6.9.20 Freud, castration and the uncanny
‘To abject literally means to cast out, which connects to the word made infamous by Freud: castration, meaning to remove, deprive of, or abject a part of the body. Castration is a violation of the body and thus the ego, the self. Kristeva writes, "Significance is indeed inherent in the human body" (10). This sentiment helps to explain the sense of connection we feel between our physical and mental worlds. The body is made significant by the being that inhabits it, and the two become one and the same in the ego. This significance and knowledge of the self is an important concept for Kristeva, as it creates an extremely important boundary—one that separates the ego from the non-ego, the inside from the outside. But, paradoxically, it also dissolves a boundary between the mental and physical self’
Castration and the violating of the boundary of the physical body is tied heavily, for Freud, to the concept of uncanniness. In his essay The Uncanny, he writes: "Dismembered limbs, a severed head, a hand cut off at the wrist, [...] all these have something peculiarly uncanny about them, especially when [...] they prove capable of independent activity in addition. As we already know, this kind of uncanniness springs from its proximity to the castration complex" (Freud 946). Perhaps castration can also be called the "abjection of what is still the self." The resulting uncanniness or uneasiness is founded, once again, in the blurring of boundaries. There are good and necessary processes of abjection—ingestion and secretion— which sustain life and form the self and non-self. But castration is an unnecessary abjection of the self, directly and prematurely turning the self into the non-self. This boundary is especially complicated if, as Freud writes, the castrated body part "proves capable of independent activity." This further animates the castrated part, making it even more difficult to determine what is living and what is non-living, what is a part of the self and what is not. (ibid, p3)
Are my cast feet like castrated body parts? Mary Douglas' 'matter out of place'?
‘Freud's concept of the uncanny is also heavily connected to the idea of familiarity. Familiarity as a source of fear and discomfort can be seen in his castration example because what is more familiar to us than our own body? If parts of our or anyone's body are severed—parts of a body which we formerly recognized as a whole—we experience a deep sense of uncanniness’ (ibid, p5).
Baird, A (2013) The Abject, the Uncanny, and the Sublime: A Destabilization of Boundaries Available at: http://writing.rochester.edu/celebrating/2013/Baird.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2020)
‘To abject literally means to cast out, which connects to the word made infamous by Freud: castration, meaning to remove, deprive of, or abject a part of the body. Castration is a violation of the body and thus the ego, the self. Kristeva writes, "Significance is indeed inherent in the human body" (10). This sentiment helps to explain the sense of connection we feel between our physical and mental worlds. The body is made significant by the being that inhabits it, and the two become one and the same in the ego. This significance and knowledge of the self is an important concept for Kristeva, as it creates an extremely important boundary—one that separates the ego from the non-ego, the inside from the outside. But, paradoxically, it also dissolves a boundary between the mental and physical self’
Castration and the violating of the boundary of the physical body is tied heavily, for Freud, to the concept of uncanniness. In his essay The Uncanny, he writes: "Dismembered limbs, a severed head, a hand cut off at the wrist, [...] all these have something peculiarly uncanny about them, especially when [...] they prove capable of independent activity in addition. As we already know, this kind of uncanniness springs from its proximity to the castration complex" (Freud 946). Perhaps castration can also be called the "abjection of what is still the self." The resulting uncanniness or uneasiness is founded, once again, in the blurring of boundaries. There are good and necessary processes of abjection—ingestion and secretion— which sustain life and form the self and non-self. But castration is an unnecessary abjection of the self, directly and prematurely turning the self into the non-self. This boundary is especially complicated if, as Freud writes, the castrated body part "proves capable of independent activity." This further animates the castrated part, making it even more difficult to determine what is living and what is non-living, what is a part of the self and what is not. (ibid, p3)
Are my cast feet like castrated body parts? Mary Douglas' 'matter out of place'?
‘Freud's concept of the uncanny is also heavily connected to the idea of familiarity. Familiarity as a source of fear and discomfort can be seen in his castration example because what is more familiar to us than our own body? If parts of our or anyone's body are severed—parts of a body which we formerly recognized as a whole—we experience a deep sense of uncanniness’ (ibid, p5).
Baird, A (2013) The Abject, the Uncanny, and the Sublime: A Destabilization of Boundaries Available at: http://writing.rochester.edu/celebrating/2013/Baird.pdf (Accessed: 30 August 2020)