Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t!

"a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

R1S23R456 U5471RS8"429 23 2H1 SU:;1<2! "8<85#S $852485 "364< 3= S1>U82435 Derek Hook
2he universal as eli/e/ ategory in the analysis o% se&ual i/entity Since the advent of the discursive turn in social theory a considerable proportion of the critical psychology work on gendered/sexed subjectivity has been rooted in the epistemological parameters of social constructionism (Blood !""#$ Burman %&&" %&&'$ (ollway %&)&$ *dley + ,etherell %&&#-. /uch work of this sort 0 certainly that which draws inspiration from the writings of /ichel 1oucault and 2udith Butler 3 is committed to what we might roughly call a deconstructionist ethos that draws attention to the formative powers of language text and societal conventions to performativity to the constitutive and regulative role of discourse. 4ccordingly a crucial emphasis is placed on the importance of socio0historical and cultural specificity$ trans0historical categories of explanation by contrast are eschewed in favour of appeals to the particularity of precise socio0cultural contextuali5ation. 1or critical work of this ilk any appeal to the notion of the universal is anathema. 4s such attempts at understanding sexual identity that make recourse to the notion of the universal 3 even sophisticated philosophical attempts that discuss universality in reference to its exceptions (as is the case in the late 6acan- 3 come to be rejected almost as a matter of course. 7pon reflection this seems unfortunate a missed attempt to understand something of how the difficult overlap of the categories of the particular (or the empirical- and universal (or the infinite- might usefully aid our understandings of sexual identity. 8his is especially the case given that one of the most famous philosophical attempts to get to grips with the problems of universality 0 to grapple with the over0extension of the designation of universality beyond the realm of empirical experience 0 is found in 9ants (%&&"- Critique of Pure Reason the terms of which explicitly inform 6acans formulae of sexuation. 8he inability to think the category of the universal represents an impasse not only for critical psychological analysis but also for much politically0committed work in contemporary social theory more generally as has been passionately argued by 4lain Badiou (!"": !""#-. ,e might dramati5e one element of this problem in the following way. 4pproaching a constructed and contingent mode of gendered subjectivity only within the remit of particulari5ation 0 an emphasis thus on socio0cultural0historical specificity as the over0riding vehicle of explanation 3 leads us ultimately into a situation within which comparison (between categories of constructionis untenable. 1or analyses of particularity to have any real value a frame of comparison 3 and indeed a potentially or implicitly universal frame 3 is thus necessary. ,e should as such think particularity instead within the remit of the universal attempting thus to understand how the relationship between the two 3 the empirical and the infinite 3 may inform our attempts at criti;ue. /c<owan (!""=- 3 drawing on earlier criti;ues by 1rederick 2ameson 0 makes precisely this argument> the inability to universali5e manifests itself in contemporary theory he asserts in a style of theori5ing that

%#%

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

works to confine itself to the particular to resist the temptation to lift events and texts out of their particular context. Such a focus on immanence and particularity misses the functioning of the system as a whole the way in which the universal informs the emergence of particularity (/c<owan !""= p. &'-. <iven this dilemma the objectives of this paper should by now be apparent. /y aim here is to introduce the 9antian logic underpinning 6acans (%&&)- formulae of sexuation and thereby make the case for the importance of the concepts of universality and its exceptions (or particularity- to an understanding of sexual identity. 8o do this ? retrace and intervene within 2oan @opjecs (%&&=- seminal essay Sex and the Euthanasia of Reason which remains perhaps the definitive treatment of 6acans use of 9antian antinomies in his formulae of sexuation. ? will focus particularly on the two antinomies 6acan presents us with in his cryptic assertions regards masculine and feminine structure. 4 description of 9ants two antimonies of reason one mathematical one dynamical is essential in this respect certainly in view of how it enables us to think about seemingly irresolvable contradictions and about how such irresolvables 3 which are never simply the outcome of a contingent ensemble of historical factors 0 might be said to yield two distinctive and non0complimentary structures. 8ntino0ies o% the (halli %un tion ?n a crucial section of Seminar XX 4 love letter 6acan (%&&)- presents us with two sets of opposed propositions one in the case each of masculine and feminine structure> 8here is at least one x that is not submitted 8here is not one x that is not submitted to to the phallic function. 4ll xs are (every x the phallic function. Aot all (not every- x is is- submitted to the phallic function. submitted to the phallic function. 8hese formulae in which the overlapping categories of universality and particularity are written large take us some distance from the standard assumption of what psychoanalysis declares regards sexual difference. ?t is not the case here that the assumption of masculinity or femininity can be reduced to a position of having or not having a phallus. Aeither masculine nor feminine structure can be distilled into a position of affirmation or negation or expressed in the basic terms of possession or non0possession. 1urthermore the phallic function 3 phallic function not phallus as (imaginary- object it is important to emphasi5e 3 is by no means an exclusively male prerogative. 4s is apparent from the formulae the phallic function is present on both sides of the table> it is what gives rise to the respective antinomies of masculine and feminine structure. Bather than a case of two opposing propositions we have in 6acans formulae two separate and asymmetrical conflicts two modes of failure. 4s @opjec (%&&=- notes> C*ach side is defined both by an affirmation and a negation of the phallic function an inclusion and exclusion of absolute (nonphallic- jouissanceD (p. !%#-. 4 greater degree of complexity is thus present in 6acans two sets of antinomies than we may have at first expected. ,e have a feminine side in which Cnot0allD are submitted to the phallic function from which there can e no exception and a masculine side in which all are su ject to phallic function from which there is one exception. 2he (halli %un tion an/ jouissance
%#!

