The Castration of Oedipus: Psychoanalysis, Postmodernism, and Feminism 9780814788943

Citation preview

The Castration of Oedipus

The

Castration of Oedipus Feminism, Psychoanalysis, and th e Will t o Powe r /. C. Smith and Carla Ferstman WITH A

N I N T R O D U C T I O

N B

Y

Ann Scales

New York University Press NEW YOR

K AN

D L O N D O

N

Copyright © 199 6 by Ne w Yor k Universit y All right s reserve d Manufactured i n the United State s of Americ a Library o f Congres s Cataloging-in-Publicatio n Dat a Smith J . C . (Josep h Carman) , 1930 The castration o f Oedipu s : feminism, psychoanalysis , an d th e will to power / J . C . Smit h an d Carl a Ferstma n ; with a n introductio n b y Ann Scales . p. cm . Contents: Thinkin g th e unthinkable—Th e sexualit y o f politics — Knowledge an d th e languagin g body—Th e dialectics—Th e dialectics o f fantasy—Th e dialectic s o f signification—Th e dialectics o f desire—Ariadn e an d Dionysus—Medus a depetrified - Oedipus . ISBN 0-8147-8018-0 (clot h : acid free).—ISBN 0-8147-8019- 9 (pbk. : acid free ) 1. Psychoanalysi s an d feminism . 2 . Feminis t theory . 3. Postmodernism . I . Ferstman , Carla , 1968 - . II . Title . BF175.4.F45S65 199 6 I50.i9'5—dc20 95-4172 6 CIP

New York University Pres s books are printed o n acid-fre e paper, an d thei r bindin g material s ar e chosen fo r strength an d durability. 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

I sing th e bod y electri c The armie s o f thos e I love engul f m e an d I engirth them , They wil l no t le t m e of f til l I go with them , respon d t o them , And discorrup t them , an d charg e the m ful l wit h th e charg e of the soul . Was i t doubte d tha t thos e wh o corrup t thei r ow n bodie s conceal themselves ? And i f thos e wh o defil e th e livin g ar e a s bad a s they wh o defile th e dead ? And i f th e bod y doe s no t d o full y a s much a s the soul ? And i f th e bod y wer e no t th e soul , what i s th e soul ? —Walt Whitman , Leaves of Grass

Contents

List of Abbreviations Acknowledgements Introduction by Ann Scales

ix xiii l

Thinking the Unthinkable

10

TWO

The Sexuality of Politics Knowledge and the Languaging Body

3*

THREE FOUR

The Dialectics

FIVE

The Dialectics of Fantasy

113

SIX

The Dialectics of Signification

142

SEVEN

The Dialectics of Desire

171

EIGHT

Ariadne and Dionysus

200

NINE

Medusa Depetrified

232

TEN

Oedipus

259

Notes

287

Index

305

ONE

52 80

Vll

Abbreviations

Freud SE The

Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, ed. Jame s Strachey . 2 4 vols . (London : Hogarth Press , 1966).

Derrida Ap Aporias (Stanford : Stanfor d Universit y Press , 1993). Df "Difference, " i n Margins of Philosophy (Chicago: Uni versity o f Chicag o Press, 1982). DS "Th e Doubl e Session/ ' i n Dissemination (Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press, 1981). EM "Th e End s o f Man, " i n Margins of Philosophy (Chi cago: Universit y o f Chicag o Press, 1982). EO The Ear of the Other (Lincoln : Universit y o f Nebrask a Press, 1985). Glas Glas, trans. Joh n P . Leave y Jr. an d Richar d Ran d (Lin coln: Universit y o f Nebrask a Press , 1986). PC The Post Card (Chicago: Universit y o f Chicag o Press , 1987). Pit "Th e Pi t an d th e Pyramid, " i n Margins of Philosophy (Chicago: Universit y o f Chicag o Press, 1982). Pos Positions (Chicago : Universit y o f Chicag o Press , 1978). PP "Plato' s Pharmacy, " i n Dissemination (Chicago : Uni versity o f Chicag o Press, 1981).

IX

Abbreviations xS

p

Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles (Chicago : Universit y o f Chi cago Press, 1979).

OP

Oedipus, Philosopher (Stanford : Stanfor d Universit y Press, 1993). "The Phallus : Masculin e Identit y an d th e 'Exchang e of Women / " i n Difference 4 (sprin g 1992) , "Th e Phallus Issue. "

Goux

P

Lacan E F FS OS

SI

SII

S III

SVII Tel

Ecrits: A Selection, trans . A . Sherida n (Ne w York : W. W . Norton , 1977) . The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis (New York: W . W . Norton , 1981) . Feminine Sexuality, ed . Julie t Mitchel l an d Jacquelin e Rose (Ne w York: W . W . Norton , 1982) . "Of Structur e a s an Inmixin g o f a n Othernes s Prereq uisite t o An y Subjec t Whatsoever, " i n The Languages of and the Criticisms of the Sciences of Man, ed . Richar d Macksey an d Eugen e Donat o (Baltimore : John s Hop kins University Press , 1970). "Freud's Paper s o n Technique , 1953-1954, " i n The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book I (Ne w York : W . W . Norton, 1991) . "The Eg o in Freud' s Theor y 1954-1955, " in The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II (New York: W . W . Nor ton, 1988). "The Psychoses , 1955-1956, " i n The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book III (Ne w York : W . W . Norton , *993)"The Ethic s o f Psychoanalysis , 1959-1960, " i n The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book VII (New York: W . W . Norton, 1992) . Television (New York: W . W . Norton , 1990) .

Abbreviations

Laplanche L&D Life

xx and Death in Psychoanalysis (Baltimore : John s Hopkins Universit y Press , 1976).

Laplanche and Pontalis FO "Fantas

LP The

y an d th e Origi n o f Sexuality/ ' i n Formations of Fantasy, ed. Victo r Burgin , James Donald, an d Cor a Kaplan (London : Methuen , 1986) . Language of Psycho-Analysis (Ne w York : W . W . Norton, 1973) .

Nietzsche In mos t cases , Nietzsche' s work s ar e cite d i n th e tex t by sectio n numbers . Wher e Nietzsch e di d no t use section numbers , the referenc e wil l be to a page. BGE Beyond

Good and Evil, trans. R . J . Hollingdal e (Lon don: Pengui n Books , 1973). BT The Birth of Tragedy, trans. Walte r Kaufmann , i n Basic Writings of Nietzsche (Ne w York : Moder n Library , 1968). D Daybreak, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (Cambridge : Cam bridge Universit y Press , 1982). EH Ecce Homo, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (London : Pengui n Books, 1979). GM On the Genealogy of Morals, trans. Walte r Kaufmann , in Basic Writings of Nietzsche (Ne w York : Moder n Library, 1968). GS The Gay Science, trans . Walte r Kaufman n (Ne w York : Vintage Books , 1974). HH Human, All Too Human, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (Cambridge: Cambridg e University Press , 1986). Pt N The Portable Nietzsche, trans . Walte r Kaufman n (Lon don: Pengui n Books , 1982). T Twilight of the Idols, in The Portable Nietzsche, trans . Walter Kaufman n (London : Pengui n Books , 1982).

Abbreviations xii T

L On

UD On

Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense, a fragmen t published posthumously , i n The Portable Nietzsche, trans. Walte r Kaufman n (London : Pengui n Books , 1982).

the Uses and Disadvantages of History for Life, i n Untimely Meditations, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (Cam bridge: Cambridg e University Press , 1983). UM Untimely Meditations, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (Cam bridge: Cambridg e University Press , 1983). WP The Will to Power, trans. Walte r Kaufman n an d R . J . Hollingdale (Ne w York: Vintag e Books , 1968). Z Thus Spoke Zarathustra, trans . R . J . Hollingdal e (Lon don: Pengui n Books , 1969).

Introduction

These author s hav e a lo t o f nerve . The y hav e swu m int o th e treacherou s waters amon g the already rock y shores of psychoanalysis, postmodernism , and feminism , bu t no t onl y that . The y hav e written a book tha t claim s t o be doing each o f thos e enterprise s simultaneousl y rathe r tha n redescribin g or reinterpretin g them . Eve n more outrageously, the y clai m to be pushing psychoanalysis, postmodernism , an d feminis m t o thos e perspectives ' logi cal conclusions. At n o point do the author s attemp t t o define th e three disciplines. The y start, rather , wit h certai n notion s tha t ar e fundamenta l t o each . The y believe, fundamenta l t o feminism , tha t wome n ar e oppressed , i n ever y conceivable, crue l way . Somethin g mus t b e done abou t i t i f wome n ar e t o be minimally protecte d o r maximally "liberated/ 7 or , indeed, if the histor y of thi s specie s i s t o b e othe r tha n storie s o f miser y upo n misery . The y believe, fundamenta l t o postmodernism , tha t i n thi s postquantum-me chanical, post-Nietzchean , literall y postmoder n world , ther e i s n o "objec tive" reality . W e canno t separat e wha t w e believ e w e "know " fro m ho w we kno w it . Everythin g tha t w e "know, " al l tha t w e are , i s a functio n o f language. The y believe , fundamenta l t o psychoanalysis , tha t ther e i s a developmental proces s o f "genderization, " whic h proces s i s no t rationa l but drive n b y prima l needs . Further , th e gender s constructe d ar e no t symmetrically related : fo r ou r "languagin g bipe d species, " th e proces s requires tha t th e gender s b e differentl y understood , an d eve n hierarchi cally ordered . One could challeng e the authors ' simplificatio n o f thes e presupposition s (which o f cours e I hav e simplifie d muc h furthe r fo r th e purpose s o f thi s introduction) o r as k wh y thes e supposition s ar e no t necessar y t o thei r respective discipline s o r ho w subschool s o f eac h disciplin e activel y den y

i

Introduction 2

the respectiv e suppositions . Th e power of thi s book, however, require s th e reader t o suspen d thos e objection s temporarily , i n orde r t o ask : What if the discipline s a s characterize d wer e combined ? What if eac h disciplin e were take n t o it s logica l limits ? What if th e discipline s ha d t o mee t eac h other—what woul d be the result ? In order to get that far , thes e authors claim that eac h of those discipline s (or set s o f disciplines ) ca n affor d t o sacrific e som e o f it s mos t cherishe d tenets. The y wor k i n tha t "sacrifice " concep t righ t of f th e top , and i t ain' t that eas y to swallow . Feminism mus t giv e u p it s belie f i n th e idea l o f equalit y an d i n othe r prediscursive concept s suc h a s natur e an d justice . Postmodernis m ha s t o give u p it s preoccupatio n wit h endles s indeterminac y an d allo w itsel f t o be use d i n th e servic e o f politica l end s an d psychica l transformation . Postmodernism mus t allo w tha t ther e ar e morall y compellin g case s (suc h as th e historica l tortur e o f women ) an d that , a t leas t i n thos e cases , postmodernism ca n b e metho d rathe r tha n entirety . Psychoanalysis , hav ing i n it s Lacania n for m begu n th e purg e o f biologica l necessity , mus t now realiz e th e contingenc y o f it s patriarcha l conclusions . Allowin g th e inversion particularl y o f it s Oedipa l hypothesi s (regardin g th e psychicall y violent separatio n o f th e [male ] infant fro m th e mother), it must recogniz e the primacy o f the female , a t least on the level of psychic reality . Why woul d anyon e want , eve n fo r th e sak e of argument , t o make suc h sacrifices? In public discourses, battles see m to be won by fortifyin g rathe r than blurrin g th e line s amon g point s o f view . I n th e academy , award s come fro m bein g aligne d wit h a poin t o f vie w an d b y pickin g awa y a t competitors. I t pay s t o b e a loyal soldie r i n a particular arm y (som e mor e than others) , o r a t leas t t o b e a consistent , predictabl e resiste r o f othe r ways o f thinking . Ther e i s als o rewar d i n ownership . I coul d argu e tha t many o f th e insight s bot h o f postmodernis m an d contemporar y psycho analysis ar e a t bes t redundan t of , an d a t wors t rippe d of f from, radica l feminism. I a m sur e tha t student s o f postmodernis m an d psychoanalysi s could mak e parallel , oppositiona l arguments . Th e incentive s t o compart mentalize, t o claim , t o b e uncontaminated, t o asser t truth s ar e no t trivial . One's economic , political , an d existentia l securit y ca n depen d o n it . Thes e authors as k a lot of us. As I am a radica l feminis t activist/lawyer/la w teacher , m y appreciatio n of thi s boo k mus t flo w fro m wha t i t ca n d o fo r feminism . There' s a n obstacle righ t there , insofa r a s th e author s place , an d requir e reader s t o

Introduction accept, a t leas t som e valu e i n psychoanalyti c theory . Th e othe r perspec tives serv e t o whi p psychoanalysi s int o shape , t o rende r i t usefu l today . (That is , postmodern metho d ca n clarif y Freud' s essentialis t mistakes , an d feminism ca n negate the prescriptive aspects of the Oedipal passage.) Thus , the primar y concer n o f thes e author s i s wit h th e "why " o f mal e domi nance. A s the y note , ther e ha s alway s bee n a n ambivalen t relationshi p between feminis m an d psychoanalysis . Feminis m i s exper t i n th e "what " of mal e dominance . Sometime s w e canno t hel p bu t confron t th e why , usually ou t o f compassio n fo r ou r brothers . Thoug h psychoanalysi s ca n offer suc h explanations , thos e explanation s see m alway s t o impor t th e sexually bimorphi c term s o f th e Oedipa l passage : phalli c possessio n o r lack, seduction , an d castration . O f thes e terms , feminis m i s deepl y an d rightly suspicious , not only because of the Freudians' demonstrated misog yny bu t als o because o f th e depressin g stasi s an d morbidit y implici t i n th e theories an d th e threa t tha t an y allianc e wit h psychoanalysi s wil l pu t u s forever i n the pit of "cultura l feminism. " And tha t i s a dark , dee p pit . Thes e author s stat e tha t contemporar y feminisms ten d towar d th e libera l idea l o f equality , o r otherwis e towar d essentialism, "advocatin g som e for m o f th e femal e supremac y ove r th e male roote d i n th e biologica l difference s betwee n th e sexes , o r . . . som e kind of mysticism abou t the femal e body . " * I guarantee that thi s is a gross oversimplification o f feminis t theory. Bu t i t i s a n accurat e descriptio n o f how feminis m ha s bee n treated. Feminis t work , fo r al l it s insigh t an d nuance, ha s bee n bludgeone d int o th e categories , roughly , o f libera l an d cultural feminism . Anythin g tha t i s no t libera l feminis m (whic h th e im portant work is not) get s called "cultura l feminism," o r less politely "Femi Nazism," o r eve n tha t mos t feare d o f al l evils , "male-bashing. " Wh y redomesticate tha t dog ? Five year s ago , i n a telephon e conversatio n wit h J . C . Smith , I wa s describing ho w m y earl y publishe d wor k ha d bee n criticize d fo r resortin g to psychoanalyti c theor y an d questionin g whethe r feminis m ough t no t t o just abando n tha t approach . I n the midst o f m y complaint s an d hardlining , J. C . interrupte d t o sa y (an d thos e who kno w hi m ca n hea r thi s exactl y i n their minds) , "But Ann, how else can you understand this crazy world and the crazy men who run it?" How indeed ? Wh y shoul d feminist s accep t th e risks o f entertainin g psychoanalysi s ye t again ? Th e shor t answe r t o tha t came again fro m J . C . Smith , durin g a faculty lunc h semina r i n January of 1993, while I was visiting at the Universit y o f Britis h Columbia . I n a fifty -

3

Introduction 4 minut e span , Professo r Smit h share d th e skeleta l structur e o f thi s book , focusing o n th e relevanc e o f Nietzsch e t o a postmodern , psychoanalyti c feminism. On e o f ou r colleague s earnestl y asked , Bu t doesn' t thi s whol e theory undermin e th e goa l of equality ? J. C/ s shor t response : "Equality is a male game." Those fiv e word s refocuse d m y thinkin g and , I believe, encapsulat e th e greatest contributio n o f thi s boo k t o feminis t thought . Radica l lawyer s of all stripe s hav e know n fo r a lon g tim e tha t th e discours e o f equalit y wa s not "real, " an d surel y no t neutral . Ou r greates t theorists , particularl y Catharine MacKinnon , hav e demonstrate d ho w "equality " i s manipulate d to patriarcha l ends . A s shiftin g sand s thes e are , MacKinno n lon g sinc e predicted th e path o f almos t ever y grain . The authors o f this book focus o n the idea that women hav e settled, and that som e feminis t theorie s allo w wome n t o settle , fo r mer e "patriarcha l civility." Thi s ide a ha d it s bes t feminis t articulatio n i n Andre a Dworkin' s classic (absolutel y fundamenta l reading ) Right-Win g Women . J . C . Smit h and Carl a Ferstma n complemen t Dworkin' s approac h b y pursuin g tha t settlement t o it s psychica l origin s an d b y showin g ho w th e settlemen t i s mandated b y a blind (yea , Oedipal) commitmen t t o the ideal of equality . The author s d o no t advocat e a n abandonmen t o f equalit y discours e bu t a more strategic relationship to it. Thos e of us in the field hav e known tha t for som e time an d hav e proceeded accordingly . Bu t these authors , in thei r central metaphor , giv e u s a differen t wa y t o understan d wh y w e mus t deploy the concept of equalit y with caution . When Oedipu s "answered " th e riddl e o f th e Sphinx , h e mad e ma n th e measure o f al l things . In th e vie w o f thes e authors , Oedipu s symbolize s not onl y a wrong-heade d an d incomplet e proble m o f childhoo d develop ment bu t stand s als o fo r th e ridiculou s (thoug h understandable ) huma n desire fo r ther e t o be answers t o life's riddles . Tha t i s the basi c impulse of modernity an d its greatest politica l achievement—liberalism . Contemporary liberalis m ha s swep t Nietzsche' s lesson s unde r a procedural rug . Thus , withi n liberalism , thoug h ther e ma y no t b e a "right " answer amon g competin g point s o f view , thos e point s o f vie w ar e pre sumed rational , an d th e worl d i s right s o long as the rationa l conversatio n among points of view continues. "Mistakes " (suc h as torture and genocide) will be disclosed i n th e fullnes s o f time. W e can fix those "errors. " I t is all right. Everythin g is really going quite smoothly . As radica l feminis m ha s lon g sinc e demonstrated , thi s i s th e centra l

Introduction metaphysic o f patriarchy , a s wel l a s it s insuranc e policy . Modernit y an d liberalism guarante e tha t rea l problem s canno t eve n b e full y realized , much les s fixed . Equalit y i s th e centerpiec e o f thi s regime . Equality — conceived i n rational , eve n mathematical , terms—provide s th e mora l im primatur fo r fixin g nothing . I n th e Unite d States , th e weigh t o f thi s imprimatur i s eviden t i n th e publi c hysteri a ove r th e "injustice " o f affir mative actio n (an d tha t doctrine' s dramati c demis e i n constitutiona l law) . There was once a complex question: Wha t t o do about centuries o f oppression? No w ther e i s a n eas y answer : whateve r w e do , it can' t b e by mean s of acknowledging centurie s o f oppression . Thus, "equality " a s an abstrac t en d i s an Oedipa l "solve d riddle. " Tha t of cours e misse s th e poin t o f riddle s an d produce s a "blindspot " (tha t metaphor again ) abou t ho w patriarcha l metaphysic s i s generated , sus tained, an d deploye d wit h suc h seamles s success . Tru e believer s i n th e ideal o f equalit y canno t se e ho w the y ar e doome d t o b e sharecropper s o n Apollo's farm . A s th e author s pu t it : "M y fait h i n th e syste m a s on e which will protect m y interests , ensur e m y voic e and give me justice — O Almighty Justice! , i s a syste m whic h a t it s ver y root s seek s t o kee p m e down. Giv e m e laws , giv e m e right s entrenche d i n constitution s — le t them proclai m tha t I as woman a m a person, fo r thi s I did not know." 2 This book is really scary (t o unreformed liberal s an d their beneficiaries ) because it not only exposes the fallacies o f equality at a psychological level , it also proposes the supremac y o f th e femal e a s an alternative . I s this any thing other than the "cultura l feminism" trap ? These authors go to lengths to explai n ho w thei r postmodern , psychoanalyti c feminis m i s no t simpl y the replacemen t o f Oppressor A with Oppresso r B . First, they advocat e th e recognition o f "femal e supremacy " as distinguishable fro m "femal e superi ority. " The latter implies male inferiority, whic h is not their claim. The difference is crucial to their call for male sacrifice: th e male's gift doe s not flo w from hi s vilification . Rather , i t i s th e joyfu l counterpar t t o hi s liberatio n from th e neurotic , debilitatin g illusio n o f control . Hi s sacrific e t o HE R i s matched by the gift t o him of his own animality . All o f thi s take s place in th e real m o f "psychi c reality. " Fo r a feminis m driven by something other than the equality game or by biological/psycho logical essentialism , w e must locat e ou r efforts , t o use th e Lacania n term s central to this book, "i n the registries of the Imaginary an d the Symbolic. " It is only the n tha t feminis m will be realize d fo r wha t i t is : a path towar d social an d psychica l transformatio n rathe r tha n a "phalli c 'seizur e o f

5

Introduction 6 power / " 3 Properl y understood , thes e authors ' alternativ e narrativ e o f matriarchal consciousnes s "i s no t a n oppositio n withi n patriarch y bu t it s grand antithesis/' 4 Really ? We really need to know and that depend s on the strengt h o f th e book's centra l thesis . "Ther e ca n b e n o sel f withou t a discourse , n o dis course withou t a maste r signifier , n o maste r signifie r withou t a gran d metaphor, n o gran d metapho r withou t a primal fantasy , n o primal fantas y except throug h th e bod y o f th e female." 5 Th e thesi s rest s o n th e middl e chapters, th e neo-Lacania n argument s abou t th e connection s betwee n childhood anxieties , language , an d repression . Thes e chapter s wil l strik e some feminist s a s a loa d o f Frenc h vomit . (I n fairnes s t o th e authors , however, thoug h the y us e lot s o f th e ling o o f postmodernism , thei r argu ments helpe d t o demystif y a t leas t th e Lacania n branc h o f tha t stud y fo r me. I' m sur e som e wil l objec t tha t th e demystificatio n coul d occu r onl y because th e authors ' argument s ar e no t reall y postmodernist—I' m no t equipped t o judge. ) Bu t thes e middl e chapter s ar e necessar y t o thwar t biological determinism , t o get t o th e matri x o f language , an d therefor e t o the contingenc y o f malenes s a s the "privilege d signifier. " I would hav e neither th e knowledge nor the inclination t o make such a n argument i n suc h terms . Tha t i s wh y I nee d thi s book . Wit h a carefull y constructed argument , i t furthe r inform s wha t w e alread y kne w abou t both th e contingenc y o f patriarch y an d th e uselessnes s o f it s metaphysics . I wan t t o sa y tha t thi s boo k advance s a discussio n tha t ha d becom e de pressing i n it s compartmentalizatio n an d predictabl e traps . Th e authors , however, woul d b e the firs t t o retort tha t th e notio n o f "advancing " i s one of ou r species ' strangest symptoms . In an y case , thi s boo k i s a grea t chew , an d als o fun . I' m sur e th e authors recogniz e th e compliment . The y have willingly expose d thei r ow n vulnerabilities an d accepte d th e risk s and , i n thei r confessio n t o th e hig h crime o f "gran d theory," 6 implicitl y allowe d tha t thei r missio n ma y b e undermined b y it s own terms . The y understan d th e pitfall s an d th e rathe r endearing misguidednes s i n th e "will t o theory. " A t th e en d o f th e day , their ow n creatio n ma y b e subject t o Nietzsche's botto m line : " I hope tha t at thi s artificia l inflatio n o f a smal l specie s int o th e absolut e measur e o f things on e is still permitted t o laugh?" 7 Having sai d that, ther e ar e parts o f th e argument s i n thi s boo k that ar e not fu n an d are indeed deepl y troubling . (Ever y reade r ca n no doubt mak e her ow n differen t list. ) Fo r example , fundamenta l t o thi s wor k i s a clai m

Introduction to th e urgenc y an d frustratio n o f mal e mammalia n sexuality . Catharin e 7 MacKinnon ha s called this the "hard-wiring " defens e o f mal e aggression; 8 it ha s bee n a mightil y convenien t explanatio n fo r man y atrocities . Thi s book o f cours e posit s th e har d wirin g ver y differentl y an d raise s th e question o f whethe r tha t busines s tha t won' t g o away coul d eve r b e a link in a liberatory chain . Again , these authors hav e a lot of nerve . Much o f th e controversia l materia l i n thi s boo k arise s fro m th e (b y now) self-eviden t theoretica l propositio n tha t wha t w e call "knowledge " i s produced b y contras t betwee n an d amon g presume d opposites , i n a n end less spiralin g "economy. " Th e author s g o muc h furthe r (o r muc h back ward, fro m a postmodernis t poin t o f view) . The y argu e tha t sexuality / genderization i s th e basic contrast an d tha t al l knowledg e i s dependen t o n sexuality, which i s in turn base d on their centra l notio n tha t human s mus t have some fantasy/understanding o f "th e generative powe r of nature. " That lead s the m t o tw o other , mor e extravagan t claims . First , tha t a domination/submission dialecti c ha s been?/wil l alway s be ? necessar y t o the huma n psyche . Second , tha t ther e i s a jouissance i n masochis m (a t least fo r th e male). The y coul d not hav e hit mor e controversial chords . I wil l no t attemp t t o summariz e th e connection s amon g thes e ideas , which ar e th e substanc e o f thi s book . Th e author s g o on t o mak e detaile d distinctions betwee n pathologica l (bad ) masochis m an d pervers e (good ) masochism. Thei r conclusion s abou t sacrific e an d castratio n depen d o n those distinctions . A s o f publicatio n time , I have no t determine d whethe r my uneasines s i s substantive o r a reaction t o th e languag e o f domination / submission, master/slav e dialectic , jouissance o f masochism , an d al l th e other term s tha t hav e receive d recen t popularit y throug h a Frenchifie d abstraction o f rea l traumas . I hav e provisionall y chosen , perhap s incorrectly , t o understan d thes e connections an d distinction s i n a larger psychica l context . I think o f the m in term s o f th e pai n o f individuation—th e struggl e involve d i n havin g a self whe n th e sel f i s a n entirel y vulnerable , an d inevitabl y temporary , construct. Thoug h I am no t otherwis e give n t o gran d theory , I recogniz e this struggl e in much huma n endeavor , whether a s a psychoanalytic expla nation (pe r th e Oedipa l passag e o r th e alternativ e t o i t propose d i n thi s book), a s a theologica l necessit y (a s i n mos t "Eastern " religions) , o r a s a metaphysical mistak e (o r th e mistak e tha t i s metaphysics), whic h ha s ha d massively stupi d an d horri d consequence s (th e exposur e o f whic h wa s Nietzsche's grea t contribution) .

Introduction 8

These reservation s notwithstanding , thi s boo k make s man y specific , not necessaril y grand-theory-dependen t contributions , fou r o f whic h hav e settled foreve r i n m y brain . First i s th e psychoanalyti c deconstructio n o f equality, describe d above , whic h I believe add s a ne w dimensio n t o wha t we already understand an d practice. Second is the reinvigoration o f Nietzsche in terms useful t o the feminis t millennium. Onl y Luc e Irigaray , amon g widel y rea d authors , ha s bee n able to give Nietzsche bac k to feminist socia l theory wit h an y success . Th e effort o f these authors, in my view, is even better. Tha t ma y not matter t o many readers . I suspect, however , that ther e are feminists beside s me who have ha d a heretofor e embarrasse d attractio n t o (an d inspiratio n from ) Nietzsche's work , i n spit e of it s misogynist moments , which thes e author s try t o explain an d in any cas e go beyond. Third i s th e extraordinar y exploratio n i n thi s boo k o f th e connection s among religion, law, and pornography. Severa l activists/scholars hav e long suspected tha t religio n an d pornograph y wer e mirro r images ; the y knew , if onl y intuitively , tha t d e Sad e an d Sain t Pau l ar e eac h other' s evi l twin , as these authors stat e unequivocally. Th e authors' construc t ha s its genesis in th e wor k o f Mar y Daly , Andre a Dworkin , Catharin e MacKinnon , an d Jane Caputi—amon g others . Bu t her e w e hav e somethin g new . Eve n fo r those o f u s wh o ar e suspiciou s o f linea r constructs , th e logos-law-peni s axis describe d i n thi s boo k i s critica l gris t fo r ou r mill ; i t ma y eve n b e a genuine breakthrough . Fourth, th e insight s tha t J . C . Smit h an d Carl a Ferstma n provid e abou t poor ol d Oedipu s himsel f hav e bot h socia l and persona l therapeuti c value . Many o f u s kno w a n Oedipa l figure : a perso n wh o ha s surrendere d th e possibilities o f lif e t o th e patriarcha l institution s tha t mak e clai m t o cer tainty, the institutions tha t promise everything but at the literal end of th e day delive r nothing . Thos e ar e reall y th e term s o f th e bargai n fo r lot s of women. Bu t man y o f u s (particularly , perhaps , thos e o f m y generatio n who hav e attende d th e elderly ) als o kno w suc h a man: a former princ e i n Apollo's cour t wh o find s himself , a t hi s anima l end , literall y and/o r figu ratively blind an d crawling about in institutional excrement . This busines s o f findin g o r denyin g joy , o f embracin g o r resistin g resistance t o certainty , i s o f consequenc e fo r everybody . Thos e topic s ar e the rea l focu s fo r J . C . Smit h an d Carl a Ferstman . I n tha t context , ther e are som e specifi c conclusion s o f thi s boo k tha t rin g tru e fo r me . Th e costs o f th e onc e presumabl y necessar y "Oedipa l separation " hav e bee n

Introduction astronomical fo r al l organisms an d fo r th e eart h herself . Ou r specie s mus t come to term s wit h it s animality i f w e are to realiz e Nietzsche' s "YES " to life. Tha t minimall y require s alternativ e form s o f mal e heterosexuality , which mean s tha t me n mus t relinquis h th e powe r tha t i s i n fac t thei r misery. Som e sacrific e (i n th e authors ' term , "castration" ) i s inevitable : the questio n i s how an d by who m an d wit h wha t results . N o on e who ha s glimpsed thi s alternativ e psychi c realit y (i n th e authors ' parlance , n o on e who ha s see n HER ) woul d wan t t o tur n bac k t o th e miserabl e storie s o f history an d personal demise . I a m i n th e privilege d positio n o f knowin g bot h J . C . Smit h an d Carl a Ferstman. The y liv e i n tha t alternativ e psychi c realit y an d transfor m th e people aroun d the m who—b y whateve r twist s o f fate—ar e luck y enoug h to b e ope n t o them . (I t i s no t irrelevan t tha t on e o f thes e authors—th e guy, a s i t turn s out—ha s share d a n inspirin g relationshi p wit h a n aston ishing woma n fo r th e las t fort y years. ) I therefor e canno t separat e thi s book fro m m y experienc e o f th e authors . I ca n onl y urg e th e reader s t o allow these possibilities int o their ow n lives. This book pushed ever y button o n my personal and political pads. Ther e is a raging argument i n m y hea d with th e author s an d with myself . Thes e people ar e obviousl y learne d an d obviousl y mad . The y ar e clearl y strang e and strangel y clear . The y must b e on to something .

Ann Scales

Albuquerque, Ne w Mexic o January 199 5

9

O N E

Thinking the Unthinkable

Psychoanalysis, Postmodernism, and Feminism Contemporary critica l socia l theor y point s t o thre e perspectives : th e psy choanalytic, th e postmodern , an d th e feminist . Thoug h eac h ha s it s ow n independent core , incorporatin g aspect s fro m on e o r mor e o f th e othe r perspectives can be beneficial an d has the result of strengthening o r clarify ing th e respectiv e theoretica l structure . Ther e i s substantia l literatur e combining an y tw o o f thes e thre e perspectives . Eac h allianc e turn s ou t t o be a cas e o f on e perspectiv e co-optin g som e aspec t o f th e other s whil e a t the sam e tim e rejectin g on e o r mor e o f th e basi c presupposition s upo n which th e perspectiv e rests . Thus , w e hav e postmoder n feminism , post modern psychoanalysis , and psychoanalytic feminism. Ther e is not, as yet, however, a full integratio n o f thes e thre e points o f view. Jan e Flax wrote a book entitle d Thinking Fragments, in whic h sh e expose d th e fundamenta l contradictions o f th e thre e perspective s an d cam e t o th e conclusio n tha t a unified theor y wa s no t possible . Sh e conclude d tha t "n o nea t integration , new synthesis, o r Aufhebung" o f these three perspectives i s either possibl e or desirable. 1 Whil e a tota l convergenc e o f thes e thre e perspective s ma y not b e possible , o r fo r tha t matte r eve n desirable , the y ma y b e s o inte grated tha t i t wil l b e neithe r possibl e no r desirabl e t o separat e thei r dis courses or methodologies . We disagree with Fla x in that w e think a synthesis is possible. Whethe r or no t i t woul d b e desirabl e i s a n ope n question . Fo r ther e t o b e an y unification, eac h perspectiv e mus t sacrific e som e o f it s basi c tenet s o r presuppositions. Psychoanalysi s an d feminis m mus t giv e u p o r revers e valued o r cherished, an d fairl y fundamental , components . Postmodernism , when pitte d agains t thes e tw o discourses , mus t allo w itsel f t o reac h it s

10

Thinking the Unthinkable natural conclusion s an d avoid the desire to sidetrack or to get caught in the n detail alon g th e way . Th e desirabilit y o f a psychoanalytic-postmodern feminism wil l depen d upo n th e natur e o f thes e sacrifices . On e o f th e primary objective s o f thi s boo k i s to explor e ho w ther e woul d b e a unifie d theory withi n whic h eac h positio n coul d maintai n it s integrity , whil e simultaneously explorin g th e desirabilit y o f makin g th e necessar y modifi cations. Thi s tex t wa s no t designe d a s a defense o f an y on e o r al l of thes e three differen t perspectives . W e assum e thes e discourse s a s givens . Ou r intent i s to create a treatise tha t make s th e necessar y modification s t o eac h perspective in order t o bring them togethe r int o an integrated whole . Our objectiv e i s to demonstrat e th e natura l result s tha t flow from suc h an integration , rathe r tha n t o persuad e th e reade r o f th e viabilit y o f th e unification. Theorist s committe d t o psychoanalysis , postmodernism , an d feminism must , i n scrutinizin g th e premise s o f thi s endeavor , eithe r fin d flaws i n th e metho d o f unificatio n an d develo p i t differentl y o r the y mus t continue t o thin k i n term s o f fragments . Sinc e peopl e generall y prefe r t o rid thei r worl d views o f contradictions , thi s ma y plac e th e reade r i n some what o f a dilemma. Wha t i s important, however , i s that i n strugglin g wit h these issue s w e enric h ou r understandin g an d ar e willing a t leas t t o thin k about an d tolerat e views that, i n term s o f th e predominant psychi c reality , may a t firs t glanc e appea r t o be distasteful o r unacceptable . W e would no t go s o fa r a s t o sa y tha t thi s i s the onl y for m th e unificatio n ca n take . W e think, however , tha t i t is the best way to combine them while maintainin g their essentia l elements . Psychoanalytic theory, postmodernism, an d feminism ar e all radical and critical approache s t o theory . Whe n the y ar e combined , th e degre e o f radicalness i s compounded . Ther e ar e unstate d limit s an d boundarie s tha t restrict what w e can sa y and discus s about huma n sexuality . W e generall y function withi n thes e conceptua l boundaries , bu t b y takin g a more radica l hypothesis we can locate and critically examin e these confines an d possibl y roll the m bac k a little . Despit e decade s o f "intermitten t bu t intens e dia logue/' w e d o no t full y kno w whethe r o r no t mal e an d femal e sexua l natures ar e essentiall y differen t o r ho w fa r women' s sexualit y ha s bee n muted b y repression , no r d o we fully understan d th e comple x relationshi p between sexualit y an d aggression. 2 Caro l Vance , in posing suc h questions , points ou t that discussio n o f huma n sexualit y i s permeated wit h emotiona l ambiguity, intrapsychic anxiety, and fears o f dissolution, self-annihilation , and dependency. "Havin g been told that pleasure threatens civilization , we

11

Thinking the Unthinkable 12 wonder : wha t if there is no end to desire ?" 3 One cannot help but ask why, after tw o thousan d year s o f th e ideolog y o f equality , d o w e stil l hav e gender discrimination , an d why afte r severa l decades of universal suffrage , do w e stil l hav e onl y toke n femal e representatio n i n th e structure s an d hierarchies o f power ? Why , afte r substantia l legislativ e refor m an d a ne w age of fundamenta l rights , is violence against women stil l pervasive? We wil l argu e tha t th e transformatio n i n discours e ha s faile d t o alte r the realit y o f liv e practice because the practice itself i s neurotic rather tha n merely mistaken . On e canno t alte r misogyn y b y appealin g t o reaso n an y more tha n on e ca n cur e neurotic s o f thei r neurose s b y pointin g ou t an d explaining ho w unreasonabl e thei r behavio r is . Th e employmen t o f th e concept o f neurosi s a s a metapho r fo r mal e misogyn y is , w e wil l argue , valid. Misogyn y ca n b e viewed a s a neurosis o f th e mal e collectiv e psych e and therefor e a s a collective neurosis. 4 Neuroti c behavio r o f individual s i s altered, defused , o r transcende d b y th e psychoanalyti c proces s o f uncov ering th e sourc e o f th e neurosi s an d bringin g i t int o consciou s awareness . A collective neurosis suc h as misogyny ca n only be defused o r transcende d by an analogous process. An examination o f the interrelationships betwee n psychoanalysis, postmodernism , an d radica l feminis m wil l revea l ho w th e deconstructive proces s parallels tha t whic h take s place between th e analys t and the analysand. 5 We d o no t purpor t t o provid e answer s fo r an y o f th e question s se t ou t above a s w e writ e thi s boo k fro m a hypothetica l perspectiv e base d upo n presuppositions tha t fo r th e purpos e o f ou r writing , w e tak e fo r granted . The boo k doe s sugges t answer s t o som e o f thes e questions , answer s tha t are conditiona l upo n th e validit y o f th e presupposition s tha t w e asser t underlie psychoanalysis, postmodernism, an d feminism. Thes e are presuppositions tha t th e reade r ma y o r may no t accept . In looking at som e of th e above questions fro m th e perspective o f a unified psychoanalyti c postmod ern feminism , th e reade r ough t t o b e abl e t o gai n ne w insight s abou t th e nature an d complexit y o f thes e issues , an d hopefull y i t will b e helpful fo r readers in formulatin g thei r ow n response s to some of these critical issues. By maintainin g thi s stud y a t th e hypothetica l leve l w e hop e t o isolat e our examinatio n o f th e natur e an d structur e o f huma n sexualit y an d it s relationship to social order fro m som e of the emotional baggage that we as authors, and you a s readers, will inevitably brin g to these themes. This boo k i s writte n i n th e styl e o f gran d theory . Ther e i s n o reaso n why postmoder n scholarshi p canno t b e comprehensiv e o r sweeping , s o

Thinking the Unthinkable long as one keeps in mind tha t i t is just a story no t the story. A s such, this 13 kind o f scholarshi p shoul d b e compare d t o theater . I t i s a play, a story , a myth, a discourse, a stage, as are also all other comprehensiv e o r sweepin g theories. Whe n on e writes, stages , or act s a play, one ought no t t o have t o keep reminding the audience that it is a play. Whe n th e play is in progress, the author , director , an d actor s try t o make it as convincing as possible fo r the sak e o f th e pla y o r th e theatrica l event . W e hop e tha t th e reade r wil l approach thi s book in the spiri t of theater .

The Dialectics of Authors and Their Texts Jacques Lacan , th e mos t profoun d o f al l o f th e disciple s o f Freud , sai d o f Freud, "th e fathe r o f psychoanalysis , wha t di d h e d o bu t han d i t ove r t o the women, an d also perhaps t o the master-fools ? As far a s the women ar e concerned, w e shoul d reserv e judgment ; the y ar e beings wh o remai n ric h in promise , a t leas t t o th e exten t tha t the y haven' t ye t live d u p t o them . As fo r th e master-fools , that' s anothe r stor y altogether " ( S VII , 182) . I f women hav e no t full y live d u p t o th e challeng e o f Freud' s legacy , which , according t o Lacan , Freu d bequeathe d the m i n th e for m o f psychoanalyti c theory, i t ma y wel l b e becaus e the y hav e not , a s yet , full y integrate d feminism an d psychoanalysis . I f ther e ar e maste r fools , certainl y th e postmodernist fit s thi s descriptio n a s the trickste r an d th e subversive . Th e master foo l o f al l tim e i s Friedrich Nietzsche . Nietzsch e wrot e th e mos t outrageous, profound , unreasonable , irrationa l things , an d i f tha t i s no t the rol e of th e master fool , the n wha t is ? The postmodernists—those wh o embrace the legac y of Nietzsche—ar e maste r fools . S o it well may b e tha t the feminist s an d postmodernist s are , i n th e fina l analysis , th e tru e heir s and beneficiarie s o f th e Freudia n Pandora' s bo x w e cal l psychoanalysis . In an y case , we , th e author s o f thi s text , hav e writte n a s woma n an d master fool . The psychoanalytic traditio n founde d i n th e wor k o f Laca n i s postmod ern i n tha t i t i s poststructuralist an d consisten t wit h deconstruction , whil e the schoo l o f psychoanalysi s grounde d i n th e wor k o f Melani e Klein , fo r example, presupposes a modernist theor y o f cognition . Th e postmodernis t is th e perso n wh o explore s th e limit s o f knowledg e a t th e boundarie s o f language. Laca n woul d certainl y fi t thi s definition . Jus t a s ther e ar e post modern an d modernis t psychoanalyti c perspectives , ther e ar e postmoder n and modernis t feminisms . Modernis t feminism s ten d t o b e essentialist ,

Thinking the Unthinkable 14 advocatin g som e for m o f supremac y o f th e femal e ove r th e mal e roote d i n the biological differences betwee n th e sexes, or they rever t to some kind of mysticism abou t th e femal e body . Or , further , the y ten d t o submi t t o a n ethereal trut h o f equality , o f sameness . Ther e ar e psychoanalyti c femi nisms an d feminist s wh o conside r Freu d an d Laca n rathe r a s enemies tha n allies. Ther e is , however , a specia l convergenc e i n critica l socia l theor y between psychoanalysis , postmodernism, an d feminism . Much o f contemporar y critica l socia l theor y i n th e English-speakin g world consist s o f commentarie s o n Frenc h texts , suc h a s thos e o f Lacan , Derrida, Foucault , Cixous , Irigaray, an d Kristeva , who in tur n ar e reactin g to Germa n text s suc h a s thos e o f Hegel , Marx , Nietzsche , Freud , an d Heidegger. Th e problem with readin g many of these texts is that it is ofte n difficult t o understand the m unles s you alread y hav e a good gras p of wha t they say , an d i t i s difficul t t o ge t tha t withou t firs t havin g rea d th e texts . One techniqu e i s t o rea d som e o f th e excellent commentaries , interpreta tions, commentaries o n the commentaries, and interpretations o f the inter pretations. Thi s boo k use s th e text s themselve s t o construc t a narrative o r exposition o f th e authors . Thi s i s precisely wha t Laca n doe s with th e text s of Freu d an d invite s u s t o d o so with hi s ow n text . I n thi s way we are no t just talkin g i n th e abstrac t abou t psychoanalysis , o r postmodernism , o r feminism, bu t ar e doing it. Throughout thi s boo k we make extensiv e us e o f th e text s o f Nietzsche , Freud, and Lacan. Lacan , in particular, suggeste d to those who attended hi s famous seminar s tha t an y attemp t o n thei r par t t o restat e hi s positio n would lea d t o a misunderstanding. "I' m no t surprise d tha t somethin g o f a misunderstanding remain s t o b e dispelled , eve n i n peopl e wh o thin k they're followin g me, " h e writes . "[I] f I were t o tr y t o mak e mysel f ver y easily understood , s o that yo u wer e completel y certai n tha t yo u followed , then accordin g t o m y premise s concernin g interhuma n discours e th e mis understanding woul d be irremediable" ( S III, 164). This book , therefore , ca n no t onl y b e contraste d wit h th e book s tha t attempt t o explai n fo r th e reade r wha t Nietzsche , Freud , an d Laca n wrot e and taught , bu t als o with som e o f th e excellen t commentarie s o n psycho analytic or postmodern feminis t socia l theory. Thi s book attempts to forg e a synthesi s b y makin g th e necessar y change s i n eac h perspectiv e tha t i s required i n orde r t o creat e a convergence wit h th e othe r two , rathe r tha n discussing wha t change s woul d hav e t o b e made an d whethe r o r no t the y are desirable . Whethe r o r no t th e change s mad e i n eac h perspectiv e i n

Thinking the Unthinkable order t o achiev e a convergenc e ar e t o b e welcome d i s lef t a s a n ope n 15 question fo r th e reade r to contemplate an d consider . This boo k shoul d no t b e take n a s constitutin g a n argumen t fo r th e creation o f a synthesi s o f psychoanalysis , postmodernism , an d feminism . Our purpos e i n writin g th e boo k i s t o creat e a tex t tha t manifest s suc h a synthesis. Ou r argumen t i s tha t i f yo u tak e a s presupposition s th e basi c tenets an d methodologie s o f psychoanalysis , postmodernism , an d femi nism and bring them together by deleting those elements that are inconsistent wit h wha t i s fundamenta l t o eac h o f th e others , the n th e theor y should loo k ver y muc h lik e wha t w e se t ou t i n thi s volume . Thi s i s ou r goal, an d thi s i s th e standar d b y whic h w e invit e th e reade r t o judg e the book . This boo k limit s itsel f t o a n analysi s o f heterosexua l relationships . A s such, it ignore s the fundamenta l realit y o f lesbian s an d homosexuals . Thi s was not a n effort t o negate, but merely a n effort no t to distort an d to leave for anothe r day . W e wis h th e tex t t o stan d a s completel y independen t a s possible fro m ou r ow n privat e views , man y o f which , o f course , wil l b e reflected i n th e text . W e hav e attempte d no t t o allo w ou r ow n view s t o distort o r modif y th e synthesis . Tha t i s t o sa y tha t w e hav e attempte d t o let th e synthesi s tak e it s ow n for m an d spea k fo r itself , eve n thoug h ou r views ma y no t accor d wit h it . W e hav e als o tried no t t o us e th e synthesi s to pres s ou r ow n views . I n fact , bein g tw o authors , femal e an d male , w e ourselves d o no t hol d th e sam e view s consistently . Thi s fac t ha s no t bee n a proble m i n coauthorin g th e boo k becaus e w e hav e trie d t o le t th e tex t itself gover n it s own development . Tha t is , we have sough t t o bring abou t the closes t possibl e unio n o f th e view s an d th e fundamenta l an d essentia l texts o f Freud , Lacan , an d Nietzsche , th e thre e set s o f text s tha t ar e mos t closely interrelate d an d mos t fundamenta l t o psychoanalyti c socia l theor y and postmodernism . W e believ e tha t thi s approac h wil l allo w reader s t o confront issue s an d rais e question s tha t the y migh t no t otherwis e hav e considered i n readin g commentaries o n or the texts of Nietzsche , Freud , o r Lacan i n isolatio n fro m eac h othe r an d fro m th e feminis t perspective . I n particular, w e wis h th e reade r t o explor e mor e deepl y th e implication s o f psychoanalysis an d postmodernis m fo r feminism , particularl y whe n the y are used in consort . The unifyin g them e o f thi s boo k i s th e political . W e ar e intereste d no t only i n what a synthesis o f psychoanalysis , postmodernism , an d feminis m would b e like, but als o in what kin d o f politic s suc h a synthesis would lea d

Thinking the Unthinkable 16 to

. Again , ou r interes t i n writin g thi s boo k i s not t o promot e thi s kin d of politics bu t t o develo p an d outlin e it . Consequently , th e argument s i n th e book ar e no t argument s i n favo r o f th e adoptio n o f th e analysi s bu t arguments fo r th e analysi s takin g thi s particula r for m a s agains t othe r possible forms . Thi s differenc e ma y appea r subtle , an d w e ma y hav e crossed ove r th e lin e a t time s fo r whic h w e apologize an d as k th e reader' s indulgence. I t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t w e hav e no t develope d counterargu ments agains t thi s kind o f politics. We have diligently attempte d t o exemplify postmoder n methodolog y i n the writin g o f th e book . W e invit e th e reade r t o contemplate th e relation ship between sexualit y an d politics , gender an d power. W e will seduc e th e reader t o suspen d th e belie f i n a n objectiv e externa l realit y an d absolut e truth an d t o tak e a s wel l a feminis t perspective . I n thi s wa y w e hop e t o lead th e reade r t o explor e th e plac e wher e th e publi c an d th e privat e converge; wher e subjectivit y an d objectivit y meet ; wher e sexualit y an d politics intersect ; wher e gender , sexuality , an d powe r com e together ; an d where the inner world of psychic reality an d the external world of materia l reality fuse . The methodolog y o f postmodernis m an d psychoanalysi s i s muc h th e same, an d i n a wa y eac h presuppose s th e other. 6 On e ca n onl y full y appreciate Freu d whe n on e ha s read Nietzsche , and on e can onl y gras p th e significance o f Nietzsch e afte r readin g Freud. 7 I t i s n o acciden t tha t th e deconstructionist movemen t i s deeply roote d i n th e writings o f both Freu d and Nietzsche. 8 Deconstructio n entail s clos e analysis , an d clos e analysi s requires deconstruction. 9 Deconstructio n an d psychoanalysi s ar e paralle l processes suc h tha t whe n w e envisag e postmoder n psychoanalyti c theor y or psychoanalyti c postmodernism , the y amoun t t o muc h th e sam e thing . The concept s o f eac h ca n b e explaine d i n term s o f th e nomenclatur e o f the other . The relationshi p o f radica l feminis m t o eac h i s differen t tha n th e rela tionship of poststructuralis m an d deconstructio n t o psychoanalytic theory . Radical feminis m i s presupposed b y neither ; nevertheless , th e actua l practice o f eithe r ough t t o hav e le d t o th e sam e se t o f presupposition s tha t underlie radica l feminism . Th e discours e o f radica l feminis m cam e int o being independentl y o f th e discours e an d perspectiv e o f psychoanalyti c theory, poststructuralism , an d deconstruction . Nietzsche , Freud , Lacan , and Derrid a ar e male s wh o faile d t o tak e thei r methodolog y t o th e limit s of its potential, to the deconstruction an d delegitimization o f male domina -

Thinking the Unthinkable tion. Consequently , thei r wor k remain s incomplete . Radica l feminism , 1 therefore, i s th e methodology , discourse , an d perspectiv e tha t permit s th e analysis o f th e text s o f psychoanalysi s an d th e deconstructio n o f th e text s of poststructuralism . Whe n th e methodologie s ar e intertwine d i n thi s manner, th e boundaries between the m begi n t o disintegrate .

The Sacrifice Psychoanalysis mus t sacrific e th e privilege d positio n o f th e phallus , whil e at th e sam e time maintainin g th e underlyin g theoretica l structur e tha t le d to th e placin g o f th e phallu s i n a privileged position . T o do this, we mus t show tha t Freu d wa s righ t abou t th e methodolog y o f psychoanalysi s bu t made a wron g tur n a t som e poin t i n it s application . Whil e Freu d wa s clearly no t a feminist , an d man y feminist s hav e bee n an d ar e highl y critical o f Freud , other s hav e forge d a n allianc e betwee n feminis m an d psychoanalytic theory . Th e fundamenta l contributio n o f psychoanalyti c theory t o feminis t socia l theor y lie s i n it s capacit y an d potentia l fo r ex plaining the origins of sexuality , sexua l difference, gende r difference , mal e domination, rape , perversion , pathology , th e structur e o f th e family , an d group o r collectiv e behavior . Th e paradox o f feminis m an d psychoanalysi s is, however , tha t th e explanation s ar e i n term s o f phalli c possessio n o r lack, seduction , an d castration , al l o f whic h see m t o privileg e th e Oedipa l structure. Thi s give s th e mal e th e dominan t positio n a s th e possesso r o f the phallu s an d legitimize s mal e domination . Th e relationshi p betwee n traditional psychoanalyti c theor y an d feminism , whil e importan t fo r each , remains ambivalen t a t best . From thi s unifie d perspectiv e w e hav e conclude d an d argu e tha t a feminism roote d i n th e ideolog y o f equalit y (a s contrasted wit h th e practi cal politic s o f equality ) i s inconsisten t wit h psychoanalysis . Therefore , i n order t o mes h feminis t theor y wit h psychoanalysis , feminis m mus t sacri fice libera l notion s o f equality . Psychoanalysi s require s a feminis m base d on sexuality , an d th e psychoanalyti c perspectiv e o f sexualit y presuppose s difference, castration , an d lack—no t equality . Equalit y i s not sexy . Ther e is n o libidina l forc e behin d equality . A feminis m tha t choose s t o concen trate on distribution o f power rathe r tha n upo n th e nature an d structure of human sexualit y mus t rejec t Freud , an d a feminis m tha t i s willin g t o consider th e sexua l dimensio n mus t confron t Freud . A t th e sam e time , a psychoanalysis tha t i s consisten t wit h feminis m mus t trea t th e privilege d

7

Thinking the Unthinkable 18 positio n o f th e mal e a s a neurotic an d pathologica l sympto m arisin g fro m repression. Psychoanalysi s an d feminis m ca n onl y b e full y integrate d within a theor y tha t embrace s a dialecti c o f differenc e tha t ma y wel l b e inconsistent wit h gende r equality . Feminis m ma y wel l hav e t o choos e between liberalis m an d psychoanalysis . I t ca n alig n itsel f wit h on e o r th e other, but no t with both . For both Freu d an d Laca n sexua l difference i s necessarily asymmetrical , and, furthermore , n o symmetrica l relatio n betwee n me n an d wome n i s possible. Sexua l identit y i s culturall y constructe d throug h fantas y struc tures tha t ar e mad e t o coher e wit h biology. 10 Th e proble m tha t feminis m has wit h Laca n i s tha t ther e appear s t o b e n o wa y ou t o f thi s impasse . Postmodernism mus t tak e th e gian t lea p int o th e domai n o f sexualit y an d gender an d tes t th e bound s o f th e libera l conception s o f sexua l an d gende r symmetry. Th e resul t i s a precarious positionin g o n th e edg e of discourse , a frightening discours e of binary opposition s an d gende r hierarchies . What i s a t issu e i s ho w th e explanation s ar e t o unfold . Whethe r th e relationship betwee n feminis m an d psychoanalysi s i s t o b e tha t o f a close integration suc h that i t will be difficult t o measure where one ends and th e other begin s o r whethe r i t i s t o remai n inharmoniou s wil l depen d upo n whether o r no t a different for m o f sexuality , gender structure , and psychi c reality ca n b e sai d t o coexis t a s a n oppositiona l alternativ e t o th e Oedipa l analysis, whil e a t th e sam e tim e maintainin g th e essentia l theoretica l structure o f psychoanalyti c theory . I f psychoanalyti c theor y coul d b e ex tended i n thi s manner , the n th e proces s o f individuatio n woul d b e see n a s a dialectica l proces s betwee n tw o form s o f psychi c sexualit y an d reality , each o f whic h coul d furnis h a se t o f gende r structure s havin g a revers e asymmetry. Eac h woul d provid e a femal e an d mal e sexua l an d gende r structure. Feminism require s tha t th e categor y o f "woman " b e taken a s a presupposition. Psychoanalysis , o n th e othe r hand , assume s tha t th e categor y of "woman" ca n onl y b e define d i n term s o f th e lac k o f th e phallus . Tradi tional psychoanalyti c theor y ha s seriou s defect s tha t cente r aroun d it s assumptions an d presupposition s abou t women . Freu d wa s haunte d b y women, obsesse d with women, an d in the end failed t o understand them. 11 In traditiona l psychoanalyti c theor y ma n claim s th e positio n o f subject , observer, an d woma n i s designate d th e other—tha t whic h i s t o b e ob served. Ther e have been and continue to be a substantial numbe r o f femal e psychoanalytic theorist s wh o have focuse d thei r gaz e in th e same directio n

Thinking the Unthinkable as th e male, 12 tha t is , o n th e female , i n attemptin g t o correc t th e man y 19 misrepresentations, projections , errors , an d mistake s tha t th e mal e a s ob server o f th e female ha s made. There is , however , a fallac y i n thi s configuratio n o f male s observin g females an d describin g th e natur e o f femininity , an d female s saying , "No , women ar e not reall y lik e that—the mal e is mistaken/' Th e fallac y i s tha t there i s a subject makin g th e observation s o f somethin g tha t i s other tha n itself, whe n i n realit y wha t i s happening i s that th e male s ar e projecting a fantasy structur e o f thei r ow n sexua l psychi c realit y ont o th e female . Th e conclusions tha t Freu d reache d abou t wome n an d thei r sexualit y ar e abou t women a s they exis t within th e fantas y structure s o f mal e psychic reality . If we wish to gain an understanding o f women a s a construct o f the fantas y structure o f male collective psychic reality, we must star t by looking inside the psych e o f th e mal e sinc e tha t i s wher e th e concep t o f femininit y originates—as a male defens e mechanis m t o protec t th e mal e eg o agains t the seductio n o f th e femal e a s (M)other . Wome n psychoanalyst s an d feminist theorist s hav e bee n reluctan t t o tak e o n th e tas k o f describin g what i s insid e th e mal e psych e a s thi s woul d creat e th e sam e danger s o f projection i n reverse . Wha t psychoanalyti c theor y lack s an d desperatel y needs i s a n equivalen t grou p o f mal e theorist s wh o woul d concentrat e o n analyzing th e structur e o f mal e sexualit y an d psychi c reality , suc h a s th e many importan t femal e psychoanalyst s an d feminis t theorist s hav e don e in regar d t o femal e sexualit y an d th e femal e psyche . Ther e i s an extensiv e body o f literatur e abou t femal e sexualit y an d femininity . Ther e i s n o corresponding bod y o f psychoanalyti c literatur e abou t mal e sexualit y an d masculinity. Freu d asked , "Wha t doe s woma n want? " rathe r tha n askin g "What i s wron g wit h th e man? " o r "Wh y i s th e ma n a proble m fo r women?" Th e nee d i s t o understan d th e ma n wh o i s th e projecto r o f th e fantasy structur e "woman, " whic h women adop t as the mask of femininit y in orde r t o participat e withi n th e framewor k o f mal e desire . Wha t i s required t o brin g abou t a synthesi s betwee n psychoanalyti c theor y an d feminism i s a dialectical, postmodern psychoanalysis . The writing s o f Jacque s Laca n ar e an d wil l continu e t o b e a core them e in the dialogue between feminis m an d psychoanalysis becaus e they furnis h feminism wit h a version o f psychoanalytic theor y tha t begin s the purge of biological essentialism—towar d a postmodern psychoanalysis . Th e inter course o f th e tw o will be contentious an d difficul t i n tha t Lacan' s writing s themselves ar e formidable , opaque , complicated, an d problematic, generat -

Thinking the Unthinkable 20 in

g man y interpretation s o f hi s thought , a s well a s interpretation s o f th e interpretations. Jus t a s Freu d wa s no t a feminist , neithe r wa s Lacan . A s stated b y Jan e Gallop , "Ther e neve r wa s a n allianc e betwee n th e perso n Lacan [th e body o f Lacan' s writing] an d feminism . Wha t ther e ha s been i s an allianc e som e feminist s hav e mad e wit h Lacania n thought." 13 A post modern Lacania n psychoanalysi s woul d pus h th e boundarie s o f sexua l difference an d recogniz e th e binar y position s o f hierarch y an d power . I t would acknowledg e th e fina l purg e o f biologica l essentialism—an d woul d understand th e male and femal e point s of referenc e t o be mere positions in the signifyin g chain , positions susceptibl e to bifurcation .

The Dialectic Freud's dialectica l metho d i s manifes t i n hi s celebrate d dualism s betwee n ego an d id , se x an d ego , Ero s an d Thanatos , alon g wit h th e pleasur e principle an d th e primacy o f masochism . Whethe r o r no t Freud' s substan tive theories ar e valid, 14 psychoanalytic theory must take as its presuppositions th e oppositiona l poles o f th e sexua l an d eg o drive , materia l an d psychic reality ; th e eg o an d th e self ; consciou s an d unconscious ; repres sion an d neurosis ; th e primac y o f sexuality ; an d th e structur e o f uncon scious fantasy , whic h play s ou t i n term s o f th e phallus , seduction , an d castration, i f i t i s to remai n tru e t o the legac y o f Freud . Whe n i t come s t o gender, however , th e distinction s betwee n masculinit y an d femininity , male an d female , mal e sexualit y an d femal e sexuality , fathe r an d mother , are base d o n th e possessio n o f th e phallus , an d th e correspondin g lack . This i s no t a dialectical distinctio n an d is , therefore, inconsisten t wit h th e dialectical methodolog y tha t Freu d use s whereve r possible . T o surrende r the privileged positio n o f th e phallus in psychoanalytic theory i n exchang e for a dialecti c would b e a major modificatio n o f traditiona l psychoanalyti c theory. Ye t feminis m demand s th e castratio n o f Oedipus . Th e questio n that mus t b e asked i s whether th e sacrific e o f th e privileged positio n o f th e phallus i s desirabl e fro m th e perspectiv e o f psychoanalyti c socia l theory ? Can the theoretical bod y surviv e the operation ? From th e positio n o f a Freudian psychoanalysi s tha t accept s the dualit y of Ero s an d Thanatos , w e fin d ourselve s a s languagin g bipe d primates , caught i n a dialectics i n whic h w e ca n embrac e ou r animalit y o r rejec t it ; embrace ou r sexualit y o r rejec t it ; embrac e ou r bodie s o r rejec t them ; embrace th e shor t ephemera l danc e o f lif e o r rejec t it ; submi t ourselve s t o

Thinking the Unthinkable life o r rebe l agains t it . Thes e ar e no t necessaril y choice s ove r whic h w e 21 have control. The y are choices contingent upo n the structure of our particular neurosis . I f mal e dominatio n i s a neurosis , th e dialectica l dynamic s are derived fro m th e play of this facto r i n our fantasy structure s b y which we relat e ourselve s to the other/nature/nonhuman. W e get meaning fro m the metaphorica l similaritie s an d differences w e draw wit h th e other. A n explanation o f the self i s essential t o the creation o f the self. A n explana tion i s incomplet e withou t a n accoun t o f origin— a critica l facto r i n th e fantasy structure s o f th e self . Th e difference betwee n a biologica l essen tialism and the fantasy structure s by which we formulate ou r visions of the self constitute s th e differenc e betwee n th e moder n an d th e postmodern . A psychoanalyti c feminis m tha t advocate s a dialectica l pol e i n opposi tion t o male dominatio n mus t b e postmodern. I t canno t see k it s justifica tion i n term s o f a transcenden t orde r o f things—nature , justice , truth , reality, goodness , fixe d ideal , no r an y othe r for m o f foundationalism . I t must b e a feminis m beyon d goo d an d evi l tha t depend s upo n n o lega l enforcement, bil l o f rights , rul e o f law , legislative scheme , huma n right s commissions, polic e protection , ideologica l orthodoxy , o r founding moth ers. Othe r form s o f feminis m (modernist ) wil l requir e these . Th e post modern feminist s ma y wel l us e thes e bu t no t a s foundations , onl y a s strategies in the game. It mus t b e a feminism tha t i s beyond bot h hop e an d despair an d mus t avoid an y Utopia n vision . I t wil l b e a feminis m o f survival , a desperat e form o f politics , a subversiv e feminism . Th e surrender o f purpose , hope , and Utopi a wil l allo w fo r a feminis m o f play , irony , an d duplicity ; a feminism tha t embrace s contingency , indeterminacy , ambiguity , an d ambivalence. I t mus t b e a seductiv e feminis m tha t ca n revers e illusio n an d fantasy b y embracing their oppositional structures . Suc h a feminism woul d embrace th e postmoder n visio n rathe r tha n merel y usin g i t a s a too l of deconstruction. Patriarch y presuppose s modernism , tha t i s to say, an objective realit y independen t o f the observer. A feminism tha t turn s patriar chy upsid e dow n an d proclaims a matriarchy tha t i s simpl y a reversa l of patriarchy canno t b e postmodern. Whil e th e lesbia n alternativ e mus t al ways be there as a legitimate and reasonable choice for women, a postmodern feminis m mus t b e abl e t o provid e a heterosexual alternativ e t o mal e domination. Patriarch y require s wome n t o embrac e femal e submissio n and i s roote d i n th e eroticizatio n o f mal e domination . A psychoanalyti c postmodern feminis m mus t us e fantas y agains t fantasy , eroticizatio n o f

Thinking the Unthinkable 22 powe r agains t th e eroticizatio n o f power , an d neurosi s agains t neurosis . I t would tur n a psychic realit y roote d i n Ero s or life agains t a psychic realit y grounded i n Thanato s o r death . Sinc e al l gende r structure s ar e th e resul t of th e neurose s produce d b y th e conflic t betwee n th e sexua l an d th e eg o drives, a psychoanalytic feminism mus t be one that points toward a healing of the psyche. The politic s o f revolutio n hav e no t helpe d th e caus e o f wome n al l tha t much. Th e politics of the left hav e tended t o exploit the talents and energ y of th e women o f th e left a s much a s have politics of the righ t exploite d th e women wh o hav e identifie d wit h th e right . Th e politics o f postmodernis m are particularly appropriat e fo r a truly radica l feminism , whic h focuse s o n the empowermen t o f wome n rathe r tha n o n a n equalit y wit h a mal e standard. Withi n th e politic s o f postmodernis m succes s or failur e i s not i n issue. I t i s th e process tha t i s important , whateve r th e chance s o f succes s may be . I t is a politics o f thos e who ar e seriou s a t play rathe r tha n seriou s people who play a t politics. I t is a politics of subversio n tha t transcends . I t is a politic s tha t seek s t o destabiliz e ideologie s an d institution s s o tha t change ca n tak e plac e fro m withi n rathe r tha n bein g impose d fro m th e peaks. To th e degre e tha t Freudia n psychoanalyti c theor y i s grounde d upo n biological foundations, i t will be foundationally inconsisten t with postmod ernism. Later , however , Freu d abandone d biologica l essentialis m an d de veloped theme s tha t wer e foreshadowe d b y Nietzsche . I t i s thi s aspec t o f Freudian theor y tha t permit s a postmoder n psychoanalysis . Nietzsche' s focus wa s o n cultur e an d societ y whil e Freu d concentrate d o n th e individ ual psyche . Nietzsche , i n on e sense , wa s a precurso r o f psychoanalyti c social theory . Hi s genealogica l metho d an d approac h t o histor y ar e th e analog o f th e psychoanalyti c process . Hi s "wil l t o ignorance " (WP , 609 ) and "activ e forgetfulness " (GM , II, 1, 3) are structurally simila r t o Freud' s ideas, abou t repression . Hi s vie w o f trut h a s illusio n (TL , 46-47 ) i s a counterpart t o Freud' s idea s abou t psychi c realit y (SE , XII I 159-61 ; SE , XVII, 244-45, 248-51). 15 Nietzsche referred frequentl y t o the unconsciou s (GS, 9 ; HH , II , 37; D , II , 119 , 129 ; WP , 74 , 289 , 676). 16 Hi s strateg y o f intersubstituting opposite s an d reversin g perspective s demonstrate d tw o terms o f a n oppositiona l pai r t o b e mer e accomplice s o f eac h othe r (BGE , 2, 34 , 47 , 200-201 ; T , 486), 17 a metho d aki n t o th e analyti c proces s o f using th e analysand' s narrativ e t o uncove r wha t ha s bee n represse d (SE ,

Thinking the Unthinkable XVI, 385 ; XIX , 5 0 n , 235-39) . Nietzsche' s vie w o f consciousnes s a s a 23 disease (GS , 354) correspond s t o Freud's vie w of th e neurosis o f normalit y (SE, XXIII, 219 , 220 , 235 , 238 , 239 , 250) . Hi s vie w o f trut h a s erro r an d the trut h i n th e li e (EH , 34 , 126-27 ; WP , 5 , 261 , 278-79 , 493-95 , 572, 616 , 853 , 1011 ; GM , III , 19 ; GS , 347 ; D , 117 ) i s presuppose d b y deconstructionism,18 a s i s hi s denial o f a n ultimat e realit y (BGE , 4 ; GS , 54, ^,-j, 58; WP, 12,13, 80 , 461, 567, 580, 583-86, 616). 19 The postmoder n perspectival constructio n o f realit y come s directly fro m Nietzsch e (D , 119; Z, 62 ; GS , 92 ; HH , 208), 20 an d Nietzsche' s perspectiv e o f histor y a s interpretation (UM , 72-7 , 95-7 ; UD , 3, 7 ; GS , 344) an d hi s genealogica l approach t o origin s (D , 44, 49, 446; GM , pref. 4-7 ; GM , II , 6, 12; HH , 3, 16, 274 ) underli e th e deconstructiv e historie s o f sexuality , menta l illness , and Foucault' s pena l system. 21 A fruitfu l interchang e betwee n feminis m an d psychoanalysi s an d be tween feminis m an d postmodernis m i s no w i n progress. 22 On e aspec t o f that discussio n i s essentialism, th e view that a t least som e aspect of what i t means t o b e huma n o r wha t w e cal l human nature i s natura l or , i n othe r words, biologicall y determine d an d consequentl y canno t b e changed. 23 The ideologica l discourse s o f th e legitimizatio n o f mal e dominatio n ar e necessarily an d inevitabl y essentialist . Consequently , postmodernism , which necessarily an d inevitably denie s the possibility o f absolute or objective knowledge , furnishe s a powerfu l counterargumen t t o th e legitimac y of patriarchy . Freu d mad e a seriou s erro r whe n h e conclude d tha t th e psychic realit y o f th e Oedipa l passag e reflecte d materia l reality . Thi s as sumption underlie s Freud' s classificatio n o f non-Oedipa l psychi c realit y a s perverse. Consequently , Freu d constitute d th e Oedipa l theor y a s not onl y descriptive bu t a s als o prescriptive . Freud' s vie w o f materia l realit y wa s tainted wit h modernity . Postmodernis m ca n hel p clarif y th e natur e an d structure o f materia l reality , an d feminis m ca n negat e th e prescriptiv e aspect of Oedipa l theory .

SHE Who Must Be Obeyed There i s on e central , predominan t figur e wh o appear s throughou t thi s book. Sh e is a particular typ e o f woman, difficul t t o describe. Accordin g t o Freud, sh e doesn' t eve n exis t an d canno t exist . Ye t h e me t he r once , although h e was unaware of it at the time. Whe n analyzin g one of his own

Thinking the Unthinkable 24 dreams , h e referre d t o Ride r Haggard' s nove l SHE, whic h h e calle d " A strange book , bu t ful l o f hidde n meanin g . . . th e eterna l feminine, " an d he alludes to "thought s whic h . . . went to o deep to become conscious . . . that ha d bee n stirre d u p b y th e mentio n o f Ride r Haggard' s She" (SE , V, 453-54). 24 I n th e novel , th e Eterna l Feminine , th e all-powerfu l femal e figure who couldn't be killed, was called by those under her authority "Sh e Who Mus t B e Obeyed. " Ho w doe s on e describ e wha t canno t exist? In Freud's terms , sh e woul d b e the woma n wh o doe s no t suffe r fro m a lack. Women d o not hav e penises, and fo r Freu d the absenc e of a penis is a lack. We ar e no t referrin g t o th e Freudia n phalli c woman o r phalli c mother , a s she i s th e woma n wh o lack s a peni s bu t think s o r act s jus t a s i f sh e ha d one. Suc h a woman woul d stil l suffe r fro m a lack. Th e figur e w e wis h t o think an d writ e abou t woul d no t hav e a penis bu t woul d no t b e defined a s having o r sufferin g fro m a lack. Suc h a woman woul d b e unthinkable fo r Freud. I f th e woma n i s s o defined, an d psychoanalysi s remain s committe d to a n asymmetrica l vie w o f gender , the n th e woma n woul d posses s some thing tha t th e mal e di d no t have . Th e male would the n b e the on e define d in term s o f a lack, an d fo r Freudia n psychoanalysi s thi s woul d b e to thin k the unthinkable . Interestingly enough , sh e does exist for Car l Jung, and her existenc e fo r Jung wa s on e o f th e factor s tha t inevitabl y le d t o hi s brea k wit h Freud . The recognitio n o f he r existence , however , ensure s tha t Jungia n analytica l psychology presuppose s a gende r symmetr y o f a kind , whic h Jun g deal s with i n term s o f th e anima , th e animus , an d androgyny . This , however , makes Jungia n analytica l psycholog y essentialist . Jun g assume s tha t cer tain characteristics , whic h bot h sexe s possess , ar e mor e fundamentall y connected t o on e se x tha n t o th e other . I t i s in term s o f thes e essentialis t connections tha t th e anim a an d th e animu s ar e defined. 25 However , thi s woman, fo r th e Jungian , i s monstrou s an d mus t b e kille d b y th e Hero . SHE i s th e all-consumin g mothe r fro m who m everyone , mal e o r female , must escape . Jung , therefore , tell s u s tha t i f w e mee t th e monster , w e must destro y her . Fo r Jung , SH E exist s bu t i s incomplet e i n a differen t way i n tha t sh e lack s a masculin e side . SH E i s monstrou s becaus e sh e i s all-female an d therefore lack s balance. We rejec t th e essentialis t positio n tha t ther e ar e an y characteristic s whatsoever tha t ar e biologically determined . I t is our positio n tha t th e self is formulate d withi n discourse , tha t i s t o say , structure d throug h dis course. When , therefore , w e writ e abou t thi s woman , wh o doesn' t exis t

Thinking the Unthinkable for Freu d bu t doe s exis t fo r Jung , wh o counsel s u s t o murde r her , w e ar e 25 writing abou t a certai n kin d o f discours e rathe r tha n a certai n kin d o f woman. Thi s woman doe s not exis t for Laca n because the kind of discours e that coul d produc e thi s kin d o f subjectivit y canno t exist . Th e reaso n i t cannot exis t i s that , s o fa r a s Laca n i s concerned , al l discours e mus t b e structured b y th e privilege d signifier . Th e privilege d signifie r i s th e phal lus, an d th e kin d o f discours e necessar y t o produc e thi s kin d o f woma n cannot hav e the phallus as the privileged signifier . Language, fo r Lacan , presuppose s th e categor y o f th e Subject . Th e Other come s out of language itself, as the Subjec t mus t remain , by its very nature an d structure , outsid e language , a s a presuppositio n o f language . Males, becaus e the y hav e th e phallus , ar e selve s generate d ou t o f th e Subject, whil e females , lackin g the phallus , are selve s generated ou t o f th e Other. Th e woma n wit h who m w e ar e concerne d i s impossibl e fo r Laca n because, give n tha t discours e i s structure d b y th e privilege d signifier , sh e cannot exis t a s a self generate d ou t o f th e Subject . Sh e is the woman wh o is a self a s a manifestation o f th e Subjec t rathe r tha n a self a s a manifesta tion o f th e Other . I f w e assum e th e possibilit y o f he r existence , thi s woman wh o i s a sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subject , the n sh e woul d have th e Gaz e an d th e Voice . W e can , therefore , refe r t o th e woma n wh o is a sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subjec t a s SH E WH O MUS T B E OBEYED, o r SH E fo r short . Give n th e asymmetrica l natur e o f gender , which i s a fundamenta l presuppositio n o f psychoanalysis , i f th e woma n can hav e th e Gaz e an d th e Voice , th e mal e ca n correspondingl y b e th e object o f the Gaze, described an d defined b y the Voice. Thi s male would be castrated becaus e h e woul d lack , withi n th e term s o f th e discourse , what ever i t was tha t th e woma n possesse d tha t define d he r sel f a s a manifesta tion o f th e Subject . Sinc e SH E canno t exis t withi n th e confine s o f tradi tional psychoanalysis , w e mus t approac h he r throug h th e castrate d male . We mus t vie w Oedipu s a s castrated . This , o f course , i s wha t h e doe s t o himself whe n h e puts ou t hi s ow n eye s and flee s hi s position o f powe r an d wealth. Hence , we title this book The Castration of Oedipus. This produce s a proble m fo r feminism , on e tha t lie s a t th e hear t o f the ambivalen t relationshi p betwee n feminis m an d psychoanalyti c theory . There i s no suc h thing , a s yet, a s a psychoanalytic feminism , an d possibl y there neve r wil l be . Feminis m i s committe d t o bot h th e empowermen t o f women an d t o gende r equality . Psychoanalyti c theor y i s committe d t o gender asymmetry . How , then , ca n thes e tw o presupposition s converge ?

Thinking the Unthinkable 26 The y coul d converg e onl y i n term s o f som e kin d o f theor y o f femal e supremacy, whic h fo r bot h feminis m an d psychoanalysi s i s unthinkable . Even if w e were t o think abou t th e unthinkable , i t would hav e to be based on th e on e assumptio n tha t th e postmoder n perspectiv e requires—tha t gender structur e i s no t biologicall y determined . O n tha t on e presupposi tion, all three perspectives d o accord. A consistent an d integrated mergin g of psychoanalysis, postmodernism , and feminis m wil l onl y b e possibl e an d desirabl e i f ther e ar e alternativ e forms o f heterosexua l mal e sexuality . Thes e alternativ e forms , i f the y exist, mus t b e pervers e i f the y ar e t o poin t t o a way ou t o f th e Lacania n impasse because the sexualit y mus t b e a denial of, an d a revolt against, th e Law o f th e Fathe r an d i t mus t manifes t itsel f i n th e for m o f a differen t kind o f masculinity . A t th e sam e time , i t mus t provid e a categor y o f "woman" tha t i s not define d i n terms o f lack or castration . One coul d wel l as k wh y a book shoul d b e eithe r writte n o r rea d abou t the unthinkable, or about the discourse of SHE , if SH E does not exist? The issue t o b e examine d i s whether a discours e exist s ou t o f whic h a woma n could structure a subjectivity, a self a s SHE. Are there women a s such who are no t phalli c males , tha t i s t o say , female s wh o hav e structure d thei r subjectivity, thei r self , out o f a phallic discourse? Thi s questio n challenge s Lacan i n a very fundamenta l way . Th e poin t o f thi s boo k i s t o challeng e psychoanalysis, postmodernism , an d feminis m a t a ver y fundamenta l level, at the level of their presuppositions . For this reason the book starts from th e presupposition a s a hypothetical that there is a discourse within which a woman ca n structure a self a s SHE. The singl e prefac e t o thi s entir e work , therefore , ar e tw o simpl e words , WHAT IF ? This boo k originate d i n a seminar tha t on e o f th e author s ha s taught fo r a numbe r o f year s o n psychoanalysis , postmodernism , an d feminism an d i n whic h th e othe r autho r wa s a t on e tim e enrolle d a s a student. Th e semina r use d a numbe r o f video s an d films , th e purpos e o f which was to evoke SHE in the psyche of the students. Th e students would then confron t HE R i n thei r ow n psych e an d woul d thereafte r d o som e preliminary self-analysi s a s to their consciou s and unconscious reactions t o HER. Th e seminar s hav e generall y bee n mad e u p o f a n equa l numbe r o f females an d males . Eac h studen t wa s aske d t o kee p a persona l journa l o f his o r he r reaction s t o th e readings , th e video s an d films , an d th e discus sions. Som e o f th e student s wer e hostil e t o HE R an d wante d t o kil l HER . They the n understoo d a t a "gut level " the Jungian theor y o f individuatio n

Thinking the Unthinkable of th e sel f a s th e Her o wh o mus t battl e th e monstrou s femal e mother , 2j SHE. Others , particularl y som e o f th e females , wante d t o negat e HE R with argumen t an d discourse . The y wante d n o par t o f HER , tha t is , the y wanted n o part o f HE R in themselves. SH E triggered masochisti c fantasie s in the psyche of some males, and they wanted to worship HER and sacrific e their phalluse s t o HER . A fe w foun d HE R s o scar y tha t the y withdre w from th e confrontation . The purpos e o f th e semina r wa s t o encourag e th e studen t t o us e thes e reactions t o engag e th e importan t theoretica l issue s o f feminis t lega l the ory. Almos t ever y studen t wh o went throug h th e exercis e felt i t to be of a great benefi t fo r approachin g feminis t issues . The y thereafte r woul d se e these issue s i n a ne w way . The y wer e no w engage d i n thes e issue s o n a personal level with a broader view of their difficult y an d complexity. Wha t the student s like d abou t th e approac h o f th e semina r wa s precisel y tha t they wer e engage d i n th e theoretica l issue s an d materia l o n thi s ver y personal level . Eac h perso n cam e ou t o f th e semina r wit h a differen t perspective. Th e student s wer e le d t o approac h th e semina r a s a text t o be interpreted. Th e interpretatio n include d wha t the y brough t t o i t them selves as much a s the text itself . This book is written fro m th e sam e perspective. I t is written th e wa y i t is i n orde r t o produc e a reactio n i n th e psych e o f th e readers , whic h th e reader i s encourage d t o examine . Whateve r th e reade r take s awa y fro m the readin g o f thi s text , i t ough t t o includ e wha t the y brin g t o it . Th e exercise o f self-analysi s i s importan t fo r th e readin g o f thi s book . Other wise th e reade r wil l mis s it s poin t altogether . I f thi s boo k i s treate d a s a book like any other, a s an argument fo r a particular position, then whoeve r the reade r is , whether Freudian , Jungian , Lacanian , an d whateve r kin d o f feminist—liberal, Marxist , essentialist , o r civil libertarian—he o r sh e will be offended . Th e author s wil l b e see n t o b e revers e discriminators , man haters, o r gende r fascists . I f th e reade r find s i t difficul t t o separat e th e authors fro m th e text , o r to rea d the tex t a s a hypothetical, the n thi s itsel f ought t o b e revealin g abou t th e reader' s ow n psyche . Th e ver y fac t tha t the author s fee l i t necessar y t o approac h thi s topi c in suc h a defensive an d guarded wa y is also revealing . As authors , however , w e mus t tak e a t leas t on e positio n o r perspectiv e as fundamental, an d o n that w e may be challenged. Thi s position i s that of postmodernism. Ou r metho d an d underlying cognitiv e presuppositions ar e those that ar e generally referre d t o as postmodern o r poststructuralist .

Thinking the Unthinkable 28

Interpreting Texts There are certain texts in which a point is reached where no further knowl edge, insights, and perception s ar e to be gained, irrespectiv e o f th e experi ence that th e interpreter brings . Ther e are other texts, however, that are so complex and rich that there appears to be no end to what can be drawn fro m them. Suc h texts generally are disturbing and challenging on their face, and the more we study them, the more disturbing and challenging they become. They remai n a centra l focu s o f analysi s an d interpretatio n lon g afte r th e death of their authors. There is more contained in these texts than is evident on th e surface , an d a n interactio n take s plac e betwee n th e experienc e th e reader brings and the text itself. Consequently , they are subject or susceptible t o interpretation s tha t woul d no t necessaril y hav e bee n presen t i n th e minds o f thei r authors . Suc h ar e the text s o f Nietzsche , Freud , an d Lacan . In th e pas t fe w decade s there ha s been a material resurgenc e o f interes t i n the writings of Nietzsche and Freud, and the works of Lacan will absorb social theorists for decades to come. So long as we continue to study Lacan, we will need to keep reading Freud and Nietzsche . We hav e playfull y embrace d th e iron y o f writin g a feminis t boo k using text s tha t hav e bee n considere d misogynou s an d inaccurat e i n thei r depictions o f wome n an d femininity . W e hav e attempte d t o stag e a con frontation betwee n feminis m an d thes e text s an d t o produc e a conver gence. Whethe r o r no t w e ar e successfu l i s no t a majo r concer n t o us . What w e hope the reade r wil l learn fro m th e exercis e is that feminis m ha s only begu n t o confron t huma n sexuality . Ther e i s muc h mor e t o b e learned. Lega l theory , cour t actions , huma n right s codes , affirmativ e ac tion, and progressive legislation ar e all important, bu t the y will not, in and of themselves , chang e the praxis of th e relationships tha t shap e the destin ies of women an d men. I n the final analysis , what happen s i n the bedroo m may b e o f mor e importanc e t o th e endin g o f mal e dominatio n o f th e female tha n wha t happen s i n courts or legislatures. How can one write a feminist boo k and base it on the texts of Nietzsche , Freud an d Lacan ? Ther e i s a way, whic h i s suggeste d b y Derrida , an d w e have adopte d hi s methodolog y i n writin g thi s boo k o n psychoanalytic , postmodern feminism . Derrida , i n dealin g wit h th e proble m o f th e Nazi' s interpretation an d us e o f th e text s o f Nietzsch e an d whethe r o r no t Nietzsche faile d i n som e way i n no t foreseein g th e possibilit y o f thei r us e and interpretatio n i n tha t manner , tell s us that "th e effect s o r structur e of

Thinking the Unthinkable a tex t ar e no t reducibl e t o it s ' t r u t h / — t o th e intende d meanin g o f it s 29 presumed author , o r eve n it s supposedl y uniqu e an d identifiabl e signatory " (EO, 29) . H e the n question s "ho w reactiv e degeneratio n coul d exploi t th e same language , th e sam e words , th e sam e utterances , th e sam e rallyin g cries a s th e activ e force s t o whic h i t stand s opposed, " addin g tha t "neithe r this phenomeno n no r thi s peculia r rus e elude d Nietzsche. " A simila r question ca n b e propose d b y feminist s regardin g th e writing s o f Nietzsche , Freud, an d Lacan : ho w ca n thei r patriarchal , male , an d phallic-centere d texts b e use d a s a n activ e forc e agains t patriarch y an d mal e domination ? Derrida explains : The question tha t pose s itself fo r u s might tak e this form : Mus t ther e no t be som e powerful utterance-producin g machin e tha t program s th e movement s o f th e tw o opposing force s a t once , and whic h couples , conjugates, o r marries the m i n a given set, a s life (does ) death ? . . . Neither o f th e tw o antagonisti c force s ca n break wit h this powerful programmin g machine : i t is their destination; the y dra w their point s of origi n an d thei r resource s fro m it ; i n it , the y exchang e utterance s tha t ar e allowed t o pas s throug h th e machin e an d int o eac h other , carrie d alon g b y famil y resemblances, howeve r incompatibl e the y ma y sometime s appear . . . . Th e "pro gramming machine " tha t interest s m e here does not call only fo r deciphermen t bu t also fo r transformation—tha t is , a practical rewritin g accordin g t o a theory . . . . [I]f on e doe s mor e tha n extrac t shor t sequence s . . . the n on e will clearl y se e tha t what passe s elsewher e fo r th e "same " utteranc e say s exactl y th e opposit e an d corresponds instea d t o th e inverse , th e reactiv e inversio n o f th e ver y thin g i t mimes. (EO , 29-30 ) In Derrida' s discussio n o f Ecce Homo an d On the Future of Our Educational Institutions, h e refer s t o Nietzsche' s contrastin g pair s o f Chris t an d Dionysus an d Nietzsche' s biographica l parenta l referenc e i n Ecce Homo t o his m o t h e r — t h e livin g feminin e o r life—an d hi s father—th e dea d ma n or death . Th e contrast s tha t thes e tw o pairing s represen t als o ru n throug h the writing s o f Freu d an d Lacan , invitin g u s t o explor e th e oppositiona l reading an d interpretatio n o f thei r texts . Wha t w e hav e attempte d i n this boo k i s t o us e th e patriarchal , male-oriented , phallic-focuse d text s o f Nietzsche, Freud , an d Laca n an d "reconstitut e th e entir e synta x o f th e system" aroun d th e primar y signifie r i n plac e o f th e privileged . Th e text s of Freu d an d Laca n ar e incomplet e an d ope n i n th e sam e wa y a s thos e o f Nietzsche an d invit e th e reade r t o engag e th e tex t i n thi s fashion . W e have, therefore , throughou t thi s book , attempte d t o approac h th e text s o f Freud an d Laca n wit h th e sam e degre e o f respect , admiration , an d chal lenge a s Derrid a woul d hav e u s approac h th e text s o f Nietzsche .

Thinking the Unthinkable 30 Th

e text s o f Freu d an d Lacan , lik e thos e o f Nietzsche , dea l wit h Ero s and Thanatos . A s well, the y dea l wit h th e sexua l driv e an d th e eg o drive , the Subjec t an d th e Other , th e min d an d th e body , pleasur e an d pain , th e conscious an d th e unconscious , th e sel f an d th e other , birt h an d death , female an d male , an d femininit y an d masculinity . Thes e dialectics , dual isms, an d oppositiona l pair s ar e ver y muc h interrelated . Th e powerfu l programming machin e tha t Derrid a postulate s ca n equall y functio n be tween thes e oppositiona l an d antagonisti c forces , conjugatin g an d mar rying them i n a similar fashion .

T W O

The Sexuality of Politics

The Oedipal Passage Clearly, there can be no full integratio n o f feminist theor y an d psychoanalysis a s lon g a s psychoanalysi s continue s t o maintai n tha t th e Oedipa l passage is a necessary representatio n o f unconscious life and that a successful Oedipa l passag e o f a n individual , whethe r mal e o r female , i s th e measure o f effectiv e individuation . S o long as psychoanalytic theor y treat s a successfu l Oedipa l passag e a s the nor m agains t whic h perversio n i s to be measured, th e relationshi p betwee n feminis m an d psychoanalysi s mus t remain equivoca l an d paradoxical . If , o n th e othe r hand , th e Oedipa l passage i s considere d t o b e onl y a possible materializatio n an d no t neces sarily th e best, and if non-Oedipal sexualitie s and gender positions are also possible tha t lea d t o healthie r form s o f individuatio n an d socia l life , the n Oedipal sexualit y wil l no t retai n it s positio n a s a norm . Equally , th e relationship between postmodernis m an d psychoanalysis will remain prob lematic if the Oedipal passage is an essential representation , manifestation , and materialization o f unconscious life . The Oedipa l passag e alon e seem s t o dominate ou r psychi c reality. Ver y few woul d seriousl y argu e tha t th e Oedipa l analysi s i s not a valid descrip tion o f th e proces s o f genderization . Th e gende r position s tha t ar e it s en d product see m t o reconfirm th e analysis . Eve n so, many o f Freud' s views as they relat e t o th e prima l scene , fantasie s o f seduction , peni s envy , an d femininity a s castration hav e always been, an d stil l remain, highly contro versial, eve n withi n Freudia n circles . Al l o f thes e theme s hav e on e facto r in common . The y dea l wit h origins : th e origi n o f th e child , th e origi n o f the self , th e origi n o f th e ego , th e origi n o r emergenc e o f sexuality , th e origin o f sexua l differences , th e origi n an d developmen t o f gende r differ -

3*

The Sexuality of Politics 32 ences , th e origi n o f femininit y an d masculinity , th e origi n o f neuroses , and th e origi n o f desir e (LP , 332) . Th e dispute s withi n th e Freudia n community ar e not s o much abou t origin, seduction, and castration a s they are abou t ho w thes e topic s ar e t o b e interprete d an d playe d ou t i n th e explanations o f th e origin o f huma n psychi c development . The resolutio n o f th e Oedipu s comple x an d it s relationshi p t o th e structure o f se x and gender turn s o n the problem o f castration. Th e phallic lack defines castratio n an d determine s th e natur e o f sexualit y an d gender . The phallus i s the privileged poin t o f referenc e tha t determine s dominanc e and submission . Th e girl mus t submi t t o the statu s o f being castrated, an d the boy to the fear o f castration, in order to allow the emergence of desire. 1 According t o Lacan , "Wha t analyti c experienc e show s i s that, i n an y case , it is castration tha t governs desire, whether in the normal or the abnormal " (E, 323). Th e boy treads o n the path to desire by exchanging the fathe r fo r the mothe r a s the objec t o f hi s eg o ideal. Fo r the girl , the passag e i s mor e difficult. Freu d permit s th e gir l three choices : a withdrawal fro m sexualit y altogether, femininity , o r masculinit y (th e masculinit y complex) . Fo r th e girl, ther e i s n o idea l exi t fro m th e Oedipu s comple x i n tha t no t onl y does th e Oedipu s comple x "neuroticize " th e girl , i t pathologize s femal e sexuality. Th e politica l implication s o f phalli c sexualit y ar e clear . The y ensure mal e domination ove r the femal e an d reproduc e fro m generatio n t o generation th e structur e o f th e patriarcha l family , th e "feminization " o f women an d their sexua l exploitation . The concep t o f th e phallu s i s critica l i n psychoanalyti c theory . I t ha s three parts : th e generativ e powe r o f nature , th e la w o f desire , an d th e sexual organ s o f reproduction . Th e concep t o f th e phallu s i s traditionall y identified wit h th e mal e penis . I t i s clear , however , tha t th e phallu s i s much mor e tha n th e peni s i n psychoanalyti c discourse . Th e peni s i s a n organ o f th e mal e bod y an d a s suc h i s a materia l reality . Th e phallu s belongs t o th e worl d o f psychi c reality . It s meanin g entail s tha t whic h i s endowed o r give n t o th e possesso r o f th e peni s withi n th e framewor k o f psychic reality . Correspondingly , th e mammar y gland s an d uter i o f women ar e materia l realities , whil e a t th e leve l o f psychi c realit y th e breasts an d womb tak e o n significanc e an d meanin g tha t hav e no counter part i n th e worl d o f biologica l materia l reality . Attributin g th e generativ e powers o f natur e t o th e breast s an d wom b woul d constitut e a dialectica l alternative t o the phallus, or, in othe r words , a primary signifie r represse d and denie d b y th e privilege d signifier . A t th e leve l o f psychi c realit y

The Sexuality of Politics castration mean s no t havin g th e phallus . Traditiona l Freudia n theor y as - 33 sumes tha t th e femal e i s castrate d b y natur e becaus e sh e lack s a penis . Females, however, ar e castrated within th e framework o f Oedipal sexualit y not becaus e the y lac k th e peni s bu t becaus e i n mal e patriphalli c psychi c reality th e generativ e power s o f natur e ar e no t identifie d wit h females ' reproductive organs . If th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s to be identified wit h an y reproduc tive organs i t ought t o be those of th e female , a s the femal e i n mammalia n species has a much greate r rol e to play in reproduction tha n doe s the male. The mal e carrie s 5 0 percen t o f th e geneti c code , wherea s th e femal e no t only furnishe s th e other 50 percent, but her body is host to the fetus, give s it birth , an d nourishe s it . Th e attachmen t o f th e generativ e powe r o f nature t o the male penis constitutes a castration o f the femal e b y deprivin g her o f th e generativ e powe r o f nature . Th e femal e i s no t castrate d b y he r nature bu t b y mal e patriphalli c psychi c realit y impose d upo n he r throug h the Oedipa l passage. 2 Th e generativ e powe r o f natur e lie s eithe r wit h th e female, i n whic h cas e i t attache s t o th e wom b an d th e breasts , o r i t lie s i n the male , attaching t o the penis. I f th e mal e has the phallus an d give s it t o the femal e (recognize s tha t th e generativ e power s o f natur e li e wit h her ) then h e castrate s himsel f a s a voluntary sacrifice . Al l o f thi s shape s desir e or i s shape d b y desir e withi n th e real m o f psychi c reality . I f w e ar e t o conceive of a matriphallus, i t is the phallus of the male that i s given t o and consequently owne d an d controlle d b y th e (M)other . Sinc e th e mal e re mains attache d t o it , whe n h e give s i t t o her , h e i s givin g he r dominio n over himself an d embracin g submission . In th e pre-Oedipa l stage , th e chil d recognize s th e mothe r a s having th e generative powe r o f nature—th e sourc e o f he r power , authority , an d preeminence—as sh e learn s tha t he r origi n i s he r mother . Th e authorit y of the mother i s natural i n that i t requires n o justification othe r tha n bein g a mother, givin g birth, and nurturing. It s relationship to sex is general an d not specificall y genital . I t is the generative powe r of nature tha t th e femal e loses throug h castratio n i n th e Oedipa l passage . I f thi s i s correct, the n th e initial stag e o f infan t mal e sexualit y i s non-Oedipal matriarcha l sexuality , in whic h th e chil d wishe s t o giv e hi s littl e phallu s t o th e mother . Thi s i s transformed int o Oedipal patriphallic sexuality a s the male child adopts th e gender structur e an d sexualit y o f mal e patriphalli c psychi c reality , b y which h e is led to believe that eventuall y h e will own on e all for himself . The paterna l phallu s i s a conceptual structur e tha t link s th e mal e min d

The Sexuality of Politics 34 wit h th e penis . I t i s th e possessio n o f th e phallu s tha t make s a mal e a father. Th e concep t o f th e fathe r an d th e concep t o f th e paterna l phallu s are inextricabl y linked . A father , a s correctl y define d b y Freud , i s a ma n who own s o r possesse s a woman , tha t i s t o say , wh o exercise s authorit y over wome n o r a woman. 3 Thus , th e paterna l phallu s i s th e sourc e o f th e law. Laca n state s tha t "Th e phallu s i s the privilege d signifie r o f tha t mar k in which th e rol e of th e logo s is joined with th e adven t o f desire " (E , 287). The wil l o f th e fathe r i s th e law , an d th e proclamatio n o f th e wil l i s a production o f th e mind . Th e archetypa l paterna l phallu s i s a dialectica l structure betwee n th e pole s o f th e logo s an d th e peni s an d reflect s th e structure o f mal e mind/bod y dualism . Oedipa l patriphalli c psychi c realit y uses religion , law , and pornography t o castrate the female . Th e Law of th e Father i s the midpoint betwee n peni s and logos.

Oedipus and the Monster The woma n i s castrated . Sh e suffer s a lack . Th e Oedipa l passag e a s th e paradigm o f norma l individuatio n fo r th e femal e condemn s he r alway s t o be a self generate d fro m th e Other . He r subjectivit y wil l always be that of the Other , an d no t a s a manifestation o f th e Subject . SHE , whose sel f i s a manifestation o f th e Subject , i s no t castrated . SH E suffer s n o lack . Wa s SHE originally i n the discourse and then castrate d s o SHE is now only she , or wa s SH E neve r ther e a t all ? Fo r Freud , th e latte r wa s true . Fo r Jung , SHE wa s there , but , a s SH E wa s no t t o b e foun d i n Sophocles ' text s (Oedipus the King, Oedipus Colonus), SHE was no t a significant figure . H e took hi s materia l fro m th e Her o myth s i n whic h SHE , portraye d a s th e female monster , was always slain by the Hero in mortal combat . However , Jean-Joseph Gou x i n hi s boo k Oedipus, Philosopher tells u s tha t SH E wa s there, and he subjects th e text of the two plays to "rigorou s an d thorough going analysi s wit h th e tool s o f anthropology , comparativ e mythology , and narratology " t o establis h HE R presenc e (OP , 1) . SH E i s th e Sphinx , the threatening femal e monster , par t woman, part animal , who confronte d Oedipus. Instea d o f engagin g th e monste r i n morta l comba t a s is the tas k of th e Hero , Oedipu s engage d HE R i n a n intellectua l contes t and , whil e winning th e contest , Oedipu s faile d t o kill HER, and SH E killed HERSEL F instead. B y failin g t o kil l HER , th e si n o f inces t wit h hi s ow n mothe r became inevitable. Fo r Goux, the central theme o f the Oedipa l myth i s not patricide, which i s only a side issue, but matricid e failed . Freud , therefore ,

The Sexuality of Politics according t o Goux , misse d a n essentia l element . Gou x write s i n hi s intro - 35 duction tha t "i t i s withi n a specifi c historica l institutio n o f subjectivity , within th e framewor k o f a particula r symboli c mechanis m (o f whic h th e Oedipus myt h i s th e mos t powerfu l manifestation) , tha t somethin g lik e the 'Oedipu s complex ' ha s bee n abl e t o comman d attentio n an d elici t description/' H e explain s tha t th e Her o wh o i s t o becom e kin g mus t first kill "th e femal e dragon , th e femal e serpent , th e femal e monstrosity , i n bloody combat " an d thu s liberat e th e brid e b y "murderin g a dangerous , dark feminine force " (OP , 2). It was not our SH E who Oedipus met o n the road and failed t o kill. Th e SHE he met exists in a mythic discourse that is structured b y the privileged signifier. Consequently , SH E exist s a s monster . Th e SH E o f th e mono myths i s defined i n term s o f a phallic discourse. N o femal e ca n structur e a self a s a manifestation o f th e Lacania n Subjec t fro m suc h a discourse. Thi s SHE must b e beheaded s o that SH E is no longer SH E but onl y a dead she , or a castrate d she , withou t Gaz e o r Voice . Th e presenc e o f th e SH E a s Subject rathe r tha n monstrou s Othe r woul d hav e t o com e ou t o f th e structure o f a ver y differen t kin d o f discourse , a discours e tha t woul d challenge th e privilege of the phallus as the exclusive master signifier . According t o Goux' s interpretatio n o f th e discours e o f th e Oedipa l mythic structure , "Oedipu s i s th e dramati c typ e wh o exemplifie s a ne w posture tha t philosoph y take s on, " whic h Gou x call s "anthropocentering " (OP, 119 ) i n tha t ma n become s th e measur e o f al l things . I n s o doin g Oedipus take s ove r th e real m o f Apollo , an d fo r doin g thi s Apoll o curse s and punishes Oedipus . Th e realm of the gods is in the unconscious, so that Freud coul d no t recogniz e th e relationshi p betwee n th e consciou s an d th e unconscious withou t discovering , a t th e sam e time , the Oedipu s complex . "The Sphin x . . . i s a mixture o f animalit y an d humanity . B y solvin g th e riddle wit h th e answe r 'man ' Oedipu s suppresse s tha t mixture , dissolve s the monstrosity. H e makes man—who i s now self-conscious—the answe r that ca n b e use d agains t an y obscurity " (OP , 164) . Oedipus , th e ne w rational ma n o f Gree k scienc e an d philosophy , mad e th e Sphin x g o awa y by pronouncing th e word "man. " Bu t where did the Sphin x go ? She killed herself bu t i s now merel y move d int o th e underworl d o f th e unconscious . Lacan tells us that th e unconscious i s structured lik e a language. Bu t is the discourse o f th e unconsciou s structure d b y th e privilege d signifier ? I f not , then i n wha t real m i s the Sphinx , banishe d b y th e pronouncemen t o f th e word "man" ?

The Sexuality of Politics 36 Gou x tell s u s tha t Oedipus , b y killin g hi s fathe r an d causin g hi s mother's death , becam e th e ne w rationa l agen t o f th e discours e o f reason , the discours e o f science , mathematics , an d Wester n law . Withou t fathe r and mothe r h e i s th e citize n o f th e universa l state . Oedipu s therefor e marks the shif t fro m mytho s to logos, but the logos is a part of the phallus. The discours e o f gende r equality , whic h i s centra l t o s o much o f feminis t discourse, is a product o f a discourse structure d b y the privileged signifier . Goux writes tha t "Th e mov e t o overthrow idealis m an d take possession of the Eart h complete s philosophy's Oedipea n destiny . Foresee n b y Descartes to a limite d extent , accomplishe d b y Mar x an d b y Nietzsche , th e move ment whereb y huma n reason , havin g becom e instrumental , take s posses sion o f 'Nature/Matter/Earth ' i s a movement tha t unfolds , organizes , an d amplifies wha t mythi c languag e evoke d wit h horror , i n archai c personal ized an d sexualize d terms , a s possession o f one' s ow n mother " (OP , 175). It is , therefore , i n th e configuration s o f th e Oedipa l myt h a s the y brin g together theme s o f patricid e an d matricide , mythi c monster s an d th e dis course of rationality , that we should commenc e our searc h for "SH E WH O MUST B E OBEYED." I t i s in th e unconscious , th e tex t betwee n th e lines , the trut h o f th e li e of th e narrative , tha t w e must searc h fo r th e tex t fro m which SH E shall emerge—if th e text is there a t all.

