Changes

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

==Translation=====Enjoyment===''[[ImageJouissance]]'', 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".) --><!-- But it also refers to those moments when too much pleasure is pain. --><!-- The term signifies the ecstatic or orgasmic [[enjoyment]] - and exquisite [[pain]] - of something or someone. In [[French]], ''[[jouissance]]'' includes the [[enjoyment]] of rights and property, but also the slang verb, ''[[jouissance|jouir]]'', to come, and so is related to the [[pleasure]] of the [[sexual relationship|sexual act]].-->  ===Pleasure===<!-- Lacan develops this opposition in 1960, in the context of his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. --><!-- In 1960 [[Lacan]] develops an opposition -->[[Lacan]] makes an important [[distinction]] between ''[[jouissance]]'' and ''[[plaisir]]'' ([[pleasure]]). [[Pleasure]] obeys the [[law]] of [[homeostasis]] that [[Freud]] evokes in ''[[Beyond the Pleasure Principle]]'', whereby, through [[discharge]], the [[psyche]] seeks the lowest possible level of tension. The [[pleasure principle]] thus functions as a [[limit]] imposed on [[enjoyment]]; it commands the [[subject]] to "enjoy as little as possible." ''[[Jouissance]]'' transgresses this [[law]] and, in that respect, it is ''beyond'' the [[pleasure principle]].<!-- ''[[Jouissance]]'' goes beyond ''[[plaisir]]''. --><!-- However, the result of transgressing the [[pleasure principle]] is not more [[pleasure]], but pain, since there is only a certain amount of [[pleasure]] that the [[subject]] can bear. Beyond this limit, [[pleasure]] becomes [[pain]], and this "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacan]] calls ''[[jouissance]]''. "''Jouissance'' is [[suffering]]."<ref>{{S7}} p. 184</ref> The term ''[[jouissance]]'' thus nicely expresses the paradoxical [[satisfaction]] that the [[subject]] derives from his [[symptom]], or, to put it [[another]] way, the suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfaction]]. --> <!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[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:Kida_jThe [[Ethics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. p.gif189.</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 [[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|rightexcess]] ''[[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]]. ===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance'' is not a central preoccupation during the first part ofLacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[work]] in the [[seminars]] of [[Seminar I|1953-54]] and [[Seminar II|frame1954-55]], and is referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and the [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[master]]'s ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[objects]] for the master. =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm]] emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[Kid A meaning]] `to come'. =====''The Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In Alphabet Landhis [[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''.

==Translation==1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====There 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 no adequate translation 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 [English[complete]] ''jouissance'' of the word [[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.<ref>It 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 therefore left untranslated 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 most English editions the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[Lacanlanguage]], 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]]. =====Law and Prohibition=====The [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the [[father]] prohibiting access to the [[mother]], that is, the [[law]] prohibiting ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure]] itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the [[structure]]. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible. =====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[lack]] in the [[signifying order]], a [[lack]] in the [[Other]], which designates a lack of ''jouissance'', creates a [[place]] where lost objects come, standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[order]] and ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is in the [[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost [[Enjoymentobject]]" . Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does convey restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in [[The Subject|the sensesubject]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the push of the [[drive]]. =====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The [[drive]] [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to [[capture]] something of the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''jouissance'' in the very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces as a ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this [[structural]] approach, there is a [[structuring]] function of lack itself, and the loss of the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a [[cause]], as seen in the function of [[object a]], the ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire]] brings the [[subject]] closer to a destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. This destructive ''jouissance'' has a [[Freudian]] illustration in the account of the [[case]] of the [[Ratman]], of whom Freud [[notes]] `the [[horror]] of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8). ====1970s====[[Seminar XX]], [[Encore]], contained given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[feminine jouissance]]'', also known as the ''[[Other jouissance]]''.  The [[speaking being]] is alone with his/her ''jouissance'' as it is not possible to share the ''jouissance'' of the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, [[there is no sexual rapport]], comes to the foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [[female]] coming from a very different ''jouissance''enjoyment ; different and not complementary. It is a difference in the relation of rightsthe speaking being to ''jouissance''which determines his being man or woman, not [[anatomical]] difference. =====Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Sexual ''jouissance'' is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' that has to [[pass]] through [[speech]]. The ''propertyjouissance''of man is produced by the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]], etcand is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[lacking]] a part of ''jouissance'', that which is required in order to use [[speech]]. All of man is subjected to the [[signifier]]. Man cannot relate directly with the [[Other]]. His partner is thus not the Other sex but an object, a piece of the body. Man looks for a little surplus ''jouissance'', that linked with [[Object A|object a]], which has phallic [[value]]. The erotics embodied in [[object a]] is the ''jouissance'' that belongs to [[fantasy]], aiming at a piece of the [[body]], and creating an illusion of a union linking [[The Subject|the subject]] with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance''. This is linked to his ideas of the 1960s outlined above.  =====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[universal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the signifier. However, not all of woman is subjected to the signifier. Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of a ''jouissance'' which is not altogether phallic. This Other ''jouissance'', another kind of satisfaction, has to do with the relation to the Other and is not supported by the object and fantasy.  Increasingly, in his works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the fact that language, in addition to having a signifier effect, also has an effect of ''jouissance''. In [[Television]], he equivocates between ''jouissance'', ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and the ''jouissance'' effect, the enjoyment of one's own unconscious, even if it lacks is through pain (Lacan, 1990). The [[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], with ''jouissance'' located in the [[jargon]] itself. ''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/her unconscious.  =====''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[lalangue]]'', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of ''lalangue''. Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' to show that language always intervenes in the form of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious is a `[[knowing]] how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the [[apparent]] coherent, complete [[system]] of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of the unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject.  ''Jouis-sens'' also refers to the [[super-ego]]'s [[demand]] to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] promotes the ''sexual connotationsjouissance'' that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is one of a paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the [[FrenchSuper-Ego|super-ego]] wordis therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance''.  In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] ''jouissance'', jouis-sens, the ''jouissance'' of meaning, the ''jouissance'' of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. He locates the [[three]] ''jouissance''s in relation to the intersections of the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of the [[Real]], the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a topos in which the [[logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', that is the ''jouissance'' of the body, is located at the intersection of the Real and [[the Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the common [[space]] of [[the Symbolic]] and the Real; the ''jouissance'' of meaning, jouis-sens, is located at the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is the [[object a]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. =====Feminine ''Jouissance''=====<!-- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of ''[[jouissance]]'Jouir'and [[Freud]]' s concept of the [[libido]], as is slang clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "[[bodily]] substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s assertion that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. --> [[Lacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', insofar as it is sexual, is [[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not relate to comethe Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]].In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and the [[slave]]: the [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p. 269</ref> -->

