Difference between revisions of "Sexual Difference"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
  
 +
The phrase "[[sexual difference]]", which has come into prominence in the debate between [[psychoanalysis]] and [[feminism]], is not part of [[Freud]]'s or [[Lacan]]'s theoretical vocabulary.
  
[[Sexual difference]] refers to [[recognition]] by the [[child]] of the difference of the [[sex]]es.  
+
[[Freud]] speaks only of the anatomical ''distinction'' between the sexes and its psychical consequences.<ref>Freud. 1925d.</ref>
  
This refers to the way in which both [[sex]]es [[recognize]] and differentiate themselves (in the [[unconscious]]).
+
[[Lacan]] speaks of sexual ''position'' and the sexual ''relationship'', and occasionally of the ''differentiation'' of the sexes.<ref>{{S4}} p.154</ref>
  
This recognition is related to the [[Oedipus complex]] and the [[castration complex]].
+
However, both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]] address the question of [[sexual difference]], and an entry has been included for this temr because it brings together an import set of related themes in [[Lacan]]'s work, and because it constitutes an important focus for feminist approaches to [[Lacan]]'s work.
  
[[Sexual difference]] refers to the way in which the [[subject]] relates to its own anatomical [[sex]] and position itself as [[man]] or [[woman]].
+
--
  
([[Sexual difference]] introduces important questions in [[psychoanalysis]], as important as the problematic of [[identification]]/[[identity]].)
+
One of the basic presuppositions underlying [[Freud]]'s work is that just as there are certain physical differences between men and women, so also there are psychical differences.
  
==Castration complex==
+
In other words, there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called 'masculine' and others that can be called 'feminine.'
The [[child]] comes to recognize [[sexual difference]] through the [[castration complex]].
 
  
For both Freud and Lacan, the child is at first ignorant of sexual difference and so cannot take up a sexual position.  
+
Rather than trying to give any formal definition of these terms, Freud limits himself to describing how a human subject comes to acquire masculine or feminine psychical characteristics.
  
It is only when the child discovers sexual difference in the [[castration complex]] that he can begin to take up a sexual position.  
+
This is not an instinctual or natural process, but a complex one in which anatomical differences interact with social and psychical factors.
  
Both Freud and Lacan see this process of taking up a sexual position as closely connected with the [[Oedipus complex]], but they differ on the precise nature of the connection.  
+
The whole process revolves around the [[castration complex]], in which the boy fears being deprived of his penis and the girl, assumin that she has already been deprived of hers, develops [[penis envy]].
  
For Freud, the subject's sexual position is determined by the sex of the parent with whom the subject identifies in the Oedipus complex (if the subject identifies with the father, he takes up a masculine position; identification with the mother entails the assumption of a feminine position).
+
--
  
For Lacan, however, the Oedipus complex always involves [[Symbolic]] identification with the Father, and hence Oedipal identification cannot determine sexual position.  
+
Following [[Freud]], [[Lacan]] also engages with the problem of how the human infant becomes a sexed subject.
  
==Sigmund Freud==
+
For [[Lacan]], masculinity and [[feminity]] are not [[biological]] essences but symbolic positions, and the assumption of one of these two positions is fundamental to the construction of subjectivity; the [[subject]] is essentially a sexed subject.
  
Both Freud and Lacan address the question of sexual difference.
+
"Man" and "woman" are signifiers that stand for these two subjective positions.<ref>{{S20}} p.34</ref>
  
One of the basic presuppositions underlying Freud's work is that just as there are certain physical differences between men and women, so also there are psychical differences.
+
--
  
In other words, there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called 'masculine' and others that can be called 'feminine'.
+
For both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]], the child is at first ignorant of [[sexual difference]] and so cannot take up a sexual position.
  
 +
It is only when the child discovers [[sexual difference]] in the [[castration complex]] that he can begin to take up a sexual position.
  
Freud speaks only of the anatomical distinction between the sexes and its psychical consequences.<ref>Freud, 1925d</ref>
+
Both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]] see this process of taking up a sexual position as closely connected with the [[Oedipus complex]], but they differ on the precise nature of the connection.
  
 +
For [[Freud]], the [[subject]]'s sexual position is determined by the sex of the parent with whom the subject identifies in the [[Oedipus complex]] (if the subject identifies with the father, he takes up a masculine position; identification with the mother entails the assumption of a feminine position).
  
