Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.

ht(

S)*+A, D-..)/)01): ENCORE, 2)3 A4A-0 Anup Dhar

This paper looks at the question of sexual difference within psychology and considers what Lacan does with this question. Thereafter it looks at what the perspective of critical psychology can do with Lacans understanding of sexual difference. In this sense, this paper is a defense (focusing on the pro ise! and a critique (focusing on the pro"le ! of Lacan. #ection I of the paper is an extension of the Lacanian take on sexual difference into the space of psychology, a space driven hitherto "y either the "iological, or the rather conservative understanding of sexual difference. #ection II tries to show how Lacan, in spite of so e "rilliant insights $ insights that give to psychology a distinct spin $ could not exit the ga e, for he is foiled again and again "y the ferocious two$fisted red$"looded %hallus (#pivak, &''() *+!. ,owever, to look at the question of sexual difference, one first needs to look at the question of the su"-ect in general, and the sexed su"-ect in particular. and it is on the question of the su"-ect that psychology and Lacanian psychoanalysis would have to part ways, for there is a /funda ental inco pati"ility "etween Lacans work and psychological views of the individual su"-ect0 (%arker, 1223) '+$&&+!. 4ver to Ian %arker5 Secti'n -: 5hat ,acan %'e& $ith the 6ue&ti'n 'f &exual %ifference $ithin 7&ych'l'gy8 This section takes off fro %arkers critical insight into the relationship "etween Lacanian psychoanalysis and psychology. perhaps there is no such thing as a relationship "etween Lacanian psychoanalysis and psychology. 6or there is a /funda ental inco pati"ility0. hence /atte pts to assi ilate the two traditions are isconceived0. 7ith respect to the question of the su"-ect, in /On the Subject Who is Finally in Question 0, Lacan "rings into the field of psychology so ething uncanny. 7hat follows is not -ust a /su"version of the su"-ect0, or a fracturing of the su"-ect (which in other words is a plurali8ing of su"-ect positions as against one given su"-ect position!, "ut an understanding of the su"-ect question "eyond the 9eality$9ationality$%leasure %rinciple, "eyond what gets written in an apparent and transparent way on the surface sheet of the :ystic 7riting %ad. It is an understanding pre ised on the co plex we" of legi"ility$illegi"ility residing in the wax sla" underneath. it is pre ised on what gets written and overwritten on the wax sla", producing pali psests, producing unfa iliar ( anus!scripts (;har, 122<, 122'!. 6or Lacan, It is in the specific reality of interpersonal relations that a psychology can define its own o"-ect and its ethod of investigation. The concepts i plied "y this o"-ect and this ethod are not su"-ective, "ut relativistic. (122*) =&! 4ne such interpersonal and relativistic site is the site of therapy or analysis > the site of the therapist$client or the analyst$analysand. Lacans interventions into this interpersonal and relativistic site take psychology (and its ore aggressive cohort > psychiatry > focused first on the reduction of non$reason to unreason and then a particular engage ent with unreason pre ised on the ads i agined and anticipated threat to self or others! in and of the 7est "eyond control, surveillance and nor ativi8ation$related functions. :ore specifically, it takes psychology "eyond the nor al$and$the$pathological as the defining dyad of approaching the question of ental dis$ease. such that the diagnostic categories ade
&*<

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

glo"al through the ? erican %sychiatric ?ssociation do not re ain sacrosanct (6oucault, 1223) 1'&!. 4ne "egins to think odels of relationality "eyond the dyad cure$confor ity. #uch that nor ativities, deviations fro the , and return to the (the conversion of the ego$ dystonic to the ego$syntonic! are not the li ited nu "er of options availa"le to the clinical setting. #uch that there is no nor al@straight stick, against which pathological@"ent@queer sticks are easured. %sychopathology as a su"$discipline within psychology thus "eco es su"-ect to the deconstructive (%arker et al. &''+!. 6or Lacan all sticks are under water. all sticks are "ent in yriad ways. ?ll sticks have to the an I aginary, a #y "olic and a 9eal face(t!. ?ll sticks are arked "y conscious co it ents and unconscious dispositions. all sticks re ain enaced "y the two layered$ness of the :ystic 7riting %ad > two layered$ness arked "y a perceptually available innocence and legibility on the surface layer and an infinite resource of intricate and uncanny traces on the deeper layer (;errida, &'=<) 11*!. In the process, Lacan inaugurates in the sciences of the ind an attention to and an understanding of intersubjectivity (as against the first$person and third$person approaches to a science of the ind! through in turn an attention to language, language as not -ust representing reality, /"ut rather the su"-ect0 (Aorch$Baco"son, &''1) <+!. Language is constituted as not -ust setting up a relation "etween the word (word$presentation! and the world (thing$presentation!, "ut as setting up a relation "etween and a ong su"-ects. Lacan inaugurates an attention to the /relation "etween the signifier and the su"-ect0, to the /essentially linguistic structure0 that underlies even /hallucinatory texts0 (Lacan, 122*) (('!&. ,e inaugurates at a"out the sa e ti e an attention to undisclosed language, at language that has "een dimmed over, that has "een occluded, that re ains buried, at covered up language, and also at scripts that are apparently illegi"le (Lacan, 122*) 3*(. :itchell, 1222) *!. #inged "y a Lacanian indset, psychology co es to have in addition to cure$related functions, "oth care and truth related functions. and truth related functions inaugurate in psychology an attention to the old #ocratic question /in what way should one liveC0 (Lear, &'''!. The other relativistic site for Lacan is the site of sexual difference. The two of sexual difference is a etaphor for the two of the analytic situation, and the two of the analytic situation is a etaphor for the sexed couple (that is not necessarily hetero$sexed!. Aoth point to the li its of love and knowledge. "oth point to the li its of the love of knowledge (the li its of o"-ectivity! and the li its of the knowledge of love (the li its of transference!.1 To understand the two of sexual difference, we "egin with one of 6reuds less noted o"servations on the question of sexual difference) It is co only assu ed that one is "orn either a an or a wo an. DAut weE ust keep psychoanalysis separate fro "iology -ust as we have kept it separate fro anato y and physiology0. (6reud writes in &'3+ in a letter to Farl :uller Araunschweing! The psychoanalytic two is thus different fro the "iological two. The psychoanalytic two in Lacans return to Freud3 can "e expressed through at least two tropes (if not ore!) (i! Ladies@Gentle an and (ii! frog@"eer "ottle. Lacan thus takes us "eyond the fa iliar ode of arriving at and accessing the two. ,e takes us "eyond the conservative fa iliar of "iological sexual difference and the radical fa iliar of the sex$gender distinction. he takes
&

