Neoanalytic Theory: Chodorow
The neoanalytic theorist Chodorow (1978) sees herself as fusing psychoanalytic theory, sociological theory, and feminist theory, and views the causes of psychological gender differences as being rooted in the early family experiences of boys and girls. The core of her argument is that because childcare is done exclusively or mostly by women, as they grow up, boys have vastly different gender-related experiences than girls.
Chodorow begins with the observation that infants start life in a state of total dependency and that their dependency needs are satisfied almost exclusively by the mother, given the division of labor in most families. In addition, infants are narcissistic, and because mothers generally do such a good job of meeting their needs, infants blissfully assume that the mother has no other interests.
Chodorow contends that this early, intense attachment to the mother leads to different developmental progressions for boys and girls. To develop a masculine identity, boys must destroy or repress the intense attachment to the mother. Masculinity, according to Chodorow, involves denying feminine maternal attachment. Masculine identity is defined in terms of individuation and independence and involves rejection and devaluation of the feminine.
Girls do not need to sever the attachment to the mother to develop a feminine identity; rather, they need to maintain it. Therefore, girls never come to see themselves as separate in the way that boys do; rather, they define their identity in relational terms.
In regard to sexuality, the theory at first glance seems to predict a stereotyped outcome: Women should be far more oriented to the quality of the relationship and emotional intimacy, whereas men should be more oriented toward body-centered sexuality (Reiss, 1960) that denies attachment and intimacy. However, Chodorow views the matter in a more complex way (1978, pp. 192, 196). She sees women emerging from the oedipus complex oriented toward the father, and more generally, toward men, as erotic objects, but men do not necessarily satisfy women’s emotional needs.
Men are taught to repress affect and keep relationships impersonal in the public sphere, leading them to seek satisfaction of their affective and relational needs in the privacy of a relationship with a woman.
The feminist component of Chodorow’s theory focuses not on the consequences of the child’s attachment to the mother, but on the male dominance in society. For example, Chodorow used women’s economic dependence on men to explain social psychologists’ research showing that men fall in love romantically, whereas women fall in love sensibly and rationally. Women’s displays of romanticism, then, may actually be a way of making sure that they and their offspring are provided for, a theme that is echoed in the theorizing of evolutionary psychologists.
What does Chodorow’s theory predict about outcomes of empirical studies of gender differences in sexual attitudes and behaviors? Parts of the theory lead to an apparent contradiction. The analytic portion led Cho — dorow to conclude that women are oriented toward men as erotic objects but that women could not find sufficient emotional satisfaction from men. This would lead to the prediction that women would feel comfortable with uncommitted sexual relationships with men (i. e., that women would be approving of casual sex). However, the feminist part of the theory, which stresses male dominance and women’s economic dependence, predicts that women will approve of sex only in committed relationships such as marriage, hoping to win economic security. Moreover, the key focus of the theory is that women are relational and men are individuated and independent. This leads to a clear prediction that women will stress the quality of relationship in sexual interactions more than men will. If we follow the feminist and relational parts of Chodorow’s reasoning, the theory predicts that women will be relatively disapproving of, and less likely to engage in, sex in casual relationships.
Chodorow’s theory has been criticized by some feminists. Two of the criticisms are particularly relevant here. First, the theory has a heterosexist bias. It explains in detail why children grow up heterosexual, and seems to assume that all of them will, and makes no attempt to understand lesbian development (Rich, 1980). Second, the theory has been criticized for focusing exclusively on the impact of gender and ignoring the powerful influences of race and social class (Spelman, 1988).