In 1908 (1908c) Sigmund Freud presented for the first time the notion of the castration complex.
+
For [[Lacan]], however, the [[Oedipus complex]] always involves a symbolic identification with the [[Father]], and hence Oedipus identification cannot determine sexual position.
  
 +
According to [[Lacan]], then, it is not identification but the [[subject]]'s relationship with the [[phallus]] which determines sexual position.
  
Freud limits himself to describing how a human subject comes to acquire masculine or feminine psychical characteristics.
+
--
  
This is not an instinctual or natural process, but a complex one in which anatomical differences interact with social and psychical factors.  
+
This relationship can either be one of "having" or "not having"; men have the symbolic phallus, and women don't (or, to be more precise, men are "not without having it" [''ils ne sont pas sans l'avoir'']).
  
The whole process revolves around the [[Castration Complex]], in which the boy fears being deprived of his penis and the girl, assuming that she has already been deprived of hers, develops penis envy.
+
The assumption of a sexual position is fundamentall a symbolic act, and the difference between the sexes can only be conceived of on the symbolic plane.<ref>{{S4}} p.153</ref>
  
 +
<blockquote>It is insofar as the function of man and woman is symbolized, it is insofar as it's literally uprooted from the domain of the imaginary and situated in the domain of the symbolic, that any normal, completed sexual position is realized.<ref>{{S3}} p.177</ref></blockquote>
  
The awareness of the presence or absence of the male genital organ
+
--
  
The genital organ will be taken into account for both sexes, based on the presence or absence of the male genital organ.  
+
However, there is no [[signifier]] of [[sexual difference]] as such which would permit the [[subject]] to fully [[symbolize]] the function of [[man]] and [[woman]], and hence it is impossible to attain a fully "normal, finished sexual position."
  
It is this awareness that leads to the question of castration.  
+
The [[subject]]'s sexual identity is thus always a rather precarious matter, a source of perpetual self-questioning.
  
It is through identification with the father and mother during the oedipal period that the child acquires the symbolic cues for masculine and feminine.  
+
The question of one's own sex ("Am I a man or a woman?") is a question which defines [[hysteria]].
  
 +
The mysterious "other sex" is always the [[woman]], for both men and women, and therefore the question of the [[hysteric]] ("What is a woman?") is the same for both male and female hysterics.
  
==Jacques Lacan==
+
--
[[Jacques Lacan]] reformulates the [[castration complex]].
 
  
 +
Although the anatomy/[[biology]] of the [[subject]] plays a part in the question of which sexual position the [[subject]] will take up, it is a fundamental axiom in psychoanalytic theory that anatomy does not determine sexual position.
  
==Penis and phallus==
+
There is a rupture between the biological aspect of [[sexual difference]] (for example at the level of the chromosomes) which is related to the reproductive function of sexuality, and the [[unconscious]], in which this reproductive function is not represented.
[[Lacan]] distinguishes between the [[penis]] and the [[phallus]].
 
  
For [[Lacan]], the relation to the [[phallus]] "was established without regard for the anatomical difference of the sexes."  
+
Given the non-representation of the reproductive function of sexuality in the [[unconscious]], "in the pysche there is nothing by which the subject may situate himself as a male or female being."<ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref>
  
According to [[Lacan]], it is not [[identification]] but the [[subject]]'s relationship with the [[phallus]] which determines [[sexual position]].
+
There is no signifier of [[sexual difference]] in the [[symbolic order]].
  
This relationship can either be one of 'having' or 'not having'; men have the [[Symbolic]] phallus, and women don't (or, to be more precise, men are 'not without having it' [ils ne sont pas sans l'avoir]).
+
The only sexual signifier is the [[phallus]], and there is no "female" equivalent of this signifier:
  
==Symbolic castration==
+
<blockquote>"Strictly speaking there is no symbolization of woman's sex as such... the phallus is a symbol to which there is no correspondent, no equivalent.  It's a matter of a dissymetry in the signifier."<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref>
[[Symbolic]] [[castration]] is an operation through which the [[subject]] is formed.
 
  
==Subject formation==
+
Hence the [[phallus]] is "the pivot which completes ''in both sexes'' the questioning of their sex by the castration complex."<ref>{{E}} p.198</ref>
[[Lacan]] developed his idea of [[sexuation]] to show the [[subject]]'s modes of inscription in the [[phallic function]].  
 
  
 +
--
  
==Hysteria==
 
  
The question of one's own [[sex]] ('Am I a [[man]] or a [[woman]]?') is the question which defines [[hysteria]].  
+
It is this fundamental dissymetry in the [[signifer]] which leads to the dissymmetry between the [[Oedipus complex]] in men and women.
  
