thus, to ignore it is a way of approving it and, therefore, perpetuating it.
It is necessary for men and women to move together, because, when we are separate, we are lost. It is necessary to review the patriarchal model of power because it is harmful and it traps women and men alike in crystallized roles and it plants the seed of discrimination and subsequent rebellion in the male and female subjectivities. It is necessary to redefine the concepts of love, money, power and relationships in the light of the changes that have taken place in humanity and with a power model that accepts equality. A model that is enriched with differences without said differences being conceived in terms of hierarchy. Men and women are neither better nor worse due to their differences. We are a part of the universe that needs all of its differences to maintain its life potential.
My proposal for us women and men to live together is to carry out the task of reviewing the patriarchal model and reconstructing another model that is not based on hierarchy. I know this is a difficult and constant task that requires determination and courage. I also know that few are willing to carry it out. An example of this, which I experienced myself, is that I coordinated a huge amount of consciousness-raising groups, but I never managed to convince professionals experienced in group tasks to train in the subject of the “sexual differentiation of money”, so that they could later coordinate their own consciousness-raising groups, both for women and men. The reason is simple: touching this subject implies highlighting the power models inherent in money and to become transgressors of a model that is currently a part of their own subjectivity. This task is probably a frightening one for most people.
The problem is not difference, but the hierarchy of difference.
Clara Coria
Speech at the VI Congress of the Argentine Mental Health Association about “Sex and power, clinical practice, culture and society”; Buenos Aires, Mayo 21st, 2011.
Introduction
Origins
Back in 1981, I discovered impediments that limited the way I handled money. Concerned and intrigued, I resolved to study this phenomenon by delving into myself and other women. I was particularly surprised because my economic independence, which began in adolescence, did not explain my limited autonomy. Throughout my life, I have made decisions, faced new situations and sought new horizons contrary to established patterns. I was, after all, what is commonly known as an independent woman. Yet not in my relationship with money.
My heart would race unexpectedly whenever I had to settle money matters. Though I was able to conceal my inner turmoil in such moments, it left me drained.
Pursuing a debt, discussing the terms of a contract, making an important purchase, justifying my fees, reaching agreements on financial responsibilities with my spouse, clarifying what I considered “mine” and “ours”, establishing economic criteria for my children, and all those other “trifles” of daily life did not arise spontaneously.
Far from it, I was beset by unwelcome stomachaches, ethical concerns (“money is demeaning”), aesthetic discomfort (“it’s dirty and ugly”), and indefinite deferrals (“I’ll deal with it tomorrow”).
They either paralyzed me or forced me to adopt vindictive stances and/or one of “what do I care”.
Clearly, I was an independent woman, and yet I was not.
I had no alternative but to face facts: in financial matters things are neither what they seem nor what many people believe them to be.
Looking around me, I was shocked and relieved in equal measure to learn I was not alone.
I was one of many women, economically independent or not, living a life weighed down by internal, nameless struggles, which I believed no one else had.
And this is how it all began.
I decided to conduct my analysis in a theoretical framework, which would allow me to reflect on, compare and formulate a hypothesis to clear up this mystery of independence without autonomy.1
I chose consciousness-raising groups2 as my work methodology, making some changes relevant to the subject and to the fact that the groups comprised only women.
I developed several hypotheses and drafted papers that were published in Argentina and abroad on the problem I initially called “women and money”.
Finally, as I had suspected I would do from the outset, I conducted some consciousness-raising groups made up only of men in order to add some of the vicissitudes men must also encounter to this complex puzzle of dealing with money in our culture. And besides, as “everyone knows” (and if they don’t this is their chance to find out) what affects one half of humanity necessarily affects the other half.3
Finally, I embarked on the troubling and exciting task of writing and repeatedly correcting the papers and notes I had accumulated over several years with the aim of making them available to everyone in book form.
Referential framework
Our forays into life and science are not innocent. Behind each question, there lies an anticipated, though unknown, answer, in each glance a perceptive selection, in each appraisal an amount of prejudice.
There is a wealth of experiences, thoughts and beliefs that encapsulate our personal history, the period of history in which we live and the sociocultural, political, economic and religious conditioning to which we subscribe, either consciously or unconsciously.
Therefore, we must be aware that “objectivity” is relative and that the conclusions we reach are far from being “the only possible explanation”. In the best-case scenario, it will be one more that would proffer, from a new perspective, other items of evidence in order to grasp our complex world.
This is how I wish my contributions on the problem of money to be taken. They are nothing less than a tenacious and persevering exploration of an irksome question, often regarded as a taboo.
Being aware of their complexity, I have endeavoured to present my ideas as honestly as possible, including reflections that may seem to contradict or diverge from the formulated hypotheses.
Although money is omnipresent in daily life and unavoidable in social interaction – in our culture – many of its aspects are silenced and omitted. And this silencing is neither ingenuous nor harmless. On the contrary, it responds to entrenched beliefs and interests that I believe warrant explanation.
I will therefore attempt to highlight some of these interests and beliefs by providing referential frameworks that outlined and conditioned my research, perceptions, reflections and conclusions regarding “money”.
My approach seeks to put forward certain psychological and socio-cultural variables.
They are brought together in the analysis and interpretation of the facts and knowledge gleaned from my psychoanalytical background, and from theories and practices related to the task forces and what is known as women’s studies.4
I wish to underline that the central axis of this problem, for both women and men, is the questioning of patriarchal ideology, which is strongly related to Western Judeo-Christian5 culture.6 This ideology, in turn, contains convergence points with capitalism.
As patriarchy
