Changes

<!-- 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 ''[[Frenchjouissance]]''. "''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]].-->

The French ‘’jouissance’’ <!-- <blockquote>"Castration means basically ‘’enjoyment’’, but that ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it has a sexual connotation can be reached on the inverted ladder (i''l'échelle renversée'') of the Law of desire.e"<ref>{{E}} p. ‘orgasm’324</ref></blockquote> -->The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) lacking in 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 English word ‘enjoyment’[[desire]] to [[transgress]] it, and ''[[jouissance]]'' is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of Lacanfundamentally [[transgressive]].<ref>{{S7}} Ch.15</ref>

The Insofar as the [[Frenchdrive]] noun means 's are attempts to break through the [[enjoymentpleasure principle]]' in both the sense [[search]] of ''[[pleasurejouissance]] and in the sense in which one speaks of the '', every [[enjoymentdrive]] of is a [[rightdeath drive]]s and privileges.

It can also mean orgasm===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 the cognate verb is referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''jouir[[jouissance]]'' is commonly used not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to mean [[Hegel]] and the [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[master]]'s ''jouissance'to come'through his work in producing [[objects]] for the master.

The use =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of the noun in ''jouissance'' as [[Englishorgasm]] has been promoted by translations emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[Lacanmeaning]] and others, but it is commonly treated as a French word and italicized accordingly`to come'.

jouissance ====1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====It is always used in the singular [[text]] '[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of ''jouissance'' is always accompanied by first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the singular definite article[[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977).

==Jacques Lacan 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 [[forbidden]] 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]] and are 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 all 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 ''jouissance'' 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 ''Jouissancejouissance''==around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated.

In <i>What is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[outside]] the [[body]] in [[Civilization speech]], and Its Discontentsthere is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]]</i> itself, out-of-the-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the level of the [[lost object]], [[object a]], there is a plus (1930+), a little [[Freudcompensation]] describes in the [[form]] of what is allowed of ''jouissance'', a contradiction inherent compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the concept forbidding of ''jouissance'' of the [[pleasureOther]].

<blockquote>This endeavor =====Symbolic Prohibition=====The [[prohibition]] of striving for ''[[happinessjouissance]]'' (the [[pleasure principle]] has two sides... It aims, on ) is inherent in the one hand, at an [[absencesymbolic]] of [[painstructure]] and of [[unpleasurelanguage]], andwhich is why "''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, on the other, at the experiencing of strong as such."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[feelingsubject]]'s of entry into the [[pleasuresymbolic]]... The task of avoiding is conditional upon a certain initial [[sufferingrenunciation]] pushes that of obtaining ''[[pleasurejouissance]] into '' in the background.<ref>1930[[castration complex]], ppwhen the [[subject]] gives up his attempts to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]]. 76-77</ref></blockquote>

=====Law and Prohibition=====The term was already present in [[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 [[Lacanstructure]] developed it as itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a conceptlack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the [[structure]]. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible.

=====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[Lacanlack]] argues that in the two aspects [[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 [[pleasuredrive]] were irreconcilable.

=====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The [[pleasure principledrive]] blocks [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to [[capture]] something of the path 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]]''.

<blockquote>Who =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is there who denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire]] brings the name [[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 [[pleasurenotes]] doesn't start to weaken when `the first half-serious is taken step toward [[jouissancehorror]]?<ref>1959of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-1960/1992, p8). 185</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"(Even an ====1970s====[[animalSeminar XX]]) has an economy: it acts so as to produce the very least possible , [[Encore]], given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[feminine jouissance]]. That's what we call ', also known as the ''[[pleasure principleOther jouissance]]''."<ref>1969-70/1991, p. 88</ref></blockquote>

''The [[Jouissancespeaking being]]is alone with his/her '' jouissance'' as it is involved when not possible to share the ''jouissance'' of the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, [[pleasure principlethere is no sexual rapport]] yields not necessarily , comes to the foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [pain[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, but to unnot [[pleasureanatomical]]difference.

