Changes

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

===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 French term, it is usually [[left ]] 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".) -->

===Pleasure===<!-- Lacan develops this opposition in 1960, in the context of his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. -->

[[Lacan]] makes an important [[distinction ]] between ''[[jouissance]]'' and ''[[plaisir]]'' ([[pleasure]]). [[Pleasure]] obeys the [[law]] of [[homeostasis ]] that [[Freud]] evokes in ''[[Beyond the Pleasure Principle]]'', whereby, through [[discharge]], the [[psyche]] seeks the lowest possible level of tension. The [[pleasure principle]] thus functions as a [[limit ]] imposed on [[enjoyment]]; it commands the [[subject]] to "enjoy as little as possible." ''[[Jouissance]]'' transgresses this [[law]] and, in that respect, it is ''beyond'' the [[pleasure principle]].

<!-- However, the result of transgressing the [[pleasure principle]] is not more [[pleasure]], but pain, since there is only a certain amount of [[pleasure]] that the [[subject]] can bear. Beyond this limit, [[pleasure]] becomes [[pain]], and this "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacan]] calls ''[[jouissance]]''. "''Jouissance'' is [[suffering]]."<ref>{{S7}} p. 184</ref> The term ''[[jouissance]]'' thus nicely expresses the paradoxical [[satisfaction]] that the [[subject]] derives from his [[symptom]], or, to put it [[another ]] way, the suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfaction]]. -->

 <!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference ]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means to [[pleasure]]; [[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 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 [[Ethics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. p. 189.</ref> --> ==Symbolic Prohibition==The [[prohibition]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' (the [[pleasure principle]]) is inherent in the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]], which is why "''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] is conditional upon a certain initial [[renunciation]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' in the [[castration complex]], when the [[subject]] gives up his attempts to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]].

The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) is thus, paradoxically, the [[prohibition]] of something which is already [[impossible]]; its function is therefore to sustain the [[neurotic]] [[illusion]] that [[enjoyment]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the [[desire]] to [[transgress ]] it, and ''[[jouissance]]'' is therefore fundamentally [[transgressive]].<ref>{{S7}} Ch. 15</ref>

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

==A mapping of jouissance in =Jacques Lacan's work=======1953 until - 1960====

Lacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[work ]] in the [[seminars]] of [[Seminar I|1953-54]] and [[Seminar II|1954-55]], and is referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and the [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[master]]'s ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[objects ]] for the master.

From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm ]] emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[meaning ]] `to come'.

In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-60]], [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], Lacan deals for the first [[time ]] with the [[Real]] and ''jouissance''. Although the [[Real]] of the 1960s is not the same as his use of [[the Real ]] in the 1980s, the first [[concepts ]] emerge in this seminar. Here ''jouissance'' is considered in its function of [[evil]], that which is ascribed to a neighbour, but which dwells in the most intimate part of the [[subject]], [[extimate|intimate]] and [[alienated]] at the same time, as it is that from which the [[subject]] flees, experiencing [[aggression]] at the very approach of an [[encounter ]] with his/her own ''jouissance''. The chapters in this seminar address such concepts as the ''jouissance'' of [[transgression]] and the [[paradox ]] of ''jouissance''. ====1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====It is in the [[text]] '[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of ''jouissance'' is first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977). The [[speaking]] [[being]] has to use the [[signifier]], which comes from the [[Other]]. This has an effect of cutting any [[notion]] of a [[complete]] ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. The [[signifier]] forbids the ''jouissance'' of the [[body]] of the Other. Complete ''jouissance'' is thus [[forbidden]] to the one who speaks, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a [[loss]] of ''jouissance'' which is a [[necessity]] for those who use [[language]] and are a product of language. This is a reference to [[castration]], [[castration]] of ''jouissance'', a [[lack]] of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of the [[subject]]. This loss of ''jouissance'' is a loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible with the [[Other]], but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The [[myth]] of a primary [[experience]] of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the [[signifier]] is the [[repression]] of [[the thing]] where we suppose [[full]] ''jouissance'' to be. Once the signifier is there, ''jouissance'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''jouissance'' from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via the signifying operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated. What is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance''occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[outside]] the [[body]] in [[speech]], and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]] itself, out-of-the-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the level of the [[lost object]], [[object a]], there is a plus (+), a little [[compensation]] in the [[form]] of what is allowed of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. =====Symbolic Prohibition=====The [[prohibition]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' (the [[pleasure principle]]) is inherent in the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]], which is why "''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] is conditional upon a certain initial [[renunciation]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' in the [[castration complex]], when the [[subject]] gives up his attempts to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]].

