Kavanaugh - "‘Other’ As Phallus: "Self" As Per-the-Version of ‘Other’ "

"‘Other’ As Phallus: "Self" As Per-the-Version of ‘Other’ " ©

by Patrick B. Kavanaugh, Ph.D.
Copyright, 1997

Introduction: As a contribution to the conference, I would like to consider with you this morning a way of thinking about the "Codes of the Culture", the "Codes of Perversion" and their relationship to the "Masquerades of Femininity and Masculinity"...A way of thinking in which certain of the fundamental "Codes of the Culture" have constituted, in and of themselves, "The Codes of Perversion" that have so profoundly shaped the images of Female and Male and have so pervasively influenced the classical conceptualizations of Femininity and Masculinity. Michel Foucault considers the fundamental codes of the culture as being "...--those determining its language, its schemes of perception, its exchanges, its techniques, its values, the hierarchy of its practices." (1973, p. XX) These fundamental Codes of the Culture are considered by Foucault to be constituted by certain underlying "rules of formation" that provide for the discursive rationality and social coherence that operate beneath the level of "thematic content" in any given culture. These various "rules of formation" are understood to constitute the whole epistemological field of the culture, the episteme. These largely unquestioned "rules of formation" signify, prescribe, sanction and authorize certain cultural definitions and idealized images of the subject of woman and the subject of man. These largely unexamined "rules of formation" are to be found in the various organizing stories of the culture such as its history, science, law, literature, music, theatre, poetry and the various mythologies that have provided for its people a continuous, unified and traceable link with a past heritage and a future destiny.

In "The Language of Adam", by Russell Fraser (1977), suggests that the religious dimension has been one of the more central of these underlying "rules of formation" during the modern era. As civilization emerged from the darkened intellect of the Dark Ages into the Age of Enlightenment and Reason, various religious mythologies were to provide an organizing set of "rules of formation" in the then developing metanarrative of the modern era. Religious mythology was to be a contextualizing and conceptualizing strand interwoven through the epistemological field and design of the cultural fabric and codes of the westernized cultures --- a contextualizing strand embedded in which were to be the idealized images of Female and Male. As a contribution to the rethinking of the "the perversions" this morning, I would like to deconstructively consider the story of the "Creation of the World" (John 1: 1) and the "rules of formation" as contained in the narrative of the Garden of Eden and the idealized images of Adam and Eve.

"In the beginning was the Word..." and the Word was the Deity and the Word created the World ... and the Word first created Adam and then Eve in the Garden of Eden. Adam and Eve were to be both the idealized and, after tasting the Forbidden Fruit, the more humanized images of Male and Female in the westernized cultures. And, further, Adam and Eve were to serve as the idealized images of the parents of humanity. Interwoven in this narrative of the Creation are to be found certain metatheoretical assumptions upon which the "rules of formation" of the modern era were to proceed and to develop. These largely unexamined metatheoretical assumptions spoke to a social coherence by which the world functioned, an objective and accurate means of discovering and representing that world, and a rational objectivity by which the world could be thought about, conceptualized, and understood. These metatheoretical assumptions were to be inextricably linked to the idealized images of Adam and Eve. The narrative of the Garden of Eden was to provide profound, prescriptive, and organizing "rules of formation" for the discursive rationality and social coherence for the modern era. And with which we still live today. It is to these underlying "rules of formation" and these metatheoretical assumptions of a social coherence, representation, and rational objectivity that I will be speaking this morning particularly as embedded in and determining of the culture’s language, its schemes of perception of Male and Female, and in the so called natural hierarchy and order of things in its social practices of everyday life, particularly as pertaining to gender and gender role. "In The Beginning Was The Word..." "And The Word Was Made Flesh..." was to take on quite special meanings and significances in shaping the fundamental Codes of the Culture and, from this perspective, the Codes of Perversion that have so profoundly influenced and shaped the classical conceptualizations and understandings of Female and Male --- and, of Femininity and Masculinity. Of course, this version is per (the) version" of a post post modernist and is intended to be a contribution to the study of the psychoanalytic arts.

