Difference between revisions of "Masculinity"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
/ MASCULINE/FEMININE (see also EXCEPTION NOT-ALL)
 +
The Lacanian 'formulae of sexuation" make up              a crucial part of
 +
Žižek's thinking: one way of characterizing the overall trajectory of his
 +
work is as a movement from a masculine logic of the universal and
 +
its exception towards a feminine logic of a not-all' without excep-
 +
tion. However, Žižek does not simply oppose the masculine and the
 +
feminine, but rather argues that the masculine is a certain effect of
 +
the feminine: 'Man is a renexive determination of woman's impossi-
 +
bility of achieving an identity with herself (which is why woman is a
 +
symptom of man)' (p.276). That is, everything in Žižek can ultimately
 +
be understood in terms of these two formulae. As Žižek asks: 'What if
 +
  sexual difference is ultimately a kind of zero-institution of the social
 +
split of humankind, the naturalized, minimal zero-difference, a split
 +
that. prior to signalling any determinate social difference, signals
 +
this difference as such? The struggle for hegemony would then, once
 +
again, be the struggle for how this zero-difference is overdetermined by
 +
other particular social differences." (p. 338) But. in fact, are these two
 +
positions consistent? On the        one hand, Žižek argues that        man is
 +
 +
 +
explained by woman: on the other, that the split between the two sexes
 +
is irreconcilable, like the two different conceptions of the same village
 +
in Lévi-Strauss.
 +
  
  
 
[[Category:Sexuality]]
 
[[Category:Sexuality]]
 
[[Category:Blank]]
 
[[Category:Blank]]

Revision as of 05:56, 15 May 2006

/ MASCULINE/FEMININE (see also EXCEPTION NOT-ALL) The Lacanian 'formulae of sexuation" make up a crucial part of Žižek's thinking: one way of characterizing the overall trajectory of his work is as a movement from a masculine logic of the universal and its exception towards a feminine logic of a not-all' without excep- tion. However, Žižek does not simply oppose the masculine and the feminine, but rather argues that the masculine is a certain effect of the feminine: 'Man is a renexive determination of woman's impossi- bility of achieving an identity with herself (which is why woman is a symptom of man)' (p.276). That is, everything in Žižek can ultimately be understood in terms of these two formulae. As Žižek asks: 'What if

  sexual difference is ultimately a kind of zero-institution of the social

split of humankind, the naturalized, minimal zero-difference, a split that. prior to signalling any determinate social difference, signals this difference as such? The struggle for hegemony would then, once again, be the struggle for how this zero-difference is overdetermined by other particular social differences." (p. 338) But. in fact, are these two positions consistent? On the one hand, Žižek argues that man is


explained by woman: on the other, that the split between the two sexes is irreconcilable, like the two different conceptions of the same village in Lévi-Strauss.