‌‌‌‌　　英：phallus; 法：phallus; 德：Phallus

‌‌‌‌　　弗洛伊德的著作到处都提及阴茎。弗洛伊德认为，两性的孩子皆会给阴茎赋予重要的价值，而他们对于有些人没有阴茎的发现则会导致一些重要的精神后果（见：阉割情结[CASTRATION COMPLEX])。然而，“阳具”这一术语鲜少出现在弗洛伊德的著作当中，而且即便在它出现的时候，也是被用作“阴茎”的同义词。弗洛伊德的确更加频繁地使用到“阳具性”(phallic)这一形容词，诸如在“阳具阶段”(phallic phase)这样的措辞中，然而这并不意味着在“阳具”与“阴茎”这些术语之间有任何严格的区分，因为阳具阶段指的是孩子（无论男孩还是女孩）在此时期只知道一个生殖器官（即阴茎）的发展阶段。

‌‌‌‌　　一般而言，拉康更喜欢使用“阳具”这一术语，而不是“阴茎”，以便强调事实上精神分析理论所关心的并非在其生物学现实中的男性生殖器官，而是这一器官在幻想中所扮演的角色。因此，拉康便往往把“阴茎”这一术语应用于生物学器官，而用“阳具”这一术语来表示这一器官的想象性功能与象征性功能。

‌‌‌‌　　虽然这一术语学的区分并未出现在弗洛伊德的著作当中，但是它符合在弗洛伊德有关阴茎的那些阐述中所隐含的逻辑。例如，当弗洛伊德论及阴茎与孩子之间的象征性等式的时候，这一等式使女孩得以通过拥有一个孩子来缓和自己的阴茎嫉羡，显然他就不是在谈论实在的器官 (Freud, I917c)。于是，我们便可以认为，拉康的术语学革新仅仅是澄清了某些已然隐含在弗洛伊德著作当中的区分

‌‌‌‌　　尽管该术语在拉康1950年代中期以前的著作中并不突出，然而它在拉康其后的话语中占据了一个愈加重要的位置。阳具在俄狄浦斯情结 (OEDIPUS COMPLEX)与性别差异（SEXUAL DIFFERENCE)的理论中皆扮演着一个核心的角色。

‌‌‌‌　　·阳具与俄狄浦斯情结阳具是构成前俄狄浦斯期（PREO EDIPAL PHASE)的想象三角形中的三个元素之一。它是在其他两个元素（即母亲与孩子）之间循环的一个想象性对象 (S3,319). 母亲欲望着这个对象，而孩子则试图通过认同阳具或是认同阳具母亲来满足她的欲望。在俄狄浦斯情结中，作为第四项的父亲通过阉割孩子而介入这一想象三角形：也就是说，他使孩子不可能去认同想象的阳具。孩子于是便面临着接受其阉割（即接受自己无法成为母亲的阳具）还是拒绝其阉割的选择。

‌‌‌‌　　·阳具与性别差异拉康认为，每个孩子都必须放弃成为母亲阳具的可能性，而在这个意义上，男孩与女孩就都必须承担起自己的阉割，这一“与阳具的关系…是在不顾及两性解剖学差异的情况下被建立起来的”(E, 282)。两性放弃对于想象性阳具的认同，便为与象征性阳具的关系铺平了道路，此种关系对两性而言是不同的：男人拥有象征性阳具 (或者，更确切地说，“他并非没有拥有它”[iln'est pas sans I'avoir]), 但是女人则没有。这一点由于以下的事实而复杂化了，即男人只有在他承担自身阉割（放弃成为想象性阳具）的条件下，才有权获得象征性阳具：而女人的象征性

