Changes

fetishism (fÈtichisme) The term 'fetish' first came into widespread usein the eighteenth century in context of the study of 'primitive religions', in which it denoted an inanimate object of worship. (an etymology which Lacan believes is important; S8, 169). In the nineteenth century, Marx borrowed the term to describe the way that, in capitalist societies, social relations assume the illusory form of relations between things ('commodity fetishism'). It was Krafft-Ebing who, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, first applied the term to sexual behaviour. He defined fetishism as a sexual PERVERSION in which sexual excitement is absolutely dependent on the presence of a specific object (the fetish). It is this defmition that Freud and most other writers on sexuality have adopted since. The fetish is usually an inanimate object such as a shoe or piece of underwear.Freud argued that fetishism (seen as an almost exclusively male perversion) originates in the child's horror of female castration. Confronted with the mother's lack of a penis, the fetishist disavows this lack and finds an object (the fetish) as a symbolic substitute for the mother's missing penis (Freud, 1927e).

In Lacan's first approach to the subject of fetishism, in 1956, he argues that fetishism is a particularly important area of study and bemoans its neglect by his contemporaries. He stresses that the equivalence between the fetish and the eighteenth century maternal PHALLUs can only be understood by reference to linguistic transformations, and not by reference to 'vague analogies in context the visual field' such as comparisons between fur and pubic hair (Lacan, 1956b: 267). He cites Freud's analysis of the study of phrase 'primitive religionsGlanz auf der Nase'as support for his argument (see Freud, in1927e).

which In the following years, as Lacan develops his distinction between the penis and phallus, he emphasises that the fetish is a substitute for the latter, not the former. Lacan also extends the mechanism of DISAVOWAL, making it denoted an inanimate object the operation constitutive of perversion itself, and not just of worshipthe fetishistic perversion. However, he retains Freud's view that fetishism is an exclusively male perversion (an etymology which LacanEc, 734), or at least extremely rare among women (S4, 154).

believes is In the seminar of 1956-7, Lacan elaborates an importantdistinction between the fetish object and the phobic object; S8whereas the fetish is a symbolic substitute for the mother's missing phallus, 169the phobic object is an imaginary substitute for symbolic castration (see PHOBIA). In Like all perversions, fetishism is rooted in the nineteenth centurypreoedipal triangle of mother-child-phallus (S4, Marx borrowed the84-5, 194).

term to describe However, it is unique in that it involves both identification with mother and with the way thatimaginary phallus; indeed, in capitalist societiesfetishism, social relations assume thesubject oscillates between these two identifications (S4, 86, 160).

illusory form of relations between things ('commodity fetishism'). It was Krafft-Ebing who, in the last decade of the nineteenth century, first applied the term to sexual behaviour. He defined fetishism as a sexual PERVERSION in which sexual excitement is absolutely dependent on the presence of a specific object (the fetish). It is this defmition that Freud and most other writers on sexuality have adopted since. The fetish is usually an inanimate object such as  a shoe or piece of underwear.  Freud argued that fetishism (seen as an almost exclusively male perversion) originates in the child's horror of female castration. Confronted with the      mother's lack of a penis, the fetishist disavows this lack and finds an object  (the fetish) as a symbolic substitute for the mother's missing penis (Freud,  1927e).  In Lacan's first approach to the subject of fetishism, in 1956, he argues that  fetishism is a particularly important area of study and bemoans its neglect by  his contemporaries. He stresses that the equivalence between the fetish and the  maternal PHALLUs can only be understood by reference to linguistic transforma-  tions, and not by reference to 'vague analogies in the visual field' such as comparisons between fur and pubic hair (Lacan, 1956b: 267). He cites Freud's analysis of the phrase 'Glanz auf der Nase' as support for his argument (see  Freud, 1927e).  In the following years, as Lacan develops his distinction between the penis  and phallus, he emphasises that the fetish is a substitute for the latter, not the  former. Lacan also extends the mechanism of DISAVOWAL, making it the operation constitutive of perversion itself, and not just of the fetishistic perversion. However, he retains Freud's view that fetishism is an exclusively  male perversion (Ec, 734), or at least extremely rare among women (S4, 154).  In the seminar of 1956-7, Lacan elaborates an important distinction between  the fetish object and the phobic object; whereas the fetish is a symbolic  substitute for the mother's missing phallus, the phobic object is an imaginary  substitute for symbolic castration (see PHOBIA). Like all perversions, fetishism  is rooted in the preoedipal triangle of mother-child-phallus (S4, 84-5, 194).  However, it is unique in that it involves both identification with mother and  with the imaginary phallus; indeed, in fetishism, the subject oscillates between  these two identifications (S4, 86, 160).  Lacan's statement, in 1958, that the penis 'takes on the value of a fetish' for  heterosexual women raises a number of interesting questions (E, 290). Firstly,  it reverses Freud's views on fetishism; rather than the fetish being a symbolic  substitute for the real penis, the real penis may itself become a fetish by substituting the woman's absent symbolic phallus. Secondly, it undermines  the claims (made by both Freud and Lacan) that fetishism is extremely rare  among women; if the penis can be considered a fetish, then fetishism is clearly  far more prevalent among women than among men.