Jouis-sens

From No Subject
Jump to navigation Jump to search

In Lacanian psychoanalysis, **Jouis-sens** is a crucial but notoriously complex neologism introduced by Jacques Lacan during the final period of his teaching in the 1970s. A portmanteau that fuses two fundamental French terms, jouissance (enjoyment, in its specific psychoanalytic sense of excessive, bodily satisfaction beyond the pleasure principle) and sens (meaning or sense), the concept points to a paradoxical and uniquely human form of enjoyment: the enjoyment derived directly from meaning itself. It is the satisfaction found not in spite of the signifier, but because of it. This formulation marks a significant development from Lacan's earlier work, which often positioned jouissance as that which lies beyond or is excluded by the symbolic order. With "jouis-sens," Lacan identifies a specific modality of enjoyment that is intrinsic to the functioning of language and the production of meaning.

This article argues that "Jouis-sens" is not merely a synonym for or minor variation of jouissance, but a distinct theoretical operator essential for understanding the later Lacanian clinic. It functions to explain the perplexing attachment of the speaking being (parlêtre) to the very symptoms that cause suffering. The concept posits that the symptom endures because the subject finds a kernel of obscure satisfaction—a "meaning-in-enjoyment"—in the repetitive and often nonsensical constructions of their own unconscious. The development of "Jouis-sens" is inseparable from Lacan's turn towards topology in the 1970s, where he sought to move beyond a purely linguistic model of the psyche. The concept finds its formal place within the framework of the Borromean knot, which diagrams the interrelation of the three registers: the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary. As such, "Jouis-sens" provides a crucial key for unlocking the logic of Lacan's final teachings on the sinthome, the superego, and the ultimate aims of analytic treatment.

Etymology and Conceptual Distinction

The theoretical weight of "Jouis-sens" is condensed within its construction as a portmanteau. To grasp its significance, one must first analyze the two terms it merges. Jouissance is a core Lacanian concept that designates a surplus enjoyment, a bodily excitation that is both painful and pleasurable and which trasngresses the homeostatic regulation of the pleasure principle.[1] It is the residual effect of the drive's encounter with the body, an enjoyment that the symbolic order, with its laws and prohibitions, attempts—but always fails—to fully contain. Sens, or meaning, is that which is produced by the differential play of signifiers within the symbolic chain ([math]\displaystyle{ S...S' }[/math]). In Lacan's classic formulation, meaning is not a stable entity but an effect of the signifier's movement, always insisting but also constantly slipping.

By creating "Jouis-sens," Lacan forges a direct link between these two apparently opposing domains. The term suggests an "enjoyment-in-meaning" or, perhaps more accurately, a "meaning-enjoyed." It is the specific enjoyment that arises when the symbolic function itself—the act of creating sense, of linking signifiers, of articulating a narrative—becomes erotically charged. As the psychoanalyst and scholar Bruce Fink explains, this is the particular satisfaction that the subject derives from the symptom's coherence, however nonsensical it may appear to an outsider.

The symptom is meaning, but a meaning that is enjoyed by the subject unbeknownst to him or her. It is 'jouis-sens', enjoyed meaning (enjoy-meant). The subject doesn't enjoy the meaning of the symptom in the usual sense of the term 'enjoy', but rather gets a certain jouissance or satisfaction therefrom. The symptom constitutes a particular way for the subject to get his or her 'fix' of jouissance.[2]

This "enjoy-meant" must be carefully distinguished from the other modalities of jouissance that Lacan delineates, particularly Phallic Jouissance and Feminine Jouissance (also referred to as Other Jouissance).

  • vs. Phallic Jouissance: Phallic Jouissance is the jouissance that is regulated by the phallus as a signifier of lack and is inscribed within the symbolic order. It is a limited, countable, and ultimately disappointing jouissance, the jouissance of the organ that is indexed to the logic of castration.[1] "Jouis-sens" is different because its source is not the organ or a specific erotogenic zone, but the very operation of the signifying chain itself. It is the enjoyment derived from the formal consistency of a symbolic system, even when that system is a pathological one like a symptom or a delusion.
  • vs. Feminine/Other Jouissance: In Seminar XX: Encore, Lacan famously posits a "not-all" or Feminine Jouissance that is supplementary to Phallic Jouissance.[3] This jouissance is ineffable, mystical, and exists beyond the signifier.[3] It is an experience of the Real that cannot be spoken or fully captured by language. "Jouis-sens" stands in direct contrast to this; it is precisely the enjoyment of what can be spoken, written, and repeated. It is the jouissance that clings to the letter of the symptom, the poem, or the pun. While Feminine Jouissance is beyond meaning, "Jouis-sens" is the enjoyment that meaning itself secretes.

