Talk:Jouissance

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jouissance http://www.litencyc.com/php/stopics.php?rec=true&UID=602 http://changingminds.org/disciplines/psychoanalysis/concepts/jouissance.htm

Definition

Jouissance is a French term which can be roughly translated as "enjoyment".

The french noun means "enjoyment" in both the sense of pleasure and in the sense in which one speaks of the enjoyment of rights and privileges.

In French jouissance includes the enjoyment of rights and property, but also the slang verb jouir, to come, and so is related to the greatest pleasure attainable, that of the sexual act.

The French jouissance means approximately enjoyment, but it has a sexual connotation (i.e. 'orgasm') lacking in the English word 'enjoyment', and is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of Lacan.

The French noun means 'enjoyment' in both the sense of pleasure and in the sense in which one speaks of the enjoyment of rights and privileges.

Jacques Lacan

Jouissance and Pleasure

Lacan made a distinction between jouissance (enjoyment) and plaisir (pleasure).

Lacan introduced an opposition between jouissance (enjoyment) and plaisir (pleasure).

Pleasure

"Pleasure" obeys the law of 'homeostasis that Freud evokes in Beyond the Pleasure Principle, whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks the lowest possible level of tension.

The pleasure principle thus functions as a limit imposed on enjoyment; it commands the subject to "enjoy as little as possible."

"Jouissance" transgresses this law and, in that respect, it is beyond the pleasure principle.


Jacques Lacan and Jouissance

In Civilization and Its Discontents (1930), Freud describes a contradiction inherent in the concept of pleasure.

This endeavor [of striving for happiness] has two sides... It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure... The task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the background.[1]

The term was already present in Freud, but Lacan developed it as a concept.

Lacan argues that the two aspects of pleasure were irreconcilable.

The pleasure principle blocks the path to jouissance.

Who is there who in the name of pleasure doesn't start to weaken when the first half-serious is taken step toward jouissance?[2]

"(Even an animal) has an economy: it acts so as to produce the very least possible jouissance. That's what we call the pleasure principle."[3]

Jouissance is involved when the pleasure principle yields not necessarily to pain, but to unpleasure.

Jacques Lacan

Lacan begins to use the term jouissance in his seminars of 1953-4 where it refers to Kojeve's version of the master-slave dialectic, in which the work of the slave provides objects for the master's enjoyment.

The term's meaning gradually shifts and acquires more sexual connotations from the early 1960s onwards.

The most sustained disucssion will be found in the seminar of 1969-70.


Jouissance versus Pleasure

Lacan develops an opposition between jouissance ('enjoyment') and plaisir ('pleasure').


For Barthes plaisir is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural enjoyment and identity, to the cultural enjoyment of identity, to a homogenising movement of the ego."[4]

As Richard Middleton (1990, p.261) puts it, "Plaisir results, then, from the operation of the structures of signification through which the subject knows himself or herself; jouissance fractures these structures."

Jouissance versus Pleasure

It evokes an eroticizes death drive and a degree of intensity which takes the subject ebyond the pleasure principle.

Pleasure is described as an obstacle to jouissance in that is always leads to a reduction in tension and to a return to homeostatis, or a dynamically stable state.

Jouissance in constrast takes the subject to that extreme point where the erotic borders upon death.


Pleasure Principle

The pleasure principle functions as a limit to enjoyment.

The pleasure principle is a law which commands the subject to "enjoy as little as possible."[5]

The prohibition on jouissance

The symbolic prohibition of enjoyment

It is inherent in the symbolic structure of language.

"Jouissance is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."[6]

The subject, in order to gain entry to the symbolic order, must renounce jouissance (in the castration complex).

In other words, the subject must give up any attempt to be the imaginary phallus for the mother.

The symbolic prohibition of enjoyment in the Oedipus complex (the incest taboo) is the prohibition of something which is already impossible.

Its function is to sustain the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden.

Prohibition and Desire

The prohibition gives rise to the desire to transgress it.

Jouissance is fundamentally transgressive.

Jouissance and the Law

This situates ‘‘jouissance’’ in another field and simultaneously introduces the question of religion, moral precepts, and the law. In The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, Lacan based ‘‘jouissance’’ on the law.

If ‘‘jouissance’’ consists in breaking the barrier of the pleasure principle, if it can only be attained through a transgression, then only a prohibition opens the path toward it.


Beyond the Pleasure Principle

The subject can trangress the prohibitions on enjoyment (imposed by the pleasure principle) by going "[[beyond the pleasure principle."

Pleasure and Pain

However, the result of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure, but pain, since there is only a certainamount of pleasure that the subject can bear.