=="Pleasure"''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==In 1960 Lacan's contribution to the [[Lacanclinic]] develops an opposition between ''is paramount in [[jouissanceregard]]to the operation of '' and jouissance''in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[pleasurestructures]]can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with '' ("''[[plaisir]]jouissance''").

"=====Neurosis=====The [[Pleasureneurotic]]" obeys the [[lawsubject]] does not [[want]] 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'homeostasis'. 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 [[Freudbelief]] evokes in that it would be possible to attain a complete ''jouissance''if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[Beyond seeing]] the Pleasure Principle[[lack in the Other]]'', whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks neurotic sees the lowest possible level Other's demand of tensionhim/her.

=====Perversion=====The [[pleasure principlePervert]] thus functions 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 limit imposed on phallus, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is to make the law [[enjoymentpresent]]; it commands . Lacan uses the term [[subjectpère]] -version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to "enjoy as little as possiblethe father to fulfil the [[paternal function]]."

"=====Practice=====The [[practice]] of [[psychoanalysis]] examines the different ways and means [[The Subject|the subject]] uses to produce ''jouissance''. It is by means of the bien [[Jouissancedire]], the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[speak]] in a new way, a way of speaking the [[truth]], that a different distribution of ''" transgresses this jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[lawanalytic]] 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'' andto encounter its operation in the drive, in that respecta unique, it is [[singular]] way of being alone with one's own ''beyondjouissance'' . [[The Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[pleasure principlealien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''.

==Transgression===Psychosis=====HoweverIn [[psychosis]], ''jouissance'' is reintroduced in the place of the result Other. The ''jouissance'' involved here is called ''jouissance'' of transgressing the [[pleasure principle]] Other, because ''jouissance'' is not more [[pleasure]]sacrificed to the Other, but painoften in the most mutilating ways, since there like cutting off a piece of the body as an offering to what is only a certain amount believed to be the command of the Other to be completed. The body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of [[pleasure]] that the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to the [[subjectdrives]] can bear.

Beyond this limit, In [[pleasureSchreber]] becomes 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 ascribed to the ''jouissance'' of the [[pain]]Other, and this "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacanthe]] calls ''[[jouissance]]''of God.

