Changes

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

=====Translator's Note=====<!-- There is no adequate [[translation ]] in [[English]] of the word ''[[jouissance]]''. <ref>It is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of [[Lacan]].</ref> "[[jouissance|Enjoyment]]" does conveys 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 [[Pleasuredifference]]", on the other hand, is pre-empted by "''between [[plaisirmasochism]]''" -- and [[Lacanjouissance]] uses the two terms quite differently. " In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means to [[pleasure]]; [[Pleasurepleasure]]" obeys is taken in the very fact of [[lawpain|suffering]] of '''homeostasis'' itself, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from [[Freudpain]] evokes in . With ''[[Beyond the Pleasure Principlejouissance]]'', wherebyon the other hand, through discharge[[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the [[pain]] itself, but the psyche seeks [[pleasure]] cannot be obtained without paying the lowest possible level price of tension. "''[[Jouissancepain|suffering]]. It is thus a kind of ''deal''in which " transgresses this [[lawpleasure]] and, in that respect, it is ''beyondand'' the [[pleasure principlepain]] are presented as a single packet."<ref>Seminar of 27 February 1963. J. Lacan, [[The Seminar]]. Book VII: The [[Ethics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]].p. 189.</ref> -->

==Development=====Sigmund Freud=======Translation=Death Drive=====The [[Frenchdeath 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]] word ''; thus ''[[jouissance]]'' means basically is "the path towards [[enjoymentdeath]]".<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'' [[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 [[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 sexual connotation 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 ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated. What is left over after this negativization (i—) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels.e 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 "orgasm''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 English word[[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 left untranslated 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 most English editions 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 [[Lacanobject a]]that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

As Jane Gallop observes=====Feminine ''Jouissance''=====<!-- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' and [[Freud]]'s concept of the [[libido]], whereas orgasm as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''[[jouissance]]'' as a countable noun"[[bodily]] substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s assertion that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], the term [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is always used 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 the singular by 1973 [[Lacan]] and admits that there is always preceded by a definite articlespecifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p.58</ref>Gallopwhich is "beyond the phallus, Jane"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter's Seductionjouissance''of the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, London: Macmillan, 1982for [[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]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. -->

=====Jacques [[Lacan=====The term does not appear in ]] states that "''[[Lacanjouissance]]'s work until 1953', but even then insofar as it is sexual, is [[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not particularly salientrelate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p.14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{ES20}} p. 4258</ref> which is "beyond the phallus, 87"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref>a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]].

===<!-- ==Master and Slave=====In the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is [[forced ]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p. 269</ref> -->

=====Enjoyment===''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==Upt to 1957, then, the term seems Lacan's contribution to mean no more than the [[enjoyment|enjoyable sensationclinic]] that accompanies the is paramount in [[satisfactionregard]] to the operation of a ''jouissance'' in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[biologicalstructures]] [[need]] such can be viewed as hunger.<ref>{{S4}} pstrategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance''. 125</ref>

=====Sexual ConnotationsNeurosis=====Soon after, the sexual connotations become more apparent; in 1957, [[Lacan]] uses the term to refer to the The [[enjoymentneurotic]] of a [[sexuality|sexualsubject]] does not [[objectwant]],<ref>{{Ec}} p.453<to sacrifice his/ref> and her castration to the [[pleasure]]s ''jouissance'' of masturbationthe Other (Écrits, 1977).<ref>{{S4}} p.241</ref>It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the subjection to language and in 1958 he makes explicit sense 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 [[jouissancebelief]]that it would be possible to attain a complete '' as orgasmjouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration.<ref>{{Ec}} pInstead of [[seeing]] the [[lack in the Other]] the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her. 727</ref>

=====''Jouissance'' and PleasurePerversion=====It is only in 1960 that The [[LacanPervert]] develops imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his classic opposition between /her ''jouissance''. The [[jouissanceperverse]]'' and subject makes him-/herself the [[pleasureinstrument]], an opposition which alludes to of the Other's ''jouissance'' through putting the [[HegelObject A|object a]]ian/in the place of the [[Kojève|Kojevianbarred]] distinction between Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the ''jouissance'Genuß'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 seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is to make the law [[enjoymentpresent]]) and ''List'' (. Lacan uses the term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to the father to fulfil the [[pleasurepaternal function]]).

=====Pleasure PrinciplePractice=====The [[pleasure principlepractice]] functions as 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 limit to way of speaking the [[truth]], that a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[enjoymentanalytic]]; it act is a cut, a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in 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, [[lawsingular]]way of being alone with one's own ''jouissance''. [[The Cut|The cut] which commands ] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[subjectalien]] . This produces a new stance in relation to "enjoy as little as possible''jouissance''."

At the same time, the =====Psychosis=====In [[subjectpsychosis]] constantly attempts , ''jouissance'' is reintroduced in the place of the Other. The ''jouissance'' involved 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 body as an offering to what is believed to be the command of the Other to be completed. The body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to transgress the prohibitions imposed on his [[enjoymentdrives]], to go "beyond the pleasure principle."

=====Transgression=====However, the result of transgressing the In [[pleasure principleSchreber]] we see the manifestation of the ways in which the body is not more [[pleasure]], but pain, since there emptied of ''jouissance''. Shreber describes a body invaded by a ''jouissance'' that is only a certain amount ascribed to the ''jouissance'' of the [[pleasure]] that Other, the [[subject]] can bear''jouissance'' of God.

Beyond this limitThe practice of psychoanalysis with the [[psychotic]] 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 [[pleasureaction]] becomes of the [[painDeath Drive|death drive]]lies, and what is aimed at is the modification of this "painful pleasure" is what position in regard to the ''jouissance'' in the structure. This involves an effort to link in a [[Lacanchain]] calls '', 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'' 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''.