Social Coherence, Representation and the
Classical Conceptualization of the Perversions

"In the beginning was the Word..." and the beginning was created by the Word and before the Word there was nothing.... until the Word had been spoken... And the Word defined an objectively existing, mind-independent, and predictable World. A Word and World that rested upon certain metatheoretical assumptions of an inherent social coherence, a means of representation, and a rational objectivity. And each of these assumptions were to be contained in the Language of Adam as was spoken in the Garden of Eden. In the spoken language of Adam, each word had reflected and illuminated directly, immediately, and completely--precisely, accurately, and objectively-- the innermost nature and foundational essence of the thing being represented. In the Garden of Eden, there had been a perfect "goodness of fit" between the word that represented and that which was being represented. There were neither confusions nor ambiguities. The exact correspondence between names and that which they signified spoke directly to the innocence and the simplicity of the relationship between words and the simple, pure, and innocent truth of "essence". The fig leaf of metaphor as a special linguistic device to speak indirectly about essence was not needed until after the eating of the Forbidden Fruit at which time this essentialist language of Adam had been lost in the Garden of Eden. "The Language of Adam" by Fraser (1977) speaks to the rise and the quest of Science of the modern era to regain that language, that power and that status that had been lost in the Garden of Eden.

The episteme of the modern era developed during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries assumed a philosophic premise of rational-objectivism in which the "world" was understood to have an essential, objectively existing and solid state which was traceable and reduceable to an organizing "First Cause". Reality was self-evident and was located in solid matter which was to be the foundational building blocks of Newtonian physics and science. Assumptions of a social coherence and a rational basis by which this world functioned were foundational. It was assumed that this mind-independent world had spontaneously and naturally sorted itself into kinds, categories, causal hierarchies, and discrete spheres. Further, this world operated by rational and natural laws according to intricate, pre-determined, and pre-ordained designs of nature. These predetermined ways by which things "ought to be" were revealed to the objective and impartial observer through the evidences of natural design, function and purpose in nature. Function follows form naturally and rationally. This theory and understanding of social coherence was to be reflected in the doctrine of teleology in which conceptualizations of people and of behavior presumed this natural state and order of things. These foundations of the Enlightenment’s developing view of people and of social life were believed to be as self-evident as were the prevailing notions of reality underlying Newtonian physics and science.

The World could come to be known through the discovery of these universal, unifying and natural laws that existed "out there" in the real world. The authority of Newtonian based science, method, and explanation rested upon the objectivist presuppositions of representation of that knowledge which had been derived from the scientific method. Like Adam in the Garden giving names to all of God’s creatures (Genesis 2:19-20), Man could now identify and give names to naturally occurring phenomena, laws, and concepts by a scientific method and means--an empirical science had replaced the Deity as an enabler. A new World was waiting to be discovered and named. A linearized 1-1 correspondence between the real world, naturally occurring observations, and the concepts that represented them was assumed by this classical epistemology. Language, it was believed, was object-based and simply reflected reality as it really was; the Word represented accurately and precisely this mind-independent World.

Psychoanalysis was born of the interweave of this epistemological premise, this cultural ideology, and this world view prevalent in the latter part of 19th century Germany. An interweave that was to be inseparable from the classical notions of "the perversions". The word "perversion" is a derivation from the Latin word "perversus" meaning "...turned the wrong way", or "... turned away from that which is considered to be right, good, or proper." (Barnhart, C., 1970 ) To the question "Perverse in relation to what?" was to come the reply from classical psychoanalysis : Perverse in relation to "...the accepted adult norm of heterosexual genital intercourse". (Moore, B. & Fine, B., 1990, 142) The teleological conceptualization of sexuality was procreation; the "purpose" of sexual activity was the biological perpetuation of the species. And in psychoanalytic theorizing anatomical differences were conceptually tied to the biological imperatives of reproduction. (Irigaray, 1985) Nonprocreative sexual activities must be perversions of that obvious and naturalized purpose. Classical formulations of "the perversions" were to proceed from the reductive temperament, the essentialist assumptions, and the self-evident notions of the times. Anatomical differences between the sexes were considered to be as self-evident and foundational to the conceptual understanding of "the perversions" as was solid matter considered to be the self-evident building blocks of reality in Newtonian physics. Anatomical differences were to provide the irrefutable criterion of truth. These anatomical differences were self-evident, the denial of which reality was to be central in psychoanalytic thinking about "the perversions"; the presumption of an inherent attraction between the sexes was an assumed foundational essence, departures from which were to be understood as the consequence of disordered development; and the unbridled discharge of component elements of drives which had not developed into the more fully integrated and mature drive leading to the ultimate purpose of coitus for a unifying understanding of "the perversions". Anatomy was destiny. The perversions were conceptualized as being "disorders of discharge" as repressive forces had not been sufficient to convert infantile libidinized fantasies into the neurotic symptomatology of the "disorders of inhibition" (Freud, 1905). Procreation presumed and mandated the fulfillment of a natural biological destiny for the masculine and for the feminine: diversion of expression was to be considered a perversion of normative behavior - and, a diversion from natural law was a per-version thereof.

