Woman does not exist
“Woman does not exist” (French: La femme n'existe pas) is a provocative and foundational proposition advanced by Jacques Lacan in his seminar Encore (1972–1973). The phrase expresses a structural and logical claim about sexual difference, the symbolic order, and feminine subjectivity in Lacanian psychoanalysis.
It should not be read as denying the empirical reality of women. Rather, Lacan argues that “Woman” as a universal category—a totalizable essence that could be fully represented in language—does not exist. The phrase is integrally linked to Lacan’s claims that “there is no sexual relation” and that sexual difference is asymmetrical and non-complementary.[1]
Theoretical Context
Lacan introduces the formula La femme n'existe pas in the context of his theory of sexuation, developed in his later seminars. Drawing on Freudian insights into sexuality and castration, Lacan reformulates the problem of sexual difference through logic, language, and jouissance. The symbolic order, structured by the phallic signifier, fails to accommodate a complete representation of feminine subjectivity.[2]
The symbolic order functions through universal quantification (e.g., “All men...”), but Lacan argues that no universal function or signifier corresponds to "Woman". In his terms, Woman is not-all inscribed in the phallic function.
Meaning of the Formula
Lacan distinguishes between “La femme” (the universal Woman) and “les femmes” (individual women). The formula “Woman does not exist” states that no universal or totalizing category “Woman” can be written within the symbolic order.[1][2]
This is in contrast to the masculine position, which is governed by a logic of the universal (all are subject to the phallic function, except one). The feminine position, by contrast, operates under the logic of the not-all (pas-tout), meaning that not all of feminine jouissance is phallic.[1]
Thus, “Woman” as a complete symbolic category does not exist, because a part of feminine enjoyment remains outside the symbolic, in the realm of the Real.
Feminine Jouissance and the Not-All
Lacan connects this non-existence to the concept of feminine jouissance. Unlike masculine jouissance, which is delimited by the phallic signifier, feminine jouissance is:
- Supplementary
- Non-representable
- Beyond the pleasure principle
This form of enjoyment cannot be captured by language or reduced to phallic logic. It is sometimes linked by Lacan to the mystical, the ecstatic, or the divine.[1]
The logic of the not-all expresses this non-totalization: women are not wholly submitted to the phallic function. This excess marks the site where Woman “does not exist” within the symbolic, while still existing as a Real presence.
Woman and the Phallic Signifier
In Lacanian theory, the phallus is not the anatomical penis but a signifier of lack and a structural operator within the symbolic. Masculine and feminine positions are determined by their relation to this signifier:
- The masculine is defined by having the phallus (or identifying with its signifying function).
- The feminine is defined by being the phallus (for the Other) and by not being wholly defined by it.[3]
Because Woman exceeds what the phallus can signify, she cannot be fully symbolized. Hence, Woman “does not exist” as a stable, closed category within the symbolic order.
Implications and Misinterpretations
Lacan’s formula has provoked both criticism and reinterpretation. While some misread it as misogynistic, Lacanian scholars emphasize that it is a critique of universalizing discourses, not a denial of the reality of women.[4]
The claim reveals the limits of representation, the non-complementarity of the sexes, and the impossibility of writing a sexual relation. In this view, the non-existence of Woman is what makes desire, difference, and subjectivity possible.
Influence and Reception
Lacan’s statement has had significant influence on:
- **Feminist theory** – where it is both critiqued (e.g., by Luce Irigaray) and reinterpreted (e.g., by Joan Copjec).
- **Queer theory** – where it informs critiques of essentialist gender categories.
- **Psychoanalytic philosophy** – particularly in the work of Slavoj Žižek and Alenka Zupančič.[5]
Some theorists see the formula as enabling a non-essentialist and anti-identitarian politics, while others view it as re-inscribing a phallocentric structure.
Clinical Significance
In analytic practice, the formula points to the impossibility of sexual complementarity and challenges fantasies of complete knowledge or unity with the Other.
The analyst does not aim to locate or restore “Woman” but to assist the subject in confronting the lack, division, and impasse that structure desire and jouissance. Recognizing that “Woman does not exist” is part of traversing fantasy and assuming a subjective position beyond imaginary identifications.
See Also
References
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar, Book XX: Encore (1972–1973). Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Trans. Bruce Fink. New York: W. W. Norton, 1998.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. London: Routledge, 1996, s.v. “Woman does not exist.”
- ↑ Mitchell, Juliet, and Jacqueline Rose, eds. Feminine Sexuality: Jacques Lacan and the École Freudienne. New York: W. W. Norton, 1985.
- ↑ Žižek, Slavoj, and Zupančič, Alenka. “Lacan: Woman Does Not Exist.” In: *The Truth of Lacan*. European Graduate School, 2003. Lecture notes.
- ↑ Copjec, Joan. Imagine There's No Woman: Ethics and Sublimation. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2002.