==Jacques Lacan===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]].

=====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[LacanWoman]] begins to use the term is [[jouissancephallic]] in his seminars of 1953-4 where it refers to ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[Kojeveuniversal]]'s version definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the [[master]]-[[slave]] [[dialectic]]signifier. However, in 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 work of Other and is not supported by the [[slave]] provides [[object]]s for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]]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 term[[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], with ''jouissance''s located in the [[meaningjargon]] gradually shifts and acquires more sexual connotations from itself. ''Jouissance'' thus refers to the early 1960s onwardsspecific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/her unconscious.

=====''Lalangue''=====The most sustained disucssion will be found 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 seminar speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of 1969-70the unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject.

==In '[[La Troisième]]'Jouissance, presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] '' versus Pleasure==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.

=====Feminine ''Jouissance''=====<!-- 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 that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] develops an opposition admits that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'' (', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[enjoymentsymbol]]s for each; '''Jφ') and ''designates [[plaisirphallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' (designates the ''[[pleasurejouissance]]')' of the [[Other]].-->

For Barthes ''plaisir'' is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural enjoyment <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and identity1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, to usually in the context of the cultural enjoyment [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of identity, the [[master]] and the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to a homogenising movement of provide objects for the ego[[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'')."<ref>(1977, {{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p.9)269</ref> -->

As ==''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==Lacan's contribution to the [[clinic]] is paramount in [[Richard Middletonregard]] (1990, p.261) puts it, "to the operation of ''Plaisirjouissance'' resultsin neurosis, then, from the operation of the perversion and psychosis. The three [[structures of signification through which the subject knows himself or herself; ]] can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance'' fractures these structures."

=====Neurosis=====The [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[want]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''Jouissancejouissance'' versus Pleasure==of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It evokes is an eroticizes death drive 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 [[belief]] that it would be possible to attain a degree complete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration. Instead of intensity which takes [[seeing]] the subject ebyond [[lack in the Other]] the neurotic sees the pleasure principleOther's demand of him/her.

Pleasure is described =====Perversion=====The [[Pervert]] imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his/her ''jouissance''. The [[perverse]] subject makes him-/herself the [[instrument]] of the Other's ''jouissance'' through putting the [[Object A|object a]] in the place of the [[barred]] Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an obstacle object in order to procure the ''jouissance '' of a phallus, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in that seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is always leads to a reduction make the law [[present]]. Lacan uses the term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the way in tension and which the pervert appeals to a return the father to homeostatis, or a dynamically stable statefulfil the [[paternal function]].

Jouissance =====Practice=====The [[practice]] of [[psychoanalysis]] examines the different ways and means [[The Subject|the subject]] uses to produce ''jouissance''. It is by means of the bien [[dire]], the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[speak]] in a new way, a way of speaking the [[truth]], that a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[analytic]] act is a cut, a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in constrast takes the fantasy. The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the subject having to endure being alone with his/her own ''jouissance'' and to encounter its operation in the drive, a unique, [[singular]] way of being alone with one's own ''jouissance''. [[The Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that extreme point where the erotic borders upon deathwas formerly [[alien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''.

The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[pleasure principlepsychotic]] functions as 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 the ''jouissance'' in the structure. This involves an effort to link in a [[limitchain]] to , the isolated, persecuting [[enjoymentsignifiers]]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'' in the body, according to the shift of the subject in the structure. The psychotic does not escape the structure, but there can be a modification of unlimited, deadly ''jouissance''.

