Changes

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

[[Image:Kida_j.gif|right|frame|[[Kid A In Alphabet Land- Jouissance]]]]

===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 [[<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. In 324</ref></blockquote> -->The [[masochismsymbolic]], [[painprohibition]] is a means to of [[pleasureenjoyment]]; in the [[pleasureOedipus complex]] is taken in (the very fact of [[pain|sufferingincest]] itself, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasuretaboo]] from ) is thus, paradoxically, the [[painprohibition]]. With ''of something which is already [[jouissanceimpossible]]'', on ; its function is therefore to sustain the other hand, [[pleasureneurotic]] and [[painillusion]] remain distinct; no that [[pleasureenjoyment]] is taken in would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the [[paindesire]] itself, but the to [[pleasuretransgress]] cannot be obtained without paying the price of [[pain|suffering]]. It is thus a kind of it, and ''deal'' in which "[[pleasurejouissance]] ''and'' is therefore fundamentally [[paintransgressive]] are presented as a single packet."<ref>Seminar of 27 February 1963. J. Lacan, The Seminar. Book VII: The Ethics of Psychoanalysis. p. 189{{S7}} Ch.15</ref> -->

==Symbolic ProhibitionDevelopment=====Sigmund Freud========Death Drive=====The [[prohibitiondeath 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]] of ''[[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|1954-55]], and is referred to in some other works (''[[Écrits]]'', 1977) . In these early years ''[[jouissance]]'' is inherent not elaborated in any [[structure|structural sense]], the reference being mainly to [[Hegel]] and the [[master—slave]] [[dialectic]], where the [[slave]] must facilitate the [[symbolicmaster]]'s ''jouissance'' through his work in producing [[objects]] for the master. =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm]] emerges into the foreground. This is the more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[meaning]] `to come'. =====''The Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[structureseminar]] of [[languageSeminar VII|1959-60]], [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], which Lacan deals for the first [[time]] with the [[Real]] and ''jouissance''. Although the [[Real]] of the 1960s is why "not the same as his use of [[the Real]] in the 1980s, the first [[concepts]] emerge in this seminar. Here ''jouissance'' is forbidden considered in its function of [[evil]], that which is ascribed to him who speaksa 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 suchconcepts as the ''jouissance'' of [[transgression]] and the [[paradox]] of ''jouissance''."<ref>{{E}} p. 319</ref>  ====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]] is conditional upon (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 certain initial [[renunciationcomplete]] ''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'' in the which is a [[necessity]] for those who use [[language]] and are a product of language. This is a reference to [[castration]], [[castration complex]]of ''jouissance'', when a [[lack]] of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of the [[subject]] gives up his attempts . 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 [[imaginaryrepression]] of [[phallusthe thing]] for 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 [[motherdrive]]is articulated.

<!-- <blockquote>"Castration means that What is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (occurs at two levels. At one level, ''ljouissance'échelle renversée'') of the Law of desire."<ref>{{E}} p. 324</ref></blockquote> -->The is redistributed [[symbolicoutside]] the [[prohibition]] of [[enjoymentbody]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incestspeech]] , and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[taboospeech]]) is thusitself, paradoxicallyout-of-the-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the [[prohibition]] level of something which is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain the [[neuroticlost object]] , [[illusionobject a]] that , there is a plus (+), a little [[enjoymentcompensation]] would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates in the [[desireform]] to transgress itof what is allowed of ''jouissance'', and a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance''of the [[jouissanceOther]]'' is therefore fundamentally transgressive.<ref>{{S7}} Ch. 15</ref>

==Death Drive===Symbolic Prohibition=====The [[death driveprohibition]] is the name given to that constant of ''[[desirejouissance]] in the [[subject]] to break through '' (the [[pleasure principle]] towards ) is inherent in the [[Thingsymbolic]] and a certain [[surplus|excessstructure]] ''of [[jouissancelanguage]], which is why "''; thus ''[[jouissance]]'' is "the path towards deathforbidden to him who speaks, as such."<ref>{{S17E}} p. 17319</ref> Insofar as the The [[drivesubject]]'s are attempts to break through entry into the [[pleasure principlesymbolic]] is conditional upon a certain initial [[renunciation]] in search of ''[[jouissance]]''in the [[castration complex]], every when the [[drivesubject]] is a gives up his attempts to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[death drivemother]].

