Changes

<!-- {| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:right;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa" | [[English]]: ''[[Jouissanceenjoyment]]'' is a |}-->[[Image:Kida_j.gif |right|frame|[[FrenchKid A In Alphabet Land - Jouissance]]]] term.

The [[French]] ==Translation=====Enjoyment===''[[jouissanceJouissance]]'' means approximately , and the corresponding verb, ''[[enjoymentjouir]]'', but it has a sexual connotation (irefer to an extreme [[pleasure]].e. 'orgasm') lacking in the It is not possible to translate this French [[Englishword]] word , ''jouissance'', precisely. Sometimes it is translated as '[[enjoyment]]', but enjoyment has a reference to pleasure, and ''jouissance'' is therefore left untranslated in most an enjoyment that always has a deadly reference, a paradoxical pleasure, reaching an almost intolerable level of [[Englishexcitation]] editions . Due to the specificity of the French term, it is usually [[Lacanleft]]untranslated.

<!-- There is no adequate [[translation]] in [[English]] of the word ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>It is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of [[Lacan]].</ref> "[[Enjoyment]]" does convey the [[sense]], contained in ''[[jouissance]]'', of ''enjoyment of rights'', of ''property'', etc., but it [[lacks]] the ''[[sexual]] connotations'' of the [[French]] word. (''Jouir'' is slang for "to come".) --><!-- But it also refers to those moments when too much pleasure is pain. --><!-- The term signifies the ecstatic or orgasmic [[enjoyment]] - and exquisite [[pain]] - of something or someone. In [[French]] noun means , ''[[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 both the sense 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 [[pleasureprinciple]] 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 sense in which one speaks result of transgressing the [[enjoymentpleasure principle]] is not more [[pleasure]] , but pain, since there is only a certain amount of [[rightpleasure]] that the [[subject]] can bear. Beyond this limit, [[pleasure]]s becomes [[pain]], and privilegesthis "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacan]] calls ''[[jouissance]]''. "''Jouissance'' is [[suffering]]."<ref>{{S7}} p. 184</ref> The term ''[[jouissance]]'' thus nicely expresses the paradoxical [[satisfaction]] that the [[subject]] derives from his [[symptom]], or, to put it [[another]] way, the suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfaction]].-->

<!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means to [[pleasure]]; [[pleasure]] is taken in the very fact of [[pain|suffering]] itself, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from [[pain]]. With ''[[jouissance]]'', on the other hand, [[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the [[pain]] itself, but the [[pleasure]] cannot be obtained without paying the price of [[pain|suffering]]. It is commonly treated thus a kind of ''deal'' in which "[[pleasure]] ''and'' [[pain]] are presented as a single packet."<ref>Seminar of 27 February 1963. J. Lacan, [[The Seminar]]. Book VII: The [[FrenchEthics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]] word and italicized accordingly.p. 189.</ref> -->

<!-- <blockquote>"Castration means that ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (''l'échelle renversée'') of the Law of desire."<ref>{{E}} p. 324</ref></blockquote> -->The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) is thus, paradoxically, the [[prohibition]] of something which is already [[Jouissanceimpossible]]'' ; its function is always used in therefore to sustain the [[neurotic]] [[illusion]] that [[enjoyment]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the singular [[desire]] to [[transgress]] it, and ''[[jouissance]]'' is always accompanied by the singular definite articletherefore fundamentally [[transgressive]].<ref>{{S7}} Ch.15</ref>

==Jacques Lacan Development=====Sigmund Freud========Death Drive=====The [[death drive]] is the [[name]] given to that constant [[desire]] in the [[subject]] to break through the [[pleasure principle]] towards the [[Thing]] and a certain [[surplus|excess]] ''[[jouissance]]''; thus ''Jouissance[[jouissance]]''==is "the path towards [[death]]".<ref>{{S17}} p. 17</ref>

In <i>Insofar as the [[Civilization and Its Discontentsdrive]]</i> (1930)s are attempts to break through the [[pleasure principle]] in [[search]] of ''[[jouissance]]'', every [[Freuddrive]] describes is a contradiction inherent in the concept of [[pleasuredeath drive]].