/7hether it wishes to "e an agent of healing, training, or sounding the depths, psychoanalysis has "ut one ediu ) the patients speech. The o"viousness of this fact is no excuse for ignoring it0 (Lacan, 122*) 12*!. 1 The other perspective would "e to see love as not li ited and finite "ut as constitutively de$li ited and infinite. 7hile, in this paper, I have stressed the li its and the finite nature of love, y friend #a"ah #iddiqi has however e phasi8ed and drawn attention to the de$li ited and the infinite nature of what could "e called love. 3 Is a return to 6reud a return to the Logic of 6reudC 4r is it a return to the 6reud of Logic. return to 6reudian logic. the 6reudian logic "eing different fro ?ristotelian logic (where ?ristotelian logic is represented through ?ristotles three Laws of Thought!C &*'

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

us to sexual difference and to sexuation (where sexuation is the process "y which we unconsciously co e to occupy two odes$of$"eing$within$language!. ,aving inaugurated the two, Lacan oves to the relationality "etween the two of Ladies@Gentle an or the frog@"eer "ottle. ,e shows, or shores up, the i possi"ility of the relationship "etween the two. ,owever, why is it i possi"leC Is it i possi"le "ecause it is constitutively difficult to "e relatedC Then it is a pro"le of related$ness. Is it i possi"le "ecause it is difficult to relate the sexed twoC Then it is a pro"le of sexed two$ness. ?lternatively, is it in the nature of the Lacanian construction of the twoC #uch that the way Lacan constructs Ladies@Gentle an, the two would forever re ain unrelated and would "e arked "y a constitutive wedge or schis . ,owever, whatever the pro"le s of the construction of the two, it cannot "e denied that Lacan raises significant questions with respect to the two of sexual difference. ,e also pro"le ati8es the notion of wo an > /7o an with a capital W, 7o an as singular in essence does not exist. 7o an as an all$enco passing idea (a %latonic for ! is an illusion0 (footnote "y Aruce 6ink in Lacan, &''<) =!. There is thus a ultiplicity of wo en, "ut no essence of /7o anhood0 or /7o anliness0 (Fop-ec, 122(!. ,owever, it is pro"le ati8ed not -ust in ter s of plurali8ing the notion of wo an through adding class, race, and caste to gender. It is to pro"le ati8e wo an as the su"-ect of fe inis . The question of the sexed su"-ect or of sexual difference would now flow through a nu "er of su"$sections concerning a nu "er of pro"le s and paradoxes represented through the following) &. 1. 3. (. Ladies and Gentleman) the discursive two Frog and the eer ottle) the su"-ective two !here is no such thing as a sexual relationship D"etween the twoE /I agine theres no wo anH0 /7o an does not exist0. 7hat (then! is wo anC 7hat is it to "e a wo anC (Lacan, &''=) &=+!. +. #exual ;ifference beyond a prescriptive and an adaptation$ist i pulse (:itchell, &'=() xv. %arker, &''=) 1&, 1223) '=! > where psychoanalysis is not a reco endation for a patriarchal society "ut an analysis of one. 4f the a"ove five, the first three will "e developed in detail in the next three su"$sections. %ro"le s nu "ered ((! and (+! will infor #ection II of the paper titled Fritical %sychology and #exual ;ifference. 1. 3he two 'f ,a%ie& an% 4entle(en ? train arrives at a station. ? little "oy and a little girl, "rother and sister, are seated in a co part ent face to face next to the window through which the "uildings along the station platfor can "e seen passing as the train pulls to a stop. Look, says the "rother, were at LadiesH Idiot, replies his sister, cant you see were at Gentle enC (Lacan, 122*) (&=! In Lacans description each child is a"le to see only one of the rest roo s) /it is the girl who sees Gentle en and the "oy who sees Ladies. as if one could see only the sex one is not, as if only the sex one is outside of could "e perceived as a whole, unified locus0. The psychical consequences of the anato ical distinction "etween the sexes have a structure si ilar to that of the situation in this anecdote. Through the "iological given of sitting on one side of the co part ent or the other, each sex is placed in a structure, and as such is una"le to see that structure. The "iological differences are only of i port to en and wo en in so far as they institute the su"-ect into the play of the signifier. Iet, whether the
&=2

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

su"-ect knows it or not, it ust function in relation to an ar"itrary and thus a"solute "oundary "etween the two real s of Ladies and Gentle en, a "oundary installed irrevoca"ly upon its hori8on through the advent of the signifier. Ladies and Gentle en will "e henceforth for these children two countries towards which each of their souls will strive on divergent wings, and "etween which a cessation of hostilities will "e the ore i possi"le since they are in truth the sa e country and neither can co pro ise on its own superiority without detracting fro the glory of the other. (Lacan, &'==) &+1! This quote is paradig atic of Lacans ove fro the "iological two to the discursive two of sexual difference. In this rendition, the li"idinal econo y e erges as the econo y of an inco ensurate two. It is paradig atic of Lacans arrival fro the logic of the One to the logic of the two. 7hat exactly do we ean "y One and twoC 7hat do we also ean "y the ove ent fro the logic of the 4ne to the logic of the twoC Is it representative of a ove ent fro conventional psychology to Lacanian psychoanalysisC Is conventional psychology the logic of the 4neC Is Lacanian psychoanalysis the logic of the twoC Let us first represent One "y p. 7hat then could "e twoC ,ere there are two possi"ilities. %ossi"ility I) one can have the two of p and Jp > where Jp does not have a self$ definition or description > where Jp is si ply the lacking other of p > where p is the standard and Jp is that which is conceptually lagging in ter s of the standard. %ossi"ility II) one can have the two of p and q where p and q are arked "y difference (in the context of this paper the difference is one of sexual difference! and not "y the "inaris of p, Jp. 9epresented in ter s of the language of logic ( the ove ent fro One to two is thus a ove fro the purported two of p, Jp (which in actuality is arked and circu scri"ed "y the 4ne of p! to the two of p, q. It is also paradig atic of a ove ent fro conventional psychology (which understands sexual difference in ter s of the logic of p, Jp! to Lacanian psychoanalysis (which understands sexual difference in ter s of the two of p, q!. ,aving inaugurated the logic of the two of p, q, Lacan oves to an i possi"le /relationship "etween /the $two0 (la relation d"eux! > the $two sexes0 (Lacan, &''<) *! > such that analytic discourse co es to "e /pre ised solely on the state ent that there is no such thing, that it is i possi"le to found ( poser! a sexual relationship0 (Lacan, &''<) '!. The two of psychoanalysis ake an uneasy two# it unma$es the One. the two of p, q can never "e collapsed into 4ne. The trope of Ladies@Gentle an, as such fixes structurally the place for an and wo an. Iet Lacan is not an adaptationist. Kor is Lacanian psychoanalysis /concerned with strengthening the ego0 (%arker, 122<) +!. It is not that each one of us would have to ove in this direction only. Lven if we have "een given structural locations, we occupy uncanny su"-ect positions > positions akin to the frog and the "eer "ottle. %iscourse is not the limit&