===1960s==Law and Prohibition=====It is in The [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the text '[[The subversion of father]] prohibiting access to the subject and [[mother]], that is, the dialectic ofdesire in the Freudian unconscious[[law]]prohibiting ''jouissance'' that . Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure|structural]] account itself of such a ''jouissance'' , that is first given , a lack of ''jouissance'' in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into essential of the [[symbolicstructure]] (Lacan. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, 1977)already impossible.

=====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[speakinglack]] in the [[beingsignifying order]] has to use the , a [[signifierlack]], which comes from in the [[Other]]. This has an effect of cutting any notion of , which designates a complete jouissance lack 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 iscreates a [[place]] where lost objects come, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss of standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance which is '' and creating a necessity for those who use language link between the signifying [[order]] and are a product of language''jouissance''. This What is a reference to castration, castration of jouissance, a lack allowed of ''jouissance that '' is constituent of in the subject[[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]. This loss of Here ''jouissance '' is a loss of embodied in the jouissance which lost [[object]]. Although this object is presumed to lost and cannot be possible with the Otherappropriated, but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The myth of it does restore a primary experience certain coefficient of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss ''jouissance''. This can be seen in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. [[The primary effect of Subject|the signifier is the repression of the thing where we suppose full subject]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance to be. Once the signifier is there'', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', jouissance is not there so completely. And it is only because of in the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure push of jouissance from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating[[drive]]. What cannot be evacuated via the signifying operation

The ====1970s====[[speakingSeminar XX]] , [[being]] has to use the [[signifierEncore]], which comes from the given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's [[Otherideas]]. This has an effect of cutting any notion of a complete on ''jouissance'' of the Other. The signifier forbids the ''jouissance'' of the body of the Other. Complete ''jouissance'' is thus forbidden to the one who speaksalready outlined, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss of ''jouissance'' which is a necessity for those who use language and are a product of language. This is a reference to castration, castration of ''jouissance'', a lack of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of the subject. This loss of ''jouissance'' is a loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible goes further with the Other, but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The myth of a primary experience of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the signifier is the repression another aspect of the thing where we suppose full ''jouissance'' to be. Once the signifier is there, ''[[feminine jouissance]]'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''jouissance'' from also known as 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 ''[[Other jouissance]]'' around the erotogenic zones, that to which the drive is articulated.

What The [[speaking being]] is left over after this negativization (—) of alone with his/her ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, as it is not possible to share the ''jouissance'' is redistributed outside of the body Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in speechearlier seminars, and [[there is thus a ''jouissance'' of speech itselfno sexual rapport]], out-of-comes to the-body foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [[female]] coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. On another level, at the level of the lost object, object a, there It is a plus (+), a little compensation difference in the form of what is allowed relation of the speaking being to ''jouissance''which determines his being man or woman, a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance'' of the Othernot [[anatomical]] difference.

=====Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Sexual ''jouissance'' is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' that has to [[pass]] through [[speech]]. The Freudian Oedipus refers to ''jouissance'' of man is produced by the father prohibiting access to [[structure]] of the mother[[signifier]], that and is, the law prohibiting known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' forbidden to is the one who speaks, but [[structure]] of the impossibility in the very structure itself [[signifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of such man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[lacking]] a part of ''jouissance'', that which is required in order to use [[speech]]. All of man issubjected to the [[signifier]]. Man cannot relate directly with the [[Other]]. His partner is thus not the Other sex but an object, a lack piece of the body. Man looks for a little surplus ''jouissance'' in the essential of the structure. Thus, what is prohibited is, in factthat linked with [[Object A|object a]], already impossiblewhich has phallic [[value]].

The lack erotics embodied in the signifying order, [[object a lack in ]] is the Other, which designates a lack of ''jouissance''that belongs to [[fantasy]], creates aiming at a place where lost objects comepiece of the [[body]], standing in for the missing ''jouissance'' and creating an illusion of a link between union linking [[The Subject|the signifying order and subject]] with a specific object. The ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' man is in the surplus thus phallic ''jouissance'' connected together with object a. Here surplus ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost object. Although this object This is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in the subject repeating him-/herself with linked to his/her surplus ''jouissance'', plus-de jouir, in the push ideas of the drive1960s outlined above.