<blockquote>This endeavor [===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance'' is not a central preoccupation during the first part of striving for Lacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[happinesswork]]] has two sides... It aims, on in the one hand, at an [[absenceseminars]] of [[painSeminar I|1953-54]] and [[unpleasureSeminar II|1954-55]], andis referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], on the other, at reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and the experiencing of strong [[feelingmaster—slave]] [[dialectic]]s of , where the [[pleasureslave]]... The task of avoiding must facilitate the [[sufferingmaster]] pushes that of obtaining 's ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[pleasureobjects]] into for the backgroundmaster.<ref>1930, pp. 76-77</ref></blockquote>

The term was already present in =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[Freudorgasm]]emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', but with ''jouir'' [[Lacanmeaning]] developed it as a concept`to come'.

=====''The Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-60]], [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], Lacandeals 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]] argues , 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 two aspects [[subject]] flees, experiencing [[aggression]] at the very approach of an [[pleasureencounter]] were irreconcilablewith 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 [[pleasure principlestructure|structural]] blocks the path to account of ''jouissance''is first given in connection with the [[jouissancesubject]]''s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977).

<blockquote>Who 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 there , 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 name beginning. The [[myth]] of a primary [[pleasureexperience]] doesnof 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''t start to weaken when be. Once the first half-serious signifier is taken step toward 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 [[jouissanceerotogenic zones]]?<ref>1959-1960/1992, pthat to which the [[drive]] is articulated. 185</ref></blockquote>

<blockquote>"What is left over after this negativization (Even an —) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[animaloutside]]) has an economy: it acts so as to produce the very least possible [[body]] in [[speech]], and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]]itself, out-of-the-body ''jouissance''. That 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''s what we call of the [[pleasure principleOther]]."<ref>1969-70/1991, p. 88</ref></blockquote>

=====Symbolic Prohibition=====The [[prohibition]] of ''[[Jouissancejouissance]]'' is involved when (the [[pleasure principle]] yields not necessarily ) is inherent in the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]], which is why "''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[subject]]'s entry into the [[painsymbolic]] is conditional upon a certain initial [[renunciation]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' in the [[castration complex]], but when the [[subject]] gives up his attempts to unbe the [[pleasureimaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]].

==Jacques Lacan===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.

=====Drive=====''[[LacanPlus-de jouir]] begins '' 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 use the term [[jouissancecapture]] in his seminars something of 1953-4 where the lost ''jouissance''. This it refers fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''jouissance'' in the very [[Kojeverepetition]]'s version of this movement around the [[masterobject a]], which it produces as a ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this [[slavestructural]] approach, there is a [[dialecticstructuring]]function of lack itself, in which and the work loss of the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a [[slavecause]] provides , as seen in the function of [[objecta]]s for , the ''[[masterplus-de jouir]]'s [[enjoyment]]'.

The term=====Desire====='s '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 [[meaningnotes]] gradually shifts and acquires more sexual connotations from `the early 1960s onwards[[horror]] of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8).

The most sustained disucssion will be found ====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 seminar of 1969-70''[[Other jouissance]]''.

=====Phallic ''Jouissance'' versus Pleasure=====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 [[Lacanobject a]] develops an opposition between is the ''jouissance''that belongs to [[jouissancefantasy]]'' (', aiming at a piece of the [[enjoymentbody]]') , and ''creating an illusion of a union linking [[plaisirThe Subject|the subject]]with a specific object. The '' (jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance'[[pleasure]]'). This is linked to his ideas of the 1960s outlined above.

For Barthes 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 ''plaisirjouissance'' is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and identitythe ''jouissance'' effect, to the cultural enjoyment of identityone's own unconscious, to a homogenising movement of the egoeven if it is through pain (Lacan, 1990)."<ref>(1977 The [[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], pwith ''jouissance'' located in the [[jargon]] itself.9)<''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/ref>her unconscious.

As =====''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[Richard Middletonlalangue]] (1990'', palso described as babbling or mother tongue.261) puts 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 ''Plaisirlalangue'' results. The practice of psychoanalysis, thenwhich promotes free [[association]], from aims to cut through the operation [[apparent]] coherent, complete [[system]] of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the structures speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of signification through the unconscious, that which the subject knows himself or herself; blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' fractures these structuresin its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject."

==''JouissanceJouis-sens'' versus Pleasure==It evokes an eroticizes death drive and also refers to the [[super-ego]]'s [[demand]] to enjoy, a degree 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 intensity which takes a paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the subject ebyond very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the pleasure principle[[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance''.

Pleasure is described as an obstacle 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 that 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 always leads to a reduction topos in tension which the [[logical]] and to [[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 return to homeostatis]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, or a dynamically stable statethe 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 constrast takes 1973 [[Lacan]] 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 subject [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to that extreme point where 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 erotic borders upon death[[Other]].-->

<!-- ===Pleasure Principle=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> -->

The ==''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==Lacan's contribution to the [[pleasure principleclinic]] functions as a is paramount in [[limitregard]] to the operation of ''jouissance'' in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[enjoymentstructures]]can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance''.

=====Neurosis=====The [[pleasure principleneurotic]] is a [[lawsubject]] does not [[want]] which commands to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the subjection to language and its consequent loss of ''jouissance''. The neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have to sacrifice this castration, this piece of flesh, to the Other?' Here we encounter the neurotic [[subjectbelief]] that it would be possible to "enjoy as little as possibleattain a complete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration."<ref>Instead of [[seeing]] the [[Lacan, Jacqueslack in the Other]]the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her.</ref>

=====Perversion=====The [[prohibitionPervert]] on 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 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 fulfil the [[paternal function]].

=====Practice=====The [[symbolicpractice]] 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 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''. [[prohibitionThe Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[enjoymentalien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''.

It is inherent in the =====Psychosis=====In [[symbolic]] [[structurepsychosis]] , ''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 [[languagedrives]].

"''In [[JouissanceSchreber]]we see the manifestation of the ways in which the body is not emptied of ''jouissance''. Shreber describes a body invaded by a ''jouissance'' that is forbidden ascribed to him who speaksthe ''jouissance'' of the [[Other, as such."<ref>{{E}} pthe]] ''jouissance'' of God.319</ref>

The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[psychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is in the [[subjectposition]]of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', in order to gain entry to where the Uncontrolled [[symbolicaction]] of the [[orderDeath Drive|death drive]]lies, must renounce 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 [[castration complexchain]], the 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''.

== In other wordsthe 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 [[subjectpatients]] must give up any attempt 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 [[imaginarythe symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[phalluscaptured]] for 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 [[motherhuman]]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 [[prohibitionguilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [[enjoymentparticular]] mode of ''jouissance'' rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[Oedipus complexsuperego]] (– the inherent [[incestagency]] of guilt that constantly recycles [[taboofeelings]]) is the of inadequacy and makes impossible [[prohibitiondemands]] of something which is already the subject – in terms of a primary [[impossibleinjunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3).

Its function 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 sustain this limit – as that which marks the [[neuroticdomain]] 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 [[illusionambition]] that of the “[[enjoymentpolitics]] would of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the same time, it cannot be attainable if it were not forbiddendirectly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject.

===Prohibition David Fincher’s ''Seven'' is illustrative of the dynamics of ''jouissance''. Two detectives, Mills and Desire===The 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 [[prohibitionlegal]] gives rise transgression but because they do not conform to [[the imaginary]] [[desireunity]] to , the homeostatic ego-[[ideal]], of a God-fearing [[community]]. Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[SuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[acts]] beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[transgressBatman]] itand various other super(ego)-heroes).

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 [[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” ([[JouissanceArendt]]1963). That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which the bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''PF'' is fundamentally : 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/state/universal mission, etc.). The [[transgressiveessence]]of the matter is not so much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/excessive ''jouissance'' contained and nurtured within the banality itself.

==''Jouissance'' 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 [[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 [[envy]] of Mills and his [[married]] [[life]]. By declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[stages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the Law==circle.

