Page 153 - Decoding Culture

146 D E C O D I N G C U L TURE

consistency of the deductive links between the theory and the phe­
nomena to be explained; and the relative strength of the
explanation over other candidates. On the first of those three,
judgement is not possible within the bounds of Mulvey's argument
and remains controversial outside of it. The general efficacy of
psychoanalytic theory is by no means self-evident or widely
accepted, while the specific emphasis on castration anxiety in
Mulvey's account would be questioned by many who might other­
wise be positively disposed to psychoanalytic explanations. On the
second criterion, as this reconstruction demonstrates, it is possible
to trace a clear internal logic although it might be argued that
some key terms of the theory remain ambiguous, not least those
derived directly from Lacan. The third criterion is difficult to apply
in the absence of specific competing explanations. However, there
would seem to be a prima f a cie case, at least, for considering alter­
native explanations cast in terms of the social and historical
development of patriarchal culture which would not necessarily
resort to psychoanalytic concepts. In Mulvey, and in Screen theory
more generally, however, such an alternative is not entertained
and is, indeed, all but inconceivable. For although I have repre­
sented her argument here as only one candidate explanation of
empirically observed features of Hollywood film, such an approach
would be epistemologically alien to the Screen tradition within
which she was working. In Screen theory, as we saw in Chapter 4,
theories themselves construct their particular objects of analysis.
Accordingly, Mulvey does not argue (as I have on her behalf) that
such-and-such a feature of cinema can be explained by this (psy­
choanalytic) theory, although other (perhaps non-psychoanalytic)
explanations are possible and may even be superior. That would be
to employ an instrumental concept of 'theory', one in which com­
peting theories are assessed in terms of their comparative
empirical efficacy, and would be deemed unacceptable because of

Copyrighted Material