=====Other ''Plus-de jouirJouissance'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more =====[[Woman]] is [[phallic]] ''jouirjouissance'' and no with something more , a supplementary ''jouirjouissance''. The drive turning around this lost object attempts to capture something There is no [[universal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the lost ''jouissance''signifier. This it fails to doHowever, there not all of woman is always a loss in subjected to the signifier. Woman thus has the circuit possibility of the drive, but there is experience of a ''jouissance'' in the very repetition of this movement around the object a, which it produces as a plus-de jouiris not altogether phallic. In this structural approach, there is a structuring function of lack itself, and the loss of the primordial object of This Other ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a cause, as seen in the function another kind of object asatisfaction, has to do with the plus-de jouirrelation to the Other and is not supported by the object and fantasy.

''Jouissance'' is denotedIncreasingly, in these yearshis works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the fact that language, in its dialectic with desire. Unrecognised desire brings the subject closer addition to having a destructive signifier effect, also has an effect of ''jouissance''. In [[Television]], which is often followed by retreat. This destructive he equivocates between ''jouissance'' has a Freudian illustration , ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and the account of the case of the Ratman''jouissance'' effect, of whom Freud notes `the horror of a pleasure enjoyment of which he was unawareone' s own unconscious, even if it is through pain (FreudLacan, S1990).E. 10 The [[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], ppwith ''jouissance'' located in the [[jargon]] itself. 167-8)''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/her unconscious.

===1970s===Seminar XX, Encore, given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's ideas on 'Lalangue'jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect =====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'', is ''[[feminine jouissancelalangue]]'', also known described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of ''lalangue''. Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' to show that language always intervenes in the form of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious is a `[[knowing]] how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the [[apparent]] coherent, complete [[Other jouissancesystem]]of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of the unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue''is unique to a subject.

The speaking being is alone with his/her ''jouissanceJouis-sens'' as it is not possible also refers to share the [[super-ego]]''jouissance'' of s [[demand]] to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that the Othersubject will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, there is no sexual rapport, comes to [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] promotes the foreground in Encore as male and female coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementarythat it simultaneously prohibits. It The Freudian reference to the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is one of a difference in paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the relation very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the speaking being to super-ego is therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance'' which determines his being man or woman, not anatomical difference.

Sexual In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] ''jouissance'' is specified as an impasse. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual , jouis-sens, the ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of phallic meaning, the ''jouissance'' that has of the unconscious, in reference to pass through speechits locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. The He locates the [[three]] ''jouissance'' s in relation to the intersections of man the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of the [[Real]], the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is produced by a topos in which the structure [[logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the signifierthree ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', and that is known as phallic the ''jouissance''. The structure of the body, is located at the intersection of the Real and [[the Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the structure common [[space]] of [[the signifier. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to castration Symbolic]] and lacking a part of the Real; the ''jouissance''of meaning, jouis-sens, that which is required in order to use speech. All located at the intersection of man is subjected to the signifierImaginary and the Symbolic. Man cannot relate directly with the Other. His partner It is thus not the Other sex but an [[object, a piece of ]] that holds the body. Man looks for a little surplus ''jouissance''central, that linked with object airreducible place between the Real, which has phallic valuethe Symbolic and the Imaginary.

The erotics embodied in object =====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 the [[masculine]], [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>'' Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that belongs it does not relate to fantasythe Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', aiming at a piece of "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the bodyphallus, and creating an illusion "<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of a union linking the subject with a specific object[[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> The In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ' of man is thus '' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ]], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]''. This is linked to his ideas of the 1960s outlined above[[Other]]. -->

[[WomanLacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', insofar as it is sexual, is [[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'' with something more, a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. There 58</ref> which is no universal definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man"beyond the phallus, through the signifier"<ref>{{S20}} p. However, not all 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of woman is subjected to the signifier[[Other]]. Woman thus has the possibility In order to differentiate between these two forms of the experience of a ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ'' which is not altogether ' designates [[phallus|phallic. This Other ''jouissance'']], another kind whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of satisfaction, has to do with the relation to the [[Other and is not supported by the object and fantasy]].

