英：disavowal; 法：deni; 德：Verleugnung
弗洛伊德用“Verleugnung'”这一术语来表示“一种特定的防御模式，主体借以拒绝承认某种创伤性知觉的现实”（Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:118)。他在1923年引入了这一与阉割情结相关的术语，此种创伤性的知觉即看到女性的生殖器：当孩子们最初发现阴茎在女孩那里的缺位时，他们便会“拒认这一事实，并相信他们确实还是看到了一根阴茎”(Freud, 1923e: SE XIX, 143-4)。在其余下的著作中，弗洛伊德自始至终都在继续使用这一术语，并且特别将它联系于精神病与恋物癖 (ETISHISM)。在这些临床情形中，拒认总是伴随着相反的态度（即对于现实的接受），因为让“自我同现实的脱离得以完全地实现”是“鲜少或者大概从不”可能的 (Freud, 1940a:SEXXⅢ，201)。这两种对待现实的相互矛盾的态度在自我中的共存，导致弗洛伊德提出了“自我的分裂”（the splitting of the ego)这一术语 (见：分裂[SPLT]).
虽然弗洛伊德对该术语的使用是相当一致的，但是他从未把此术语严格区分于其他的相关运作。然而，拉康则让这一术语进入了一套严格的理论，将它联系并特别比较于压抑 (REPRESSION)与排除 (FORECLOSURE)的运作。弗洛伊德仅仅把拒认联系于一种形式的性倒错 (PERVERSION), 而拉康则把它变成了所有形式的性倒错中的基本运作。尽管弗洛伊德同样将拒认联系于精神病，但是拉康则将拒认专门限定于性倒错的结构。拒认是性倒错中的基本运作，正如压抑和排除是神经症与精神病中的基本运作。因而，在拉康的说明中，拒认便是对于大他者的阉割进行回应的一种方式；神经症患者会压抑对于阉割的认识，而性倒错者则会拒认阉割。
像弗洛伊德一样，拉康也宣称拒认总是伴随着对于遭拒认之物的一次同时的承认。因而，性倒错者就并不完全是对阉割无知的：他同时知道它并否认它。虽然在弗洛伊德的著作中，拒认这个术语原本只是表示此种运作中的一个面向（即否认的面向），但是在拉康这里，这个术语却开始表示两个面向，即对于阉割的同时否认与承认。
弗洛伊德将拒认联系于知觉到阴茎在女人身上的缺位，而拉康则将其联系于认识到阳具 (PHALLUS)在大他者身上的缺位。在拉康的说明中，创伤性的知觉即在于认识到欲望的原因始终是一个缺失。拒认涉及的正是这种认识；拒认即无法接受是缺失导致了欲望，而相信欲望是由某种在场 (例如：物神)而导致的。
(deni) Freud uses the term Verleugnung to denote 'a specific mode of defence whichconsists in the subject's refusing to recognise the reality of a traumatic perception' (Laplanche and Pontalis, 1967:118). He introduces the term in 1923 in connection withthe castration complex, the traumatic perception being the sight of the female genitalia; when children first discover the absence of the penis in the girl, they 'disavow the factand believe that they do see a penis all the same' (Freud, 1923e: SE XIX, 143-4). Freudcontinues to employ the term throughout the rest of his work, linking it specifically bothto psychosis and to FETISHISM. In these clinical conditions, disavowal is alwaysaccompanied by the opposite attitude (acceptance of reality), since it is 'rarely or perhapsnever'possible for 'the ego's detachment from reality to be carried through completely' (Freud, 1940a: SE XXIII, 201). The coexistence in the ego of these two contradictoryattitudes to reality leads to what Freud terms 'the splitting of the ego' (see SPLIT).
While Freud's use of the term is quite consistent, he does not distinguish the termrigorously from other related operations. Lacan, however, works the term into a rigoroustheory, relating it and contrasting it specifically with the operations of REPRESSION andFORECLOSURE. Whereas Freud had only linked disavowal to one form ofPERVERSION, Lacan makes it the fundamental operation in all forms of perversion. And whereas Freud had also linked disavowal with psychosis, Lacan limits disavowalexclusively to the structure of perversion. Disavowal is the fundamental operation inperversion, just as repression and foreclosure are the fundamental operations in neurosisand psychosis. Thus, in Lacan's account, disavowal is one way of responding to thecastration of the Other, whereas the neurotic represses the realisation of castration, thepervert disavows it.
Like Freud, Lacan asserts that disavowal is always accompanied by a simultaneousacknowledgement of what is disavowed. Thus the pervert is not simply ignorant ofcastration; he simultaneously knows it and denies it. Whereas the term disavowaloriginally denotes, in Freud's work, only one side of this operation (the side of denial), for Lacan the term comes to denote both sides, the simultaneous denial and recognition ofcastration.
Whereas Freud relates disavowal to the perception of the absence of the penis inwomen, Lacan relates it to the realisation of the absence of the PHALLUS in the Other. The traumatic perception is, in Lacan's account, the realisation that the cause of desire isalways a lack. It is this realisation that disavowal concerns; disavowal is the failure toaccept that lack causes desire, the belief that desire is caused by a presence (e.g.thefetish)