<blockquote>"The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[psychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is in the [[position]] of the object of the Other's ''Jouissancejouissance'' , where the Uncontrolled [[action]] of the [[Death Drive|death drive]] lies, what is aimed at is sufferingthe modification of this position in regard to the ''jouissance'' in the structure."<ref>{{S7}} pThis involves an effort to link in a [[chain]], 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''.184</ref></blockquote>

==SymptomIn the work of Slavoj Žižek ==The term ''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 [[jouissanceself]]'' thus nicely expresses -harm and the paradoxical strange [[compulsion]] in certain [[satisfactionpatients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that the were so disturbing and [[subjecttraumatic]] derives from his for [[symptomthem]]. Th is paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, orpleasure 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 put destroy them. In this regard, enjoyment is always both before and beyond [[the symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[captured]] by it another way. If the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, then lightning is the suffering raw substance of enjoyment that he derives from his on reflects the primordial [[character]] of [[satisfactionhuman]]drives and obsessions.

==Prohibition==The prohibition According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[goal]] of psychoanalysis is not so much to bring to light the “guilt” of the [[analysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[guilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [[jouissanceparticular]]mode of '' (jouissance'' rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[pleasure principlesuperego]]) is – the inherent in the [[symbolicagency]] of guilt that constantly recycles [[feelings]] of inadequacy and makes impossible [[structuredemands]] of the subject – in terms of a primary [[languageinjunction]]: namely, which is why "enjoy! (''jouissanceSXX'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{E}} p: 3). 319</ref>

The [[subject]]Although ''jouissance''s entry into the [[symbolic]] is conditional upon viewed as a certain initial renunciation (non-discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''[[jouissance]]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 [[castration complexdomain]], when the of forbidden and/or [[subjectobscene]] gives up his attempts to 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 [[imaginaryambition]] of the “[[phalluspolitics]] for of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the [[mother]]same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject.

<blockquote>"Castration means that David Fincher’s ''jouissanceSeven'' musst be refused so that it can be reached on is illustrative of the inverted ladder (dynamics of ''ljouissance'échelle renversée'') . Two detectives, Mills and Somerset, set out to investigate a series of brutal murders committed as a “sermon” on the seven deadly sins by John Doe. Doe’s victims are chosen on the grounds that they embody a particular sinful excess and are subsequently dispatched in an elaborately [[sadistic]] manner. He seeks to punishexecute his victims not because of any [[legal]] transgression but because they do not conform to [[the imaginary]] [[unity]], the Law homeostatic ego-[[ideal]], of desirea God-fearing [[community]]."<ref>{{E}} pHere 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 [[Batman]] and various other super(ego)-heroes). 324</ref></blockquote>

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 [[symbolicgratification]] in [[prohibitionviolence]] , 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 [[enjoymentethical]] obligation. Put in other terms, he expresses the classic [[Oedipus complexideological]] (the alibi: “I was not there as a being of enjoyment but as a functionary of duty.” This also reflects Žižek’s point against [[incestHannah Arendt]] and her conclusion regarding the routinized [[taboonature]]) is thus, paradoxically, of the extermination of [[prohibitionJews]] as a “banality of something evil” ([[Arendt]] 1963). That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which is already impossiblethe bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''PF'': 55); its function is therefore to sustain a surplus satisfaction gained from carrying out the daily [[neurotictorture]] and humiliations in the guise of a [[illusionKantianism|Kantian]] that sense of impersonal duty, as an instrument of the Other’s will (the law/state/universal mission, etc.). The [[enjoymentessence]] would be attainable if it were of the matter is not forbiddenso much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/excessive ''jouissance'' contained and nurtured within the banality itself.

The very prohibiton creates second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[desiremurder]] (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 transgress itthis, Doe confesses to a powerful [[envy]] of Mills and ''his [[married]] [[jouissancelife]]'' is therefore fundamentally transgressive.<ref>{{S7}} chBy declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[stages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle.15</ref>

==Death Drive==The From a [[death driveLacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the name given to that constant way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[desireextimacy]] in ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. For Lacan it refers to “something strange to me, although it is at the heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[subjectJacques-Alain Miller]] to break through affirms that the [[pleasure principlehatred]] towards of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment ([[ThingMiller]] and a certain excess ''2008). The [[jouissanceimage]]of the Other’s enjoyment is so compelling precisely because it symbolizes the Lacanian “in us more than ourselves”. In this sense, the Other is always someone who gives body to the very excess of enjoyment that in our innermost being denies us homeostasis. What ''; thus jouissance''bears [[jouissancewitness]]''to is not the unbearable difference of the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is ", the very [[fascination]] with (the path towards death."<ref>{{S17}} pprojected sense of) the Other’s enjoyment draws the subject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses. 17</ref>

Insofar In this context, we should read Doe’s [[confession]] as the fake. His real “sin” is not envy but [[denial]]. What he denies is that his entire [[driveeconomy]]s are attempts 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 break through 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 [[pleasure principlelogic]] at play in search the phenomenon of ''stalking. In their [[jouissanceover-identification]]with their [[object of desire]''] (often a celebrity), every the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[driveanxiety]] is a generated by their [[obsessional]] economy), which they then try to resolve through an act of severance – [[suicide]], an assault on the target of their [[death driveobsession]], and so on.

