Does the word ‘phallus’ refer to the same concept in the writings of both Freud and Lacan? Does Freud’s “substitute for the woman’s penis” (Freud “Fetishism” 842) correlate with Lacan’s “privileged signifier?” (Lacan “Signification” 1187). In The Signification of the Phallus Lacan writes: “it is Freud’s discovery that gives to the signifier / signified opposition the full extent of implications,” crediting Freud with Lacan’s discovery of the phallus as a “privileged signifier” (Lacan “Signification” 1187). This begs the question, are Lacan’s signifier and Freud’s symbolic penis the same thing? In this paper, I will deconstruct both concepts of the phallus, demonstrating that, while differing in execution, both Freud and Lacan espouse the same
…show more content…
Freud’s theory centers on castration anxiety – one’s fear that, as his mother somehow has lost her penis, “his own possession of a penis [is] in danger” – and fetishization – the displacement of one’s fear of castration onto some token serving as psychical protection against the primordial of castration (Freud “Fetishism” 842-843). It can be difficult to determine if Freud is discussing an actual penis that, in fact, never existed or a symbolic penis one has transferred from their mother onto some form of object-choice or fetish. Logically, it is clear to the subject their mother’s penis never existed, but this doesn’t explain the desire the child cum man “does not want to give up” (Freud “Fetishism” 843). If the man’s fear of castration is the basis of the castration complex this indicates that the man once believed the mother’s penis was an actual penis, and fears the loss of his actual, physical penis as a result; but, this does not agree with the concept of fetishization. If the boy cum man can displace the mother’s symbolic penis onto some “token of triumph” (Freud “Fetishism” 843) the man cannot, therefore, truly fear a loss of his own physical penis. The phallus cannot be both manifestation of a physical penis and something capable of displacement onto some other, non-procreative, …show more content…
The above serves to outline some basic problems of Freud’s concept of the phallus as portrayed in “Fetishism,” and do not constitute the body of my argument. To continue with my main argument, Freud’s concept of the phallus – and its displacement – either results in some form of psychological disorder, or ceases to be a problem. In other words, the phallus is displaced onto an object (via object-choice and fetishization) or, as is the case with those who do not suffer some form of sexual neurosis, is accepted as a relic of childhood one can “surmount” (Freud “Fetishism” 843). One must be careful to note Freud’s avoidance of the term ‘repression’ in relation to the phallus; Freud does not believe the phallus exists within one’s unconscious, instead saying “a very energetic action has been undertaken to maintain the disavowal [of the mother’s penis]” (Freud “Fetishism” 842). Thus, contrary to some modern concepts of psycho-analysis, the phallus is something one may not be consciously aware of, but remains something one must constantly disavow. Repression, per Freud, can be defined in two ways: “primal repression… which consists in the psychical (ideational) representative [object-choice/fetish] being denied entrance into the consciousness,” and “repression proper, [which] affects mental derivatives of the
Freud’s theory centers on castration anxiety – one’s fear that, as his mother somehow has lost her penis, “his own possession of a penis [is] in danger” – and fetishization – the displacement of one’s fear of castration onto some token serving as psychical protection against the primordial of castration (Freud “Fetishism” 842-843). It can be difficult to determine if Freud is discussing an actual penis that, in fact, never existed or a symbolic penis one has transferred from their mother onto some form of object-choice or fetish. Logically, it is clear to the subject their mother’s penis never existed, but this doesn’t explain the desire the child cum man “does not want to give up” (Freud “Fetishism” 843). If the man’s fear of castration is the basis of the castration complex this indicates that the man once believed the mother’s penis was an actual penis, and fears the loss of his actual, physical penis as a result; but, this does not agree with the concept of fetishization. If the boy cum man can displace the mother’s symbolic penis onto some “token of triumph” (Freud “Fetishism” 843) the man cannot, therefore, truly fear a loss of his own physical penis. The phallus cannot be both manifestation of a physical penis and something capable of displacement onto some other, non-procreative, …show more content…
The above serves to outline some basic problems of Freud’s concept of the phallus as portrayed in “Fetishism,” and do not constitute the body of my argument. To continue with my main argument, Freud’s concept of the phallus – and its displacement – either results in some form of psychological disorder, or ceases to be a problem. In other words, the phallus is displaced onto an object (via object-choice and fetishization) or, as is the case with those who do not suffer some form of sexual neurosis, is accepted as a relic of childhood one can “surmount” (Freud “Fetishism” 843). One must be careful to note Freud’s avoidance of the term ‘repression’ in relation to the phallus; Freud does not believe the phallus exists within one’s unconscious, instead saying “a very energetic action has been undertaken to maintain the disavowal [of the mother’s penis]” (Freud “Fetishism” 842). Thus, contrary to some modern concepts of psycho-analysis, the phallus is something one may not be consciously aware of, but remains something one must constantly disavow. Repression, per Freud, can be defined in two ways: “primal repression… which consists in the psychical (ideational) representative [object-choice/fetish] being denied entrance into the consciousness,” and “repression proper, [which] affects mental derivatives of the