==A mapping of jouissance in Lacan's work===''Plus-de jouir''==1953 until 1960===''Jouissance'' is not The [[lack]] in the [[signifying order]], a central preoccupation during [[lack]] in the first part [[Other]], which designates a lack ofLacan's teaching. 'jouissance'Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's work in the , creates a [[seminarsplace]] of where lost objects come, standing in for the [[Seminar I|1953-54missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[Seminar II|1954-55order]], and ''jouissance''. What is referred to in some other works (allowed of ''jouissance''is in the [[Écritssurplus]]'', 1977). In these early years jouissance''connected with [[jouissanceobject a]]. Here ''jouissance'' is not elaborated embodied in any the lost [[structure|structural senseobject]]. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, the reference being mainly to it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in [[HegelThe Subject|the subject]] and the [[master—slaverepeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'', ''[[dialecticplus-de jouir]]'', where in the [[slave]] must facilitate push of the [[masterdrive]]'s''jouissance'' through his work in producing objects for the master.

From 1957 =====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the sexual reference 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'' as orgasm emerges into the foreground. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the more popular use circuit of the term drive, but there is a ''jouissance''in the very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[object a]], with which it produces as a ''[[plus-de jouir]]'' meaning `. In this [[structural]] approach, there is a [[structuring]] function of lack itself, and the loss of the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to comeoperate as a [[cause]], as seen in the function of [[object a]], the ''[[plus-de jouir]]''.

In his =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[seminardialectic]] of with [[Seminar VII|1959-60desire]], . Unrecognised [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysisdesire]], Lacan deals for the first time with brings the [[Realsubject]] and closer to a destructive ''jouissance''. Although the [[Real]] of the 1960s , which is not the same as his use of the Real in the 1980s, the first concepts emerge in this seminaroften followed by retreat. Here This destructive ''jouissance'' is considered in its function of has a [[evilFreudian]], that which is ascribed to a neighbour, but which dwells illustration in the most intimate part account of the [[subjectcase]], [[extimate|intimate]] and [[alienated]] at the same time, as it is that from which of the [[subjectRatman]] flees, experiencing of whom Freud [[aggressionnotes]] at `the very approach of an encounter with his/her own ''jouissance''. The chapters in this seminar address such concepts as the ''jouissance'' of [[transgressionhorror]] and the paradox of a pleasure of which he was unaware''jouissance''(Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8).

===1960s=1970s====It is in the text '[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic ofdesire in the Freudian unconsciousSeminar XX]], [[Encore]], given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan' that a s [[structure|structuralideas]] account on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'' is first given in connection with the , ''[[subjectfeminine jouissance]]'s entry into ', also known as the ''[[symbolicOther jouissance]] (Lacan, 1977)''.

The [[speakingbeing]] 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, [[beingthere is no sexual rapport]] has , comes to use the foreground in Encore as [[signifiermale]], which comes from the and [[Otherfemale]]. 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 coming from a loss of very different ''jouissance which is a necessity for those who use language ''; different and are a product of languagenot complementary. This is a reference to castration, castration of jouissance, a lack of jouissance that is constituent of the subject. This loss of jouissance It is a loss of the jouissance which is presumed to be possible with the Other, but which is, difference in fact, lost from the beginning. The myth relation of a primary experience of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation speaking being 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'' which determines his being man or woman, jouissance is not there so completely[[anatomical]] difference. 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