Beyond this limit, pleasure becomes pain, and this ‘painful pleasure’ is what Lacan calls ‘’jouissance’’: ‘’’jouissance’’ is suffering.”[7]

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 own satisfaction.

In Beyond the Pleasure Principle, Freud had already noted that "the most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . as highly enjoyable.”[8]

It is true that once we start down the path of jouissance , we do not know where it will lead: "It starts with a tickle and ends up bursting into flames" (Lacan, 1991, p. 83).

Jouissance and the Death-Drive

The subject has a constant desire to break through, to transgress the pleasure principle.

The death drive is that constant desire of the subject to break through the pleasure principle towards the Thing and excess enjoyment (jouissance).

Lacan states that jouissance is "the path towards death."[9]

Insofar as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of ‘’jouissance,’’ every drive is a death drive.


Phallic Jouissance

There are similarities between Lacan's concept of jouissance and Freud's concept of the libido.

Freud asserted that there is only one libido, which is masculine.

Lacan states that jouissance is essentially phallic.

"Jouissance, insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."[10]


Feminine Jouissance

In 1973, Lacan states that there is a feminine jouissance

Feminine jouissance is a "supplementary jouissance, which is beyond the phallus, a jouissance of the Other.[11]

Feminine jouissance is ineffable.

Phallic versus Feminine Jouissance

In order to differentiate between these two forms of jouissance, Lacan introduces different algebraic symbols for each; Jd designates phallic jouissance, whereas JA designates the ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other.

Jouissance and Repetition

Lacan made a connection between ‘‘jouissance’’ and repetition.

(He drew support for his argument from the hysterical symptom of repetition.)

Lacan defines repetition as a trace, a kind of writing, that commemorates "an irruption of jouissance."[12]


Need and Drive

Lacan posits a basic opposition between need and drive.

"And if the social bond is established by renouncing the satisfaction of the drive, it is because this satisfaction implies the enjoyment — in the juridical sense of the term — of objects that could either belong to others or deprive them of their jouissance."


Jouissance and Drive

In The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, Lacan emphasized that Freud posed the question of ‘‘jouissance’’ in terms of drive.


Jouissance and the Superego

The energy of the superego derives from the libido of this unsatisfied drive; the more the subject fails to feel jouissance, the more libido]] there is to feed the superego, and the more the superego will demand new renunciations.

Lacan believed that in Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud was stating that "everything that is transferred from ‘‘jouissance’’ to prohibition gives rise to the increasing strengthening of prohibition."[13]

Thus the guilt triggered by masturbation can be understood as an increase of libido in the superego, brought about by a short circuit in masturbation that achieves only a brief and stifled satisfaction instead of jouissance.

What is involved here is not the satisfaction of need, but of the drive.

Graph of Desire

Lacan inscribes jouissance in the topography of the graph of desire.[14]


At the upper level of the graph, ‘‘jouissance’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Other, S(A̷).

This is phallic jouissance, which is related to castration as lack.

Traditionally, the erectile organ, the phallus, represents the object of jouissance, not so much by itself, but rather as the missing portion of a desired image.

Phallic ‘‘jouissance’’ is inscribed in the diagram at the level of a vector that starts out from S(A̷), the Other's lack, and goes toward (S̷ ◇ D), the drive as articulated by the subject and the demand of the Other.

Thus ‘‘jouissance’’ is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive.

Recognizing the Other's lack produces a fantasy in the subject's unconscious.

In this fantasy, the object represents what the subject imagines that the Other is deprived of.


In everyday life, the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child.

Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, Lacan located ‘‘jouissance’’ at the place of the barred Other, S(A̷) this is also where Lacan inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!"

To this command, the subject can only respond, "J'ouis!" ("I hear!"), for such ‘‘jouissance’’ is structurally prohibited. Lacan repeated that while the superego prohibits and punishes, it also requires that the subject experience jouissance.

For Lacan, the requirement to enjoy is directly related to a taboo.

But what is prohibited, what must remain unsatisfied, is only the subject's jouissance.

Giving the Other an experience of ‘‘jouissance’’ does not seem to be prohibited.


The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object a.

Thus if a subject assumes the position of the Other's missing object and if this can make the Other whole, then "It would enjoy," as Lacan said (2002, p. 311).

He thus introduced a ‘‘jouissance’’ outside the phallic order, a mystic jouissance, which he defined as a nonphallic, feminine ‘‘jouissance’’ (1998).

For being not whole, a woman "has a supplementary ‘‘jouissance’’ compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance. . . . Y]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo] Bernini [the Ecstasy of St. Teresa] to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it" (1998, pp. 73, 76).