In two$valued ?ristotelian logic, the principle of "ivalence is related to the excluded syntactic expression of the language of a logic of the for p or J%. &=&

iddle and the latter is a

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

2. Frog and Beer-Bottle: 9the &u:;ect& '$n acc'unt< %sychology is the field of the /i aginary,0 in the sense of the illusory. (Lacan, 122*) *+! MiNek (&''<) &=3! discusses a Aritish "eer advertise ent. The advertise ent is set with two poles in ind > the "iological pole that has two participants, the wo an and the an, and the su"-ective pole that has two different participants, the frog and the "eer$"ottle. In the advertise ent, a wo an walks along a strea , sees a frog, takes it gently into her lap, and kisses it. The frog turns into a handso e young an. The an casts a covetous glance at the girl and in turn kisses her. The girl turns into a "ottle of "eer. 6or the "iological wo an, the point is that her love and affection (signalled "y the kiss! turns a "iological frog into a "eautiful an. for the an, the point is to reduce the "iological wo an to a partial o"-ect, the o"-ect$cause of his desire. Aecause of this su"-ective asy etry, /there is no such thing as a sexual relationship0. 7e have either a wo an with a an (the o"-ective pole! or a frog with a "eer "ottle (the su"-ective@fantas atic pole!. %erhaps, this is what intersubjectivity is really all a"out. it is a"out standing face to face with the subjective two of a frog embracing a beer bottleH The inauguration of the su"-ective two "y Lacan (as against the "iological two and in addition to the discursive two! co plicates further the question of the relationship between the two. Given the onolingualis of p, Jp in psychology, there is not uch question of a relationship. ,owever, the notion of relationship takes on an altogether different turn as soon as one inaugurates the two in general and the su"-ective two in particular. =. Still /ea%ing Encore: 9there& n' &uch thing a& a &exual relati'n&hip< 5 /theres no such thing as a sexual relationship0 5 it is "ased only on the written in the sense that the sexual relationship cannot "e written (ne peut pas s"'crire!. Lverything that is written ste s fro the fact that it will forever "e i possi"le to write, as such, the sexual relationship. (Lacan, &''<) 3($3+! 7hat does Lacan ean "y /i possi"le to write0C I possi"le to write whatC 7rite the sexual of the relationshipC 4r the relationship of the sexualC ,ere Lacans stress is not -ust on the ter sexual "ut also on the ter relationship ((l n"y a pas de rapport sexuel!. Is relationship (that requires two and a two$ness! haunted "y the i possi"le negotiation of an inco ensurate two, the inco ensurate two of sexual differenceC+ ;oes the a"sence of a relationship ean, /there is no relation of the sexual0C ;oes the assertion stress the sexual such that Lacan concedes the possi"ility of relations other than the sexualC Only the sexual belies relatedness such that there is no such thing as a sexual relatedness. ,owever, there are other for s of relatedness. It is the sexual for that is always in question. ;oes he ean to say that relation is so ething more than the sexualC 4r does he ean to say that /the sexual relates nothing0C
+

This section is a take on The #e inar of Bacques Lacan titled On Feminine Sexuality) !he Limits of Love and *nowledge Aook OO > +ncore &'=1$=3. Aook OO is also a work on the wo an question) one ust see the radical difference of what is produced at the other pole, on the "asis of wo an. 5 for 7o an, so ething other than o"-ect a is at stake in what co es to ake up for ( suppleer! the sexual relationship that does not exist0 (Lacan, &''<) *3!. 4ur relation with this text could "e su ed up in the rather uncharacteristic politeness that inha"its Lacan at the "eginning of the text) /"e y guest, "e y worst0 (&''<)&!. &=1

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

The /sexual Das suchE relates nothing0 is an interesting expression. what relates is more than the sexual. what relates is beyond the ere sexual. Fan one then say that love co es to supple ent the lack of sexual rapport (see ?lan Aadiou in lacanian in$ 1& > /!he Scene of !wo0!C ;oes Lacan in the process pro"le ati8e the idea(l! of relatedness such that he hints at the limits of relations, at the relation$less,ness of relationC ;oes he ean to say that relation in a closed and secure sense is an i possi"ilityC The whole of the relation$ship is never ever achieved, relationship never reaches whole$ness, relation$ship is a /not$whole0, the whole of a relation, relation$ship as full presence is never ever achieved. ;oes the relation$less$ness of the relation refer to this other Lacanian axio according to which there is no wholeness (il n"y a pas de tout !. there cannot "e whole (or the whole! does not denote either a lack or an a"lation, since there would not have "een anything whole "efore there was not$whole. This eans oreover that all that there is, is not a totality (ne se totalise pas!.* 7here have we arrivedC 7hat does a theory of sexual difference offer usC ;oes it under ine our naPve opti is in easy legal union (say for exa ple through the pronounce ent that arks the institution of arriage) /hereafter you are an and wife0! as also in the possi"ility of the sexual relation, given that there are two su"-ects and not -ust 4neC 7hile psychology understands sexual difference in ter s of either "iological sex difference (and at ti es finds itself steeped in sexual conservatis !, psychoanalysis offers us an escape fro "iologis as also fro the logic of p, Jp. psychoanalysis facilitates our arrival at the logic of the two of p, q. the psychoanalytic invocation of the question of wo an takes us to the question of sexual difference. the psychoanalytic invocation of the question of sexual difference takes us to the question of wo an. Aut then, which wo an. which understanding of wo anC To think, which wo an we have to think once again how we arrived at the two of sexual differenceC 7here did we "eginC It was a "eginning fro the given of the :asculine 4ne (we have called it p!. It was in such a 4ne (p! that wo an appeared altogether a"sent. 4r perhaps, wo an was present, present as the lacking other (Jp! of the 4ne (p!. 7e were thus faced with the two of p and Jp. which was never really two. It was in actuality One. the One of p, where Jp was -ust the lacking co ple ent of p. 4ne can call this the co onsensical@conventional and conservative rendition of sexual difference, which, in actuality, is not sexual difference, it is difference su"su ed within the logic of the 4ne and the #a e (p!. To arrive at sexual difference one needs to arrive at the logic of the two. not the two of p and Jp. "ut the two of p and q. ,owever, this arrival at the two of p and q is thwarted "y the foreclosure of the q. 6oreclosure of q is, in turn, secured through the inclusion of an apparition of q (we call this apparition Jp, Jp as the substitute signifier of q! as the constitutive inside of the hege onic. %sychoanalysis was perhaps one of the earliest 7estern Luropean for s of thought, to have given thought to the question of sexual difference (and to wo an!. It was perhaps one of the earliest (apart fro fe inis ! to have worked through the asculine hege onic, so as to carve out, through an invocation of sexual difference, a space for wo an. to have thought wo an "eyond the asculine li"ido. %sychoanalysis was perhaps one of the earliest atte pts at an arrival at the two of sexual difference. Aut then, did Lacan really arrive at the twoC ;id he really escape the OneC 4r did the structure of the One co e to haunt once again, the structure of the twoC ;id the structure of
*