Reality Psychoanalytic theor y i s concerned with thre e realities : "materia l reality, " "psychical reality," an d "th e reality of unconscious wishes and their 'trues t shape': fantasy " (FO , 8). 4 Material realit y i s what goe s on i n th e externa l world. Psychica l o r psychic reality i s the inner worl d of th e individual tha t is projecte d ont o th e externa l world , base d o n th e premis e tha t "wha t appears to us as immediate realit y consists of carefully processe d images." 5 Fantasy come s out o f an imaginal framewor k roote d in perception. I t is the inner realit y o f th e individua l projecte d ont o th e externa l world . Mos t people assum e tha t thei r psychi c realit y i s in fac t materia l reality . Psychi c reality lie s between materia l realit y an d th e realit y o f unconsciou s fantas y and i s structurall y relate d t o both . Ther e is , o f course , n o shar p divisio n between thes e thre e realities . Materia l reality , whic h impinge s o n ou r consciousness, merges with th e realit y o f unconscious fantas y t o shape ou r psychic reality, which i s our ow n vision of ourselve s an d the world . Human sexualit y i s th e dominan t focu s o f psychoanalyti c theory . Th e

The Sexuality of Politics masculine and the feminine ar e the primary metaphor s o f human thought ; 37 and th e tw o set s o f reproductiv e organ s ar e th e gran d metonymica l link s that w e forg e wit h th e generativ e o r creativ e power s o f nature . "Sex , sexuality, an d gende r for m a knot " i n tha t whil e w e ca n thin k o f se x i n biological term s an d gende r i n psychologica l terms , th e psychoanalyti c perspective o f "sexuality " "seem s t o hav e nothin g t o sa y abou t se x an d gender" eve n though sexualit y i s "inextricably boun d u p with both biolog ical se x an d sociologica l gender. " 6 Th e distinctio n betwee n sex , sexuality , and gende r span s th e thre e kind s o f reality : material , psychic , an d uncon scious. I f w e relat e th e thre e level s o f realit y t o thi s knot , biologica l se x would see m t o hav e mor e t o d o with materia l realit y an d sexualit y woul d have more to do with psychic reality and the reality of unconscious fantas y while gender would see m t o have a place in all three. Material Realit y an d Sexualit y Human sexualit y i s the foca l poin t o f psychoanalyti c theory . Perceive d biological sexua l difference s ar e th e base s o f gende r discriminatio n and , therefore, wil l continu e t o b e a pivota l concer n o f feminism . B y decon structing huma n discourse , we find wha t lie s between th e line s an d under neath th e text : namely , sex . Accordingly , huma n sexualit y mus t b e th e central unifyin g subjec t o f th e tria d o f psychoanalysis , feminism , an d postmodernism. Let us metaphorically assume , for a moment, that "nature " was sentien t and th e evolutionar y proces s wa s purposeful . Le t u s furthe r assum e tha t bimorphic sexuality , by which the genetic code is split each time reproduc tion take s place , i s th e mos t efficien t mechanis m o f evolutionar y chang e and that the most effectiv e metho d o f ensuring reproduction i s by hormon ally inducin g unpleasur e throug h sexua l tension , whic h impel s th e anima l to see k releas e i n th e for m o f sexua l pleasur e throug h copulation . On e could hormonall y induc e th e unpleasur e t o th e degre e tha t th e anima l would vacillat e betwee n eatin g an d copulatin g whe n face d wit h th e possi bility o f a choic e betwee n satisfyin g hunge r o r th e sexua l drive . I f on e increased th e amoun t o f hormone s i n th e "design " o f th e species , th e animal woul d alway s choos e sexua l pleasure . If , however , th e satisfactio n of th e driv e fo r sexua l releas e mean t doin g battl e wit h a large r mal e i n order t o achiev e acces s t o th e female , th e anima l woul d choos e t o satisf y hunger sinc e th e unpleasur e o f conflic t woul d outweig h th e unpleasur e o f

The Sexuality of Politics 38 sexua l tension . I f th e unpleasur e o f sexua l tensio n wer e increase d t o th e degree tha t i t outweighe d eve n th e unpleasur e o f morta l combat , the n th e animal woul d b e drive n t o attac k th e potentia l rival , n o matte r wha t th e cost in terms o f pain . In th e femal e o f th e species , on e woul d wan t t o enhanc e th e abilit y o f the femal e t o selec t he r mate . On e woul d therefor e "buil d in " eithe r a lesser amoun t o f unpleasur e o r a greater toleranc e fo r sexua l deprivation . At th e sam e time , on e migh t wan t t o increas e th e degre e o f pleasur e s o that i t wa s greate r tha n tha t o f th e mal e i n orde r t o encourag e th e femal e to permi t penetration , bu t withou t th e desperatio n o f bein g drive n b y desire. Thi s i s ver y simila r t o th e existin g stat e o f mammalia n sexuality , whereby th e struggl e fo r acces s serve s tw o powerfu l evolutionar y pro cesses, the propagatio n o f th e stronges t geneti c codes through th e surviva l of th e fittes t an d th e facilitatio n o f th e female' s selectio n o f he r mat e ensured b y the extreme unpleasure o f sexua l tension i n the male. Imagine furthe r tha t thi s specie s cause s th e evolutio n o f languag e an d consciousness suc h that i t becomes aware of its biological "bondage " to th e reproductive proces s an d knowledgeabl e o f it s own impendin g an d inevita ble death . Suppos e furthe r tha t i n th e evolutionar y proces s th e specie s breeds ou t estru s an d i s subjec t t o constan t an d eve r recurrin g sexua l unpleasure, an d suppos e tha t th e eroti c unpleasur e i s visuall y stimulate d through th e mer e sigh t o f part s o f th e anatom y o f th e femal e rathe r tha n through smell , suc h tha t i t i s thu s eve n mor e difficul t fo r th e mal e t o escape the unpleasure. A t the sam e time, the femal e no t only has a greater capacity fo r toleratin g sexua l abstinence but i s not eroticall y stimulate d b y the visual , ove r whic h ther e i s littl e control , bu t rathe r b y arousa l base d on a tactil e mechanism . Human s ar e mammals , an d huma n sexualit y i s fundamentally mammalian . Wh y shoul d w e expect huma n sexualit y t o be any differen t tha n tha t describe d abov e ?7 While biologica l se x doe s no t determin e phalli c possession , an d henc e traditional gende r roles , there are , nevertheless, relationship s betwee n th e material realit y o f biologica l se x and th e psychi c realit y o f phallu s posses sion, castration , an d gende r structure . Thes e relationship s ar e eviden t i n the fac t tha t human s hav e bre d ou t estru s an d ar e consequentl y almos t continually subjec t t o sexua l arousal ; tha t th e huma n male , a t th e sam e time, ha s th e hormona l stimulatio n o f mos t mammalia n species , whic h forces i t t o struggl e an d compet e fo r sexua l access ; tha t th e eroti c trig gering mechanis m i s visua l rathe r tha n base d o n smell ; tha t th e huma n

The Sexuality of Politics male i s subjec t t o a constant , reoccurrin g cycl e o f sexua l arousal , an d 39 consequential unpleasure , an d i s therefor e dependen t o n th e femal e fo r release fro m th e unpleasur e o f unrequite d sexua l tension . A t th e sam e time the huma n mal e has conscious awarenes s of al l of thi s and o f his own impending an d inevitable death a s well. Moreover , give n that mos t huma n psychic processes g o on a t the unconscious leve l and tha t human s hav e th e capacity t o repres s int o th e unconsciou s thos e aspect s o f materia l realit y that the y fin d painful , an d replac e the m wit h illusion s i n th e for m o f psychic reality, we can understand wh y gender structure s ar e the way the y are—even thoug h the y ar e not a s determined a s the foregoing suggests . Psychic Realit y an d Sexualit y Patriarchy i s the massiv e delusionar y conceptua l syste m tha t denie s th e psychological burde n o f animality. 8 Th e relianc e o f th e huma n mal e o n the femal e fo r releas e fro m th e intens e unpleasur e o f unrequite d sexua l desire an d th e powe r o f th e femal e t o giv e o r den y pleasur e o r relief , together wit h memorie s o f the loving and all-fulfilling mother , combin e to create a relationshi p o f powe r an d dependency . I t i s th e primeva l domi nant/subservient relationshi p betwee n th e sexe s o f mos t specie s o f mam mals. Th e imag e o f herd s o f femal e animal s dominate d b y a singl e larg e male who fight s of f al l rivals i s a fantasy o f male s immersed i n patriarcha l mythic systems . On e ca n equall y conceiv e o f th e sam e arrangemen t i n terms o f th e male s biologicall y committe d t o neve r endin g bout s o f con flict, unpleasure, an d pleasure suc h that i t is the male who is the enslaved . If w e adop t th e metapho r o f master/slav e t o th e woman/ma n sexua l rela tionship, Nietzsche' s genealogica l approac h t o moralit y ca n b e applie d t o the legal discourse of authority, obligation , and duty. Dut y o r obligation i s the centra l cor e of the normative system s o f morality, law , and religion . Nietzsche develope d a "naturalistic " explanatio n fo r th e phenomen a o f normative discourse. 9 Patriarch y i s a normativ e syste m tha t embrace s religion, morality , an d law . Nietzsche' s genealogica l metho d o f analysis , which h e applied t o Christia n morality , i s equally applicabl e to patriarchy . Nietzsche understoo d th e functio n o f normativ e discours e t o b e a weapon of th e powerles s agains t th e powerfu l tha t serve s t o delegitimiz e th e exercise of the will to power o f thos e who possess it. Jus t as the capacity to withhold economi c benefit s i s a for m o f powe r upo n whic h th e entir e capitalist syste m rests, 10 s o th e capabilit y t o den y sexua l satisfactio n i s a

The Sexuality of Politics 40 ver y compellin g for m o f power . Th e biologica l an d hormonall y induce d need o f th e human mal e fo r constant , recurrin g sexua l satisfactio n an d th e capacity o f th e femal e t o giv e or deny create s the analo g o f a master/slav e relationship i n term s o f thi s power . Th e metapho r o f " a slav e o f passion " is no t withou t foundation . Th e moralit y o f patriarch y rob s th e femal e o f the wil l t o powe r an d turn s a capacit y t o den y sexua l satisfactio n int o a duty t o provide it. Th e La w of th e Fathe r provide s that "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." 11 Th e tex t betwee n th e line s reads "your husband has the right to enjoy your body, and this right will be exercised without limit, without being stopped from impulse, until he is satiated." 12 The primar y for m o f th e specie s ha s meanin g i n an d o f itself—th e being that reproduces . Th e surviva l o f th e species , that i s the perpetuatio n of the genetic code, is the only consistent pattern t o be found i n life forms . The bein g tha t reproduce s require s n o legitimization , n o definition , n o word. Wome n an d mother s ar e primar y an d therefor e ar e "real/ ' Mascu linity i s secondar y an d require s legitimization , definition , conceptualiza tion. "[M]other s ar e 'real / father s ar e onl y conceptual." 13 Th e Grea t Mother simpl y is . Th e heavenl y fathe r ha s t o proclai m hi s existence — "I A M THA T I AM." 1 4 Man-father-husban d ha d t o creat e himsel f b y proclaiming himself. Man-father-husband-God-kin g i s a conceptualizatio n driven b y desire . Ma n i s therefor e th e produc t o f th e WORD . "I n th e beginning wa s th e Word , an d th e Wor d wa s with God , an d th e Wor d wa s God." 15 Patriarchy , whic h i s standard morality , law , religion , culture , an d history, turn s th e "slavery " o f th e sexua l dependenc y o f th e huma n mal e into th e slaver y o f mal e authorit y whereb y th e woma n exist s fo r th e enjoyment o f the man . The Realit y o f Unconsciou s Fantas y an d Sexualit y Freud, i n hi s analysi s o f fantasy , introduce s th e concep t o f prima l o r original fantasy , whic h h e terme d Urphantasien (LP , 331) . Accordin g t o Laplanche an d Pontalis , "Th e origina l fantasie s constitut e thi s stor e o f unconscious fantasie s o f al l neurotics , an d probabl y o f al l huma n beings " (FO, 17). They state : The origina l fantas y i s firs t an d foremos t fantasy—i t lie s beyon d th e histor y o f the subjec t bu t nevertheles s i n history— a kin d o f languag e an d a symboli c se quence, bu t loade d wit h element s o f imagination ; a structure , bu t activate d b y

The Sexuality of Politics contingent elements . A s suc h i t i s characterize d b y certai n trait s whic h mak e i t AI difficult t o assimilat e t o a purely transcendenta l scheme , eve n i f i t provide s th e possibility of experience (FO, 18). Original fantasie s contai n thre e themes : "Fantasie s o f origins : th e pri mal scen e picture s th e origi n o f th e individual ; fantasie s o f seduction , th e origin an d upsurg e o f sexuality ; fantasie s o f castration , th e origi n o f th e differences betwee n th e sexes " (FO , 19) . "Lik e myth s the y [th e origina l fantasies] clai m to provide a representation of , an d a solution to , the majo r enigmas whic h confron t th e child " (FO , 19) . Fo r th e child , fantas y i s th e setting fo r desir e (FO , 26). Thes e earl y fantasie s hav e th e structur e o f th e original fantas y wherei n th e chil d seek s a n answe r t o he r o r hi s origin , awakening eroticis m an d sexua l difference . Withi n th e settin g o f fantasy , the chil d experience s th e seductiv e rol e o f th e mothe r a s sh e washes , dresses, an d caresse s th e chil d (FO , 26) . Desir e i s "engendered " b y differ ence. Differenc e exist s i n term s o f masculinit y an d femininity . Masculin ity an d femininit y ar e determine d b y avowa l o r disavowa l o f th e phallus . Avowal o r disavowa l o f th e phallu s i s fantasize d an d symbolize d i n term s of castratin g an d being castrated . Since th e origina l fantas y i s a universa l fundamenta l structur e o f un conscious fantasy , i t wil l b e reflecte d i n th e structur e o f foundationa l myths, which are the fantasie s o f the collectiv e psyche. Thes e foundationa l myths als o ma y tak e tw o differen t forms , dependin g upo n whethe r th e generative powe r o f natur e i s attribute d t o th e mother/femal e o r th e father/male. Th e foundationa l mythi c system s o f th e West , suc h a s th e Judeo, Christian , an d Islami c religion s an d th e Gree k myths , constitut e collective fantasie s tha t reflec t th e structur e o f th e origina l fantasy — creation, seduction , castration . "I n th e beginnin g Go d create d th e heave n and th e earth." 16 "An d Go d sai d le t u s mak e ma n i n ou r image , afte r ou r likeness; an d let them hav e dominion ove r the fish o f the sea , and over th e fowl o f th e air , an d ove r th e cattle , an d ove r al l th e earth , an d ove r ever y creeping thin g tha t creepet h upo n th e earth." 17 "Th e mothe r i s n o paren t of tha t whic h i s calle d he r child , bu t onl y nurs e o f th e new-plante d see d that grows . Th e paren t i s h e wh o mounts . A strange r sh e preserve s a stranger's seed." 18 Th e logos, pure min d an d spirit , i s opposed t o the fles h and anima l bod y tha t seduce s th e min d throug h th e pul l o f desire . Th e higher la w denounce s an d disparage s sexua l pleasur e a s i t contaminate s and defile s pur e mind an d bring s the spiri t dow n t o the level of th e body . When th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s attribute d t o th e mother /

The Sexuality of Politics 42 female , th e structur e o f th e origina l fantas y spannin g creation-seduction castration will tak e a differen t form . Th e archetype s an d th e collectiv e mythic narrative s wil l be female-oriented rathe r tha n mal e in th e founda tional mythi c structur e o f th e collective . Th e generativ e power s o f natur e are identifie d wit h wome n throug h th e Grea t Goddes s wh o give s birt h t o all life. Entr y int o desire is through castration . Th e difference, however , i s that i t is the male who embraces castration by presenting his phallus to the female rathe r tha n enterin g desir e by affirmin g th e phallu s i n himself an d in dominio n ove r her—an d thus , b y definition , castratin g th e female . Matriarchal o r non-Oedipa l sexualit y an d patriarcha l o r Oedipa l sexualit y are no t th e sam e a s male an d femal e sexualit y o r feminin e an d masculin e sexuality. Eac h kin d i s archetypa l an d prescribe s gende r roles . Th e arche typal structur e o f non-Oedipa l sexualit y i s tha t o f th e Goddes s an d th e Consort, Dionysus , o r tha t o f Parvat i an d Shiva . Th e gende r structur e i s that o f powerfu l female s an d male s who ar e willing t o sacrific e themselve s for th e ongoin g process of life o r Eros . Th e archetypal structur e o f Oedipa l sexuality i s tha t o f God-King-Paterfamilias , wh o exercise s authorit y ove r the inferio r femal e wh o exists to serve the Father . Oedipal patriphalli c sexualit y i s pathologica l bu t no t perverse . I t i s pathological becaus e i t pathologize s femal e sexualit y an d force s wome n t o adopt femininity. 19 Furthermore , i t i s antilif e an d consequentl y death oriented. I t is not pervers e becaus e i t define s th e law . Non-Oedipa l matri phallic sexuality is perverse because it subverts the Oedipal law that under lies the structur e o f th e socia l order . I t i s symbolicall y incestuou s becaus e it seduce s th e mal e int o surrenderin g th e boundarie s o f th e ego-oriente d self i n order to merge with th e (M)other . "[T]h e seduction o f the mother' s look challenge s th e socia l an d familia l order , indeed , w e coul d say , per verts it." 20 The Realit y o f Herstor y an d Sexualit y Postmodernism i s essentia l fo r a psychoanalyti c feminis m tha t advo cates an d seek s th e eliminatio n o f th e submissio n o f th e femal e t o th e male. Le t u s approac h thi s issu e fro m th e perspectiv e o f question s suc h a s "Does th e phallu s exist?" ; "Doe s th e logo s exist?" ; "Doe s th e Goddes s really exist? " Question s o f thi s for m d o no t mak e sens e i n th e contex t o f postmodernism no r d o the y mak e sens e i n term s o f Lacan' s distinctio n between th e Imaginary , th e Symbolic , an d th e Real . Nothin g ca n b e sai d

The Sexuality of Politics to exis t i n th e Rea l becaus e existenc e ca n onl y b e given meanin g i n term s 4} of th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic . Ther e i s n o questio n bu t tha t th e Goddess is a part o f the Imaginary an d the Symbolic and will always be so, so long as God, the logos (i n whatever for m i t may take , whether scientifi c or religious) , th e father , an d th e phallu s ar e a par t o f th e Imaginar y an d the Symbolic . Th e postmodern feminis t doesn' t believ e or disbelieve in th e Goddess bu t play s withi n th e discours e o f th e Goddess . If , a s Shakespear e proclaimed, al l th e worl d i s a stage , the n ther e i s n o poin t i n askin g th e question o f what lie s outside the play . If on e argue s wit h th e existenc e o f th e Goddes s the n on e ha s t o ente r the arena o f the modern, and in that aren a the male controls the discourse. Therefore, Go d an d th e logo s ca n exist , bu t th e Goddes s cannot . Wome n and feminis m ar e o n a much mor e leve l playing fiel d withi n th e postmod ern perspectiv e tha n the y ar e withi n th e discours e o f modernis m wit h it s existing externa l an d paterna l world , objectiv e reality , an d truth . Loo k a s one will, one will not fin d a Goddess there . "Was ther e actuall y a n ag e o f matriarcha l consciousnes s i n th e distan t past?" woul d see m t o b e a lucid , direc t questio n t o a historian . Fo r th e postmodernist, histor y i s always present i n that i t is only an interpretatio n of artifact s an d text s o f th e past . Histor y i s just hi s story— a constructio n that entail s selection , whic h entail s exclusion , whic h alway s leave s ope n the possibilit y o f anothe r interpretation. 21 I t i s collectiv e mal e psychi c reality tha t purport s t o b e objectively know n materia l reality . Th e ide a of what really happened, for th e postmodernist , i s meaningless . Al l w e hav e and ca n eve r hav e ar e interpretations . Ther e i s n o final , comprehensive , true, o r absolut e interpretatio n becaus e al l interpretatio n select s an d ex cludes. Laca n speak s o f "thi s presen t synthesi s o f th e pas t whic h w e cal l history" ( S I, 36). H e tells us tha t "Histor y i s not th e past . Histor y i s th e past i n s o fa r a s i t i s historicise d i n th e present " ( S I , 13) . "[W]he n al l i s said and done, it is less a matter o f remembering than of rewriting history " (S I , 14) . Ever y constructio n o f histor y wil l contai n somethin g tha t th e observer-interpreter wil l bring to the texts an d artifact s tha t wil l affect th e process o f selectio n an d exclusion . Th e observe r canno t b e separated fro m what i s observed. I f trut h ca n never b e absolute, then neithe r ca n history . In on e sense , therefore , th e pas t i s alway s presen t withi n a framewor k o f forgetting an d remembering , and what we forget i s more telling than wha t we remember , whethe r i t i s th e massacr e o f wome n a s witche s o r th e destruction o f aborigina l people s as savages.

The Sexuality of Politics 44 Th

e questio n "Wa s ther e actuall y a n ag e o f matriarcha l consciousnes s in the distan t past? " is problematic for psychoanalyti c socia l theory a s well as for th e postmodernist. Wha t w e term "history " i s our collectiv e psychic reality, whic h i s forme d fro m th e convergenc e o f ou r collectiv e materia l reality an d ou r collectiv e realit y o f unconsciou s fantasy , which , i n tur n contains ou r collectiv e unconsciou s wishes , manifeste d i n th e for m o f ou r myths. Whe n w e examin e ou r mythi c structures , whic h spa n history , religion, art , an d law , an d th e artifact s o f th e earlies t center s o f culture , there ca n b e littl e questio n bu t tha t matriarcha l consciousnes s forme d a part of the collective unconscious and psychic realities of humankind. Fro m the perspectiv e o f psychoanalysis , th e ver y virulenc e o f th e misogyn y i n some earl y cultures , th e extrem e form s tha t patriarch y too k i n a numbe r of ancien t societies , an d th e eventua l universalit y o f patriarch y ar e al l compelling evidence of the repressio n o f matrisexual psychic reality, which identifies th e generative powe r of natur e with th e mother. Th e question of whether o r no t ther e actuall y wa s a n ag e o f matriarcha l consciousnes s i n the distan t pas t i s problemati c fo r psychoanalyti c theor y becaus e i t as sumes tha t ther e i s onl y a materia l realit y an d tha t i t i s capabl e o f bein g discovered an d known objectively . Fro m the perspective of psychoanalysis , this is simply not th e case. The questio n o f whethe r o r no t ther e wa s a n actua l ag e o f matriarcha l consciousness i s als o problemati c fo r feminist s becaus e i t ha s bee n male s who hav e written th e historie s an d interprete d th e artifacts . I t is a complicated on e for feminist s becaus e the very questio n i s asked in the contex t of a vie w o f histor y an d a n interpretatio n o f artifact s an d text s tha t i s mal e and phallocentric . Nietzsche's genealogica l metho d an d hi s theor y o f discoverin g "truth " through oppositiona l substitution , Derrida' s methodolog y o f deconstruc tion, Freud' s metho d o f analysi s a s interprete d b y Lacan—al l furnis h u s with a response t o the questio n o f whether o r not ther e was ever an ag e of matriarchal consciousness . Sinc e there has been and is an age of patriarcha l consciousness, ther e mus t b e an ag e of matriarcha l consciousness . Patriar chy i s on e face t o f a paire d opposition : Maleness-patriarch y require s fe maleness-matriarchy. Jehova h coul d no t exis t withou t th e Goddes s ex isting. I t is only in opposition to the Goddess that God became meaningful . It i s onl y i n oppositio n t o th e mothe r tha t th e fathe r becam e meaningful . The age of matriarchal consciousnes s i s the truth i n the lie of patriarchy. I t

The Sexuality of Politics is th e reality i n th e illusio n o f th e gran d mythi c system s w e cal l history , 45 culture, and religion . The ag e o f matriarcha l consciousnes s wa s no t discovered , conceived , o r constructed upo n th e basi s o f archaeologica l discoverie s o f artifact s tha t could b e interprete d i n term s o f goddes s worship . I t wa s constructe d b y two males—Bachofe n an d Frazer 22 —and th e text s wer e interprete d o r reinterpreted i n term s o f it . Th e archaeologica l effor t too k plac e b y "dig ging" underneath th e narratives of patriarchy. Th e narratives of patriarch y presumed an d require d thei r opposin g counternarratives . Later , a vas t number o f artifact s wer e discovere d tha t coul d b e interprete d i n term s o f this narrativ e discourse . I t shoul d no t b e surprisin g tha t artifact s tha t invite a n interpretatio n i n term s o f a matriarcha l narrativ e wer e foun d predating the artifacts o f an age of male sky gods, kings, and paterfamilias . The denia l o f a n ag e o f matriarcha l consciousnes s o n th e ground s tha t there neve r wa s a period i n huma n histor y whe n mal e dominatio n di d no t exist i s a n interpretatio n drive n b y desire . Matriarcha l consciousnes s wa s and still remains the repressed and excluded counternarrative o f patriarcha l consciousness. Th e Ol d Testamen t i s permeated wit h th e struggl e betwee n the Goddess and Jehovah. Go d is the binary opposite to the Goddess. Pater nal authority i s similarly the opposite to maternal primacy; Ev e to the Amazon; Chris t t o Pan or Dionysus; th e horned consor t o f the Goddess to Sa tan; th e crucifixio n t o the sacrific e o f th e sacre d king to fertiliz e th e earth ; the cros s to the serpen t o f th e Goddess ; th e phallu s t o the womb ; fornica tion to reproduction; th e religious preoccupation wit h death to life; an d the superiority o f mal e ove r femal e t o mal e sexua l an d emotiona l dependenc y on the female. Th e narratives of the Hero are stories of struggle against that which i s feared—th e Medusa , th e Amazon , th e Siren—i n othe r words , SHE, the powerfu l femal e wh o i s a self a s a manifestation o f th e Subject . The glories of war an d the progress o f civilizatio n ar e the opposition t o th e ever haunting though t tha t al l that seem s to matter i n nature i s the propa gation o f th e geneti c code . Accordin g t o Camill e Paglia , althoug h wome n were at the center of early symbolism, "no t a shred of evidence supports the existence of matriarchy anywher e i n the world at any t i m e / 2 3 i n the sens e of a peaceful societ y ruled by women that was overthrown by warring men. While it well could be the case that matriarchal consciousness did not entai l the political rule of women over men, it is difficult t o imagine an age of matriarchal consciousness in which women were dominated by men as they are

The Sexuality of Politics 46 i

n patriarchy. Th e construction o f the past is a part of the process of becoming. History , culture , an d religio n ar e a par t o f th e narrativ e discourse s within which we construct our sense of our selves. To deconstruct them en tails the deconstruction of gender, and the deconstruction of gender requires the deconstructio n o f history , culture , an d religion—an d th e constructio n of herstory .

The Dionysian Passage Both Nietzsch e an d Derrid a interpre t narrative s wit h a rigorous awarenes s both o f wha t th e autho r i s blin d t o o r exclude s an d wha t th e reade r brings t o he r o r hi s interpretation , bot h consciously an d unconsciously . All narratives , whethe r lif e stories , fiction , myth , o r gran d theories , ar e woven ou t o f o r ar e create d i n respons e t o othe r narratives . Behin d ever y grand stor y lie s a counter gran d story . Th e analyst elicit s a narrative fro m the analysan d an d deconstruct s th e stor y i n term s o f th e substitutio n of opposites , t o discove r th e content s o f th e narrativ e represse d i n th e unconscious. Th e analyst , i n aidin g an d encouragin g th e analysan d t o bring th e counternarrativ e int o consciousness , enable s th e analysan d t o defuse an d transcen d th e preanalysi s narrative . Sinc e th e persona l lif e narratives o f bot h analys t an d analysan d ar e constructe d i n term s o f shared gran d narrative s an d mythi c structures , materia l fro m withi n th e unconscious o f bot h th e analys t an d th e analysand i s exchanged an d inter woven. I n th e proces s o f introducin g th e represse d int o consciousness , neurosis become s tolerabl e eve n thoug h i t ma y no t b e full y cured . Whe n the analysan d i s abl e t o immers e her - o r himsel f i n th e exclude d an d repressed counternarrative , th e origina l narrativ e i s transforme d o r deen ergized. Postmodernism, poststructuralism , an d deconstructionis m demonstrat e that Freudia n psychoanalyti c theor y i s incomplet e i n tha t it s analytica l structure i s only hal f formulated . Th e "trinity " reveal s th e dialecti c of th e text, narrative , an d discourse—th e veile d cove r an d tha t whic h lie s be tween an d underneath . Th e counternarrativ e o f psychoanalyti c theory , which i s t o b e foun d i n betwee n an d underneat h it s ow n text-narrative discourse, reveal s a n underlyin g oppositiona l paralle l t o Oedipal-centere d and phallic-oriente d theory . T o revea l thi s i s no t merel y t o mak e correc tions t o mistake n idea s o r t o ad d neglecte d detail . Rather , i t i s t o develo p the other sid e of a dialectical psychic process.

The Sexuality of Politics There i s another Gree k myt h that , i n a number o f ways , represents th e 47 pinnacle o f th e classica l Gree k dramati c tradition . Thi s i s Euripides ' The Bacchae, wit h it s centra l characte r Dionysus . Whe n Dionysu s i s placed i n dialectical oppositio n t o Oedipu s Re x or Pentheus , th e Kin g of Thebes , we have th e framewor k o f a dialectica l structur e o f mal e psychi c reality , th e reality o f mal e unconsciou s fantasy , an d mal e sexuality . "The Bacchae," according t o Segal , "i s strikingl y moder n no t onl y becaus e i t invite s read ing contemporar y concern s int o th e fift h centur y b.c . o r fifth-centur y concerns int o th e twentiet h bu t becaus e Euripide s wa s confrontin g a crisis of belie f an d o f language , indee d a crisi s o f al l symboli c expression , tha t mutatis mutandi resemble s ou r own/' 2 4 Th e dialectica l tension s betwee n Dionysus and his cousin, the King of Thebes, mirror the dialectical dynam ics of ou r ow n phalli c individual an d collectiv e psyches : th e eg o versus th e id, th e Sel f versu s th e Other , irrationalis m versu s rationalism , la w an d social orde r versu s socia l chao s an d transgression , Ero s versu s Thanatos , Pan versus Christ , the maternal phallu s versus the paternal phallus, matriphallic sexualit y versu s patriphalli c sexuality , Nietzsch e versu s Plat o an d Kant, trut h versu s myth , an d modernit y versu s postmodernity . Pentheu s rejects Dionysus ' embrac e o f matriarchy . Th e adherenc e t o patriarcha l value bring s abou t th e Logos-King-Father' s eventua l retributio n a t th e hands o f hi s mother. I n a ritualized ac t of violent dismemberment , mothe r castrates the law of th e so n and th e father . To transfor m ourselve s w e mus t transfor m th e sel f b y wa y o f th e "talking cure. " Languag e an d discours e ar e product s o f th e collectiv e psy che. The y ar e th e madness-pathologies-neurose s o f th e collectiv e psych e that ar e reproduce d withi n th e psych e o f th e individual . Traditiona l psy choanalysis wa s develope d t o trea t individua l neuroses . Th e madnes s tha t we all shar e i s a collective neurosi s withi n th e collectiv e psyche. Postmod ernism an d radica l feminis m nee d t o b e integrated wit h psychoanalysi s i n order fo r th e individua l t o transcend collectiv e neurose s (generall y consid ered a s state s o f normality) , a s contraste d wit h th e neurose s tha t aris e from individua l live d experience . Th e eventua l purpos e o f th e exploratio n of thi s triadi c relationshi p i s t o develo p a theor y fo r th e treatmen t o f collective neurose s a t bot h th e individua l an d socia l levels . I t wil l provid e an etiolog y o f patriarch y fo r feminis m an d sugges t a possibl e "cure " fo r misogyny. I t will als o furnis h postmodernis m wit h a theory o f th e collec tive psyche an d a method fo r transformin g discourses . I t will turn psycho analytic theor y fro m a n eg o psycholog y t o a psychology o f th e collectiv e

The Sexuality of 48 tha

Politics

t wil l embrac e cultur e an d history . Further , i t wil l shif t th e traditiona l focus o f psychoanalysi s fro m th e mythi c structure s o f th e Oedipa l t o those o f th e Dionysian . Analysi s roote d i n th e Oedipa l mythi c structur e concentrated o n th e father . Psychoanalyti c theory , sinc e Freud , ha s focuse d attention o n th e mothe r an d th e pre-Oedipa l perio d o f th e developmen t o f the psyche . Wit h thi s ha s com e a n alternativ e mythi c structur e tha t mor e and mor e i s replacin g th e centra l focu s o n th e Oedipal . Th e shif t fro m Oedipus t o Dionysu s mark s a significan t tren d i n psychoanalyti c socia l theory. Norma n O . Brown , i n a recen t essay , states : What doe s i t mea n t o tak e one' s stan d unde r th e Dionysian , rathe r tha n th e Freudian (o r th e Marxist ) flag ? I t mean s t o discar d th e pseudo-scientifi c postur e of clinical detachmen t o r politica l rationality , an d recogniz e madnes s a s the universa l human condition , no t th e distinctiv e stigm a o f a separat e clas s distinguishe d a s insane. I t mean s tha t madnes s i s no t a n individua l bu t a socia l phenomeno n i n which w e al l participate collectively : w e ar e al l i n on e an d th e sam e boat o r body . It mean s als o tha t madnes s i s inheren t i n lif e an d i n orde r t o liv e with i t w e mus t learn t o love it. Tha t is the point o f honoring i t with th e name of a god. . . . "Dionysus, th e go d o f madness , i s als o death " (Heraclitus) . Eve r sinc e I rea d Freud's Beyond, the Pleasure Principle I hav e pursue d th e ide a tha t Lif e agains t Death, Ero s and Thanatos , were the ultimate term s i n which to think abou t huma n behavior, o r "th e psychoanalytica l meanin g o f history. " A t th e sam e tim e i t wa s clear t o m e eve n i n Life Against Death tha t a t tha t dee p leve l whic h ca n onl y b e expressed i n myth o r metaphor, Freud' s "instinc t theory " neede d t o be remytholo gized i n term s o f Dionysus , tha t i s t o sa y i n term s o f instinctua l dialectic s rathe r than instinctua l dualism. 25 Brown conclude s hi s essa y wit h th e word s "W e participat e wit h eac h other , connected a s wel l a s separate d b y a se a o f death ; livin g eac h other' s death , and dyin g eac h other' s life. " 26 I t is , of course , i n th e analysi s o f Dionysia n consciousness tha t th e wor k o f Nietzsch e an d Freu d ma y b e mad e t o converge mos t closely . Beyond th e gende r crisi s lie s th e animalit y crisis , an d beyon d th e Oedipal passag e lie s th e Demeter-Dionysia n passag e tha t lead s t o trans Oedipal psychi c realit y whereb y th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s agai n recognized t o li e wit h th e female-mother . I n trans-Oedipa l psychi c reality , the femal e take s of f th e mas k o f femininit y an d n o longe r play s th e masquerade. Th e mal e disavow s th e illusionar y paterna l phallu s b y pre senting i t b y wa y o f sacrific e t o th e female . Pathologica l patriphalli c sexu ality i s replace d b y pervers e matriphalli c sexuality . Gende r structure s ar e transformed an d gende r role s becom e blended . Fo r th e male , thi s entail s

The Sexuality of Politics exchanging Oedipa l insanit y fo r Dionysia n madness . Fo r the female , th e 49 trans-Oedipal stat e entail s sheddin g th e mask o f femininity. 27 I t involve s the empowerin g embrac e of the Great Goddess , the Medusa, the Kali. I t is the embrac e o f th e dee p pai n associate d wit h th e acknowledgmen t o f patriarchal suffering an d a healing throug h th e affirmation o f the labyrinthine chao s o f the female body . I t is a return t o the origins an d a descent toward th e ominous matri x of sexuality . There are two grand metaphor s fo r the self. Th e one is the self a s mind trapped withi n an d confine d b y th e body. 28 Thi s i s the essentia l vie w of the sel f i n all religious discours e an d is implicit i n all human culture . Thi s metaphor i s th e foundatio n o f th e belie f i n th e huma n sou l o r spirit . It differentiate s ma n fro m natur e becaus e onl y mankin d ha s a soul . I t differentiates me n from wome n becaus e min d i s identified wit h malenes s and femalenes s wit h th e body. Anothe r metapho r o f the self i s man as the conscious animal , th e bipe d primat e wit h th e extr a thic k cortex . Thi s metaphor entere d ou r consciousnes s an d discours e throug h Darwin , Nietzsche, an d Freud . Thi s metaphorica l vie w i s bot h implici t an d ex pressed in the discourse of both psychoanalyti c socia l theory an d postmodernism. Nietzsch e subtitle s hi s last work, Ecce Homo, "Ho w One Becomes What On e Is?" What i s the appropriate metapho r fo r humans , th e spirit , soul, mind , logos , th e slightly-less-than-the-angels , o r the biped primat e that evolve d throug h evolutionar y chance , with a brain o f such complexit y that i t produced th e mental phenomen a tha t w e call min d o r psyche? The challenge of knowing an d becoming what on e is, according to Nietzsche, is the heavies t deman d tha t ca n be placed on mankind, an d it is the challenge that h e throw s ou t t o hi s readers. 29 T o kno w wh o and wha t w e ar e we must kno w i n what wa y we are similar t o other animal s an d in what way we ar e different . Th e metapho r o f ma n a s mind , however , denie s ou r animality. I f the biped primate , sharin g mammalia n sexualit y an d mortality, i s th e mos t appropriat e metapho r fo r humanity , the n acceptin g ou r animality i s th e heav y burde n tha t Nietzsch e an d Freu d challeng e u s t o bear. Patriarch y i s "a n interpretation o f the body an d a misunderstanding of the body" (GS , pref. 2). In Ecce Homo Nietzsch e clearl y identifie s himsel f wit h Dionysus . W e will neve r kno w whether o r not this was the pinnacle o f his genius o r the beginning o f his madness. Accordin g to suggestions tha t Derrid a make s in his analysi s i n Spurs of Nietzsche' s view s o n women, i t migh t wel l be the former.30 I n an y case , ma n canno t becom e th e Ubermensch withou t ac -

The Sexuality of Politics 50 ceptin g hi s animalit y an d hi s sexua l dependency . H e mus t accep t hi s membership i n th e specie s o f th e grea t ape s i f h e i s to becom e somethin g beyond wha t h e is . T o transcen d th e crisi s o f awarenes s o f deat h an d bondage to the reproductiv e cycl e of mammalia n life , we must deconstruc t the lie s tha t constitut e gender . Fo r th e male , thi s i s wha t i t mean s t o become Dionysus. 31 T o becom e Dionysu s th e mal e mus t ente r int o a n analytic proces s b y immersin g himsel f a s he confront s th e text s o f radica l feminism i n the discours e o f th e (M)other . B y so doing, material passes to and fro m th e unconsciou s i n a proces s tha t i s th e analo g o f transferenc e and countertransference . Accordin g t o Shoshan a Felman , "Laca n i s thus a metaphor—or a symptom—o f psychoanalysi s itself , insofa r a s psycho analysis i s reenactin g a constan t revolutio n i n th e mos t basi c huma n questions:—What doe s i t mea n t o b e human?—Wha t doe s i t mea n t o think? an d consequently,—Wha t doe s i t mea n t o b e contemporary?" 32 These question s canno t b e answere d outsid e o f th e discours e o f radica l feminism. Postmodernis m i s abou t wha t w e do and ho w we liv e when w e realize where thes e question s tak e us. I t is thinking beyond fragment s i n a process of becoming . Freud, Lacan , an d Derrid a tak e u s t o the edg e of th e Nietzschean abyss. They do not take us across the ravine. Thu s spok e Zarathustra : Man i s a rope , tie d betwee n anima l an d overman— a rop e ove r a n abyss . A dangerous going-across, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous shuddering and staying still. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal; what can be loved in man i s tha t h e i s a going-acros s an d a down-goin g fo r the y ar e thos e wh o ar e going across. I lov e th e grea t despisers , fo r the y ar e th e grea t venerator s an d arrow s o f longing for the other bank. I love those who do not first see k beyond the stars for reason s to go down and to be sacrifices: but who sacrifice themselves to the earth. (Z , I, 4) How doe s th e ma n cros s over ? B y goin g under . Ho w doe s th e ma n g o under? B y goin g int o th e unconscious . Ho w doe s th e ma n g o int o th e unconscious? B y bringin g tha t whic h i s unde r consciousnes s int o con sciousness. Ho w i s tha t done ? B y th e ma n recreatin g himsel f throug h a process of becoming. Ho w does the man recreate himself throug h a process of becoming ? B y th e affirmatio n o f tha t whic h ha s bee n denied ; b y th e elevation o f tha t whic h ha s bee n repressed ; b y proclaimin g th e li e o f th e truth an d th e trut h i n th e lie ; b y substitutin g opposite s an d reversin g

The Sexuality of Politics perspectives; b y negatin g th e gran d myth s o f histor y an d culture ; b y 51 replacing tha t whic h i s privilege d wit h tha t whic h i s primar y an d denie d by privilege . I t shoul d no w b e clea r wh y psychoanalysi s an d postmodern ism—Nietzsche, Freud , Derrida , an d Lacan—wil l leav e th e ma n a t th e edge of th e abyss . The y alon e canno t lin k th e anima l wit h tha t whic h lie s beyond th e human i n the process of becoming . A consistent an d integrated mergin g of psychoanalysis, postmodernism , and feminis m wil l onl y b e possibl e an d desirabl e i f ther e ar e alternativ e forms o f heterosexua l mal e sexuality . Thes e alternativ e forms , i f the y exist, mus t b e pervers e i f the y ar e t o poin t t o a way ou t o f th e Lacania n impasse because the sexualit y mus t b e a denial of, an d a revolt against , th e Law o f th e Father , an d i t mus t manifes t itsel f i n th e for m o f a differen t kind o f masculinity . A t th e sam e time , i t mus t provid e a categor y o f "woman" tha t i s not define d i n term s o f lac k or castration . Thes e alterna tive form s o f sexualit y mus t provid e alternativ e form s o f gende r structur e for bot h th e femal e an d th e mal e i f a meaningful convergenc e o f psycho analysis, postmodernism, an d feminis m i s possible. Zarathustra is a dancer—: ho w he, who has the harshest, the most fearful insigh t into reality, who has thought the "most abysmal thought," nonetheless finds in it no objection t o existence . . . the eternal Yes to all things . . . "Into every abyss I still bear the blessing of my affirmation" . . . But that is the concept of Dionysos once more. (EH , 108)—Hav e I been understood?—Dionyso s agains t th e Cruci fied. . . . (EH, 134)

T H R E E

Knowledge and the Languaging Body

Psychoanalytic theory , postmodernism , an d feminism hav e one important feature i n common . The y eac h cal l int o questio n th e ver y natur e o f knowledge and inevitably lea d us to question ho w we know what we think we know . Eac h require s u s a t som e poin t t o us e "th e instrumen t o f analysis t o analyz e th e instrumen t o f analysis"; 1 t o conceptualiz e th e process of conceptualization, t o take cognizance of the process of cognition, to explain the process of explanation, to observe the process of observation , to becom e consciou s o f wha t i s consciousness , t o examin e th e realit y o f reality an d the differentiations o f difference , an d to articulat e withi n lan guage the question "wha t i s language?" Psychoanalysis an d psychoanalytic socia l theor y ar e the latter-day an d contemporary culmination s o f a paradigmatic shif t i n worldview, a cognitive methodolog y tha t commence d wit h th e pre-Socratics. I t is the evolu tion o f the cognitive process by which Thale s postulated tha t everythin g is made of water an d has led us back from nature , that which is to be known, to the knowing of the knower. It s methodologies ma y appear idiosyncrati c when compare d t o the techniques o f th e traditional sciences , but they ar e unorthodox becaus e o f th e cognitiv e difficultie s tha t ar e entaile d i n th e process o f "knowing " th e processes o f cognition . Scienc e examine s natur e whereas psychoanalysi s examine s th e examine r o f nature , and , i n th e process, not only doe s her or his body become an object o f knowledge, but the psych e itself , th e human mind , become s a n objec t i n relationshi p t o a piece o f th e mind tha t stil l stand s apar t a s the subjec t doin g th e observa tion. Thi s process is consummated i n the exploration o f language. Psychoanalysis an d postmodernis m ar e abou t seein g th e individua l "seeing itsel f seein g itself" (F , 80). When w e push back knowledge in thi s manner, w e eventuall y en d u p a t it s ver y limits : th e dialectic s o f differ -

52

Knowledge and the Languaging Body ence, th e arbitrarines s o f conceptualization , th e subjectivit y o f experience , S3 the relativit y o f reality , th e ambiguit y o f certainty , th e contingenc y o f meaning, th e restriction s o f perception , th e constraint s o f th e neura l orga nization o f th e brain , th e deficiencie s o f language , an d th e boundarie s o f consciousness. The limit s o f cognitio n ar e biological , neurological , psychological , an d linguistic. I f w e ha d additiona l biologica l sensor y system s t o interac t wit h the externa l worl d o r i f ou r existin g sensor y system s woul d recor d o r identify a broade r o r fine r se t o f externa l environmenta l change s o r phe nomena, suc h a s our visio n "perceiving " al l frequencies o f the electromag netic spectru m rathe r tha n jus t th e narro w ban d o f light , w e would liv e in a radically different "reality. " I f the neurological structur e of the brain was expanded i n siz e and complexity , w e would conceptualiz e an d experienc e a different universe . I f al l o f th e i d becam e ego , o r i f al l aspect s o f th e processes o f th e psych e becam e conscious , we would b e a different kin d of creature conceptualizin g a very differen t kin d o f world . Knowing i s a perceptual even t takin g plac e within a perceptual system . There i s n o alternativ e t o no r wa y t o escap e fro m th e cognitiv e processe s by whic h w e perceiv e an d conceptualiz e th e object s o f knowledge . Th e observer i s a biological syste m mad e u p o f a number o f subsystem s an d i s inextricably linke d t o th e observed . An y ac t o f observatio n i s a n even t within a syste m tha t change s th e stat e o f th e system . Th e perceptua l system i s a representatio n o f a nonperceptua l system , an d th e perceptua l system i s represente d b y a conceptua l syste m involvin g language . Th e limits o f languag e restric t th e conceptua l system , whic h i n tur n place s limits on perception . Knowledge, consciousness, and intelligence present u s with a number of interesting anomalies. W e don't kno w what intelligence is because we have no satisfactor y theor y o f intelligenc e o r of th e mind o r consciousness. 2 W e do no t eve n hav e theorie s tha t are , a s yet , no t proven , needin g merel y more evidenc e t o resolv e th e theoretica l issue s tha t remai n i n dispute . Rather, w e hav e n o tru e theorie s a t all . Al l tha t w e hav e ar e models , an d models are not theories. 3 A true theory mus t explai n the nature and origi n of a phenomenon wherea s a mode l ha s littl e o r n o explanator y power . A great dea l of researc h ha s been don e on th e brain an d neura l nets, 4 but th e brain i s not th e mind . Thank s t o th e intellectua l traditio n o f psychoanaly sis, w e kno w somethin g abou t th e psyche , bu t psychoanalysi s ha s n o theory o f consciousnes s o r of intelligence .

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 54 A

n adequat e theor y o f th e min d woul d requir e a n understanding o f th e relationship betwee n th e psych e an d th e brain . W e kno w tha t ther e i s a relationship between th e two, but we don't kno w what tha t relationshi p is. We don' t eve n hav e a clea r ide a o f wha t a tru e theor y o f th e mind , o f consciousness, o r o f intelligenc e shoul d loo k like. W e hav e n o explanatio n for eve n th e simples t o f sensor y experiences . W e kno w yello w whe n w e see it , th e physic s o f light , an d ho w th e ey e work s a s a biological sensor y system. W e don' t hav e any explanatio n whatsoever , however , fo r ho w th e processes of the retina—the optic nerve and the brain—produce withi n a n individual th e experienc e o f yellowness . Biolog y an d physic s alon e canno t explain th e phenomen a o f "seeing " yellow . N o one , a s yet , ha s tran scended mind/bod y dualis m by providing a satisfactory unifie d explanatio n that unite s th e biologica l discourse s wit h thos e o f psychoanalysi s an d cognitive psycholog y no r ha s anyon e bridge d th e phenomenologica l ga p between th e two. Cognitive scienc e i s a collectio n o f separat e field s o f study , stil l full y divided betwee n physica l an d menta l sciences . W e hav e n o "satisfactor y explanation o f ho w we know what w e know, state d i n terms o f th e physic s and chemistry , th e anatom y an d physiology , o f th e biologica l system," 5 nor d o we have a satisfactory explanatio n o f ho w w e know what w e kno w or thin k w e know state d i n term s o f th e philosoph y o f th e mind , psychol ogy, cognitiv e science , o r psychoanalysis . W e d o know , however , tha t i f we star t fro m th e extrem e o f theoretica l physic s o n th e on e sid e an d o f psychoanalysis o n other , an d we push th e boundarie s o f knowin g a s far a s we can , w e will en d u p a t th e sam e place . Th e issue s o f "knowledge " an d "knowing" will dissolve into question s abou t language . Whateve r th e are a of knowledge , i f w e as k th e questio n "Ho w d o we kno w what w e know? " we reach and cannot transcend th e limits of the cognitive processes. Objec tive realit y an d ultimat e trut h ar e linguisti c artifact s w e us e whe n w e decide w e d o no t wis h t o pursu e th e questio n o f ho w w e kno w wha t w e know. Werne r Heisenberg , conclude d tha t " I do not kno w what th e word s fundamental reality mea n . . . ou r thinkin g hang s i n th e language." 6 I n answer t o the questio n Would you go so far as to say that . .. . language has actually set a limit to our domain of understanding in quantum mechanics?, Heisenberg responde d b y saying , "Word s a s position an d velocity an d temperature los e thei r meanin g whe n w e ge t dow n t o th e smalles t parti cles. " 7 Conceptua l structure s suc h a s Stephe n Hawking' s "poin t o f singu larity," th e expandin g o r contractin g universe , o r th e bi g bang ar e simpl y

Knowledge and the Languaging Body ineffective metaphors . The y ar e fundamentall y meaningles s give n tha t 55 time an d spac e ar e interna l t o th e universe , whateve r stat e i t i s in before , during, an d afte r th e bi g bang . Ther e i s n o externa l time-spac e referenc e point fo r attributin g siz e to such terms a s "point" o r "expansion. " Twenti eth-century physics , which conflate s time , space , energy, an d matter , pro vides n o meanin g fo r "nothingness/ ' W e are , therefore , lef t hangin g in language . The roo t o f th e proble m o f languag e i s tha t "ou r languag e i s forme d from ou r continuou s exchang e wit h th e oute r world, " an d "w e ar e a par t of tha t world." 8 Stephe n Hawkin g declares , "Eve n i f ther e i s onl y on e possible unifie d theory , i t i s just a set o f rule s an d equations," 9 which , of course, ar e particula r part s o f th e sublanguage s o f science . Lacan , a t th e opposite en d o f th e cognitiv e spectrum , assert s tha t th e unconsciou s i s structured lik e a languag e (F , 20) . Eve n philosoph y i n thi s centur y ha s reverted fro m metaphysic s an d ontolog y t o epistemolog y an d th e stud y of language . Cognition i s a dialectica l process . Knowledg e entail s differentiation , and differentiatio n entail s selection . Selectio n entail s exclusion . Exclusio n entails omission , an d omissio n entail s fallacy . Fallac y lead s t o a ne w selection tha t entail s a ne w exclusion . N o discours e can , therefore , b e absolute, privileged, objective , or true. Ye t we have practices and rules tha t allow us to ascertain trut h an d falsit y withi n discourse s an d evaluat e som e discourses a s bette r tha n others . Th e relativit y o f realit y stem s fro m ou r total inability to make reference t o something transcendent o r independen t of experience . Th e concep t o f realit y ca n onl y b e vali d withi n particula r discourses o r narrative s wher e peopl e shar e a certain numbe r o f presuppo sitions. Relativity , however , assume s tha t experienc e ca n b e validated . Subjectivity assume s that it cannot. Languag e is a product of the collective, and peopl e ar e bor n int o it . Sensor y experienc e i s private t o eac h individ ual. Th e conceptualization tha t is entailed by perception means that subjec tive sensor y experienc e i s conceptualized accordin g t o collectiv e structure s and synta x an d chain s o f signification . Thus , consciousnes s entail s lan guage, and languag e entail s representation . Representation , i n turn, i s one of th e essential correlate s of languag e (F , 80). Language was not "ou t there " fo r human s t o discover. I t is the produc t of a complex evolutionary proces s involving the development o f the organ s of vocalizatio n an d th e structur e o f th e brain , bot h o f whic h evolve d a s a part o f a complex syste m producin g consciousness . Consciousnes s i s not a

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 56 produc t o f language , an d languag e i s no t a product o f th e huma n brai n an d the vocalizatio n system . The y develope d together . Human s ar e therefor e languaging hominoid s an d th e onl y languagin g primates . Languag e i s th e outer shel l o f th e spher e o f cognition , beyon d whic h w e canno t pass , an d consciousness, perception , an d conceptualizatio n al l tak e plac e withi n it . Language determine s ou r humanity . "I n short , w e ar e what w e ar e becaus e of speec h an d syntax." 1 0 In th e earl y day s o f psychoanalysis , Freud , an d eve n Jung , attempte d t o root th e stud y o f th e psych e i n biology , whic h i n tur n woul d culminat e i n theoretical physics . Theoretica l physicists , however , i n reachin g th e limit s of cognition , fin d tha t th e externa l worl d canno t b e separate d fro m th e internal menta l one . Accordin g t o Roge r S . Jones , "Quantu m mechanics , then, ma y jus t possibl y impl y a n essentia l rol e fo r consciousnes s i n th e scheme o f things , bu t i t i s basicall y a passiv e consciousnes s no t a n activ e or creativ e one . Behin d al l i s th e assumptio n tha t consciousnes s alon g wit h matter i s a random , accidenta l occurrenc e i n th e univers e withou t rhym e or r e a s o n / ' 1 1 Jone s furthe r state s tha t The four foundatio n concept s of physics—space, time , matter, an d number — . . . are intimately relate d t o consciousness an d ar e guaranteed o f n o objective, externa l status b y physics , I prefer t o cal l the m metaphor s . . . a s a n ac t o f consciousnes s that border s o n th e ver y creatio n o f things . Thu s I emphasiz e tha t the y ar e creations of the mind. I see space, time, matter, an d number a s possibly the deepes t expressions o f th e present stag e of ou r consciousness. 12 Herbert state s tha t "On e o f th e best-kep t secret s o f scienc e i s tha t physicists hav e los t thei r gri p o n reality." 1 3 H e conclude s tha t "Science' s biggest myster y i s th e natur e o f consciousness . I t i s no t tha t w e posses s bad o r imperfec t theorie s o f huma n awareness ; w e simpl y hav e n o suc h theories a t all." 1 4 I n shiftin g psychoanalyti c theor y fro m Freud' s meta phorical physica l mode l t o language , Laca n establishe s th e foundation s fo r a ver y differen t kin d o f relationshi p betwee n physic s an d psychoanalysi s than wa s envisage d b y eithe r Freu d o r Jung , an d provide s a plac e fo r psychoanalysis a s a fundamenta l an d importan t par t o f cognitiv e science . Physics, philosophy , cognitiv e science , an d psychoanalysi s converg e a t th e point o f "th e omnipresenc e o f huma n discours e . . . " (E , 56). "Th e bi g question fo r th e huma n science s no w is—wha t i s language? " ( S II , 119-20).

Knowledge and the Languaging Body

The Perceptual-Consciousness System 57 Language an d consciousnes s presuppos e eac h othe r i n tha t eac h is a necessary bu t insufficien t conditio n fo r th e other . Animal s wit h comple x com munication systems , suc h a s thos e possesse d b y ants , bees , whales , o r dolphins, d o no t hav e language. 15 I t i s th e possessio n o f languag e tha t accounts fo r th e gul f betwee n human s an d othe r species . Humanit y i s inseparable fro m languagin g capability . Conversely , "th e thorn y questio n of th e origin s o f languag e . . . i s inseparabl e fro m th e origi n o f man." 1 6 Only human s ca n hav e psyche s becaus e onl y human s hav e language . Th e analysis o f th e psych e i s a n analysi s o f language , an d th e analysi s o f mental processe s suc h a s repression , dreaming , an d fantasizin g i s als o a n analysis o f language : "Whethe r i t see s itsel f a s a n instrumen t o f healing , of training , o r o f exploratio n i n depth , psychoanalysi s ha s onl y a singl e medium: th e patient' s speech"(E , 40) . Juli a Kristeva , i n explorin g th e complex relation s betwee n psychoanalysi s an d language, describes psycho analysis a s "inseparabl e fro m th e linguisti c universe. " Sh e emphasize s that, "psychoanalysi s see s the patient's speec h as its object." "Th e psychoanalyst ha s n o othe r mean s withi n hi s reach , n o othe r realit y wit h whic h to explor e th e consciou s o r unconsciou s functionin g o f th e subject , tha n speech and it s laws and structures." 17 The structur e o f languag e entail s a syntactical distinctio n betwee n sub ject and objec t an d a related conceptua l distinctio n betwee n sel f an d Other , which presuppos e consciousness . A s state d b y Lacan , "Onl y a subjec t ca n understand a meaning; conversely , ever y phenomenon o f meaning implie s a subject " (E , 9) . A languagin g anima l tha t wa s no t consciou s o r a con scious anima l tha t di d no t hav e languag e i s difficul t t o eve n conceiv e of . Most, i f no t all , animal s hav e perceptua l system s o f on e for m o r another , and most mammal s evidenc e the presence of emotional state s such as anger or fear . Almos t al l animal s displa y instinctua l behavior ; an d al l animal s have brains and communicate i n a variety o f ways. Animal communicatio n is no t structure d lik e a languag e bu t lik e a cod e where th e "sign " bear s a fixed relationshi p t o what i t signifies . Mille r explains : Lacan says that language is not a code. A code is computed by the fixed codificatio n of sign s t o th e realit y the y signify . I n a language, o n th e contrary , th e variou s signs—the signifiers—take o n their value from their relation to one another. That is the meaning of symbolic order. The symbolic order is effectively a self-contained dimension an d i s not grounde d o n correspondence , bu t o n circularity . Tha t is , a

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 58

sign i s define d throug h othe r signs . An d whe n Laca n propose s a definition o f th e signifier, i t i s a circula r definitio n h e gives : a signifie r represent s a subjec t fo r another signifier . Tha t i s no t a true definitio n becaus e i n th e definitio n itself , yo u have the word t o define. 18 According t o th e abov e distinction , primate s suc h a s th e mountai n gorilla Koko , wh o ar e abl e t o lear n extensiv e wor d pattern s an d languag e functions an d ho w t o communicat e i n nonverba l way s suc h a s signing , would b e learnin g "speech " a s a cod e sinc e languag e mus t b e learne d a s a n integrated whol e t o enabl e th e languagin g proces s t o function. 19 Freud wa s th e firs t t o comprehen d th e dynamic s o f th e unconsciou s an d to searc h fo r it s governin g principles . H e argued : It i s essentia l t o abando n th e overvaluatio n o f th e propert y o f bein g consciou s before i t becomes possible to form an y correct view of the origin o f what i s mental. . . . [T]h e unconsciousnes s mus t b e assume d t o b e th e genera l basi s o f psychica l life. Th e unconscious i s the large r sphere , which include s th e smalle r spher e of th e conscious. Everythin g consciou s ha s a n unconsciou s preliminar y stage ; wherea s what is unconscious may remai n at that stage and nevertheless clai m to be regarded as having the full valu e of a psychical process. Th e unconscious is the true psychical reality; in its innermost nature it is as much unknown to us as the reality of the external world, and it is as incompletely presented by the data of consciousness as is the external world by the communications of our sense organs. (SE, V, 612-13 ) Much o f th e menta l processe s o f speec h goe s o n outsid e o f consciousness . When w e rea d th e sig n "USE D FOO D EQUIPMEN T FO R SALE, " i t i s completely ope n a s t o whethe r i t shoul d b e interprete d a s equipmen t fo r used foo d o r use d food equipment. Ou r menta l processe s calculat e ho w often used modifie s food an d ho w ofte n i t modifie s equipment. W e gener ally reac h th e appropriat e interpretation s withou t consciousl y thinkin g about them. 2 0 A s Laca n tell s us , "Th e questio n tha t th e natur e o f th e unconscious put s befor e u s is , i n a fe w words , tha t somethin g alway s thinks. Freu d tol d u s tha t th e unconsciou s i s abov e al l thoughts , an d that whic h think s i s barre d fro m consciousness " (OS , 188-89) . "I * [ t n e unconscious] i s a thinkin g wit h words , wit h thought s tha t escap e you r vigilance, you r stat e o f watchfulness " (OS , 189) . While Freu d discovere d a grea t dea l abou t th e structur e o f tha t par t o f the unconsciou s tha t wa s th e sourc e o f individua l neuroses , h e faile d t o provide u s wit h a n adequat e mode l fo r understandin g collectiv e behavior , neuroses, an d defens e mechanisms . Jun g provide d a model o f th e collectiv e unconscious i n term s o f archetype s wit h som e explanator y power . I t wa s

Knowledge and the Languaging Body the revelatio n b y Lacan , however , tha t "th e unconsciou s i s structure d lik e 59 a language " (F , 20 ; S III , i66-6j) tha t finall y furnishe d psychoanalyti c theory wit h a n adequat e an d powerfu l hypothesis , whic h firml y position s it within cognitiv e science . Laca n proclaims tha t "wha t th e psychoanalyti c experience discovers in the unconscious is the whole structure of language " (F, 20) . Laca n furthe r state s tha t "i t i s thi s linguisti c structur e tha t give s its statu s t o th e unconscious . I t i s thi s structur e . . . tha t assure s u s tha t there is, beneath th e term unconscious, something definable, accessibl e and objectifiable" (E , 147) . "Properl y speaking/ ' Laca n tell s us , th e statemen t that th e unconscious is structured lik e a language "i s a redundancy becaus e 'structured' an d 'a s a language' fo r m e mean exactl y the sam e thing" (OS , 188). "Th e unconscious, " accordin g t o Lacan , "i s the su m o f th e effect s o f speech o n a subject , a t th e leve l a t whic h th e subjec t constitute s himsel f out o f th e effect s o f th e signifier " (F , 126) . Onc e w e recogniz e tha t "i t i s clear tha t ou r physic s i s simpl y a menta l fabricatio n whos e instrumen t i s the mathematica l symbol " (E , 74) , w e wil l b e graduall y drive n t o th e conclusion tha t w e cannot break out o f the spher e of language that encom passes us . "Ther e i s n o unconsciou s excep t fo r th e speakin g being" ; "I t speaks, does th e unconscious , s o that i t depend s o n language , abou t whic h we kno w s o little . . . " (Tel , 5). Laca n maintain s tha t "i t i s this linguisti c structure tha t give s it s statu s t o th e unconscious . I t i s thi s structure , i n any case , tha t assure s u s tha t ther e is , beneat h th e ter m unconscious , something definable, accessibl e and objectifiable" (F , 21). "Th e unconsciou s is th e su m o f th e effect s o f speec h o n a subject , a t th e leve l a t whic h th e subject constitute s himsel f ou t o f th e effects o f th e signifier" (F , 126). Just a s th e geneti c cod e i s passe d o n fro m generatio n t o generatio n through it s embodimen t o r representation s i n th e individual s wh o mak e up the specie s Homo sapiens, so language is also passed on from generatio n to generatio n throug h it s embodimen t o r representatio n i n th e psyche s of these sam e individuals . Whil e childre n ma y b e consciously taugh t specifi c words, they lear n languag e a t a n unconsciou s level . The y simpl y begi n t o speak a s the y assimilat e language . Thei r unconscious , whic h constitute s the majo r portio n o f thei r psyches , i s buil t u p i n th e proces s o f learnin g language. Laca n explains that "Th e unconscious i s that part o f the concret e discourse, insofa r a s it i s trans-individual, tha t i s not a t th e disposa l o f th e subject i n re-establishin g th e continuit y o f hi s consciou s discourse " (E , 49). Thus , i t ma y b e sai d that , "th e unconsciou s o f th e subjec t i s th e discourse o f th e other " (E , 55). "Fro m th e Freudia n poin t o f vie w ma n i s

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 60 th

e subjec t capture d an d tortured b y language" ( S III, 243). Given that, fo r Lacan, th e unconsciou s i s structure d lik e a language , the n i t i s neithe r primordial an d instinctual no r elementar y (E , 170). The bod y furnishe s th e gran d metaphor s fo r al l meaning . Meanin g begins an d end s with th e body , whereas th e sel f begin s wit h a recognitio n of th e body . Desir e begin s i n th e body , whereas differenc e i s rooted i n th e body. Th e bod y i s th e gatewa y t o seduction , an d th e bod y entail s ou r limitations an d castrations . "I t i s t o this/ ' state s Lacan , "tha t Freu d cam e to giv e hi s approval , hi s officia l stamp , whe n h e mad e th e imag e o f th e world, whos e fallaciou s archetypes , retur n onc e an d fo r al l ther e wher e they belong , tha t i s i n ou r body " ( S VII , 93) . Laca n furthe r declare s tha t "Symbols i n fac t envelo p th e lif e o f ma n i n a networ k s o tota l tha t the y join together , befor e h e come s int o th e world , thos e wh o ar e goin g t o engender hi m 'b y flesh an d blood' ; s o tota l tha t the y brin g t o hi s birth , along wit h th e gift s o f th e stars , i f no t wit h th e gift s o f th e fairies , th e shape o f hi s destiny ; s o total tha t the y giv e the word s tha t wil l mak e hi m faithful o r renegade , th e la w o f th e act s tha t will follo w hi m righ t t o th e very plac e wher e h e i s no t ye t an d eve n beyon d hi s death " (E , 68) . According t o Kristeva , "Now , whe n Freu d spok e o f language , h e didn' t just mea n th e discursiv e syste m i n whic h th e subjec t make s an d unmake s himself. Fo r psychoanalyti c psychopathology , th e bod y itsel f speaks . Re member tha t Freu d founde d psychoanalysi s startin g with hysterica l symp toms which he saw as 'talking bodies.' The corporal sympto m i s overdetermined b y a complex symboli c network, an d by a language whose syntacti c laws must b e discerned i n order to resolve the symptom." 21 Pattern an d structur e ar e embodie d i n th e material . Thus , the structur e of th e geneti c cod e tha t constitute s human s a s a mammalia n specie s i s embodied withi n th e individual s wh o constitut e i t a t an y particula r time . If th e bodie s disappeare d s o would th e code . Languag e i s also embodied i n the materia l o f th e brai n i n way s tha t w e do not understand . I f th e bodie s containing thos e brains disappear , the n s o will language. W e are born int o language. Human s ac t a s thoug h the y create d languag e a s som e kin d o f invention lik e the wheel, or discovered i t like fire, but in fact, i t is language that make s u s human . Human s ar e shape d b y tw o comple x adaptiv e systems, the genetic code and language, and it is through th e latter that we do somethin g tha t w e cal l knowing , whic h permit s u s t o comprehen d the former . By explaining the structur e o f mind in terms o f language theory an d by

Knowledge and the Languaging Body clarifying th e relationshi p between min d an d body in terms o f the functio n 61 of language , Laca n offer s th e worl d " a ne w theor y o f cognition/ ,22 Th e fundamental differenc e betwee n plan t an d anima l lif e i s tha t plant s hav e no interna l representatio n o f a n outsid e environment . "Indeed , s o tha t a living being doesn't peris h ever y tim e it turns round , it must posses s som e adequate reflectio n o f th e externa l world" ( S II, 107). Every anima l ha s a perceptual syste m tha t create s a n inne r representa tion o f th e externa l world . Thes e perceptua l system s mee t whateve r re quirements th e individua l anima l specie s has. A frog's ey e doesn't nee d t o formulate picture s fo r th e fro g bu t mus t merel y recor d th e movemen t o f insects. Thus , the frog' s ey e has evolved t o give an inner representatio n t o its brai n o f th e spatia l locatio n an d movemen t o f th e insect. 23 "[I] n th e end, th e livin g organism ca n only receive , record, what i t is constructed t o receive—more precisely , tha t it s function s ar e fa r mor e constructe d i n order no t t o receiv e tha n t o receive . I t doesn' t see , i t doesn' t hear , wha t isn't usefu l t o it s biologica l subsistence " ( S II , 322) . Animals ' perceptua l systems no t onl y giv e the m a n interna l representatio n o f th e externa l world bu t als o a representatio n o f thei r bodies . Thi s woul d includ e thos e parts tha t fal l withi n th e visio n o f thei r eyes ; o f externa l surface s throug h their sense s o f touch , heat , an d cold ; an d t o som e exten t thei r interna l state, throug h th e sensatio n o f pain , hunger , an d sexua l o r eroti c sensa tions, whic h ar e centere d i n part s o f th e reproductiv e organs . Animals ' perceptual system s ar e instinctua l rathe r tha n conceptual . Th e anima l therefore function s wit h a n instinctiv e perceptua l syste m tha t span s th e external an d th e internal , convergin g a t point s tha t mar k th e insid e fro m the outside . Thi s perceptua l syste m permit s th e organis m t o modif y it s behavior an d t o lear n t o distinguis h betwee n beneficia l an d harmfu l form s of behavior , whic h enhance s th e reproductiv e potentia l o f th e specie s a s well as ensuring th e preservation o f the individual creature . The huma n brai n ha s achieve d th e capacit y t o creat e a syste m o f sym bols t o represen t th e perceptua l system . Withi n th e perceptua l system , there are no sharp borders between th e externa l world o f the environment , the interna l worl d o f th e creature , o r th e surfac e wher e the y converge . The anima l learn s t o mak e distinction s betwee n th e externa l an d th e internal require d fo r reproductio n an d survival . Withi n th e human , ther e is a n additiona l complicatio n i n tha t ther e i s n o clea r boundar y betwee n the perceptua l syste m an d th e symboli c system . Perceptio n take s plac e before languag e an d th e unconscious , a t th e leve l o f contac t wit h th e

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 62 externa l world. Onc e the symbolic system of language is in place, however, the perceptua l worl d i s no longer direct—i t i s filtere d throug h th e sym bolic system . Th e two systems merg e int o a conceptual-perceptual repre sentation o f the external world , the internal stat e of the human body , and the surface s wher e they converge . Th e human ha s to learn the meaning of external an d internal an d must develo p a sense o f self . Eac h infan t mus t learn to gradually formulat e th e divisions between sel f an d Other, an d self and mother . "Th e perceptual syste m i s a kind o f sensitiv e layer , sensitiv e in the sense of photo-sensitive" ( S II, 140). Perceptio n i s itself represente d by a symbolic syste m tha t allow s the storing as memory, an d the communication o f informatio n concernin g th e monitorin g o f th e state s o f th e perceptual system . Th e perceptua l an d symboli c system s combin e i n a "perception-consciousness system " ( S II, 110,140-41). Consciousness function s lik e a metarepresentationa l system . "Thi s i s the origina l adventur e throug h whic h man , fo r th e firs t time , ha s th e experience o f seein g himself , o f reflectin g o n himsel f an d conceivin g o f himself a s other tha n h e is—an essentia l dimensio n o f the human, whic h entirely structure s hi s fantasy life " ( S I, 79). Consciousness thu s create s a fundamental schis m withi n th e human i n that one' s own body becomes an object fo r th e self . Accordin g t o Lacan , "I t i s ver y od d to say , there's a truly strang e incoherenc e i n saying—ma n ha s a body . . . . I t i s ver y strange to be localized i n a body, and this strangenes s can' t b e minimized. . . . I t is completely useles s t o make grea t declaration s abou t returnin g t o the unit y o f th e huma n being , t o th e sou l a s th e body's form . . . . The division i s here t o stay " ( S II, 72-73). Consciousnes s i s not a pinnacle of evolutionary progress . "Thi s perspectiv e lead s t o a n anthropomorphis m which is so deluded tha t on e has to start by shedding the scales from one' s eyes, s o as to realiz e wha t kin d o f illusio n on e has fallen pre y to " ( S II, 48). Laca n refers t o modern man' s understandin g tha t he is the pinnacle of a progressiv e evolutionar y proces s a s a n incoheren t an d idioti c for m o f scientific atheis m ( S II, 48). Rather, "consciousnes s i s linked t o somethin g entirely contingent , jus t a s contingen t a s th e surfac e o f a lak e i n a n uninhabited world—th e existenc e o f ou r eye s o r o f ou r ears " ( S II, 48). "He [Freud ] canno t fin d th e slightest tendenc y toward s progres s i n any of the concret e an d historica l manifestation s o f huma n functions , an d thi s really ha s a value fo r the person wh o invented ou r method. Al l forms of life ar e as surprising, as miraculous, there is no tendency toward s superio r forms" ( S II, 326).

Knowledge and the Languaging Body

Instincts and Drives According t o Freud , "Psychoanalysi s earl y becam e awar e tha t al l menta l occurrences mus t b e regarde d a s buil t o n th e basi s o f a n interpla y o f th e forces o f th e elementar y instincts' ' (SE , XVIII , 255) . Freu d propose d a distinction betwee n tw o group s o f elementar y o r basi c drives, the eg o an d the sexua l drives . I n th e origina l Germa n text , Freu d use s th e ter m Instinckt whe n referrin g t o instinct s i n animal s an d Trieb when referrin g t o the drive . Unfortunately , fo r th e sak e o f clarity , th e Englis h standar d edition of his works misleadingly uses the English word instinct to translate both th e Germa n word s Instinckt an d Trieb (F, 49, 161-63) . Instinct s ar e hereditary behavio r pattern s peculia r t o animals . "I f no w w e appl y our selves t o considerin g menta l lif e fro m a biologica l poin t o f view, " Freu d states, a drive would appear to us "a s a concept on the frontier betwee n th e mental an d th e somatic , a s th e psychica l representativ e o f th e stimul i originating fro m withi n th e organism an d reachin g the mind, a s a measure of th e deman d mad e upo n th e min d fo r wor k i n consequenc e o f th e connection wit h th e body " (SE , XIV , 121-22) . Freu d acknowledge d tha t animals hav e a wide variet y o f instinct s o r engag e i n a broad spectru m o f instinctual behavior . Nevertheless , anima l instinct s see m t o fal l int o tw o broad categories: reproductiv e instincts, which relat e to the preservation of the specie s a s such , an d self-preservatio n instincts , whic h ar e associate d with th e safet y an d securit y o f th e individua l member s o f th e species . In animals, th e self-preservatio n instinct s ar e secondar y t o th e reproductiv e instincts. Th e bette r th e individua l member s o f a specie s ca n survive , th e better ar e the species ' chances to reproduce and endure . In th e anima l world , th e welfare o f th e specie s wil l alway s hav e a n evolutionary priorit y ove r the safet y o r well-being o f th e individual mem bers tha t constitut e it . Female s frequentl y wil l ris k deat h t o protec t thei r young, a s will male s o f th e species , and ofte n th e sexua l instinct s o f mal e animals wil l lea d the m t o aggressiv e an d violen t behavio r i n th e struggl e for acces s t o th e females . I n animals , instinct s d o no t com e int o conflic t precisely becaus e ther e i s n o evolutionar y contradictio n betwee n th e tw o kinds o f instinct s an d becaus e animal s lac k self-consciousness , s o ther e i s no ris k o f a contradictio n betwee n th e interes t o f th e individua l an d th e interest o f the species . Freu d states : I am in fact o f the opinion that the antithesis of conscious and unconscious is not applicable to instincts. An instinct can never become an object of consciousness—

63

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 64

only the idea that represent s the instinct can. Even in the unconscious, moreover, an instinct cannot be represented otherwise than by an idea. If the instinct did not attach itsel f t o a n ide a o r manifes t itsel f a s a n affectiv e state , w e coul d kno w nothing abou t it . Whe n w e nevertheless spea k of a n unconsciou s instinctua l im pulse o r o f a represse d instinctua l impulse , th e loosenes s o f phraseolog y i s a harmless one. We can only mean an instinctual impulse the ideational representative o f whic h i s unconscious , fo r nothin g els e come s int o consideration . (SE , XIV,177) "Within huma n sexuality/ ' Laplanch e inform s us , "th e instinct , a vita l force, lose s it s qualit y an d it s identit y i n th e drive , it s metaphorico metonymical 'derivative ' " (L&D , 125). Reproductive an d self-preservatio n instinct s ar e universal amon g mam mals. The y manifes t themselve s i n th e for m o f certai n nonconceptua l mental phenomena , suc h a s sexua l tension s an d pleasure , an d emotion s such a s fea r an d aggression . I n th e huma n species , th e sexua l an d self preservation instinct s hav e become drive s tha t ar e conceptually structure d representations o f aspect s o f thos e instincts . Drive s requir e languag e an d consciousness. The y ar e th e menta l representations , conceptualizations , and manifestations o f our consciousnes s o f the feelings , compulsions , pleasures, an d unpleasure s o f instinctua l experience . Animal s canno t hav e drives, an d humans , livin g a s they d o within languag e an d consciousness , cannot hav e pur e instincts . Whe n Freu d explore s th e questio n o f th e degree t o whic h an y huma n behavio r migh t b e instinctual , h e use s th e phrase "somethin g analogou s t o instinc t i n animals " (SE , XIV , 195 ; SE , XVII, 120). Nowher e doe s Freud find i n the animal kingdom a counterpar t to o r a n analog y wit h drive s sinc e othe r form s o f anima l lif e d o no t hav e the kin d o f menta l existenc e tha t i s a necessar y conditio n fo r instinct s t o be transformed int o drives. The transformatio n i n th e evolutionar y developmen t o f th e huma n from th e sexua l and self-preservatio n instinct s t o the sexua l and ego drives is an integra l par t o f th e developmen t o f languag e an d consciousness . Th e transformation, however , result s in a dialectical tension tha t doe s not exis t at th e stag e o f anima l instinct . Th e sexua l driv e constitute s a threat t o th e ego an d i s thu s i n conflic t wit h th e eg o drive . Th e conflic t arise s becaus e the instinct s fo r th e preservatio n o f th e specie s ar e mor e powerfu l tha n those tha t serv e t o protec t it s individua l members . A s a result , th e eg o drive will always be weaker tha n th e sexua l drive and continually vulnera ble t o bein g overpowered . I f thi s wer e no t th e case , i t i s unlikel y tha t

Knowledge and the Languaging Body altruism, lov e fo r children , o r desir e fo r th e preservatio n o f th e huma n 6 species woul d b e sufficien t t o preserv e th e huma n race . Th e worl d popula tion proble m i s no t du e t o a lov e fo r childre n bu t t o th e precariou s positioning o f th e eg o driv e i n relatio n t o th e sexua l drive . Th e eg o experiences th e imperative s o f th e reproductiv e instincts , whic h ensur e th e survival o f th e species , a s a threa t an d a challeng e t o it s ow n aims , integrity, an d unity . Th e eg o i s sexuall y drive n t o constantl y compromis e itself. "I n th e cours e o f thing s i t happen s agai n an d agai n tha t individua l instincts o r part s o f instinct s tur n ou t t o b e incompatibl e i n thei r aim s o r demands wit h th e remainin g ones , whic h ar e abl e t o combin e int o th e inclusive unit y o f th e ego " (SE , XVIII , 11) . Th e essenc e o f th e eg o i s individuation. I t recognize s an d prize s th e individualit y an d independenc e of th e bod y fro m th e res t o f th e worl d an d seek s master y o r contro l ove r it . Consequently, Freu d suggest s tha t on e ca n conceptualiz e th e relation ship betwee n th e tw o drive s i n tw o equall y well-justifie d ways : "O n th e one view , th e individua l i s th e principa l thing , sexualit y i s on e o f it s activities an d sexua l satisfactio n on e o f it s needs ; whil e o n th e othe r vie w the individua l i s a temporar y an d transien t appendag e t o th e quasi-immor tal germ-plasm , whic h i s entruste d t o hi m b y th e proces s o f generation " (SE, XVI , 125) . Whil e individual s ma y b e abl e t o defen d themselve s against som e unpleasurabl e externa l stimul i throug h action , the y ar e de fenseless agains t thos e stimul i tha t originat e i n instinct . Accordin g t o Freud, The powe r o f th e i d expresse s th e tru e purpos e o f th e individua l organism' s life . This consist s i n th e satisfactio n o f it s innat e needs . N o suc h purpos e a s tha t o f keeping itsel f aliv e or o f protectin g itsel f fro m danger s b y mean s o f anxiet y ca n be attributed t o the id. Tha t is the task of the ego , whose business it also is to discove r the mos t favorabl e an d leas t perilou s metho d o f obtainin g satisfaction , takin g th e external worl d int o account . . . . Th e force s whic h w e assum e t o exis t behin d th e tension cause d b y th e need s o f th e i d ar e calle d instincts. The y represen t th e somatic demands upon the mind. . . . (SE, XXIII, 148) We have been abl e to trace them [neuroses ] bac k to the basic situation i n which th e sexual instinct s hav e come into a dispute with th e self-preservativ e instincts , or, t o put i t i n biologica l . . . terms , a situatio n i n whic h on e aspec t o f th e ego , a s a n independent individua l organism , come s int o conflic t wit h it s othe r aspect , a s a member o f a succession o f generations. A dissension o f thi s kind may perhaps onl y occur i n huma n beings , an d o n tha t accoun t neurosi s may , generall y speaking , constitute thei r prerogativ e ove r th e animals . Th e excessiv e developmen t o f thei r libido and—wha t i s perhap s mad e possibl e precisel y b y that—thei r developmen t

5

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 66 o

f a richly articulate d menta l lif e see m t o hav e created th e determinant s fo r th e occurrence of such a conflict. (SE , XVI, 414) Two o f Freud' s mos t importan t discoveries , however , ar e tha t "th e lif e of ou r sexua l instinct s canno t b e wholly tamed , an d tha t menta l processe s are i n themselve s unconsciou s an d onl y reac h th e eg o and com e under it s control throug h incomplet e an d untrustworth y perceptions—thes e tw o discoveries amoun t t o a statemen t tha t the ego is not master in its own house" (SE , XVII, 143). According to Freud , "scienc e has s o little to tell us about th e origi n o f sexualit y tha t w e ca n like n th e proble m t o a darknes s into which no t s o much a s a ray o f a hypothesis ha s penetrated" (SE , VIII, 57). Freu d further asserts , "For in humans it may happen that the demand s of th e sexua l instincts , whos e reac h o f cours e extend s fa r beyon d th e individual, see m t o the eg o to constitute a danger which threaten s it s self preservation o r its esteem. Th e ego then assume s th e defensive, denies th e sexual instinct s th e satisfactio n the y desir e an d force s the m int o thos e by-paths o f substitutiv e satisfactio n whic h becom e manifes t a s nervou s symptoms" (SE , XVII, 138). Freud assure s u s tha t "psycho-analysi s ha s neve r forgotte n tha t ther e are instinctual force s which are not sexual." Nevertheless, " a sharp distinction betwee n th e sexua l instinct s an d th e ego-instincts " i s fundamental t o psychoanalysis, an d al l neurosi s "i s du e t o a conflict betwee n th e eg o an d sexuality" (SE , XVI, 351). Moreover , "Th e neurose s ar e th e expressio n of conflicts betwee n th e eg o an d suc h o f th e sexua l impulse s a s see m t o th e ego incompatibl e wit h it s integrit y o r wit h it s ethica l standards . Sinc e these impulse s ar e no t ego-syntonic, th e eg o ha s repressed them" (SE , XVIII, 246) . "Th e theor y o f repressio n i s th e corner-ston e o n whic h th e whole structur e o f psycho-analysi s rests " (SE , XIV, 16) , and "th e essenc e of repressio n lie s simpl y i n turnin g somethin g away , an d keepin g i t a t a distance, fro m th e conscious " (SE , XIV, 147) . Th e represse d sexua l driv e then assail s th e eg o and return s i n th e for m o f a neurotic symptom . "Th e neuroses ar e th e expressio n o f conflict s betwee n th e eg o an d suc h o f th e sexual impulse s a s see m t o th e eg o incompatibl e wit h it s integrity " (SE , XVIII, 246) . Moreover , "Th e assumptio n tha t ther e ar e unconscious men tal processes , th e recognitio n o f th e theor y o f resistanc e an d repression , the appreciatio n o f th e importanc e o f sexualit y an d o f th e Oedipu s com plex—these constitut e th e principal subject-matte r o f psycho-analysi s an d the foundation s o f it s theory " (SE , XVIII, 247) . Sexualit y i s the represse d par excellenc e (L&D , 39).

Knowledge and the Languaging Body Using th e sam e pattern , th e commo n reproductiv e behavio r o f her d 6j animals, for example , can be described i n tw o different ways . I f we projec t the description fro m th e perspective of the individual mal e members of th e species, w e woul d describ e th e situatio n i n whic h th e strongest , mos t aggressive male , defeat s al l rival s t o becom e th e leade r o f th e herd . Th e herd belong s t o hi m a s the dominan t mal e an d h e control s th e female s o f the her d an d drive s awa y th e youn g male s a s the y reac h reproductiv e maturity. I f on e were t o describ e th e sam e reproductiv e pattern s fro m th e perspective o f th e primac y o f th e species , on e woul d envisio n a grou p o f female animal s that , whe n i n estrus , trigge r a n uncontrollabl e sexua l frenzy i n the males that force s the m t o struggle and battle for acces s to th e females, thu s ensurin g th e transmitta l o f th e superio r geneti c cod e t o future progeny . Th e males could thus be conceived as trapped an d enslave d by thei r sexuality , inextricabl y boun d t o th e reproductiv e process . I t i s interesting t o not e tha t an y species-oriente d descriptio n give s primac y t o the female role , whereas individual-oriented description s give preeminenc e to the rol e of th e male. Both description s are , however , huma n projection s ont o nature . Wha t is interesting , nevertheless , i s tha t description s fro m th e individua l per spective are predominant i n huma n description s o f th e anima l world. Thi s tells us more about th e predominance o f th e eg o drive in the psyche of th e human tha n i t doe s abou t th e realit y o f anima l reproductiv e behavior . I f the reproductiv e instinct s wer e weake r tha n th e instinct s o f self-preserva tion i n a particula r species , the n th e specie s would , i n al l likelihood , eventually becom e extinct . Thi s i s equall y tru e fo r th e huma n species . Ego-oriented description s o f anima l behavior , therefore , reflec t th e repres sion tha t i s produced b y th e conflic t betwee n th e sexua l an d eg o drives. I n the reproductiv e behavio r o f th e honey bee , on the other hand , it would be difficult t o privileg e th e rol e o f th e male , and , consequently , a species oriented projectio n i s th e onl y plausibility . Whe n a n individualisti c per spective i s applied , w e tak e b y wa y o f analog y th e negativ e imag e o f th e queen be e and apply it to nonsubmissive women . The interrelationshi p o f th e sexua l instinct-driv e an d th e self-preserva tion instinct-driv e is , i n th e evolutio n o f th e huma n species , extremel y complex. Wit h th e breedin g ou t o f estrus , resultin g i n a stat e o f constan t sexual receptivity , an d th e shif t fro m a n olfactor y t o a visua l arousa l mechanism i n the male, humans became probably one of the most sexuall y driven animal s o n th e fac e o f th e earth . O n th e othe r hand , wit h th e

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 68 evolutio n o f consciousnes s an d th e developmen t o f th e ego , th e self preservation instinc t i s transforme d int o a powerful driv e fo r th e preserva tion o f th e ego , whic h i s identifie d wit h th e bodil y imag e i n wha t Laca n refers t o a s th e "imago/ 7 Ther e i s a consensu s amon g man y expert s tha t human sexualit y wa s th e primar y facto r i n th e evolutio n o f consciousnes s and language. 2 4 Thus , th e wor d i s inextricabl y linke d t o th e genitals . An d if huma n sexualit y i s simila r t o mos t form s o f anima l sexuality , wher e th e male i s sexuall y drive n t o see k access , the n w e shoul d fin d tha t th e wor d will b e inextricabl y linke d t o th e penis . Accordin g t o Lacan , "Th e realit y of th e unconsciou s i s sexua l reality " (F , 150,152) becaus e "sexua l division , in s o fa r a s i t reign s ove r mos t livin g beings , i s tha t whic h ensure s th e survival o f a species " (F , 150). H e goe s o n t o say , Existence, thank s t o sexua l division , rest s upo n copulation , accentuate d i n tw o poles that time-honore d traditio n ha s tried t o characterize a s the mal e pole and th e female pole . Thi s i s becaus e th e mainsprin g o f reproductio n i s t o b e foun d there . Around thi s fundamenta l reality , ther e hav e alway s bee n grouped , harmonized , other characteristics , more o r less bound u p with th e finality o f reproduction . I can do no mor e tha n poin t ou t here , what , i n th e biological register , i s associated wit h sexual differentiation , i n th e for m o f secondar y sexua l characteristic s an d func tions. W e kno w toda y how , i n society , a whole distributio n o f function s i n a play of alternatio n i s grounded o n this terrain. . . . (F, 150). [I]t i s throug h sexua l realit y tha t th e signifie r cam e int o th e world—tha t ma n learned t o think. (F , 151) The recognitio n o f th e dialectic s betwee n bod y an d mind ; th e interest s of th e individua l in , an d th e biologica l determinant s for , th e preservatio n of th e species ; an d th e demand s o f libid o an d ego—al l o f whic h for m th e underlying structur e o f th e menta l lif e o f th e h u m a n — w a s Freud' s grea t discovery. Accordin g t o Freud , We finally arriv e a t th e connection s w e are in searc h of , i f w e take a s our starting point th e oppositio n w e hav e s o often asserte d betwee n th e eg o and th e libido . A s we know , th e generatio n o f anxiet y i s th e ego' s reactio n t o dange r an d th e signa l for takin g flight . I f so , i t seem s plausibl e t o suppos e tha t i n neuroti c anxiet y th e ego i s makin g a simila r attemp t a t fligh t fro m th e deman d b y it s libido , tha t i t i s treating thi s interna l dange r a s thoug h i t wer e a n externa l one . Thi s woul d therefore fulfil l ou r expectatio n tha t wher e anxiet y i s show n ther e i s somethin g one i s afrai d of . Bu t th e analog y coul d b e carrie d further . Jus t a s th e attemp t a t flight fro m a n externa l dange r i s replace d b y standin g fir m an d th e adoptio n o f expedient measure s o f defense , s o to o th e generatio n o f neuroti c anxiet y give s place t o th e formatio n o f symptoms , whic h result s i n th e anxiet y bein g bound . (SE, XVI, 405)

Knowledge and the Languaging Body Freud was , o f course , ver y cognizan t o f th e complexit y o f sexualit y an d 6 the man y form s i t coul d take , sometime s i n defens e o f th e eg o rather tha n as a threa t t o it . "Th e pathogeni c conflic t i s thu s on e betwee n th e ego instincts an d th e sexua l instincts/ ' Eve n whe n i t woul d appea r tha t tw o sexual trend s ar e antagonisti c t o eac h other , th e conflic t stil l remain s on e between th e eg o and sexualit y sinc e "on e is always, as we might say , 'ego syntonic' whil e th e othe r provoke s th e ego' s defense . I t therefor e stil l remains a conflict betwee n th e eg o and sexuality " (SE , XVI, 351). Lacan states , "I t i s clear , i n effect , tha t genita l libid o operate s a s a suppression, indee d a blin d suppression , o f th e individua l i n favo r o f th e species, an d tha t it s sublimatin g effect s i n th e Oedipa l crisi s li e a t th e origin of the whole process of cultural subordinatio n o f man" (E , 24). "Th e theory o f instincts, " h e state s further , "canno t bu t tak e int o accoun t a fundamental bipartitio n betwee n th e fina l end s o f th e preservatio n o f th e individual and those of the continuity o f the species" (S 1,120). Individual s merely carr y th e geneti c cod e o f th e collective . Specie s remai n whil e individuals ar e bor n an d die . "I f th e individua l whic h develop s i s quit e distinct fro m th e fundamenta l livin g substanc e whic h th e germ-plas m constitutes, an d whic h doe s no t perish , i f th e individua l i s parasitic , wha t function doe s i t hav e i n th e propagatio n o f Life ? None . Fro m th e poin t o f view o f th e species , individual s are , i f on e ca n pu t i t tha t way , alread y dead. A n individua l i s wort h nothin g alongsid e th e immorta l substanc e hidden dee p inside it , which i s the onl y thin g t o be perpetuated an d whic h authentically an d substantiall y represent s suc h lif e a s there is " ( S I, 121) . Consciousness create s a dichotom y o f interes t betwee n th e ongoin g sur vival o f th e species , for whic h th e individua l i s irrelevant, an d the surviva l of th e individual , who has , at best , a very limite d interes t i n th e perpetua tion o f th e species.

Lacan s Theory of Language Lacan doe s no t confus e thought , consciousness , o r th e unconsciou s wit h language. H e say s tha t " I hav e neve r sai d tha t th e unconsciou s wa s a n assemblage o f words , bu t tha t th e unconsciou s i s precisel y structured " (OS, 187) . Though t i s no t th e sam e a s languag e o r th e unconscious , though th e thre e ar e intimatel y related . Wha t Laca n doe s sa y i s tha t "the unconsciou s i s structure d lik e a language " (F , 20) ; tha t "wha t th e psychoanalytic experienc e discover s i n th e unconsciou s i s the whole struc -

9

Knowledge and the Languaging Body jo tur

e o f language " (E , 147) ; an d tha t "ther e i s n o unconsciou s excep t fo r the speakin g being " (Tel , 5) . Laca n implicitl y assume d tha t bot h though t and consciousnes s ar e equall y structure d lik e a language . I f i t i s th e cas e that consciousness , th e unconscious , an d though t ar e structure d lik e a language, then whateve r w e believe reality to be at any particular time will also b e structure d lik e a languag e (E , 106) . "I t i s th e worl d o f word s tha t creates the world of things" (E , 65). The distinctions that we make between subject an d object , th e observe r an d th e observed , th e sel f an d th e Other , equally reflec t th e structur e o f language . I t i s onl y withi n th e framework of languag e tha t w e becom e an d are , an d wil l remain , human . "Ma n speaks, then, bu t i t is because the symbo l has made him man " (E , 65). Lacanian languag e theor y i s premise d o n th e Swis s linguis t Ferdinan d de Saussure' s arbitrarines s o f th e sign. 25 Th e relationshi p betwee n th e sign, it s sound , an d it s meanin g i s purel y arbitrary . "T o pinpoin t th e emergence o f linguisti c scienc e we may sa y tha t . . . i t i s contained i n th e constitutive moment s o f a n algorith m tha t i s it s foundation . Thi s algo rithm i s the following : S s

which i s rea d as : th e signifie r ove r th e signified , 'over ' correspondin g t o the ba r separatin g th e tw o stages " (E , 149). Th e relationshi p betwee n th e signifier an d the signifie d i s not on e to one. Ther e is no necessary relation ship betwee n th e signifie r an d tha t whic h i t signifies . Meaning , therefore , is a matter o f convention . The signifie r i s a sig n tha t doesn' t refe r t o an y objec t bu t refer s t o another sig n in suc h away as to designate the absence of th e first sign . Th e one signifie r get s it s meanin g i n oppositio n t o th e other : " I spok e abou t day and night . Da y an d nigh t ar e in n o way somethin g that ca n be define d by experience . Al l experienc e i s able t o indicat e i s a series o f modulation s and transformations , eve n a pulsation , a n alternation , o f ligh t an d dark , with al l its transitions. Languag e begins at the opposition—day an d night . And onc e the day i s there a s a signifier, i t lends itself t o all the vicissitude s of a n arrangemen t whereb y i t wil l com e t o signif y thing s o f grea t diver sity" ( S III, 167-68). Moreover , "[Ij t isn' t wha t appear s i n the foregroun d that i s important, " Laca n writes , "What' s importan t i s th e oppositio n

Knowledge and the Languaging Body between tw o sort s o f link s tha t ar e themselve s interna l t o th e signifier . yi . . . Thi s bindin g o f opposite s i s essentia l t o th e functionin g o f language " (S III , 225) . Laca n conceive s o f languag e a s a simultaneou s syste m o f chains o f signifier s tha t ar e structure d i n term s o f group s o f oppositio n ( S m,54). Lacan firml y declare s an d insist s tha t w e wil l neve r understan d th e nature o f languag e an d ho w it function s s o long as we cling to the illusio n that "th e signifie r answer s t o the functio n o f representin g th e signified , o r better, tha t th e signifie r ha s to answer fo r it s existence in the nam e of an y signification whatever " (E , 150) . "Th e trap , th e hol e on e mus t no t fal l into, is the belief tha t th e signifie d ar e objects, things" ( S III, 32). He adds, "Now, i n n o wa y ca n w e conside r tha t th e fundamenta l endpoin t i s t o point t o a thing . Ther e i s a n absolut e non-equivalenc e betwee n discours e and pointing . Whateve r yo u tak e th e ultimat e elemen t o f discours e t o b e reduced to , you will neve r b e able to replac e it wit h you r inde x finger " ( S III, 137-38) . Further , "Th e signifie d i s no t th e thing s i n thei r ra w state , already there , give n i n a n orde r ope n t o meaning . Meanin g i s huma n discourse insofa r a s it alway s refer s t o anothe r meaning " ( S III, 119). Th e word tree, fo r example , doe s no t ge t it s meanin g b y standin g fo r a n external object . Rathe r it s meaning i s derived fro m a set o f relate d signifi ers suc h a s life , plants , plant s tha t i n contras t ar e no t trees , leaves , branches, trunks, root s and s o on. Ther e are other use s of th e word tree. It is used , fo r exampl e t o refe r t o a kin d o f diagra m tha t ha s stem s an d branches. Thes e signifier s belon g t o what Laca n call s a "chai n o f significa tion" o r a "chain o f signifiers. " Meaning lie s withi n th e framewor k o f set s o f signifiers , whic h ar e fundamentally structured , woven , chained , meshe d b y language . "I n fact , what characterize s languag e i s th e syste m o f signifier s a s such " (E , 153 54). "[I] t i s in th e chai n o f th e signifie r tha t th e meanin g 'insists ' bu t tha t none o f it s element s 'consists 7 i n th e significatio n o f whic h i t i s a t th e moment capable . W e ar e forced , then , t o accep t the notio n o f a n incessan t sliding o f th e signifie d unde r th e signifier. " Ever y chai n o f significatio n has attache d t o i t " a whol e articulatio n o f relevan t contexts, " suspended , as it were (E , 153-54). A meaning will always refe r t o another meanin g ( S III, 33). Words , therefore, canno t hav e meaning i n isolation . In additio n t o th e arbitrar y natur e o f th e sig n i n relationshi p t o mean ing, ther e i s a secon d fundamenta l propert y o f languag e tha t Laca n inte grates int o languag e theory : th e capacit y tha t languag e ha s t o us e a finit e

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 72 numbe r o f symbol s t o creat e a n infinit e amoun t o f discourse . A finit e se t of symbols , which constitut e a language, ca n be combined an d recombine d in a n infinit e numbe r o f way s t o symbolicall y represen t a univers e tha t unfolds fo r th e knowe r i n a n infinit e numbe r o f combinations . Thi s stem s from th e abilit y o f languag e t o constitut e a unified system . "[T]her e i s no language (langue) i n existenc e fo r whic h ther e i s an y questio n o f it s inability t o cove r th e whol e fiel d o f th e signified , i t bein g a n effec t o f it s existence a s a languag e (langue) that i t necessaril y answer s al l needs' ' (E , 150). W e ar e bor n int o language , an d fo r childre n t o lear n it , the y mus t grasp i t a s a unifie d whol e ( S III , 228) . I t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t i t i s difficult fo r u s t o gras p ho w languag e emerge d i n th e earl y stage s o f th e development o f ou r species . W e ca n imagin e wha t i t migh t hav e been lik e before languag e an d afte r languag e bu t no t wha t i t was like between thes e two point s ( S II , 5) . Laca n explain s furthe r tha t th e symboli c univers e constitutes a totalit y an d tha t " everything whic h i s huma n ha s t o b e ordained withi n a univers e constitute d b y th e symboli c function " ( S II , 29-30). I t i s the dialectica l structur e o f language , which i s reflecte d i n th e oppositional structur e o f th e signifiers, tha t give s language this property of completeness suc h tha t i t constitute s a totalit y ( S II , 30) . Howeve r smal l the numbe r o f symbol s tha t human s ha d i n th e earl y stage s o f language , that numbe r would for m th e totality fo r tha t universe. Th e symbolic order takes o n it s universa l characte r righ t fro m th e start , suc h tha t onc e th e symbolic function i s in plac e it will imply th e totality o f everythin g tha t i s human a t tha t tim e an d plac e ( S II , 30 , 287) . "[I]t' s th e whol e o f realit y that i s covered b y the entir e networ k o f language " ( S III, 32). This capacit y i s derive d fro m th e tw o primar y languag e function s o f metaphor an d metonymy . An y conjunctio n betwee n tw o signifier s ca n constitute a metaphor, provide d ther e is a disparity o f the images such tha t there i s a poeti c spark tha t ca n conjoi n tha t whic h i s differen t (E , 165) . "The creativ e spark o f th e metaphor doe s not sprin g from th e presentatio n of tw o images , tha t is , o f tw o signifier s equall y actualized . I t flashe s between tw o signifier s on e of which ha s taken th e place of th e othe r i n th e signifying chain . . . . One word for another: tha t i s th e formul a fo r th e metaphor" (E , 157) . Thus , "languag e i s a t it s mos t effectiv e whe n i t manages t o sa y somethin g b y sayin g somethin g else " ( S III , 224 ) o r t o signify something quite other tha n wha t i t says " (E , 155) . Metonymy , considered th e opposit e o f metaphor , involve s th e substitutio n fo r some -

Knowledge and the Languaging Body thing tha t ha s t o b e named , th e nam e o f it s container , o r it s part , o r th e 73 name of somethin g that i s connected t o it (E , 156; S III, 220-21).

The Primary and the Privileged Language present s u s wit h chain s o f significatio n withi n whic h ther e ar e oppositional signifiers . Th e oppositio n betwee n signifier s an d chain s o f signification wil l b e suc h tha t on e i s generally take n t o b e primary an d it s opposite give n th e statu s o f th e secondary , o r on e i s selecte d a s privilege d over th e other . Th e ver y ide a o f privilegin g assume s a contrast . A privi leged signifie r assume s a primary signifier . Th e preference , advantage , o r dominance give n t o tha t whic h i s privilege d i s a denia l o f th e primac y o f the primary. A term tha t i s the standar d withi n th e framewor k o f materia l reality become s th e adjuste d ter m withi n psychica l reality. 26 Th e privileg ing o f fantas y ove r materia l realit y tha t i s entaile d i n repressio n reverse s the relationshi p betwee n th e standar d an d th e adjuste d form s o f th e signi fiers. A primary chai n o f significatio n withi n th e framewor k o f th e articu lation o f materia l realit y will lie under an d be opposed to a privileged chai n of significatio n withi n th e framewor k o f fantasy . The relativ e primac y o f term s ar e measure d accordin g t o derivatio n a s well a s in term s o f thei r hierarchica l positionin g i n chain s o f signification . The concep t o f la w i s therefore primar y i n term s o f th e concep t o f a cause of action . Th e latte r presuppose s th e former . Man y term s tha t appea r i n pairs cannot be measured i n terms of primacy an d derivation. Fo r example, neither up/down , black/white , near/far , o r night/da y ca n b e classifie d a s primary o r secondary . Bot h term s ar e secondar y wit h respec t t o concept s of position , color , or time, the meaning o f which the y presuppose . Whereas som e pair s o f term s wil l no t b e classifie d a s primar y wit h respect t o derivation , on e ter m o r pol e o f th e dichotom y ma y stil l b e privileged. Fo r example , i n muc h discourse , goo d i s privilege d ove r evil , day ove r night , u p ove r down , an d whit e ove r black . Th e privilege d position o f th e ter m i s alway s subjec t t o reversa l withi n a differen t dis course. Th e privileged positio n come s from a fantasy structur e rathe r tha n from materia l reality . A privilege d ter m i n a terminologica l dichotom y ma y o r ma y no t reverse a primary relationshi p base d o n presuppositio n o r derivation . Th e two term s ma y b e equall y derivative , o r th e primar y ter m ma y als o b e

Knowledge and the Languaging Body 74 give n a phantasmi c privilege . Repressio n i s a t work , however , whe n a signifier become s privileged, when i t presupposes th e existence or meanin g of a primar y signifie r bu t th e primar y signifie r i s give n a n adjuste d for m and th e privilege d signifie r i s expressed i n th e for m o f th e standar d o r th e complete. Whil e on e canno t sa y i n term s o f tim e whic h come s first—th e chicken or the egg—in term s o f biology the bird is primary i n that the egg is a ste p i n th e proces s o f it s reproduction , bu t neithe r eg g no r chicke n i s privileged i n terms o f fantasy . In repression , th e privilege d pole , whic h wil l b e take n a s th e standar d case, will hav e a property tha t th e unmarke d ter m wil l lack, the lac k being the basi s o f it s categorization a s nonstandard. Th e property, however , wil l be phantasmic and not real . Th e primary signifie r wil l thus be the adjuste d term an d th e secondar y signifie r th e privileged . Fo r example , Male i s a privileged signifie r insofa r a s it i s taken a s the standar d wit h th e femal e a s the marke d nonstandar d throug h th e additio n o f th e adjuste r fe t o th e standard male o r th e adjuste r ess added t o the standar d god. Similarly, th e use o f th e mal e for m o f th e pronou n (he ) fo r th e genera l tha t include s male an d femal e reflect s th e phantasmi c privilegin g o f th e mal e ove r th e female. Ye t th e measur e o f lif e i s th e capacit y fo r reproduction , an d i n reproduction th e femal e i s primary : male s com e ou t o f femal e bodies . I n material realit y male s ar e bor n o f females . Male s ma y ow n o r posses s females i n psychi c reality , bu t i n materia l realit y al l mammalia n lif e i s protofemale. Th e fetu s wil l alway s b e bor n female , whethe r o r no t th e y chromosome i s present , unles s th e hormona l bath s ar e triggere d i n th e early stage s of the developmen t o f the fetus. 27 In psychi c reality' s phantasmi c privilegin g o f th e male , th e primar y processes o f lif e ar e mad e secondar y b y markin g th e metaphoricall y de rived secondar y meanin g a s th e standar d cas e an d th e primar y a s th e marked, adjuste d case . Th e comin g into being o f a person throug h birt h i s primary whe n contraste d t o th e makin g o f tool s an d th e thing s tha t w e make wit h tools . Th e mad e presuppose s a maker . Yet , i n language , th e secondary o r derivativ e i s privilege d an d th e primar y i s marke d a s a n adjusted term , a s i n production an d reproduction, or creation and procreation. Wh y i s thi s th e case ? Th e relationshi p betwee n primar y an d privi leged i s derive d from, o r i s th e manifestatio n of , th e mind/bod y dualism . The bod y i s primar y becaus e i t i s a necessar y conditio n fo r th e ego . Th e ego, however, i s the foca l poin t i n consciousnes s o f th e min d o r psyche. I t controls th e bod y i n th e sens e tha t i t ca n mov e it , o r not , a s i t decides , o r

Knowledge and the Languaging Body even destroy it , as in suicide . Bu t in doing so, the eg o falls with the body. J5 Signifiers, whethe r primary/secondar y o r privileged/discriminate d against, ge t thei r meanin g withi n chain s o f signification . T o th e degre e that th e principal signifier s ar e primary o r secondary, privileged o r marke d as adjusted o r nonstandard , th e chain s o f significatio n o f whic h the y for m a par t wil l b e primar y o r secondary , privilege d o r devalued . Neuroti c symptoms wil l therefor e b e marke d b y th e repressio n o f th e chain s o f signification tha t conceptualiz e materia l realit y an d th e privilegin g o f th e chains o f significatio n i n whic h th e phantasmi c i s conceptualized . "[T]h e major functio n o f languag e i s no t t o fin d fina l answers , communicate , o r provide information , bu t t o projec t narcissism , protec t egos , mas k puissance, negotiate desire/' 28 I t i s fo r thi s reaso n tha t th e primar y pole s o f the dialectica l oppositionar y signifiers , a s measure d i n term s o f materia l reality, ar e reverse d i n psychi c realit y b y th e privilegin g o f th e secondar y signifier ove r its primary opposite .

The Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real While Freu d dre w a distinctio n betwee n materia l an d psychi c realit y an d the realit y o f unconsciou s fantasy , Laca n postulate s a differen t se t o f categories, th e Imaginary , th e Symbolic , an d th e Real . Thes e ar e no t parallels t o Freud' s realities , bu t cu t acros s al l three . "On e o f th e main springs, on e o f th e key s o f th e doctrin e whic h I expoun d here/ ' Laca n writes, "i s th e distinctio n betwee n th e Real , th e Imaginar y an d th e Sym bolic. . . . This notion o f objects i s in fac t sustaine d b y the straightforwar d confusion o f thes e thre e terms " ( S II, 250). Freud' s materia l realit y i s no t the sam e a s Lacan' s categor y o f th e Real . Rather , i t i s constitute d b y Lacan's categories o f the Imaginar y an d the Symbolic . Accordin g to Lacan , "the livin g organis m ca n onl y receive , record , wha t i t i s constructe d t o receive—more precisely , tha t it s function s ar e fa r mor e constructe d i n order no t t o receive . I t doesn' t see , it doesn' t hear , wha t isn' t usefu l t o it s biological subsistence " ( S II , 322) . Materia l realit y i s o f th e orde r o f th e phantasmic, accordin g to Lacan : "Ther e is , according to analytic discourse , an anima l whic h find s himsel f speaking , an d fo r who m i t follow s that , b y inhabiting th e signifier , h e i s it s subject . Fro m the n on , everythin g i s played ou t fo r hi m o n th e leve l o f fantasy " (FS , 159). Moreover , "T o be a psychoanalyst i s simply t o ope n you r eye s to the eviden t fac t tha t nothin g malfunctions mor e than huma n reality " ( S III, 82).

Knowledge and the Languaging Body j6 Lacan' s Imaginar y i s grounde d i n th e perceptua l system , withi n whic h image play s a majo r part . Visio n is , fo r Lacan , th e primar y cente r o f th e perceptual syste m fo r i t i s throug h visio n tha t th e imag e come s int o being . The perceptual , however , i s no t independen t o f th e conceptua l o r th e cognitive. Sense d perceptio n i s shape d an d structure d withi n th e Symbolic : While th e imag e equall y play s a capita l rol e i n ou r ow n domain , thi s rol e i s completely take n u p an d caugh t u p within , remolde d an d reanimate d by , th e symbolic order. Th e image is always more or less integrated int o this order, which , I remind you , i s defined i n ma n b y its property o f organize d structure . Finally, we can understand th e red car within th e symbolic order, namely i n th e way on e understand s th e colo r re d i n a game o f cards , that is , as opposed t o black, as being a part o f a n alread y organize d language . There yo u hav e th e thre e register s distinguishe d fro m on e another , an d als o distinguished fro m on e anothe r ar e the thre e plane s o n which ou r so-calle d under standing of th e elementar y phenomeno n ca n be undertaken. ( S III, 10) The firs t imag e tha t th e huma n form s i s tha t o f th e bod y o f it s mother . From thi s bod y an d it s identificatio n wit h it s ow n reflection , th e infan t gains a n imag e o f it s ow n bod y a s bot h sel f an d Other . Th e primac y o f th e body i n th e Imaginar y furnishe s th e foundationa l imag e fo r th e registe r o f the Symbolic . I n th e mirro r stage , th e infan t identifie s th e bod y wit h th e ego wherei n th e subjec t assume s a n image : "ther e i s a specifi c relatio n here betwee n ma n an d hi s ow n bod y tha t i s manifeste d i n a serie s o f socia l practices—from rite s involvin g tattooing , incision , an d circumcisio n i n primitive societie s t o what , i n advance d societies , migh t b e calle d th e Procrustean arbitrarines s o f fashion , a relativel y recen t cultura l innova tion, i n tha t i t denie s respec t fo r th e natura l form s o f th e huma n body " (E , 11). Th e image s o f bodil y mutilation , torture , punishment , bindin g an d restriction, an d i n particula r th e imag e o f castration , demonstrat e th e primacy o f th e bodil y imag e i n th e Imaginary . The Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c ar e seamlessl y related . "Th e firs t symbols, natura l symbols , ste m fro m a certai n numbe r o f prevailin g im ages—the imag e o f th e huma n body , th e imag e o f a certai n numbe r o f obvious object s lik e th e sun , th e moon , an d som e others . An d tha t i s wha t gives huma n languag e it s weight , it s resources , an d it s emotiona l vibra tion. I s thi s imaginar y homogeneou s wit h th e symbolic? " ( S II , 306) . The bod y itsel f i s th e primar y imag e o f symboli c relationship s o f power , domination, an d authority , a s i s evidence d i n th e concep t o f th e bod y o f the kin g a s embodimen t o f state , churc h a s bod y o f Christ , corporat e

Knowledge and the Languaging Body bodies, th e bod y politic , an d suc h metaphorica l reference s a s th e ar m o f yy the law , th e hea d o f state , th e lifebloo d o f th e nation , and , o f course , th e phallus. A s Laca n concludes , "Th e languag e embodie d i n a huma n lan guage i s made up of, an d there' s n o doub t abou t this , choice images whic h all hav e a specifi c relatio n wit h th e livin g existenc e o f th e huma n being , with quit e a narro w secto r o f it s biologica l reality , wit h th e imag e o f th e fellow being . Thi s imaginar y experienc e furnishe s ballas t fo r ever y con crete language, and by the sam e token fo r ever y verbal exchange , with thi s something whic h make s i t a human language—i n th e mos t dow n t o eart h and mos t ordinar y sens e o f th e wor d human , i n th e Englis h sens e o f 'human' " (S II, 319). The Rea l i s no t knowledg e i n tha t i t i s no t th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic, an d wha t i s imaginar y an d symboli c canno t b e th e Real . Th e Real is , therefore , " a hol e i n discourse " (Tel , xxiii-iv) . Th e Rea l i s no t external realit y sinc e externa l realit y i s i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y and th e Symbolic . "Whe n discours e run s u p agains t something , falters , and ca n go no further, encounterin g a 'there i s no' [il n'y a pas]—and tha t by it s ow n logic—that' s th e Real " (Tel , xxiii-iv). Similarly , "[T]h e worl d is merel y th e fantas y throug h whic h though t sustain s itself—'reality ' n o doubt, bu t t o b e understoo d a s a grimac e o f th e real " (Tel , 6) . Whe n i t comes to the Real , language fails , "Ye t it' s throug h thi s very impossibilit y that th e trut h hold s ont o the real " (Tel , 3). Th e Rea l is neither matte r no r substance no r voi d no r nothing . I t i s neithe r God , Tao , nirvana , o r logos . It canno t b e anythin g fo r whic h ma n ha s eve r foun d a nam e sinc e i t fall s outside o f th e rang e o f perceptio n o r conception . Th e distinctio n betwee n externality an d internalit y make s n o sens e a t th e leve l o f th e Real , a s th e Real is without fissur e ( S II, 97). "Ther e i s no absence in th e real . Ther e is only absenc e if yo u sugges t tha t ther e may b e a presence there when ther e isn't one " ( S II, 313). Lacan warn s u s t o "avoi d th e illusio n tha t languag e i s modele d o n a simple an d direc t apprehensio n o f th e Real " ( S III , 117-18) . Ma n ap proaches th e Rea l (includin g th e rea l o f hi s ow n body ) throug h "th e pla y of symbols " ( S II, 300). Th e symbols, however, d o not com e from th e Rea l (S II , 238) . Th e relationshi p betwee n th e Rea l an d th e pla y o f symbol s i s explained i n th e followin g way : "Everythin g i s tied t o the symboli c order , since there ar e me n i n th e worl d an d the y speak . An d wha t i s transmitte d and tend s t o ge t constitute d i s a n immens e messag e int o whic h th e entir e real i s little b y littl e retransplanted , recreated , remade . Th e symbolizatio n

Knowledge and the Languaging Body jS o

f th e rea l tend s t o b e equivalen t t o th e universe , an d th e subject s ar e onl y relays, support s i n it . Wha t w e ge t u p t o i n al l thi s i s t o mak e a brea k o n the leve l o f on e o f thes e couplings " ( S II , 322) . Th e Rea l i s neithe r th e bi g bang no r wha t wa s ther e jus t befor e th e bi g ban g no r Stephe n Hawking' s point o f singularit y no r th e electromagneti c time-spac e continuu m no r th e grand unifie d theor y no r an y othe r kin d o f scientifi c conception . "Th e exact science s are , o f course , ver y closel y tie d t o th e functio n o f th e Real " (S II , 297) , bu t whateve r scientifi c progres s w e make , i t wil l no t b e a direc t discovery o f th e Real—th e Rea l wil l b e behin d o r beyon d it . "Th e littl e symbolic gam e i n whic h Newton' s syste m an d tha t o f Einstei n i s summe d up ha s i n th e en d ver y littl e t o d o with th e Real . Th e scienc e whic h reduce s the rea l t o severa l littl e letters , t o a little bundl e o f formulae , wil l probabl y seem, wit h th e hindsigh t o f late r epochs , lik e a n amazin g epic , an d wil l also dwindl e down , lik e a n epic , t o a rathe r shor t circuit " ( S II , 299) . Ther e is th e Real , an d ther e i s ou r representatio n o f it , th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic. Ther e i s n o dee p connectio n betwee n th e tw o i n tha t th e Imagi nary an d th e Symboli c ca n neve r escap e th e huma n bod y ( S VII , 92) . Th e Cartesian univers e i s a fantas y i n tha t th e Cartesia n subjec t ma y no t b e assumed, an d therefor e ther e i s n o immovabl e poin t o n whic h Descarte s can stand . "It' s lik e Archimedes—yo u giv e hi m hi s littl e poin t outsid e o f the world , an d h e ca n mov e it . Bu t thi s littl e poin t outsid e th e worl d doesn't exist " ( S II , 68) . While languag e ca n rearrang e itsel f t o symboliz e an y universe , lan guage itsel f i s no t necessaril y a unifie d system . I t i s mad e u p o f man y different set s o f discourses : You kno w onl y to o wel l th e everlastin g dispute s ther e ar e o n ever y them e an d o n every subject , wit h greate r o r lesser ambiguit y dependin g o n th e zones of interhu man action , an d wit h th e manifes t discordanc e betwee n th e differen t symboli c systems which prescrib e action , th e religious , juridical, scientific , politica l systems . There is neither superposition , no r conjunction o f these references—between the m there ar e gaps , faults , rents . Tha t i s why w e canno t conceiv e o f huma n discours e as being unitary . Ever y emissio n o f speec h i s always , u p t o a certain point , unde r an inne r necessit y t o err . S o we are led , it would appear , t o a historical Pyrronis m which suspend s th e truth-valu e o f everythin g whic h th e huma n voic e ca n emit , suspends it in the expectatio n o f a future totalisation . ( S I, 264) The interrelationshi p o f Freud' s thre e categorie s o f materia l reality , psychic reality , an d th e realit y o f unconsciou s fantas y intermes h wit h Lacan's thre e categorie s o f th e Imaginary , th e Symbolic , an d th e Real .

Knowledge and the Languaging Body Each categor y o f th e on e is divisible int o th e thre e categorie s o f th e other . The following diagra m suggest s how we might usefull y correlat e these two sets of cognitive triads . The Imaginary Th

e Symbolic Th

e Real

Material Reality Psychic Reality Reality of Unconscious Fantasy

It i s withi n th e framewor k o f th e dialecti c betwee n th e primar y tha t reflects materia l reality and the privileged that reflects th e reality of uncon scious fantas y tha t w e divid e trut h fro m erro r i n th e real m o f psychi c reality. "W e hav e see n tha t deception , a s such , ca n onl y b e sustained a s a function o f th e truth , an d no t onl y o f th e truth, bu t o f a movement o f th e truth—that erro r i s th e usua l manifestatio n o f th e trut h itself—s o tha t the paths of truth ar e in essence the paths o f error " ( S I, 263-64).

