Difference between revisions of "Jouissance"
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
As Jane Gallop observes, whereas orgasm is a coutnable noun, the term ''[[jouissance]]'' is always used in the singular by [[Lacan]] and is always preceded by a definite article.<ref>Gallop 1982</ref> | As Jane Gallop observes, whereas orgasm is a coutnable noun, the term ''[[jouissance]]'' is always used in the singular by [[Lacan]] and is always preceded by a definite article.<ref>Gallop 1982</ref> | ||
| − | -- | + | ----- |
The term does not appear in [[Lacan]]'s work until 1953, but even then it is not particularly salient.<ref>{{E}} p.42, 87</ref> | The term does not appear in [[Lacan]]'s work until 1953, but even then it is not particularly salient.<ref>{{E}} p.42, 87</ref> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
Soon after, the sexual connotations become more apparent;; in 1957, [[Lacan]] uses the term to refer to the enjoyment of a sexual object,<ref>{{Ec}} p.453</ref> and to the pleasures of masturbation.<ref>{{S4}} p.241</ref>, and in 1958 he makes explicit sense of ''[[jouissance]]'' as orgasm.<ref>{{Ec}} p.727</ref> | Soon after, the sexual connotations become more apparent;; in 1957, [[Lacan]] uses the term to refer to the enjoyment of a sexual object,<ref>{{Ec}} p.453</ref> and to the pleasures of masturbation.<ref>{{S4}} p.241</ref>, and in 1958 he makes explicit sense of ''[[jouissance]]'' as orgasm.<ref>{{Ec}} p.727</ref> | ||
| − | -- | + | |
| + | |||
| + | ----- | ||
It is only in 1960 that [[Lacan]] develops his classic opposition between ''jouissance'' and pleasure, an opposition which alludes to the [[Hegel]]ian/Kojevian distinciton between ''Genuß'' ([[enjoyment]]) and ''List'' ([[pleasure]]). | It is only in 1960 that [[Lacan]] develops his classic opposition between ''jouissance'' and pleasure, an opposition which alludes to the [[Hegel]]ian/Kojevian distinciton between ''Genuß'' ([[enjoyment]]) and ''List'' ([[pleasure]]). | ||
| Line 29: | Line 31: | ||
| − | -- | + | ----- |
| Line 42: | Line 44: | ||
The very prohibiton creates the desire to transgress it, and ''jouissance'' is therefore fundamentally transgressive.<Ref>{{S7}} ch.15</ref> | The very prohibiton creates the desire to transgress it, and ''jouissance'' is therefore fundamentally transgressive.<Ref>{{S7}} ch.15</ref> | ||
| − | --- | + | ------- |
The [[death drive]] is the name given to that constant [[desire]] in the [[subject]] to break through the [[pleasure principle]] towards the [[Thing]] and a certain excess ''jouissance''; thus ''jouissance''is "the path towards death."<ref>{{S17}} p.17</ref> | The [[death drive]] is the name given to that constant [[desire]] in the [[subject]] to break through the [[pleasure principle]] towards the [[Thing]] and a certain excess ''jouissance''; thus ''jouissance''is "the path towards death."<ref>{{S17}} p.17</ref> | ||
| Line 48: | Line 50: | ||
Insofar as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of ''jouissance'', every drive is a death drive. | Insofar as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of ''jouissance'', every drive is a death drive. | ||
| − | --- | + | ------- |
| − | There are strong affinitites between | + | There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s concept of ''[[jouissance]]'' and [[Freud]]'s concept of the libido, as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "bodily substance."<ref>{{S20}} p.26</ref> |
In keeping with Freud's assertion taht there is only one libido, which is masculine, Lacan states that jouissance is essentially phallic. | In keeping with Freud's assertion taht there is only one libido, which is masculine, Lacan states that jouissance is essentially phallic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==References== | ||
Revision as of 07:09, 13 August 2006
The French word jouissance means basically "enjoyment", but it has a sexual connotation (i.e. "orgasm") lacking in the English word, and is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of Lacan.
As Jane Gallop observes, whereas orgasm is a coutnable noun, the term jouissance is always used in the singular by Lacan and is always preceded by a definite article.[1]
The term does not appear in Lacan's work until 1953, but even then it is not particularly salient.[2]
In the seminars of 1953-4 and 1954-5 Lacan uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the Hegelian dialectic of the master and the slave: the slav eis forced to work to provide objects for the master's enjoyment (jouissance).[3]
Upt to 1957, then, the term seems to mean no more than the enjoyable sensation that accompanies the satisfaction of a biological need such as hunger.[4]
Soon after, the sexual connotations become more apparent;; in 1957, Lacan uses the term to refer to the enjoyment of a sexual object,[5] and to the pleasures of masturbation.[6], and in 1958 he makes explicit sense of jouissance as orgasm.[7]
It is only in 1960 that Lacan develops his classic opposition between jouissance and pleasure, an opposition which alludes to the Hegelian/Kojevian distinciton between Genuß (enjoyment) and List (pleasure).
The pleasure principle functions as a limit to enjoyment; it is a law whihc commands the subject to "enjoy as little as possible."
At the same time, the subject constantly attempts to transgress the prohibitions imposed on his enjoyment, to go "beyond the pleasure principle."
However, the result of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure, but pain, since there is only a certain amount of pleasure that the subject can bear.
Beyond this limit, pleasur ebecomes pain, and this "painful pleasure" is what Lacan calls jouissance.
"jouissance is suffering."[8]
The term jouissance thus nicely expresses the paradoxical satisfaction that the subject derives from his symptom, or, to put it another way, the suffering that he derives from his on satisfaction.
The prohibition of jouissance (the pleasure principle) is inherent in the symbolic structure of languagge, which is why "jouissance is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."[9]
The subject's entry into the symbolic is conditional upon a certain initial renunciation of jouissance in the castration complex, when the subject gives up his attempts to be the imaginary phallus for the mother.
"Castration means that jouissance musst be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (l'échelle renversée) of the Law of desire."[10]
The death drive is the name given to that constant desire in the subject to break through the pleasure principle towards the Thing and a certain excess jouissance; thus jouissanceis "the path towards death."[11]
Insofar as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of jouissance, every drive is a death drive.
There are strong affinitites between Lacan's concept of jouissance and Freud's concept of the libido, as is clear from Lacan's description of jouissance as a "bodily substance."[12]
In keeping with Freud's assertion taht there is only one libido, which is masculine, Lacan states that jouissance is essentially phallic.
References
- ↑ Gallop 1982
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.42, 87
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book I. Freud's Papers on Technique, 1953-54. Trans. John Forrester. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. p.223; Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book II. The Ego in Freud's Theory and in the Technique of Psychoanalysis, 1954-55. Trans. Sylvana Tomaselli. New York: Nortion; Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1988. p.269
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.125
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.453
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre IV. La relation d'objet, 19566-57. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.241
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits. Paris: Seuil, 1966. p.727
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-60. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. p.184
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.319
- ↑ Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.324.
The symbolic prohibition of enjoyment in the OEdipus complex (the incest taboo) is thus, paradoxically, the prohibiton of something which is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden.
The very prohibiton creates the desire to transgress it, and jouissance is therefore fundamentally transgressive.<Ref>Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar. Book VII. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-60. Trans. Dennis Porter. London: Routledge, 1992. ch.15