This situates ‘‘From a [[Lacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[extimacy]]’’ in another field ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and simultaneously introduces intimacy. For Lacan it refers to “something strange to me, although it is at the question heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[religionJacques-Alain Miller]], moral precepts, and affirms that the [[lawhatred]].In <i>of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment ([[The Ethics of PsychoanalysisMiller]]</i>, 2008). The [[Lacanimage]] based ‘‘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 [[jouissancewitness]]’’ to is not the unbearable difference of the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is, the very [[lawfascination]]with (the projected sense of) the Other’s enjoyment draws the subject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses.

If ‘‘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 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 [[jouissancelogic]]’’ consists at play in breaking the barrier phenomenon of stalking. In their [[over-identification]] with their [[object of desire]] (often a celebrity), the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[pleasure principleanxiety]]generated by their [[obsessional]] economy), if it can only be attained which they then try to resolve through a an act of severance – [[transgressionsuicide]], then only a an assault on the target of their [[prohibitionobsession]] opens the path toward it, and so on.

===Beyond At the Pleasure Principle===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 [[films]] like ''Bruce Almighty'' 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” [[existence]].

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]]Real, which is [[masculine]]. [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]. <blockquote>"''[[Jouissance]]'', 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 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 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 find ways of the graph, ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Otheraccepting, 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 ‘‘traumatic [[jouissanceknowledge]]’’ 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 Extemporizing on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other, S(A̷).  The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, is feminine.  But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘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 comes to speak of it. The argument overlooks that fac tthat the historical St Teresa has a great deal to say about her experience. Whereas [[Freud]] discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, [[Lacan]] spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance.  If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body of Christ on Calvary to sustain it.  They partake of a vicarious ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God.  Commenting on Catholicism, [[Lacan]] wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113) As for the "[[other]]," he is already implicated in [[Freud]]'s analysis of [[sadism]]: when we inflict [[pain]] on others, "we [[enjoy]] by [[identifying]] with the [[suffering]] [[object]]."  From his reading of <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]] 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 the [[subject]] a way out 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 others. ‘‘[[Jouissance]]’’ as intrinsically self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent [[self]]'.                              ==Miscellaneous==Jouissance: A notion of profound significance in French postmodern theory.  As developed by Jacques Lacan, jouissance (delight, hope, bliss) refers to that enjoyment which is beyond; that excess or fulfillment which is beyond.  Its application to postmodern theory signals how, through discourse, we try and fail to convey our needs, hopes, despairs, longings, aspirations; in short, our desire.  However, words and phrases (whether spoken or written) are incomplete.  They do not ensure us of our jouissance. We struggle to ensure that our desire finds embodiment in discourse, through intersubjective communication and through the language of our behavior and life cycles.  We seek and search; sometimes in pro-social ways; sometimes in purely private ways; sometimes in ways which exploit and oppress others. See Desire, Discourse, four. A French word which derives from the verb jouir meaning to have pleasure in, to enjoy, to appreciate, to savour; with a secondary meaning, as in English, of having rights and pleasures in the use of, as in the phrases .she enjoyed good health., .she enjoyed a considerable fortune., and .all citizens enjoy the right of freedom of expression.. The derived noun, jouissance, has three current meanings in French: it signifies an extreme or deep pleasure; it signifies sexual orgasm; and in law, it signifies having the right to use something, as in the phrase avoir la jouissance de quelquechose. The word becomes relevant to cultural and literary studies through its usage by the psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan nothing to signify the condition or bliss, arrival, merging with the other, which can be associated with orgasm lose but also the obtention myth of any particularly desired object or condition - for the explorer, arriving at the North Pole perhapsloss itself. Jouissance, for Lacan, is not a purely pleasurable experience but arises through augmenting sensation to a point of discomfort (as in the sexual act, where the cry of passion is at times indistinguishable from the cry of pain), or as in running a marathon. Such experiences, as Freud recognised in his essay .Beyond the Pleasure Principle. (1920), seem to come close to death, and in Freud.s theory imply an urge to regress to the inorganic state that preceded life. For Lacan, on the other hand, jouissance seems to imply a desire to abolish the condition of lack (la manque) to which we are condemned by our acceptance of the signs of the symbolic order in place of the Real.== [[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}}