79

F O U R

The Dialectics

Dialectics and the Fold In hi s essay The Double Session (DS) , Derrid a develop s a textua l dialecti c located withi n th e tex t rathe r tha n i n materia l reality . Derridea n textua l dialectics i s differen t tha n Hegelia n dialectics , whic h polarize s thesi s an d contradiction a s antithesis. I t meets at a point Derrid a refer s t o as the fold . The tex t ha s tw o parts , th e published , visible , an d readabl e tex t an d th e unpublished, unspoken , an d hidde n text , whic h lie s between th e line s an d beneath th e surface . H e states , "Thi s doubl e sessio n wil l itsel f hav e bee n picked u p o n a corner, i n th e middl e o r th e suspens e o f th e tw o part s o f a text, o f whic h onl y on e i s visible , readabl e fo r havin g a t leas t bee n pub lished " (DS , 177) . Interprete d i n thi s way , th e text s o f Nietzsche , Freud , and Laca n consis t o f tw o parts—th e publishe d tex t an d tha t whic h i s hidden. Whateve r truth i s t o b e foun d wil l b e locate d a t th e fold : "Th e place o f interest , then , thi s corne r betwee n literatur e an d truth , wil l for m a certai n angle . I t will b e a figure o f foldin g back , o f th e angl e ensure d b y a fold " (DS , 177) . Onl y b y makin g visibl e an d publishin g th e Other , ca n we see the truth tha t lie s at the fold . In seekin g th e "fol d wher e th e tex t confront s th e truth, " ther e are , of course, certain inevitabl e risks . Derrid a explain s tha t "Becaus e o f a certain fold . . . thes e texts , an d thei r commerce , definitivel y escap e an y exhaus tive treatment . W e ca n nevertheles s begi n t o mar k out , i n a fe w roug h strokes, a certain numbe r o f motifs. Thes e strokes might b e seen to form a sort o f frame , th e enclosur e or borders o f a history tha t would precisely b e that o f a certai n pla y betwee n literatur e an d truth " (DS , 183) . Thi s text , therefore, constitute s onl y " a fe w roug h strokes " an d " a certai n motif. " I t is " a dialogue or a dialectic. A t least it should be " (DS , 184). 80

The Dialectics The dialectic s o f discourse , whil e the y hav e n o synthesis , d o mee t a t a 81 point o f trut h wher e th e polarit y disappears , wher e eac h sid e become s a mimesis o f th e othe r a s on e passe s throug h th e fold s o f th e hymen . A s explained b y Derrida , What announce s itsel f her e i s a n interna l divisio n withi n mimesis, a self-duplica tion o f repetitio n itself , ad infinitum, sinc e thi s movemen t feed s it s ow n prolifera tion. Perhaps , then, ther e i s always more tha n on e kind o f mimesis; an d perhaps i t is in the strang e mirror tha t reflect s but als o displaces and distorts one mimesis int o the other , a s thoug h i t wer e itsel f destine d t o mim e o r mas k itself, tha t history — the histor y o f literature—i s lodged , alon g wit h th e whol e o f it s interpretation . Everything woul d the n b e playe d ou t i n th e paradoxe s o f th e supplementar y double: th e paradoxe s o f somethin g that , adde d t o th e simpl e an d th e single , replaces an d mime s them , bot h like , an d unlike , unlik e becaus e i t is—i n tha t i t is—like, the sam e as and different fro m wha t i t duplicates. (DS , 191) The strang e mirro r image s o f dominatio n an d submissio n reflec t bac k an d forth, eac h tim e displacin g an d distortin g th e imag e i t replaces . The mythi c text s o f huma n existenc e ar e destine d t o mim e o r mas k themselves, playin g out , bac k an d forth , th e paradoxe s o f th e supplemen tary double , eac h par t alik e an d unlike , eac h duplicatin g th e other . Th e "matrix-form o f substance " an d th e mathematica l mappin g o f reality , an d the "opposition s betwee n matte r an d form " (DS , 191 ) ar e alternativ e images o f physica l existenc e tha t contrast , merge , an d reverberat e wit h th e image o f th e sel f a s body , o r o f th e sel f a s min d o r soul . Th e truth emerge s at th e fold , a s i t i s her e tha t i t become s obviou s tha t i t i s fantas y tha t supports gende r hierarch y an d tha t ther e i s n o escap e fro m no r alternativ e to th e discours e o f prima l fantasy . Cognitio n take s plac e withi n th e real m of fantasy , withi n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic , whic h are not , an d ca n neve r be , th e registe r o f th e Real . Derrida's inspiratio n fo r th e concep t o f th e fol d come s fro m a passage i n Mallarme's Mimique tha t h e quote s a t th e beginnin g The Double Session. It reads : " T h i s — T h e scen e illustrate s bu t th e idea , no t an y actua l action , in a hyme n (ou t o f whic h flow s Dream) , tainte d wit h vic e ye t sacred , between desir e an d fulfillment , perpetratio n an d remembrance : her e antic ipating, ther e recalling , i n th e future , i n th e past , unde r th e fals e appear ance o f a present . Tha t i s ho w th e Mim e operates , whos e ac t i s confine d t o perpetual allusio n withou t breakin g th e ic e o r th e mirror : h e thu s set s u p a medium , a pur e medium , o f fiction ' " (DS , 175) . Derrid a explain s thi s passage i n th e followin g way :

The Dialectics 82 "Hymen " ( a word, indee d th e onl y word , tha t remind s u s that wha t i s in questio n is a "suprem e spasm" ) i s firs t o f al l a sig n o f fusion , th e consummatio n o f a marriage, the identification o f tw o beings, the confusion betwee n two . Between th e two, ther e i s n o longe r differenc e bu t identity . Withi n thi s fusion , ther e i s n o longer an y distanc e betwee n desir e (th e awaitin g o f a ful l presenc e designe d t o fulfill it , to carry i t out) an d th e fulfillmen t o f presence, between distanc e and non distance; ther e is no longer an y differenc e betwee n desir e and satisfaction . I t is not only th e differenc e (betwee n desir e an d fulfillment ) tha t i s abolished , bu t als o between differenc e an d nondifference . Nonpresence , th e gapin g void o f desire , an d presence, th e fullnes s o f enjoyment , amoun t t o th e same . . . . Bu t i t doe s no t follow tha t wha t remain s i s thus th e fullnes s o f th e signified , th e imitated , o r th e thing itself , simpl y presen t i n person . I t i s th e differenc e betwee n th e tw o term s that i s n o longe r functional . Th e confusio n o r consummatio n o f thi s hyme n eliminates th e spatia l heterogeneit y o f th e two poles in the "suprem e spasm, " . . . By th e sam e token , i t eliminate s th e exteriorit y o r anteriority , th e independence , of th e initiated , th e signified , o r th e thing . Fulfillmen t i s summe d u p withi n desire; desir e is (ahead of) fulfillment , which , still mimed, remains desire, "without breaking the mirror." (DS , 209-10) The dialectic s tha t w e analyz e meet , bu t ther e i s n o synthesis , n o resolu tion, merel y a passin g bac k an d fort h an d a n accommodation . The y fol d into eac h othe r i n mirrore d reversals , i n mimesis . When male s an d female s pas s throug h th e hymen , th e sel f i s trans formed i n a "suprem e spasm/ ' "fulfillmen t i s summe d u p withi n desire, " and th e mirro r remain s intact . "Wha t doe s th e hyme n tha t illustrate s th e suspension o f differend s remain , othe r tha n Dream? " Derrid a ask s (DS , 210). Th e Drea m i s ou r psychi c reality , an d ou r psychi c realit y i s a dream . "Dream, bein g a t onc e perception , remembrance , an d anticipatio n (desire) , each withi n th e others , i s reall y non e o f these . I t declare s th e 'fiction / th e 'medium, th e pur e medium , o f fiction ' . . . a fiction tha t i s no t imaginary , mimicry withou t imitation , withou t verisimilitude , withou t trut h o r fal sity, a miming o f appearanc e withou t conceale d reality . . . . There remain s only traces , announcement s an d souvenirs , foreplay s an d afte r effect s . . . which n o presen t wil l hav e precede d o r followed " (DS , 210-11) . Whe n th e hero stare s throug h th e membran e o f th e hymen , h e see s th e Sphinx , th e Medusa, th e femal e monster . Whe n th e her o break s throug h th e hyme n he i s castrate d an d th e consor t emerge s o n th e othe r side . Whe n th e femal e passes throug h th e hyme n th e daughte r brid e become s th e Goddess . Sh e becomes SHE . Th e fol d i s th e poin t wher e Subjec t an d Othe r converge , without synthesizing . I t i s th e chas m betwee n tw o mountai n ranges :

The Dialectics To repeat : th e hyme n . . . i s a n operatio n tha t both sow s confusio n between opposites and stand s between th e opposite s "a t once/ 7 Wha t count s her e i s th e between, th e in-between-nes s o f th e hymen . Th e hyme n "take s place " i n th e "inter—" i n the space between desir e and fulfillment, betwee n penetratio n an d its recollection. Bu t thi s mediu m o f th e entre ha s nothin g t o d o with a center . . . . The hymen enter s int o the antre. . . . Cave, natural grotto , deep dark cavern . . . . The interval o f th e entre, th e in-between o f th e hymen: on e might b e tempted t o visualize thes e a s the hollow o r bed of a valley . . . without whic h ther e woul d be no mountains , lik e th e sacre d val e betwee n th e tw o flank s o f th e Parnassus , th e dwelling place of the Muses . . . the space between tw o palisades." (DS , 212 ) All knowledg e commence s wit h gran d metaphor s tha t metaphoricall y join on e or the other sex , either th e female o r the male, with th e generativ e power o f nature . Knowledg e i s essentiall y structure d o n a n eroti c founda tion whereb y sexua l reproductio n i s equate d wit h th e generativ e powe r o f nature. Knowledg e itself , however , i s illusory an d mythic an d can privileg e either th e mal e o r th e female . Subject/Other , human/nature , mind/body , and male/femal e ar e the foundation s o n which al l knowledge i s built. The y are al l dialectics o f discourse , an d all are dialectically related . The y al l mee t at a fol d wher e th e textua l distinction s merge . Th e huma n i s a par t o f nature, an d natur e i s a construc t o f th e human . Th e min d conceive s th e body, an d th e bod y furnishe s th e mirro r imag e fo r th e min d t o attac h to . It i s a t th e poin t o f th e fol d tha t th e truth emerges , tha t th e mind/bod y separation i s no t real . It s dialectic s functio n within , an d no t externa l to , language. Intens e feeling s o f pai n ca n b e experience d a s pleasure , wherea s what on e experience s a s pleasure s i n a particula r fantas y structur e woul d be considere d pai n i f th e Imaginar y an d Symboli c conten t wer e absent . The dialectic s o f pleasur e an d pai n ar e textua l an d no t material . Th e eg o identifies itsel f wit h th e body, bu t i s separat e fro m it . The functio n o f th e maste r signifie r i s t o establis h th e metaphorica l and metonymica l relationship s betwee n th e huma n an d nature . I n thi s relationship, huma n i s Subjec t an d natur e i s Other. Th e sexual bifurcatio n implicit i n knowledg e als o dichotomize s th e huma n i n term s o f Subjec t and object . Th e foundation s ar e lai d fo r al l knowledg e i n thi s se t o f bifurcations. Ther e i s nothin g inheren t i n languag e o r i n th e structur e o f knowledge tha t determine s whic h dialectica l pol e wil l b e privilege d a t an y given tim e o r place . Eve n whe n on e pol e i s privileged , an y individua l ca n move counte r t o mainstrea m cultur e an d redefin e thei r "self ' i n term s o f an oppositiona l maste r signifier .

83

The Dialectics 84 W

e perceive through th e conceptua l structur e o f language , and whethe r we perceive polaritie s o r unitie s depend s a s much o n th e conceptua l struc ture throug h whic h w e perceiv e materia l realit y a s i t doe s o n wha t i s perceived. Whe n i n space , up an d dow n ar e a matter o f choice . O n earth , we privileg e dow n according t o th e forc e o f gravity . Th e actua l directio n changes accordin g t o whethe r w e ar e i n th e norther n hemispher e o r th e southern hemisphere . Th e dialectic s o f discours e ar e therefor e differen t than th e dialectics of material realit y an d meet a t the fold . Fo r Derrida, th e dialectics o f discours e ar e a dialogu e tha t th e min d carrie s o n wit h itsel f (DS, 184) , a dialogue " divided int o tw o halve s onl y throug h th e fictio n o f a crease" (DS , 227).

The Subject and the Other The proble m "tha t touche s th e mos t sensitiv e poin t o f th e natur e o f language" is , according t o Lacan , th e "questio n o f th e subject " sinc e th e Subject "canno t simpl y b e identifie d wit h th e speake r o r th e persona l pronoun i n a sentence " (OS , 188) . Languag e entail s speech , an d speec h entails th e Subject . Th e Subjec t i s a function of , o r is produced by , speec h and i s therefor e a categor y withi n th e functio n o f language . I t alway s stands behind th e ego, the body, the self, and even the mind. W e can think (as the Subject ) abou t ou r ego , our min d o r psyche , bu t w e can' t conceiv e of our Subject sinc e i t i s stil l th e Subjec t doin g th e thinking . I t i s th e Subject wh o speak s whe n on e say s " I can' t mak e u p m y mind. " It , ac cording t o Lacan , "make s himsel f a n objec t b y displayin g himsel f befor e the mirror " (E , 42) . H e define s th e mirro r stag e o f th e chil d "as an identification, in th e ful l sens e that analysi s give s to the term : namely , th e transformation tha t take s place in th e Subjec t whe n h e assumes a n image " (E, 2 ) tha t permit s th e chil d t o sa y "I " an d "me. " Kristev a explain s tha t "as a signifying syste m i n whic h th e speakin g subjec t makes an d unmakes himself, languag e i s a t th e cente r o f psychologica l an d mor e particularl y psychoanalytic studies." 1 According t o Lacan , "I t [psychoanalysis ] i s governed b y a particular aim , whic h i s historically define d b y th e elaboratio n of th e notio n o f th e Subject . I t poses thi s notio n i n a new way, by leadin g the subjec t bac k to his signifyin g dependence " (F , yj). Lacan define s th e Subjec t a s "what , i n th e developmen t o f objectifica tion, i s outside o f th e object" ( S I, 194). Wha t i s not Subjec t i s Other, an d what i s Othe r i s no t th e Subject . "[L]anguag e i s constitute d b y a se t o f

The Dialectics signifiers. . . . Th e definitio n o f thi s collectio n o f signifier s i s tha t the y 85 constitute wha t I cal l th e Other " (OS , 193) . H e tell s u s tha t "Al l tha t i s language is lent fro m thi s otherness an d this is why th e subjec t i s always a fading thin g tha t run s unde r th e chai n o f signifiers . Fo r the definitio n o f a signifier i s that i t represents a s u b j e c t . .. fo r anothe r signifier " (OS , 194). According t o Jacques-Alai n Miller , "Th e subjec t i s nothing mor e tha n th e effect o f th e combinatio n o f th e signifiers." 2 Laca n assert s tha t "languag e and it s structur e exis t prio r t o th e momen t a t whic h eac h subjec t a t a certain poin t i n hi s menta l developmen t make s hi s entr y int o it " (E , 148), and "I f th e subjec t i s wha t I sa y i t is , namel y th e subjec t determine d b y language and speech, it follows tha t the subject, in initio begins in the locus of th e Other , i n s o fa r a s i t i s ther e tha t th e firs t signifie r emerges " (F , 198). Th e Othe r i s that whic h i s no t Subject , an d "th e unconsciou s i s th e discourse o f th e Other (F , 13). "Th e unconsciou s i s the su m o f th e effect s of speec h o n a subject, a t the leve l at which th e subjec t constitute s himsel f out o f the effect s o f the signifier " (F , 126). The interrelationship o f Subjec t an d signifier i s complex. Mille r explains that eac h is anterior t o the other a t one and the same time: "W e must hol d together th e definition s whic h mak e th e subjec t the effect of the signifier and the signifier the representative of the subject/' H e call s i t " a circular non-reciprocal relation." 3 Laca n similarl y state s tha t "Th e subjec t i s bor n in so far a s the signifie r emerge s in the field o f the Other. Bu t by this very fact, thi s subject—whic h wa s previousl y nothin g i f no t a subjec t comin g into being—solidifie s int o signifier " (F , 199) . A signifie r fro m whic h a Subject emerge s i s a maste r signifier . Whil e Descarte s conclude d tha t h e thought becaus e he doubted, Laca n concludes that "b y virtue of thinking, I am" (F , 35). The Subjec t i s tha t whic h i s no t other, bu t Laca n point s ou t tha t "W e must distinguis h tw o others . .. a n other wit h a capital, and an other wit h a small o. . . . I n th e functio n o f speec h we are concerned with th e Other " (S II, 236). [W]hen th e Othe r wit h a big O speaks it is not purely an d simpl y th e realit y in front o f you , namel y th e individua l holdin g forth . Th e Othe r i s beyon d tha t reality. ( S III, 52) In true speec h the Other i s that before which you make yourself recognized . Bu t you can make yourself recognize d by it only because it is recognized first. I t has to be recognized for you to be able to make yourself recognized . This supplementary

The Dialectics 86 dimension—th e reciprocity—i s necessary for there to be any value in this speech of which I'v e give n you som e typical examples—Yo u ar e my master o r You are my woman. ( S III, 51) The Subjec t i s thu s realized "i n hi s signifyin g dependenc e i n th e locu s of the Other ,/ (F , 206). When th e Subjec t begin s t o speak , i t i s abou t itsel f (E , 70) : "I t i s therefore alway s in the relatio n betwee n th e subject' s eg o (moi) and the T (je) o f hi s discours e tha t yo u mus t understan d th e meanin g o f th e dis course i f yo u ar e t o achiev e th e de-alienatio n o f th e subject . Bu t yo u cannot possibl y achiev e thi s i f yo u clin g t o th e ide a tha t th e eg o o f th e subject i s identical with the presence that i s speaking to you" (E , 90). "Th e ego . . . i s onl y on e elemen t i n th e objecta l relation s o f th e subject " ( S I, 194), which als o include the self, the min d o r psyche an d th e body, o r an y combination o f thes e objecta l form s o f dialectica l identificatio n wit h th e Other, whic h emerg e fro m th e discours e of the Subjec t (E , 2). Lacan state s that " I say— the Other is, therefore, the locus in which is constituted the I who is speaking with him who hears. . . . there i s always a n Othe r beyon d all concret e dialogue , al l interpsychologica l play " ( S III , 273) . Moreover , "The Othe r i s the locus in whic h i s situate d th e chai n o f th e signifie r tha t governs whateve r ma y b e mad e presen t o f th e subject—i t i s th e fiel d o f that livin g being i n whic h th e subjec t ha s to appear . An d I said that i t ha s on th e sid e o f thi s livin g being , calle d t o subjectivity , tha t th e driv e i s essentially manifested " (F , 203). The constitution o f the Subjec t fro m th e structur e o f the unconscious i s "in it s essence , throug h an d through , sexual " (F , 203) . Th e Subjec t re quires a doubling . "Th e questio n o f th e tw o i s fo r u s th e questio n o f th e subject, an d here we reach a fact o f psychoanalytical experienc e in as much as the two does not complete the one to make two but must repea t the on e to permi t th e on e t o exis t . . . an d onl y on e repetitio n i s necessar y t o constitute th e statu s o f th e subject " (OS , 191). Th e sel f emerge s fro m th e Subject-Other a s a sexua l an d gendere d sel f accordin g t o th e wa y i t i s structured, th e on e i n relationshi p t o th e Other , b y th e maste r signifier . All knowledg e ha s a sexua l foundation, 4 an d self-knowledg e i s conse quently gendered . Th e master signifie r link s the self with that which is not self an d Subjec t with Othe r an d other (Lacan' s big O and little 0). Pinker tell s u s tha t "Chomsky' s clai m tha t fro m a Martian's-eye-vie w all humans spea k a single language is based on the discovery that th e sam e symbol-manipulating machinery , withou t exception , underlies the world' s

The Dialectics languages. Linguist s hav e lon g know n tha t th e basi c desig n feature s o f 87 language ar e foun d everywhere/' 5 Laca n writes , "Befor e strictl y huma n relations ar e established , certai n relation s hav e alread y bee n determined . They are taken fro m whateve r natur e ma y offer a s supports, support s tha t are arrange d i n theme s o f opposition . Natur e proves— I mus t us e th e word—signifiers, an d these signifier s organiz e huma n relation s i n a creative way , providin g the m wit h structure s an d shapin g them " (F , 20). Before there can be any formulation o f a subject who thinks, the structures that permi t person s t o recogniz e themselve s a s subject s mus t alread y b e in place : "Onl y a subjec t ca n understan d a meaning ; conversely , ever y phenomenon o f meaning implie s a subject" (E , 9). The Subject , a s a category presuppose d b y language, ha s the Gaze and the Voice . I t i s a presuppositio n o f language , whil e th e self , whic h i s formulated i n an d throug h language , i s a manifestatio n o f th e Subject . This subjec t (Lacan' s littl e s as contrasted wit h th e capital S ) is the self a s the manifestatio n o f the Subject. Ther e i s a self, however , tha t i s a manifestation o f th e Other. I t has neither Gaz e no r Voice an d is therefore a n object sel f tha t suffer s a lac k a s define d b y th e maste r signifier . Th e subjectivity o f othernes s i s essentia l fo r th e subjectivit y o f th e sel f a s a manifestation o f th e Subject . Biologica l se x doe s no t determin e gende r hierarchy. Th e combination of the animal instincts, which have a biological foundation, an d the drives, which ar e their conceptualizatio n i n language, makes gende r hierarch y inevitabl e fo r th e languaging primate . I t i s onl y when passin g throug h th e fold, breakin g throug h th e hymen t o the other side of the textual dialectic , that one can recognize the point where Subjec t and Object converge . The Subject/Othe r dialecti c i s the first o f a related se t of dualism s tha t underlie knowledge . Thes e dualisms lead Lacan to conclude that "Lif e goe s down th e river , fro m tim e t o tim e touchin g a bank, stayin g fo r a whil e here an d there , withou t understandin g anythin g o f wha t happens . Th e idea o f the unifying unit y o f the human conditio n ha s always ha d on me the effec t o f a scandalou s lie " (OS , 190). H e furthe r states : "I n simpl e terms, thi s onl y mean s tha t i n a univers e o f discours e nothin g contain s everything, an d here yo u fin d agai n th e gap that constitute s th e subject . The subjec t i s the introduction o f a loss in reality , ye t nothing ca n introduce that sinc e by status reality is as full a s possible. . . . When the subject takes the place of the lack, a loss is introduced i n the word, an d this is the definition o f the subject" (OS , 193).

The Dialectics 88

Mind/Body Dualism H u m a n cognitio n demand s th e capacity t o distinguish an d differentiate an d the abilit y t o categoriz e i n term s o f binar y oppositions . Th e fundamenta l structure o f languag e i s binary , a s i s th e configuratio n o f cognition . Lan guage entail s th e speaker-thinker-Subjec t an d al l else . Cognitio n i s tha t which i s draw n betwee n th e Subjec t manifestin g itsel f a s "self, " an d Other; o r th e knowe r an d th e known . Th e complexit y arise s whe n w e conceive o f ou r bodie s a s objects becaus e ou r mind s inhabi t the m an d own them. Thi s i s implici t i n suc h statement s a s " I hav e th e righ t t o d o what I want wit h m y ow n body. " Whe n w e kno w th e knower , th e knowe r i s unavoidably objectified . W e ma y thu s spea k o f ou r ego , our psyche , an d our soul . Th e Subjec t mus t alway s b e assume d an d separate d fro m what ever w e identif y an d trea t a s an object . Sinc e th e bod y i s a n essentia l par t of th e self, th e owner o f th e body i s correspondingly les s tha n th e self : Whereas i t i s certain that , i f ther e i s for us a fundamental give n eve n befor e th e register o f the unhappy consciousnes s ha s emerged a t all, it's precisely th e distinction betwee n ou r consciousnes s an d ou r body . Thi s distinctio n make s ou r bod y into somethin g fictitious , fro m whic h ou r consciousnes s i s entirel y incapabl e o f detaching itself, but on the basis of which it conceives itself—these ar e not perhaps the mos t adequat e terms—a s distinct . Th e distinction betwee n consciousnes s and body is set up in this abrupt interchange of roles which takes place in the experience of the mirror when the other i s involved. ( S 1,147) A person' s ow n body , an d abov e al l it s surface , i s a plac e fro m whic h bot h external an d internal perception s ma y spring. I t is seen lik e an y other object , bu t to th e touch i t yield s tw o kinds o f sensations , on e of whic h ma y be equivalent t o an interna l perception , thu s a person' s ow n body attain s a specia l positio n a s an object amon g other object s in the world of perception. (SE , IX, 25 ) It is the capacity t o develop languag e tha t enable s human s t o cognitivel y judge tha t the y hav e a mind, psyche , o r soul. Knowledge , bein g a represen tational system , require s a separation betwee n th e observer an d that whic h is observed . Sinc e one' s ow n bod y i s a n objec t o f observation , mind/bod y dualism i s implici t i n consciousness . On e ca n onl y kno w wha t th e subjec t is by objectifying it . Thi s entail s a second meta - o r superknowe r t o observ e the self . A direc t examinatio n o f th e sel f b y th e sel f i s impossibl e becaus e that whic h on e wishe s t o examin e alway s move s bac k on e ste p i n th e process an d is therefore beyon d direc t examination . Language i s no t a huma n creation , bu t rathe r huma n being s ar e prod ucts o f language . A s state d b y Steve n Pinker , "Languag e i s no t a cultura l

The Dialectics artifact tha t w e lear n th e wa y w e lear n t o tel l tim e o r ho w th e federa l 89 government works . Instead , i t i s a distinct piec e o f th e biologica l makeu p of ou r brains . Languag e i s a comple x specialize d skill , whic h develop s i n the chil d spontaneously , withou t consciou s effor t o r forma l instruction , i s deployed withou t awarenes s o f it s underlyin g logic , i s qualitativel y th e same i n ever y individual , an d i s distinc t fro m mor e genera l abilitie s t o process informatio n o r behav e intelligently. " 6 Most o f th e syntactica l an d semantic processe s relate d t o languag e tak e place at the unconsciou s level . The perceptual-conceptua l syste m doe s no t i n an d o f itsel f requir e con sciousness. Th e first ste p in the developmen t o f this syste m i s the recogni tion o f th e bod y a s a unit y distinc t fro m th e externa l world . "Th e eg o i s first an d foremos t a bodil y ego ; i t i s no t merel y a surfac e entity , bu t i s itself th e projectio n o f a surface " (SE , IX , 26) . Thi s proces s take s plac e i n what Laca n term s th e mirro r stage . "W e hav e onl y t o understan d th e mirror stag e as an identification, in th e ful l sens e that analysi s give s to th e term: namely , th e transformatio n tha t take s plac e i n th e subjec t whe n h e assumes a n image " (E , 2). Th e notio n tha t w e ar e bodies, and no t merel y sensory perceptions , pleasures , an d pains , develop s i n u s a s the mediatio n of a n imag e tha t w e se e a s externa l bu t nevertheles s a s a reflectio n o f ourselves. "Man' s idea l unity, whic h i s never attaine d a s such an d escape s him a t ever y moment , i s evoke d a t ever y momen t i n thi s perception " ( S II, 166). The body inflict s sensation s o n th e ego . Th e primacy o f th e body lies in the inabilit y o f th e eg o to contro l i t an d o f th e bod y t o impos e o n th e eg o various perceptua l state s o f pleasure , unpleasure , an d pain , irrespectiv e o f what th e eg o ma y desire . Th e eg o i s privilege d i n tha t i t i s th e sentien t place o f conceptualizatio n and , i n turn , ha s som e contro l ove r th e body . There is, therefore, a great deal of tension within the perceptual-conscious ness system , whic h i s merel y a manifestatio n o f mind/bod y dualism . Master signifier s wil l b e primar y o r privileged , accordin g t o ho w the y relate to mind and body. A master signifie r i s primary i f the signified, ove r which i t slide s a t a particular time , i s representationa l o f th e bod y an d i s privileged i f it rides on a signified tha t i s a manifestation o f the ego.

The Ego and the Self The Subject i s always distinct from wha t it says or thinks ( S 1,194). "[T]h e sender i s alway s a receive r a t th e sam e time , tha t on e hear s th e soun d o f

The Dialectics 90 one' s ow n words " ( S III, 24) . Th e ego , conversely, "acquire s th e statu s of a mirage , a s the residue , it i s only on e elemen t i n th e objecta l relation s of the subject" ( S 1,194). The transparency of thought to itself woul d indicat e that "th e subjec t i s somewhere , a t a privilege d poin t wher e h e i s abl e t o have an endoscopy o f what is going on inside himself" ( S III, 35). The occupier-owner o f th e bod y is the ego , " a notion s o upsetting a s to warrant th e expressio n Copernica n revolution " ( S II , 3) . Laca n pose s th e question, "T o wha t inne r necessit y doe s th e assertio n tha t somewher e there mus t b e a n autonomou s eg o answer? " H e state s tha t "Thi s convic tion extend s beyon d th e individua l naivet e o f th e subjec t wh o believe s i n himself, wh o believe s tha t h e i s himself— a commo n enoug h madness , which isn' t a complete madness , because it belongs t o the orde r o f beliefs " (S II, 11-12). Moreover , " A madman i s precisely someon e who adheres t o the imaginary , purel y an d simply " ( S II , 243) . "Tha t th e subjec t end s u p believing i n th e eg o i s i n itsel f madness " ( S II , 247 ) becaus e i t "mor e or les s implicitl y perpetuate s th e substantialis m implici t i n th e religiou s conception o f th e soul , a s a substanc e whic h a t th e ver y leas t i s endowe d with the properties of immortality" ( S II, 7). It answers the inner necessit y of denyin g ou r animality—bein g a part o f it , boun d b y it : nothin g mor e than a mammal born—subject t o sexual arousal, frenzy, copulation , reproducing, and then dying . The ego is an "imaginar y function " ( S II, 36,193, 243) that is indispensable i n th e process o f constructin g th e self . I t i s no t a n a prior i categor y but a discovery yielded by experience. "[W] e can no longer do our thinkin g without thi s registe r o f th e eg o which we have acquired ove r the cours e of history" ( S II, 7). Sinc e the eg o is an imaginary function , thoug h essentia l to experience , w e mus t conclud e wit h Laca n tha t "Th e fundamental , cen tral structur e o f ou r experienc e reall y belong s t o th e imaginar y order " ( S II, 36-37) an d tha t th e realit y o f th e sel f i s no t t o b e foun d i n th e eg o ( S II, 43). "Th e cor e o f ou r bein g doe s no t coincid e with th e ego . Tha t i s th e point o f th e analyti c experience " ( S II , 44) . T o th e exten t tha t th e eg o i s imaginary, w e no t onl y pu t ou r ver y existenc e int o doub t an d creat e fo r ourselves th e proble m o f being, but ou r ver y sanit y become s problemati c in tha t th e subjec t believin g in th e eg o is in itsel f a form o f madnes s ( S II, 247). "Th e eg o is structured exactl y like a symptom," i t is "par excellence , the menta l illnes s of a man" ( S I, 16). "Man is the character who is always asking if he exists, and he' s quit e right , an d there' s onl y on e thin g wrong , which i s hi s answerin g yes . I n relatio n t o al l th e others , th e privileg e hi s

The Dialectics ego ha s i s tha t it' s th e onl y on e whic h h e ca n b e sur e exist s whe n h e 9 questions himself—an d Lor d know s h e doe s questio n himself . Essentiall y there h e is , al l alone . An d i t i s becaus e speec h i s receive d fro m thi s eg o that th e subjec t enter s int o th e swee t illusio n tha t thi s eg o i s i n a uniqu e position" ( S II, 268). The ego, which exclude s the unconscious, is an objec t (S II, 50) of a Subject tha t include s th e unconscious ( S II, 43, 59; S 1,193 94). Whe n th e imaginar y functio n o f th e eg o comes into play, one can se e the eg o a s a reflectio n o f "th e poin t o f vie w o f th e other " ( S II , 112) . According t o Lacan , "Th e notio n o f th e eg o today draw s it s self-evidentia l character fro m a certain prestig e give n t o consciousnes s i n s o far a s it i s a unique, individual, irreducible experience . Th e intuition o f the ego retains, in s o far a s it i s centere d o n th e experienc e o f consciousness , a captivatin g character, whic h on e mus t ri d onesel f o f i n orde r t o acced e to ou r concep tion o f th e subject . . . . I n th e unconscious , exclude d fro m th e syste m o f the ego, the subjec t speaks " ( S II, 58). If th e eg o i s a privilege d objec t o f th e Subject , a n "I " tha t i s differen t from th e "me " of the ego, then the question arises as to who is the Subject , and t o tackl e tha t questio n "i s t o tackl e th e ver y root s o f language " ( S II, 134) becaus e "thi s subjec t wh o speak s i s beyond th e ego " ( S II, 175) . Th e ego, thoug h " a mirage, " i s " a su m o f identifications " ( S II , 209) : "Freu d states in a thousand, tw o thousand differen t place s in his writings, namel y that eg o i s th e su m o f th e identification s o f th e subject , wit h al l tha t implies a s t o it s radica l contingency . I f yo u allo w m e t o giv e a n imag e of it, the eg o is like the superimpositio n o f various coat s borrowed fro m wha t I would cal l the bric-a-brac of its props department" ( S II, 155). The psyche , a s a syste m tha t ca n symbolicall y represen t th e sensor y perceptual syste m an d ca n als o represen t itself , doe s no t exis t a s suc h a t birth bu t evolve s within th e infant a s she or he assimilates language . "W e are boun d t o suppose, " state s Freud , "tha t a unity comparabl e t o th e eg o cannot exis t i n th e individua l fro m th e start ; th e eg o has to be developed " (SE XIV, 76- 7). Moreover , "Th e eg o i s the cente r poin t o f consciousnes s in that i t is the 'me ' which communicate s with th e subject " ( S III, 14).

The Primary and the Privileged The physical human bod y is primary becaus e it is a necessary condition fo r language. Language , conversely , i s no t a necessar y conditio n fo r th e hu man body . Th e ego , self , o r psych e hav e n o physica l existenc e bu t ar e

1

The Dialectics 92 product s of the languaging body, and thus secondary. Sinc e they constitut e thinking and consciousness, and the body does not, they ar e in a privileged position a s they reduc e th e ver y conceptualizatio n o f th e body . Tha t ther e is no suc h thin g a s a mental substanc e eithe r b y way o f spiri t o r matte r i s a fundamenta l presuppositio n o f psychoanalyti c theor y and , a s well , o f postmodernism. Mind/bod y dualis m i s therefor e a dialecti c betwee n th e primary an d the privileged . In the discours e o f materia l reality , human s ar e part o f nature , wherea s in th e fantas y structur e o f psychi c realit y humanit y i s th e ultimat e cre ation o f God , the pinnacle o f evolutionar y progress , an d the maste r o f an d owner o f th e natura l environment . Similarly , lif e i s primary sinc e onl y a living thin g ca n die . Deat h presuppose s life , bu t lif e doe s no t necessaril y presuppose death . In phantasmic psychic reality, the prevention o f death is privileged ove r lif e i n view of ho w we value childre n an d th e resource s we are willin g t o spen d o n thei r welfare , compare d t o wha t w e spen d o n wa r and weaponry . Th e sexua l driv e i s primar y an d th e eg o driv e privileged . Because o f th e privilege d positio n o f th e ego , th e sexua l driv e ca n b e repressed. However , th e primac y o f th e sexua l driv e i s always maintaine d as i t ca n retur n fro m th e unconsciou s i n th e for m o f neurosis . Whateve r defenses th e eg o ma y us e agains t th e sexua l driv e th e sexua l driv e wil l overwhelm wit h libidina l energy , turnin g the m int o symptoms , neuroses , perversions, or pathologies. The privilege d statu s o f min d ofte n create s th e illusio n tha t th e min d exists independentl y o f th e bod y an d tha t th e bod y i s a mere vesse l of th e mind. Th e delusions that the magical immortal processes of the soul can by pure mind alter the physical are manifestations o f the privileged position of the mind. 7 Whe n th e body thinks, it thinks i t is thinking independently of the body : "Befor e strictl y huma n relation s ar e established , certai n rela tions have already been determined . The y ar e taken fro m whateve r natur e may offe r a s supports, support s tha t ar e arranged i n themes o f opposition . Nature provides— I mus t us e the ter m signifier , an d thes e signifier s orga nize human relation s in a creative way providing them wit h structure s an d shaping them " (F , 20) . Sinc e th e languagin g bod y distinguishe s betwee n the mental and the physical, body and mind, Subject and Other, knowledg e will b e bifurcate d alon g th e line s o f th e primar y an d th e privileged . Th e master signifier s tha t relat e to each aspect will be primary or privileged, accordingly. Psychoanalytic methodologie s lea d u s t o th e conclusio n tha t th e spirit ,

The Dialectics the soul, the self, and the ego have no existence apart fro m th e functioning 93 body. A compute r loade d wit h th e mos t sophisticate d an d powerfu l soft ware, i f turne d of f an d lef t t o deca y an d rust , i s nothin g mor e tha n a machine. Th e software, however , continue s t o function i n other machines . Equally, the huma n i s born int o language an d dies out o f it, and at the en d of th e cycl e ther e i s nothin g lef t bu t a decayin g bod y tha t ca n n o longe r language. S o lon g a s th e specie s o f human s continue s t o exist , languag e lives o n i n othe r bodies . Th e ter m God o r th e adjectiv e Divine hav e n o place i n th e scientifi c worldvie w othe r tha n bein g a particula r kin d o f discourse o r metaphor w e use when w e reach the limits of cognition . A classica l exampl e o f th e relationshi p betwee n th e primar y an d th e privileged concern s scienc e and religion . Th e privileged position o f religio n is reflecte d i n th e assumptio n tha t religio n doe s no t den y scienc e bu t declares as false whatever scienc e proclaims that is in conflict wit h religion . Science o n th e othe r han d merel y treat s religio n a s a psychologica l phe nomenon t o be studied an d described . Scienc e can afford t o ignore religio n precisely becaus e i t i s primary , whil e religio n canno t ignor e scienc e bu t must clai m a privilege d positio n i n definin g it . Primac y an d privileg e ar e aspects of the discourse as they relat e to the physical an d the mental . Jacques-Alain Miller , i n elucidatin g Lacan' s epistemology , point s ou t that, withi n th e Lacania n theor y o f language , ther e i s a n implici t an d fundamental distinctio n t o b e mad e betwee n knowledg e an d scienc e (EE , 27).8 Knowledge , Mille r states , assume s a unit y betwee n th e Subjec t an d the objec t i n tha t "th e classica l theor y o f knowledg e assume s a co-natu rality o f subjec t an d object, a pre-established harmon y betwee n th e subjec t who know s an d th e objec t known " (EE , 27) . Science , conversely , "con structs it s object " (EE , 28) . Knowledg e "i s fundamentall y illusor y an d mythical" i n tha t al l theorie s o f knowledg e hav e sexua l connotations . "[K]nowledge, i n s o fa r a s i t i s distinguishe d fro m science , sing s indefi nitely th e imaginar y weddin g o f th e mal e an d th e femal e principles , whether i n the for m o f Aristotle's distinctio n betwee n for m an d matter, o r the ancien t Chines e distinctio n betwee n yin an d yang" (EE , 28) . Lacan' s statement tha t woma n doe s no t exis t i s describe d accordin g t o Mille r a s a fundamental thesi s fo r epistemology . In knowledge, woman i s identified a s object an d s o does no t exis t a s subject . Knowledg e therefor e represent s " a way o f tamin g th e woman " (EE , 28). Give n th e functio n o f th e phallu s a s the privilege d signifie r an d knowledg e a s th e constitutio n o f th e mal e Subject an d th e femal e object , i t woul d appea r tha t Lacania n psychoana -

The Dialectics 94 lyti c theor y lock s patriarch y int o th e ver y structur e o f knowledg e tha t leaves us, s o far a s feminis m i s concerned, i n a position simila r t o th e on e we are in with biological essentialism . Ther e is no way fo r u s to go outside of languag e an d knowledg e an d stil l b e sentien t beings. 9 Th e recognitio n of th e rol e o f th e phallu s a s th e privilege d signifie r i n oppositio n t o th e womb a s primar y signifie r allow s u s t o recogniz e th e rapport sexuel o f knowledge, an d a genderization o f subjec t an d objec t tha t ca n shif t dialec tically betwee n a femal e o r mal e subject . Wh y shoul d w e assum e tha t because th e phallus , a s privilege d signifier , ha s structure d th e Imaginar y and Symboli c fo r th e las t fiv e thousan d years , tha t i t ha s alway s don e so ? It i s muc h mor e likel y tha t languag e an d knowledg e a s "th e illusor y an d mythical weddin g o f th e sexes " evolve d aroun d th e structur e o f a primary signifier, whic h wa s eventuall y represse d b y th e secondar y oppositiona l signifier. Science, by which Mille r meant th e mathematical physic s that was born in th e seventeent h century , "assume s o n th e contrar y tha t ther e i s no conaturality betwee n subjec t an d object , tha t ther e i s n o anesthesi a o f th e opposite sex , tha t ther e i s n o natura l sexua l tropism " (EE , 28-29). Mille r tells u s tha t "Lacan' s propositio n tha t ther e i s n o sexua l rappor t (o r ratio ) may b e considere d a s a sor t o f secre t conditio n fo r th e emergenc e o f th e discourse of science. In a certain way, the men who developed the discourse of scienc e in the seventeent h centur y mus t hav e posed the proposition tha t there i s n o sexua l rapport . . . . On e coul d sa y i n thi s sense , tha t th e scientific approac h assume s a desexualization o f th e view of th e world, an d to use a philosophical expression , a desexualization o f bein g i n th e world " (EE, 29) . Accordin g t o Miller' s interpretatio n o f Lacan , th e discours e o f mathematical physic s escape s th e sexualit y o f knowledg e (henc e i s non phallic) "becaus e thi s discours e constitute s itsel f onl y fro m th e momen t of the extinctio n o f signification , fro m th e constructio n o f systemati c net works of element s which ar e in themselves without significatio n bu t whic h are coheren t amon g themselves " (EE , 30) . A scientifi c objec t "i s a pur e creation o f mathematical discourse " (EE , 31). "Wha t i s called an object i s a pure creatio n o f mathematica l discourse . . . . Th e fat e o f scienc e is tied t o formalization, no t t o measurement " (EE , 31). I t "assume s th e disjunctio n of th e symboli c an d th e imaginary , o f th e signifie r an d th e image " (EE , 32).

The differenc e betwee n th e discours e o f knowledg e an d tha t o f mathe matical physic s i s tha t i n th e forme r th e phallu s i s alway s presen t an d

The Dialectics in th e latte r i t i s no t becaus e scienc e entail s "th e exterminatio n o f al l 95 imaginary symbolism" : [H]eavens, th e creation , th e eart h sun g th e glor y o f Go d an d th e grandeu r o f Hi s plan. I t i s precisel y th e discours e o f science , sinc e th e emergenc e o f mathematica l physics, tha t make s th e worl d becom e silent . Laca n sum s u p thi s proposition , which I believe i s unquestionable, b y sayin g tha t scienc e assumes tha t ther e exist s in th e worl d th e signifie r whic h mean s nothing—an d fo r nobody . Tha t th e signi fier ca n be found i n the world, a signifier whic h is organized an d which respond s t o laws, bu t whic h i s no t linke d wit h a subjec t wh o woul d expres s himsel f throug h it—this i s an entirel y moder n an d scientifi c idea . Th e signifie r ma y exis t indepen dently of a subject wh o expresses himself throug h i t s mediation. Thi s is a signifie r separated fro m it s signification; a signifier withou t intention . Th e mathematizatio n of physics answers to this requirement. (EE , 34) God "i s silen t an d hidde n an d h e calculates. " Go d cease s t o speak , bu t doesn't disappea r entirely , whic h i s wh y "scienc e i s n o t . . . a s atheis t a s i s generally believed " (EE , 35). Science, accordin g t o Miller , assume s Go d i n tw o forms . "I n th e firs t place, i t assume s Go d a s Descarte s recognize d him , a s th e guaranto r o f truth, tha t i s t o say , a s a n elemen t whic h doe s no t deceive " (EE , 35) . Thi s is becaus e "scienc e i s alway s linke d wit h th e ide a tha t ther e i s alread y knowledge . . . i n th e real : a n articulate d networ k o f signifier s whic h function i n th e rea l independentl y o f th e knowledg e tha t w e ma y hav e o f it" (EE , 35). Th e secon d wa y scienc e assume s Go d i s "a s suppose d subjec t of knowing " (EE , 36) . Thi s Cartesia n subjec t o f science , wh o ha s emptie d himself o f representation s an d th e imaginary , i s "a n entirel y desubstantia lised subjec t fo r who m al l natura l adherence s hav e bee n undone " (EE , 38). Moreover, "[T]hi s subjec t o f scienc e whic h emerge s wit h Descarte s is , a t the sam e tim e tha t i t emerges , rejecte d b y th e discours e o f science " (EE , 39). I t paradoxicall y present s itsel f a s a discours e voi d o f subjec t an d a t th e same tim e a s th e discours e o f th e suppose d impersona l subjec t o f knowing , that th e academic s purpor t t o represent .

The Dialectics of Sexuality No clea r distinctio n ca n b e draw n i n psychoanalysi s betwee n biolog y an d culture or , consequently , betwee n sexualit y an d gende r o r biologica l se x and sexuality . Thi s i s s o becaus e w e canno t delineat e betwee n Freud' s material realit y o r biolog y an d psychi c reality , th e real m o f culture , sexual -

The Dialectics 96 ity

, and gender. Al l of this becomes clear when we contrast Lacan' s distinction betwee n th e Imaginary , th e Symbolic , an d th e Rea l wit h Freud' s material reality , psychi c reality , an d th e realit y o f unconsciou s fantasy . Material realit y ca n onl y b e know n i n term s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic. I t i s a par t o f knowledg e an d i s not , therefore , th e sam e a s Lacan's th e Real . Similarly , psychoanalysi s doe s not si t abov e the dialecti c as a grand arbitrato r bu t i s itself equall y structure d b y th e sam e dialectic . We, a s languagin g primates , ca n neve r escap e th e registrie s o f th e Imagi nary an d th e Symbolic . Traditiona l psychoanalysi s faile d t o carry throug h its dialecti c t o th e poin t tha t i t recognize d th e existenc e o f th e primar y signifier. I t faile d t o recogniz e tha t th e privileged signifie r ha s no meanin g in an d o f itsel f bu t onl y a s a negation o f an d reactio n t o th e primar y sig nifier. Traditional biolog y a s i t relate s t o mammalia n reproductio n i s struc tured b y th e privilege d signifie r an d i s consequentl y phallic . Th e Oxford English Dictionary defines th e clitori s a s " A homologue o f th e mal e penis , present, a s a rudimentar y organ , i n th e female s o f man y o f th e highe r vertebrate." 10 Whe n Freu d discusse s the femal e vagina l orgasm , h e speak s within thi s domain. Th e existence or nonexistence o f the vaginal orgasm is a questio n fo r biolog y t o decid e i n term s o f th e physiolog y o f th e femal e via femal e experience . Ye t Freu d relie d o n neithe r o f thes e source s fo r his postulations . Freud considere d femal e sexualit y a mystery , whic h afte r thirt y year s he stil l faile d t o understand . A myster y consists o f tha t whic h w e d o no t know and canno t find out . Wh y is the shared experienc e of over 50 percent of th e world' s populatio n mysterious ? Wh y i s i t tha t w e ca n kno w mal e sexuality an d no t kno w tha t o f th e female ? Clearly , femal e sexualit y cannot b e known i n term s o f a signifier tha t define s i t in terms o f lack , and privileges th e penis . An y chai n o f significatio n tha t i s structure d b y th e phallus coul d no t possibl y confor m t o femal e experienc e and , i n th e ab sence o f a n alternativ e maste r signifier , wil l alway s remai n a myster y t o males. An y discours e in which the male is the observer an d the femal e th e object o f observation , i n whic h th e mal e ha s th e sol e Voic e an d th e Gaze, wil l neve r provid e a n adequat e explanatio n o r descriptio n o f femal e sexuality o r answe r th e question , "Wha t doe s th e woma n want? " Th e recognition o f th e dialectica l functio n o f th e maste r signifier s i s essentia l for a psychoanalysi s tha t i s abl e t o com e t o grip s wit h th e issue s o f biological sex , sexuality, and gender .

The Dialectics One o f th e mos t detaile d psychoanalyti c studie s o f femal e sexualit y i s py Dr. Mar y Jan e Sherfey' s boo k The Nature and Evolution of Female Sexuality.11 Sh e bring s t o he r stud y a n exploratio n o f suc h divers e field s a s physiology, anatomy , comparativ e embryology , endocrinology , gynecol ogy, paleontology, evolutionar y biology , population genetics , primatology , theology, anthropology , psychiatry , and , o f course , psychoanalysis. Whil e bringing diversit y t o he r analysis , Sherfe y nevertheles s focuse s o n th e biological aspects of human sexuality . Sh e asserts that "On e of the biological theorie s o f th e nineteent h centur y mos t thoroughl y integrate d int o medicine an d psychiatr y ha s bee n th e theor y o f th e innate , embryoni c bisexuality o f al l vertebrates " (N , 30) . O n thi s premise , huma n skills , attitudes, abilities , emotions , an d action s ar e divide d int o thos e tha t ar e inherently mal e an d thos e inherentl y female . Th e clitori s wa s considere d to be a diminutive o r undeveloped penis , and the male orgasm the standar d measure o f sexua l experience . Thi s certainl y confirm s Lacan' s positionin g of th e phallu s an d maintain s th e consistenc y o f phalli c supremac y withi n these various disciplines . Freud's recognitio n o f essentia l masculin e an d feminin e characteristics , his conceptio n o f femal e sexualit y i n term s o f phalli c castration , an d hi s postulation o f the vaginal orgasm, all reflect th e fact that Freu d constructe d his theor y o f femal e sexualit y o n th e biologica l premise s o f embryoni c bisexuality an d mal e primacy . Sherfe y assert s tha t contemporar y psycho analytic theor y ultimatel y reflect s thi s date d "truism " (N , 30-34) . "Thu s it is," she states, "tha t psychoanalyti c theory ha s led us through a series of perfectly logica l step s t o a positio n whic h is , i n essence , anachronistic : a scientific restatemen t o f th e Eve-out-o f Ada m myth. " Sh e conclude s that , on the evidence, "The early embryo is not undifferentiated: 'it ' i s a female. In th e beginning , w e were al l create d females ; an d i f thi s wer e no t so , we would no t b e here at all" (N , 38). Genetic sex is established a t fertilization , but th e influenc e o f th e se x gene s i s no t brough t t o bea r unti l th e fift h t o sixth week s o f feta l life . Femal e developmen t i s autonomou s i n tha t "n o ovarian inducto r substanc e o r estrogen s ar e elaborate d becaus e non e ar e needed. Femal e differentiatio n result s fro m th e innate , geneticall y deter mined femal e morpholog y o f al l mammalian embryos " (N , 39). Th e mal e embryo, o n th e othe r hand , i s required t o underg o a differentiating trans formation o f th e sexua l anatom y brough t abou t b y a hormona l bat h o f androgen, whic h masculinize s th e origina l femal e genita l trac t (N , 40) . "The primac y o f th e embryoni c femal e morpholog y force s u s t o revers e

The Dialectics 98 lon

g hel d concept s o n th e natur e o f sexua l differentiation . Embryologicall y speaking, i t i s correc t t o sa y tha t th e peni s i s a n exaggerate d clitoris , th e scrotum i s derive d fro m th e labi a majora , th e origina l libid o i s feminine , etc." (N , 46) . Sh e furthe r suggest s tha t "i t i s unfortunatel y true , I believe, that ha d th e traditiona l vie w bee n substantiate d b y embryology—an d al l embryos wer e innatel y male s fro m whic h th e female s derived— a larg e number o f peopl e woul d hav e loudl y leape d t o th e conclusio n tha t suc h was unassailabl e proo f o f th e innatel y masculin e natur e o f th e sexua l drive , clear evidenc e fo r th e scientifi c affirmatio n o f th e Eve-out-of-Ada m myth , and 'objective ' confirmatio n o f masculin e superiorit y argue d fro m th e logi c of creation " (N , 46) . Sh e draw s thi s probabilit y t o ou r attentio n i n orde r to emphasiz e tha t a n argumen t fo r innat e femal e superiorit y cannot , an d ought not , b e mad e o n th e basi s o f th e primac y o f embryoni c femal e morphology. Th e distinctio n betwee n primar y an d secondar y reflect s th e distinction betwee n moder n an d postmoder n epistemology . I n ou r view , the concep t o f a privilege d signifie r assume s tha t i t receive s a priority ove r another signifie r whe n ther e i s n o justificatio n fo r th e preferenc e i n term s of eithe r materia l realit y o r i n relationshi p t o th e Real . Th e supremac y o f privilege i s therefor e base d o n illusion . According t o Freud' s "clitoral-vagina l transfe r theory, " earl y femal e orgasms ar e centere d i n th e clitoris , an d wit h maturity , the y invariabl y shift t o th e vagina . Sherfe y states : Thus th e origina l Freudia n transfe r theor y ha s no w becom e almos t a statement o f female psychosexua l developmen t a s a n evolutionar y idea l towar d whic h mos t women mus t stil l strive . Onl y a fe w superio r wome n hav e th e highl y evolve d o r trained corte x necessar y t o produce th e vagina l orgasm . Therefor e vagina l orgasti c competency become s a functio n o f th e highe r center s an d th e intellect . Agai n w e are le d b y clea r logi c to th e ver y uncomfortabl e positio n statin g tha t th e majorit y of wome n remai n biologicall y inferior , retarde d i n thei r psychosexua l evolutio n compared t o men, not sufficientl y evolve d emotionall y an d intellectually t o achieve the vaginal orgasm . (N , 35) The questio n o f th e existenc e o r nonexistenc e o f th e vagina l orgas m is , according t o Sherfey , a biologica l proble m tha t mus t b e answere d b y biology (N , 28) . Sh e argue s tha t a stud y o f th e anatom y an d physiolog y o f the femal e vagin a wil l conclusivel y sho w tha t th e vagina l orgas m i s a physiological impossibilit y becaus e "no part of the vagina itself produces the orgasmic contractions" (N , 93) . T o her , th e evidenc e seem s overwhelmin g

The Dialectics that "it is a physical impossibility to separate the clitoral from the vaginal 99 orgasm as demanded by psychoanalytic theory" (N , 85). "Wit h maturation , the erotogeni c zon e o f th e lowe r thir d o f th e vagin a doe s no t supplan t th e clitoral zone ; it must be assimilated with the entire clitoral-labial complex into a single functional structure" (N , 116). Sherfey tell s u s tha t th e reaso n th e transfe r theor y wa s neve r full y denied o r strongl y oppose d b y wome n psychoanalyst s wa s tha t "peopl e want th e vaginal orgas m t o exist " (N , 28). Th e notion o f a vaginal orgas m is closel y interrelate d wit h th e ide a tha t a t a biologica l leve l th e sexua l function o f th e femal e i s to satisf y th e sexua l desires of th e male , which i n turn lead s t o th e reproductio n o f th e species . Onl y th e mal e penis , o r a phallic substitute , ca n produce a vaginal orgas m fo r th e female . Th e vagi nal orgas m thu s biologicall y determine s th e sexualit y o f th e femal e i n terms o f reproductio n an d th e sexua l satisfactio n o f th e male . Sh e i s thu s the passiv e sexua l objec t rathe r tha n th e activ e sexua l subject . Th e vagina l orgasm is , therefore, a n essential part o f patriphallic psychic reality . The implication s o f th e primac y o f th e clitora l orgas m fo r women' s sexuality ar e frightenin g fo r th e patriphalli c male . Physiologically , ther e can b e n o limi t t o th e numbe r an d frequenc y o f clitora l orgasms . A s Sherfey point s out, "Multipl e orgasms in women ar e well explained b y th e physiodynamics o f th e sexua l cycle" (N , 105). Fro m the scientific data , sh e concludes that "th e more orgasms a woman has, the stronger they become; the mor e orgasm s sh e has , th e mor e sh e ca n have . T o al l intent s an d purposes, the human female is sexually insatiable in the presence of the highest degrees of sexual satiation (N , 112) . Th e clitora l orgas m nee d no t require th e mal e penis . I n fact , a s Master s an d Johnso n poin t out , mos t males hav e difficult y maintainin g a n erectio n lon g enoug h t o produc e a single orgasm , le t alon e multipl e orgasms ; therefore , ver y fe w male s ca n give the femal e ful l sexua l satisfaction . Mal e inadequacy i s the implicatio n of th e clitora l orgasm . A furthe r implicatio n i s th e nonessentia l natur e of th e mal e fo r femal e sexua l satisfaction . Give n tha t femal e sexualit y commences betwee n mothe r an d daughter , lesbia n sexualit y ca n b e a superior alternativ e t o heterosexualit y a s lon g a s th e mal e continue s t o view th e poin t o f th e relationshi p a s the fulfillin g o f hi s desire . Give n th e reality o f th e multipl e clitora l orgasm , th e onl y satisfactor y heterosexua l relationship, s o fa r a s th e femal e i s concerned , i s tha t i n whic h th e mal e embraces a s his desire th e fulfillmen t o f th e female' s desire . Thi s i s a total

The Dialectics 100 reversa l o f patriphalli c heterosexua l psychica l reality . Sherfe y conclude s that the "ruthles s subjugatio n o f femal e sexuality , which, of course, necessarily subjugate d he r entir e emotiona l an d intellectua l life " an d th e con current famil y an d kinshi p socia l orde r wa s "essentia l t o man' s becom ing—and remaining—man " (N , 137-38). The convers e o f patriphalli c heterosexualit y woul d b e matriphallic het erosexuality. B y "matriphallic " w e d o no t sugges t tha t th e femal e ha s a phallu s o r possesse s th e equivalen t o f th e mal e phallus . Matriphalli c heterosexuality i s wher e th e mal e place s hi s phallu s a t th e servic e o f th e female. H e give s i t t o he r an d b y doin g s o gives himself, a s he i s attache d to it . H e embrace s th e fulfillmen t o f he r desir e a s the objec t o f hi s desire . He is prepared t o compete with any form o f lesbian sexuality . Sh e becomes the subject , an d h e th e object , o f he r desire . I n makin g th e sacrificia l gif t of hi s phallus , th e Gaz e i s passe d ove r t o her . Rathe r tha n observin g he r nudity a s his right , h e become s th e voyeur . Accordin g t o Lacan , "W e ca n apprehend thi s privileg e o f th e gaz e i n th e functio n o f desire , b y pourin g ourselves, a s i t were , alon g th e vein s throug h whic h th e domai n o f visio n has been integrate d int o the field o f desire" (F , 85). The foundationa l poin t o f al l knowledg e i s th e Subject . Th e Subjec t must b e i n plac e fo r knowledg e t o exist , an d th e Subjec t canno t exis t without knowledge . Knowin g entail s a constant reformulatio n o f th e Sub ject as it takes place, and the activity o f knowing (imaginin g and symboliz ing the Other ) take s place in relationshi p t o the Subject . Th e Other i s tha t which i s no t Subject . Th e Subjec t i s that whic h i s no t Other . Ther e i s n o knowledge of the Other tha t is not dependent o n knowledge of the Subject . The difference s betwee n th e femal e an d mal e body , th e inevitabl e signifi cance of the potential fo r reproductio n i n the face of death, the necessity of the gaz e o f th e Othe r fo r th e imag e o f th e self , th e interdependenc y of sexuality—al l functio n t o produc e a dualit y o f selve s spli t o n th e interrelationship o f gendere d psychi c realit y i n dialectica l respons e t o th e duality o f bimorphi c mammalia n biologica l sex . Thi s wil l no t chang e i n the foreseeabl e future , i f ever . Th e languagin g bod y condemn s human s t o the dialectic s o f maste r signifiers , t o two sides that mee t i n the fold , whic h mimic eac h othe r i n th e functio n o f signification . Th e denia l o f differenc e within th e discourse s structure d b y th e privilege d signifie r leave s ou r patriphallic psychi c realit y unchallenged . Th e primar y signifie r function s to preserv e th e separatio n an d integrit y o f materia l realit y an d t o us e material realit y t o challenge the illusions of psychic reality .

The Dialectics

The Dialectics of the Eros Drive and the Thanatos Drive Freud introduce d a secon d dualism : th e Ero s o r lif e driv e an d Thanato s o r death drive . H e wa s le d t o thi s dualis m b y hi s attempt s t o reconcil e masochism wit h th e pleasur e principle . Th e pleasur e principl e dictate s tha t the eg o seek s pleasur e an d th e releas e fro m unpleasure . I t i s modifie d b y the realit y principle , whic h explain s ho w th e individua l wil l postpon e o r deny momentar y pleasur e i n th e fac e o f realit y fo r th e sak e o f futur e pleasure. Whil e sadis m i s consisten t wit h th e pleasur e principle , masoch ism i s not . Th e phenomeno n o f th e sel f turnin g aggressio n inwar d le d Freud t o th e discover y o f th e deat h drive . Freu d write s tha t " O u r specula tions hav e suggeste d tha t Ero s operate s fro m th e beginnin g o f life , an d appears a s a life-instinct i n oppositio n t o th e death-instinct" (SE , XVIII , 62 , n. 1) . H e explains : This aggressiv e instinc t i s th e derivativ e an d th e mai n representativ e o f th e deat h instinct whic h w e hav e foun d alongsid e o f Ero s an d whic h share s world-dominio n with it . An d now , I think, th e meanin g o f the evolutio n o f civilizatio n i s no longe r obscure t o us . I t mus t presen t th e struggl e betwee n Ero s an d Death , betwee n th e instinct o f lif e an d th e instinc t o f destruction , a s i t work s itsel f ou t i n th e huma n species. Thi s struggl e i s wha t al l lif e essentiall y consist s of , an d th e evolutio n o f civilization ma y therefor e b e simply describe d a s the struggl e for lif e o f th e huma n species. An d i t i s this battl e o f th e giant s tha t ou r nurse-maid s tr y t o appeas e wit h their lullab y abou t Heaven . (SE , XXI, 122) The relationshi p betwee n th e sexual-eg o drive s an d th e Eros-Thanato s drives ha s bee n th e topi c o f muc h discussio n i n academi c literature . I t i s a s if ther e ar e tw o differen t conceptua l framework s a t wor k i n Freud , whereby h e seem s t o us e on e dialecti c fo r som e purpose s an d anothe r fo r a different for m o f analysis , despit e hi s wis h fo r on e comprehensiv e dialec tic. 12 H e writes , "Th e upsho t o f ou r inquir y s o fa r ha s bee n th e drawin g o f a shar p distinctio n betwee n th e 'ego-instincts ' an d th e sexua l instincts , an d the vie w tha t th e forme r exercis e pressur e toward s deat h an d th e latte r towards a prolongatio n o f life . Bu t thi s conclusio n i s boun d t o b e unsatis factory i n man y respect s eve n t o ourselves " (SE , XVIII , 44) . Freud ha s n o difficult y i n relatin g th e se x an d Ero s drives . H e state s that "Wit h th e hypothesi s o f narcissisti c libido , an d th e extensio n o f th e concept o f libid o t o th e individua l cells , the sexua l instinc t wa s transforme d for u s int o Eros , whic h seek s t o forc e togethe r an d hol d togethe r th e

101

The Dialectics 102 portion s o f livin g substance " (SE , XVIII, 6 1 n. 1) . According t o Laplanche , "[I]t i s sexualit y whic h represent s th e mode l o f ever y driv e an d probabl y constitutes th e onl y driv e i n th e stric t sens e o f th e term " (L&D , 8) . H e goes o n t o say that "Somethin g i s always oppose d t o sexuality , eve n i f tha t opposite ter m i s defined differentl y i n variou s stage s o f Freud' s thought ; i t may b e anothe r kin d o f drive—wha t Freu d term s self-preservativ e drive s or eg o drives—o r i t ma y b e th e ego , a s a structure , itself ; i n th e las t analysis, i t wil l b e the deat h drive " (L&D , 26). In attemptin g t o equat e th e ego driv e wit h th e Thanato s o r deat h drive , th e proble m arise s tha t th e former i s th e conceptualizatio n o f th e instinct s tha t lea d towar d self preservation, whic h seem s t o b e th e opposit e o f a driv e towar d death . Lacan explain s Freud' s dilemma : Now, i n ma n the functio n o f th e eg o possesses distinc t characteristics . That' s th e great discovery of analysis—at th e level of the generic relation, bound up with the life o f th e species , ma n alread y function s differently . I n man , there' s alread y a crack, a profound perturbatio n o f th e regulatio n o f life . That' s th e importanc e of the notio n introduce d b y Freud o f the death instinct . No t that th e death instinc t is such an enlightening notio n i n itself. Wha t ha s to be comprehended i s that h e was forced t o introduc e i t s o a s t o remin d u s o f a salien t fac t o f hi s experience , jus t when i t wa s beginning t o get los t . . . wha t Freud' s experienc e amounte d to . H e wanted t o sav e som e kin d o f dualis m a t al l costs , jus t whe n thi s dualis m wa s crumbling i n his hands, an d when th e ego, the libido, etc., all of tha t wa s tending to produce a kind of vast whole, returning u s to a philosophy o f nature. ( S II, 37) At first , Freu d gav e th e deat h driv e a biologica l foundatio n tha t almos t went a s fa r a s t o conceptualiz e th e bodil y proces s o f aging . Muc h o f Freud's work , however , particularl y tha t o f th e latte r par t o f hi s life , rejected th e biologicalis m o f hi s earlie r writings . Lacan , wh o reject s al l aspects o f biolog y a s a foundatio n fo r psychoanalysis , purge s th e deat h drive o f al l biologicalisms . The Lacania n versio n o f th e life/deat h dialecti c commence s wit h a n analysis o f th e relationshi p betwee n speec h an d death . "[T]her e i s a con junction i n th e h u m a n worl d betwee n th e speec h whic h dominate s th e destiny o f ma n an d death, " Laca n write s ( S II , 206) . I t i s speec h an d symbols tha t mov e human s fro m th e instinctua l worl d t o th e worl d o f drives. Laca n locate s th e Ero s an d Thanato s drive s a t th e leve l o f th e Imaginary, th e Symbolic , an d th e Real . Jus t a s animal s don' t hav e se x but copulate o r "rut, " animal s peris h bu t do not die as death lie s in the registe r of th e Symboli c (Ap , 35). As Heidegge r wrote , "Mortal s ar e the y wh o can experience deat h a s death . Animal s canno t d o this . Bu t animal s canno t

The Dialectics speak either . Th e essentia l relatio n betwee n deat h an d languag e flashes up 103 before u s but remain s stil l unthought." 13 Concernin g the concept of death , Derrida write s "Fundamentally , on e know s perhap s neithe r th e meanin g nor th e referen t o f thi s word . I t i s wel l know n tha t i f ther e i s on e wor d that remain s absolutel y unassignabl e o r unassignin g wit h respec t t o it s concept and to its thingness, it is the word 'death / Les s than fo r an y othe r noun, sav e 'God'—an d fo r goo d reason , sinc e their associatio n her e is no t fortuitous" (Ap , 22). Lacan calls the death instinc t th e mask of the symboli c order ( S II, 326). To th e degre e tha t human s partak e i n th e deat h instinct , the y remai n i n part outside life and engage in the register of life from th e register of deat h (S II , 90) . "[T]hi s lif e we'r e captiv e of , thi s essentiall y alienate d life , existing, thi s lif e i n th e other , i s as such joine d t o death , i t alway s return s to death " ( S II , 233) . Accordin g t o Lacan , "Th e natur e o f th e symbo l remains t o b e clarified . W e hav e com e clos e t o it s essenc e b y locatin g it s genesis a t th e sam e poin t a s tha t o f th e deat h instinct . W e ar e expressin g one and the sam e thing. W e are moving towards a point o f convergence — what doe s th e signifie r essentiall y signif y i n it s signifyin g role ? Wha t i s the origina l an d initiator y function , i n huma n life , o f th e existenc e o f th e symbol qu a pur e signifier ? Thi s questio n take s us back to our stud y o f th e psychoses" ( S III , 215) . Th e eg o come s int o bein g i n th e Imaginar y an d the Symboli c orde r i n tensio n wit h th e sexua l drive . "Th e symboli c orde r is simultaneousl y non-bein g an d insistin g t o be , tha t i s wha t Freu d ha s in min d whe n h e talk s abou t th e deat h instinc t a s bein g wha t i s mos t fundamental—a symboli c orde r i n travail , i n th e proces s o f coming , in sisting on being realized" ( S II, 326). Culture lie s within th e registe r o f th e Symboli c and a s such reflect s th e same relationship between deat h an d th e Symbolic . Derrid a explains : [C]ulture itself , cultur e i n general , i s essentially, befor e anything , eve n a priori, the cultur e o f death . Consequently , then , i t i s a history of death. . . . Th e very concept of culture may seem to be synonymous with the culture of death, as if the expression "cultur e of death" were ultimately a pleonasm or a tautology. . . . The difference betwee n natur e and culture, indeed between biological life and culture, and, more precisely, between the animal and the human is the relation to death, as one most ofte n think s accordin g t o th e sam e philosophical doxa. Th e relatio n t o death as such. The true border would be there. (Ap, 43-44) If deat h an d perishin g distinguis h th e anima l fro m th e human , s o do birth and reproduction . Th e concep t o f lif e i s as much withi n th e registe r o f th e Symbolic a s i s the concep t o f death . Ero s an d Thanato s cannot , therefore ,

The Dialectics 104 b e distinguishe d i n term s o f deat h belongin g t o th e registe r o f th e Sym bolic. Rather , th e distinctio n mus t b e located i n th e wa y tha t reproductio n and perishin g ar e manifeste d i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic. Just a s th e eg o react s t o th e sexua l i n term s o f affirmatio n an d accep tance, o r denia l an d negation , th e eg o confronts th e animalit y o f th e bod y in simila r terms . Th e oppositiona l relationshi p betwee n th e sexua l driv e and th e eg o drive i s manifested i n th e for m o f th e fundamenta l symptom s and neurose s tha t ca n b e reduce d t o th e acceptanc e o r denia l o f ou r ani mality. According t o Freud , "Negatio n i s a substitute , a t a highe r level , fo r repression" (SE , XIV, 186). "Thu s th e content o f a repressed imag e or idea can mak e it s way int o consciousness , o n conditio n tha t i t i s negated" (SE , XIX, 235). Negatio n entail s judgment an d thus, "Th e polarity of judgmen t appears t o correspon d t o th e oppositio n o f th e tw o group s o f instinct s which w e hav e suppose d t o exist " (SE , XIX , 237) . "Affirmation—a s a substitute fo r uniting—belong s t o Eros ; negation—th e successo r t o ex pulsion—belongs t o th e instinc t o f destruction " (SE , XIX, 237). I n negat ing Eros , th e Eg o embrace s it s antithesis—Thanatos . Behin d affirmatio n is unification , bu t behin d negatio n i s a denia l tha t i s mor e tha n a mer e wish t o destroy , i t i s a n instinc t o f destruction , a driv e t o destro y ( S I , 295-96). The relationshi p betwee n bein g bor n an d perishin g i s no t th e sam e a s the dialectica l relationshi p o f Ero s an d Thanatos . A t th e momen t o f birth , one is immediately vulnerabl e t o death. Perishin g is inevitable—it i s onl y a questio n o f ho w an d when . Animalit y embrace s mortality . T o affir m animality i s to embrac e deat h a s well a s life. I t is to sa y "yes " t o life. Th e affirmation o f Ero s is the embrace of animality—our bodies , our sexuality , our mortality . " I gran t yo u tha t I haven't ye t completel y lifte d th e veil — I'll leav e tha t fo r nex t time . I n orde r fo r procreatio n t o hav e it s ful l sens e there mus t als o be , i n bot h sexes , a n apprehension , a relatio n wit h th e experience o f death , whic h give s th e ter m to procreate it s ful l sense . Moreover, paternit y an d deat h ar e tw o signifier s tha t Freu d link s i n rela tion t o obsessionals " ( S III , 293) . Th e negatio n o f animalit y i s a denial of the body by a glorification o f the mind; sexualit y by privileging productio n over reproductio n an d cultur e ove r nature ; an d mortalit y b y the myth s of the surviva l o f th e mind afte r th e dissolution o f the body. The affirmation o r denial o f animalit y i s not a rational judgment . Sinc e

The Dialectics the polarit y o f judgment s correspond s t o th e polarit y o f drives , bot h th e 105 judgments o f affirmatio n o r denial are neurotic reactions or manifestation s of sympto m formations . Thi s i s consisten t wit h Lacan' s statemen t tha t "The function o f desire must remai n i n a fundamental relatio n with death " (S VII, 351) . "Who , mor e fearlessl y tha n thi s clinicia n [Freud] , so firml y tied t o mundan e suffering , ha s questione d lif e a s t o it s meaning , an d no t to sa y tha t i t ha s none , which i s a convenient wa y o f washin g one' s hand s of th e whol e business , bu t t o sa y tha t i t ha s onl y on e meaning , tha t i n which desir e is borne by death?" (E , 2j6-yy). In thi s sense , th e Ero s an d Thanato s drive s coul d b e better classifie d a s complexes. A s state d b y Lacan , "Psychosi s i s no longe r interprete d o n th e basis o f th e comple x econom y o f th e dynamic s o f th e drive s bu t o n th e basis of procedure use d by the ego to escape from variou s requirements , t o defend itsel f agains t th e drives. Th e ego again becomes not onl y th e cente r but th e caus e o f th e disorder " ( S III , 105) . Th e Thanato s comple x i s th e post-Oedipal stat e o f th e psyche . A s w e ar e sexuall y genderize d i n th e Oedipal passag e w e pas s int o th e Thanato s complex . Patriarch y an d mal e domination, mal e phalli c possession an d femal e lac k are al l manifestation s of th e Thanato s complex . Th e Ero s comple x reverse s th e dynamic s o f heterosexual sexualit y an d mus t entail , therefore , femal e dominanc e (bu t not necessaril y domination) ; th e primac y o f th e Wom b ove r th e privileg e of the Phallus , and mal e sacrifice i n place of femal e lack . I f feminis m i s not a politics of Eros , then i t will inevitably fal l within th e politics o f Thanato s and will never lea d to the liberation o f women . The proble m o f reconcilin g th e tw o Freudia n dialectic s stem s fro m linking aggressio n an d masochis m wit h th e Thanato s o r deat h drive . Though Freu d cam e t o th e recognitio n o f th e deat h driv e throug h th e discovery o f masochis m a s a primar y symptom , i t doe s no t follo w tha t aggression shoul d necessaril y b e linked with th e Thanatos drive . I t may be the cas e tha t aggressio n ca n functio n i n bot h th e Ero s comple x o r drive , and the Thanato s comple x or drive , depending on the sourc e of the aggression. Primar y masochis m ca n functio n i n th e servic e o f eithe r Ero s o r Thanatos. Whe n primar y masochis m i s the product o f aggressio n b y the id against th e ego , seekin g t o dissolv e th e boundarie s o f th e eg o i n orde r t o unify min d an d body , the n th e aggressio n i s in th e servic e o f Eros . Whe n primary masochis m i s a manifestation o f th e dialectic s between th e sexua l drive and the eg o drive, seeking an integration o f th e sexua l drive with th e ego, the n i t serve s Ero s sinc e unificatio n i s th e en d produc t o f th e Ero s

The Dialectics 106 drive . I f th e self-aggressio n o f primar y masochis m seek s th e destructio n of th e eg o rathe r tha n unification , the n i t i s functionin g i n th e servic e of Thanatos .

The Dialectics of Domination and Submission Lacan's vie w o f th e relationshi p betwee n th e sel f an d th e Othe r an d th e nature o f desire , owe s a s muc h t o Alexandr e Kojeve' s interpretatio n o f Hegel a s it doe s t o Freud . Laca n produce d a synthesis o f Freu d an d Hege l with respec t t o th e developmen t o f th e eg o an d self-consciousness . H e frequently appeal s t o Hege l i n th e developmen t o f hi s views regardin g th e formation o f th e sel f an d specificall y t o th e fundamenta l Hegelia n tene t that "man' s desir e i s the desir e o f th e other " ( S I, 146). Laca n argue s tha t the chil d firs t develop s it s sens e o f a unifie d sel f a t th e ag e o f si x t o eighteen month s fro m seein g it s imag e i n th e mirror . Th e reflectin g glas s is replace d b y th e kin d an d degre e o f recognitio n tha t th e Othe r imparts . The Othe r thu s define s th e natur e an d structur e o f th e self . Identit y emerges fro m a n intersubjective, dialectica l process of recognition . Kojeve, th e brillian t Hegelia n scholar , presente d a serie s o f lecture s between 193 3 t o 193 9 o n Hegel' s Phenomenology of Spirit tha t ha d a profound influenc e o n post-Worl d Wa r I I Frenc h socia l theory . Kojeve' s famous Introduction to the Reading of Hegel has been a source of inspiratio n not onl y t o psychoanalysi s bu t als o t o feminis m an d postmodernism. 14 Kojeve ha s profoundl y influence d Frenc h socia l theory , an d mos t o f th e important theorist s o f th e sixtie s attende d Kojeve' s seminar s o n Hege l during th e thirties . Th e Hegelia n perspectiv e ha s als o bee n a ver y im portant on e fo r man y feminist s suc h a s Catharin e MacKinno n an d Jessic a Benjamin.15 Accordin g t o Kojeve , "Hegelia n Dialectic s i s no t a method o f research o r o f philosophica l exposition , but th e adequat e descriptio n o f th e structure o f Being , an d th e realizatio n an d appearanc e o f Bein g a s well " (RH, 259) . Th e applicabilit y o f th e creatio n o f self-consciousnes s throug h obtaining th e recognitio n o f other s seem s a particularly appropriat e para digm fro m whic h to study mal e domination . "Man become s consciou s o f himsel f a t th e momen t when—fo r th e 'first' time—h e say s T . T o understand ma n b y understanding hi s 'origin ' is . . . t o understan d th e origi n o f th e I revealed b y speech " (RH , 3). Th e object firs t show s itsel f throug h perception . Contemplatio n reveal s th e object throug h a n act of knowing. Th e individual i s only brought bac k into

The Dialectics himself throug h a desire for the contemplated object . "Desir e of a being is loy what constitute s tha t bein g a s I and reveals i t as such b y moving it to say ' 1 / . . . I t is in and by—or bette r still , as—'his' Desire that man is formed and i s revealed—t o himsel f an d t o others—a s a n I , a s th e I tha t i s essentially differen t from , an d radicall y oppose d to , the non-I . Th e (hu man). I i s th e I o f a Desir e o r o f Desire " (RH , 3-4). Th e self-consciou s human being , therefore, implie s and presupposes desire . Action negate s o r satisfie s desir e b y th e assimilation , consumption , o r transformation o f th e desire d object , an d thu s th e satisfactio n o f desir e entails the negation o f the objects o f desire. Desir e is a necessary conditio n for self-consciousness , thoug h no t a sufficien t conditio n (RH , 4). I f th e desire i s fo r th e consumptio n o f a natura l objec t suc h a s food , the n th e subject wil l b e a natura l subject , "a n anima l I, " an d a s suc h ca n neve r attain Self-Consciousnes s (RH , 5). "Fo r ther e t o b e Self-Consciousness , Desire mus t therefor e b e directe d towar d a non-natura l object , towar d something tha t goe s beyon d th e give n reality . Furthermore , accordin g to Kojeve : The only thing that goes beyond the given reality is Desire itself. For Desire taken as Desire—i.e., befor e it s satisfaction—is bu t a revealed nothingness , an unreal emptiness. Desire, being the revelation of an emptiness, the presence of the absence of a reality, is something essentiall y differen t fro m th e desired thing , somethin g other than a thing, than a static and given real being that stays eternally identical to itself. Therefore , Desir e directe d towar d anothe r Desire , take n a s Desire, will create, b y th e negatin g an d assimilatin g actio n tha t satisfie s it , a n I essentiall y different fro m th e anima l "\." Thi s I , whic h "feeds' 7 o n Desires , wil l itsel f b e Desire in its very being, created in and by the satisfaction o f its Desire. (RH, 5) Since huma n desir e mus t b e directed towar d anothe r huma n desire , ther e must b e a multiplicity o f desire i n order fo r self-consciousnes s t o be born. "Man ca n appea r o n eart h onl y withi n a herd " (RH , 6) . Socia l realit y consists therefore , o f a se t o f desire s mutuall y desirin g on e anothe r a s desires rathe r tha n a s objects : "i n th e relationshi p betwee n ma n an d woman, fo r example , Desir e i s huma n onl y i f th e on e desires , no t th e body, but the Desire of the other; i f he wants 't o possess' or 'to assimilate' the Desir e take n a s Desire—tha t i s t o say , if h e wants t o be 'desired ' o r 'loved,' or , rathe r 'recognized ' i n hi s huma n value , i n hi s realit y a s a human individual " (RH , 6) . Our existenc e a s self-consciou s being s "is , finally , a functio n o f th e desire fo r 'recognition. ' . . . Therefore , th e huma n bein g ca n be forme d

The Dialectics 108 onl y i f a t leas t tw o o f thes e desire s confron t on e another " (RH , 7) . Th e first confrontatio n betwee n tw o huma n desire s i s no t o n th e hunt , a t th e marketplace o f commerce , o r o n th e battlefield . I t i s i n th e proces s o f mating an d reproduction . Befor e ma n confront s man , h e first confront s woman. Th e Hegelian-Kojevia n dialectic s o f desire s fro m whic h th e self conscious bein g emerges , i s betwee n mothe r an d child , betwee n woma n and man . If , a s i s postulate d b y Freud , tha t desir e i s roote d i n huma n sexuality an d libid o energize d b y sexua l difference , the n a theor y o f th e emergence o f th e sel f an d o f th e dialectic s o f intersubjectivit y mus t b e closely interrelate d wit h a theor y o f th e structur e o f huma n sexualit y and gender . Lacan emphasize s tha t "a t ever y turn , I tak e m y bearing s fro m th e master-slave dialectic , an d I re-explai n it . . . . Hege l give s accoun t o f th e interhuman bond . H e has to accoun t no t onl y fo r society , bu t fo r history . He canno t neglec t an y o f it s aspects " ( S I, 222-23) . "[Mian' s desir e find s its meanin g i n the desire o f the other, no t so much becaus e th e other hold s the ke y t o th e objec t desired , a s becaus e th e first objec t o f desir e i s t o b e recognized b y th e other " (E , 58). Laca n merge s Hege l wit h Freu d i n hi s theory o f th e development o f th e self. H e explains : Before Darwin , however , Hege l ha d provide d th e ultimat e theor y o f th e prope r function o f aggressivit y i n human ontology , seemin g t o prophecy th e iron la w o f our time . Fro m th e conflict o f Maste r an d Slave, h e deduced th e entire subjectiv e and objectiv e progres s o f our history, revealin g i n these crise s the syntheses t o be found i n the highest form s o f the status o f the person i n the West, fro m th e Stoic to th e Christian , an d eve n t o th e futur e citize n o f th e Universa l State . . . . The satisfaction o f huma n desir e i s possibl e onl y whe n mediate d b y th e desir e an d labour of the other. (E , 26 ) We live in a society in which slaver y isn' t recognized . It' s nevertheless clea r to any sociologist o r philosophe r tha t i t ha s i n n o wa y bee n abolished . Thi s ha s eve n become th e objec t o f som e fairl y well-know n claims . It' s als o clea r tha t whil e bondage hasn't been abolished, one might say it has been generalized. Th e relationship of those know n a s the exploiters, in relation t o the economy a s a whole, is no less a relationship o f bondage than tha t o f the average man. Thus the master-slave duality is generalized withi n eac h participant in our society. ( S III, 132 ) "The mos t nake d rivalr y betwee n me n an d wome n i s eternal, " Laca n asserts, "an d it s styl e i s lai d dow n i n conjuga l relations . . . . Feminin e rebellion didn' t star t yesterday . Fro m maste r t o slav e an d rival , ther e i s only on e dialectica l s t e p — t h e relation s o f th e maste r t o th e slav e ar e

The Dialectics essentially reversible , an d th e maste r see s ver y quickl y hi s dependenc y i n 109 relation t o hi s slav e becom e established " ( S II , 263) . Moreover , "Man' s desire find s it s meanin g i n th e desir e o f th e other , no t s o muc h becaus e th e other hold s th e ke y t o th e objec t desired , a s becaus e th e firs t objec t o f desire i s t o b e recognize d b y th e other " (E , 58). Th e Other , fo r man , i s woman. Th e jouissances o f dominatio n an d submissio n reflec t th e correla tive tension s betwee n "th e narcissisti c structur e i n th e coming-into-bein g of th e subject, " an d aggressio n (E , 22) . Thu s th e developmen t o f th e human subjec t a s a gendere d bein g an d sexualit y ar e intertwined . Gender , like sexuality , entail s dominatio n an d submission . Mitchell , i n he r com ment o n Lacan' s theor y o f sexuality , explains : For al l psychoanalyst s th e developmen t o f th e huma n subject , it s unconsciou s an d its sexualit y g o hand-in-hand , the y ar e causitivel y intertwined . A psychoanalys t could no t subscrib e t o a currentl y popula r sociologica l distinctio n i n whic h a person is born with their biological gender to which society—general environment , parents, education , th e media—add s a socially define d sex , masculine o r feminine . Psychoanalysis canno t mak e suc h a distinction : a person i s forme d throug h thei r sexuality, i t coul d no t b e "added " t o hi m o r her . Th e way s i n whic h psycho sexuality an d th e unconsciou s ar e closel y boun d togethe r ar e complex , bu t mos t obviously, th e unconsciou s contain s wishes that canno t be satisfied an d henc e hav e been repressed . Predominan t amon g suc h wishes are the tabooed incestuous desire s of childhood . (FS , 2) Lacan states : " A la w i s impose d upo n th e slave , tha t h e shoul d satisf y th e desire an d th e pleasur e \jouissance ] o f th e other " ( S I , 223) . Th e puissance of submissio n emanate s fro m th e satisfactio n receive d fro m fulfillin g th e Other's desir e t o b e recognize d ( S II , 236) . It i s withi n th e dialectic s o f th e jouissances o f contro l an d submissio n that self-consciousnes s emerge s fro m th e intersubjectivit y o f th e sel f an d the Other . Th e primar y mirro r fo r th e emergin g sel f o f th e chil d i s th e mother. I n th e stat e o f narcissisti c blis s an d omnipotenc e befor e th e chil d distinguishes betwee n sel f an d mothe r an d become s awar e o f limitations , the chil d know s neithe r contro l no r submission . Followin g th e narcissisti c wound whe n th e chil d begin s t o b e cognizan t o f it s separatenes s fro m th e mother an d it s helplessness , th e chil d i s i n a stat e o f submissio n t o he r an d seeks recognitio n i n th e eye s o f th e mother . Th e chil d seek s t o becom e th e object o f th e mother' s desire . It i s th e desir e fo r th e Mothe r tha t constitute s th e child , a n I . Th e chil d consumes th e mothe r a s sh e o r h e feed s a t he r breast , an d absorb s he r

The Dialectics no love , attention, an d admiration. Th e breast is the first objec t o f the infant' s desire, an d th e recognitio n o f th e eternalit y o f th e breas t a s a n object , which commence s th e proces s of the emergenc e of th e self. Th e desire tha t is presuppose d b y th e bein g o f ma n i s th e desir e fo r th e mother . Oedipa l desire i s th e child' s desir e fo r recognitio n fro m th e mother , an d he r willingness t o giv e it . Tha t is , i t i s th e child' s desir e fo r th e desir e o f th e mother, an d no t th e bod y o f th e mothe r a s a n object , tha t constitute s Oedipal desire . Th e human bein g is forged ou t o f the relationshi p betwee n domination an d submission , whic h i s confronted firs t betwee n th e mothe r and child , secon d a s th e chil d witnesse s th e dynamic s o f contro l an d submission betwee n th e mothe r an d th e father , an d thir d i n th e struggl e between th e sexes . I n othe r words , human s experienc e dominatio n an d submission lon g befor e me n ris k thei r live s i n th e struggl e fo r master y over othe r men , which lie s at the center of Hegelia n dialectics . Men kno w themselve s a s me n becaus e o f th e recognitio n the y receiv e in th e eye s o f women , an d wome n see k recognitio n b y bein g th e objec t of male desire . Gende r i s th e fundamenta l historica l dialectic . Th e Hegelia n master/slave dialecti c is secondary, and builds upon the existing foundatio n in term s o f th e sexuall y base d dynamic s o f contro l an d submission . Th e dialectics o f desir e fo r recognitio n an d desir e fo r dominatio n an d submis sion ar e th e same . Sexua l satisfactio n an d recognitio n o f th e sel f ar e s o intertwined tha t the y canno t b e entirel y separated . I t i s becaus e o f thi s interrelationship, i n part, tha t th e sexua l drive is often suc h a threat t o th e ego drive. If i t i s th e cas e tha t "Ma n achieve s hi s tru e autonomy , hi s authenti c freedom, onl y afte r passin g through Slavery " (RH , 27), then, applyin g th e Hegelian-Kojevian analysi s t o th e "wa r o f th e sexes, " wome n wil l onl y achieve thei r tru e autonom y an d authenti c freedo m b y passin g throug h submission. "Th e Maste r ca n neve r detach himsel f fro m th e Worl d i n which h e lives . . . . Onl y th e Slav e ca n transfor m th e Worl d tha t form s him an d fixe s hi m i n slaver y an d creat e a Worl d tha t h e ha s forme d i n which he will be free" (RH , 29). Onl y women can transform an d transcen d their statu s a s submissiv e t o mal e authority . "Therefore , i t i s indee d th e originally dependent , servin g an d slavis h Consciousnes s tha t i n th e en d realizes an d reveal s th e idea l o f autonomou s Self-Consciousnes s an d i s thus it s 'truth ' " (RH , 30) . I t i s th e perso n i n submissio n wh o ha s a n intuition o f huma n realit y (RH , 48) . Maste r an d slave , dominatio n an d

The Dialectics submission, ar e the two sides of the self tha t mee t a t the fold. Th e portal m111 between i s a two-wa y door , an d dominatio n an d submissio n fol d i n o n each other a t the crease. We mus t ri d ourselves o f the notion tha t ther e ar e separate femal e and male perspectives o f the Subject. Th e Subject i s a category presuppose d by language. Th e self , however , a s i t include s th e body , i s gendered . Th e concept o f th e gendere d sel f relie s o n th e oppositiona l relationshi p o f the tw o signifiers. Th e dominant-subservien t relationshi p o f th e maste r signifiers play s ou t sexually i n terms o f the puissances o f domination and submission. Eac h self , accordin g t o the structur e o f the particular maste r signifier, wil l achiev e it s statu s i n term s o f dominanc e an d submission . According to Lacan, "Th e intersubjective relatio n whic h subtend s pervers e desire i s onl y sustaine d b y th e annihilatio n eithe r o f th e desir e o f th e other, o r of the desire of the subject. I t can only be grasped at the limit, in its inversions . . . . Thi s mean s . . . tha t i n th e one as in th e other , thi s relation dissolve s th e being o f the subject. Th e other subjec t i s reduced t o being onl y th e instrument o f the first, wh o thus remain s th e only subjec t as such, but the latter is reduced to being only an idol offered t o the desire of the other" ( S I, 222) . The dialectic s o f dominatio n an d submissio n ar e base d o n difference . The mos t significan t differenc e betwee n selve s i s that foun d i n the body . Neither femalenes s no r maleness determine s whic h is dominant and which is subservient. Thi s can only be determined by their chains of signification . In th e same way, domination an d submission betwee n male s is structure d in term s o f difference . Racia l difference s ar e obvious an d therefore for m the mos t significan t foundation s fo r dominatio n an d submissio n betwee n males. Th e desire t o accumulate wealt h furnishe s a n imaginary an d sym bolic foundatio n fo r dominatio n throug h th e exercise o f economi c power . If the fantasy i s shattered an d the illegitimate privileg e is denied, then one is face d wit h a reversa l o f dominatio n an d submission . A s a result , th e primary chain s of signification permi t the formation o f the self i n terms of female dominatio n an d mal e submissio n becaus e th e femal e i s identifie d with th e primary i n th e se t of dialectics . S o long a s mind/body dualism , and al l th e relate d dialectics , hav e a sexua l manifestatio n withi n knowl edge, th e dialectic s o f dominatio n an d submissio n wil l b e the framewor k within whic h th e sel f i s formulated . Th e dialectic s o f dominatio n an d submission paralle l the dialectics of subjectivity a s selves as manifestation -

The Dialectics 112 of-the-Subjec t an d selve s a s manifestation-of-the-Other . Th e sel f a s sub ject will b e dominan t an d th e sel f a s othe r wil l b e submissive . Humans , whether femal e o r male , ca n pas s throug h th e fol d fro m on e t o the other . At th e poin t o f passage , as they brea k throug h th e hymen , the y wil l catc h a glimpse of the truth o f gender .

F I V E

The Dialectics of Fantasy

Reality Distinctions betwee n appearanc e an d realit y ar e inevitabl e whe n on e con centrates o n th e biologica l limit s o f knowledg e an d o n th e subjectivit y o f sensed experience . Eac h perso n presuppose s o r assume s hi s o r he r ow n existence a s th e knower , a s a given , an d th e externa l worl d a s othe r an d object. A t th e sam e time , realit y i s a human construc t tha t i s relativ e t o a particular discours e o r se t o f discourses . Ther e i s no transcendenta l appea l to an objectiv e measur e outsid e o f o r beyon d th e limit s o f huma n percep tion, mental life , an d language . Nevertheless , as one encounters th e exter nal world within th e framewor k o f language , one is compelled t o recogniz e that th e perceptions, conceptions, and discourses that constitut e knowledg e (Lacan's register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic ) ar e a t bes t meta phorical representation s o f tha t whic h i s no t knowledg e (th e Real) . A s such, on e ca n evaluat e an d compar e a given interpretatio n a s bein g bette r than another . I n thi s sense , appearanc e ca n b e measure d agains t materia l reality. When on e examine s th e myria d o f languagin g functions , i t quickl y becomes clea r tha t whil e observing , describing , explaining , an d theorizin g have t o d o wit h discoverin g o r establishin g reality , othe r function s ar e concerned wit h establishin g appearance , ofte n a t th e expens e o f reality . Such languagin g function s woul d includ e desiring , rationalizing , justi fying, legitimizing , hallucinating , an d lying . Th e denia l o f realit y throug h such languagin g function s i s effective onl y whe n appearanc e i s accepted a s reality. Effectivenes s i s dependen t o n th e blurrin g o r eradicatio n o f th e distinction betwee n appearanc e an d reality . I n psychi c reality , appearanc e is taken a s reality . n113 3

The Dialectics of Fantasy 114 Th e fundamenta l presuppositio n o f ou r educational , legal , an d politica l systems i s tha t th e reality-establishin g function s o f languagin g predomi nate an d tha t th e appearanc e function s ar e idiosyncratic—th e exceptio n rather tha n th e rule . Th e fundamenta l presuppositio n o f psychoanalysi s i s just th e opposite . A s state d b y R . H . Hook , "Freu d showe d tha t i t is , i n fact, th e other way around: b y nature man has an undiscriminating prefer ence for whatever offer s immediat e gratification an d it is only harsh realit y that force s hi m t o be rational. H e attempts mentally to construct the world as h e desire s i t an d i t i s onl y whe n th e worl d doe s no t wor k tha t h e i s obliged t o star t again , onl y thi s tim e takin g frustratin g realit y int o ac count. "1 Freud dre w a fundamenta l distinctio n betwee n wha t h e terme d "pri mary proces s thinking " an d "secondar y proces s thinking. " 2 Primar y pro cess thinking establishe s appearance . Whil e th e structur e o f primar y pro cess thinkin g i s neuroti c an d pathological , i t underlie s th e "so-calle d normal activities of the mind" suc h as dreams, fantasies, myths, and ritual s in which "tim e and spac e have an altered significance , an d if represented a t all, ar e deal t wit h i n a manner altogethe r differen t fro m tha t o f secondar y process/' 3 Secondary process thinking is concerned wit h the establishmen t of reality , an d therefor e logi c and rationalit y ar e dominant. Th e centralit y of thi s distinctio n i s atteste d t o b y Mauric e Benass y an d Ren e Diatkin e who stat e tha t "Freud' s revolutionar y contributio n t o psycholog y wa s no t so muc h hi s demonstratin g th e existenc e o f a n unconsciou s . . . a s hi s proposition tha t ther e ar e tw o fundamentall y differen t kind s o f menta l processes, which h e termed primar y an d secondar y respectively . . . . Tha t is to say , unconscious tendencie s o f th e organis m ar e governed b y origina l laws tha t ar e differen t fro m th e law s governin g secondar y processes , pre conscious o r conscious . Thes e law s functio n accordin g t o th e unpleasure pleasure principle." 4 Key to primary thinkin g i s the illusion tha t ou r predominant though t i s secondary thinking . Th e maintenanc e o f th e illusio n tha t human s ar e primarily rational , logical , truth-seeking, sentien t being s i s a fundamenta l aspect of primary thinking . Th e central concept in primary thinkin g is that of fantas y o r phantasy, 5 o r th e delusio n tha t w e ar e differen t tha n w e really are, tha t th e worl d i s different tha n i t really is. Accordin g t o Freud , psychic reality, the appearance of which is taken t o be reality, is structure d as fantasy , i n whic h cas e th e structur e o f "normalcy " i s neurotic , psy -

The Dialectics of Fantasy chotic, and pathological . How , then ca n we still distinguish betwee n "nor - 115 malcy" an d "madness" ? Th e sane are those whose psyches function withi n the structur e o f collectiv e fantasies , an d thos e who ar e adjudged t o be mad are persons whos e governing fantas y structure s ar e idiosyncratic. Thus , as Foucault tell s us , fro m th e Middl e Age s onward , a man wa s considere d t o be ma d i f hi s speec h coul d no t b e sai d t o for m par t o f th e commo n discourse o f men. 6 Why woul d Freu d designat e th e kin d o f thinkin g tha t produce s illusio n as primary an d th e kin d o f thinkin g throug h whic h w e formulat e ou r conceptions o f materia l realit y a s secondary? Th e menta l processe s o f repression an d neurosis , whic h produc e dreams , fantasy , myth , an d illu sion, ar e mor e powerfu l tha n thos e menta l processe s tha t see k a materia l reality. Repressio n an d neurosi s ar e primar y becaus e the y predominate . The conceptua l worl d withi n whic h w e liv e i s governe d b y psychi c rathe r than materia l reality . Th e psychic is therefore privilege d ove r the material . Primary thinkin g i s primary becaus e of it s privileged positio n i n th e signi fying chai n o f neuroti c psychi c reality . Secondar y thinking , o n th e othe r hand, reflect s th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c register s whic h attemp t a closer approximatio n t o th e Rea l an d produc e th e chain s o f significatio n that ar e primar y i n ligh t o f ou r knowledg e o f materia l realit y wit h regar d to fantasy . Patriarchy i s both an explanation an d a justification o f male domination . According t o Humbert o Maturana , tw o thing s happe n whe n a particula r discourse is accepted as explanation : (a) Wha t w e d o i s t o propos e a reformulatio n o f a particular situatio n of ou r praxis of living , and , (b) ou r reformulatio n o f ou r praxi s o f livin g i s accepted b y th e listene r as a reformulation o f hi s or her praxi s of living. 7 The patriarcha l praxi s o f livin g i s substantiall y detache d fro m reality. Feminists woul d hav e littl e difficult y i n applyin g th e term s "neurotic, " "psychotic," an d "pathological " t o th e patriarcha l praxis . Whil e man y would b e deepl y trouble d b y muc h o f traditiona l psychoanalyti c theory , few feminist s woul d disput e th e distinctio n betwee n materia l an d psychi c reality whil e viewin g mal e dominatio n an d th e ideolog y o f patriarch y a s psychic reality . No r shoul d a n analysi s o f "normalcy, " whic h i s almos t universally patriarchal , giv e ris e t o an y seriou s intellectua l predicament s

The Dialectics of Fantasy 116 fo r th e feminist . A n analysi s o f huma n knowledg e i n term s o f fantas y ought therefore t o be an ideal focal point for the discourses of psychoanaly sis, postmodernism , an d feminism . Patriarchy , a s a produc t o f primar y thinking, i s privileged i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic . Consequently, feminis m i s a produc t o f secondar y thinking . Feminis m must therefor e establis h it s foundation s i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y and th e Symbolic . Moreover , thes e foundation s mus t b e establishe d i n terms o f a metaphorica l relatio n t o th e Rea l i n th e construction s an d conceptualizations tha t w e classif y a s materia l reality , i n contras t t o fan tasy. Th e distinctio n betwee n materia l realit y an d fantas y doe s no t leav e feminism i n a n essentialis t positio n s o lon g a s i t i s recognize d tha t th e distinction i s withi n register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic—i n terms o f a contrast betwee n primar y an d privileged signifier s an d chains of signification. Th e distinctio n betwee n a primar y an d privilege d significa tion mus t b e measured i n terms o f a relationship with th e Real . Benassy an d Diatkin e argu e tha t "Fantas y i s buil t u p b y th e organis m in its constant relationshi p wit h th e environment . I t is learned, buil t up of inherited physica l structures , individua l acquisitions . I t i s constructe d o f memories o f perception s an d memorie s o f fantasies' ' t o whic h languag e gives structur e an d a social dimension. 8 Thus , "fantas y i s a human wa y of fitting organis m t o environment." 9 Reality , a s Lagach e remind s us , "i s ambiguous; it s oppositio n t o fantas y i s no t radical, " an d "th e sam e ambi guity i s foun d i n th e realit y principle—whic h i s basi c bot h t o objectiv e knowledge an d t o th e well-know n misrepresentation s o f defens e mecha nisms." 10 "Th e history o f science, " he states, "itself show s how deeply th e most archai c fantasie s hav e permeate d th e searc h fo r truth : th e scientifi c outlook i s th e resul t o f a slo w process o f eliminatio n o f fantasy." 11 H e goes o n t o sa y tha t "realit y i s no t onl y a fantas y abou t th e other , bu t i s also largely th e fantas y o f th e other . Th e sens e of realit y i s inculcated a s a maxim o f morality : w e ofte n explai n t o someon e tha t h e i s takin g hi s desires, hence his fantasies, t o be reality. In every field, up to and includin g scientific research , objectivit y i s take n a s a mora l valu e an d a moral rule . There would be a gain in clarity if we spoke, not of rea l or external objects , but o f independen t objects , tha t i s t o say , o f entitie s independen t o f fantasy." 12 H e conclude s tha t "Th e triad , fantasy , reality , an d truth , i s taken t o b e th e basi s o f huma n existence , o f science , an d o f psycho analysis. Reaso n i s not entirel y absen t fro m th e fantas y system , o r reaso n would fin d nothin g to lay hold of." 13

The Dialectics of Fantasy

Fantasy Fantasy ha s bee n a centra l concer n o f psychoanalysi s fro m it s inceptio n (FO, 5) . Early i n th e developmen t o f psychoanalyti c theory , Freu d wa s perplexed a s h e mor e an d mor e cam e t o recogniz e "th e lo w valuatio n o f reality" an d "th e neglec t o f th e distinctio n betwee n i t an d phantasy " (SE , VI, 368) . H e late r state s tha t "Th e phantasie s posses s psychica l a s con trasted wit h material reality , an d w e gradually lear n t o understand tha t in the world of the neuroses it is psychic reality which is the decisive kind" (SE, XVI, 368). Jea n Laplanch e an d Jean-Bertrand Pontali s go so far a s to asser t that "A n explanatio n o f th e stability , efficac y an d relativel y coheren t nature o f th e subject' s phantas y lif e i s precisely th e goa l t o whic h Freud' s efforts an d th e effort s o f psycho-analytic though t a s a whole, are directed " (LP, 314). an d tha t "I n poin t o f fact , psycho-analysi s endow s the phantas y world fro m th e ver y star t wit h th e coherence , organizatio n an d efficac y which a s clearl y implied , fo r example , b y th e ter m 'psychica l reality ' " (LP, 332) . Hann a Sega l suggest s tha t "[Tjhinkin g i s a modificatio n o f unconscious fantas y . . . brought abou t by reality testing" 14 and that "Th e richness, depth , an d accurac y o f a person' s thinkin g wil l depen d o n th e quality an d malleabilit y o f unconsciou s fantas y lif e an d th e capacit y t o subject i t t o realit y testing." 15 Accordin g t o Segal , th e ver y origi n o f thought "lie s i n thi s proces s o f testin g fantas y agains t reality ; tha t is , tha t thought i s no t onl y contraste d wit h fantasy , bu t base d o n i t an d derive d from it." 16 Sh e explain s tha t "i t woul d b e naiv e t o thin k tha t th e infan t learns realit y thinkin g b y discardin g hi s fantasies . O n th e contrary , th e infant approache s realit y armed , a s i t were , wit h expectation s forme d b y his unconsciou s fantasy . B y testin g the m i n reality , h e graduall y learn s which ar e applicabl e an d whic h mode s o f hi s ow n functionin g enabl e hi m to dea l wit h reality." 17 Jus t a s fantas y an d materia l realit y merg e i n psychic reality , s o fantas y an d th e recollectio n o f actua l event s merg e i n memory. I n fact , accordin g to Freud , th e activitie s o f phantasy carr y mor e weight i n neurosis than doe s external reality , sinc e on the phenomenologi cal leve l ther e i s n o intrinsi c evidenc e tha t coul d distinguis h perceptio n memory an d fantas y memor y (SE , XVIII, 244). 18 Fantasy i s governed b y the pleasure principle. Freu d explains : In the theory of psycho-analysis we have no hesitation in assuming that the course taken b y menta l event s i s automatically regulate d b y th e pleasur e principle . W e believe, that is to say, that the course of those events is invariably set in motion by

ii

7

The Dialectics of Fantasy xi8 a

n unpleasurabl e tension , an d tha t i t take s a direction suc h tha t it s fina l outcom e coincides with a lowering of that tension—tha t is , with an avoidance of unpleasur e or a production o f pleasure . I n taking that cours e into accoun t i n ou r consideratio n of th e menta l processe s whic h ar e th e subjec t o f ou r study , w e ar e introducin g a n "economic" point o f view into our work. (SE , XVIII, 7) In The Two Principles of Mental Functioning, Freu d state s tha t "Wit h th e introduction o f th e realit y principle , on e mod e o f thought-activit y wa s split off ; i t wa s kep t fre e fro m reality-testin g an d remaine d subordinate d to th e pleasur e principl e alone . Thi s activit y i s phantasying" (SE , XII, 222) . "[I]n th e activit y o f phantasy/ ' h e states , "huma n being s continu e t o enjoy th e freedo m fro m externa l compulsio n whic h the y hav e lon g sinc e renounced i n reality " (SE , XVI , 372) . Th e ideationa l representation s o f instincts ar e reflecte d i n desire s an d fears , a s w e wis h fo r pleasurabl e satisfactions an d attemp t t o avoi d unpleasure . "Phantas y ha s th e closes t o f links wit h desire, " an d "desir e ha s it s origi n an d it s prototyp e i n th e experience of satisfaction" (LP , 317) . Lagach e explain s tha t "W e postulat e the existenc e o f unconsciou s fantasie s a s indication s o f desire s o r fear s tha t are no t reveale d a s such ; . . . Ther e is , however , a n indissolubl e lin k between fantas y an d desire : Aristotle' s dictu m . . . tha t ther e i s n o desir e without fantasy , find s it s counterpar t i n th e psychoanalyti c principl e tha t there i s n o fantas y withou t desire—o r withou t fear . Unconsciou s fantas y corresponds t o th e directio n o f th e unconsciou s desire , t o it s goa l an d object." 1 9 There i s a distinctio n t o b e mad e betwee n fantasie s tha t functio n a t th e conscious leve l wher e th e creato r doe s no t realiz e tha t i t i s fantasy , an d the consciou s functio n o f fantasizing , th e daydrea m i n whic h "imagine d satisfactions o f ambitious , megalomanic , eroti c wishes " ca n flourish fre e "from th e assen t o f reality " (SE , XVI , 372) . I n th e daydream , ther e i s n o requirement t o limi t th e pla y o f th e pleasur e principl e b y th e realit y principle. 20 Whe n fantas y an d materia l realit y ar e merge d withi n psychi c reality, th e realit y principl e place s inhibition s o n th e fre e rang e o f fantasy : The first exampl e of th e pleasure-principle bein g inhibited i n thi s way is a familia r one which occur s with regularity . W e know that th e pleasure-principle i s proper t o a primary metho d o f workin g o n th e par t o f th e menta l apparatus , bu t that , fro m the point o f vie w of th e self-preservatio n o f th e organism amon g the difficultie s o f the external world i t is from th e very outset inefficien t an d even highly dangerous . Under th e influence o f th e ego' s instincts o f self - preservation, th e pleasure princi ple i s replace d b y th e reality-principle. Thi s latte r principl e doe s no t abando n th e

The Dialectics of Fantasy intention o f ultimatel y obtainin g pleasure, but i t nevertheles s demand s an d carrie s XIQ into effec t th e postponemen t o f satisfaction , th e abandonmen t o f a numbe r o f possibilities o f gainin g satisfactio n an d th e temporar y toleratio n o f unpleasur e a s a step on the lon g indirect roa d to pleasure. (SE , XVIII, 10)

Unconscious Fantasy To understan d th e functio n o f unconsciou s fantasy , tw o importan t proper ties mus t b e kep t i n mind . Th e firs t i s timelessness . Accordin g t o Freud , "We hav e learn t tha t unconsciou s menta l processe s ar e i n themselve s 'time-less/ Thi s mean s i n th e first plac e tha t the y ar e no t ordere d tempo rally, tha t tim e doe s no t chang e the m i n an y wa y an d tha t th e ide a o f tim e cannot b e applie d t o t h e m " (SE , XVIII , 28) . I f thi s i s so , the n th e uncon scious i s no t transforme d vi a time-linea r progressio n fro m a pre-Oedipal , through th e Oedipal , t o th e post-Oedipa l state . Chang e i s i n term s o f addition. I n th e unconscious , pre-Oedipa l structur e an d conten t coexist s with th e Oedipa l an d post-Oedipal . Th e pre-Oedipa l unconsciou s fantas y structures remai n powerfull y i n forc e an d affec t consciousnes s an d behav ior throughou t a n individual' s life . The secon d propert y i s tha t th e unconsciou s know s n o contradictio n o r negation. Freu d wrot e tha t The nucleu s o f th e Ucs consists o f instinctua l representative s whic h see k t o dis charge thei r cathexis ; tha t i s to say , i t consist s o f wishfu l impulses . Thes e instinc tual impulse s ar e co-ordinat e wit h on e another , exis t sid e b y sid e withou t bein g influenced b y on e another , an d ar e exemp t fro m mutua l contradiction . Whe n tw o wishful impulse s whos e aim s mus t appea r t o u s incompatibl e becom e simultane ously active , the tw o impulses do not diminis h eac h other o r cancel each other out , but combin e to form a n intermediate aim , a compromise. There i s i n thi s syste m n o negation , n o doubt , n o degree s o f certainty : al l thi s i s only introduce d b y th e wor k o f th e censorshi p betwee n th e Ucs an d th e Pes. Negation i s a substitute, a t a higher level , for repression . I n the Ucs there ar e onl y contents, cathected wit h greate r o r lesser strength . (SE , XIV, 186) Since unconsciou s fantasie s neithe r negat e no r contradic t eac h other , they remai n full y an d powerfull y i n forc e withou t bein g weakene d o r diluted. A t th e unconsciou s level , sexual , Eros , ego , self-preservation , an d death instinct s coexist , converge , diverge , reverse , an d conflate , withou t diminishing thei r independen t force . Eve n a t th e leve l o f consciousness , where negatio n an d contradictio n ar e manifest , thei r forc e remain s power -

The Dialectics of Fantasy 120 fu l an d dynami c sinc e the y ar e les s likel y t o b e processe d i n term s o f rationality an d logic . Muc h o f huma n contradictio n ca n b e trace d t o th e influence o f primary instinct s a s manifested throug h pre-Oedipal , Oedipal , and post-Oedipal unconsciou s fantas y structures. 21 Unconscious fantas y ca n profoundl y affec t an d shap e psychi c realit y i n the form s o f desires , wishes , actions , symbols , images , dreams , play , an d artistic creation. 22 Fantasy , i s a "uniqu e focal point wher e i t i s possibl e t o observe the process of transition between th e different psychica l system s in vitro—to observ e th e mechanis m o f repressio n o r o f th e retur n o f th e repressed i n action " (LP , 316) . Th e convergenc e o f daydreams , fantas y material tha t th e individual i s not consciou s of a s fantasy, an d unconsciou s fantasy i s most strikin g wher e th e conten t o f th e fantas y i s sexual. Sexua l fantasies suc h a s thos e induce d b y pornography , fo r example , affec t mal e beliefs a s t o th e natur e o f reality, 23 an d sexua l psychi c realit y i s saturate d with unconsciou s fantasy . Wh y thi s i s th e cas e i s mad e clea r b y Freu d when h e tell s u s tha t "Th e pleasure-principl e lon g persist s . . . a s th e method o f workin g employe d b y th e sexua l instincts , whic h ar e har d t o 'educate' and , startin g fro m thos e instincts , o r i n th e eg o itself , i t ofte n succeeds i n overcomin g th e reality-principle , t o th e detrimen t o f th e or ganism a s a whole (SE , XVIII, 10). The existenc e an d configuratio n o f unconsciou s fantasy , o f course , ca n only b e establishe d b y inferenc e fro m th e structur e o f consciou s fantas y such as daydreams, the conten t o f collectiv e fantasies i n the conscious suc h as myths , an d fro m othe r form s o f psychoanalytica l evidence. 24 Susa n Isaacs wen t s o fa r a s t o asser t an d defen d th e propositio n tha t fantas y i s "the primar y conten t o f unconsciou s menta l processes " an d tha t every thing tha t happen s i n th e unconsciou s unfold s withi n th e framework o f fantasy.25 Accordin g t o Lagache , "Psychoanalytica l investigatio n canno t dispense wit h th e concep t o f unconsciou s fantasy ; . . . ever y psycho-ana lytical interpretation an d construct involves unconscious fantasy " an d "un conscious fantas y i s included i n the reactivatio n o f memor y b y desire." 26 Fantasy i s the "huma n wa y o f fittin g organis m t o environment," 27 an d the process of fantas y constructio n commence s in very earl y infancy a s the psyche develop s i n relationshi p t o th e infant' s bod y an d tha t o f th e mother. 28 Accordin g t o Hook , "Th e earlies t phantasie s ar e abou t bodie s and represen t instinctua l aim s towards objects, servin g from th e beginnin g as a defense agains t tensio n an d anxiety. " 29 "Th e mental representativ e of an instinct, " h e furthe r states , "i s a phantasy , an d th e operatio n o f a n

The Dialectics of Fantasy instinct i s represente d b y a phantasy o f th e satisfactio n o f tha t instinc t b y 121 its appropriat e object . Th e earlies t objec t i s th e breas t o r nipple/' 30 Freu d speaks o f "instinctua l stimuli " tha t aris e fro m withi n th e organis m itsel f rather tha n fro m th e outsid e (SE , XIV, 118). H e refers t o them a s "needs " that ca n onl y b e satisfie d b y "a n appropriat e (adequate ) alteratio n o f th e internal sourc e o f stimulation " (SE , XIV, 119) . Freu d furthe r describe s a n instinct a s " a concep t o n th e frontie r betwee n th e menta l an d th e somatic , as th e psychica l representativ e o f th e stimul i originatin g fro m withi n th e organism an d reachin g th e mind , a s a measure o f th e deman d mad e upo n the min d i n consequenc e o f it s connectio n wit h th e body " (SE , XIV , 121-22).