‌‌‌‌　　阳具的缺失则同样是一种拥有 (S4,153). 至于阳具的地位是实在的、想象的还是象征的，拉康对于实在的阳具、想象的阳具以及象征的阳具皆有所论及：

‌‌‌‌　　·实在的阳具如前所述，拉康通常使用“阴茎”这一术语来表示实在的生物学器官，并保留“阳具”这一术语来表示此一器官的想象性功能与象征性功能。然而，他并不总是坚持这一用法，偶尔他也会用“实在的阳具”这一术语来表示生物学器官，或是使用“象征的阳具”与“象征的阴茎”这些术语，就仿佛它们都是同义词一般 (S4,153)。这种明显的混淆和语义的滑动，便招致一些评论者指出：事实上，阳具与阴茎之间的这一假定的区分是极其不稳定的，而且“阳具的概念是朝向生物学器官而退行的一个地方”(Macey, 1988:191)

‌‌‌‌　　虽然想象的阳具与象征的阳具相比于实在的阳具得到了拉康更加广泛的讨论，但是他也并未全然忽视后者。相反，实在的阴茎在小男孩的俄狄浦斯情结中扮演着一个重要的角色，因为恰恰是经由这一器官，他的性欲才得以在幼儿手淫中被感受到，实在界在想象的前俄狄浦斯三角中的此种侵入，便把这个三角形从某种令人快乐的东西转化成了某种激起焦虑的东西（S4,225-6: S4,341)。在俄狄浦斯情结中被提出的问题，便是实在的阳具被定位在什么地方的问题：而该情结的解除所需要的回答则是，它被定位在实在的父亲身上 (S4,281)。在拉康的代数学中，实在的阳具写作“T”。

‌‌‌‌　　·想象的阳具在拉康首度引入阴茎与阳具之间区分的时候，阳具便指的是一个想象的对象 (S4,31)。此即“阴茎的形象”(E, 319),阴茎被想象为可经由阉割而与身体分离开来的一个部分对象 (E, 315), 也就是“阳具的形象”(E, 320)。想象的阳具在前俄狄浦斯期被孩子看作母亲欲望的对象，即她在孩子之外所欲望的东西，孩子因而便试图认同这一对象。俄狄浦斯情结与阉割情结皆涉及放弃这一成为想象性阳具的企图。在拉康的代数学中，想象的阳具写作“φ”(小写的pi),它也同样代表着阳具的意指 (phallic signification), 阉割则被写作“-p”(小写的负phi).

‌‌‌‌　　·象征的阳具在母亲与孩子之间循环的想象性阳具，有助于建立孩子生命中的第一个辩证法，尽管这是一种想象的辩证法，但已然为孩子走向象征界铺平了道路，因为这一想象的元素是像一个能指那样以同样的方式而循环的 (阳具变成了一个“想象的能指”)。因而，拉康在1956一1957年度的研讨班上对于想象性阳具所做的那些阐述，便伴随着“阳具也同样是一个象征的对象”（S4,152)以及“阳具是一个能指”(S4,191)等说法。阳具是一个能指，这一思想在1957一1958年度的研讨班上又被重新提起并且得到了进一步的发展，从而变成了拉康其后的阳具理论中的主要元素：阳具被描述为“大他者的欲望的能指”(E, 290), 以及享乐的能指 (E, 320).

‌‌‌‌　　这些论点以其最确定的形式被陈述在拉康的《阳具的意指》(The Signification of the Phallus)这篇文章当中 (Lacan, 1958c):

阳具不是一种幻想，倘若我们借此想说的是一种想象的效果；同样，它也不是这样的一种对象 (部分的、内部的、好的、坏的，等等)。阳具更不是它所象征的器官，阴茎或阴蒂…阳具是一个能指…它是旨在从总体上来命名各种所指效果的那一能指。

(E, 285)

‌‌‌‌　　虽然阉割情结与俄狄浦斯情结皆是围绕着想象的阳具而运转的，但是性别差异的问题则是围绕着象征的阳具而运转的。阳具没有任何与之相对应的女性能指，“阳具是没有任何对应物或者等价物的一个象征符。它涉及的是能指中的某种不对称性”(S3,176). 男性与女性主体皆是经由象征性阳具而承担起自身的性别功能的。

‌‌‌‌　　与想象性阳具不同，象征性阳具是无法遭否定的，因为在象征的层面，缺位就像在场一样也是一种肯定的实体 (E, 320)。因而，哪怕是在某种意义上缺乏象征性阳具的女人，也同样能够被说成是拥有它的，因为就象征界而言，没有它本身便是一种形式的拥有 (S4,153)。反过来，男人则只有在首先承担起自身阉割功能的基础上，才可能承担起象征性阳具的功能。

‌‌‌‌　　拉康继而在1961年声称，象征的阳具即出现在大他者中能指的缺失的位置上的东西 (S8,278-81)。它不是任何普通的能指，而是欲望本身的真实在场 (S8,290)。在1973年，他又声称象征的阳具是“没有所指的能指”(S20,75).

