ABSTRACT
We are now familiar with debates between those who seek to demonstrate the biological foundations of sexuality and consciousness, and those who stress the radical contingency of human life, arguing that it has no essence, but is always decisively shaped by specific historical conditions. No theoretical alternative is more widely publicized than this, or more heavily invested today. It is therefore no surprise that contemporary psychoanalytic theory has been drawn into this debate, and understood by reference to its conceptual framework. But perhaps this debate, in which “nature” and “culture” are opposed to one another, is less the measure by which psychoanalysis should be judged, than a refusal of psychoanalysis, a distortion of its most basic vocabulary.
