Changes

In his seminar of 1959<!--1960 <i>The Ethics of Psychoanalysis</i> (1992), Lacan developed the concept of jouissance (enjoyment) while discussing <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i> (Freud, 1930). In that work, Freud had articulated a contradiction inherent in the concept of pleasure: {| align="This endeavor [of striving for happiness[right] has two sides. . . . It aims, on the one hand, at an absence of pain and unpleasure, and, on the other, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure. . . . The task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the background]" style=" (1930, pp. 76line-77)height:2.For Lacan, these two aspects of pleasure were irreconcilable, and he argued that Freud connected the pleasure and reality principles under a no0em;text-displeasure principle. This is the very principle that blocks the path to jouissance. "Who is there who in the name of pleasure doesn't start to weaken when the first halfalign:right;background-serious is taken step toward jouissance?color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa" asked Lacan (1959-1960/1992, p. 185). Even an animal, he added, "has an economy| [[English]]: it acts so as to produce the very least possible jouissance. That's what we call the pleasure principle" (1969-70/1991, p. 88).'[[enjoyment]]''It is true that once we start down the path of jouissance, we do not know where it will lead: "It starts with a tickle and ends up bursting into flames" (Lacan, 1991, p. 83). In <i>Beyond the Pleasure Principle</i>, Freud had already noted that "the most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . as highly enjoyable" (1920, p. 17). On the basis of this text, Lacan made a connection between jouissance and repetition. He drew support for his argument from the hysterical symptom of repetition, as in the case of Elizabeth von R., and defined repetition as a trace, a kind of writing, that commemorates "an irruption of jouissance" (1991, p. 89). Jouissance (<i>Genuss</i>) is involved when the pleasure principle yields not necessarily to pain, but to unpleasure. The term was already present in Freud, but Lacan developed it as a concept. Still, he complained of never having had the time to outline its parameters, which he would have likely called "the Lacanian field" (1991, p. 93).|}In <i-->The Ethics of Psychoanalysis</i> (1992), Lacan emphasized that Freud posed the question of jouissance in terms of drive. The energy of the superego derives from the libido of this unsatisfied drive; the more the subject fails to feel jouissance, the more libido there is to feed the superego, and the more the superego will demand new renunciations. Lacan believed that in <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i>, Freud was stating that "everything that is transferred from jouissance to prohibition gives rise to the increasing strengthening of prohibition" (Lacan, 1992, p. 176). Thus the guilt triggered by masturbation can be understood as an increase of libido in the superego, brought about by a short circuit in masturbation that achieves only a brief and stifled satisfaction instead of jouissance.What is involved here is not the satisfaction of need, but of the drive. In fact, Lacan placed the two in radical opposition to one another[[Image: "And if the social bond is established by renouncing the satisfaction of the drive, it is because this satisfaction implies the enjoyment—in the juridical sense of the term—of objects that could either belong to others or deprive them of their jouissanceKida_j." This situates jouissance in another field and simultaneously introduces the question of religion, moral precepts, and the law.gif |right|frame|[[Kid A In <i>The Ethics of Psychoanalysis</i> (1992), Lacan based jouissance on the law. If jouissance consists in breaking the barrier of the pleasure principle, if it can only be attained through a transgression, then only a prohibition opens the path toward it. As for the "other," he is already implicated in Freud's analysis of sadism: when we inflict pain on others, "we enjoy by identifying with the suffering object." From his reading of <i>Civilization</i>Alphabet Land - Jouissance]]]]

