Changes

[[Castration]] is referred to throughout the [[work ]] of [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]]. Although it undergoes certain referential changes, [[castration]] retains its [[place ]] as a necessary element in the [[structuring]] of [[sexuality]] for the [[speaking]] [[being]].

In all of his discussions on [[sexuality]], [[Freud]] emphasizes [[castration]]. What [[Freud]] learned from his [[clinical]] [[practice]] is that [[sexuality]] always involves a [[dimension ]] of the [[impossibility]] of reaching [[total]] [[satisfaction]]. In [[order ]] to achieve some [[satisfaction]] it is necessary to [[renounce]] [[total]] [[satisfaction]] and this [[renunciation]] is one of the references to [[castration]], where [[castration]] is a condition for [[satisfaction]].

[[Freud]] first used the term [[castration complex]] in 1908 in reference to an [[infantile ]] [[theory ]] of [[sexuality]] adopted by [[children]] to explain the [[difference between the sexes]].<ref>[[Sigmund, Freud]]. 1951.</ref> [[Freud]] emphasizes the [[phallocentrism]] of [[children]], who, assuming the possession of a [[penis]] in all [[living]] [[creatures]], attribute the [[lack]] of it to a [[castration]]. This very [[attribution ]] of a [[lack]] is the result of a [[fantasy]] of a [[castration]] in relation to which the [[boy]] will [[experience ]] [[castration anxiety]] and which will contribute to an experience of disillusionment in the [[girl]].

Freud's argument in the [[case ]] of the boy is that his [[wish ]] to take his mother as his [[sexual ]] partner is given up due to the [[threat ]] from the father that he will lose his penis - that [[instrument ]] of [[erotic ]] sensations — if he carries out his wishes. The [[narcissistic ]] investment in the penis leads the boy to a renunciation of the mother as his sexual partner, and to wait for a [[time ]] when he can take [[another ]] [[woman ]] as his partner.

The actual effect of castration takes place for the boy following the [[perception ]] of the [[female ]] genitals and the acknowledgement that the [[organ ]] in which he has invested such [[value]], and which is so essential to his [[self]]-[[image]], is not [[present ]] on the [[body ]] of the girl. At this structuring [[moment ]] the boy remembers the [[threats ]] made concerning his masturbatory habits which at an earlier moment had little effect.

This deferred [[action ]] now comes into effect with the [[fear ]] of castration, a powerful influence in all his subsequent [[development]]. Interestingly, the effects of castration can be experienced without it being carried out and expressly formulated. This indicates the [[Freudian ]] [[thesis ]] of the structuring function of the Oedipus complex.

The girl's castration complex is also started by the [[sight ]] of the boy's [[genital]]. She notices the [[significance ]] placed on it and resulting from this perception is a [[feeling ]] of having been wronged. The subsequent '[[envy ]] for the penis' leaves a permanent trace on the girl's [[psyche]], persisting in the [[unconscious]]. Freud argues that in the case of [[women ]] the castration complex does not work so well. There is something problematic in woman's relation to castration and to the [[Oedipal law]], due to the girl only partially being able to resolve her Oedipus complex. This is because she is not as vulnerable to the threat of losing a penis that she does not have. The girl's vulnerability shows itself in an [[anxiety ]] related to the [[loss ]] of [[love]].

The castration complex is central for Freud. He argues that it is the necessary [[structural ]] foundation from which a [[subject ]] can take part in the [[world ]] of sexual desire. It is only from a [[position ]] of renunciation of the incestuous [[object ]] that it is possible to go out into the world and seek a partner other than the incestuous one. The prohibition of the primordial object, the mother or whomever comes to her place, produces a lack which will orient a subject to look elsewhere. In this way desire is inaugurated.

The castration threat and the Oedipal law, which articulates a prohibition and a prescription, both give an orientation to the child. Without it, the child is stuck within a world of incestuous [[objects ]] and a constant fear of actual loss.

In 1923 Freud (1951) introduced the primacy of the phallus. Although the boy and the girl initially share the same object — the mother and a '[[masculine]]' or [[phallic ]] sexuality — Freud argues an asymmetry between the [[sexes]]. The castration complex and the Oedipus complex work differently for the boy and the girl. The Oedipus complex in the boy illustrates the separating function of the [[law of the father ]] and its conversion in the [[super-ego]].

The function of the castration complex is to end the boy's Oedipus complex. For the girl, the castration complex inaugurates her into an Oedipus complex which will succumb to repression. She will transfer her love to the one who seems to have the phallus, the father or [[substitute]]. The girl will desire to have the phallus in the [[form ]] of a [[baby ]] along the lines of [[the symbolic ]] equation that will make the phallus equal a baby.

In 1933 Freud elaborated [[three ]] possible outcomes of the castration complex for women. The first is a total [[repudiation ]] of sexuality, the second is the adopting of a masculine position and the repudiation of [[penis envy ]] and the [[third ]] solution is that of [[motherhood ]] as a [[treatment ]] of penis envy through the symbolic equation of penis equals child.