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

8he phallic function is clearly then the pivot underlying each pair of antinomies. /asculinity and femininity to reiterate the point constitute two failed responses to the phallic function! ,hat though is the phallic functionE Ferhaps most directly the phallic function is a disallowing of jouissance the cutting0off of any hope of direct access to full jouissance. Gne might here restate a commonplace of 6acanian thought and make apparent the trans0historical ambition of these theoretical speculations> if one is to function as a viable subject within the laws and symbolic networks that societal membership and communicative competence re;uire one needs make a sacrifice the sacrifice of access to any full jouissance. 4s such the phallic function can be understood along the lines of a 6acanian re0conceptuali5ation of 1reudian castration> it is what is given up as a means of assuming the status of a speaking subject. ,e are concerned thus with two failed responses of the human organism to accommodate itself to the re;uirements of the symbolic with speaking0beings who have adopted one of two ways of surrendering jouissance. 8here is something mythical something after0the0fact about this sacrifice which remains ultimately a sacrifice of something that one never in fact had. 4s Barnard puts it> Cit is not a matter of the subject losing a form of being that he or she already possessed but of retroactively losing the possibility of becoming a certain sort of beingD (!""! p. %%-. 8he oddity of this situation can better be understood with reference to the 6acanian notion of the phallus. 8wo formulations immediately present themselves here> %- the phallus as the signifier of lack (and indeed of the desire co0extensive with lack-$ and !- the phallus as a formal category devoid of any essential content signifying castration. ?n 6acans work it is difficult to avoid the impotence and failure that is routinely assigned the phallus. Bather than grandiose views of masculine creative or sexual prowess or of potency fertility or power 3 bearing in mind that in this reading we should de0masculini5e the phallus 0 we need view the phallic signifier along the lines of a type of guaranteed failure. Aot a signifier of essential sexual difference the phallic signifier should be viewed referring to Barnard (!""!- as an empty signifier standing for the impossibility of signifying sex> it represents Ca traumatic failure of meaning and the impossibility of ever fundamentally anchoring or positivi5ing the symbolic orderD (p. %"-. ?n the move from the body to the symbolic in the transition from the realm of corporeality to that of signification something is derailed. 8hese two ends of the spectrum of human experience are not commensurate they cannot be aligned. 8he phallus makes it apparent that this is not a closed circuit$ it evidences the fact as HiIek (!""#- insists that something falls out in this change0over from instinctual animal coupling to human sexuality as mediated by the symbolic. 8he phallic signifier is the marker of this derailment of what is lost 3 namely jouissance 0 in the process. ?t is important to add here that the issue of how one is configured relative to the phallic signifier also entails the ;uestion of the particular mode of jouissance one takes on. $antian antino0ies ?n his Critique of Pure Reason 9ant (%&&"- is interested in the exercising of reason and in the inevitable impasses which result when the speculative work of reason moves from the empirical sphere of human experience to the conceptual realm of the infinite (such when one considers the soul <od or the world in the sense of the sum of all appearances the totality of what exists-.
%#:

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

9ants concern more specifically is with the modes of contradiction that arise from the misapplication of those categories which work within the finite de0limitable sensible world of experience (such as time space notions of beginning and end- to what cannot ever e o jects of experience. 8here are two types of antinomies that 9ant (%&&"- identifies under the banner of pure reason. /athematical antinomies first become apparent when we attempt to apply categories to the world as an all an entirety. ,hat is involved here is the presumption of an enclosed whole a type of completion that 9ant understands in the terms of a mathematical total of phenomena a totality of their synthesis. 4n example of such a thesis> there is a whole finite world that has a beginning in time and that is delimited in space. Jespite the intuitive ease with which we speak of the world in such a way the argument against such assumptions soon becomes apparent. Such a totali5ation of phenomena their synthesis into an ensemble of the whole would need to be utterly complete. 8hat is to say it would need to encompass all phenomena such that it would not be necessary to presuppose any other external phenomena able to ground this collection or serve as its condition. ?f this condition were to be met then the totali5able world would be without beginning and end un0delimited. (ence the antithesis> the world has no limits in time and space the world is infinite. ?mportant to emphasi5e here is the fact that 9antian antinomies cannot be resolved simply by eliminating one of two counter0posed positions. 8o do so would amount to a non0solution the attempt to deny a crucial dimension of the problem being discussed. 4s such neither side of the resulting antinomies can be simply rejected$ both of these arguments (the world is finite the world is infinite- possess an e;ual force. Jynamical antinomies by contrast are the result of attempting to apply categories of use within the empirical world to objects that are not of the phenomenal world at all . 8his is a mismatch between realms the over0extension of a category of understanding that is applicable to one domain yet not to the other (the attempt for example to fix C<odD or CsoulD within causative relations-. ,hereas in mathematical antinomies we are focussed on attempts at delimitation of what cannot e delimited (problems of divisibility and finitude- in dynamical antinomies we are concerned with attempts at the qualification of relations of cause and effect to that which cannot e thus qualified (HiIek %&&:-. Di%%erent stru tures o% ontra/i tion 8hese antimonies each abide by a different logic of contradiction and it is worthwhile spending some time underlining the difference of each such pair of antinomies. /athematical antinomies concern the real experience of their object (say the totality of the world- although extended beyond the limits of possible experience. ,hat is being disputed in mathematical antinomies is the totality of phenomena that is things as they appear to us which could in principle be present together in time and space a kind of totali5ing summation of things. (ence to recall the opposition between the world is finite and the world is infinite. Jynamical antinomies concern an object that does not elong to experiential reality but dealt with as if it could be conceived of as part of such a reality. Jynamical antinomies hence involve a juxtaposition of different ontological orders. ,hat is disputed here are noumenal identities beyond phenomena. 8his is the error of assessing things as they are in themselves (noumena- as if they were empirical objects which can be fixed within causal relationships (phenomena-. (ence the opposition between <od exists and <od does not exist.
%#=