Rational Objectivity and Natural Causal Hierarchies:
Adam and Eve and the "Rules of Formation"

"In the beginning was the Word..." and the World conceptually created by this Word was to be a cognitive, a symbolic and a reasoned World. And within this larger discursive field of the symbolic-cognitive order is to be found the direct link between the Codes of the Culture and the Codes of Perversion. During the Age of Reason, a rational objectivity was to emerge as hierarchically superior to passions and aesthetics. Mind took precedence over body, thought over feeling, and logic over intuition. A cultural ideology was to develop in which the "rules of formation" for discursive rationality and coherence were to be monologic and based upon a system of objectivist values, logic, and reasoning. Reasoning and logic were to be reified. And Truth and its discovery were to be located with the intellectual sphere--the symbolic-cognitive order. Passions, emotions, and feelings were considered to be sources of interferences and distortions of seeing things as they really were. Within this hermetically sealed-off world of the symbolic order is to be found the Codes of the Culture, the discourse of a rational objectivity, the schemes of perception, and the hierarchy and exchanges of social practices of the culture as regards the subject of woman and the subject of man.

Rational Objectivity, Thinking, and Language: Within this westernized tradition of a rational objectivity, the world and the nature of that world were conceptualized as being inherently and naturally dichotomous. The world had spontaneously and naturally sorted itself into natural pairings of hierarchical dichotomies beginning with the natural, dichotomous and hierarchical pairing of Adam and Eve which had been created, sanctioned and sanctified by the Deity. Direct lineage, authorization, and legitimacy for this natural pairing and hierarchical relationship was traceable to the First Cause. The creation of Adam and Eve in the form of male and female was to naturalize a dichotomous metaphysics as being central and foundational to the "rules of formation" in thinking and speaking about the world and people. And the inherent social coherency by which the world was believed to naturally function instructed us to represent these natural and hierarchical pairings of Adam and Eve precisely and accurately as this hyphenated unit of male and female existed in its natural state. And self-evident anatomical differences were to become paradigmatic for this dichotomous organization and categorization of concepts that ordered and organized the world, e.g., Adam - Eve, male - female, cause - effect, Life - Death, before-after, reality-fantasy, conscious-unconscious and so on.

As with the pairing of Adam and Eve, conceptual definition, meaning, and significance takes place when something is defined in terms of its binary opposite (Cisoux, 1986). That is, in these naturally occurring hierarchies such as- "Adam and Eve", conceptual primacy is given to the first referenced in the pairing. That which is believed to be the dominant, superior, and more fully developed in these so-called natural hierarchies is referenced first with the second being defined and understood by that which the first is not. Thus, Adam was defined in the affirmative and Eve was defined by that which Adam was not....Put another way, in this natural pairing of Adam and Eve, Eve was defined by "the Lack", e.g., Eve, as the inverted version of Adam, was defined affirmatively in terms of the Lack --- which literally becomes an affirmative-negation. These "rules of formation" were to provide for the hierarchy of social preferences, social priorities, and social practices.

In the contextualizing mythology of the Garden of Eden, the Deity first created Adam in his own image from the dust of the ground and put the man whom he had formed in the Garden of Eden (Genesis, 2:8). And, later, Eve was to be created as a consequence of Adam’s Lack - as in his lack of companionship-- and Eve was created to fill this Lack - as in to fill Adam’s loneliness. And, at the same time, Eve’s creation was to be a cause of Adam’s Lack - as in Eve’s creation was to create an anatomical Lack of a rib inside of Adam. Eve in her very creation and existence was to be the living and breathing embodiment of the consequence of Adam’s Lack, the cause of Adam’s Lack, and the solution for Adam’s Lack...all at the same time. With the assistance of the creator, the First Cause, Adam was to give birth to Eve as he slept. And Adam named Eve Woman because she was taken out of Man (Genesis, 2:23) And the idealized images of Male and Female, the parents of humanity, were given human form.... And Adam and Eve were sorted into a natural pair in which natural hierarchy Adam came first and was dominant as was sanctioned and established by the deity---Himself ...Of course, there was something more to the narrative of the Garden of Eden....