The == In the work of Slavoj Žižek ==''Jouissance'', or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the Freudian sense, enjoyment is located beyond the pleasure [[pleasure principle]] is a . In his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[lawself]] which commands -harm and the strange [[subjectcompulsion]] in certain [[patients]] to "enjoy 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 little ''jouissance''. If pleasure functions in [[terms]] of [[balance]], achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is destabilizing and tends towards [[excess]]. Enjoyment can be characterized as possiblea kind of existential electricity that not only animates the subject but also threatens to destroy them."<ref>In this regard, enjoyment is always both before and beyond [[the symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[Lacancaptured]] by it. If the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, Jacquesthen lightning is the raw substance of enjoyment that reflects the primordial [[character]] of [[human]]drives and obsessions.</ref>

The According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[goal]] of psychoanalysis is not so much to bring to light the “guilt” of the [[prohibitionanalysand]] on but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[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 [[feelings]] of inadequacy and makes impossible [[demands]] of the subject – in terms of a primary [[injunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'' : 3).

The Although ''jouissance'' is viewed as a (non-discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''Jouissance'' is something that can be signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the pleasure principle (''SXVII'': 46). It emerges as a beyond in relation to this limit – as that which marks the [[domain]] of forbidden and/or [[symbolicobscene]] excesses. To approach this from a different angle, ''jouissance'' 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 [[prohibitionambition]] of the “[[enjoymentpolitics]]of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject.

It David Fincher’s ''Seven'' is inherent 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 [[the imaginary]] [[unity]], the homeostatic ego-[[ideal]], of a God-fearing [[symboliccommunity]] . Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[structureSuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[acts]] beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[languageBatman]]and various other super(ego)-heroes).

"''There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[Jouissancefilm]]. The first concerns the intrinsic character of ''jouissance' ': the more Doe renounces earthly pleasures in pursuit of his cause, the more his enjoyment-in-renunciation is forbidden revealed. What Doe attempts to him conceal is precisely the [[surplus enjoyment]] he takes in personal sacrifice and in stoically carrying out his [[duty]]. His enjoyment is not so much an immediate [[gratification]] in [[violence]], but rather an obscene satisfaction in carrying out complicated and ritualized killings/torture as part of a divine mission sanctioned by God. Doe is, in fact, a classic pervert who speakstries to hide his enjoyment behind his perceived [[ethical]] obligation. Put in other terms, he expresses the classic [[ideological]] alibi: “I was not there as sucha being of enjoyment but as a functionary of duty."<ref>{{E}} p” This also reflects Žižek’s point against [[Hannah Arendt]] and her conclusion regarding the routinized [[nature]] of the extermination of [[Jews]] as a “banality of evil” ([[Arendt]] 1963).319<That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which the bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''PF'': 55); a surplus satisfaction gained from carrying out the daily [[torture]] and humiliations in the guise of a [[Kantianism|Kantian]] sense of impersonal duty, as an instrument of the Other’s will (the law/ref>state/universal mission, etc.). The [[essence]] of the matter is not so much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/excessive ''jouissance'' contained and nurtured within the banality itself.

The second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[subjectmurder]], (her decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the sin of wrath: he “over-kills” Doe in order an act of desperate rage. Prior to gain entry this, Doe confesses to the a powerful [[symbolicenvy]] of Mills and his [[ordermarried]], must renounce ''[[jouissancelife]]'' . By declaring (in the and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[castration complexstages]])his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle.

In other wordsFrom a [[Lacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[subjectextimacy]] must give up any attempt ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. For Lacan it refers to be “something strange to me, although it is at the heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[imaginaryJacques-Alain Miller]] affirms that the [[phallushatred]] for of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment ([[motherMiller]]2008). The [[image]] of the Other’s enjoyment is so compelling precisely because it symbolizes the Lacanian “in us more than ourselves”. In this sense, the Other is always someone who gives body to the very excess of enjoyment that in our innermost being denies us homeostasis. What ''jouissance'' bears [[witness]] to is not the unbearable difference of the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is, the very [[fascination]] with (the projected sense of) the Other’s enjoyment draws the subject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses.