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

4s HiIek (%&&:- helpfully emphasi5es we can understand the differences between these antinomies as different negations of phenomena the incompletion of phenomena on the one hand and an attention to noumena rather than phenomena themselves on the other> /athematical antinomies are antinomies of the Cnon0allD of the phenomenal field> they result from the paradox that although there is no object given to us in intuition which does not belong to the phenomenal field this field is never CallD never complete. Jynamical antinomiesKare antinomies of universality> logical connection of the phenomena in the universal causal nexus necessarily involves an exceptionK La grounding elementM which Csticks outD suspending the causal nexus and starting a new causal series Cspontaneously out of itselfD (HiIek %&&: p. ##-. 4s is by now no doubt apparent @opjecs argument is that we are dealing with structural homologies> 6acans feminine structure is a case in point of mathematical antinomy his masculine structure an exemplar of dynamical antinomy. ,hat is interesting about this homology is that it implies something not generally stressed by 6acanian accounts. 4mongst all the talk of impossibility and failure that characteri5e 6acanian contributions to the topic of sexuation it is easy to neglect a crucial feature of the formal 9antian logic upon which the formulae rely namely the fact that 9ant (%&&"- offers solutions to the two antinomies he identifies. 8his is a point of obvious importance given that the two processes of sexuation 0 as precarious and incomplete as they might be 0 ultimately yield two recogni5able and reasonably robust structures those of masculinity and femininity. 8his is not to ignore the 6acanian notion that in each case we are dealing with a mode of failure 3 masculinity and femininity are never finally achieved completed achievements 3 although it is to suggest there is something regular something stable about these two non0complimentary modes of failure. @rucial again is the very asymmetricality of these two failed structures$ not only are the modes of contradiction different in the case of each pair of antinomies (mathematical0feminine dynamical0masculine- so are the solutions. 8his is where we shall now turn our attentions to 9ants two solutions. =e0inine stru ture an/ 0athe0ati al antino0ies 4n important clue to how we might found our way out of the deadlock of mathematical antinomies concerns the fact that each opposing proposition returns a false verdict on its counter0 part. 8his is a helpful start because although we remain stuck we can as 9ant (%&&"- does conclude that both alternatives are false. (ow is this possibleE ,ell argues 9ant in the case of the mathematical antinomies the very object that thesis and antithesis deal with namely the fully totali5able world 0 whether we characteri5e it as finite or infinite 0 does not in fact exist. Aeither thesis nor antithesis makes for a viable proposition. 8he notion of the totali5able world simply doesnt work. ?t is a conceptual non0starter because it uses transcendent categories that ground the field of experience (time space- but moves outside the realm of their reasonable application beyond the reach of possible experience. ,e are thus left with two illegitimate theses neither of which for 9ant is acceptable. @rucial here is a rather technical distinction> what may initially appear to be a contradictory opposition is in point of fact an opposition of contraries. ?n a contradictory opposition (such as (erman is alive and (erman is dead- the truth of one such proposition
%##