Schemes of Perception of Male and Female: Eve was to become responsible for the loss of the "Language of Adam" through her gullibility, her innocence, and her curiosity. Eve was to touch the untouchable and she was to eat the Forbidden Fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis, 3:6). She was to mindlessly fall under the sway of evil passions, appetites and desires of the flesh, the carnal knowledge and the corporal dimensions of the temporal World of the physical. She was to eat the forbidden fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and Wisdom... "In the Beginning was the Word."... "And the Word was made Flesh".... And the parents of humanity were given human form with the image of Adam becoming the unconscious embodiment of the Word and the image of Eve becoming the unconscious embodiment of the Flesh...Adam was to become the living and breathing embodiment of the spiritual and rational---Eve was to become the living and breathing embodiment of the Forbidden Fruit. And with Eve’s earthly appetites and flesh, carnality and corporality was to come the Casting out from the Garden..Into mortality, Death and the decay of the Flesh. The Language of Adam had been scientific, rational, objective, and primary in juxtaposed-hyphenation to the Language of Eve which was the corporal world of the senses, the carnal world of touch, the language of the body, of sensuality, of movement, of textures and blends.... The Language of Eve speaks to the image of woman as flesh, temporality, and earthiness: The idealized image of Woman was to be a Mask of Man --- AND --- the idealized image of Man was to be a mask of Woman.

"And the Word was made Flesh" and the images of Adam and Eve were to be embodied in the Codes of the Culture as living and breathing systems of signification. And, from this perspective, the Codes of Perversion constitute the fundamental Codes of the Culture. As in the narrative of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, the language of the senses and of the body--to gain knowledge through the sense perceptions of people--was to be silenced and repudiated in both Science and the Social Order. To be Found Under Carnal Knowledge in the Garden of Eden was to be found in the shame of one’s nakedness and to be cast out and removed from the Garden.... To be Found Under the Carnal Knowledge of emotion or passion in the scientific method was considered to be contaminating of the objective findings and those contaminated findings were to be declared invalid and to be cast out of the Garden of Truth. To be Found Under Carnal Knowledge in the Dark Ages was considered to be a crime against the Social Order and, if found guilty of the charge, was punishable by Death--to be removed and cast out from the community of the civilized. To this day, the acronym of the charge to be Found Under Carnal Knowledge is, itself, considered to be obscene and is to be not spoken in the community of the civilized:................. F.-U.-C.-K..

"And the Word was made Flesh ..." And carnality was to be divested of its carnality and was to become part of an angelic discourse in religious mythology, in science, and in the social order. In religious mythology, new and idealizing images of Male and Female were to be provided in the narrative of the parents of redemption--Joseph and Mary --through which images of male and female conception and birth could take place without the contaminating earthiness of carnal knowledge through the immaculate conception. In science, Newtonian based method and explanation was entrusted to develop an angelic discourse in which, paradoxically, order was to be imposed on the physical world, its corporeality, and its carnality so that "the symbolic understanding of the carnal" could be accomplished in the abstract. Structuralism was to be emphasized in this more predictable Cartesian-Newtonian World wherein which universal parts, patterns and themes were to be discovered (Fraser, 1977; Capra, 1982). The empiricist’s doctrine and model advanced the notion that the world instructed us as to how to represent it. We but discover that which is already there in its naturally occurring state. We but discover the causal relationships that take place "out there".. An alphabet of human thought comprised of numbers, quantifications, and formulae were to provide for a dictionary of mathematical words and a grammatical context by which a linearized and deterministic reading of the World’s text could take place. Nomothetic laws could be established for the world of nature, of people, and of life. (Slife, 1994; Capra, 1982) Science was to become the Ultimate Knower and Signifier of meaning. This quest to quantify and objectify the world, people, and life was to eventually lead to an empiricism of "the soul".