The In this context, we should read Doe’s [[symbolicconfession]] as fake. His real “sin” is not envy but [[prohibitiondenial]] . What he denies is that his entire [[economy]] of righteous retribution is driven by enjoyment. His confession functions precisely as a way of sustaining this economy at a safe distance from any direct encounter with his traumatic excesses. By sacrificing himself, he is able to avoid any confrontation with his mode of private enjoyment – it is the opposite of what Lacan means by an act. We see a similar type of [[enjoymentlogic]] at play in the phenomenon of stalking. In their [[Oedipus complexover-identification]] with their [[object of desire]] (often a celebrity), the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[incestanxiety]] generated by their [[tabooobsessional]]economy) is the , which they then try to resolve through an act of severance – [[prohibitionsuicide]] , an assault on the target of something which is already their [[impossibleobsession]], and so on.

Its function [[Ideology]] 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 to sustain in fantasmatically translating this sense of lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[neuroticimmigrant]] is someone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[illusionliving]] that off “our” [[enjoymentstate]] would be attainable if it were not forbiddenbenefits 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).

===Prohibition and Desire===The 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'': 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”, “opportunities”, etc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is sustained as a [[prohibitionfantasmatic]] gives rise abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear]] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[films]] like ''Bruce Almighty'' where the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[desireworld]] falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[transgressexistence]] 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 <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i>, [[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 [[prohibition]]s on [[enjoyment]] (imposed by the [[pleasure principle]]) by going "[[beyond the pleasure principle." ===Pleasure and Pain=== However, the result One of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure, but pain, since there is only a certainamount central lessons of pleasure that the subject can bear. Beyond this limit, pleasure becomes pain, and this ‘painful pleasure’ psychoanalysis is what [[Lacan]] calls ‘’jouissance’’: ‘’’jouissance’’ is suffering.”<ref>S7 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 own satisfaction. In <i>[[Beyond the Pleasure Principle]]</i>, [[Freud]] had already noted that "the most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . as highly enjoyable.”<ref>1920, p. 17</ref> 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 [[while enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]''). [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is "the path towards [[death]]."<ref>{{S17}} p.17</ref> Insofar experienced 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]]. <blockquote>"''[[Jouissance]]''Real, insofar as it is ultimately an empty [[sexual]], is [[phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the [[Other]] as such."<ref>{{S20}} p.58</ref></blockquote>      ==Feminine ''Jouissance''== In 1973, [[Lacan]] states that there is a [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' [[Feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' is a "[[supplement]]ary ''[[jouissance]]'', which is beyond the [[phallus]], a ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]].<ref>{{S20}} p.58, 69.</ref> [[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 [[hysteria|hysterical]] [[symptom]] of [[repetition]].) [[Lacan]] defines [[repetition]] as a [[tracespectre]], a kind of [[writing]], that commemorates "an irruption anamorphic effect of jouissancesymbolic circumscription."<ref>1991Against its numerous ideological manipulations, p. 89</ref>     ==Need and Drive== [[Lacan]] posits a basic opposition between we [[need]] and [[drive]]. <blockquote>"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 [[object]]s that could either belong to [[other]]s or deprive them find ways of their [[jouissance]]."  ==''Jouissance'' and Drive== In <i>[[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]</i>, [[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 [[satisfaction|unsatisfied]] [[drive]]; the more the [[subject]] fails to feel ''[[jouissance]]'', the more libido]] there is to feed the [[superego]]accepting, and the more the [[superego]] will [[demand]] new [[renunciation]]s.  [[Lacan]] believed that in <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Freud]] was stating that "everything that is transferred from ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ to [[prohibition]] gives rise to the increasing strengthening of prohibition."<ref>Lacan, 1992, p. 176</ref> 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]].<ref>{{E}} "[[The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire]]."</ref>  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 living 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 ‘‘traumatic [[jouissanceknowledge]]’’ does not seem to be prohibited.   The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object <i>a</i>.  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 <i>a</i> 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 Extemporizing 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 ‘‘old [[jouissanceMarxist]]’’ "outside sexmaxim," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack.  The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object <i>a</i> 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 <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i>, [[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 comes 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 <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Lacan]] concluded, "[[Jouissance]] is [[evil]] . . . because it involves [[suffering]] for my [[neighbor]]."<ref>1992, p. 184</ref> Moreover, he noted that [[love]] of one's [[neighbor]] seemed absurd to [[Freud]].  <blockquote>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]] have nothing to me than this heart within which is that of my ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and which I don't dare go near?”<ref>Lacan, 1992, p. 186</ref></blockquote>   ==Theory==Something that gives lose but the [[subject]] a way out myth of its [[normative]] subjectivity through [[transcendent]] [[Bliss (feeling)|bliss]] whether that bliss or [[orgasmic]] [[rapture]] be found in [[text]]s, [[film]]s, works of [[art]] or [[sexual]] spheres; [[excess]] as opposed to [[utility]]loss itself.  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]]'. == [[Kid A In Alphabet Land]] ==[[Image:Kida_j.gif |right|frame]]'''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}}* [[AutismBorromean knot]]* [[Castration of the subject]]* [[Dark continentDeath drive]]* [[Drive]]||* [[Desire]] * [[Formula of FantasyEthics]]* [[FetishismImaginary]]* [[Graph of DesireLaw]]||* [[Libido]]* [[KantianismMother]]* [[MasochismNeurosis]] * [[MathemeOedipus complex]]||* ''[[Object aPerversion]]''