 +
Whereas the male subject desires the parent of the other sex and identifies with the parent of the same sex, the female subject desires the parent of the same sex and "is required to take the image of the other sex as the basis of its identification."<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref>
  
 +
<blockquote>"For a woman the realization of her sex is not accomplished in the Oedipus complex in a way symmetrical to that of the man's, not by identification with the mother, but on the contrary by identifcation with the paternal object, which assgns her an extra detour."<ref>{{S3}} p.172</ref></blockquote>
  
 +
<blockquote>"This signifying dissymmetry determines the paths down which the OEdipus complex will pass.  The two paths make them both pass down the same trail - the trail of castration."<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref></blockquote>
  
 +
--
  
+
If, then, there is no symbol for the opposition masculine-feminine as such, the only way to udnerstand [[sexual different]] is in terms of the opposition activity-passivity.<ref>{{S11}} p.192</ref>
[[Lacan]] speaks of sexual position and the [[sexual relationship]], and occasionally of the differentiation of the [[sex]]es.<ref>{{S4}} p.153</ref>
 
  
For [[Lacan]], [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] are not biological essences but [[symbolic]] positions, and the assumption of one of these two positions is fundamental to the construction of [[subjectivity]]; the [[subject]] is essentially a [[sex]]ed [[subject]].  
+
This polarity is the only way in which the opposition male-female is represented in the psyche, since the biological function of sexuality (reproduction) is not represented.<ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref>
  
Following [[Freud]], [[Lacan]] also engages with the problem of how the [[human]] [[infant]] becomes a [[sex]]ed [[subject]].  
+
This is why the question of what one is to do as a man or a woman is a drama which is situated entirely in the field of the Other,<ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref> which is to say that the subject can only realize his sexuality on the symbolic level.<ref>{{S3}} p.170</ref>
  
'[[Man]]' and '[[woman]]'  are [[signifier]]s that stand for these two subjective positions.<ref>{{S20}} p.34)</ref>
+
--
  
 +
[[Image:DIAGRAM.jpg|right|[[Sexual Difference|The diagram of sexual difference]]]]
  
 +
In the [[seminars|seminar]] of [[chronology|1970-1]] [[Jacques Lacan]] tries to [[formalize]] his [[sexual difference|theory of sexual difference]] by means of [[mathemes|formulae]] derived from [[symbolic]] [[logic]]. 
  
 +
The diagram is divided into two sides: on the left, [[formulae of sexuation|the male side]], and on the right, [[formulae of sexuation|the female side]].
  
The assumption of a sexual position is fundamentally a [[symbolic]] act, and the difference between the sexes can only be conceived of on the [[symbolic]] plane.<ref> ({{S4}} p.153)</ref>
+
The [[formulae of sexuation]] appear at the top of the diagram.
  
It is insofar as the function of man and [[woman]] is symbolized, it is insofar as it's literally uprooted from the domain of the [[imaginary]] and situated in the domain of the [[symbolic]], that any normal, completed sexual position is realized.<ref> (S3, 177)</ref>
+
Thus the formulae on the male side are [[Image:form1.jpg]] (= there is at least one x which is not submitted to the phallic function) and [[Image:form3.jpg]] (= for all x, the phallic funciton is valid).
  
However, there is no signifier of sexual difference as such which would permit the subject to fully symbolise the function of man and [[woman]], and hence it is impossible to attain a fully 'normal, finished sexual position'.  
+
The last formula illustrates the relationship of [[woman]] to the logic of the not-all.
  
The subject's sexual identity is thus always a rather precarious matter, a source of perpetual self-questioning.
+
What is most striking is that the two propositions on each side of the diagram seem to contradict each other:
  
 +
<blockquote>"Each side is defined by both an affirmation and a negation of the phallic funciton, an inclusion and exclusion of absolute (non-phallic) ''jouissance''."<ref>Copjec. 1994. p.24</ref></blockquote>
  
 +
However, there is no symmetry between the two sides (no sexual relationship); eahc side represents a radically different way in which the [[sexual relationship]] can misfire.<ref>{{S20}} p.53-4</ref>
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Although the anatomy/[[biology]] of the subject plays a part in the question of which sexual position the subject will take up, it is a fundamental axiom in psychoanalytic theory that anatomy does not determine sexual position.
 
