{"id":13059,"date":"2014-08-27T22:07:35","date_gmt":"2014-08-28T02:07:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=13059"},"modified":"2014-08-29T12:25:51","modified_gmt":"2014-08-29T16:25:51","slug":"13059","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2014\/08\/27\/13059\/","title":{"rendered":"shepherdson Sexuation"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shepherdson, C. (2003) “Lacan and Philosophy.” In:\u00a0 J. Rabat\u00e9 (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lacan<\/em>.\u00a0\u00a0 New York, London: Cambridge University Press,\u00a0 pp. 116-152.<\/p>\n

Sexuation informative website<\/a><\/p>\n

Phallic Jouissance<\/strong><\/p>\n

\"Sexuation_La\"<\/a><\/p>\n

First path: the sexuation graph. Having taken this step towards the \u201cOther jouissance,\u201d in which the general law of symbolic castration is no longer the whole story, Lacan now develops Freud\u2019s claim by means of symbolic logic, in the \u201csexuation graph\u201d which maps out two modes of relation to the Other, correlated with sexual difference.<\/p>\n

On the \u201cmale\u201d side, the \u201cnormal\u201d or \u201cphallic\u201d position is defined through the proposition that all subjects, being unmoored from nature, are destined to find their way through the symbolic order. Lacan expresses this claim in symbolic notation, with the formula<\/p>\n

\u201cAll subjects are submitted to the phallic signifier\u201d<\/span><\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\"AllSubjectCastrated\"<\/a>Now this position (the universal law of symbolic existence) is paradoxically held in place by an exception to the law, which Lacan elaborates in keeping with Freud\u2019s analysis of the primal horde in Totem and Taboo<\/em>, where Freud explains that the sons all agree to abide by<\/span><\/strong> the law<\/span> <\/strong>(to accept symbolic castration<\/span><\/strong>), precisely in contrast to the \u201cprimal father<\/strong>,\u201d who stands as the exception to the rule<\/strong>, in relation to which the law is to be secured. Thus, the \u201cmale\u201d side of the sexuation graph includes another formula<\/p>\n

\"ExceptionToCastration\"<\/a>\u201cThere is one subject who is not submitted to the phallic signifier\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

and this second formula, which forms part of the law of castration on the male side, is cast as an excluded position, an exception to the law<\/strong>, as Freud also claims when he explains that the primal father must always be killed, since his expulsion from the community by murder insures that the symbolic community will be established<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The two formulae thus appear to present a simple contradiction, logically speaking, but in a clinical sense they are intended to define the antinomy that structures masculine or phallic sexuality, in the sense that the exception to the law, where the possibility of an unlimited jouissance is maintained, is precisely the jouissance that must be sacrificed, expelled, or given up for the field of desire and symbolic exchange to emerge.<\/p>\n

Such is the logic of symbolic castration. It would obviously be possible to play out this \u201clogic of masculinity\u201d in some detail, with reference to Arnold Schwarzenegger<\/strong> and others, whose films represent the masculine fantasy in which the law of the civilized community can only be upheld, paradoxically, by an exceptional figure who is able to command an absolute power of violence, which is itself used to expel the monstrous, mechanical, or demonic figure (the uncontrollable machine or corrupt corporate demagogue) whose absolute jouissance threatens the space of democracy and capitalistic exchange.<\/p>\n

In masculinity, democracy and totalitarianism are not simply contradictory, as though they could not exist together, but are on the contrary twins, logically defining and supporting one another.<\/p>\n

Such elaborations \u2013 always too quick in any case \u2013 are not our purpose here, but we can at least note Lacan\u2019s attempt to provide a rigorous theoretical account, through symbolic logic, of the \u201ccontradictions\u201d of masculinity. 138<\/p>\n

\"Feminine_NotAll_x_subject\"<\/a>\u201cNot all of a woman is subject to symbolic castration.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

While the \u201cmasculine\u201d side of the graph provides a relation to symbolic castration which is total (\u201cAll men are subject,\u201d etc.), the \u201cfeminine\u201d side, by contrast, provides a second pair of formulae in which the subject is not altogether subjected to the law.<\/p>\n

The second of these formulae,\u00a0 can be read as \u201cNot all of a woman is subject to symbolic castration.\u201d The universal, which functions on the masculine side (\u201cAll men\u201d), is thus negated on the side of femininity (\u201cNot all\u201d).<\/p>\n

Something of woman may thus escape symbolic castration, or does not entirely submit to the symbolic law (\u201cthey show less sense of justice than men\u201d and \u201ctheir super-ego is never so inexorable\u201d).<\/p>\n

\u201cFeminine jouissance\u201d is thereby distinguished from \u201cphallic jouissance\u201d by falling partly outside the law of the signifier. Subjected to the symbolic order like all speaking beings, the \u201cfeminine\u201d position is nevertheless \u201cnot-all\u201d governed by its law.<\/p>\n

And as was the case on the masculine side, so here we find a second formula, but in this case it is not an exception to the law (as with the primal father). Instead, we find a formula that indicates an inevitable inscription within the law<\/p>\n

\"Feminine_X_not<\/a>
\n\u201cThere is no subject that is not subjected to the symbolic law\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[…] it is worth noting that in this second formula, which articulates the feminine version of subjection to the law, we do not find a universal proposition, a statement that could be distributed across all subjects (\u201cAll men,\u201d etc.).<\/p>\n

Instead, we find a formulation that relies on the particular (\u201cThere is no woman who is not\u201d etc.). The universal quantifier \u201call\u201d (\u2200) is thus replaced with a quasi-existential \u201cthere is\u201d (\u2203) …<\/p>\n

Lacan remarks on the \u201cstrangeness\u201d of this feminine mode of being: it is \u00b4etrange, Lacan says, playing on the word for \u201cangel\u201d (\u02c6etre ange means \u201cto be an angel\u201d), this mode of being which falls outside the grasp of the proposition (\u201cit is . . .\u201d). We cannot say that \u201cit is\u201d or \u201cit exists,\u201d just like that, because it does not all belong to the domain of symbolic predication, and yet, this same impasse in symbolization means that we cannot say \u201cit is not\u201d or it \u201cdoes not exist\u201d (or indeed that \u201cthere is only one libido\u201d).<\/p>\n

Beyond the \u201cyes\u201d and \u201cno\u201d of the signifier, beyond symbolic predication and knowledge (is\/is not), this mode of being, presented through the Other jouissance, would thus be like God, or perhaps (peut-\u02c6etre \u2013 a possible-being) more like an angel. Thus, as Lacan suggests, and as Irigaray also notes, though in a very different way, the question of feminine sexuality may well entail a theology and an ontological challenge in which the law of the father is not the whole truth.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is insofar as her jouissance is radically Other that woman has more of a relationship to God\u201d (S XX, p. 83).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Shepherdson, C. (2003) “Lacan and Philosophy.” In:\u00a0 J. Rabat\u00e9 (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Lacan.\u00a0\u00a0 New York, London: Cambridge University Press,\u00a0 pp. 116-152. Sexuation informative website Phallic Jouissance First path: the sexuation graph. Having taken this step towards the \u201cOther jouissance,\u201d in which the general law of symbolic castration is no longer the whole story, … Continue reading “shepherdson Sexuation”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[86,94,114],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-13059","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gender","category-sexual-difference","category-sexuation"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13059","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13059"}],"version-history":[{"count":13,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13059\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":13076,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/13059\/revisions\/13076"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13059"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=13059"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=13059"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}