What do you think?
Rate this book
لکان و پسافمینیسم
کتاب لکان و پسافمینیسم از منظری پسافمینیستی به بررسی آرای ژاک لکان اندیشمند بجسته ی فرانسوی میپردازد و میکوشد با قرار دادن آثار او در بستری پست مدرن دیدگاه های مهم وی را شرح دهد.کتاب در واقع تضاربی از آرای فمنیست ها در مورد نظیریات جنجال برانگیز لکا ن پیرامون سکسوالیته و جنسیت را عرضه میکند و در پی آن است که بدفهمی های صورت گرفته از نظریات لکان به خصوص نظریه ی جنس یابی وی یعنی خاستگاه و گسترش تفاوت جنسی درون قلمرو زبان را واکاوی و تصویر دقیق تری از این پرنفوذترین روان کاو پسافریدی ارائه کند
72 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
7 people are currently reading
98 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
August 12, 2016
A Taste of Lacan
I read this book out of a dual interest in Lacan and Postfeminism.
This is part of a broader reading project for which I've been reading Hegel in preparation for more reading of contemporary Continental Philosophy, especially Zizek, who has been greatly influenced by both Hegel and Lacan.
I needed a break from Hegelian non-fiction, so I thought I'd dip my toes into a little Lacan. This was a perfect taster, though I can't claim that I understood it all or that I have conveyed it accurately below.
The total book is only about 80 pages long, although the body of the main essay is less than 60 pages. An additional eight pages are devoted to very helpful definitions of key terms used by Lacan.
I gather that the main essay is a slightly edited version of a chapter called "Feminist Psychoanalytic Criticism" in Wright's book, "Psychoanalytic Criticism", which was published two years before her death in 2000.
The Instability of Identity
In a nutshell, Wright endeavours to locate Postfeminism within Poststructuralism.
Her starting point is that there is no positive and stable identity, in particular there is no stable concept of what a woman is.
One of her goals is to write a critique based on the ideological constructions of "discourse" (what happens in dialogue, as opposed to language, which is in the dictionary).
Wright argues against Saussure and for Lacan, who gives primacy to the "signifier" in the sign, on the basis that "the 'signified' [the meaning] is an effect of the play of signifiers over the continuum of experience." She argues that this returns speech to its proper place in the construction of language. It redresses Saussure's foregrounding of the social at the expense of the individual human beings who speak. She argues that this correction creates the foundation for poststructuralist "deconstruction" and its critique of the text.
The Instability of Womanhood
Wright then asks what role the postmodern notion of "the dispersed unstable subject" might have in postfeminism.
In order to answer this question, she has recourse to the psychoanalysis of both Freud and Lacan, whom she believes have been misrepresented and have been wrongly neglected by feminism and postfeminism.
In Wright's opinion, Lacan's greatest contribution to this debate is his concept of "sexuation", which is the process by which we subconsciously "choose" our mode of being as either feminine or masculine.
While Freud might have analysed anatomical differences in terms of their psychic consequences, Lacan defines us all as "speaking beings" who seek a place in the social as "sexed subjects".
The social is characterised by language and speech. Lacan believes that language and speech limit or castrate all of us, because they tend to deny the body's motivation (or [Freudian] drive) full satisfaction. This splits a subject of any sex between its symbolic identity and its body.
Wright believes that the phallus or what Lacan calls "the phallic function" (the limitation of "jouissance" or satisfaction of the drive) is simply a symbol of this limitation, that it is not intended to mean only the penis, and that it is a suitable descriptor for a limitation or lack felt by any sex. She argues that the reliance on the word and connotations of the phallus is not itself an example of phallocentrism.
This argument probably requires a leap of faith. However, once it is made, it opens up a lot of possibilities for a better understanding of the Subject.
This Masquerade
The limitation of "jouissance" is felt by men and women alike, when they enter the symbolic realm of language and identification.
Lacan argues that it is, however, felt differently. The male identifies with the phallus, and fears castration or loss of "jouissance". Man feels this as a lack or alienation, and seeks a fantasy in a woman (or a man) to overcome it.
Lacan believes that the female does not have an equivalent definition of her own sex like a male does. She lacks a signifier of her own. Instead, she identifies with and masquerades as the desire of the man in his fantasy. Similarly, Man cannot discover Woman. She is hidden behind a veil. She is a mystery. He can only invent her. She remains the stuff of his fantasies. Yet, she, too, has the opportunity to create or construct an identity for herself.