Kow what a"out the assu ed whole of a coupleC Fertainly, the couple is not a whole. The two does not ake 4ne. the play of a couple of forces does not erase the gap in the contact, in the relation ( rapport!. %erhaps nothing else can represent relation (as also jouissance! than the infinity of intimacy (that is the non$finitude of the inti ate! and the intimacy of infinity0 (that is inti acy "eing the "eing$inti ate with the infinite! (Bean$ Luc Kancy, !he -there is" of Sexual .elation, trans. 6ranson :an-ali > anuscript!. &=3

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

One$ness get reha"ilitated even at the o ent of the invocation of the structure of the twoC 7as wo an in actuality put outside even at the o ent of the invocation of the two of sexual differenceC 7hy was wo an put outsideC ;id we lose wo an "ecause the logic of the structure was, in the last instance, phallocentricC ,ow then can we find$found wo anC Secti'n --: 1ritical 7&ych'l'gy an% Sexual Difference This section looks at what a critical psychology perspective could do to psychologys understanding of sexual difference (which is at worst a "iological understanding and at "est a conservative understanding! "ut also to Lacans understanding of sexual difference. 6irst, it could shore up the question of wo an, once again and yet again. In the process, it could ove "eyond the rendition of wo an as the constitutive inside@lacking other (Jp! in psychology. it could also ove "eyond the rendition of wo an as the a"solute outside@;ark Fontinent in Lacan (which is another way of representing the Lacanian catchphrase (magine there"s no Woman/ DLacan, 122*) =*=E. wo an is outside, wo an is the unknown!. Instead, it could ove to an understanding where wo an e erges as the foreclosed@constitutive outside of the #y "olic. fro a critical psychology perspective wo an is not outside. woman is that which is put outside . wo an is that which is secreted out at the o ent of the constitution of the #y "olic. the Symbolic is constituted through a secreting out of woman. wo an is not unknown. woman emerges as the un$nown, given the constitution of the #y "olic in ter s of a phallo$ centric logic (i.e. , in ter s of the phallus as point de caption!. #ince Lacan takes the phallocentric constitution of the #y "olic as natural, the outsided,ness of wo an (and hence the a"sence of the sexual relationship! appear as natural. Fritical %sychology sees the #y "olic as a force field. as i "ued with power (not power as "rute@suppressive@overt "ut as the condition of foreclosure!. ,ence, a critical psychology perspective can shore up causalities where (for Lacan! apparently none see s to exist. 6ro a critical psychology perspective, the outsided$ness of wo an is caused "y the phallo$centric constitution of the #y "olic (whereas since Lacan takes the phallocentric constitution of the #y "olic as structurally given he isses out on the way wo an is secreted out at the o ent of the very constitution of the #y "olic!. ? different understanding of the #y "olic ight as well ake roo for wo anH ?nd why not, ake the sexual relation (that hitherto looked i possi"le! a possi"ility (even if not an easy possi"ility!H 4f course, this is not to deny that Lacan does open up space for the two. "ut even in Lacans rendition, the second of the two re ains as the a"solute outside. It is in this context one can ask, why does wo an e erge as the a"solute outside in the Lacanian renditionC Is it "ecause the phallus once again e erges as the privileged signifierC 7hich is why sexual relation also e erges as i possi"le (this is not to suggest that the sexual relation is instituted easily and effortlessly!C It e erges as i possi"le not -ust "ecause of the Ladies@Gentle an and the frog@"eer "ottle pro"le . It also e erges as i possi"le "ecause Lacan assu es the phallus (having or not having it is assu ed as funda ental to sexed su"-ectivity!. Fonsequently, a so ewhat neat and rigid spatial organi8ation is instituted > a closed illu inated inside (of the have$s > those who have the phallus!, "ounded "y phallic jouissance, and a distant$dark outside (of the have$nots > those who do not have the phallus!, arked "y the Other jouissance. In psychology, wo an e erges as the constitutive inside of the #y "olic. In Lacanian psychoanalysis wo an e erges as the a"solute outside. 6ro a critical psychology perspective wo an e erges as the constitutive outside of the #y "olic > constitutive yet outside, outside yet constitutive, where inside and outside are in a dyna ic
&=(

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

relation. #uch that inside and outside are produced si ultaneously and in one turn. such that inside and outside are locked in an inter ina"le play. requiring iteration and reiteration. and wasnt it Lacan who gave us the paradoxical trope of the 0oebius Aand. where relations "etween inside and outside are in flux. 7hallu& a& point de capiton 6reud 5 is foiled again and again "y the ost valua"le right$handed hitter of all ti e, as long as the ga e is "ase"all, the ferocious two$fisted red$"looded %hallus. Lacan could not exit the ga e, for he had not quit the application > "ased on that originary underived error of cogni8ance, of sexual difference. (#pivak, &''() *+! Lacan could not exit the ga e, for he had not quit the application of the phallus as point de capiton. /!he 0eaning of the 1hallus0 (&'+<! tries to e phasi8e the place and i portance of the #y "olic 4rder in the deter ination of hu an sexed su"-ectivity. This lecture is one of Lacans / ost direct expositions of the status of the phallus in the psychoanalytic account of sexuality0 (:itchell Q 9ose, &'<+! In this essay Lacan tries to retrieve the phallus fro its reduction to an o"-ect of pri itive oral aggression "elonging to the real of the instinct and instead place it wholly within the #y "olic 4rder. ,e urges psychoanalysts to understand the 6reudian invocation of the phallus as the invocation of a signifier in the strict linguistic sense of the ter , "ecause /the relation of the su"-ect to the phallus is set up regardless of the anato ical difference "etween the sexes 50 (Lacan, 122&) 3&&$311. &'<+!. In 6reudian doctrine, the phallus is not a fantasy, if what is understood "y that is an i aginary effect. Kor is it as such an o"-ect (part, internal, good, "ad, etc. 5! in so far as this ter tends to accentuate the reality involved in a relationship. It is even less the organ, penis, or clitoris, which it sy "oli8es. ?nd it is not incidental that 6reud took his reference for it fro the si ulacru which it represented for the ?ncients. For the phallus is a signifier 2 !he phallus is the privileged signifier of that ark where the share of the logos is wedded to the advent of desire. (Lacan, 122&) 3&*$3&'. italics ine! :oreover, why is the phallus, according to Lacan, the privileged signifierC 4ne ight say that this signifier is chosen as what stands out as most easily sei3ed upon in the real of sexual copulation4 and also as the most symbolic in the literal (typographical! sense of the ter , since it is the equivalent in that relation of the (logical! copula. 4ne ight also say by virtue of its turgidity4 it is the image of the vital flow as it is transmitted in generation& 5Lacan4 6778) 98:,98;4 italics mine# 8;:<= The phallus functions as a synecdoche, for insofar as it is a figure of the penis, it constitutes ideali8ation of a "ody part and the invest ent of that part with the force of sy "olic law. If "odies are differentiated according to the sy "olic positions that they occupy, and those sy "olic positions consist in either having or being the phallus, "odies are thus differentiated and sustained in their differentiation "y "eing su"-ected to the Law of the 6ather which dictates the /"eing0 and /having0 positions. en "eco e en "y approxi ating the /having of the phallus0, which is to say they are co pelled to approxi ate a /position0 which is itself the result of the synecdochal collapse of asculinity into its /part0, and a corollary
&=+