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

necessarily guarantees the falsity of the other. 8he whole field of possibilities is thus exhausted. 4s in the case of either being pregnant or not there are no half0measures here one of these states0of0affairs must be the case. ?n the case of contraries the truth of one does not necessitate the falsity of the other. Bather than simply denying one another contraries may be said to reach in different directions to describe differing states of affairs. /oreover they do not effectively exhaust the entire field of possibilities. So in the case of the contraries (say this room is hot and this room is cold- the second does not strictly speaking negate the first (this room is not hot would effect such a negation- but instead offers another state of affairs i.e. a cold temperature. Aow bracketing for the moment the issue of potentially subjective responses to temperature it would seem clear that oth statements cannot e true> states of hot and cold do not exist simultaneously they cancel one another out. ?t is however possible that both may be false because there may indeed be a third option> the room may be ideally0suited to body temperature neither thus hot nor cold. ,here does this lead usE 8o the awareness that it may be misguided to answer in the affirmative to either thesis or antithesis of mathematical antinomies especially given that the very notion of the totali5able world may not itself be viable. 9ant (%&&"- thus holds back from answering the dilemma is the world finite or infiniteE suggesting instead that the solution to these antinomies is to be found in proving the illegitimacy of the concept in ;uestion. Ferhaps at this point the parallel between these 9antian concepts and their 6acanian derivations is becoming more apparent especially so perhaps in view of 6acans infamous notion that "#he woman does not exist$. /ore important for the moment is 9ants insistence that to solve this pair of antinomies he will need refute both thesis and antithesis to state his solution twice in both negative and affirmative forms a fact which takes us a little closer to understanding the combination of >"#here is not one x that is not su mitted to the phallic function! %ot all x is su mitted to the phallic function$! (ow then to show that the world is an incoherent conceptE ,ell we start with the idea underlying both the thesis and antithesis of the mathematical antinomies the idea that the world is an object of experience. 4s such it must be subject to the conditions of possi ility that make experience possi le. ,e must be able to find co0ordinates of location for the object in ;uestion even importantly if these co0ordinates plot a progression through time and space. (owever to speak of the absolute totality of any set of phenomena whether finite or infinite does not work here. ,hy soE ?t effectively excludes the prospect of plotting any such se;uence of co0ordinates in time and space inasmuch as we are concerned here with the simultaneity of phenomena. ?f our means of experiencing the world are necessarily located in time and space and are indeed necessarily se;uential in nature then we cant speak of the all of a totali5able world for it necessarily escapes us exceeds our categories of experience. Fut differently> our means of knowing is inade;uate to the object to be known. Gr as @opjec (%&&=- puts it> C8he world is an object that destroys the means of finding it$ it is for this reason illegitimate to call it an object at all. 4 universe of phenomena is a true contradiction in terms$ the world cannot and does not existD (p. !!"-. Befuting then the thesis of the mathematical antinomies (the world is finite- 9ant (%&&"- responds in the form of a negative denying this proposition> 8he (totali5able- world has no beginning in time and no limits in space. Gr to be more precise we have established that no phenomena are not su ject to the conditions of experience! Gr in @opjecs formulation> Cthere is no phenomenon that is not an object of possible experienceD (%&&= p. !!%-. ,e have hence
%#N

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

arrived at the first line of 6acans cryptic antinomies of feminine structure "#here is not one x that is not su mitted to the phallic function$! (ow does 9ant deal with the antithesisE (e insists on a kind of necessary se;uentiality over and above the simultaneity of the all. ?n more straightforward terms> we can admit that that there is no apparent limit to phenomena (of the world- however this does not mean that we must accept the assessment that the world is effectively infinite. Bejecting the thesis does not thus mean that we are forced into accepting the antithesis. So we can accept that all phenomena are marked by finitude they are subject to location in time and space a fact which means they are perceived in a se;uence or succession. Gbjects are after all experienced over time and no two objects can occupy the same spatial co0ordinates. 8he condition of se;uentiality is necessary if we are to experience such objects at all. @rucially however the se;uence in ;uestion itself needs know no end. 1rom this standpoint a more accurate conclusion is the following> the world is not properly speaking infinite it is instead indeterminate never ;uite finali5ed not all. ,here does this leave usE ,ith the conclusion that an unending itinerary of phenomena 0 a non all of phenomena 0 are a possible object of experience. (ere then the second line of 6acans feminine structure> "%ot all x is su mitted to the phallic function$! 8he precision of 9ants argument lies in the fact that it guards against unwarranted implications> to state that there is no limit to phenomena is to run the risk of suggesting that the world is infinite limitless. 8o insist that not all phenomena can be known seems to imply that at least one escapes our experience. 9ant (%&&"- allows neither implication to stand hence the reason for his two part solution> #here is no phenomenon that is not an o ject of possi le experience %ot&all phenomena are a possi le o ject of experience (#here is not one x that is not su mitted to the phallic function $%ot all x is su mitted to the phallic function-. ?hy then shoul/ .o0an# not e&ist@ <iven the structural homology identified above the category of woman at least in the totali5ed sense of the all of woman does not exist. Gne response to this controversial statement would be to remain loyal to the 9antian logic from which it is derived to insist that a given proclamation of existence egs the question of its underlying conditions' of possi ility such as how it might be located in time and space. 6acan says @opjec is arguing that Ca concept of woman cannot be constructed because the task of fully unfolding her conditions is one that cannot be carried outD (p. !!!-. 8his itself seems less than controversial> to insist on specific socio0historical and spatial co0ordinates. 8o argue that one cannot construct a generali5ed category of woman that over0rides such conditions is today a commonplace of critical thought indeed it precisely a hallmark of the (poststructural or discourse analytic- insistence on particulari5ation discussed above. (ow then does such a 9antian position differ from the notion that we cannot legitimately speak of a trans0historical or universal category of the woman from the idea that what we re;uire by contrast are the complexities of particularityE ?n such poststructuralist or discursive accounts 3 and @opjec takes 2udith Butlers (ender #rou le as a case point 3 we are typically presented with a binary logic which treats the options of the universal and the particular as exhausting the field of possibilities. 1or a 9antian 3 and this is crucial to advancing an argument for the imperative of reading universality and particularity together 0 this would be an inade;uate set of options> the either/or choice between universal and particular proves not only insufficient but also erroneous. 4s we have seen 9ant
%#'