It's almost as if, for a woman, in the words of Simone de Beauvoir, "the body is a situation" in which she finds herself, and perhaps even more significantly a situation in which she might find herself.
Gender Choices
Lacan also asserts that how a speaking being experiences sexuality on the level of the psyche has nothing to do with biological sex. Our genitals do not necessarily dictate the gender of our psyche. There could conceivably be more than two genders from which to choose.
Lacan argues that there is a division between the organism and the subject. Speaking beings can inscribe themselves on the side of their own choice (male or female), although it is possible that their choice has been influenced or imposed by "the history of the subject's unconscious".
Redeeming Freud and Lacan
Wright ends with a plea for postfeminists to reconsider Freud and Lacan:
"In Freud's onging questioning of what a woman wants, and Lacan's misunderstood sexuation theory, there is the insight that the feminine is not entirely determined by the phallic and that therefore woman is more a subject than man.
"What lived experience is about is the struggle to make something of 'the body as a situation'."
I read this book out of a dual interest in Lacan and Postfeminism.
This is part of a broader reading project for which I've been reading Hegel in preparation for more reading of contemporary Continental Philosophy, especially Zizek, who has been greatly influenced by both Hegel and Lacan.
I needed a break from Hegelian non-fiction, so I thought I'd dip my toes into a little Lacan. This was a perfect taster, though I can't claim that I understood it all or that I have conveyed it accurately below.
The total book is only about 80 pages long, although the body of the main essay is less than 60 pages. An additional eight pages are devoted to very helpful definitions of key terms used by Lacan.
I gather that the main essay is a slightly edited version of a chapter called "Feminist Psychoanalytic Criticism" in Wright's book, "Psychoanalytic Criticism", which was published two years before her death in 2000.
The Instability of Identity
In a nutshell, Wright endeavours to locate Postfeminism within Poststructuralism.
Her starting point is that there is no positive and stable identity, in particular there is no stable concept of what a woman is.
One of her goals is to write a critique based on the ideological constructions of "discourse" (what happens in dialogue, as opposed to language, which is in the dictionary).
Wright argues against Saussure and for Lacan, who gives primacy to the "signifier" in the sign, on the basis that "the 'signified' [the meaning] is an effect of the play of signifiers over the continuum of experience." She argues that this returns speech to its proper place in the construction of language. It redresses Saussure's foregrounding of the social at the expense of the individual human beings who speak. She argues that this correction creates the foundation for poststructuralist "deconstruction" and its critique of the text.
The Instability of Womanhood
Wright then asks what role the postmodern notion of "the dispersed unstable subject" might have in postfeminism.
In order to answer this question, she has recourse to the psychoanalysis of both Freud and Lacan, whom she believes have been misrepresented and have been wrongly neglected by feminism and postfeminism.
In Wright's opinion, Lacan's greatest contribution to this debate is his concept of "sexuation", which is the process by which we subconsciously "choose" our mode of being as either feminine or masculine.
While Freud might have analysed anatomical differences in terms of their psychic consequences, Lacan defines us all as "speaking beings" who seek a place in the social as "sexed subjects".
The social is characterised by language and speech. Lacan believes that language and speech limit or castrate all of us, because they tend to deny the body's motivation (or [Freudian] drive) full satisfaction. This splits a subject of any sex between its symbolic identity and its body.
Wright believes that the phallus or what Lacan calls "the phallic function" (the limitation of "jouissance" or satisfaction of the drive) is simply a symbol of this limitation, that it is not intended to mean only the penis, and that it is a suitable descriptor for a limitation or lack felt by any sex. She argues that the reliance on the word and connotations of the phallus is not itself an example of phallocentrism.
This argument probably requires a leap of faith. However, once it is made, it opens up a lot of possibilities for a better understanding of the Subject.
This Masquerade
The limitation of "jouissance" is felt by men and women alike, when they enter the symbolic realm of language and identification.
Lacan argues that it is, however, felt differently. The male identifies with the phallus, and fears castration or loss of "jouissance". Man feels this as a lack or alienation, and seeks a fantasy in a woman (or a man) to overcome it.
Lacan believes that the female does not have an equivalent definition of her own sex like a male does. She lacks a signifier of her own. Instead, she identifies with and masquerades as the desire of the man in his fantasy. Similarly, Man cannot discover Woman. She is hidden behind a veil. She is a mystery. He can only invent her. She remains the stuff of his fantasies. Yet, she, too, has the opportunity to create or construct an identity for herself.
It's almost as if, for a woman, in the words of Simone de Beauvoir, "the body is a situation" in which she finds herself, and perhaps even more significantly a situation in which she might find herself.