Freud make s clea r tha t whil e on e ma y spea k o f a n unconsciou s o r a repressed instinctua l impulse , "W e ca n onl y mea n a n instinctua l impuls e the ideationa l representativ e o f whic h i s unconscious , fo r nothin g els e comes int o consideration " (SE , XIV , 177) . H e describe s tha t "On e o f th e vicissitudes an instinctual impuls e may underg o is to meet with resistance s which see k t o mak e i t inoperative . Unde r certai n condition s . . . th e im pulse the n passe s int o th e stat e o f 'repression 7 " (SE , XIV , 146) . Th e essence o f repression , h e states , "lies simply in turning something away, and keeping it at a distance, from the conscious" (SE, XIV , 147) . Th e firs t phase o f repressio n i s wha t Freu d terme d "prima l repression, " whic h is constitute d b y a denia l o f entr y int o consciousnes s o f th e ideationa l representation o f th e instinct . Th e secon d phase , "repressio n proper, " constitutes the denial of the mental derivative s of the repressed representa tion o f th e instinct . Repressio n create s substitut e formation s an d symp toms tha t indicat e a return o f th e represse d materia l int o consciousnes s i n a variety o f differen t form s (SE , XIV, 154). Th e "damming-u p consequen t on frustrate d satisfaction " result s i n an unchecked an d "uninhibite d devel opment i n phantasy. " "I f thes e derivatives, " Freu d states , "hav e becom e sufficiently fa r remove d fro m th e represse d representative , whether owin g to th e adoptio n o f distortion s o r b y reaso n o f th e numbe r o f intermediat e links inserted , the y hav e fre e acces s t o consciousness " (SE , XIV , 149) . Thus, th e "en d product s o f th e unconsciou s fantas y ar e th e consciou s fictions o f though t an d action," 31 whic h on e i s no t awar e o f a s fantasy , even though th e material of th e fantas y i s in consciousness . Repression an d defens e mechanism s serv e t o protec t th e fragil e eg o from th e frustration s o f unfulfille d desir e an d fear . Most , i f no t all , fanta sies take the for m o f explanation , an d explanation s ar e often fantasie s o r a

The Dialectics of Fantasy 122 mixtur e o f fantas y an d reality . Th e explanator y functio n o f fantas y a s ego defense i s implici t i n th e rol e tha t fantas y play s i n comfortin g th e ego . I t justifies Freud' s conclusio n tha t fantas y i s more significan t tha n th e mem ory o f a n actua l historica l even t fo r th e subsequen t cours e o f menta l development, an d carrie s mor e weigh t i n neurosi s tha n doe s externa l re ality. Anna Freu d clarifie d th e rol e playe d b y fantas y a s a n eg o defense. 32 Susan Isaac s stresse s tha t th e defens e mechanism s functio n i n term s o f unconscious fantasy. 33 Sh e define s fantas y "a s th e primar y conten t o f unconscious menta l processes/' 34 Laplanch e an d Pontali s poin t ou t tha t "phantasy i s also the locus of defensiv e operations " (LP , 318). Segal , while pointing ou t the widely recognized rol e of fantasy a s a defense mechanism , suggests that , a t firs t glance , th e rol e o f fantas y a s " a fligh t fro m realit y and a defens e agains t frustration " seem s contradictor y t o th e concep t o f fantasy a s a n expressio n o f instinct . Sh e suggests , however , tha t th e contradiction i s mor e apparen t tha n rea l "sinc e fantas y aim s a t fulfillin g instinctual strivin g i n th e absenc e o f realit y satisfaction " an d tha t "tha t function i n itself i s a defense agains t reality." 35 Give n that (a ) "everythin g that happen s i n th e unconsciou s happen s i n term s o f phantasy " an d "de fense mechanism s operat e o n and modify phantasies," 36 (b ) that fantas y i s rooted i n instinct ; an d (c ) furthe r tha t instinct s lin k th e menta l an d th e physical (SE , XIV, 123) , we ca n onl y conclud e with Freu d tha t th e menta l and th e biologica l ca n neve r b e entirel y separated . "Ma n i s no t a bein g different fro m animal s o r superio r t o them ; h e himsel f i s o f anima l de scent, bein g mor e closel y relate d t o som e specie s an d mor e distantl y t o others" (SE , XVII , 141) . A t th e sam e tim e w e mus t neve r los e sigh t o f Lacan's transformation o f Freudia n psychoanalyti c theor y int o a theory of human cognition . W e ca n trac e th e root s o f unconsciou s fantas y fro m the prima l drive s throug h thei r proliferation s i n th e for m o f substitut e formations, whic h retur n int o consciousnes s i n a variet y o f derivativ e forms, suc h as reversal into the opposite, negation, projection, introjection , condensation (wher e elements o f tw o or more fantasie s combin e to for m a third), and displacement ("wher e catheti c energy attaching to one phantasy is transferre d t o anothe r s o tha t th e secon d stand s i n plac e o f th e firs t i n the distribution o f energ y cathexes"). 37 Psychic realit y consist s o f th e ideationa l representation s tha t ou r mate rial bodie s wil l neithe r permi t u s t o repres s o r deny , an d th e fantas y structures that , withi n th e limit s o f materia l reality , ar e possibl e eve n i f

The Dialectics of Fantasy not reasonable . Thes e ar e integrate d int o a n explanator y mythi c structure . 12} It i s th e inconsistencie s betwee n th e tw o tha t ar e th e bedroc k o f neuroses , and, a s Freu d states , "in the world of the neuroses it is psychic reality which is the decisive kind" (SE , XVI , 368) . Th e distinctio n betwee n th e " I " an d the "not-I " i s essentia l fo r consciousnes s an d th e formatio n o f th e ego , fundamental t o th e concep t o f th e body , a preconditio n o f th e concep t o f reality, an d indispensabl e fo r languag e an d mos t o f it s functions . "Th e form o f fantasy/ 7 a s Benass y an d Diatkin e hav e argued , "depend s upo n th e level o f ego-organization. " 3 8 The y defin e eg o a s "th e syste m o f integrate d action o f th e h u m a n organis m i n it s environment , fantas y bein g a n essen tial elemen t i n th e system" 3 9 an d giv e th e followin g explanation s o f th e ego i n it s relationshi p t o fantasy : (a) Th e ego is an experience, and i t is experienced a s integrated. Thu s we can speak of ego feelings an d ego boundaries. . . . (b) Thi s ego-experienc e ha s psychophysiological , tha t i s physico-chemi cal correlations . . . . I t ha s n o meanin g t o describ e correlation s betwee n a concept an d physico-chemica l events . I t ha s meanin g t o describ e the m be tween a n experienc e an d event s i n th e brain . W e ca n spea k o f a n integrate d interplay between different nervou s functional systems . . . . (c) Th e eg o has a history, an d it s development ca n be described i n term s of successiv e level s o f integration , eac h on e bein g considere d fro m th e phenomenological a s wel l a s fro m th e physico-chemica l poin t o f vie w (o r language). . . . (d) Th e eg o is the fiel d i n whic h conflict s ar e expressed . An y conflic t ca n be describe d a s th e conflic t o f differen t pattern s o f integration , o n th e phenomenological and/o r th e physico-chemical level . (e) Th e objec t relationshi p ca n b e a descriptio n o f th e ego . I t ca n b e considered a s th e experience d integratio n o f th e movemen t fro m subjec t t o object an d back , o r a s th e physico-chemica l integratio n o f th e movemen t from subjec t t o objec t an d back . . . . I f w e ad d tha t pleasur e i s integratin g and unpleasure disintegrating we see how easy it is to consider the ego in th e object relationshi p a s experiencin g a dialectical relationship t o th e world. 40 They conclud e that , "W e se e no w wh y i t i s s o eas y t o connec t fantas y to eg o a s wel l a s t o instincts , whe n w e dea l wit h eg o an d instinct s i n

this way." 41

Fantasy and Myth Each eg o i s constructe d withi n th e framewor k o f psychi c reality . Th e psychic realit y o f eac h individua l i s th e produc t o f th e eg o confrontin g th e

The Dialectics of Fantasy 124 materia l realit y o f th e externa l worl d and , i n th e process , constructin g fantasy configuration s tha t defen d th e eg o agains t th e pai n tha t i s th e inevitable product o f consciousness. I t represses the conten t tha t canno t be integrated int o th e fantas y structure s o f consciou s psychi c reality . Muc h of what goe s on i n eac h sentien t individua l i s a part o f a collective process. Indeed, the concept of the group or collective psyche or mind i s fundamen tal t o psychoanalyti c socia l theory. 42 T o th e degre e tha t human s mak e u p a singl e specie s havin g a commo n biologica l structure , an d t o th e degre e that human s shar e languages , histories , an d cultures , the y wil l shar e psychic realities . T o the degre e tha t the y shar e psychi c realities , they wil l share fantas y structure s an d collectiv e defens e mechanisms . Th e ver y structure of each ego will contain element s that will furnish a configuratio n of sel f o r identity i n terms o f share d factor s suc h as gender, race , nationality, tribe , an d family . Eac h share d identit y i s formulated withi n consciou s fantasy structures : history , religion , morality, an d law . Myths ar e th e fantasie s o f th e collective . T o th e degre e tha t peopl e have simila r instincts , desires , an d fears , the y wil l develo p simila r fantas y structures, whic h will serv e a s collectiv e defens e mechanisms . "Th e wor k of th e myth , lik e the dream work," Hoo k states , "i s to turn thes e phantasies into a form acceptabl e t o the ego ; lik e the dream , th e manifes t conten t of th e myt h i s made u p o f element s draw n fro m th e dail y lif e an d experi ence o f th e people , a s well a s from materia l generall y regarde d a s suitabl e for myth-making." 43 Devereux , i n describin g th e defensiv e function s o f myth, state s tha t "cultur e i n providin g myth s o r belief s fo r th e col d storage of certai n fantasie s an d insights, keeps them ou t o f 'privat e circula tion' " an d "provide s a se t o f standar d defense s against , an d solution s fo r 'type conflicts ' characteristi c of a given cultura l milieu." 44 Like myth , symbol s pla y a n importan t rol e i n psychoanalyti c theory , particularly i n th e analysi s o f dreams . Hoo k point s ou t tha t "Thes e (tim e and space) are also the mechanisms by means of which symbol s are forme d and w e ma y expec t t o fin d a clos e relationshi p betwee n th e stud y o f symbolization an d symboli c thinkin g an d a n understandin g o f primar y process." 45 Symbol , myth , an d ritua l shar e th e functio n o f "th e bindin g and discharg e o f psychica l energy." 46 Collectiv e fantasies , myths , rituals , and symbol s shar e an underlying fantas y structure . Hoo k conclude s tha t What th e psychoanalys t find s whe n h e studie s th e report s o f ethnographer s i s that the materia l " rings true " i n term s o f observation s mad e i n th e psychoanalysi s o f individuals. Tha t i s t o say , o n th e leve l o f primar y proces s th e psychoanalyst' s

The Dialectics of Fantasy observations mad e withi n th e framewor k o f Wester n societ y correspon d wit h 22 5 observations mad e o n materia l fro m othe r culture s widel y disperse d i n tim e an d space. . . . The elucidatio n o f th e psychoanalyti c meanin g o f cultura l product s suc h a s myths, depends upo n th e existenc e o f primitiv e phantasie s an d a "psychi c apparatus " common t o all men—both o f which i t has been th e achievement o f psychoanalysi s to investigat e an d clarify . Myth s an d legends , o f whic h th e classica l exampl e i s Oedipus Rex, hav e furnishe d psychoanalysi s wit h som e o f it s mos t fecun d ma terial. 47

The Original Fantasy Given tha t th e aetiolog y o f fantas y lie s i n th e instinct s o r drives , an d give n that Freu d identifie s wha t h e term s "prima l instincts/ ' w e woul d expec t that somethin g equivalen t t o prima l fantasie s woul d als o b e recognize d b y Freud a s fundamental . H e introduce d th e concep t o f prima l fantas y a s th e Urphantasien, th e prima l o r origina l fantasy . Accordin g t o Freud , origina l fantasies ("th e observatio n o f sexua l intercours e betwee n th e parents , o f seduction, o f castration , an d others'' ) constitut e th e stor e o f unconsciou s fantasies "o f al l neurotics , an d probabl y o f al l huma n beings " (SE , XIV , 269). I n respons e t o Freud' s assertion , Laplanch e an d Pontali s state : "These word s alon e sugges t tha t i t i s no t solel y th e empirica l fac t o f frequency, no r eve n generality , whic h characterize s them . I f 'th e sam e fantasies wit h th e sam e conten t ar e create d o n ever y occasion ' [SE , XVI , 370], if , beneat h th e diversit y o f individua l fable s w e ca n recove r som e 'typical' fantasies , i t i s becaus e th e historica l lif e o f th e subjec t i s no t th e prime mover , bu t rathe r somethin g antecedent , whic h i s capabl e o f op erating a s a n organizer " (FO , 17) . Freud's onl y explanatio n fo r thi s anteceden t featur e wa s tha t o f phylo genesis, whic h woul d locat e i t i n som e "mythica l prehistor y o f th e species " (FO, 17). 4 8 Th e foundatio n o f tha t whic h i s capabl e o f operatin g a s a n organizer, the y say , mus t b e sought , "i n somethin g whic h transcend s bot h individual experienc e an d wha t i s imagined. " "[T]h e discover y o f th e unconscious a s a structura l field , whic h ca n b e reconstructe d . . . accordin g to certai n law s . . . permi t th e ques t fo r origin s t o tak e o n a ne w dimen sion" (FO , 16) . Laplanch e an d Pontali s ar e a t pain s t o poin t out , however , that th e phylogeni c explanatio n ough t no t t o b e replace d b y a structura l one. The y stat e tha t "Th e origina l fantas y i s firs t an d foremos t fantasy —

The Dialectics of Fantasy 126 i t lie s beyon d th e histor y o f th e subjec t bu t nevertheles s i n history— a kind o f languag e an d a symboli c sequence , bu t loade d wit h element s o f imagination; a structure, bu t activate d b y contingen t elements . A s such i t is characterize d b y certai n trait s whic h mak e i t difficul t t o assimilat e t o a purely transcendenta l scheme , eve n i t provide s th e possibilit y o f experi ence" (FO , 18) . Th e structur e o f th e prima l o r origina l fantas y i n th e unconscious mus t b e differentiated fro m th e versio n o f th e fantas y a s it i s manifested i n consciousness . Freu d foun d tha t th e conscious manifestatio n of th e primal fantas y o r fantasies generall y too k a specific se t of forms . H e tells u s tha t "Amon g th e occurrence s whic h recu r agai n an d agai n i n th e youthful histor y o f neurotics—whic h ar e scarcel y eve r absent—ther e ar e a few o f particular importance , which als o deserve on that account , I think, to b e brought int o greate r prominenc e tha n th e rest . A s specimen s o f thi s class I will enumerate these : observatio n o f parental intercourse , seductio n by an adul t an d threa t o f bein g castrated. I t would b e a mistake to suppos e that the y ar e never characterize d b y materia l reality ; o n the contrary , thi s is often establishe d incontestabl y throug h inquirie s fro m olde r members of the patient' s family " (SE , XVI, 368-69). Freu d call s th e scen e o f parenta l coitus "th e primal scene " (LP , 331). In plac e o f Freud' s phylogeneti c explanation , Laplanch e an d Pontali s explain origina l o r prima l fantasie s i n term s o f a "prestructur e whic h i s actualized an d transmitte d b y th e parenta l fantasies " (FO , 27). Mos t chil dren contemplat e th e sexua l relationship s o f thei r parents . Youn g childre n who actuall y d o witnes s thei r parent s i n intercours e wil l hav e tha t imag e fixed i n their minds , and children who don't will project thei r late r conceptions o f intercours e bac k onto thei r parents , a s a part o f thei r understand ing o f wh o an d wha t the y are . Th e prima l scen e i s a n evolvin g fantas y structure whic h change s wit h th e sexua l developmen t o f th e child . Th e image o f th e comin g togethe r o f opposites , o f a penetratin g male , an d a receptive femal e permeate s Oedipalize d relationships . I t i s a n imag e o f a man o n top of a woman. Whether rea l or fantasized , scene s of parenta l intercourse , seductio n b y an adult , an d threat s o f castratio n ar e specifi c conten t tha t reflec t a n underlying structure : If w e conside r th e theme s whic h ca n b e recognize d i n prima l phantasie s (prima l scene, castration , seduction) , th e strikin g thin g i s tha t the y hav e on e trai t i n common: the y ar e al l relate d t o th e origins . Lik e collectiv e myths , the y clai m t o provide a representatio n o f an d a "solution " t o whateve r constitute s a majo r

The Dialectics of Fantasy enigma fo r th e child . Whateve r appear s to the subjec t a s a reality o f suc h a type a s X27 to requir e a n explanatio n o r " theory" thes e phantasie s dramatis e int o th e prima l moment o r origina l poin t o f departur e o f a history. I n the "prima l scene/ ' i t is th e origin o f th e subjec t tha t i s represented; i n seductio n phantasies , i t i s the origi n o r emergence o f sexuality ; i n castratio n phantasies , th e origi n o f th e distinctio n between th e sexes . (LP , 332; FO , 19) The prima l fantas y i s essentia l t o th e developmen t o f th e eg o i n tha t i t provides a n explanatio n an d therefor e a meanin g fo r th e "I"-Subject-self . There ca n b e n o theor y o f origin s withou t explanation , an d n o explanatio n without meaning . Benass y an d Diatkin e write , "A s Jone s (1958 ) sai d o f Freud, 'Fo r hi m a question o f meanin g usuall y becam e a t onc e th e questio n of o r i g i n / Thi s feelin g o f time , o r history , o r evolution , whateve r yo u choose t o cal l it , wa s s o stron g i n Freu d tha t w e coul d sa y i t i s the hallmar k of hi s wa y o f thinking." 4 9 A theor y o f th e sel f o r th e " I " mus t no t onl y contain a n explanatio n o f th e origi n o f th e individua l bu t mus t als o accoun t for o r explai n th e bod y an d it s relationshi p t o th e externa l environment . I t must, therefore , explai n origin . A n explanatio n o f origi n mus t incorporat e difference. Differenc e entail s limitatio n an d th e recognitio n o f limitatio n i s to suffe r a loss . Th e structur e o f origina l fantasies , therefore , i s tha t o f origin, difference , an d limitatio n o r loss . Laplanche write s tha t "T o b e sure , th e necessit y o f affirming the primal or originary, bot h i n th e for m o f th e 'individua l m y t h ' an d i n historica l o r prehistorical m y t h , ma y b e identifie d a s on e o f th e fundamental , foundin g orientations o f Freud' s thought " (L&D , 123) . Th e child' s questions : W h o am I ? Wha t a m I ? A m I a femal e o r a male ? A m I o r a m I no t someon e capable o f procreating ? ar e it s ques t fo r origin s an d th e structur e o f uncon scious fantasy . Laca n explains : There i s nevertheless on e thin g tha t evade s th e symboli c tapestry , it' s procreatio n in it s essentia l root—tha t on e bein g i s born fro m another . I n th e symboli c orde r procreation i s covere d b y th e orde r institute d b y thi s successio n betwee n beings . But nothin g i n th e symboli c explain s th e fac t o f thei r individuation , th e fac t tha t beings com e fro m beings . Th e entir e symbolis m declare s tha t creature s don' t engender creatures , tha t a creature i s unthinkable withou t a fundamental creation . In the symboli c nothing explain s creation . Nor doe s anythin g explai n wh y som e being s mus t di e fo r other s t o b e born . There i s a n essentia l relationshi p betwee n sexua l reproductio n an d th e appearanc e of death , th e biologist s say , an d i f thi s i s tru e the n i t show s tha t they , too , mul l over th e sam e question . Th e questio n o f wha t link s tw o being s i n th e appearanc e of life onl y arise s for a subject whe n h e or sh e is in the symbolic , realized a s a man

The Dialectics of Fantasy 128 o r a s a woman, bu t s o long a s an acciden t ha s prevented hi m o r he r for m accedin g to it. Thi s may just as easily occur to anyone by virtue of his or her biographical accidents. Freud raise s these sam e issues i n th e background o f Beyond the Pleasure Principle. Just a s lif e reproduce s itself , s o it' s force d t o repea t th e sam e cycle , rejoinin g the commo n ai m o f death . Fo r Freu d thi s reflect s hi s experience . Eac h neurosi s reproduces a particula r cycl e i n th e orde r o f th e signifie r o n th e basi s o f th e question tha t man' s relationshi p t o the signifie r a s such raises . There is , in effect , somethin g radically unassimilabl e t o th e signifier . It' s quit e simply th e subject' s singula r existence . Wh y i s he here? Where has he come from ? What i s he doing here ? Wh y i s he going to disappear? Th e signifie r i s incapable of providing hi m wit h th e answer , fo r th e goo d reaso n tha t i t place s hi m beyon d death. Th e signifie r alread y consider s him dead , by nature i t immortalizes him . As such , th e questio n o f deat h i s anothe r mod e o f th e neuroti c creatio n o f th e question—its obsessiona l mode . ( S III, 179-80 ) Freud notice d tha t " A child' s intellectua l interes t i n th e riddle s o f sex , his desir e fo r sexua l knowledge , show s itsel f accordingl y a t a n unexpect edly earl y age " (SE , IX , 134) . H e state s tha t "A t abou t th e sam e tim e a s the sexua l lif e o f childre n reache s it s firs t peak , betwee n th e age s o f thre e and five , the y als o begi n t o sho w sign s o f th e activit y whic h ma y b e ascribed t o th e instinc t fo r knowledge . . . . [T]h e firs t proble m wit h whic h it deal s i s th e riddl e o f wher e babie s com e from " (SE , VII , 194-95) . I t i s the oldes t an d mos t burnin g questio n tha t confront s immatur e humanity " (SE, IX , 135) . Th e questio n o f wher e d o babie s com e fro m i s a wa y o f asking "Wher e d o I com e from? " Th e chil d seek s a n explanatio n o f it s origin i n orde r t o gai n a sens e o f sel f o r identity . "Thi s [th e questio n where babie s com e from] , i n a distorte d for m whic h ca n easil y b e rectified , is th e sam e riddl e tha t wa s propounde d b y th e Theba n Sphinx " (SE , VII , 194-95). I n this , "th e first , gran d proble m o f lif e . . . w e see m t o hea r th e echoes o f thi s firs t riddl e i n innumerabl e riddle s o f myt h an d legend " (SE , IX, 213) . Th e sexua l theorie s o f childre n a s symboli c creation s i n respons e to th e neuroti c compulsion s o f th e emergin g eg o "repl y t o th e sam e necessities a s d o m y t h s " (E , 168)—th e deman d fo r a n explanatio n o f origin a s essentia l fo r a conceptualizatio n o f th e ego . The questio n o f origi n fo r th e chil d canno t b e separate d fro m tha t o f it s relationship t o it s mother , eve n whe n th e conten t o f a prima l o r origina l fantasy o f a particular chil d i s tha t o f th e prima l scene . Th e prima l fantasy , therefore, wil l b e roote d i n separatio n an d engulfmen t anxiety , th e narcis sistic woun d a s a resul t o f th e los s o f th e stat e o f prima l omnipotenc e an d

The Dialectics of Fantasy narcissistic bliss, and infan t sexualit y i n relationshi p t o th e mother . Ever y 129 child is born o f a mother an d soone r o r later become s consciously awar e of this fact . Accordin g t o Freud , i t i s in relatio n t o th e mothe r wh o th e chil d first experience s difference ; i t i s th e mothe r wh o firs t awaken s sexua l desire i n th e infant ; an d i t i s in relatio n t o th e mothe r tha t th e chil d firs t experiences th e desir e for , o r fea r of , castration . Th e Oedipu s comple x of the male child reflect s a desire fo r (re)unio n wit h th e mother, i n which th e desire t o recove r th e stat e o f narcissisti c bliss by (re)unitin g th e sel f i n th e mother converge s with th e eroti c feelings o f emergin g sexuality . Th e mal e child wishes t o give himself, with hi s penis, to the mother , whic h i s to sa y that th e chil d wishe s t o becom e a gif t o f th e phallu s t o th e mother . H e shall b e th e phallu s a t th e disposa l o f th e mother . Th e pric e o f th e gift , however, i s th e surrende r o f th e self . Laplanch e an d Pontali s explai n tha t "If w e ad d tha t Freu d constantl y insiste d o n th e seductiv e rol e o f th e mother (o r o f others , whe n sh e washes, dresse s o r caresse s he r child ) [SE , VII, 223] , an d i f w e not e als o tha t th e naturall y erogenou s zone s (oral , anal, uro-genital, skin) , are not onl y those which most attract the mother' s attention, bu t als o those which hav e an obvious exchang e value (orifice s o r skin covering ) w e ca n understan d ho w certai n chose n part s o f th e bod y may no t onl y serv e t o sustai n a local pleasure, but als o be a meeting plac e with materna l desir e an d fantasy , an d thu s wit h on e for m o f origina l fantasy. . . . B y locatin g th e origi n o f fantas y i n th e auto-eroticism , w e have shown th e connectio n betwee n fantas y an d desire" (FO , 26). Each individua l passe s throug h thre e crises : separation , i n whic h th e individual suffer s th e los s o f narcissisti c blis s an d omnipotenc e a s th e psyche o f th e infan t begin s t o differentiat e betwee n itsel f an d th e mothe r (which i n tur n produce s th e dialectica l conflic t o f separatio n an d en gulf ment anxiety) ; genderization , wherei n th e sel f i s conceptualize d a s masculine o r feminine ; an d th e animalit y crisis , wherein th e sel f internal izes or incorporates th e limitations of its mind an d body. Thes e three crise s mark the three stages of individuation: th e pre-Oedipal, Oedipal, and postOedipal.50 At every stag e of development, th e individual will have a theory of it s sel f directe d towar d birth , sexuality , an d death—al l o f whic h wil l reflect th e fundamenta l structur e o f origina l fantasy—origin , difference sexuality, an d limitation-castration . Birt h i s origin; se x is differentiated i n terms o f gende r an d deat h i n term s o f ultimat e castration . Freu d conceive d of th e fea r o f deat h a s " a developmen t o f th e fea r o f castration " (SE , XIX, 58).

The Dialectics of Fantasy 130 Th e Oedipal passag e connote s a shift t o a secondary prima l fantasy , th e Father Fantasy . Th e father own s the mother and , by owning her, owns her child. Origi n i s i n th e nam e o f th e father , an d th e peni s become s th e source o f life . Th e retur n t o th e mothe r i s forbidden , an d th e desir e t o make th e gif t o f th e phallu s become s th e root s o f th e fea r o f castration . The Fathe r Prima l Fantas y doe s no t replac e th e Mothe r Prima l Fantasy . Both coexis t i n th e unconscious , thoug h onl y th e conten t o f th e Fathe r Primal Fantas y maintain s itsel f i n consciousness . Though th e prima l scen e may focu s o n parenta l intercourse , the prima l fantasy, o f which the primal scene is a part, does not. I t includes the child' s view of growin g insid e the mothe r an d being born. Childre n as k question s about wher e the y com e from . I t i s their origi n tha t i s of primar y concern . It i s onl y late r tha t th e prima l scen e i s wove n int o th e prima l fantasy , which i s whateve r th e chil d believe s it s origin s t o be . Th e child' s prima l fantasy, whe n i t includes a n image, real or imaginary, o f th e primal scene , and the child' s birth continu e to be an ongoing conjunction o f opposites, of hierarchies—a fathe r o n to p an d a mother , wh o i s th e sourc e o f lif e an d nourishment, o n bottom .

Original Fantasies of the Collective The origina l fantas y o f th e collective , b y whic h w e for m ou r sens e o f self, wil l hav e tw o forms : primar y an d privileged . Eac h wil l contai n a fundamental o r maste r signifie r t o which al l others i n th e chai n o f signifi cation wil l relate . Th e maste r signifie r wil l ge t it s meanin g from , an d giv e meaning to , the othe r signifier s i n th e chain . Th e primary origina l fantas y will more closel y confor m t o material reality , an d th e privileged wil l mor e closely confor m t o the neuroti c structure o f th e symptoms . The primar y an d privilege d form s o f th e origina l fantas y ar e dialec tically relate d i n tha t the y furnis h alternativ e interpretation s o f th e signi fied. Becaus e th e privilege d origina l fantas y an d it s signifier s ar e derive d from primar y fantas y an d th e privilege d origina l fantas y i s privilege d a s the standar d i n language , th e tw o form s o f origina l fantas y wil l reflec t th e dialectical tension s existin g betwee n th e sexua l an d eg o drive s o r th e Ero s and Thanato s drives . Th e primar y for m o f origina l fantas y wil l reflec t primary neuroses , an d th e privilege d wil l reflec t th e for m o f th e neuroti c symptoms o f eg o defense suc h a s reversal, negation, an d sublimation . Th e privileged for m o f th e origina l fantas y wil l be the norm , an d the represse d

The Dialectics of Fantasy primary for m wil l b e th e perverse . Thus , normalit y i s a for m o f madnes s 131 when th e primar y i s repressed an d th e secondar y i s privileged. I t is in thi s way tha t w e ca n comprehen d Lacan' s vie w tha t th e symptom s ar e trul y structured i n language . Origina l fantas y i s the unifyin g explanatio n com bining an d underlyin g al l o f th e fundamenta l dialectic s o r dichotomie s o f language—contrasts, metaphorica l comparisons , an d metonymica l identi ties suc h a s male/female , man/nature , body/soul , human/animal , an d womb/phallus. If Laca n i s correc t i n hi s assertio n tha t th e unconsciou s i s structure d like a language , the n i t i s ver y likel y tha t th e unconsciou s i s structure d ideationally. Conversely , if the instincts are represented i n the unconsciou s ideationally, a s i s asserte d b y Freud , the n i t mus t follo w tha t th e uncon scious i s structure d lik e a language, an d th e conten t o f th e origina l fanta sies will be ideational representation s o f separatio n an d engulfmen t anxie ties an d fear s an d th e emergin g sexua l "instincts. " Accordin g t o Hook , "Elementary phantasie s ar e no t los t bu t persis t an d underg o transforma tion int o comple x phantasie s whic h ma y b e take n ove r b y th e secondar y process an d buil t int o suc h complicate d construction s a s models or picture s of worl d orde r . . . an d othe r culturall y importan t derivatives/' 51 A s th e child develops , th e conten t o f origina l fantasies , a s they ar e manifeste d i n consciousness, wil l transfor m a s th e natur e o f th e fear s an d desire s ar e modified b y th e contingencie s o f living . Th e underlying structur e wil l stil l remain: origin-differenc e o r seduction-loss , limitatio n o r castration . Th e ideational structur e o f "mother " an d "father " wil l incorporat e th e ide ational structur e o f th e parentall y base d prima l o r origina l fantasie s o f the collective . Thes e fantasie s o f th e individua l wil l incorporat e mythi c structures o f origin , seduction , an d castration . Languaging als o serve s a n explanator y functio n tha t i s generall y use d to give meaning t o differentiations an d ofte n take s the form o f a narrative. The foundational explanatio n o f huma n cognitiv e life i s the grand stor y o r narrative tha t explain s wh o an d wha t w e ar e i n relatio n t o tha t whic h w e are no t an d explain s wha t "tha t whic h i s no t th e self " actuall y is . Th e structure o f suc h explanation s inevitabl y account s fo r origins , differences , and th e limitation s tha t bein g a sel f entail . Th e narrativ e o f explanatio n commences wit h descriptiv e differentiation s betwee n th e processes tha t w e call birth , copulation , an d death . Metaphorically , o r i n fantasy , the y ar e given meanin g i n terms o f origin, seduction , an d castration. Fantas y struc tures ar e represente d i n term s o f symbol s an d metaphor s tha t ar e wove n

The Dialectics of Fantasy 132 int o narratives . A people's vie w of themselve s a s a collective is formulate d out o f th e structur e o f th e prima l parenta l fantasie s an d i s saturate d wit h symbols an d metaphor s draw n fro m th e primal fantasie s o f th e individual . Symbols o f mother , father , sister , brother , daughter , son , birth , death , breast, womb , an d peni s permeat e huma n mythi c structures , an d theme s of creation , seduction , an d castration infus e thei r narratives . These collectiv e prima l o r origina l fantasie s ar e representation s o f col lective instincts , collectiv e projection s functionin g a s collectiv e defens e mechanisms. Eve n i n contemporar y societies , our gran d theorie s o r expla nations o f th e world, the cosmos, and our place within i t are the product of "primary proces s thinking/ ' onl y somewha t limite d b y hars h reality . W e still conceptualize in terms o f mother nature , mother earth , the fatherland , and brotherhood ; th e Eterna l Fathe r i s stil l i n Hi s heaven , an d w e stil l conquer an d tam e natur e an d vie w ourselve s a s the pinnacl e o f a progressive evolutionary process . A s Hook states , "Th e primary unit s o f thinkin g are phantasies , simpl e o r complex , an d th e basi c operation o f th e primar y process is their manipulatio n b y symbolization , on e coming to stand i n th e place o f anothe r i n a n endles s series . Thi s i s th e basi s o f Ernes t Jones ' statement tha t civilizatio n i s th e resul t o f a n endles s proces s o f symboli c substitutions, whils t Melani e Klei n sa w i n symbolizatio n th e proces s b y means o f which the infant apprehend s realit y an d endow s it with value." 52 The sexua l an d eg o instinct s exis t "sid e b y side " i n th e unconscious , without negatio n o r contradictio n an d without on e deleting th e instinctua l force of the other. The y both will be represented a s primal fantasies havin g the unconsciou s psychi c realit y structure d a s origin-seduction-castration , whether a s unconsciou s fantas y o r a s consciou s fantas y no t recognize d a s fantasy. I n consciousness , th e Ero s instinctua l fantas y wil l contradic t th e ego instinctua l fantasy . Ther e wil l b e a dialectica l tension , on e whic h i s nonexistent a t the unconscious level . In th e prima l fantasy , th e sexua l instinc t wil l b e shape d b y materia l reality. Th e eg o wil l differentiat e betwee n lif e an d tha t whic h i s not-life , and th e distinctio n wil l be based o n reproduction . Th e classification wil l be given a hierarchical ordering , with lif e being more highly value d tha n not life. A furthe r fundamenta l distinctio n wil l b e draw n betwee n th e femal e and mal e in term s o f tha t which ca n reproduce and that whic h cannot , tha t which i s primary i n th e proces s o f reproductio n an d tha t whic h i s second ary. Fo r th e reproductio n narrative , th e femal e wil l b e give n a mor e prominent positio n tha n wil l th e mal e insofa r a s sh e i s primar y an d h e

The Dialectics of Fantasy secondary. Th e proces s b y whic h th e mal e wil l b e sexuall y arouse d an d 133 driven t o copulat e wit h th e femal e wil l b e explaine d withi n th e fantas y narrative a s a seductio n tha t produce s th e eroticall y drive n desir e t o sur render hi s phallu s t o th e femal e o r t o plac e it a t he r service . Th e desir e of the male will be to fulfill th e desir e of th e female . A t the level of consciou s fantasy th e lif e o f th e individua l wil l b e give n meanin g b y flowin g along side o r followin g th e pat h o f natur e o r Eros . Childre n wil l b e highl y valued. Female s will sacrifice fo r childre n an d male s for females . The eg o instinct o r drive , although havin g th e prima l origin-seduction castration structur e o f unconscious wish an d fantasy, wil l manifest itsel f i n a ver y differen t an d contradictor y narrativ e a t th e leve l o f consciou s fan tasy. Origi n wil l b e explaine d i n term s o f mal e "creation/ ' Th e sexua l dependency o f th e mal e o n th e femal e wil l be felt an d feare d a s a threat t o the ego. 53 Copulatio n wil l b e see n a s a loss, a giving u p o f something— a threat t o th e boundarie s o f th e ego . Th e female wil l be viewed a s castrate d so that sh e ca n b e objectifie d an d therefor e "fucked " withou t a surrender . The eroti c desir e fo r castratio n wil l b e replace d b y a fear o f th e castratin g female i n th e eg o instinctua l prima l fantasy . Th e meanin g o f lif e wil l b e found i n rebellin g against an d transcending nature . There i s overwhelmin g symboli c an d mythi c evidence , a s reflecte d i n artifacts an d ancien t text s fro m aroun d th e world , tha t fo r thousand s o f years a prima l fantas y havin g a commo n structur e o f origin-seduction castration ha s permeate d th e collectiv e psyche . Thi s i s a collective projec tion o f th e unconsciou s origina l fantasy . Th e centra l figure s o f th e narra tive ar e th e Mothe r Goddes s an d th e Consor t So n o r Love r wh o fertilize s her. Th e symbols are wombs, breasts, and penises—the phallic representa tions o f th e reproductiv e organs . Th e narrative s hav e a commo n script . The Consor t i s seduce d int o surrenderin g hi s phallu s a s a voluntary sacri fice to the Mother . Th e seductio n entail s a castration. Th e castration i s the gift o f the phallus to the Mother . On e of the most common symbol s of th e male phallu s i s th e serpent . Th e serpen t i s generall y i n th e Goddess' s possession; sh e hold s i t i n he r hand , ha s i t wrappe d aroun d he r waist , o r has serpent s a s hai r a s i n th e cas e o f th e Medusa . Th e gif t o f th e phallu s was ritualize d i n term s o f th e sacrific e o f th e sacre d king— a mal e anima l substitute—or ritua l castration . Th e Lord-Consor t t o the Mothe r Goddes s was th e go d o f th e los s o f boundarie s o f th e self , a s in Dionysu s o r Shiva , for i n th e fina l analysi s th e surrende r o f hi s phallu s t o th e Mothe r entail s the sacrific e o f hi s ego . Thes e myth s i n tur n ar e th e sourc e o f set s o f

The Dialectics of Fantasy 134 secondar y myth s tha t focu s o n singl e theme s suc h a s seductio n o r cas tration. For th e las t severa l thousan d years , th e prima l myt h o f th e collectiv e remained mostl y i n the unconscious. Conside r fo r a moment th e prolifera tion o f museu m artifacts : th e roc k carvin g goddes s o f Laussel , circ a 22,000-18,000 B.C. ; th e mammot h ivor y goddes s o f Lespugue , 20,000 18,000 B.C. ; th e mammot h ivor y hea d o f a goddes s circ a 22,00 0 B.C. , found a t Brassempouy , Landes , France ; th e magnificen t goddes s o f Wil lendorf, circ a 20,000-18,00 0 B.C. ; th e cla y goddess , 20,00 0 B.C. , found a t Dolni, Vestonice , Czechoslovakia ; th e mammot h ivor y goddes s figure , circa 16,000-13,00 0 B.C. , foun d a t Mal'ta , Siberia ; th e powerfu l Mothe r Goddess figur e seate d o n a throw n betwee n tw o lion s o r leopards , circ a 6000-5,800 B.C. , foun d a t Cata l Huyuk , Anatolia ; th e man y goddes s figurines foun d a t Malta ; an d th e serpent-holdin g Minoa n goddesse s o f Crete—to nam e bu t a few . Compar e thes e wit h th e amoun t o f attentio n they hav e receive d i n academia , whethe r th e subjec t are a i s history , reli gion, literature, anthropology, archeology , the classics, law, or philosophy . Surely thi s reflect s a collective repression . The list o f goddesse s an d thei r so n lover s o r consort s ar e many: Inann a and Dumuz i i n Sumeria , Ishta r an d Tammu z i n Babylonia , Isi s and Osiri s in Egypt , Cybel e an d Atti s i n Anatolia , Aphrodit e an d Adoni s i n Greece , and Parvat i an d Shiv a i n India . Theme s o f seductio n an d th e ritua l o f sacrifice-castration ar e prevalen t i n th e fantas y structure s o f th e ancien t past. I n moder n times , the primal Ero s fantasy manifest s itself , o n the on e hand, i n term s o f a resurgin g interes t i n an d a n attemp t t o reproduc e th e rituals o f matriarcha l paganis m an d ancient fertilit y rite s and , o n the othe r hand, i n term s o f mal e eroti c fantasies o f dominatio n b y powerfu l female s as wel l a s masochistic , ritualisti c sexua l practices , wel l serve d b y th e por nography industry . While th e Ero s primal fantas y i s structured b y materia l reality , th e eg o primal fantas y i s in direc t contradictio n t o materia l realit y an d serve s a s a defense mechanis m agains t it , particularl y fo r th e male . Th e eg o instinc tual prima l fantas y i s a paradig m exampl e o f wha t Sega l describe s a s fantasy aime d a t "fulfillin g instinctua l strivin g i n th e absenc e o f realit y satisfaction" an d thu s function s a s a defense agains t reality. 54 Som e of th e most commo n form s tha t defens e mechanism s tak e ar e thos e suc h a s "reversal int o th e opposite , negatio n an d projection " (LP , 318) . Sinc e (a ) the sexua l an d eg o instinct s ar e conceptuall y represente d i n fantas y i n

The Dialectics of Fantasy terms o f th e conceptua l oppositiona l structur e o f lif e an d deat h an d (b ) 13s since th e structur e o f th e Ero s fantas y i s shape d i n conformit y wit h material reality—an d th e eg o fantas y i s a defens e mechanis m agains t material reality—i t become s clear why th e primal eg o fantasy i s a reversal of, i n opposition to , and a negation o f th e primal Ero s fantasy . The paradig m scrip t o f th e narrativ e o f th e prima l Ero s fantas y i s tha t of the Great Eart h Mothe r Goddes s who gives birth t o life. Sh e is projected onto th e cosmos . He r Love r So n o r Consor t i s seduce d int o voluntaril y sacrificing himsel f i n som e for m o f symboli c castratio n whereb y h e is tor n apart, dismembered , o r rituall y sacrifice d t o fertilize th e eart h an d i s again reborn, wit h th e cycl e eve r repeatin g itself . Th e Judeo-Christian-Islami c tradition i s th e paradig m exampl e o f th e prima l eg o fantasy , wit h Chris tianity a s a n almos t revers e mirro r imag e o f th e Ero s primal fantasy . Th e Consort i s replace d b y th e Fathe r wh o i s projecte d ont o th e cosmos . Th e Great Eart h Mothe r Goddes s i s replaced b y the Sk y God Heavenl y Father . Origin b y reproductio n i s replaced b y origi n b y creatio n throug h a n actio n of pure thought—the exercis e of th e will: 1. I n the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. 2. An d th e eart h wa s without form , an d void ; an d darknes s wa s upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. 3. An d God said, Let there be light: and there was light.55 Freud describe s th e mythi c proces s o f creatio n b y a n ac t o f wil l o r th e speaking o f word s "th e omnipotenc e o f thoughts' ' (SE , XIV, y$). Wherea s metaphorical explanatio n o f origi n i n term s o f birt h o r th e hatchin g o f a cosmic eg g i s a fantas y representatio n o f materia l reality , creatio n b y mental projectio n i s a denial o f anythin g w e know in material reality . In th e Ero s primal fantasy , ma n i s born o f woman , wherea s i n th e eg o primal fantas y th e man i s created firs t an d the woman i s taken fro m him : 7. An d the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; an d man became a living soul. 21. An d th e Lor d Go d cause d a deep slee p t o fal l upo n Adam , an d h e slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. 22. An d th e rib , which th e Lor d Go d ha d take n fro m man , mad e h e a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23. An d Ada m said , Thi s i s no w bon e o f m y bones , an d fles h o f m y flesh: sh e shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 56 And thu s w e hav e origi n i n term s o f creatio n a s oppose d t o reproduction . "The mothe r i s no paren t o f tha t whic h i s called he r child , bu t onl y nurs e

The Dialectics of Fantasy 136 o f th e new-plante d see d tha t grows . Th e paren t i s h e wh o mounts . A stranger sh e preserve s a stranger' s seed. " 5 7 In th e Ero s prima l m y t h , th e serpen t i s th e symbo l o f th e mal e phallus , which i s give n t o th e Mothe r a s a sacrificia l gift . Th e Mothe r i s alway s i n possession o f th e serpent , th e symboli c representatio n o f th e mal e penis . Thus, th e Consor t i s castrate d i n tha t hi s eg o i s sacrifice d fo r th e sak e o f ongoing life . Th e seductio n i s a positiv e act . Th e sacrific e i s mad e sacred , and th e sexua l is , fo r th e male , a n eroticall y drive n gif t rathe r tha n th e sexual satisfactio n o f th e self . I n th e eg o prima l fantasy , th e serpen t i s th e cursed tempter , th e seductio n i s evil , an d th e woma n i s castrated . 13. An d th e Lor d Go d sai d unt o th e woman , Wha t i s this tha t tho u has t done? And th e woman said , The serpent beguile d me , and I did eat . 14. An d th e Lor d Go d sai d unt o th e serpent , Becaus e tho u has t don e this, thou ar t cursed abov e all cattle, and abov e every beast of th e field; upo n thy bell y shal t tho u go , and dus t shal t tho u ea t all the days of th y life . 15. An d I wil l pu t enmit y betwee n the e an d th e woman , an d betwee n thy see d and her seed ; i t shall bruise thy head, and thou shal t bruise his heel. 16. Unt o th e woma n h e said , I will greatl y multipl y th y sorro w an d th y conception; i n sorro w tho u shal t brin g fort h children ; an d th y desir e shal l be to thy husband , an d he shal l rule over thee. 58 Castration befall s th e woma n rathe r tha n th e man , an d th e gif t o f th e male phallu s i s forbidden . Fo r th e mal e t o giv e th e phallus , an d fo r th e female t o accep t it , i s th e origina l sin , th e epitom e o f perversion , an d th e essence o f rebellio n agains t th e La w o f th e Father . Th e sacre d dyin g so n i s sacrificed t o fulfil l th e wil l o f th e Fathe r an d i s the n resurrected . Afte r thi s sacrifice, n o mal e need s t o rene w th e sacrifice . Pa n o r Dionysus , th e Consort, die s whe n Chris t mount s th e cross . Th e horne d Consor t become s the Christia n devil , an d th e symbol s o f deat h prevai l ove r life .

The Primary and Privileged Positioning of Jouissance The puissances o f dominatio n an d submissio n manifes t th e structur e o f unconscious fantasy , whic h i n tur n i s reflecte d i n th e structur e o f psychi c reality an d o f th e imaginar y an d th e symbolic . Laca n state s tha t We ar e face d wit h a worl d o f language , whic h ever y no w an d then , give s u s th e impression tha t ther e i s somethin g essentiall y neutralizing , uncertai n abou t it . There isn't on e philosopher wh o hasn't insisted , and rightl y so , on the fact tha t th e

The Dialectics of Fantasy very possibilit y o f erro r i s tie d t o th e existenc e o f language . Eac h subjec t doesn' t 13 7 simply hav e t o tak e cognizanc e o f th e world , a s i f i t al l happene d o n th e leve l o f noetics, he ha s t o fin d hi s way abou t i n it . I f psychoanalysi s mean s anything , i t i s that h e i s alread y engage d i n somethin g whic h ha s a relatio n wit h languag e without bein g identica l t o it , an d tha t h e ha s t o fin d hi s wa y abou t i n it—th e universal discourse . The concrete, universal discourse, which has been unfolding sinc e the beginnin g of time , is what ha s truly bee n sai d or rathe r reall y been said—t o fi x our ideas, we can ge t t o tha t point . Th e subjec t locate s himsel f a s suc h i n relatio n t o that , h e i s inscribed i n it , tha t i s how h e is already determined , b y a determination belongin g to a totall y differen t registe r fro m tha t o f th e determination s o f th e real , o f th e material metabolism s whic h cause d hi m t o com e fort h int o thi s semblanc e o f existence which hi s life. Hi s function, i n s o far a s he continues thi s discourse , is to rediscover hi s plac e i n it , no t simpl y a s orator , but , her e an d now , a s entirel y determined b y it . ( S II, 282-83 ) The capacit y t o procreat e an d th e procreativ e power s o f n a t u r e — t h e meta phorical relationshi p betwee n th e femal e bod y an d th e natura l world—ar e essential t o th e prima l fantasy . Onl y female s reproduce , an d i t i s thi s tha t has "give n ris e t o th e grea t fantas y o f natura mater, th e ver y ide a o f nature, i n relatio n t o whic h ma n portray s hi s origina l inadequac y t o himself" ( S 1,149) . Ver y youn g childre n soo n lear n th e fact s o f life—tha t they ar e bor n o f mothers . "A s t o th e child , there' s no t a shado w o f doubt—whether mal e o r female , i t locate s th e phallu s ver y earl y o n and , we're told , generousl y grant s i t t o th e mother. " ( S III , 319) . I t i s no t th e phallus specificall y tha t th e chil d grant s t o th e mother , i t i s th e generativ e power o f n a t u r e — t h e powe r o f origins—tha t th e chil d recognize s i n th e mother, an d th e chil d wishe s t o b e th e objec t o f th e mother' s desire . I f th e child learn s tha t th e mothe r need s somethin g els e t o complet e th e genera tive power , th e chil d wishe s t o furnis h i t o r b e it . I t i s th e proces s o f Oedipal genderizatio n an d sexualizatio n tha t split s th e generativ e powe r o f nature fro m th e mothe r an d identifie s i t wit h th e fathe r whe n th e peni s becomes th e phallus . Laca n point s ou t tha t Thus, t o begi n with , w e ca n formulat e mor e correctl y th e Kleinia n fac t tha t th e child apprehend s fro m th e outse t tha t th e mothe r "contains " th e phallus . Bu t i t i s the dialecti c o f th e deman d fo r lov e an d th e tes t o f desir e whic h dictate s th e orde r of development . The demand fo r lov e can only suffe r fro m a desire whose signifie r i s alien t o it . If the desir e of th e mother is the phallus, then th e child wishes to be the phallus s o as to satisf y thi s desire . Thu s th e divisio n immanen t t o desir e alread y make s itsel f felt i n th e desir e o f th e Other , sinc e i t stop s th e subjec t fro m bein g satisfie d wit h

The Dialectics of Fantasy l?8 presentin g t o th e Othe r anythin g rea l i t migh t have whic h correspond s t o th e phallus—what h e ha s bein g wort h n o mor e tha n wha t h e doe s no t hav e a s fa r a s his demand fo r lov e is concerned, which requires tha t he be the phallus. (FS , 83) The primar y fantas y i s represse d b y th e privileged . Henc e th e dialectics . The primar y fantas y i s th e trut h i n th e li e o f th e privilege d fantasy . I t lie s underneath an d betwee n th e line s o f th e privileged . Whateve r for m a privileged fantas y ma y take , ther e wil l li e betwee n th e lines , an d under neath th e text , it s dialectica l oppositio n i n th e for m o f a primar y fantasy . It i s th e privilege d rathe r tha n th e primar y maste r signifie r tha t structure s language—hence culture , henc e institutions , henc e gender . "S o th e pac t of speec h goe s fa r beyon d th e individua l relatio n an d it s imaginar y vicissi tudes—there's n o nee d t o loo k ver y dee p int o experienc e t o gras p it . Bu t there i s a conflic t betwee n thi s symboli c pac t an d th e imaginar y relation s which proliferat e spontaneousl y withi n ever y libidina l relation " ( S II, 261). A psychoanalyti c postmoder n feminis m assume s tha t th e femal e i s primary an d th e mal e secondary , tha t th e mal e ha s bee n an d presentl y i s privileged an d th e femal e repressed . Betwee n th e primar y an d th e privi leged th e dynamic s o f dominatio n an d submissio n ca n g o eithe r way . Th e human develop s hi s o r he r sens e o f sel f withi n th e reversibl e dialectic s o f domination an d suppression , withi n a dialectic s o f th e primar y an d th e privileged. Bot h primac y an d privileg e ar e determine d b y languag e an d formulated withi n th e structur e o f language . Bot h primar y an d privilege d original fantasie s shar e th e sam e structur e o f unconsciou s psychi c reality , of origin , difference , an d limitation , tha t pla y ou t a s th e generativ e powe r of nature , seduction , an d castration . Eac h fantas y i s a chai n o f significatio n structured b y a maste r signifier . I n orde r fo r th e privilege d signifie r t o exist withi n th e structur e o f language , th e primar y signifie r ha d t o com e first. Th e relationshi p betwee n th e primar y maste r signifie r an d th e privi leged maste r signifie r i s tha t o f oppositiona l signification : [T]he notio n o f th e comin g o f th e day , i s somethin g tha t i s properl y speakin g ungraspable i n an y reality . Th e oppositio n betwee n da y an d nigh t i s a signifyin g opposition, which goe s infinitely beyon d al l the meaning s i t may ultimatel y cover , indeed beyon d ever y kin d o f meaning . I f I took da y an d nigh t a s examples, it' s of course becaus e ou r subjec t i s man an d woman . Th e signifie r man an d th e signifie r woman ar e somethin g othe r tha n a passiv e attitud e an d a n activ e attitude , a n aggressive attitud e an d a yielding attitude , somethin g othe r tha n form s o f behav ior. Ther e i s undoubtedly a hidden signifie r her e which, of course , can nowhere b e incarnated absolutely , bu t whic h i s nevertheles s th e closes t t o bein g incarnate d i n the existence of th e word man an d the word woman. ( S III, 198)

The Dialectics of Fantasy Aren't w e astounde d tha t philosopher s didn' t emphasiz e age s ag o tha t huma n x^n reality i s irreducibly structure d a s signifying ? Day an d night , ma n an d woman , peac e an d war— I coul d enumerat e mor e oppositions tha t don' t emerg e ou t o f th e rea l worl d bu t giv e i t it s framework , it s axes, it s structure , tha t organiz e it , tha t brin g i t abou t tha t ther e i s i n effec t a reality fo r man , an d tha t h e ca n fin d hi s bearing s therein . Th e notio n o f realit y that we bring to bear in analysis presupposes this web, this mesh o f signifiers. Thi s isn't new . It' s constantl y bein g implie d i n analyti c discourse , but i s never isolate d as such . Thi s isn' t necessaril y a drawback, bu t i t i s on e in , fo r example , wha t ha s been written o n the psychoses. ( S III, 199) Freudian Oedipa l theory , whic h privilege s th e fathe r an d th e phallus , presupposes th e primac y o f th e mother . "Thi s i s th e par t o f Freud' s work , of Freudia n thought , tha t i s ofte n returne d t o i n al l th e development s tha t are currentl y takin g plac e o n pre-oedipa l relations , whic h ultimatel y con sist i n sayin g tha t th e subjec t alway s seek s t o satisf y th e primitiv e materna l relation" ( S III , 84-85) . Th e dialectic s betwee n th e primar y an d th e privi leged determine s th e patter n o f repressio n tha t Freu d explain s i n term s o f the eg o confrontin g a materia l realit y tha t i t find s t o b e threatenin g o r painful. Thi s i s th e primary . Th e eg o defend s itsel f b y denying , negating , and repressin g i t int o th e unconsciou s fro m whenc e i t return s i n th e for m of neuroses . Th e sexua l driv e i s what i s most threatenin g t o th e eg o insofa r as th e eg o ha s s o littl e contro l ove r it . I t i s th e sexua l driv e tha t establishe s the primac y o f th e bod y fo r th e ego , th e primac y o f th e preservatio n o f th e species ove r self-preservation , th e primac y o f lif e ove r death , an d th e primacy o f th e mother . Laca n declare s tha t " I poin t ou t t o yo u i n advanc e that thi s involve s th e feminin e functio n i n it s essentia l symboli c meanin g and tha t w e ca n refin d i t onl y a t th e leve l o f procreation " ( S III , 86). Th e primacy o f procreation , an d henc e o f th e mothe r an d henc e o f th e female , is evident . "Thi s i s what characterize s neurosis ; i t i s both th e mos t obviou s thing i n th e worl d an d th e thin g on e doesn' t wan t t o see " ( S III , 86). Primacy an d privileg e li e behin d th e symptom s o f language . Eithe r th e primary o r th e privilege d ma y b e dominant . I f th e privilege d i s dominant , what i s primar y i s stil l primary , an d th e neurose s continue . I f th e primar y is dominan t the n privileg e i s lost , an d th e dominatio n o f th e femal e an d corresponding submissio n o f th e mal e wil l b e les s neuroti c an d no t likel y to b e pathological . The proces s o f Oedipa l genderizatio n an d sexualizatio n produce s th e denial o f Ero s i n th e for m o f th e Thanato s complex . Th e privilege d signifie r is maste r o f th e chain s o f significatio n tha t ar e th e manifestation s i n

The Dialectics of Fantasy 140 languag e o f th e neuroti c symptom s tha t constitut e th e structur e o f th e privileged primal fantasy. Th e basic structure o f Oedipal genderization an d sexualization i s misogyny. Th e puissance o f male domination i s inevitably misogynous, an d th e puissance o f femal e submissio n embrace s misogyn y in tha t i t entail s th e assimilatio n o f a self-imag e centere d o n lac k an d corresponding inferiority . Th e puissance o f femal e dominatio n an d mal e submission ar e philogynous . Th e lov e tha t a ma n an d a woma n hav e fo r one another a t an individual leve l relates to the primary an d the privilege d signifiers i n relatio n t o th e puissance o f dominatio n an d submission . Lacan states : Let us look at it from th e woman's perspective. The love the wife gives her spouse is not directe d a t the individual, no t eve n an idealized one—that' s th e danger of what i s calle d lif e i n common , th e idealizatio n isn' t tenable—bu t a t a bein g beyond. Th e love which constitutes the bond of marriage, the love which properly speaking is sacred, flows from the woman towards . .. al l men. Similarly, through the woman , i t i s al l wome n whic h th e fidelit y o f th e husban d i s directe d to wards. . . . [A]ll . . . isn't a quantity, it is a universal function. I t is the universal man, the universal woman, the symbol, the embodiment of the partner of the human couple. (S II , 260-61 )

Here w e ar e face d agai n wit h bifurcation s an d dialectics . W e canno t sepa rate our genderization an d sexualizatio n fro m th e other bifurcations an d in particular fro m mind/bod y dualism . Mind/bod y dualis m seem s to inevita bly result in Thanatos whereas the unification o f mind and body ultimatel y leads to Eros. What i s thi s universa l ma n an d universa l woman , an d wha t i s thei r relationship t o th e gods ? Laca n leave s u s wit h th e deat h o f Go d an d th e death o f Pa n (th e Goddes s neve r di d exis t fo r Lacan) , but th e phallu s stil l reigns a s th e privilege d signifier . Laca n tell s u s tha t "Ma n survive s th e death o f God , whic h h e assumes , bu t i n doin g so , h e present s himsel f before us . Th e paga n legen d tell s u s tha t a t th e momen t whe n th e vei l of the templ e wa s ren t o n th e Aegea n Sea , th e messag e resounde d tha t 'Th e great Pa n i s dead ' " ( S VII , 178) . Wha t i s dea d i n th e real m o f materia l reality ma y b e ver y muc h aliv e i n th e real m o f psychi c realit y an d th e reality o f unconsciou s fantasy . I n th e real m o f th e Imaginary , th e Sym bolic, and the Real , what doe s the death o f Go d or of Pa n entail ? Shortly befor e h e died , Josep h Campbel l gav e tw o serie s o f interview s at approximatel y th e sam e time . On e wa s wit h th e broadcaste r an d com -

The Dialectics of Fantasy mentator Bil l Moyers , an d th e othe r wa s wit h a Jungia n analyst , Frase r 141 Boa. Bo a ha d rente d a suit e a t th e Roya l Hawaiia n Hote l o n Waikik i Beac h for th e filmin g o f hi s serie s o f interviews , an d h e an d Campbel l wer e chatting an d havin g coffe e b y th e ocea n when , Bo a related : Two sparrow s lande d o n th e san d nea r ou r table . Th e femal e squatted , bu t th e male, a s i f no t trustin g he r demur e invitation , staye d hi s distance , circlin g roun d while sh e chirpe d an d flippantl y pecke d a t th e sand . . . . Suddenly , ther e was a wild flurry o f wings . Th e male sparro w had accepted th e invitation, an d th e femal e was havin g non e o f it . Sh e pushe d he r tai l dow n har d agains t th e san d an d drov e him bac k wit h a serie s o f fierc e attacks . The n sh e sa t dow n an d bega n innocentl y preening her feathers . Th e male, as if paralyzed somewher e between his instinctua l urge an d hi s fea r o f anothe r rejection , continue d t o circle. The y repeate d th e ritua l two o r thre e time s til l finall y h e puffe d hi s feathers , darte d pas t he r shar p beak , and quickl y consummated th e relationship . The n the y fle w away. 59 Joe thre w hi s arm s u p int o th e ai r an d laughed . "There , that' s th e story ! That's th e whole story. " I n th e fina l analysis , Campbel l tell s u s ther e i s n o meaning t o life , onl y a description o f th e proces s o f reproduction . Let u s hypothesiz e tha t th e mal e bir d suddenl y i s endowe d wit h lan guage. Th e bir d ask s itsel f Wha t a m I ? W h o m a m I ? Wher e di d I com e from? Wha t doe s i t al l mean ? Th e languaging , consciou s bir d seek s a n explanation an d soo n fantasize s "Th e Stor y o f th e Cosmi c E g g / ' Afte r several cycle s o f bein g sexuall y drive n t o copulat e wit h th e female , bein g rejected, pecked , bu t finall y selected , th e bir d project s anothe r stor y ont o the cosmos , "Th e Stor y o f th e Bi g Coc k i n th e Sky. "

SI X

The Dialectics of Signification

The Master Signifiers The maste r signifier s (th e primar y an d th e privileged ) lin k th e Imaginar y and th e Symboli c to th e Real . Th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c are in th e realm o f huma n cognition , wherea s th e Rea l is outside, connected onl y b y metaphor. Consequently , th e representation is neve r th e sam e a s what is represented. The Rea l canno t b e know n directl y bu t onl y metaphorically , and therefore th e Rea l can be represented bu t th e representation i s not an d can neve r b e th e Real . Al l w e ca n d o i s improv e th e metaphors . A s Nietzsche stated : "th e physica l explanation , whic h i s a symbolizatio n o f the worl d b y mean s o f sensatio n an d thought , ca n i n itsel f neve r accoun t for th e origi n o f sensatio n an d thought ; rathe r physic s mus t constru e th e world o f feelin g consistentl y a s lackin g feelin g an d aim—righ t u p t o th e highest huma n being . An d teleolog y i s onl y a histor y o f purpose s an d never physical!" (WP , 562) 1 The primary an d privileged signifier s ar e dialectically and oppositionall y related, an d languag e an d cognitio n ar e dialecticall y structure d b y both . The dialectica l oppositio n i s a product o f mind/bod y dualism , th e inescap able menta l stat e o f a languagin g body . Thi s mind/bod y dichotom y wil l appear i n th e for m o f th e conflictin g sexua l an d eg o drives . Th e sexua l i s the conceptualizatio n i n th e Imaginar y an d Symboli c o f th e reproductiv e instincts, and the eg o drive is the conceptualizatio n o f th e instinc t fo r self preservation. Th e primar y signifie r establishe s th e huma n a s a par t o f nature b y confirmin g th e animalit y o f th e species . Conversely , th e privi leged denie s tha t whic h make s th e huma n a par t o f th e natura l a s th e languaging biped primate and instead projects min d ont o the cosmos as the fantasy structur e o f the logos.

142

The Dialectics of Signification The Imaginar y wil l b e i n th e for m o f th e gran d metonymica l referenc e 143 to th e huma n sexua l an d reproductiv e organs . Th e gran d metonymica l image o f th e privilege d signifie r i s th e penis , whic h take s th e for m o f th e phallic imager y o f th e pillar , th e sword , an d th e hug e inflate d peni s o f Priapus. Th e central signifie r o f maleness i n the registe r o f the Symboli c is the Father . Th e maste r metapho r tha t relate s th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic t o th e Rea l i s th e logo s a s disembodie d mind . Th e logos , a s th e grand projectio n o f th e inflate d ego , links th e mal e a s the possesso r o f th e generative powe r o f nature , wit h th e Real . Th e femal e mus t remai n a s lacking an d secondar y i n al l aspect s o f huma n cognitio n a s structure d b y the privileged signifier . The gran d metonymica l imag e o f th e primar y signifie r i s tha t o f th e female externa l an d internal reproductiv e an d sexua l organs as represente d by th e imager y o f th e cauldron , th e cave , the ocean , th e hor n o f plenty — all womb-like images . Th e central signifie r o f femalenes s i n the registe r of the Symboli c i s th e Mother . Th e maste r metaphor , whic h connect s th e Imaginary an d th e Symboli c i n th e huma n wit h th e Real , is the matri x of chaos ou t o f whic h lif e emerges . Th e wom b an d th e phallu s ar e thu s the dialecticall y relate d maste r signifier s o f sexuall y bimorphi c huma n cognition. Al l cognitio n begin s wit h a separatio n o f th e huma n fro m th e Other, an d th e relationshi p betwee n them . Tha t i s th e functio n o f th e master signifiers. According t o Lacan , "n o significatio n ca n b e sustaine d othe r tha n b y reference t o anothe r signification. " H e goe s on t o sa y tha t "b y doublin g a noun throug h th e mer e juxtapositio n o f tw o term s whos e complementar y meaning ough t apparentl y t o reinforc e eac h other , a surpris e i s produce d by a n unexpecte d precipitatio n o f a n unexpecte d meaning " (E , 150) . H e explicates this discussion with his now well-known imag e of the two doors: Ladies Gentleme

n

Just a s the meanin g o f signifier s i s developed i n term s o f th e juxtapositio n of tw o dialecticall y complementar y terms—female/male , ladies/gentle men, rights/duties , an d s o on , th e ver y proces s o f significatio n itsel f re -

The Dialectics of Signification 144 quire s a juxtaposition o f two dialectically complementary maste r signifiers . In this way, the privileged signifie r presuppose s the primary.

Master Signifiers and Original Fantasies In Lacan' s mirro r stage , th e individua l develop s a sens e o f eg o and self , likeness an d similarity . Wit h th e recognitio n o f th e Othe r come s th e inevitable confrontatio n wit h sexua l difference. B y seeing the image of the body in the mirror, th e child creates a unity fo r its own self. Th e narrative of th e emergen t sel f mus t explai n th e origin s o f th e self—ho w th e sel f originates i n that whic h i s not the self bu t existed befor e th e self—and i t must accoun t fo r sexua l difference . Th e child conceptuall y assimilate s it s sense o f similarit y and/o r differenc e i n relatio n t o the parental figures . In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freu d discusse s a child's pla y wit h a bobbin on a string. A s the child casts the bobbin away , his mother interpret s wha t he utters a s fort (away) ; an d when th e child pulls it close, he is interpreted as uttering da (here) (SE , XVIII, 14). Through play , the child differentiate s between sel f an d (M)other ; subjec t an d object. Here , a s always, on e step forward, tw o steps back. The sel f originate s i n th e (M)other , and , consequently, th e separatio n from th e (M ) other i s th e beginnin g o f differenc e an d the recognitio n o f limitation. Th e narcissistic wound i s the first experienc e of loss. 2 Origin is explained in terms of birth and separation fro m th e (M)other. Th e self wil l be experienced a s separate fro m bu t like the (M)other if the body is female and differen t fro m th e (M)othe r i f th e bod y i s male . Th e nex t majo r differentiation th e chil d make s i s betwee n tha t whic h i s huma n an d tha t which i s not human o r is other t o the human. On e of the first differentia tions that th e child makes within th e realm o f the Other i s the recognition of animal s a s somewha t simila r t o humans . Later , th e chil d learn s t o differentiate betwee n th e living or organic and the nonliving o r inorganic. The chil d know s tha t it s teddy bea r i s animal an d somewhat lik e humans . The child may talk to its teddy bea r an d give it a name. A t the same time, the chil d know s tha t th e teddy bea r i s not alive lik e th e family dog . It is life i n natur e an d bein g aliv e a s a huma n tha t establishe s a relationshi p between human s an d nature i n terms o f the register o f the Imaginary and the Symbolic . The narrativ e o f origins , essentia l t o ever y huma n being , tribe , an d society, is not a simple one to tell or discover. Gende r and sexual differenc e

The Dialectics of Signification develop withi n individual s wit h insatiabl e libidina l desires , creatin g de - 145 pendencies tha t acknowledg e lack . Materia l realit y contain s n o meanin g for th e sel f o r fo r lif e bu t i s merely descriptive . O n th e contrary , meanin g is formulate d throug h metapho r an d metonym y i n th e contex t o f projec tion, introjection , repression , denial , neuroses , perversion , an d pathology , the symptom s o f th e defens e mechanism s o f th e ego . Th e collective expla nations o f origi n tha t constitut e th e origina l fantasie s reflec t th e prima l structure o f creation , difference , an d limitation . Thes e signifier s includ e the mothe r figur e wit h he r wom b an d it s externa l openin g a s well a s he r breasts an d th e penil e father . Th e conten t o f th e fantasie s blen d materia l reality, psychic reality, and the realit y o f unconscious fantasy . Psychic realit y i s base d o n th e premis e tha t "wha t appear s t o u s a s immediate realit y consist s o f carefull y processe d images." 3 Knowledg e i s derived fro m a n imagina l framewor k roote d i n perceptio n an d th e Sym bolic. Th e metapho r fo r me n a s minds , withi n a n imagina l networ k pre supposing the polarity and bifurcation o f mind/body dualism , leaves bodies as vessels an d image s o f penetratio n a s the metaphorica l representatio n o f the female . Se x an d deat h ar e th e basi c preoccupation s o f huma n concep tual experience . Mother , father , self , male , female , sex , an d deat h ar e th e experiential ra w materia l ou t o f whic h w e forg e ou r mythi c system s and worldviews. Fantasy prevail s ove r materia l realit y i n th e psychi c realit y o f ou r world-view becaus e desir e demand s fulfillmen t an d appeasement , whil e truth i s gratuitou s an d unnecessar y an d ca n b e satisfie d b y mer e belief . From th e perspectiv e o f psychology , actual trut h o r falsit y ar e inconse quential element s s o lon g a s w e ca n maintai n a belie f tha t somethin g i s true. S o lon g a s unconsciou s fantas y ca n b e conceptualize d a s psychi c reality, i t doesn't matte r tha t i t may no t coincid e with materia l reality . The huma n sexua l an d reproductiv e organ s wil l inevitabl y pla y a sym bolic organizational functio n i n th e narrative s o f th e origi n o f th e cosmos , life, an d th e huma n species . Th e femal e womb , breasts , an d genitali a an d the male penis must, therefore , b e part o f the cognitiv e structure o f prima l fantasy a t both the unconscious and conscious levels for both the individua l and the collective . Both th e primar y an d th e privilege d signifier s structurall y embod y th e configuration o f th e origina l fantasy , whic h i s constructe d o f thre e parts . These part s wil l correspon d t o th e thre e part s o f th e origina l fantasy : creation a s th e generativ e powe r o f nature ; th e parenta l position , whic h

The Dialectics of Signification 146 contain s th e generativ e powe r o f nature , justifyin g it s primar y o r privi leged positio n i n th e maste r signifier ; an d th e reproductiv e bodil y parts , which furnis h th e imag e fo r th e generativ e power . Th e maste r signifie r therefore span s the register s of the Imaginary, the Symbolic, and the Real. The maste r signifier s indicat e th e structure s tha t gover n gender . I n patriphallic societ y wher e th e privilege d fantas y shape s societa l relation ships an d institutions , on e ca n "simpl y b y referenc e t o the functio n o f th e phallus, indicat e th e structure s tha t wil l gover n th e relation s betwee n th e sexes'' (E , 289) . Wit h tw o fundamenta l version s o f th e origina l fantasy , there are two master signifiers : th e primary (th e womb) an d the privilege d (the phallus) . Consequently , ther e ar e tw o possibl e gende r structures , th e primary i s philogynou s an d th e privilege d misogynous . Th e one-to-on e relationship i s also a one-to-all relationship . Laca n explains: Let us look at it from th e woman's perspective. The love the wife gives her spouse is not directe d a t the individual, not eve n an idealized one—that' s th e danger of what i s called lif e i n common , idealizatio n isn' t tenable—bu t a t a being beyond. The love which constitutes the bond of marriage, the love which properly speaking is sacred , flows from th e woma n toward s . . . all men. Similarly , throug h th e woman, it is all women which the fidelity o f the husband is directed towards. This ma y see m paradoxical . Bu t . . . all isn't a quantity , i t i s a universa l function. I t is the universal man , the universal woman, the symbol, the embodiment of the partner of the human couple. (S II, 260-61) Lacan state s tha t "fo r th e situatio n t o b e tenable , th e positio n mus t b e triangular. Fo r th e coupl e t o kee p th e huma n level , ther e ha s t o b e a god there. Lov e flow s toward s th e universa l man , toward s th e veile d man , fo r whom ever y idea l i s only a n idolatrou s substitute , an d thi s i s that famou s genital love which make s ou r Sunday s an d which we affect t o scorn" ( S II, 263). And , equally , i f a man i s to truly lov e a woman t o the point that sh e is primary an d h e seek s to b e the objec t o f he r desire , rathe r tha n objecti fying he r fo r th e benefi t o f hi s desire, then ther e mus t be , in lik e manner , a Goddess there. Th e triangle of th e primary signifie r i s Goddess-Woman man, an d the triangle of the privileged signifie r i s God-Man-woman . The essentia l issu e i n th e dialectica l structur e o f th e origina l fantas y i s which se x ha s possession-ownership-contro l o f bot h th e femal e an d th e male sexua l an d reproductiv e organs , an d whic h se x surrender s contro l over it s ow n sexua l an d reproductiv e organ s eithe r a s a voluntary gif t t o the other o r in obedience to the Law, thus embracin g castration? While th e

The Dialectics of Signification dynamics o f desir e dictat e tha t possession-ownership-contro l belong s t o 147 either on e o r th e other , bot h possibilitie s reflec t th e differenc e tha t gener ates desire an d th e tw o prima l drive s tha t representationall y an d symboli cally structur e huma n cognition . Bot h primar y an d privilege d sexualit y reflect th e libidinal dynamics o f contro l an d submission .

The Primary Signifier The maste r signifie r combine s withi n i t th e structur e o f th e origina l fan tasy—origin-difference-limitation: th e Gran d Metaphor , th e La w of Gen der, an d th e Gran d Metonymy . Th e prima l fantas y i s on e o f th e earlies t myths o f ancien t Greec e in whic h th e ancien t goddes s Gaia , th e personifi cation o f Mothe r Earth , i s bor n ou t o f Chao s a t th e beginnin g o f time ; from he r spring s al l life . Ther e ar e fairl y obvious link s o f meanin g an d overlapping chain s o f significatio n betwee n mother, mater, maternal, maternalize, matriarch, matriarchal, maternity, matter, material, materialize, and matrix. Th e matrix i s the gran d metaphorica l referenc e o f th e primar y signifier relatin g mothe r t o natur e a s tha t fro m whic h lif e springs . Th e middle designatio n o f th e primar y signifie r i s th e La w o f th e Mother . I t dictates tha t th e mothe r sacrifice s fo r th e child , an d th e mal e sacrifice s fo r the female . Hi s desire shal l be unto her . Hi s desire will be to be the objec t of he r desire . Th e wom b an d th e passag e tha t connect s th e outsid e t o th e inside i s the third par t o f th e primary signifier , whic h furnishe s th e Gran d Metonymical reference . In th e diachroni c developmen t o f huma n language , th e metaphorica l usage of sexua l reference s permeate s huma n speech . Accordin g to Lacan, a radical relationshi p "exist s betwee n th e firs t instrumenta l relations , th e earliest techniques , th e principa l action s o f agriculture , suc h a s tha t o f opening the bell y of th e earth , o r again th e principal action s in the makin g of a vase . . . and somethin g very precise, namely, no t s o much th e sexua l act a s th e femal e sexua l organ " ( S VII, 169) . Metaphorica l manifestation s of th e femal e sexua l organ s ar e foun d i n referenc e t o openings , vessels , caves, bodies , an d life - an d natura l life-relate d functions . Laca n goe s o n to say : One takes note of the fact that the use of a term that originally meant "coitus " is extended virtually infinitely , tha t the use of a term that originally meant "vulva " is capable of generating all kinds of metaphorical uses. And it is in this way that it

The Dialectics of Signification IA8 bega n t o b e suppose d tha t th e vocalizatio n presume d t o accompan y th e sexua l ac t gave men the idea of using the signifier t o designate either the organ, and especiall y the female organ , in a noun form , o r the act of coitus in a verb form . . . . [S]exual symbolis m i n th e ordinar y sens e of th e word ma y polariz e a t it s poin t of origi n th e metaphorical pla y of th e signifier . ( S VII, 168-69 ) The wom b an d femal e breast s clearl y hav e a n imaginary , symbolic , metaphorical, an d representationa l relationshi p t o th e femal e reproductiv e organs tha t parallel s th e relationshi p betwee n th e peni s an d th e phallus . The wom b i s t o th e uteru s an d birt h cana l wha t th e phallu s i s t o th e penis . Since th e origina l fantasie s ar e representationa l structure s o f Ero s an d Thanatos, whic h i n tur n ste m fro m th e oppositiona l dialectic s o f th e sexua l and eg o drives , ther e mus t b e a parallel dialectica l relationshi p betwee n th e two origina l fantas y symboli c representationa l system s tha t depic t th e drive withi n th e psych e a t bot h consciou s an d unconsciou s levels . Th e dialectical relationshi p betwee n th e tw o fantas y structure s i s on e o f contra diction an d negatio n an d i s representativ e o f a numbe r o f dualisti c an d oppositional structure s suc h a s other/self , body/mind , nature/culture , en gulfment/separation, an d mother/father . Therefore , bot h th e wom b an d the phallu s ar e maste r signifiers ; on e i s primary , th e othe r privileged . In a symboli c narrativ e chain , i t i s differenc e tha t mus t b e accounte d fo r and differenc e tha t permit s th e shif t fro m th e Imaginar y t o th e Symbolic . Difference entail s a compariso n wit h somethin g tha t i s primar y o r founda tional. Th e (M)othe r i s primar y withi n th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c a s well a s withi n materia l reality . Th e (M)othe r i s th e nor m o r standar d against whic h differenc e i s measured , eithe r a s a differen t sel f withi n th e dialectics o f other/sel f o r a s a different se x i n th e dialectic s o f female/male . "[E]ach o f th e term s mus t appea r a s th e differance o f th e other , a s th e other differen t an d deferre d i n th e econom y o f th e same " (Df , 17) . Since th e tw o oppositiona l an d dialectica l representation s o f th e prima l fantasy (origin-difference-limitation ) ar e negation s o f eac h other , th e phal lus an d th e wom b functio n ver y differentl y i n primar y an d privilege d fantasy. I n th e prima l fantasy , th e generativ e powe r o f natur e lie s with th e (M)other, an d th e wom b i s th e everything but th e phallus . Th e phallu s i s given b y th e mal e t o th e (M ) other b y wa y o f a sacrific e induce d b y seduction. Th e phallu s o f th e primar y origina l fantas y o r Ero s chai n o f signification wil l therefor e functio n contrar y t o an d a s a dialectical opposit e to th e phallu s o f th e privilege d origina l fantas y o r Thanato s chai n o f signification. Freu d or , fo r tha t matter , Lacan , wer e neve r wrong , bu t thei r

The Dialectics of Signification positions wer e no t take n t o thei r logica l conclusions . The y bot h depar t 149 from th e dialectica l methodolog y o f psychoanalysi s b y concentratin g o n phallic privilege an d failin g t o develo p th e represse d primary . A s a result , they present onl y one side of the dialectic. Th e material reality of mamma lian bimorphi c sexualit y wil l neve r permi t u s t o completel y exclud e th e reproductive function s o f on e o r th e othe r sex—t o diminis h i t o r devalu e it, yes, but t o eliminate it , never . In the representationa l structur e o f th e Ero s or sexua l drive, the male is seduced int o givin g possession-ownership-contro l o f th e peni s t o th e (M)other, an d thi s i s conceptualize d a s a castratio n (despit e th e fac t tha t the peni s remain s attache d t o th e male) . Th e male genitalia ar e exception ally vulnerable t o being severed . Castratio n i s therefore a key moti f i n th e register o f th e Imaginary . Th e castration-sacrific e o f th e peni s t o th e (M)other transform s th e mal e int o th e Consort . W e therefor e hav e a chain o f significatio n whereb y th e phallu s i s the privilege d signifie r bu t i s possessed, owned , an d controlle d b y th e wom b an d th e breasts . Psychi c reality, whic h i s representationall y structure d b y th e Ero s o r sexua l fan tasy, i s "matriphallic " becaus e th e (M)othe r possesses , owns , and control s the penis , whic h ha s bee n presente d t o he r a s a gif t o f sacrific e a s th e culmination o f the seduction . When th e Ero s and Thanato s drive s ar e represente d a s original primar y and privilege d fantas y i n symboli c structures , origi n become s th e genera tive powe r o f nature , an d bot h femal e an d mal e sexua l an d reproductiv e organs mus t b e i n th e explanator y narrative . Th e question s o f difference , seduction, an d castratio n ar e determine d b y wh o possesses , owns , an d controls the two set s of sexua l an d reproductiv e organs . The y wil l "belon g to" eithe r th e mal e o r th e female , th e mothe r o r th e father , i n an y singl e original fantas y structure . Thoug h reproductio n require s bot h femal e an d male reproductiv e organs , desir e an d differenc e dictat e tha t onl y one , either th e femal e o r th e male , possesse s th e generativ e powe r o f nature . The unavoidabl e resul t i s that th e perso n wh o doesn' t posses s th e genera tive power o f natur e i s castrated, hi s or he r reproductiv e organ s controlle d by the other . Possession-ownership-control i s determine d b y th e symboli c configu ration o f th e maste r signifier , whic h i s representationa l o f th e origina l fantasy. I n th e Ero s structur e o f th e primar y fantasy , th e mal e i s seduce d to castrate himsel f b y placing his penis at th e disposa l o f th e (M)other . B y surrendering i n suc h a way , th e mal e place s limit s o n hi s ego , an d i t

The Dialectics of Signification 150 become s secondary . I t belong s t o the (M)othe r t o use as she desires. I t is in this way that the female ca n be said to possess the phallus in matriarchal psychic reality , an d the phallus stil l retain s it s relationship wit h th e mal e penis. I n mythi c structures , th e Goddes s i s serve d b y th e Consort . Th e Consort ha s th e penis , bu t i t i s availabl e t o th e Goddes s a t he r bidding . This is often symbolicall y represente d b y the Goddess holding the serpent, the primary symbo l o f the phallus i n the structure o f the original primar y fantasy. I t i s als o represente d i n mythi c structur e b y th e separatio n an d dismemberement o f the male phallus, as in the myth o f Isis and Osiris.4 In writing abou t th e mythi c structur e o f matriphalli c sexuality , Esthe r Har ding states that "Thi s involves the sacrifice o f his demand, a sacrifice whic h is no t onl y symbolize d b y castration , bu t may indeed appea r i n realit y a s the nee d t o renounc e fo r th e tim e bein g hi s desire fo r sexua l satisfactio n with thi s woman , who m h e yet loves . I t i s a voluntary castratio n fo r th e sake of Eros." 5 In the structure o f male masochistic fantasy, whic h reflect s matriarchal psychi c realit y an d sexuality , th e contro l b y th e dominan t woman i s essential. The sexua l an d gende r structure s o f th e primar y signifie r reflec t th e erotic dynamic s o f contro l an d submission , contro l bein g wit h th e femal e and submissio n wit h th e male. I n her study o f male masochism, Dominant Women, Submissive Men, Gin i Scot t describe s ho w contro l o r fantas y o f control of the male penis by the dominant femal e generate s intens e sexua l arousal i n the male, and the postponement o r denial of sexua l relie f t o the male is , i n an d o f itself , sexuall y exciting. 6 Masochis m o f thi s kin d i s perverse because it seldo m entail s standar d penetratio n o f the female bod y by the male. Th e female possesse s and controls the male penis in the male fantasy framewor k o f matriphallic sexuality .

The Privileged Signifier An understandin g o f the dialectical relationshi p betwee n Ero s and Thana tos i s essentia l t o a n understandin g o f th e functio n o f th e phallu s a s the privileged ter m withi n th e Symbolic order. Ther e would be no representa tional structur e suc h a s a sexua l driv e i f ther e wer e no t a driv e detailin g the individuatio n o f th e ego . Conversely , ther e woul d b e n o eg o driv e unless ther e wa s somethin g oppositionall y relate d t o it . Th e eg o experi ences the sexual drive as a loss of control and a surrender o f the boundaries of th e self . Consequently , a se t o f defens e mechanism s i s pivota l t o th e

The Dialectics of Signification representational structur e o f th e eg o drive . Th e maste r signifie r i s th e 151 meeting point of the representational structure s of the ego and Eros drives, and i t function s a s th e primar y signifie r i n th e primar y origina l fantas y and a s th e privilege d signifie r i n th e Symboli c chai n tha t constitute s th e privileged fantasy . A s th e realit y o f unconsciou s fantas y structure s th e conscious fantasie s o f th e individua l an d th e fantasie s an d mythi c struc tures o f th e collective , th e conten t i n bot h th e consciou s an d th e uncon scious develo p dialectically . Neithe r on e ha s meanin g unles s place d i n dialectical oppositio n t o th e other . Th e representationa l structur e o f th e ego drive withi n th e Symboli c orde r arise s a s a defense agains t th e sexua l or Ero s drive . Consequently , th e fantas y structur e o f th e Ero s o r sexua l drive lies underneath, o r between, th e line s o f th e fantas y structur e o f th e ego drive. Th e defense agains t th e seductio n o f the (M)othe r i s the Father ; the defens e agains t engulfmen t an d th e desir e t o castrat e onesel f i s re flected i n the fea r o f castration . In th e representationa l structur e o f th e eg o drive , reunio n o r a retur n to th e (M)othe r i s forbidden , a s i t mean s a surrende r o f th e ego . Th e seduction t o castrat e onesel f throug h presentin g th e phalli c peni s a s a sacrificial gif t t o th e (M)othe r i s resiste d a s i t present s itsel f a s taboo , th e original sin . Th e Symboli c configuratio n i s th e La w o f th e Father . Th e male retain s th e phallu s an d ha s possession-ownership-contro l o f th e Mother a s i f b y right : ove r he r breasts , womb , an d externa l genitalia . Unlike the male, the reproductiv e functio n o f the mother require s much of her body , an d he r reproductiv e organ s canno t b e separate d fro m th e en tirety o f he r bod y i n th e registe r o f th e Imaginary . Consequently , th e male canno t ow n th e femal e reproductiv e organ s withou t ownin g he r entirely. Possessio n o f reproductio n require s possessio n o f women . Mal e control o f reproductio n entail s mal e contro l o f th e female . Thi s i s th e promulgation o f th e La w of th e Father . Th e woman i s doubly conceptual ized a s castrate d i n tha t sh e neithe r possesses , owns , or control s th e peni s nor possesses , owns , o r control s he r ow n body . Th e castratio n o f th e (M)other an d th e possessio n o f th e phallu s mak e th e mal e a Father rathe r than a Consort . Th e phallu s i s eithe r give n t o th e mothe r o r th e mothe r belongs to the phallus—there i s no moderation . There are three parts to the structure of the phallus that functio n withi n the fantas y o f patriphalli c psychi c reality , whic h i s representationa l o f th e primary eg o o r deat h drive . Thes e ar e th e logos , th e La w o f th e Father , and th e La w o f God—champio n o f disembodie d mind . Eac h ar e essentia l

The Dialectics of Signification 132 fo r phalli c structure. Th e phallus must accoun t for th e generative power of nature b y a symbolic and metaphorical relationshi p t o the male sexua l an d reproductive organs. In order to carry this generative meaning, the phallu s must embod y a n explanatio n o f origin . T o accoun t fo r differenc e i t mus t privilege th e sexua l orga n o f th e mal e ove r thos e o f th e female , keepin g any explanatio n o f origi n consisten t wit h th e privilege d sexua l organ . Finally, th e phallu s mus t justif y th e contro l ove r th e sexua l an d reproduc tive organ s o f th e female , whos e rol e i n reproductio n i s relegate d t o a secondary position . Thi s i s don e b y assertin g th e La w o f th e Father , b y reinforcing mind/bod y dualis m and , in s o doing, privileging the mind .

The Phallus As Logos The logos explains and accounts fo r origin . I t is the emble m o f "Truth, " of rationality, o f scientifi c empiricism—an d i t serve s a s a promulgatio n o f patriarchal law . It s ai m i s justification ; it s metho d i s denial . I f on e ha s a penis, on e ha s th e logos , an d i f on e ha s th e logos , on e ha s th e penis . Th e possession o f logos/peni s furnishe s th e justificatio n fo r an d th e legitimac y of the La w of the Father and entitles the phallus to possess, own, or contro l the breasts , womb , an d externa l genitali a o f th e Other . Th e phallu s i s therefore a paternal conceptua l structur e tha t link s th e mal e min d (logos ) with th e penis . Th e phallus , a s th e privilege d signifier , i s th e Imaginar y and Symboli c representatio n o f th e generativ e powe r o f nature . I t i s th e possession o f th e phallu s tha t make s a mal e a father , an d i t i s bein g a father tha t give s the ma n th e righ t t o own an d possess a woman, tha t i s to say, t o exercis e authorit y ove r wome n an d ove r woman. Possessio n o f th e phallus i s onl y possibl e fo r th e mal e b y adherenc e t o th e logos . Th e mal e must submi t to lying truths an d must erec t defences, simulacrums, totems, totalities. Th e paternal phallu s is the sourc e of the law. The wil l o f th e Fathe r i s th e law , an d th e proclamatio n o f th e will , th e law, is a production o f th e mind . A t th e sam e time, the peni s is the sourc e of ne w lif e an d th e ac t o f causin g a female t o conceiv e i s conceptualized a s an ac t o f mal e creation . Peni s i s therefor e inextricabl y an d hopelessl y joined t o mind . Consequently , th e archetypa l paterna l phallu s i s a bifur cated structur e betwee n th e pole s o f th e logo s an d th e penis . A s such , i t reflects th e structur e o f mal e mind/bod y dualism . An d i t i s th e la w tha t joins th e tw o pole s an d maintain s th e balanc e betwee n them , an d forbid s the surrende r t o seduction .

The Dialectics of Signification "The phallus/ ' accordin g t o Goux , "i s a masculine principl e o f genera - 153 tion, o f production . I n tha t sense , it is the very manifestation of intelligence" (P , 46) . H e goe s o n t o sa y tha t "Wha t fro m th e ver y beginnin g o f philosophy associate s th e fathe r wit h th e idea , th e mothe r wit h matter , could no t b e formulate d mor e clearly . Th e ide a tha t idealis m woul d ini tially b e a materialism (a s oppose d t o materialism ) ca n onl y b e deduce d immediately fro m tha t assumptio n an d it s consequences . Philosophy , onc e developed, coul d onl y b e th e developmen t o f tha t split " (P , 47). Pure min d o r logo s create s th e form , th e idea , an d th e ideal . "Matte r i s only a receptacl e an d a wet-nurse: i t i s steril e an d receive s withou t giving . The onl y tru e principl e o f generation , includin g perceptibl e things , i s i n the logos" (P , 47) . "A s th e mal e orga n o f generation , th e phallu s i s therefore essentiall y logos o r sourc e o f th e logos: rationa l power , o r intelli gible reason . Th e erec t mal e orga n i s not perceive d b y th e Greek s primaril y as a physica l reality , bu t indee d a s th e emble m o f th e logos or , a s i t were , the logos, itsel f mad e visible " (P , 49) . It i s th e relationshi p betwee n th e logo s an d th e peni s i n th e structur e o f the phallu s tha t lead s Laca n t o lin k languag e wit h th e la w o f th e Father . "But whe n w e tal k o f th e Symboli c orde r . . , ther e i s creation . Tha t i s why in principio erat verbum i s ambiguous . It' s no t fo r nothin g tha t i n Greek, i t wa s calle d logos " ( S II , 292) . Th e essentia l link , however , i s th e structure o f origina l fantasy : language-explanation-origins-differentia tions-limitations-original fantasy . Th e logos , however , i s onl y essentia l t o the origina l fantas y representatio n o f th e eg o drive . I t i s a particula r version o f origi n bu t no t th e onl y one , an d certainl y no t th e first . I t i s origin itsel f tha t i s fundamental . Th e logo s narrativ e rise s a s a defens e t o and a repressio n o f th e sexua l an d Ero s drive . I t i s a denia l o f th e rol e o f the femal e i n reproductio n i n materia l reality , an d i t i s a repressio n o f th e submission t o th e seductio n o f th e castratio n b y sacrifice , o r a s Gou x states: What th e phallic metaphor o f the On e betrays i s what mus t hav e occurred fo r i t t o be possible, th e monopolizatio n o f th e powe r o f engenderin g (informing , organiz ing, directing ) b y th e masculin e paternal . An d tha t constitute d a new histori c ste p with respec t t o th e conception , eve n mor e archaic , o f a n essentiall y materna l fecundity, on e whic h i s mor e i n conformit y wit h th e patent , immediate , an d sensible realit y o f pregnanc y an d childbirth . Th e male s ha d t o confiscat e th e maternal powe r o f engendering , a prima l gift , i n orde r fo r th e imaginar y o f th e phallic exclusivit y tha t philosoph y perpetuate s t o prevail . A s lon g a s th e genitrix

The Dialectics of Signification ICA wit h larg e wom b (hersel f assimilabl e t o Eart h an d t o Nature ) was adore d an d envoked a s the mysteriou s sit e of al l generation, th e existenc e o f th e genitor, onl y conjectural, wa s o f littl e consequence . Accordin g t o th e myth s an d t o philoso phy. . . a struggle was nessary i n orde r fo r pater. . . to lower the fecun d genitrix t o the subalter n ran k o f mater —simple matte r tha t onl y receives , fo r childbirth , it s form an d informatio n fro m th e unique masculine . The philosophical expressio n o f thi s dominatio n an d thi s exclusivit y i s clear. I n the divisio n betwee n ide a an d matter , onl y th e ide a i s fecund . I t i s th e ide a tha t forms an d inform s a passive receptacle . . . . [T]h e sexed resonanc e o f thi s divisio n remains eve n i n the lofties t speculations . (P , 50-51) Further on , Gou x explains : The mother, matter , nature , th e immediate, th e sensible—al l o f thi s is on the sid e of th e corruptible , th e variable, and th e morta l (lik e the body an d th e penis itself) , while th e father , th e idea , th e spirit , th e represented—an d als o th e phallus—ar e on th e sid e o f th e invariabl e an d th e eternal . Fro m thi s i t i s clear tha t th e peni s i s the natura l orga n tha t "belongs " t o th e mothe r (join s wit h her , attache s t o he r realm) an d tha t i t mus t b e abolished i n orde r fo r thi s juncture t o be destroyed an d replaced b y th e spiritua l junctur e tha t phalli c simulacru m ensures . I t i s i n thi s manner tha t th e initiat e (th e masculin e subject ) wil l b e abl e t o gai n eterna l life , absolute renewal . Disclosing tha t th e proces s penis/castration/phallu s i s implicate d i n thi s move ment i s no t t o propos e a reductiv e (o r depreciative ) interpretatio n bu t rathe r t o elevate th e genealog y o f a n operatio n t o th e leve l o f it s resistan t (an d constantl y resurgent) mythica l expression , which ou r horizo n o f though t open s to interpreta tion. (P , 56)

The Name of the Father The mal e clai m t o th e possessio n o f th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s rooted i n th e ide a tha t creatio n take s plac e a s a n expressio n o f a n ac t o f th e will. Pur e disembodie d min d i s th e onl y Real , an d matte r i s brough t int o being b y a menta l act . "I n th e beginnin g . . . Go d sai d let there be. . . . " 7 This i s th e fantas y o f th e realit y o f disembodie d min d (o r Logos ) a s th e first caus e o f existence . Al l religion s postulat e a disembodie d min d a s th e source an d origi n o f being . I t ma y b e differentiate d a s i s th e cas e o f th e logos, th e logica l o r mathematica l structur e o f th e universe , th e real m o f the Platoni c Ideal , o r i t ma y b e undifferentiate d a s i s th e cas e i n Easter n religions suc h a s th e Brahma n o f Hinduism , th e nirvan a o f Buddhism , an d the Ta o o f Taoism . The y ar e th e firs t caus e o r origi n o f th e materia l world : mind produce s matter .

The Dialectics of Signification In th e matchin g dialectic s o f mind-mal e an d body-female , th e mal e a s is5 father i s the embodimen t o f th e logos . Go d i s a spirit. Th e mal e a s fathe r claims to embod y th e generativ e powe r o f natur e becaus e he embodie s th e logos as mind. Concept lies behind being , and the idea behind th e material . Conception takes plac e when th e mal e places life insid e th e femal e an d sh e then i s said to conceive. Th e idea of th e fathe r therefor e entail s the male as logos or mind insid e a physical body . I t is a manifestation o f th e Thanato s drive and serves to separate mind an d body in opposition t o the Eros drive, which serve s to unify. Thi s is well understood b y Lacan when h e describe s the delusio n o f th e father' s functio n i n generatio n a s "th e begettin g o f th e soul" an d "th e begettin g o f th e mind " ( S III, 213) . H e explain s tha t "Th e father belong s t o a Realit y tha t i s sacre d i n itself , mor e spiritua l tha n an y other, sinc e ultimatel y nothin g i n live d Realit y strictl y speakin g point s t o his function , hi s presence , hi s dominance " ( S III, 215) . A t th e sam e time , he describe s th e identificatio n o f th e fathe r wit h th e generativ e powe r o f nature a s a delusio n tha t "ca n u p t o a poin t b e describe d a s reasonin g madness, i n th e sens e tha t i n certai n respect s it s articulatio n i s logical , though fro m a secondar y poin t o f vie w tha t madnes s shoul d achiev e a synthesis o f thi s natur e i s n o les s a proble m tha n it s ver y existence " ( S HI, 217). In th e privilege d fantasy , th e beginnin g wa s pure mind , an d pure min d conceived a creation . Ma n wa s create d b y pur e min d i n it s image , o r b y embodying it. Withi n eac h man is a part of the eternal logos. Ma n require s the bod y o f a woman t o procreate , bu t sinc e h e i s the embodimen t o f th e generative powe r o f natur e a s pure mind, he has authority over , possesses, and owns the body of women. A s stated by Lacan , "I t is in the name of the father tha t w e must recogniz e the suppor t o f the Symboli c function which , from th e daw n o f history , ha s identifie d hi s perso n wit h th e figur e o f th e law" (E , 6 7). "Before th e Name-of-the-Fathe r ther e wa s n o father , ther e wer e al l sorts o f othe r thing s . . . bu t befor e th e ter m father wa s institute d i n a certain registe r historicall y ther e wa s certainl y n o father " ( S III , 306) . There ca n b e n o fathe r i n th e primar y origina l fantas y no r wher e th e primary signifie r govern s th e Symboli c an d th e Imaginary . I f th e mal e gives th e phallu s t o th e femal e a s a sacrificia l gift , recognizin g withi n he r the generativ e powe r o f nature , the n th e mal e i s no t an d canno t b e a father. "[T]h e father , ha s hi s ow n an d that' s that , h e neithe r exchange s i t nor give s it . Ther e i s n o circulatio n . . . Th e father , a s father , ha s th e

The Dialectics of Signification 156 phallus—ful l stop " ( S III , 319) . Eithe r th e fathe r embodie s th e generativ e power o f natur e o r th e mothe r does . Ther e i s n o prima l fantas y i n whic h they shar e sinc e th e prima l fantas y carrie s th e structur e o f unconsciou s fantasy, whic h i s creation , difference , an d limitation—an d no t equality . The mothe r eithe r embodie s th e generativ e powe r o f nature , i n whic h cas e she i s everything but th e phallus , o r sh e i s th e father' s receptacl e i n whic h he produce s life , i n whic h cas e sh e i s nothing but th e womb . I n th e privileged for m o f th e origina l fantasy , "It' s th e signifie r procreation i n it s most problemati c form , th e on e tha t Freu d himsel f evoke s i n relatio n t o obsessionals, whic h isn' t th e for m being a mother bu t th e for m being a father" ( S III , 292) . Laca n elaborates : [T]he functio n o f being a father i s absolutel y unthinkabl e i n huma n experienc e without th e categor y o f th e signifier . What ca n i t mea n to be a father? Yo u are familia r wit h th e learne d discussions , ethnological o r other , on e immediatel y enter s int o to establis h whethe r primitive s who sa y tha t wome n conceiv e when they'r e place d i n suc h an d suc h a spot posses s the scientifi c notio n tha t wome n becom e fertilize d onc e the y hav e dul y copulated . These inquiries hav e nevertheles s seeme d t o som e to be perfectly foolish , sinc e it' s difficult t o conceiv e o f huma n animal s stupi d enoug h t o fai l t o notic e tha t whe n one wants t o have kids one has to copulate . Thi s is not th e point. Th e point i s tha t the su m o f thes e facts—o f copulatin g wit h a woman, tha t sh e the n carrie s some thing withi n he r wom b fo r a certain period , tha t thi s product i s finally expelled — will neve r lea d on e t o constitut e th e notio n o f wha t i s to be a father. I' m no t eve n speaking abou t th e entir e cultura l cluste r implie d i n th e ter m being a father, I' m simply speakin g of what i t is to be a father i n the sens e of procreation . A reboun d effec t i s necessar y fo r th e fac t tha t ma n copulate s t o receiv e th e sense i t Reall y has , bu t t o whic h n o Imaginar y acces s i s possible, tha t th e chil d i s as muc h hi s a s th e mother's . An d fo r thi s effec t o f actio n i n retur n t o occur , th e elaboration o f th e notio n o f being a father mus t hav e been raise d by work tha t ha s taken plac e throug h a n entir e cluste r o f cultura l exchange s t o th e stat e o f majo r signifier, an d thi s signifie r mus t hav e it s ow n consistenc y an d status . Th e subjec t may wel l kno w tha t copulatin g i s really a t th e origi n o f procreation , bu t th e function o f procreatio n a s a signifier i s something else. " ( S III, 292-93 ) The privilege d origina l fantas y structure s th e phallus , an d th e phallu s gives th e structur e t o gende r an d Oedipa l sexuality . I t doe s s o no t becaus e of th e materia l fact s o f huma n procreatio n bu t i n spit e o f th e materia l reality o f females ' producin g childre n ou t o f thei r bodies . "Th e signifie r being a father i s wha t create s th e highwa y i n sexua l relation s wit h a woman. I f th e highwa y doesn' t exist , on e find s onesel f face d wit h a number o f elementar y mino r paths , copulatio n an d the n th e woman' s

The Dialectics of Signification pregnancy" ( S III , 293) . "I'v e guide d yo u b y th e han d lon g enoug h fo r 157 you t o perceive tha t speech , an d especiall y thi s essentia l for m o f speec h i n which we announce ourselve s a s a thou, i s a complex mode that i s far fro m reducible to the intuition o f two centers exchanging signals. As the relatio n of subjec t t o subjec t i s structure d i n a comple x mod e b y th e propertie s o f language, the specific rol e the signifier play s in it has to be located therein " (S III, 289). When th e eg o conceive s o f itsel f a s separat e fro m an d ownin g a body , then i t i s eternal an d ca n kno w n o death . I f on e conceive s o f onesel f a s an "I" tha t include s bod y an d mind , w e ar e face d wit h creatio n an d destruc tion. "Al l I need d o is think abou t mysel f [moi] —I a m eternal . Fro m th e moment I think about myself [moi], no destruction o f me [moi] i s possible. But whe n I sa y I , no t onl y i s destructio n possible , bu t a t ever y instanc e there i s creation" ( S II, 292). Th e ego is fragile becaus e of it s vulnerabilit y to narcissisti c deflatio n b y interactio n wit h other s an d wit h th e body . "Think abou t th e I am of I am the one who am. Thi s is what make s fo r th e problematic nature of the relation to the other" ( S III, 288). The ownershi p of wome n a s a righ t o f phalli c possessio n i s th e extrem e for m o f mal e egoistic narcissism . Narcissis m i s "th e centra l Imaginar y relatio n o f in terhuman relationships " ( S III, 92). Th e La w of th e Fathe r establishe s th e domination o f th e fathe r ove r th e female . "B y a girl, by a young woman , or eve n b y a n age d one , nothing mus t b e done independently, eve n i n he r own house . I n childhoo d a female mus t b e subjec t t o he r father , i n yout h to he r husband , whe n he r lor d i s dea d t o he r sons ; a woman mus t neve r be independent." 8 Sinc e "Every legitimate power always rests, as does an y kind o f power , o n th e symbol " ( S II , 201) , th e phallu s a s th e privilege d signifier structure s huma n sexualit y accordin g t o th e jouissances of mal e control an d femal e submission . Laca n asks: Why does this minimal schem a of huma n experienc e which Freud gav e us in the Oedipus comple x retai n it s irreducible an d yet enigmati c value fo r us ? And why privilege the Oedipus complex? Why does Freud always want to find it everywhere, with such insistence? Why do we have here a knot that seems so essential to him that he is unable to abandon it in the slightest particular observation—unles s it' s because the notion o f father , closel y relate d t o that of the fear o f God, gives him the mos t palpabl e elemen t i n experienc e o f wha t I'v e calle d th e quiltin g poin t between the signifier an d the signified? ( S III, 268) The logo s i s no t th e penis , and , a s pur e mind , i t i s i n diametrica l opposition t o th e peni s a s flesh. Ever y patriphalli c ma n carrie s withi n hi m

The Dialectics of Signification 158 th e ongoin g wa r betwee n Apoll o an d th e figur e o f Priapus . Th e La w o f th e Father keep s th e pole s linke d i n opposition , maintainin g th e femal e i n submission t o mak e he r eve r availabl e t o th e peni s bu t separatin g he r an d excluding he r s o tha t th e logo s i s no t pollute d b y he r sexuality . Jacques Derrid a link s th e logo s wit h th e father . "Bu t wha t i s a father? " he asks . One would the n sa y that th e origi n o r caus e of logos is being compared t o what we know to be the caus e of a living son , his father . On e would understan d o r imagin e the birt h an d developmen t o f logos from th e standpoin t o f a domain foreig n t o it , the transmissio n o f lif e o r th e generativ e relation . Bu t th e fathe r i s no t th e generator o r procreato r i n an y "real " sens e prio r t o o r outsid e al l relatio n t o language. I n an y way , indeed , i s th e father/so n relatio n distinguishabl e fro m a mere cause/effect o r generator/engendered relation , if not by the instance of logos ? Only a power of speec h can have a father. Th e father i s always father t o a speaking/ living being . I n othe r words , i t i s precisel y logos that enable s u s t o perceiv e an d investigate somethin g lik e paternity. (PP , 80)

The Religion of God Religion i s th e suprem e denia l o f ou r animality . I t i s premise d o n th e assumption tha t th e min d i s Rea l an d permanen t (primary ) an d th e bod y is illusor y (secondary ) o r merel y a passin g framewor k withi n whic h min d matures. Min d i s sublim e an d th e bod y mundane . Min d i s spiritua l whil e the bod y i s animal . Min d draw s u s u p t o God—pur e Logos , bu t th e bod y brings u s down , pull s wit h gravitationa l forc e towar d th e basenes s o f th e animal. Min d i s o f Go d an d th e bod y o f th e devil . Th e frictio n betwee n th e two i s constan t an d cause s muc h tensio n fo r th e possesso r o f conscious ness. Mind , fo r it s sanctity , mus t deny , transcend , conquer , an d contro l the body . I t invent s th e concep t o f s i n — w h e n on e give s i n t o th e body . Saint Pau l proclaim s tha t "I t i s goo d fo r a ma n no t t o touc h a woman . Nevertheless, t o avoi d fornication , le t ever y ma n hav e hi s ow n wif e an d let ever y woma n hav e he r ow n husband." 9 H e states , " I sa y therefor e t o the unmarrie d an d widows , i t i s goo d fo r the m i f the y abid e eve n a s I . Bu t if the y canno t contain , le t the m marry : fo r i t i s bette r t o marr y tha n t o b u r n . " 1 0 Th e Buddh a i s sai d t o hav e tol d hi s follower s tha t "Thos e wh o are no t wise , ac t lik e animals , racin g towar d femal e forms , lik e hog s towar d m u d . " n Accordin g t o Freud , "Th e ma n i s afrai d o f bein g weakene d b y th e woman, infecte d wit h he r femininit y an d o f the n showin g himsel f incapa ble. . . . Psychoanalysi s believe s tha t i t ha s discovere d a large par t o f wha t

The Dialectics of Signification underlies th e narcissisti c rejectio n o f wome n b y men , whic h i s s o muc h 159 mixed u p wit h despisin g t h e m " (SE , XI, 199) . Mind i s male , an d th e mal e i s th e Father , wh o fo r Laca n "i s a t th e hear t of th e experienc e define d a s religious " ( S VII , 171) . Th e La w o f th e Father command s tha t women , lackin g th e phallus , th e generativ e powe r of nature , an d th e voic e o f logic , mus t remai n silentl y obedient . Sain t Pau l commands femal e obedienc e whe n h e prescribes : "Le t you r wome n kee p silence i n th e Churches : fo r i t i s no t permitte d unt o the m t o speak ; bu t they ar e commande d t o b e unde r obedience , a s als o sait h th e laws," 1 2 an d "Let th e woma n lear n i n silenc e wit h subjection . Bu t I suffe r no t a woma n to teach , no r t o usur p authorit y ove r th e man , bu t t o b e i n silence." 1 3 Similarly, Allah' s declaratio n o f Hi s wil l reveale d t o th e Prophe t Moham med tha t "Th e me n ar e mad e responsibl e fo r th e women , sinc e Go d endowed the m wit h certai n qualities . . . . I f yo u experienc e oppositio n from th e woma n yo u shal l firs t tal k t o them , the n deser t the m i n bed , the n you ma y bea t t h e m . " 1 4 Within th e religiou s discourse , th e dialectica l tension s betwee n Ero s and Thanatos , sexualit y an d ego , ar e represente d a s seduction . I n th e introduction t o hi s book , Seduction, Jea n Baudrillar d writes : A fixe d destin y weigh s o n seduction . Fo r religio n seductio n wa s a strateg y o f th e devil, whether in the guise of witchcraft o r love. It is always the seduction of evil— or o f th e world . I t i s th e ver y artific e o f th e world . It s maledictio n ha s bee n unchanged i n ethic s an d philosophy , an d toda y i t i s maintained i n psychoanalysi s and the "liberatio n o f desire/'. . . Seduction . . . belongs to the order of . . . signs and rituals . Thi s is why al l th e great system s o f productio n an d interpretatio n hav e no t cease d t o exclud e seduc tion—to it s good fortune—fro m thei r conceptua l field . Fo r seduction continue s t o haunt the m fro m without , an d fro m dee p withi n it s forsake n state , threatenin g them wit h collapse . I t await s th e destructio n o f ever y godl y order , includin g thos e of productio n an d desire . Seductio n continue s t o appea r t o al l orthodoxie s a s malefice an d artifice , a black magi c fo r th e deviatio n o f al l truths , a n exaltatio n o f the malicious use of signs , a conspiracy of signs . Ever y discourse is threatened wit h this sudde n reversibility , absorbe d int o it s ow n sign s withou t a trace o f meaning . This i s wh y al l disciplines , whic h hav e a s a n axio m th e coherenc e an d finalit y o f their discourse , must tr y t o exorcise it . Thi s i s where seductio n an d femininit y ar e confounded, indeed , confused. Masculinit y ha s always been haunted by this sudde n reversibility withi n th e feminine . Seductio n an d femininit y ar e ineluctabl e a s th e reverse sid e of sex , meaning and power. 15 In th e fina l paragraph s o f th e book , i n answe r t o th e question , "Productio n as destiny , o r seductio n a s destiny? " Baudrillar d concludes , "Anatom y i s not destiny , no r i s politics : seductio n i s destiny." 1 6

The Dialectics of Signification 160 Ther e ar e tw o extrem e level s o f defens e agains t th e seduction , whic h correspond t o th e tw o pole s o f th e phallu s withi n patriphalli c psychi c reality—logos an d penis . A t logos , th e defens e i s voluntar y castratio n by th e denia l o f th e bod y leadin g towar d th e configuratio n o f religiou s masochism. B y altogethe r denyin g th e phallus , on e ca n escap e th e seduc tion o f sacrificin g th e phallu s t o th e female , thereb y allowin g th e mal e t o simultaneously avoi d th e puissance o f submissio n whil e maintainin g hi s control. Th e religiou s mal e woul d rathe r castrat e himsel f fo r th e sak e of God than fo r th e sak e of life , the mother , an d the woman. H e gives up th e erotic but maintain s control. The sexua l drive , however, attack s th e eg o in terms o f eve r reoccurrin g eroti c fantasies, whic h requir e th e applicatio n of ever mor e sever e punishment s t o th e disobedien t body . Th e sexua l purit y of th e monaster y i s assuredl y a n illusion . A s ha s becom e clea r i n th e recent exposur e o f chil d sexua l abus e b y "me n o f God, " th e sexua l driv e will get the ego, one way or another . The phallu s function s a s a defens e mechanis m agains t seduction . Th e logos denie s th e body , th e La w o f th e Fathe r denie s th e seductio n t o surrender th e phallus , and the penis becomes an instrument o f aggression , rape being a prime example. Whe n h e does it to her, solely for hi s pleasure and agains t he r will , h e protect s himsel f fro m th e desir e t o presen t hi s phallus t o he r a s th e objec t o f he r desire . Th e hostil e an d misogynou s nature o f phalli c aggressio n i s reflecte d i n suc h commo n phrase s a s "fuc k you" an d "scre w you " an d i n th e man y othe r descriptiv e way s i n whic h males verbaliz e "doin g i t to " a woman. Mal e fantasie s o f rape , tyin g up , punishing, o r in othe r way s causin g pain t o females, o r the actual carryin g out o f th e sadisti c fantasie s int o practice , ar e a n eroti c manifestatio n o f desire. The institutionalizatio n o f pornographi c imagery , rangin g fro m maga zine and television commercial s and classical paintings to the coarser form s of sexua l imager y o f th e pornograph y industry , den y wome n th e self , subject, an d eg o b y portrayin g the m a s fantas y object s o f desire . Typica l pornographic imager y socialize s wome n i n term s o f a psychic realit y tha t denies the m tha t whic h me n clai m a s embodimen t o f th e logos . Thus , religion an d pornograph y serv e th e sam e basi c function : defendin g me n against seductio n an d th e desir e to surrende r th e phallus. Th e portrayal of women a s empty, mindless , egoles s vessels, open t o and awaitin g penetra tion, affirm s an d reinforce s fo r male s thei r possessio n o f th e phallus . Pornographic imager y is , therefore , a powerfu l defens e mechanis m fo r

The Dialectics of Signification de-eroticizing matriarcha l fantas y structure s an d eroticizin g patriphalli c 161 fantasy. Religio n an d pornograph y functio n i n a dialectical conjunctio n a t the opposit e end s o f th e phallus—religio n a t th e logo s en d an d pornogra phy a t th e peni s end , an d th e tw o ar e mediate d b y th e La w of th e Father . Traditional psychoanalyti c theory , i f limite d t o the Oedipa l sid e of psychi c reality, function s t o legitimiz e wha t i s essentiall y a powerful an d comple x set of defense mechanisms an d prescribes them as the norm o f human indi viduation. The writing s o f th e Marqui s d e Sad e hav e lon g bee n recognize d a s philosophically an d psychologicall y significant , particularl y importan t when rea d against th e fram e o f Sain t Paul . Th e two write at opposite poles within th e framewor k o f Judeo-Christia n discours e an d ar e th e mirro r images o f mind/bod y dualism . Sain t Paul , b y advocatin g celibac y an d condemning fornication , denie s th e peni s an d elevate s th e spiri t o r th e logos. Th e writings o f d e Sade, on th e othe r hand , rebe l agains t th e logos. If on e examine s th e purporte d o r rea l description s o f th e practice s o f devi l worshippers, the y confor m ver y closel y t o description s o f Sadea n scenes , whereas almos t ever y singl e ac t o f peni s aggressio n celebrate d b y d e Sad e can be found t o be prohibited b y the Ol d and New Testaments . Saint Pau l aim s fo r th e transcendenc e o f th e spiri t ove r th e flesh , whil e de Sade' s primar y objectiv e i s th e corruptio n o f innocenc e an d purit y o f the spirit by reveling in sexual pleasures of the flesh and the contaminatio n of virtue . Wha t Sain t Pau l an d d e Sad e have in common , however , i s tha t their writing s reflec t patriphalli c fantas y structure s tha t functio n a s de fenses mechanism s agains t th e powerful , seductiv e (M)other . Thei r writ ings ar e anti-Ero s an d ego-centered . B y celebratin g rape , sodomy , an d i n every wa y negatin g th e desir e o f th e Other , d e Sad e defend s th e phallu s against th e seductio n o f castration . A t th e sam e time , h e play s th e rol e of the devil to the sanctit y o f Sain t Paul . Religio n i s the sacred and pornogra phy th e profane . Religio n i s the affirmatio n o f th e logos, and pornograph y the affirmatio n o f th e peni s a s instrumen t o f th e ego . Eac h require s th e other. Eac h defines itsel f i n terms o f the negation o f the other. A t the level of consciou s content , the y ar e contradictory . A t th e leve l o f th e uncon scious, they ar e a part o f a n integrate d patriphalli c structure . "Ther e i s n o contradiction i n th e unconscious ; contradictor y primar y tendencie s exis t simultaneously." 17 A paralle l wil l b e foun d i n th e fantas y structure s o f ancien t Greece , with th e Goddes s a s the monstrou s Medus a wit h writhin g snake s i n plac e

The Dialectics of Signification 162 o f hair , whos e gaze will turn a man t o stone . Gree k sculptur e an d frescoe s show an obsession with th e theme of heroes killing powerful women—th e Amazons.18 On e o f th e man y pornographi c plate s show n b y Ev a Keul s i n her book about Gree k misogyn y i s particularly reminiscen t o f d e Sade. 19 It portrays a woma n bein g sodomize d fro m behin d whil e sh e ha s a peni s forced int o he r mout h fro m i n front . Th e pornographi c image s o f th e Greek potter y reproduce d i n Keuls' s boo k hav e th e sam e structura l rela tionship t o Platoni c an d neo-Platoni c though t tha t th e verba l image s o f d e Sade hav e t o Christia n theology . Th e prevalenc e o f sodom y an d mal e pedophilia i n ancien t Greec e reflect s a defens e agains t th e seduction . Th e desire fo r castratio n i s s o stron g tha t t o allo w th e peni s t o com e clos e t o the body of a woman i n the context of a loving relationship is a monumental risk . Sodom y i s therefor e th e opposit e o f logo s i n th e gran d narrativ e of th e Gree k worldvie w i n th e sam e wa y tha t fornicatio n i s th e opposit e of th e Hol y Spiri t i n th e patriphalli c fantas y structur e constitute d b y Christianity. Behind th e gran d storie s o f patriarchy , sharin g th e structur e of mind/bod y bifurcatio n an d dualism, lies the represse d alternativ e narra tive o f matriarcha l consciousness , whic h i s not a n oppositio n withi n patri archy bu t it s gran d antithesis . I f ancien t Greec e ha d a n equivalen t t o th e Marquis d e Sade , h e woul d hav e playe d th e paralle l rol e t o Plat o tha t d e Sade does to Saint Paul . Neither celibat e castratio n withi n aestheti c religiou s an d monasti c rep resentational structure s no r phallic aggression are adequate defense mecha nisms agains t th e seductiv e forc e o f Ero s o r th e sexua l drive . Th e firs t i s ineffectual, an d th e secon d become s highl y destructiv e i f no t kep t unde r control. Bipola r alternative s ar e seldo m efficien t becaus e the y ar e ex tremes. Th e logos , pure min d an d spirit , i s opposed t o th e penis , consum mate fles h an d anima l body . Th e peni s seduce s th e min d throug h th e pul l of desir e a s th e aestheti c i s haunte d b y pornographi c eroti c fantasy . I t i s often th e priest o r the clergy that ar e most likely to have hidden pornogra phy. 20 Th e highe r la w denounce s an d disparage s sexua l pleasur e a s i t contaminates an d defile s pur e min d an d brings th e spiri t dow n t o the leve l of th e body , bu t th e bod y canno t b e denied . Ther e i s thu s a n eterna l enmity betwee n th e logo s an d th e peni s i n consciou s fantas y structures , and the balanc e is maintained throug h th e law . Sinfu l fles h an d carna l lus t are the enemie s of the spirit . Eac h pole of the dialectic entails its contradictory pole , whethe r Go d an d th e devil , religio n an d pornography , si n an d sanctity, th e logo s an d th e penis , o r th e min d an d th e body . Withi n

The Dialectics of Signification the dialectica l structur e o f th e phallu s i n patriphalli c psychi c realit y th e 16 3 oppositional tension s ar e mediate d b y th e La w of th e Father . Th e la w set s limits o n sexua l aggressio n an d provide s a spher e o f legitimac y fo r th e body to function unde r the direction o f the logos. The law creates disobedience an d a fea r o f th e impure , whic h lea d u s int o rite s o f purificatio n an d religious masochism , and , whe n th e wil l fails , i t lead s u s int o trans gression. The la w legitimizes th e denia l o f sel f t o women. Th e La w of th e Fathe r denies the m th e ego . No t onl y doe s th e la w forbi d the m t o accep t th e phallus, it commands them to present thei r bodies in service to the phallus. Religion an d pornograph y togethe r constitut e th e boundarie s o f th e con ceptual structur e o f patriphalli c psychi c reality , an d i t i s the la w that link s them an d maintain s th e balance . Laca n state s tha t "Th e phallu s i s th e privileged signifie r o f tha t mar k i n whic h th e rol e o f th e logo s i s joine d with th e adven t o f desire " (E , 287) . Th e "Father " an d hi s La w i s th e midpoint betwee n th e penis and the logos. Th e Father, being created in th e image o f God , is pure min d o r spiri t trappe d i n th e physical bod y with th e penis, whic h drive s hi m throug h desire . Thus , th e phallu s i s th e logos Father-penis, th e structur e o f whic h i s institutionall y manifeste d i n reli gion-law-pornography. Al l of th e major religion s presuppose th e divin e o r ultimate realit y a s disembodie d min d (whethe r differentiate d o r undiffer entiated) an d identif y min d wit h th e mal e an d th e bod y wit h th e female . Thus, religio n castrate s (disempowers ) women , an d i t i s th e la w tha t enforces th e "reig n o f the patriphallus. "

The Castration of the Privileged Signifier Nihilism, accordin g t o Nietzsche , i s a psychological stat e tha t on e reache s when on e realize s "tha t becomin g aim s a t nothing an d achieve s nothing" and tha t th e "worl d i s fabricate d solel y fro m psychologica l needs " (WP , 12). H e conclude s tha t "Th e fait h i n th e categorie s o f reaso n i s th e caus e of nihilism " an d tha t "W e hav e measured th e value of the world accordin g to categorie s that refer to a purely fictitious world" (WP , 12) . Nihilis m presupposes tha t "ther e i s n o truth , tha t ther e i s n o absolut e natur e o f things, no r a 'thing-in-itself ' " (WP , 13) . Radica l o r extrem e nihilis m "i s the mos t scientifi c o f al l possible hypotheses " (WP , ^^). Nietzsche' s nihil ism lead s hi m t o stak e ou t th e privilege d signifier , t o mar k i t out , and , subsequently, t o destro y it . Hi s metho d i s t o deroo t an d t o destabilize ,

The Dialectics of Signification 164 and , in so doing, he leaves us with a language that is castrated. Hi s method anticipates Derrida , who attempt s an exit and a deconstruction without changing terrain, by repeating what is implicit in the founding concept s and the original problematic, by using against the edifice the instrument s o r stone s availabl e i n th e house , tha t is , equally , i n language . Here, on e risk s ceaselessl y confirming , consolidating , relifting (relever), a t a n always mor e certai n depth , tha t whic h on e allegedly deconstructs . Th e continuous process o f makin g explicit , movin g towar d a n opening , risk s sinkin g int o th e autism of the closure. (EM, 135) It i s th e gul f betwee n th e Symboli c an d th e Rea l tha t constitute s thi s castration o f language . Thi s is , accordin g t o Nietzsche , th e pric e o f con sciousness. Withou t th e privilege d signifier , ther e i s a void, a deep chasm , an abyss . Nietzsch e ha s to o choice s wit h regar d t o thi s void—h e ca n abandon languag e altogether , o r h e ca n look into th e void an d se e what, if anything, present s itself : "an d wher e doe s ma n no t stan d a t a n abyss ? I s seeing itsel f not—seein g abysses? " (Z , 177). "H e wh o see s the abyss , bu t with a n eagle' s eyes—h e wh o grasps the abys s wit h a n eagle' s claws : he possesses courage" (Z , 298). Nietzsche's strateg y o f intersubstitutin g opposite s an d hi s nihilisti c method caus e him t o look beyond th e "reality " o f the privileged. H e looks from above , ou t fro m a distance , an d peer s dow n fro m th e height s o f hi s solitude t o catc h a glimpse o f hi s mos t abysma l thought . H e deconstructs , destabilizes, uproots , an d uplifts . Finally , h e stands , looking int o th e cata clysmic voi d tha t h e ha d re - created . I t i s dark , an d ther e i s n o end , n o surface, n o boundary . Th e tumultou s visio n i s a vision o f th e loneliest , i t is boundless, but yet he laughs, and laughs, and laughs. I t is a laughter tha t comes dee p fro m within , i t i s uncontrollable , an d it s sourc e i s obscured . Somewhere beneat h th e laughter , h e shudders , shudder s violently . I f h e only kne w why h e was laughing . Nietzsche decisivel y kill s logos , emphaticall y destroy s th e La w o f th e Father, and manages to mutilate any remnant s o f God or manifestations o f pure disembodie d mind . H e proclaim s th e deat h o f Go d fro m th e top s o f mountains, fo r al l t o shar e i n th e news . He , wit h th e hig h precisio n o f a surgeon, cut s through layer s o f truth s an d leaps through hoop s of certain ties. H e i s th e "transvaluo r o f value, " th e deconstructo r o f logocentri c metaphysics, th e rereade r o f history . H e states , "I t i s a miserabl e story : man seek s a principl e throug h whic h h e ca n despis e men—h e invent s a world s o a s t o b e abl e t o slande r an d bespatte r thi s world : i n reality , h e

The Dialectics of Signification reaches ever y tim e fo r nothingnes s an d construe s nothingnes s a s "God/ 7 16 5 as "truth, " an d i n an y cas e as judge an d condemne r o f this state o f being " (WP, 461). Nietzsche revisit s th e belie f i n science , rationality , an d trut h a s a n achievable, linea r objective . H e vehemently attack s th e ploy s o f metaphy sicians an d destroy s thei r rationa l underpinnings : "I n th e grea t whirlpoo l of force s ma n stand s wit h th e concei t tha t thi s whirlpoo l i s rationa l an d has a rational aim: a n error! The only rationa l thing we know is what littl e reason ma n has : h e mus t exer t i t a lot , an d i t i s alway s ruinou s fo r hi m when h e abandon s himself , say , t o 'Providence ' " (P t N , 50) . H e under stands logo s to be the defens e mechanis m agains t th e body. H e sees it as a weapon utilize d t o enforc e th e trut h o f orde r an d stasis , used t o captur e a stagnant world , a n immobil e vision . Further , Nietzsch e states : "Shrewd ness, clarity, severit y an d logicality ar e weapons against the ferocit y o f th e drives. Thes e must be dangerous and threaten destruction : otherwis e ther e would b e no sens e in developin g shrewdnes s t o the point o f makin g it int o a tyrant " (WP , 433) . "Wit h relentles s logi c on e arrive d a t th e absolut e demand t o deny nature " (WP , 245). Thinking i n term s o f truths , i n logica l sequences , further s th e charade . "The law s o f logi c are "regulativ e article s o f belief, " (WP , 530), Nietzsch e states, an d further , "wha t ca n b e though t o f mus t certainl y b e a fiction " (WP, 539). "Though t canno t b e derived, an y more than sensation s ca n be; but tha t doe s not mea n tha t it s primordiality o r "being-in-itsel f " has bee n proved! Al l tha t i s established i s that w e cannot get beyon d it , becaus e w e have nothin g bu t though t an d sensation " (WP , 574). Th e nee d t o define , to classify , an d t o compartmentaliz e give s th e consciou s anima l a ground ing, a sens e o f understandin g o f wher e sh e o r h e fit s i n th e large r schem e of things . A s Nietzsch e states , "thingnes s ha s onl y bee n invente d b y us owin g t o th e requirement s o f logic , thu s wit h th e ai m o f defining , communication (t o bind togethe r th e multiplicit y o f relationships , proper ties, activities) " (WP , 55J). Clingin g t o this grounding is difficult t o avoid , though it, of necessity, leads only to error. "Consciousnes s is tyrannized — not leas t b y ou r prid e i n it . On e think s tha t i t constitute s th e kerne l o f man; wha t i s abiding , eternal , ultimate , an d mos t origina l i n him . On e takes consciousnes s fo r a determinat e magnitude . On e denie s it s growt h and it s intermittences . On e take s i t fo r th e "unit y o f th e organism " (GS , 1,11).