Origins and Development in Lacan's Seminars and Writings

The concept of "Jouis-sens" was not a sudden invention but rather the culmination of a theoretical trajectory that unfolded throughout Lacan's seminars and writings of the early 1970s. As he pushed the limits of his own structuralist framework, Lacan became increasingly preoccupied with the points where the symbolic order failed to govern enjoyment and, paradoxically, where the structure of language itself produced a peculiar satisfaction. The emergence of "Jouis-sens" can be traced across a crucial three-year period, moving from an initial conceptual groundwork to an explicit naming and, finally, a rigorous topological formalization.

Seminar XIX, ...ou pire (...or worse) (1971-72)

The conceptual prehistory of "Jouis-sens" is clearly evident in Seminar XIX, ...ou pire (...or worse). In this seminar, Lacan intensively investigates the relationship between the signifier and the Real of jouissance. He begins to shift his emphasis from meaning (signification) as an effect that occurs between signifiers ([math]\displaystyle{ S_1 \rightarrow S_2 }[/math]) to the Real effect that the signifier has in and of itself. He explores how the "One" of the signifier—its very irruption and repetition—can be a point of fixation for the drive. It is here that Lacan famously analyzes the function of the letter, arguing that it is the material support for the signifier and the very vehicle of jouissance.[4] While the term "Jouis-sens" is not yet present, the seminar lays the essential groundwork by theorizing that meaning does not simply oppose or negate jouissance; rather, the mechanisms of the symbolic—writing, repetition, the letter—are themselves conduits for it. The problem is no longer just that jouissance is forbidden by the Law, but that the Law itself, in its very utterance, generates a perverse surplus enjoyment.

Key Texts: Télévision (1973) and La Troisième (1974)

The explicit naming and initial elaboration of "Jouis-sens" occur in two pivotal texts delivered a year apart. The first is Télévision, a dense written work produced for a television broadcast, where Lacan formally introduces the portmanteau. Here, he directly connects the production of sense to a rush of enjoyment, positioning truth as that which runs after the Real and knowledge as that which produces jouis-sens. Lacan describes meaning as a defense against the Real, but a defense that is itself saturated with enjoyment.

For sense is a jouis-sens, enjoyment of the signifier, the only one that is given to the speaking being to the point that, as I once said, he may appear to be a 'disease of language.' This enjoyment, it is precisely what is regulated by what I have called the phallic function.[5]

The second key text is La Troisième ("The Third"), a lecture given in Rome in 1974. Here, Lacan takes the concept further, linking it directly to the symptom and giving it a preliminary place within his emerging topological framework. He argues that the speaking being is fundamentally attached to the "idiocy" of their symptom because it is a formation that provides them with jouis-sens. It is the enjoyment of the unconscious meaning that the symptom encapsulates. In this lecture, he stresses that the Real, for the speaking subject, is precisely the symptom—a knot of signifiers that has become real because it is charged with jouissance. This enjoyment of one's own symptomatic "stupidity" is the core of jouis-sens: the subject enjoys the meaning their unconscious has forged, even—and especially—when it is the source of their suffering.[6]

Seminar XXII, R.S.I. (1974-75)

Following its introduction in Télévision and La Troisième, "Jouis-sens" receives its most rigorous definition in Seminar XXII, R.S.I. Here, Lacan moves the concept from a clever pun to a necessary structural component of the Borromean knot. The seminar is dedicated to exploring the triadic structure of the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary and how they are held together. Lacan gives "Jouis-sens" a precise topological address: it is located at the point of intersection between the Symbolic and the Real.[7] It is the specific enjoyment that ensures the Symbolic ring "hooks" onto the Real. This formalization is crucial: "Jouis-sens" is no longer just a psychological phenomenon but a logical necessity for the coherence of the subject's reality. It is the jouissance produced by the Symbolic's own formal consistency as it impinges upon and orders the Real. This topological placement solidifies the concept's function as the very glue of the symptom, setting the stage for Lacan's final theory of the sinthome as that which provides the subject with their unique and fundamental mode of "Jouis-sens."[4]

The Topology of Jouis-sens: The Borromean Knot

In his final theoretical period, Jacques Lacan turned increasingly to topology as a means of representing psychic structure, arguing that concepts like the Borromean knot could more accurately model the interrelation of his three registers—the Real, the Symbolic, and the Imaginary—than purely linguistic or optical schemas. The Borromean knot consists of three rings linked in such a way that if any single ring is cut, the other two also fall apart. For Lacan, this represented the fundamental interdependence of the registers in constituting a subject's reality. Within this framework, "Jouis-sens" is not simply a floating concept but is given a precise and necessary structural location, formalizing its role as a linchpin of the subject's existence.

The Intersection of the Real, Symbolic, and Imaginary

Lacan uses the areas of overlap between the rings of the Borromean knot to map the different modalities of jouissance. "Jouis-sens" finds its specific address in the area of intersection between the Symbolic and the Real.