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

(%&&"- argues that the mathematical antinomies demonstrate the limits of reason. ,hy though is reason limitedE Frecisely because the procedures of our knowledge have no limit 0 this lack of a limit is itself the pro lem . 8his is why we fail 9ant notes @opjec (%&&=- when we conclude that the negation of the the world 0 or indeed of reason and its ability to speak of all phenomena 0 implies that since we cannot speak of the all we can know the particularities of finite phenomena. 1or 9ant we can be assured of no such thing. 9ant (%&&"- does not insist on a simple negation of Call phenomenaD. ?t is not the case then that the totality of the world is simply annulled cancelled from the analytical field that particularity is left behind as the default option that we can now speak with confidence of particular phenomena as that which reason can confidently know. 8his is the mistake 3 the epistemological lapse 3 of a particularist register of criti;ue. ,e need be attentive here to the vital distinction between a negation and the affirmation of a negative statement. 1or 9ant to recall we can affirm the world is not a possi le o ject of experience 3 something which accords the limitations of reason itself its own internal insufficiency 3 without going any further to make definitive declarations a out the existence of this world! 8o put it differently> we should not buy into this concept (the all of the world the all of the woman- for as 9ant argued in respect of mathematical antinomies once we have bought into such a concept 0 whether by means of affirmation or denial 0 we have still confirmed an incoherent category and thereby opened up the possibility of the existence of something other than it something beyond it that we can be sure of within which we can maintain a modicum of epistemological trust. Aeither of these options 0 an endorsement of the all or the taking up of its apparent flipside of endless particularity 0 provides a sufficient response to the dilemma at hand. Aeither pays ade;uate attention to the fact that the mathematical antinomies do not exhaust the field to the fact that something is left open. 9ant (%&&"- after all has provided us with an indefinite judgement. 8his is the subtlety of his argument> it is concerned to reiterate with the fact of an internal limit or insufficiency rather than merely that of an external limit. 8he upshot of this as @opjec (%&&=- makes clear is that while it is indeed true for 6acan that the mathematical category of the totali5able all of woman leads us into contradiction that woman as such does not exist he also insists that her existence cannot be contradicted by reason. (er inexistence is not thus proved. ,hat is thus left intact is the possibility that there is something feminine that cannot be constrained by the symbolic or situated within experience the possibility in short of a feminine mode of jouissance. 8o ;uote @opjec directly> L,Moman is there where no limit intervenes to inhibit the progressive unfolding of signifiers where therefore a judgment of existence becomes impossible. 8his means that everything can be and is said about her but that none of itKamounts to a confirmation or denial of her existence which thereby eludes every symbolic articulationK.. L?Mt is precisely because she is totally...inscribed within the symbolic that she is in some sense wholly outside it which is to say the ;uestion of her existence is absolutely undecidable within it (pp. !!N0!!'-. Aas uline stru ture an/ /yna0i al antino0ies /athematical and dynamical antinomies are not symmetrical hence the conclusions reached about woman should not be assumed to hold good for masculine structure. 8o the chagrin of
%#)

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

many 6acan maintains that what cannot be claimed in the case of woman can in the case of man> man can be said to exist. 8his seems initially confounding especially given the foregoing suggestion that reasons grasping at totali5ation at the all renders any judgements of existence as unsustainable. (ow then is it possible that man does existE ,e know from what has gone above that both thesis and antithesis of dynamical antinomies can be true$ for 9ant (%&&"- they stand together in what is (strictly speaking- a non0 contradictory relation. ? have reworded somewhat the 9antian examples that @opjec supplies> 8hesis> #here is at least one mode of causality that does not fall under the laws of nature' a causality of freedom! 4ntithesis> Everything in the world happens solely according to the laws of nature' there is no such thing as freedom. ,e can hear in this logic the antinomies of 6acans masculine structure ( #here is at least one x that is not su mitted to the phallic function )ll x$s are su mitted to the phallic function-. 4ccepting the ostensible truth of the thesis seems in itself unproblematic> the order of natural causality is asserted as possessing a type of primary importance although an addition 3 freedom 3 is re;uired to supplement this order. 8he difficulty arises in dealing with the antithesis without confronting what would appear to be the inevitable contradiction. 8he antithesis weighs in against freedom> *verythingKhappens solely according to the laws of nature and cannot seemingly thus stand alongside the thesis. (ow then to overcome this impasseE 8he resolution seems to be achieved via the exception which makes the rule with reference to the one who is not despite that all others are. ,e have in other words one statement which claims an inclusiveness Everything in the worldK )ll xsK an antithesis which seems necessarily falsified by the thesis which begs an exception to this inclusiveness this universality. 6et us stay a while longer with the antithesis and its proclaimed truth for we have here a successful all a universal which does exist just as for 6acan the all of man does exist. ?n mathematical antinomies the existence of an all was relegated to impossibility due to the fact that no limit could be found. ?f no limit could be obtained in the case of mathematical structure then why now in the case of dynamical structureE ?ndeed we can argue that the formation of the all of man mans composite substance necessitates a limit a boundary0line of some or other sort. 8he argument against such a boundary0line in the case of the not all of woman is the same as that underlying the maxim that there is no meta0language> the limitlessness of the phenomena in ;uestion prevents the boundaries that such a meta0position such a demarcation of the all would re;uire. 4ny instance of a meta0language any exceptional element that could enable a boundary turns out to be another item in an ever0expanding set. 8his it would seem is a difficult argument to refute 0 no meta0phenomena no meta0language hence no limit of phenomena or of signifiers. 8he ;uestion then is how to conceive the limit posited on the masculine side which is both necessary (because there is an all here a containment of the set- yet that must also avoid the meta possibility of a kind of universal closure that enables a higher order set (a meta position-. 5egative in lusions