The asymmetrical situations of the boy and the girl were what Freud (1951) returned to when he wrote in 1937 of the limits of an [[analytic ]] treatment. The man will forever fear castration and the woman will forever endure envy of the penis, the castration complex contributing to a basic [[rejection ]] of [[femininity ]] for both sexes.

As Freud increasingly placed the castration complex at the centre of his [[theoretical ]] and clinical writings, there developed [[resistance ]] in the analytic world, particularly in the debates of the 1920s and 1930s on [[female sexuality]]. For a [[number ]] of [[analysts ]] the castration complex did not have the major structuring [[role ]] in the [[construction ]] of sexual [[difference ]] and they turned rather to [[biological ]] and [[developmental ]] theorization.

Freud's very last paper in 1938 referred to the castration complex and its effects on the very construction of the subject. It illustrates clinically that the ego, in a moment of [[encounter ]] with the threat of a loss, undergoes a [[split ]] which is insistently maintained. As a reaction to the castration complex a [[fetish ]] is constructed, confirming that the object is lost and the subject is split (1951).

Early on in his writings, in the 1930s, Lacan viewed castration as a fantasy of the mutilation of the penis, linking it with a series of [[fantasies ]] of [[bodily ]] mutilations which begin with the image of the [[fragmented body]].

It is in the 1950s that the function of castration is discussed in reference to the [[Name]]-of-the-Father and the paternal law which forbids the mother and the child the satisfaction of being the sole desire of each other. The paternal law installs the phallus as [[signifier ]] of a lack which refers mother and child to the dimension of the symbolic. The mother does not have the phallus and therefore desires it elsewhere. Thus castration orients the child and the mother beyond each other.

In his [[seminar ]] of 1956-57, Lacan (1994) delineates the difference between privation, frustration and castration in relation to the symbolic, imaginary and real. Lacan emphasizes that it is not possible to articulate anything [[about ]] castration without this [[distinction]]. He claims that it is the confusion of castration with privation and frustration that has led a number of [[psychoanalysts ]] to founder in their theoretical and clinical orientation. He singles out Ernest [[Jones ]] who substitutes for castration his [[concept ]] of [[aphanisis]], [[disappearance ]] of [[desire, ]] as an example of an [[analyst ]] unable to surmount the difficulties of managing the castration complex.

Freud insists that in the world of objects the function of the phallus is decisive. Here Lacan will use the term [[imaginary phallus ]] which is not to be confounded with the real penis. The lack referred to in woman is not, after all, a real lack. In the Freudian thesis the woman counts the phallus among her [[lacking ]] objects and this brings her child into an exact connection with her relation to the phallus, because a child can come to stand in for and calm her longing for the phallus.

1. In frustration the lack is imaginary and the [[subjective ]] experience is that of a damage most typically attributed to the time of [[weaning ]] and loss of the breast. While the lack is imaginary, the object, such as the breast, is real. Lacan is not referring here to any actual experience. The [[agent ]] of the frustration is the mother, at the level of the symbolic.

2. Privation refers to a real lack due to the loss of a symbolic object, the phallus as signifier. It especially refers to the fact that the woman does not have a penis and the assumption of this fact is a constant in nearly all of the accounts of Freud's cases. The [[notion ]] of privation implies the [[symbolization ]] of the object in [[the Real]], because in the Real [[nothing ]] is [[missing]]. The [[absence ]] of something in the Real can only be purely symbolic. To indicate that something is not there, requires a supposition that it is possible for it to be present. This introduces the elementary [[symbolic order ]] into the Real. The agent of privation is [[the imaginary ]] father.

3. Castration is the symbolic lack of an imaginary object. It is essentially tied to the symbolic order and to the central position given by the Oedipus complex. It refers to the symbolic debt in the [[register ]] of the law. The [[clinic ]] provides evidence that castration refers to the loss of the phallus as imaginary object. The agent of castration is the real father.

{| class="wikitable" width="100%" cellpadding="2" align="[[left]]" bgcolor="ffffff" style="background:#ffffff;width:100%; height:200px; text-align:center; line-height:2.0em;"

In 1958, Lacan refers to the unconscious castration complex as having the function of a knot in the structuring of [[symptoms ]] and as 'the regulator of development' through 'installing in the subject an unconscious position without which he would be unable to [[identify ]] with the [[ideal ]] type of his sex, or to respond without grave risk to the [[needs ]] of his partner in the sexual relation, or even to receive adequately the needs of the child thus procreated' (Écrits,

However, from 1958 Lacan diverges from Freud and views castration as a function of the order of the signifier in its connection with the cultural law that imposes the sacrifice of ''jouissance'', rather than as a purely [[psychical ]] phenomenon referring to fantasy or fear. Here, castration refers to the [[universal ]] effect of [[language]], which by [[necessity ]] requires a giving up of ''jouissance''. This is due to the [[human ]] being having to use the signifier in [[speech ]] which can never match the [[thing ]] exactly, thus necessitating a loss of the [[complete ]] ''jouissance'' of the Other. This is the operation of symbolic castration. Language separates the subject from the immediate ''jouissance'' of the body of the Other.