Gender Choices
Lacan also asserts that how a speaking being experiences sexuality on the level of the psyche has nothing to do with biological sex. Our genitals do not necessarily dictate the gender of our psyche. There could conceivably be more than two genders from which to choose.
Lacan argues that there is a division between the organism and the subject. Speaking beings can inscribe themselves on the side of their own choice (male or female), although it is possible that their choice has been influenced or imposed by "the history of the subject's unconscious".
Redeeming Freud and Lacan
Wright ends with a plea for postfeminists to reconsider Freud and Lacan:
"In Freud's onging questioning of what a woman wants, and Lacan's misunderstood sexuation theory, there is the insight that the feminine is not entirely determined by the phallic and that therefore woman is more a subject than man.
"What lived experience is about is the struggle to make something of 'the body as a situation'."
April 16, 2021
Lacan’ın “kadın yoktur” ve “cinsel İlişki yoktur” kavramlarının ne olup olmadığını formülizasyonuyla net bir şekilde açıklamış. Lacan’ın kuramındaki varoluşsal önerme ve tümel önermelerle aradaki farkları ve heteroseksüel/homoseksüel/biseksüel ilişki açısından simgeselde nasıl konum aldığımızı, fallus metaforunun detaylarını da anlattığını düşünürsek - hem de bu kadar kısa bir kitapta- feminizmin karşı olduğu patriyarkal egemenliğin aslında ne anlama geldiğini ve basit bir yapı sökümü ile aslında kuramın postfeminizmi de kapsadığını görebiliriz. Lacan okumak anlamak değil, Lacan’ı okuyabilmek anlamak çünkü...
August 20, 2020
Perhaps one of the most fatal errors of the feminist movement has been its dismissal of psychoanalysis as patriarchal and phallocentric, especially Freud and Lacan. In this short and comprehensive booklet, Elizabeth Wright defends (post)feminist reading of Lacan and his theory of sexuation. She brings to light the radically feminist character of Lacanian psychoanalysis.
Psychoanalytic theory, rather than being patriarchal or phallocentric, is a tool against the transphobia propagated by both TERFs and liberals.
Psychoanalytic theory, rather than being patriarchal or phallocentric, is a tool against the transphobia propagated by both TERFs and liberals.
July 11, 2018
If I had seen this book in a bookstore, I could have seen immediately what it is and what it is trying to do. As it turns out, though, I bought it online, and I feel cheated. This is not an in-depth study of Lacan and postfeminism, it is a kind of primer, barely fifty pages long, introducing the amateur reader to this topic. When I took it out of its postal wrapping I was shocked: the book is about the size of a postcard.
Look, here's the deal. If you know almost nothing about this topic, it's a great introduction. Wright outlines what feminism and post-feminism are, their relationship to psychoanalysis, Freud, and Lacan, and how Lacan's theories about sexual difference have revolutionized the discourse of feminism. It's clear, it's concise, it's a great place for beginners.
But I'm not a beginner, and I feel cheated because there is nothing about how this book is marketed or presented in online shops to differentiate it from more substantial studies. Hence my annoyance and disappointment, and hence my low rating.
Look, here's the deal. If you know almost nothing about this topic, it's a great introduction. Wright outlines what feminism and post-feminism are, their relationship to psychoanalysis, Freud, and Lacan, and how Lacan's theories about sexual difference have revolutionized the discourse of feminism. It's clear, it's concise, it's a great place for beginners.
But I'm not a beginner, and I feel cheated because there is nothing about how this book is marketed or presented in online shops to differentiate it from more substantial studies. Hence my annoyance and disappointment, and hence my low rating.
December 31, 2020
Final book of a horrible year of reading! The pile of unfinished reads have increased this year! Corona is disastrous.
This work is lucid account of how lacan is important for feminist theory. It's a short read
This work is lucid account of how lacan is important for feminist theory. It's a short read
May 25, 2022
What is a woman? II.
"Patriarchy means "the rule of fathers" but in today's movement the term is used with reckless abandon and applied to every aspect of society that current feminists dislike."
"Central part of the theoretical importance of psychoanalysis for feminism is its contention, now almost a cliche, that anatomy alone does not determine one's sexual identity, any more than sexual difference can be reduced to the cultural."
"(What Lacan emphasizes) A division between organism and subject removes the need to depend on a biological determination of gender, which always assumes masculinity and feminity derived from the real body. To make this assumption is to give a position to those subjects who believe their body does not match the sexed identity of their choice, who ask for their bodies to be surgically changed."
