3 de June de 2020

The Discordance Between the Sexes in the Light of Psychoanalysis

XVIII Study Days of the ELP – 23rd and 24th November 2019 – Palau de la Musica, Valencia Translated by…


XVIII Study Days of the ELP – 23rd and 24th November 2019 – Palau de la Musica, Valencia

Translated by Roger Litten

ARGUMENT

 

Etymologically, discordance refers to sentimental dissension, hearts that are in disaccord, in conflict. It is a word that accommodates itself to the immense variety of complications proper to the relation between the sexes for those who inhabit language. In contrast to other sexuated living beings, those who inhabit language do not have a natural programme that would indicate in a certain and definitive manner the object that corresponds to them. On the other hand, neither is the real of their anatomy sufficient to conclude about the sex that each one might end up attributing to themselves.

Of course it is on the basis of anatomy that boys and girls are identified at birth, but as Lacan says “sexuated beings are authorised only by themselves”[1], that is, the classification of the Other does not prevent them choosing, but even when they accept to align themselves with one of these signifiers nothing implies that they will take as partner someone from the opposite category.

In the absence of instinctual determination, speaking beings resort to language to organise their sexuality. Freud thus conceived the phallus – fruit of the cooperation between the imaginary of the difference between bodies and the symbolic of the paternal law – as the operator that orders the real of sex and orients the choice of partner: men aspiring to use theirs like the father – but submitted to the fear of losing it in an imaginary or symbolic sense – and women wanting to obtain one by right – but with envy and resentment on account of their supposed inferiority. Any prior real remained forever lost.

In this way the man would incline towards the woman and the woman towards the man, but exclusively due to the relation that each maintains with the phallus, which is declined between having it and being it, with the support of semblants to construct a seeming to present to the world. From this phallic angle there is no sexual relation but instead a relation to the phallus.

Nonetheless, Freud already perceived that the woman escaped in part from this logic of the phallus; she had something mysterious about her, something that fluctuated between disturbing and malign.

In reality, his intuition took up something that comes to us from the origin of time: whether in the Olympus of the gods, where Eris cast the apple of discord into the world, triggering the Trojan war, or in the terrestrial paradise where Eve bit into the apple, tempting Adam to breach the law that God had instituted with speech, pushed by a jouissance beyond the signifier.

Reprising the Freudian intuition and renouncing it in favour of the symbolic, Lacan formulated that there is an indomitable real that cannot be grasped with the signifier and that satisfies the body. With the added particularity that this jouissance is always and exclusively of one’s own body, as a result of which it too entails no pairing between two, it does not cause a relation between two. In consequence, it is also from this perspective that we stumble upon the sexual non-relation, the non-complement between the sexes.

If this jouissance of the body is more accessible to the woman it is because being less phallic she is closer to the real, while the man is, in general, bloated by the phallus, submitted to it. The not-all phallic that femininity implies is presented as disturbing for the power of the symbolic, for the phallic power that the man supposedly has in being the possessor of the organ of copulation. The rejection of femininity, in all its manifestations – violence, depreciation, subjugation, annulment, degradation – thus turns out to be, simply, the rejection of the real. The discordance is ready to be served.

From this point of view, the relation of the couple with respect to the encounter of bodies consists in each of them approaching their partner as means of jouissance, that is, putting them in the place of the symptom. And we are well aware that relations with one’s own symptom are neither peaceful nor necessarily pleasant.

Fortunately, there is the recourse of love, to which Lacan attributed the dignified function of being supplement to the relation that does not exist. Because making love transcends procreation and coupling, and above all, purports to transcend autistic jouissance. With love, two bodies can see themselves led to overcome the contingency of an occasional encounter in order to believe themselves necessary to each other.

Lacan asked whether the speaking being was like this on account of what happens with sexuality or whether, on the contrary, whether this is what happens with sexuality because he is a speaking being. He never gave an answer to this question. He left us with the paradox involved in inhabiting language: it permits a margin of manoeuvre much greater than that available to other living beings but at the same time introduces a relational complexity without parallel. We parlêtres are in this sense a unique species.

What can one expect from an analysis in regards to all this? A psychoanalysis is the experience in which a speaking being can elaborate, isolate and make legible the writing of the mode of jouissance that prevails for him, thus opening up a certain degree of liberty.

It can also facilitate the access to a new love – different from the narcissistic and absolute love that leads discordance to take the form of ravage, of sacrifice or of homicide – an unprecedented love that takes lack and difference into account.

