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 [[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 ofdesire 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 operationremains as a ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated.

=====Law and Prohibition=====The [[speakingFreud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the [[beingfather]] has prohibiting access to use the [[signifiermother]], which comes from that is, the [[Otherlaw]]. This has an effect of cutting any notion of a complete prohibiting ''jouissance'' of the Other. The signifier forbids the ''jouissance'' of the body of the Other. Complete Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' is thus forbidden to the one who speaks, that is, to all speaking beings. This refers to a loss but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure]] itself of ''jouissance'' which is such 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 lack of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to be possible with the Other, but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The myth essential 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[[structure]]. Once the signifier is thereThus, ''jouissance'' what is not there so completely. And it prohibited 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 zonesin fact, that to which the drive is articulatedalready impossible.

What is left over after this negativization (—) =====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[lack]] in the [[signifying order]], a [[lack]] in the [[Other]], which designates a lack of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, creates a [[place]] where lost objects come, standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' is redistributed outside and creating a link between the body in speech, signifying [[order]] and there ''jouissance''. What is thus a allowed of ''jouissance'' of speech itself, out-of-is in the-body [[surplus]] ''jouissance''connected with [[object a]]. On another level, at the level of Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost [[object, ]]. Although this object a, there is a plus (+)lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a little compensation in the form of what is allowed certain coefficient of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred . This can be seen in [[The Subject|the forbidding of subject]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'' , ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the push of the Other[[drive]].

The Freudian Oedipus refers to the father prohibiting access to =====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the motherambiguity, that is, the law prohibiting both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouissancejouir''. Lacan refers not only The [[drive]] [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to a [[capture]] something of the lost ''jouissance'' forbidden . This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the one who speaksdrive, but the impossibility there is a ''jouissance'' in the very structure itself [[repetition]] of such this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces as a ''jouissance[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this [[structural]] approach, that 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 essential function of [[object a]], 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 =====Desire=====''jouissanceJouissance''is denoted, creates a place where lost objects comein these years, standing in for its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire]] brings the missing ''jouissance'' and creating [[subject]] closer to a link between the signifying order and destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. What is allowed of This destructive ''jouissance'' is has a [[Freudian]] illustration in the surplus ''jouissance'' connected with object a. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in account of the [[case]] of the lost object. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated[[Ratman]], it does restore of whom Freud [[notes]] `the [[horror]] of a certain coefficient pleasure of which he was unaware''jouissance''(Freud, S.E. This can be seen in the subject repeating him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance''10, pluspp. 167-de jouir, in the push of the drive8).

''Plus====1970s====[[Seminar XX]], [[Encore]], given in 1972-de jouir73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouirjouissance'' already outlined, and no more ''jouir''. The drive turning around this lost object attempts to capture something goes further with another aspect of the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''[[feminine jouissance]]'' in the very repetition of this movement around the object a, which it produces also known 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 ''[[Other jouissance]]'' comes to operate as a cause, as seen in the function of object a, the plus-de jouir.

The [[speaking being]] is alone with his/her ''Jouissancejouissance'' as it is denoted, in these years, in its dialectic with desire. Unrecognised desire brings not possible to share the subject closer to a destructive ''jouissance''of the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, which [[there is often followed by retreat. This destructive no sexual rapport]], comes to the foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [[female]] coming from a very different ''jouissance'' has ; different and not complementary. It is a Freudian illustration difference in the account relation of the case of the Ratman, of whom Freud notes `the horror of a pleasure of speaking being to ''jouissance'' which he was unaware' (Freuddetermines his being man or woman, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8)not [[anatomical]] difference.

===1970s==Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Seminar XX, Encore, given in 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's ideas on Sexual ''jouissance'' already outlined, is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and goes further with another aspect of a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'', can follow no other path than that of [[phallic]] ''jouissance''that has to [[pass]] through [[feminine jouissancespeech]]. The ''jouissance'' of man is produced by the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]], also and is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[lacking]] a part of ''jouissance'', that which is required in order to use [[speech]]. All of man is subjected to the [[signifier]]. Man cannot relate directly with the [[Other jouissance]]. 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 speaking being erotics embodied in [[object a]] is alone with his/her the ''jouissance'' as it is not possible that belongs to share [[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 the Other. The axiom that Lacan has already given in earlier seminars, there man is no sexual rapport, comes to the foreground in Encore as male and female coming from a very different thus phallic ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. It is a difference in the relation of the speaking being to together with surplus ''jouissance'' which determines . This is linked to his being man or woman, not anatomical differenceideas of the 1960s outlined above.