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

ideali8ation of that synecdoche as the governing sy "ol (Autler, &''3) <3$<<!. The having and "eing position co es to stand for two radically different ways in which speaking su"-ects are split@alienated in and "y Language. The difference in splitting initiates the difference "etween the sexes. Sexual %ifference thus is not a product of "iology. Instead, it is a product of the su"-ects differential accession to the (Lacanian! #y "olic. ?lternatively, are the differences in accession to the #y "olic and the difference in splitting a product of the funda ental difference "etween the two accredited for s of "iological sexesC This is a contrary position, a dia etrically opposite position on the question of sexual difference, a position held pri arily "y those who work in the space of psychology. 4ne can na e this particular understanding of sexual difference the essentialist understanding of sexual difference, where sexual difference is a biological given, where sexual difference is an i uta"le and foundational given. in this understanding sexual difference is the su"strate that can funda entally effects others "ut cannot in itself "e affected "y others. The other pro"le with psychologys understanding of sexual difference is that it is a conservative understanding of sexual difference (where wo an is the lacking other DJpE!. 4n the other hand, if sexual difference is a product, an end$product of the four$ legged a als differential accession to the (Lacanian! #y "olic, then sexual difference is what is produced through language. 4ne can na e this the constructivist understanding of sexual difference. 7hat then would "e critical psychologys take on the question of sexual differenceC ;o we "egin fro a given twoC 4r do we arrive at the two of sexual differenceC 4r do we need to think beyond a given sexual di orphis and a produced twoC ;o we then need to think beyond a division of the world into neat and watertight two$s, the two of nature and culture, the two of the given and the producedC ;o we then need to think sexual difference "eyond a merely essentialist understanding of sexual difference and a merely constructivist understanding of sexual differenceC ;o we need to think sexual difference as "oth found and founded, so ewhat like the etaphor of the two lipsC This understanding of sexual difference as the mutual constitutivity of sex@nature and gender@culture, this understanding of sexual difference as the "eyond of sex and gender would put into disrepute a erely constructivist rendition of Lacans for ulas of sexuation. it would also put to test a narrow "iological rendition of sexual difference. ,owever to arrive at such a rendition of sexual difference one needs to pro"le ati8e further the given rendition of sexual difference. 6or in the given rendition of sexual difference there are only two ode(l!s of accession to the #y "olic. in the given rendition the possi"ilities of sexed su"-ectivity are restricted to -ust two. and this /structural stasis of sexual "inaris s0 is closely re iniscent of the two of an unexa ined order of nor ative heterosexuality. Aut then, no one is either an or wo an, nor is anyone either ho o$ or hetero$sexual. no one is only One. sex is the infinite process of its own differentiation) I a on each occasion a certain degree of co "ination of and differentiation "etween / an0 and /wo an0, "etween /ho osexual an0 and /heterosexual an0, "etween /ho osexual wo an0 and /heterosexual wo an0, and according to the diverse co "inations which opens up and closes off "etween one and the other, and which inter$penetrate or touch one another. (Bean$Luc Kancy, !he -there is" of Sexual .elation, trans. 6ranson :an-ali > anuscript! This /infinite co "inatory$ness0, this /infidels heteroglossia0, this /cha eleons choreograph0 > is nothing other than what is called the sexual relation) sex is really nothing "ut the unhinging of the one$in$itself) "ut this /one0 does not pre$exist sex. Thus to su ari8e, the pro"le s with Lacans rendition of sexual difference are)
&=*

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

(&! a see$saw "etween a su"tle constructionis that at ti es creeps in and, so ewhat paradoxically, a su"tle essentialis , that raises its ugly head at other ti es. perhaps this is not -ust Lacans pro"le . it is a pro"le that has haunted the sexual difference literature (1! the e ergence of the phallus as point de capiton (3! a consequent overe phasis on having or not having the phallus. hence an understanding, at a ore undane level, of castration (in ter s of threat@anxiety@reality! and at a ore philosophical level, of lack as constitutive of (sexed! su"-ectivity. and the consequences of aking lac$ constitutive of su"-ectivity is far$fetched. ((! the far reaching consequence of the a"ove three "eing the ground for the theori8ation of wo an > a theori8ation where wo an e erges as the a"solute@unknown 4ther (as against her "eing the lacking other in ainstrea psychology!. Taking off fro the a"ove three, Lacan constructs a universal out of the asculine. and the constructed universal puts the fe inine outside. through such a posited universal, the fe inine e erges as the outside. /6reud argues that there is no li"ido other than the asculine. :eaning whatC other than that a whole field, which is hardly negligi"le, is there"y ignored. This is the field of all those "eings who take on the status of the wo an > if, indeed, this "eing takes on anything whatsoever of her fate. 5 Ay her "eing in the sexual relation radically 4ther, in relation to what can "e said of the unconscious, the wo an is that which relates to the 4ther. 5 The wo an relates to the signifier of this 4ther, in so far as, "eing 4ther, it can only re ain always 4ther.0 (Lacan, 122&) 31&$311. &'<+! Is the wo an, and the fe inine, then the etaphor for an outside that escapes and eludes the econo y of the asculineC ,owever, how does this structure, this particular spatial disposition e ergeC ,ow does this spatial disposition with an inside (the asculine! and an outside (the fe inine! e ergeC ;oes it e erge "ecause in the Lacanian structure we /are always led "ack, fro stage to stage, to the contract of contracts which guarantees the unity of the signifier with the signified through all the / points de capiton>C Thanks to the /presence0 of the same signifier (the phallus!, of the /signifier of signifiers0 "eneath all the effects of the signified0, "ecause the Lacanian phallus is the /transcendental signifier0, "ecause it finds itself sheltered within the /indivisi"ility of the letter, sheltered fro dissemination4 "ecause it always reaches its destination, and "ecause the phallus is always the privileged signifier of sy "olic articulation, the asculine is always produced and re$ produced leaving the fe inine languishing in and as the /dark continent0. That is what analytic discourse de onstrates in that, to one of these "eings qua sexed, to an in so far as he is endowed with the organ said to "e phallic > I said, /said to "e0 > the corporal sex (sexe corporel! or sexual organ (sexe! of wo an > I said /of wo an,0 whereas in fact woman does not exist,0= wo an is not whole (pas toute! > wo ans sexual organ is of no interest (ne lui dit rien! except via the "odys -ouissance. 5 ?nalytic experience attests precisely to the fact that everything
=