<i>!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and Its Discontents</i>, Lacan concluded, "Jouissance is evil [[jouissance]]. . . because it involves suffering for my neighbor" (1992 In [[masochism]], p. 184). Moreover, he noted that love of one's neighbor seemed absurd to Freud. Each time that this Christian ideal [[pain]] is stated, "we see evoked the presence of that fundamental evil which dwells within this neighbor. But if that is the case, then it also dwells within me. And what is more of a neighbor means to me than this heart within which [[pleasure]]; [[pleasure]] is that of my jouissance and which I don't dare go near?" (Lacan, 1992, p. 186).In "The Subversion of the Subject and the Dialectic of Desire" (2002), Lacan inscribed jouissance taken in the topography very fact of his graph of desire. At the upper level of the graph, jouissance is indicated by signifying lack in the Other[[pain|suffering]] itself, S(A̷). This is phallic jouissance, which is related to castration as lack. Traditionally, the erectile organ, the phallus, represents the object of jouissance, not so much by itself, but rather as the missing portion of a desired image. Phallic jouissance is inscribed in the diagram at the level of a vector that starts out it becomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from S(A̷), the Other's lack, and goes toward (S̷ ◇ D), the drive as articulated by the subject and the demand of the Other[[pain]]. Thus jouissance is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive. Recognizing the Other With 's lack produces a fantasy in the subject's unconscious. In this fantasy, the object represents what the subject imagines that the Other is deprived of.In everyday life, the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child. Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, Lacan located [[jouissance at the place of the barred Other, S(A̷) this is also where Lacan inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!" To this command, the subject can only respond, "J]]'ouis!" ("I hear!"), for such jouissance is structurally prohibited. Lacan repeated that while the superego prohibits and punishes, it also requires that the subject experience jouissance. For Lacan, the requirement to enjoy is directly related to a taboo. But what is prohibited, what must remain unsatisfied, is only the subject's jouissance. Giving the Other an experience of jouissance does not seem to be prohibited.The Other is barred in the diagram only by being marked by the loss of object <i>a</i>. Thus if a subject assumes the position of the Other's missing object and if this can make the Other whole, then "It would enjoy," as Lacan said (2002, p. 311). He thus introduced a jouissance outside on the phallic orderother hand, a mystic jouissance, which he defined as a nonphallic, feminine jouissance (1998). For being not whole, a woman "has a supplementary jouissance compared to what the phallic function designates by way of jouissance. . . . Y[[pleasure]]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo[pain] Bernini ] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the Ecstasy of St. Teresa[[pain]] to immediately understand that she's coming. There's no doubt about it" (1998, pp. 73, 76).But what did Lacan mean when he said that a woman, for being "not whole," was capable of a supplementary, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," he proposed dividing subjects not according to their biological sexitself, but according to their relation to the phallus. On the masculine side would [[pleasure]] cannot be those subjects who take object <i>a</i> as obtained without paying the cause price of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it[[pain|suffering]]. Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the jouissance of the Other, S(A̷). The male or female mystic—a designation independent of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, It is feminine. But to attain it, the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic jouissance and jouissance of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical jouissance "outside sex," and thus beyond the mark of difference and beyond lack. The moment of ecstasy arrives when the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object <i>a</i> kind of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who 'deal'' in turn no longer lacks. The result is that to represent the Otherwhich "[[pleasure]] ''and''s jouissance, "A" is rewritten [[pain]] are presented as unbarred, S(A)a single packet. In <i>Civilization and Its Discontents"</iref>, Freud referred to the "oceanic feeling" Seminar of being at one with the greater Whole27 February 1963. Such is the feeling of mysticism, and also of trances and ecstasyJ.Whereas Freud discussed the dark relationship between mysticism and suffering with great hesitation, Lacan spoke of them more positively by remarking that on the cultural level, adoration of Christ suffering on the cross naturally sustains jouissance[[The Seminar]]. If certain mystics directly experience jouissance by looking at the Other's face—by looking at the face of God—others can attain it only by allowing the ever so broken body Book VII: The [[Ethics of Christ on Calvary to sustain it. They partake psychoanalysis|Ethics of a vicarious jouissance from Christ's mutilated body offered up to GodPsychoanalysis]]. Commenting on Catholicism, Lacan wrote, "That doctrine speaks only of the incarnation of God in a body, and assumes that the passion suffered in that person constituted another person's jouissance" (1998, p. 113)189.</ref> -->

