Therefore, the politics of psychoanalysis is the politics that is deduced from the otherness typical of the feminine embodied by the logical writing of not-all. When it is claimed that the politics of not-all is the great pillar of the politics of psychoanalysis, it is because its invention is configured as the objection to that which underlies the master’s discourse in tune with the postulate of the Universal. In contrast, the politics of not-all takes objects as singular, because they appear as resistant to any exemplification or prediction required. It is necessary to consider how the sexuation tables take the feminine as a rupture with this way of understanding the Universal. This is a new way of how negation influences the universal quantifier “for-all”, and not the predicate itself; i.e., the universal value of the phallic function. That clearly devolves upon the problem of the distribution of that function in the context of the constitution of what a woman’s being of jouissance is. In other words, to postulate sexual difference, it is necessary to conceive the feminine as an objection, in that case, to the universal quantification of the phallic function. From that contraposition, each woman embodies —in her being of jouissance— pure exception. In fact, there are only exceptions, there are only femininities! When it is said that in the feminine universe there are only exceptions, one can risk saying that it means bringing into existence a “paradoxical Universal that is configured as a whole (all) that in each case negates that whole (all)”. (Santiago, 2009, p.125-128).
This negation of the whole (all) appears in Lacan´s teaching by means of the formulation of the foreclosure of the signifier of the symbolic “THE” woman from the symbolic, implying that every woman is led to invent a singular way of bringing into existence that which does not exist; i.e., the Other sex for the parlêtre. Whereas every man can be taken as a particular example of a set, because everything is inscribed in phallic jouissance, a jouissance that determines a means of substitution in relation to the Other sex, a woman will have to be taken in the singular, since the particular case of the set does not exist. Bringing into existence that which does not exist, as is the case of the feminine, becomes the core typical of the politics of not-all.
From the fanaticism for a transcendent cause of the One or from the universalization imposed by that which must be uniformly valid for all, to barbarism, there are only a few steps. When every culture clings to the universal principle of its beliefs, it comes closer to the disaster of segregation whose ultimate limit is barbarism. The clash of religions conceals the existence of the different modes of condensation of the jouissance of sacred objects.
Some years ago, Lacan warned that the secret to impasse for future civilizations is segregation. The politics of psychoanalysis is that which contains the real antidote to segregation, since it knows that it is not possible to oppose Islamophobia to anti-Semitism and vice versa (Miller 2015). As I said before, this also serves for the diversity of civilizing manifestations: There are only exceptions! But stop there! It is not a question of a mere affirmation of differences by differences themselves, of exceptions by exceptions themselves. In addition to a narrow conception of the plurality of the social order, Lacan himself warns that the agreement with this dimension of exception is something that, first of all, mobilizes the responsibility of the parlêtre.
As he emphasizes, that factor of the responsibility of the politics of not-all is so essentially radical that it risks being taken as a terrorist (Lacan, 1965  p.816). Nevertheless, that probable terrorism of responsibility, by making that which does not exist worth existing, is not ignorant of the death drive; i.e., it is conscious that it cannot despise the various forms of semblants of civilization. On the other hand, making that which does not exist worth existingimplies, in turn, shaking the semblants of civilization, revealing the basis of semblant of the signifiers of tradition.
Civilized life is held together by means of semblants, even those that stem from religion —that is, there are no societies without repression, without identifications. Therefore, it is not overlooked that, by despising those semblants, they can ferociously turn back against civilization itself. However, the only politics capable of preserving the semblants that favor life is granting them the not-all existence; i.e., that they are incommensurable one in relation to the others, and that, in that diversity, they neither cease to condense, not without opacity, the real dimension of a jouissance by which each parlêtre, in their own way, responds.
Translation reviewed by Alfredo Brunori