Increasingly, in his works <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[seminars]] of the 1970s, 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan points to ]] uses the fact that languageterm occasionally, usually in addition to having a signifier effect, also has an effect the context of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of ''jouissance''. In the [[Televisionmaster]], he equivocates between ''jouissance'', jouis-sens (enjoyment in sense) and the ''jouissance'' effect, [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the enjoyment of one[[master]]'s own unconscious, even if it is through pain [[enjoyment]] (Lacan, 1990). The unconscious is emphasized as enjoyment playing through substitution, with ''[[jouissance]]'' located in the jargon itself).<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p. ''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject enjoys his269</her unconscious. ref> -->

The motor of the unconscious ==''jouissanceJouissance'' is ''lalangue'', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of ''lalangue''. and the Clinic==Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' s contribution to show that language always intervenes in the form of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious [[clinic]] is a `knowing how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free association, aims to cut through the apparent coherent, complete system of language paramount in order [[regard]] to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' operation of the unconscious, that which blurts out when least ex ected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very playneurosis, perversion and psychosis. Every The three [[structures]] can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''lalanguejouissance'' is unique to a subject.

=====Neurosis=====The [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[want]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''Jouis-sensjouissance'' also refers of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to the super-ego's demand have to enjoyacknowledge Symbolic castration, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that the subject will never be able subjection to satisfy. The super-ego promotes the language and its consequent loss of ''jouissance'' that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have to the super-ego is one sacrifice this castration, this piece of a paradoxical functioningflesh, secretly feeding on to the Other?' Here we encounter the very satisfaction neurotic [[belief]] that it commands would be possible to be renounced. The severity of the super-ego is therefore attain a vehicle for complete ''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.

In '=====Perversion=====The [[La TroisièmePervert]]', presented imagines him-/herself to be the Other in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the third order to ensure his/her ''jouissance'', jouis. The [[perverse]] subject makes him-sens, /herself the ''jouissance'' [[instrument]] of meaning, the Other''jouissance'' of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the Borromean knot. He locates the three s ''jouissance''s in relation to through putting the intersections of the three circles of the knot, the circles of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. The Borromean knot is [[Object A|object a topos ]] in which the logical and clinical dimensions place of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: [[barred]] Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'', that is comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the ''jouissance'' of the bodya phallus, is located at the intersection of the Real and the Imaginary; phallic even though he/she doesn''jouissance'' is situated within the common space of the Symbolic and the Real; t know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'' , one of meaning, jouis-sens, his/her aims is located at to make the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symboliclaw [[present]]. It is Lacan uses the object a that holds term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the central, irreducible place between way in which the Real, pervert appeals to the Symbolic and father to fulfil the Imaginary[[paternal function]].

===Phallic and Feminine==Practice=====<!-- There are strong affinitites between The [[Lacanpractice]]'s concept of ''[[jouissancepsychoanalysis]]'' examines the different ways and [[Freud]]'s concept of means the [[libido]], as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of subject uses to produce ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "bodily substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s assertion that there It is only one by means of the bien [[libidodire]], which is the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[masculinespeak]]in a new way, a way of speaking the [[Lacantruth]] states , that a different distribution of ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as suchmay be achieved."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 The [[Lacananalytic]] admits that there act is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]''cut, a "supplementary break with a certain mode of ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} pfixed in the fantasy. 58</ref> which is "beyond The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69<subject having to endure being alone with his/ref> a her own ''jouissance'' of and to encounter its operation in the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffabledrive, a unique, for [[womensingular]] experience it but know nothing about it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to differentiate between these two forms way of being alone with one's own ''[[jouissance]]'', . [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebraThe Cut|algebraicThe cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[symbolalien]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic . This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. -->