===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance''is not a central preoccupation during the first part ofLacan'Jouissances teaching. ''Jouissance''appears in Lacan' is a s [[French language|Frenchwork]] term which translated means "[[enjoyment]]" and is contrasted with ''[[plaisir]]''. In every sense of the word it is whatever "gets you off". Something that gives in the [[subjectseminars]] a way out of its [[normativeSeminar I|1953-54]] subjectivity through and [[transcendentSeminar II|1954-55]] [[Bliss , and is referred to in some other works (feeling)|bliss]] whether that bliss or ''[[orgasmicÉcrits]] '', 1977). In these early years ''[[rapturejouissance]] be found '' is not elaborated in any [[textstructure|structural sense]]s, [[film]]s, works of [[art]] or [[sexual]] spheres; [[excess]] as opposed the reference being mainly to [[utility]]. It is a popular term in [[postmodernismHegel]] and the [[queer theorymaster—slave]] used by [[Roland Barthesdialectic]], where the [[Jacques Lacanslave]], must facilitate the [[Judith Butlermaster]], and others. [[Leo Bersani]] considers 's ''jouissance as intrinsically self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent ' through his work in producing [[selfobjects]]'for the master.

For Barthes (1977, p.9) =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''plaisirjouissance'' is, "a pleasure...linked to cultural enjoyment and identity, to the cultural enjoyment of identity, to a homogenising movement of the ego." As as [[Richard Middletonorgasm]] (1990, pemerges into the foreground.261) puts it, " This is the more popular use of the term ''Plaisirjouissance'' results, then, from the operation of the structures of signification through which the subject knows himself or herself; with ''jouir'jouissance'[[meaning]] `to come' fractures these structures."

=====''The French ‘’jouissance’’ means basically ‘’enjoyment’’Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-60]], but it has a sexual connotation (i[[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], Lacan deals for the first [[time]] with the [[Real]] and ''jouissance''.e 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. ‘orgasm’) lacking Here ''jouissance'' is considered in its function of [[evil]], that which is ascribed to a neighbour, but which dwells in the English word ‘enjoyment’most intimate part of the [[subject]], [[extimate|intimate]] and [[alienated]] at the same time, as it is therefore left untranslated that from which the [[subject]] flees, experiencing [[aggression]] at the very approach of an [[encounter]] with his/her own ''jouissance''. The chapters in most English editions this seminar address such concepts as the ''jouissance'' of [[transgression]] and the [[paradox]] of Lacan''jouissance''.

Lacan develops an opposition between ‘’jouissance’’ and ====1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====It is in the [[pleasuretext]].'[[The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[pleasure principlestructure|structural]] functions as a limit to enjoyment; it account of ''jouissance'' is a law which commands first given in connection with the [[subject to ‘enjoy as little as possible]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (Lacan, 1977).’

At The [[speaking]] [[being]] has to use the same time[[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 constantly attempts ]]. This loss of ''jouissance'' is a loss of the ''jouissance'' which is presumed to transgress be possible with the [[Other]], but which is, in fact, lost from the beginning. The [[myth]] of a primary [[experience]] of satisfaction is an illusion to cover the fact that all satisfaction is marked by a loss in relation to a supposed initial, complete satisfaction. The primary effect of the [[signifier]] is the [[repression]] of [[the thing]] where we suppose [[full]] ''jouissance'' to be. Once the signifier is there, ''jouissance'' is not there so completely. And it is only because of the signifier, whose impact cuts and forces an expenditure of ''jouissance'' from the body, that it is possible to enjoy what remains, or is left over from this evacuating. What cannot be evacuated via the signifying operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the prohibitions imposed on his enjoyment[[erotogenic zones]], that to go ‘beyond which the pleasure principle[[drive]] is articulated.’

HoweverWhat is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[outside]] the [[body]] in [[speech]], and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]] itself, out-of-the result -body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the level of transgressing the pleasure principle is not more pleasure[[lost object]], but pain[[object a]], since there is only a certainamount plus (+), a little [[compensation]] in the [[form]] of what is allowed of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the minus of the loss which has occurred in the forbidding of ''jouissance'' of pleasure that the subject can bear[[Other]].