One o f th e stronges t scientifi c exposition s o f logo s i s th e teleologicall y

The Dialectics of Signification 166 oriente d versio n o f evolutio n tha t wa s constructe d b y th e God-fearin g Charles Darwin . Nietzsch e wa s a sever e criti c o f Darwin' s purposeful , teleological, an d directiona l versio n o f th e proces s o f evolution . H e ex plains tha t "Man , a littl e eccentri c specie s o f animal , whic h . . . ha s it s day . . . o n eart h a mer e moment , a n incident , a n exceptio n withou t consequences, somethin g o f n o importanc e t o th e genera l characte r o f th e earth . . . a n even t withou t plan , reason , will , self-consciousness " (WP , 303). Unde r th e subtitle , Against Darwinism, Nietzsch e goes on to say tha t "The utilit y o f a n orga n doe s no t explai n it s origin . . . . Th e influenc e o f 'external circumstances ' is overestimated b y Darwin to a ridiculous extent : the essentia l thin g i n th e lif e proces s i s precisely th e tremendou s shaping , form-creating forc e workin g fro m withi n whic h utilize s an d exploit s 'ex ternal circumstances'—i n view ; bu t i n th e struggl e o f th e part s a ne w form i s not lef t lon g without bein g relate d t o a partial usefulness an d then , according to its use, develops itself mor e and more completely" (WP , 647). "[M]an a s a specie s doe s no t represen t an y progres s compare d wit h an y other animal . Th e whol e anima l an d vegetabl e kingdo m doe s no t evolv e from th e lowe r t o th e higher—bu t al l at th e sam e time , in utte r disorder , over and against eac h other. Th e richest and most comple x forms—for th e expression 'highe r type ' mean s n o mor e tha n this—peris h mor e easily : only th e lowes t preserv e a n apparen t indestructibility " (WP , 684) . Re peating th e sam e subtitle , Against Darwinism, h e state s tha t "Wha t sur prises m e mos t whe n I survey th e broa d destinie s o f ma n i s that I always see before m e the opposite of that which Darwin and his school see or want to se e today: selectio n i n favo r o f th e stronger , better-constituted , an d th e progress of the species. Precisely the opposite is palpable . . . the inevitabl e dominion o f th e average , eve n th e sub-average types . . . . Tha t specie s represent an y progres s i s th e mos t unreasonabl e assertio n i n th e world " (WP, 685) . H e conclude s tha t "Becoming mus t b e explaine d withou t re course t o fina l intention s . . . the presen t mus t absolutel y no t b e justifie d by referenc e t o a future , no r th e pas t b y referenc e t o th e present " (WP , 708). Nietzsche decimate s order , o r th e belie f i n a fundamenta l structur e underlying wha t w e have com e to know as existence. Nothin g i s predeter mined, nothin g ca n b e define d o r iterated—eve n nondefineability . B y destroying al l orderin g principles , Nietzsch e disempowers , dethrones , an d destabilizes thos e wh o loo k t o orde r a s justification fo r thei r rule . Adher ence i s n o longe r guarantee d whe n wha t on e i s adherin g t o ha s bee n

The Dialectics of Signification derouted, an d hopelessly derailed . "Th e problem 'tho u shalt / " Nietzsch e 167 states, i s "a n inclinatio n tha t canno t explai n itself , simila r t o th e sexua l drive/7 on e tha t "shal l no t fal l unde r th e genera l condemnatio n o f th e drives; o n the contrary, it shall be their evaluatio n an d judge!" (WP , 275) . The "law" exists t o maintain, i t is a "thoroughly realisti c formalizatio n o f certain condition s fo r th e self-preservatio n o f a community " (WP , 204) and attempt s t o orde r th e unorderable . Further , Nietzsch e proclaims , " A morality, a mode of living tried an d proved by long experience and testing, at length enter s consciousnes s as a law, as dominating—And therewit h the entire grou p o f relate d value s an d states enter s int o it : i t becomes venera ble, unassailable , holy , true ; i t i s par t o f it s developmen t tha t it s origi n should b e forgotten—That i s a sign it has become master" (WP , 514). The La w of th e Fathe r i s the law that enforce s th e domination o f man over nature , orde r ove r chaos , finit e infinitie s ove r depthles s abysses . I t seeks t o eternall y projec t itself , abov e an d beyond , bu t neve r within . "Eternitalization," Nietzsch e states , ca n "b e tha t tyranni c wil l o f a grea t sufferer wh o woul d lik e t o forg e wha t i s mos t personal , individual , an d narrow—most idiosyncratic—i n hi s suffering , int o a bindin g law and a compulsion, takin g reveng e o n all things, a s it were, by impressing , forc ing, an d brandin g int o the m hi s image , th e imag e o f hi s torture " (WP , 846). Nietzsche proclaim s th e voi d o f disembodie d mind . H e see s i t a s th e illusion o f a truth an d the product o f moral aestheticism . H e characterize s as "tremendou s blunders " th e "overestimatio n o f consciousness, " "spiri t as cause, " "will introduce d whereve r ther e ar e effects, " an d "th e 'real ' world as a spiritual world " (WP , 529). "Belie f i n the body," h e tells us, "is more fundamental tha n belief i n the soul: the latter arose from unscientifi c reflection o n [th e agonies of] the body" (WP , 491). Nietzsch e state s that it is essentia l t o star t fro m th e bod y an d emplo y i t a s a guide . I t i s th e much riche r phenomenon , whic h allow s fo r cleare r observation . "Th e phenomenon o f th e bod y i s th e richer , clearer , mor e tangibl e phenome non: t o be discussed first , methodologically , withou t comin g t o an y decision abou t it s ultimate significance " (WP , 489). "We philosophers," state s Nietzsche, "ar e not free t o divide body fro m sou l as the people do; we are even les s fre e t o divid e sou l fro m spirit . W e ar e no t thinkin g frogs , nor objectifyin g an d registerin g mechanism s wit h thei r innard s removed : constantly w e have to give birth t o our thoughts ou t of our pain and , like mothers, endo w the m wit h al l w e hav e o f blood , heart , fire , pleasure ,

The Dialectics of Signification 168 passion , agony , conscience , fate , an d catastrophe " (GS , pref . 3) . Belie f i n the bod y i s bette r establishe d tha n belie f i n th e spirit " (WP , 532) . " ' I a m body an d soul'—s o speak s th e child . An d wh y shoul d on e no t spea k lik e children? Bu t th e awakened , th e enlightene d ma n says : I am bod y entirely , and nothin g beside ; an d sou l i s onl y a wor d fo r somethin g i n th e body " (Z, 61) . By privilegin g th e body , Nietzsch e kill s religion , h e decenter s th e mor alistic ethic , an d counter s th e virtuous . H e castrate s th e La w o f th e Father , and, i n s o doing , burie s God . "Whither i s God" he cried. " I will tell you. We have killed him—you an d I . All of us ar e hi s murderers . Bu t ho w di d w e d o this ? Ho w coul d w e drin k u p th e sea ? Who gav e u s th e spong e t o wip e awa y th e entir e horizon ? Wha t wer e w e doin g when w e unchaine d thi s eart h fro m it s sun ? Whithe r i s i t movin g now ? Whithe r are we moving? Away fro m al l suns ? Are we not plunging continually ? Backward , sideward, forward , i n al l directions ? I s ther e stil l an y u p o r down ? Ar e w e no t straying a s through a n infinit e nothing ? D o we not fee l th e breath o f empt y space ? Has i t no t becom e colder ? I s no t nigh t continuall y closin g i n o n us ? D o w e no t need t o ligh t lantern s i n th e morning ? D o w e hear nothin g a s ye t o f th e nois e of the gravedigger s wh o ar e buryin g God ? D o we smel l nothin g a s yet o f th e divin e decomposition? Gods , too , decompose . Go d i s dead . Go d remain s dead . An d w e have killed him. (GS , 125) So th e madma n tell s th e townspeople : Go d i s dead ! Go d i s dead ! They , however, ar e no t ye t read y fo r him : "Lightnin g an d thunde r requir e time ; the ligh t o f th e star s require s time ; deeds , thoug h done , stil l requir e tim e to b e see n an d heard . Thi s dee d i s stil l mor e distan t fro m the m tha n th e most distan t stars— and yet they have done it to themselves" (GS , 125) . Religion is , according t o Nietzsche , a vestige o f th e logos , a vestige o f naiv e rationalism. I n hi s lis t o f "Tremendou s Blunders, " Nietzsch e includes , "consciousness a s th e highes t achievabl e form , a s th e suprem e kin d o f being, a s 'God ' " (WP , 529) . "A religion has never yet, either directly or indirectly, either as dogma or as parable, contained a truth," Nietzsch e asserts (HH , 62) . Further , h e states , " 'T o becom e a s God, ' 't o b e absorbe d into God'—fo r thousand s o f year s thes e wer e th e mos t naiv e an d convinc ing desiderat a (bu t wha t convince s i s no t necessaril y t r u e — i t i s merel y convincing: a note fo r asses) " (WP , 17) . Nietzsche declares , unde r th e subtitl e New Struggles, tha t "Afte r Bud dha wa s dead , hi s shado w wa s stil l show n fo r centurie s i n a cave— a tremendous, gruesom e shadow . Go d i s dead ; bu t give n th e wa y o f men ,

The Dialectics of Signification there may stil l be caves for thousand s o f years in which his shadow will be 16 9 shown.—And we—w e stil l hav e t o vanquis h hi s shado w too " (GS , 108). In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche expresses his pessimism: " I am afraid w e are no t ri d o f Go d becaus e w e stil l hav e fait h i n grammar " (P t N , 483) . "Rational though t i s interpretatio n accordin g t o a schem e tha t w e canno t throw off " (WP , 522). Th e logo s i s the shado w o f God , an d i n dedicatin g himself t o th e vanquishin g o f th e shadow , Nietzsch e undertake s th e tas k of deflatin g th e illusio n o f th e phallu s drive n an d create d solel y b y desire . He states , "Desir e magnifie s tha t whic h on e desires ; i t grow s eve n b y no t being fulfilled—th e greates t idea s ar e thos e tha t hav e been create d b y th e most violen t an d protracte d desires . . . . Mankin d ha s embraced , wit h ever-increasing ardor , nothin g bu t clouds : finall y i t calle d it s despair , it s impotence 'God ' " (WP , 336). Go d i s dead , an d s o is Logos , but th e effec t of consciousnes s i s t o sacraliz e th e tomb . Th e madman , proclaime r o f th e death o f God , emphaticall y states , "Wha t afte r al l are thes e churche s no w if they ar e not the tombs and sepulcher s o f God? " (GS , 125).

The Law of Desire With th e adep t remova l o f th e privilege d signifier , th e unhinge d subjec t i s situated i n th e chaoti c real m o f desire . I t i s wha t Nietzsch e term s "the great passion" (WP , 26) . Sinc e th e real m o f desire , however , exist s withi n the binar y o f th e maste r signifiers , i t woul d follo w tha t whe n Nietzsch e castrated th e privilege d signifier , h e castrate d th e desir e o f th e privileged . The Law of th e Fathe r state s tha t desire is thy desire, Oh Heavenly Male; it is a desire to have the Other as object, please you—the subject. B y castratin g the privilege d desire , wha t remain s i s th e primar y desire : desire is the Other's desire, and thy desires to please the Other. "In th e psyche, " Laca n state s "ther e i s nothin g b y whic h th e subjec t may situat e himsel f a s mal e o r femal e being . I n hi s psyche , th e subjec t situates onl y equivalent s o f th e functio n o f reproduction " (F , 2). H e fur ther explain s tha t "sexualit y i s represente d i n th e psych e b y a relatio n o f the subjec t tha t i s deduce d fro m somethin g othe r tha n sexualit y itself . Sexuality i s established i n th e fiel d o f th e subjec t b y a way tha t i s of lack " (F, 204) . I n term s o f th e reproductiv e process , neithe r se x ca n reproduc e without th e other. Each , therefore suffer s a lack. Th e lack for th e female i s only o f th e phallus . Sh e is , therefore , everythin g bu t th e phallus . Th e male, o n th e othe r hand , ha s onl y th e phallu s an d is , therefore, s o fa r a s

The Dialectics of Signification 170 reproductio n i s concerned , onl y th e phallus . I t is the male , therefore, tha t is defined a s substantially a lack. Th e male mus t posses s th e entir e femal e body i n orde r t o claim the generativ e powe r o f nature . Whethe r th e gran d metaphor i s tha t o f min d o r body , th e mal e ca n onl y relat e t o natur e through th e femal e body . Ther e simpl y i s no othe r way . H e mus t posses s it o r giv e himsel f t o it . Laca n furthe r explains : ''Befor e strictl y huma n relations ar e established , certai n relation s hav e alread y bee n determined . They ar e taken fro m whateve r natur e ma y offe r a s supports, support s tha t are arrange d i n theme s o f opposition. . Natur e provides— I mus t us e th e word signifiers , an d thes e signifier s organiz e huma n relation s i n a creative way, providin g the m wit h structure s an d shapin g them " (F , 20) . Th e embodiment o f th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s th e Everything but, an d the embodimen t o f the on e who lacks it is the Nothing but, the castrated . The la w o f desir e provide s tha t The desire of the person who lacks the generative power of nature shall be to fulfill the desire of the person who possesses the generative power of nature. Th e generativ e powe r o f natur e lies wit h th e femal e i n th e primar y signifie r an d wit h th e mal e i n th e privileged. Thus , huma n sexualit y i s forge d withi n th e dialectic s o f tw o opposite laws of desire . According t o Lacan , "th e La w is ther e precisel y fro m th e beginning ; i t has alway s bee n there , an d huma n sexualit y mus t realiz e itsel f throug h i t and b y mean s o f it . Thi s fundamenta l la w is simply on e of symbolization . This i s wha t th e Oedipu s comple x means " ( S III , 83) . "[OJnc e yo u hav e entered th e pla y o f symbols , yo u ar e alway s force d t o ac t accordin g t o a rule" ( S III, 51), an d th e rul e i s th e la w o f desire . Analyti c experience , a s understood b y Lacan , reveals that "wha t on e must d o as man o r as woman are entirely abandone d t o the drama, to the scenario, which is placed in th e field o f th e Other—whic h strictl y speakin g i s th e Oedipu s complex " (F , 204). Onc e w e recognize , however , th e presenc e o f th e primar y signifier , oppositionally represse d b y th e privilege d signifier , an d perceiv e tha t th e law o f desir e o f th e maste r signifie r i s a n oppositiona l dialectic , the n w e know tha t underneat h th e la w o f desir e tha t the desire of the woman is to her husband and he shall rule over her lies another law of desire, frightenin g and dar k becaus e i t i s castrating : that the desire of the man shall be to the woman; she shall be the ultimate controller of desire.

S E V E N

The Dialectics of Desire

Sexuality In understandin g huma n sexuality , ther e are , accordin g t o Laplanche' s interpretation o f Freud , "tw o terms , tw o 'signifiers ' " tha t mus t b e "th e guiding thread, " drive an d instinct (L&D , 9) . Instinc t i s " a performe d behavioral pattern , whos e arrangemen t i s determine d hereditaril y an d which i s repeate d accordin g t o modalitie s relativel y adapte d t o a certai n type of object/' an d 'the sexual object' i s defined a s 'the person from who m the sexua l attractio n proceeds ' " (L&D , 10-11). Laplanch e quote s th e fol lowing passag e fro m Freud : "Ou r stud y o f thumb-suckin g o r sensua l sucking has already given u s the three essentia l characteristic s o f an infan tile sexua l manifestation . A t it s origi n i t attache s itsel f t o on e o f th e vita l somatic functions ; i t ha s a s ye t n o sexua l object , an d i s thu s auto-erotic ; and it s sexua l ai m i s dominate d b y a n erotogeni c zone . I t i s t o b e antici pated tha t thes e characteristic s wil l b e foun d t o appl y equall y t o mos t of th e othe r activitie s o f th e infantil e sexua l instincts " (SE , VII , 182) . Laplanche calls the notion o f attaching itself to "propping"': "Th e phenomenon Freu d describe s i s a leaning of the drive, th e fac t tha t emergen t sexuality attache s itsel f t o an d i s proppe d upo n anothe r proces s whic h i s both simila r an d profoundl y divergent : th e sexua l driv e is propped upo n a non-sexual, vita l functio n or , a s Freu d formulate s i t i n term s whic h def y all additiona l commentary , upo n a 'bodil y functio n essentia l t o life ' " (L&D, 16). The paradigmatic example of propping is where, in infancy, "simultane ous wit h th e feedin g function' s achievemen t o f satisfactio n i n nourish ment, a sexua l proces s begin s t o appear " tha t involve s bot h th e mout h o f

171

The Dialectics of Desire 172 th e infan t an d th e breas t o f th e mother , wit h th e resul t that , "I n th e ver y act o f feeding , th e proces s o f proppin g ma y b e reveale d i n a culminatin g satisfaction tha t alread y resemble s orgasm " (L&D , 17-18). "W e pas s progressively fro m th e erotogeni c zone , a s a privileged place for stimulation , to a fa r mor e extende d serie s o f processes. " Freud , Laplanch e posits , generalizes furthe r unti l h e i s eventuall y le d t o th e positio n tha t "ever y function and , finall y ever y huma n activit y ca n b e erotogenic " (L&D , 21). For Freud , th e emotions , whic h ar e conceptualize d withi n th e physica l contact between mothe r an d infant, hav e a sexual component o r fall withi n his explicatio n o f th e sexual . A t th e sam e time , Freu d maintain s tha t th e nerve system , whic h produce s th e eroti c o r sexua l feeling s tha t ar e mor e centrally focuse d i n th e genitals , ar e sprea d throughou t th e ski n o f th e human bod y an d ar e also concentrated i n certain area s suc h a s the breasts , the mouth , an d th e anus. Thes e Freu d call s erotogenic zones. Freu d main tains tha t ther e ar e certai n bodil y function s an d huma n actions , centere d on th e erotogeni c zones , tha t produc e a sexua l excitation . Thes e action s include th e infan t suckin g a t he r mother' s breas t o r th e ac t o f defecation . The distinctio n tha t Freu d draw s betwee n biologica l se x an d sexualit y i s reflected i n th e simila r distinctio n h e draw s betwee n anima l instinc t an d drive, whic h i s th e conceptualizatio n o f th e experientia l an d perceptua l manifestations o f the instinct . At the conceptual level, the two most basic events are birth and death — the origi n o f existenc e an d it s termination . Th e conceptualizatio n o f thes e two events i s closely relate d t o sexua l pleasure an d death. Lif e begins wit h sexual intercourse , whic h generall y produce s th e mos t intens e for m o f pleasure, an d deat h ofte n i s preceded b y pain . Whil e th e proces s o f repro duction ma y begi n i n sexua l pleasure, it culminates in intense pain an d joy for th e mother . I n addition, we know that, conceptually , sexua l pleasure is linked wit h death. 1 Finally , we know tha t th e ga p between sexua l pleasur e and pai n i s close d i n tha t a t bot h conceptua l an d sensor y level s sexua l pleasure an d pai n becom e linked . A t a neurobiological level , th e pai n an d pleasure center s ar e "firing " i n conjunction . Pai n an d pleasur e merg e o r fold bac k o n eac h othe r i n a n intens e jouissance. The pai n ma y be , an d often is , purel y imaginar y bu t nevertheles s result s i n jouissance. Th e imaginary receptio n o f pain , withi n certai n kind s o f situationa l frame works, can substantiall y increas e jouissance. The conceptual links of bodil y sensations an d mind ca n be diagrammed a s follows :

The Dialectics of Desire i73

The abov e structur e underlie s Freudia n psychoanalysi s an d forge s a lin k between biolog y an d mental phenomena . Th e tensions between th e sexua l and ego drives function withi n thi s birth-death-pleasure-pain square . According t o Laplanche , Freud' s theor y o f propping, the buttressin g o f sexuality o n nonsexua l activities , an d hi s thesi s o f primary masochism ar e essential fo r th e understanding o f the relationshi p between pai n and sexua l pleasure (L&D , 86-87) . Alon g wit h th e physica l nee d fo r nourishment , the psychological need s relate d t o the formatio n o f th e sel f becom e a focu s of sexua l desire . A mother' s disciplin e i s essentia l t o th e child' s develop ment o f a sens e o f self . Th e ter m discipline combine s teaching , education , training, and correction. Th e antiquated ver b disciple means to teach, train , or educate. "H e was discipled by his mother" i s an exampl e of its usage. A disciple is a follower o f a teacher, an d a discipline is an are a o f knowledge . Being disciplined entail s being taught, corrected , or punished in the contex t of learnin g an d training . I n norma l circumstances , childre n receiv e disci pline fro m thei r mothers , whethe r o r no t i t entail s physica l chastisement . From Freud' s widesprea d finding s o f youn g boys ' masturbatin g t o th e fantasy o f bein g spanke d b y mothe r figures , i t i s clea r tha t disciplin e i s often sexualized . A bottle-fe d mal e infan t wil l have , a s a n adolescen t o r

The Dialectics of Desire 174 adult , th e sam e fixatio n wit h femal e breast s a s woul d a breast-fe d baby . Similarly, a chil d wh o has neve r receive d physica l chastisemen t wil l shar e similar punishmen t fantasie s t o a mal e chil d wh o has . Propping s ar e incorporated int o th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d the Symbolic . Domi nation an d submissio n ar e essentia l aspect s o f discipline . Disciplin e i s a n essential aspec t o f th e formatio n o f th e self , an d it s sexualizatio n i s a key example o f propping .

Masochism When th e sexua l driv e i s represse d a s a resul t o f a contes t wit h th e ego, sexual aggressio n arises . Initially , Freu d believe d tha t sadis m wa s th e primary for m o f sexua l aggression . Graduall y an d reluctantly , h e cam e t o the conclusio n tha t masochis m wa s th e primar y for m o f neurosis . Laca n concludes tha t "i t woul d b e a definit e sig n tha t w e hav e reall y arrive d a t the hear t o f th e proble m o f existin g perversions , i f w e managed t o deepe n our understandin g o f th e economi c rol e o f masochism " ( S VII, 14-15). I n masochism, sexuall y energize d aggressio n i s turne d agains t th e self , whereas wit h sadis m th e sexua l aggressio n i s targeted ont o someon e othe r than th e self. I n his paper, " A Chil d I s Being Beaten, " Freu d comments : The phantas y ha s feeling s o f pleasur e attache d t o it , an d o n thei r accoun t th e patient ha s reproduced i t on innumerable occasion s in the past or may even stil l be doing so . A t th e clima x o f th e imaginar y situatio n ther e i s almos t invariabl y a masturbatory satisfaction—carrie d out , that i s to say, on the genitals. A t first thi s takes plac e voluntarily , bu t later o n it does s o in spite o f the patient's efforts , an d with the characteristics o f an obsession. It is only wit h hesitatio n tha t thi s phantas y i s confessed to . Its first appearanc e is recollecte d wit h uncertainty . Th e analyti c treatmen t o f th e topi c i s me t b y unmistakable resistance . Sham e an d a sens e o f guil t ar e perhap s mor e strongl y excited in this connection tha n whe n simila r account s are given of memories o f the beginning of sexual life . Eventually i t becomes possibl e t o establish tha t th e first phantasie s o f the kind were entertaine d ver y earl y i n life: certainl y befor e schoo l age , and not later tha n in the fifth o r sixth year . (SE , XVII, 179) Freud assert s tha t thes e fantasie s hav e littl e t o d o wit h actua l experience s of corpora l punishmen t tha t th e chil d migh t hav e received . I n fact , th e individuals wh o provide d th e dat a fo r Freud' s analysi s seldo m receive d physical disciplin e i n thei r childhood . Freud foun d tha t th e childhoo d masochisti c fantas y wa s differen t i n

The Dialectics of Desire male an d femal e children . Wit h youn g girls , the perso n bein g beate n wa s 175 not themselve s an d wa s generall y a boy bein g beate n b y th e girl' s fathe r (SE, XVII, 186 , 189) . Th e gir l i s the voyeur ; sh e i s watching th e floggin g of th e bo y bu t doe s not activel y tak e part. I n th e fantasie s o f youn g boys , the child having the fantasy wa s generally th e one being beaten, and it was generally b y th e mothe r o r a substitut e fo r he r (SE , XVII, 196) . Ther e i s thus "somethin g lik e a constancy o f se x in th e person s wh o pla y a part i n the phantasy " i n tha t "th e childre n wh o ar e bein g beate n ar e almos t invariably boys, in the phantasies of boys just as much a s in those of girls" (SE, XVII, 191). As the masochistic fantasies ar e carried on into adulthood , they retai n th e sam e structure . "A s regard s masochisti c men, " accordin g to Freud , "th e person s wh o administe r th e chastisemen t ar e alway s women" (SE , XVII, 197). I n the cas e of eithe r sex , however, th e fantas y i s a pleasurable on e for th e chil d and is reproduced o n innumerable occasion s and "a t th e clima x o f th e imaginar y situatio n ther e i s usually a masturba tory satisfaction " (SE , XVII, 179). There is an obvious relationship , at least as far a s the male is concerned , between thi s primar y masochis m an d th e Oedipa l passage . Th e Oedipa l stage mark s th e dialectica l transitio n fro m th e materna l objec t o f th e eg o ideal t o th e paternal . I n th e pre-Oedipa l stat e th e mothe r occupie s th e privileged position , while in th e Oedipa l stat e the privileged positio n shift s to the father . Thi s passage is accompanied b y phallic vacillation tha t mani fests itsel f i n th e for m o f a simultaneous fea r o f an d desir e fo r castration . The acquisitio n o f th e phallu s i s inevitabl y accompanie d b y th e represse d desire to present i t to the mother. Th e inevitable repressio n i n the Oedipa l passage manifest s itsel f i n th e for m o f sexua l aggressio n agains t th e phal lus, which threatens th e ego and is itself repressed . Masochis m i s therefor e rooted i n th e pre-Oedipa l an d reverse s th e Oedipa l dialecti c by imposing a pre-Oedipal matricentri c psychic reality . One o f th e most essentia l premises underlyin g psychoanalyti c theor y i s Freud's assertio n tha t th e relationshi p betwee n mothe r an d chil d ha s a sexual dimension . A s state d b y Laplanche , "[TJher e i s indee d a for m o f seduction whic h practicall y n o huma n bein g escapes , th e seductio n o f maternal care . Th e firs t gesture s o f a mother toward s he r chil d ar e neces sarily impregnate d wit h sexuality " (L&D , 33) . Accordin g t o Freud , " A child's intercours e wit h anyon e responsibl e fo r hi s car e afford s hi m a n unending sourc e o f sexua l excitatio n an d satisfactio n fro m hi s erotogeni c zones. Thi s is especially s o since the person i n charge of him , who after al l

The Dialectics of Desire 176 i s as a rul e th e mother , hersel f regard s hi m wit h feeling s tha t ar e derive d from he r ow n sexua l life: sh e strokes him, kisses him, rock s him an d quit e clearly treat s hi m a s a substitut e fo r a complet e sexua l object " (SE , VII , 223). "[S]exualit y emerge s onl y wit h th e turnin g roun d upo n th e self , thus wit h masochism , s o that , withi n the field of sexuality, masochis m i s already considere d a s primary" (L&D , 89). Accordingly, "whethe r wha t i s under discussio n i s fantas y o r sexuality , i n bot h case s th e masochisti c moment i s first. Th e masochistic fantasy i s fundamental" (L&D , 91). Masochism i n th e adul t i s not a puerile childhoo d perversion . Rather , i t is th e dialecticall y represse d undersid e o f Oedipa l phallocentri c sexuality . Masochism i s th e primar y neurosi s becaus e i t i s th e wa y i n whic h th e repressed sexua l driv e return s t o attac k th e ego . "W e alread y kno w tha t neurotic symptoms ar e the outcome of a conflict whic h arises over again in the sympto m an d ar e reconciled , a s i t were , b y th e compromis e o f th e symptom's ne w metho d o f satisfyin g th e libido . Th e tw o force s whic h have falle n ou t mee t onc e tha t ha s bee n constructed " (SE , XVI, 358-59) . "We hav e ever y reaso n t o believe that sensation s o f pai n . . . trench upo n sexual excitation an d produce a pleasurable condition, for th e sake of which the subjec t wil l eve n willingl y experienc e th e unpleasur e o f pain . Whe n the feelin g o f pai n ha s becom e a masochisti c aim , th e sadisti c ai m o f causing pains ca n aris e also " (SE , XIV, 128-29) . "f t [primar y masochism ] might b e formulated a s 'the lust fo r and/o r the enjoyment o f pain' . . . the paradox o f masochism , fa r fro m deservin g t o be circumscribed a s a specifi c 'perversion,' shoul d b e generalized , linke d a s i t i s t o th e essentially traumatic nature of human sexuality" (L&D , 105). Masochism i s the product of the sexua l driv e attackin g th e eg o b y havin g th e sel f forc e th e eg o t o surrender it s boundaries . Th e libidina l energ y force s th e eg o to accep t th e aggression t o reunite min d an d body . Freud distinguishe s betwee n severa l kind s o f masochism . H e classifie s primary masochis m a s feminine masochism , statin g that "Th e suppressio n of women' s aggressivenes s whic h i s prescribe d fo r the m constitutionall y and impose d o n the m sociall y favour s th e developmen t o f powerfu l mas ochistic impulse s whic h succeed , a s w e know , i n bindin g eroticall y th e destructive trend s whic h hav e been diverte d inwards . Thu s masochism , a s people say , i s trul y feminine. Bu t if , a s happen s s o ofte n yo u mee t wit h masochism i n men , wha t i s lef t t o sa y tha t thes e me n exhibi t ver y plai n feminine traits? " (SE , XXII, 117) . Freu d designate s thi s a s feminin e mas ochism even when it is found i n the male because it constitutes a disavowal

The Dialectics of Desire of the phallus and , fo r Freud , th e essenc e o f th e feminin e i s the absenc e of 177 the phallus . I t i s primaril y a mal e neurosi s sinc e wome n d o no t hav e a phallus that they can disavow. Freu d wrote, "But if one has an opportunit y of studyin g case s in which th e masochisti c phantasies hav e been especiall y richly elaborated , on e quickl y discover s tha t the y plac e th e subjec t i n a characteristically femal e situation ; the y signif y . . . bein g castrated . . . . For thi s reaso n I hav e calle d thi s for m o f masochis m . . . th e feminin e form" (SE , XIX, 162) . Indeed , th e ultimat e fantas y o f th e mal e masochis t is castration. 2 I t i s a varian t o r natura l progressio n o f th e puissance of submission . According t o Freud , "th e mythologica l creation , Medusa' s head , ca n b e traced back to the same motif o f fright a t castration" (SE , XXII, 24). "[F]ea r of castratio n i s one of th e commones t an d stronges t motive s fo r repressio n and thus fo r th e formation o f neuroses " (SE , XXII, 87). As summarized b y Lacan, "Wha t analyti c experience show s is that, i n any case, it is castration that govern s desire, whether i n the normal o r the abnormal" (E , 323). Male masochis m i s a non-Oedipal for m o f sexuality . Th e pain mus t b e in th e contex t o f a ritua l castration-disempowerment . Th e masochist' s attitude move s toward s a dedicatio n t o suffering : a recognitio n o f th e meaning i n an d behin d th e suffering , fo r th e deepe r knowledg e o f th e sel f through th e renunciatio n o f th e self . I t mus t b e a voluntar y sacrifice— a sacrifice o f pleasur e fo r pain , i n a n effor t o f redemption , i n attributin g a heightened powe r t o th e ego . A t th e sam e time , th e ritua l mus t empowe r the female , an d sh e mus t accep t th e possession-ownership-contro l o f th e phallus a s his voluntary sacrifice , whic h transform s hi m fro m a father t o a consort. I f th e phallu s i s sai d t o b e a "materna l phallus " i n th e contex t o f matriphallic psychi c realit y an d sexuality , i t i s s o define d becaus e th e female possesses , owns , an d control s th e mal e penis . Th e symboli c castra tion i s the fantasize d transfe r o f possession-ownership-control . The narrativ e structure s o f mal e masochisti c fantasie s an d practice s clearly reflec t thi s disavowal/affirmation . A n importan t structura l aspec t of mal e masochis m i s th e postponemen t o f sexua l gratificatio n fo r th e male. Th e fantas y structure s constantl y subjec t th e mal e t o arousa l bu t endlessly hol d hi m i n suspens e s o fa r a s gratificatio n i s concerned . A t th e same time, h e must provid e sexua l gratificatio n t o the female . Whe n h e is finally gratified , i t is often i n the form o f masturbation, and , if intercourse , the woma n i s o n top . A disavowa l o f th e paterna l phallu s require s th e disavowal o f th e righ t t o sexua l service , an d th e gif t o f th e phallu s t o th e

The Dialectics of Desire 178 femal e entail s th e voluntar y acceptanc e b y th e mal e o f th e duty/privileg e to sexuall y serv e th e dominan t female . Thi s constitute s a for m o f castra tion/empowerment b y th e transfe r o f th e phallus . Th e mal e canno t pas s possession-ownership-control withou t voluntaril y givin g u p power . The structur e o f non-Oedipa l mal e masochisti c sexualit y ca n b e furthe r uncovered i n term s o f th e eroti c imager y o f th e dominatrix . Sh e i s no t a masculine woma n no r i s sh e androgynous . Sh e i s pur e female , thoug h no t feminine. He r eroti c powe r doe s no t com e fro m physica l strengt h no r fro m traditionally mal e characteristics . I t lie s beneat h th e mas k o f femininity , and whe n th e vei l i s lifte d th e Goddes s i s revealed . Th e gif t o f th e phallu s is no t wha t make s he r a Goddess . Th e phallu s i s give n t o he r becaus e sh e is th e Goddess . Sh e summon s th e sacrific e whe n sh e enter s th e desperat e politics o f transvaluatio n an d step s awa y fro m th e masquerade . Corres pondingly, i t i s matriphalli c imager y tha t sexuall y excite s th e masochisti c male. Switch , whip , o r swor d ar e ke y sexua l referent s becaus e o f thei r phallic symbolism . Inne r strength , self-confidence , an d a lac k o f deferenc e for th e mal e ar e th e characteristic s o f matriphalli c females . Characteristic s that migh t b e considere d masculin e o r androgynou s hav e littl e t o d o wit h it. Similarly , masochisti c male s ar e no t particularl y feminine. I n fact , the y are ofte n ver y powerful . Th e ter m "Dionysia n masochism " i s fa r mor e appropriate tha n Freud' s "feminin e masochism. " Silverma n describe s wha t we woul d ter m th e Dionysia n masochis t a s follows : What i s i t precisel y tha t th e mal e masochis t displays , an d wha t ar e th e conse quences o f thi s self-exposure ? T o begi n with , h e act s ou t i n a n insisten t an d exaggerated wa y th e basi c condition s o f cultura l subjectivity , condition s tha t ar e normally disavowed ; h e loudl y proclaim s tha t hi s meaning come s to him fro m th e Other, prostrate s himsel f befor e th e gaz e eve n a s he solicit s it , exhibit s hi s castra tion fo r al l to see , and revel s i n th e sacrificia l basi s of th e socia l contract. Th e mal e masochist magnifie s th e losse s and division s upo n whic h cultura l identit y i s based, refusing t o b e suture d o r recompensed . I n short , h e radiate s a negativity inimica l to the socia l order. 3 Underlying Dionysia n masochis m i s th e unconsciou s primar y fantas y structure o f th e sexua l o r Ero s drive . Dionysia n masochis m i s a n allianc e between th e (M)othe r an d th e son/consor t "t o writ e th e fathe r ou t o f hi s dominant positio n an d t o instal l th e mothe r i n hi s place." 4 "I n invitin g th e mother t o bea t and/o r dominat e him, " Silverma n states , "th e feminin e masochist transfer s powe r an d authorit y fro m th e fathe r t o her , remake s the symboli c order , an d 'ruins ' hi s ow n paterna l legacy. " 5 Gille s Deleuze ,

The Dialectics of Desire in hi s analysi s o f vo n Sacher-Masoch' s Venus in Furs, give s th e followin g 179 description o f th e relationshi p betwee n th e mal e masochis t an d th e woman: A contrac t i s establishe d betwee n th e her o an d th e woman , whereb y a t a precis e point i n tim e an d fo r a determinat e perio d sh e i s give n ever y righ t ove r him . B y this mean s th e masochis t trie s t o exercis e th e dange r o f th e fathe r an d t o ensur e that th e tempora l orde r o f realit y an d experienc e wil l b e i n conformit y wit h th e symbolic order , i n whic h th e fathe r ha s bee n abolishe d fo r al l time . Throug h th e contract . . . th e masochis t reache s toward s th e mos t mythica l an d mos t timeles s realms, where [th e (M)other ] dwells . Finally , he ensures that he will be beaten . . . what i s beaten , humiliate d an d ridiculed i n hi m i s th e imag e an d likenes s o f th e father, an d the possibility o f the father' s aggressiv e retur n . . . The masochist thu s liberates himself i n preparation fo r a rebirth i n which the father wil l have no part. 6 The contrac t i s entere d int o wit h th e m o t h e r — i t exclude s th e fathe r an d places ont o th e mothe r th e tas k o f exercisin g an d applyin g th e paterna l law. Th e contrac t i s th e La w o f Transgression ; i t i s mad e deliberatel y t o promote slaver y an d debasemen t a t th e servic e o f th e woma n an d th e mother an d i s vita l t o th e masochisti c ritual . B y signin g awa y one' s right s and authorizin g humiliation , th e masochist' s experienc e i s heightened . Failure t o hono r th e contrac t will , o f course , lea d t o furthe r reprisals . The fantasie s o f pai n trenc h upo n sexua l excitatio n an d produc e a pleasurable conditio n whic h Laca n term s jouissance. 7 Th e domination / submission experienc e ha s bee n describe d i n Englis h wit h term s suc h a s erotic, profound, exciting, exhilarating, an d ecstasy. 8 Participant s "clai m tha t it satisfie s certai n fundamenta l psychologica l needs , whic h ma y includ e th e experience o f powe r an d contro l fo r th e woma n an d th e experienc e o f giving u p powe r an d releas e fo r th e man. " 9 Kraft-Ebbing, credite d a s th e fathe r o f sexology , describe d masochis m as th e antithesi s t o sadis m an d referre d t o the m jointl y a s "sado-masoch ism. " Ther e i s th e transparen t oppositio n betwee n causin g pai n t o anothe r for pleasur e an d havin g anothe r caus e pai n t o onesel f fo r one' s ow n pleasure. Freu d a t firs t believe d tha t sadis m wa s primar y an d masochis m secondary an d adopte d Kraft-Ebbing' s composit e term . Th e oppositio n o f "activity an d passivity " (SE , VII , 159 ) reinforce d thi s traditiona l lin k for Freud . An examinatio n o f th e structure s o f masochis m an d sadis m wil l show , however, tha t the y ar e quit e separat e kind s o f perversions . "Masochis m i s not inverte d sadism " ( S II , 232) . Accordin g t o Derrida :

The Dialectics of Desire 180 Fro m the outset we had conceived masochism as a component driv e complementar y to sadis m i n it s turning bac k against one' s prope r Ego . Thi s extra turn , thi s retur n onto "myself/ ' o r t o "myself/ ' i s nothin g othe r tha n th e tur n whic h turn s th e same driv e towar d th e object . Th e onl y correctio n mad e sinc e then : masochis m may be primary. A s this is a major correction , and as it at once proves too much o r too little , bu t i n an y even t operate s otherwis e tha n a s a supplementar y an d derivative turn , Freu d doe s no t exploi t it , send s i t awa y o r drop s it , deciding , without an y othe r transition , t o retur n t o th e drive s whic h preserv e life . H e drop s the matter , lik e th e not e a t th e botto m o f th e pag e whic h punctuate s th e en d o f this act. (PC , 368) The expressio n o f aggressio n commo n t o bot h sadis m an d masochis m i s somewhat misleadin g insofa r a s thei r relationshi p i s concerned . Deleuz e points ou t tha t "A s soo n a s w e rea d Masoch , w e becom e awar e tha t hi s universe ha s nothin g t o d o wit h tha t o f Sade . . . . W e mus t tak e a n entirely differen t approach , th e literary approach, sinc e i t i s fro m literatur e that ste m th e origina l definition s o f sadis m an d masochism." 1 0 Freu d wa s correct i n notin g tha t "certai n amon g th e impulse s t o perversio n occu r regularly a s pair s o f opposites ; an d thi s . . . ha s a hig h theoretica l signifi cance" (SE , VII , 160) . Oedipal sexualit y manifest s th e Hegelia n master/slav e dialectics . Th e jouissance o f contro l an d dominatio n i s fo r th e mal e t o enjoy , an d th e woman i s sexualize d an d genderize d accordin g t o th e jouissance o f submis sion. W e star t lif e i n th e gri p o f th e primar y origina l fantas y an d th e primary signifier . I t require s a proces s o f sexualizatio n an d self-formatio n to mov e fro m th e on e t o th e other . Thi s i s th e makeu p o f th e Oedipa l passage. I t i s muc h mor e tha n merel y a separatio n fro m th e mother . I t i s a reversal an d restructurin g o f a primar y sexualit y an d self-formation , which, i f no t interrupted , woul d lea d t o a matriarcha l psychi c reality . Th e Oedipal passag e i s simpl y th e transformatio n fro m th e primar y t o th e privileged. If , however , peopl e fai l t o shif t from , o r the y retur n to , a psychic realit y tha t i s structure d b y th e primar y signifie r rathe r tha n th e privileged signifier , the y ente r th e real m o f perversion . Those whos e psychi c realit y i s structure d b y th e primar y signifier , an d who thu s resis t o r transcen d Oedipa l genderizatio n an d sexuality , ar e within th e dialectic s o f th e generativ e powe r o f natur e an d it s lack , th e jouissances o f dominatio n an d submission , an d th e Hegelia n master/slav e formulation o f self . Th e structur e o f th e maste r signifier s i s th e sam e fo r both th e primar y an d th e privileged , th e generativ e powe r o f nature , th e seduction o f difference , an d castration . Th e differenc e i s tha t th e se x o f th e

The Dialectics of Desire person wh o represent s th e generativ e powe r o f natur e i s reversed . Ac - 181 cording t o Lacan , "Fro m maste r t o slav e an d rival , ther e i s onl y on e dialectical step—th e relation s o f th e maste r t o th e slav e ar e essentiall y reversible, an d th e maste r see s very quickl y hi s dependenc y i n relatio n t o his slav e becom e established " ( S II, 263) . Thos e wh o ar e heterosexua l bu t non-Oedipal will , by Oedipal definition, b e perverse. Wha t i s the nature of this Oedipally defined perversio n fo r th e male? The answer to this questio n lies i n th e analysi s o f th e primar y neurosis , Dionysia n masochism , th e symptom tha t s o troubled Freu d an d was so difficult fo r hi m t o account fo r in terms o f the presuppositions o f psychoanalytic theory . According t o Camill e Paglia , th e "invitatio n t o Dionysia n danc e i s a binding contrac t o f enslavemen t t o nature. " n Sinc e th e primar y signifie r relates woman t o the generative powe r o f nature , sh e is nature's represen tative. Consequently , th e Dionysian danc e is a binding contract of enslave ment to woman . Ma n ca n reunit e wit h natur e onl y throug h a n enslave ment by a woman . Sinc e natur e i s i n hi s bod y an d hi s bod y i s a par t o f nature h e ca n reconcil e min d an d bod y onl y throug h a bindin g contrac t with woman . Th e cos t fo r woma n o f man' s separatio n fro m natur e ha s been immense. Ma n canno t retur n t o nature or heal the mind/body breac h without als o payin g a heav y price . Th e cos t o f man' s liberatio n fro m nature wa s th e enslavemen t o f th e woman . Ma n mus t pa y th e sam e pric e for hi s reconciliation . Within th e structur e o f th e primar y signifier , masochis m i s no t a n illness bu t " a hierarchica l dream , a conceptua l realignmen t o f sexua l or ders" sinc e "Se x is the ritua l lin k between ma n an d nature." 12 Masochis m is a "jouissance beyond th e pleasure principle" (F , 183-84). Laca n instruct s us tha t "Th e perver t i s h e who , i n shor t circuit , mor e directl y tha n an y other, succeed s i n hi s aim , b y integratin g i n th e mos t profoun d wa y hi s function a s subjec t wit h hi s existenc e a s desire . . . . Tha t i s wh y . . . I wish t o stres s th e operatio n o f th e realizatio n o f th e subjec t i n hi s signi fying dependenc e i n th e locu s o f th e Other " (F , 206). "[I] t i s i n seein g a whole chai n com e into pla y a t th e leve l of th e desir e o f th e Othe r tha t th e subject's desir e i s constituted " (F , 235) . Desir e i s th e "noda l poin t b y which the pulsation o f the unconscious i s linked to sexual reality" (F , 154), and the libido is the effectiv e presenc e o f that desir e (F , 153). What value has my desire for you? the eternal question that is posed in the dialogue of lovers . Bu t th e suppose d value , fo r example , o f feminine masochism, a s i t i s called, shoul d b e subjected , parenthetically , t o seriou s scrutiny . I t belong s t o a

The Dialectics of Desire 282 dialogu e that may be defined, in many respects, as a masculine phantasy. . . . I t is quite strikin g t o se e tha t th e representative s o f thi s se x [female ] i n th e analyti c circle ar e particularl y dispose d t o maintai n th e fundamenta l belie f i n feminin e masochism. I t may be that there is a veil here, concerning the interests of the sex, that should not be lifted too quickly. (F , 192-93) We know what the relationshi p is between mal e sexuality an d male power, and femal e sexualit y an d mal e powe r withi n patriphalli c psychi c reality . What require s a fuller understanding , however, is the relationship betwee n female sexualit y an d femal e power , an d mal e sexualit y an d mal e powe r within a psychi c realit y structure d b y th e primar y signifier , an d con demned a s perversion i n terms o f the privileged signifier . The cas e fo r th e existenc e withi n languag e o f th e primar y signifie r ha s been base d thu s fa r o n tw o arguments . Th e firs t concern s th e Lacania n hypothesis o f ho w th e basic , fundamental , an d centra l signifier s ge t thei r meaning ou t o f oppositiona l relationship s t o eac h other . Nowher e doe s h e present a reason wh y thi s i s not equall y applicabl e t o th e privilege d signi fier. Th e second argument i s the poststructuralist positio n tha t ever y scrip t has a n underlyin g text , a narrativ e tha t lie s betwee n th e lin e i n th e for m of a dialectica l relationship . Th e structur e o f th e tw o maste r signifier s i s mutually an d multidirectionall y relate d t o th e explanator y narrative s o f the tw o form s o f th e origina l fantas y o f th e collective , whic h establishe s the relationshi p betwee n human s an d nature , thu s facilitatin g th e emer gence o f th e Subjec t an d th e self . Ou r thir d argumen t fo r th e existenc e of the primar y signifie r a s the relationa l oppositio n t o the privilege d signifie r will lie in an analysis of the nature an d structur e o f Dionysian masochism . Opinions about masochis m differ . O n the one hand, we have the clinical psychiatric vie w o f masochis m a s a psychosexua l disorde r an d th e tradi tional psychoanalyti c vie w o f i t a s a perversion . O n th e othe r hand , w e have thos e wh o describ e i t a s a healthy , natural , sublim e huma n experi ence. Otto , for exampl e tell us that "Th e madness which is called Dionysu s [masochism] i s n o sickness , n o debilit y i n life , bu t a companio n o f lif e a t its healthiest." 13 Th e analys t Ly n Cowan , i n he r boo k Masochism a Jungian View, regard s masochis m a s " a natura l produc t o f soul , read y an d needing t o brin g forwar d it s ow n visio n an d it s ow n cure." 14 Sh e charac terizes masochis m a s the opposit e t o egoisti c narcissism (M , 44). Masoch ism "i s a mod e o f psychi c survival " workin g agains t "th e Promethea n fantasy whic h woul d lea d t o ruin " (M , 119) . I t i s no t a mer e perversion , distortion o r deviation bu t an essential reality, a reflection o f the soul in its

The Dialectics of Desire tortured, mos t inarticulat e moment s (M , ix) . "Dionysia n consciousness — 18} which allow s fo r masochisti c experienc e ca n se e 'visitation ' a s a welcom e opportunity rathe r tha n a s a patholog y . . . a n ac t an d experienc e o f worship" (M , 98 ) i n expiatio n o f "tha t mos t origina l o f human s sins, " th e deeper crim e tha t underlie s al l crime : phalli c inflatio n an d narcissis m (M , 101). I t i s "a n encounte r wit h th e inevitabilit y o f one' s essentia l charac ter—which, a s Heraclitu s tell s us , i s fate " (M , 114) . I t onl y become s pathological "whe n i t i s literalize d an d whe n it s machination s block , in stead o f lea d into , self-revelatio n an d self-knowledg e (M , 73) . Sh e ex plains : As muc h a s most peopl e would abho r th e idea , masochisti c experienc e doe s radica l therapy, perform s radica l chang e o n th e ego . A masochisti c postur e strip s dow n and expose s th e ego—it s defenses , ambitions , failures , an d successes . I t i s a psychological posture in which we are humiliated, brought down , made defenseless , made awar e tha t w e mus t die . Throug h masochis m w e ca n sometime s contac t th e deeper meanin g i n the suffering , th e dept h o f it s pain an d pleasure . I f ou r submis sion is genuine, we can feel it is for the sak e of something greater, mor e important , more valuabl e tha n th e eg o an d it s perceptions . Th e eg o become s servan t t o that greate r thing . . . . Th e necessit y an d desirabilit y o f submission—th e chie f characteristic o f masochism—i s a submissio n t o Necessit y herself , th e Goddes s Ananke. (M , 41) The greate r th e narcissis m o f th e ego , th e stronge r th e masochisti c desire . "Strength ca n b e a terribl e burden . I t i s a bondag e whic h mus t b e relieve d in moment s o f abandonment , o f weakness , o f lettin g dow n an d lettin g go . So i t i s hardl y surprisin g tha t th e stron g personalit y . . . shoul d b e th e most likel y t o desir e masochisti c experiences " (M , 111) . Thi s i s reflecte d i n the propensit y fo r masochisti c tendencie s i n me n wit h socia l power. 1 5 As a manifestatio n o f th e retur n o f th e represse d sexua l drive , masoch ism i s th e expressio n o f th e jouissance o f submission . Th e eg o defend s itself throug h th e neurose s o f th e jouissanc e o f control . Eac h o f thes e puissances hav e th e sam e statu s a s neuroses . Th e jouissance o f submissio n and th e jouissance o f contro l canno t b e separated . Dionysia n masochis m i s a specificall y mal e pathology. 1 6 Accordin g t o Silverman : [I]t i s onl y i n th e cas e o f me n tha t feminin e masochis m ca n b e see n t o assum e pathological proportions . Althoug h tha t psychi c phenomeno n ofte n provide s a centrally structurin g elemen t o f both mal e and femal e subjectivity , i t is only in th e latter that it can be safely acknowledged . I t is an accepted—indeed a prerequisite— element o f "normal " femal e subjectivity , providin g a crucial mechanis m fo r eroti -

The Dialectics of Desire 18q cizin g lac k an d subordination . Th e mal e subject , o n th e contrary , canno t avo w feminine masochis m without calling into question his identification wit h the masculine position. All of this is another way of suggesting that what is acceptable for the female subject is pathological for the male.17 Lacan state s tha t "I n adults , w e ar e awar e o f th e palpabl e richnes s o f perversion. Perversion , i n sum , i s the privileged exploratio n o f a n existen tial possibilit y o f huma n nature—it s interna l tearin g apart , it s gap , through whic h th e supra-natura l worl d o f th e symboli c wa s abl e t o mak e its entry" ( S I, 218). Thi s is why the ego is structured lik e a symptom, an d it i s bot h dominatio n o f th e femal e an d masochis m tha t constitut e th e mental illnesse s o f man . "[T]h e eg o i s constructe d an d i s t o b e locate d within th e subjec t a s a whole , jus t a s a symptom . Nothin g differentiate s the on e fro m th e othe r . . . th e catalogu e o f defens e mechanism s whic h make u p th e ego " ( S I , 16) . "Th e fundamenta l absurdit y o f interhuma n behaviour ca n only b e comprehended i n the light o f this system . . . called the huma n ego , namel y tha t se t o f defenses , o f denial s [negations] of dams, o f inhibitions , o f fundamenta l fantasie s whic h orien t an d direc t th e subject," s o state s Laca n ( S I , 17) . I n heterosexua l relationships , whethe r patriphallic o r matriphallic , dominanc e an d submissio n ar e sough t i n th e opposite se x "precisel y becaus e i t i s opposite" (M , 112) . Masochis m i s th e passage, that fo r the male, connects the Imaginary and Symbolic structure s of the privileged signifie r wit h those of the primary. Jus t as the imagery of God-King-father i s integral t o the former, th e imagery o f Goddess-Mothe r is vital t o the latter . An y mal e who is in th e grip s o f goddes s imager y wil l be i n a masochistic , submissiv e psychologica l state . Masochisti c practice s are therefore associate d with contemporar y paga n religions . Punishment i s sough t fo r th e sak e o f humiliatio n an d pai n a s a n em brace o f sacrifice . Castratio n i s a t th e leve l o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic, no t tha t o f th e Real , an d function s t o humiliat e th e narcissisti c ego.18 Throug h humiliation-castration , th e eg o i s deflate d an d ca n merg e with th e id , and a reconciliation betwee n th e sexua l an d eg o drive can tak e place. Dionysu s i s the god of the loss of boundaries o f the self—th e go d of unification betwee n min d an d body , femal e an d male, humans an d nature , the eg o and the id , and Ero s and Thanatos . "Clinica l observation s hav e led me t o th e impressio n tha t masochis m i s associate d wit h fantasie s an d acts o f self-preparatio n fo r bein g incorporated. " Blumstei n writes , "Th e fantasies an d actua l self-destructio n ha s a s its unconscious ai m th e goa l of

The Dialectics of Desire achieving a secur e an d physicall y gratifyin g unio n wit h a n omnipoten t 185 figure." 19 Both matriphalli c an d Oedipal , o r patriphallic , sexualit y ar e manifesta tions of th e process of propping wherein sexualit y become s attached t o th e development o f th e sel f i n term s o f dominatio n an d submissio n (SE , XVII, 86; SE , XXII, 86; SE , XIII, 91). Th e whip is one of th e key symbol s of th e powerful, aggressiv e form s o f th e Goddess. 20 Th e consor t figur e o f Pan , the earlie r for m o f Dionysus , i s ofte n portraye d a s bein g whippe d b y a goddess figure. 21 Th e disciplinin g o f Pan , th e "ange l o f pain" , combine s the ecstas y o f huma n sexualit y wit h th e inevitabilit y o f suffering. 22 Through th e process o f propping , th e ac t of disciplin e merges with sexual ity. Th e whi p play s th e sam e symboli c rol e i n matriphalli c sexualit y tha t penetration doe s in patriphallic sexuality . Oedipal genderizatio n an d sexualit y ensure s th e triump h o f Thanato s over Eros . Th e jouissance o f mal e dominatio n target s aggressio n agains t the femal e i n th e for m o f misogyny . Whe n th e femal e internalize s miso gynous aggression , sh e is objectified s o that sh e can be sexually consumed , her reproductiv e power s appropriated b y the male in the servic e of hi s own ego. I n th e contex t o f norma l Oedipa l genderizatio n an d a successfu l Oedipal passage , aggressio n directe d agains t th e femal e b y th e mal e o r b y herself a s a resul t o f internalizin g misogyn y ca n b e full y identifie d wit h the Thanato s drive , fighting agains t Eros .

The Unnamed Pathology On Apri l 21 , 1896 , Freu d delivere d a pape r t o th e Viennes e Societ y fo r Psychiatry an d Neurolog y entitle d The Aetiology of Hysteria. 23 I n i t Freu d set ou t hi s theor y tha t neurosi s wa s cause d b y childhoo d sexua l traum a resulting fro m sexua l molestatio n b y a n adult , generall y th e fathe r o r a close relative. I n most cases , the seduce r was male and th e child female ; i n some, th e adul t wa s mal e an d th e chil d male ; an d i n a few case s th e adul t was femal e an d th e chil d male . Thi s theor y late r becom e know n a s "th e seduction theory. " Whil e the sexual assaults range d fro m rap e to fondling , the ter m seductio n wa s use d b y Freu d becaus e th e adul t woul d generally , at leas t a t first , attemp t t o gai n th e child' s voluntar y cooperation . Whil e Freud wa s clea r o n th e matter , hi s choic e o f th e ter m "seduction " wa s unfortunate a s i t didn' t clarif y tha t i t i s th e adul t wh o attempt s th e

The Dialectics of Desire 186 seductio n o f th e chil d an d no t th e chil d o f th e adult . I n late r years , whe n Freud was describing the earl y history o f the development o f psychoanaly sis, h e wrote , "I n th e perio d i n whic h th e mai n interes t wa s directe d t o discovering infantil e sexua l traumas , almos t al l m y wome n patient s tol d me tha t the y ha d bee n seduce d b y thei r father " (SE , XXII , 120) . I n th e conclusion o f hi s paper , Freu d addresse d th e followin g word s t o hi s audi ence, "Prepare d a s I a m t o mee t wit h contradictio n an d disbelie f . . . I must as k you no t t o regar d the m a s the frui t o f idl e speculation . The y ar e based o n a laborious individua l examinatio n o f patient s whic h ha s in mos t cases taken u p a hundred o r more hours o f work." 24 In hi s in-dept h stud y o f thi s earl y perio d i n psychoanalysi s an d th e development an d late r rejectio n o f th e seductio n theory , Jeffre y Masso n points ou t that , contrar y t o normal practice , there wa s no summar y o f th e paper, n o report , discussion , o r comments . I n a lette r t o Fleis s writte n a short whil e later , however , Freu d commente d tha t " A lectur e o n th e aetiology o f hysteri a a t th e Psychiatri c Societ y me t wit h a n ic y receptio n from th e asses , an d fro m Kraft-Ebbin g th e strang e comment : I t sound s like a scientifi c fair y tale . An d thi s afte r on e ha s demonstrate d t o the m a solution t o a mor e tha n thousand-year-ol d problem , a 'sourc e o f th e Nile!' " 2 5 I n anothe r lette r t o Fleis s writte n aroun d th e sam e time , Freu d wrote, " I a m a s isolate d a s yo u coul d wis h m e t o be : th e wor d ha s bee n given ou t t o abandon me , and a void is forming aroun d me." 2 6 It wa s th e testimon y o f thes e earl y patient s tha t le d Freu d t o la y th e foundations o f psychoanalysi s o n th e bedroc k o f huma n sexuality . A t th e time, ther e wa s n o questio n i n hi s min d a s t o th e realit y o f th e event s related t o hi m an d tha t the y wer e no t fantasy . H e wrote , "Doubt s abou t the genuinenes s o f the infantile sexua l scenes can, however, be deprived of their force . . . . [T]h e behaviou r o f patient s whil e the y ar e reproducin g these infantil e experience s i s i n ever y respec t incompatibl e wit h th e as sumption tha t th e scene s ar e anythin g els e tha n a realit y whic h i s bein g felt wit h distres s an d reproduce d wit h th e greates t reluctance " (SE , III , 204). Freu d nevertheles s gav e u p th e seductio n theory , albei t reluctantl y and with som e degree of ambivalence. 27 Yet in the April 26,1896, letter t o Fliess, Freu d relate s th e cas e o f a woma n wh o wa s brutall y rape d b y he r father an d infected wit h gonorrhe a whe n sh e was two years old, and Freu d suggests a ne w mott o fo r psychoanalysis : "Wha t hav e the y don e t o you , poor child?" 28 Throughou t Freud' s professiona l life , h e continue d t o b e confronted wit h particula r case s wher e h e coul d no t avoi d th e conclusio n

The Dialectics of Desire that th e memorie s wer e genuine. H e later wrot e tha t "Phantasie s o f bein g 187 seduced ar e of particula r interest , becaus e s o often the y ar e not phantasie s but rea l memories. Fortunately , however , the y ar e nevertheless no t rea l as often a s seemed a t first t o be shown b y analysis" (SE , XVI, 370). Freud's motivation s fo r abandonin g th e seductio n theor y wer e bot h unconscious an d consciou s an d ar e deal t wit h extensivel y b y Masson. 29 The unconscious motivatio n relate s t o Freud' s relationshi p wit h Fleis s an d his patien t Emm a Eckstein . Th e consciou s motivatio n cam e fro m Freud' s isolation an d the fact , whic h h e soon became aware of, tha t th e theory wa s unacceptable t o th e professiona l medica l communit y an d hi s ostracizatio n by the medical community fo r articulatin g the theory would be an impassable barrie r t o th e developmen t o f psychoanalysi s an d o f hi s professiona l career. H e describe s th e seductio n theor y a s " a mistake n ide a . . . whic h might hav e bee n almos t fata l t o th e youn g science " (SE , XIV , 17) . A further reason , which was, no doubt, share d b y the critic s of th e seductio n theory, wa s tha t i f th e theor y wer e true , i t would hav e to b e the cas e tha t the sexua l abus e o f childre n wa s pervasive . A s Masso n point s out , a number o f studie s wer e availabl e a t thi s tim e tha t indicate d that , i n th e words o f on e o f th e authors , "Sexua l act s committe d agains t childre n ar e very frequent." 30 Freud' s conclusio n tha t "suc h widesprea d perversion s against childre n ar e no t ver y probable " ha s remaine d th e prevailin g wis dom until recently. 31 Freud di d no t conclud e tha t adult s di d no t moles t childre n bu t rathe r that i t wa s impossibl e fo r hi m t o eve r kno w whethe r wha t th e patien t related wa s tru e o r fantasy . Laplanch e state s tha t "I n summary , Freu d proposes, in opposition t o his own theory, objection s o f fact—the impossi bility o f eve r rediscoverin g the "scene"—an d o f principle : th e impossibil ity o f admittin g tha t paterna l perversio n i s that frequen t and , abov e all , the inabilit y t o decid e whethe r a scen e discovere d i n analysi s i s tru e o r fantasized" (L&D , 32). The retur n t o th e seductio n theor y i n th e latte r year s o f hi s lif e b y Freud's clos e frien d an d colleagu e Sando r Ferencz i an d th e pape r tha t h e delivered o n the seductio n theor y ar e of great importance fo r clarifyin g th e relationship o f th e seductio n theor y t o th e Oedipu s complex . Ferencz i delivered thi s pape r ove r Freud' s stron g objections , wit h a ful l awarenes s of th e likel y consequence s tha t would , an d did , follow. 32 Ferencz i viewe d this pape r a s " a shor t extract " fro m "th e vast them e o f th e externa l origi n of the formation o f character an d of neuroses." 33 In this paper he discusses

The Dialectics of Desire 188 th e resistanc e o f psychoanalysts t o what patient s tel l them an d th e reason s that le d hi m t o th e conclusio n tha t "trauma , specificall y sexua l trauma , cannot b e stresse d enoug h a s a pathogeni c agent . . . . Eve n childre n o f respected, high-minde d puritanica l familie s fal l victi m t o rea l rap e muc h more frequentl y tha n on e ha d dare d t o suspect." 34 Ferencz i describe s th e reaction o f childre n a s embracing submission : The overwhelmin g powe r an d authorit y o f th e adul t render s the m silent ; ofte n they ar e deprive d o f th e senses . Ye t tha t ver y fear , whe n i t reache s it s zenith , forces the m automaticall y t o surrende r t o the will of th e aggressor , t o anticipate each o f hi s wishe s an d t o submi t t o them ; forgettin g themselve s entirely , t o identify totall y wit h th e aggressor . A s a resul t o f th e identificatio n wit h th e aggressor, let us call it introjection, the aggressor disappears as external reality and becomes intrapsychic instead of extrapsychic. 35 Ferenczi conclude d hi s pape r wit h th e assertion , " I believe , shoul d al l thi s prove true , tha t w e shal l b e oblige d t o revis e certai n chapter s o f th e [psychoanalytic] theor y o f sexualit y an d of genitality. " 36 He suggests tha t such a reevaluation ma y provid e th e answe r t o th e questio n o f "wha t i t i s in th e playfu l satisfactio n o f tendernes s tha t introduce s th e elemen t o f suffering an d thereb y sadomasochism. " H e end s with th e propositio n tha t "the lov e durin g th e intercours e [o f adults ] . . . i s saturate d wit h hatred." 37 The reexaminatio n o f th e Oedipa l theor y tha t Ferencz i calle d fo r mus t produce a theor y o f sexualit y an d genitalit y tha t wil l accoun t fo r th e phenomenon o f the adult seducin g the child as well as the effec t tha t i t ha s on the emotional an d sexua l development o f the child and that will account as wel l fo r th e aggressio n tha t i s implici t i n huma n sexuality , whethe r focused inwar d o r outward . Thi s i s wha t psychoanalysi s ha s faile d t o do , hence thi s patholog y i s undesignated . Thus , ther e i s a neurosi s tha t be longs i n th e categor y alon g with masochis m an d sadism fo r whic h ther e i s no name . An d th e reaso n i t ha s n o labe l is that i t i s taken a s the norm . I t is a pathology an d not a perversion becaus e it is phallic. W e are justified i n using th e ter m pathology becaus e i t i s harmful an d damagin g t o others . I t is th e patholog y tha t i s manifeste d i n th e dominatio n an d contro l o f women b y denyin g thei r selfhood , b y turnin g the m int o object s an d infanticizing them . Althoug h w e d o no t hav e a nam e fo r it , w e kno w i t as pornography . Pornography i s mad e u p o f a numbe r o f differen t bu t relate d genre s with th e sam e basi c structure . Th e mos t straightforwar d ar e th e picture s

The Dialectics of Desire of nake d women , leg s sprea d apart , read y t o b e penetrate d an d used . Th e 189 next i s th e bondag e genr e i n whic h th e wome n ar e show n bound , ofte n with gag s so they ar e deprived o f the Voice . Th e next progression involve s the woma n placin g hersel f i n a position i n whic h he r buttocks , breasts , o r genitals ar e mad e readil y availabl e fo r whippin g o r subjec t t o a painfu l procedure suc h a s clamping . Th e scrip t fo r thi s latte r genr e i s tha t o f discipline, i n whic h th e woma n voluntaril y submit s t o an d accept s th e punishment. Accordin g t o th e pornographi c script , sh e deserve s th e pun ishment, sh e accept s the punishment , an d sh e likes it. Th e nex t advanc e is the infantizatio n o f th e femal e b y dressin g he r lik e a chil d o r havin g he r pubic are a shave d s o tha t he r genital s loo k lik e thos e o f a child. Th e fina l form i s chil d pornograph y i n whic h actua l childre n ar e seduced , induced , or force d t o participat e i n it s making . Thi s fantas y i s tha t which , whe n carried out , w e cal l inces t an d th e sexua l abus e o f children . Whe n th e child i s a littl e boy , i t i s use d lik e a littl e girl , tha t is , h e i s fondle d and penetrated . How ca n th e sexua l dominatio n o f wome n b e considere d o n th e sam e plane a s masochism , a s a pathology , whe n i n ever y patriarcha l religiou s system i n the world it is legitimate? The sexual possession an d dominatio n of th e femal e i s fundamental t o patriarchy, an d it includes th e right , duty , and pleasure of th e husband t o gain sexua l satisfactio n b y using his wife t o create sexua l pleasur e fo r himself . I t ha s bee n frequentl y sai d that wome n are naturall y masochisti c becaus e the y ca n b e eroticize d b y bein g th e subject o f discipline . W e ca n infe r fro m The Story of O, writte n b y a woman, tha t female s ca n and do experience the jouissance of submission. 38 It doe s no t follo w fro m this , however , tha t thi s jouissance is natura l fo r all females . The entir e proces s o f Oedipa l genderizatio n create s thi s structur e whereby th e mal e i s eroticize d t o see k th e jouissance of dominatio n whil e the femal e i s eroticize d t o accep t an d see k th e jouissance of submission . Jehovah ha s ordered thi s when h e tells the woman "Th y desir e [jouissance] shall b e t o th y husband. " 39 Ther e ar e n o novel s lik e thos e o f d e Sad e an d von Sacher-Masoch t o give this phenomenon a name. I t doesn't, therefore , appear i n th e academi c catalogue s o f sexua l pathologie s an d perversion . The autho r o f thi s tex t i s ever y phalli c man , tha t is , ever y mal e wh o ha s been successfull y Oedipalized . Th e stor y o f th e live s of million s o f wome n and me n i s no t th e stuf f tha t novel s ar e mad e of . Ye t th e tex t i s ther e i n the Law s o f Manu , th e Bible , th e Koran , Si r Rober t Filmer' s Vatriarcha,

The Dialectics of Desire 190 th e law , an d mal e pornograph y an d imagery . Pedophili a i s no t th e nam e of thi s pathology, i t is merely on e form tha t th e pathology ca n take. "[Mian's desir e find s it s meanin g i n th e desir e o f th e other , no t s o much becaus e th e othe r hold s the ke y t o the objec t desired , a s because th e first objec t o f desir e i s t o b e recognize d b y th e other " (E , 5). Thi s centra l thesis i n Lacania n psychoanalyti c theor y owe s fa r mor e t o th e Hegelian Kojevian explanatio n o f self-consciousnes s tha n i t doe s t o Freud. 40 Th e Hegelian dialecti c is between maste r an d slav e or, i n other words , betwee n submission an d control . "Her e w e find, " accordin g t o Lacan , " a reciproca l relation o f annihilation , a fata l relatio n structure d b y th e followin g tw o abysses—either desir e i s extinguished , o r th e objec t disappears . Tha t i s why, a t every turn, I take my bearings from th e master-slave dialectic, and I re-explai n it " ( S I , 222) . Centra l t o Oedipa l theor y i s th e La w o f th e Father, wherei n th e Fathe r own s o r possesse s th e Mother . Th e la w o f th e master, tha t th e slav e "shoul d satisf y th e desir e an d th e pleasur e [puissance]" of th e master , i s the firs t la w of patriarchy : "th y desir e shal l be t o thy husban d an d h e shal l rul e ove r thee. " 41 The puissances o f contro l an d submission, whether betwee n mal e and female , mal e and male, female an d female, o r adult an d child , are the essentia l dynamics of huma n relations . According t o Lacan , "Hege l give s accoun t o f th e interhuma n bond . H e has to account no t onl y fo r society , but fo r history . H e cannot neglec t an y of it s aspects " ( S I, 222-23) . Th e Hegelia n impass e whereb y th e master' s "recognition b y the slave is worth nothin g to the master, sinc e only a slave has recognize d him , tha t i s to sa y someon e tha t h e does not recogniz e as a man" ( S I, 222-23), is resolved within the Imaginary and Symboli c mythical structures wher e the woma n i s both Goddes s an d wife. Thes e dialectics permeate huma n culture . A paradigmati c exampl e i s romanti c lov e wher e the Goddes s i s worshipped fro m afa r whil e th e wif e remain s i n servitude . The fluidit y o f th e position s o f dominanc e an d submissio n resolve s th e Hegelian impasse . The appropriat e dialectica l opposit e t o th e masochisti c puissance o f submission i s th e puissance o f control . Becaus e mal e contro l an d femal e submission wer e made one of th e central premises of traditional psychoan alytic theory , contro l i s onl y viewe d a s a perversio n whe n i t i s exercise d by wome n ove r males . I f Freu d ha d maintaine d hi s origina l seductio n theory, h e would hav e recognize d tha t Oedipa l sexualit y i s as pathologica l as th e sexualit y o f th e dominatri x an d th e mal e masochist . Th e dialectic s

The Dialectics of Desire of repressio n an d th e retur n o f th e represse d a s neurosis lea d inevitabl y t o 191 the dialecti c between submissio n an d control . Whil e th e rhetori c o f politi cal ideolog y ma y b e tha t o f equalit y betwee n th e sexes , th e sexualit y an d erotica o f politic s i s that o f dominatio n an d submissio n A s Laca n explains , "The mos t nake d rivalr y betwee n me n an d women i s eternal, an d it s styl e is lai d dow n i n conjuga l relations . . . . Feminin e rebellio n didn' t star t yesterday. Fro m maste r t o slav e an d rival , ther e i s onl y on e dialectica l step—the relation s o f th e maste r t o th e slav e ar e essentiall y reversible , and th e maste r see s ver y quickl y hi s dependenc y i n relatio n t o hi s slav e become established" ( S II, 263). Freud's explanatio n o f th e Oedipa l passag e present s a theor y o f th e dynamics o f sexua l desir e a s the y develo p betwee n parent s an d children . Every paren t i s eithe r a fathe r o r a mother, an d ever y chil d i s genderize d as masculine o r feminin e i n a reflection o f th e gende r o f th e paren t o f th e same sex. Thus , the dynamics an d structur e o f human sexualit y are passed on fro m generatio n t o generation. Childre n develo p their sexualit y withi n the framewor k o f "th e seductio n o f materna l care " (L&D , 33 ; SE , VII , 223). I f Freu d ha d no t abandone d th e seductio n theory , h e ma y wel l hav e been le d to turn th e tools of psychoanalysis ont o male sexuality . Oedipal sexualit y i s norma l becaus e i t i s widespread—languag e privi leges th e mal e b y identifyin g hi m wit h th e jouissance o f control . Th e pathology o f patriarch y i s powerfu l becaus e th e desir e t o submi t t o th e female is strong. "Th e relations of desire to language constitute the mecha nisms o f th e unconscious " (F , 12) . "A t th e sam e tim e psychoanalysi s considers ever y symptom a s language; i t make s o f th e sympto m a type of signifying syste m whos e laws , simila r t o thos e o f language , mus t b e discovered."42 "[T]he n i t i s already quit e clea r tha t th e sympto m resolve s itself entirel y i n a n analysi s o f language , becaus e th e sympto m i s itsel f structured lik e a language, because it is from languag e that speec h must b e delivered" (E , 59). The eg o "i s structure d exactl y lik e a symptom . A t par excellence, the mental illnes s of a man" ( S II, 216). On e sympto m ha s no name because it is recognize d a s normal . Th e othe r sympto m i s calle d masochism . Lan guage structure s an d institution s hav e linke d masculinit y an d dominatio n and femininit y an d submission . Thi s i s wh y psychoanalysi s ca n conside r every sympto m a s languag e an d languag e a s makin g a signifyin g syste m of th e symptom. 43 Dominatio n an d submissio n ar e th e structur e o f th e

The Dialectics of Desire 192 menta l illnes s o f man , th e neurose s o f normality , an d th e patholog y o f patriarchy. Th e sides can change, the poles can be reversed, but there is no escape from th e bimorphism o f sex, the dialectics of desire, and the polarity of th e symptoms . Transcendenc e doe s not lie in the middle, in a synthesis, in androgynou s sexualit y an d gender . On e ca n chang e sides , bu t on e cannot escap e the game .

Sadism Without seductio n ther e ca n be no jouissance, and th e mechanic s o f seduc tion requir e voluntar y embrace . "Bu t on e shouldn' t afte r al l procee d to o quickly to break inventive homonym, an d the fact the masochism ha s been called by this name for s o long by psychoanalysis i s not without reason . I n masochistic fields, pai n share s th e characte r o f a good" ( S VII, 239-40). I n the structur e o f domination-submission , pai n i s a goo d becaus e th e plea sure o f bearin g the pain come s from meetin g the desir e o f the Other . Pai n is the sacrifice . I t is the measure of submission . The jouissance of sadism, on the other hand, is what Lacan terms the jouissance of transgression . In sadism , wha t "w e ar e dealin g wit h i s nothin g less than the attraction of transgression" ( S II, 2). Regarding de Sade, Lacan states tha t "n o on e els e ha s don e suc h dee p injur y t o th e feeling s an d thoughts o f mankind " ( S VII, 200) . I n th e structur e o f sadism , pai n i s a n evil, and i t i s from thi s evi l that th e jouissance of transgressio n i s derived . The domination an d submission tha t constitute the structure o f masochis m entail one person using another person sexually with his or her consent. Sa dism constitute s usin g a person sexuall y withou t consen t ( S VII, 184-85) . The presence or absence of consent is critical to the nature of the jouissance and mark s th e differenc e betwee n seductio n an d transgression . "[I] n th e gaze of th e being whom I torment, I have to sustai n m y desir e with a n act of defiance, a challenge a t ever y instant . I f i t does not ris e above the situa tion, if it is not glorious, desire sinks into shame" ( S I, 220). Sadism belongs within th e conceptua l structur e o f th e law as its oppositional pol e and reflect s th e dialectic s o f goo d an d evil . I t i s a revolt agains t the law , whereas primar y masochis m subvert s it . Go d need s the devi l jus t as the devi l need s God . The y ar e a part o f th e sam e dynamics . D e Sad e is Saint Paul' s evi l twin . Withou t d e Sad e ther e i s n o si n fo r Sain t Pau l t o rail agains t an d fro m whic h t o see k redemption , an d withou t Sain t Pau l there is no law for d e Sade to transgress. Accordin g to Lacan :

The Dialectics of Desire Without a transgressio n ther e i s n o acces s t o jouissance, and , t o retur n t o Sain t IQ? Paul, tha t tha t i s precisel y th e functio n o f th e law . Transgressio n i n th e directio n of jouissance only take s place if i t is supported b y the oppositional principle , by th e forms o f the law. . . . That is the point that our experience leads us to, on conditio n that w e ar e guide d b y Freud' s articulatio n o f th e problem . Si n neede d th e law , Saint Pau l said , s o tha t h e coul d becom e a grea t sinner—nothing , o f course , affirms tha t h e did, but s o that h e could conceive of th e possibility . Meanwhile, wha t w e se e her e i s th e tigh t bon d betwee n desir e an d th e Law . And it is in the light of this that Freud' s ideal is an ideal tempered wit h civility tha t might b e calle d patriarcha l civility , i n th e ful l idylli c sense . . . . Tha t patriarcha l civility i s suppose d t o se t u s o n th e mos t reasonabl e pat h t o temperat e o r norma l desires. ( S VII, 176-77 ) The differenc e betwee n th e sadis t an d th e dominato r o r dominatri x reflect s the differenc e betwee n disciplin e an d torture . Sadis m require s protest , anger, outrag e i n orde r t o creat e th e jouissance o f transgression . Thi s i s why rap e i s a manifestatio n o f sadism , a s n o femal e desire s rap e unde r an y condition. I f on e examine s th e so-calle d rap e fantasie s o f som e women , they ar e no t fantasie s o f rap e bu t fantasie s o f submissio n t o th e sexua l wil l of a stranger . B y definition , onl y male s wil l hav e rap e fantasie s i n that , i f the fantas y o f a woma n bein g sexuall y take n b y a strange r i s sexuall y exciting, th e fantas y i s suc h tha t sh e i s bein g dominate d an d use d i n a wa y in whic h sh e doesn' t hav e t o tak e responsibilit y i n th e fantasy . Thi s ma y seem a smal l differenc e t o mal e reader s o f pornography . Nevertheles s i t i s structurally important .

Religious or Moral Masochism Religious o r mora l masochis m reflect s th e aggressio n o f th e eg o agains t it s own body . I t i s a paradigmati c manifestatio n o f th e dialectica l tensio n between th e sexua l an d eg o drive . Th e eg o defend s itsel f agains t th e demands o f th e sexua l driv e b y attackin g th e body . Th e patter n o f monasti c sexuality manifest s thes e tension s i n th e for m o f extrem e mind/bod y dualism. Th e religiou s o r mora l perso n denie s th e sexua l drive , whic h returns i n th e for m o f eroti c fantasy . Th e eg o i n tur n addresse s aggressio n against th e body , whic h manifest s itsel f sexuall y i n th e for m o f th e jouissance o f transcendence . Thi s masochis m i s no t th e sam e a s primar y mas ochism, i t i s a secondar y sympto m tha t ofte n take s th e for m o f a defens e against primar y masochism . Th e aggressio n o f th e sexua l driv e agains t th e

The Dialectics of Desire 194 aggressio n o f th e eg o driv e i s kep t interna l a s a n ongoin g antagonis m between min d an d body . Religious o r mora l masochis m constitute s a withdrawal fro m th e worl d of interhuma n sexua l relations . Fro m th e perspectiv e o f sexuality , i t con stitutes a stat e o f celibacy . Sexualit y move s entirel y int o fantasy , an d the individua l struggle s agains t al l form s o f sexua l expression , includin g masturbation. Th e transcendin g o f sexualit y constitute s saintliness . Bu t saintliness i s nevertheles s sexual . A s explaine d b y Lacan , "yo u onl y hav e to loo k a t Bernini' s statut e [o f Sain t Theresa ] t o understan d immediatel y that she' s coming , ther e i s no doub t abou t it . An d wha t i s her jouissance , her coming from? I t is experiencing it but knowing nothing about it. Thes e mystical ejaculation s ar e neither idl e gossip nor mere verbiage" (FS , 147).

Modes of Defenses against the Drives The repressio n o f animalit y an d th e inflatio n o f th e significanc e o f lan guage an d consciousnes s creat e th e conflic t betwee n th e sexua l an d eg o drives. W e functio n a s animal s bu t conceptuall y ar e i n a state o f constan t denial. "[WJha t Freu d pu t forwar d i s tha t th e essentia l moto r o f huma n progress, the motor o f the pathetic, of the conflictual, o f the fruitful, o f th e creative in human life , is lust" ( S II, 65). Th e Freudian notio n o f sexuality , however, include s no t onl y genita l activit y an d perversion s bu t i s suffi ciently broa d t o includ e almos t al l form s o f contac t betwee n humans . Freudian pansexuality "doe s no t necessaril y mea n tha t sexualit y i s 'every thing/ bu t perhap s tha t in 'everything 'ther e i s sexuality, " an d "tha t everything ca n generate sexuality " (L&D , 26). Within th e discours e o f psychoanalyti c theory , th e distinctio n betwee n perversity an d normalit y take s o n a different meanin g tha n tha t foun d i n the nontechnica l meanin g o f everyda y speech . Laca n writes , "I f analysi s has made an y positiv e discover y abou t libidina l development , i t is that th e child i s a pervert , eve n a polymorphou s pervert " ( S I , 214) . "Wha t i s perversion? I t i s no t simpl y a n aberratio n i n relatio n t o socia l criteria , a n anomaly contrar y t o good morals , although thi s registe r i s not absent , no r is i t atypica l accordin g t o natura l criteria , namel y tha t i t mor e o r les s derogates fro m th e reproductiv e finalit y o f sexua l union . I t i s somethin g else in its very structure. . . . Perversion, in sum, is the privileged explora tion o f a n existentia l possibilit y o f huma n nature—it s interna l tearin g

The Dialectics of Desire apart, it s gap, through whic h th e supra-natura l worl d o f th e symboli c was 195 able to make its entry" ( S I, 218). Neuroses an d perversion ar e the inevitable results of the ego's exclusion of the sexua l drive and its return i n the for m o f the neurotic, perverse, and pathological symptoms . "Th e resistances alway s have their sea t in the ego, so analysi s teache s us . Wha t correspond s t o th e ego , is what I sometime s call th e su m o f th e prejudice s whic h an y knowledg e comprise s an d whic h each o f u s ha s a s individual baggage . I t i s somethin g whic h include s wha t we know or think we know—for knowin g is always in some way believin g one knows " ( S II, 41). "Observatio n show s us, " accordin g t o Freud , "tha t an instinct ma y undergo the followin g vicissitudes : Reversal into its opposite. Turning roun d upon th e subject' s ow n self . Repression. Sublimation" (SE , XIV, 126). He furthe r state s tha t "w e ma y als o regar d thes e vicissitude s a s modes of defense against th e instincts " (SE , XIV, 127) . Thes e fou r vicissitude s for m the foundatio n o f "th e neuropsychoses of defense" ( S III, 102). There is no sharp division between th e neurotic and the normal (SE , IX, 210), a s neurosi s involve s th e avoidanc e o f realit y ( S III , 45) . Th e sexua l drive i s represse d int o th e unconsciou s an d return s b y turnin g upo n th e self i n th e for m o f primar y masochism . Th e defens e agains t primar y masochism, wit h it s puissance o f submission , i s the reversa l int o it s oppo site, th e jouissance of control . Th e puissance o f control , withi n th e male , entails a denia l o f realit y throug h th e fantas y o f th e possessio n o f th e phallus fo r th e mal e an d th e fantas y o f lac k fo r th e female . Oedipa l normality is , a t best , a stat e o f neurosis . Th e denial o f th e sexua l driv e engenders a pathologica l hatre d o f th e physica l bod y an d th e embrac e o f mind/body dualism , whic h manifest s itsel f i n th e patholog y o f mora l o r religious masochis m an d neuroti c sublimation . Whe n th e realit y o f th e illusory phallu s force s itsel f upo n th e male , i t wil l ofte n produc e th e pathology o f sadis m i n th e for m o f a revol t agains t bot h th e La w o f th e Father an d the represse d desir e to lose the burden o f the phallus. Th e male can deif y an d submit , dominat e an d control , den y an d transcend , o r de stroy an d exclud e th e female , thu s reflectin g th e structur e o f th e defenc e mechanisms. Huma n sexualit y play s ou t i n term s o f th e followin g quadrant:

The Dialectics of Desire 196

To dominat e and control

To deif y and submit

The jouissance of dominatio n and contro l

The jouissance of deificatio n an d submission

To den y and transcend

To destro y and exclude

The jouissance of denial an d transcendence

The jouissance o f destruction an d transgression

The jouissance of th e God-King-Father

The jouissance of th e Consort Pan-Dionysu s

The jouissance of fuckin g someon e

The jouissance of male masochis m

The jouissance of th e Apollonia n male sain t

The jouissance of th e Amazo n killing/raping her o

The jouissance o f male religiou s o r moral masochis m

The jouissance o f male sadis m

The jouissance o f the Goddes s Domina

The jouissance o f Eve and o f O

The jouissance o f sexual disciplin e

The jouissance o f female masochis m

The jouissance o f the femal e sain t

The jouissance o f the Amazo n

The jouissance o f female religiou s o r moral masochis m

The jouissance o f female sadis m

To dominate an d control th e perso n one i s dependent o n

To deify an d submi t to the perso n on e is dependent o n

The jouissance o f domination an d control

The jouissance o f deification an d submission

To deny an d transcend th e perso n one i s dependent o n

To destroy an d exclude th e perso n one i s dependent o n

The jouissance o f denial an d transcendence

The jouissance o f destruction an d transgression

The jouissance o f the sel f a s Subjec t

The jouissance o f the Sel f a s Other

The jouissance o f the sel f a s bot h Subject an d Othe r

The jouissance o f the sel f a s neithe r Subject o r Othe r

Aggression o f min d against it s ow n bod y

Aggression agains t everything an d everyone

The jouissance o f the God-King-Her o

The jouissance o f Ev e

The jouissance of fuckin g

The jouissance o f being fucke d

The jouissance o f the Mal e Sain t

The jouissance o f the Mal e Sadis t

The jouissance o f self-discipline

The jouissance o f rape and tortur e

The jouissance o f the Goddes s Domin a

The jouissance o f the Mal e Masochis t

The jouissance o f giving disciplin e

The jouissance o f receiving disciplin e

The jouissance o f the Femal e Sain t

The jouissance o f the Femal e Sadis t

The jouissance o f self-discipline

The jouissance of tortur e

Aggression agains t Embracing aggressio n the othe r sel f a s Othe r from th e other sel f as Subjec t

The Dialectics of Desire

The Gap, The Lack, and the Fold According t o Lacan , w e experienc e th e Symboli c a s a castration , an d th e fear o f castratio n i s th e fea r o f th e lack . W e see k t o clos e th e gap , fil l th e hole, eliminat e "th e lac k tha t constitute s castratio n anxiety " (F , 73) b y desiring a n othe r a s th e objec t o f ou r desire . Th e acquisitio n o f anothe r a s the objec t o f ou r desir e i s th e desir e o f th e maste r fo r th e submissio n o f the slave . Th e objec t o f th e jouissance i s th e fillin g o f th e gap , th e satisfac tion o f th e desir e arisin g fro m th e lack . Th e sel f emerge s fro m th e Subjec t as Maste r and , th e othe r o f th e Othe r emerge s a s th e slav e whos e desir e i s to b e th e fulfillmen t o f th e desir e o f th e Master . Psychoanalysis , accordin g to Lacan , "i s governe d b y a particula r aim , whic h i s historicall y define d b y the elaboratio n o f th e notio n o f th e subject . I t pose s thi s notio n i n a ne w way, b y leadin g th e subjec t bac k t o hi s signifyin g dependence " (F , yy). Th e element tha t permit s a perso n t o constitut e th e sel f a s subjec t i s th e metaphorical identificatio n wit h th e generativ e powe r o f nature . Th e pri mary ga p upo n whic h al l other s converg e i s tha t betwee n th e Subjec t an d the Other . A s humans , w e ar e crucifie d o n th e cros s o f th e Subjec t an d th e Other. Fo r Freud , i t wa s civilizatio n an d it s discontents , bu t fo r Laca n i t i s language an d it s discontents . Fro m th e momen t o f birt h unti l ou r deat h w e are tor n betwee n separatio n an d engulfmen t anxiety . W e desperatel y de sire t o clos e th e gap , replenishin g th e lack , yet , a t th e sam e tim e w e see k the preservatio n o f th e eve r besieged , fragil e ego . Thi s ambivalenc e i s manifested i n lov e an d aggression—o f ou r body , o f ou r m o t h e r s — i n misogyny an d philogyny : [T]he subjec t a s suc h i s uncertain becaus e h e i s divided b y th e effect s o f language . Through th e effect s o f speech , th e subjec t alway s realize s himsel f mor e i n th e Other, bu t h e i s already pursuin g ther e mor e tha n hal f o f himself . H e will simpl y find hi s desir e eve r mor e divided , pulverized , i n th e circumscribabl e metonym y o f speech. Th e effect s o f languag e ar e alway s mixe d wit h th e fact , whic h i s the basi s of th e analyti c experience , tha t th e subjec t i s subjec t onl y fro m bein g subjecte d t o the fiel d o f th e Other , th e subjec t proceed s fro m hi s synchroni c subjectio n i n th e field o f th e Other. Tha t is why he must get out, get himself out , and in the gettinghimself-out, i n th e en d h e wil l kno w tha t th e rea l Othe r has , jus t a s muc h a s himself, to get himself out , to pull himself free . (F , 188) These dialectica l pole s ar e separate d b y gaps , referre d t o b y Laca n a s lacks. On e lac k become s superimpose d o n anothe r (F , 215) , an d th e lac k between subjec t an d object , bod y an d mind , Subjec t an d Other , Ero s

197

The Dialectics of Desire 198 and Thanato s becom e interrelated , interidentified , an d interpose d o n on e another. Th e lack is the sourc e of desire , and filling th e lack is the functio n of desire (F , 29). Th e object o f desire is that which is lacking (F, ix). "[I] t is in thi s poin t o f lack , that th e desir e o f th e subjec t i s constituted" (F , 219). Sexual desir e an d th e desir e fo r deat h see k to fill th e gap and eliminat e th e lack. I n th e orgasm , fo r a fe w shor t moment s al l division s weav e int o a One-ness, an d desir e i s momentaril y filled . An d a t deat h al l division s disappear. A t an d fo r th e momen t o f sexua l ecstas y th e hol e i s filled , an d at death th e hole disappears . Desir e ca n never b e completely met , filled , o r assuaged. Ou r inabilit y t o clos e th e ga p o r fil l th e lac k constitute s th e inherent impossibilit y o f desire . I f desir e coul d b e entirel y assuaged , al l distinctions woul d disappear , includin g thos e betwee n th e min d an d th e body, into a single explosion in which being would be an eternal puissance. The languagin g bipe d primat e ha s sexuality , whic h genderize s th e self . "[I]t i s th e man—b y whic h I mea n h e wh o find s himsel f mal e withou t knowing wha t t o d o abou t it , fo r al l tha t h e i s a speakin g being—wh o takes o n th e woman, o r who believes he takes her on . . . . Except what h e takes o n i s th e caus e o f hi s desire " (FS , 143) . "Ca n on e sa y . . . tha t i f Man [1 / homme] want s Woma n [La femme], h e canno t reac h he r withou t finding himsel f ru n agroun d o n th e fiel d o f perversions ? Tha t i s wha t i s precipitated a s a formul a throug h th e experimen t institute d b y psycho analytic discourse " (Tel , 37-38) . "I t follow s the n tha t a woman—sinc e we canno t spea k o f mor e tha n one— a woma n onl y encounter s Ma n [V homme] i n psychosis " (Tel , 40) . "[S]h e i s a part y t o th e perversio n which i s . . . Man' s [1 / homme]. Whic h lead s he r int o th e familia r mas querade. . . .[S]h e prepare s hersel f on-the-off-chance , s o tha t he r inne r fantasy o f Ma n [L ' homme] wil l fin d it s hou r o f truth " (Tel , 40-41) . "[Sjhort o f castration , tha t is , shor t o f somethin g whic h say s n o t o th e phallic function , ma n ha s n o chanc e o f enjoyin g th e bod y o f th e woman , in othe r words , o f makin g love . Tha t i s the conclusio n o f analyti c experi ence. I t doe s no t sto p hi m fro m desirin g th e woman . . . . No t onl y doe s he desire her but he does all kinds of things to her which bear a remarkable resemblance t o love" (FS , 143). Lacan describe s th e bipe d languagin g primat e a s "thi s fathomles s thin g capable o f experiencin g betwee n birt h an d death , capabl e o f coverin g th e whole spectru m o f pain an d pleasure i n a word, what i n Frenc h we call the sujet de la puissance" (OS , 194) . H e explain s tha t "I f th e livin g bein g i s something a t al l thinkable, i t will be above al l as subject o f th e puissance"

The Dialectics of Desire (OS, 194) . H e tell s us , "Al l tha t i s elaborate d b y th e subjectiv e construe - 199 tion o n th e scal e of th e signifie r i n it s relatio n t o th e Othe r an d which ha s its roo t i n languag e i s onl y ther e t o permi t th e ful l spectru m o f desir e t o allow u s t o approach , t o test , thi s sor t o f jouissance whic h i s th e onl y valuable meanin g that i s offered t o our life " (OS , 195). Where Laca n see s a gap tha t canno t b e closed an d a lack that ca n neve r be filled, Derrid a see s a fold. A fold can , however, b e crossed. T o cross th e dialectical fold s o f discours e on e mus t proceed , a t th e momen t o f jouissance, fro m th e Subjec t t o th e Othe r o r fro m th e Othe r t o th e Subject , effecting a surreptitiou s weav e o f movement . I f thi s fol d ca n b e crossed , then al l othe r fold s ca n similarl y b e traversed . Fo r th e mal e t o cros s th e fold, h e must mov e fro m a self a s the manifestation o f the Subjec t t o a self as a manifestation o f th e Other . Fo r the femal e t o cros s the fold , sh e mus t move from a self a s the manifestation o f the Other t o a self a s a manifesta tion o f th e Subject . Th e fol d ca n onl y b e crosse d b y effectin g a weave a t the momen t o f puissance, a t th e "littl e death. " Th e journe y "i s roughl y charted" an d "involve s dangerou s encounters." 44 Thi s arduou s journey , from on e sid e t o th e other , fro m outsid e t o inside , take s plac e i n th e "inbetween," an d require s bot h dis-memberin g an d re-memberin g o f th e self . This is only possible in and within jouissance.