* [[Repetition compulsionPleasure principle]] * [[Formulas of SexuationPsychosis]]* [[Subject of the drive]]||* [[SufferingStructure]] * [[SymptomSuper-ego]]* ''[[SinthomeSymbolic]]''* [[Voyeurism]]{{Also}}

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/># * [[Freud, SigmundS. ]] (19201951)[1905] 'The Three Essays on [[Sexuality]]'. Beyond S.E. 7: pp. 125-244. In: [[Standard Edition]] of the pleasure principleComplete [[Psychological]] Works of [[Sigmund Freud]]. [[London]]: Hogarth Press. SE* Freud, 18S. (1951) Notes upon a Case of [[Obsessional Neurosis]]. S.E. I0: 1pp. 153-64319.# ——* Freud, S. (19301951)[1920] Beyond the [[Pleasure Principle]]. S. Civilization and its discontentsE. SE, 21I8: 57pp. 3-14564.# * Lacan, JacquesJ. (19911970)'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. Le séminaire194. * Lacan, J. Book 17: L'envers de la psychanalyse (19691975) Seminar XX, Encore (1972-197073). Text established by Jacques-[[Alain]] Miller. [[Paris]]: Seuil, p.# ——10. Now translated by [[Bruce Fink]] (19921998)under the title of On [[Feminine sexuality|Feminine Sexuality]], The Limits of [[Love]] and Knowledge I972-1973, Encore. The seminar Seminar of [[Jacques Lacan]]. Book 7: The ethics of psychoanalysis (1959-1960) (Dennis Porter, Trans.)XX. New York: W. W. Norton, p. 3.# ——* Lacan, J. (19981958)'The youth of A. Gide', April, 1958; `The seminar [[signification]] of Jacques Lacan. Book 20: the phallus', May, 1958; 'On feminine sexuality: the limits [[theory]] of love and knowledge[[symbolism]] in Ernest [[Jones]]', March, encore (1972-1973) (Bruce Fink1959, Transin Écrits.). New YorkParis: W. W. NortonSeuil.# ——* Lacan, J. (20021977)[1960]. 'The [[subversion ]] of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious. In his ' in [[Écrits: A selection Selection]] (Bruce Finktrans. A. [[Sheridan]]). New York: W.W. Norton. * Lacan, TransJ.(1990)Television. New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1960note 5), p. 325.)Carmela Levy-Stokes</div>

[[Category:Desire]][[Category:Kid A In Alphabet Land]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]]{{OK}}[[Category:TermsReal]]

[[Category:PsychoanalysisZizek_Dictionary]][[Category:Sexuality]]{{Footer Kid A}}