6inks (&''<) =! footnote is i portant) Lacan is asserting here that 7o an with a 7, wo an as singular in essence, does not exist. 7o an as an all$enco passing idea (a %latonic for ! is an illusion. There is a ultiplicity of wo en, "ut no esence of /7o anhood0 or /7o anliness0. ,ence nothing can "e said of the wo an. (Lacan, &'<+! This less than odest assertion of Lacan represents his understanding of the fact that there is no signifier for, or essence of, 7o an as such. 7o an thus can only "e written under erasure) 7o an. &==

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

revolves around phallic jouissance4 in that wo an is defined "y a position that I have indicated as /not$whole0 (pas tout! with respect to phallic -ouissance. (Lacan, &''<) =! In its flirtations with the inco ensurate two of sexual difference, psychoanalysis co es face to face with phallic jouissance and 4ther jouissance. /?nalytic experience attests precisely to the fact that everything revolves around phallic jouissance, in that wo an is defined "y a position that I have indicated as /not whole0 (pas tout! with respect to phallic jouissance0 (Lacan, &''<) =!. In its flirtations with phallic jouissance and the 4ther jouissance, or the /-ouissance of the 4ther0 (Lacan, &''<) 1(!, Lacan co es face to face with the universal > with that around which everything revolves. everything revolves around phallic jouissance and analytic experience attests precisely to the fact that everything revolves around phallic jouissance& In its flirtations with the (posited! universal, psychoanalysis co es face to face with the exception, with the not,whole, with perhaps that which escapes the (posited! universal. psychoanalysis co es face to face with wo an as not, whole. %osited in ter s of the Aorro ean Rnot of the I aginary$#y "olic$9eal, psychoanalysis, as such, co es face to face with the Lacanian 9eal. with sexual difference as 9eal as it does with wo an as 9eal (the 9eal of sexual difference or the 9eal of wo an is understanda"le. "ut wo an as 9eal relegates wo an to the real of the outside, the a"solute outside!. Lacan nearly "rings up an /unpro"le ati8ed sexual antagonis 0 > that is a"out sexual difference nevertheless, "ut the status of jouissance insofar as it is sexual has the privilege of "eing specified "y an i passe. ,e also /unwittingly installs a heterosexual atrix as a per anent and incontesta"le structure0 in which wo an operates as the outside of discourse. 7hy does this happenC It happens as the result of a tenacious for of phallocentris that haunts the Lacanian logic. #uch is the tenacity of pre-udice. The error of phallocentris is one of thought, not erely, or only, of "ehavior. Ay highlighting patriarchys irrational and contradictory for s (where conscious co it ents ay contradict unconscious dispositions. where politically correct state ents ay "e secretly arked "y deep "ias!, one can understand how Lacan > even at the o ent of the inauguration of the question of sexual difference > gets circu scri"ed "y the structure of pre-udice. #exis s aterial and discursive history tends to ignore the i palpa"le for s of pre-udice. it ignores the (il!legi"le script on the wax sla". 7hile Lacan was the one who had directed our attention to unconscious and i palpa"le for s of pre-udice, as well as to illegi"le scripts on the wax sla", we turn the ta"les on hi (use the asters tool to "reak into the asters house! to show how he hi self is a victi of unconscious i palpa"le for s of pre-udice > how he is i prisoned "y near illegi"le scripts on his wax sla" at the o ent of the invocation of sexual difference. It is perhaps "ecause of such phallocentric pre-udice that the etaphor of the ;ark Fontinent keeps co ing "ack. such is the tenacity of pre-udice. ,anguage an% 5'(an: There are two conceptions of the unconscious) the descriptive and the dynamic 5 for pheno enology, the unconscious can "e ade intelligi"le only in ter s of a linear continuum model, of which the two earlier seg ents are the conscious and the preconscious5 ,usserlian pheno enology can appropriate the unconscious "y way of a further extension of hori3on analysis:. #ince hori8on analysis is a pheno enological technique of dealing with i plicit senses, to say that the unconscious can "e dealt with "y
<

Fritical %sychology is not hori8on analysis. it is the acknowledge ent of the #y "olic as a force field. &=<

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

way of hori8on analysis is to assu e that the unconscious is only the i plicit. ut for 6reud, the unconscious is essentially a force antithetical to the thrust of the ego. it is that which calls the ego into question and hence the ego can only sustain itself "y denying the unconscious. Aetween the two is set up an anti$thetic of forces. The unconscious is not erely a penu "ra of the conscious, "ut a verita"le power raised up against it. This difference in the understanding of the unconscious leads to a consequential difference in the interpretation of repression. %heno enology lacks the dyna ic concept of repression as instituting the unconscious. the equivalent to this within pheno enological reflection would "e erely the residual notion of not yet clearly seen. (9a-an, &''&) &2+! Taking off fro these two conceptions of the unconscious > fro a conception of the unconscious that is spatially "eyond, "eyond in a hori8ontal sense (/the residual notion of not yet clearly seen0! and a conception of the unconscious that is anti$thetic to the Fonscious, that is a /verita"le power raised up0 against what has e erged as the Fonscious > one can also distinguish "etween two conceptions of the outside > the pheno enological (or what could "e called the linear continuu odel! and the psychoanalytic (or the dyna ic odel!. Thus the residual notion of not yet clearly seen, the remainder, the unspea$able rim needs to "e clearly distinguished fro what is not shown" in and "y the hege onic, fro what re ains unspo$en in the hege onic, fro the reminder. 7o an could thus "e understood in two ways) (i! as the unspo$en of (hege onic! language and (ii! as the unspea$able li it of language. :oitra (&'<(! shows how two for s of silence could possi"ly unfold within the folds of silence > the unspo$en and the unspea$able&; While the unspea$able arks /the end point of language, the ulti ate cut$off point where language does not reach0, the unspo$en stands for silence, which is /found within language and not "eyond language0. #ilence as the unspo$en is a constitutive factor of language, and necessarily so. The unspea$able represents the li its of language. the elusive outside of language4 an outside that is neither shown nor said. The unspo$en is constitutive of language, hence inside language yet outside language. the unspo$en is the constitutive outside of language as that which cannot "e said "ut which is shown.&2 This is i portant "ecause in Lacanian psychoanalysis wo an is i agined to "e /outside language0. or perhaps that which is /outside language0 is wo an. hence wo an is unspea$able. In this rendition of language, in this picture of language we are forced to i agine language as a kind of spatial territory@i agery, which can have an outside and an inside. ?nd as soon as such a spatial picture of language is esta"lished, the picture of an outside and an inside (of language! is given shape. /The "elief in the "eyond of discourse Din the "eyond of phallic jouissanceE as well as the further "elief that entities "eyond discourse are always struggling and straining to disrupt it 5 leads to an o"session with "oundaries, "orderlines, and li its, which will "e proclai ed as the place where /representation0 5 "reaks down0 (:oi, 122() <*&!. Aut how does the spatial picture of language (with an inside and an outside! co e to coloni8e our i agination of representationC This arises when (&! we think of language pri arily as consisting of nouns and (1! when we think a theory of representation to "e a theory of language. /That this is a horri"ly i poverished notion of
'

