (1998). Towards an immature sociology. The Sociological Review, 46(3), 458–481.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, N. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, R. Y. H., & Wong, W. I. (2016). Gender-typed play and social abilities in boys and girls: Are they related? Sex Roles,74, 399–410.

    Google Scholar 

  • Livingston, G. (2014). Growing number of dads home with the kids. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/06/05/growing-number-of-dads-home-with-the-kids/.

  • Livingston, G. (2015). Fewer than half of U.S. kids today live in a “traditional” family. Pew Research Center. Retrieved September 2, 2019, from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/12/22/less-than-half-of-u-s-kids-today-live-in-a-traditional-family/.

  • Low, D. (2002). Merleau-Ponty on scientific revolutions. Philosophy Today,46(4), 373–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maclaren, K. (2008). Embodied perceptions of others as a condition of selfhood? Empirical and phenomenological considerations. Journal of Consciousness Studies,15(8), 63–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mager, K. (2017). Merleau-Ponty and the phenomenology of discovery. MA Thesis, Eastern Michigan University.

  • Mahalik, J. R., Good, G. E., & Englar-Carlson, M. (2003). Masculinity scripts, presenting concerns, and help seeking: Implications for practice and training. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,34(2), 123–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marratto, S. (2012). The intercorporeal self: Merleau-Ponty on subjectivity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, L. (2019). Freedom as (self-)expression: Natality and the temporality of action in Merleau-Ponty and Arendt. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 57(1), 56–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, G. H. (2015 [1934]). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Merchant, C. (1990). The death of nature: Women, ecology and the scientific revolution. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1963 [1942]). The structure of behavior. Trans. Alden L. Fisher. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964a [1951]). The child’s relations with others. Trans. William Cobb. In J. Edie (Ed.), The primacy of perception and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics (pp. 96–155). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1964b). Phenomenology and the sciences of man. Trans. John Wild. In J. Edie (Ed.), The primacy of perception and other essays on phenomenological psychology, the philosophy of art, history and politics (pp. 43–95). Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (1968 [1964]). The visible and the invisible, followed by working notes. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (2004 [1948]). The world of perception. Trans. Oliver Davis. New York: Routledge.

  • Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012 [1945]). Phenomenology of perception. Trans. Donald Landes. New York: Routledge.

  • Parsons, T. (2001 [1951]). The social system. London: Routledge.

  • Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969 [1966]). The psychology of the child. Trans. Helen Weaver. New York: Basic Books.

  • Plumwood, V. (1993). Feminism and the mastery of nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, K. A., & Abels, L. (2002). Sex-roles stereotypes in TV programs aimed at the preschool audience: An analysis of Teletubbies and Barney & Friends. Women and Language,25(2), 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prout, A., & James, A. (1997). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood (2nd ed., pp. 7–33). Washington, DC: Falmer Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qvortrup, J. (2005). Varieties of childhood. In J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Studies in modern childhood: Society, agency, culture (pp. 1–20). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards, C., Bouman, W. P., Seal, L., Barker, M. J., Neider, T. O., & T’Sjoen, G. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry,28(1), 95–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russon, J. (2003). Human experience: Philosophy, neurosis, and the elements of everyday life. Albany: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russon, J. (2013). The virtues of agency: A phenomenology of confidence, courage, and creativity. In K. Hermberg & P. Gyllenhammer (Eds.), Phenomenology and virtue ethics (pp. 165–179). London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russon, J. (2015). Infinite phenomenology: The lessons of Hegel’s science of experience. Evanston: Northwestern UP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachtel, E. G. (1959). Metamorphosis: On the conflict of human development and the psychology of creativity. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simms, E. M. (2008). The child in the world: Embodiment, time, and language in early childhood. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skelton, C., & Read, B. (2006). Male and female teachers’ evaluative responses to gender and the implications of these for the learning environments of primary age pupils. International Studies in Sociology of Education,16(2), 105–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiler, A. P. (2004). Thirty years after the discovery of gender: Psychological concepts and measures of masculinity. Sex Roles,50(1/2), 15–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. J., & Payne, E. (2016). Binaries and biology: Conversations with elementary education professionals after professional development on supporting transgender students. The Educational Forum,80(1), 34–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Theweleit, K. (1987). Male fantasies, volume 1. Trans. Stephen Conway. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, T. (2013). The child as natural phenomenologist: Primal and primary experience in Merleau-Ponty’s psychology. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitney, S. (2012). Affects, images and child perception: Self-other difference in Merleau-Ponty’s Sorbonne lectures. PhaenEx,7(2), 185–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1964). The child, the family, and the outside world. New York: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational processes and the facilitating environment: Studies in the theory of emotional development. Madison: International Universities Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winnicott, D. W. (1986). Home is where we start from. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, H. B. (2009). On the development and measurement of spatial ability. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education,1(2), 83–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yogman, M. W. (1994). Observations in the father-infant relationship. In S. H. Cath, A. R. Gurwitt, & J. M. Ross (Eds.), Father and child: Developmental and clinical perspectives (pp. 101–122). New York: The Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1980). Throwing like a girl. Human Studies,3, 137–156.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. History and Philosophy Department, Eastern Michigan University, 701 Pray-Harrold Hall, Ypsilanti, MI, 48197, USA

    Laura McMahon

Authors
  1. Laura McMahon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laura McMahon.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McMahon, L. “The Separation That is Not a Separation But a Form of Union”: Merleau-Ponty and Feminist Object Relations Theory in Dialogue. Hum Stud 43, 37–60 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09528-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-019-09528-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation