Changes

==Translation=====Enjoyment===''[[Jouissance]]'' , and the corresponding verb, ''[[jouir]]'', refer to an extreme [[pleasure]]. It is not possible to translate this French [[word]], ''jouissance'', precisely. Sometimes it is translated as '[[enjoyment]]', but enjoyment has a reference to pleasure, and ''jouissance'' is an enjoyment that always has a deadly reference, a paradoxical pleasure, reaching an almost intolerable level of [[excitation]]. Due to the specificity of the Frenchterm, it is usually [[left]] termuntranslated.

The French ‘’jouissance’’ <!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means basically ‘’enjoyment’’to [[pleasure]]; [[pleasure]] is taken in the very fact of [[pain|suffering]] itself, but so that it has a sexual connotation (ibecomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from [[pain]].e. ‘orgasm’) lacking With ''[[jouissance]]'', on the other hand, [[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the English word ‘enjoyment’[[pain]] itself, and but the [[pleasure]] cannot be obtained without paying the price of [[pain|suffering]]. It is therefore left untranslated thus a kind of ''deal'' in most English editions which "[[pleasure]] ''and'' [[pain]] 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========Death Drive=====The [[Frenchdeath drive]] noun means 'is the [[name]] given to that constant [[enjoymentdesire]]' in both the sense of [[subject]] to break through the [[pleasureprinciple]] towards the [[Thing]] and in the sense in which one speaks of the a certain [[surplus|excess]] ''[[jouissance]]''; thus ''[[enjoymentjouissance]] of '' is "the path towards [[rightdeath]]s and privileges".<ref>{{S17}} p.17</ref>

It can also mean orgasm, and Insofar as the [[drive]]s are attempts to break through the cognate verb [[pleasure principle]] in [[search]] of ''jouir[[jouissance]]'' , every [[drive]] is commonly used to mean 'to come'a [[death drive]].

The use ===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance'' is not a central preoccupation during the first part of Lacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[work]] in the noun in [[Englishseminars]] has been promoted by translations of [[LacanSeminar I|1953-54]] and [[Seminar II|1954-55]] , and othersis referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', but it 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is commonly treated as a French word not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and italicized accordinglythe [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[master]]'s ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[objects]] for the master.

=====''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 always used not the same as his use of [[the Real]] in the singular 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 always accompanied by 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 singular definite article[[paradox]] of ''jouissance''.

==Jacques Lacan ==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'jouissance'==' is first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977).

In <i>The [[Civilization 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 Its Discontentsare a product of language. This is a reference to [[castration]], [[castration]]</i> (1930)of ''jouissance'', a [[lack]] of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of the [[Freudsubject]] describes . This loss of ''jouissance'' is a contradiction inherent loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible with the [[Other]], but which is, in fact, lost from the concept 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 [[pleasuredrive]]is articulated.

<blockquote>This endeavor [What is left over after this negativization (—) of striving for ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[happiness]outside]] has two sides... It aims, on the one hand, at an [[absencebody]] of in [[painspeech]] , and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[unpleasurespeech]]itself, and, on out-of-the other-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the experiencing level of strong the [[feelinglost object]], [[object a]s of ], there is a plus (+), a little [[pleasurecompensation]]... The task of avoiding in the [[sufferingform]] pushes that of obtaining what is allowed of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance'' of the [[pleasureOther]] into the background.<ref>1930, pp. 76-77</ref></blockquote>

=====Symbolic Prohibition=====The term was already present [[prohibition]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' (the [[pleasure principle]]) is inherent in the [[Freudsymbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]], but which is why "''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[Lacansubject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic] developed it as ] is conditional upon a conceptcertain 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''. Lacanrefers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the [[impossibility]] argues in the very [[structure]] itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the two aspects essential of the [[pleasurestructure]] were irreconcilable. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible.

=====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[pleasure principlelack]] 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]] blocks ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the path to 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]].

<blockquote>Who =====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 who is a ''jouissance'' in the name very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[pleasureobject a]] doesn, which it produces as a 't start to weaken when the first half'[[plus-serious de jouir]]''. In this [[structural]] approach, there is taken step toward 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]]?<ref>1959, the ''[[plus-1960/1992, pde jouir]]''. 185</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"(Even an =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[animaldesire]]) has an economy: it acts so as to produce brings the very least possible [[jouissancesubject]]closer to a destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. That This destructive ''jouissance''s what we call has a [[Freudian]] illustration in the account of the [[case]] of the [[pleasure principleRatman]], of whom Freud [[notes]] `the [[horror]]of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E."<ref>196910, pp. 167-70/1991, p8). 88</ref></blockquote>

''====1970s====[[Seminar XX]], [[JouissanceEncore]], given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan'' is involved when the s [[pleasure principleideas]] yields not necessarily to on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[painfeminine jouissance]]'', but to unalso known as the ''[[pleasureOther jouissance]]''.

==Jacques 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.

The erotics embodied in [[Lacanobject a]] begins to use is the term [[''jouissance]] in his seminars of 1953-4 where it refers '' that belongs to [[Kojevefantasy]]'s version , aiming at a piece of the [[master]]-[[slave]] [[dialecticbody]], in which the work and creating an illusion of the a union linking [[slaveThe Subject|the subject]] provides [[with a specific object]]s for . The ''jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance''. This is linked to his ideas of the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]]1960s outlined above.

The term=====Other 's 'Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[meaninguniversal]] gradually shifts 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 acquires more sexual connotations from is not supported by the early 1960s onwardsobject and fantasy.

The most sustained disucssion will be found Increasingly, in his works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the seminar fact that language, in addition to having a signifier effect, also has an effect of 1969''jouissance''. In [[Television]], he equivocates between ''jouissance'', ''jouis-70sens'' (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.

==''JouissanceJouis-sens'' versus Pleasure==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), Lacanelaborates the [[third]] develops an opposition between ''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 [[enjoymentthe Imaginary]]; phallic ') and 'jouissance''is situated within the common [[space]] of [[plaisirthe Symbolic]]and the Real; the ''jouissance' ('of meaning, jouis-sens, is located at the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is the [[pleasureobject a]]')that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

For Barthes [[Lacan]] states that "''plaisir[[jouissance]]'' , insofar as it is sexual, is[[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."a pleasure<ref>{{S20}} p...linked to cultural enjoyment and identity14</ref> However, to the cultural enjoyment of identityhe argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', to a homogenising movement of "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the ego.phallus,"<ref>(1977, {{S20}} p.9)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]].

As <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[Richard Middletonseminars]] (1990of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, p.261) puts it, "''Plaisir'' results, then, from usually in the operation context of the structures [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of signification through which the subject knows himself or herself; [[master]] and the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'' fractures these structures).<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p."269</ref> -->

==''Jouissance'' versus Pleasureand the Clinic==It evokes an eroticizes death drive and a degree of intensity which takes Lacan's contribution to the subject ebyond [[clinic]] is paramount in [[regard]] to the pleasure principleoperation of ''jouissance'' in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[structures]] can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance''.

Pleasure =====Neurosis=====The [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[want]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is described as an obstacle to jouissance in imaginary castration that is always leads clung to a reduction in tension 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 a return the Other?' Here we encounter the neurotic [[belief]] that it would be possible to homeostatis, or attain a dynamically stable statecomplete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[seeing]] the [[lack in the Other]] the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her.

Jouissance =====Perversion=====The [[Pervert]] imagines him-/herself to be the Other in constrast takes 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 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 seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is to make the law [[present]]. Lacan uses the term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to the father to that extreme point where fulfil the erotic borders upon death[[paternal function]].

===Pleasure Principle==Psychosis=====In [[psychosis]], ''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 the [[drives]].

The In [[pleasure principleSchreber]] functions as we see the manifestation of the ways in which the body is not emptied of ''jouissance''. Shreber describes a [[limit]] body invaded by a ''jouissance'' that is ascribed to the ''jouissance'' of the [[enjoymentOther, the]]''jouissance'' of God.

The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[pleasure principlepsychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is a in the [[position]] of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', where the Uncontrolled [[lawaction]] which commands of the [[subjectDeath Drive|death drive]] lies, what is aimed at is the modification of this position in regard to "enjoy as little as possiblethe ''jouissance'' in the structure."<ref>This involves an effort to link in a [[Lacanchain]], Jacquesthe isolated, persecuting [[signifiers]]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''.</ref>

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 [[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 [[prohibitionthem]] on . 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. If 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 [[jouissancehuman]]'' drives and obsessions.

The According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[symbolicgoal]] 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 [[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 [[prohibitiondemands]] of the subject – in terms of a primary [[enjoymentinjunction]]: 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'' is something that can be signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the pleasure principle (''SXVII'': 46). It is inherent 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, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject.

"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 [Jouissance[legal]]'' is forbidden transgression but because they do not conform to him [[the imaginary]] [[unity]], the homeostatic ego-[[ideal]], of a God-fearing [[community]]. Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[SuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who speaks[[acts]] beyond the law on behalf of the law, as such."<ref>{{E}} pfi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[Batman]] and various other super(ego)-heroes).319</ref>

There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[film]]. 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 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 much an immediate [[gratification]] in [[subjectviolence]], but rather an obscene satisfaction in order to gain entry 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 [[symbolicJews]] as a “banality of evil” ([[orderArendt]]1963). That is to say, must renounce 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 [[jouissancetorture]]'' (and humiliations in the guise of a [[castration complexKantianism|Kantian]]sense of impersonal duty, as an instrument of the Other’s will (the law/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.

In other wordsThe second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[murder]] (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 [[subjectenvy]] must give up any attempt to be the of Mills and his [[imaginarymarried]] [[phalluslife]] for the . By declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[motherstages]]his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle.

The From a [[symbolicLacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[prohibitionextimacy]] ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. For Lacan it refers to “something strange to me, although it is at the heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[enjoymentJacques-Alain Miller]] in affirms that the [[Oedipus complexhatred]] of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment (the [[incestMiller]] 2008). The [[tabooimage]]) 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 [[prohibitionwitness]] to is not the unbearable difference of something which the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is already , the very [[impossiblefascination]]with (the projected sense of) the Other’s enjoyment draws the subject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses.

Its function In this context, we should read Doe’s [[confession]] 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 sustain 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 [[neuroticlogic]] at play in the phenomenon of stalking. In their [[illusionover-identification]] that with their [[object of desire]] (often a celebrity), the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[anxiety]] generated by their [[obsessional]] economy), which they then try to resolve through an act of severance – [[suicide]], an assault on the target of their [[enjoymentobsession]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden, and so on.

===Prohibition and Desire===The [[prohibitionIdeology]] gives rise derives its potency from its ability to manipulate economies of enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[desiresocial]] to 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” [[transgressstate]] itbenefits 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'': 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 [[fantasmatic]] abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear]] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[Jouissancefilms]]like ''Bruce Almighty'' is fundamentally where the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[world]] falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[transgressiveexistence]].

==''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 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]]'', insofar experienced as it is [[sexual]]Real, 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 ultimately an empty [[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 of their [[jouissance]]."</blockquote>  ==''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]], 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 find ways of prohibition."<ref>Lacanaccepting, 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 ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ 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 ‘‘traumatic [[jouissanceknowledge]]’’ 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]].  It is a popular term in [[postmodernism]] and [[queer theory]] used by [[Roland Barthes]], [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Judith Butler]], and othersloss itself. ‘‘[[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}}