The various formulations of antitheses such as Male-Female are to be found within the symbolic angelic discourse of the Codes of the Culture. Embodied within these Codes of the Culture are to be found the very Codes of Perversion that play out in everday life in the idealized images and seemingly naturalized faces of the subject of woman and of man found in the language of hierarchical binary opposition, the schemes of perception of Male and Female, and the hierarchy of social practices and values-. In the schemes of perception and the hierarchy of social practices of "everyday life", individuals find in their object relationships an "other" who embodies, behaviorally enacts, and in some way is experienced as becoming the external concretization of an internal "other"; an object relationship unconsciously selected, organized, and experienced so as to conform with certain ingrained images of "self" and of "other"; and, to confirm certain ingrained images of "self" and of "other". From this perspective, everyday life is understood as an instance of a theatrical performance of culturally prescribed roles and socialized expectations as to that which constitutes "appropriateness" in one’s behaviors, thinking, and conduct. Indeed, from this perspective, all of life is considered to be but a stage upon which each individual plays their part engaged in their own very personal, ongoing and continuous performance. As part of the enculturational process, it is necessary for one’s internal experiencing definition of "self" as female, for example, to have and to maintain the antithesis of "other" as male in one’s mind. Identity of "self" is based upon the unconscious embodiment of these polarities in order to maintain that fictive sense of identity of "self". Both "Self" and "Other", Male and Female, are internal and are aspects of "self", certain aspects of which are experienced as "other". This sensory embodiment of an internal "other" in everyday life can provide, at least partially, certain longed for and desired gratifications through a reciprocal living out of certain "roles of complimentarity" through behavioral enactments between people. The hyphenated antitheses between male-female speaks to the interaction of "self" with "other" in these roles of complimentarity. The antitheses is mutually reinforcing and provides for discursive formations between these polarities of Self-Other at every level of the culture. For example, these anti-theses are inclusive of sexual orientation (heterosexual-homosexual), social class (upper-lower) race (white- b "lack") and religion (Christian-non Christian, Jewish-non Jewish, Muslim-non Muslim............ ).

These fundamental codes of the culture provide the discursive basis for the social reality in which the most dominant and sacrosanct of all binary oppositions is that between the male and female subjects in which the female is defined as that which the male is not. As noted by Silverman (1983, p 270), the antitheses are central to the organization of the cultural order to which they belong. And the cultural code is entrusted with the maintenance of that order’s dominant binary oppositions and provides the means necessary to perpetuate that order through its literature, history, cinema, and so on. Inscribed within which social order Woman was to be a symptom of Man and, at the same time, Man was to be a symptom of Woman....

"In the beginning was the Word ... And the Word was made Flesh..." and the Word was Phallus. And, in the hierarchy of social practices, Phallus has little, if anything, to do with gender or gender role. From this perspective, the symbolic field always exceeds biological differences and is not organized around the orthodoxy that proceeds from anatomical differences. Phallus does not equate with penis. And Lack of penis does not mean lack of phallus. The Phallus is signifier; the Lack is signified. Certainly, Phallus includes access to privilege, prerogative, and power as derived from position and positioning in the culture’s matrix of meaning.... And Phallus is power in its signification as to how the other "ought to be"…a system of signification in which the privileged signifying the idealized "ought to be" because they speak authoritatively in the Name of the Father and, in so doing, are possessed, at least partially, of the phallus located in this position within society’s "matrix of meaning". Other as Phallus is constituted by the Codes of the Culture, the "rules of formation" in the interweave of the Law, Science, History, Theory, literature and the underlying ideology of the culture. And Phallus is that means by which reality is conjured from illusion and ineffable chaos by the use of these systems of signs and signification as are contained within and provided by the Codes of the Culture (Sebeock, 1991). Thus, Phallus, from this perspective, is considered to be neither structure nor institution, nor product --- Phallus is considered to be a complex semiotic process of signification and enculturation. Phallus is defined through female Lack and is inseperable from the metatheoretical assumptions of rational objectivity, social coherence, , and representation......As such, Phallus is inseparable from Nietzsche’s understanding of the "will to power" over others (1967) ... And Phallus as Other casts its signifying and contextualizing gaze over every aspect of life in society.

"Other As Phallus:
Self as Per (the) Version of the Other"........