The =====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[speakingWoman]] is [[beingphallic]] 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 speakswith something more, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss of supplementary ''jouissance'' which . There is a necessity for those who use language and are a product no [[universal]] definition of languagewoman. This is a reference to castration Every woman must pass, castration of ''jouissance''like man, a lack of ''jouissance'' that is constituent of through the subjectsignifier. This loss However, not all of ''jouissance'' woman is a loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed subjected to be possible with the Other, but which is, in fact, lost from the beginningsignifier. The myth Woman thus has the possibility of a primary the 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 bewhich is not altogether phallic. Once the signifier is there, This Other ''jouissance'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure another kind of ''jouissance'' from the bodysatisfaction, that it is possible has to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via do with the signifying operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the erotogenic zones, that relation to which the drive Other and is articulatednot supported by the object and fantasy.

What is left over after this negativization (—) 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'' occurs at two levels. At one levelIn [[Television]], he equivocates between ''jouissance'' is redistributed outside the body in speech, and there is thus a ''jouissancejouis-sens'' of speech itself, out-of-(enjoyment in sense) and the-body ''jouissance''. On another leveleffect, at the level enjoyment of the lost object, object aone's own unconscious, there even if it is a plus through pain (+Lacan, 1990). The [[unconscious]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], a little compensation in the form of what is allowed of with ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred located in the forbidding of [[jargon]] itself. ''jouissanceJouissance'' of thus refers to the Otherspecific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/her unconscious.

=====''Lalangue''=====The Freudian Oedipus refers to the father prohibiting access to motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[lalangue]]'', also described as babbling or mother, that tongue. The unconscious is, the law prohibiting made of ''jouissancelalangue''. Lacan refers not only 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 'jouissance'lalangue'' forbidden . The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the one who speaks[[apparent]] coherent, but complete [[system]] of language in order to emphasize the impossibility in inconsistencies and holes with which the very structure itself of such a speaking being has to deal. The ''jouissancelalangue''of the unconscious, that iswhich blurts out when least expected, provides a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the structureits very play. Thus, what Every ''lalangue'' is prohibited is, in fact, already impossibleunique to a subject.

The lack in the signifying order, a lack in the Other, which designates a lack of ''jouissanceJouis-sens'', creates a place where lost objects come, standing in for also refers to the missing [[super-ego]]''jouissance'' and creating s [[demand]] to enjoy, a link between cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the signifying order and ''jouissance''subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is in The [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] promotes the surplus ''jouissance'' connected with object athat it simultaneously prohibits. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in The Freudian reference to the lost object. Although this object [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is lost and cannot be appropriatedone of a paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it does restore a certain coefficient commands to be renounced. The severity of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in the subject repeating him[[Super-Ego|super-/herself with his/her surplus ego]] is therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance'', plus-de jouir, in the push of the drive.

In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] ''Plus-de jouirjouissance'' can mean both more and no more; hence , jouis-sens, the ambiguity, both more ''jouirjouissance'' and no more of meaning, the ''jouirjouissance''of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. The drive turning around this lost object attempts to capture something of He locates the lost [[three]] ''jouissance''. This it fails s in relation to dothe intersections of the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of the [[Real]], there the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is always a loss topos in which the circuit [[logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the drivethree ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', but there that is a the ''jouissance'' in the very repetition of this movement around the object a, which it produces as a plus-de jouir. In this structural approachbody, there is a structuring function located at the intersection of lack itself, the Real and [[the Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the loss common [[space]] of [[the Symbolic]] and the Real; the primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a causeof meaning, jouis-sens, as seen in is located at the function intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is the [[object a]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the plus-de jouirSymbolic 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 denotedphallic, in these yearswhich means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in its dialectic with desire. Unrecognised desire brings the subject closer to 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is a destructive specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is often followed by retreat"beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. This destructive 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' has a Freudian illustration in the account of the case of the Ratman[[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 whom Freud notes `the horror of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud'[[jouissance]]'', S.E. 10[[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], ppwhereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. 167-8).->

===1970s===Seminar XX[[Lacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', insofar as it is sexual, Encoreis [[phallus|phallic]], given in 1972-73which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, further elaborates Lacanhe argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]''s ideas on , a "supplementary ''jouissance'' already outlined"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus, and goes further with another aspect "<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 [[feminine phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas ''', also known as JA''' designates the ''[[Other jouissance]]''of the [[Other]].