But what did Lacan mean when he said that a woman, for being "not whole," was capable of a supplementary, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," he proposed dividing subjects not according to their biological sex, but according to their relation to the phallus.

On the masculine side would be those subjects who take object a as the cause of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it.

Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other, S(A̷).

The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, is feminine.

But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘jouissance’’ and ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘jouissance’’ "outside sex," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack.

The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object a of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who in turn no longer lacks.

The result is that to represent the Other's jouissance, "A" is rewritten as unbarred, S(A).

In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud referred to the "oceanic feeling" of being at one with the greater Whole.

Such is the feeling of mysticism, and also of trances and ecstasy.


Religion

Lacan's later comments on jouissance, and in aparticular his speculations as to the existence of a specifically femlae jouissance, are greatly influenced by Bataille's explorations of the relationship between eroticism , death and mysticism.

Significantly, both the first edition of Bataill'e sEroticism (1957) and the twntieth volume of Lacan's smeinar (1975) are illustrated with reproductions of Bernini's representation of St Teresa, which depicts the saint at the moment of his 'transverbation' or penetation by the word of God.

By way of commentary Lacan remarks: "She's coming, no doubt about it." He goes on to speculate that St Teresa ies experiencing a female jouissance that goes beyond the phallus.

This, he argues, is a jouissance that women can experience without being bale to speak of it.

The argument overlooks that fac tthat the historical St Teresa has a great deal to say about her experience.

Whereas Freud discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, Lacan spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance.

If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘jouissance’’ by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body of Christ on Calvary to sustain it.

They partake of a vicarious ‘‘jouissance’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God.

Commenting on Catholicism, Lacan wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113)

As for the "other," he is already implicated in Freud's analysis of sadism: when we inflict pain on others, "we enjoy by identifying with the suffering object."

From his reading of Civilization and Its Discontents, Lacan concluded, "Jouissance is evil . . . because it involves suffering for my neighbor."[15]

Moreover, he noted that love of one's neighbor seemed absurd to Freud.

Each time that this Christian ideal is stated, "we see evoked the presence of that fundamental evil which dwells within this neighbor. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within me. And what is more of a neighbor to me than this heart within which is that of my ‘‘jouissance’’ and which I don't dare go near?”[16]


Theory

Something that gives the subject a way out of its normative subjectivity through transcendent bliss whether that bliss or orgasmic rapture be found in texts, films, works of art or sexual spheres; excess as opposed to utility.

It is a popular term in postmodernism and queer theory used by Roland Barthes, Jacques Lacan, Judith Butler, and others.

‘‘Jouissance’’ as intrinsically self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent self'.
















Miscellaneous

Jouissance: A notion of profound significance in French postmodern theory.

As developed by Jacques Lacan, jouissance (delight, hope, bliss) refers to that enjoyment which is beyond; that excess or fulfillment which is beyond.

Its application to postmodern theory signals how, through discourse, we try and fail to convey our needs, hopes, despairs, longings, aspirations; in short, our desire.

However, words and phrases (whether spoken or written) are incomplete.

They do not ensure us of our jouissance. We struggle to ensure that our desire finds embodiment in discourse, through intersubjective communication and through the language of our behavior and life cycles.

We seek and search; sometimes in pro-social ways; sometimes in purely private ways; sometimes in ways which exploit and oppress others. See Desire, Discourse, four.

A French word which derives from the verb jouir meaning to have pleasure in, to enjoy, to appreciate, to savour; with a secondary meaning, as in English, of having rights and pleasures in the use of, as in the phrases .she enjoyed good health., .she enjoyed a considerable fortune., and .all citizens enjoy the right of freedom of expression.. The derived noun, jouissance, has three current meanings in French: it signifies an extreme or deep pleasure; it signifies sexual orgasm; and in law, it signifies having the right to use something, as in the phrase avoir la jouissance de quelquechose. The word becomes relevant to cultural and literary studies through its usage by the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan to signify the condition or bliss, arrival, merging with the other, which can be associated with orgasm but also the obtention of any particularly desired object or condition - for the explorer, arriving at the North Pole perhaps. Jouissance, for Lacan, is not a purely pleasurable experience but arises through augmenting sensation to a point of discomfort (as in the sexual act, where the cry of passion is at times indistinguishable from the cry of pain), or as in running a marathon. Such experiences, as Freud recognised in his essay .Beyond the Pleasure Principle. (1920), seem to come close to death, and in Freud.s theory imply an urge to regress to the inorganic state that preceded life. For Lacan, on the other hand, jouissance seems to imply a desire to abolish the condition of lack (la manque) to which we are condemned by our acceptance of the signs of the symbolic order in place of the Real.



