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> One feature of this opposition is that the two terms do not function in an exactly symmetrical way.

[[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>

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]].

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]]:

[[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>

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]] 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]].<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 [[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>