In our work on the Lacanian 9eal, in our efforts at turning Lacan ab$original the distinction "etween the unspo$en and the unspea$able have offered i portant clues. the unspoken and unspeaka"le have respectively "een designated as the real and the 9eal (;har, 122*!& &2 This is so ewhat akin to :itchells (1222) *! reading of the unconscious) /The unconscious 5 is not a deep, ysterious place, whose presence, in ystical fashion, accounts for all the unknown. it is $nowable and it is normal& 7hat it contains is nor al thought, utterly transfor ed "y its own laws (which 6reud called the pri ary process!, "ut nevertheless only transfor ed and hence still recogni8a"le if one can deduce the anner of the transfor ation, that is, decipher the laws of the pri ary process to which the thought is su"-ected0. &='

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

what language is, is 7ittgensteins starting point for the whole of 1hilosophical (nvestigations (&'*< D&'+3E!. ?s 7ittgenstein says, such a theory Dof languageE thinks pri arily of nouns and a few other nounlike categories0 && (:oi, 122() <*3!. The point, then, is not that Lacan and other post$#aussureans are wholly wrong. Ay definition, the referent of a noun is /outside language0. ,ence, if all referents are outside language, why would the jouissance of wo an (or wo an herself! "e singled out to "e radically different fro other nounsC In the language ga e called /representation0, it akes sense to distinguish "etween an inside and an outside of language. Aut representation is only one of the ga es we can play with language (:oi, 122() <*1$3!. ,ence it is not -ust wo an that is outside language. ?ll of language, the whole of language is haunted "y an outside, a re ainder, an unspeaka"le ri , an unsaid. Given such a picture of language, given such an inside and outside of language, given such a speaka"le and unspeaka"le of language, given such a said and unsaid of language it would not "e out of context to turn to 7ittgenstein) 7hat can "e said at all can "e said clearly. and what we cannot talk a"out we pass over in silence. ust

Thus the ai Dof the "ookE is to draw a li it to thought, or rather > not to thought, "ut to the expression of thoughts) for in order to "e a"le to draw a li it to thought, we should have to find "oth sides of the li it thinka"le (i.e. we should have to "e a"le to think what cannot "e thought!. It will therefore only "e in language that the li it can "e drawn, and what lies on the other side of the li it will si ply "e nonsense Deinfach ?nsinnE. (&''( D&'11E) 3! ,ence, according to 7ittgenstein we can draw no li it to thought, for if we did, we should have to "e a"le to think on "oth sides of the li it. Aut then the li it thought up "y us would not "e a li it. all such atte pts are self$defeating. In other words, anything we can think is "y definition thinka"le. 6ro this point of view, the poststructuralist atte pt to /think the unthinka"le0 or perhaps to speak the unspeaka"le is rather eaningless. no a ount of straining will get us to the unthinka"le$unspeaka"le. 7hat interpretation can hit at with so e effort (and that is the i portance of the psychoanalytic attitude! is what is unspoken within the given of language (as also the language of given$s!, what is purportedly and contingently unthinka"le, given the given of language, what in actuality is a rem5a=inder and not -ust a re ainder. In this sense wo an is the unspoken of given language. wo an is what is pro-ected as unthinka"le and unknowa"le. wo an is thus the rem5a=inder of what was foreclosed in the phallocentric closure of li"idinal econo y. wo an is not -ust re ainder. in a word, wo an is not the ;ark Fontinent "ut the continent of that which was rendered dark, given what was lit up. It is thus not enough to displace Lacans post$#aussurean linguistics "y 7ittgensteins philosophy of language. It is not enough to displace the pre$oedipal "y the non$oedipal or perhaps an$oedipal. 6or so e (:oi, 122() <=1$<=+! it is also i portant to displace Lacans uddled and generali8ed use of the ter castration@lack "y the less sexist finitude. :oi shows how :c;ougall considers psychoanalysis to "e a for of thought that atte pts to understand the psychic consequences of three o ents) the fact that there are others (there is an Lgyptian within Bewish onotheis , there is a onotheist within Lgyptian paganis !, that there is difference. the fact of sexual difference (the fact that there are others of a
&&

If language is understood pri arily in ter s of nouns and a few other noun$like categories, exclusion "eco es, in turn, a question exclusive to excluded figures. exclusion "eco es a question of who is excluded. &<2

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

different sex than ine!. and the fact of death (the beyond of the pleasure principle!. 6or :oi all three o ents are related in one way or the other to finitude and cannot "e reduced to lac$ understood in ter s of castration. It is in this context that :oi asks) must the fact of finitude, the fact of "eing othered, sexed$gendered, or mortal4 "e figured as lac$, lack understood in ter s of castrationC ? ove ent away fro the hitherto exclusive focus on lack$ as$castration or castration$as$lack to an acknowledge ent of finitude would produce a different and a ore nuanced understanding of sexual difference and the sexual relation and would not fall into the trap of either easy relationalities or i possi"le relationalities. In conventional psychology, the trap is one of easy relationalities. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, in spite of the invocation of the two of sexual difference, the trap is one of the i possi"ility of relationalities. In conventional psychology, wo an is the constitutive inside of the #y "olic, such that relationalities look easy. In Lacanian psychoanalysis, wo an e erges as the a"solute outside of the #y "olic, such that relationalities look i possi"le. 7hat would a Fritical %sychology perspective "e in this contextC Given that there is in psychology no understanding of sexual difference (wo an is only the lacking other of an in psychology!, Fritical %sychology cannot "ut "e critical of psychology. 4n the other hand, Fritical %sychology would "e so ewhat apposite with Lacanian psychoanalysis. ,owever, it would still have a few differences with Lacan. Aecause, even in Lacan, even at the o ent of the inauguration of sexual difference, wo an e erges as the distant and dark continent of an 4ther jouissance, an unknown jouissance. This is of course not to suggest that wo an is easily known. It is only to resist the extre e unknowa"ility with which wo an co es to "e haunted in (7estern! thought. Fritical %sychology shows how through a structuring of the field of jouissance through the phallus as nodal signifier, wo an is put outside& It shows how such structuring is the condition of the foreclosure of wo an. 4nly then, one knows why wo an e erges as either lacking or as unknown. /eference&: Aorch$Baco"sen, :. &''1. !he +motional !ie) 1sychoanalysis4 0imesis4 and +ffect > #tanford, Falifornia) #tanford Sniversity %ress. Autler, B. &''3. 9outledge. odies that 0atter) On the %iscursive Limits of @Sex> > Kew Iork)