Beyond this limit, =====Symbolic Prohibition=====The [[prohibition]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' (the [[pleasure becomes painprinciple]]) is inherent in the [[symbolic]] [[structure]] of [[language]], and this ‘painful pleasure’ which is what Lacan calls ‘’jouissance’’: ‘’’jouissance’’ why "''jouissance'' is sufferingforbidden to him who speaks, as such.”"<ref>S7 184{{E}} p. 319</ref> The [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] is conditional upon a certain initial [[renunciation]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' in the [[castration complex]], when the [[subject]] gives up his attempts to be the [[imaginary]] [[phallus]] for the [[mother]].

=====Law and Prohibition=====The term ‘’jouissance thus nicely expresses [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the paradoxical satisfaction that [[father]] prohibiting access to the subject derives from his symptom[[mother]], orthat is, the [[law]] prohibiting ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to put it another waythe one who speaks, but the suffering [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure]] itself of such a ''jouissance'', that he derives from his own satisfactionis, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the [[structure]]. Thus, what is prohibited is, in fact, already impossible.

=====''Plus-de jouir''=====The prohibition of ‘’jouissance’’ ([[lack]] in the pleasure principle) is inherent [[signifying order]], a [[lack]] in the symbolic structure [[Other]], which designates a lack of language''jouissance'', creates a [[place]] where lost objects come, which standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[order]] and ''jouissance''. What is why ‘jouissance’’ allowed of ''jouissance'' is forbidden to him who speaks, as suchin the [[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]].”<ref>E 319</ref>The subject’s entry into Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the symbolic Is conditional upon lost [[object]]. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a certain initial renunciation coefficient of ‘’jouissance’’ ''jouissance''. This can be seen in the castration complex, when [[The Subject|the subject gives up ]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his attempts to be /her surplus ''jouissance'', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the imaginary phallus for push of the mother[[drive]].

=====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The symbolic prohibition [[drive]] [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to [[capture]] something of enjoyment the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the Oedipus complex (circuit of the incest taboo) drive, but there is thus, paradoxically, a ''jouissance'' in the prohibition very [[repetition]] of something this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces as a ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. In this [[structural]] approach, there is already impossible; its a [[structuring]] function is therefore to sustain of lack itself, and the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden.The very prohibition creates loss of the desire primordial object of ''jouissance'' comes to transgress itoperate as a [[cause]], as seen in the function of [[object a]], and ‘’jouissance’’ is therefore fundamentally transgressivethe ''[[plus-de jouir]]''.

The ====1970s====[[death driveSeminar XX]] is the name , [[Encore]], given to that constant desire in the subject to break through the pleasure principle towards the Thign 1972-73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and a certain excess ‘’jouissance’’; thus ‘’jouissance’’ is ‘the path towards death.”<ref>s17 17</ref>Insofar goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[feminine jouissance]]'', also known as the drives are attempts to break through the pleasure principle in search of ‘’jouissance,’’ every drive is a death drive''[[Other jouissance]]''.

There are strong affinities between Lacan’sconcept of =====Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Sexual ''jouissance '' is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and Freud’s concept a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of the Libido[[phallic]] ''jouissance'' that has to [[pass]] through [[speech]].In keeping with Freud’s assertiont hat there The ''jouissance'' of man is only one libidoproduced by the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]], which and is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is masculinethe [[structure]] of the [[signifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[lacking]] a part of ''jouissance'', Lacan states that jouissance which is essentially phallic; “Jouissance, isnofar as it required in order to use [[speech]]. All of man is sexual, subjected to the [[signifier]]. Man cannot relate directly with the [[Other]]. His partner is phallic, which means that it does thus not relate to the Other as suchsex 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]].”<ref>S20 58</ref>

However The erotics embodied in 1973 Lacan admits that there [[object a]] is a specificially feminine the ''jouissance'' that belongs to [[fantasy]], aiming at a ‘supplementary jouissance’piece of the [[body]], which is beyond and creating an illusion of a union linking [[The Subject|the pahllus’subject]] with a specific object. A The ''jouissance '' of the Otherman is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance''.<ref>S20, 58, 69)</ref> This feminine jouissance is ineffablelinked to his ideas of the 1960s outlined above.