 
There is a rupture between the biological aspect of sexual difference (for example at the level of the chromosomes) which is related to the reproductive function of sexuality, and the unconscious, in which this reproductive function is not represented.
 
 
Given the non-representation of the reproductive function of sexuality in the unconscious, 'in the psyche there is nothing by which the subject may situate himself as a male or female being'.<ref> (S11, 204)</ref>
 
 
There is no signifier of sexual difference in the [[Symbolic]] order.
 
 
The only sexual signifier is the phallus, and there is no 'female' equivalent of this signifier: 'strictly speaking there is no symbolization of [[Woman]]'s sex as such          .
 
 
the phallus is a symbol to which there is no correspondent, no equivalent.
 
 
It's a matter of a dissymmetry in the signifier'.<ref> (S3, 176)</ref> 
 
 
Hence the phallus is 'the pivot which completes in both sexes the questioning of their sex by the [[Castration Complex]]'.<ref> (E, 198)</ref>
 
 
It is this fundamental dissymmetry in the signifier which leads to the dissymmetry between the Oedipus complex in men and women.
 
 
Whereas the male subject desires the parent of the other sex and identifies with the parent of the same sex, the female subject desires the parent of the same sex and 'is required to take the image of the other sex as the basis of its identification'.<ref> (S3, 176)</ref> 
 
 
'For a [[Woman]] the realization of her sex is not accomplished in the Oedipus complex in a way symmetrical to that of the man's, not by identification with the mother, but on the contrary by identification with the paternal object, which assigns her an extra detour'.<ref>(S3, 172</ref>
 
 
'This signifying dissymmetry determines the paths down which the Oedipus complex will pass. The two paths make them both pass down the same trail - the trail of castration'.<ref> (S3, 176</ref>
 
 
If, then, there is no symbol for the opposition masculine-feminine as such, the only way to understand sexual difference is in terms of the opposition activity-passivity.<ref>Sll, 192)</ref> 
 
 
This polarity is the only way in which the opposition male-female is represented in the psyche, since the biological function of sexuality (reproduction) is not represented.<ref>(Sll, 204)</ref>
 
 
This is why the question of what one is to do as a man or a [[Woman]] is a drama which is situated entirely in the field of the Other (Sll, 204), which is to say that the subject can only [[Real]]ise his sexuality on the [[Symbolic]] level.<ref> (S3, 170)</ref>
 
 
In the seminar of 1970-1 Lacan tries to formalise his theory of sexual difference by means of formulae derived from [[Symbolic]] logic.
 
 
These reappear in the diagram of sexual difference which Lacan presents in the 1972-3 seminar.<ref> (Figurel6, taken from S20, 73)</ref> 
 
 
The diagram is divided into two sides: on the left, the male side, and on the right, the female side.
 
 
The formulae of sexuation appear at the top of the diagram.
 
 
Thus the formulae on the male side are Exæ (= there is at least one x which is not submitted to the phallic function) and Vx¢x (= for all x, the phallic function is valid).
 
 
The formulae on the female side are Exæ (= there is not one x which is not submitted to the phallic function) and TGx (= for not all x, the phallic function is valid).
 
 
The last formula illustrates the relationship of [[woman]] (O the logic of the not-all.
 
 
What is most striking is that the two propositions on each side of the diagram seem to contradict each other: 'each side is defined by both an affirmation and a negation of the phallic function, an inclusion and exclusion of absolute (non-phallic) jouissance'.<
 
 
ref>(Copjec, 1994: 27)</ref>
 
 
However, there is no symmetry between the two sides (no sexual relationship); each side represents  a radically different way in which the [[sexual relationship]] can misfire.<ref> (S20, 53-4)</ref>
 
 
 
Lacan’s formalization of sexual difference in his famous "formulas of sexuation," presented by means of an idiosyncratic usage of mathematical symbols derived from symbolic logic and set theory, attempts to distill Freud’s efforts to distinguish the girl’s experience of castration from the boy’s.
 
 
In the first logical moment of masculine sexuation, an exception to the phallic function—Lacan’s term for the interdiction of castration—is posited, which is then followed by a contradictory assertion of the function’s universality.
 
 
Though abstracted beyond immediate recognition, it is possible to discern here the logic of the Freudian primal father, who lives in the masculine subject’s fantasy as the exception that proves the universal rule of castration.
 
 
In the first logical moment of feminine castration, in contrast, it is asserted that there are no exceptions to the phallic function.
 