The speaking being is alone with his/her ''jouissance'' as it is not possible to share <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the ''jouissance'' [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given term occasionally, usually in earlier seminars, there is no sexual rapport, comes to the foreground in Encore as male context of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of the [[master]] and female coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. It is a difference in the relation of [[slave]]: the speaking being [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'' which determines his being man or woman, not anatomical difference).<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p.269</ref> -->

Sexual ==''jouissanceJouissance'' 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'the Clinic==Lacan' that has s contribution to pass through speech. The ''jouissance'' of man the [[clinic]] is produced by paramount in [[regard]] to the structure operation of the signifier, and is known as phallic ''jouissance''in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The structure of phallic ''jouissance'' is the structure of the signifier. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man three [[structures]] can be viewed as being subject to castration and lacking a part of ''jouissance'', that which is required in order strategies with respect to use speech. All of man is subjected to the signifier. Man cannot relate directly dealing 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, which has phallic value.

=====Neurosis=====The erotics embodied in object a is [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[want]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that belongs is clung to in order not to have to fantasyacknowledge Symbolic castration, aiming at a piece of the body, subjection to language and creating an illusion its consequent loss of a union linking the subject with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' . The neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have to sacrifice this castration, this piece of man is thus phallic flesh, to the Other?''jouissance'' together with surplus Here we encounter the neurotic [[belief]] that it would be possible to attain a complete ''jouissance''. This if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is linked to demanding his ideas /her castration. Instead of [[seeing]] the [[lack in the 1960s outlined aboveOther]] the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her.

=====Perversion=====The [[WomanPervert]] is imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his/her ''jouissance''. The [[perverse]] subject makes him-/herself the [[phallicinstrument]] of the Other's ''jouissance'' with something morethrough putting the [[Object A|object a]] in the place of the [[barred]] Other, a supplementary negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance''. There is no universal definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the signifier. However, not all of woman is subjected comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the signifier. Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of a ''jouissance'' which is not altogether phallicof a phallus, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. This Other Although the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'', another kind one of satisfactionhis/her aims is to make the law [[present]]. Lacan uses the term [[père]]-version, has to do with demonstrate the way in which the relation pervert appeals to the Other and is not supported by father to fulfil the object and fantasy[[paternal function]].

Increasingly, in his works =====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 1970sbien [[dire]], Lacan points to the fact that languagewell-spoken, where the subject comes to [[speak]] in addition to having a signifier effectnew way, a way of speaking the [[truth]], also has an effect that a different distribution of ''jouissance''may be achieved. In The [[Televisionanalytic]]act is a cut, he equivocates between a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'', jouis-sens (enjoyment fixed in sense) and the fantasy. The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the subject having to endure being alone with his/her own ''jouissance'' effectand to encounter its operation in the drive, a unique, the enjoyment [[singular]] way of being alone with one's own unconscious, even if it is through pain (Lacan, 1990). The unconscious is emphasized as enjoyment playing through substitution, with ''jouissance'' located in . [[The Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the jargon itselfsubject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[alien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''Jouissancejouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject enjoys his/her unconscious.

The motor of the unconscious =====Psychosis=====In [[psychosis]], ''jouissance'' is reintroduced in the place of the Other. The ''lalanguejouissance'', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious involved here is made of called ''lalanguejouissance''. Lacan writes it as of the Other, because ''lalanguejouissance'' is sacrificed to show that language always intervenes the Other, often in the form most mutilating ways, like cutting off a piece of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious body as an offering to what is a `knowing how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free association, aims believed to cut through be the apparent coherent, complete system command of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has Other to dealbe completed. The body is not emptied of ''lalanguejouissance'' via the effect of the unconscioussignifier and castration, that which blurts out when least ex ected, provides a usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique and give order to a subjectthe [[drives]].