E I G H T

Ariadne and Dionysus

Seduction The act of seductio n consist s of leading a person astra y i n conduc t or belief from a norm o r standar d b y enticin g o r beguilin g th e perso n t o d o some thing tha t i s wron g i n term s o f tha t criterion . Ariadn e operate s a s th e temptress wh o enforce s th e prima l seductio n o f Dionysus . H e i s drawn t o her i n deat h but , i n th e union , will s onl y Eros . Sh e hold s th e ke y t o th e labyrinth, an d onl y sh e knows the way out. 1 She ha s als o seduce d Nietzsche . Ariadn e ha s initiate d i n hi m th e desir e to castrate the privileged signifie r an d the desire to fill the void of language, suspended precariousl y abov e a n interminabl e abyss , wit h th e primar y signifier. Nietzsch e declare d himsel f t o b e beyon d goo d an d evil . H e defended master s agains t slave s an d advocate d ruthlessness , bu t a t th e same time is the man who, just prior to his mental collapse, threw his arms around a horse being beaten in the street. Ca n the man who proclaimed th e coming o f th e Superma n b e reconcile d wit h th e Dionysia n searchin g fo r his Ariadne ? Onl y Irigaray , amon g contemporar y feminists , ha s mad e a serious attemp t t o engag e feminis m an d th e text s o f Nietzsche. 2 He r dialogue i n The Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche, however , i s more o f a chastisement tha n a n attempt t o reinterpret th e texts themselves. 3 Most of the great insights of Freu d and Lacan existed in nascent form i n the writin g of Nietzsche . A convergence wit h feminism , however , wil l requir e a reexamination an d reinterpretatio n o f the texts of Nietzsche . Ariadne help s Theseu s kil l he r half-brothe r th e Minotau r i n orde r t o put a n en d t o th e annua l huma n sacrific e th e Minotau r demands . Sh e holds th e ke y t o the labyrinth , (wher e th e Minotau r resides—fro m whic h most neve r retur n bu t som e retur n transformed) , an d sh e alon e ca n hel p

200

Ariadne and Dionysus Theseus penetrat e th e darknes s an d allo w hi s successfu l depenetration . 201 Ariadne i s hi s umbilical, 4 hi s lin k o r threa d t o hi s labyrinthin e origins . Her threa d i s th e suspende d veil , th e cloth , th e partition , an d th e lin k o f the inside and the outside, penetration an d perpetration. "Nothin g i s more vicious tha n thi s suspense " o f th e thread , "nothin g i s more pervers e tha n this rendin g penetratio n tha t leave s a virgin wom b intact . Bu t nothin g i s more marke d . . . , mor e folded , intangible , sealed , untouched " (D , 216). Not onl y doe s Ariadn e hol d th e ke y t o th e labyrinth , sh e epitomize s it : the secre t claw s of th e materna l wom b tha t hold s captiv e mos t male s wh o attempt t o penetrate. Sh e keeps th e Beast-Man , th e Minotaur , th e horne d god trapped i n th e labyrinth , b y controllin g hi s sexuality , hi s phallus. Sh e is seduce d int o releasin g th e Beast-Ma n fro m th e labyrint h o f hi s sexual ity. Sh e lead s hi m out , wher e h e emerge s a s a transformed Theseu s t o b e her equa l lover, an d ensure s hi s saf e depenetration . Goddes s and Hero , together. After th e murder , sh e flees fro m Cret e with Theseus , from th e labyrin thine trut h o f he r origin . Durin g thei r journey , Theseu s desert s Ariadn e on th e Isl e o f Naxos . Onc e out , however , th e Her o abandon s th e Goddes s and leave s t o battl e th e Amazons . Th e Her o defeat s th e Amazon s an d rapes wome n an d possesse s the m a s slave-wives. 5 Hi s worl d become s on e of debauchery , exploitation , an d abduction , an d h e i s heralde d a s Hero. 6 He i s a brav e warrior , on e wh o sle w th e Minotaur , an d wa s s o honored . Ariadne release s he r umbilica l an d i n s o doing cast s the fat e o f Theseu s a s Hero. B y taking Ariadne's thread , Theseus succumbs to her an d recognize s her as the Heroine. Th e taking of the thread i s for Theseu s an acknowledg ment o f hi s dependency . Hi s late r deed s ar e in fac t a rebellion agains t thi s dependency, a n attempt t o cut away that fate d umbilical . H e must triump h against th e Amazon s a s thi s wil l elevat e hi m t o Hero , wherea s befor e h e was onl y consort . Ariadn e remain s o n th e Isl e o f Naxo s unti l th e consor t returns, n o longe r a s a Beast-Ma n bu t a s Dionysus . Onl y afte r Theseu s has abandoned Ariadne can Dionysus come to Naxos. 7 As Nietzsche stated , "this i s th e soul' s secret : onl y whe n th e her o abandone d her , sh e i s approached i n a dream b y the overhero" (Z , II, 13; Pt N, 231). Th e horne d god Pan is now transformed . Nietzsche summon s Theseus : "T o you , th e bol d venturer s an d adven turers an d whoeve r ha s embarke d wit h cunnin g sail s upo n dreadfu l seas , to yo u wh o ar e intoxicate d b y riddles , wh o take s pleasur e i n twilight , whose sou l is lured wit h flute s t o every treacherou s abyss , . . . fo r yo u d o

Ariadne and Dionysus 202 no t desir e t o fee l fo r a rope with cowardl y hand ; an d where yo u ca n guess you hat e t o calculate" (Z , 176) . Theseu s doe s no t wan t t o acced e t o Ariadne's cord , h e prefer s t o languis h i n th e Heroic . "Hun g wit h ugl y truths, th e boot y o f hi s hunt , an d ric h i n tor n clothes ; man y thorns , too , hung o n him—bu t I sa w n o rose . . . . H e returne d hom e fro m th e figh t with wil d beasts : bu t a wil d beas t stil l gaze s ou t o f hi s seriousness— a beast tha t ha s no t bee n overcome ! . . . An d onl y i f h e turn s awa y fro m himself wil l h e jum p ove r hi s ow n shadow—an d jump , i n truth , int o his own sunlight" (Z , 139-40). According t o som e version s o f th e myt h Ariadn e i s lef t "helpless " o n the Isle of Naxos , with n o one to consummate the marriage. Th e dumb cry of he r deadl y longin g i s answere d whe n Dionysus , a s savior , approaches : she i s transformed fro m a deathly visio n t o a clear light , a shining bright ness. Dionysus , too , i s transforme d b y th e union . Ariadn e i s demote d b y this mythi c interpretatio n t o th e leve l o f helples s wai f waitin g t o b e save d by th e powe r an d strengt h o f Dionysus . Clearly , sh e ca n als o be interpre ted as possessing the power an d ability t o transform Dionysu s fro m bul l to compassionate, emotive , an d sacrificia l figure . Sh e i s no t waitin g t o b e saved but ha s lured Dionysu s t o her livin g grave and, through thei r sexua l union, has accomplished th e necessary transformatio n o f Dionysus . The consummatio n o r sexua l awakenin g o f Dionysu s an d Ariadn e o n Naxos demonstrate s th e headines s o f transformation . Dionysu s i s n o longer exudin g brut e forc e bu t i s showin g th e wil l t o merg e wit h th e Other, t o lea p int o th e abyss , riskin g th e dissolutio n o f th e ego . Withou t Ariadne, Dionysu s i s a corpse , a hollo w referen t incapabl e o f actio n o r active becoming . B y makin g th e leap , Dionysu s cast s himsel f chaoticall y beyond al l limits. Ariadn e i s no longer afrai d o f he r ow n sensualit y no r of her ow n capacit y fo r ecstasy . I n lurin g Dionysu s t o he r labyrinth , sh e ha s reawakened th e vitalit y an d trut h o f th e labyrint h i n her . I n a retur n t o the danknes s o f he r origin , sh e has become who sh e is, was, and will be— the Eterna l Woman . Like a lon g los t mothe r refound , and , i n effect , his los t mothe r (fo r Ariadne i s represente d i n som e version s o f th e myt h a s Persephone , Dio nysus' origina l mother) , sh e ha s enable d Dionysu s t o ta p int o a n energ y source at onc e strange an d familiar , recognizin g in i t authority an d power . The powe r tha t Dionysu s foster s i s primaril y represente d i n th e Goddes s more s o than i n himself. Sh e is the symbo l of the power, whereas he is the

Ariadne and Dionysus fosterer o f it. H e suckles the great energ y sourc e of womanhood an d clings 203 proudly an d resolutel y t o Ariadne' s thread . Sh e guide s Dionysus , a s d o the maenads , and it is his coalition with the m tha t invigorate s him .

The Law of Seduction As Eros Ariadne reawakene d Dionysus ' desir e t o b e th e desir e o f th e Other . Sh e has mad e hi m hers , unconditionally , unrelentlessly . He , throug h hi s will to Eros , desire s onl y he r desire . H e become s th e champio n o f he r value , the devaluo r o f logos—o f God-Father-King—an d th e proponen t o f th e orgiastic dance . Onl y Ariadn e coul d hav e initiate d hi m int o thi s sensua l arena. An d Dionysus i s eternally grateful . In God and the Jouissance of the Woman, Laca n state s tha t hi s "There is something of One" i s to b e equate d wit h th e Freudia n concep t o f Ero s an d is define d a s a fusio n makin g on e ou t o f two , whic h mus t b e interrogate d and whic h "ha s echoe d acros s th e centuries " unde r th e nam e o f lov e (FS , 139). "Fo r i n s o fa r a s the mother' s loo k als o refer s t o th e fathe r throug h whom th e relationship t o the law is founded, th e seduction o f the mother' s look challenges the social and familiar order , indeed, we could say , perverts it." 8 In The Interpretation of Dreams, which contain s Freud' s initial discus sion o f Sophocles ' Oedipus Rex, Freu d introduce s th e theme s o f th e seduc tive sexualit y o f th e mother . "Ther e i s a n unmistakabl e indicatio n i n th e text o f Sophocles ' traged y itself, " h e writes , "tha t th e legen d o f Oedipu s sprang fro m som e primeva l dream-materia l whic h ha d a s it s conten t th e distressing disturbanc e o f a child's relatio n t o hi s parent owin g t o the firs t stirrings o f sexuality " (SE , IV, 264). Ariadne awaken s i n Dionysu s th e seductiv e desir e t o retur n to/unit e with/lose th e sel f in/b e th e desir e of/b e th e phallu s fo r th e mother . Thes e desires d o no t disappear i n th e Oedipa l passage . Th e seductio n i s trans formed int o th e desir e t o los e th e sel f i n th e (M)other , an d i f th e mal e embraces th e seductio n t o castrate himsel f b y presenting hi s phallus t o th e (M)other, h e mus t kil l the fathe r withi n himself . I n orde r t o accede to th e seduction, the male must be willing to lose a bit of the self, the ego, for th e free reig n o f Eros . I n thi s way , seductio n i s contraposed agains t sexuality . Sexuality i s exchange d fo r th e seductio n i n whic h th e la w i s overthrown , gender structure s transformed , asymmetr y reversed , gran d myth s in verted, an d erotic fantasy, imagery , an d symbol s transformed .

Ariadne and Dionysus 204 Accordin g t o Baudrillar d i n hi s book Seduction, "Ther e i s an alternativ e to (Oedipal) sex an d t o power " (S , 7) , an d th e alternativ e i s seduction. 9 "[S]eduction represent s master y ove r th e symboli c universe , whil e powe r represents onl y master y o f the rea l universe. Th e sovereignty o f seductio n is incommensurabl e wit h th e possessio n o f politica l o r sexua l power " (S , 8). "I t [seduction ] know s . . . tha t there is no anatomy, no r psychology , that al l signs are reversible . . . al l powers elude it, but it 'reversibilizes' all their signs " (S , 10) . "Ever y positive for m ca n accommodat e itsel f t o it s negative form , bu t understand s th e challeng e o f th e reversible for m a s mortal. Ever y structur e ca n adapt to its subversion o r inversion, but not t o the reversio n o f it s terms. Seductio n i s this reversibl e form " (S , 21). It , as it di d to Dionysu s o n Naxos , transform s contro l t o submission . A s i t di d for Ariadne, it transforms submissio n int o control . The phalli c fabl e whereb y woma n i s create d b y a male go d b y subtrac tion fro m th e mal e bod y i s a reversa l o f materia l realit y wherei n ma n i s born o f woman. "Powe r . . . i s soluble in the reversibility o f the feminine . If th e 'facts ' canno t decid e whether i t wa s th e masculin e o r feminin e tha t was dominant throughou t th e ages . . . b y contrast i t remains clea r that i n matters o f sexuality , the reversible for m prevail s over the linear form . Th e excluded for m prevails , secretly , ove r th e dominan t form , th e seductiv e form prevail s ove r th e productiv e form " (S , 17) . "[Tjh e masculin e ha s always bee n bu t a residua l secondar y an d fragil e formation , on e tha t must b e defended b y retrenchments , institutions , an d artifices . Th e phallic fortress offer s al l the sign s o f a fortress, tha t i s to say , o f weakness. I t ca n defend itsel f onl y fro m th e rampart s o f a manifest sexuality " (S , 13). Th e Oedipal passage , fo r th e male , i s th e transformatio n o f th e puissance o f submission, whic h ha s it s origin s i n maternal-infan t sexuality , t o th e jouissance of control . The la w o f seductio n ha s on e narrativ e bu t man y scripts , man y begin nings, an d man y endings . I t i s a pla y tha t allow s fo r infinit e variatio n though it s them e remain s resolute, 10 on e whic h "take s th e for m o f a n uninterrupted ritua l exchang e wher e seduce r an d seduce d constantl y rais e the stake s in a game that neve r ends . And canno t en d . . . because there is no limi t t o th e challeng e t o lov e mor e tha n on e i s loved , o r t o b e alway s more seduced—i f no t death . Sex , o n th e othe r hand , ha s a quick , bana l end: th e orgasm " (S , 22). Se x and power must be surrendered b y the mal e who choose s t o pla y th e gam e o f seduction , " a circular , reversibl e process of challenges , one-upmanshi p an d death. " Accordin g t o Baudrillard , "Th e

Ariadne and Dionysus game's sol e principle , thoug h i t i s neve r pose d a s universal , i s tha t by 205 choosing the rule one is delivered from the law" (S , 133). If it would appea r tha t me n hav e won th e game, it has been a t a terrible price. Th e pric e ha s bee n t o objectif y women , commodif y children , an d turn natur e int o resources . I t ha s lef t me n los t an d caugh t i n a forwar d flight tha t ca n "neithe r assur e the m o f safety , no r reliev e the m o f thei r secret despair a t what ha d escape d them" (S , 18). The price for wome n ha s been equall y high . I t ha s alienate d the m fro m th e Goddes s an d ha s le t them kno w onl y th e "Truth " o f God , it ha s given ris e to a castrated, blin d servility, a living death . In orde r t o pass fro m Thanato s t o Eros , seduction mus t b e embraced. I t is onl y i n th e unificatio n o f Ariadn e an d Dionysu s tha t thi s embrac e i s possible. Th e castration—th e abrogatio n o f th e patriphallu s (th e every thing but ) an d th e sacrificia l gif t o f th e phallu s (th e nothin g but)—i s no t the culminatio n o f seductio n bu t merel y th e beginning . I t i s th e pric e o f entry int o th e play , th e forepla y o f Eros . "I f seductio n i s a passio n o r destiny, i t i s usually th e opposit e passio n tha t prevails—tha t o f no t bein g seduced. W e struggl e t o confir m ourselve s i n ou r truth : w e figh t agains t that whic h seek s t o seduc e us " (S , 119) . "Th e problem , therefore , i s no t one o f sexua l o r alimentar y impotence , wit h it s trai n o f psychoanalyti c reasons an d unreason , bu t concern s a n impotence as regards seduction" (S, 121) .

The male ca n choos e between th e collectiv e pathology o f normalit y an d perversion, between repressin g and, in so doing, castrating Eros, or castrat ing the privileged positio n o f th e Ego . "Seductio n an d perversion maintai n subtle relations . . . . The immoralit y o f perversion , lik e that o f seduction , does no t com e fro m abandonin g onesel f t o th e joy s o f se x i n oppositio n to al l morality ; i t result s fro m somethin g mor e seriou s an d subtle , th e abandonment o f se x itself a s a referent an d a morality" (S , 125). Th e price of enlightenmen t i s castration: on e canno t embrac e the Mothe r an d retai n the phallus ; on e canno t embrac e Ero s an d continu e t o retai n th e phalli c fantasies. Th e seductio n t o castratio n i s th e seductio n t o enlightenment : "The worl d i s naked , th e kin g i s naked , an d thing s ar e clear . Al l o f production, and truth itself , are directed towards disclosure, the unbearabl e truth o f se x bein g bu t th e mos t recen t consequence . . . . An d seductio n still holds , i n th e fac e o f truth , a mos t sibyllin e response , whic h i s tha t 'perhaps w e wish t o uncove r th e trut h becaus e i t i s s o difficult t o imagin e it naked ' " (S , 181).

Ariadne and Dionysus 206

The Proclamation of the Primary Signifier "Is th e paga n cul t no t a for m o f thanksgivin g an d affirmatio n o f life? " Nietzsche asks . "Dionysu s versu s th e 'Crucified' : ther e yo u hav e th e antithesis" i s hi s answe r (WP , 1052) . Nietzsch e kille d God , denie d logos , and castrate d th e signifie r o f mal e psychi c reality . I n doin g so , h e shifte d the gran d metaphorica l relationshi p betwee n h u m a n an d natur e fro m dis embodied min d t o th e bod y itself. 11 H e calle d thi s proces s th e "de-deifica tion o f nature. " H e asks , "Whe n wil l w e complet e ou r de-deificatio n o f nature? Whe n ma y w e begi n t o 'naturalize' humanit y i n term s o f a pure , newly discovered , newl y redeeme d nature? " (GS , 109) . Fro m here , h e could onl y embrac e th e primar y signifie r o r abando n languag e altogether . One canno t hav e languag e withou t th e categorie s o f Subjec t an d Other , and on e canno t hav e th e categorie s o f Subjec t an d Othe r withou t a maste r signifier tha t contain s th e structur e o f th e origina l fantas y b y whic h selve s are generate d i n term s o f th e Subjec t an d th e Other . Languag e itsel f requires a maste r signifier . W e hav e onl y two , eithe r th e privilege d o r th e primary. An d i f i t i s no t th e privileged , the n i t mus t b e th e primar y since , according t o Nietzsche , "W e cease to think when we refuse to do so under the constraint of language. . . . Rational thought is interpretation according to a scheme that we cannot throw off" (WP , 522) . When h e embrace d th e primar y signifier , Nietzsch e wa s inevitabl y drawn int o th e origina l prima l fantas y wher e th e worl d i s turne d upsid e down an d th e mal e bod y become s th e stag e upo n whic h femal e desir e i s acted out . I n "Th e Secon d Danc e Song " o f Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zara thustra sing s t o th e redeeme r o f hi s soul , "th e nameles s on e fo r who m only futur e song s wil l fin d a name ! An d truly , you r breat h i s alread y fragrant wit h futur e songs " (Z , 240) : I fear yo u whe n yo u ar e near , I love you whe n yo u ar e far ; you r fleein g allures me , your seekin g secure s me : I suffer, bu t fo r yo u wha t I would no t gladly endure ! For yo u whos e coldnes s inflames , whos e hatre d seduces , whos e fligh t constrains, whose mockery—induces : Who woul d no t hat e you , grea t woma n wh o bind s us , unwind s us , seduces us , seek s us , find s us ! Wh o woul d no t lov e you , yo u innocent , impatient, wind-swift, child-eye d sinner ! Where no w do you tak e me, you unrul y paragon ? (Z , 241)

Ariadne and Dionysus

The Will to Power As Eros Nietzsche describe s th e wil l t o powe r a s a tru e lif e force , "no t a being, no t a becomin g bu t a p a t h o s — t he mos t elementa l fac t fro m whic h a becomin g an effectin g firs t emerge " (WP , 635). "Lif e itself, " accordin g t o Nietzsche , "is th e will t o power" (WP , 55). I t is "incarnat e wil l t o power" (BGE , 259) . "Life i s onl y a means t o something ; i t i s th e expressio n o f form s o f th e growth o f power " (WP , 706) . "An d d o yo u kno w wha t 'th e world ' i s t o me?," Nietzsch e asks , "Shal l I show i t to yo u i n m y mirror ? Thi s world : a monster o f energy , withou t beginning , withou t end ; a firm, iro n magni tude o f forc e tha t doe s no t gro w bigge r o r smaller , tha t doe s no t expen d itself bu t onl y transform s itself. " Th e implication s fo r cognitio n ar e mad e clear i n Nietzsche' s statemen t that : Will to truth i s a making firm , a making true an d durable, an abolition o f the fals e character o f things , a reinterpretatio n o f i t int o being . "Truth " i s therefor e no t something there , that migh t b e found o r discovered—but somethin g tha t mus t be created an d tha t give s a nam e t o a process , o r rathe r t o a wil l t o overcom e tha t has i n itsel f n o end—introducin g truth , a s a processus in infinitum, a n activ e determining—not a becomin g consciou s o f somethin g tha t i s i n itsel f fir m an d determined. I t is a word fo r the "will to power." (WP , 552) Nietzsche wa s th e firs t sinc e Heraclitu s t o formulat e a scientifi c ap proach t o knowledg e structure d i n term s o f th e matri x rathe r tha n th e logos. H e proclaim s that , "i n trut h w e ar e confronte d b y a continuum " (GS, 112) , an d h e declares , " I tel l you : yo u stil l hav e chao s i n you " (Z , 46). Th e ter m postmodernism i s i n reactio n t o th e supersanguin e assump tions abou t th e natur e o f knowledg e an d th e potentia l fo r huma n under standing o f th e universe . Nietzsch e reacte d agains t modernit y b y way o f a pessimistic vie w o f knowledg e an d its potential. " 'Truth ' i s therefore mor e fateful tha n erro r an d ignorance , becaus e i t cut s of f th e force s tha t wor k toward enlightenmen t an d knowledge " (WP , 452) . "Th e criterio n o f truth," h e tell s us , " reside s i n th e enhancemen t o f th e feelin g o f power " (WP, 534) . "Parmenide s said , 'on e canno t thin k o f wha t i s n o t ; ' — w e ar e at th e othe r extreme , an d sa y 'wha t ca n b e though t o f mus t certainl y b e a fiction' " (WP , 539) . W e mus t recogniz e th e ga p o r gul f betwee n th e registers o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c an d tha t o f th e Real . Nietzsche constructe d a theor y o f knowledg e tha t foreshadowe d th e ne w scientific paradig m tha t i s no w referre d t o a s comple x adaptiv e syste m

20J

Ariadne and Dionysus 208 theory. 12 "I n thi s momen t o f suddennes s ther e i s a n infinit e numbe r o f processes tha t elud e us . A n intellec t tha t coul d se e caus e an d effec t a s a continuum an d a flux and not , a s we do , in term s o f a n arbitrar y divisio n and dismemberment , woul d repudiat e th e concep t o f caus e an d effec t an d deny all conditionality" (GS , 173). Since a t leas t th e tim e o f quantu m mechanic s an d Heisenberg' s procla mation o f th e uncertaint y principle , theoretica l an d mathematica l model s of natura l phenomen a hav e shifte d fro m classica l logos-oriente d ap proaches t o the focu s o n th e unstable , aperiodic , nondeterministic, nonlin ear, an d chaoti c dynamic s o f physica l systems . Ther e ha s bee n a marke d shift fro m "knowledg e optimism " t o knowledg e pessimism , al l foreshad owed by Nietzsche . Th e shif t i n evolutionar y theor y fro m Darwin' s teleo logical, intentional , purposive , linea r mode l t o Nietzsche' s evolutionar y perspective o f chaotic an d comple x emergenc e return s u s t o th e ancient , primary, origina l fantas y o f th e emergenc e o f lif e ou t o f chaos , o r th e matrix. Nietzsche' s metapho r fo r th e matrix was "th e Will to Power. " Nietzsche's solutio n t o th e proble m o f nihilis m i s "Dionysia n wisdom . Joy in th e destructio n o f th e mos t nobl e an d a t th e sigh t o f it s progressiv e ruin: i n realit y jo y i n wha t i s comin g an d lie s i n th e future , whic h triumphs ove r existin g things, however good . Dionysian : temporar y iden tification wit h th e principl e o f lif e (includin g th e voluptuousnes s o f th e martyr)" (WP , 417). H e explains: [T]his m y Dionysia n worl d o f th e eternall y self-creating , th e eternall y self-de stroying, this mystery world of the twofold voluptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil,'' withou t goal , unless the joy of th e circle; i s itself a goal; without will, unless a ring feels good will toward itself—do yo u want a name for this world? A solution for all its riddles? A light for you, too, you best-concealed, strongest, most intrepid, mos t midnightl y men?—Thi s worl d i s the will to power—and nothin g besides! And yo u yourselve s ar e als o thi s wil l t o power—an d nothin g besides ! (WP, 1067)

Der Uber Mensch Nietzsche's syste m o f knowledge as structured b y the primary signifie r ca n be foun d i n tw o o f hi s later , an d extremel y significant , texts , Thus Spoke Zarathustra, an d The Will to Power. "I write fo r a species of ma n tha t doe s not yet exist : fo r th e 'masters o f the earth,' " Nietzsche tells us (WP , 958). "Not 'mankind ' bu t Overman i s th e goal! " (WP , 1001) . Clearly—an d

Ariadne and Dionysus consistent wit h hi s anti-Darwinia n view s o n evolution—Nietzsch e doe s 209 not vie w the comin g o f th e Overma n i n biologica l terms . Th e Overma n i s a psychological stat e o f min d an d ca n onl y b e understood i n psychologica l terms. Th e Overma n i s the individua l wh o mos t clearl y embodie s th e wil l to power , th e wil l t o power mad e flesh . Sinc e the wil l t o powe r i s life, th e will to Eros , the Overma n wil l be the being who expresse s an d i s driven t o the unfoldin g an d generatio n o f life—lif e simpl y fo r th e sak e o f life . Zarathustra proclaims : Behold I teach you the Overman The Overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say The Overman shall be the meaning of the earth! I entreat you, my brothers, remain true to the earth, and do not believ e thos e wh o spea k t o yo u o f superterrestria l hopes! They are poisoners, whether they know it or not. They are despisers of life, atrophying and self-poisoned men of whom the earth is weary: so let them be gone. Behold I teach you the Overman: He is this sea , i n hi m you r grea t contemp t ca n g o under. (Z,42)13

Nietzsche characterize s th e Overma n a s a male figure, whe n clearl y th e primary signifie r an d th e primar y origina l fantas y identif y th e generativ e power o f nature , synonymou s wit h Nietzsche' s wil l t o power , wit h th e female. I t is this structure , this reconciliatio n wit h th e generative power of nature, that i n the end leads Nietzsche to merge the figures o f Ariadne an d the Overman . Mor e an d mor e Nietzsch e identifie s himsel f wit h Dionysus , not th e Dionysu s h e refer s t o i n The Birth of Tragedy, but th e Dionysu s who surrender s himsel f full y an d completel y t o Ariadne's seduction. 14 H e belongs t o her , an d he r alone . Dionysus , wh o epitomize s th e "highe r man," i s willin g t o b e seduced . H e i s willin g t o foresak e hi s eg o fo r th e higher ai m o f th e merger . I f th e merger i s to be fully recognized , the n th e Ubermensch become s SHE wh o i s "Ove r Man, " o r th e Ove r Man . I f Nietzsche destroy s God , the n i n on e wa y o r anothe r th e Goddes s mus t return, otherwis e w e canno t remai n i n language . I f yo u rejec t on e maste r signifier, th e othe r mus t b e embraced , b e it consciously o r unconsciously . The deat h o f Go d (patriarcha l religion ) an d logo s (linea r an d teleologicall y structured science ) preface th e retur n o f the Goddes s and th e matrix . For Nietzsche , th e escap e fro m nihilis m i s accomplishe d b y a tota l

Ariadne and Dionysus 210 surrende r t o life . Hi s metapho r fo r thi s i s th e Eterna l Return . "Le t u s think thi s though t i n it s mos t terribl e form : existenc e a s i t is , withou t meaning o r aim , ye t recurrin g inevitabl y withou t an y final e o f nothing ness: 'th e eterna l recurrence ' " (WP , 55). I f on e ca n sa y "YES " t o this , then on e has embraced life by surrenderin g t o it. Nietzsche' s metapho r fo r this i s a going-under , int o th e water , th e ocean , th e abyss . Th e goin g under i s th e sacrific e o f th e sel f an d th e ego . Onl y th e huma n ca n sa y "YES" t o life—o r no . Onl y th e huma n ca n consciously embrac e th e wil l to powe r an d thereb y embod y it . " I lov e thos e wh o d o no t firs t see k beyond th e star s fo r reason s t o g o dow n an d t o b e sacrifices : bu t wh o sacrifice themselve s t o the earth , tha t th e eart h ma y on e day belong to th e Over Man" (Z , 44). By identifyin g th e Ove r Ma n a s female , a mos t radica l for m o f femi nism will result . Whe n Nietzsch e declare s tha t " A declaratio n o f wa r o n the masse s b y highe r me n i s needed . Everywher e th e mediocr e ar e com bining i n orde r t o mak e themselve s master! " (WP , 861) , thi s ma y b e interpreted a s a cal l t o comba t th e mas s o f Thanatos-drive n male s wh o dominate an d suppres s females , who are the embodiment o f the generativ e power of nature. "Th e new courage—no a priori truths, but a free subordination t o a ruling idea that ha s its time" (WP , 462). Nietzsche call s fo r a dedicatio n t o lif e tha t coul d no t b e possibl e o r even conceivabl e withou t th e liberatio n o f wome n an d th e destructio n o f patriarchy. H e tells us that "Ther e ar e master morality and slave morality" (BGE, 260) . Slav e morality , accordin g t o Nietzsche , function s t o suppres s the wil l t o powe r whil e th e maste r moralit y intensifie s it . Equalit y is , fo r Nietzsche, a slav e morality . "I n th e ag e o f suffrag e universal , i.e. , whe n everyone ma y si t in judgment o n everyon e an d everything , I feel impelle d to re-establis h order of rank (WP , 854) . Rank , accordin g t o Nietzsche , i s determined b y power . "Wha t determine s you r ran k i s th e quantu m o f power yo u are " (WP , 858) . Th e powe r tha t fo r Nietzsch e determine s th e hierarchy betwee n th e lowe r an d th e highe r ma n i s tha t whic h i s mani fested a s th e wil l t o power , th e wil l t o life . Thi s readin g o f Nietzsche' s text, therefor e lead s u s t o a feminis m tha t proclaim s th e primac y o f th e female a s th e manifestatio n o f th e wil l t o power . Nietzsch e state s tha t "The stronges t mus t b e boun d mos t firmly , watched , lai d i n chains , an d guarded—if th e instinc t o f th e her d ha s it s way" (WP , 887) . I n tha t case , it i s th e masse s o f mediocr e an d lesse r men , wh o us e a slave mentalit y t o

Ariadne and Dionysus bind, la y i n chains , an d guar d thos e wh o embod y th e generativ e powe r 211 of nature .

'Ressentiment' For Nietzsche, the orde r o f ran k i s measured i n terms o f the manifestatio n of th e will to power . Th e will to powe r i s manifested a s the affirmatio n o f life. Th e distinctio n betwee n th e stron g an d th e wea k i s no t biologicall y determined. I t i s a matte r o f psychology . I f wome n manifes t a greate r affirmation of , an d wil l to , lif e o r Eros , then withi n Nietzsche' s syste m o f thought the y woul d constitut e a maste r class ; an d i f males , a s a gender , opposed o r denie d lif e rathe r tha n affirme d it , the y woul d constitut e th e herd o f lesse r beings , "th e sic k animal" wh o say s n o t o life (G M I ,17). A male mus t no t onl y accep t but mus t positivel y affir m hi s lack , his animal ity, which includes hi s sexuality an d mortality, i f he is to manifest th e will to powe r o r t o life . Nietzsch e assert s tha t "i t i s a very nobl e typ e o f ma n that confront s natur e an d lif e i n this way, " tha t is , wit h a n "enormou s amount o f gratitude," thus affirmin g an d accepting life, our animality , an d our lac k withou t ressentiment (BGE , 49) . Accordin g t o Nietzsche , "Th e degree and kind of a man's sexualit y reac h up into the ultimate pinnacle of his spirit " (BGE , 75). I n orde r t o affir m life , th e mal e mus t confron t an d accept hi s sexua l an d emotiona l dependenc y upo n th e femal e withou t ressentiment. The La w o f th e Father , whic h constitute s th e foundatio n o f mal e au thority, i s a manifestatio n o f misogyny , an d misogyn y i s a paradigmati c example o f ressentiment. A slav e moralit y i s a manifestatio n o f ressentiment, a s it s functio n i s t o castrat e thos e wh o manifes t th e wil l t o power . "The ressentiment whic h thes e lowly-place d person s fee l . . . fill s poo r little foolis h head s with a n insane conceit, as if the y wer e the meaning an d the sal t o f th e earth " (WP , 172) . Nietzsch e specifie s fo r u s wha t h e considers constitute s wha t h e choose s t o call , "The prudence of moral castrationism"': First. . . one claims virtue in general fo r one' s ideal; on e negates the older ideal t o the point o f presenting i t as the antithesis o f all ideals . . . a n art of defamation . Second . . . one set s up th e opponen t o f one' s ideals a s the measur e o f valu e i n g e n e r a l . . . a s God. Third . . . one sets up the opponent o f one's idea; a s the opponent o f God. . . .

Ariadne and Dionysus 212

Fourth . . . one derives all suffering, al l that i s uncanny, fearful an d fateful i n existence from opposition to one's own ideal. . . . Fifth . . . on e goe s s o fa r a s t o conceiv e natur e a s th e antithesi s o f one' s own ideal. . . . Sixth . . . the victory of unnaturalness, of the castrationist ideal... i s projected into th e futur e a s conclusion, finale , grea t hope , as the " coming o f th e kingdo m of God." —I hop e tha t a t thi s artificia l inflatio n o f a smal l specie s int o th e absolut e measure of things one is still permitted to laugh? (WP, 204) "The castrator, " accordin g t o Nietzsche , "formulate s a numbe r o f ne w self-preservative measure s fo r me n o f a quite definit e species : i n thi s h e is a realist . Hi s mean s o f legislatio n ar e . . . th e appea l t o authorit y o f al l kinds, t o 'God ' th e employmen t o f th e concep t 'guil t an d punishment ' " (WP, 204). The driving force of Christianity , according to Nietzsche, is ressentiment (WP, 179) , and it s sourc e is no t s o much th e teaching s o f Jesu s bu t thos e of Pau l wh o "annulled primitiv e Christianity, " lai d th e foundation s fo r " a new priesthoo d an d theology—i n a ne w rulin g orde r an d a church . . . . Paul re-erecte d o n a grand scal e precisel y tha t whic h Chris t ha d annulle d through hi s wa y o f living " (WP , 167) . H e tell s u s tha t " A doctrin e an d religion o f 'love, ' o f suppression, of self-affirmation , o f patience , endur ance, helpfulness , o f cooperatio n i n wor d an d dee d . . . deifie s a lif e o f slavery, subjection , poverty , sickness , an d inferiorit y . . . unde r th e idea l of humilit y an d obedience " (WP , 373). I s this not a fairly accurat e description o f th e Wester n theisti c moralit y tha t religion s impos e o n women ? The desire that a world comfortable t o the one who desires leads, according to Nietzsche, to a "blin d trus t i n reason, " t o "a n expressio n o f hatre d fo r a world tha t make s on e suffer, " an d t o th e conceptualizatio n o f a fantas y world. "Th e ressentimen t o f metaphysician s agains t actualit y i s her e cre ative" (WP , 579). Clearly, th e concep t o r fea r o f castratio n ha s repercussion s wit h respec t to conception s an d portrayal s o f women—a s thos e wh o ar e castrated , capable o f castrating , an d simultaneousl y o r successivel y capabl e o f affir mation (Sp , 101) . Accordin g t o Derrida , th e relationshi p betwee n castra tion an d wome n i s bes t understoo d throug h concept s o f Churc h an d God . The Church , a s promulgato r o f patriarcha l law , use s Go d t o repres s th e male fea r o f castration . B y assertin g th e primac y o f th e mind , th e spirit , and th e supernatural , th e Churc h give s littl e credenc e t o th e body , t o life ,

Ariadne and Dionysus or to the importance o f th e mal e bodily organ . Religio n an d th e concep t o f 213 God do their ow n jo b of emasculatio n an d mutilation . "Whenc e come s th e seductive char m o f suc h a n emasculate d idea l o f ma n [God ] ? Why ar e w e not disguste d b y i t a s w e ar e perhap s disguste d b y th e ide a o f th e cas trato?—The answe r lie s precisel y here : th e voic e o f a castrat o doe s not disgust us , despit e th e crue l mutilatio n tha t i s it s condition : i t ha s grow n sweeter—Just becaus e the 'mal e organ' ha s been amputate d fro m virtue , a feminine not e ha s bee n brough t t o th e voic e o f virtu e tha t i t di d no t hav e before" (WP , 204) . Accordin g t o Derrida , writin g o n Nietzsche' s styles , the Church , b y privilegin g th e supernatura l a s opposed t o the natural , th e afterlife a s oppose d t o life , i s inescapabl y hostil e t o woma n a s SH E i s th e essence o f life : "Hostil e t o life , th e Churc h i s hostil e thu s t o woma n als o who is herself lif e (femin a vita) " (Sp , 93 ). Nietzsche clearl y understands , however , tha t thos e wh o ar e i n fac t oppressed ar e i n dange r o f lapsin g int o ressentiment itself . Feminist s an d feminism ar e no t fre e fro m th e sicknes s o f ressentiment. A feminis m tha t conceptualizes itsel f i n the discourse o f equality an d egalitarianism will , by doing so , ad d legitimac y t o a discours e that , accordin g t o Nietzsche , i s a manifestation o f ressentiment. This , in turn, will lead to a reactive mental ity rathe r tha n th e "aggressiv e . . . stronger , nobler , mor e courageous " individual wh o ha s "a t al l times a freer eye , an d a better conscience, " an d is " a hundre d step s close r t o justic e tha n th e reactiv e man " becaus e tha t individual ha s "n o nee d t o tak e a fals e an d prejudice d vie w o f th e objec t before hi m i n th e wa y th e reactiv e ma n doe s an d i s boun d t o do " (G M II, 11) .

The Role of the Goddess The seductiv e femal e o f lac e an d perfum e doe s no t awake n th e desir e i n the mal e fo r castratio n throug h sacrifice . Rather , th e mal e i s seduce d int o giving i n t o hi s ow n desire . Th e for m o f seductio n t o castratio n i s gener ated by the the Amazon, th e heroine tha t Theseu s most despised . Once Nietzsche began th e process of restructurin g hi s system o f knowl edge upo n th e base s o f th e primar y signifier , th e structur e shoul d hav e taken ove r an d move d hi m fro m a patriphallic t o a matriphallic conscious ness. Whethe r o r not thi s di d in fac t tak e place is critical to the questio n of whether o r no t Nietzsche' s tex t ca n b e give n a feminis t interpretation . Nietzsche's vie w o f wome n i s comple x an d canno t b e full y appreciate d

Ariadne and Dionysus 214 withou t a carefu l examinatio n o f hi s relationshi p wit h Lo u Andreas-Sa lome, a n amazin g woma n wh o wa s a writer , a n intellectual , an d i n late r life a la y psychoanalys t an d frien d an d colleagu e o f Freud's. 15 Fo r her , Nietzsche wa s onl y a confidant e an d friend . Nietzsche' s feeling s fo r An dreas-Salome, on the other hand, were profound. Sh e was the only woma n whom h e aske d t o marry . Nietzsche' s siste r Elizabet h intensel y dislike d her, a s sh e wa s th e opposit e o f he r i n almos t ever y way . Elizabet h wa s unexceptional, whil e Lo u Andreas-Salom e "wa s th e affirmativ e woman , neither castrate d no r castrating—beyon d castration." 16 Sh e wa s th e Ari adne t o Nietzsche' s Dionysus . Ther e i s som e indicatio n o f a Dionysia n masochistic fantas y structur e i n Nietzsche , apar t fro m statement s suc h a s the followin g i n Thus Spoke Zarathustra, wher e Nietzsche/Zarathustr a proclaims, "Pai n i s also a joy" (Z , 331); "Fo r all joy wants itself, therefor e it als o want s heart' s agony ! O happiness ! O pain! " (Z , 332) . I n 188 2 Nietzsche arranged fo r the photographer Jule s Bonnet to take a photograph of himself , Lo u Andreas-Salome , an d Pau l Ree . Marti n state s tha t "I n Lucerne, Nietzsch e orchestrate d th e infamou s photograp h o f th e three some . . . whic h depict s th e tw o me n pullin g a smal l car t drive n b y Andreas-Salome wh o i s half perche d o n th e sea t o f th e car t with a whip in her hand." 17 Th e contrivin g o f thi s symboli c depictio n i s revealing , w e would suggest , o f Nietzsche' s psychi c reality , whic h reflect s th e dynamic s of mal e matriphalli c sexuality . Marti n goe s on t o sa y tha t th e photograp h led t o " a tru e scanda l when , som e say , Andreas-Salom e showe d i t aroun d at th e premier e o f Parsifal in Bayreuth." 18 Thi s inciden t put s Nietzsche' s statement "Ar e you visitin g women? D o not forge t you r whip!" (Z , 93) in a different context . Elements i n Nietzsche' s text s ar e clearl y misogynist , bu t ar e they criti cal ? Of what was he critical ? Many o f his texts reveal the mask of feminin ity tha t wome n ar e force d t o wear . H e asks , "Finally , women. Reflec t o n the whol e histor y o f women : d o they no t have to b e first o f al l and abov e all else actresses?" (GS , 361). H e later relate s the followin g parable : Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women." The sage shook his head and smiled . "I t i s men/' sai d he, "tha t corrup t women; and all the failings o f women should be atoned by and improved in men. Fo r it is man wh o create s fo r himsel f th e imag e o f women , an d woma n form s hersel f according to this image . . . someone else shouted out of the crowd "women need to be educated better!"—"Men need to be educated better," said the sage. (GS, 68)

Ariadne and Dionysus How shoul d wome n educat e me n abou t thei r nature ? I t i s obviou s tha t 215 modern discours e ha s ha d littl e effect . Ca n th e educatio n o f th e mal e b e separated fro m th e atonemen t tha t Nietzsch e tell s u s th e mal e mus t make ? Atonement, discipline , an d educatio n o f th e male : ca n the y b e separated ? Regarding wha t Nietzsch e refer s t o a s th e "amazin g an d monstrous " education o f women : ho w ar e the y t o b e reeducated ? Concernin g th e education o f women , Nietzsch e asserts : "Thu s a psychic kno t ha s bee n tie d that ma y hav e n o equal . Eve n th e compassionat e curiosit y o f th e wises t student o f humanit y i s inadequat e fo r guessin g ho w thi s o r tha t woma n manages t o accommodat e hersel f t o thi s solutio n o f th e riddle , an d t o th e riddle o f a solution " (GS , 71) .

Ariadne and Dionysus: The Embrace According t o Nietzsche : The word "Dionysian" means : an urge to unity, a reaching out beyond personality , the everyday , society , reality , acros s th e bay s o f transitoriness : a passionate painful overflowin g int o darker , fuller , mor e floating states ; a n ecstati c affirmatio n of th e tota l characte r o f lif e a s that whic h remain s th e same , just a s powerful, jus t as blissful, throug h al l change; th e great pantheistic sharin g of joy an d sorro w tha t sanctifies an d call s goo d eve n th e mos t terribl e an d questionabl e qualitie s o f life ; the eterna l wil l t o procreation , t o fruitfulness , t o recurrence ; th e feelin g o f th e necessary unio n o f creatio n an d destruction. (WP , 1050) Nietzsche tell s u s tha t "th e desir e fo r destruction , change , becoming , ca n be expresse d o f a n over-ful l powe r pregnan t wit h th e futur e (m y ter m fo r this, a s i s known , i s th e wor d 'Dionysian') " (WP , 846) . Dionysu s i s understood a s th e figur e capabl e o f reinterpretin g an d reshapin g existin g hierarchical relationship s o f powe r an d domination . H e play s th e decisiv e role o f th e consor t t o Ariadn e an d i s seduce d b y th e bacchi c maenad s int o the rol e o f th e transvaluo r o f values . The y initiat e Dionysu s int o thei r secret mysteries , an d h e submits . H e face s th e consequence s o f initiation , risks th e loss , b e i t o f th e logos , th e ego , o r th e phallus , an d emerge s a s both mor e an d les s tha n whe n h e started . H e defie s al l categorization s an d obeys instea d somethin g mor e prima l an d labyrinthine : th e orgiasti c danc e of th e maenads . H e open s himsel f u p t o th e maenadi c vigo r o f th e baccha nal, an d neve r look s back . The myster y o f hi s initiatio n take s plac e throug h th e bod y o f a woman .

Ariadne and Dionysus 216 I t i s a journe y o f becoming , whereb y th e hidde n insid e i s revealed , ex plored and interpreted. I t is a reconciliation wit h th e Mother . The mystery is always of a body . . . —Advance, advance, in the warmness of ignorance, approach absorbed o n the interior of the contemplation i n the scent of daffodils, attracte d by the scant scent of sacred daffodils. . . . The mystery is always—of th e body of a . . . —approach almos t dyin g in ignorance almost dead , approach in the death-agon y of approaching, advance before you, from the left side. . . . The mystery is always of the body of a woman . . . The mystery is woman. The mystery is always of a woman. The mystery of the mystery is being woman. Listen from the bottom of your body and know: The mystery t o be a woman is : onl y one , a single woman, i s not alone : th e mystery is always of the body in the body of a woman.19 In Euripides ' The Bacchae, where Dionysu s wa s willin g t o succum b t o maenadic truths, Pentheu s was not a s eager. 20 Dionysus attempt s to seduc e Pentheus int o a willing participatio n i n th e initiator y drama . H e venture s to brin g th e Her o t o th e ritua l an d give s hi m th e celebrator y mask . Pentheus i s frightened b y th e horrifi c visio n o f th e bacchants. Th e castrat ing visio n o f th e undecidabilit y o f nature , it s deadl y beauty , stiffen s th e Hero, an d instea d o f hurlin g himsel f daringl y int o th e ambivalence , th e bacchants hurl themselves a t him. I n the Oedipal myth, knowledge undoe s the sage—th e trut h o f th e riddl e i s what destroys . I n The Bacchae, order undoes th e man—th e trut h o f th e logo s cause s Pentheu s t o den y th e beast, a denia l tha t foreshadow s hi s beastl y death . Mos t male s ru n fro m the bacchana l fo r fea r o f a fat e simila r t o tha t afforde d th e king , a s the y cannot conceiv e o f th e Dionysia n embrace . Dionysu s i s empowered no t i n his attemp t t o contro l hi s surroundings , no t i n a n effor t t o dictat e o r subjugate, bu t i n th e pur e submissio n t o th e undecidabilit y o f chaos . T o amass th e strengt h o f Dionysus , wha t i s necessar y fo r th e mal e i s a sacrificial releas e o f th e logos , o f orderin g principles , hierarchies , an d controlling forces , a sacrifice wit h Nietzsch e o f th e privilege d signifie r an d a lea p int o unknown , murk y territories . Th e groun d i s uneven , an d th e leap is into a deep abyss, and for mos t the leap is too dangerous to attempt .

Ariadne and Dionysus In pushin g th e boundarie s o f th e sel f an d reevaluatin g th e principle s 217 that serv e t o classify sel f an d other, th e actor ha s the ability t o transgres s the limit s tha t ordinaril y delimi t one' s self , one' s individuality , one' s subjectivity. Th e state o f Dionysian affirmatio n i s one of being catapulte d chaotically beyon d th e limit , drive n o n o r beyon d th e ver y limi t tha t would delimi t ever y conditio n o f th e individual , th e "possibilit y o f a n impossible" (Ap , 70). "Th e more unveiledl y thi s possibilit y get s under stood, th e mor e purel y doe s th e understandin g penetrat e int o i t as the possibility of the impossibility of any existence at all" 21 In effect, on e would come t o be outside oneself , exceedin g th e limits tha t serv e t o delimit th e self. Th e self i s lost o r hidden beneat h th e confines o f the confusion. Thi s is the sense of Dionysian dread , terror , an d suffering tha t i s often though t of o r referred to . This is the painful sid e of pleasure an d the true sens e of ancient Gree k tragedy . Th e Dionysian frenz y i s what lead s th e way to a veritable jouissance. The journey i s harrowing , ful l o f labyrinth s an d ravines, obstacle s an d caveats , dar k dungeon s an d abysses, bu t it i s a jour ney nonetheless . In the Freudian Oedipa l passage , the separation anxiet y tha t accompan ies th e painfu l proces s o f assimilatio n o f gende r differenc e ha s divergen t effects. Fo r Pentheus, it had the effect o f turning hi m into the conquering hero. H e views the bacchante women a s mad, as childlike, and must exer t phallic powe r s o a s t o maintai n control . "Th e hero, " state s Nietzsche , "after bein g sufficientl y torture d b y fate , earne d a well-deserved rewar d through a splendid marriage or tokens of divine favor. Th e hero has turned gladiator o n whom , afte r h e ha d bee n nicel y beate n an d covere d wit h wounds, freedom wa s occasionally bestowed. Th e deus ex machina took the place of metaphysical comfort " (BT , 17). Toward th e latte r par t o f Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche' s longin g for the Over Man merges, with growing identification, wit h Dionysus who longs to merge with Ariadne : Oh how should I not lust for eternity and for the wedding ring of rings—the Ring of Recurrence! Never yet did I find the woman by whom I wanted children, unless it be this woman, whom I love: for I love you, O Eternity! For I love you, O Eternity! Oh how should I not lust for eternity and for the wedding ring of rings—the Ring of Recurrence. (Z , 244-45)

Ariadne and Dionysus 218 Lampert , i n hi s interpretatio n o f Thus Spoke Zarathustra, explain s tha t "The marriag e symbo l pa r excellenc e fo r Nietzsch e i s tha t marriag e tha t followed th e abandonmen t o f a woman b y a heroic man . . . the marriag e of Ariadn e an d Dionysu s tha t followe d th e abandonmen t o f Ariadn e b y Theseus. I t i s toward s thi s myster y tha t th e fabl e o f Zarathustr a moves , the myster y o f mal e an d femal e culminatin g i n marriage , i n th e fruitfu l complementarity o f Zarathustra an d Life. " 22 Matriphallic psychi c realit y i s th e initia l respons e whe n th e huma n collective psych e confront s materia l reality . I t i s the initia l stag e in mean ing, myth, an d explanation . Oedipa l patriphalli c psychi c reality i s a denial of and a defense agains t matriphallic psychic reality, and the method o f th e defense i s a denia l o f materia l realit y an d th e projectio n o f a fantas y structure tha t i s pure illusion . Matriphalli c psychi c reality an d th e Diony sian are , therefore , basic , dominant , fundamental , an d primary , whil e patriphallic psychi c realit y an d th e Oedipa l ar e a n ancillary , derivative , subordinate, an d secondar y defens e mechanism . Th e so n mus t kil l th e consort t o becom e a Father—an d th e so n mus t kil l th e Fathe r t o becom e a consort . The answe r t o Freuds ' questio n "Wha t d o wome n want? " ma y b e obvious bu t repressed . Freu d doe s point ou t that , "Ther e i s one particula r constant relatio n betwee n femininit y an d instinctua l lif e whic h w e d o no t want t o overlook . Th e suppression s o f women' s aggressivenes s whic h i s prescribed fo r the m constitutionall y an d impose d o n the m socially " (SE , XXII, 116) . I f th e dynamic s o f th e developmen t o f th e sel f ar e thos e o f a sexualized, eroticized , an d genderize d Hegelia n master/slav e relationship , why shoul d i t b e differen t fo r women ? Th e iron y o f th e equalit y positio n is that i t doesn't gran t th e femal e th e equa l capacit y t o desir e to be maste r over th e opposit e sex . Laca n end s thi s semina r wit h th e commen t that : "No doub t somethin g shoul d remai n ope n relativ e t o th e plac e w e cur rently occup y i n th e developmen t o f erotic a an d t o th e treatmen t t o b e given, no t simpl y t o on e individua l o r other , bu t t o civilizatio n an d it s discontents . . . w e haven' t eve n bee n abl e t o creat e a singl e ne w perver sion. Bu t it would be a definite sig n that we have really arrived at the hear t of th e proble m o f existin g perversions , i f w e manage d t o deepe n ou r understanding o f th e economi c role of masochism" ( S VII, 14-15).

Ariadne and Dionysus

Embracing Death The fea r o f castratio n i s th e fea r o f th e seductiv e powe r o f th e femal e t o trigger th e puissance o f submission . Th e failur e t o embrac e th e puissance of submissio n i s th e tragi c destin y o f Oedipus , th e phalli c mal e wit h hi s hollow phalli c crown . "T o b e deprive d o f seductio n i s th e onl y tru e for m of castration " (S , 121) . Th e trul y castrate d mal e i s th e on e who , lik e Oedipus, kills the Fathe r bu t i s impotent a s regards seductio n (S , 121). H e is castrated becaus e h e ha s n o phallus. Whe n th e fantas y o f th e patriphal lus an d it s la w collapses, the mal e mus t eithe r b e castrated o r embrac e th e seduction an d kee p the phallu s i n play a s the phallu s o f th e consor t tha t i s given t o th e (M)other . Thus , castratio n save s th e mal e fro m Castratio n since "T o b e deprive d o f seductio n i s th e onl y tru e for m o f castration " (S, 1 2 1 ) .

Leopold von Sacher-Masoch' s nove l Venus in Furs is a sexual fantas y o f von Sacher-Masoch' s an d a s such share s a similar structur e t o the plot s of stories writte n b y othe r masochist s o r t o th e pornograph y writte n fo r them. 23 I t entail s a reluctan t woma n bein g encourage d t o fin d sexua l pleasure i n causin g pai n t o an d exercisin g powe r ove r th e willin g slave . A common them e i s the patter n o f sexua l arousa l o f th e mal e by th e female , and th e deprivatio n o f sexua l releas e b y th e denia l o f satisfaction . Th e story ofte n end s wit h th e ritua l castratio n o f th e male , th e ritua l sacrific e of th e male , or both. 24 There i s a fundamenta l distinctio n t o b e drawn , however , betwee n Nietzsche's Dionysia n an d th e masochist . Nietzsch e ha s Zarathustr a say , "The hou r whe n yo u say : 'Wha t goo d i s my happiness? ' I t is poverty an d dirt an d a miserabl e ease . Bu t m y happines s shoul d justif y existenc e itself ! " (Z, 43). This is the law of desire, which distinguishes the masochis t from th e Dionysian . Th e masochist i s interested onl y i n the satisfactio n o f his ow n desire . H e hires th e dominatrix , provide s th e script , an d describe s the scene s that h e wishes played ou t fo r hi s own pleasure. Th e Dionysian' s puissance come s from bein g the objec t o f the other' s desire—i n fillin g he r desire h e achieve s hi s pleasure . Sh e become s th e Ove r Ma n whe n sh e experiences "th e pleasur e o f conques t an d th e insatiabilit y o f grea t lov e . . . th e overflowin g feelin g o f strengt h tha t desire s t o ove r power , t o compel" (WP , 873) . I t i s fo r her , th e Ove r Man , t o enjo y "Th e conditio n of pleasur e calle d intoxication, " an d whic h i s "precisel y a n exalte d feelin g of power " (WP , 800) . Nietzsch e understoo d tha t "Pleasur e i s a kin d o f

219

Ariadne and Dionysus 220 pain " (WP , 490 ) an d tha t pai n ca n b e a kind o f pleasure . H e ask s us , th e reader, however , "Bu t wil l ther e b e man y peopl e hones t enoug h t o admi t that i t i s a pleasure t o inflic t pain? " (HH , 50) . H e tell s us , "Th e state s i n which w e infus e a transfiguratio n an d fullnes s int o thing s an d poetiz e about the m unti l the y reflec t bac k ou r fullnes s an d jo y i n life : sexuality ; intoxication; feasting ; spring ; victor y ove r a n enemy ; mockery ; bravado ; cruelty; th e ecstasy of religious feeling. Three elements principally: sexuality, intoxication, cruelty —all belon g t o th e oldes t festa l joy s o f mankind " (WP, 801) . Accordin g t o Nietsche , "Pleasure appears wher e ther e i s th e feeling o f power " (WP , 1023) . "Sexuality , th e lus t t o rule , pleasur e i n appearance an d deception , grea t an d joyfu l gratitud e fo r lif e an d its typica l states—these ar e o f th e essenc e o f th e paga n cult s an d hav e a goo d conscience on their side " (WP , 1047). Nietzsche propose s tha t mora l value s b e replace d b y naturalisti c value s and tha t i n th e plac e o f sociolog y w e develo p " a theor y o f th e form s o f domination" (WP , 462) . H e conceive s o f "The Body as a Political Structure."25 "Pleasur e an d Pai n ar e no t opposites . Th e feelin g o f power , th e concept o f 'perfecting' : not onl y greate r complexity , bu t greate r power. . . . Inferenc e concernin g th e evolutio n o f mankind : perfectin g consist s i n the productio n o f th e mos t powerfu l individuals , wh o wil l us e th e grea t mass o f peopl e a s thei r tools " (WP , 660) . Nietzsch e invite s u s t o exper iment: So far as the promotion of knowledge is concerned, mankind's most useful achievement is perhaps the abandonment of its belief in an immortal soul . . . and it is for precisely thi s reaso n tha t individual s an d generation s ca n no w fi x thei r eye s on tasks of a vastness tha t would t o earlier age s have seemed madness and a trifling with Heaven and Hell. We may experiment with ourselves! Yes, mankind now has a right to do that! The greatest sacrifices have not yet been offered t o knowledge— indeed, merely to have an inkling of such ideas as nowadays determine our actions would in earlier times have been blasphemy and the loss of one's eternal salvation. (D,501)

If th e onl y trut h i s th e wil l t o powe r an d th e wil l t o powe r i s lif e itself , then i t i s women wh o sacrific e fo r truth , a s the y sacrific e fo r th e renewa l of life , an d i f me n ar e t o sacrific e themselve s fo r truth , the n the y mus t sacrifice themselve s fo r women . A convergenc e o f feminis m wit h Nietzsche's syste m o f knowledg e woul d invit e th e replacemen t o f femal e sacrifice wit h tha t o f th e male , a rejectio n o f th e hollo w an d ineffectua l morality o f equality , an d a commitmen t t o a gende r hierarch y base d o n

Ariadne and Dionysus voluntary sacrific e unde r th e dynamic s o f th e wil l t o power . A s Nietzsch e 221 states: Of al l the mean s o f producin g exaltation , i t ha s been huma n sacrific e whic h ha s a t all times mos t exalte d an d elevate d man . An d perhap s ever y othe r endeavo r coul d still be thrown dow n b y one tremendous idea , s o that i t would achiev e victory ove r the mos t victorious—th e ide a o f self sacrificing mankind. Bu t t o who m shoul d mankind sacrific e itself ? On e coul d alread y tak e one' s oat h that , i f eve r th e constellation o f thi s ide a appear s abov e th e horizon , th e knowledg e o f trut h woul d remain a s th e on e tremendou s goa l commensurat e wit h suc h a sacrifice , becaus e for thi s goa l no sacrific e i s too great. (D , 45)

Castration As Sacrifice If th e mal e i s t o sacrific e himsel f t o life , wh o i s t o receiv e th e sacrifice ? Fo r Nietzsche, lif e i s female . Lif e i s SHE . I n "Th e Secon d Danc e Song, " Zarathustra says : Lately I gazed into your eyes , O Life: I saw gold glitterin g in your eye s of night—m y hear t stoo d stil l wit h delight: I saw a golden bar k glittering upo n dar k waters, a submerging, surging , re-emergin g golden tossin g bark ! At m y feet , m y dancing-ma d feet , yo u thre w a glance , a laughing, questioning , meltin g tossin g glance; Twice onl y di d yo u rais e you r castanet s i n you r littl e hands—then m y fee t wer e alread y tossin g i n a ma d dance. My heels raised themselves, my toes listened fo r wha t yo u should propose : fo r th e dance r wear s hi s ears—i n hi s toes. (Z , 241 )

The dance r dance s t o th e whi p o f life . I f th e whi p i s i n th e hand s o f life , then th e stroke s wil l b e administere d b y a female , an d th e dance r wil l be male . Nietzsche offend s th e rationalit y o f th e philosopher , th e ethic s o f th e moralist, an d th e sanctit y o f th e priest . Hi s subversiv e wisdo m mus t b e laced wit h iron y an d obscure d b y ambiguity . Nietzsch e an d vo n Sacher Masoch recognize d th e lin k betwee n power , pain , an d sexua l pleasure . Nietzsche wrot e tha t "On e hurt s thos e who m on e want s t o fee l one' s power" (GS , 86) . Nietzsch e write s o f th e pleasur e o f inflictin g pai n (HH , 50), th e pleasur e o f ventin g one' s powe r o n other s (HH , 103) , th e "volup -

Ariadne and Dionysus 222 tuousnes s o f power/ ' an d o f th e "psychica l extravaganc e o f th e lus t fo r power" (D , 113) . "W e wan t . . . t o perceiv e o r divin e ho w th e nex t ma n outwardly o r inwardl y suffer s fro m us , ho w h e lose s contro l ove r himsel f and surrender s t o th e impression s ou r han d o r eve n merel y th e sigh t o f u s makes upo n him " (D , 113) . To th e rhyth m o f m y whi p yo u shal l shrie k an d trot ! Di d I forget m y whip?— I did not ! Then lif e answere d m e thus, keeping her gentle ear s closed: "Oh Zarathustra ! d o no t crac k you r whi p s o terribly! Yo u surel y know : nois e kills thought—and no w suc h tender thought s ar e coming to me/ 7 (Z , 242) They the n tal k o f lov e an d parting . Thi s i s followe d b y th e tende r an d beautiful lines : I said something int o her ear , righ t i n the midst o f he r tangle d yellow foolis h locks . "You kno w that, O Zarathustra? N o one knows that. " And w e gaze d a t on e anothe r an d looke d ou t o n th e gree n meadow, ove r whic h th e coo l evenin g wa s spreading , an d wept together . But the n Lif e wa s deare r t o m e tha n al l m y Wisdo m ha d eve r been. (Z , 243) Life wield s th e whip , an d ma n dance s t o it s stroke s a s Zarathustr a sing s the "Secon d Danc e S o n g / ' "[W]ho woul d no t hat e you , grea t woma n wh o bind s us , enwind s us , seduces us , seek s us , find s u s ! " Nietzsch e ask s o f lif e (Z , 241) . Hi s wil l t o life i s affirme d i n hi s suffering , a s w e interpre t th e scene , a s th e stroke s o f the whi p fall : Thus Spok e Zarathustra . Oriel Oh Man ! Attend ! Two! What doe s deep midnight's voic e contend? Three! "I slept my sleep , Four! And no w awake at dreaming's end : Five! The world i s deep, Six!

Ariadne and Dionysus Deeper than da y can comprehen d Seven! Deep is its woe, Eight! Joy—deeper tha n heart' s agony : Nine! Woe says: Fade ! Go! Ten! But all joy wants eternity , Eleven!

—wants deep, deep, deep eternity" Twelve! (Z , 243)

Nietzsche's affirmatio n o f lif e an d hi s metaphorica l lin k o f th e huma n with natur e throug h th e body invit e a philogynist readin g of hi s text. Th e feminist interpretatio n w e hav e offere d o f Nietzsch e i s tha t o f Nietzsch e the psychologis t an d no t o f Nietzsch e a s a philosopher . Nietzsch e call s psychology "th e quee n o f th e sciences " an d "th e pat h t o th e fundamenta l problems" (BGE , II, 23). Nietzsche calls Zarathustra "th e first psychologis t of th e good " (EH , 130) . H e writes , "Fo r u s psychologist s . . . " (GM , III , 19, 20 ) rathe r tha n "fo r u s philosophers. " "Wh o befor e m e a t al l amon g philosophers ha s bee n a psychologis t an d no t rathe r it s opposit e 'highe r swindler/ 'idealist'? " (EH , 131). Nietzsch e tell s us tha t "Beyond Good and Evil . . . doe s not mea n 'Beyon d Goo d an d Bad ' " (GM , I , 17) . Beyon d good an d evi l lie s th e affirmatio n o f an d denia l o f life . Nietzsch e cam e t o and mad e tha t affirmation , an d hi s late r text s ar e a manifestation o f wha t that affirmatio n entails . According t o Nietzsche , "W e ceas e t o thin k whe n w e refus e t o d o s o under th e constrain t o f language . . . . Rationa l though t i s interpretatio n according t o a schem e tha t w e canno t thro w off " (WP , 522) . S o fa r a s discourse refer s t o th e Rea l i t i s no t true , an d s o fa r a s i t i s true , i t doe s not correspon d t o th e Real . Accordin g t o Kar l Jaspers , al l o f Nietzsche' s statements "see m t o be annulled b y othe r statements . Self-contradiction is the fundamental ingredien t i n Nietzsche's thought. Fo r nearly ever y singl e one o f Nietzsche' s judgments , on e ca n fin d a n opposite . H e give s th e impression o f havin g tw o opinion s abou t everything." 26 Th e contradic tions o f Nietzsche' s text , however , ar e no t product s o f a changin g mind , nor o f loos e thinking , bu t manifes t a strivin g t o reac h th e trut h t o b e found onl y a t th e poin t o f th e fold . Fo r Nietzsche , ther e woul d alway s b e

22^

Ariadne and Dionysus 224. th e li e o f th e perceive d truth , th e trut h tha t make s th e perceive d trut h a lie, an d th e trut h o f th e li e o f the truth which makes the perceived truth a lie als o a lie . I n thi s way , Nietzsch e force s u s int o th e fol d wher e th e discourse bends back upon itself . The Rea l i s no t dialectical . Dialectic s ar e a propert y o f discours e only . The dialectic s o f discourse , however , ar e no t pola r opposite s lik e goo d an d bad, justic e an d injustice , u p an d down , o r i n an d out . The y hav e n o resolution o r synthesis . Th e dialectic s o f discours e mee t i n Derrida' s fold . At the point of the fold i n discourse where Nietzsche's truth i s to be found , there i s a Lacania n gap , i n tha t th e discourse s o f th e li e i n th e trut h an d the trut h i n th e li e disappear . I t i s onl y a t tha t momen t tha t on e achieve s the Nietzschea n truth , tha t th e discourse s on either sid e of th e fol d ar e no t the Real . Nietzsche' s critiqu e o f Wester n metaphysic s i s implicitl y a cri tique of methodology a s much a s it is of substance . Nietzsch e had a radical view of truth , a radical view of ho w to achieve it, and a radical view of th e degree o f trut h tha t wa s achievable . T o achiev e trut h i n th e wa y o f Nietzsche, on e mus t recogniz e th e dialectic s o f an y discours e an d brea k through th e poin t o f th e fol d movin g fro m th e trut h i n th e li e to the lie in the truth , pausin g momentaril y wher e ther e i s no trut h o r li e but silence . If ther e i s a truth t o be discovered a t tha t poin t o f silence , it canno t b e put into words . "Th e criterio n o f trut h reside s i n th e enhancemen t o f th e feeling o f power" (WP , 534).

The Desire and Fear of Seduction The stud y o f th e sexualit y o f successfu l mal e politicians , publishe d i n th e book Sexual Profiles of Men in Power, illustrate s tha t me n wh o woul d appear to be paradigmatic examples of Oedipal sexuality are secretly drive n by stron g Dionysian , masochisti c desire s an d fantasies. 27 Mal e romanti c love, fo r th e ofte n shor t perio d o f it s duration , ofte n reflect s a Dionysia n matriphallic fantas y structure . Th e male' s ofte n ambivalen t attractio n t o dominating o r powerful wome n woul d indicat e that th e Dionysia n driv e is a par t o f th e psych e o f mos t males . Th e mos t convincin g evidenc e o f th e dialectical nature o f mal e heterosexual sexuality , however , i s the defensiv e nature o f th e fantas y structur e o f Oedipal-patriphalli c sexualit y an d it s major collectiv e structure s o f religion , law , an d pornographi c imagery . Male masochisti c pornograph y confine s th e libidina l processe s t o fantas y and masturbation , allowin g th e mal e t o releas e th e self-castratin g desir e

Ariadne and Dionysus without empowerin g rea l women . Thus , powerfu l politicians , lawyers , 225 judges, an d businessme n ca n g o t o a dominatri x an d underg o symboli c castration withou t havin g t o empowe r livin g wome n o r t o giv e u p an y power o f thei r own. 28 The y privatel y se e th e dominatrix , subsum e t o he r for thei r pleasure , the n leav e sated—read y fo r anothe r da y i n patriarchy . She i s their "fix, " sh e satisfie s thei r masochisti c urge s jus t enoug h s o tha t they wil l be back but no t enoug h s o that the y will desire transformation . In Nagis a Oshima' s Japanese-Frenc h fil m In the Realm of the Senses, which purports t o be based on an actual occurrence, the lead male willingly dies in the act of intercourse, with the female ridin g him, slowly stranglin g him s o that hi s contortion s an d convulsion s giv e her the ultimat e orgasm , after whic h sh e cut s of f hi s genitals . Th e essenc e o f pornograph y i s th e repetition o f a small numbe r o f eroti c narrative structures , with th e detail s changing bu t th e scrip t remainin g th e same . Th e paramoun t theme , how ever, i s tha t th e sexua l pleasur e o f th e mal e i s achieve d throug h a painfu l but willin g sacrific e fo r th e eroti c benefi t o f th e femal e bu t fo r whic h sh e must b e taught o r tutored t o desire. Fabien Tremea u say s o f Oshima' s film , " I regar d a s th e turnin g poin t the killin g o f th e hero , Kichiso , leadin g t o wha t Laca n call s th e feminin e puissance." Th e article , entitle d "Ax no Korrida [the Japanes e nam e o f th e film]: Th e Cuttin g Edg e o f Eroticism/ ' set s ou t t o "sho w ho w Lacan' s teaching ca n elucidat e th e movie' s framewor k an d conversely , perhap s above all, how the movie illustrates som e of Lacan' s ideas about puissance, especially those developed i n the Semina r XX , Encore (1972-73) . S o far n o other film s hav e achieve d thi s Lacania n uniqueness." 29 Laca n i s quoted i n the articl e a s sayin g o f thi s film : "I wa s flabbergasted, becaus e i t i s abou t feminine eroticism . Feminin e eroticis m seem s t o b e pushe d ther e t o it s extreme, an d th e extrem e i s th e fantasy , n o mor e o r less , than t o kil l th e man." 30 I f w e now imagin e thi s extrem e for m o f eroticis m a s experience d by SH E wh o i s Ove r Ma n a s a n expressio n o f th e wil l t o power , a s th e taking o f th e mal e a s a sacrific e fo r th e renewa l o f life , w e would hav e a n idea o f a feminine puissance tha t i s the sam e a s Ariadne's. I f on e were t o conceive o f th e closin g scen e o f th e fil m a s a ritua l paga n sacrific e o f th e Dionysian consor t t o fertiliz e th e earth , w e gai n somethin g o f a n ide a o f the puissance o f th e will t o powe r whe n enjoye d b y a femal e wh o take s the voluntary sacrific e o f th e male to fulfill he r desir e as a manifestation o f the will to power . Such a scen e ha s a n interestin g counterpar t i n Thoma s Tryon' s cul t

Ariadne and Dionysus 226 nove l Harvest Home. 31 Th e stor y involve s a n artis t an d hi s wif e an d teenage daughte r wh o mov e t o a smal l isolate d Ne w Englan d villag e inhabited b y the descendants o f Celt s who emigrated fro m Cornwal l in th e early days of New England. Th e artist gradually discovers that the villagers are follower s o f th e old religion, and worshi p th e Goddess . T o his horror , his wif e an d daughte r becom e involve d i n th e ritual s o f th e cult . H e secretly hide s t o se e the youn g Justin , th e ritua l harves t king , with hand s tied behin d hi s back, laid upo n an d couple d i n intercours e wit h th e artist' s wife a s the ritua l cor n maiden . Hi s throat i s then sli t and hi s blood spille d over the eart h a s a willing sacrifice t o the Goddess to ensure the fertility o f the earth an d the renewal of the crops. The artist rushe s forwar d t o disrup t the sacre d ceremon y bu t i s caught , held , an d force d t o witnes s th e sexua l act between hi s wife an d th e harves t king , after whic h hi s eyes are gouge d and his tongue cu t out . Th e novel end s with hi m sittin g childlike, with hi s newly pregnant wife solicitousl y motherin g him. Th e novel has a narrative structure simila r t o tha t o f th e basi c script s o f th e masochisti c fantasy , except tha t i n th e nove l ther e i s th e horro r an d fea r o f castratio n wit h a n erotic ambivalence , i n tha t th e horro r arise s i n par t fro m a desir e fo r castration s o as to merge with the Mother . Harvest Home, lik e Euripides' The Bacchae, is a paradigmatic illustratio n of a manifestation o f the original fantasy o f creation, seduction , and castra tion, withi n th e framewor k o f matriphalli c sexuality . Whil e som e o f th e content i s violent, it contains fa r les s violence than mos t movies, television programs, o r novels . I t i s no t a ghos t story , an d i t i s no t abou t th e supernatural. I t contain s n o monsters o r seria l killers. Yet , the back of th e paperback editio n contain s i n larg e letters , th e words , "WARNING : D O NOT REA D THI S BOO K I F YO U AR E ALONE . BU T I F YO U DO , KEEP REPEATING T O YOURSELF, 'IT'S ONLY A BOOK. IT' S ONLY A BOOK.' " The introductory page s of the sam e edition contai n quote s fro m reviews tha t describ e th e boo k a s " a chille r amon g chillers, " "shee r evil, " "a malevolence, " "a n unhingin g experience, " a "horro r story, " "superbl y haunting," an d "fiendish, " whil e on e reviewe r compare s i t t o Rosemary's Baby, a novel abou t Sata n worship . Wh y i s the boo k s o disturbing (an d i t is a very disturbing novel when first read ) ? It presents a view of matriphal lic sexualit y fro m th e perspectiv e o f a patriphalli c mal e an d disturb s an d frightens hi m becaus e i t resonate s wit h th e structur e o f th e origina l fan tasy an d th e represse d pre-Oedipa l matriphalli c sexualit y o f ever y mal e born of , nurtured , an d reare d b y a female . Th e wome n o f th e villag e i n

Ariadne and Dionysus Harvest Home ar e beyon d goo d an d evil , manifestation s o f th e wil l t o 227 power a s manifestation s o f Eros . Th e male s o f th e villag e ar e unde r thei r domination an d at their service . We ca n no w begi n t o se e a paralle l between , o n th e on e hand , wha t Lacan call s the feminin e jouissance and Nietzsche' s wil l to powe r a s mani fested i n th e marriag e o f Ariadn e an d Dionysu s and , o n th e other , th e theme o f goddes s worshi p an d th e ritua l sacrific e o f th e sacre d kin g i n Si r James Frazer' s The Golden Bough (whic h wa s furthe r develope d b y Mar y Renault i n he r nove l The King Must Die). 32 Th e theme s o f Goddes s wor ship, mal e submission , symboli c sacrific e o f th e phallus , an d th e disciplin ing o f th e mal e ar e ofte n foun d i n a variet y o f combination s i n bot h practice an d fantasy. 33 Th e antithesi s i s betwee n misogyn y an d deifica tion. 34 Th e tru e textua l oppositio n i s t o b e foun d betwee n th e narrativ e fantasy structur e o f th e Ne w Testamen t an d th e narrativ e fantas y struc ture o f Harvest Home. I n Harvest Home, th e harves t lor d willingl y sacri fices himsel f fo r th e Grea t Eart h Mother , an d th e sacrific e ha s t o b e periodically renewed . I n th e narrativ e o f th e Ne w Testamen t th e sacre d king die s fo r th e Heavenl y Fathe r a s a willin g sacrific e an d i n doin g s o eliminates the nee d fo r an y futur e sacrific e b y the male of the logos. 35 The biblical stor y underlyin g th e Judeo-Christian-Islami c traditio n i s opposit e that o f recentl y resurface d narrative : th e age of matriarcha l consciousness . There i s a general rejectio n o f Oedipa l patriphallic psychic reality i n th e environmental movement , wit h it s emphasi s o n a retur n t o nature . Thomas Tryon' s nove l contain s a n interestin g an d penetratin g insigh t i n this regard . Th e nove l commence s wit h Mr . Theodo r Constantine , a painter o f Gree k origin, an d hi s family seekin g to leave the cit y and retur n to nature . I t end s wit h hi s castratio n b y th e remova l o f hi s eye s an d tongue, an d hi s wif e an d daughte r disavowin g th e paterna l phallu s an d embracing th e maternal . In th e novel , a retur n t o natur e entail s a retur n to matriphalli c reality . Thi s sam e insigh t ha s bee n recognize d b y other s who see the structural similaritie s between th e environmental an d feminis t movements. Wha t Tryo n subliminall y tell s th e reade r i s tha t th e pric e of the retur n t o nature i s male castration . As von Sacher-Masoc h illustrate d i n Venus in Furs, the safest protectio n against bein g dominate d b y wome n i s t o dominat e them . A s th e nove l s o clearly expresses , me n hav e th e choic e o f bein g castrate d b y wome n o r castrating them . Th e extrem e i s tha t o f a ritua l voluntar y sacrific e unt o death, a s portraye d i n man y o f th e narrative s reflectin g mal e matriphalli c

Ariadne and Dionysus 228 psychi c reality , suc h a s Harvest Home an d The King Must Die; i n mal e masochistic fantasies , suc h a s In the Realm of the Senses; an d i n th e myths recorde d i n Frazer' s The Golden Bough. Eve n i n Venus in Furs, the voluntary deat h o f th e mal e i s intimate d t o b e th e ultimat e conclusio n o f the relationshi p betwee n Severi n an d Wanda , bu t Severi n terminate s th e relationship an d escape s hi s desir e t o b e submissiv e (t o b e castrated ) b y embracing th e puissance o f domination . Kaja Silverma n point s out , however , tha t "ther e hav e alway s bee n individual me n wh o hav e embrace d lac k a t th e leve l o f thei r unconsciou s fantasies an d identities " a s wel l a s "individua l wome n fo r who m th e phallus ha s no t bee n th e signifie r o f desire/' 36 Silverma n argue s tha t "male master y rest s upon a n abyss , and . . . the repetitio n throug h whic h it i s consolidate d i s radicall y an d ceaselessl y undermine d b y a very differ ent an d muc h mor e primordia l kin d o f repetition/' 37 Sh e point s ou t tha t when "th e equatio n o f th e mal e sexua l orga n wit h th e phallus " ca n n o longer b e sustained , th e disjunctur e o f th e peni s an d th e phallu s wil l lea d to " a collectiv e los s o f belie f i n th e whol e o f th e dominan t fiction." 38 He r aim i s t o "cal l sexua l differenc e int o question , an d beyon d that , realit y itself."39 Sh e goes on to say that "T o effect a large-scale reconfiguratio n o f male identificatio n an d desir e would , a t th e ver y least , permi t femal e subjectivity t o be lived differently tha n i t is at present. . . . The theoretica l articulation o f som e non-phallic masculinities would consequentl y see m t o be an urgent feminis t project." 40 Nonphalli c and psychic realities, whethe r of th e femal e o r th e male , stil l leav e u s i n th e Lacania n bind . Silverma n tells u s tha t "wha t i s finall y a t issu e her e i s no t jus t a n eroti c econom y which defie s th e procreativ e imperative , an d blur s th e distinctio n betwee n fore-pleasure an d end-pleasure , bu t on e whic h decenter s th e mal e sexua l organ, delineate s a continuit y o f pleasur e extendin g fro m mal e lip s t o female genitals , an d refuse s t o writ e 'lack ' a t th e sit e o f th e femal e body " and refuse s a s wel l "t o projec t castratio n ont o th e corporealit y o f th e sexual Other , an d thereb y t o secur e th e phallu s a s th e unquestione d signifier o f power , privilege , an d wholeness." 41 Sh e goe s o n t o asser t b y way o f conclusio n tha t unexpecte d pleasure s an d possibilitie s awai t th e male subjec t wh o "renegotiate s hi s relatio n t o th e La w o f Language — when h e accede s t o hi s castration , hi s specularity , an d th e profoun d 'oth erness' o f hi s 'sel f b y embracin g desire s an d identification s whic h ar e i n excess o f th e positiv e Oedipu s complex." 42 Sh e asks , "afte r eve n a partia l

Ariadne and Dionysus glimpse of thos e pleasures an d psychic possibilities, who would stil l opt for 229 the straigh t an d narrow path o f conventional masculinit y ?" 43 The la w o f languag e furnishe s u s wit h tw o choices . A s vo n Sacher Masoch, speaking through th e voice of Severin , his alter ego, puts it: "Th e moral i s tha t woman , a s Natur e create d he r an d a s ma n u p t o no w ha s found he r attractive , i s man' s enemy ; sh e ca n onl y b e hi s slav e o r hi s mistress bu t neve r hi s companio n . . . there i s only on e alternative : t o b e the hamme r o r th e anvil/' 4 4 I f ma n i s t o d o a s Silverma n suggest s an d "renegotiates hi s relatio n t o the La w of Language, " "accede s t o his castra tion, hi s specularity , an d th e profoun d 'otherness ' o f hi s 'self ' b y embrac ing desire s an d identification s whic h ar e i n exces s o f th e positiv e Oedipu s complex" i n orde r t o catc h " a glimps e o f thos e pleasure s an d psychi c possibilities," then h e must leav e "th e straigh t an d narrow path of conven tional masculinity" an d embrac e the puissance o f submission . Thi s is what it means to become Dionysus. Peter Greenaway' s fil m Drowning by Numbers center s o n thre e wome n who al l hav e th e sam e nam e an d wh o correspon d t o th e virgin/mother / crone o f th e Tripl e Goddess . Al l thre e ar e marrie d t o useles s male s wh o are unfaithfu l o r ar e unabl e t o satisf y thei r desires , an d wh o woul d us e them whil e doin g nothin g particularl y usefu l fo r the m i n return . The y solve thei r collectiv e proble m b y drownin g thei r husbands , th e oldes t woman first , followe d b y the next i n age, and finall y th e youngest. I n each case the y appea l t o th e Dionysia n figur e o f th e loca l corone r wh o desig nates th e drowning s a s accidenta l whil e knowin g ful l wel l ho w th e death s occurred. The movie i s replete with castratio n symbols . A young bo y circumcise s himself wit h a pair o f scissor s merel y t o satisf y a young girl' s curiosity . I t is a s i f h e present s he r wit h hi s foreski n a s a present . Throughou t th e story, th e corone r i s caugh t i n play . H e delight s a t th e trivial , an d i s consumed b y th e game . Hi s passio n i s numbers , an d h e see s them every where, i n everything : the y ar e paramoun t t o th e thril l o f th e game . Th e numbers, s o significan t fo r logos , science , an d economics , pervad e th e screen. A youn g gir l skip s an d count s star s a t th e sam e time . Whe n sh e reaches on e hundred , sh e stop s an d says , "Onc e you'v e counte d on e hundred, al l th e othe r hundred s ar e th e same." 45 Death s o f al l kinds , including animals , ar e numbere d b y Smut , th e bo y wh o mutilate d hi s foreskin. Th e las t deat h wa s numbe r on e hundred . Deat h i s meaningless ,

Ariadne and Dionysus 230 henc e "al l th e othe r hundred s ar e the same/ ' Afte r Smut' s gif t o f himself , through hi s foreskin , i s rejected b y th e youn g girl , he eventually commit s suicide. The coroner request s sexua l favor s fro m th e women fo r coverin g up th e murders, bu t eac h rebuff s him , teasin g an d tauntin g him . H e commence s a gam e i n whic h the y eithe r wil l servic e hi m sexuall y o r h e wil l betra y them t o th e authorities . The y nevertheles s refus e t o play . Rathe r tha n betray the m o r th e gam e i n whic h the y ar e al l players—th e gam e t o se e who woul d us e whom , h e permit s himsel f t o b e seduce d an d i s take n ou t into th e wate r i n a rowboat . H e take s of f al l hi s clothe s s o h e i s nake d before the m an d sit s peacefu l an d resigne d i n th e boat . Th e wome n pul l the boat' s plug , an d th e fil m end s with th e boa t graduall y sinkin g into th e water. B y th e women' s refusa l t o pla y th e gam e o f lif e wit h him , th e coroner, a s the Oedipa l King , allows himself t o be seduced int o th e rol e of the sacrificia l Dionysus . I n strippin g himsel f nake d befor e the m an d em bracing death , h e surrender s th e patriphallus , th e Gaz e an d th e Voice . H e becomes Othe r t o thei r Subject . Th e thre e wome n gaz e a t th e coroner ; they watc h hi m sink , deepe r an d deeper . The y gaz e "Ove r Man " bu t continue themselve s t o swim . The recognitio n o f th e primar y signifie r an d th e primar y origina l fan tasy o f th e collectiv e permit s wome n t o remai n i n th e circui t o f linguisti c exchange. The y wer e neve r ou t o f i t an d nee d never , i n fac t canno t ever , leave it . N o prediscursiv e realit y i s required . Th e statu s o f th e phallu s need no t b e challenge d directl y i n term s o f th e femal e bod y bu t rathe r through th e dialectica l opposition s o f th e structur e o f th e origina l primar y fantasy, whic h i s reflecte d i n th e structur e o f bot h th e privilege d an d th e primary signifiers. If Dionysia n masochis m i s th e primar y neurosi s o f th e male , agains t which othe r neurose s an d pathologie s aris e a s defenses , the n thi s fac t ought t o hav e tremendou s significanc e fo r feminism . I f w e eve r reall y di d have a true an d ful l commitmen t t o gender an d sexua l equality , then mal e submission t o the female ough t to be as thinkable, plausible, and acceptabl e as th e revers e i s now . Ou r willingnes s t o embrac e reversibilit y demon strates the depth of our commitment t o equality of the sexes. Most wome n are no t prepare d t o contemplat e th e possibilit y o f havin g th e opportunit y to defin e thei r ow n sexuality , invit e male s t o pla y wit h the m withi n th e realm o f th e Imaginar y an d Symboli c structure d b y th e primar y signifier , and to accept males who wish to lose the burden o f the Oedipa l phallus.

Ariadne and Dionysus A convergenc e o f feminis m wit h Nietzsche' s tex t woul d plac e th e SH E 231 who i s Ove r Ma n i n th e ancien t past . Whe n SH E ha s appeared , SH E ha s been slaughtere d b y th e bree d o f lesse r me n wh o tur n th e wil l t o powe r into a deat h drive . Ye t th e wil l t o powe r wil l b e manifeste d i n wome n again an d again , an d a t som e poin t som e wil l g o beyon d wha t Nietzsch e deemed th e slav e moralit y an d embrac e a will t o powe r i n whic h sh e wil l seduce, use , an d sacrific e th e lesse r bree d o f male s i n th e manifestatio n o f Nietzsche's wil l t o power . S o woul d th e Nietzschea n narrativ e unfol d a s structured b y the primary signifier. 46

N I N E

Medusa Depetrified

Medusa's presenc e evoke s sentiment s o f fea r an d reproac h i n thos e wh o happen t o cros s he r path . A s such , sh e i s constantl y bein g pu t i n a n obscure corner, i n the dar k continen t o f decay . Sh e has come to symboliz e the pur e potenc y o f th e female—he r prowess—intellectually , physically , and sexually . Sh e i s a figur e wh o i s no t necessaril y pleasant , nice , o r receptive i n th e traditiona l feminin e connotation s o f suc h terms . Rather , Medusa i s a true fighter—a n Amazon—an d on e to be feared fo r sh e has a brute forc e untame d b y femininity . Sh e ha s bee n give n th e physica l attributes o f th e monster—th e for m i n which her essenc e has been under stood b y centurie s o f patriarcha l figures . I n psychoanalysis , he r imag e i s the produc t o f th e mal e fea r o f th e (M)other , th e fea r o f castratio n an d of death. Sh e i s a t onc e bot h frightenin g an d alluring , revoltin g an d erotic . Her ambiguit y make s th e mal e onlooke r wan t t o embrac e he r dominanc e but also to run fitfull y fro m he r penetrating claws. Faced with this ambigu ity, the result is denial—petrifying he r image—keeping he r locked behind a mask . I t i s he r onlookers , however , wh o ar e trul y petrified , a s goe s th e myth, wherea s sh e i s merel y th e enigm a tha t ha s cause d thei r metamor phosis. For th e male , Medus a epitomize s th e darknes s o f th e discover y o f th e female genitalia . Sh e i s th e symbo l o f th e male' s firs t encounte r wit h th e female's "lack, " th e firs t confrontatio n wit h th e fac t o f woman's othernes s and difference . He r hea d fille d wit h a mass o f writhin g serpents , Medusa , as possesso r o f th e lack , represent s th e pur e horro r o f castration , th e unbridgeable gulf , th e ultimat e fea r o f bein g engulfe d b y th e woman' s genitalia—conceptualized a s th e dangerou s mout h tha t pose s a n insur mountable threa t t o the male penis. For wome n immerse d i n patriarchy , sh e i s equall y frightening . Th e 232

Medusa Depetrified desire t o unmas k i s onl y realize d whe n woma n come s t o term s wit h he r 233 present existenc e a s a mere shadow . Onl y the n wil l sh e desire to resurrec t and reconstruc t th e dorman t counterstructure . Man y wome n prefe r t o remain shielded b y th e vei l o f femininit y i n orde r t o avoi d th e retributio n of the Father ; other s ar e shielded b y the comfor t o f working toward libera l notions o f equality . Ver y fe w ventur e an y further , a s th e risk s an d th e pain ca n easily overwhelm . Out o f he r death , Medus a give s birt h t o th e winge d hors e Pegasu s (who, upon he r death , spring s wit h othe r creature s fro m th e stum p o f he r neck). Th e blood fro m he r lef t sid e is said to be capable of raisin g the dead , whereas th e bloo d fro m th e righ t sid e i s reputedl y poisonous , capabl e o f causing instan t death . Medus a i s thu s capabl e o f initiatin g bot h cur e an d curse. Sh e i s capable o f givin g lif e and , simultaneously , o f brutall y takin g it away. Sh e is "th e movement, th e locus and the play: (th e production of ) difference/' th e "differanc e o f difference " whereb y sh e "hold s i n reserve , in [her ] undecide d shado w an d vigil , th e opposite s an d th e differend s tha t the proces s o f discriminatio n wil l com e to carv e out " (PP , 127). Sh e is th e dark feminine , th e castrator , th e inspiratio n fo r th e femm e fatal e o f dar k drama an d cinema . In India , Medus a take s he r for m a s the Grea t Goddes s Kali, bloodstaine d an d tongue-lolling , defeate r o f Raktavira . Sh e i s th e Goddess of deat h an d destruction , fac e drippin g with blood , surrounde d b y snakes an d adorne d wit h huma n head s an d skulls . Sh e represent s th e maternal feminine , th e Goddes s of lif e an d fertility . For women, Medus a depetrifie d give s ris e to th e tru e abilit y t o activel y become, in th e Nietzschea n sense . "What does your conscience say?—You shall becom e th e perso n yo u are " (GS , 270) . Sh e i s an d shoul d b e th e pinnacle o f radica l feminism , a s she i s about th e depetrificatio n o f women , about th e difficul t proces s o f wome n becoming. According t o Mar y Daly , Gyn/Ecology "i s abou t th e journe y o f wome n becoming , tha t is , radica l feminism. . . . Radica l feminis t consciousnes s spiral s i n al l directions, discovering th e past , creating/dis-closin g th e present/future . Th e radica l be ing o f wome n i s ver y muc h a n Otherworl d Journey . I t i s bot h discover y and creatio n o f a worl d othe r tha n patriarchy." 1 Fo r men , th e petrifie d image o f Medus a represent s th e "lack"—th e inverte d symbo l o f phalli c power. Th e ac t o f depetrificatio n fo r th e mal e i s a veritable submissio n t o the "lack, " a n acknowledgment o f it s presence, a deveiling, demystificatio n of phalli c "power. " Sh e demonstrate s th e abilit y o f male s t o tak e part an d engender a nonphallocentric discourse .

Medusa Depetrified 234 I

s depetrification a viable option , a cogent reality , o r eve n a therapeuti c possibility? Ca n i t b e a sociall y importan t avenu e fo r th e transformatio n and resuscitatio n o f th e hidde n selve s o f women ? In al l probability , no — the ramification s ar e fa r to o effective . Clearly , thoug h w e ma y decid e an d have a certai n degre e o f succes s i n bein g abl e t o resuscitat e he r fo r a few smal l pages , Medus a i s destine d t o remai n a ston y figurine , purel y frozen potential .

The Castrating Effect of Medusa The (M)othe r i s understood a s having th e abilit y t o swallo w a n emergen t identity. Th e vagina, that which brought life , is looked upon a s dangerous, murky, an d ravenous—capabl e o f reswallowin g a slowl y emergin g self . Man i s fearfu l a t th e sigh t o f th e femal e "lack " an d anxiou s o r apprehen sive tha t th e sightin g wil l produc e a simila r "lack " i n himself , an d s o mythologies abou t th e mysterious "blac k hole" of femal e sexualit y forme d over time. Fo r instance, the fear o f castration expresse d itself i n mytholog y by wa y o f th e toothe d vagin a o r th e "toothe d matrix " (Glas , 205) : th e vagina dentata. Judy Trej o retell s th e Paiut e versio n o f th e myt h i n whic h Coyote, when trotting through a canyon, came upon two females squattin g on the ground . "Thi s was back in th e day s when th e femal e genita l organ s still ha d teeth. " Th e tw o wome n wer e eatin g a rabbi t an d throwin g th e bones underneath themselves , where they were hungrily devoure d by "th e second se t of teet h i n thei r genitals. " "Horrified , Coyot e . . . tossed piece s of shal e unde r bot h women , breakin g al l thei r teet h an d renderin g thei r vaginas harmles s t o men afte r all." 2 Camill e Paglia relate s a similar Nort h American India n versio n i n which " A meat-eating fis h inhabit s th e vagin a of th e Terribl e Mother." 3 "Th e her o i s th e ma n wh o overcome s th e Terrible Mother , break s th e teet h ou t o f he r vagina, and s o makes her int o a woman." 4 The sexua l ac t o f intercours e ca n b e interprete d a s a submissio n t o th e recesses o f th e femal e orifices . Th e mal e wh o submit s i n thi s wa y ha s n o way of knowing if sh e will return hi m hi s prized appendage. Sh e engulfs i t ravenously, an d he , correspondingly , desperatel y want s t o b e engulfed . The tensio n o f simultaneou s wil l an d avoidanc e result s i n th e "'suprem e spasm/ th e moment o f dying laughing" whereby i t "eliminate s th e exteri ority o f anteriority , th e independenc e o f th e imitated , th e signified , o r th e thing" (DS , 209) . Accordin g t o Paglia , "metaphorically , ever y vagin a ha s

Medusa Depetrified sacred teeth , fo r th e mal e exit s a s les s tha n whe n h e entered/' 5 Sexua l 235 intercourse wit h a woma n fo r a mal e i s a traversa l o f th e ambiguou s boundaries o f lif e an d death—th e anxiet y o f castratio n i s wha t bind s th e two. I t i s al l par t o f a narcissisti c attemp t a t a merge r wit h th e los t (M)other, a violatio n o f th e femal e bod y an d stakin g ou t o f it s territory . But, mos t importantly , i t i s th e eroti c wal k o n th e tightrope , lookin g ou t over the abyss, the eroti c leap into fate—not knowin g if phallic power will be fully subsume d o r revitalized . The femal e vagina demon i s insatiable , i t threaten s t o suc k th e lif e ou t of th e mal e victim . Sh e i s th e origina l vampiress , seductress , an d tempt ress. Th e mal e fea r i s o f th e marshlan d o f femal e fecundity ; th e terribl e stench o f a wet , dan k interior ; th e humi d horro r o f th e femal e body . Despite th e repulsiv e referent , th e male' s prima l desir e i s t o enter , t o penetrate, to territorialize th e recesse s as far an d as deep as he is capable of doing, eve n i f wha t thi s mean s fo r th e intrude r i s a deadly encounte r wit h her teeth. Hi s ultimat e puissance i s i n submissio n t o th e pur e potentialit y of th e vagina dentata. The repressio n o f animalit y a s wel l a s th e fea r o f death , decay , an d castration are all definitively linke d to the repression o f sexual dependency . The fear s ar e al l essentiall y th e threa t o f a los s o f self , b e i t throug h th e loss o f th e engulfe d penis , th e los s o f individuation , o r th e en d o f life . Eroticism an d fantas y canno t possibl y b e exclude d fro m thi s dynamic . I n fact, the y ar e th e necessar y tool s fo r th e actualizatio n o f thi s repression . Violence take s o n a sexualize d eroti c rol e i n th e repressio n fantasy . Ero s and Thanato s ar e thu s inextricabl y linked . Accordin g t o Ren e Girard , "At th e ver y heigh t o f th e crisis , violenc e become s simultaneousl y th e instrument, objec t an d all-inclusiv e subjec t o f desire." 6 Desir e an d th e desiring subjec t i n this for m mus t clearl y be violent. I n the eroticization of the repressio n fantasy , desir e is generated a t the momen t a t which th e self experiences itsel f a s loss—a s decapitated , castrated , o r destroyed . Thi s typically occur s a t th e momen t o f sexua l releas e durin g coition . I n thi s transgression o f taboos , th e mal e lose s hi s sel f t o th e Othe r an d i n erotic , repressed for m confront s th e basenes s o f hi s animality : "Repressio n i s thus th e ver y conditio n o f pleasure." 7 Thi s fantas y structur e follow s th e dialectic o f th e master/slave , an d th e jouissances of dominatio n an d sub mission fo r i n the dialectic of masochism desir e is only generated whe n re pressed. Medusa i s on e o f th e thre e Gorgo n sister s wh o sport s a single evil and

Medusa Depetrified 236 demonic eye. Sh e invite s th e Gaz e o f th e Othe r bu t simultaneousl y repel s it. Sh e seduce s th e masse s t o mee t he r stare , ye t mos t ar e afrai d o f th e paralyzing results . Anthropologica l studie s o f th e root s o f th e evi l ey e demonstrate tha t i t threaten s t o mak e me n impotent 8 an d i s therefor e a threat t o "masculinity/ ' Th e evi l ey e i s a symbo l o f destructio n an d marginalization. Th e evi l ey e i s th e castratin g Gaz e o f th e powerfu l an d dominant femal e wh o i s a sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subject . I t i s castrating because it denies the male the Gaze and the Voice rendering hi m a self a s the manifestation o f th e Other . Th e male maintains th e phallus as the privilege d signifie r throug h it s recognitio n a s th e phallu s b y th e fe male. H e i s unable t o maintai n th e fantas y structur e withou t he r recogni tion. He r refusa l t o recognize the logos as the manifestation o f the genera tive power o f natur e an d he r rejectio n o f th e La w of th e Fathe r constitute , therefore, a castration . Perseus , throug h hi s prima l ac t o f violence , di d manage t o kil l th e femal e demon , bu t h e i s stil l no t afforde d th e righ t t o look. H e neede d Athene' s aegi s t o shiel d hi m fro m himself—fro m hi s gazing o r fro m hi s desir e t o penetrat e th e ga p betwee n th e voyeu r an d what i s being looked at . Medusa ha s th e abilit y t o castrate , deconstruct , dethrone , an d t o de deify. I t is , however , th e onlooke r victim, th e tru e desirer , wh o bring s about th e petrification . Accordin g t o Derrida , thi s i s "th e logica l parado x of th e apotropaic : castratin g onesel f already, always already, i n order to be able t o castrat e an d repres s th e threa t o f castration , renouncin g lif e an d mastery i n orde r t o secur e them ; puttin g int o pla y b y ruse , simulacru m and violenc e jus t wha t on e want s t o preserve; losin g i n advanc e wha t on e wants t o erect ; suspendin g wha t on e raises " (Glas , 46) . Oedipu s wa s hopelessly draw n t o challeng e th e Sphinx—i t wa s hi s duty a s upholder of the logos , an d Pentheu s fel t compelle d t o play th e voyeur . Perseu s ha d t o cut of f Medusa' s head . I t wa s Theseus ' rol e a s Her o t o conque r th e Amazons. Throug h a mixtur e o f th e anticipatio n o f pleasur e an d danger , the soon-to-b e castrate d i s drawn towar d th e castrator—i n Oedipus ' case , it wa s a blin d searc h fo r a n obsequiou s "Truth" ; fo r Pentheus , i t wa s a meek effor t t o asser t whateve r "masculinity " remained ; an d fo r Perseus , it wa s a n ac t o f violence , o f wa r an d sexualize d aggression , i n a n effor t t o subvert an d subsume he r power . The Medusa n myt h o f violatio n an d decapitatio n i s necessar y fo r th e survival o f patriarch y an d th e denia l o f femal e sexuality . I t represse s th e possibility o r viabilit y o f femal e authorit y o r o f a matriarcha l society .

Medusa Depetrified Onlookers fetishize he r image , the y demot e he r t o th e horri d monste r 237 because i n thi s wa y sh e i s mor e easil y dismissed . Medus a i s th e tru e dominatrix o f desir e throug h th e onlooker' s theatrica l ritualizatio n o f fantasy. Al l sh e ca n d o i s invit e submissio n t o desire . Bu t submissio n invites deat h a s i t invite s th e losin g o f th e boundarie s o f th e ego . And , i n fact, submissio n is death . Accordin g t o Bataille , ke y t o eroticis m i s th e notion o f bein g ''swep t away " o r losin g al l barrier s an d controllin g mecha nisms: "N o on e coul d den y tha t on e essentia l elemen t o f excitemen t i s th e feeling o f bein g swep t of f one' s feet , o f fallin g headlong . I f lov e exist s a t all, i t is , lik e death , a swif t movemen t o f los s withi n us , quickl y slippin g into traged y an d stoppin g onl y wit h death . Fo r th e trut h i s tha t betwee n death an d th e reeling , head y motio n o f th e littl e deat h th e distanc e i s hardly noticeable. " 9 Th e submissio n i s no t a willing o f deat h bu t a willin g of life . B y pushin g lif e t o it s ver y extremes , jus t t o th e poin t wher e deat h becomes a tru e contingency , th e submissio n t o deat h become s i n actualit y a submissio n t o life , t o Eros , t o th e primar y signifier : The desire t o go keeling helplessl y over , tha t assail s the innermos t depth s o f ever y human bein g is nevertheless differen t fro m th e desire to die in that it is ambiguous. It may well be a desire to die, but i t is at the sam e time a desire to live to the limit s of th e possible an d th e impossibl e with ever-increasin g intensity . I t is the desir e t o live while ceasin g to live, or to die without ceasin g to live, the desire of a n extrem e state tha t Sain t Theres a ha s perhap s bee n th e onl y on e t o depic t strongl y enoug h in words . " I di e becaus e I cannot die/ ' Bu t th e deat h o f no t dyin g i s precisely no t death; i t i s the ultimat e stag e of life ; i f I die because I cannot di e it is on conditio n that I live on; becaus e of th e death I feel thoug h stil l alive and stil l live on. 10

The Jouissance of Male Submission Of th e severa l differen t kind s o f love , i t i s courtl y lov e tha t Laca n find s most revealin g o f th e relationshi p betwee n lov e an d jouissance. Th e lad y must b e unreachable , separate d fro m he r courtl y love r b y a n uncrossabl e barrier. Sh e i s depersonalized , an d "a s a result , writer s hav e note d tha t al l poets see m t o b e addressin g th e sam e person " ( S VII , 149) . "I n thi s poeti c field th e feminin e objec t i s emptie d o f al l rea l substance " ( S VII , 149 ) an d has nothin g t o d o wit h actua l women. 1 1 Th e reaso n fo r th e nonpersona l nature o f th e lad y i s t o preven t th e femal e figur e fro m returnin g love . Sh e is a n objec t o f unattainabl e desire . A furthe r propert y tha t preserve s mal e jouissance i s th e coldnes s an d

Medusa Depetrified 238 arbitrarines s o f th e lady . Accordin g t o Zizek , "Th e relationshi p o f th e knight t o th e Lad y i s thu s th e relationshi p o f th e subject-bondsman , vassal, to his feudal Master-Sovereig n wh o subjects he r vassal to senseless, outrageous, impossible , arbitrary , capriciou s ordeals/' 12 Th e puissance that i s a t play , s o fa r a s th e mal e i s concerned , i s th e jouissance o f submission. Laca n tel l u s tha t h e "wa s struc k b y th e fac t that , i n th e terminology o f courtl y love , th e wor d domnei i s used . Th e correspondin g verb is domnoyer, whic h means something like 'to caress/ 't o play around / and i s related t o the ter m Domna, th e Lady , or in othe r words , to her wh o on occasio n dominates " an d i s "frequentl y referre d t o wit h th e masculin e term, Mi Dom, o r m y Lord " ( S VII, 149-50) . H e turn s t o Arnaud Danie l for "evidenc e fro m th e fil e o f courtl y love. " H e the n translate s th e poe m about th e lady , Domna Ena, who order s he r knigh t t o lic k he r anu s wit h his tongu e i n orde r "t o tes t th e worthines s o f hi s love , his loyalty an d hi s commitment." H e comments , "Th e idealize d woman , th e Lady , wh o i s i n the positio n o f th e Othe r an d o f th e object , find s hersel f suddenl y an d brutally positing , in a place knowingly constructe d ou t o f the mos t refine d of signifiers , th e emptines s o f a thing in al l its crudity, a thing that reveal s itself i n it s nudity t o be the thing , her thing , the on e that i s to be found a t her ver y hear t i n it s crue l emptiness , Tha t Thing , whos e functio n certai n of yo u perceive d i n the relatio n t o sublimation, i s in a way unveiled wit h a cruel and insistent power " ( S VII, 162). The parallel s betwee n th e structur e o f courtl y lov e an d contemporar y male masochism ar e striking, and Zizek comments o n them a t length. Th e ritualized an d highl y structure d feature s o f masochisti c praxis, reflected i n von Sacher-Masoch' s Venus in Furs, are to be found i n the ritual of courtl y love. Zize k writes , "W e ar e dealin g with a strictly codifie d fiction , a social game o f 'a s i f wher e w e preten d tha t ou r sweethear t i s th e inaccessibl e Lady." 13 Courtly lov e places feminis m i n a double bind . I f wome n see k equalit y then the y los e jouissance, and i f the y los e jouissance, the y canno t maintai n love. I f the y decid e to play the rol e of th e domina , the n the y ar e actresse s in a male script , stil l servin g mal e desire. 14 Is not th e Domna a product of male fantas y wherei n SH E play s a rol e aki n t o th e veile d virgin , hidin g beyond th e sexua l referen t o f mal e desire ? Courtl y love , a s describe d b y Lacan an d Zizek , deal s wit h th e inaccessibl e lad y bu t th e mal e fantas y o f this Lad y a s oppose d t o he r participatio n i n th e fantasy . Th e male' s jouis-

Medusa Depetrified sance i s submission , submissio n t o th e mai e imag e o f th e l a d y — a mal e 239 construction.

The Retaliation of the Hero The Her o ha s t o retaliat e agains t th e castratin g effec t o f Medusa , agains t the desir e t o pla y th e rol e o f th e courtl y lover . Sh e i s t o th e Her o th e ultimate fo e becaus e SH E ha s th e abilit y t o undermin e th e statel y podiu m from whic h h e enact s th e La w o f th e Father . Th e Hero , i n thi s retaliation , seeks t o petrify , delegitimize , deconstruct , deny , an d castrat e her . Wome n are castrate d b y th e Her o ever y da y b y bein g denie d th e generativ e powe r of natur e an d th e logo s a s ego-mind-self , b y bein g fucked. The y ar e castrated b y bein g denie d jouissance an d th e righ t t o contro l thei r ow n sexuality an d th e destinie s o f thei r ow n bodies . Th e proble m tha t Hege l articulated is , Ho w ca n th e maste r receiv e reaffirmatio n o f hi s sel f fro m a slave? I n th e contex t o f Oedipa l patriphalli c sexuality , th e proble m be comes, Ho w ca n th e mal e maintai n lov e fo r th e inferior , castrate d submis sive who m h e regularl y fucks ? Fuckin g consist s o f satisfyin g one' s ow n desire b y usin g anothe r a s th e object : Why i s i t precisel y i n connectio n wit h a half-failed ac t o f pruning , wit h a n ac t of cutting tha t i s blocked, thwarted , messed up , that on e shoul d evok e th e presume d origin o f th e wor d an d fin d i t i n th e hol e drillin g activitie s o f wor k i n it s mos t primitive o f forms , wit h th e meanin g o f sexua l operation , o f phalli c penetration ? Why doe s one resurrec t th e metaphor "fuck " i n connectio n wit h somethin g tha t i s "fucked up? " Why i s it the image of th e vulva that surface s t o express a number of different acts , includin g thos e o f escaping , o f fleeing, o f cuttin g an d runnin g [se tailler] as the German ter m i n the text ha s often bee n translated? ( S VII, 168) Clearly, t o retaliat e agains t he r castratin g effect , th e Her o fuck s he r an d appropriates th e Lad y o f courtl y lov e and , i n s o doing , denie s he r potenc y and promulgate s he r objectification . B y fuckin g her , h e i s abl e t o erec t an d maintain hi s simulacru m o f phalli c power .

The Appropriation of Athene The Hero , i n hi s battl e agains t th e Medusa n Amazon , ha s enlisted , i n th e patriarchal version s o f th e m y t h , th e ai d o f Athene . Accordin g t o on e version, Athen e wa s jealou s o f Medusa' s beaut y an d he r consortin g wit h

Medusa Depetrified 240 Poseidon . Sh e punishe d Medus a b y turnin g he r int o a viciou s monste r with pointe d claw s an d a mas s o f writhin g serpent s fo r hair . Athen e i s reputed t o hav e battle d agains t th e Amazon s an d wa s understoo d t o b e a grea t nemesi s t o matricentri c society . Ye t he r earlies t manifestation s demonstrate tha t sh e may hav e in fac t bee n their ally. 15 Athene don s th e frightfu l imag e o f Medus a a s a shield , a n ac t tha t Freud understand s ha s th e effec t o f placin g he r outsid e o f desire . Sh e becomes " a woman wh o i s unapproachable an d repel s al l sexua l desires — since sh e display s th e terrifyin g genital s o f th e Mother " (SE , XVIII, 273). Donning th e mask , Athene i s no longer th e object . Sh e eludes the evi l ey e of th e spectato r an d denies the right s to her objectification . The Her o ha s oblige d Medus a t o play th e rol e o f th e virgi n undeniabl y bound t o the mask. Th e Apollonian La w of the Father , in its effort t o den y and repres s th e anxiet y o f castration , ha s erecte d it s antithesis . Medus a i s depicted a s a dispassionate one-dimensiona l Athenia n aegis , as this is what she i s force d t o become . He r vitalit y i s masked b y th e petrificatio n o f he r sexual prowess , an d thos e tha t com e int o contac t wit h he r mus t assum e a mask i n orde r t o avoi d he r wrath . The y canno t gaz e directly a s this woul d be looking directly int o the contingency o f death .

Medusan 'Jouissance' Lacan discusse s wha t h e term s "th e parado x o f puissance" an d seek s t o clarify i t fo r u s i n term s o f "th e enigm a o f it s relatio n t o the Law " ( S VII, 192) an d t o the deat h o f God . God , the logos , and the phallu s hav e alway s been dead , fraudulen t metaphor s fo r Laca n becaus e min d ha s n o existenc e independent o f th e body . "N o doub t a scienc e ha s bee n erecte d o n th e fragile belie f ['o f a singl e Go d wh o i s bot h th e Lor d o f th e univers e an d the dispense r o f th e ligh t tha t warm s lif e an d spread s th e brightnes s o f consciousness'] I was discussing , namely , th e on e tha t i s expresse d i n th e following terms , whic h alway s reappea r a t th e horizo n o f ou r aims : Th e real is rational, the rationa l i s real' " ( S VII, 180). Th e death o f Go d is, fo r Lacan a s i t i s fo r Nietzsche , th e denia l o f th e trut h o f logo s an d o f an y teleological directio n an d hierarchy o f values. According to Lacan, "Th e two notions, the death o f Go d and neighborl y love [God' s commandmen t o f love] , ar e historicall y linke d ( S VII , 193) : "We canno t avoi d the formul a tha t jouissance is evil. Freu d leads us by th e hand t o thi s point : i t i s sufferin g becaus e i t involve s sufferin g fo r m y

Medusa Depetrified neighbor/' Jouissance is irreconcilabl e wit h th e La w o f th e Father , wit h 241 God's neighborl y love , as God's lov e does not tak e into account th e realit y of "th e unconsciou s aggressio n tha t jouissance contains " ( S VII , 194) , which exist s both within ourselve s an d within ou r neighbors . Accordin g t o Lacan's interpretatio n o f Freud , th e momen t w e tak e th e pat h towar d neighborly love , w e los e th e pat h openin g o n t o jouissance ( S VII , 186) . There ca n b e n o jouissance without aggression , an d th e aggressio n o f m y neighbor's jouissance "is tha t whic h pose s a problem fo r m y love " ( S VII, 187). "Wha t ar e w e drawin g attentio n to? " Laca n asks . H e answers , "T o the unconsciou s aggressio n tha t jouissance contains" ( S VII, 194) . H e ask s a furthe r question : "Wha t i s th e goa l jouissance seek s i f i t ha s t o fin d support i n transgressio n t o see k it? " ( S VII , 195) . Thi s questio n i s lef t open. The relationshi p betwee n lov e and jouissance is a diacritical one . Wher e at firs t glanc e they appea r t o be in dialectica l opposition , o n furthe r analy sis, thei r associatio n i s mor e undecidabl e an d complex . Whereas , t o th e idealist, lov e implie s jouissance, lov e is jouissance: th e "realist " under stands th e tw o terms t o be mutually exclusive . Th e terms see m t o sugges t "a certai n folding back {repli}—which wil l late r b e calle d a re-mark —of opposition withi n th e series , or eve n within it s dialectic . . . . Suc h a func tional displacement , whic h concern s difference s (an d a s we shal l see , sim ulacra) mor e tha n an y conceptua l identitie s signified , i s a rea l an d neces sary challenge . I t writes itself" (PP , 104). Love ca n b e maintaine d i n relationship s o f equalit y bu t a t th e pric e of jouissance. Both long-term mutua l lov e and mutual jouissance seem to be a matter o f fantas y rathe r tha n materia l realit y becaus e th e flo w o f aggres sion tha t i s necessar y fo r jouissance seems incompatibl e wit h a mutuall y loving, long-term relationship . Thi s is particularly s o for Oedipa l patripha llic sexuality . Th e situatio n i s somewha t differen t i n matriphalli c sexual ity. I f the relationship is between a dominant femal e an d a feminized other , the Othe r ma y expres s lov e in embracin g th e rol e o f th e Objec t o f desire . The inferiorit y i n feminizatio n ma y sustai n jouissance but no t love . Th e submission o f th e Consor t i n a Goddess/Consor t archetypa l relationship , however, i s based on sacrific e rathe r tha n inferiority . The privilege d signifie r i s n o longe r abl e t o maintai n a meaningfu l relationship wit h th e Real . Thus , i t ca n n o longe r furnis h th e gran d metaphor an d th e gran d metonym y fo r th e generatio n o f th e sel f a s subject. Go d i s dead , th e secula r for m o f th e logo s ha s los t it s theoretica l

Medusa Depetrified 242 foundation s i n scienc e an d philosophy , an d th e peni s ha s los t it s phalli c significance. Nevertheless , th e discourse s o f th e privilege d signifie r stil l predominate. Consequently , it becomes more and more difficult t o identif y the male , a s a materializatio n o f th e Subject , a s a manifestatio n o f th e Real. A s a result, mor e an d more aggressio n i s required t o maintain mal e jouissance. With th e los s o f th e credibilit y o f th e privilege d signifie r a s a manifestation o f th e Real , mor e an d mor e female s generat e th e sel f a s a manifestation o f th e Subject , placin g themselve s i n th e positio n o f th e male. I n doin g so , they refus e t o b e fucked . Consequently , heterosexua l relationships become more fragile an d fleeting, more filled with aggression , and less sexually satisfying . The los s o f jouissance withi n th e structur e o f th e privilege d signifie r leads more and more people into alternative form s o f sexuality, the leading heterosexual alternativ e bein g sexua l disciplin e an d bondage. 16 Females , socialized i n th e discourse s o f th e privileged signifie r an d yet at the sam e time alway s subjec t t o th e power o f th e primar y signifie r a s the truth o f the patriarchal lie, find i t difficult t o enter into the jouissance of dominatio n and submission , o n eithe r side . B y settlin g fo r patriarcha l civilit y a s the best that ca n be achieved, they fin d heterosexua l relationship s void of both love and jouissance. Males, on the other hand , find themselve s castrate d when the privileged signifier lose s its metaphorical an d metonymical significance . The y remai n in th e discourse s o f th e privilege d signifie r bu t fin d i t mor e an d mor e difficult t o maintai n thei r plac e a s sel f qu a manifestatio n o f th e Subject . When the y solv e th e riddl e o f th e Sphin x an d kno w wh o and wha t the y really are , they suffe r th e castratio n o f Oedipus . The y becom e engulfe d one way or another in the abyss and in the despair of nihilism. Th e despair and loss of self ofte n lea d to blind rage , and their onl y sourc e of jouissance becomes th e jouissance of transgression . Thos e who can pay the price can obtain temporar y jouissance throug h th e professiona l se x worker s wh o will, for money, pla y the role of dominant o r submissive. The relationshi p here—betwee n lov e an d jouissance, insid e an d th e outside, th e monstrou s an d th e sublime—i s a n interconnecte d weav e of difference an d not a synthesis. Huma n heterosexua l relation s ar e trappe d within th e dialectical tensio n o f love and jouissance for "wha t i s love othe r than bangin g one' s hea d agains t a wall? " (FS , 170). "Th e doubl e scree n which divide s i t insid e itself , dividin g it s internal an d its external aspects , but dividin g i t b y onl y b y reassemblin g i t wit h itself , stickin g i t t o itsel f

Medusa Depetrified doubly, fort:da. I a m callin g this , onc e more , an d necessarily , th e hymen 243 of th e fort:da" (Pos , 316).