In order =====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[universal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the signifier. However, not all of woman is subjected to differentiate between these two forms the signifier. Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of a ''jouissance, Lacan introduces different algebraic symbols for each; Jd designates '' which is not altogether phallic . This Other ''jouissance'', another kind of satisfaction, whereas JA designates has to do with the jouissance of relation to the Otherand is not supported by the object and fantasy.

== ===''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[lalangue]]'', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made of ''lalangue''. Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' to show that language always intervenes in the form of lallation or mother tongue and that the unconscious is a `[[knowing]] how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[association]], aims to cut through the [[apparent]] coherent, complete [[system]] of language in order to emphasize the inconsistencies and holes with which the speaking being has to deal. The ''lalangue'' of the unconscious, that which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance'' in its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject.  ''Jouis-sens'' also refers to the [[super-ego]]'s [[demand]] to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] promotes the ''jouissance'' that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is one of a paradoxical functioning, secretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance''. In '[[La Troisième]]', presented in Rome in 1974 (Écrits, 1977), Lacan elaborates the [[third]] ''jouissance'', jouis-sens, the ''jouissance'' of meaning, the ''jouissance'' of the unconscious, in reference to its locus in the [[Borromean knot]]. He locates the [[three]] ''jouissance''s in relation to the intersections of the three circles of the [[knot]], the circles of the [[Real]], the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a topos in which the [[Kid A logical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', that is the ''jouissance'' of the body, is located at the intersection of the Real and [[the Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the common [[space]] of [[the Symbolic]] and the Real; the ''jouissance'' of meaning, jouis-sens, is located at the intersection of the Imaginary and the Symbolic. It is the [[object a]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. =====Feminine ''Jouissance''=====<!-- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s [[concept]] of ''[[jouissance]]'' and [[Freud]]'s concept of the [[libido]], as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "[[bodily]] substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s assertion that there is only one [[libido]], which is [[masculine]], [[Lacan]] states that ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[Lacan]] admits that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S20}} p. 71</ref> In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]]. --> [[Lacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', insofar as it is sexual, is [[phallus|phallic]], which means that it does not relate to the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[feminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. In Alphabet Landorder to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]] . <!-- ==Master and Slave==In the [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term occasionally, usually in the context of the [[Hegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of the [[Imagemaster]] and the [[slave]]:Kida_jthe [[slave]] is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the [[master]]'s [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'').<ref>{{S1}} p. 223; {{S2}} p. 269</ref> --> ==''Jouissance'' and the Clinic==Lacan's contribution to the [[clinic]] is paramount in [[regard]] to the operation of ''jouissance'' in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[structures]] can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''jouissance''. =====Neurosis=====The [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[want]] to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in order not to have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the subjection to language and its consequent loss of ''jouissance''. 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]] that it would be possible to attain a complete ''jouissance'' if it were not forbidden and if it were not for some Other who is demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[seeing]] the [[lack in the Other]] the neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her.gif  =====Perversion=====The [[Pervert]] 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|rightobject a]] in the place of the [[barred]] Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to procure the ''jouissance'' of a phallus, even though he/she doesn't know to whom this phallus belongs. Although the pervert presents him-/herself as completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance'', one of his/her aims is to make the law [[present]]. Lacan uses the term [[père]]-version, to demonstrate the way in which the pervert appeals to the father to fulfil the [[paternal function]]. =====Practice=====The [[practice]] of [[psychoanalysis]] examines the different ways and means [[The Subject|the subject]] uses to produce ''jouissance''. It is by means of the bien [[dire]], the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[speak]] in a new way, a way of speaking the [[truth]], that a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[analytic]] act is a cut, a break with a certain mode of ''jouissance'' fixed in the fantasy. The consequent crossing of the fantasy leaves the subject having to endure being alone with his/her own ''jouissance'' and to encounter its operation in the drive, a unique, [[singular]] way of being alone with one's own ''jouissance''. [[The Cut|frameThe 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, because ''jouissance'' is sacrificed to the Other, often in the most mutilating ways, like cutting off a piece of the body as an offering to what is believed to be the command of the Other to be completed. The body is not emptied of ''jouissance'' via the effect of the signifier and castration, which usually operate to exteriorise ''jouissance'' and give order to the [[drives]]. In [[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 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 [[position]] of the object of the Other's ''jouissance'', where the Uncontrolled [[action]] of the [[Death Drive|death drive]] lies, what is aimed at is the modification of this position in regard to the ''jouissance'' in the structure. This involves an effort to link in a [[chain]], the isolated, persecuting [[signifiers]] in order to initiate a place for the subject outside the ''jouissance'' of the Other. Psychoanalysis attempts to modify the effect of the Other's ''jouissance'' in the body, according to the shift of the subject in the structure. The psychotic does not escape the structure, but there can be a modification of unlimited, deadly ''jouissance'Kid A '. == In Alphabet Land Jumps Another Juicy the work of Slavoj Žižek ==''Jouissance''Jaculator , 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]]- That Jerkharm and the strange [[compulsion]] in certain [[patients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[traumatic]] for [[them]]. Th is paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, or pleasure through pain, is what Lacan designates as ''jouissance''. If pleasure functions in [[terms]] of [[balance]], achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is destabilizing and tends towards [[excess]]. Enjoyment can be characterized as a kind of existential electricity that not only animates the subject but also threatens to destroy them. In this regard, enjoyment is always both before and beyond [[the symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[captured]] by it. If the body of Frankenstein’s monster is the intelligible symbolic structure, then lightning is the raw substance of enjoyment that reflects the primordial [[character]] of [[human]] drives and obsessions. According to Lacan, jouissance has a Real status and is the only “substance” recognized in psychoanalysis. Indeed, a central [[goal]] of psychoanalysis is not so much to bring to light the “guilt” of the [[analysand]] but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII'': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[guilt]] that are themselves symptomatic of a [[particular]] mode of ''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 [[demands]] of the subject – in terms of a primary [[injunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3). Although ''jouissance'' is viewed as a (non-Offdiscursive) “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 [[domain]] of forbidden and/or [[obscene]] excesses. To approach this from a different angle, ''jouissance'' is produced as the excess of repression; without this repression, there can be no jouissance (''LN'': 308). This is why ''jouissance'' cannot be directly targeted or apprehended (despite the [[ambition]] of the “[[politics]] of enjoyment” and its various incarnations). At the same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject. David Fincher’s ''Seven'' is illustrative of the dynamics of ''jouissance''. Two detectives, Mills and Somerset, set out to investigate a series of brutal murders committed as a “sermon” on the seven deadly sins by John Doe. Doe’s victims are chosen on the grounds that they embody a particular sinful excess and are subsequently dispatched in an elaborately [[sadistic]] manner. He seeks to punishexecute his victims not because of any [[legal]] transgression but because they do not conform to [[the imaginary]] [[unity]], the homeostatic ego-[[ideal]], of a God-fearing [[community]]. Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[SuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[acts]] beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[Batman]] and various other super(ego)-heroes). There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[film]]. The first concerns the intrinsic character of ''jouissance'': the more Doe renounces earthly pleasures in pursuit of his cause, the more his enjoyment-in-renunciation is revealed. What Doe attempts to conceal is precisely the [[surplus enjoyment]] he takes in personal sacrifice and in stoically carrying out his [[duty]]. His enjoyment is not so much an immediate [[gratification]] in [[violence]], but rather an obscene satisfaction in carrying out complicated and ritualized killings/torture as part of a divine mission sanctioned by God. Doe is, in fact, a classic pervert who tries to hide his enjoyment behind his perceived [[ethical]] obligation. Put in other terms, he expresses the classic [[ideological]] alibi: “I was not there as a being of enjoyment but as a functionary of duty.” This also