=====Psychosis=====In [[Lacanpsychosis]] states that ", ''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, insofar like cutting off a piece of the body as it an offering to what is believed to be the command of the Other to be completed. The body is sexualnot emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of the signifier and castration, is which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to the [[drives]]. In [[phallus|phallicSchreber]], we see the manifestation of the ways in which means the body is not emptied of ''jouissance''. Shreber describes a body invaded by a ''jouissance'' that it does not relate is ascribed to the ''jouissance'' of the [[Other as such, the]] ''jouissance'' of God."<ref>{{S20}} p The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[psychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. 14</ref> However, he argues Given that there the psychotic is a specifically in the [[feminineposition]] of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', where the Uncontrolled [[action]] of the [[jouissanceDeath Drive|death drive]]lies, what is aimed at is the modification of this position in regard to the ''jouissance''in the structure. This involves an effort to link in a [[chain]], the isolated, persecuting [[signifiers]] in order to initiate a "supplementary place for the subject outside the ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} pof the Other. 58</ref> which is "beyond Psychoanalysis attempts to modify the effect of the Other's ''jouissance'' in the phallusbody,"<ref>{{S20}} paccording to the shift of the subject in the structure. 69</ref> The psychotic does not escape the structure, but there can be a modification of unlimited, deadly ''jouissance'' . == 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 [[Otherprinciple]]. In order to differentiate between these two forms his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of ''[[jouissanceself]]'', -harm and the strange [[Lacancompulsion]] introduces different in certain [[algebra|algebraicpatients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[symboltraumatic]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic 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, whereas 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 [[human]] drives and obsessions. According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[goal]] of psychoanalysis is not so much to bring to light the “guilt” of the [[analysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'JA': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[guilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [[particular]] mode of '' designates the jouissance''rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[jouissancesuperego]] – the inherent [[agency]] of guilt that constantly recycles [[feelings]] of inadequacy and makes impossible [[demands]]'' of the subject – in terms of a primary [[Otherinjunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3).

<!Although ''jouissance'' is viewed as a (non-- ==Master and Slave==In discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''Jouissance'' is something that can be signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the pleasure principle (''SXVII'': 46). It emerges as a beyond in relation to this limit – as that which marks the [[seminarsdomain]] of 1953-4 forbidden and 1954-5 /or [[Lacanobscene]] uses the term occasionallyexcesses. To approach this from a different angle, usually in ''jouissance'' is produced as the context 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 [[Hegel]]ian [[dialecticambition]] of the “[[masterpolitics]] of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is forced to work to provide objects for the [[master]]same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. 's [[enjoyment]] ('Jouissance'[[jouissance]]'')is something that always sticks to the subject.<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p. 269</ref> -->

==There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[film]]. The first concerns the intrinsic character of ''Jouissancejouissance'' and : the more Doe renounces earthly pleasures in pursuit of his cause, the clinic==Lacan's contribution more his enjoyment-in-renunciation is revealed. What Doe attempts to conceal is precisely the clinic [[surplus enjoyment]] he takes in personal sacrifice and in stoically carrying out his [[duty]]. His enjoyment is paramount not so much an immediate [[gratification]] in regard [[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 operation classic [[ideological]] alibi: “I was not there as a being of enjoyment but as a functionary of duty.” This also reflects Žižek’s point against [[Hannah Arendt]] and her conclusion regarding the routinized [[nature]] of the extermination of [[Jews]] as a “banality of evil” ([[Arendt]] 1963). That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which the bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''jouissancePF'' : 55); a surplus satisfaction gained from carrying out the daily [[torture]] and humiliations in neurosisthe guise of a [[Kantianism|Kantian]] sense of impersonal duty, as an instrument of the Other’s will (the law/state/universal mission, perversion and psychosisetc.). The three structures can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with [[essence]] of the matter is not so much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/excessive ''jouissance''contained and nurtured within the banality itself.

The second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[neuroticmurder]] [[subject]] does not want to sacrifice his/(her castration to decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the ''jouissance'' sin of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is wrath: he “over-kills” Doe in an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the subjection to language and its consequent loss act of ''jouissance''desperate rage. The neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have Prior to sacrifice this castration, this piece of flesh, Doe confesses to the Other?' Here we encounter the neurotic belief that it would be possible to attain a complete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden powerful [[envy]] of Mills and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration[[married]] [[life]]. Instead of seeing the lack in By declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[stages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the Other the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/hercircle.

