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 [[childFreud]] speaks only of the difference of anatomical ''distinction'' between the [[sex]]essexes and its psychical consequences.<ref>Freud. 1925d. </ref>
This refers to the way in which both [[sex]]es [[recognizeLacan]] speaks of sexual ''position'' and the sexual ''relationship'', and differentiate themselves (in occasionally of the [[unconscious]])''differentiation'' of the sexes.<ref>{{S4}} p.154</ref>
This recognition is 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 to the themes in [[Oedipus complexLacan]] 's work, and the because it constitutes an important focus for feminist approaches to [[castration complexLacan]]'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]].--
(One of the basic presuppositions underlying [[Sexual difference]] introduces important questions in [[psychoanalysisFreud]]'s work is that just as there are certain physical differences between men and women, as important as the problematic of [[identification]]/[[identity]]so also there are psychical differences.)
==Castration complex==The [[child]] comes to recognize [[sexual difference]] through the [[castration complex]]In other words, there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called 'masculine' and others that can be called 'feminine.'
For both Rather than trying to give any formal definition of these terms, Freud and Lacan, the child is at first ignorant of sexual difference and so cannot take up limits himself to describing how a sexual positionhuman subject comes to acquire masculine or feminine psychical characteristics.
It This is only when the child discovers sexual difference not an instinctual or natural process, but a complex one in the [[castration complex]] that he can begin to take up a sexual positionwhich anatomical differences interact with social and psychical factors.
Both Freud and Lacan see this The whole process of taking up a sexual position as closely connected with revolves around the [[Oedipus castration complex]], but they differ on in which the precise nature boy fears being deprived of his penis and the connectiongirl, 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, howeverFollowing [[Freud]], the Oedipus complex always involves [[SymbolicLacan]] identification also engages with the Father, and hence Oedipal identification cannot determine sexual positionproblem 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 "Man" and Lacan address the question of sexual difference"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 wordsFor both [[Freud]] and [[Lacan]], there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called 'masculine' the child is at first ignorant of [[sexual difference]] and others that can be called 'feminine'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 speaks only ]] and [[Lacan]] see this process of taking up a sexual position as closely connected with the [[Oedipus complex]], but they differ on the anatomical distinction between precise nature of the sexes and its psychical consequencesconnection.<ref>Freud, 1925d</ref>
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 For [[Lacan]], however, the first time [[Oedipus complex]] always involves a symbolic identification with the notion of the castration complex[[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 relationship can either be one of "having" or "not an instinctual having"; men have the symbolic phallus, and women don't (or natural process, but a complex one in which anatomical differences interact with social and psychical factorsto be more precise, men are "not without having it" [''ils ne sont pas sans l'avoir'']).
The whole process revolves around assumption of a sexual position is fundamentall a symbolic act, and the [[Castration Complex]], in which difference between the boy fears being deprived sexes can only be conceived of his penis and on the girl, assuming that she has already been deprived of hers, develops penis envysymbolic 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 sexesHowever, based on there is no [[signifier]] of [[sexual difference]] as such which would permit the presence or absence [[subject]] to fully [[symbolize]] the function of the male genital organ[[man]] and [[woman]], and hence it is impossible to attain a fully "normal, finished sexual position. "
It The [[subject]]'s sexual identity is this awareness that leads to the question thus always a rather precarious matter, a source of castrationperpetual self-questioning.
It The question of one's own sex ("Am I a man or a woman?") is through identification with the father and mother during the oedipal period that the child acquires the symbolic cues for masculine and femininea 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==[[Lacan]] distinguishes There is a rupture between the biological aspect of [[penissexual difference]] (for example at the level of the chromosomes) which is related to the reproductive function of sexuality, and the [[phallusunconscious]], in which this reproductive function is not represented.
For [[Lacan]], Given the non-representation of the relation to reproductive function of sexuality in the [[phallusunconscious]] , "was established without regard for in the anatomical difference of pysche there is nothing by which the sexessubject may situate himself as a male or female being." <ref>{{S11}} p.204</ref>
According to [[Lacan]], it There is not no signifier of [[identificationsexual difference]] but in the [[subject]]'s relationship with the [[phallus]] which determines [[sexual positionsymbolic order]].
This relationship can either be one of 'having' or 'not having'; men have The only sexual signifier is the [[Symbolicphallus]] phallus, and women don't (or, to be more precise, men are 'not without having it' [ils ne sont pas sans l'avoir]). there is no "female" equivalent of this signifier:
==Symbolic castration==[[Symbolic]] [[castration]] <blockquote>"Strictly speaking there is an operation through 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 [[subject]] is formedsignifier."<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref>
==Subject formation==[[Lacan]] developed his idea of Hence the [[sexuationphallus]] to show is "the [[subject]]pivot which completes ''in both sexes''s modes the questioning of inscription in their sex by the [[phallic function]]castration complex."<ref>{{E}} p. 198</ref>
--
==Hysteria==
The question of one's own It is this fundamental dissymetry in the [[sexsignifer]] ('Am I a [[man]] or a [[woman]]?') is which leads to the dissymmetry between the question which defines [[hysteriaOedipus 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>
--
[[Lacan]] speaks of sexual position and If, then, there is no symbol for the opposition masculine-feminine as such, the only way to udnerstand [[sexual relationshipdifferent]], and occasionally of the differentiation is in terms of the [[sex]]esopposition activity-passivity.<ref>{{S4S11}} p.153192</ref>
For [[Lacan]], [[masculinity]] and [[femininity]] are not biological essences but [[symbolic]] positions, and This polarity is the only way in which the assumption of one of these two positions opposition male-female is fundamental to represented in the psyche, since the construction biological function of [[subjectivity]]; the [[subject]] sexuality (reproduction) is essentially a [[sex]]ed [[subject]]not represented.<ref>{{S11}} p. 204</ref>
Following [[Freud]], [[Lacan]] also engages with 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 problem field of how the [[human]] [[infant]] becomes a [[sex]]ed [[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 [[symbolicformulae of sexuation]] act, and the difference between appear at the sexes can only be conceived top of on the [[symbolic]] plane.<ref> ({{S4}} pdiagram.153)</ref>
It is insofar as Thus the formulae on the function of man and male side are [[womanImage:form1.jpg]] (= there is symbolized, it at least one x which is insofar as it's literally uprooted from not submitted to the domain of the [[imaginary]] phallic function) and situated in the domain of the [[symbolicImage:form3.jpg]](= for all x, that any normal, completed sexual position the phallic funciton is realizedvalid).<ref> (S3, 177)</ref>
However, there is no signifier of sexual difference as such which would permit the subject to fully symbolise The last formula illustrates the function relationship of man and [[woman]], and hence it is impossible to attain a fully 'normal, finished sexual position'the logic of the not-all.
The subject's sexual identity What is thus always a rather precarious matter, a source most striking is that the two propositions on each side of perpetual self-questioning. 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.