reflects Žižek’s point against [[Hannah Arendt]] and her conclusion regarding the routinized [[nature]] of the extermination of [[Jews]] as a “banality of evil” ([[Arendt]] 1963). That is to say, what Arendt misses is the way in which the bureaucratization itself became “a source of an additional jouissance” (''PF'': 55); a surplus satisfaction gained from carrying out the daily [[torture]] and humiliations in the guise of a [[Kantianism|Kantian]] sense of impersonal duty, as an instrument of the Other’s will (the law/state/universal mission, etc.). The [[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. You Displease MeThe second concerns the way in which Doe inscribes himself in his “sermon”. At the denouement of the film, Mills learns of his wife’s [[murder]] (her decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the sin of wrath: he “over-kills” Doe in an act of desperate rage. Prior to this, Doe confesses to a powerful [[envy]] of Mills and his [[married]] [[life]]. By declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, And You Think I Gain Pleasure Doe [[stages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle. From That! Heh! You Must Take Me a [[Lacanian]] perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[extimacy]]”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and intimacy. For Some Masochistic Francophile! Lacan it refers to “something strange to me, although it is at the heart of me” (''SVII'': 71). It is along these lines that [[Jacques-Alain Miller]] affirms that the [[hatred]] of the Other’s enjoyment is ultimately a hatred of our own enjoyment ([[Miller]] 2008). The [[image]] of the Other’s enjoyment is so compelling precisely because it symbolizes the Lacanian “in us more than ourselves”. In this sense, the Other is always someone who gives body to the very excess of enjoyment that in our innermost being denies us homeostasis. What ''jouissance'' bears [[witness]] to is not the unbearable difference of the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is, the very [[fascination]] with (the projected sense of) the Other’s enjoyment draws the subject into too close a proximity with their own disturbing excesses. In this context, we should read Doe’s [[confession]] as fake. His real “sin” is not envy but [[denial]]. What he denies is that his entire [[economy]] of righteous retribution is driven by enjoyment. His confession functions precisely as a way of sustaining this economy at a safe distance from any direct encounter with his traumatic excesses. By sacrificing himself, he is able to avoid any confrontation with his mode of private enjoyment – it is the opposite of what Lacan means by an act. We see a similar type of [[logic]] at play in the phenomenon of stalking. In their [[over-identification]] with their [[object of desire]] (often a celebrity), the stalker is drawn into an unbearable proximity with their excesses (the [[anxiety]] generated by their [[obsessional]] economy), which they then try to resolve through an act of severance – [[suicide]], an assault on the target of their [[obsession]], and so on. [[Ideology]] 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, this enjoyment is not something that was previously possessed; it is an epiphenomenal excess of social repression itself. Where ideology succeeds is in fantasmatically translating this sense of lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[immigrant]] is someone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[living]] off “our” [[state]] benefits and they work too hard, taking “our” jobs, etc.) and who thereby steals and/or corrupts our enjoyment (our “way of life”). And Youthus what “we conceal by imputing to the Other the theft of enjoyment is the traumatic fact that we never possessed what was allegedly stolen from us” (''TN'': 203). 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're The Substance I'm Paid : 308–9). What is [[manifest]] in [[fascism]], for example, is the way in which the subject derives surplus enjoyment through acts of sacrifice (renouncing personal enjoyment) in the name of doing one’s duty to the [[nation]]. With By My Lack Of Substance? Youtoday’s (Western) ideology – basically a [[capitalist]] fatalism (“the economy is what it is”) in support of private pleasures – the subject is bribed in a different way. Ideology no longer operates simply with a particular [[utopian]] [[vision]] or with definitive objectives. Contemporary ideology consists rather in assigning demands for [[change]] to the realm of “impossibility” (as so much “ideological fantasy”). What ideology offers the subject is the fantasy of change (“[[freedom]] of choice”, “opportunities”, etc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is sustained as a [[fantasmatic]] abstraction in order to prevent (the [[fear]] of) any traumatic loss of enjoyment. We see this type of ideological operation in [[films]] like ''Bruce Almighty're Impossible! I'm Coming To Get You! - Fuck Youwhere the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[world]] falls apart as a result – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[existence]]. One of the central lessons of psychoanalysis is that while enjoyment is experienced as Real, it is ultimately an empty [[spectre]], a kind of anamorphic effect of symbolic circumscription. Against its numerous ideological manipulations, we [[need]] to find ways of accepting, and living with, this traumatic [[knowledge]]. Extemporizing on an old [[Marxist]] maxim, Jouissance!when it comes to ''jouissance'' we have nothing to lose but the myth of loss itself.