The From a [[PervertLacanian]] imagines him-/herself to be perspective, what this reflects is the Other way in order to ensure his/her which ''jouissance''functions in terms of its “[[extimacy]]”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. The perverse subject makes him-/herself For Lacan it refers to “something strange to me, although it is at the instrument heart of the Otherme” ('s 'SVII'jouissance'' through putting : 71). It is along these lines that [[Jacques-Alain Miller]] affirms that the [[hatred]] of the object Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a in hatred of our own enjoyment ([[Miller]] 2008). The [[image]] of the place of Other’s enjoyment is so compelling precisely because it symbolizes the barred OtherLacanian “in us more than ourselves”. In this sense, negating the Other as subjectis always someone who gives body to the very excess of enjoyment that in our innermost being denies us homeostasis. His/her What ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order bears [[witness]] to procure is not the ''jouissance'' unbearable difference of a phallusthe Other but, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although on the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance''contrary, one of his/her aims an unbearable sameness – that is to make the law present. Lacan uses the term père-version, to demonstrate the way in which very [[fascination]] with (the pervert appeals to projected sense of) the father to fulfil Other’s enjoyment draws the paternal functionsubject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses.

The In this context, we should read Doe’s [[practiceconfession]] of as fake. His real “sin” is not envy but [[psychoanalysisdenial]] examines the different ways and means the subject uses to produce ''jouissance''. It What he denies is that his entire [[economy]] of righteous retribution is driven by means of the bien dire, the well-spoken, where the subject comes to speak in a new way, enjoyment. His confession functions precisely as a way of speaking the truth, that sustaining this economy at a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achievedsafe distance from any direct encounter with his traumatic excesses. The analytic act By sacrificing himself, he is a cut, a break able to avoid any confrontation with a certain his mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in private enjoyment – it is the fantasyopposite of what Lacan means by an act. The consequent crossing We see a similar type of [[logic]] at play in the fantasy leaves the subject having to endure being alone phenomenon of stalking. In their [[over-identification]] with his/her own ''jouissance'' and to encounter its operation in the drive, their [[object of desire]] (often a uniquecelebrity), singular way of being alone the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with one's own ''jouissance''. The cut of their excesses (the analytic [[anxiety]] generated by their [[obsessional]] economy), which they then try to resolve through an act leaves of severance – [[suicide]], an assault on the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly alien. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''target of their [[obsession]], and so on.

In [[psychosisIdeology]]derives its potency from its ability to manipulate economies of enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[social]] order relies upon a certain renunciation, or loss, of enjoyment. But as Lacan points out, ''jouissance'' this enjoyment is not something that was previously possessed; it is reintroduced in the place an epiphenomenal excess of the Othersocial repression itself. The ''jouissance'' involved here Where ideology succeeds is called ''jouissance'' in fantasmatically translating this sense of lost enjoyment into the Othertheft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, because ''jouissance'' the [[immigrant]] is sacrificed to the Othersomeone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[living]] off “our” [[state]] benefits and they work too hard, often in the most mutilating waystaking “our” jobs, like cutting off a piece etc.) and who thereby steals and/or corrupts our enjoyment (our “way of the body as an offering to life”). And thus what is believed “we conceal by imputing to be the command of the Other to be completed. The body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect theft of enjoyment is the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise traumatic fact that we never possessed what was allegedly stolen from us” (''jouissanceTN'' and give order to the drives: 203).

In 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 [[Schrebermanifest]] we see 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 manifestation [[nation]]. With today’s (Western) ideology – basically a [[capitalist]] fatalism (“the economy is what it is”) in support of private pleasures – the ways subject is bribed in which 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 body subject is not emptied the fantasy of ''jouissance''change (“[[freedom]] of choice”, “opportunities”, etc. Shreber describes ) precisely as a body invaded by means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is sustained as a ''jouissance'' that is ascribed [[fantasmatic]] abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear]] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[films]] like ''jouissanceBruce Almighty'' of where the Otherhero actually becomes God, the ''jouissance'' capable of Godanything, but whose own [[world]] falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[existence]].

The practice One of psychoanalysis with the psychotic differs from that central lessons of the neurotic. Given psychoanalysis is that the psychotic while enjoyment is experienced as Real, it is in the position ultimately an empty [[spectre]], a kind of the object anamorphic effect of the Other's ''jouissance''symbolic circumscription. Against its numerous ideological manipulations, where the Uncontrolled action we [[need]] to find ways of the death drive liesaccepting, and living with, what is aimed at is the modification of this position in regard to the ''jouissance'' in the structuretraumatic [[knowledge]]. This involves Extemporizing on an effort to link in a chain, the isolatedold [[Marxist]] maxim, persecuting signifiers in order when it comes to initiate a place for the subject outside the ''jouissance'' of the Other. Psychoanalysis attempts we have nothing to modify lose but the effect myth 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''loss itself.

==References==

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