Although we can say that Lacan diverges from Freud, and that he considers that Freud fails to make a distinction between imaginary and symbolic castration, he in fact never loses the reference to the relation of castration to the phallus. The sexuality of desire and ''jouissance'', which is both [[cause ]] and consequence of the Oedipus complex and the paternal [[metaphor]], is the [[relationship ]] between the phallus and castration, where the phallus is the signifier of castration, in the very act of saying 'no' and by virtue of the fact that the phallus can be used as a reference for the [[subject's desire ]] following the structuring operation of symbolic castration.

It is in 1975 that Lacan (1998) breaks from the Oedipus complex as [[myth ]] and develops a logification of [[sexual difference ]] based on the different relationship of man and woman to the signifier. Here the [[phallic function ]] refers to a castration brought about by the use of [[signifiers]].

Where for Freud, the castrated one is the woman, for Lacan it is the man who is castrated, in so far as he is completely subjected to the signifier which says 'no' to complete satisfaction. The boy is totally subjected to the law and thus to symbolic castration. It is only at the imaginary level that he appears not to be castrated in his possession of a penis. The only exception to this rule that all men are castrated is that of the father of the [[primal ]] [[horde]]. In its connection with the incest [[taboo]], the effect of castration is to [[divide ]] women into those who are accessible and those who are not.

The only one who has not succumbed to castration is Freud's [[mythical ]] [[primal horde ]] father who considers himself as being able to have access to all women including those to whom he is related. This uncastrated exception confirms the rule of castration following the [[logic ]] that every rule requires at least one exception.

It is the woman who is [[not-all]]-castrated in that not all of her is subject to the phallic law. This not-all-castrated leaves the way open for a supplementary form of jouissance, [[feminine ]] jouissance, which may be experienced in addition to the phallic form of jouissance. Lacan's argument is that although there is no woman who is not subject to the phallic law, and thus castrated, not all of her is subjected to it.

In his 1937 paper, Freud (1951) discusses the bedrock of castration around which the analytic work so often founders. The [[neurotic ]] protests against castration, the sacrifice to be made, retaining the [[demand ]] for the phallus, the major focus of the [[whole ]] imaginary play in the [[analysis ]] of a subject. For a woman, penis envy and the demand to the analyst to compensate for her lack is ever present. For a man, the difficulty in subjecting himself to another man remains a constant concern in [[terms ]] of his castration anxiety.

Lacan follows Freud in pointing to the rejection of castration as the fundamental problem at stake in all the psychopathological [[structures]].

In [[neurosis]], where the [[mechanism ]] of [[defence]] is [[repression]], ''[[Verdrangung]]'', [[awareness ]] of castration and the [[lack]] in the [[Other]] is

:What the neurotic does not [[want]], and what he strenuously refuses to do [[right ]] up until the end of his analysis, is to sacrifice his castration to the [[Other]]'s ''[[jouissance]]'', allowing it to serve the Other. (''[[Écrits]]'', p. 323)

It is beneath his or her ego that the neurotic covers the castration that he or she denies yet clings to. The [[structure ]] of fantasy, $()a, contains within it the imaginary function of castration. This hidden function has an effect on one or other of the terms of the unconscious fantasy, for the [[hysteric]], the object, and for the [[obsessional]], the subject.

Instead of [[seeing ]] the [[lack in the Other ]] and correlatively in him or herself, a [[recognition ]] that is part and parcel of symbolic castration, the hysteric maintains desire only in the form of lack of satisfaction and eludes him- or herself as object. The obsessional denies the desire in the Other and emphasizes the impossibility of him- or herself disappearing as subject. In both cases there is an incomplete symbolic castration with castration being attributed to the [[demands ]] from the Other for his or her castration rather than what is essentially required from a [[speaking being]].

In the structure of [[perversion]], [[disavowal ]] (''[[Verleugnung]]'') is the form of defence which passes through castration and disavows it. The prototype of perversion is the [[fetishist ]] who uses the fetish object as a substitute for the penis of the mother. Freud, in his article of 1927, illustrated how the [[perverse ]] subject both recognizes the lack in the mother and disavows it via the construction and use of the fetish (1951).

In the structure of [[psychosis]], castration is [[foreclosed ]] and lack is neither accepted nor borne. Freud called it [[Verwerfung]], repudiation. The place of lack is lacking and castration returns in the real as happens, for [[instance]], in the case of [[hallucination]].

Lacan tried to theorize beyond the bedrock of castration with his [[ideas ]] on the [[end of analysis]]. With his notion of the crossing of the [[fundamental fantasy]], the [[analysand ]] has the possibility of separating from [[object a ]] and encountering the point where the fantasy becomes the [[drive]], a point of recognizing his or her own castration.