{{See}}* [[AutismBorromean knot]]* [[Castration of the subject]]* [[Dark continentDeath drive]]* [[Drive]]||* [[Formula of FantasyDesire]]* [[FetishismEthics]]* [[Graph of DesireImaginary]]* [[Heredity and the Aetiology of the NeurosesLaw]]||* [[Kantianism and psychoanalysisLibido]]* [[MasochismMother]] * [[MathemeNeurosis]]* [[Narcissistic elationOedipus complex]]||* ''[[Object aPerversion]]''

* [[Phobias in childrenPleasure principle]]* [[Repetition compulsionPsychosis]] * [[Formulas of Sexuation]]* [[Subject's desire]] * [[Subject of the drive]]||* [[SufferingStructure]] * [[SymptomSuper-ego]]* ''[[sinthomeSymbolic]]''* [[Voyeurism]]{{Also}}

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/># * [[Freud, SigmundS. ]] (19201951)[1905] 'The Three Essays on [[Sexuality]]'. Beyond S.E. 7: pp. 125-244. In: [[Standard Edition]] of the pleasure principleComplete [[Psychological]] Works of [[Sigmund Freud]]. [[London]]: Hogarth Press. SE* Freud, 18S. (1951) Notes upon a Case of [[Obsessional Neurosis]]. S.E. I0: 1pp. 153-64319.# ——* Freud, S. (19301951)[1920] Beyond the [[Pleasure Principle]]. S. Civilization and its discontentsE. SE, 21I8: 57pp. 3-14564.# * Lacan, JacquesJ. (19911970)'Of structure as an inmixing of an [[otherness]] prerequisite to any subject whatever' in The [[Structuralist]] ''Jouissance'' 109 Controversy, Richard Macksay and Eugenio Donato (eds). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins [[University]] Press, p. Le séminaire194. * Lacan, J. Book 17: L'envers de la psychanalyse (19691975) Seminar XX, Encore (1972-197073). Text established by Jacques-[[Alain]] Miller. [[Paris]]: Seuil, p.# ——10. Now translated by [[Bruce Fink]] (19921998)under the title of On [[Feminine sexuality|Feminine Sexuality]], The Limits of [[Love]] and Knowledge I972-1973, Encore. The seminar Seminar of [[Jacques Lacan]]. Book 7: The ethics of psychoanalysis (1959-1960) (Dennis Porter, Trans.)XX. New York: W. W. Norton, p. 3.# ——* Lacan, J. (19981958)'The youth of A. Gide', April, 1958; `The seminar [[signification]] of Jacques Lacan. Book 20: the phallus', May, 1958; 'On feminine sexuality: the limits [[theory]] of love and knowledge[[symbolism]] in Ernest [[Jones]]', March, encore (1972-1973) (Bruce Fink1959, Transin Écrits.). New YorkParis: W. W. NortonSeuil.# ——* Lacan, J. (20021977)[1960]. 'The [[subversion ]] of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian unconscious. In his ' in [[Écrits: A selection Selection]] (Bruce Finktrans. A. [[Sheridan]]). New York: W.W. Norton. * Lacan, TransJ.(1990)Television. New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1960note 5), p. 325.)Carmela Levy-Stokes</div>

[[Category:Desire]][[Category:Kid A In Alphabet Land]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]]{{OK}}[[Category:TermsReal]]

[[Category:PsychoanalysisZizek_Dictionary]][[Category:Sexuality]]{{Footer Kid A}}