A 'Jouissance Proper to Her The depetrificatio n o f Medus a symbolize s th e sheddin g o f th e vei l an d th e ultimate remova l o f th e mas k o f femininity . Th e mask , accordin g t o Girard, "mixe s man and beast, god and inanimate object." The y "juxtapos e beings an d object s separate d b y differences . The y ar e beyon d differences ; they d o no t merel y def y difference s o r effac e them , bu t the y incorporat e and rearrang e the m i n origina l fashion . I n short , the y ar e anothe r aspec t of th e monstrou s double." 17 "Hav e you r mask s an d subtlety, " state s Nietzsche, "tha t yo u ma y b e mistake n fo r wha t yo u ar e not , o r feare d a little" (BGE , 25) . Further , h e state s tha t "ever y opinio n i s als o a hideout , every word als o a mask" (BGE , 289). Th e removal o f the mask exposes th e hideaway with a deadly precision . The Goddess-Lady-Doram a wh o look s behin d th e mas k o f femininit y never get s fucked . Th e relationshi p neve r get s personal . Sh e i s th e On e who fill s th e gap , th e lack , th e hol e fo r th e man , whic h i s the functio n o f puissance. Th e femal e mus t b e dominant fo r th e mal e i n orde r t o preven t him fro m fuckin g her . In love , a living perso n replace s wha t Laca n refer s to as "th e Thing, " but th e living person canno t fil l th e gap or the lack. Th e Thing i s connecte d wit h th e Real . I t i s thi s lin k wit h th e Rea l tha t make s puissance possible . Lovin g relationship s betwee n tw o people cannot main tain puissance becaus e the y becom e personal , an d whe n the y becom e personal the y los e thei r lin k wit h th e Rea l i n term s o f th e Imaginar y an d the Symbolic . Th e functio n o f fantas y i s t o generat e th e puissance tha t is blocke d b y th e personalizatio n o f th e sexua l act . Man y male s prefe r pornography an d masturbatio n t o actua l intercours e a s the y ca n mor e easily maintai n puissance i n th e former . Othe r male s prefe r rapin g a woman t o consensua l se x becaus e rap e i s impersona l an d add s t o th e Sadean puissance o f transgression . Th e male' s embrac e o f th e rol e o f th e submissive prevent s th e femal e fro m lovin g hi m o n a personal level . H e is an objec t an d no t a person , an d therefor e h e ca n love , bu t onl y a t a distance, exchanging coitu s fo r puissance.

Medusa Depetrified 244

The 'Domna Potential According t o Derrida : One ca n envisage , then , a quasi-transcendental privileg e o f thi s driv e fo r mastery , drive for power , o r driv e for dominatio n [emprise] . The latter denominatio n seem s preferable: i t marks more clearl y the relation t o the other, eve n in domination over oneself. An d th e word immediatel y place s itself i n communicatio n wit h th e lexico n of giving, taking, sending, o r destining tha t i s inciting u s her e fro m a distance, an d that soo n wil l concer n u s mor e directly . Th e driv e t o dominat e mus t als o b e th e drive's relation to itself: there i s n o driv e no t drive n t o bin d itsel f t o itsel f an d t o assure itsel f o f master y ove r itsel f a s a drive. Whenc e the transcendental tautolog y of th e driv e t o dominate : i t i s th e driv e a s drive , th e driv e o f th e drive , th e drivenness o f th e drive . Again , i t i s a question o f a relation t o oneself a s a relatio n to th e other , th e auto-affectio n o f a fort:da whic h gives , takes, send s an d destine s itself, distances an d approache s itsel f b y its own step , the other's. (Pos , 403) Within th e chain s o f significatio n o f th e primar y signifier , i t i s th e ma n who mus t embrac e a sel f tha t merge s fro m th e Othe r an d i s define d i n terms o f lack . Consequently , accordin g t o Laca n an d Zizek , wome n woul d not enjo y th e puissance o f domination. 1 8 The y ar e onl y acting—playin g a role—for mone y o r fo r favo r i n a theater , a pla y stage d entirel y b y men . Consequently, th e Domna-Domina i s no t a manifestatio n o f thei r ow n desire. Th e masochist , accordin g t o Zizek , establishe s i n a col d businesslik e way th e term s o f th e contract : th e scenes , th e costumes , th e props , "ho w strongly sh e i s t o whi p him , i n wha t precis e wa y sh e i s t o enchai n him , where sh e i s t o stam p o n hi m wit h he r hig h heels, " an d whe n i t i s ove r h e returns t o th e rol e o f th e "respectfu l bourgeois " an d arrange s th e tim e fo r the nex t appointment. 1 9 I t ma y wel l b e tha t man y masochist s ar e i n a dominant/submissive relationshi p unde r th e illusio n tha t the y ca n remai n in control . Th e fac t is , however , tha t som e wome n enjo y th e puissance o f domination. A goo d dea l o f femal e Domfna/mal e submissiv e relationship s exist i n whic h th e femal e set s th e scene , decide s upo n th e script , choose s the props , an d dictate s a contrac t tha t free s he r fro m al l limits , leavin g th e male wit h th e onl y optio n o f walkin g away . If on e doe s no t recogniz e th e existenc e o f th e Domna withi n th e lan guage o f th e primar y signifier , on e necessaril y ha s t o interpre t he r a s a product o f mal e fantas y o r a s a petrifie d woma n withou t Voic e o r Gaz e who ha s internalize d mal e fantasy . Th e privilege d signifie r doe s no t pro vide a structur e i n whic h SH E ca n b e Subject , an d therefor e ther e i s n o

Medusa Depetrified alternative bu t t o explai n he r sexualit y a s a manifestation o f mal e desire . 245 If on e recognize s th e existenc e an d functio n o f th e primar y signifier , the n one has a structure i n which domin a sexualit y ca n be explained in terms of female desir e and the male submissive ca n be equally explaine d in terms of the structur e o f th e primar y signifier . On e must , however , "g o beyon d oppositional o r dialectica l logic " (Pos , 403) i n orde r t o deriv e th e "truth " of th e femal e subject , o f SHE . On e must , i n orde r t o fin d he r "sub jecthood," retur n t o he r objecthood , t o hi s subjecthood , a s "i t define s th e relationship to oneself a s the relatio n t o the other" (Pos , 404). In This Sex Which Is Not One, Irigara y wa s asked what sh e thought "o f the notio n o f 'woma n power ' " an d furthe r "I f woma n wer e t o com e t o pass (i n histor y an d i n th e unconscious , th e latte r being , indeed , 'only ' hom[m]osexual), wha t woul d result : woul d a feminin e powe r b e purel y and simpl y substitute d fo r masculin e power?" 20 Sh e answered : "i t clearl y cannot b e a matte r o f substitutin g feminin e powe r fo r masculin e power . Because this reversa l would stil l be caught u p in the econom y o f th e same , in th e sam e economy—i n which , o f course , what I am tryin g t o designat e as 'feminine ' woul d no t emerge . Ther e woul d b e a phalli c 'seizur e o f power.' " 2 1 A t th e en d o f he r boo k The Bonds of Love, Jessic a Benjami n states tha t "wome n mus t clai m thei r subjectivit y an d s o be able to surviv e destruction." 22 Sh e see s thi s a s th e claimin g o f th e equa l othe r s o a s t o assert th e possibilit y o f mutua l recognition : "The y [women ] ma y thu s offer me n a ne w possibilit y o f collidin g wit h th e outsid e an d becomin g alive in th e presence o f a n equa l other." 23 Finally , sh e states, "M y conclu sion is both modes t an d Utopian." 24 The worl d o f differenc e implie s th e inevitabilit y o f hierarchies . Whe n there i s difference , ther e i s otherness , bu t th e egotistica l sel f i s unabl e o r unwilling t o confront th e simultaneou s independen t an d codependent real ity o f th e Other . Recognizin g th e Othe r i s a recognitio n o f th e othe r i n oneself, one' s ow n limitation s an d th e basenes s o f animality . Th e resul t i s the settin g o f boundaries , th e exertio n o f control , an d th e struggl e fo r power—the puissance o f domination . Th e dialecti c o f dominatio n an d submission i s unavoidable : "I n hi s nascen t state , ma n i s neve r simpl y man. H e is always, necessarily, an d essentially , eithe r Maste r o r Slave. " 25 Recognizing th e inevitabilit y o f hierarchy , however , doe s not, o f necessit y entail a recognition o f th e supremac y o f on e se x over th e other . I t merel y asserts tha t equalit y i s a fabricatio n an d tha t withi n a heterosexua l rela tionship on e partne r likel y will b e dominan t an d th e othe r submissive , o r

Medusa Depetrified 246 els e the y wil l remai n i n a stat e o f frequen t conflict . I t assert s a dialectica l approach t o hierarchy, the male being dominant when th e privileged signi fier i s maintained , th e femal e bein g dominan t whe n th e primar y signifie r is maintained . Th e role s ca n potentially switch , a s eac h rol e has , dee p within it , elements o f th e other . In ou r view , radica l feminism , whe n pitte d agains t postmodernis m and psychoanalysis , mus t tak e int o accoun t th e potentialit y o f femal e domination i n th e Symboli c orde r b y privileging the primar y signifier . I f and when th e primary signifie r i s privileged in the Symbolic order, female s will, accordin g t o th e dialectica l framewor k o f hierarchy , pla y th e domi nant role . Whil e dominatio n ma y o r ma y no t ente r th e domai n o f th e Real, it must be recognized as a contingency i n the realm of the Imaginary . It i s ther e an d mus t b e contende d with . B y acceptin g th e "truth " o f women's oppressio n pas t and present, woman's difference , an d the inevita bility o f hierarchica l relationship s i n sexuality , on e mus t correspondingl y recognize th e likelihoo d o r potentiality o f femal e domination . I t does exis t in th e fantas y structure s o f man y male s (surfacin g a s instance s o f th e primary neurosi s o f mal e masochism ) an d is wha t lie s hidde n behin d Medusa's mask . Wh y d o women fea r o r deny this potential? Th e assertio n is no t essential , o r biological , i t i s a mer e assertio n o f th e potentiality. Patriarchal discours e ha s lon g bee n premise d o n mal e dominatio n o f fe males du e t o th e continue d preeminenc e o f th e privilege d signifier . Whe n one ca n asser t tha t thi s positionin g o f th e privilege d signifie r i s no t abso lute, tha t i t i s onl y on e elemen t o f a dialectica l pol e wherei n lie s contin gents o f th e other , on e mus t conside r th e potentialit y o f th e othe r en d of the dialectica l scale . Whil e equalit y ha s serve d a s a n effectiv e too l fo r feminists t o combat male domination, th e result will always be somewher e in betwee n "equality " an d mal e domination . Equalit y a s a n en d i s no t achievable in this way. Power i s a characteristi c o f bot h sexe s an d i s no t exclusivel y a mal e trait, thoug h i t ha s bee n sexualize d a s such . I f i t were , on e woul d b e positing th e continua l subordinatio n o f females . I f on e ca n fre e powe r o f its patriarchal tonality , the n i t can and shoul d b e utilized b y female s t o he, to assert, an d t o define. W e link woman's appropriatio n o f th e potentialit y of power with her journey towar d he r origins . "T o seduce the man, to part him fro m hi s natura l trajectory, " state s Derrida , "sh e accomplishe s i n th e final coun t th e wis e desig n o f nature " (Glas , 127) . He r empowermen t i s not abou t male s (thoug h i t canno t escap e it s positionin g withi n sexua l

Medusa Depetrified hierarchies), i t i s mor e abou t SHE , about he r proces s o f becoming , abou t 247 her jouissance. Accordin g t o Daly , The pla y i s part o f our work o f unweaving an d of our weaving work . I t whirls us into anothe r fram e o f reference . W e use the visitatio n o f demon s t o com e mor e deeply int o touc h wit h ou r own powers/virtues. Unweavin g thei r deceptions , we name ou r Truth . Defyin g thei r profession s w e discove r ou r Femal e Pride , ou r Sinister Wisdom . Escapin g thei r possessio n w e find ou r Enspirite d Selves . Over coming thei r aggressio n w e uncove r ou r Creativ e Ange r an d Brillian t Bravery . Demystifying/demythifying thei r obsession s w e re - membe r ou r Woman-lovin g Love. Refusin g thei r assimilatio n w e experienc e ou r Autonom y an d Strength . Avoiding thei r eliminatio n w e fin d ou r Origina l Be-ing . Mendin g thei r impose d fragmentation w e Spin our Original Integrity. 26 The Hegelia n master/slav e dialecti c i s th e culminatio n o f th e struggl e between independenc e an d dependence , disappearanc e an d reappearance . The self' s primar y goa l i s t o se e itself a s privileged , a s th e onl y operativ e force, a goa l tha t clashe s wit h th e self' s nee d fo r recognition—th e nee d for other s t o recogniz e th e privilege d positionin g o f th e self . Th e obviou s tension i s magnified whe n i t become s clea r tha t fo r other s t o recogniz e th e self, th e sel f mus t recogniz e th e mutua l existenc e o f others , o f th e Other . The sel f need s t o b e abl e t o fin d he r o r himsel f i n th e Othe r bu t a t th e same tim e want s t o "ri d it o f the parasite" an d "kee p th e outside out " (PP, 128). "This, " state s Derrida , "i s th e inaugura l gestur e o f 'logic ' itself , o f good 'sense ' insofa r a s i t accord s wit h th e self-identit y o f that which is: being i s wha t i t is , the outsid e i s outsid e an d th e insid e inside. " Th e cur e will "eliminat e th e excess, " th e trut h o f th e Other , bu t "thi s elimination , being therapeuti c i n nature , mus t cal l upo n th e ver y thin g i t i s expelling , the ver y surplu s i t i s putting out" (PP , 128) . Accordin g t o Hegel , th e conflict tha t i s create d i s irresolvabl e an d therefor e produce s a n insolubl e conflict. Th e inevitable breakdow n tha t i s create d whe n tension s m o u n t — between assertin g th e sel f an d recognizin g th e Other—lead s t o th e jouissance o f domination . Accordin g t o Girard , " W e believ e tha t th e norma l form o f desir e i s nonviolen t an d tha t thi s nonviolen t for m i s characteristi c of th e generalit y o f mankind . Bu t i f th e sacrificia l crisi s i s a universa l phenomenon, thi s hopefu l belie f i s clearly withou t foundation . A t the ver y height o f th e crisis , violenc e become s simultaneousl y th e instrument , object, an d all inclusive subjec t o f desire. " 27 Much lik e th e psychoanalytic individuatio n process , ther e i s an ongoin g battle t o differentiat e fro m th e Othe r an d t o ris e above— a tensio n o f

Medusa Depetrified 248 th e fortida, betwee n affirmatio n an d denial, appearanc e an d reappearance , whereby "h e himself ha s a hard tim e recognizin g himself amon g his own" (PC, 299). According to Jessica Benjamin , dominatio n i s the by-product of the self's denia l of its dependent relationshi p to the Other: "I f I completely control th e other, the n th e other cease s to exist." 28 The submissive (masochist) grant s the power of recognition t o the master, who, in the domination fantasy , maintain s th e sens e o f control . Fo r th e submissive , th e dialectical conflic t i s resolve d b y th e tota l renunciatio n o f th e self . Th e search fo r recognitio n i s translate d b y th e masochis t int o th e searc h fo r freedom throug h slavery—fo r a n othe r wh o ha s th e powe r t o besto w recognition. Recognitio n i s thus gaine d vicariously , throug h th e master. 29 The masochis t sacrifice s hi s eg o i n a n effor t t o redee m hi s self . I f th e submission i s genuine , th e masochis t ca n contac t th e deepe r meanin g i n the sufferin g an d fin d pleasure . Th e pai n wil l b e fel t fo r th e sak e o f something mor e valuabl e tha n th e ego and its perceptions. Suicid e i s the ultimate for m o f masochism , an d masochism is , in effect , a metaphorica l suicide. Masochis m itsel f seem s t o b e a n effor t t o kee p thi s parado x o f pleasure an d pain, t o preserve th e sense of resisting an d yet consenting to death at the same time. 30

Beyond Affirmation—Toward a Theory of Discipline Saint Pau l wishe s t o transcend th e law: "[T]h e la w hath dominio n ove r a man a s long as he liveth. Fo r the woman whic h hat h a n husband i s bound by the law to her husband." 31 "For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sin s whic h wer e b y th e law , did work i n ou r member s t o brin g fort h fruit unt o death . Bu t no w we ar e delivere d fro m th e la w . . . tha t w e should serv e i n newness o f spirit." 32 "Fo r they tha t ar e after th e flesh do mind th e things o f the flesh; bu t they tha t ar e after th e Spirit th e thing s of the Spirit." 33 Without th e law there would be no sin. The sensual bod y requires th e law, but in the law we are tied t o the body. I n transcendin g the bod y b y becomin g spirit , w e transcend th e law. Pau l turn s th e min d against th e body, an d as we mortify th e body we transcend i t through th e spirit. Ther e is no puissance t o be found i n loving a woman. Th e hatred of the body is transferred ont o that of the woman, and as the woman become s the embodimen t o f the hated flesh and the flesh requires that the man fuck

Medusa Depetrified the woman, the only puissance h e will enjoy i s if the act is a manifestation 249 of aggression . The pornograph y o f disciplin e an d th e genr e o f relate d literatur e exis t as a manifestatio n o f jouissance o r t o generat e jouissance, a s intercours e without aggressio n i s sexual release without puissance. Jouissance is generated i n oppositio n t o th e La w o f Patriarcha l Civility , becaus e ther e i s n o puissance t o b e foun d i n th e law , onl y i n oppositio n t o it . Th e puissance of transgressio n i s generate d b y breakin g th e law . Th e puissance o f tran scendence a s manifeste d i n mora l o r religiou s masochis m i s generate d b y transcending th e law . Abnorma l o r pervers e sexualit y i n it s various form s is a reaction t o th e La w o f Patriarcha l Civility , th e La w of th e Father . Hi s desire i s t o b e serve d bu t i n a reasonabl e an d rationa l manner . Th e la w prohibits aggressio n an d therefore stand s in the way of puissance. Zizek speak s o f "th e 'blac k hole ' aroun d whic h desir e i s organized/' 34 The Thin g tha t wil l fil l thi s ga p o r lac k i s tha t whic h connect s u s t o th e Real. Th e La w of th e Fathe r canno t connec t u s t o th e Rea l becaus e Go d i s dead an d ha s alway s bee n dead . Th e privilege d signifie r i s a ba r t o puissance a s i t ca n furnis h u s wit h n o meaningfu l lin k t o th e Real . Laca n declares tha t "i t i s i n th e locu s o f th e Othe r tha t h e begin s t o constitut e that truthfu l li e b y whic h i s initiate d tha t whic h participate s i n desir e a t the level of th e unconscious" (F , 144). I t is only with discours e that w e are constituted mal e o r femal e an d constitute d a s sexua l beings . I t i s onl y within discours e tha t ou r bodie s tak e o n meanin g an d tha t w e generat e a self a s a manifestation o f th e Subjec t o r the Other . On Octobe r 5 , 1924 , a privatel y printe d boo k limite d t o on e hundre d copies an d richl y boun d i n dar k gree n morocc o leathe r wit h ove r thirt y hand-drawn illustration s wa s seize d i n a police rai d instigate d o n th e basi s of "informatio n received, " before a single copy had been distributed. Ever y copy was burned, an d th e printer' s proo f an d plate s were destroyed. 35 Th e printing pres s wa s locate d i n th e converte d stables o f a mano r hous e i n Etchingham, England , belongin g t o Gerald Perciva l Hamer . A large collection o f erotic a foun d o n th e premise s wa s als o destroyed . Thi s particula r book wa s single d ou t fo r a length y condemnation , an d s o ferociou s wer e the remark s of the judge that i t is commonly believe d that fiv e years of th e eleven-year priso n ter m Hame r receive d wer e fo r hi s publicatio n o f thi s single book. The nam e o f th e boo k wa s A Guide to the Correction of Young Gentle-

Medusa Depetrified 250 men, subtitle d The Successful Administration of Physical Discipline to Males by Females} 6 Whil e th e boo k purport s t o b e a handbook fo r th e disciplin ing o f youn g an d juvenil e males , th e introductio n demonstrate s tha t th e adolescent mal e i s use d t o represen t th e adul t male , an d "Eve n a cursor y reading o f thi s boo k will mak e i t clea r tha t . . . th e intende d 'subjects ' o f the treatmen t ar e quit e obviousl y adul t males . . . . Th e autho r make s i t explicitly clear , ove r an d ove r agai n . . . wh o ar e th e rea l subject s o f th e dissertation: i t simpl y canno t b e mistaken/' 37 Th e secon d chapte r i s enti tled "Th e Eterna l Boy. " Th e narrato r expressl y state s tha t "Her e i s a fellow wh o drink s to o muc h . . . an d i n th e en d h e drink s himsel f t o death—all fo r th e wan t o f th e prope r externa l authorit y t o which, were i t available, h e woul d gladl y submit . . . . Thi s ma n gambles . . . . Lik e th e drunkard, h e yearn s fo r a n all-powerful , outsid e forc e t o make hi m stop . . . . You r rol e i s t o provid e tha t externa l demiurgi c forc e . . . t o tak e responsibility fo r hi m on condition that he allows you to train him." 38 While th e volum e i n questio n specifie s onl y tha t i t wa s "Writte n b y a Lady," the autho r o f thi s book was, without doubt , Alice Kerr-Sutherland , a professiona l dominatri x wh o lik e man y i n he r trad e ha d starte d he r working career a s a governess. Sh e ha d bee n a close associat e o f Hamer' s since 1912, and there can be no question abou t her authorship o f the Guide when it s styl e i s compare d wit h othe r survivin g example s o f he r writing . Between 191 5 an d 192 0 sh e ra n a n elegan t brothe l fo r th e flagellatio n o f wealthy Englis h aristocrats , an d he r clientel e included , i t i s thought , George, Marqui s o f Milfor d Haven , th e elde r brothe r o f th e lat e Ear l Mountbatten. A t th e tim e o f th e 192 8 trial , Kerr-Sutherlan d wa s alread y in Hollowa y Priso n fo r Wome n servin g a four-year sentenc e fo r a number of public morality offenses . This book , whe n studie d alongsid e vo n Sacher-Masoch' s Venus in Furs and Reage' s The Story of O, reveals much abou t th e dynamics o f puissance underlying dominatio n an d submission . Kerr-Sutherlan d i s no t a sadist , and a s ha s bee n clearl y argue d b y Deleuze , th e symmetrica l inversio n o f masochism i s no t sadism . Th e jouissance o f dominatio n ha s nothin g i n common with sadism , other than the linkage of se x and pain. Th e structur e and logi c of dominatio n requir e the willing and consensua l participatio n of the submissive: " A birching, properly administered, i s . .. a religious rite: an offerin g t o th e Grea t Goddess , ideall y b y a consentin g sacrifice." 39 Venus in Furs illustrate s th e jouissance o f submissio n withi n th e male , whereas The Story of O outline s th e jouissance of submissio n withi n th e

Medusa Depetrified female i n reactio n t o mal e dominance . Th e Guide present s th e jouissance 251 of dominatio n a s enjoye d b y th e femal e and , a s such , furnishe s u s wit h th e asymmetrical sid e o f mal e masochis m an d a t th e sam e tim e wit h a n alternative exampl e o f th e jouissance o f th e femal e furnishe d b y The Story

ofO.

The discours e o f th e femal e sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subjec t an d o f the mal e a s lacking , a s th e Other , i s establishe d eve n i n Kerr-Sutherland' s short introduction . Sh e writes , "W e wome n hav e charg e o f al l huma n lif e from it s earlies t stages , an d durin g tha t tim e w e hav e t o perfor m man y deeds tha t migh t b e considere d ignoble , eve n indecent ; i t i s ou r destin y and ou r responsibility . Ther e i s nothin g a n unclothe d mal e o f an y ag e ca n display tha t an y bu t th e mos t sheltere d maide n lad y canno t hav e see n before. . . . W e ar e afte r all , i n loco parentis." '40 The firs t chapte r discusse s th e thre e aspect s o f th e ancien t Goddes s with referenc e t o Frazer' s The Golden Bough, Si r Thoma s Malory' s Mort d'Arthur, an d Shakespeare' s Macbeth. Sh e the n develop s a correspondin g analysis o f th e thre e aspect s o f th e governes s tha t correspon d t o o r mani fest th e qualitie s o f th e tripl e Goddes s an d describe s th e approac h t o discipline an d th e for m i t shoul d tak e withi n thes e thre e configurations . The Goddes s a s maide n correspond s t o th e governes s a s nurse . Th e matur e Goddess a s th e Mistres s i s describe d i n th e followin g way : She i s aliv e t o sensuality , an d play s upo n i t a s a n instrument ; bu t n o trac e o f bawdiness o r ope n voluptuousnes s eve r taint s he r operations . Sh e i s no t a Sacre d Prostitute, bu t a n anointe d Priestess , a medium . Sh e commands , bu t i s hersel f commanded b y a Higher Power , o f which sh e forms a part, an d of whom sh e is th e present representative . She i s a Mistres s o f Ritual , comprehendin g tha t th e slo w an d deliberat e pace , the measure d litan y an d th e prescribe d costumes , setting s an d liturgie s o f thes e ancient ceremonie s serv e t o preserv e an d rene w th e Mystery—o f whic h sh e i s celebrant—and thereb y t o honour th e Great Goddess , of whom sh e is a servant. 41 The dam e correspond s t o th e fearfu l aspec t o f th e tripl e Goddes s a s re vealed i n Hecat e o r Kali . Sh e show s littl e merc y whe n sever e disciplin e i s called for : "Th e dedicate d an d successfu l Governes s shoul d b e abl e t o assume an y o f th e thre e personalitie s a t need. " 42 Th e thir d chapte r com mences wit h th e paragraph : THE GOVERNES S STAND S in loco Deae, and he r so n Cupid , a s ever, languishe s in statu pupillari. Bu t wher e doe s thi s elegan t an d ageles s ritual oppositio n o f feminine an d masculin e principles, with it s foreordained result , tak e place? If it is a

Medusa Depetrified 252 pl aY/ wher e an d wha t i s th e stage ? I f i t i s a mystical o r religiou s rite , i n which temple or church (w e already know before whose altar) is it celebrated? What are the surroundings, and how do they act upon the Principals? What part, if any, does the physical environment play in the proceedings that unfold? 43 One essentia l featur e o f th e disciplin e regim e outline d i n th e Guide is the strippin g of the submissive . Th e male submissive is subject to the Gaz e and t o femal e authority . Th e Gaz e i s a n essentia l aspec t o f th e sel f a s a manifestation o f th e Subject , an d bein g subjec t t o th e Gaz e i s an essentia l aspect o f th e sel f a s a manifestation o f th e Other . Th e authores s strongl y advocates the presence of a female assistant , which adds to the humiliation , and sh e stresse s th e valu e o f havin g th e disciplin e applie d i n fron t o f female witnesses , to heighten th e humiliation further . The Guide is no t simpl y a wor k o f pornograph y tha t Kerr-Sutherlan d wrote t o enhanc e he r busines s o r attrac t ne w customers . Th e lon g an d detailed description s o f the various instruments o f discipline, the variety of positions, the colorin g of th e ski n a s each strok e is given, and th e differen t methods o f bondage all indicate that the writing of this book was energize d by a particular kin d o f femal e puissance, on e that som e females ca n and do enjoy. Th e carefull y detaile d descriptio n o f punishmen t an d disciplinin g sessions ough t t o b e compare d t o th e tex t o f The Story of O. I t give s a radically differen t impression , however , whe n th e disciplinin g subjec t i s female an d the objec t o f the discipline is male. Kaja Silverman , i n he r articl e "Histoire d'O: Th e Constructio n o f a Female Subject/ ' tell s u s tha t "Th e heroin e o f Histoire d'O, lik e som e o f Freud's mor e rebelliou s heroines , know s hersel f t o b e constitute d i n an d through a discourse whic h exceed s her—on e whic h speak s fo r her , i n he r 'place/ ' , 4 4 Sh e continue s t o sa y tha t "Psychoanalysi s woul d tel l u s tha t O's conditio n is synonymous with subjectivity—that sinc e desire is always articulated fro m th e plac e o f th e Other , woma n (lik e man ) i s inevitabl y spoken throug h a discours e whic h anticipate s an d transcend s her . How ever, a s Freu d himsel f acknowledges , th e mal e subjec t ha s consistentl y provided th e focus an d model for description s of subjectivity." 45 W e migh t well as k wh y i t i s tha t th e mal e constantl y define s subjectivity . Whe n a matricentric discours e i s permitted, i t is only i n th e contex t o f a pornography tha t i s fenced of f fro m th e political world o f power . A male submissive discourse, as a manifestation o f the Other, i s permitted s o long a s i t serve s mal e fantasy . A s Laca n point s out , "Wit h courtl y love things are all the more surprising because they emerg e at a time when

Medusa Depetrified the historica l circumstance s ar e suc h tha t nothin g seem s t o poin t t o wha t 253 might b e calle d th e advancemen t o f wome n o r indee d thei r emancipation " (S VII , 146) . H e state s tha t "Sh e i s strictl y speaking , wha t i s indicate d b y the elementar y structure s o f kinship , i.e. , nothin g mor e tha n a correlativ e of th e function s o f socia l exchange , th e suppor t o f a certai n numbe r o f goods an d o f symbol s o f power . Sh e i s essentiall y identifie d wit h a socia l function tha t leave s n o roo m fo r he r perso n o r he r ow n liberty . . . . I t i s in thi s contex t tha t th e ver y curiou s functio n o f th e poe t o f courtl y lov e starts t o b e exercised. " Silverman specifie s th e tas k o f interpretatio n o f thes e variou s text s tha t manifest th e differen t kind s o f jouissance. Sh e writes , "Th e investigatio n thus proceed s o n tw o fronts , explorin g o n th e on e han d wha t distinguishe s female fro m mal e subjectivit y withi n th e presen t symboli c order , an d o n the othe r wha t i s los t fo r woma n durin g he r entr y int o tha t order. " 46 Sh e explains that : It wil l b e m y workin g hypothesi s ( a hypothesi s whic h wil l b e " tested" throug h Histoire d'O) tha t whil e huma n bodie s exis t prio r t o discourse , i t i s onl y throug h discourse tha t the y arriv e a t th e conditio n o f bein g "male " o r "female"—tha t discourse function s firs t t o territorializ e an d the n t o ma p meanin g ont o bodies . I n other words . . . the femal e body cannot be seen as existing outside discourse. . . . I will attempt t o demonstrate tha t very clos e links are forged betwee n actua l bodie s and discourses , an d tha t thos e link s ar e bot h durabl e an d mutuall y reinforcin g a t all key junctures. Th e most helpful concep t currently availabl e to us for articulatin g the relationshi p betwee n rea l an d constructe d bodie s i s anaclisis. Anaclisis i s th e name give n b y Freu d t o th e leanin g o r proppin g o f th e eroti c driv e upo n th e self preservative instincts. 47 "[T]he distinctio n betwee n th e speakin g (male ) subjec t an d th e spoke n (female) subject " i s the distinctio n betwee n th e mal e sel f a s a manifestatio n of th e Subjec t an d th e femal e sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Other. 4 8 Sh e demonstrates throug h he r analysi s o f The Story of O , "th e powerfu l hol d which discours e exert s upo n th e femal e subject' s corporea l existence." 4 9 A similar analysi s o f th e Guide wil l als o demonstrat e th e powerfu l hol d tha t the counterdiscours e ha s upo n th e male' s subject' s corporea l existence .

Claiming Subjecthood According t o Derrida , "Coitus mus t no t b e reduce d t o th e ovar y an d th e sperm a s i f th e ne w formatio n wer e merel y th e assemblag e o f form s o r

Medusa Depetrified 254 part s o f tw o partners , fo r th e feminin e certainl y contain s th e materia l element, whil e th e mal e contain s th e subjectivity " (Glas , 113) . Despit e their possessio n o f th e "materia l element/ ' wome n hav e n o subjectivity . According t o Andre a Dworkin , sexua l intercours e i s intimatel y relate d t o women's objecthood : To becom e th e object , sh e shake s hersel f an d transform s hersel f int o a thing : al l freedoms ar e diminishe d an d sh e i s caged , eve n i n th e cag e docile , sometime s physically maimed , movemen t i s limited : sh e physicall y become s th e thin g h e wants t o fuck . I t i s especiall y i n th e acceptanc e o f objec t statu s tha t he r humanit y is hurt : i t i s a metaphysica l acceptanc e o f lowe r statu s i n se x an d i n society ; a n implicit acceptanc e o f les s freedom , les s privacy , les s integrity . I n becomin g a n object s o tha t h e ca n objectif y he r s o tha t h e ca n fuc k her , sh e begin s a politica l collaboration wit h hi s dominance ; an d the n whe n h e enter s her , h e confirm s fo r himself an d fo r he r wha t sh e is: tha t sh e is something, no t someone ; certainl y no t someone equal. 50 Women, b y unlearnin g objecthood , mus t incorporat e subjecthoo d int o their collectiv e experience . The y mus t lear n ho w t o op t ou t o f th e slav e position. Th e woma n a s inevitabl e othe r mus t us e th e psychoanalyti c tool s to hea l he r wounds . Playin g th e rol e o f th e subjec t i s th e firs t ste p i n the healin g process . Th e tas k o f a psychoanalyti c postmoder n feminism , therefore, mus t b e t o restor e th e primar y signifie r t o ou r awareness , t o bring it s manifestation s i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c into th e cultura l mainstream , an d t o distur b an d subver t th e privilege d signifier. "Th e frightenin g unknow n o n th e othe r sid e o f th e lin e i s tha t which i n ma n w e cal l th e unconscious , tha t i s t o sa y th e memor y o f thos e things h e forgets, " Laca n remind s u s ( S VII , 231) . I t woul d appea r tha t th e female sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subjec t i s on e o f thos e memorie s o f something tha t male s hav e forgotten , returnin g fro m th e unconsciou s wit h her whi p o r birc h i n he r hand . Suddenly , fo r th e male , mother , goddess , and love r merge , an d h e i s th e chil d agai n seekin g confirmatio n o f he r lov e through lovin g discipline : "Ther e i s a puissance prope r t o her , t o thi s 'her ' which doe s no t exis t an d whic h signifie s nothin g . . . an d o f whic h sh e herself ma y kno w nothing , excep t tha t sh e experience s i t — t h a t muc h sh e does know . Sh e know s i t o f cours e whe n i t happens . I t doe s no t happe n t o all o f t h e m " (FS , 145-46) . The Story of O ha s ha d particula r significanc e fo r feminist s a s a para digmatic exampl e o f th e subjectivit y o f th e femal e sel f a s a manifestatio n of Otherness . Silverma n states : "HISTOIRE d' O i s . . . th e histor y o f th e

Medusa Depetrified female subject—o f th e territorializatio n an d inscriptio n o f a bod y whos e 255 involuntary internalizatio n o f a correspondin g se t o f desire s facilitate s it s complex exploitation . Tha t histor y wil l neve r rea d otherwis e unti l th e female subjec t alter s her relatio n t o discourse—until sh e succeeds not onl y in exercisin g discursiv e power , bu t i n exercisin g i t differently. " 5 1 I s it th e case that n o woman whatsoeve r ha s altered he r relatio n t o the discourse of the privilege d signifier ? Ca n w e no t fin d on e singl e exampl e o f a femal e exercising th e kin d o f discursiv e powe r tha t Silverma n refer s to ? Ha s n o women generate d a self a s a manifestation o f the Subject ? "[PJatriarchal culture s hav e reduce d th e value o f th e feminin e t o suc h a degree tha t thei r realit y an d thei r descriptio n o f th e worl d ar e incorrect . Thus, instead o f remainin g a different gender , the feminine ha s become, in our languages , th e non-masculine , tha t i s t o sa y a n abstrac t nonexisten t reality." 52 S o states Luc e Irigaray. Woma n i s waiting, fa r to o patiently, i n the real m o f nonsignification . He r power i s petrified, an d man canno t loo k her straigh t i n th e ey e fo r tha t would , fo r th e man , acknowledg e tha t sh e is there , independen t o f him—givin g he r potentia l subjectivity . Sh e can not loo k at herself i n the mirror a s she has not the tools—for th e tools are all male. Sh e must break through th e glass of the mirror an d risk the blood that wil l inevitabl y b e shed . Fo r he r objecthoo d i s "abjec t submission , a n abdication o f th e freedo m an d integrit y o f th e body. " 53 I t i s also complic ity. A failur e t o brea k th e silenc e i s interprete d a s a n acceptanc e o f th e silent tomb , th e grav e o f patriarcha l value . Th e phallus , as primary signi fier, i s fo r male s th e jouissance of submission . I t i s Isis' s simulacrum , an d Osiris depend s o n he r fo r it s statel y positionin g (P , 41). I n orde r t o gai n access t o thi s simulacrum , th e simulacru m o f desire , wome n mus t recog nize the correlative male dependence . Woman mus t consciousl y rewrit e and rewor k the text and the story. B y writing, sh e ca n attemp t t o defin e he r self , he r sex , an d he r newl y emer gent sexuality . Sh e ca n creat e a discours e fro m whic h sh e ha d previousl y been cut off. B y so doing, she can return t o the body and free u p the desir e that ha s bee n veile d fo r fa r to o long: "W e mus t kil l the fals e woma n wh o is preventing th e liv e one from breathing . Inscrib e the breath o f th e whol e woman." 54 Accordin g t o Helen e Cixous , th e woma n wh o write s "cut s herself ou t a pape r penis " an d open s hersel f u p ont o th e worl d o f sub jecthood.55 I n thi s way , sh e manage s t o transcen d objectification . "Th e Dark Continen t i s neithe r dar k no r unexplorable—I t i s stil l unexplore d only because we've been made to believe that what interests us is the white

Medusa Depetrified 256 continent , wit h it s monument s t o Lack . An d w e believed. The y rivete d u s between tw o horrifying myths : betwee n th e Medus a an d the abyss/' 5 6 The castratio n o f Oedipu s an d th e ris e o f feminis m ar e makin g th e world a mor e dangerou s plac e fo r wome n i n tha t ther e ar e man y youn g males a t th e heigh t o f hormona l developmen t wh o ar e unable t o claim th e privileged positio n o f th e sel f a s manifestatio n o f th e Subject . Thei r live s contain neither lov e nor puissance, a s fewer an d fewer women ar e prepared to simpl y b e fucked. Th e fantas y substitute s onl y fue l unfulfillabl e desire . The discourse s o f th e privilege d signifie r continu e t o los e their credibility , and consequentl y i t i s becomin g mor e an d mor e difficul t t o maintai n patriarchal civility . Equalit y seem s t o serv e a s a two-edge d swor d i n tha t while i t erode s th e privilege d signifier , i t als o erode s th e primary . Th e banning o f pornography , fo r example , doe s hav e th e benefi t o f removin g the pictoria l imager y an d tex t tha t portra y th e aggressio n agains t wome n that th e puissance o f mal e dominatio n requires . A t th e sam e time , on e bans th e pornograph y o f femal e dominatio n an d mal e submission , whic h could prov e t o revers e th e eroticizatio n o f aggressio n wherei n th e submis sive male , unlik e th e femal e i n patriarcha l civility , ha s th e abilit y t o wal k away fro m th e eroticize d aggressio n o f th e domin a i f th e pai n outweigh s the pleasure . An idea l heterosexua l relationshi p woul d contai n love , be personal, an d maintain puissance. Thi s would requir e a meaningful maste r signifie r tha t would permi t th e relationship s o f th e individua l a s manifestation s o f th e Real i n term s o f th e Subjec t an d Other . This , i n turn , woul d requir e th e self t o b e generate d ou t o f th e discourse s o f th e primar y signifier . Th e female sel f (Subject ) woul d hav e t o b e th e embodimen t o f th e wil l t o power, th e wil l t o life , o r Eros . Sh e woul d b e th e manifestatio n o f th e Goddess, the materialization i n the flesh o f the generative power of nature , the Ubermensch, She who stands above man. Th e mal e woul d nee d t o identify himsel f wit h th e generativ e powe r o f natur e throug h he r an d i n particular throug h he r body . H e would , therefore , tak e o n phalli c signifi cance a s he r Consort . H e coul d no t fuc k her , bu t a t th e sam e tim e h e would no t b e he r slav e no r woul d sh e nee d t o b e th e col d an d crue l mistress. However , onl y th e highe r ma n ca n b e love d an d remai n i n submission. Th e domina the n ca n return th e love, but sh e must stil l retai n the whip. Isn't i t about time that we returned t o the labyrinth an d excavated wha t

Medusa Depetrified was ther e prio r t o th e infiltratio n o f th e Heroes ? Wh o know s wha t wil l 257 emerge whe n th e restrainin g cove r o f th e privilege d signifie r i s finall y lifted. Ther e i s a herstor y waitin g t o b e discovered , refurbished , an d created. B y removing the veil of femininity, b y depetrifying Medusa , wha t emerges i n the discourse i s the Amazon, th e powerful femal e wh o has the ability t o transfor m an d reinterpre t th e natur e o f femaleness . Sh e is the reason why males have a castration complex , as she has always been there , hidden i n th e Othe r bu t someho w alway s lurkin g behin d eac h shadow , present. Sh e is the castrator—not necessaril y i n the physical sens e of the word, bu t more importantl y an d on a larger scale—sh e i s the castrator of discourse. Th e fea r o f castratio n i s not solel y a fear o f dismemberin g th e lone appendage but rather th e threat o f losing the privileged positionin g of the phallus , th e logos. B y giving advantag e t o the privileged signifier , th e primary i s not obliterated, i t is there, hidden i n the shadow, always posin g a threat. Th e fear o f castration i s the male threat o f having one' s discours e cut off , o f losin g subjecthood . No , wome n don' t hav e it , the y d o no t exist i n phallocentri c patriarchy . Bu t the y mus t inven t an d reinterpre t themselves s o as to create their story , and to become. According to Cixous, the precept s o f patriarcha l civilit y ar e suc h tha t "wome n hav e n o choic e but t o b e decapitated . . . . I f the y don' t actuall y los e thei r head s b y th e sword, they only keep them on condition that they lose them—lose them , that is , to a complete silence , turned int o automatons/' 57 Clearly, unde r th e guise of patriarchal civility , women ca n keep time to the mal e dru m an d do it so well that the y live, or they ca n stand up to the order an d risk decapitation : "It' s a question o f submittin g feminin e dis — order, it s laughter , it s inabilit y t o tak e th e drumbeat s seriously , t o th e threat o f decapitation . I f ma n operate s unde r th e threa t o f castration , i f masculinity i s culturall y ordere d b y th e castratio n complex , i t migh t b e said tha t th e backlash , th e return , o n wome n o f thi s castratio n anxiet y i s its displacemen t a s decapitation , execution—o f woma n a s los s o f he r head." 58 Women mus t realiz e the unbridled potentia l of their pleasur e and must dictat e and demand ful l satisfaction . The y mus t no t mask pleasure at the sig n of their partner' s pleasur e but must ris k decapitation . Playin g the petrified rol e of the object i s keeping time to the male drum . According t o Derrida , fo r th e mal e "t o b e onesel f i s to-be-Medusa'd , and fro m the n o n th e Medusa'd-bein g constitute s itself , tha t is , defend s itself, band s itsel f erect , an d elaborate s itsel f onl y i n bein g Medusa' d b y

Medusa Depetrified 258 oneself , i n eating-Medusa'in g oneself , i n makin g onesel f a bit {mors} that gives oneself/itsel f u p a s lost {fait son deuil}. Dead sur e o f self . N o logic i s more powerfu l tha n thi s apotropic . N o absolut e genera l economy , n o exposition o r pur e expenditure : a strict-ur e mor e o r les s strong . Hi s (Sa) Medusa('s), always. Self' s dea d sure biting (death ) {Morsure de soi}" (Glas, 202-3).

T E N

Oedipus

More s o tha n an y othe r myth , th e Oedipa l legen d ha s successfull y man aged to capture the attentions of psychoanalysts, philosophers, anthropologists, cultura l critics , historians , an d dramatists . Th e fascinatio n wit h th e myth lie s mainl y i n it s ubiquitou s applicability , an d it s metaphorica l us e of discursiv e language . Ke y to Sophocles ' Oedipus Tyrannus i s the metho d utilized t o revea l th e tale . Th e plot i s not abou t th e origin s o f Oedipu s pe r se bu t mor e wit h Oedipus ' logica l approac h t o solvin g th e riddle o f hi s existence. Throug h processe s o f ironi c textua l an d symboli c reversals , Oedipus i s brough t ful l circl e fro m th e positio n o f th e hero-king-god , a position of both power and ignorance. Hi s pursuit o f knowledge and highe r truths lead s hi m t o a trut h h e canno t fathom , a trut h tha t h e neve r confronts, an d on e tha t force s hi m t o hid e fro m himself , hi s family , an d his city. I n his loss of the fabricatio n o f hero-king-god , Oedipu s is desolate as tha t i s al l h e ha s eve r learne d t o affirm . Outsid e o f th e privilege d structure o f th e Her o there is an emptines s tha t Oedipu s ha s not been abl e to penetrate. King Laius and Oedipus, father an d son , meet a t the "fated " crossroads , both o f the m unawar e o f thei r biologica l connection . Th e myt h suggest s that Laiu s trie s t o ru n Oedipu s of f th e road . I n defense , Oedipu s kill s Laius an d hi s servants , actualizin g th e Apollonia n oracle . Th e encounte r foreshadows th e encounte r wit h th e Sphinx , wh o Oedipu s meet s o n hi s way to the city of Thebes . Sh e holds the key to seduction an d has the kee n capacity t o lur e he r victim s t o he r abode , thoug h the y kno w i t i s likel y they will perish a t her feet . Sh e beckons to Oedipus, and he acquiesces. H e thinks h e ha s solve d th e riddl e tha t sh e poses , a riddle s o difficul t an d s o simple, a riddl e tha t ha s stumpe d many . A riddle tha t continue s t o con found. ^59

Oedipus 260 Oedipu s cling s to the certaint y o f science . Th e absence of chanc e make s him unabl e t o affirm . Instead , Oedipu s i s onl y abl e t o deny , repress , an d ignore. H e begin s th e proces s b y assertin g th e logo s ove r th e Sphinx , b y denying her discourse , and by failin g t o recognize her significanc e fo r him . Logos i s Oedipus ' truth , an d h e view s i t a s absolute , thoug h i t i s merel y his "irrefutable error" (GS , 265). H e denies he r existenc e an d continue s t o search blindly fo r hi s origins in utter ignorance , despite the fact that she — half animal , hal f female—hold s al l the clues . Oedipu s ca n onl y sa y "no, " "no." Thi s i s mos t explici t i n hi s fina l denial—hi s bruta l dismember ment—the tearin g ou t o f hi s eyes.

Oedipus the Heroic The identification o f th e min d o f ma n wit h logo s i s implici t i n phalli c science. " I want t o know how God created this world," Einstei n said , " I am not intereste d i n thi s o r tha t phenomenon , i n th e spectru m o f thi s o r tha t element. I want t o kno w Hi s thoughts . Th e res t ar e details." 1 Accordin g to Stephe n Hawking , "I f w e fin d th e answe r [t o why i t i s that w e an d th e universe exist ] i t woul d b e th e ultimat e triump h o f huma n reason—fo r then w e woul d kno w th e min d o f God." 2 Thus , th e logo s connect s th e cosmos t o th e min d o f man , thereb y endowin g him wit h th e generativ e power of nature, which justifies th e Law of the Father. "Moreover , becaus e it i s a questio n her e o f a non-physica l Almighty , that' s th e onl y thin g which allow s on e t o d o science , tha t i s t o say , i n th e en d reduc e th e Almighty t o silence " ( S II , 240) . Th e Jehova h o f th e Ol d Testamen t becomes the logos of the Ne w Testament. "I n th e beginning was the Wor d (Logos), an d th e Wor d (Logos ) wa s wit h God , an d th e Wor d (Logos ) wa s God." 3 And th e logo s of th e Ne w Testament doe s not di e but become s th e mathematical structur e o f th e universe .

The Oedipal Replacement: The Hero Kills the Monster Psychoanalysis i s prefaced o n the nee d to replace the desire for th e mothe r with th e higher aim o f th e identificatio n wit h th e father . Psychoanalyst s understand thi s a s key , a s pivotal , t o th e child' s individuatio n process . Should th e chil d no t los e he r o r hi s identificatio n wit h th e mother , th e child woul d b e in a state o f arreste d development , i n perpetua l narcissism .

Oedipus Why mus t th e chil d brea k th e ti e to th e mother ? Wh y mus t th e (M)othe r 261 be deemed other , fo r th e successfu l passag e of the child ? Suc h proposition s are fundamental t o the psychoanalyti c Oedipa l passag e and ensur e a patriarchal bent . I f th e desire d en d i s father-king-logos , th e Mothe r mus t b e repressed an d ignored. Similarly , if the desired end is wife-other-voiceless masked, th e Heroine , th e Grea t Mother , an d th e Amazo n mus t als o b e systematically repressed . Th e Oedipu s comple x utilize s th e La w o f th e Father t o transgress th e Materna l Law . Th e two cannot coexist . According t o Freudia n Oedipa l theory , th e youn g bo y mus t sublimat e his unconscious incestuou s fantasie s i n order t o realize a sense of sel f apar t from hi s relationship with his mother. Th e child's narcissistic identification with th e (M)othe r i n th e pre-Oedipa l phas e i s consistent wit h th e primac y of th e sexua l and/o r Ero s drives , wherea s th e post - Oedipa l individuatio n phase privilege s th e Eg o drive . Th e oscillatin g tensio n fo r th e bo y wh o clings t o th e ferven t desir e t o merg e wit h th e (M)othe r i n a n attemp t t o hold ont o th e narcissisti c complacenc y o f th e pre-Oedipa l stag e whil e a t the sam e tim e fearin g reengulfmen t b y her—whic h translate s int o a fea r that th e identit y tha t i s slowl y emergin g wil l b e lost—i s th e Oedipa l counterpart t o th e mind/bod y spli t an d th e tension s betwee n th e sexua l and th e Eg o drives. Thi s tensio n cause s th e bo y t o resen t th e mother , an d women i n general , an d ofte n lead s to th e wil l to subjugat e an d dominate. 4 The gainin g o f a sens e o f self , which i s the goa l o f th e Oedipa l passage , is essentially a n ego-self , one that represse s al l other element s an d heighten s mind/body dualism . B y asserting "man, " Oedipu s devalue s beast-animal ity-nature an d th e generativ e power s o f nature . Th e sel f tha t emerge s a s a result o f Oedipa l genderizatio n i s th e father-king-logo s tha t mus t b e as serted i n orde r t o maintai n heroism . Th e lac k i n th e mal e sel f i s replace d by th e Apollonia n insanit y o f th e delusionar y phallus . Th e truth tha t Oedipus assert s i s a n eg o truth, i t i s th e truth o f "man/ ' th e La w o f th e Father, an d ca n onl y exis t i n a domai n wher e th e primar y signifie r i s demoted t o the position o f Other , i n the domai n o f patriarchal civility . Lacan an d Freu d bot h hol d th e assumptio n tha t th e fathe r figur e i s essential t o individuatio n a s h e i s a catalys t fo r th e brea k o f th e specia l bond betwee n infan t an d mother . The y understan d th e assumptio n t o b e immutable, inalterable , an d fundamental . Th e assumptio n tha t childre n will not fully individuat e without th e fathe r figur e justifies th e "normalcy " of Oedipa l sexualit y an d gende r structur e an d th e correspondin g "perver sity " o f alternatives . A s Andre w Samuel s ha s pointe d out , th e abov e

Oedipus 262 assumptio n ignore s th e fac t tha t childre n themselve s wis h an d striv e t o individuate an d wome n als o wis h tha t thei r childre n wil l individuat e an d become independent . ''Babies and mothers have an investment in separation." 5 It also ignores the fac t tha t a matriphallic male can play a nonoppositional an d supportiv e rol e fo r th e mothe r i n encouragin g th e individua tion o f th e child . A child normall y individuate s accordin g to the particula r familiar relationshi p o f whic h th e chil d i s a part . Th e father' s par t i n th e process i s culturall y constructed. 6 Thi s open s u p th e possibilit y fo r th e male t o pla y a very differen t kin d o f rol e i n th e famil y relationship . Th e matriphallic mal e woul d b e mother - an d child-supportiv e an d woul d b e subversive of th e so-calle d norma l gende r relations . The mal e child' s fea r tha t h e wil l b e separate d fro m hi s mothe r mani fests itsel f i n a castration anxiety: tha t what he presently ha s is inadequate, and tha t someda y h e will lac k altogethe r wha t hi s mothe r desires . Castra tion put s th e finishin g touche s o n th e proces s o f separatio n tha t see s th e Subject (penis ) a s signifiable . I n othe r words , i t see s th e Subjec t a s sepa rate, alway s confronte d b y a n Other : namely , th e Subjec t i n th e mirro r (signified) an d semioti c proces s (signifier) . Th e discover y o f castration , however, detache s th e Subjec t (penis ) fro m it s dependenc e o n th e mothe r for th e satisfactio n o f desire . Th e perception o f thi s lac k makes th e phalli c function a symboli c function . Th e phallu s i s forbidde n t o th e mothe r b y the La w of the Father . If the desire of the mother is the phallus, the child wishes to be the phallus in order to satisf y tha t desire . Thu s th e divisio n immanen t i n desir e i s already fel t t o be experienced in the desire of the other, in that it is already opposed to the fact that the subjec t i s content t o presen t t o th e Othe r wha t i n realit y h e ma y hav e tha t corresponds to this phallus, for what he has is worth n o more than what he does not have, as far as his demand for love is concerned because that demand requires that he be the phallus. (E, 289) Castration end s an y possibilit y fo r satisfactio n o f th e mal e withi n th e Oedipus comple x framework . Th e mal e chil d realize s tha t hi s positio n i s precarious: h e doe s no t posses s wha t hi s mothe r desires . Wha t h e doe s possess i s somethin g somewher e betwee n th e castrate d lac k o f hi s siste r and what hi s father possesses . Psychoanalysis ha s it s ow n repression s an d doe s no t wan t t o kno w about mal e castratio n an d submission , eve n i n the sens e of repression , no r about mal e pathology . I t consider s th e cur e o f th e male' s sacrific e o f th e phallus, epitomize d i n Freud' s discussio n o f masochism , t o b e wors e tha n

Oedipus the disease of phallic illusion. I t knows all about mal e lack but continue s t o 26} discuss female lack . According t o Jean-Josep h Gou x i n Oedipus, Philosopher, Freud ignore s the matricid e tha t pervade s th e infrastructur e o f mos t myths : th e Her o kills th e Femal e Monste r fo r acces s t o hi s brid e (OP , 25-29) . Instea d o f combating he r fac e t o face , Oedipu s blindl y assert s hi s logos , hi s manl y rationality, an d suppresse s i n hi s ow n unconsciou s th e trut h o f he r exis tence. I t i s this suppressio n tha t lead s t o hi s kingship , bu t sinc e it was no t a victor y i n th e "true " sens e hi s kingshi p i s unavoidabl y shor t lived . I n effect, sh e has won th e battle all along. Accordin g to Goux, "[T]h e episod e of th e Sphin x i s th e meetin g wit h th e myster y o f sexualit y an d o f death , in whic h th e youn g ma n ha s t o ru n th e ris k o f disappearing . H e ha s t o experience th e fac t tha t hi s ow n desir e fo r th e dar k mothe r i s lethal . I t i s this confrontatio n alon e tha t allows , afte r a symboli c death , th e hero' s rebirth wit h a new identity" (OP , 37). Goux thus recount s the struggle with the Monster a s the male's psychoanalytic initiation—a necessar y ste p in the process of becoming "man. " I n order t o asser t th e phallu s an d privileg e it s position , on e mus t attac k th e dark demo n o f femal e fecundity , ente r ont o th e labyrinthin e pat h o f th e Hero, no t i n a Dionysia c effor t t o merg e bu t i n ful l Thesea n battl e gear . One mus t kil l th e dar k eroticis m o f th e femal e se x i n orde r t o fre e th e bride—the nonsexe d veile d virgin , th e milk y whit e wai f wh o i s willing t o embrace th e mal e phallus . Psychoanalysi s a s posited b y Freu d necessitate s the overcomin g o f th e Materna l La w i n orde r t o asser t th e La w o f th e Father. Onl y whe n sh e i s dead , buried , chained , an d controlle d ca n th e Law o f th e Fathe r com e t o be . Oedipu s ha d t o disempower th e Sphin x before h e coul d becom e king . Sh e was th e ultimat e rule r unti l h e asserte d his word . B y privilegin g th e logos , h e burie s th e primac y o f nature , it s generative an d procreativ e truths . Oedipu s doe s no t kil l th e Sphin x i n a blind act of rag e or in a fit of violence. O n th e contrary, he believes he kills her b y assertin g th e patriarcha l la w whe n h e solves th e riddl e tha t sh e poses with th e answe r "MAN. " Accordin g to Derrida, "wit h th e answer t o the riddle , Oedipus' s words , th e discours e o f consciousness , man destroys , dissipates, or tumbles th e petroglyph" (Pit , 99). Only whe n Oedipu s denie s th e powe r o f th e Sphin x ca n h e asser t th e fantasy o f th e veile d virgin , onl y the n ca n h e tak e Jocast a a s brid e an d deny he r maternity . Th e Sphin x descend s t o he r labyrint h wher e sh e continues t o functio n an d t o subver t Oedipus ' la w and remains , long afte r

Oedipus 264 he r downwar d descent , Oedipus ' foremos t opponent . Thoug h Oedipu s ha s relegated he r t o th e positio n o f Othe r an d ha s thu s manage d t o den y he r and effectuall y overcome her , sh e i s no t reall y Other . Sh e exist s some where in the Derridean real m of undecidability, beyond the binary, beyon d the dialectica l negatio n an d hierarchy . Comin g t o a n understandin g o f th e placement o f th e Sphin x i s " a questio n o f remarkin g a nerve , a fold , a n angle tha t interrupt s totalization : i n a certain place , a place o f well-deter mined form , n o serie s o f semanti c valence s ca n an y longe r b e close d o r reassembled. No t that it opens onto an inexhaustible wealth o f meaning or the transcendenc e o f a semanti c excess . B y mean s o f thi s angle , thi s fold , this double d fol d o f a n undecideable , a mar k mark s bot h th e marke d an d the mark , th e re-marke d sit e of the mark" (Pos , 46).

The Missing Heroine: The Hero's Inability to Kill the Monster Is i t possibl e t o gai n a n understandin g o f femininit y an d th e feminin e "which i s no t confine d b y th e phalli c definition" ? (FS , 137) . O n thi s subject, Laca n asserts that the woman does not exist because phallic sexuality ca n onl y provid e a position fo r he r i n term s o f fantasy— a fantas y o f male completenes s an d onenes s int o whic h she , fo r he r survival , mus t b e incorporated. Th e nonexistenc e o f woma n i s asserte d b y man y philoso phers. "Ther e i s n o suc h thin g a s th e essenc e o f woma n becaus e woma n averts, sh e i s averte d o f he r self, " Derrid a state s i n Spurs: Nietzsche's Styles (Sp , 51) . Sh e "i s a non-identity , a non-figure , a simulacrum " (Sp , 49), wh o "find s hersel f censured , debase d an d despised . I n th e nam e o f truth an d metaphysic s sh e i s accuse d her e b y th e credulou s ma n who , i n support o f hi s testimony , offer s trut h an d hi s phallu s a s hi s ow n prope r credentials, . . . [She ] i s twic e castration : onc e a s trut h an d onc e a s non truth" (Sp , 97). I n The Newly Born Woman, Helen e Cixou s an d Catherin e Clement sugges t tha t "th e femal e bod y serve d onl y a s a n intermediary , prop, passage . Passag e accomplished , tha t whic h i s n o longe r woma n bu t beast, devil , sympto m i s se t free . Th e girl s ar e no t released , th e demon s are: th e girl s are bound." 7 Lacan is unable t o provide a n existenc e fo r woma n withi n th e structur e of language, structured a s it is by only the privileged signifier , th e phallus. He reject s th e vie w tha t woman' s existenc e ca n b e grounde d i n he r bod y since to do so would drive psychoanalytic theory int o such an essential lin k

Oedipus with biolog y tha t eve n Freu d woul d hav e rejecte d i t outright . Accordin g t o 265 Lacan, "Psycho-analysis , then , remind s u s tha t th e fact s o f huma n psy chology canno t b e conceive d i n th e absenc e o f th e functio n o f th e subjec t defined a s th e effec t o f th e signifier " (F , 207) . Laca n conclude s tha t woman's positio n i n th e sexua l relationshi p i s tha t o f a sympto m fo r th e man. Bein g a sympto m fo r th e man , th e woma n i s neve r a subject , bu t always a n Other . "B y he r bein g i n th e sexua l relatio n radicall y Other , i n relation t o wha t ca n b e sai d o f th e unconscious , th e woma n i s tha t whic h relates t o thi s Other " (FS , 151) .

Riddles and Truths Oedipus' perseveranc e an d scientifi c rational e giv e hi m th e onl y answe r that h e i s capabl e o f givin g t o th e Sphinx' s riddle . Th e riddl e outline s wha t Oedipus believe s t o b e th e variou s stage s o f huma n developmen t o f th e typical person : firs t crawlin g o n fou r feet , the n walkin g o n two , then , wit h age o r infirmity , walkin g wit h a cane . Oedipu s wa s mor e likel y t o solve this riddl e th e wa y h e di d becaus e o f hi s persona l experience s an d hi s discursive outlook . Wha t i s i t tha t make s u s wan t t o kno w th e truth ? Nietzsche ask s thi s questio n i n Beyond Good and Evil: It i s any wonde r tha t w e shoul d finall y becom e suspicious , los e patience , an d tur n away impatiently ? tha t w e shoul d finall y lear n fro m thi s Sphin x t o as k questions , too? Who i s i t reall y tha t put s question s t o u s here ? What i n u s reall y want s "truth"? Indeed w e cam e t o a long hal t a t th e questio n abou t th e caus e o f thi s will—unti l we finall y cam e t o a complet e sto p befor e a stil l mor e basi c question . W e aske d about th e value o f thi s will . Suppos e w e want truth : why not rather untruth? an d uncertainty? eve n ignorance ? The proble m o f th e valu e o f trut h cam e before us—o r wa s i t we who cam e befor e the problem ? Wh o o f u s i s Oedipu s here ? Wh o th e Sphinx ? I t i s a rendezvous , i t seems, of question s an d questio n marks . And thoug h i t scarcel y seem s credible , i t finall y almos t seem s t o u s a s i f th e problem ha d neve r eve n bee n pu t s o far—a s i f w e wer e th e firs t t o se e it , fi x i t with ou r eyes , and risk it. Fo r it doe s involve a risk, and perhaps ther e i s none tha t is greater. (BGE , 1) The Sphinx' s riddl e i s clearl y subordinat e t o th e fundamenta l riddl e o f Oedipus' origins, 8 i t entail s a retur n t o th e murk y labyrint h o f hi s birth , to th e generativ e powe r o f nature—(M)other . Thoug h th e solvin g o f th e Sphinx's riddl e put s Oedipu s o n th e tragi c pat h towar d self-knowledge , h e

Oedipus 266 neve r quit e reache s hi s destinatio n sinc e h e doe s no t acknowledg e th e labyrinthine trajectory . Oedipu s attempt s t o ge t a glimps e o f hi s origin s without confrontin g th e brut e forc e o f th e generativ e powers . B y solvin g the riddl e a s h e did , Oedipu s appear s t o wi n th e battl e agains t savager y and animalit y wit h th e ammunitio n o f scientifi c reasoning , wit h logos , with th e inflatio n o f th e phallus. H e is repressing th e primar y an d height ening the privileged signifier . H e refuses t o see them a s elements tha t fol d back o n eac h other , a s a dialectica l du o whereby , i n confrontation , on e i s both th e truth an d the falsit y o f the other . A "solved " riddl e i s th e "reductio n o f heterogeneou s materia l t o logic , to th e homogeneit y o f logica l thought , whic h produce s a blin d spot , th e inability t o se e th e othernes s tha t get s los t i n th e reduction . Onl y th e unsolved riddle , the process o f riddle-wor k befor e it s final completion , i s a confrontation wit h otherness." 9 Oedipu s reduce s th e riddle-wor k t o a single nondialectica l truth , on e tha t simultaneousl y searche s fo r an d re presses origins . H e introduce s th e veile d virgi n unde r th e guis e o f liberation and the oppression o f th e monstrous Othe r unde r th e guis e of patriarchal civility. Somewher e withi n thi s libera l framework , equality i s introduced, whic h ha s th e effec t o f dilutin g othernes s an d denyin g th e elusiveness o f differenc e an d hierarchy , whil e a t th e sam e tim e assertin g sameness—which i s patriarchal civility. Equality i s th e conceptua l focu s o f political , moral , an d lega l ideolog y and i s likely t o remai n s o for th e foreseeabl e future . A feminis m commit ted t o gende r equalit y presuppose s th e possibilit y o f gender-neutra l dis course. I t i s a widesprea d an d commo n assumptio n tha t th e discours e o f the rule of law and o f fundamental rights is gender-neutral. Th e discours e of th e Wester n lega l traditio n i s derived fro m Gree k mathematica l scienc e by way o f th e physics, ethics, and logi c of the Stoics . Th e concepts of lega l personhood, th e citizen, or the free agen t a s empty, neutral container s tha t defy categorizatio n ar e by-products o f the Greek concept of the "variable, " as is reflected i n Stoi c propositional logic. 10 The genderless discourse of th e law remain s withi n th e framewor k o f th e privilege d signifier , a s muc h o r even mor e s o than th e discours e o f scienc e sinc e the conten t o f th e forma l structure o f th e la w i s easily filled with a genderized discourse . Th e legal , moral, an d politica l discours e o f equalit y i s structure d b y th e privilege d signifier an d a s such privilege s min d ove r body an d male over female . I t is useful, however , i n women' s struggl e fo r a mor e benig n for m o f mal e domination.

Oedipus Lacan tells us that "patriarcha l civilit y is supposed t o set us on the mos t 267 reasonable path t o temperate o r normal desire " ( S VII, 177). I t is, however extremely fragil e give n it s groundin g i n mind/bod y dualism , an d it s un derlying strat a o f misogyny . I f in th e middl e term o f th e phallic structure , the La w of th e Fathe r fail s t o hol d th e balance , the mal e psyche revert s t o either th e patholog y o f religiou s o r mora l masochis m o r t o th e rag e o f rape. Th e patriphalli c mal e oscillate s withi n th e fou r neuroti c symptoms , defending agains t primar y masochis m wit h th e phalli c structur e o f th e jouissances of transcendence , control , an d transgression . Sexualit y play s out withi n th e dynamic s o f th e dialectica l tension s betwee n th e sexua l drive an d th e eg o driv e a s wel l a s th e formulatio n o f th e sel f i n term s of th e jouissances of dominatio n an d submission . Ther e i s n o necessar y relationship betwee n biolog y an d an y particula r gende r structur e o r rela tionship. Yet , whil e w e universall y pa y li p servic e t o th e discours e o f equality, ou r practice s demonstrat e gender , racial , an d economi c inequal ity. Ther e i s n o puissance o f equalit y no r doe s equalit y hav e an y corre spondence t o the dynamic s o f difference , castration , an d lac k that underli e the libidina l foundation s o f gender . "Thi s erran t democrat , wanderin g lik e a desire o r lik e a signifier free d fro m logos, this individua l wh o i s not eve n perverse i n a regular way , who i s ready t o do anything, t o lend himsel f t o anyone, who gives himself equall y t o all pleasures," states Derrida, "swep t off b y every stream , he belongs to the masses; h e has no essence, no truth , no patronym, n o constitution o f hi s own" (PP , 145). Religion an d scienc e serv e a s th e junctur e o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symbolic with th e Real . "[I] t i s clear," Laca n tell s us, "tha t ou r physic s i s simply a mental fabricatio n whos e instrument i s the mathematical symbol . For experimenta l scienc e i s no t s o muc h define d b y th e quantit y t o whic h it i s in fac t applied , a s by th e measuremen t i t introduce s int o th e real " (E , 74). "[Tjhos e wh o hav e bee n listenin g t o m e fo r som e time, " h e tell s us , "know tha t I use, quite intentionally th e formula— The Gods belong to the field of the real" (F, 45). Th e realm o f th e Goddesses and th e Gods is at th e intersection o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c wit h th e Real . Eventuall y science and religion merge into the fantasy structure s by which we attempt to stretc h ou r metaphor s acros s th e gulf , th e fier y chas m betwee n th e Imaginary, th e Symbolic , an d th e Real . "[I] t i s in relatio n t o th e rea l tha t the leve l of phantas y functions . Th e rea l support s th e phantasy, th e phan tasy protect s th e real. " I n th e fina l analysis , bot h scienc e an d religio n ar e narratives o f origin . I f th e stor y use s the huma n min d a s the metaphorica l

Oedipus 268 referenc e linkin g th e Subjec t wit h th e Othe r an d th e sel f wit h nature , i t will b e structure d b y th e privilege d signifier . Whethe r th e narrato r i s Einstein, Hawkins , o r th e write r o f th e Gospe l o f John , th e stor y will commence with , "I n th e beginnin g (o r a s firs t principle ) wa s th e Logos/ ' If, o n the other hand , the account uses the female bod y as the metaphorica l reference linkin g th e Subjec t wit h th e Othe r an d th e sel f wit h nature , i t will b e structure d b y th e primar y signifier . Whethe r th e speake r i s a scientist fro m th e Sant a F e Institute explainin g chao s an d Comple x Adap tive Syste m Theor y o r Hesio d i n hi s Theogony proclaimin g "tha t ou t o f Chaos cam e Gaia, " th e stor y wil l begi n "Chao s wa s firs t o f all. " Th e languaging bod y produce s a mind/bod y dualis m withi n whic h languag e functions a s a dialectical se t of oppositionary signifiers . Th e Great Mother / the Heavenl y Father , th e matri x o f chao s an d th e mathematica l structur e of logos , furnish th e rectangl e of master signification : The Ego Drive-Thanatos Complex w of the Father Mal e Organs of Reproduction The Phallus Creation Seduction Castration The Structure of the Original Fantasy of the Collective Generative Power of Nature Difference Lack The Womb Matrix La w of the Mother Femal e Organs of Reproduction The Sexual Drive—The Eros Complex

Logos La

Patriarchal civilit y i s inconsistent wit h feminis m an d therefor e temper ate o r norma l desir e tha t i s phallically structure d mus t als o remai n incon sistent wit h feminism . Nonpatriarcha l heterosexua l desir e is structured b y the primary signifier , centere d i n difference, an d as Derrida states , "w e are not dealin g wit h th e peacefu l coexistenc e o f a vis-a-vis, bu t rathe r wit h a violent hierarchy " (Pos , 41). The problem , then , tha t ha s dominate d th e psychoanalyti c debat e o n feminine sexualit y i s how to maintai n Freud' s mos t radica l insight , o n th e significance o f sexua l differenc e i n fantasy , th e Imaginar y an d th e Sym bolic, and , a t th e sam e time , ho w t o retriev e femininit y fro m a tota l subordination t o th e effect s o f th e privilege d statu s o f muc h o f tha t con -

Oedipus struction. Feminis m mus t presuppos e th e existenc e of woman i n the Sym - 269 bolic an d th e Imaginary . I n thi s way , i t ca n articulat e th e foundation s o f that existence—tha t alread y li e i n language—i n th e Other—withou t having th e insurmountabl e tas k o f creating foundations. Sh e i s no t born , but rejuvenated , havin g alway s bee n ther e i n th e register s o f th e Imagi nary an d th e Symbolic . Sh e i s subject , i n a symbolis m structure d b y a master signifier . Archaeology , anthropology , myth , huma n sexuality , dream an d fantasy—th e ver y text s o f patriarch y attes t t o a primar y original fantasy, th e structure of which is reflected i n the primary signifier . It i s th e repressio n o f th e primar y tha t make s th e phallu s th e privilege d signifier. W e live and suffer i n dialectical tension an d will continue to do so as long a s we have ego s and conceiv e o f ourselve s a s minds withi n bodies . In man y way s Nietzsch e anticipate d th e ne w alternativ e scientifi c para digm tha t toda y i s know n a s chao s theor y an d comple x adaptiv e syste m theory. 11 Accordin g t o Nietzsche , "Th e astra l orde r i n whic h w e live is an exception; thi s orde r an d th e relativ e duratio n tha t depend s o n i t hav e again mad e possibl e an d exceptio n o f exceptions : th e formatio n o f th e organic. Th e tota l characte r o f th e world , however , i s i n al l eternit y chaos—in th e sens e no t o f a lac k o f necessit y bu t o f a lac k o f order , arrangement, o f form , beauty , wisdom , an d whateve r othe r name s ther e are fo r ou r aestheti c anthropomorphisms " (GS , 109). H e posits the "beau tiful chao s o f existence " (GS , 277, 322), and suggest s tha t "on e mus t stil l have chao s i n onesel f t o giv e birt h t o a dancin g star " (Z , prologue , 46) . Any scientifi c worldvie w tha t explain s min d a s evolvin g fro m matte r assumes th e primary signifie r a s the maste r signifie r o f th e Imaginar y an d the Symbolic . Lif e materialize s ou t o f a materia l matrix . Som e hav e referred t o scienc e structure d accordin g t o th e primar y signifie r a s Gaia Consciousness.12 Ther e ar e thu s tw o differen t maste r signifier s tha t ca n structure ou r scientifi c worldview . Jus t a s scienc e ca n b e structure d ac cording to the privileged signifier , i t can equally be structured accordin g t o the primar y signifier . Contemporar y physics , chao s theory , an d complex ity theor y provid e alternativ e scientifi c explanation s tha t rel y les s o n fantasy an d wis h fulfillmen t an d mor e o n observation . W e d o no t hav e a kind o f scienc e tha t keep s a n eve n balanc e betwee n th e materia l an d th e mental. Eithe r w e projec t min d ont o th e cosmos , th e real , o r w e don't . I f we do , the n w e ar e stil l lookin g fo r God , o r wha t i s essentiall y th e sam e thing—the min d o f God . I f w e don' t projec t min d ont o th e cosmo s the n we see it as a matrix, and we enter th e ephemeral real m of th e Goddess.

Oedipus 2jo Nietzsch e seem s t o prefe r t o thin k o f "truth " a s a n activ e proces s o f creation rathe r tha n somethin g t o be discovered, "somethin g tha t mus t b e created an d tha t give s a name t o a process, or rathe r t o a will to overcom e that ha s i n itsel f n o end—introducin g truth , a s a processus i n infinitum , and active determining—not a becoming-conscious o f somethin g that is in itself fir m an d determined " (WP , 552). H e refer s t o th e proces s o f becom ing a s a process o f creatin g th e trut h o f one' s existence . Trut h i s no t something t o b e discovere d accordin g t o Nietzsch e bu t somethin g tha t must b e creatively pursue d i n a process of self-actualization : "No t whenc e you com e shal l hencefort h constitut e you r honor , bu t whithe r yo u ar e going! You r will an d you r foo t whic h ha s a wil l t o g o ove r an d beyon d yourselves—that shal l constitute you r ne w honor" (Z , III, 12, 315). When Zarathustr a speak s of th e nee d fo r al l beings to create somethin g beyond themselves , he is referring t o the human's abilit y to create its own self b y reconceptualizin g tha t sel f throug h th e affirmatio n o f life . Ac cording to Nietzsche, man stand s between Ubermensch and animal. H e can go toward Ubermensch, but thi s would involv e a crossing over a n abyss . If he doe s not wan t t o chanc e it , h e remain s animal : th e passiv e being. I f h e makes the attempt , h e enter s int o the activ e process of Becoming , which i s more importan t tha n th e bein g produced. A s such , th e trut h tha t Oedipu s clung to—th e Apollonia n trut h o f destiny—i s accordin g t o Nietzsch e a nontruth. Th e en d o f Oedipus Tyrannus i s tragic in tha t Oedipu s cease s t o act. H e never ha s the ability to become who he is because his preconceive d notion o f wh o h e think s h e i s prevent s hi m fro m seein g o r seekin g oth erwise. The Ubermensch i s th e on e wh o ca n b e strengthene d b y tragi c insigh t rather tha n succumbin g t o it . Affirmatio n o f th e Ubermensch i s onl y something tha t highe r me n ca n do . I n th e Oedipa l myth , Oedipu s suc cumbs t o his tragic insight. H e allows it to reig n suprem e t o the exclusio n of any other thoughts. Oedipus ' castration i s not a voluntary relinquishin g of powe r an d primac y bu t a n inabilit y o n Oedipus ' par t t o han g o n t o something h e perhaps neve r had. Affirmatio n o f the Ubermensch would be an affirmatio n o f th e powe r o f th e Sphinx—th e culminatio n o f th e Grea t Mother an d o f animality . Th e Sphin x hel d a bol d positio n ato p Moun t Cithaeron. Ther e sh e was perched, lookin g dow n Ove r Man . Whe n Oedi pus denie d he r primac y b y wa y o f th e erectio n o f th e logos-phallus-mind , she returne d t o th e fier y labyrint h fro m whenc e sh e cam e an d continue d her wor k fro m there . Oedipu s deflate d th e oracle , deflate d th e curse , an d the Sphinx' s mythologica l underpinnings . Arme d wit h logic , he represse s

Oedipus her ver y existenc e withou t confrontin g her . H e return s t o th e cit y a s th e 2yi Hero, but al l he was was a simulacrum o f a Hero—the phalli c Hero whose reign i s destined t o be short lived . According t o Nietzsche , Oedipus ' inabilit y t o ac t (a s oppose d t o hi s ability t o react ) make s hi m a dea d man , a walking castrate d tomb . I n th e first par t o f Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustr a recount s th e stor y o f th e tightrope walke r (Z , I , 6) . A s th e tightrop e walke r reache s th e middl e o f the rope , a jester bound s ont o th e rop e an d jump s ove r th e firs t tightrop e walker wit h quic k steps : " 'Forward , Lamefoot! ' h e shoute d i n a n awe inspiring voice . . . . 'Yo u ough t t o b e locke d up ; yo u bloc k th e wa y fo r one better tha n yourself. ' " Seein g his riva l win, th e first tightrop e walke r plunges t o th e ground . Th e bod y fall s righ t nex t t o Zarathustra . " 'Wha t are yo u doin g here? ' h e aske d a t last . T hav e lon g know n tha t th e devi l would trip me. No w he will drag me to hell. Woul d you prevent him? ' 'B y my honor , friend, ' answere d Zarathustra, 'al l that o f which you spea k does not exist : ther e i s no devil and n o hell. You r sou l will be dead even befor e your body. ' " (Z , I , 6) . Th e lam e tightrop e walke r kne w th e devi l wa s going to trip him, an d thi s is exactly what occurred . Since patriarch y ha s traditionall y identifie d femininit y wit h th e body , mind/body dualis m i s not nearl y a s serious a problem fo r th e female a s fo r the male. Consequently , th e tensions between th e sexua l and ego drive are not nearl y a s pathological fo r th e femal e a s they ar e fo r th e male . Fo r th e female wh o ha s bee n patriarchall y genderized , i t ma y b e necessar y t o strengthen th e eg o throug h th e puissance o f contro l i n orde r t o gai n th e optimum reconciliatio n betwee n th e sexua l an d eg o drives . Whe n al l on e knows i s submission , whe n submissio n i s th e forc e o f th e la w tha t direct s and guides, it is difficult t o simpl y ste p out fro m withi n thos e confines an d transgress. Transgressio n o f th e patriarcha l la w o f submissio n is , fo r th e female, ver y difficul t sinc e she must firs t admi t tha t sh e has been force d t o submit. Sh e must remov e th e veil of complicit y an d extricat e hersel f fro m the dauntin g Gaz e o f th e male . Further , sh e mus t relearn , rebirth , an d rejuvenate he r desire . Thi s i s a perplexing jo b a s her desir e ha s lon g bee n left i n the dar k crevasses and is dusty fro m disuse .

Oedipal Politics We cannot remai n huma n an d avoid the symptom s o f the neuroses that g o with bein g a languagin g bipe d primate . W e mus t continu e t o pla y i n th e fields o f th e Goddesse s an d Gods , but w e ca n choos e t o pla y eithe r i n th e

Oedipus 2j2 field s o f Gaia , Ariadne, an d Dionysu s o r o f Kali , Parvati , an d Shiv a o r w e can play i n th e field s o f Zeus , Allah, Jehovah , an d th e logos . A n androgy nous sexuality , o r th e wil l t o equality , presuppose s equa l footin g i n th e chains o f significatio n an d denie s o r represse s th e pervasivenes s and/o r brutal forc e o f difference . Equalit y i s comforting , bu t i t i s onl y a cover, a sham, a veritabl e fabrication . Comin g t o term s wit h th e inevitabilit y o f difference i s a process o f painfu l affirmation . Fo r men, i t involve s comin g to term s wit h th e fac t tha t I—a s promulgato r o f patriarcha l law—hav e dominated, controlled , an d represse d th e Other . Fo r th e woman , th e pro cess i s eve n mor e painful . I t involve s comin g t o term s wit h th e fac t tha t I-Me, withi n th e reality of patriarchy , doe s not exist . Th e mask tha t I don so proudly , whic h allow s m e t o blindl y participat e o n a stag e tha t i s no t mine, i s onl y that— a mask . M y fait h i n th e syste m a s on e tha t wil l protect m y interests , ensur e m y voice , an d giv e m e justice— O Almighty justice I—is a syste m tha t a t it s ver y root s seek s t o kee p m e down . Giv e me laws , giv e m e right s entrenche d i n constitutions—le t the m proclai m that I as woman a m a person, fo r thi s I did not know . Life ca n g o o n withi n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d Symboli c structured b y th e privilege d phalli c signifier , an d fo r man y i t ma y b e a psychic reality of patriarchal civility on a reasonable path toward temperat e or norma l desire . Fo r man y others , particularl y wome n an d children , i t i s a worl d tha t i s neithe r civi l no r reasonable—no r coul d i t eve n b e sai d t o be normal . Th e prevalenc e o f mal e sexua l violence , fetishes , perversions , pathologies, neuroses , an d s o on , rangin g fro m seria l killing s t o sexua l harassment, i s clear evidence of th e misogyny tha t mus t b e deciphered an d explained. Laca n goes on to say that "W e live in a society in which slaver y isn't recognized . It' s nevertheles s clea r t o an y sociologis t o r philosophe r that i t ha s i n n o wa y bee n abolished . . . . Th e master-slav e dualit y i s generalized withi n eac h participan t i n ou r society . Th e deep-seate d bond age o f consciousnes s i n thi s unhapp y stat e o f affair s i s t o b e attribute d t o the discours e tha t provoke d thi s profoun d socia l transformation " ( S III , 132-33)Much o f what Laca n state s about th e illusions o f freedom , th e realit y of bondage i n general , economi c exploitation , an d master/slav e duality , i s applicable t o gender , behin d whic h exist s a secre t discourse , a messag e o f liberation, tha t i n a way subsist s i n a state of repression . Applyin g Lacan' s words to feminism on e can also say that th e discourse of gender equalit y is "not onl y ineffectua l bu t als o profoundl y alienate d fro m it s ai m an d object":

Oedipus We all remain at the level of an insoluble contradiction between a discourse that is 273 at a certain level always necessary and a reality to which, both in principle and in a way proved by experience, we fail to adjust. Moreover, don' t w e see that analyti c experienc e i s deeply boun d u p with thi s discursive doubl e o f th e subject , hi s discordan t an d ridiculou s ego ? Th e eg o of every modern man ? Isn't it clear that analytic experience began with the fact that ultimately nobody feels at ease in the current state of interhuman relations in our culture? (S III, 134) If there is a trans-Oedipal state beyond th e post-Oedipal an d a reconciliation betwee n min d an d bod y withi n a n Ero s complex , the n patriarcha l psychic realit y ca n b e viewe d a s a stat e o f arreste d adolescenc e i n th e process o f individuation . W e argu e tha t ther e i s a secon d passag e beyon d the Oedipal , a n analysi s o f whic h complete s th e dialectica l structur e o f psychoanalytic theor y i n suc h a wa y tha t i t i s no t onl y compatibl e wit h feminism a s a critiqu e o f patriarch y bu t wil l revea l th e possibilit y o f transcending mal e domination . On e ca n mak e a very plausibl e argumen t for the biological superiority o f the female an d can reverse the assumption s of patriarchy . On e ca n perceiv e me n a s walkin g genital s t o counte r th e perception o f wome n a s mer e carrier s o f th e womb . Th e psychoanalyti c postmodern feminis t woul d argu e tha t neithe r sexualit y no r gende r ar e innate o r natura l sinc e existenc e i s preface d solel y b y th e register s o f th e Imaginary, th e Symbolic , and th e Real . Denia l o f th e innatenes s o f femal e supremacy assert s th e powe r o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c wit h th e metaphorical an d metonymica l lin k t o th e Real . I t i s onl y whe n female supremacy i s take n ou t o f th e essentialis m o f biolog y an d give n fre e rei n in th e real m o f th e Imaginar y an d th e Symboli c tha t i t gain s it s ful l potential fo r individua l an d socia l change. I n the domains of th e Imaginar y and th e Symbolic , th e imager y o f femal e supremac y i s pure potentia l an d is o n a muc h mor e leve l playin g fiel d tha n ar e th e counterimage s o f male supremacy . For th e bipe d primat e whos e onl y functio n i s t o carr y on e hal f o f th e genetic code and who cannot reproduc e lif e ou t o f hi s own body, castratio n is inevitable . Th e onl y choic e i s ho w i t i s done . On e ca n suffe r th e castration o f Oedipu s tha t lead s to being swallowe d u p in th e abyss , suffe r the castratio n o f Pentheu s an d b e tor n apart , o r on e ca n embrac e th e castration o f Dionysus-Shiv a an d remai n i n libido , i n action , a t play . Th e phallus will eventuall y g o limp and fal l of f o r be cut off. Th e only way th e male ca n retai n th e phallu s i s t o giv e i t awa y i n th e for m o f th e phalli c serpent, th e symbo l o f th e sacrific e t o th e Goddes s an d th e embracin g o f

Oedipus 274 Eros . Al l this , o f course , i s pla y i n th e real m o f th e Imaginar y an d the Symbolic , but , afte r all , tha t i s wher e w e liv e an d breathe , desir e and suffer . If woma n ha s alway s functione d "within " man' s discourse , a signifie r referrin g always to the opposing signifier that annihilates its particular energy, puts down or stifles it s very differen t sounds , now it i s tim e fo r he r t o displac e this "within, " explode it, overtur n it , gra b it, mak e it hers , take it in , tak e it int o he r women' s mouth, bit e it s tongu e wit h he r women' s teeth , mak e up her ow n tongu e t o get inside of it. And you will see how easily she will well up, from this "within" where she was hidden and dormant, to the lips where her foams will overflow. 13 Lacan tell s u s tha t "Th e progres s o f a n analysi s doe s no t consis t i n th e enlarging o f th e fiel d o f th e ego, it i s no t th e reconques t b y th e ego of it s margin o f th e unknown , rathe r i t i s a genuin e inversion , a displacement , like a minue t execute d b y th e ego and th e id" ( S I , 232) . "Tha t reall y i s what is at issue, at the end of analysis/' he states, "a twilight, an imaginar y decline o f th e world , an d eve n a n experienc e a t th e limi t o f depersonaliza tion. That is when the contingent falls away —the accidental , th e trauma , the hitche s o f history— And it is being which then comes to be constituted" (S I, 232). Th e best we can hope fo r i s a kind o f reconciliatio n betwee n th e unconscious an d th e conscious, the sexual drive and the ego drive, the Ero s complex an d th e Thanato s complex , betwee n bod y an d mind , cultur e an d nature, ou r languagin g capabilitie s an d limitation s an d ou r animality , and , finally an d mos t importantly , betwee n femal e an d male .

Passing through the Fold—Breaking through the Hymen ''This—'The scene illustrates but the idea, not any actual action, in a hymen (out of which flows Dream), tainted with vice yet sacred, between desire and fulfillment, perpetration and remembrance: here anticipating, there recalling, in the future, in the past, under the false appearance of a present. That is how the Mime operates, whose act is confined to perpetual allusion without breaking the ice or the mirror: he thus sets up a medium, a pure medium, of fiction " (DS , 175) . Th e poin t o f convergenc e "i s neithe r desir e no r plea sure, bu t betwee n th e tw o . . . i n a n ac t o f violenc e tha t i s (a t th e sam e time o r somewher e between ) lov e o r murder " (DS , 213) . Whe n a ma n fucks a woman i t i s an ac t between th e murde r o f SH E and th e lov e of th e

Oedipus daughter tha t sh e i s not . O n th e othe r sid e o f th e fold , whe n th e domin a 2j$ disciplines th e submissive , sh e i s murderin g th e Her o an d lovin g th e sacrificial Consor t tha t h e i s not. Fuckin g and sexua l disciplin e ar e the tw o palisades separate d b y th e hymen—th e fol d betwee n th e contradiction s of discourse an d th e textual dialectic s of th e master signifiers . When a femal e i s fucked , n o femal e monste r ha s actuall y bee n mur dered, an d whe n a female domin a sexuall y discipline s a male, the ma n ha s not actuall y bee n castrated . I n bot h cases , n o ac t o f lov e ha s take n place . "What take s plac e i s onl y th e entre, th e place , th e spacing , whic h i s nothing, th e idealit y (a s nothingness ) o f th e idea . N o act , then , i s perpetrated (Hymen . . . between perpetration and remembrance); n o ac t is committed a s a crime. Ther e i s only a memory o f a crime tha t ha s neve r bee n committed . . . and because this crime is its opposite: an act of love. Whic h itself ha s no t take n place " (DS , 214). Ther e i s no synthesi s a t th e poin t of the fold , n o androgyny , n o equality , n o resolution , n o denouement , n o integration. "A t th e edg e o f being , th e mediu m o f th e hyme n neve r becomes a mere mediatio n o r wor k o f th e negative ; i t outwit s an d undoe s all ontologies, al l philosophemes, al l manne r o f dialectics . I t outwit s the m and—as a cloth, a tissue, a medium again—i t envelop s them , turn s the m over, and inscribe s them" (DS , 215). The imag e o f SH E i s sacre d a s th e Goddes s an d profan e a s th e domi natrix. Disciplin e i s sacre d a s sacrific e an d deprave d a s masochism . Th e sexuality o f mal e submissio n i s sacred a s an ac t of worshi p an d pervers e a s a sexua l act . Th e text s structure d b y th e primar y signifie r spa n th e rang e between femal e spiritualit y i n th e worshi p o f th e Goddes s an d mal e mas ochistic pornography—"tainte d wit h vic e ye t sacred. " Ye t "eac h sessio n by itsel f i s n o mor e whol e o r symmetrica l fo r al l that , bein g bu t th e rejoinder o r applicatio n o f th e other , it s play o r its exercise . Togethe r the y are neithe r mor e no r les s tha n tw o hemitropi c crystals ; never , i n su m a finished volume " (DS , 227). The dialecti c o f th e privilege d an d th e primar y i s timeles s a s i t exist s within language , an d howeve r th e histor y migh t hav e unfolde d o r wil l unfold, th e fol d betwee n th e tw o palisade s wil l alway s b e present . Behin d the "everyda y world " i s th e "theatrica l world " o f menta l existenc e i n which w e transfor m role s i f w e cross , fantasize , o r drea m ourselve s int o the other , th e unpublished an d hidde n discours e (DS , 232). Th e discourse s are separated, accordin g to Derrida, b y " a simple veil." Nietzsche glimpse d through th e veile d opaquenes s an d sa w a blurred imag e of wha t la y on th e

Oedipus 2j6 othe r side , bu t h e neve r passe d through . Freu d an d Laca n reache d th e point o f th e fol d bu t neve r crosse d over . W e hav e attempte d t o tak e th e reader throug h t o th e othe r sid e an d hav e crafte d a pla y fo r "th e inne r stage." W e hav e strive d t o sho w "i n wha t wa y th e dialectica l structur e is incapabl e o f accountin g fo r th e graphic s o f th e hymen , bein g itsel f comprehended an d inscribe d wit h th e latter , almos t indistinguishabl e fro m it, separate d fro m i t onl y b y itself , a simpl e vei l tha t constitute s th e ver y thing tha t trie s to reduc e it to nothing: desire " (DS , 249). There i s a n ongoin g dialogu e betwee n feminis t text s an d th e text s o f the political , legal , moral , philosophical , sociological , an d psychoanalyti c and their authors . Thi s dialogue takes place within th e discourse structure d by th e privilege d signifier . Withi n thi s discourse , wome n remai n other , masked. The y protes t thi s designation , bu t the y spea k thei r protes t fro m within it . Ca n ther e b e a dialogue with SHE , the woma n wh o i s a self a s a manifestation o f th e Subject ? Suc h a dialogue i s no t possibl e s o long a s i t remains withi n th e discours e structure d b y th e privilege d signifier . Ho w can a dialogue tak e place between th e privileged an d the primar y signifier s when thos e discourses ar e contradictory, separat e psychic realities ? Such a dialogue ca n onl y tak e plac e where thei r mutua l mimesi s rever berates. Eac h sid e o f th e dialogu e mus t ente r int o th e discours e o f th e other. Ho w ca n we, immersed a s we are in the discours e structure d b y th e privileged signifie r an d i n th e psychi c realit y o f patriarcha l civility , pas s through thi s veil ? Ho w ca n th e ma n ente r th e cavern , th e underworl d o f the Other ? Ho w ca n th e woma n brea k ou t o f th e cave , th e subterranea n subjectivity o f Othernes s an d embrac e hersel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subject? Ho w ca n th e woma n seiz e th e Gaz e an d th e Voic e of th e Subjec t while submerge d i n th e discourses tha t defin e he r a s other? SHE canno t exis t i n th e discursiv e unti l ther e i s a nam e fo r her . He r name mus t appea r befor e sh e ca n trul y be. Whe n w e remov e th e mas k from th e woman w e see nothing behin d i t because there is no text t o nam e her an d n o discourse t o think her , n o dialogue t o communicat e wit h HER . It i s onl y throug h interrogatin g th e text s o f th e privilege d signifier , th e discourse o f patriarcha l civility , an d th e Nam e o f th e Fathe r tha t w e ca n break throug h an d pla y a t th e meetin g poin t o f th e fold . A t thi s point , language reverberate s betwee n th e maste r signifiers , an d i t i s withi n thi s reverberation tha t th e unthinkabl e ca n b e thought , an d th e unspeakabl e can be named .

Oedipus

Discourse, Death, and Sexuality The structur e o f the master signifier s tha t configur e th e relationship o f the sexes as manifested i n discourse i s that o f the two gender poles , the self as the manifestation of the Subject who embodies the generative power of nature an d the self as the manifestation of the Other who suffers the lack. I f the discours e i s structure d b y the privileged signifier , the n th e sel f (Sub ject) wil l b e mal e an d th e sel f (Other ) wil l b e female . If , however , th e discourse is structured b y the primary signifier , the n th e self (Subject ) wil l be femal e an d th e sel f (Other ) wil l b e male . Th e tw o maste r signifier s represent th e alternativ e metaphorica l relationship s betwee n human s an d nature i n term s o f body—whic h i s connecte d i n th e register s o f th e Imaginary an d th e Symboli c t o femaleness—an d mind—whic h i s con nected i n th e register s o f th e Imaginar y an d t o th e Symbolic—t o maleness. When I as male describ e yo u a s female , I describe mysel f a t th e sam e time. Whe n I as femal e describ e yo u a s male , I simultaneousl y describ e myself. I f I describ e yo u a s a sel f generate d fro m th e Other , then , I , concurrently, describ e mysel f a s a sel f generate d fro m th e Subject . I f I describe yo u a s a sel f generate d fro m th e Subject , I describe mysel f a s a self generate d fro m th e Other. Subjec t an d Other, huma n an d nature, and female an d male meet at the same fold , a t the interwoven regio n of textual contradiction wher e dialectic s merg e i n ironi c reversal . Th e plac e wher e the contradiction s intertwin e i s the point o f animality. Th e human i s both animal an d tha t whic h i s no t animal . Tha t whic h i s no t anima l i s th e Subject. Tha t whic h i s anima l i n th e huma n i s Other . Thus , th e gende r that i s a sel f a s the manifestatio n o f th e Subjec t i s not animal , whil e th e self tha t i s the manifestation o f the Other i s the animal sid e of the huma n or th e huma n animal—par t huma n an d par t animal . Th e Subjec t ca n relate t o th e animal-huma n sel f o f th e Othe r throug h killing , o r tamin g and controllin g th e animal. Th e animal an d human merg e i n the Other as Sphinx or Pan, female Monste r o r Beast-Man . The animal in the human a s a self a s Other i s the untamed sexua l desir e of tha t self . Th e self a s Subject, whethe r femal e o r male, whether primar y or privileged , mus t kil l o r tam e th e animal, th e sexual desir e o f tha t self , which i s designate d withi n th e rulin g discours e a s a manifestation o f the Other, s o that i t may serve th e desire o f the self a s Subject. Whe n femal e

277

Oedipus 2jS an d mal e mee t a t th e fol d o f discourse , wher e Subjec t an d Other , huma n and nature , libid o and ego , Eros and Thanatos , domination an d submissio n meet, merge , an d reverberate , th e encounte r o f seductio n take s plac e within an d betwee n th e discourse s o f th e master signifiers . When femal e an d mal e mee t a t th e fol d an d sh e accept s hi m a s Hero , king, an d god , h e wil l kil l th e vital , sexua l wil l t o lif e b y destroyin g th e Monster tha t threaten s hi s phallus . Whe n femal e an d mal e mee t an d sh e is SHE, having th e Gaz e and th e Voice , she will be the Sire n tha t wil l lur e him t o surrende r th e phallu s an d serv e he r desire . Sh e wil l invit e hi m t o exchange Ero s fo r Thanato s an d sacrific e hi s narcissistic eg o for th e forbid den pleasure s o f th e hidde n desire s o f hi s secre t fantasies . I f h e refuse s th e seduction, the n sh e will tur n he r bac k o n hi m an d rejoi n he r sister s i n th e play o f Eros . The dialectic s converg e i n th e registe r o f th e Imaginar y i n th e part human-part-animal mythi c monstrosities—th e Sphinx , Pan , th e Mino taur, an d th e Centaur . Th e image s o f th e ma n a s Other , a t th e fol d o f desire, ar e tha t o f th e ma n animal , th e anima l man , th e serpen t a s man a s matriphallus wh o serve s femal e desire , an d th e Minotaur , th e bul l man , who i s th e sacrific e a t th e alta r o f femal e fecundity . Th e part-man , part goat, o r stag , th e horne d go d serve s th e femal e a s Consort , an d th e Centaur, par t ma n an d par t horse, is to be broken, tamed , an d ridden . When femal e an d mal e canno t reconcil e wh o i s t o pla y th e rol e o f sel f as Subjec t an d wh o th e rol e o f sel f a s Other , the n the y wil l remai n i n conflict. I f neithe r i s abl e t o seduc e th e othe r int o submission , i f the y ar e governed b y n o la w o f desire , eithe r th e primar y o r th e privileged , the y will remai n i n conflict . The y wil l b e a t wa r i n man y sof t an d subtl e bu t nevertheless crue l ways . Whil e the y ma y embrac e equalit y i n a nongen dered discourse , a wa r wil l surg e underneat h th e mirag e o f patriarcha l civility. Th e choic e fo r th e ma n i s between th e Dionysia n sacrific e an d th e Oedipal abyss . In th e origina l fantas y o f th e primar y signifier , th e mal e serve s femal e desire a s phalli c serpent , femal e fecundit y a s th e sacrificia l bull , an d th e female Subjec t a s horne d Consort . Bu t i t i s a s th e Centau r tha t h e i s shaped t o embrac e th e jouissance of submission . Th e dressag e metho d o f training horse s furnishe s a n appropriat e metapho r fo r transformin g th e Beast-Man int o th e highe r man . Here , th e traine r understand s full y th e psychology o f th e hors e an d mold s it in terms o f tha t psychology . Eventu -

Oedipus ally, th e hors e anticipate s th e wishe s o f th e ride r s o closel y tha t i t i s ofte n 279 difficult t o sa y wh o i s controlling. I n th e fina l analysis , however , th e ride r is i n th e saddle . The relationshi p betwee n th e sel f (Subject ) an d th e sel f (Object ) i s necessarily hierarchica l becaus e o f th e presenc e o f th e generativ e powe r and it s lack . Th e centra l configuratio n o f th e mythi c discours e structure d by th e privilege d signifie r i s tha t whic h ha s bee n terme d th e monomyth , or th e myt h o f th e hero . Ther e ar e a numbe r o f example s o f th e mono myth, bu t the y al l shar e th e sam e minimu m narrativ e cor e tha t yield s th e sequence o f episode s Gou x articulate s i n th e followin g terms : (1) A kin g fear s tha t a younger man , o r on e no t ye t born , wil l tak e hi s place, a s a n oracl e ha s predicted . H e the n use s al l availabl e mean s t o tr y t o prevent th e child' s birth, o r t o get ri d o f th e presume d intruder . (2) Th e futur e her o escape s fro m th e king' s murderou s intentions . Nev ertheless, much late r h e finds himsel f i n a situation i n which a different kin g again attempt s t o d o awa y wit h him . Bu t thi s secon d kin g canno t brin g himself t o commi t th e crim e wit h hi s ow n hands , s o h e assign s a perilou s task i n which th e futur e her o i s expected t o lose his life . (3) Th e tria l take s th e for m o f a fight wit h a monster. Th e her o succeed s in defeatin g th e monster , no t o n hi s ow n bu t wit h th e hel p o f a god, a wise man, o r a future bride . (4) Finally , th e hero' s triump h ove r th e monste r allow s hi m t o marr y the daughte r o f a king. (OP , 6) In th e narrativ e plo t o f thi s standar d for m o f myth , afte r th e her o receive s the daughte r o f a kin g a s hi s bride , h e the n ascend s t o a thron e i n hi s ow n right an d become s a king , a fathe r o f a nation . Th e gende r structur e o f th e standard monomyth , therefore , i s kin g an d daughter-bride . Consequently , the hierarchica l gende r structur e o f th e mythi c discours e i s tha t o f th e parent an d child . Th e kin g take s a daughte r o f a kin g fo r a bride . Rathe r than master/slave , th e mythi c structur e o f privilege d gende r hierarch y i s father/daughter. In th e Persea n myth , ther e ar e fou r narrativ e steps : 1. A n oracl e informe d Kin g Actrisiu s o f Argo s tha t hi s grandso n woul d take awa y hi s thron e an d hi s life . Consequently , h e ha s hi s daughte r Danae an d he r infan t so n Perseus , he r chil d b y Zeus , enclose d i n a ches t and throw n int o th e sea . 2. Zeu s preserve s th e ches t an d guide s i t b y ocea n tide s t o th e shore s o f

Oedipus 280 a kingdo m rule d b y tw o brothers , Dicty s an d Polydectes , wh o rais e Per seus. Hi s stepfather, however , send s him o n a dangerous mission to obtai n the hea d of the Medus a an d bring it back to him i n Seriphus . 3. Perseu s fight s th e Medusa , an d wit h th e ai d o f Athena , strike s of f her dreaded snake-hai r hea d which when gazed upon turns a man to stone. 4. Perseu s return s i n triump h an d save s the lif e o f Andromeda , wh o i s given t o hi m a s hi s brid e b y he r father , Kin g Cepheu s o f Ethiopia . H e eventually reign s as King over Tiryns an d Mycenae . Thus, according to Goux : [I]t i s onl y a t th e en d o f a blood y battl e agains t thi s oppressiv e an d devourin g female monster , onl y whe n th e so n ha s mobilize d al l hi s manl y energie s t o kill her, t o fre e himsel f fro m her , s o that h e can marry th e princess, the gir l h e has been promised, who is not his mother, and whom the dragon was holding prisoner or to whom she was blocking access. To kill the monster after makin g the hazardous trip back to the dark lair where she lives is thus for the hero to sever a bond, to mak e a vita l sacrifice , t o inflic t a blood y cu t tha t allow s th e protagonis t t o become the spouse of the girl who had been the monster's prisoner. (OP , 26) Goux make s ver y clea r tha t wha t i s killed i s not th e mothe r a s such , o r a mothe r figure , bu t " a shadowy , dark , devourin g reptile , a monste r inhabiting cavernou s water y depths , a dimensio n tha t myt h alon e ca n conceptualize" (OP , 26). The myths give her many names , such as Medusa and Kali . Sh e i s the female who is a self as a manifestation of the Subject. She is SHE who must be obeyed. She is SHE who stands above the man. Sh e is th e woma n i n th e unconsciou s whos e subjectivit y i s structure d b y th e primary signifier , whic h i s a manifestatio n o f th e sexua l drive . Sh e i s a t war wit h th e woma n i n th e consciou s whos e subjectivit y i s structure d b y the privileged signifie r tha t i s the manifestation o f the male narcissistic ego drive an d whic h i s internalize d withi n he r b y bein g immerse d i n th e discourse of the privileged signifier . In killin g th e monstrou s SHE , th e Hero , accordin g t o Goux , liberate s not onl y himsel f fro m hi s masochisti c desires . A t th e sam e time , h e liberates th e femal e fro m he r monstrou s desire , the desir e t o dominate, t o be th e sel f tha t i s th e manifestatio n o f th e Subjec t an d ha s th e Gaz e an d the Voic e tha t creat e th e feare d desir e i n th e mal e t o castrat e himsel f a s a sacrifice t o HE R desire . "Th e matricid e alon e constitute s th e liberatio n o f woman," Gou x tell s us , "i t give s access to th e bride , once the dar k mater nal element ha s been separate d fro m th e bright nuptia l feminin e element "

Oedipus (OP, 27) . Th e sel f a s a manifestatio n o f th e Subject , th e Goddess , i s 281 castrated, beheade d b y th e Her o an d leave s th e sel f a s a manifestatio n o f the Other, a s the daughter-bride . The monstrous feminin e i s the desire in the femal e t o dominate, to be a self tha t i s a manifestation o f the Subject , whic h entitle s he r to seduce int o submission a love r whos e suprem e desir e i s to sacrific e himsel f fo r her — to giv e hi s bod y t o he r a s th e objec t o f he r desire . Th e monstrou s i n th e female i s he r desire , whic h ignite s th e puissance o f submissio n i n th e male. Gou x explain s tha t "I t i s th e youn g man' s desir e itsel f tha t creates , out o f it s ow n inclinations , a horrible, anguish-generatin g monster " (OP , 36). There is not just one classic monomyth an y more than ther e is only on e master signifier . Ther e i s a n older , an d equall y paradigmatic , structur e o f a mor e ancien t se t o f myths . Th e structur e o f thi s alternativ e archetypa l mythic ha s bee n se t ou t i n on e stud y a s follows : "Th e goddes s ha s man y names an d man y differen t tale s ar e tol d abou t her , bu t on e stor y i s unvarying throughou t th e Near East . Th e goddess becomes separated fro m the one sh e loves, who dies or seems to die, and fall s int o a darkness calle d the 'Underworld / Thi s separatio n i s reflecte d i n natur e a s a los s o f ligh t and fertility . Th e goddes s descend s t o overcom e th e darknes s s o tha t he r loved one may return t o the light, and life may continue." 14 The Goddess's beloved i s her son-lover , th e Consort . "Th e great myt h o f th e Bronz e Age is structure d upo n th e distinctio n betwee n th e 'whole / personifie d a s th e Great Mothe r Goddess , an d 'th e part / personifie d a s he r son-lover . . . . She gives birth t o her so n as the new moon, marries hi m a s the ful l moon , loses hi m t o th e darknes s a s th e wanin g moon , goe s i n searc h o f hi m a s the dar k moon , an d rescue s hi m a s the returnin g crescent." 15 Th e gende r structure o f the alternative se t of myths i s that o f mother an d son-lover . These myth s ar e interrelate d i n a n antagonisti c dialectic . Th e monste r that th e Her o mus t kil l i s th e counterpar t o f th e Goddess . Th e Consort lover-son mus t kil l th e mothe r Goddes s a s Monste r t o fre e himsel f s o h e can b e rebor n a s th e Her o kin g an d tak e o n th e woma n a s fathe r an d daughter, althoug h th e daughte r o f anothe r king . Bot h set s of myth s hav e incestuous overtone s in that th e male self a s a manifestation o f the Subjec t fucks wome n wh o ar e the manifestatio n o f th e sel f a s Other, a s daughters, while wome n wh o ar e uncastrate d an d clai m th e Gaz e an d th e Voic e discipline men a s sons. If Oedipu s i s th e citize n o f th e ne w democrati c republic , the n h e i s

Oedipus 282 castrated . Th e price o f gende r neutrality , accordin g t o thi s interpretatio n of the myth, is castration. Th e killing of the mother as self, as a manifestation o f the Subject, an d the killing of the father a s self, as a manifestatio n of th e Subject , leave s wome n an d men both a s selves tha t ar e manifesta tions o f th e Other , wit h neithe r havin g th e generativ e powe r o f nature . The killin g sever s the human's lin k with nature , leavin g the human with out meaning , i n th e abyss . Th e stat e o f humanit y afte r th e Oedipa l tri umph o f scienc e an d philosoph y ove r myt h i s tha t o f a n unresolve d dialectic between th e puissance o f domination an d submission. With ma n as the measure of all things, there is no way to make the link to nature. Ther e can be no self withou t a discourse, no discourse without a master signifier , n o master signifie r withou t a grand metaphor , n o gran d metaphor withou t a primal fantasy , an d no primal fantas y excep t throug h the bod v o f th e female . Wher e ar e we to fin d thi s discourse ? I n ancien t stones? in e resurgenc e o f paganis m an d Goddes s worship ? Dominatio n and submissiv e eroti c literatur e an d pornography ? Feminis t scholarship ? Are th e parlor s o f th e professiona l dominatri x ou r onl y temples ? Ar e Venus in Furs and The Guide to the Correction of Young Gentlemen ou r only sacred texts? Is the price of meaning the loss of liberty for the male? Is the loss of liberty fo r the female th e cost tha t sh e must pa y for males to have liberty? I s th e cos t o f libert y fo r bot h female s an d male s th e los s o f puissance an d meaning? We kil l the SHE Who Must Be Obeyed, the SHE Who Stands Above the Man, b y killing the discourse within whic h the female sel f i s formulated a s a manifestation o f the Subject. Althoug h Go d is dead, the discourse struc tured b y th e privilege d signifie r i s ver y muc h alive , an d male s ca n thu s continue t o generate thei r selve s a s manifestations o f the Subject. I t is no longer necessar y t o kill the powerful woma n wh o is a self a s a manifesta tion o f th e Subject . Th e discourse itsel f ha s been s o limited tha t wome n have only th e discourse of the privileged signifier , whic h leave s them onl y the alternativ e o f generatin g ou t thei r selve s a s manifestation s o f th e Other. Ca n th e discours e o f academi c feminis m located , a s i t is , in th e gender-neutral discours e o f science , philosophy , an d law—unrelate d t o any Imaginar y o r Symbolic connectio n t o the Real and barring an y metaphorical meanin g linkin g th e huma n wit h nature—provid e a discours e from whic h wome n ca n generate fo r themselve s a self a s a manifestatio n of the Subject, havin g the Gaze and the Voice? Can th e male avoi d th e fat e o f Oedipu s a t Colonus ? H e has killed th e

Oedipus Father b y th e ac t o f huma n reasoning , whic h make s ma n th e measur e o f 28} all things . Hi s dominatio n ove r th e earth , matter , an d th e bodie s o f women n o longer ha s mythic justification. Withou t mythi c justification, i t becomes simpl y rape . H e ca n n o longe r pla y th e Hero , kil l the monstrou s feminine, an d clai m th e daughter-bride . Th e discours e o f scienc e an d philosophy doesn' t provid e the structur e fo r th e generatio n o f tha t kin d of subjectivity. Blind , exile d fro m nature , sexuall y an d emotionall y depen dent, withou t hop e o r purpose , Oedipu s a t Colonu s i s th e ma n wh o ha s fallen int o th e abyss , an d th e discours e o f scienc e an d philosoph y lead s eventually t o it s edge . Th e conundru m o f moder n ma n i s tha t i t appear s that th e onl y wa y t o escap e fro m fallin g int o th e abys s o f nihilis m i s t o reconnect wit h nature . Th e onl y wa y t o reconnec t wit h natur e i s throug h the female . Sinc e she will no longer accep t being dominated, th e onl y wa y to reconnect with nature is through submissio n t o her through th e sacrific e of the phallus to her .