‌‌‌‌　　在拉康的代数学中，象征的阳具写作“Φ”。然而，拉康却告诫他的学生，如果他们简单地把“Φ”视同于象征的阳具，那么就有可能错失这一符号的复杂性 (S8,296)。这个符号应当更准确地被理解为指派了“阳具的功能”(phallic function)(S8,298)。在1970年代初期，拉康把这个阳具功能的符号并入了他的性化公式。在运用谓词逻辑 (predicate logic)来阐述性别差异问题的时候，拉康给男性位置设计了两个公式，也给女性位置设计了两个公式。所有这四个公式皆围绕着阳具的功能而运作，而阳具的功能在此则等同于阉割的功能。

‌‌‌‌　　·针对拉康的批判在拉康的所有思想中，他的阳具概念或许是引起最大争议性的一个概念。针对拉康的这个概念的反对意见，主要分属于两大阵营。

‌‌‌‌　　首先，一些女性主义论者指出，拉康给阳具赋予的特权位置即意味着他只是在重复弗洛伊德的那些父权姿态 (例如：Gosz, 1990)。其他的女性主义者则捍卫拉康的观点，认为他在阴茎与阳具之间做出的区分，提供了一种无须还原到生物学的方式来说明性别差异 (例如：Mitchell and Rose, 1982).

‌‌‌‌　　第二种针对拉康阳具概念的主要反对意见是由雅克·德里达 (Derrida, 1975)所提出的，而且此种意见也得到了很多其他人的响应。德里达指出，尽管拉康曾多次声明自己是反超验论 (anitranscendentalism)的，然而阳具作为一个超验的元素而运作，对于意义充当着某种理想的担保。鉴于每一能指都只是通过它与其他能指之间的差异而得到定义的，德里达问道，那么又怎么会存在这样一个“特权化的能指”呢？换句话说，也就是阳具重新引入了德里达将其命名为“逻各斯中心主义”(logocentrism)的那种在场形而上学 (metaphysics of presence), 德里达因而得出结论：由于将此种逻各斯中心主义的在场形而上学链接于阳具中心主义 (phallo-centrism),拉康便创造出了一种阳具逻各斯中心主义 (phallogocenric)的思想体系。

‌‌‌‌　　(phallus) Freud's work abounds in references to the penis. Freud argues that children ofboth sexes set great value on the penis, and that their discovery that some human beingsdo not possess a penis leads to important psychical consequences (see CASTRATIONCOMPLEX). However, the term 'phallus'rarely appears in Freud's work, and when itdoes it is used as a synonym of 'penis'. Freud does use the adjective 'phallic'morefrequently, such as in the expression 'the phallic phase', but again this impliesnorigorous distinction between the terms 'phallus'and penis', since the phallic phasedenotes a stage in development in which the child (boy or girl) knows only one genitalorgan-the penis.

‌‌‌‌　　Lacan generally prefers to use the term 'phallus'rather than 'penis'in order toemphasise the fact that what concemns psychoanalytic theory is not the male genital organin its biological reality but the role that this organ plays in fantasy. Hence Lacan usuallyreserves the term penis'for the biological organ, and the term phallus'for theimaginary and symbolic functions of this organ.

‌‌‌‌　　While this terminological distinction is not found in Freud's work, it responds to thelogic implicit in Freud's formulations on the penis. For example, when Freud speaks of asymbolic equation between the penis and the baby which allows the girl to appease herpenis envy by having a child, it is clear that he is not talking about the real organ (Freud, 1917c). It can be argued, then, that Lacan's terminological innovation simply clarifiescertain distinctions that were already implicit in Freud's work.