%#&

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

8he crucial ;ualification that allows us to advance the argument concerns the fact that the limit in ;uestion operates to cover over a lack. 8his very containment could however act in the capacity of a negation. ?n other words one needs to pay careful attention to the particular nature of the operational limit that has been introduced. (ow is this covering the lack managed in dynamical antinomiesE ,ell by including within the series of phenomena (or signifiers- a negative judgment about what cannot be included a null element which in its very inclusion betrays a lack of inclusion. @opjecs example is the there is no freedom of the antithesis 3 or presumably the no exception clause of all xs are subject to the phallic function in 6acans formulae 3 this she says fulfils the function of a limit by the inclusion (in a negative form- of a non0includable. 8he paradoxical incorporation of what cannot in fact be incorporated thus allows us to have it both ways to attain a functional limit even as this very move shows us what cannot be included. 8he key to this solution lies with the element that has been included whose inclusion as a negative function has the function of closing the set through its paradoxical (non-incorporation. 8his seems to achieve two things at once. 1irstly freedom (or indeed exception to the phallic function- becomes unthinkable rendered impossible. Secondly the set is closed> everything is effectively included in an all even that which oddly enough cannot be. 8he implication of this of course is that a kind of all 0 be it the totali5able world or the type of subject rendered impossible in mathematical antinomies 0 is now effected does now exist. @opjec provides a response to this pu55le of logic by means of an ingenious reference to 1reuds (%&"#- insistence that the finding of an object is in fact more accurately an instance of re0finding. 8he argument in ;uestion concerns 1reuds intuition that what secures our perceptions of the world (and indeed our psychic reality- is not so much a process of weighing up such perceptions against ostensibly objective external reality but a ;uestion of how they measure up to the impossible object of primal satisfaction. 8his is what proves the real compass of psychical reality an object that everything else only approximates in varying degrees of failure and that never existed as such. 8he supposition of such an object of full jouissance 0 which to reiterate remains a presumption rather than a prior reality 3 is what introduces a null element into the set. ,hat is added to a multitude of perceptions in @opjecs terms is not a new perception or any new sensible content but a contentless form a negative judgement. ,e might consider this the constitutive effect on objective perception that follows on from the absorbing of a vacuum> L?Mt is only when our perceptions come to refer themselves to this lost objectKthat they can be deemed objectiveKLtMhe object is excluded from perceptions but not simply since it now functions as that which is Cin them more than themD (p. !!:-. 1reuds notion of negation is a further ally here the idea in short that the addition of a negation allows for the expression of what could not otherwise be stated under conditions of repression> we have thus a kind of non0inclusion (Cit is not....D- that via the route of negation allows for inclusion. 4 suspicion may be starting to build that this masculine dynamical solution the attainment of a provisional all can only come at a price. Such a hunch would appear well0 founded given that the closure in ;uestion can only be achieved by 3 as we have seen 3 the assimilation of a not. Gne is hence left with a nagging sense of absence within this all0inclusion
%N"

