Zizek on Lacan - Masculine vs Feminine Logic

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I will try to summarize. Masculine and feminine are not the same as male vs female, but the correlation is clear.

Masculine logic and feminine logic both fail to capture the entire meaning of our existence. They are not harmonious opposite "poles" which together make up "a whole". Rather, they are two mutually exclusive understandings of existence, transplanted onto the same world. "The Real" is the gap between the two, that which neither can capture, where the Symbolic Order and our Imagination fail us. As those who have read Zizek and Lacan will know,"The Real" is not synonymous with "reality", as our "reality" is precisely constructed by the Symbolic Order.

Onto masculine logic vs feminine logic.

Masculine logic is universal, but always with one exception. Feminine logic is non-universal, but with no exceptions.

To give a very weak, simple, but clear, example. Masculine logic: "All swans are white. Those which are black are anomalies". Feminine logic: "Not all swans are white. There are no swans which are not white".

From the field of ideology: Masculine: "Capitalism is universal human nature. Those societies which were not capitalist were aberrations of human nature". Feminine logic: "Not all humans are submitted to capitalism. There are no humans that are not submitted to capitalism."

Or: Masculine: Marxism, "Productive advances and class struggle drive all societies from primitive communism, to slave-holding, to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism, to communism. Asiatic modes of production were a deformation of class struggle, an aberation, this si why they didn't follow that model". Feminine logic: "Not all societies are driven by productive advances and class struggle. There are no societies which were not driven by productive advances and class struggle."

In other words: in order to be universal (masculine logic), I must be exclusive, because there will always be some aspect of existence which any symbolic order cannot capture, "The Real", these varied contradictions must be grouped under one spectral "aberation".

And in order to to be non-universal (feminine logic), one must sacrifice any possibility of an alternate universal order which is not this one. A good example of feminine logic would be the empiricism of Hume. Because nobody can know the full truth, the sensations we see, can never be the "all". However, precisely because I cannot assume anything beyond this, then in practice, those sensations to me are "all there is". They are non-universal, but beyond those limits, there is nothing.

Masculine logic seeks universal domination of existence, but cannot fully realize this. Feminine logic seeks not to be submitted to a universality, but cannot escape it either. This difference leads to a deadlock. More on that later maybe.

Await thoughts. If anyone is interested, later will do a follow up post on how for Zizek/Lacan this leads to sexualization.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

tldr

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

tldr

462 words. I didn't think it was that long.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

can you summarize it in a few sentences for me?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

can you summarize it in a few sentences for me?

The original speech is 1 hour 36 mins, and the article took me an hour to read. My post is the summary

 

[Pseudo]

Are the examples of feminine logic two version of feminine logic? Or are they each supposed to be contradictions.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The original speech is 1 hour 36 mins, and the article took me an hour to read. My post is the summary

Really? I bet you could give me two or four sentences.

Anyone?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Really? I bet you could give me two or four sentences.

Ok. I'll text it to you.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Ok. I'll text it to you.

Okie dokie. *all in*


meaning i'm calling your bluff. or did you get that.

 

[violet_crown]

Are the examples of feminine logic two version of feminine logic? Or are they each supposed to be contradictions.

This is close to the question I was going to ask.

Did you phrase feminine logic in the way that you did to show both its non-universality, as well as its potential to usurp propositions that are universal? Otherwise I'm not following...

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

Are the examples of feminine logic two version of feminine logic? Or are they each supposed to be contradictions.

This is close to the question I was going to ask.

Did you phrase feminine logic in the way that you did to show both its non-universality, as well as its potential to usurp propositions that are universal? Otherwise I'm not following...

It's hard to follow. When I first heard Zizek explain it I didn't udnerstand at all, so I read a lot on it, because it bothered me.

It is just one logic. Both masculine and feminine logic are self-contradictory, because existence can never be fully explained. That which is outside of our "symbolic order" i.e. which we cannot verbalize, is "The Real".

The self-contradiction of masculine logic is precisely that it is universal, so something must be excluded. i.e. "All swans are white. Those which are not white, are aberrations, not true swans".

The self-contradiction of feminine logic is precisely the opposite, "Not all swans are white. But no swans are not white". i.e., "I don't accept a universalizing claim, but I cannot find anything outside the existing universal order"

That example is very simple for the sake of clarity. To give a better example

Masc logic: "Humans are inherently capitalist. All societies which were not capitalist were deformed, aberations against human nature". Universality with one exception.

Fem logic: "Not all humans are inherently capitalist. There are no societies which override the capitalist order". i.e., "We cannot make universal claims. Precisely because of this, there is no alternate universe except for this one".