 
But there then follows the notion that "not-all" elements of the feminine subject, elements Lacan represents with the symbol designating the negation of the universal quantifier, are subject to the rule of castration.
 
 
This is the background to Lacan’s controversial assertion that women are "pas-toute."
 
 
Though numerous feminists, including luce irigaray, have attacked this claim as a rationalization for what they see as women’s secondary status within a patriarchal socio-symbolic order, others have argued that the implication of Lacan’s assertion is simply that women, or more precisely feminine subjects, do not avail themselves to categorization.
 
 
Whereas masculine subjects routinely abstract themselves in such a way that they constitute a whole paradoxically unified by the exception embodied by the primal father fantasy (a masculine subject, in colloquial terms, can be "just one of the guys"), feminine subjects, so it appears, feature an irreducible element of singularity, one resistant to counting, that renders each of them, one might say, a world unto herself.
 
 
The implications of Lacan’s suggestive and oft-misunderstood theory of sexual difference for feminism and the theory of sexuality have still to find their full elaboration.
 
 
One thing, however, remains clear.
 
 
For Lacan, sex emerges as an impasse resulting from the impossibility of representing sexual difference symbolically and therefore of establishing sexual identities.
 
 
In contrast to the Anglo-American ideology of "gender," then, which upholds the idea that masculinity and femininity are socially preestablished meanings that may never be fully embodied, sex, in the Lacanian view, refers instead to the impossibility of sexual meanings themselves, of the frustration of every attempt to define sexual difference in positive terms, and therefore of the unforgiving resistance with which sexuality necessarily thwarts the ambitions of our conscious intentions.
 
 
 
we are led to the conclusion that psychoanalytic theory on sexual difference and, in particular, on what a woman is, remains highly incomplete.
 
The phrase 'sexual difference'  has come into prominence in the debate between psychoanalysis and feminism.
 
it brings together an important set of related themes in Lacan's work, and because it constitutes an important focus for feminist approaches to Lacan's work.
 
  
  

Revision as of 16:05, 26 July 2006

The phrase "sexual difference", which has come into prominence in the debate between psychoanalysis and feminism, is not part of Freud's or Lacan's theoretical vocabulary.

Freud speaks only of the anatomical distinction between the sexes and its psychical consequences.[1]

Lacan speaks of sexual position and the sexual relationship, and occasionally of the differentiation of the sexes.[2]

However, both Freud and Lacan address the question of sexual difference, and an entry has been included for this temr because it brings together an import set of related themes in Lacan's work, and because it constitutes an important focus for feminist approaches to Lacan's work.

--

One of the basic presuppositions underlying Freud's work is that just as there are certain physical differences between men and women, so also there are psychical differences.

In other words, there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called 'masculine' and others that can be called 'feminine.'

Rather than trying to give any formal definition of these terms, Freud limits himself to describing how a human subject comes to acquire masculine or feminine psychical characteristics.

This is not an instinctual or natural process, but a complex one in which anatomical differences interact with social and psychical factors.

The whole process revolves around the castration complex, in which the boy fears being deprived of his penis and the girl, assumin that she has already been deprived of hers, develops penis envy.

--

Following Freud, Lacan also engages with the problem of how the human infant becomes a sexed subject.

For Lacan, masculinity and feminity are not biological essences but symbolic positions, and the assumption of one of these two positions is fundamental to the construction of subjectivity; the subject is essentially a sexed subject.

"Man" and "woman" are signifiers that stand for these two subjective positions.[3]

--

For both Freud and Lacan, the child is at first ignorant of sexual difference and so cannot take up a sexual position.

It is only when the child discovers sexual difference in the castration complex that he can begin to take up a sexual position.

Both Freud and Lacan see this process of taking up a sexual position as closely connected with the Oedipus complex, but they differ on the precise nature of the connection.

For Freud, the subject's sexual position is determined by the sex of the parent with whom the subject identifies in the Oedipus complex (if the subject identifies with the father, he takes up a masculine position; identification with the mother entails the assumption of a feminine position).

For Lacan, however, the Oedipus complex always involves a symbolic identification with the Father, and hence Oedipus identification cannot determine sexual position.

According to Lacan, then, it is not identification but the subject's relationship with the phallus which determines sexual position.

--

This relationship can either be one of "having" or "not having"; men have the symbolic phallus, and women don't (or, to be more precise, men are "not without having it" [ils ne sont pas sans l'avoir]).