JOUISSANCE AND DESIRE His most explicit statement on the matter comes in the lecture of 26 March 1958, when he claims that 'the subject does not simply satisfy a desire, he enjoys [ jouit ] desiring, and this is an essential dimension of his jouissance.' 21 In other words, desire is not a movement towards an object, since if it were then it would be simple to satisfy it. Rather, desire lacks an object that could satisfy it, and is therefore to be conceived of as a movement which is pursued endlessly, simply for the enjoyment (jouissance) of pursuing it. Jouissance is thus lifted out of the register of the satisfaction of a biological need, and becomes instead the paradoxical satisfaction which is found in pursuing an eternally unsatisfied desire. It is no surprise, then, that Lacan immediately links it with the phenomenon of masochism. These first remarks on the relationship of jouissance and desire suggest that jouissance is what sustains desire, since it is the enjoyment of desiring for desire's sake that keeps one desiring in the absence of satisfaction.


The prohibition of jouissance (the pleasure principle) is inherent in the symbolic structure of language, which is why "jouissance is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."[17] 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. The symbolic prohibition of enjoyment in the Oedipus complex (the incest taboo) is thus, paradoxically, the prohibition 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 prohibition creates the desire to transgress it, and ‘’jouissance’’ is therefore fundamentally transgressive.

JOUISSANCE AND DRIVE



FEMININE JOUISSANCE However in 1973 Lacan admits that there is a specificially feminine jouissance, a ‘supplementary jouissance’, which is beyond the pahllus’. A ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other.[18] This feminine ‘‘jouissance’’ is ineffable. In order to differentiate between these two forms of jouissance, Lacan introduces different algebraic symbols for each; Jd designates phallic jouissance, whereas JA designates the ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other.

In The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, Lacan based ‘‘jouissance’’ on the law. If ‘‘jouissance’’ consists in breaking the barrier of the pleasure principle, if it can only be attained through a transgression, then only a prohibition opens the path toward it. As for the "other," he is already implicated in Freud's analysis of sadism: when we inflict pain on others, "we enjoy by identifying with the suffering object." From his reading of Civilization and Its Discontents, Lacan concluded, "Jouissance is evil . . . because it involves suffering for my neighbor" (1992, p. 184). Moreover, he noted that love of one's neighbor seemed absurd to Freud. Each time that this Christian ideal is stated, "we see evoked the presence of that fundamental evil which dwells within this neighbor. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within me. And what is more of a neighbor to me than this heart within which is that of my ‘‘jouissance’’ and which I don't dare go near?" (Lacan, 1992, p. 186). In "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire" (2002), Lacan inscribed ‘‘jouissance’’ in the topography of his graph of desire. At the upper level of the graph, ‘‘jouissance’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Other, S(A?). This is phallic jouissance, which is related to castration as lack. Traditionally, the erectile organ, the phallus, represents the object of jouissance, not so much by itself, but rather as the missing portion of a desired image. Phallic ‘‘jouissance’’ is inscribed in the diagram at the level of a vector that starts out from S(A?), the Other's lack, and goes toward (S? ? D), the drive as articulated by the subject and the demand of the Other. Thus ‘‘jouissance’’ is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive. Recognizing the Other's lack produces a fantasy in the subject's unconscious. In this fantasy, the object represents what the subject imagines that the Other is deprived of. In everyday life, the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child. Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, Lacan located ‘‘jouissance’’ at the place of the barred Other, S(A?) this is also where Lacan inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!" To this command, the subject can only respond, "J'ouis!" ("I hear!"), for such ‘‘jouissance’’ is structurally prohibited. Lacan repeated that while the superego prohibits and punishes, it also requires that the subject experience jouissance. For Lacan, the requirement to enjoy is directly related to a taboo. But what is prohibited, what must remain unsatisfied, is only the subject's jouissance. Giving the Other an experience of ‘‘jouissance’’ does not seem to be prohibited. The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object a. Thus if a subject assumes the position of the Other's missing object and if this can make the Other whole, then "It would enjoy," as Lacan said (2002, p. 311). He thus introduced a ‘‘jouissance’’ outside the phallic order, a mystic jouissance, which he defined as a nonphallic, feminine ‘‘jouissance’’ (1998). For being not whole, a woman "has a supplementary ‘‘jouissance’’ compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance. . . . Y]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo] Bernini [the Ecstasy of St. Teresa] to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it" (1998, pp. 73, 76). But what did Lacan mean when he said that a woman, for being "not whole," was capable of a supplementary, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," he proposed dividing subjects not according to their biological sex, but according to their relation to the phallus. On the masculine side would be those subjects who take object a as the cause of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it. Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other, S(A?). The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, is feminine. But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘jouissance’’ and ‘‘jouissance’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘jouissance’’ "outside sex," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack. The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object a of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who in turn no longer lacks. The result is that to represent the Other's jouissance, "A" is rewritten as unbarred, S(A). In Civilization and Its Discontents, Freud referred to the "oceanic feeling" of being at one with the greater Whole. Such is the feeling of mysticism, and also of trances and ecstasy. Whereas Freud discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, Lacan spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance. If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘jouissance’’ by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body of Christ on Calvary to sustain it. They partake of a vicarious ‘‘jouissance’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God. Commenting on Catholicism, Lacan wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113)

Kid A In Alphabet Land

Kida j.gif

Kid A In Alphabet Land Jumps Another Juicy 'Jaculator - That Jerk-Off, Jouissance! You Displease Me, And You Think I Gain Pleasure From That! Heh! You Must Take Me For Some Masochistic Francophile! And You're The Substance I'm Paid With By My Lack Of Substance? You're Impossible! I'm Coming To Get You! - Fuck You, Jouissance!

See Also

References

  1. 1930, pp. 76-77
  2. 1959-1960/1992, p. 185
  3. 1969-70/1991, p. 88
  4. (1977, p.9)
  5. Lacan, Jacques.
  6. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. p.319
  7. S7 184
  8. 1920, p. 17
  9. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XVII. L'envers de la psychanalyse, 19669-70. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1991. p.17
  10. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.58
  11. Lacan, Jacques. Le Séminaire. Livre XX. Encore, 1972-73. Ed. Jacques-Alain Miller. Paris: Seuil, 1975. p.58, 69.
  12. 1991, p. 89
  13. Lacan, 1992, p. 176
  14. Lacan, Jacques. Écrits: A Selection. Trans. Alan Sheridan. London: Tavistock Publications, 1977. "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire."
  15. 1992, p. 184
  16. Lacan, 1992, p. 186
  17. E 319
  18. S20, 58, 69)
  1. Freud, Sigmund. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. SE, 18: 1-64.
  2. ——. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. SE, 21: 57-145.
  3. Lacan, Jacques. (1991). Le séminaire. Book 17: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970). Paris: Seuil.
  4. ——. (1992). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 7: The ethics of psychoanalysis (1959-1960) (Dennis Porter, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
  5. ——. (1998). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 20: On feminine sexuality: the limits of love and knowledge, encore (1972-1973) (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
  6. ——. (2002). The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious. In his Écrits: A selection (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1960.)
Kid A In Alphabet Land

Act · Blot · Commodity-fetish · Death Drive · Ego-ideal · Father · Gaze · Hysteric · Imaginary · Jouissance · Kapital · Letter · Mirror Stage · Name · Other · Phallus · Qua · Real · Super Signifier · Thing · Unheimlich · Voice · Woman · Xenophobe · Yew · Z-man


Kid A In Alphabet Land

Kida j.gif

Kid A In Alphabet Land Jumps Another Juicy 'Jaculator - That Jerk-Off, Jouissance! You Displease Me, And You Think I Gain Pleasure From That! Heh! You Must Take Me For Some Masochistic Francophile! And You're The Substance I'm Paid With By My Lack Of Substance? You're Impossible! I'm Coming To Get You! - Fuck You, Jouissance!

See Also

References

  1. Freud, Sigmund. (1920). Beyond the pleasure principle. SE, 18: 1-64.
  2. ——. (1930). Civilization and its discontents. SE, 21: 57-145.
  3. Lacan, Jacques. (1991). Le séminaire. Book 17: L'envers de la psychanalyse (1969-1970). Paris: Seuil.
  4. ——. (1992). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 7: The ethics of psychoanalysis (1959-1960) (Dennis Porter, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
  5. ——. (1998). The seminar of Jacques Lacan. Book 20: On feminine sexuality: the limits of love and knowledge, encore (1972-1973) (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton.
  6. ——. (2002). The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious. In his Écrits: A selection (Bruce Fink, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1960.)
Index
  • Jouissance, 1-11, 24-25, 35, 50, 70, 71, 76, 97, 107, 111-16, 121, 126, 131, 137, 145
discourse and, 39, 51, 54, 58-63, 83, 105, 126-27
fantasy and, 86
of the idiot, 81, 94
law and, 2-3, 92
mother's, 35
the Other jouissance, 4, 7-8, 17, 24, 38, 39, 73, 74, 75, 76-77, 83-84, 87, 137, 144
phallic jouissance, 7-9, 24, 35, 59-60, 64, 73, 74, 81
surplus jouissance (plus-de-jouir), 16-17, 131