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

an inkling that this completion at the level of the concept (of man- is managed only at the expense of radical loss. @opjec speaks of the dynamical antinomies of masculine failure as characteri5ed by su traction (as opposed to the surplus of mathematical antinomies which say too much-. 1or the all to form on the dynamical side something must be foregone. Beturning to her 9antian example> it is the removal of freedom 0 included even as it is negated within the realm of natural causality 0 that enables us to move beyond the dynamical impasse. 8his su traction itself is what forms the limit that we have discussed above$ it is hence enabling although it guarantees a loss a loss of being itself. Fut differently the all is gained but as concept rather than as eing. 4s @opjec explains> Ca world (operating solely according to the laws of nature- or universe (of men- can be said to exist on the dynamical or male sideD (p. !:%- but the status of the existence thus asserted remains of a merely conceptual sort. 8he all of the world that hence emerges is always marked by a certain ineptitude and impotence$ it is a world in which Ceverything can be includedKexcept being which is heterogeneous to the conceptual worldD (p. !:%-. 8his troubling absence within all0inclusion makes for an apt characteri5ation of phallic jouissance which 1ink describes as the jouissance that routinely fails us disappoints us that reduces the sexual partner to o jet a the object0cause of desire that continually evades us. Fhallic jouissance is continuously subject to the bar separating signifier and signified a bar that 6acan in fact e;uates with the phallus. (ence the barring that marks phallic jouissance the gap between my desire as formulated in signifiers and what can satisfy me. 1or this reason the satisfaction ? take in reali5ing my desire is always disappointing. 8his satisfaction subject to the bar between the signifier and the signified fails to fulfil me 3 it always leaves something more to be desired. 8hat is phallic jouissance. (1ink !""! p. :'Dea/lo ks o% sy0boliBation ,e have been confronted thus with two distinctive antinomies of the phallic function two structures of managing jouissance> the masculine dynamical (which poses the problem of universality with exception- and the feminine mathematical (a not0all field which knows no exception-. 8his is a conceptuali5ation of the subject which provides a more complex understanding not only of the universal but of the intersection of universal and particular than is possible in a constructionist paradigm. ?mportantly 9ants solutions to the above sets of antinomies specify two distinct structures (dynamical and mathematical antinomies- in which universality (or infinity- and particularity (or the empirical- are forced into compromise. ,e are left with neither the unconstrained reign of the universal nor with an unopposed celebration of particularity$ neither in and of themselves provides an ade;uate principle of analysis. (ence the injunction provided at the beginning of the paper the imperative to think particularity within the remit of the universal. 6acanian psychoanalysis thus provides us with a sense 0 via the problem of the loss of jouissance in relation to the phallic function 0 of how such (dynamical mathematical- antinomies give us (masculine feminine- types of sexed subject. 8his 9antian perspective provides an inspired means of re0conceptuali5ing the deadlocks of sexuation. ,ith it we have moved a considerable distance from the categorical oppositions utili5ed by earlier psychoanalytic
%N%

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

theori5ations (the ;uestion of having/not0having the phallus$ the polari5ed positions of affirmation or negation- conceptuali5ations which typically reproduced gendering effects in the very attempt to grasp the underpinnings of masculinity and femininity. 4s ? hope is by now evident the 6acanian09antian approach detailed above entails a very different epistemological grounding a distinctive (formal logical- analytical language of comprehension for the conceptuali5ation of masculinity and femininity. 8his frame of analysis brings with it several important ;ualifications several points of insistence 3 not all of which ? can ade;uately develop here 3 which must be brought to bear on how we think sexual difference from a 6acanian perspective. 1irstly the two antinomies are asymmetrical and mutually0impeding. ,e are not dealing here with interlocking components or complimentary structures$ neither holds the key to the ;uandary of the other. 8o repeat the well known formula there is no sexual relation> these two modes of impossibility are not transcended$ there is no harmonious coming together no balanced relationship emerges between them. /an and woman to be clear are the names of distinctive impasses each of which represents an obstacle to the others becoming itself. Secondly 3 to anticipate a longstanding misinterpretation of 6acan 0 these are problems that are internal to signification itself> neither the categories of man or woman can be dealt with via naOve appeals to the extra0symbolic. ,e are by contrast dealing with deadlocks inherent to sym oli*ation itself. 8hirdly by remaining focussed on the deadlocks inherent in symboli5ation 3 or 9ants (%&&"- concerns with the internal insufficiency of reason itself 3 we are able to counter a trend of theori5ation that views woman as somehow exceeding escaping the symbolic as existing beyond it (the idea thus of an enigmatic feminine essence inassimilable to the symbolic matrix-. 1rom a 6acanian standpoint woman is completely submitted to the phallic function. 8he paradox of this situation is that it is via complete identification with the phallic function that woman is able to upset its totali5ing function. @learly this does not rule out a subversive aspect> the subversion in ;uestion is precisely a result of the fact that woman is immersed in the symbolic order without exception. ?n the case of masculinity such an exception does exist 3 here we encounter paradox of what is lost in the guise of a gain 3 this exception is what man uses to set up the phallic domain as a universal or totali5ed field. ?n the case of woman it is the very lack of any exception to the phallus to ;uote HiIek (!""#- Cthat renders the feminine libidinal economy inconsistent and LthatM thus undermines the rule of the phallic functionD (p. '"-. 8here is in evidence here a destabili5ation a challenge to or undermining of the phallic function something that is not so readily apparent in masculinity where the phallic function and its associated mode of fantasy retains its dominance. Gr in the words of Pighi + 1eldner (!""'-> ,hile man can only define and relate to the world by positing a libidinally0 invested fantasi5ed about point of exclusion woman has a chance to connect to the big Gther in a radically different way one which presupposes no exception to the rule and which by the same token demonstrates the consubstantiality of the Symbolic and the Beal (p. %)N-. ?hat (ins se&uation to the bo/y@

%N!

