Talk:There is no sexual relation

From No Subject
Jump to navigation Jump to search

There Is No Sexual Relation

“There is no sexual relation” (French: Il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel) is a foundational thesis in the later work of Jacques Lacan, articulated most explicitly in The Seminar, Book XX: Encore (1972–1973). The formula expresses a structural impossibility within language and subjectivity: there exists no natural, reciprocal, or symbolically formulable relation between the sexes that could be inscribed in the symbolic order.[1]

Contrary to literal interpretations, Lacan’s claim does not deny the existence of sexual encounters, romantic attachment, or intimacy. Instead, it asserts that no linguistic or symbolic structure can adequately or universally express sexual difference. The impossibility of “writing” the sexual relation is central to Lacan’s theories of sexuation, jouissance, fantasy, and desire.

Origins and Theoretical Context

The idea emerges in response to Freud’s recognition that human sexuality is not biologically predetermined, but is instead mediated by the unconscious, fantasy, and partial objects.[2] Lacan formalizes and radicalizes this insight: the failure of complementarity between the sexes is not a social or developmental failure, but a structural feature of subjectivity shaped by language.

Lacan first introduced the formula Il n’y a pas de rapport sexuel in the late 1960s and developed it fully in Encore.[1]

Meaning of the Formula

Lacan’s statement draws on formal logic. In mathematics, a relation is a function connecting two terms in a symmetrical or reciprocal structure. Lacan argues that no such symbolic function exists for the relation between the sexes. There is no signifier within the symbolic order that can establish a reciprocal, symmetrical, or complementary relation between masculine and feminine positions.[3]

This does not imply that sexual acts or emotional bonds do not occur. Rather, such experiences are supported by fantasy, desire, and identification, not by a fully articulable symbolic rapport.

Language, Lack, and Sexual Difference

The impossibility of the sexual relation is rooted in Lacan’s theory of the symbolic order, the domain of language, law, and signification. Sexual identity is not biological but symbolically constructed and marked by its relation to lack. No signifier of sexual difference exists that can represent or mediate the relation between the sexes.

The phallic signifier, central to Lacanian theory, signifies not fullness but castration and division. It functions not as a unifying term, but as a marker of asymmetry and non-complementarity.[1]

Formulas of Sexuation

In Encore, Lacan introduces the formulas of sexuation to formalize the logical distinction between masculine and feminine positions in relation to the phallic function:

  • On the masculine side, all are subject to the phallic function, except one—the exceptional figure that grounds the logic of universality.
  • On the feminine side, not-all (pas-tout) are subject to the phallic function. This not-all structure allows for a form of jouissance beyond the phallus.

These formulas reveal an irreducible asymmetry between the sexes: no universal function can relate them, hence the non-existence of a sexual relation.[1]

Love, Fantasy, and Substitutes for the Relation

Despite the impossibility of the sexual relation, subjects strive to compensate for this lack through love, fantasy, and symptom formation. Lacan famously remarked, “Love is giving what one does not have to someone who does not want it,”[1] illustrating how love attempts to bridge the structural gap through symbolic donation.

Fantasy provides a personal, imaginary scenario that stages a semblance of relation, enabling desire to function. However, fantasy also conceals the fundamental absence of a symbolic rapport between the sexes.

Feminine Jouissance and the "Not-All"

Lacan’s concept of the feminine position introduces the possibility of a distinct mode of enjoyment: Other jouissance (jouissance de l’Autre). This form of jouissance:

  • Is not wholly regulated by the phallic function
  • Is non-symbolizable and exceeds the pleasure principle
  • Is often associated with mystical experience

The logic of the not-all expresses that the feminine is not entirely captured by phallic discourse, reinforcing the idea that sexual positions are incommensurable.[1]

Clinical and Ethical Implications

Clinically, the formula has significant consequences. It redirects psychoanalytic work from seeking harmony in relations toward analyzing the subject’s relation to desire, fantasy, and lack.

In analytic treatment:

  • Symptoms often attempt to “write” the sexual relation where it cannot be written
  • The aim is not to restore a lost harmony, but to help the subject traverse fantasy and assume a new relation to desire and enjoyment
  • The impossibility of the sexual relation opens the space for an ethics of desire, grounded in the subject’s singular position rather than relational completeness[1]

Misinterpretations

Lacan’s formula is frequently misread as pessimistic or nihilistic. Lacan rejected such views, insisting that the non-existence of the sexual relation is what makes love, desire, and creative subjectivity possible. It is not a denial of sexuality, but a diagnosis of its structural condition.[1]

See Also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar, Book XX: Encore (1972–1973). Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
  2. ↑ Freud, Sigmund. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905). In: The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Vol. VII. Trans. James Strachey. London: Hogarth Press, 1953.
  3. ↑ Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 1996, s.v. “sexual relation.”
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Talk:There_is_no_sexual_relation&oldid=61707"