;errida, B. &'=<. /#tructure, #ign and %lay in the ;iscourse of the ,u an #ciences0 in Writing and %ifference > 9outledge and Regan %aul. ;har, ?. 122*. /Lacanian Theory) Aeyond or within the Linguistic Turn0 in 1ost, structuralism and Aultural !heory, ed. 6ranson :an-ali > ?llied %u"lishers, Kew ;elhi. 122<. /9eturn to 6reud) 9eturn to the :ystic 7riting %ad0 in Sami$sha) Bournal of the Indian %sychoanalytic #ociety $ Rolkata. 122'. /#cience(s! of the :ind) Fort,%a "etween the 7indscreen and the 9earview :irror0 in 0aterialism and (mmaterialism in (ndia and the West) Barying Bistas (Tolu e OII, Levels of .eality4 %art + > ed. %artha Ghosh! $ forthco ing.

&<&

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

6oucault, :. 1223. Cbnormal > Lectures at the Follege de 6rance (&'=($&'=+! > Kew Iork) %icador. Lacan, B. &'==. +crits) C Selection, trans. ?lan #heridan > Kew Iork) 7. 7. Korton. &''2. !elevision D C Ahallenge to the 1sychoanalytic +stablishment , ed. B. Fop-ec, trans. ;. ,ollier, 9. Rrauss and ?. :ichelson > Kew Iork) 7. 7. Korton and Fo. &''<. !he Seminar of EacFues Lacan (ed. "y Bacques$?lain :iller! Aook OO On Feminine Sexuality) !he Limits of Love and *nowledge 2 +ncore 58;G6, 8;G9= translated with notes "y Aruce 6ink > 7. 7. Korton Q Fo pany > Kew Iork. 122&. +crits) a selection, trans. ?. #heridan > London and Kew Iork) 9outledge. 122*. +crits (trans. Aruce 6ink! > Kew Iork, London) 7. 7. Korton and Fo pany.

Lacan, B. &'<+. Feminine Sexuality) EacFues Lacan and the ecole freudienne (ed. :itchell, B. Q 9ose, B.. trans. 9ose, B.! > Kew Iork and London) 7. 7. Korton Q Fo pany. Lear, B. &'''. Open 0inded) Wor$ing Out the Logic of the Soul > ,arvard Sniversity %ress. %arker, I. &''=. 1sychoanalytic Aulture) 1sychoanalytic %iscourse in Western Society, London) #age. 1223. /Bacques Lacan, Aarred %sychologist0 in !heory and 1sychology Tol. &3 (&! > London@Thousand 4aks, F?) #age. 122<. Eapan in Cnalysis) Aultures of the ?nconscious $ %algrave :ac illan.

%arker, I., Georgaca, L., ,arper, ;., :cLaughlin, T. and #towell # ith, :. &''+. %econstructing 1sychopathology, London) #age. :itchell, B. &'=(. 1sychoanalysis and Feminism > ,ar ondsworth) %enguin. 1222. 1sychoanalysis and Feminism) C .adical .eassessment of Freudian 1sychoanalysis, Aasic Aooks.

:oi, T. 122(. /6ro 6e ininity to 6initude) 6reud, Lacan and 6e inis , ?gain0, Sign) Eournal of Women in Aulture and Society, Tol. 1', Ko. 3. :oitra, #. &'<(. /#ilence) The Snspeaka"le and the Snspoken0 in Aommunication4 (dentity and Self,+xpression, ed. #. %. Aaner-ee and #hefali :oitra > Kew ;elhi) 4xford Sniversity %ress. 9a-an, 9. #. &''&. Studies in 1henomenology Hermeneutics and %econstruction > Indian Founcil of %hilosophical 9esearch > Kew ;elhi. 7ittgenstein, L. &''(. !ractatus Logico,1hilosophicus, trans. ;. 6. %ears and :cGuiness > London) 9outledge. &'*< (&'+3!. 1hilosophical (nvestigations, trans. G. L. :. ?nsco "e > 4xford) Aasil Alackwell.

&<1

Dhar, A. (2009) Sexual Difference: Encore, yet again, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 7, pp. 1 !" 1! http:##$$$.%i&c'ur&eunit.c'(#arcp#7.ht(

Ii3e$4 S& &''<. /Introduction) Fogito as a #hi""oleth0 in Aogito and the ?nconscious (ed.! Ui8ek, #. > ;uke Sniversity %ress > ;urha . #pivak, G. F. &''(. /%sychoanalysis in the left field and fieldworking) Lxa ples to fit the title0 in Speculations after Freud) 1sychoanalysis4 1hilosophy and Aulture "y #ha dasani, # and :unchow, :. (ed.! > 9outledge, London. >i'graphic Detail&: ?nup ;har, ?ssociate 6ellow at Fentre for the #tudy of Fulture and #ociety (F#F#!, Aangalore, India, was a edical doctor, who driven "y his critical take on the :ental ,ealth #ciences oved over to the interstices of %sychoanalysis$6e inis $:arxis . ,is %h; (1sychoanalysis4 Sexual %ifference and the abOriginal) Freud, ose,Lacan ! was in %hilosophy. ,e is the coordinator of an applied research progra e for rethinking ental health in India Fulture$#u"-ectivity$%syche (FS#%! at F#F#, Aangalore, India. ,e has co$ authored %islocation and .esettlement in %evelopment) From !hird World to World of the !hird > 9outledge) Kew Iork and London, 122' forthco ing. A%%re&& f'r 1'rre&p'n%ence: Fentre for the #tudy of Fulture and #ociety (F#F#!, Aangalore Ko <1=, 1'th :ain 9oad, %oornapra-na ,AF# Layout, Sttarahalli, Aangalore $ +*22*&, India. %h) V'&'(<21+<2(< ( o"! V'&$<2$1*(131**@*=@*< (landline! V'&$<2$1*(13221 (fax! 7e"site) www.cscsarchive.org )"(ail: anupWcscs.res.in. dhar.anupWg ail.co

&<3