Changes

: [[Fr]]. ''[[{{Top}}femme]]''{{Bottom}}

==Sigmund Freud==<!-- ===Masculine and Feminine Psychical Characteristics===[[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> 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]]. [[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:

However, <blockquote>[[FreudPsychoanalysis]] constantly refuses does not try to give any definition of the terms "describe what a [[woman]] is -- that would be a task it could scarcely perform -- but sets [[masculineabout]]" and "enquiring how she comes into [[femininebeing]]", arguing that they are foundational concepts which can be used but not elucidated by how a [[woman]] develops out of a [[psychoanalytic theorychild]]with a bisexual disposition.<ref>{{F}} 1920a: ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1933a. [[SE]] XVIIIXXII, 171116</ref></blockquote>

==Jacques Lacan==<!--===Development of Thought===Apart from a few remarks on the function of the [[mother]] in the [[family]] [[complexes]],<ref>{{1938}}</ref> [[Lacan]]'s pre-war writings do not engage with the debate on [[femininity]]. ===Women as Objects of Exchange===The occasional statements on the [[subject]] which occur in [[Lacan]]'s [[Works of Sigmund Freud|work]] in the early 1950s are couched in terms derived from [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]]; [[woman|women]] are seen as [[objects]] of [[exchange]] which circulate like [[sign]]s between kinship groups.<ref>[[Claude Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. ''[[The Elementary Structures of Kinship]]'', Boston: Beacon Press, 1969 [1949b].</ref> <blockquote>"Women in the [[real]] [[order]] serve . . . as objects for the exchanges required by the elementary [[structures]] of kinship."<ref>{{E}} p. 207</ref></blockquote>[[Lacan]] argues that it is precisely the fact that [[woman]] is pushed into the [[position]] of an exchange object that constitutes the difficulty of the [[feminine position]]:<blockquote>For her, there's something insurmountable, let us say unacceptable, in the fact of being placed in the position of an [[object]] in the [[symbolic order]], to which, on the other hand, she is entirely subjected no less than the man.<ref>{{S2}} p. 262</ref></blockquote>====Dora Case====[[Lacan]]'s [[analysis]] of the [[Dora]] [[case]] makes the same point: what is unacceptable for [[Dora]] is her position as object of exchange between her [[father]] and Herr K.<ref>{{L}} 1951a</ref> Being in this position of exchange object means that [[woman]] "has a relation of the second degree to this [[symbolic]] order."<ref>{{S2}} p.262; {{S4}} p.95-6</ref>----->===Hysteria===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?]]". 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]]".

One feature [[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 opposition is that more [[complex]] for the [[woman]], since she is required to take the [[image]] of a member of the other [[sex]] as the two terms do not function in an exactly symmetrical waybasis for her [[identification]].<ref>{{S3}} p. 176</ref>

<!--===Feminine Sexuality===[[MasculinityLacan]] returns to the question of [[femininity]] in 1958, in a paper entitled "[[Guiding remarks for a congress on feminine sexuality]]."<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Propos directifs pour un congrès sur la sexualité féminine]]," 1958d, in {{E}} pp. 725-36</ref> In this paper he [[notes]] the impasses which have beset [[psychoanalytic]] discussions of [[feminine]] [[sexuality]], and argues that [[woman]] is taken by the [[FreudOther]] for both [[men]] and [[women]].<blockquote>"Man here [[acts]] as the paradigm; he asserts that there relay whereby the woman becomes this Other for herself as she is only one this Other for him."<ref>{{Ec}} p. 732</ref></blockquote>-->===Feminine ''Jouissance''===[[libidoLacan]]'s most important contributions to the debate on [[femininity]] come, like [[Freud]]'s, which is late in his [[work]]. In the [[seminar]] of [[masculine{{Y}}|1972-3]], and that [[Lacan]] advances the psychical development [[concept]] of a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' which goes "beyond the girl phallus";<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> this ''[[jouissance]]'' is at first identical to that "of the order of the boyinfinite, only diverging at a later moment" like mystical ecstasy.<ref>{{S20}} p. 44</ref> [[Women]] may [[experience]] this ''[[jouissance]]'', but they [[know]] nothing about it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref>

==="Woman Does Not Exist"===It is also in this [[Femininityseminar]] is thus that which diverges from [[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 masculine paradigmPsychoanalytic Establishment]]'', ed. [[Joan Copjec]], trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.60</ref> which he here rephrases as "[[Freudwoman|there is no such thing as Woman]] regards it as " (''il n'y a mysteriouspas La femme'').<ref>{{S20}} p. 68</ref> As is clear in the original [[French]], what [[Lacan]] puts into question is not the noun "[[woman]]", unexplored regionbut the definite article which precedes it. In [[French]] the definite article indicates [[universality]], a and this is precisely the characteristic that [[women]] [[lack]]; [[women]] "dark continentdo not lend themselves to generalisation, even to phallocentric generalisation."<ref>{{FL}} 1926e: "[[Works of Jacques Lacan|Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme]]", 1975b. ''Les Block-Notes de la [[SEpsychanalyse]] XX'', 212Brussels.</ref>

