Changes

[[Freud]]'s account of [[sexual difference]] is based on the view that there are certain psychical characteristics that can be called "[[masculine]]" and others that can be called "[[feminine]]", and that these differ from each other significantly.   However, [[Freud]] constantly refuses to give any definition of the terms "[[masculine]]" and "[[feminine]]", arguing that they are foundational concepts which can be used but not elucidated by [[psychoanalytic theory]].<ref>{{F}} "[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Psychogenesis of a Case of Female Homosexuality]]", 1920a. [[SE]] XVIII, 171</ref> ===Masculine Paradigm=== One feature of this opposition is that the two terms do not function in an exactly symmetrical way. -->===Femininity and Masculinity===[[Masculinity]] is taken by [[Freud]] as the paradigm; he asserts that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], and that the [[psyche|psychical ]] [[development ]] of the [[girl]] is at first identical to that of the [[boy]], only diverging at a later moment.  ==="What Does Woman Want?"=== [[Femininity]] is thus that which diverges from the [[masculinity|masculine paradigm]], and [[Freud]] regards it as a mysterious, unexplored region, a "dark continent."<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|The Question of Lay-Analysis]]'', 1926e. [[SE]] XX, 212</ref>   The "riddle of the nature of femininity" comes to preoccupy [[Freud]] in his later writings, and drives him to ask the famous question, "What does woman want?"<ref>{{F}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1933a. [[SE]] XXII, 113</ref>  [[Masculinity]] is a self-evident given, [[femininity]] is a zone of mystery:

In 1956, [[Lacan]] takes up the traditional association of [[hysteria]] with [[femininity]], arguing that [[hysteria]] is in fact nothing other than the question of [[femininity]] itself, the question which may be phrased "[[woman|What is a woman?]]". ===Feminine Position=== This is true for both [[male]] and [[female]] [[hysteric]]s.<ref>{{S3}} p. 178</ref>   The term "[[woman]]" here refers not to some [[biology|biological]] essence but to a position in the [[symbolic order]]; it is synonymous with the term "[[feminine position]]".  [[Lacan]] also argues that "there is no symbolisation of woman's sex as such", since there is no feminine equivalent to the "highly prevalent symbol" provided by the [[phallus]].<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref>  This symbolic dissymmetry forces the [[woman]] to take the same route through the [[Oedipus complex]] as the boy, i.e. to [[identify]] with the [[father]].

[[Lacan]] also argues that "there is no symbolization of woman's sex as such", since there is no feminine equivalent to the "highly prevalent symbol" provided by the [[phallus]].<ref>{{S3}} p.176</ref> This symbolic dissymmetry forces the [[woman]] to take the same route through the [[Oedipus complex]] as the boy, i.e. to [[identify]] with the [[father]]. However, this is more [[complex]] for the [[woman]], since she is required to take the [[image]] of a member of the other [[sex]] as the basis for her [[identification]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 176</ref>

[[Lacan]]'s most important contributions to the debate on [[femininity]] come, like [[Freud]]'s, late in his work.   In the [[seminar]] of [[{{Y}}|1972-3]], [[Lacan]] advances the concept of a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' which goes "beyond the phallus";<ref>{{S20}} p.69</ref> this ''[[jouissance]]'' is "of the order of the infinite," like mystical ecstasy.<ref>{{S20}} p. 44</ref>   [[Women]] may experience this ''[[jouissance]]'', but they know nothing about it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref>

It is also in this [[seminar]] that [[Lacan]] takes up his controversial formula, first advanced in the [[seminar]] of 1970-1, "[[woman|Woman does not exist]]" (''la femme n'existe pas''),<ref>{{L}} (1973a) ''[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Télévision]]'', Paris: Seuil, 1973 [''[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment]]'', ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.60</ref> which he here rephrases as "[[woman|there is no such thing as Woman]]" (''il n'y a pas La femme'').<ref>{{S20}} p. 68</ref>   As is clear in the original [[French]], what [[Lacan]] puts into question is not the noun "[[woman]]", but the definite article which precedes it.   In [[French]] the definite article indicates universality, and this is precisely the characteristic that [[women]] [[lack]]; [[women]] "do not lend themselves to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation."<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme]]", 1975b. ''Les Block-Notes de la psychanalyse'', Brussels.</ref>

Hence [[Lacan]] strikes through the definite article whenever it precedes the term ''[[femme]]'' in much the same way as he strikes through the '''A''' to produce the [[symbol]] for the [[bar]]red [[Other]], for like [[woman]], the [[Other]] does not [[exist]].   To press home the point, [[Lacan]] speaks of [[woman]] as "[[not-all]]" (''[[not-all|pas-toute]]'');<ref>{{S20}} p. 13</ref> unlike [[masculinity]], which is a universal function founded upon the phallic exception ([[castration]]), [[woman]] is a non-universal which admits of no exception.  [[Woman]] is compared to [[truth]], since both partake of the logic of the [[not-all]] (there is no such thing as all [[women]]; it is impossible to say "the whole truth."<ref>{{L}} (1973a) ''[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Télévision]]'', Paris: Seuil, 1973 [''[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment]]'', ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.64</ref>

[[Lacan]] goes on in 1975 to state that a "[[woman|woman is a symptom]]."<ref>{{L}} (1974-5) ''[[Seminar XXII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI, 1974-75]]'', published in ''[[Ornicar?]]'', nos. 2-5, 1975. [[Seminar]] of 21 January 1975.</ref>   More precisely, a [[woman]] is a [[symptom]] of a [[man]], in the sense that a [[woman]] can only ever enter the psychic economy of men as a [[fantasy]] [[object]] (a), the [[cause]] of their [[desire]].

[[Lacan]]'s remarks on [[woman]] and on [[feminine sexuality]] have become the focus of controversy and debate in feminist theory.   Feminists have divided over whether to see [[Lacan]] as an ally or an enemy of the feminist cause.   Some have seen his theories as providing an incisive description of patriarchy and as a way of challenging fixed concepts of sexual identity.<ref>Mitchell, Juliet and Rose, Jacqueline (eds) (1982) ''Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the école freudienne'', London: Macmillan.</ref>   Others have argued that his concept of the [[symbolic order]] reinstates patriarchy as a transhistorical given, and that his privileging of the [[phallus]] simply repeats the alleged misogynies of [[Freud]] himself.<ref>Gallop, Jane. (1982) ''Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter's Seduction'', London: Macmillan. ; Grosz, Elizabeth. (1990) ''Jacques Lacan: A Feminist Introduction'', London and New York: Routledge.</ref>