Woman is One of the
Names-of-the-Father
or How Not to Misread Lacan's Formulas of
Sexuation
by SLAVOJ ZIZEK
The usual
way of misreading Lacan's formulas of
sexuation 1
is to
reduce the difference of the masculine and the
feminine side to the two formulas that define the
masculine position, as if masculine is the universal
phallic function and feminine the exception, the
excess, the surplus that eludes the grasp of the
phallic function. Such a reading completely misses
Lacan's point, which is that this very position of
the Woman as exception-say, in the guise of the Lady
in courtly love-is a masculine fantasy par
excellence. As the exemplary case of the exception
constitutive of the phallic function, one usually
mentions the fantasmatic, obscene figure of the
primordial father-jouisseur
who was
not encumbered by any prohibition and was as such
able fully to enjoy all women. Does, however, the
figure of the Lady in courtly love not fully fit
these determinations of the primordial father? Is she
not also a capricious Master who wants it all, i.e.,
who, herself not bound by any Law, charges her
knight-servant with arbitrary and outrageous ordeals?
go to article