"Riviere's original question has been reposed by Slavoj Žižek, who asks whether, if a certain feminist critique denounces every description of the feminine as a male cliché, what, then, is the feminine "in itself"? The problem is that all of the answers from Kristeva to Irigaray can be discredited as male clichés."
"What, then, is a woman ?"
"The woman does not exist"
"It is well to remember, though, that any kind of categorization is in danger of lending itself to a new form of hierarchical totalisation."
Sprinkle some pseudoscientific psychoanalytic theories, mix them with humanities problems trying every time to describe the essence of human societal structures, humanities persisting need for producing litanies on definitions/"theoretical frameworks" rather than searching for evidence (a problem that was recognized even by Karl Popper) and voila! We don't know what a woman is!
This book is short, concise, and well written – what problem I have is with the "theoreticians" that it talked about.
"Patriarchy means "the rule of fathers" but in today's movement the term is used with reckless abandon and applied to every aspect of society that current feminists dislike."
"Central part of the theoretical importance of psychoanalysis for feminism is its contention, now almost a cliche, that anatomy alone does not determine one's sexual identity, any more than sexual difference can be reduced to the cultural."
"(What Lacan emphasizes) A division between organism and subject removes the need to depend on a biological determination of gender, which always assumes masculinity and feminity derived from the real body. To make this assumption is to give a position to those subjects who believe their body does not match the sexed identity of their choice, who ask for their bodies to be surgically changed."
"Riviere's original question has been reposed by Slavoj Žižek, who asks whether, if a certain feminist critique denounces every description of the feminine as a male cliché, what, then, is the feminine "in itself"? The problem is that all of the answers from Kristeva to Irigaray can be discredited as male clichés."
"What, then, is a woman ?"
"The woman does not exist"
"It is well to remember, though, that any kind of categorization is in danger of lending itself to a new form of hierarchical totalisation."
Sprinkle some pseudoscientific psychoanalytic theories, mix them with humanities problems trying every time to describe the essence of human societal structures, humanities persisting need for producing litanies on definitions/"theoretical frameworks" rather than searching for evidence (a problem that was recognized even by Karl Popper) and voila! We don't know what a woman is!
This book is short, concise, and well written – what problem I have is with the "theoreticians" that it talked about.
August 27, 2019
This short and concise essay can work (and will be used by me as such) as a primer for people unfamiliar with postfeminism and Lacan in general. It delivers useful definitions and clears up some basic lingering misconceptions that still haunt Lacanian theory. I specifically like that the author made it clear that Lacanian sexuation is completely compatible with Transness because it serves as a non-essentialist account of sex and gender, which at the same time does not ignore the dimension that biology plays.
September 23, 2024
Quite a good introductory reading f Lacanian sexual difference from a (post)feminist perspective, which recognizes the inherent failure of all sexual relations yet places the position of the woman higher as the masculine position as she is able to step outside of the constraints of the Symbolic. A Lacanian feminism recognizes the inherent difference (so-called verschilfeminisme) between women (as people are fundamentally split and inaccessible to themselves) instead of recognizing an essence of 'woman', as was more popular in 1970s French psychoanalytic feminism.
September 27, 2025
Freud ve lacan’ın cinsiyetçi olarak algılanıp üzerinde pek durulmayan kuramlarını tekrar ele almış bir kitaptı, freud’un penis kıskançlığı, oidipus ve kastrasyon komplekslerinden bahsediliyor. Bilmiyorum fena değildi, kimliğin statik değil dinamik bir yapı olduğundan ve sürekli değişkenliğinden bahdesiliyor, kadın veya erkek sabit bir şey değil, kim olduğumuzu dil, toplum ve kültür belirliyor fakat mantığı şunu söylüyor: kimlikleri ve cinsiyeti sabit görmekten vazgeçersek, çok daha özgür düşünebiliriz.
October 26, 2025
Entiendo que tanto “mujeres” y “hombres” pueden ser “femeninos” o “masculinos” que realmente no hay que tener una división binaria para ello.
Pero si si, lo masculino limita y lo femenino no y por ende lo femenino es más humano y de cierto modo evolucionado
De acuerdo
Pero si si, lo masculino limita y lo femenino no y por ende lo femenino es más humano y de cierto modo evolucionado
De acuerdo
May 1, 2023
A decir verdad, esperaba más de este volumen.
January 21, 2026
Interesting discussion of feminism and psychoanalysis, often dismissed as phallocentric. Good inclusion of Butler but less debate on postfeminism than perhaps expected
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews