Changes

<!-- {| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:justifyright;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa"

-->[[Image:Kida_j.gif |right|frame|[[Kid A In Alphabet Land - Jouissance]]]]

==Translation===Translation==Enjoyment===There is no adequate translation in ''[[EnglishJouissance]] of '', and the word corresponding verb, ''[[jouissancejouir]]''.<ref>It is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of , refer to an extreme [[Lacanpleasure]].</ref> "It is not possible to translate this French [[Enjoymentword]]" does convey the sense, contained in ''jouissance'', precisely. Sometimes it is translated as '[[jouissanceenjoyment]]'', of ''but enjoyment of rights''has a reference to pleasure, of and ''propertyjouissance''is an enjoyment that always has a deadly reference, etca paradoxical pleasure, reaching an almost intolerable level of [[excitation]]., but it lacks Due to the ''sexual connotations'' specificity of the French term, it is usually [[Frenchleft]] word. (''Jouir'' is slang for "to come"untranslated.)

<!-- There is no adequate [[translation]] in [[English]] of the word ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>It is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of [[Lacan]].</ref> "[[Enjoyment]]" does convey the [[sense]], contained in ''[[jouissance]]'', of ''enjoyment of rights'', of ''property'', etc., but it [[lacks]] the ''[[sexual]] connotations'' of the [[French]] word. (''Jouir'' is slang for "to come".) --><!-- But it also refers to those moments when too much pleasure is pain. --><!-- The term signifies the ecstatic or orgasmic [[enjoyment]] - and exquisite [[pain]] - of something or someone. In [[French]], ''[[jouissance]]'' includes the [[enjoyment]] of rights and property, but also the slang verb, ''[[jouissance|jouir]]'', to come, and so is related to the [[pleasure]] of the [[sexual relationship|sexual act]].--><br>====="Pleasure"=====<!-- Lacan develops this opposition in 1960, in the context of his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. --><!-- In 1960 [[Lacan]] develops an opposition -->[[Lacan]] makes an important [[distinction]] between ''[[jouissance]]'' and ''[[plaisir]]'' ([[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]].<!-- ''[[Jouissance]]'' goes beyond ''[[plaisir]]''. --><!-- 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, [[pleasure]] becomes [[pain]], and this "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacan]] calls ''[[jouissance]]''. "''Jouissance'' is [[suffering]].")<ref>{{S7}} p. 184</ref> 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]]. -->

"<!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means to [[pleasure]]; [[Pleasurepleasure]]" obeys is taken in the very fact of [[pain|suffering]] itself, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish [[lawpleasure]]from [[pain] of ]. With ''[[jouissance]]'homeostasis'' that , on the other hand, [[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[Freudpleasure]] evokes is taken in the [[pain]] itself, but the [[pleasure]] cannot be obtained without paying the price of [[pain|suffering]]. It is thus a kind of ''deal'' in which "[[Beyond the Pleasure Principlepleasure]]''and'' [[pain]] are presented as a single packet."<ref>Seminar of 27 February 1963. J. Lacan, whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks the lowest possible level [[The Seminar]]. Book VII: The [[Ethics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of tensionPsychoanalysis]]. p. 189. </ref> -->

<!-- <blockquote>"Castration means that ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (''l'échelle renversée'') of the Law of desire."<ref>{{E}} p. 324</ref></blockquote> -->The [[pleasure principlesymbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) is thus functions as a limit imposed on , 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 commands were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the [[subjectdesire]] to "enjoy as little as possible[[transgress]] it, and ''[[jouissance]]'' is therefore fundamentally [[transgressive]].<ref>{{S7}} Ch." 15</ref>

==Development=====Sigmund Freud========Death Drive=====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 [[surplus|excess]] ''[[jouissance]]''; thus ''[[jouissance]]'' is "the path towards [[death]]".<ref>{{S17}} p. 17</ref> Insofar as the [[drive]]s are attempts to break through the [[pleasure principle]] in [[search]] of ''[[jouissance]]'', every [[drive]] is a [[death drive]]. ===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance'' is not a central preoccupation during the first part ofLacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[work]] in the [[seminars]]of [[Seminar I|1953-54]] and [[Seminar II|1954-55]], and is referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and the [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[master]]'s ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[objects]] for the master. =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm]] emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir''" transgresses [[meaning]] `to come'. =====''The Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-60]], [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], Lacan deals for the first [[time]] with the [[Real]] and ''jouissance''. Although the [[Real]] of the 1960s is not the same as his use of [[the Real]] in the 1980s, the first [[concepts]] emerge in this seminar. Here ''jouissance'' is considered in its function of [[evil]], that which is ascribed to a neighbour, but which dwells in the most intimate part of the [[subject]], [[extimate|intimate]] and [[alienated]] at the same time, as it is that from which the [[subject]] flees, experiencing [[aggression]] at the very approach of an [[encounter]] with his/her own ''jouissance''. The chapters in this seminar address such concepts as the ''jouissance'' of [[transgression]] and the [[paradox]] of ''jouissance''. ====1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====It is in the [[text]] '[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of ''jouissance'' is first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977). The [[speaking]] [[being]] has to use the [[signifier]], which comes from the [[Other]]. This has an effect of cutting any [[notion]] of a [[complete]] ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. The [[signifier]] forbids the ''jouissance'' of the [[body]] of the Other. Complete ''jouissance'' is thus [[lawforbidden]] to the one who speaks, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a [[loss]] of ''jouissance'' which is a [[necessity]] for those who use [[language]] andare a product of language. This is a reference to [[castration]], [[castration]] of ''jouissance'', a [[lack]] of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of the [[subject]]. This loss of ''jouissance'' is a loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible with the [[Other]], but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The [[myth]] of a primary [[experience]] of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that respectall satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the [[signifier]] is the [[repression]] of [[the thing]] where we suppose [[full]] ''jouissance'' to be. Once the signifier is there, ''jouissance'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''beyondjouissance'' from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via the signifying operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated. What is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[outside]] the [[body]] in [[speech]], and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]] itself, out-of-the-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the level of the [[lost object]], [[object a]], there is a plus (+), a little [[compensation]] in the [[form]] of what is allowed of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. =====Symbolic Prohibition=====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."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> 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]]. =====Law and Prohibition=====The [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the [[father]] prohibiting access to the [[mother]], that is, the [[law]] prohibiting ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure]] itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the [[structure]]. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible. =====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[lack]] in the [[signifying order]], a [[lack]] in the [[Other]], which designates a lack of ''jouissance'', creates a [[place]] where lost objects come, standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[order]] and ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is in the [[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost [[object]]. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in [[The Subject|the subject]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the push of the [[drive]]. =====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The [[drive]] [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to [[capture]] something of the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''jouissance'' in the very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces as a ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this [[structural]] approach, there is a [[structuring]] function of lack itself, and the loss of the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a [[cause]], as seen in the function of [[object a]], the ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire]] brings the [[subject]] closer to a destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. This destructive ''jouissance'' has a [[Freudian]] illustration in the account of the [[case]] of the [[Ratman]], of whom Freud [[notes]] `the [[horror]] of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8). ====1970s====[[Seminar XX]], [[Encore]], given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[feminine jouissance]]'', also known as the ''[[Other jouissance]]''.  The [[speaking being]] is alone with his/her ''jouissance'' as it is not possible to share the ''jouissance'' of the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, [[there is no sexual rapport]], comes to the foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [[female]] coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. It is a difference in the relation of the speaking being to ''jouissance'' which determines his being man or woman, not [[anatomical]] difference. =====Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Sexual ''jouissance'' is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' that has to [[pass]] through [[speech]]. The ''jouissance'' of man is produced by the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]], and is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[lacking]] a part of ''jouissance'', that which is required in order to use [[speech]]. All of man is subjected to the [[signifier]]. Man cannot relate directly with the [[Other]]. His partner is thus not the Other sex but an object, a piece of the body. Man looks for a little surplus ''jouissance'', that linked with [[Object A|object a]], which has phallic [[value]]. The erotics embodied in [[object a]] is the ''jouissance'' that belongs to [[fantasy]], aiming at a piece of the [[body]], and creating an illusion of a union linking [[The Subject|the subject]] with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance''. This is linked to his ideas of the 1960s outlined above.  =====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[universal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the signifier. However, not all of woman is subjected to the signifier. Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of a ''jouissance'' which is not altogether phallic. This Other ''jouissance'', another kind of satisfaction, has to do with the relation to the Other and is not supported by the object and fantasy.  Increasingly, in his works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the fact that language, in addition to having a signifier effect, also has an effect of ''jouissance''. In [[Television]], he equivocates between ''jouissance'', ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and the ''jouissance'' effect, the enjoyment of one's own unconscious, even if it is through pain (Lacan, 1990). The [[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], with ''jouissance'' located in the [[jargon]] itself. ''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/her unconscious.  =====''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[lalangue]]'', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of ''lalangue''. Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' to show that language always intervenes in the form of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious is a `[[knowing]] how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the [[apparent]] coherent, complete [[system]] of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of the unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject.  ''Jouis-sens'' also refers to the [[super-ego]]'s [[demand]] to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] promotes the ''jouissance'' that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is one of a paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance''. In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] ''jouissance'', jouis-sens, the ''jouissance'' of meaning, the ''jouissance'' of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. He locates the [[three]] ''jouissance''s in relation to the intersections of the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of the [[Real]], the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a topos in which the [[logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', that is the ''jouissance'' of the body, is located at the intersection of the Real and [[the Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the common [[space]] of [[the Symbolic]] and the Real; the ''jouissance'' of meaning, jouis-sens, is located at the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is the [[object a]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

=====Transgression=====[[Lacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', insofar as it is sexual, is [[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the result phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of transgressing the [[pleasure principleOther]] is not more . In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[pleasurejouissance]]'', but pain[[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], since there is only a certain amount of whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[pleasurejouissance]] that '' of the [[subjectOther]] can bear.

Beyond this limit<!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the [[pleasureHegel]] becomes ian [[paindialectic]] of the [[master]], and this "painful pleasure" the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is what [[Lacanforced]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] calls (''[[jouissance]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p.269</ref> -->

<blockquote>"==''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==Lacan's contribution to the [[clinic]] is sufferingparamount in [[regard]] to the operation of ''jouissance'' in neurosis, perversion and psychosis."<ref>{{S7}} pThe three [[structures]] can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance''.184</ref></blockquote>

=====SymptomNeurosis=====The term ''[[jouissanceneurotic]] [[subject]]'' thus nicely expresses the paradoxical does not [[satisfactionwant]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the subjection to language and its consequent loss of ''jouissance''. The neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have to sacrifice this castration, this piece of flesh, to the Other?' Here we encounter the neurotic [[subjectbelief]] derives from that it would be possible to attain a complete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his /her castration. Instead of [[symptomseeing]], or, to put it another way, the suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfactionlack in the Other]]the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her.

=====ProhibitionPerversion=====The prohibition of ''[[jouissancePervert]]imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his/her ''jouissance'' (the . The [[pleasure principleperverse]]) is inherent in subject makes him-/herself the [[symbolicinstrument]] of the Other's ''jouissance'' through putting the [[structureObject A|object a]] in the place of the [[languagebarred]]Other, which is why "negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the ''jouissance'' is forbidden of a phallus, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him who speaks-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'', as suchone of his/her aims is to make the law [[present]]."<ref>{{E}} pLacan uses the term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to the father to fulfil the [[paternal function]]. 319</ref>

=====Practice=====The [[practice]] of [[psychoanalysis]] examines the different ways and means [[The Subject|the subject]]uses to produce ''jouissance's entry into '. It is by means of the bien [[dire]], the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[symbolicspeak]] is conditional upon in a new way, a certain initial renunciation way of ''speaking the [[jouissancetruth]], that a different distribution of '' in the jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[castration complexanalytic]]act is a cut, when a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in the fantasy. The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the [[subject]] gives up having to endure being alone with his attempts /her own ''jouissance'' and to be encounter its operation in the drive, a unique, [[imaginarysingular]] way of being alone with one's own ''jouissance''. [[phallusThe Cut|The cut]] for of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[motheralien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''.

<blockquote>"Castration means that =====Psychosis=====In [[psychosis]], ''jouissance'' musst be refused so that it can be reached on is reintroduced in the place of the inverted ladder (Other. The ''jouissance'l'échelle renverséeinvolved here is called '') jouissance'' of the Other, because ''jouissance'' is sacrificed to the Other, often in the most mutilating ways, like cutting off a piece of the Law body as an offering to what is believed to be the command of desirethe Other to be completed."<ref>{{E}} pThe body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to the [[drives]]. 324</ref></blockquote>

The In [[symbolic]] [[prohibitionSchreber]] we see the manifestation of [[enjoyment]] the ways in which the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) body is thus, paradoxically, the [[prohibition]] not emptied of something which is already impossible; its function ''jouissance''. Shreber describes a body invaded by a ''jouissance'' that is therefore ascribed to sustain the ''jouissance'' of the [[neuroticOther, the]] [[illusion]] that [[enjoyment]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden''jouissance'' of God.

The very prohibiton creates practice of psychoanalysis with the [[desirepsychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is in the [[position]] of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', where the Uncontrolled [[action]] of the [[Death Drive|death drive]] lies, what is aimed at is the modification of this position in regard to transgress it, and the ''jouissance''in the structure. This involves an effort to link in a [[chain]], the isolated, persecuting [[jouissancesignifiers]]in order to initiate a place for the subject outside the ''jouissance'' of the Other. Psychoanalysis attempts to modify the effect of the Other's ''jouissance'' is therefore fundamentally transgressivein the body, according to the shift of the subject in the structure.<ref>{{S7}} chThe psychotic does not escape the structure, but there can be a modification of unlimited, deadly ''jouissance''.15</ref>

=====Death Drive===In the work of Slavoj Žižek ==The ''Jouissance'', or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the Freudian sense, enjoyment is located beyond the pleasure [[death driveprinciple]] is . In his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[self]]-harm and the name given to that constant strange [[desirecompulsion]] in the certain [[subjectpatients]] to break through keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[traumatic]] for [[them]]. Th is paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, or pleasure through pain, is what Lacan designates as ''jouissance''. If pleasure principlefunctions in [[terms]] of [[balance]] , achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is destabilizing and tends towards the [[Thingexcess]] . Enjoyment can be characterized as a kind of existential electricity that not only animates the subject but also threatens to destroy them. In this regard, enjoyment is always both before and a certain excess ''beyond [[jouissancethe symbolic]]''field; thus ''it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[jouissancecaptured]]''by it. If the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, then lightning is "the path towards death."<ref>{{S17}} praw substance of enjoyment that reflects the primordial [[character]] of [[human]] drives and obsessions. 17</ref>

Insofar as According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[drivegoal]]s are attempts of psychoanalysis is not so much to bring to break through light the “guilt” of the [[pleasure principleanalysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in search [[guilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [[particular]] mode of ''jouissance'' rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[superego]] – the inherent [[agency]] of guilt that constantly recycles [[jouissancefeelings]]'', every of inadequacy and makes impossible [[drivedemands]] is of the subject – in terms of a primary [[death driveinjunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3).

=====Although ''jouissance'' is viewed as a (non-discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''Jouissance'' and Libido=====There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]is something that can be signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the pleasure principle (''s concept of SXVII'': 46). It emerges as a beyond in relation to this limit – as that which marks the [[jouissancedomain]]'' of forbidden and /or [[Freudobscene]]excesses. To approach this from a different angle, ''jouissance''s concept is produced as the excess of repression; without this repression, there can be no jouissance (''LN'': 308). This is why ''jouissance'' cannot be directly targeted or apprehended (despite the [[libidoambition]], as is clear from of the “[[Lacanpolitics]]'s description of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''[[jouissance]]Jouissance'' as a "bodily substanceis something that always sticks to the subject."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref>

In keeping with David Fincher’s ''Seven'' is illustrative of the dynamics of ''jouissance''. Two detectives, Mills and Somerset, set out to investigate a series of brutal murders committed as a “sermon” on the seven deadly sins by John Doe. Doe’s victims are chosen on the grounds that they embody a particular sinful excess and are subsequently dispatched in an elaborately [[sadistic]] manner. He seeks to punishexecute his victims not because of any [[legal]] transgression but because they do not conform to [Freud[the imaginary]]'s assertion that there is only one [[libidounity]], which is the homeostatic ego-[[masculineideal]], of a God-fearing [[Lacancommunity]] states . Here we might say that ''Doe becomes a [[SuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[jouissanceacts]]'' is essentially beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[phallicBatman]]and various other super(ego)-heroes).

=====Master and Slave=====In The second concerns the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, usually way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the context denouement of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] film, Mills learns of the his wife’s [[mastermurder]] (her decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the [[slave]]sin of wrath: the he “over-kills” Doe in an act of desperate rage. Prior to this, Doe confesses to a powerful [[slaveenvy]] is forced to work to provide objects for the of Mills and his [[mastermarried]]'s [[enjoymentlife]] . By declaring (''and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[jouissancestages]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} phis own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle. 269</ref>

== [[Kid A In Alphabet LandIdeology]] ==derives its potency from its ability to manipulate economies of enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[social]] order relies upon a certain renunciation, or loss, of enjoyment. But as Lacan points out, this enjoyment is not something that was previously possessed; it is an epiphenomenal excess of social repression itself. Where ideology succeeds is in fantasmatically translating this sense of lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[immigrant]] is someone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[living]] off “our” [[state]] benefits and they work too hard, taking “our” jobs, etc.) and who thereby steals and/or corrupts our enjoyment (our “way of life”). And thus what “we conceal by imputing to the Other the theft of enjoyment is the traumatic fact that we never possessed what was allegedly stolen from us” (''TN'': 203).

At the same time, ideology “bribes” the subject into accepting repression/renunciation by providing subliminal access to a surplus enjoyment – that is, an extra enjoyment generated through the renunciation of enjoyment itself (''TN'Kid A In Alphabet Land Jumps Another Juicy 'Jaculator - That Jerk-Off: 308–9). What is [[manifest]] in [[fascism]], for example, is the way in which the subject derives surplus enjoyment through acts of sacrifice (renouncing personal enjoyment) in the name of doing one’s duty to the [[nation]]. With today’s (Western) ideology – basically a [[capitalist]] fatalism (“the economy is what it is”) in support of private pleasures – the subject is bribed in a different way. Ideology no longer operates simply with a particular [[utopian]] [[vision]] or with definitive objectives. Contemporary ideology consists rather in assigning demands for [[change]] to the realm of “impossibility” (as so much “ideological fantasy”). What ideology offers the subject is the fantasy of change (“[[freedom]] of choice”, Jouissance!'''You Displease Me“opportunities”, And You Think I Gain Pleasure From That! Heh! You Must Take Me For Some Masochistic Francophile! And Youetc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is sustained as a [[fantasmatic]] abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear]] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[films]] like 're The Substance I'm Paid With By My Lack Of Substance? YouBruce Almighty're Impossible! I'm Coming To Get You! - Fuck Youwhere the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, Jouissance!but whose own [[world]] falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[existence]].

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references />* [[Freud, S.]] (1951) [1905] 'The Three Essays on [[Sexuality]]'. S.E. 7: pp. 125-244. In: [[Standard Edition]] of the Complete [[Psychological]] Works of [[Sigmund Freud]]. [[London]]: Hogarth Press.* Freud, S. (1951) Notes upon a Case of [[Obsessional Neurosis]]. S.E. I0: pp. 153-319.* Freud, S. (1951) [1920] Beyond the [[Pleasure Principle]]. S.E. I8: pp. 3-64.* Lacan, J. (1970) 'Of structure as an inmixing of an [[otherness]] prerequisite to any subject whatever' in The [[Structuralist]] ''Jouissance'' 109 Controversy, Richard Macksay and Eugenio Donato (eds). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins [[University]] Press, p. 194. * Lacan, J. (1975) Seminar XX, Encore (1972-73). Text established by Jacques-[[Alain]] Miller. [[Paris]]: Seuil, p. 10. Now translated by [[Bruce Fink]] (1998) under the title of On [[Feminine sexuality|Feminine Sexuality]], The Limits of [[Love]] and Knowledge I972-1973, Encore. The Seminar of [[Jacques Lacan]]. Book XX. New York: W.W. Norton, p. 3. * Lacan, J. (1958) 'The youth of A. Gide', April, 1958; `The [[signification]] of the phallus', May, 1958; 'On the [[theory]] of [[symbolism]] in Ernest [[Jones]]', March, 1959, in Écrits. Paris: Seuil. * Lacan, J. (1977) [1960]. 'The [[subversion]] of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious' in [[Écrits: A Selection]] (trans. A. [[Sheridan]]). New York: W.W. Norton. * Lacan, J. (1990) Television. New York: W.W. Norton. (note 5), p. 325. Carmela Levy-Stokes</div>

[[Category:TermsZizek_Dictionary]]{{OK}} __NOTOC__ {{Encore}}:* ''[[enjoyment|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 ''[[enjoyment|Other jouissance]]'', 4, 7-8, 17, 24, 38, 39, 73, 74, 75, 76-77, 83-84, 87, 137, 144 :: ''[[enjoyment|phallic jouissance]]'', 7-9, 24, 35, 59-60, 64, 73, 74, 81 :: ''[[enjoyment|surplus jouissance]]'' (''[[enjoyment|plus-de-jouir]]''), 16-17, 131