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

8he ;uestion that emerges after all this formidable theori5ation is as follows> what is the relationship between these two sets of antinomies (on the one hand- and the fact of physically0 evident apparently biologically0obvious masculine and feminine bodies (on the other-E Gr to put it differently> the success of this 9antian06acanian approach to sexuation is that it bypasses the reduction of sex to bodily attribute and introduces a new level of abstraction such that the antinomies of masculine and feminine structure never need correspond to anatomical schema. ?s it then the case that sexuation floats free of the bodyE ?f this is the case then how are we to explain what would appear to be 3 and ? am fully aware of the normative assumptions thus implied 0 the seemingly regular correspondence between psychic sexuation and physical sexE ,hy is it more plainly put that psychic and physical sex seem so often to go togetherE Gr to remain within the terms of a 6acanian conceptuali5ation> having fixed sexuation as two sets of response to the deadlock of symboli5ation how are we to reconnect the sexuation of masculine and feminine back to the real of the bodyE 4re we dealing here with a completely de0 physicali5ed sexualityE 8he ;uestion of the relation between 6acans formulae and the facts of evidently male and female bodies returns what can only initially appear as a disappointing answer. ?ndeed in response to what constitutes the tie between two purely logical antinomies and to paraphrase HiIek (%&&=- the obvious biological fact of the opposition of male and female the only 6acanian answer is that there is no link! Bluntly put there is no necessary relationship. 8he link remains contingent illicit unsubstantiated and precisely this according to HiIek (!""#- is 6acans point this is his deconstruction of sexuality. 8o make the criticism that the mathematical and dynamical pairs of antinomies have only an illegitimate (illicit- relation to human sexuality is to accost 6acan with his own insight. ,hat we experience as sexuality is as HiIek puts it the effect of Cthe contingent act of CgraftingD the fundamental deadlock of symboli5ation onto the biological opposition of male and femaleD (%&&= p. %##-. 6acans importance for HiIek lies with lifting this illicit character from the epistemological to the ontological> Csexuality itself what we experience as the highest most intense assertion of our being is a ricolage a montage of two heterogeneous elementsD (p. %##-.

Re%eren es Badiou 4. (!"":-. Saint Paul+ #he foundations of universalism! Stanford @4> Stanford 7niversity Fress. Badiou 4. (!""#-. ,etapolitics! 6ondon + Aew Qork> Perso. Barnard S. (!""!-. ?ntroduction. ?n S. Barbard + B. 1ink (*ds.- Reading Seminar XX -acan$s major work on love' knowledge and feminine sexuality pp %0!". 4lbany AQ> State 7niversity of Aew Qork. Burman *. (*d-. (%&&"-. .eminists and psychological practice! 6ondon> Sage. Burman *. (*d-. (%&&'-. /econstructing feminist psychology! 6ondon> Sage. Blood S.9. (!""#-. 0ody work the social construction of women$s ody image! 6ondon + Aew Qork> Boutledge. @opjec 2. (%&&=-. Read my desire -acan against the historicists! @ambridge /4> /?8 Fress.
%N:

Hook, D. (2009) Restoring Universality to the Subje t! "a an#s $antian "ogi o% Se&uation#, Annual Review of Critical Psychology, ', ((. )*)+),' htt(!--..../is ourseunit. o0-ar (-'.ht0

*dley A. + ,etherell /. (%&&#-. ,en in perspective+ Practice' power and identity! 6ondon> Frentice0(all. 1reud S. (%&"#-. 8hree essays on the theory of sexuality. ?n 2. Strachey ed. + trans. 8he standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund .reud' != volumes. 6ondon> (ogarth %&#:0%&'=. '> %!:0!=:. 1ink B. (!""!-. 1nowledge and jouissance. ?n S. Barbard + B. 1ink (*ds.- Reading Seminar XX -acan$s major work on love' knowledge and feminine sexuality pp %0!". 4lbany AQ> State 7niversity of Aew Qork. (ollway ,. (%&)&- Su jectivity and ,ethod in Psychology+ (ender' ,eaning and Science 6ondon Sage. 6acan 2. (%&&)-. #he Seminar of 2acques -acan! 0ook XX+ Encore' 3n .eminine Sexuality' #he -imits of -ove and 1nowledge' 4567&68 ed. 2ac;ues04lain /iller trans. and notes Bruce 1ink Aew Qork> Aorton. /c<owan 8. (!""=-. #he end of dissatisfaction9 2acques -acan and the emerging society of enjoyment! Aew Qork> State 7niversity of Aew Qork Fress. 9ant ?. (%&&"-. Critique of pure reason. Buffalo AQ> Frometheus. Pighi 1. + 1eldner (. (!""'-. :i;ek eyond .oucault. (oundmills> Falgrave. HiIek S. (%&&:-. #arrying with the negative 1ant' <egel' and the critique of ideology . Jurham A@> Juke 7niversity Fress. HiIek S. (%&&=-. #he ,etastases of Enjoyment+ Six essays on =oman and Causality! 6ondon + Aew Qork> Perso. HiIek S. (!""#-. >nterrogating the Real! (*ds.- B. Butler + S. Stephens. Aew Qork + 6ondon> @ontinuum. :iogra(hi Details! Jerek (ook is a lecturer in Social Fsychology at the 6ondon School of *conomics and a research fellow in Fsychology at the 7niversity of the ,itwatersrand in South 4frica. (e is the author of .oucault' Psychology and the )nalytics of Power (Falgrave !""'- and the co0ordinator of Psychoanalysis?-SE. 8//ress %or <orres(on/en e! ?nstitute of Social Fsychology 6ondon School of *conomics and Folitical Science (oughton Street ,@!4 !4* d.w.hookRlse.ac.uk 8el/fax> S ""== ("-!" '&## '%"N/S ""==("-!" '&## '#N#

%N=