The "riddle of ===Not-All===Hence [[Lacan]] strikes through the definite article whenever it precedes the nature of femininity" comes to preoccupy term ''[[Freudfemme]] '' in his later writings, and drives him much the same way as he strikes through the '''A''' to ask produce the [[symbol]] for the famous question[[bar]]red [[Other]], "What for like [[woman]], the [[Other]] does not [[exist]]. To press home the point, [[Lacan]] speaks of [[woman want?]] as "[[not-all]]" (''[[not-all|pas-toute]]'');<ref>{{FS20}} 1933a: p. 13</ref> unlike [[SEmasculinity]] XXII, 113</ref>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 [[Masculinitytruth]] , 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> -->==="Woman is a Symptom of Man"===[[Lacan]] goes on in 1975 to [[state]] that a "[[woman|woman is a selfsymptom]]."<ref>{{L}} (1974-5) ''[[Seminar XXII|Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI, 1974-evident given75]]'', published in ''[[femininityOrnicar?]]'', nos. 2-5, 1975. [[Seminar]] of 21 January 1975.</ref> More precisely, a [[woman]] is a zone [[symptom]] of mystery: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]].

[[Psychoanalysis]] does not try to describe what a [[woman]] is -- that would be a task it could scarcely perform -- but sets about enquiring how she comes into being, how a [[woman]] develops out of a [[child]] with a bisexual disposition.<ref>{{F}} 1933a: [[SE]] XXII, 116</ref> ------------ Apart from a few remarks on the function of the [[mother]] in the family complexes,<ref>{{L}} 1938</ref> [[Lacan]]'s pre-war writings do not engage with the debate on [[femininity]].  The occasional statements on the [[subject]] which occur in [[Lacan]]'s work in the early 1950s are couched in terms derived from [[Claude Lévi-Strauss]]; [[woman|women]] are seen as objects of exchange which circulate like [[sign]]s between kinship groups.<ref>[[Lévi-Strauss|Lévi-Strauss, Claude]]. 1949b</ref> ==See Also== <blockquote>"Women in the real order serve . . . as objects for the exchanges required by the elementary structures of kinship."<ref>{{ESee}} p.207</ref></blockquote> [[Lacan]] argues that it is precisely the fact that * [[womanCastration]] is pushed into the position of an exchange object that constitutes the difficulty of the [[feminine position]]: ------------ For her, there* 's something insurmountable, let us say unacceptable, in the fact of being placed in the position of an [[object]] in the [[symbolic order]], to which, on the other hand, she is entirely subjected no less than the man.<ref>{{S2}} p.262</ref> ------------ [[Lacan]]'s analysis of the [[Dora]Jouissance] case makes the same point: what is unacceptable for [[Dora]] is her position as object of exchange between her [[father]] and Herr K.<ref>{{L}} 1951a</ref>  Being in this position of exchange object means that [[woman]] "has a relation of the second degree to this symbolic order."<ref>{{S2}} p.262; {{S4}} p.95-6</ref> ------------ 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 "What is a woman?". ------------ This is true for both [[male]] and [[female]] [[hysteric]]s.<ref>{{S3}} p.178</ref>  The term "[[woman]]" here refers not to some 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]].  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, 176</ref> ------------ [[Lacan]] returns to the question of [[femininity]] in 1958, in a paper entitled "Guiding remarks for a congress on feminine sexuality."<ref>{{L}} 1958d</ref>  In this paper he notes the impasses which have beset psychoanalytic discussions of [[feminine]] [[sexuality]], and argues that [[woman]] is the [[Other]] for both [[men]] and [[women]]. <blockquote>"Man here acts as the relay whereby the woman becomes this Other for herself as she is this Other for him."<ref>{{Ec}} p.732</ref></blockquote> ------------ [[Lacan]]'s most important contributions to the debate on [[femininity]] come, like [[Freud]]'s, late in his work. ||In the * [[seminarLibido]] of 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 ''* [[jouissanceSexual difference]]'', 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 does not exist" (''la femme n'existe pas''<ref>{{L}} 1973a: 60</ref>), which he here rephrases as "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}} 1975b</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, * [[LacanSexual relationship]] 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 [[womenSymptom]]; it is impossible to say "the whole truth."<ref>{{L}} 1973a: 64</ref> ------------ [[Lacan]] goes on in 1975 to state that "a woman is a symptom."<ref>{{LAlso}} 1974-5: [[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>e.g. Mitchell and Rose, 1982</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>e.g. Gallop, 1982; Grosz, 1990</ref>