The assumption of a sexual position is fundamentall a symbolic act, and the difference between the sexes can only be conceived of on the symbolic plane.[4]

It is insofar as the function of man and woman is symbolized, it is insofar as it's literally uprooted from the domain of the imaginary and situated in the domain of the symbolic, that any normal, completed sexual position is realized.[5]

--

However, there is no signifier of sexual difference as such which would permit the subject to fully symbolize the function of man and woman, and hence it is impossible to attain a fully "normal, finished sexual position."

The subject's sexual identity is thus always a rather precarious matter, a source of perpetual self-questioning.

The question of one's own sex ("Am I a man or a woman?") is a question which defines hysteria.

The mysterious "other sex" is always the woman, for both men and women, and therefore the question of the hysteric ("What is a woman?") is the same for both male and female hysterics.

--

Although the anatomy/biology of the subject plays a part in the question of which sexual position the subject will take up, it is a fundamental axiom in psychoanalytic theory that anatomy does not determine sexual position.

There is a rupture between the biological aspect of sexual difference (for example at the level of the chromosomes) which is related to the reproductive function of sexuality, and the unconscious, in which this reproductive function is not represented.

Given the non-representation of the reproductive function of sexuality in the unconscious, "in the pysche there is nothing by which the subject may situate himself as a male or female being."[6]

There is no signifier of sexual difference in the symbolic order.

The only sexual signifier is the phallus, and there is no "female" equivalent of this signifier:

"Strictly speaking there is no symbolization of woman's sex as such... the phallus is a symbol to which there is no correspondent, no equivalent. It's a matter of a dissymetry in the signifier."[7]

Hence the phallus is "the pivot which completes in both sexes the questioning of their sex by the castration complex."[8]

--


It is this fundamental dissymetry in the signifer which leads to the dissymmetry between the Oedipus complex in men and women.

Whereas the male subject desires the parent of the other sex and identifies with the parent of the same sex, the female subject desires the parent of the same sex and "is required to take the image of the other sex as the basis of its identification."[9]

"For a woman the realization of her sex is not accomplished in the Oedipus complex in a way symmetrical to that of the man's, not by identification with the mother, but on the contrary by identifcation with the paternal object, which assgns her an extra detour."[10]

"This signifying dissymmetry determines the paths down which the OEdipus complex will pass. The two paths make them both pass down the same trail - the trail of castration."[11]

--

If, then, there is no symbol for the opposition masculine-feminine as such, the only way to udnerstand sexual different is in terms of the opposition activity-passivity.[12]

This polarity is the only way in which the opposition male-female is represented in the psyche, since the biological function of sexuality (reproduction) is not represented.[13]

This is why the question of what one is to do as a man or a woman is a drama which is situated entirely in the field of the Other,[14] which is to say that the subject can only realize his sexuality on the symbolic level.[15]

--

The diagram of sexual difference

In the seminar of 1970-1 Jacques Lacan tries to formalize his theory of sexual difference by means of formulae derived from symbolic logic.

The diagram is divided into two sides: on the left, the male side, and on the right, the female side.

The formulae of sexuation appear at the top of the diagram.

Thus the formulae on the male side are Form1.jpg (= there is at least one x which is not submitted to the phallic function) and Form3.jpg (= for all x, the phallic funciton is valid).

The last formula illustrates the relationship of woman to the logic of the not-all.

What is most striking is that the two propositions on each side of the diagram seem to contradict each other:

"Each side is defined by both an affirmation and a negation of the phallic funciton, an inclusion and exclusion of absolute (non-phallic) jouissance."[16]

However, there is no symmetry between the two sides (no sexual relationship); eahc side represents a radically different way in which the sexual relationship can misfire.[17]


See Also

References

  1. Freud. 1925d.
  2. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.154
  3. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.34
  4. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.153
  5. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.177
  6. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.204
  7. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.176
  8. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.198
  9. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.176
  10. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.172
  11. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.176
  12. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.192
  13. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.204
  14. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book XI. The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis, 1964. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis, 1977. p.204
  15. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.170
  16. Copjec. 1994. p.24
  17. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.53-4
  1. Freud, Sigmund. (1908c). On the sexual theories of children. SE, 9: 205-226.
  2. ——. (1923e). The infantile genital organization (An interpolation into the theory of sexuality). SE, 19: 141-145.
  3. Lacan, Jacques. (1966). La signification du phallus (Die Bedeutung des Phallus).Écrits, 685-695. Paris: Le Seuil. (Original work published 1958)