I like this because, there is an "universal function", which nobody truly lives up to, but which nobody lives outside of.

Another good example Zizek gives is "The Undead", from horror movies. i.e. "If you are not Alive, you are Dead. But if you are not Dead, you are not necessarily Alive. You can be Not-Dead. Or the Undead. To "The Living", they are still part of The Dead. They are just The Dead which refuses to fully die. The walking representation of Death.

So masculine logic would say "Everyone who is not Alive, is Dead. Except for the Undead, who are an aberration".

Feminine logic would say, "Not everyone who is Not Alive is Dead, but there is no-one who is Not Alive, who is Not Dead." i.e., no alternative universal vision of life vs death is proposed.

We instead get this tension, a strata caught in the middle, the Undead, who contradict the the existing universality of Alive vs Dead, but who still exist inside of it, and paradoxically, accept that same universality in practice.

I hope that makes sense! I am not saying it's "true" but it's interesting (to me).

Okie dokie. *all in*


meaning i'm calling your bluff. or did you get that.

No bluff, I would do it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

It's hard to follow. When I first heard Zizek explain it I didn't udnerstand at all, so I read a lot on it, because it bothered me.

It is just one logic. Both masculine and feminine logic are self-contradictory, because existence can never be fully explained. That which is outside of our "symbolic order" i.e. which we cannot verbalize, is "The Real".

The self-contradiction of masculine logic is precisely that it is universal, so something must be excluded. i.e. "All swans are white. Those which are not white, are aberrations, not true swans".

The self-contradiction of feminine logic is precisely the opposite, "Not all swans are white. But no swans are not white". i.e., "I don't accept a universalizing claim, but I cannot find anything outside the existing universal order"

That example is very simple for the sake of clarity. To give a better example

Masc logic: "Humans are inherently capitalist. All societies which were not capitalist were deformed, aberations against human nature". Universality with one exception.

Fem logic: "Not all humans are inherently capitalist. There are no societies which override the capitalist order". i.e., "We cannot make universal claims. Precisely because of this, there is no alternate universe except for this one".

I like this because, there is an "universal function", which nobody truly lives up to, but which nobody lives outside of.

Another good example Zizek gives is "The Undead", from horror movies. i.e. "If you are not Alive, you are Dead. But if you are not Dead, you are not necessarily Alive. You can be Not-Dead. Or the Undead. To "The Living", they are still part of The Dead. They are just The Dead which refuses to fully die. The walking representation of Death.

So masculine logic would say "Everyone who is not Alive, is Dead. Except for the Undead, who are an aberration".

Feminine logic would say, "Not everyone who is Not Alive is Dead, but there is no-one who is Not Alive, who is Not Dead." i.e., no alternative universal vision of life vs death is proposed.

We instead get this tension, a strata caught in the middle, the Undead, who contradict the the existing universality of Alive vs Dead, but who still exist inside of it, and paradoxically, accept that same universality in practice.

I hope that makes sense! I am not saying it's "true" but it's interesting (to me).




No bluff, I would do it.

You said you would, but you didn't. So you lied.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

You said you would, but you didn't. So you lied.

I didn't "Not Do It". I just didn't "Do It" yet. It's different.

/feminine logic.

 

[WALMART]

I understand what it is getting at. Seems like men are deductive, women are inductive, etc.


I think the flaw of expression comes in at the forced duality between men and women. The women's theorized POV makes no sense from casual observation, which perhaps is what he/you are getting at.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I didn't "Not Do It". I just didn't "Do It" yet. It's different.

/feminine logic.

I see. Well, I'll watch for it.

Is there a statue of limitations on a woman's prerogative for doing something she says she'll do, but not necessarily when it sounds like she should do it?

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I see. Well, I'll watch for it.

I sent it to you, but I can't guarantee it was the right number. I did my best.

Is there a statue of limitations on a woman's prerogative for doing something she says she'll do, but not necessarily when it sounds like she should do it?

Long words, didn't read.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I sent it to you, but I can't guarantee it was the right number. I did my best.



Long words, didn't read.

409-867-5309

That's okay, I prefer only those with higher than an eighth grade education txt me anyway.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

409-867-5309

That's okay, I prefer only those with higher than an eighth grade education txt me anyway.

Harsh...I'll try to find an illiterate girl instead then.

/TypoC meta-reference.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Harsh...I'll try to find an illiterate girl instead then.

/TypoC meta-reference.

Thank you for noticing.

 

[Il Morto Che Parla]

I'm flattered by the kind offer, but I have to pass...

Let her lash out and crack the whip but not in bed I don't play rough
No I can't be tied down with a girl that wants me tied up