Difference between revisions of "The Politics of Jouissance"

From No Subject - Encyclopedia of Psychoanalysis
Jump to: navigation, search
(The LinkTitles extension automatically added links to existing pages (<a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles">https://github.com/bovender/LinkTitles</a>).)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The problem with today's superego injunction to enjoy is that, in contrast to previous modes of ideological interpellation, it opens up no "world" proper - it just refers to an obscure Unnameable. Even Nazi anti-Semitism opened up a world: by way of describing the present critical situation, naming the enemy ("Jewish conspiracy"), the goal and the means to achieve it, Nazism disclosed reality in a way which allowed its subjects to acquire a global "cognitive mapping," including the space for their meaningful engagement. Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "danger" of capitalism: although it is global, encompassing the whole worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless' ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful "cognitive mapping."<ref>I rely here on conversations with Alain Badiou.</ref>
+
{{BSZ}}
  
In what, more precisely, does this "worldlessness" consist? As Lacan points out in his Seminar XX, Encore, jouissance involves a logic strictly homologous to that of the ontological proof for the existence of God. In the classic version of this proof, my awareness of myself as a finite, limited being immediately gives birth to the notion of an infinite, perfect being, and since this being is perfect, its very notion contains its existence; in the same way, our experience of jouissance accessible to us as finite, located, partial, "castrated," immediately gives birth to the notion of a full, achieved, unlimited jouissance whose existence is necessarily presupposed by the subject who imputes it to another subject, his/her "subject supposed to enjoy."
+
The problem with today's [[superego]] [[injunction]] to [[enjoy]] is that, in contrast to previous modes of [[ideological]] [[interpellation]], it opens up no "[[world]]" proper - it just refers to an obscure Unnameable. Even [[Nazi]] [[anti-Semitism]] opened up a world: by way of describing the [[present]] critical [[situation]], naming the [[enemy]] ("[[Jewish]] conspiracy"), the [[goal]] and the means to achieve it, [[Nazism]] disclosed [[reality]] in a way which allowed its [[subjects]] to acquire a [[global]] "cognitive [[mapping]]," including the [[space]] for their meaningful engagement. Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "[[danger]]" of [[capitalism]]: although it is global, encompassing the [[whole]] worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless' ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of [[people]] of any meaningful "cognitive mapping."<ref>I rely here on conversations with [[Alain]] [[Badiou]].</ref>
 +
 
 +
In what, more precisely, does this "worldlessness" consist? As [[Lacan]] points out in his [[Seminar]] XX, [[Encore]], [[jouissance]] involves a [[logic]] strictly homologous to that of the [[ontological]] proof for the [[existence]] of God. In the classic version of this proof, my [[awareness]] of myself as a finite, limited [[being]] immediately gives [[birth]] to the [[notion]] of an infinite, perfect being, and since this being is perfect, its very notion contains its existence; in the same way, our [[experience]] of jouissance accessible to us as finite, located, [[partial]], "[[castrated]]," immediately gives birth to the notion of a [[full]], achieved, unlimited jouissance whose existence is necessarily presupposed by the [[subject]] who imputes it to [[another]] subject, his/her "subject supposed to enjoy."
  
 
[...]
 
[...]
Line 11: Line 13:
  
 
==Source==
 
==Source==
* [[The Politics of Jouissance]].  ''Lacanian Ink''. Volume 24/25. Spring. pp. 126-135. <http://www.lacan.com/frameXXIV6.htm>.
+
* [[The Politics of Jouissance]].  ''[[Lacanian]] Ink''. Volume 24/25. Spring. pp. 126-135. <http://www.lacan.com/frameXXIV6.htm>.
  
  
 
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
 
[[Category:Articles by Slavoj Žižek]]
 
[[Category:Works]]
 
[[Category:Works]]

Latest revision as of 20:52, 23 May 2019

Articles by Slavoj Žižek

The problem with today's superego injunction to enjoy is that, in contrast to previous modes of ideological interpellation, it opens up no "world" proper - it just refers to an obscure Unnameable. Even Nazi anti-Semitism opened up a world: by way of describing the present critical situation, naming the enemy ("Jewish conspiracy"), the goal and the means to achieve it, Nazism disclosed reality in a way which allowed its subjects to acquire a global "cognitive mapping," including the space for their meaningful engagement. Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "danger" of capitalism: although it is global, encompassing the whole worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless' ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful "cognitive mapping."[1]

In what, more precisely, does this "worldlessness" consist? As Lacan points out in his Seminar XX, Encore, jouissance involves a logic strictly homologous to that of the ontological proof for the existence of God. In the classic version of this proof, my awareness of myself as a finite, limited being immediately gives birth to the notion of an infinite, perfect being, and since this being is perfect, its very notion contains its existence; in the same way, our experience of jouissance accessible to us as finite, located, partial, "castrated," immediately gives birth to the notion of a full, achieved, unlimited jouissance whose existence is necessarily presupposed by the subject who imputes it to another subject, his/her "subject supposed to enjoy."

[...]

References

  1. I rely here on conversations with Alain Badiou.


Source