Sexual =====Other ''jouissanceJouissance'' =====[[Woman]] is specified as an impasse. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of phallic with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance'' that has to pass through speech. The ''jouissance'' There is no [[universal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man is produced by , through the structure signifier. However, not all of woman is subjected to the signifier, and is known as phallic ''jouissance''. The structure Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of phallic a ''jouissance'' which is the structure of the signifiernot altogether phallic. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to castration and lacking a part of This Other ''jouissance'', that which is required in order to use speech. All another kind of man is subjected satisfaction, has to do with the signifier. Man cannot relate directly with relation to the Other. His partner and is thus not supported by 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 valueand fantasy.

The erotics embodied Increasingly, in his works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the fact that language, in object addition to having a is the signifier effect, also has an effect of ''jouissance'' that belongs to fantasy. In [[Television]], aiming at a piece of the bodyhe equivocates between ''jouissance'', ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and creating an illusion of a union linking the subject with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' effect, the enjoyment of man one's own unconscious, even if it is through pain (Lacan, 1990). The [[unconscious]] is thus phallic emphasized as enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], with ''jouissance'' together with surplus located in the [[jargon]] itself. ''jouissanceJouissance''. This is linked thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his ideas of the 1960s outlined above/her unconscious.

=====''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[Womanlalangue]] '', 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 `[[phallicknowing]] ''jouissance'how to do things' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissancelalangue''. There is no universal definition The practice of woman. Every woman must passpsychoanalysis, like manwhich promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the signifier. However[[apparent]] coherent, not all complete [[system]] of woman is subjected language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the signifierspeaking being has to deal. Woman thus has the possibility The ''lalangue'' of the experience of unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' which is not altogether phallicin its very play. This Other Every ''jouissancelalangue'', another kind of satisfaction, has is unique to do with the relation to the Other and is not supported by the object and fantasya subject.

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 ''jouissanceJouis-sens''. In also refers to the [[Televisionsuper-ego]], he equivocates between ''jouissance''s [[demand]] to enjoy, jouisa cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The [[Super-sens (enjoyment in sense) and Ego|super-ego]] promotes the ''jouissance'' effect, that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to the enjoyment [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is one of one's own unconsciousa paradoxical functioning, even if secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it is through pain (Lacan, 1990)commands to be renounced. The unconscious severity of the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is emphasized as enjoyment playing through substitution, with therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance'' located in the jargon itself. ''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject enjoys his/her unconscious.

The motor of In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the unconscious [[third]] ''jouissance'' is , jouis-sens, the ''lalanguejouissance''of meaning, also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of the ''lalanguejouissance''of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. Lacan writes it as He locates the [[three]] ''lalanguejouissance'' s in relation to show that language always intervenes in the form intersections of the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of lallation or mother tongue the [[Real]], the [[Symbolic]] and that the unconscious [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a `knowing how to do thingstopos in which the [[logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'' with , that is the ''lalanguejouissance''. The practice of psychoanalysisthe body, which promotes free association, aims to cut through is located at the apparent coherent, complete system intersection of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies Real and holes with which [[the speaking being has to deal. The Imaginary]]; phallic ''lalanguejouissance'' is situated within the common [[space]] of [[the Symbolic]] and the Real; the unconscious, that which blurts out when least ex ected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very playof meaning, jouis-sens, is located at the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. Every ''lalangue'' It is unique to the [[object a subject]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.

=====Feminine ''JouisJouissance''=====<!-sens- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of ''[[jouissance]]' also refers to ' and [[Freud]]'s concept of the super-ego[[libido]], as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "[[bodily]] substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s demand to enjoyassertion that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], a cruel imperative - enjoy! - [[Lacan]] states that the subject will never be able to satisfy. The super-ego promotes the ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'' , insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference does not relate to the super-ego Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is one of a paradoxical functioningspecifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', secretly feeding on a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the very satisfaction that it commands to be renouncedphallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. The severity 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the super-ego [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is therefore a vehicle 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]].-->

In '[[La TroisièmeLacan]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the third states that "''[[jouissance]]'', jouis-sensinsofar 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]]'' of meaning, the a "supplementary ''jouissance'' of "<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the unconsciousphallus, in reference to its locus in the Borromean knot"<ref>{{S20}} p. He locates the three 69</ref> a ''jouissance''s in relation to the intersections of the three circles of the knot, the circles of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary[[Other]]. The Borromean knot is a topos in which the logical and clinical dimensions In order to differentiate between these two forms of the three ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s are linked together: the Other for each; '''Jφ'jouissance'', that is the designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'' of the body]], is located at the intersection of the Real and the Imaginary; phallic whereas '''JA'jouissance'' is situated within the common space of the Symbolic and the Real; designates 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[[Other]].

