Difference between revisions of "Woman"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).)
(Tags: Mobile edit, Mobile web edit)
 
Line 4: Line 4:
 
<!--  
 
<!--  
 
===Masculine and Feminine Psychical Characteristics===
 
===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.  
+
[[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===
 
===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:
+
[[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:
  
<blockquote>[[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}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1933a. [[SE]] XXII, 116</ref></blockquote>
+
<blockquote>[[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}} ''[[Works of Sigmund Freud|New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis]]'', 1933a. [[SE]] XXII, 116</ref></blockquote>
  
 
==Jacques Lacan==
 
==Jacques Lacan==
 
<!--
 
<!--
 
===Development of Thought===
 
===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]].  
+
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===
 
===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>  
+
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>
+
<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]]:
+
[[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>
 
<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====
 
====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>  
+
[[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>
+
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===
 
===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]]".  
+
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]]".  
  
[[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]] 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>
  
 
<!--
 
<!--
 
===Feminine Sexuality===
 
===Feminine Sexuality===
[[Lacan]] 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>  
+
[[Lacan]] 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 the [[Other]] for both [[men]] and [[women]].
+
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>
+
<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>
 
-->
 
-->
 
===Feminine ''Jouissance''===
 
===Feminine ''Jouissance''===
[[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>
+
[[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>
  
 
==="Woman Does Not Exist"===
 
==="Woman Does Not Exist"===
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>
+
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>
  
 
===Not-All===
 
===Not-All===
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.  
+
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> -->
+
<!-- [[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> -->
 
==="Woman is a Symptom of Man"===
 
==="Woman is a Symptom of Man"===
[[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]] 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]].
  
 
===Feminist Theory===
 
===Feminist Theory===
[[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>
+
[[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>
  
 
==See Also==
 
==See Also==

Latest revision as of 22:33, 20 May 2019

French: femme

Sigmund Freud

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 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 masculine paradigm, and Freud regards it as a mysterious, unexplored region, a "dark continent."[1] 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?"[2] Masculinity is a self-evident given, femininity is a zone of mystery:

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.[3]

Jacques Lacan

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 "What is a woman?". This is true for both male and female hysterics.[4] 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 symbolization of woman's sex as such", since there is no feminine equivalent to the "highly prevalent symbol" provided by the phallus.[5] 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.[6]

Feminine Jouissance

Lacan's most important contributions to the debate on femininity come, like Freud's, late in his work. In the seminar of 1972-3, Lacan advances the concept of a specifically feminine jouissance which goes "beyond the phallus";[7] this jouissance is "of the order of the infinite," like mystical ecstasy.[8] Women may experience this jouissance, but they know nothing about it.[9]

"Woman Does Not Exist"

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),[10] which he here rephrases as "there is no such thing as Woman" (il n'y a pas La femme).[11] 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."[12]

Not-All

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 barred Other, for like woman, the Other does not exist. To press home the point, Lacan speaks of woman as "not-all" (pas-toute);[13] 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 a Symptom of Man"

Lacan goes on in 1975 to state that a "woman is a symptom."[14] 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.

Feminist Theory

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.[15] 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.[16]

See Also

References

  1. Freud, Sigmund. The Question of Lay-Analysis, 1926e. SE XX, 212
  2. Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 1933a. SE XXII, 113
  3. Freud, Sigmund. New Introductory Lectures on Psycho-Analysis, 1933a. SE XXII, 116
  4. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 178
  5. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p.176
  6. Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book III. The Psychoses, 1955-56. Trans. Russell Grigg. London: Routledge, 1993. p. 176
  7. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 69
  8. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 44
  9. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 71
  10. Lacan, Jacques. (1973a) Télévision, Paris: Seuil, 1973 [Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic Establishment, ed. Joan Copjec, trans. Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss and Annette Michelson, New York: Norton, 1990]. p.60
  11. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 68
  12. Lacan, Jacques. "Conférence à Genève sur le symptôme", 1975b. Les Block-Notes de la psychanalyse, Brussels.
  13. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p. 13
  14. Lacan, Jacques. (1974-5) Le Séminaire. Livre XXII. RSI, 1974-75, published in Ornicar?, nos. 2-5, 1975. Seminar of 21 January 1975.
  15. Mitchell, Juliet and Rose, Jacqueline (eds) (1982) Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the école freudienne, London: Macmillan.
  16. 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.