The XVIII Study Days of the ELP will treat these and other questions on the basis of the psychoanalytic clinic as symptoms of our civilisation.

——————————

[1] Lacan, J., Seminaire XXI, Les non-dupes errant, Lesson of 4th April, 1974, unpublished.

Related Posts

Sexuação: a não-identidade do sexo – (Much Ado about Nothing) – Enric Berenguer (ELP)

4 de Maio de 2020

4 de Maio de 2020

  Praticamente nenhum significante-mestre em nossa época resistiu à comoção daquilo que o “desconstrucionismo”, acreditando-se agente, foi apenas um sintoma...

The Clinical Study Days 13 (CSD13) – Isolda Alvarez and Juan Felipe Arango (NLS)

26 de Março de 2020

26 de Março de 2020

Jouissance: The stuff that dreams are made of, were successfully held on New York from February 21st to 23th,2020. Gratefully...

Entrevista a Eric Laurent por Raquel Cors Ulloa Parte 2

11 de Março de 2020

11 de Março de 2020

Raquel Cors Ulloa: Éric, usted en su reciente reflexión sobre tres encuentros entre lo femenino y la no relación sexual[1],...

Todo el mundo quiere éxtasis – Marisa Morao (EOL)

9 de Março de 2020

9 de Março de 2020

    Comentario sobre el artículo Why Do We Think Suffering Is Good for Us? publicado en https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/ketamine-depression.html Un enfoque...

Isak Dinesen, A feminilidade e a letra – Miquel Bassols (ELP)

1 de Março de 2020

1 de Março de 2020

  A relação entre a feminilidade * e a letra[1] foi colocada por Jacques Lacan em inúmeras ocasiões ao longo...

La máquina de grabar los sueños y su ininterpretable – Marga Auré (ECF)

15 de Fevereiro de 2020

15 de Fevereiro de 2020

  Si Freud ve en los sueños la vía real de acceso al inconsciente, la ciencia también se ha interesado...

The Feminine Uncanny, Saying the unsayable – Marcela Antelo and Iordan Gurgel (EBP)

14 de Fevereiro de 2020

14 de Fevereiro de 2020

translated by Marcela Antelo reviewed by Nicholas Csergo  and Gary Marshall 23rd Brazilian Encounter of the Freudian Field / 20th...

Le féminin unheimlich, Dire l’indicible – Marcela Antelo et Iordan Gurgel (EBP)

9 de Fevereiro de 2020

9 de Fevereiro de 2020

Traduction : Nicholas Csergo Révision : Pierre Louis Brisset Présentation de la XXIII Rencontre Brésilienne du Champ Freudien Le féminin est...

BOOMERANG – Beatriz Gonzalez-Renou (ECF)

9 de Fevereiro de 2020

9 de Fevereiro de 2020

HEBDO-BLOG Ce texte est un extrait de l’intervention de Beatriz Gonzalez-Renou à « Question d’École », le 1er février 2020. Si dès...

Infans #0 – Boletin de las XI Jornadas de la NEL

29 de Janeiro de 2020

29 de Janeiro de 2020

  Editorial Infans, es el Boletín que acompañará la preparación de las XI Jornadas de la NEL, “Lo insoportable de...

El misterio de los congresos – Mitra Kadivar (AMP)

26 de Janeiro de 2020

26 de Janeiro de 2020

Traducción: Ana Cecilia González Tengo la impresión de haber escuchado el nombre de Freud desde siempre, pero no fue hasta...

Puissance de la parole. Clinique de l’École – Entretien Laurent Dupont (ECF)

25 de Janeiro de 2020

25 de Janeiro de 2020

From L’Hebdo-blog    L’Hebdo-Blog : « Clinique de l’École », est le sous-titre de la journée. C’est équivoque n’est-ce pas ? Laurent Dupont : « Question...

Lo insoportable de la infancia – Entrevista a Eric Laurent (primera parte)

24 de Janeiro de 2020

24 de Janeiro de 2020

XI JORNADAS DE LA NEL BOGOTÁ, 23, 24 Y 25 DE OCTUBRE DE 2020 VIDEO  

Beyond Ontology – Esthela Solano-Suárez (ECF)

24 de Janeiro de 2020

24 de Janeiro de 2020

“To interpret, here the word fails, and it should be substituted with another, such as to circumscribe, to attest”[1]. This...

Comments
Deixe uma resposta

O seu endereço de e-mail não será publicado. Campos obrigatórios são marcados com *

Esse site utiliza o Akismet para reduzir spam. Aprenda como seus dados de comentários são processados.