‌‌‌‌　　Although not prominent in Lacan's work before the mid-1950s, the term 'phallus'occupies an ever more important place in his discourse thereafter. The phallus plays acentralrole in both the OEDIPUS COMPLEXand in the theory of SEXUAL DIFFERENCE.

‌‌‌‌　　The phallus and the Oedipus complex The phallus is one of the three elements inthe imaginary triangle that constitutes the PREOEDIPAL PHASE. It is an imaginaryobject which circulates between the other two elements, the mother and the child (S3.319). The mother desires this object and the child seeks to satisfy her desire byidentifying with the phallus or with the phallic mother. In the Oedipus complex the fatherintervenes as a fourth term in this imaginary triangle by castrating the child; that is, hemakes it impossible for the child to identify with the imaginary phallus. The child is thenfaced with the choice of accepting his castration (accepting that he cannot be the mother'sphallus) or rejecting it.

‌‌‌‌　　.The phallus and sexual difference Lacan argues that both boys and girls mustassume their castration, in the sense that every child must renounce the possibility ofbeing the phallus for the mother; this 'relationship to the phallus... Is established withoutregard to the anatomical difference of the sexes' (E, 282). The renunciation by both sexesof identification with the imaginary phallus paves the way for a relationship with thesymbolic phallus which is different for the sexes; the man has the symbolic phallus (or, more precisely, he is not without having it'fil n'est pas sans l'avoir/), but the womandoes not. This is complicated by the fact that the man can only lay claim to the symbolicphallus on condition that he has assumed his own castration (has given up being theimaginary phallus), and by the fact that the woman's lack of the symbolic phallus is alsoa kind of possession (S4,153).

‌‌‌‌　　The status of the phallus: real, imaginary or symbolic? Lacan speaks of the realphallus, the imaginary phallus and the symbolic phallus:

‌‌‌‌　　The real phallus As has already been observed, Lacan usually uses the term 'penis'to denote the real biological organ and reserves the term 'phallus'to denote the imaginaryand symbolic functions of this organ. However, he does not always maintain this usage, occasionally using the term real phallus'to denote the biological organ, or using theterms 'symbolic phallus'and 'symbolic penis'as if they were synonymous (S4,153). This apparent confusion and semantic slippage has led some commentators to argue thatthe supposed distinction between the phallus and the penis is in fact highly unstable andthat 'the phallus concept is the site of a regression towards the biological organ' (Macey, 1988:191)

‌‌‌‌　　While the imaginary phallus and the symbolic phallus are discussed more extensivelyby Lacan than the real phallus, he does not entirely ignore the latter. On the contrary, thereal penis has an important role to play in the Oedipus complex of the little boy, for it isprecisely via this organ that his sexuality makes itself felt in infantile masturbation; thisintrusion of the real in the imaginary preoedipal triangle is what transforms the trianglefrom something pleasurable to something which provokes anxiety (S4,225-6; S4,341). The question posed in the Oedipus complex is that of where the real phallus is located; the answer required for the resolution of this complex is that it is located in the real father (S4,281). The real phallus is written II in Lacanian algebra.

‌‌‌‌　　.The imaginary phallus When Lacan first introduces the distinction between penisand phallus, the phallus refers to an imaginary object (S4,31). This is the 'image of thepenis' (E, 319), the penis imagined as a part-object which may be detached from the bodyby castration (E, 315), the phallic image' (E, 320). The imaginary phallus is perceivedby the child in the preoedipal phase as the object of the mother's desire, as that which shedesires beyond the child; the child thus seeks to identify with this object. The Oedipus complex and the castration complex involve the renunciation of this attempt to be theimaginary phallus. The imaginary phallus is written o (lowercase phi) in Lacanianalgebra, which also represents phallic signification. Castration is written-(minuslower-case phi).