<!-- ===Phallic Master and Feminine=Slave==<!-- There are strong affinitites between In the [[Lacanseminars]]'s concept of ''[[jouissance]]'' 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[FreudLacan]]'s concept uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the [[libidoHegel]], as is clear from ian [[Lacandialectic]]'s description of ''the [[jouissancemaster]]'' as a "bodily substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with and the [[Freudslave]]'s assertion that there is only one : the [[libidoslave]], which is [[masculineforced]], to work to provide objects for the [[Lacanmaster]] states that ''s [[jouissanceenjoyment]]('' is essentially [[phallicjouissance]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as such)."<ref>{{S20S1}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>223; {{S20S2}} p. 58269</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref-->{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a  ==''Jouissance'jouissance'and the Clinic==Lacan' of s contribution to the [[Otherclinic]]. This is paramount in [[jouissance|feminine jouissanceregard]] is ineffableto the operation of ''jouissance'' in neurosis, for perversion and psychosis. The three [[womenstructures]] experience it but know nothing about it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order can be viewed as strategies with respect to differentiate between these two forms of dealing with ''[[jouissance]]'', . =====Neurosis=====The [[Lacanneurotic]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraicsubject]] does not [[symbolwant]]s for each; to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'Jφ'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 '' designates [[phallus|phallic jouissance''jouissance. The neurotic subject asks 'why me, that I have to sacrifice this castration, this piece of flesh, to the Other?'Here we encounter the neurotic [[belief]], whereas that it would be possible to attain a complete '''JA''' designates the jouissance''if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[jouissanceseeing]]'' of the [[lack in the Other]]the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her. -->

=====Perversion=====The [[LacanPervert]] states that "imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his/her ''jouissance''. The [[perverse]] subject makes him-/herself the [[instrument]] of the Other's ''jouissance'' through putting the [[Object A|object a]]in the place of the [[barred]] Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the ''jouissance''of a phallus, insofar even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him-/herself as it is sexualcompletely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is to make the law [[present]]. Lacan uses the term [[phallus|phallicpère]]-version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to the 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 that it does not relate of the bien [[dire]], the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[speak]] in a new way, a way of speaking the Other as such[[truth]], that a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achieved."<ref>{{S20}} pThe [[analytic]] act is a cut, a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in the fantasy. 14<The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the subject having to endure being alone with his/ref> Howeverher own ''jouissance'' and to encounter its operation in the drive, he argues that there is a specifically unique, [[femininesingular]] way of being alone with one's own ''jouissance''. [[The Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that was formerly [[alien]]. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''. =====Psychosis=====In [[psychosis]], ''jouissance'' is reintroduced in the place of the Other. The ''jouissance'' involved here is called ''jouissance'' of the Other, a "supplementary because ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond sacrificed to the Other, often in the phallusmost mutilating ways,"<ref>{{S20}} plike cutting off a piece of the body as an offering to what is believed to be the command of the Other to be completed. 69</ref> a The body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to the [[Otherdrives]].  In order [[Schreber]] 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 differentiate between these two forms the ''jouissance'' of the [[Other, the]] ''jouissance'' of God.  The practice of psychoanalysis with the [[psychotic]] differs from that of the neurotic. Given that the psychotic is in the [[jouissanceposition]]of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', where the Uncontrolled [[Lacanaction]] introduces different of the [[algebraDeath Drive|algebraicdeath 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 [[symbolsignifiers]]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 for each; ''jouissance'' in the body, according to the shift of the subject in the structure. The psychotic does not escape the structure, but there can be a modification of unlimited, deadly ''jouissance''. == In the work of Slavoj Žižek =='Jφ'Jouissance'' designates , or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the Freudian sense, enjoyment is located beyond the pleasure [[principle]]. In his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[self]]-harm and the strange [[compulsion]] in certain [[patients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[traumatic]] for [[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, 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, whereas 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 [[superego]] – the inherent [[agency]] of guilt that constantly recycles [[feelings]] of inadequacy and makes impossible [jouissance[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.