Through the Looking Glass Does SH E exist ? I t depend s upo n th e discourse . I f th e discours e i s struc tured b y th e privilege d signifier , SH E appear s a s a Monster . I f th e dis course i s structure d b y th e primar y signifier , SH E appear s a s a Goddess . Women an d me n liv e i n dialectica l ambiguity . Whe n a woma n meet s a man, sh e can never be sure whether h e is going to attack her, try t o seduc e her s o that h e ca n fuc k her , o r simpl y plea d wit h he r fo r a good spanking . The man , o n th e othe r hand , vacillate s betwee n wantin g t o kil l her , rap e her, fuc k her , o r castrat e himsel f fo r her . Thi s onl y reflect s th e dialectic s of body/mind, female/male , an d sexua l drive/ego driv e dualisms. I n Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud wrote: "An d now, I think, the meaning of the evolutio n o f civilizatio n i s no longer obscur e to us. I t must presen t th e struggle betwee n Ero s an d Death , betwee n th e instinc t o f lif e an d th e instinct o f destruction , a s i t work s itsel f ou t i n th e huma n species . Thi s struggle is what al l life essentiall y consist s of, an d the evolution o f civiliza tion ma y therefor e b e simpl y describe d a s th e struggl e fo r lif e o f th e human species . An d i t i s this battle o f th e giant s tha t ou r nurse-maid s tr y to appease with thei r lullab y abou t Heaven " (SE , XXI, 122). We are trapped within th e dialectics. W e can embrace Eros or Thanatos. We ca n affir m lif e an d accep t ou r animalit y o r rebe l agains t i t an d den y and betray ou r humanity . Th e dialectic is not a state of affair s tha t w e can

Oedipus 284 transcen d no r i s it the resul t o f somethin g tha t ha s gone terribly wrong . I t is wha t i t mean s t o b e human . Ther e i s n o gran d scheme , n o Utopi a awaiting u s in th e future , n o final synthesis , no transcendence. A t the en d of history , scienc e fail s u s b y leavin g u s i n a univers e withou t meaning , philosophy betray s u s b y leavin g u s a t th e edg e of th e abyss , an d religio n blinds u s an d fog s ou r eye s s o we don't se e the abys s unti l w e have falle n into it . W e hav e n o plac e t o turn , an d th e ancien t myth s furnis h littl e guidance in the postmodern age . Can th e mythi c structur e o f th e Nietzschea n worldvie w tak e u s int o a new age? Ca n Kali, Artemis, and Ariadne merge int o the SHE Who Stands Over the Man? Ca n Dionysu s merg e with Nietzsche' s Zarathustr a int o th e Higher Man ? Ca n w e internaliz e an d embrac e ou r animality , ou r sexual ity, an d ou r deat h throug h hi s Eterna l Return ? Ca n th e domin a becom e a Goddess? Ca n th e mal e masochis t wh o love s t o pla y th e slav e b e trans formed int o a Consort ? Ca n th e contemporar y pagan s worshippin g th e Goddess keep their mythi c relationshi p with th e earth an d combin e it wit h the sophisticatio n o f postmoder n enlightenment? Ca n w e transfor m ol d discourse an d creat e ne w discours e i n whic h th e Imaginar y an d th e Sym bolic can relat e t o th e Rea l i n suc h a way tha t w e ca n embrac e an d affir m life? Ca n we maintain a Gaia consciousness that will be powerful enoug h t o link earth, nature, and woman i n a positive way? When wome n an d me n confron t eac h other, within wha t discourse s ar e their subjectivitie s formed ? Perseu s see s a Monste r an d attempt s t o kil l her. Oedipu s engage s he r i n intellectua l discussio n an d persuade s he r t o castrate herself . Theseu s uses her , abandon s her , an d the n declare s war o n her. Atti s castrate s himsel f fo r her . Dionysu s embrace s her . Athen a hate s her an d gives Perseus the weapons with which to kill her. Apoll o hates he r and send s Oreste s t o kill her, eve n though sh e is his own mother . Jehova h curses her , Sain t Pau l tell s he r t o kee p he r mout h shut . Alla h counsel s disciplining he r i f sh e i s disobedient . Th e Buddh a tell s u s t o avoi d he r because sh e will pollute us. Can Perseu s loo k int o th e fac e o f th e Medus a withou t th e mirro r an d see HE R beauty ? Ca n Oedipu s embrac e th e Sphin x an d le t he r tea r hi m apart s o that h e can be reborn a s HER consort? Ca n Theseus recognize tha t if h e kill s th e Minotau r h e i s killin g somethin g elementa l i n himsel f an d that i f h e embraces th e Minotau r the y bot h will merge int o Dionysus wh o will never abando n Ariadne ? Ca n Orestes tel l Apollo to go to hell when h e orders hi m t o kil l Clytemnestr a ? Can Sain t Pau l si t a t HE R fee t an d lear n

Oedipus wisdom fro m HER ? Can Jehovah an d Allah have their eye s opened an d see 285 that the y don' t hav e wha t the y thin k the y have—tha t it isn't wher e the y think i t stil l is ? Ca n th e Buddh a b e mad e t o se e tha t hi s bod y i s rea l an d nirvana a n illusio n an d tha t th e tru e sel f tha t i s identical i n everyon e isn' t in anyone ? SHE i s sai d no t t o exist , bu t i f a woma n appear s t o resembl e he r sh e might b e kille d o r attacked . Freu d shu t hi s eye s t o HER . Jun g sa w HE R and advocated killing her in order to free onesel f fro m HER . Laca n couldn' t see HE R bu t alway s ha d a n uneas y feelin g tha t someho w ther e wa s something ther e tha t h e couldn't quit e grasp. H e said SH E didn't exis t bu t he wrot e abou t HE R wit h a slash throug h th e the to confir m he r nonexis tence (FS , 137-48). Nietzsch e sa w HER, but h e couldn't mak e up his min d whether t o play the role of Oedipus, Perseus, or Dionysus and finally wen t mad. Wome n wh o loo k int o th e mirro r an d se e HE R becom e frightene d and cove r HE R wit h a mask . The y ar e afrai d tha t i f me n se e HE R an d become frightened, the y migh t b e mistaken fo r a Monster an d be attacked. We, th e authors , a s a woma n an d a maste r fool , hav e attempte d t o create a text, a play tha t woul d generat e HE R i n th e psych e o f th e reader . If SH E appeared, what yo u fel t abou t HE R reflects wh o you are .

Notes

Notes to Introduction i. Chap . 1,14 . 2. Chap . 10 , 272. 3. Chap . 9 , 245 , quotin g Luc e Irigaray , This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca : Cornell University Press , 1985), 129-30. 4. Chap . 6 , 162. 5. Chap . 10 , 282. 6. Chap . 1,12 . 7. Friedric h Nietzsche , The Will to Power, trans . Walte r Kaufman n an d R . J . Hollingdale (Ne w York : Vintag e Books , 1968) , 204 , quote d b y thes e author s a t chap. 8 , 212. 8. Catharin e A . MacKinnon , Only Words (Cambridge : Harvar d Universit y Press 1993), 60-62.

Notes to Chapter One 1. Jan e Flax, Thinking Fragments: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and Postmodernism in the Contemporary West (Berkeley : Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1990), 42. 2. Carol e S . Vance , "Pleasur e an d Danger : Towar d a Politics o f Sexuality/ ' i n Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed . Carol e S . Vanc e (Boston : Routledge & Kegan Paul , 1984), 2. 3. Ibid. , 5. 4. J . C . Smith , The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy (New York: Ne w York University Press , 1990). The paperback editio n is entitle d Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy: The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order (New York: Ne w York University Press , 1990), chap. 8-11 . 5. Ro y Shafer , "Narratio n i n th e Psychoanalyti c Dialogue/ 7 i n On Narrative, ed. W . J . T . Mitchel l (Chicago : Universit y o f Chicag o Press, 1980), 25. 6. Alexande r Nehamas , Nietzsche: Life As Literature (Cambridge: Harvar d Uni versity Press , 1985), 173. 7. Richar d Geh a states , "Th e affinitie s betwee n Nietzsch e an d Freu d ar e no t

287

Notes to Chapter One 288 merel y extensive : the y ar e profound/' Richar d E . Geha, "Freu d a s Fictionalist/Th e Imaginary World s o f Psychoanalysis/ ' i n Freud: Appraisals and Reappraisals, ed. Paul E. Stepansky. Contribution s t o Freud Studies , vol. 2 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Analyti c Press, 1986), 136. 8. Jacque s Derrid a relie s heavil y o n bot h Freu d an d Nietzsche . Thi s relianc e i s documented i n Gayatr i Chakravort y Spivak' s introductio n t o Derrida' s Of Grammatology, trans . G . C . Spiva k (Baltimore : Joh n Hopkin s Universit y Press , 1974) , ix-lxxxvii. 9. Shoshan a Felman , Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight (Cambridge: Harvard Universit y Press , 1987). 10. Elli e Ragland-Sullivan , "Th e Sexua l Masquerade : A Lacania n Theor y o f Sexual Difference/ ' i n Lacan and the Subject of Language, ed. E . Ragland-Sulliva n and Mar k Brache r (Ne w York: Routledge , 1991) , 49. 11. Lis a Appignanes i an d Joh n Forrester , Freud's Women (Ne w York : Basi c Books, 1992). 12. See , fo r example , Helen e Deutsch , Melani e Klein , Ann a Freud , Kare n Horney, Ell a Freeman Sharpe , Joan Riviere , Susan Isaacs , Marjory Brierly , Maria n Milner, Hanna Segal , Lou Andreas-Salome, Marie Bonaparte, Sylvia Payne, Sabina Spielrein, Rut h Mac k Brunswick , Doroth y Burlingham , Jeann e Lamp l d e Groot , Eva Rosenfeld , Ali x Strachey , Janin e Chaseguette-Smirgel , Margare t Mahler , an d many others . 13. Jan e Gallop , "Movin g Backward s o r Forwards, " i n Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis, ed. T . Brenna n (London : Routledge , 1989), 27. 14. Fo r example , th e prima l scene , the degre e t o whic h memorie s o f seductio n are fantasie s o r recal l o f rea l events ; whethe r youn g male s suffe r fro m th e castra tion anxiety; whethe r female s suffe r fro m peni s envy; an d whether young childre n wish t o have an incestuous relationshi p wit h th e parent of th e opposite sex. 15. Se e also , Barnab y B . Barratt , Psychic Reality and Psychoanalytic Knowing, Advances in Psychoanalysis: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 3 (Hillsdale, N.J. : Analytic Press , 1984), 1-49 . 16. Se e also , Jaco b Golomb , Nietzsche's Enticing Psychology of Power (Iow a City: Iow a Stat e University Press , 1989), 150-60, 234-42 . 17. Se e also , Ala n D . Schrift , "Nietzsch e an d th e Critiqu e o f Oppositiona l Thinking," History of European Ideas 11 (1990): 783-90 . 18. Jacque s Derrida , Dissemination, trans . Barbar a Johnso n (Chicago : Univer sity o f Chicag o Press , 1981) , 192-93 ; Jacque s Derrida , Spurs/Eperons (Chicago : University o f Chicag o Press , 1979) , 51-53 , 87-89 ; Pau l d e Man , Allegories of Reading (Ne w Haven : Yal e University Press , 1979), 16: "th e latte r seem s to reac h a truth, albei t by the negativ e roa d o f exposin g an error , a false pretense"; Barbar a Johnson, A World of Difference (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press , 1987), 15: "Trut h i s preserve d i n vestigia l for m i n th e notio n o f error . Thi s doe s no t mean that there is, somewhere out there, forever unattainable , the one true readin g against which all others will be tried an d foun d wanting. " 19. Jacque s Derrida , "Difference, " i n Margins of Philosophy, trans . Ala n Bas s (Chicago: Universit y o f Chicag o Press, 1982).

Notes to Chapter Two 20. O n th e postmoder n perpectiva l constructio n o f reality , se e Of Grammatol- 289 ogy, sup . n . 8 , 86 . Se e also , Allegories of Reading, sup . n . 18 ; Barbar a Johnson , The Critical Difference (Baltimore : John s Hopkin s Universit y Press , 1985) . Fo r Nietzsche's originatio n o f thi s construction , se e also , Gar y Shapiro , Nietzschean Narratives (Bloomington : Indian a Universit y Press , 1989). 21. Fo r Nietzsche's genealogica l approac h t o origins, se e also, Michel Foucault , "Nietzsche, Genealogy , History, " i n The Foucault Reader, ed. Pau l Rabino w (Ne w York: Pantheo n Books , 1984), 76-100. Fo r Foucault, se e Benjamin Sax , "Foucault , Nietzsche, History : Two Modes of the Genealogica l Method, " History of European Ideas (1989): 769-81 . Se e generally, Miche l Foucault , Discipline and Punish, trans . Alan Sherida n (Ne w York: Vintag e Books , 1979). 22. See , fo r example , Jan e Flax , Thinking Fragments, sup. n . 1 ; Ros i Braidotti , Patterns of Dissonance, trans. Elizabet h Guild (Oxford : Polit y Press , 1991). 23. Catharin e A . MacKinnon' s Towards a Feminist Theory of the State (Cam bridge: Harvar d Universit y Press , 1989 ) ha s bee n widel y criticize d o n essentialis t grounds. See , for example , Alexandra Z. Dobrolowsky an d Richar d F . Devlin, "Th e Big Ma c Attack : A Critica l Affirmatio n o f MacKinnon' s Unmodifie d Theor y o f Patriarchal Power, " McGill Law Journal 36 (1991): 575-608; Angela Harris , "Cate gorical Discours e an d Dominanc e Theory, " Berkeley Women's Law Journal 5 (1990): 181-96 ; Barbar a Flagg , "Women' s Narratives , Women' s Story, " Cincinnati Law Review 5 9 (1990) : 147-68 . MacKinno n base s he r theor y o n a paralle l kind of post-Marxia n analysis , substituting sexualit y fo r labor . 24. Se e also, Appignanesi an d Forrester , Freud's Women, sup . n . 11 , ix. 25. C . G . Jung , "Th e Structur e o f th e Unconscious," i n The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 7 (Princeton: Princeto n Universit y Press , 1966), par. 296-340 .

Notes to Chapter Two 1. Parvee n Adams, "Representation an d Sexuality," in The Woman in Question, ed. P . Adams an d E . Cowi e (Cambridge : MI T Press, 1990), 248. 2. Th e ter m "materna l phallus " i s problemati c becaus e o f th e identification o f the wor d "phallus " wit h th e mal e penis . T o postulat e a maternal phallu s coul d b e said t o inevitabl y carr y th e meanin g tha t th e femal e i s layin g clai m t o somethin g that sh e does not i n fac t have . Ther e is no single female orga n o r part which stand s alone a s doe s th e mal e penis . Femal e sexualit y i s mor e diffuse . If , o n th e othe r hand, w e ha d anothe r wor d tha t woul d b e th e femal e equivalen t o f th e phallus , i t would no t carr y th e meanin g tha t th e ter m phallu s possesse s a s signifier . While , therefore, th e term "materna l phallus " may consequentially b e somewhat paradox ical, it s meanin g ca n b e mad e clea r b y emphasizin g tha t th e essentia l par t o f it s meaning is the generative powe r of nature . 3. Freu d t o Jung , lette r no . 314 , Ma y 1912 , i n The Freud/Jung Letters, ed . W . McGuire (Princeton : Princeto n Universit y Press , 1974), 504. Freu d writes that, " A father i s one wh o possesse s a mother sexuall y (an d th e childre n a s property). Th e fact o f havin g bee n engendere d b y a fathe r has , afte r all , no psychologica l signifi cance for a child."

Notes to Chapter Two 290 4

. Fo r a discussio n o f th e Freudia n materia l realit y se e Barnab y B . Barratt , Psychic Reality and Psychoanalytic Knowing, Advances in Psychoanalysis: Theory, Research, and Practice, vol. 3 (Hillsdale, N.J.: Analyti c Press, 1984). 5. C . G . Jung , "Th e Structur e an d Dynamic s o f th e Psyche/ ' i n The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 8 (Princeton: Princeto n Universit y Press , 1969), par. 746 . 6. Parvee n Adams , "O f Femal e Bondage, " i n Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis, ed . Teres a Brenna n (London : Routledge , 1989), 247. 7. Donald Symons, The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Oxford : Oxfor d Univer sity Press , 1979). 8. Fo r a n extende d developmen t o f thi s thesis , se e J . C . Smith , The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy (Ne w York : Ne w York University Press , 1990). 9. Alexande r Nehamas , Nietzsche: Life As Literature (Cambridge: Harvar d Uni versity Press , 1985), 202. 10. Se e generally , Rober t L . Heilbroner , The Nature and Logic of Capitalism (New York: W . W . Norton , 1985) . 11. Gen . 3:16 . 12. Jacque s Lacan, Ecrits (Paris : Edition s de Seuil, 1966), 768-69. 13. Julie t Flowe r MacCannell , Figuring Lacan/Criticisms of the Cultural Unconscious (London: Croo m Helm , 1986) , 78. 14. Exod . 3:14 . 15. Joh n 1:1 . 16. Gen . 1:1 . 17. Gen . 1:26 . 18. Aeschylus , Eumenides, ed . Ala n H . Sommerstei n (Cambridge : Cambridg e University Press , 1989). 19. Parvee n Adams , sup. n . 6 , 249. 20. Ibid. , 253. 21. W e recogniz e tha t th e his i n th e ter m histor y i s coincidenta l an d tha t th e origin o f th e wor d ha s nothin g t o d o with gender . Nevertheless , amon g feminists , it is a useful an d no w common rhetorica l wa y of makin g a point. 22. Johan n Jaco b Bachofe n (1815-87) . Se e George Boas , preface to , and Josep h Campbell, introductio n t o Bachofen' s Myth, Religion, and Mother Right, trans . Ralph Manhei m (Princeton : Princeto n Universit y Press , 1967) ; Si r Jame s Georg e Frazer (1854-1941) , The Golden Bough, The Dying God (1911), an d Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1930) (London : Macmillan) . 23. Camill e Paglia , Sexual Personae (Ne w Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1990), 42. 24. Charle s Segal, Dionysiac Poetics and Euripides' Bacchae (Princeton : Princeton Universit y Press , 1982), 272. 25. Norma n O . Brown , "Dionysu s i n 1990, " i n Apocalypse and/or Metamorphosis (Berkeley: Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1991), 180. 26. Ibid. , 199. 27. Joa n Riviere , "Womanlines s a s a Masquerade/ ' i n Formations of Fantasy,

Notes to Chapter Three ed. Victo r Burgin , Jame s Donald , an d Cor a Kapla n (London : Methuen , 1986) , 35; 291 Stephen Heath , "Joa n Rivier e an d th e Masquerade/ ' i n Formations of Fantasy, 45; Michelle Montrelay , "Inquir y int o Femininity/ ' i n The Women in Question, ed . Parveen Adam s an d Elizabet h Cowi e (London: Methuen , 1989) , 253. 28. J . C . Smith , sup . n . 8 . Se e generally , chap . 15 , "Th e Sel f i n th e Post Oedipal Stag e of History. " 29. Nietzsche' s phras e "becom e who you are " presupposes a n acknowledgmen t of wh o on e is . Th e Ubermensch's abilit y t o "becom e wh o sh e o r h e is " implie s a n acceptance of animality . Se e Nehamas, sup . n . 9,170-200 . 30. Jacque s Derrida , SpurslEperons (Chicago : Universit y o f Chicag o Press , 1979). Thi s come s dow n t o whethe r Nietzsch e was misogynou s o r simpl y dislike d the mas k o f femininity . T o answer thi s questio n on e ha s t o examin e hi s relation ship t o Lo u Andreas-Salome . Fo r a discussion o f thi s relationshi p an d hi s compli cated vie w o f women , se e Bidd y Martin , Woman and Modernity (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1991); Nietzsche and the Feminine, ed. P . J. Burgar d (Charlottes ville: Universit y o f Virgini a Press , 1994) ; D . F . Krell , Postponements: Women, Sensuality, and Death in Nietzsche (Bloomington : Indian a Universit y Press , 1986); Jean Graybeal, Language and "the Feminine" in Nietzsche and Heidegger (Bloomington: Indian a Universit y Press , 1990). 31. J . C . Smith , sup . n . 8 . Se e generally chap . 18 : "Th e En d of History. " 32. Shoshan a Felman , Jacques Lacan and the Adventure of Insight (Cambridge : Harvard Universit y Press , 1987), 9.

Notes to Chapter Three 1. H . R . Maturan a an d F . Varela , The Tree of Knowledge (Boston : Shambhala , 1992), 24 .

2. Joh n Searle , The Rediscovery of the Mind (Cambridge : MI T Press , 1992) . Searle makes it quite clear that menta l phenomen a canno t be reduced t o somethin g that ca n be described entirel y i n nonmenta l terms . 3. Ther e i s a vast amoun t o f literatur e o n th e mind an d consciousness . I n non e of i t do we find a true theor y o f mind . The y ar e eithe r model s or pure speculation . See, fo r example , Geoffre y Madell , Mind and Materialism (Edinburgh : Edinburg h University Press , 1988) ; Geral d M . Edelman , Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind (Ne w York: Basi c Books, 1992); Marvi n Minsky , The Society of Mind (Ne w York : Simo n an d Schuster , 1985) ; Roge r Penrose , The Emperor's New Mind (Oxford : Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1989) ; an d Danie l C . Dennett , Consciousness Explained (Boston: Little , Brown, 1991). 4. See , for example , Warren S . McCulloch , Embodiments of Mind (Cambridge : MIT Press, 1965). 5. Ibid.,i . 6. Pau l Buckle y an d F . Davi d Peat , A Question of Physics: Conversations in Physics and Biology (Toronto: Universit y o f Toront o Press , 1979), 7. 7. Ibid .

Notes to Chapter Four 292 8

. Ibid. , 9. 9. Stephe n W . Hawking , A Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes (Toronto: Banta m Books , 1988), 174. 10. Phili p Lieberman , "O n th e Evolutio n o f Huma n Language/ ' i n The Evolution of Human Language, ed . Joh n A . Hawkin s an d Murra y Gell-Man n (Reading , Mass.: Addison-Wesley , 1992) , 42. 11. Roge r S . Jones, Physics As Metaphor (Ne w York: Meridian , 1982) , 6-j. 12. Ibid. , 51.

13. Nic k Herbert , Quantum Reality beyond the New Physics (Garde n City , N.Y.: Ancho r Press , 1985), 15-16. 14. Ibid. , 249. 15. Henr y W . Sullivan , "Hom o Sapien s o r Hom o Desiderans : Th e Rol e o f Desire i n Huma n Evolution/ ' i n Lacan and the Subject of Language, ed . Elli e Ragland-Sullivan an d Mar k Brache r (Ne w York: Routledge , 1991) , 37. 16. Ibid. , 36. 17. Juli a Kristeva, Language—the Unknown: An Initiation into Linguistics (New York: Columbi a Universit y Press , 1989), 265-66. 18. Jacques-Alai n Miller , "Language : Muc h Ad o abou t What? " i n Lacan and the Subject of Language, sup. n. 15 , 31. 19. F . Patterso n an d E . Linden , The Education of Koko (Ne w York : Holt , Rinehart an d Winston, 1981) . 20. Steve n Pinker , The Language Instinct (Ne w York: Willia m Morrow , 1994). 21. Kristeva , sup . n . 17 , 272. 22. Elli e Ragland-Sullivan , Jacques Lacan and the Philosophy of Psychoanalysis (Urbana: Universit y o f Illinoi s Press , 1986), 130. 23. Warre n S . McCulloch , "Wha t th e Frog' s Ey e Tells the Frog' s Brain, " chap . 14 of Embodiments of Mind, sup. n. 4, 230. 24. Sullivan , sup . n . 15 , 36. 25. Ferdinan d d e Saussure, Course in General Linguistics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1966). 26. Fo r a n accoun t o f epistemologica l adjuster s an d thei r implication , se e S . Coval and D . D . Todd , "Adjuster s an d Sens e Data," American Philosophical Quarterly 9 (1972): 107-12 . 27. Mar y Jan e Sherfey , The Nature and Evolution of Female Sexuality (Ne w York: Rando m House , 1972), chap. 2 . 28. Elli e Ragland-Sullivan , "Th e Sexua l Masquerade : A Lacania n Theor y o f Sexual Difference," i n Lacan and the Subject of Language, sup. n . 15 , 69.

Notes to Chapter Four 1. Juli a Kristeva, Language—the Unknown: An Initiation into Linguistics (Ne w York: Columbi a Universit y Press , 1989), 265. 2. Jacques-Alai n Miller , "Language : Muc h Ado about What?" in Lacan and the Subject of Language, ed . Elli e Ragland-Sulliva n an d Mar k Brache r (Ne w York : Routledge, 1991), 33.

Notes to Chapter Five 3. Jacques-Alai n Miller , "Sutur e (Element s o f th e Logi c o f th e Signifier), " 293 Screen 18, no. 4 (1977-78): 33-4 . 4. Jacques-Alai n Miller , "Element s of Epistemology, " Analysis 1 (1989): 28. 5. Steve n Pinker , The Language Instinct (Ne w York : Willia m Morrow , 1994) , 2376. Ibid. , 18. 7. J . C . Smith , The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy (Ne w York : Ne w Yor k Universit y Press , 1990) , chap . 15 . Thi s i s a product o f th e belie f i n th e all-inclusiv e min d (th e logo s o f th e Wes t a s differenti ated mind , o r the nirvan a o r the Tao of th e Eas t as undifferentiated mind) . 8. Sup . n . 4 . Al l furthe r reference s t o this work in the tex t will be indicated b y EE and th e page number, i n parentheses . 9. Further , sinc e "al l th e 'primitiv e forms 7 o f knowledg e ar e erotic " (EE , 28 ) and patriarch y i s structure d int o languag e fro m it s inception , eve n th e earlies t forms o f cultur e wer e essentiall y patriarchal . Thi s assumptio n i s not eviden t fro m the structur e an d artifact s o f earl y myths . 10. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Oxford : Clarendo n Press , 1968). 11. Mar y Jan e Sherfey , The Nature and Evolution of Female Sexuality (Ne w York: Rando m House , 1972). All further reference s t o this work i n the text will be indicated b y N an d th e page number, i n prentheses . 12. L & D, ix, 1-7. LaPlanch e explain s that "on e senses the immense difficult y experienced b y Freu d i n proposin g a synthesis, a s though hi s final contribution — concerning Ero s and th e deat h drive—coul d bu t barel y b e integrated int o th e firs t notion o f sexuality " ( L & D, 8). 13. Marti n Heidegger , Unterwegs zur Sprache (Pfullingen : Gunthe r Neske , 1959), 215 . Quote d i n Jacque s Derrida , Aporias (Stanfor d Universit y Press , 1993) , 3514. Alexandr e Kojeve , Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1969) . Al l furthe r reference s t o thi s wor k i n th e tex t wil l b e indicated b y RH an d th e page number, i n parentheses . 15. Catharin e A . MacKinnon , Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (Cam bridge: Harvar d Universit y Press , 1989) ; Jessic a Benjamin , The Bonds of Love: Psychoanalysis, Feminism, and the Problem of Domination (Ne w York : Pantheon , 1988).

Notes to Chapter Five 1. R . H . Hook , "Phantas y an d Symbol : A Psychoanalyti c Poin t o f View, " i n Fantasy and Symbol: Studies in Anthropological Interpretation, ed . R . H . Hoo k (London: Academi c Press, 1979), 267-68. 2. Ibid. , 270 .

3. Ibid . 4. M . Benass y an d R . Diatkine , "O n th e Ontogenesi s o f Fantasy, " Symposiu m on Fantasy, International Journal of Psychoanalysis 45 (April-July 1964), 172. 5. I n psychoanalyti c literatur e on e wil l fin d bot h spellings . Laplanch e an d

Notes to Chapter Five 294 Pontali s explai n tha t "Ther e ar e tw o separabl e notion s covere d b y th e ter m 'phan tasy' an d th e distinction betwee n the m i s enshrined i n the two ways of spellin g th e word i n th e Englis h language " (LP , 156). Jame s Strachey dre w attentio n t o this i n the introductio n t o The Standard Edition of the Complete Works of Sigmund Freud (SE, I , xxiv ) an d th e distinctio n wa s furthe r emphasize d an d incorporate d int o a theoretical framewor k b y Susa n Isaac s (Th e Natur e an d Functio n o f Fantasy/ ' International Journal of Psycho-Analysis 2 9 [1948] : 73.) Se e also , Developments in Psycho-Analysis, ed . Joa n Rivier e (London : Hogart h Press , 1973) . Strachey , fol lowing a lea d give n b y th e Oxfor d Englis h Dictionary , use d th e ph for m fo r "th e technical psychologica l phenomenon " an d th e / for m whe n th e ide a o f "capric e whim, fancifu l invention " predominates . Susa n Isaac s used th e ph for m t o denot e "unconscious menta l content , whic h ma y o r ma y no t becom e conscious, " bu t i t should b e note d tha t thi s distinctio n i s not universall y accepte d an d som e psycho analytic writer s contes t it s validit y o n th e ground s tha t i t i s not i n harmon y wit h the comple x natur e o f Freud' s thought" (LP , 156). 6. Miche l Foucault , Madness and Civilization (Ne w York : Vintag e Books , 1988). 7. H . R . Maturan a an d F . Varela , The Tree of Knowledge (Boston : Shambhala , 1992), 28. 8. Benass y an d Diatkine , sup. n . 4,176 . 9. Ibid. , 175. 10. Danie l Lagache , "Fantasy , Reality , an d Truth, " International Journal of Psychoanalysis, sup . n . 4,185 . 11. Ibid . 12. Ibid. , 185, n. 7 . 13. Ibid. , 188. 14. Hann a Segal, "Fantas y an d Othe r Menta l Processes, " International Journal of Psychoanalysis, sup . n . 4,194 . 15. Ibid . 16. Ibid. , 193. 17. Ibid . 18. Benass y an d Diatkine , sup. n . 4 , 171. 19. Lagache , sup. n . 10 , 182. 20. Accordin g t o J . Sandle r an d H . Nager a ("O n th e Concep t o f Fantasy, " International Journal of Psychoanalysis, sup . n . 4 , 190) , "Consciou s fantasy , o r daydreaming, i s a reaction t o frustratin g externa l reality . I t implies th e creatio n of a wish-fulfillin g situatio n i n th e imagination , an d thereb y bring s abou t a tempo rary lessenin g of instinctua l tension . Realit y testing is discarded; th e ego nevertheless remain s awar e tha t th e imaginativ e constructio n i s no t reality , withou t thi s knowledge interferin g wit h th e gratificatio n thu s achieved . Consciou s fantas y dif fers fro m hallucinator y wis h fulfilmen t i n tha t th e daydrea m i s no t normall y confused wit h reality , wherea s th e hullucinator y gratificatio n canno t b e distin guished fro m reality. " 21. J . C . Smith , The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy, (Ne w York: Ne w York University Press , 1990), chap. 5. 22. Sandle r an d Nagera , sup . n . 20 , 190.

Notes to Chapter Five 23. Smith , sup . n . 21 , 200. 295 24. Lagache , sup. n . 10 , 180. 25. Susa n Isaacs , "The Nature an d Functio n o f Phantasy/ ' International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 2 9 (1948): 81 . See also, Hook, sup . n . 1 , 272. 26. Lagache , sup. n . 10,188 . 27. Benass y an d Diatkine , sup. n . 4,176 . 28. Ibid. , 175-76 . 29. Hook , sup . n . 1 , 274. 30. Ibid. , 273. 31. Lagache , sup. n . 10,183 . 32. Ann a Freud , "Th e Ego and the Mechanisms o f Defense/' i n The Writings of Anna Freud, vol. 2 (New York: Internationa l Universitie s Press , 1966). 33. Isaacs , sup. n . 25 . 34. Ibid. , 69 ff . 35. Segal, sup. n . 1 4 , 192. 36. Hook , sup . n . 1 , 272. 37. Ibid . 38. Benass y an d Diatkine , sup. n . 4 , 177. 39. Ibid. , 177-78 . 40. Ibid. , 178. 41. Ibid . 42. Smith , sup . n . 21 , chap. 7 . 43. Hook , sup . n . 1 , 284. 44. Georg e Devereux , "Th e Awarding o f a Penis as Compensatio n fo r Rape : A Demonstration o f th e Clinica l Relevanc e o f th e Psycho-Analyti c Stud y o f Cultura l Data," International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 38 (1957): 400. 45. Hook , sup . n . 1 , 269-70 . 46. Ibid. , 288. 47. Ibid. , 287. 48. Freu d state s i n The Paths to Symptom Formation (SE, XVI, 371), " I believ e these primal phantasies , a s I should lik e to cal l them, an d n o doubt a few other s a s well, ar e a phylogeneti c endowment . I n the m th e individua l reache s beyon d hi s own experienc e int o primaeva l experienc e a t point s wher e hi s ow n experienc e ha s been to o rudimentary. " 49. Benass y an d Diatkine , sup. n . 4,173 . 50. Smith , sup . n . 21 , chap. 5. 51. Hook , sup . n . 1 , 282. 52. Ibid. , 272. 53. Donal d Symons , The Evolution of Human Sexuality (Ne w York : Oxfor d University Press , 1979), chap. 8 . 54. Segal, sup. n . 14 , 192. 55. Gen . 1 : 1- 3 56. Gen . 2 : 7 , 21-23 . 5j. Aeschylus , Eumenides, Oresteia, trans . Richar d Lattimor e (Chicago : Uni verstiy o f Chicag o Press, 1953), 161. 58. Gen . 3 : 13-16 .

Notes to Chapter Six 296 59 . This Business of the Gods. . . , Joseph Campbel l i n conversatio n wit h Frase r Boa, (Windros e Films , Caledon East , Ont., 1989) .

Notes to Chapter Six 1. "Th e true world—we hav e abolished. Wha t world has remained? The apparent on e perhaps? But no ! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one." (T , 486). 2. B . Grunberger, Narcissism: Psychoanalytic Essays (New York: Internationa l Universities Press , 1979), 69. 3. C . G . Jung , The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol 8 (Princeton : Princeto n University Press , 1966), par. 745 . 4. Fo r an analysi s o f thi s Egyptia n myth , se e Jean-Joseph Goux , "Th e Phallus : Maculine Identity and the 'Exchang e of Women/ " Differences 4 (spring 1992): 40. 5. M . Esthe r Harding , Woman's Mysteries: Ancient and Modern (Ne w York : Harper & Row, 1971), 195-96. 6. Gin i Scott, Dominant Women, Submissive Men (Ne w York: Praeger , 1983). 7. Gen . 1 . 8. "Th e Laws of Manu, " Nos . 147-48 , in The Sacred Books of the East, vol. 25, ed. F . Max Muller (Delhi : Motila l Banarsidass , 1967), 301-4. 9. 1 Cor. 7:1-2 . 10. 1 Cor. 7:8-9 . 11. Dian a Y. Paul , Women in Buddhism/Images of the Feminine in the Mahayana Tradition (Berkeley: Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1985), 9. 12. 1 Cor. 14:34 . 13. 1 Tim . 2 : 1 1 - 1 2 .

14. The Koran, "Sura" 4:34. 15. Jea n Baudrillard, Seduction (Ne w York: St . Martin' s Press , 1979), 1-2 . 16. Ibid. , 180. 17. M . Benass y an d R . Diatkine , "O n th e Ontogenesi s o f Fantasy/ ' International Journal of Psychoanalysis 45 (April-July 1964) : 172. 18. Abb y W. Kleinbaum , The War against the Amazons (Ne w York: McGraw Hill, 1983). 19. Ev a Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus: Sexual Politics in Ancient Athens (Ne w York: Harpe r an d Row , 1985). 20. Pau l Tillich , fo r example . Se e Hanna h Tillich , From Time to Time (Ne w York: Stei n & Day, 1973) ; Mar y Daly , Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston : Beaco n Press, 1985), 94-95.

Notes to Chapter Seven 1. Th e orgasmi c experienc e i s ofte n referre d t o a s th e "littl e death. " Wha t death an d th e orgasm hav e in common i s the loss of the boundaries of th e self. 2. Gin i Scott , Dominant Women, Submissive Men (Ne w York : Praeger , 1983) , 246.

Notes to Chapter Seven 3. Kaj a Silverman , Male Subjectivity at the Margins (Ne w York : Routledge , 297 1992), 206. 4. Ibid. , 211. 5. Ibid. , 212. 6. Gille s Deleuze , Masochism, Coldness and Cruelty i n Venus in Furs, b y Leo pold von Sacher-Masoc h (Ne w York: Zon e Books, 1989), 65-66. 7. Ther e i s n o counterpar t fo r thi s ter m i n th e Englis h language . I t i s a combination o f an erotic high, bliss, joy, pleasure, enjoyment, an d orgasm ( S I, 25). 8. Scott , sup . n . 2 , 3. 9. Ibid . 10. Deleuze , sup. n . 6 , 13. 11. Camill e Paglia , Sexual Personae (Ne w Haven : Yal e Universit y Press , 1990)/ 9512. Ibid. , 436. 13. Walte r F . Otto , Dionysus: Myth and Cult (Bloomington : Indian a Univer sity Press , 1981), 143. 14. Ly n Cowan , Masochism: a Jungian View (Dallas : Sprin g Publications , 1982), 33. All further reference s t o this work in the text will be indicated by M an d the page number, i n parenteses . 15. Se e Sa m Janus , Barbar a Bess , an d Caro l Saltus , Sexual Profiles of Men in Power (Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall , 1977). 16. Silverman , sup . n . 3,189 . 17. Ibid. , 189-90 . 18. Ludwi g Eidelberg , "Humiliatio n i n Masochism/ ' Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Society 7 (1959): 275-83. 19. Ale x Blumstein , "Masochis m an d Fantasie s o f Preparin g t o B e Incorpo rated," Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Society, ibid., 292-97. 20. C . G . Jung , The Collected Works of C. G. Jung, vol. 5 (Princeton : Princeto n University Press , 1966), par. $yj. 21. Philipp e Borgeaud , The Cult of Pan in Ancient Greece (Chicago: Universit y of Chicag o Press, 1988), 72-73,122-29 . 22. E . F. Benson, The Angel of Pain (Philadelphia: Lippincott , 1905). 23. Sigmun d Freud , "Th e Aetiolog y o f Hysteria, " i n The Assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of the Seduction Theory, by Jeffre y Moussaief f Masso n (Ne w York: Farrar , Strau s and Giroux , 1984) , appendix B , 251. 24. Ibid. , 281. 25. "Lette r o f Apri l 26 , 1896, " i n The Complete Letters of Sigmund Freud to Wilhelm Fleiss, 1887-1904 , trans , an d ed. Jeffre y Moussaief f Masso n (Cambridge : Harvard Universit y Press , 1985), 183. 26. "Lette r of Ma y 4,1896," Ibid. , 185. 27. Masson , The Assault on Truth, sup . n . 23,107-44 . 28. Letters, sup. n . 25 , 287-89. 29. Masson , sup . n . 23 . 30. Ibid. , 14-54 . 31. "Lette r o f Septembe r 21,1897, " in Letters, sup. n . 25 , 265.

Notes to Chapter Eight 298 32

. Masson , sup . n . 27,145-87 . 33. Sando r Ferenczi , "Confusio n o f Tongue s betwee n Adul t an d th e Child/ ' i n Masson, sup . n . 23 , appendix C , 288. 34. Ibid. , 288-89 . 35. Ibid. , 290 . 36. Ibid. , 294. 37. Ibid. , 295. 38. Th e autho r o f The Story of O use d th e pe n nam e Paulin e Reage . A goo d deal o f speculatio n ha s centere d o n whethe r o r no t th e rea l autho r wa s female , male, o r a group . Th e boo k wa s actuall y writte n b y Dominiqu e Aury , a highl y talented literar y figur e an d respecte d woman of letters who was awarded the Legion d'Honneur. Sh e wrot e i t fo r he r lover , Jea n Paulhan , a well-known writer , critic , and editor , i n orde r t o rekindl e hi s interes t i n her . He r strateg y wa s successful . Paulhan wa s excite d b y th e boo k an d persuade d he r t o permi t hi m t o ge t i t published. H e the n wrot e th e introduction , whic h consistentl y appear s wit h i t wherever i t i s published. See , John d e St . Jorre , "Th e Unmaskin g o f O, " The New Yorker, (Augus t 1,1994 ) 42. 39. Gen . 3:16 . 40. Alexandr e Kojeve , Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1980). 41. Gen . 3:13-15 . 42. Juli a Kristeva , Language the Unknown (Ne w York : Columbi a Universit y Press, 1989), 266. 43. Ibid. , 266. 44. Mar y Daly , Gyn,'Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston : Beacon Press , 1985), 1.

Notes to Chapter Eight 1. Fo r a Jungian analysi s of the myth o f Ariadne, see, for example , Linda Fierz David, Women's Dionysian Initiation: The Villa of Mysteries in Pompeii, trans . Gladys Phela n (Dallas , Texas : Sprin g Publications , 1988) , 18-33 . Se e also , Chri s Downing, " Ariadne, Mistres s o f th e Labyrinth/ ' i n Facing the Gods, ed . Jame s Hillman (Dallas , Texas: Sprin g Publications , 1980) , 135-50. 2. O f th e man y subsequen t reading s an d co-optation s o f Nietzsche' s text , a feminist interpretatio n was one of th e earliest . 3. Luc e Irigaray, The Marine Lover of Friedrich Nietzsche (Ne w York: Columbi a University Press , 1991). 4. Freu d link s Ariadne' s labyrint h t o th e birth : "Th e legen d o f th e Labyrint h can b e recognize d a s a representatio n o f ana l birth : th e twistin g path s ar e th e bowels an d Ariadne' s threa d i s th e umbilica l cord. " "Revisio n o f Drea m Theory " (SE, XXII, 7-30) . 5. Fo r a n analysi s o f Theseus ' rapes , se e W . B . Tyrrell , Amazons: A Study in Athenian Mythmaking (Baltimore : Johns Hopkin s University Press , 1984). 6. Theseu s sough t ou t an d capture d th e Amazon' s fier y queen , Antiope ; h e

Notes to Chapter Eight abducted a very youn g Hele n an d late r abandone d he r i n Attic a a s sh e wa s no t o f 299 marrigeable age ; h e attempte d t o abduc t Persephon e fro m th e underworld . Se e generally, Anne G . War d e t al., The Quest for Theseus (New York: Praeger , 1970). 7. Laurenc e Lampert , Nietzsche's Teaching: An Interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Ne w Haven: Yal e University Press , 1986), 109. 8. Parvee n Adams , "O f Femal e Bondage/ 7 i n Between Feminism and Psychoanalysis, ed . Teres a Brenna n (London : Routlege , 1989), 253. 9. Jea n Baudrillard , Seduction (Ne w York : St . Martin' s Press , 1990) . Al l fur ther reference s t o this work in th e text will be indicated by S and the page number , in parentheses . Seductio n accordin g t o Baudrillar d "i s alway s mor e singula r an d sublime than sex , and i t command s th e highe r price " (13) . I t is "a n ironic , alterna tive form , on e tha t break s th e referentialit y o f se x an d provide s a space , no t o f desire, bu t o f pla y an d defiance " (21) . I t "i s a circular , reversibl e proces s o f challenges, one-upmanship an d death. I t is, on the contrary, se x that is the debase d form" (47) . 10. Baudrillar d writes , "I n thi s struggl e al l means ar e acceptable, rangin g fro m relentlessly seducin g th e othe r i n orde r no t t o be seduced oneself , t o pretending t o be seduced i n orde r t o cut al l seduction short " (119) . 11. Fo r a general discussio n o f Nietzsche' s us e o f metapho r an d it s relatio n t o the body , se e Eric Blondel, "Nietzsche : Lif e A s Metaphor," i n The New Nietzsche, ed. D . B . Allison (Cambridge : MI T Press, 1985), 150. 12. See , for example , Mitchel l M . Waldrop , Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (New York: Touchstone , 1992). 13. Whil e w e us e Hollingdale' s translation , w e prefe r Kaufmann' s translatio n of Ubermensch as "Overman" rathe r tha n "Superman. " 14. I n The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsch e utilize s th e Gree k Dionysu s t o counte r Apollo—each i s in oppositio n t o th e other . Whil e Apoll o i s the ordere d aesthetic , Dionysus i n The Birth of Tragedy i s a visio n o f th e tragi c ar t form , a n emotiv e nonrational entity . Thi s Dionysu s i n man y way s lay s th e foundatio n fo r th e Dionysus i n Nietzsche' s late r works. 15. Bidd y Martin , Woman and Modernity: The (Life)Styles of Lou Andreas Salome, (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1991). 16. Ibid. , 5. 17. Ibid. , 72-73 . 18. Ibid. , 73. 19. Helen e Cixous , "Com e th e Followin g Chapter, " trans . Sta n Theis , Enclitic (1980): 51-53 . 20. Euripides , The Bacchae, trans. G . S . Kir k (Englewoo d Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice Hall, 1970). 21. Thi s is cited i n Derrida' s Aporias (70 ) and i s taken fro m Heidegger' s analy sis of Dasein, wherein deat h is "the most proper possibility o f Dasein. " 22. Lampert , sup . n . 7,109 . 23. Gille s Deleuze , Masochism, Coldness, and Cruelty, i n Venus in Furs, b y Leopold vo n Sacher-Masoc h (Ne w York : Zon e Books , 1989) , 143-293 . Fo r th e similarity betwee n Venus in Furs an d th e storie s o f th e masochists , se e Gin i

Notes to Chapter Eight 300 Graha m Scott , Dominant Women, Submissive Men (Ne w York : Praeger , 1983) , 246. 24. Ibid. , 250 .

25. Se e generally , Eri c Blondel , Nietzsche: The Body and Culture (Stanford : Stanford Universit y Press , 1991). 26. Kar l Jaspers, Nietzsche: An Introduction to the Understanding of His Philosophical Activity (Sout h Bend, Ind.: Regnery/Gateway , 1979) , 10. 27. Se e Sa m Janus , Barbar a Bess m an d Caro l Saltus , Sexual Profiles of Men in Power (Englewood Cliffs , N.J. : Prentice-Hall , 1977). 28. Ibid . 29. Lacanian Ink 5 (1991): 29. 30. Ibid. , 35. 31. Thoma s Tryon, Harvest Home (Ne w York: Knopf , 1973). 32. Si r Jame s Georg e Frazer , The Golden Bough, The Dying God (1911) , an d Adonis, Attis, Osiris (1930) (London : Macmillan) and The Illustrated Golden Bough, ed. Mar y Douglas (Garde n City , N. Y.: Doubleday , 1978) ; Mary Renault , The King Must Die (New York: Pantheon , 1958) . 33. Sup . n . 23,123-34 . 34. J . C. Smith, The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy (New York: Ne w York University Press , 1990), 192-216. 35. Kare n Armstrong, The First Christian: Saint Paul's Impact on Christianity (London: Pa n Books, 1983); R . H . Randall , Hellenistic Ways of Deliverance and the Making of the Christian Synthesis (Ne w York : Columbi a Universit y Press , 1970) , 137-55' 36. Kaj a Silverman , Male Subjectivity at the Margins (Ne w York : Routledge , 1992), 52 .

37. Ibid. , 65. Silverma n associate s th e underminin g wit h th e deat h drive . W e would argue that the Ero s or sexual drive plays a much greater rol e in underminin g male mastery . 38. Ibid., 2 . 39- Ibid., 1 . 40. Ibid., 2-34i- Ibid., 388. 42. Ibid. 43- Ibid. 44- Sup. n. 23 , 271. Vo n Sacher-Masoc h believe d tha t gende r hierarch y wa s the produc t o f socialization . Consequentl y h e though t tha t gende r equalit y woul d be possible "whe n sh e [th e woman] ha s the sam e right s a s he [th e man] an d i s his equal in educatio n an d work. " 45. Drowning by Numbers, 12 1 min., Els e Vier Vendex, All Starts Productions , Great Britain , 1988. 46. Se e Clement Rosset , Joyful Cruelty: Toward a Philosophy of the Real (New York: Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1993) . Rossett' s interpretatio n o f Nietzsch e ha s a good dea l i n commo n wit h ou r own . Th e firs t par t o f th e three-par t book , "Th e Overwhelming Force/ ' i s a description o f th e onl y wa y i n whic h on e ca n confron t

Notes to Chapter Nine the Real , directly , withou t illusion , substitution , o r mediation , an d tha t i s b y a 301 joyful affirmation . Rosse t write s tha t "ther e i s i n jo y a mechanis m o f approval " (3)- "[J]° y i s alway s someho w engage d wit h th e real , whil e sadnes s unceasingl y confronts th e unreal" (5) . Rosset t realize s the sexua l dimensions of thi s joy, which is roote d i n th e body . H e speak s o f a "sexua l rejoicing " an d th e "conditio n fo r sexual joy " fo r whic h orgas m "i s a necessary bu t no t a sufficien t condition " (10) . "The jo y o f whic h I a m speakin g i s completel y indistinguishabl e fro m th e jo y o f life" (12) . Th e secon d par t o f th e boo k deal s with wha t Rosset t call s th e betrayal s of Nietzsch e by those suc h as Heidegger. The y clai m to be his interpreters bu t lac k the courag e o f Nietzsche' s crue l an d joyfu l vision , whic h Rosset t call s "beatitude " and define s a s "th e simpl e an d unadorne d experienc e o f th e real " (25)—"th e central an d constan t them e o f Nietzsche' s though t . . . the onl y theme " (26) . Th e third par t i s entitled "Th e Cruelt y Principle, " by which Rosset t mean s the intrinsi cally painful , tragic , insignificant , an d ephemera l characte r o f everythin g i n th e world a s viewe d fro m th e huma n perspective . I n thi s section , Rosset t point s ou t that "Th e cruelty of realit y is illustrated i n a particularly spectacula r and significan t fashion i n the cruelt y o f love" (96) .

Notes to Chapter Nine 1. Mar y Daly, Gyn/Ecology: The Metaethics of Radical Feminism (Boston : Beacon Press, 1985), 1. 2. Jud y Trejo , "Coyot e Tales : A Paiut e Commentary, " i n Spiders and Spinsters, ed . Marth a Weigl e (Albuquerque : Universit y o f Ne w Mexic o Press , 1982) , 123-25. 3. Camill e Paglia , Sexual Personae (New Haven : Yal e University Press , 1990) , 474. Eric h Neumann, The Great Mother: An Analysis of an Archetype (Princeton : Princeton Universit y Press , 1963), 168. 5. Sup . n . 3,13 . 6. Ren e Girard , Violence and the Sacred (Baltimore: John s Hopkin s Universit y Press, 1979), 144. 7. Caroly n J. Dean , The Self and Its Pleasures: Bataille, Lacan, and the History of the Decentered Subject (Ithaca : Cornel l Universit y Press , 1992) , 245 . Se e also , Georges Bataille , Erotism: Death and Sensuality, trans . Mar y Dalwoo d (Sa n Fran cisco: Cit y Light s Books, 1986), 105. 8. Frederic k Thomas Elworthy, The Evil Eye (Secaucus, N.J.: Universit y Books / Citadel Press) , facsimil e o f 189 5 ed. ; The Evil Eye, ed . Ala n Dunde s (Madison , Wis.: Universit y o f Wisconsi n Press , 1992); Tobi n Siebers , The Mirror of Medusa (Berkeley: Universit y o f Californi a Press , 1983), chap. 2 . 9. Bataille , sup. n . 7 . 10. Ibid. , 239-40 . 11. Slavo j Zizek , "Fro m Courtl y Lov e to th e Cryin g Game, " New Left Review 202(1993): 96-97 . 12. Ibid. , 96.

Notes to Chapter Nine 302 13

. Ibid. , 97. 14. Ibid. , 108. 15. Jessic a A . Salmonson , The Encyclopedia of Amazons (Ne w York : Parago n House, 1991), 24-25. 16. G . G . Brame , W . D . Brame , J. Jacobs , Different Loving: An Exploration of the World of Sexual Domination and Submission (Ne w York: Villar d Books, 1994). 17. Sup . n . 6,167 . 18. Thi s i s mainl y a resul t o f th e fac t tha t Laca n view s wome n entirel y fro m the perspective o f man' s desire . 19. Sup . n . 11 , 99. 20. Luc e Irigaray, This Sex Which Is Not One (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1985), 129. 21. Ibid. , 1 2 9 - 3 0 .

22. Jessic a Benjamin, The Bonds of Love (New York: Pantheon , 1988) , 221. 23. Ibid . 24. Ibid . 25. Alexande r Kojeve , Introduction to the Reading of Hegel (Ithaca : Cornel l University Press , 1980), 8. 26. Sup . n . 1 , 423. 27. Sup . n . 6,144 . 28. Sup . n . 22 , 53. 29. Ibid. , 54-56 . 30. Ly n Cowan , Masochism (Dallas : Sprin g Publications, 1982) , 71. 31. Rom . 7 : 1-2 . 32. Rom . 7 : 5-6. 33. Rom . 8:5 . 34. Sup . n . 1 1 , 102.

35. A n actua l cop y di d surviv e unde r a n unusua l se t o f circumstance s that , according t o th e accoun t give n t o th e publisher s o f th e 199 1 reprint , involve d th e ingenuity o f on e of th e original jurors (v) . 36. London : Delectu s Books , 1991. This reissue o f th e original of Kerr-Suther land's boo k was reviewe d b y Christophe r Hitchen s i n th e London Review of Books (16, no . 2 0 [1994] : 11 ) unde r th e titl e "O n Spanking/ ' A substantia l par t o f th e review consiste d o f comparin g Margare t Thatcher , an d th e verba l spanking s sh e gave to the member s o f he r cabinet , with Kerr-Sutherland' s governes s administer ing discipline. 37. Ibid. , ii-iii. 38. Ibid. , 12. 39. Ibid. , 85. 40. Ibid. , x-xi . 41. Ibid. , 6. 42. Ibid. , 9. 43. Ibid. , 17. 44. Kaj a Silverman , "Histoire d'O: Th e Constructio n o f a Femal e Subject, " i n

Notes to Chapter Ten Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality, ed . Caro l Vanc e (Boston : 30} Routledge and Kega n Paul , 1984), 320. 45. Ibid . 46. Ibid. , 321. 47. Ibid. , 324. 48. Ibid. , 327. 49. Ibid. , 346. 50. Andre a Dworkin , Intercourse (New York: Fre e Press, 1987), 141. 51. Sup . n . 44 , 346. 52. Luc e Irigaray , ]e, Tu, Nous: Towards a Culture of Difference (Ne w York : Routledge, 1993), 20. 53. Sup . n . 50,140 . 54. Helen e Cixous , "Th e Laug h o f th e Medusa/ ' i n The Rhetorical Tradition, ed. P . Bizzel l and B . Herzberg (Boston : Bedfor d Books , 1990), 1232. 55. Ibid. , 1238. 56. Ibid. , 1239. 5j. Helen e Cixous , "Castratio n o r Decapitation / Signs 7, no. 1 (1981): 42-43 . 58. Ibid. , 43.

Notes to Chapter Ten 1. Ronal d W . Clark , Einstein: The Life and Times (Ne w York : Avo n Books , i97i). 372. Stephe n W . Hawkins , A Brief History of Time (Ne w York : Banta m 1988) , 1753. Joh n 1:1 . 4. J . C . Smith , The Neurotic Foundations of Social Order: The Psychoanalytic Roots of Patriarchy (Ne w York : Ne w Yor k Universit y Press , 1990) , chap . 8-11 ; Christiane Olivier , focastas Children/The Imprint of the Mother, trans . Georg e Craig (London : Routledge , 1989) , 82-89 . Male s posses s th e wil l t o subjugat e an d dominate no t onl y becaus e the y resen t female s fo r lackin g mal e sexua l organ s bu t also because the y se e a "powerfu l materna l imago , envie d an d terrified. " Se e also, Janine Chasseguet-Smirgel , Sexuality and Mind (Ne w York: Ne w Yor k Universit y Press, 1986), 24. 5. Andre w Samuels , The Political Psyche (London: Routledge , 1993), 140-43. 6. Ibid. , 143. 7. Helen e Cixou s and Catherin e Clement , The Newly Born Woman (Minneapo lis: Universit y o f Minnesot a Press , 1991), 11. 8. Freu d understand s th e riddl e o f th e Sphin x t o represen t Oedipus ' litera l origins: th e riddl e o f wher e babie s com e from . Th e origi n o f babie s i s understoo d by Freud t o be the first questio n o f th e infant (SE , VII, 195). 9. Jan e Gallop, The Daughter's Seduction/Feminism and Psychoanalysis (Ithaca : Cornell Universit y Press , 1982) , 61 . Oedipu s passe s ove r th e blindspo t withou t even knowin g tha t i t i s ther e becaus e h e i s overl y concerne d wit h reachin g hi s

Notes to Chapter Ten 304 solution . Janin e Chasseguet-Smirge l als o discusse s th e "blin d spot " o f Freudia n theory i n Sexuality and Mind, sup. n . 4 , 20. 10. J . C . Smit h an d D . N . Weisstub , The Western Idea of Law (London : Butterworths, 1983) , 242-362; Smith , sup . n . 4 , 311-14. 11. See , for example , Mitchel l M . Waldrop , Complexity: The Emerging Science at the Edge of Order and Chaos (Ne w York : Touchstone , 1992) ; Murra y Gell Mann, The Quark and the Jaguar (New York: Freeman , 1944). 12. See , fo r example , J . E . Lovelock , Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford: Oxfor d Universit y Press , 1979). 13. Cixou s and Clement , sup . n . 7 , 95-96. 14. Ann e Barin g and Jule s Cashford, The Myth of the Goddess: Evolution of an Image (London : Vikin g Arkana, 1991) , 145. 15. Ibid. , 147.

Index

Abyss, 50, 51, 164,167,190, 200 , 201, 202, 210, 216, 217, 228, 235, 242, 256, 270, 273, 278, 282-8 4 Adam, 97 , 98,13 5 Adonis, 134 Aggression, 7 , 11, 64,101,105,109,160, 161, 162 , 174,175,176,180, 185,188 , 193, 196 , 197, 236, 241, 242 , 247, 249, 256 Anaclisis, 253 Ananke, 18 3 Androgyny, 24,178,192 , 272 , 275 Anima, 2 4 Animality, 5 , 9, 20, 35, 39, 48-50, 90 , 104, 129, 142 , 158,194, 211, 235, 245, 261, 266, 270, 274, 277, 283-8 4 Animality crisis , 48,12 9 Animus, 24 Anthropomorphism, 6 2 Aphrodite, 13 4 Apollo, 5, 8, 35,158, 284 Archetype, 42, 58, 60 Ariadne, 200-205 , 209, 214, 215, 217, 218, 225, 227, 272, 284 Aristotle, 93, 118 Authority, 24 , 33-34, 39, 40, 42, 45, 76, 110, 152, 155, 159, 178,188, 202, 211, 212, 250,25 2 Autonomy, 11 0 Bacchae, 47, 216, 226 Bachofen, Johann , 45 Bataille, Georges, 237 Baudrillard, Jean , 159, 204 Benassy, Maurice , 114,116, 12 3

Benjamin, Jessica , 106, 245, 248 Bimorphic sexuality , 37,149,19 2 Biology, 18 , 56, 74, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 173, 265, 267, 273 Biped primate, 20 , 49, 56, 87, 96, 198, 271, 273 Boa, Fraser, 14 1 Bondage, 38, 50,108,183, 189 , 242, 252, 272 Boy, 32, 173,175,189, 229 , 261 Breast, 32, 33, 110,121,132, 133 , 145,148, 149, 151,152,172,174,18 9 Brown, Norma n O. , 4 8 Buddha, 158 , 168, 284, 285 Buddhism, 15 4 Campbell, Joseph, 14 1 Caputi, Jane, 8 Castration, 3 , 7, 9,17, 20 , 25, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 38, 41, 42 , 47, 51, 60 , 76, 82, 97, 125,126, 129,130,131,132,133,134 , 135, 136,138 , 149,150,151,153,154 , 160,161,162,163,164,168,169,170, 175, 177 , 178, 184, 197,198, 200, 203, 205, 206, 211-14, 216, 219, 224, 226, 227-29, 232-36 , 239 , 240, 242, 256, 257, 262, 264, 267, 270, 271, 273, 275, 280, 282, 283, 284 Celibacy, 161 , 162, 194 Chaos, 47, 49,143,167, 207 , 208, 216, 268, 269 Children, 31 , 33, 41, 59, 65, 72, 84, 89, 92, 106, 108, 109,126,127,128,130, 131 , 133, 136 , 137, 144, 147, 156, 160, 168,

3°5

Index 306

Children (Continued ) 173, 174 , 175, 185, 186, 187,188, 189, 190, 191 , 194 , 203, 205, 217, 226, 254, 260, 261 , 262, 272, 279 Chomsky, Noam , 8 6 Christ, 29 , 45, 47, 136, 212 Christianity, 39 , 41, 108, 135,136,161,162 , 212,227 Civilization, 11 , 45, 101, 132, 197, 218, 283 Cixous, Helene, 14 , 255, 257, 264 Clitoris, 96, 97, 98, 99 Complex, 5 , 11, 28, 32, 35, 55, 57, 60, 66, 67, 85, 89, 99, 105, 109, 129, 131,132, 139, 157 , 161, 166 , 170, 187, 208, 213 , 228, 229, 241, 255 , 257, 261, 262 , 268, 273, 274 Complex adaptiv e systems , 60 Conception, 11, 78, 90, 91, 97, 136, 153 Consciousness, 6 , 23, 36, 38, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 62, 63, 64 , 68, 69, 88, 89, 91, 92, 104,106, 107, 119 , 121, 122 , 123, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132 , 158, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169 , 183, 190, 194, 213, 227, 233 , 240, 263, 272, 284 Consort, 15 , 42, 45, 82, 133-36, 177 , 178, 185, 201 , 218 , 219, 225, 241, 275, 278 , 281,284 Copulation, 37 , 68, 90, 131, 156 Courtly love , 237, 238, 239, 253 Cowan, Lyn , 18 2 Creation, 6 , 15 , 21, 41, 42, 56, 74, 88, 92, 94, 95, 98, 106, 120, 127, 128, 132, 133 , 135, 145 , 152, 153, 154, 155, 156,157, 177, 215, 226, 233, 270 Culture, 22 , 40, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 51, 95, 103, 104 , 124, 138, 148, 190, 273, 274 Daly, Mary , 8 , 233, 247 Darwin, Charles , 49, 108, 166, 208 Daughter, 82 , 99, 132, 226, 227, 275, 279, 281, 28 3 Death, 22 , 28, 29, 30, 36, 38, 39, 42, 45, 48, 50, 60, 63, 69, 92, 93,100,101,102-5 , 119, 127 , 128, 129, 131, 135 , 136, 139, 140,145,157, 164,169,172,173,183 , 197, 198 , 199, 200, 204, 205, 209, 216, 225, 227 , 228, 230, 231, 232 , 233, 235, 237, 240, 248, 250, 258, 260, 263, 281 , 284

Deconstruction, 8 , 12, 13, 16, 21, 23, 44, 46, 164 Defense mechanisms , 58 , 92, 116, 121, 122, 124, 132, 134, 145,150,161,162, 183 , 184, 230 Deleuze, Gilles, 180, 250 Demeter, 4 8 Denial, 1 , 8, 23, 26, 39, 45, 49, 50, 51, 66, 73, 76 , 90, 93, 99 , 100, 101, 104 , 111 , 113, 121 , 122, 135,139, 142 , 145,150, 152, 153 , 158, 160, 161, 162,163,165, 188, 193 , 194, 195, 196, 206, 208, 211 , 216, 218, 219, 223, 232, 236, 237, 239, 240, 246, 248, 260, 263, 266 , 270, 272, 283 Derrida, Jacques, 14, 16, 28-30, 44, 46, 49, 50, 51, 80-84, 103 , 158, 164, 199, 212, 224, 236, 244, 246, 247, 257, 263, 264 , 267, 268, 275 Descartes, Rene , 36, 78, 85, 95 Desire, 4, 11, 12, 19, 32, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 , 45, 65, 66, 75, 81, 82 , 83, 89 , 99, 100, 105 , 106, 107, 108, 109,110, 111, 113, 114 , 116, 118, 120, 121, 124 , 128, 129, 130, 131, 133 , 136, 137, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151,159,160, 161,162 , 163, 169 , 170, 173, 175, 177, 181, 183, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195,197,198, 199, 200, 202, 203, 206 , 212, 213, 218 , 219, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 233, 235 , 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 247, 249, 252, 255, 256, 260, 261, 262, 263, 267, 268, 271, 272, 274, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281; Law of desir e (see Law, of desire) Devereux, George , 12 4 Devil, 45, 136, 158, 159, 161, 162, 192, 226, 264, 271 Dialectics, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, 30, 34, 46, 47, 48, 52 , 55, 64, 68, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84 , 86, 87, 92, 94, 96, 100, 101, 102, 104,105,106,108,109,110, 111 , 123 , 129, 130, 132, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143,146, 148,150,155,159 , 161,162 , 170, 175, 176, 180, 182, 190,192, 193, 197,199, 224 , 230, 235, 241, 242, 245, 246, 247, 248, 264, 266, 267, 268, 269, 273, 275, 277, 278, 281, 282, 283 Dialogue, 11 , 19, 80, 84, 86, 181, 200, 276 Diatkine, Rene , 114,116,12 3

Index Differance, 148 , 233 Difference, 3 , 4, 5,11, 14 , 16, 17,18, 20 , 21, 24, 26 , 27, 31, 35 , 37, 38, 41, 42 , 49, 51 , 52, 53 , 56, 60, 61, 67, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82 , 84, 91, 94, 100, 101,103, 107 , 108, 111 , 114,120, 121 , 122,123, 127 , 129, 131 , 133, 137, 138, 144,145, 147 , 148, 149 , 152, 156, 174,180, 188 , 192, 193, 194 , 214, 217, 218, 228, 232, 233, 237, 239, 241, 242, 243, 245, 246, 252, 253, 255 , 262, 266, 267, 268, 269, 272, 274, 279, 281 Dionysian complex , 46 , 48, 178, 181, 182, 183, 200 , 208, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 224, 225, 229, 230, 278 Dionysus, 29 , 42, 45, 47, 48, 49, 51,133, 136, 182 , 184 , 185, 200, 201, 202 , 203, 204, 205, 206, 209, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 227, 229, 230, 272, 273, 284, 285 Discipline, 1 , 2, 97,159, 173,174,185 , 189 , 193, 196 , 215, 227, 242, 249, 250, 251 , 252, 254, 275, 281, 284 Discourse, 2 , 4, 6, 10 , 12, 13, 14, 16, 18, 23, 24, 25, 26, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 43, 45 , 46, 47, 49, 50, 54, 55, 56, 59, 71, 72 , 73, 75, 77, 78 , 81, 83 , 84, 85, 86, 87, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 100,113, 115 , 116, 137, 139, 159, 161 , 194, 198,199, 213 , 215, 223, 224, 242, 246, 249, 251, 252 , 253, 255, 256, 257, 260, 263, 266, 267, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 283, 28 4 Disembodied mind , 143 , 154, 163, 164, 167, 206 Domina, 196 , 238, 244, 245, 256, 275, 284 Dominance, 3 , 7, 17 , 21, 23, 28, 29, 31, 32, 39, 45, 67, 73 , 76, 81 , 102 , 105, 106, 109, 110, 111 , 114,115, 134 , 136, 138, 139, 140, 150 , 154 , 155 , 157, 167, 171, 178 , 179, 180 , 184 , 185, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 , 195, 196, 204, 210, 218, 220, 224, 227, 228, 230, 232, 235, 236, 238, 241, 242 , 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 250, 254, 256, 261, 266 , 267, 268, 272, 273, 278 , 280, 281,282,28 3 Dominatrix, 178 , 190, 193 , 219, 225, 237, 275, 282 Dreams, 24 , 57, 82, 114, 115, 118, 120, 124, 181, 201 , 203 , 222, 269, 27 5

Drives, 63-67 , 86, 87, 92, 101-7 , 122 , 125, 307 133, 147-55 , 163,165 , 171 , 172, 180, 224, 231, 244 , 253, 264, 267, 268; ego , 20, 22, 30, 64, 67, 92,101,102,104, 105 , 110, 130 , 142 , 148,150, 151,153 , 173, 184, 193, 194, 267, 271, 274 , 280, 283; Eros, 101 , 151, 153, 155, 178, 261; sexual , 30, 37, 63, 64, 66, 92, 98, 103, 104, 105, 110, 139, 149, 150,160, 162 , 167, 171, 174, 176, 183, 193, 195, 267, 274, 280, 283; Thanatos , 101 , 102, 105, 130, 149, 155,185 Dualism, 20 , 30, 34, 48, 54, 74, 87-89, 92 , 100, 101, 102, 108, 111, 140 , 142, 145, 148, 152 , 161, 162, 193,195, 261 , 267, 268, 271, 272 , 283 Dworkin, Andrea , 4 , 8, 25 4 Eckstein, Emma , 18 7 Egalitarianism, 21 3 Ego, 19 , 20, 22, 30, 31, 32 , 42, 47, 53, 6 369, 75 , 76, 83, 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 , 93, 101 , 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 110, 113, 119, 120, 121 , 122,123, 124 , 127, 128, 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136, 139, 142, 143, 144, 145, 148, 150,151, 153, 157, 159, 160, 161 , 163, 173, 174,175, 176,177 , 183, 184 , 185 , 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 202, 203 , 209, 210, 215, 229, 237, 239, 248, 261 , 267 , 269, 271, 273 , 274, 278, 280, 283 Ego ideal, 32, 175 Einstein, Albert , 78 , 260, 26 7 Epistemology, 55 , 93, 98 Equality, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 8, 12, 14, 17, 22, 36, 156, 191 , 213 , 218, 220, 230, 233, 238, 241, 245 , 246, 266, 267, 272, 275, 278 Eros, 20, 22, 30, 42, 47, 48, 101, 102, 104, 105, 119 , 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 139, 140, 148 , 149, 150, 153, 155, 159, 161 , 162, 178, 184, 185, 200, 203, 205, 207, 209, 211, 227, 235, 237, 256, 261, 268 , 273, 274 , 278, 283 Euripides, 47 , 216, 226 Evil, 8, 21, 73, 136, 159, 192, 200, 208, 223, 226, 236, 240 Evolution, 37 , 38, 49, 52, 55, 62, 63, 64, 67, 92, 97 , 98, 101, 127, 132, 166, 208, 209, 220, 28 3

Index 308

Fantasy, 7 , 18,19, 21 , 27, 31, 39, 57, 62, 73, 74, 77, 83, 92, 111, 114-38,141,150, 154, 160, 161, 162, 173,174,176,177 , 178, 179 , 184, 186, 187,189,193, 194, 195, 198 , 203, 205, 212, 214, 218, 219, 224, 225, 227, 228, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 243 , 244, 246, 248, 252, 256, 261 , 263, 264 , 267, 268; original, 6, 40, 41, 42, 81, 125 , 127, 128,129, 130 , 132,133,134 , 135, 136 , 137, 140, 145,146,147,148 , 149, 151 , 153, 155, 156,180,182, 206, 208, 209, 226, 230, 269, 278, 282; pri mary original , 130 , 148,151, 155,180, 208, 209, 230, 269; privileged original , 130, 156; unconscious , 20 , 36, 37, 41, 44, 47, 75 , 78, 79, 96, 117,119, 120,121, 122, 127 , 132, 136, 140, 145, 151, 15 6 Father, 13 , 20, 29, 32, 34, 36, 40, 41, 43, 47, 48, 110 , 130, 131,132, 137 , 139, 145, 148, 149, 152 , 153, 154,155,156, 157,158 , 160, 163, 175, 177, 178,179, 185 , 186, 191, 195 , 203, 211, 236 , 259, 260, 261 , 262, 267, 279, 280, 281, 282 ; La w of the Fathe r (see Law, of th e Father) ; Name o f th e Father , 130,154 , 155, 276 Felman, Shoshana , 5 0 Female domination, 111 , 140, 246, 256 Female sexuality. See Sexuality, femal e Female supremacy , 3 , 5, 26, 273 Femininity, 19 , 20, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 42, 48, 97, 98,109,129, 139 , 158, 159 , 176, 178, 182, 183, 191, 204, 213, 214 , 218, 225, 227, 232, 233, 237 , 243, 245 , 251, 254 , 255, 257, 264, 268, 271, 280, 281, 28 3 Feminism, 1-5 , 10 , 11, 12,13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18 , 19, 20, 21, 22 , 23, 25, 26, 28, 31 , 37, 42, 43, 47, 50, 51, 52, 94,105, 106, 116, 138, 200, 210, 213, 220, 230, 231 , 233, 238 , 246, 254, 256, 266, 268, 272, 273, 282 Feminists, 2 , 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 13, 14,15,16, 17, 19 , 20, 21, 27 , 28, 31, 36 , 43, 44, 106, 115, 200, 213, 223, 227, 228, 233, 246, 254, 273, 276 Ferenczi, Sandor, 187 , 188 Flax, Jane, 10 Fleiss, Wilhelm, 186 , 187

Fold, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 87,100, 111 , 112, 172, 199, 223, 224, 264, 266, 275, 276, 277, 278 Foucault, Michel , 14 , 23,11 5 Frazer, Si r James George, 45,141, 227 , 228, 251 Freud, Anna, 12 2 Freud, Sigmund , 3 , 13,14,15, 16,17,18 , 19, 20, 22, 23, 24 , 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 40, 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 56 , 58, 60, 62, 63 , 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 75, 78, 80, 91 , 95, 96 , 97, 98, 101-5,106,108,114,115 , 117, 118,119, 120,121,122 , 123,125 , 126, 127, 128, 129,131,135, 139 , 144, 156, 157, 158,171,172,173,174-79 , 180, 181, 185-87,190,191,193, 194 , 195, 197 , 200, 203, 214 , 218, 240, 252, 253, 261 , 262 , 263, 265 , 268, 276, 283 , 285 Freudian, 3, 13, 20, 22, 24, 27, 31, 33, 46, 48, 59, 98, 105,122, 139 , 173,194, 203, 217, 261 Gaia, 147 , 268, 269, 272, 284 Gallop, Jane, 20 Gap, 54, 87, 172,184, 195,197,198 , 199 , 207, 224, 236, 243, 249 Gaze, 18, 100, 162,178,192, 230 , 236, 240, 244, 271 Gender, 1 , 7, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 31, 32 , 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 46, 48, 50, 51 , 81 , 87 , 94, 95, 105, 108, 109, 112, 124, 129 , 137,138, 139,140, 146,150 , 156,180, 185,189 , 191,192 , 198 , 203, 211, 217 , 218, 220, 230, 255, 261, 266, 267, 271 , 272, 273, 277 , 279, 281, 28 2 Generative power o f nature , 7, 32, 33, 41, 44, 48, 83, 137,138, 143,146,148, 149 , 152, 154 , 155, 156,159, 170,180,181, 197, 209, 210, 211, 236, 239, 256, 260, 265, 277, 282 Girard, Rene , 235, 243, 247 Girls, 32, 157, 175,189, 229, 264, 280 God, 40, 41, 42 , 43, 45, 48, 74, 77, 92, 93 , 95, 103 , 133, 135, 136,140,146,154,155 , 157, 158,159,160,162,163,164,166 , 168, 184, 192, 196, 201, 203 , 204 , 205, 206, 209, 212, 214, 240, 241, 243, 249 , 259, 260, 269, 278, 279, 282

Index Goddess, 42, 43, 45, 49, 82,133, 134,135, 140, 146, 147, 150, 178,183, 184,185, 190, 196, 201, 202 , 205, 209, 213, 226, 227, 229, 233, 241, 243, 250, 251, 254, 256, 269, 273, 275, 281, 282 , 283, 284 Gods, 45, 140 Goux, Jean Joseph, 34, 35, 36,153,154, 263, 279, 280, 281 Grand theory , 6 , 7, 12 Greenaway, Peter , 22 9 Haggard, Rider , 2 4 Harding, M . Esther , 15 0 Hawkins, Stephe n W. , 267 Hegel, G. W . F. , 14, 106,108, 190 , 239, 247 Hegelian, 80 , 106, 108, 110, 180, 190, 218, 247 Heidegger, Martin , 14,10 2 Heisenberg, Werner , 54 , 208 Heraclitus, 48,183, 207 Herbert, Nick , 56 Hero, 27 , 34, 82,162, 179 , 201, 217, 225, 234, 236, 239, 257, 259, 263, 271, 275, 278, 279, 280, 281 Heroine, 213 , 252 Heroism, 218 , 261 Heterosexuality, 9 , 15, 21, 26, 51, 99,100, 105, 181 , 184 , 224, 242, 245, 256, 268 Hierarchy, 1 , 12, 18, 20, 73, 81, 87,130, 132, 181 , 210 , 216, 220, 240, 245, 246 , 247,264,266,268,279 History, 1 , 9, 22, 40, 43, 44, 45, 48, 51, 80, 81, 90 , 103, 108,116, 123,124,126,127 , 134, 142, 155, 164,186, 190 , 214, 245, 255, 274, 275, 284 Hook, R . H. , 114 , 120,124,131, 132 Husband, 40 , 136, 140,146, 157,158 , 189, 190, 229, 248 Hymen, 81 , 82, 83, 87, 112, 243, 274, 275, 276 Id, 20, 47, 53, 65, 105,184, 27 4 Image, 8, 36, 41, 60, 67, 68, 72, 76, 81, 83, 84, 89, 91, 94,100,104, 106 , 120,126 , 130, 135, 140, 143,144, 145,146,155 , 160,161,162, 163,167,178,179,184 , 190, 203, 214, 224, 232, 233, 237, 239, 240, 256, 273, 275, 278 Imaginary, 5 , 42, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83,

90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96,102,103,104, 111, 113, 115 , 116,130,136,138, 140,142 , 143, 144,146,148,149,151,152,153 , 155, 156 , 157,172,174, 175,184,190 , 207, 230, 243, 246, 254, 267, 268, 269, 272, 273, 274, 277, 278, 282, 284 Inanna, 13 4 Individuation, 7,18 , 31 , 34, 65,127,129 , 150, 161, 235, 247, 260, 261,27 3 Infant, 2 , 33, 62, 76, 91,110,117,120,129 , 132, 172,173, 204, 261, 279 Instinct, 48, 57, 60, 61, 63-67, 69, 87,101 4, 118 , 119, 120,121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 131 , 132,133,134,141,142, 171 , 172, 195, 210, 218, 253, 283; reproductive, 63, 65, 67,142; sexual , 63, 65, 66, 67, 69,101, 120 , 132, 171 Irigaray, Luce , 8,14, 200 , 245, 255 Irony, 21 , 28, 218, 221 Isaacs, Susan, 120,12 2 Ishtar, 13 4 Isis, 134,150, 25 5 Islam, 41,135, 227 Jaspers, Karl, 223 Jehovah, 45, 189, 260, 272, 284, 285 Jesus, 212 Jones, Ernest, 56 , 127,13 2 Jouissance, 7 , 75, 111, 136,157,172,179, 181, 185,190 , 194,197,198,199 , 204 , 217, 219, 225, 227, 237, 239, 240, 241 , 248, 252, 253, 254, 256, 267, 271; of dom ination, 140 , 189, 196, 228, 235, 242, 244, 245, 247, 250, 282; of submission , 109 , 160, 177, 180, 183, 189,190,195, 219, 229, 238, 250, 255, 278, 281; of transcen dency, 193 , 249; o f transgression, 192 , 193, 242, 243, 249 Joy, 5, 8,172, 208 , 215, 220, 223 Jung, Carl G., 24 , 25, 34, 56, 58, 285 Jungian, 24 , 26, 27, 141, 182 Kali, 49, 233, 251, 272, 280, 284 Kant, Immanuel , 4 7 King, 35, 40, 45, 133, 205, 216, 226, 227, 259, 263, 278, 279, 281 Klein, Melanie, 1 3 Knowledge, 6 , 7, 13, 23, 28, 52, 53, 54, 77, 83, 86 , 87, 92, 93, 94 , 95, 96, 100, 111 ,

309

Index 310 Knowledg e (Continued ) 113, 115 , 116, 128, 173, 177,183,195, 207, 208, 213, 216, 220, 221, 259 , 265 Koko, 58 Kristeva, Julia, 14 , 57, 60, 84 Labyrinth, 49 , 200, 201, 202, 215, 217, 263, 265, 270 Lacan, Jacques, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51 , 55, 56 , 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 68, 69-72, 75, 76, 77, 80, 84, 85, 86, 87, 89, 90, 91 , 93, 94 , 95, 96, 97,100, 102,103 , 105, 106, 108, 111, 113 , 122, 127, 131, 136 , 137, 139 , 140, 143, 144,146, 147,153 , 155, 156 , 157, 159, 163, 169, 170, 174, 177, 179 , 181, 184, 190,191, 192, 194, 197, 198 , 199, 200, 203, 218, 225, 227 , 237, 238, 240, 243, 244, 249, 252, 254, 261, 264 , 267, 272, 274, 276, 285 Lacanian, 2 , 5, 6, 20, 26, 27, 35, 51, 70, 93, 102, 182 , 190, 224, 225, 228 Lack, 3, 17, 18, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 34, 51, 63, 74 , 87, 96,105, 140, 145, 169, 178, 180, 184, 195, 197, 199, 211, 228, 232, 233, 234, 243, 244, 249, 261, 262, 263 , 267, 269, 277, 279 Lagache, Daniel, 116 , 118, 120 Lampert, Laurence , 218 Language, 1 , 6, 7,13, 25, 29, 35, 36, 38, 40, 47, 52-61 , 64 , 68, 69-75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 84, 85 , 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 93,103, 111, 113, 116 , 123, 124, 126,130, 131 , 136, 138, 139 , 140, 141,142, 147 , 153,157, 158, 164 , 182, 191, 194 , 197, 199, 200, 206, 209, 223, 229, 244, 255, 259, 264, 268, 269, 275, 276 Languaging primate , 56, 87, 96, 198 Laplanche, Jean, 40, 64, 102, 117, 122, 125, 126, 127, 129, 171,172,173,175,18 7 Law, 2, 5, 8, 21 , 34 , 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 , 44, 47, 57, 60, 73, 77, 95, 108, 109, 114, 124, 125, 134 , 152, 153, 155,159,162, 163, 165, 167 , 179, 190, 191, 192 , 193, 203 , 211, 212 , 224, 229, 248, 249, 262, 263 , 266, 271, 272, 282; o f desire , 32, 170, 219, 278; o f the Father , 160 , 195, 211 , 236, 262, 267, 268; of th e Mother , 147 , 268; o f seduction , 20 4

Liberalism, 4, 5, 18 Libido, 17, 65, 68, 69, 92, 98, 101,102, 108, 138, 145 , 147, 176, 181, 194 , 224, 267, 273, 27 8 Literature, 10 , 19, 80, 81, 101, 134, 180, 249, 282 Logic, 1, 2, 77, 89, 97, 98,114,120,149 , 154, 155, 159, 165, 236, 245, 247, 250, 258, 259, 266, 270 Logos, 8, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 47, 49, 77, 143, 152, 153 , 154, 155,157,158, 160 , 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 168, 169, 203, 206 , 207, 208, 215, 216, 227, 229, 236, 239, 240, 257, 260, 261, 263, 266, 267, 270, 272 Love, 48, 50, 65, 107, 110, 137, 140,146, 150,159, 188 , 190,197,198, 203 , 204, 206, 210, 212, 217, 219, 222, 224, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 253, 254 , 256, 262, 274, 275, 281, 28 4 Lover, 133 , 135, 201, 237, 239, 254, 281 Lovers, 134, 181 MacKinnon, Catherin e A. , 4 , 7, 8, 106 Madness, 47, 48, 49, 90, 115,131,155, 182, 220 Male domination, 17 , 21, 23, 28, 29, 32, 45, 105, 106 , 115, 140,185, 230, 246, 256, 266, 273 Maleness, 6, 49, 111, 143, 277 Male sexuality . See Sexuality, mal e Male supremacy, 27 3 Mankind, 49 , 192, 220, 221, 247 Marx, Karl , 14, 36 Marxist, 27 , 48 Masculinity, 19 , 20, 24, 26, 30, 32, 37, 41, 42, 51 , 97, 98,109,129, 153 , 154, 178, 182, 184, 191, 204 , 228, 229, 236, 238, 245, 251, 255, 257 Mask, 19 , 48, 75, 81,103,178, 214 , 216, 232, 240, 243, 246, 257, 272, 276, 285 Masochism, 7 , 20, 27,101,105, 134,150 , 160, 163, 173,174-85,188, 189,190 , 191, 192 , 193, 194,195,196, 214 , 218, 219, 224, 226, 228, 230, 235, 238, 244, 246, 248, 249, 250, 262, 267, 275, 280, 284 Masquerade, 48, 178, 198 Masson, Jeffre y Moussaieff , 186 , 187

Index Master signifier , 6 , 35, 83, 86, 87, 89, 92, 96, 100 , 111, 130,138,143,144,146,147 , 148, 149 , 151, 169, 170, 182, 206, 209, 256, 269, 275, 276, 277, 278, 281, 28 2 Master-slave, 7 , 39, 108, 109, 110, 180, 181, 190, 191 , 197 , 210, 211, 218 , 219, 229, 231, 235 , 239, 254, 256, 272, 279, 284 Materialism, 15 3 Material reality . See Reality, materia l Maternal, 45 , 47, 129, 139, 147, 153, 175, 177, 191 , 201 , 204, 227, 233, 280 Mathematical, 5 , 59, 81, 94, 95, 154, 208, 260, 266, 267 Matriarchal consciousness , 6 , 43, 44, 45, 162, 227 Matriarchy, 6 , 21, 33, 43, 44, 45, 47, 134, 147, 150, 161,162, 180 , 227 Matricentric, 175 , 240, 252 Matricide, 36, 263, 280 Matriphallus, 33 , 42, 47, 48, 100, 149, 150, 177, 178 , 184, 185, 213, 218, 224, 226, 227, 241 , 262 , 278 Matrisexual, 44 Matrix, 6 , 49, 81, 143, 147, 207, 208, 234, 268, 269 Matter, 8 , 10, 38, 43, 45, 55, 56, 66, 70,11, 81, 84 , 92, 93, 145, 147, 153, 154, 180, 185, 211, 241, 245, 269,28 3 Maturana, Humbert o R. , 11 5 Medusa, 45, 49, 82, 133, 177, 232-37, 239, 240, 243, 246, 257, 280, 284 Metaphor, 4 , 5, 6, 12 , 21, 37, 39, 40, 48, 49, 50, 55, 56, 60, 72, 74,11, 83, 93,113, 116, 131 , 135 , 137, 142, 143, 145, 147, 148, 152 , 153, 170,197, 206, 208, 210, 223, 234, 239, 240, 241, 242, 248, 259, 267, 273 , 277, 278, 282 Metaphysicians, 165 , 212 Metaphysics, 5 , 6, 7, 55, 164, 217, 224, 254, 264 Metonymy, 37 , 72, 83, 143, 145, 197, 241, 242, 273 Miller, Jacques-Alain , 57 , 85, 93, 94, 95 Mind/body dualism , 34 , 54, 74, 88, 89,142, 152, 195 , 261, 267 Minotaur, 200 , 201, 278, 284 Mirror, 8 , 47, 16, 81, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 106, 109, 135, 144,161, 207, 255, 262, 274, 284, 285

Mirror image , 8, 81, 83, 135, 161 }11 Misogyny, 3 , 12, 44, 47, 140, 162, 185, 197, 211, 227 , 267, 272 Modernity, 4 , 13 , 21, 23, 47, 207 Mohammed, 15 9 Monster, 24 , 34, 35, 82, 207, 237, 240, 263, 275, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 283 , 284 , 285 Mother, 2 , 20, 21, 24, 27, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 39, 40, 41, 42 , 44, 47, 48, 62, 16, 99, 108, 109, 120, 128, 130, 131, 132 , 137, 139, 144, 145, 147, 148,149,150,151, 153, 154, 156, 160, 167, 172,173, 175, 178, 179, 180 , 191, 197 , 202, 203, 229 , 254, 260, 261 , 262 , 263, 280 , 281, 282, 284; Law of th e Mothe r (see Law, of th e Mother) Mysticism, 3 , 14 Myth, 13 , 34, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 51, 81 , 83 , 93 , 97, 98, 104, 114, 115, 120 , 123-25, 126, 127, 128, 131, 132, 133 , 134, 135, 136, 145, 147, 150, 151, 154 , 177, 179, 190, 202, 203, 216 , 218, 228, 232, 234, 236, 239, 259, 263, 269, 270, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 , 284 Mythology, 34 , 234 Mythos, 36 Name o f th e Father . See Father, Nam e of the Fathe r Narcissism, 75 , 101, 109, 128, 129, 144, 157, 159, 182 , 183, 184, 235, 260, 261, 278, 280 Narrative, 6, 14, 22, 36, 42, 45, 46, 55, 131, 133, 135 , 144, 145, 148, 149, 153, 162, 177, 182, 204, 225, 226, 227, 231, 267, 279 Nature, 2 , 7, 11, 12, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, 32, 33, 37 , 39, 41, 42 , 44, 45, 48, 49, 52, 53 , 56, 58, 61, 71 , 83 , 84 , 87, 92, 98, 99, 102, 103, 104 , 106, 114, 117, 120, 128, 131 , 132, 133 , 137, 138, 142, 143, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 152,154, 155,156 , 157, 159, 160, 163, 165, 167, 170, 176, 180, 181, 182 , 184, 192, 197, 205, 206, 207, 209, 210, 211, 212 , 215, 216, 223, 224 , 227, 236, 237, 239, 247, 256, 260, 261 ,

Index J12 Natur e (Continued ) 263, 265 , 267, 274, 277, 278, 281, 282, 283, 28 4 Negation, 96 , 104,107,119, 122,132,134 , 148,161, 26 4 Neurosis, 5 , 12 , 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 32, 40, 46, 47, 58, 65, 66, 68, 75, 92,104,105 , 114, 115, 117,122, 123,125 , 126,128 , 130,139,140, 145 , 174,176,177,181 , 183, 185 , 187,188,191,192,195, 230 , 246, 267, 271, 27 2 Newton, Si r Isaac , 78 Nietzsche, Friedrich , 4 , 6, 8 , 9, 13 , 14,15, 16, 22, 28, 29, 30, 36, 39, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 , 51, 80, 142,163,164,165,166 , 167, 168 , 169, 200, 201, 206, 207-24 , 227, 231 , 233 , 240, 243, 264, 265, 269, 270, 271, 275 , 284, 285 Nihilism, 163,164 , 208 , 283 Nirvana, 154 , 28 5 Object, 6 , 25, 32, 52, 53, 57, 62, 63, 70, 71, 75,16, 83, 84, 87, 88, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 100,106,107,108,109,110,113,116, 118, 120 , 123, 137,144,146, 147,160 , 169, 171 , 175, 176,180,188, 190,197 , 198, 213, 219, 235, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 243 , 245, 247, 252, 254, 255, 257, 272, 28 1 Objectification, 84 , 205, 239, 240, 254, 255 Oedipal, 2 , 3, 4, 5, 7, 8,17,18, 23 , 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 42, 46, 48, 69,105,110,119 , 120, 126 , 129, 130, 137,139,156,161 , 175, 176,177,178,180,185,187,188 , 189, 190 , 191,195, 203 , 204, 216, 217, 218, 224 , 226, 227, 230, 239, 241, 259, 260, 261, 262 , 270, 271, 273 , 278, 282 Oedipus, 4 , 8, 20, 25, 32, 34, 35, 36, 47, 48, 66, 125 , 157,170, 203 , 219, 228, 229, 236, 242, 256, 259, 260, 261, 263 , 265, 266, 270, 271, 273 , 281, 283, 284, 285 Origin, 21 , 29, 31, 33, 41, 53, 57, 58, 66, 69, 106, 117 , 118,127,128,129,130,131 , 132, 133 , 135, 138, 142,145, 147 , 148, 149, 152 , 153, 154,156, 158,166,167 , 171, 172 , 187, 201, 202 , 227, 239, 267 Oshima, Nagisa , 22 5 Osiris, 134,150 , 25 5 Other, 1 , 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10,13,14,15,16,18 ,

19, 21 , 22 , 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33 , 34, 35, 42, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54, 57, 58, 59, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71 , 72 , 73, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 , 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 97,100, 103,106,107,108,109,110, 111 , 112, 113, 114 , 115,116,119,120,125,129 , 130, 131,132,134,138,140,141,143 , 144, 147,148, 149,151,152,155,156 , 157,158,160,161,166,169,170,171, 172,174, 178,180,181,182,184,190 , 191, 192 , 196,197,198,199, 202 , 203, 204, 206, 207, 209, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 223 , 225, 228, 229, 230, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 241, 242 , 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251 , 252, 253, 254, 256, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 267, 269, 270, 272, 275, 276, 277, 278, 281, 282 , 283, 284 Overman, 50 , 209 Paedophilia, 19 0 Paganism, 134 , 140, 184, 206, 220, 225, 282, 284 Paglia, Camille , 45,181, 23 4 Pain, 7 , 30, 38, 49, 61, 83, 89, 124, 160 , 167, 172, 173,176,177,179,183,184,185 , 192, 198, 214, 219, 220, 221, 233 , 248, 250, 256 Pan, 45, 47, 136,140, 185 , 201, 277, 278 Parmenides, 207 Parvati, 42,134 , 27 2 Paterfamilias, 4 5 Paternal phallus , 34 , 47, 48, 152,177, 227 Pathology, 7 , 17, 18, 42, 47, 92,114,115 , 139,145, 183,188,189,190,192,195 , 205, 230, 262, 267, 271,27 2 Patriarchal civility , 4 , 193, 242, 256, 257, 261, 266 , 267, 268, 272, 276, 278 Patriarchy, 2 , 4, 5, 6, 8, 21, 23, 29, 32, 39, 42, 44, 45, 47, 49, 94,115, 152,162,189 , 190,192, 193 , 209, 210, 212, 225, 232, 233, 239, 242, 246, 255, 256, 257, 261 , 263, 266, 267, 268, 269, 271, 272, 273, 276, 278 Patricide, 3 6 Patriphallus. See Phallus, patriphallu s Paul, 8,158,159,161,162,192,193, 212 , 214, 248, 284

Index Penis, 8 , 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 68, 96, 97, 98, 99,129,130,132,133,136,137,143,145, 148, 149 , 150, 151,152, 153,154 , 157 , 160,161,162,163,177, 228 , 232, 235, 242, 255, 262 Pentheus, 47 , 216, 217, 236, 27 3 Perception, 28 , 36, 39, 53, 55, 56, 57, 61, 66, 16, 11, 82, 88, 89, 91,106,113, 116 , 117, 145,172,183, 248 , 262, 273 Persephone, 20 2 Perseus, 236 , 279, 280, 284, 285 Perversion, 17 , 31, 42, 92, 136, 145,174 , 176, 179 , 180, 181,182,184,187, 188 , 189,190,194,195,198, 203 , 205, 218, 272 Perversity, 7 , 23, 26, 42, 48, 51, 111, 131 , 150, 181, 194,195, 201 , 249, 261, 267, 275 Phallocentricity, 3 , 17, 24, 26, 29, 32, 35, 38, 44, 46, 47, 94, 96, 97, 99, 105,133, 143, 149 , 151,152,153,154,157, 160 , 162, 175 , 176, 178,183,188, 189,198 , 204, 217, 219, 228, 233, 235, 239, 242, 245, 256, 257, 260, 262, 264, 267, 271 , 272, 273, 278 Phallus, 17 , 18, 20, 25, 27, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 47, 48,11, 93, 94, 96, 97,100,129,130,131,133,136,137,139, 146, 148 , 149, 150,151,152,153,154 , 155, 156 , 157, 159,160,161, 163 , 169, 175, 177 , 178,195, 201 , 203, 205, 215, 219, 227, 228, 230, 236, 240, 255, 257, 261, 262 , 263, 264, 266, 268, 269, 273, 278, 283; patriphallus, 33 , 34, 42, 47, 48, 99,100,146,151,157,160,161,162,163, 182, 184 , 185, 213, 218, 219, 224, 226, 227, 230, 239, 241, 267 Phantasy. See Fantas y Philogyny, 140,146 , 197 , 223 Philosopher, 108 , 139,167, 221 , 223, 259, 264, 272 Philosophy, 35 , 36, 54, 55, 56, 94, 102, 103, 106, 134, 153, 154,159, 242 , 276, 282, 283, 28 4 Physicists, 5 6 Physics, 54 , 56, 59, 94, 95, 142, 266, 267, 269 Pinker, Steven , 8 6 Plato, 47, 16 2

Platonic, 154,16 2 313 Play, 13 , 21, 22, 33, 43, 68,11, 80, 86, 91, 118, 120 , 124, 138,144,145,148,170 , 175, 181 , 204, 205, 219, 229, 230, 233, 236, 238, 239, 240, 242, 244, 246, 247, 252, 262, 271, 273 , 275, 276, 278, 283, 284, 285 Pleasure, 11 , 20, 30, 37, 39, 41, 64, 83, 89, 101,109,114,117,118,120,123,129, 160, 161, 162, 172,173,174,177,179 , 181,183,189,190,192,198, 201 , 217, 219, 221, 225 , 228, 229, 235, 236, 248, 256, 257, 267, 274, 278 Pleasure principle , 20 , 101, 114, 117, 118, 181 Politics, 15 , 16, 17, 21, 22,105,178,19 1 Pontalis, J.-B., 40, 117 , 122, 125,126, 12 9 Pornography, 8 , 34, 120,134,160, 161,162 , 163, 188,189 , 190,193 , 219, 224, 225, 243, 249, 252, 256, 275, 282 Postmodernism, 1 , 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14,15,16,19, 21 , 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 31 , 37 , 42, 43, 44, 47, 49, 51, 52 , 92, 98, 106 , 116, 138, 207, 246, 254, 273, 284 Poststructuralism, 13 , 16, 27, 46 Power, 2 , 6, 7, 9, 12 , 16,17, 20 , 22, 25, 32, 33, 39 , 41, 44, 48, 53, 65,16, 83, 111, 137, 138 , 143, 146,148,149,152,153 , 154, 155, 156,157,158,159,170,177 , 178, 179,180 , 181,182,183,188,197 , 202, 204, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 217, 219, 220, 221, 224 , 225, 227, 228, 231 , 233, 235 , 236, 238, 239, 242, 244, 245, 246, 248, 252, 253, 255, 256, 259, 260, 263, 265 , 270, 273, 277, 279, 282 Praxis, 28,115, 23 8 Primary origina l fantasy . See Fantasy, pri mary origina l Primary signifier , 29 , 73, 74, 94, 96, 100, 138,142, 143,146,147,150,151,155 , 170, 180, 181,182, 200 , 206, 208, 209, 213, 230 , 231, 237, 242, 244, 246, 254, 255, 256, 261, 268 , 269, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 283 Primate. See Biped primat e Privileged signifier , 6 , 25, 34, 35, 36, 73, 74, 93, 96 , 98, 100, 116, 139,140,142,143 , 144,145,146,149,151,152,157,163, 164, 169,170,180,182, 184 , 200, 216,

Index 214, 228 , 273; of unconscious fantasy , 36 , 314 Privilege d signifie r (Continued ) 37, 44 , 75, 78, 79, 96, 140, 145, 151 236, 241 , 242 , 246, 249, 254, 255, 256 , Registry o f th e Imaginary , 5 , 96, 113, 115 , 257, 264 , 266, 267, 269, 276, 277, 279, 116, 143 , 144,149,151, 174, 254, 269, 280, 282 , 283 177, 27 8 Propping, 171,173,185, 253 Psyche, 7, 12,19, 22, 26, 27, 41, 47, 49, 52, Registry o f th e Real , 77, 81, 96, 115 , 116, 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 67, 84, 86, 88, 91, 105, 143, 20 7 115, 120, 124, 129, 133, 148,169, 218, Registry o f th e Symbolic , 5, 76, 96, 102, 224, 267, 285 103, 113,115 , 116, 143, 144,174, 254, 269, 27 7 Psychic reality. See Reality, psychi c Religion, 7 , 8, 34, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, Psychoanalysis, 1 , 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 78, 90 , 93, 124,134, 154 , 159, 160,162, 13, 14 , 15, 16, 17, 18,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 163, 168 , 184, 189, 193, 195, 209, 212, 24, 25 , 26, 28, 31, 32 , 37, 42, 44, 46, 47, 220, 224 , 226, 249, 250, 252, 267, 284 48, 49 , 50, 51, 52 , 53, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 69, 75 , 84, 86, 92, 95, 97, 99, 102,106, Repression, 6 , 11, 18, 20, 22, 39, 44, 45, 46, 50, 57, 64, 66, 67, 73, 74, 75, 92, 94, 104, 109, 114 , 115, 117, 118, 122,124, 125, 109, 115 , 119, 120,121,122, 124,131, 137, 138 , 149, 159,161, 173,175, 181, 134, 138 , 139, 145, 149,153, 162, 170, 182, 186 , 187, 188,190, 191,192 , 194, 174, 175 , 176, 177,183,191,194,195 , 198, 205 , 214, 232, 246, 247, 254, 259, 205, 212 , 218, 226, 235, 236, 240, 260, 261, 263 , 264, 268, 273, 276 261, 262 , 266, 269, 270, 272 Psychology, 24 , 54, 114, 145, 204, 211, 223 , 265, 27 8 Reproduction, 32 , 33, 37, 38, 45, 50, 61, 63 , Psychosis, 103 , 139, 198 65, 67, 68, 74, 83, 96, 99, 100,103, 104, 108, 127 , 132,133, 135, 141,142, 143, Radical feminism , 2 , 4, 12, 16, 22, 47, 50, 145, 146 , 148, 149, 151, 152,153, 169, 172, 185 , 194 233, 24 6 Rape, 17, 160, 161, 185, 186, 188, 193, 196, Ressentiment, 211 , 212, 213 201, 243 , 267, 283 Ritual, 47, 114, 124, 133, 134, 135, 141, Real, 4, 5, 7, 8, 40, 43, 74, 75, 77, 78, 81, 159, 177 , 179,181, 204, 216, 219, 225, 83, 95 , 96, 98, 102, 107, 113, 115, 116, 226, 227 , 238, 251 122, 126 , 130, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 143, 146 , 154, 158, 161, 164 , 167, 184, Sacrifice, 2 , 5, 7, 9,10, 17 , 20, 27, 33, 42, 187, 188 , 197, 204, 207, 223, 224, 225, 45, 48 , 50, 100, 105, 133, 134, 135,136, 147, 148 , 149, 150, 151 , 153 , 155, 160, 237, 240 , 241 , 243 , 246, 249, 250, 253 , 177, 178 , 184, 192, 200, 202, 205, 210, 256, 267 , 269, 273, 282, 284, 285 213, 216 , 219, 220, 221, 225 , 226, 227, Reality, 1 , 2, 5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 230, 231 , 241 , 247 , 248, 250, 262, 273 , 22, 23 , 31-38, 43, 45, 51-58, 67, 68, 70, 275, 278 , 280, 281, 28 3 72, 81 , 82, 85, 87, 90, 98, 99,101, 107 , 110, 119 , 120,122, 123 , 127,136, 138, Sade, Marquis de , 8, 161, 162, 180, 189, 149, 150 , 154, 160, 164,175, 177, 179, 192, 24 3 180, 181 , 182 , 186, 188, 195, 206, 208, Sadism, 101 , 160, 174,176, 179 , 180, 188, 215, 227 , 228, 230, 234, 245, 255, 262 , 192,193, 195 , 250 272, 276 ; material , 16 , 23, 32, 36, 37, 38, Sadomasochism, 18 8 43, 44 , 73, 74, 75, 78, 79, 80, 84, 92, 95 , Saintliness, 19 4 98, 100 , 113, 115,116, 117,118 , 124 , 126, Saint Theresa , 194 , 237 130, 132 , 134, 135, 139, 140, 145, 148, Samuels, Andrew, 26 1 153, 156 , 204, 218, 241; psychic, 22, 23, Saussure, Ferdinan d de , 70 32, 33 , 34, 36, 38, 47, 48, 124, 132, 163 , Science, 35, 36, 43, 48, 52, 54, 55, 56, 59,

Index 62, 66, 70, 78, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 116, 152, 156 , 163, 165, 186, 187, 207, 223 , 229, 240, 242, 260, 265, 266, 267, 269, 282, 283, 284 Scott, Gini, 150 Seduction, 3 , 17, 19, 20, 31, 41, 42, 60, 125, 126, 131, 132, 133, 134, 136, 138,148, 149, 151 , 153 , 159, 160, 161, 162 , 175, 185, 186 , 187, 190, 191, 192 , 200, 203 , 204, 205, 209, 213, 219, 226, 259, 278 Segal, Hanna, 47, 117, 122, 134 Self a s a manifestation o f the Other, 25, 199, 252, 253, 281, 28 2 Self a s a manifestation o f th e Subject , 25 , 45, 87, 199 , 236, 242, 249, 251, 252 , 253 , 254, 255, 276, 280, 281,28 2 Serpent, 35 , 45, 133,134,136,150, 232 , 240, 273, 278 Sex, 20, 24, 32, 33, 37, 38, 83, 87, 94, 95 , 97, 100 , 101, 102, 109, 128, 129, 145, 146, 148, 149 , 154, 159,169, 172 , 175, 182, 184, 191 , 192, 204, 205, 218, 242, 243 , 245, 250, 254, 255, 263 Sexuality, 3 , 16, 18, 22, 23, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40, 41 , 45 , 48, 49, 50, 61, 63 , 65, 66, 67, 69, 83, 86, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98,100, 101, 103 , 104, 105,109,110, 111 , 119, 120, 125 , 126, 127,128, 129 , 130, 131, 132, 133 , 134, 136, 137, 139, 140, 141 , 142, 143 , 144, 145,146, 147,148 , 149, 150, 152 , 153, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161 , 162, 167 , 169, 172, 173,174, 175 , 177, 178, 179 , 180, 181 , 183 , 184, 187, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 198, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 211, 214, 218, 219, 220, 221, 224 , 225, 226, 228, 230, 232, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243 , 245, 246, 249, 254, 255, 261, 263 , 264 , 265, 267 , 268, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 277, 278, 280, 283, 284; female , 19 , 20, 32, 42, 96, 97, 99, 182, 234, 236; human , 11, 12 , 17, 28, 37, 38, 64, 68, 97, 108, 157, 170 , 171, 176, 185, 186, 188, 191 , 269; male , 19 , 20, 26, 33, 47, 51, 96, 182, 191; mammalian , 7 , 38, 49 Sexual organs , 32, 68, 143, 147, 172, 174, 189, 225, 228, 234, 240, 273 Sexual relations , 39, 126, 194, 265

Shakespeare, William, 43, 251 SHE, 23-27, 34-36, 45, 82, 209, 221, 225, 274, 275, 276, 278, 280-85 Sherfey, Mar y Jane , 97, 98, 99 Shiva, 42, 133,134, 272, 273 Signification, 55 , 71, 73, 75, 94, 95, 96, 100, 111, 115 , 116, 130,138,143,147,149 , 244, 255, 268, 272 Signified, 70 , 71, 72, 82, 89,130, 157 , 234, 241, 26 2 Signifier. See Primary signifier ; Privilege d signifier Signifiers, 57 , 71, 72, 73, 75, 85, 87, 89, 92, 95, 104 , 111, 130, 139,140,143, 145, 146, 170, 171 , 182, 230, 238, 268, 269, 277 Silverman, Kaja , 178 , 183, 228, 229, 252, 253, 255 Slave. See Master-slav e Society, 22, 44, 45, 68, 76, 108, 109,125, 132, 144, 146, 190, 215, 240, 254, 272 Son, 47, 132,133, 134, 135, 136, 157, 158, 178, 218 , 251, 258 , 259, 279, 280, 281 Sophocles, 34, 203, 259 Sphinx, 4, 34, 35, 82, 128, 236, 242, 259, 260, 263, 265, 270, 277, 278, 284 Spirit, 13 , 41, 49, 92,135,154,155,161, 162, 163, 167, 211,212,24 8 Subject, 6 , 18, 19, 25, 28, 30, 34, 35, 37, 38, 40, 45, 52, 57, 58, 59, 60, 66, 70, 73, 75, 76, 78, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 , 93, 94, 95, 99, 100, 107, 109, 111 , 112, 113 , 117, 118, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 134 , 137, 138, 139, 144, 154, 156, 157, 160 , 169, 176, 177, 181, 182 , 184, 189, 195, 196, 197,199, 206, 228, 230, 235, 236, 238, 241, 242 , 245, 247, 249, 250, 251 , 252 , 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 262, 264, 265, 267, 269, 273, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 28 2 Subjectivity, 16 , 25, 26, 34, 53, 86, 87, 111, 113, 178 , 183, 217, 228, 245, 252, 253 , 254, 255, 276, 280, 283, 284 Sublimation, 195 , 238 Submission, 7 , 14, 21, 32, 33, 42, 67, 81, 109, 110 , 111, 136, 138, 139,140, 147, 150, 152, 153, 157, 158, 160, 174, 177, 179, 180 , 183, 184, 185, 188,189, 190 , 191,192, 193,195,196,197 , 204 , 215,

3*5

Index 316

Submission (Continued ) 216, 219 , 227, 228, 229, 230, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 239, 241, 242 , 243, 244, 245, 248, 250, 252, 255, 256, 257, 262, 267, 271, 275 , 278, 281, 282 , 283 Suppression, 69 , 138, 176, 212, 263 Symbol, 4 , 35, 40, 41, 42, 45, 47, 57, 59, 60, 61, 70 , 72, 16,11, 78 , 86, 91, 94, 95, 100, 102, 103 , 111, 120,124, 126 , 127,128 , 131, 133 , 135,136,138, 139,140,142 , 145, 146 , 147, 148, 149, 152,157,170 , 177, 178 , 179, 184,185, 195 , 197, 202, 203, 204 , 214, 218, 225, 227, 229, 232, 233, 236, 243, 246, 253, 259, 262, 263, 267, 268, 273 Symbolic order , 57 , 72,16,11, 103,127 , 178, 179 , 246, 25 3 Symptom, 6 , 18 , 50, 60, 66, 68, 75, 90, 92, 104, 105, 121,130, 131 , 139,140,145, 176, 181 , 184,191,193,195, 264 , 265, 267, 27 1 Tao, 11

Text, 11,13 , 14 , 15,17, 27 , 28, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 40, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 63, 80, 81 , 83, 87 , 133, 138, 182,189, 200 , 203, 208, 210, 213, 214, 223, 227, 231, 239 , 252, 253, 255 , 256, 259, 269, 275, 276, 277, 282, 285 Thales, 5 2 Thanatos, 20 , 22, 30, 47, 48, 101,102, 104 , 105, 139 , 140,148, 149 , 150,155,159 , 184, 185, 198, 205, 210, 235, 274, 278, 283 Theseus, 200 , 201, 213, 218, 236, 284 Transference, 5 0 Tremeau, Fabien , 22 5

Truth, 14 , 16, 21, 22, 29, 36, 43, 44, 47, 50, 54, 55,11, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 95,110, 112, 114, 116,138,145,163, 165,167 , 168, 198 , 201, 202 , 205, 207, 216, 220, 221, 223 , 224, 237, 240, 242, 245, 246, 247, 259, 260, 261, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 270 Try on, Thomas , 225 , 227 Unconscious, 20 , 22, 26, 30, 31, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44 , 46, 47, 50, 55, 57, 58, 59, 61, 63 , 66, 68, 69, 75,18, 79 , 85, 86, 89, 91, 92 , 96,109,114,117,118, 119,120 , 121, 122 , 125,127,130,131, 132,133 , 134,136, 138 , 139,140,145,148, 151 , 156,161,178, 181,187,191,195 , 228 , 241, 245 , 249, 254, 261, 263 , 265, 274, 280 Unconscious fantasy . See Fantasy, uncon scious Vagina, 96 , 97, 98, 99, 234, 235 Vance, Carol e S. , 1 1 Violence, 12 , 226, 235, 236, 247, 263, 272, 274 Von Sacher-Masoch , 179,180 , 189 , 219, 221, 227 , 229, 238, 250 Will t o power, 39 , 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 220, 225, 227, 231, 25 6 Womb, 32 , 33, 45, 94,131,132, 143 , 145, 146, 147, 148,149,151,152,154,156 , 201, 268 , 273 Zarathustra, 50 , 51, 206, 208, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222 , 223, 270, 271, 28 4 Zeus, 272, 279 Zizek, Slavoj , 238, 244, 24 9