==''Jouissance'' and Libido==There are strong affinitites between [[LacanIdeology]]'s concept derives its potency from its ability to manipulate economies of ''enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[jouissancesocial]]'' and order relies upon a certain renunciation, or loss, of enjoyment. But as Lacan points out, this enjoyment is not something that was previously possessed; it is an epiphenomenal excess of social repression itself. Where ideology succeeds is in fantasmatically translating this sense of lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[Freudimmigrant]]'s concept is someone with perverse forms of the excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[libidoliving]], as is clear from off “our” [[Lacanstate]]'s description benefits and they work too hard, taking “our” jobs, etc.) and who thereby steals and/or corrupts our enjoyment (our “way of life”). And thus what “we conceal by imputing to the Other the theft of enjoyment is the traumatic fact that we never possessed what was allegedly stolen from us” (''[[jouissance]]TN'' as a "bodily substance."<ref>{{S20}} p: 203). 26</ref>

In keeping At the same time, ideology “bribes” the subject into accepting repression/renunciation by providing subliminal access to a surplus enjoyment – that is, an extra enjoyment generated through the renunciation of enjoyment itself (''TN'': 308–9). What is [[manifest]] in [[fascism]], for example, is the way in which the subject derives surplus enjoyment through acts of sacrifice (renouncing personal enjoyment) in the name of doing one’s duty to the [[nation]]. With today’s (Western) ideology – basically a [[capitalist]] fatalism (“the economy is what it is”) in support of private pleasures – the subject is bribed in a different way. Ideology no longer operates simply with a particular [[utopian]] [[vision]] or with definitive objectives. Contemporary ideology consists rather in assigning demands for [[Freudchange]]'s assertion that there to the realm of “impossibility” (as so much “ideological fantasy”). What ideology offers the subject is only one the fantasy of change (“[[libidofreedom]]of choice”, “opportunities”, which etc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is sustained as a [[masculinefantasmatic]]abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear], ] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[Lacanfilms]] states that like ''Bruce Almighty''where the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[jouissanceworld]]'' is essentially falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[phallicexistence]].

==Master and Slave==In One of the [[seminars]] central lessons of 1953-4 and 1954-5 psychoanalysis is that while enjoyment is experienced as Real, it is ultimately an empty [[Lacanspectre]] uses the term occasionally, usually in the context a kind of anamorphic effect of the symbolic circumscription. Against its numerous ideological manipulations, we [[Hegel]]ian [[dialecticneed]] to find ways of the [[master]] accepting, and the living with, this traumatic [[slaveknowledge]]: the . Extemporizing on an old [[slaveMarxist]] is forced to work maxim, when it comes to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} pwe have nothing to lose but the myth of loss itself. 269</ref>

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references />* [[Freud, S.]] (1951) [1905] 'The Three Essays on [[Sexuality]]'. S.E. 7: pp. 125-244. In: [[Standard Edition]] of the Complete [[Psychological]] Works of [[Sigmund Freud]]. [[London]]: Hogarth Press.* Freud, S. (1951) Notes upon a Case of [[Obsessional Neurosis]]. S.E. I0: pp. 153-319.* Freud, S. (1951) [1920] Beyond the [[Pleasure Principle]]. S.E. I8: pp. 3-64.* Lacan, J. (1970) 'Of structure as an inmixing of an [[otherness]] prerequisite to any subject whatever' in The [[Structuralist]] ''Jouissance'' 109 Controversy, Richard Macksay and Eugenio Donato (eds). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins [[University]] Press, p. 194. * Lacan, J. (1975) Seminar XX, Encore (1972-73). Text established by Jacques-[[Alain]] Miller. [[Paris]]: Seuil, p. 10. Now translated by [[Bruce Fink]] (1998) under the title of On [[Feminine sexuality|Feminine Sexuality]], The Limits of [[Love]] and Knowledge I972-1973, Encore. The Seminar of [[Jacques Lacan]]. Book XX. New York: W.W. Norton, p. 3. * Lacan, J. (1958) 'The youth of A. Gide', April, 1958; `The [[signification]] of the phallus', May, 1958; 'On the [[theory]] of [[symbolism]] in Ernest [[Jones]]', March, 1959, in Écrits. Paris: Seuil. * Lacan, J. (1977) [1960]. 'The [[subversion]] of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious' in [[Écrits: A Selection]] (trans. A. [[Sheridan]]). New York: W.W. Norton. * Lacan, J. (1990) Television. New York: W.W. Norton. (note 5), p. 325. Carmela Levy-Stokes</div>

[[Category:TermsZizek_Dictionary]]{{OK}}