From this perspective..... the theoretical construct of "perversion" is understood to be any extreme, fixed and exclusive conceptualization as to how others "ought to be" in their being, their thinking, their experiencing, and their presencing presented as being a claim to truth by Other as Phallus. And around which Self is to be organized per (the) version of Other. Thus, the title of this paper. "Other" as Phallus": "Self I as Per (the) Version of Other. Other as Phallus speaks to the cultural codes and rules of discursive formation as have been embodied in Society in the form of its history, law, literature, theatre, poetry, and customs, And "Self" as per-the version of Other speaks to this inseparable and hyphenated unity of the antithesis ... the hyphenation signifies the roles of complimentarity that mutually define, mutually reinforce, and mutually perpetuate the so called "natural order of things" in the language of binary opposition, in the schemes of perception of male and female, and in the hierarchy of social practices, in everyday life---Therein lies, from this perspective how it could be that the very Codes of the Culture themselves constitute the Codes of Perversion in relationships in everyday life --- and, at every level of the culture.

Consistent with the overarching metanarrative of the Enlightenment, certain mythologies of the modern era regarding the subject of Woman and the subject of Man have proceeded from the belief that there is a "foundational essence" of that which constitutes the masculine and the feminine. And, further, that this essence is universal and exists independently of each person’s perception.. As in the narrative of the Garden of Eden, the "rules of formation" of the modern era have proceeded from the belief that there is a Mask covering this essence of Female and of Male. And beneath this Mask, is to be revealed and celebrated this universal, unifying and natural essence of the Feminine and the Masculine. The fig leaf of metaphor can be removed and the angelic discourse of the Language of Adam can once again be spoken by all --- directly, precisely, and objectively without ambiguities, misundertandings or confusions. To return to the Language of Adam that existed before Eve had touched the untouchable and had eaten of the Tree of Wisdom and Knowledge speaks to the desire to return to the innermost nature and foundational essence of the Masculine and the Feminine. However, the assumption of a "foundational esssence" as to how the Self of the Female and of the Male "ought to be" is to assert the truth of "otherness" of these images of Woman and of Man from the privileged position of "Other as Phallus" with the promise of social parity, power, and legitimacy for all who might remove the Mask --- with that which constitutes the Mask and the Masquerade signified by "Other as Phallus". Further, to assert the truth of "otherness" speaks to the advancement of new and idealized images of Man and Woman --- as if a "more naturalized" essence had been discovered and around which images of "Self" are to be organized "per (the) version of Other"….Who is it that speaks.. in defining the essence of Man? ….in defining the essence of Woman? ….in defining the essence of Child? …..From what position, location or place in the culture’s "matrix of meaning" does one speak? From what philosophic discourse? ...from what theoretical discourse? Is authorization for speaking granted by virtue of the Phallus?... by virtue of anatomy? Does one speak "empirically", objectively, "logically and rationally" as if speaking outside of a philosophic discourse? Does not the very conceptualization of Woman-Man or Man-Woman imprison subsequent debate, discourse and "discovery" within binary categorical oppositions, binary logic, values and system of beliefs?

Dr. Kavanaugh received his doctorate in philosophy (psychology) from the University of Windsor in Ontario, Canada.  Since the completion of his doctoral studies, he has been active in the academic, organizational, and practice areas of the psychoanalytic-psychological community.  In the academic area, he has served as Director of Clinical Training and member of the core teaching and supervisory faculty in the doctoral program in psychoanalytic psychology at the University of Detroit; as a member of the teaching and supervisory faculty in the Program for Advanced Studies in Psychoanalysis in Wyandotte, Michigan, an interdisciplinary program for the study of the analytic discourse; and, as a member of the teaching and supervisory faculty in the pre-and post doctoral educational programs at the Detroit Psychiatric Institute, the Wyandotte General Hospital, and the V.A. Medical Center in Detroit.  In the organizational area, he is the founding and current president of the Academy for the Study of the Psychoanalytic Arts; past president of the International Federation for Psychoanalytic Education; the Michigan Psychological Association, and the Michigan Society of Clinical Psychologists.  In the practice area, many of his professional interests during the past 35 years are directly related to experiences in the discourses of various residential treatment facilities.

Dr. Kavanaugh is a recipient of The Distinguished Psychologist Award  from the Michigan Psychological Association and the Master Lecturer Award from the doctoral students at the University of Detroit.

Currently Dr. Kavanaugh is in the private practice of psychoanalysis in Farmington Hills, Michigan:

Office:     31805 Middlebelt, Suite #305
               Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA  48334
               Phone: (248) 626-6460
               Fax:      (248) 626-4808