‌‌‌‌　　The symbolic phallus The imaginary phallus which circulates between mother andchild serves to institute the first dialectic in the child's life, which, although it is animaginary dialectic, already paves the way towards the symbolic, since an imaginaryelement is circulated in much the same way as a signifier (the phallus becomes an'imaginary signifier'). Thus Lacan's formulations on the imaginary phallus in the seminarof 1956-7 are accompanied by statements that the phallus is also a symbolic object (S4,152) and that the phallus is a signifier (S4,191). The idea that the phallus is a signifier istaken up again and further developed in the 1957-8 seminar and becomes the principleelement of Lacan's theory of the phallus thereafter; the phallus is described as 'thesignifier of the desire of the Other' (E, 290), and the signifier of jouissance (E, 320).

‌‌‌‌　　These arguments are stated in their most definitive form in Lacan's paper on Thesignification of the phallus' (Lacan, 1958c):

The phallus is not a fantasy, if by that we mean an imaginary effect. Noris it as such an object (part-, intemal, good, bad, etc.). It is even less theorgan, penis or clitoris, that it symbolises.... The phallus is a signifier.... It is the signifier intended to designate as a whole the effects of thesignified.

(E, 285)

‌‌‌‌　　Whereas the castration complex and the Oedipus complex revolve around the imaginaryphallus, the question of sexual difference revolves around the symbolic phallus. Thephallus has no corresponding female signifier;'the phallus is a symbol to which there isno correspondent, no equivalent. It's a matter of a dissymmetry in the signifier' (S3,176). Both male and female subjects assume their sex via the symbolic phallus.

‌‌‌‌　　Unlike the imaginary phallus, the symbolic phallus cannot be negated, for on thesymbolic plane an absence is just as much a positive entity as a presence (see E, 320). Thus even the woman, who lacks the symbolic phallus in one way, can also be said topossess it, since not having it the symbolic is itself a form of having (S4,153).

‌‌‌‌　　Conversely, the assumption of the symbolic phallus by the man is only possible on thebasis of the prior assumption of his own castration. Lacan goes on in 1961 to state that the symbolic phallus is that which appears in theplace of the lack of the signifier in the Other (S8,278-81). It is no ordinary signifier butthe real presence of desire itself (S8,290). In 1973 he states that the symbolic phallus isthe signifier which does not have a signified' (S20,75).

‌‌‌‌　　The symbolic phallus is written in Lacanian algebra. However, Lacan wams hisstudents that the complexity of this symbol might be missed if they simply identify itwith the symbolic phallus (S8,296). The symbol is more correctly understood asdesignating 'the phallic function' (S8,298). In the early 1970s Lacan incorporates thissymbol of the phallic function in his formulae of sexuation. Using predicate logic toarticulate the problems of sexual difference, Lacan devises two formulaefor the masculine position and two formulae for the feminine position. All four formulae revolvearound the phallic function, which is here equivalent with the function of castration

‌‌‌‌　　Criticisms of Lacan Of all Lacan's ideas, his concept of the phallus is perhaps theone which has given rise to most controversy. Objections to Lacan's concept fall into twomain groups.

‌‌‌‌　　Firstly, some feminist writers have argued that the privileged position Lacan accordsto the phallus means that he merely repeats the patriarchal gestures of Freud (e.g.Grosz, 1990). Other feminists have defended Lacan, arguing that his distinction between thephallus and the penis provides a way of accounting for sexual difference which isirreducible to biology (e.g.Mitchell and Rose, 1982).

‌‌‌‌　　The second main objection to Lacan's concept of the phallus is that put forward by Jacques Derrida (Derrida, 1975) and echoed by others. Derrida argues that, despite Lacan's protestations of anti-transcendentalism, the phallus operates as a transcendentalelement which acts as an ideal guarantee of meaning. How can there be such a thing as aprivileged signifier', asks Derrida, given that every signifier is defined only by itsdifferences from other signifiers? The phallus, in other words, reintroduces themetaphysics of presence which Derrida denominates as logocentrism, and thus Derridaconcludes that, by articulatingthis with phallocentrism, Lacanhascreatedaphallogocentric system of thought.