In [[Schreber]] we see the manifestation of the ways in which the body is not emptied of ''Jouis-sensjouissance'' also refers to the super-ego. Shreber describes a body invaded by a ''jouissance''s demand to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that the subject will never be able is ascribed to satisfy. The super-ego promotes the ''jouissance'' that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to of the super-ego is one of a paradoxical functioning[[Other, secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the super-ego is therefore a vehicle for ]] ''jouissance''of God.

In 'The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[La Troisièmepsychotic]]', presented differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the third [[position]] of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', jouis-sens, where the ''jouissance'' Uncontrolled [[action]] of meaningthe [[Death Drive|death drive]] lies, what is aimed at is the ''jouissance'' modification of the unconscious, this position in reference regard to its locus in the Borromean knot. He locates the three ''jouissance''s in relation the structure. This involves an effort to the intersections of the three circles of the knotlink in a [[chain]], the circles of the Realisolated, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. The Borromean knot is persecuting [[signifiers]] in order to initiate a topos in which place for the logical and clinical dimensions of subject outside the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: of the Other. Psychoanalysis attempts to modify the effect of the Other ''jouissance'', that is the s ''jouissance'' of in the body, is located at according to the intersection shift of the Real and subject in the Imaginary; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within structure. The psychotic does not escape the common space structure, but there can be a modification of the Symbolic and the Real; the unlimited, deadly ''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.

===Phallic and Feminine=In the work of Slavoj Žižek ==<!-- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s concept of 'Jouissance'[[jouissance]]'' and [[Freud]]'s concept of , or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the [[libido]]Freudian sense, as enjoyment is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''located beyond the pleasure [[jouissanceprinciple]]'' as a "bodily substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[his clinical practice, Freud]]'s assertion that there is only one had already observed incidents of [[libidoself]], which is -harm and the strange [[masculinecompulsion]], in certain [[Lacanpatients]] states to keep revisiting the very experiences that ''were so disturbing and [[jouissancetraumatic]]'' is essentially for [[phallicthem]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance''. Th is paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, insofar as it is sexualor pleasure through pain, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other what Lacan designates 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 If pleasure functions in [[Otherterms]]. This of [[jouissance|feminine jouissancebalance]] , achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is ineffable, for destabilizing and tends towards [[womenexcess]] experience it . Enjoyment can be characterized as a kind of existential electricity that not only animates the subject but know nothing about italso threatens to destroy them.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]''this regard, enjoyment is always both before and beyond [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbolthe symbolic]]s for eachfield; '''Jφ''' designates it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance''captured]]by it. If the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, whereas '''JA''' designates then lightning is the raw substance of enjoyment that reflects the ''primordial [[jouissancecharacter]]'' of the [[Otherhuman]]drives and obsessions. -->

[[According to Lacan]] states that "''[[, jouissance]]'', insofar as it has a Real status and is sexualthe only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, is a central [[phallus|phallicgoal]], which means that it does of psychoanalysis is not relate so much to bring to light the “guilt” of the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminineanalysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[jouissanceguilt]]'', that are themselves symptomatic of a "supplementary [[particular]] mode of ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} prooted in the Real. 58</ref> which This is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of why Lacan characterizes the [[Othersuperego]]. In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''– the inherent [[jouissanceagency]]'', of guilt that constantly recycles [[Lacanfeelings]] introduces different of inadequacy and makes impossible [[algebra|algebraicdemands]] of the subject – in terms of a primary [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance''injunction]]: namely, whereas '''JA''' designates the enjoy! (''[[jouissance]]SXX'' of the [[Other]]: 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.