<blockquote>"== 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 [[principle]]. In his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[self]]-harm and the strange [[compulsion]] in certain [[patients]] to 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 functions in [[terms]] of [[balance]], achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is destabilizing and tends towards [[excess]]. 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 beyond [[the symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[captured]] by it."<ref>{{S7}} pIf the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, then lightning is the raw substance of enjoyment that reflects the primordial [[character]] of [[human]] drives and obsessions.184</ref></blockquote>

=====Symptom=====The term 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 [[analysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[guilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [jouissance[particular]]mode of ''jouissance'' thus nicely expresses rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[superego]] – the paradoxical inherent [[satisfactionagency]] of guilt that the constantly recycles [[subjectfeelings]] derives from his of inadequacy and makes impossible [[symptomdemands]], or, to put it another way, of the suffering that he derives from his on subject – in terms of a primary [[satisfactioninjunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3).

=====Prohibition=====The prohibition of 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) is inherent . It emerges as a beyond in relation to this limit – as that which marks the [[symbolicdomain]] of forbidden and/or [[obscene]] 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 [[structureambition]] of the “[[languagepolitics]]of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the same time, which is why "it cannot be directly eliminated. ''jouissanceJouissance'' is forbidden something that always sticks to him who speaks, as suchthe subject."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref>

The 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 [[subjectsadistic]]'s entry into the manner. He seeks to punishexecute his victims not because of any [[legal]] transgression but because they do not conform to [[symbolicthe imaginary]] is conditional upon a certain initial renunciation of ''[[jouissanceunity]]'' in , the homeostatic ego-[[castration complexideal]], when the of a God-fearing [[subjectcommunity]] gives up his attempts to be the . Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[imaginarySuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[phallusacts]] beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for the its failures (something similar could be said about [[motherBatman]]and various other super(ego)-heroes).

<blockquote>"Castration means that There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[film]]. The first concerns the intrinsic character of ''jouissance'' musst be refused : the more Doe renounces earthly pleasures in pursuit of his cause, the more his enjoyment-in-renunciation is revealed. What Doe attempts to conceal is precisely the [[surplus enjoyment]] he takes in personal sacrifice and in stoically carrying out his [[duty]]. His enjoyment is not so that it can be reached on 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 tries to hide his enjoyment behind his perceived [[ethical]] obligation. Put in other terms, he expresses the classic [[ideological]] alibi: “I was not there as a being of enjoyment but as a functionary of duty.” 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). That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which the inverted ladder bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''l'échelle renverséePF'': 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 Law of desireOther’s will (the law/state/universal mission, etc."<ref>{{E}} p). 324<The [[essence]] of the matter is not so much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/ref></blockquote>excessive ''jouissance'' contained and nurtured within the banality itself.

The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[enjoymentmurder]] (her decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the sin of wrath: he “over-kills” Doe in an act of desperate rage. Prior to this, Doe confesses to a powerful [[Oedipus complexenvy]] (the of Mills and his [[incestmarried]] [[taboolife]]. By declaring (and demonstrating) is thusthis excess, paradoxically, the Doe [[prohibitionstages]] of something which is already impossible; its function is therefore his own execution and literally enjoys himself to sustain death – thus completing the [[neurotic]] [[illusion]] that [[enjoyment]] would be attainable if it were not forbiddencircle.

The very prohibiton creates From a [[Lacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[desireextimacy]] ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. For Lacan it refers to transgress “something strange to me, although it, and is at the heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[Jacques-Alain Miller]] affirms that the [[hatred]] of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment ([[Miller]] 2008). The [[jouissanceimage]]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 therefore fundamentally transgressive.<ref>{{S7}} chnot 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.15</ref>

=====Death Drive=====The In this context, we should read Doe’s [[death driveconfession]] as fake. His real “sin” is not envy but [[denial]]. 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 name given to that constant opposite of what Lacan means by an act. We see a similar type of [[desirelogic]] at play in the phenomenon of stalking. In their [[subjectover-identification]] to break through the with their [[pleasure principleobject of desire]] towards (often a celebrity), the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[Thinganxiety]] and a certain excess ''generated by their [[jouissanceobsessional]]''; thus ''economy), which they then try to resolve through an act of severance – [[jouissancesuicide]]''is ", an assault on the path towards death."<ref>{{S17}} ptarget of their [[obsession]], and so on. 17</ref>

Insofar as the [[driveIdeology]]s are attempts derives its potency from its ability to break through manipulate economies of enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[pleasure principlesocial]] 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 search fantasmatically translating this sense of ''lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[jouissanceimmigrant]]'', every is someone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[driveliving]] is a off “our” [[death drivestate]]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 (''JouissanceTN'' and Libido=====There are strong affinitites between : 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 [[Lacancapitalist]]'s concept 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]] [[jouissancevision]]'' and or with definitive objectives. Contemporary ideology consists rather in assigning demands for [[Freudchange]]'s concept to the realm of “impossibility” (as so much “ideological fantasy”). What ideology offers the subject is the fantasy of change (“[[libidofreedom]]of choice”, “opportunities”, etc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is clear from 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 [[Lacanfilms]]like ''s description of Bruce Almighty''where the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[jouissanceworld]]'' falls apart as a "bodily substanceresult – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[existence]]."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref>

In keeping with One of the central lessons of psychoanalysis is that while enjoyment is experienced as Real, it is ultimately an empty [[Freudspectre]]'s assertion that there is only one , a kind of anamorphic effect of symbolic circumscription. Against its numerous ideological manipulations, we [[libidoneed]]to find ways of accepting, and living with, which is this traumatic [[masculineknowledge]], . Extemporizing on an old [[LacanMarxist]] states that maxim, when it comes to ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]we have nothing to lose but the myth of loss itself.

<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