Towards a Critical Reading of the Formulae of Sexuation
The provocative impression of Jacques Lacan’s affirmation that ‘there is no sexual rapport’ continues to appear to many as a sort of brutal truth about sex, gaining authenticity by coming from a now-famous psychoanalyst. From this to imagining that it was simply his long experience as a practitioner that led him to this harsh truth about the nature of the relations men and women have (or not) with one another is an easy step to take. And besides, do not the apparently contradictory logical formulae which soon came to support and accompany in his teaching this paradoxical statement – produced at the end of the 1960s – place ‘Man’ 1 on one side and ‘Woman’ on the other? And so it is that for more than 30 years people have been satisfied to read these formulae as a modern set of magical spells in which, through a prodigious aggiornamento, biblical truth has finally found the place and the function of sexual difference in the vast Freudian setting, thanks to the somersaults of this entertainer Lacan. Nothing could be further from the truth. And what follows is intended to demonstrate this using the logical argumentation that Lacan developed over many years.