To understand this, we must consider what each intersection signifies:

  • The intersection of the Imaginary (I) and the Symbolic (S) is the locus of Phallic Jouissance ([math]\displaystyle{ \Phi }[/math]), the jouissance that is captured and limited by the signifier, related to meaning and bodily form.
  • The intersection of all three rings (R, S, and I) is the privileged space of the object petit a (<math>a</oline>), the remnant of the Real that functions as the cause of the subject's desire.
  • The intersection of the Symbolic (S) and the Real (R) is the domain of **"Jouis-sens"**.

This topological placement is profoundly significant. It means that "Jouis-sens" is the enjoyment that erupts precisely when the Symbolic order—the apparatus of language, law, and structure—directly engages with and attempts to order the Real. The Real is that which is outside symbolization, the traumatic and unspeakable core of being. "Jouis-sens" is therefore the paradoxical satisfaction produced by the act of naming the unnameable, of forcing sense onto that which has none. It is the enjoyment of the letter as it carves itself into the Real, the satisfaction of a formula or a diagnosis that, while failing to capture the Real entirely, provides a coherent and repeatable symbolic matrix for it. It is the specific enjoyment of the parlêtre (speaking being) who is compelled to make sense of the trauma of existence through speech.

Jouis-sens and the Sinthome

The clinical and theoretical culmination of this topology is found in Lacan's concept of the sinthome, elaborated in his Seminar XXIII on James Joyce. The sinthome is Lacan's final term for the symptom, but with a crucial difference. It is not something to be interpreted away and eliminated, but rather the subject's most singular and fundamental mode of organizing their reality and securing their enjoyment. In cases where the standard Borromean knot fails to hold (a "lapsus" of the knot, which Lacan posited in psychosis), a "fourth ring"—the sinthome—is required to bind the other three together.

"Jouis-sens" is the very substance of the sinthome. The sinthome functions as a viable support for the subject precisely because it is a source of "Jouis-sens." As scholar and psychoanalyst Bruce Fink elaborates:

The sinthome is a signifying formation that allows the subject a unique way of 'knowing how to make do with' his or her symptom, a way of actively employing it. This is possible because the sinthome itself is charged with jouissance. It is a knot of meaning that carries the subject's most fundamental satisfaction.[8]

For James Joyce, Lacan argues, the sinthome was his writing itself—a unique invention that held his psyche together. The immense and obsessive labor of his prose, particularly in Finnegans Wake, was a way of generating a constant supply of "Jouis-sens," a way of enjoying the materiality of the signifier to an extreme degree. This enjoyment provided the necessary ballast to keep the rings of his psychic structure from coming undone.[9] In this final Lacanian perspective, the goal of psychoanalysis shifts. It is no longer about achieving a symptom-free state, but about helping the subject identify with their sinthome—to recognize and embrace the singular "Jouis-sens" at their core, transforming a repetitive suffering into a unique and livable mode of being.

Core Theoretical Relationships

"Jouis-sens" does not function as an isolated concept within Lacan's later teaching. Its theoretical power is revealed through its deep entanglement with other key concepts developed during the same period, which collectively describe the complex interface of language, the body, and the drive. The function of "Jouis-sens" is most clearly illuminated by its relationship to the primordial materiality of language (lalangue), the paradoxical injunction of the superego, and the exemplary linguistic structures of poetry and the pun.

Jouis-sens and Lalangue

In his later work, Lacan introduces a crucial distinction between le langage (language as a structured, grammatical system) and lalangue. The latter term, often translated as "languish" or left in the original French, does not refer to a formal system of communication. Rather, lalangue is the primordial, pre-symbolic substrate of language as it is first encountered by the infant. It consists of the sounds, rhythms, cadences, and maternal vocalisations that impact the body before they are organized into meaningful words and sentences.[1] It is language in its material, affective, and nonsensical dimension—a flow of signifiers charged with bodily enjoyment. As Dylan Evans describes it, lalangue is "made of a motley of equivocal terms... it is the source of the puns, slips of the tongue, and jokes."[1]

"Jouis-sens" is the specific enjoyment that arises when the chaotic, jouissance-laden material of lalangue is captured and ordered by the formal structure of langage. It is the process by which the raw, nonsensical enjoyment of sound is given a "sense," and in that very process of sense-making, a new, more refined form of enjoyment is produced. The babble of the infant, for example, is pure lalangue. When the child utters "Ma-ma" and the mother recognizes this as a call, the babble is elevated into a signifier. This moment of creating sense is charged with a powerful satisfaction for both parties—a primary instance of "Jouis-sens." The symptom itself can be seen as a piece of lalangue that has become fossilized, a nonsensical fragment of the subject's history that continues to produce a painful "Jouis-sens" because it has been invested with a fixed, unconscious meaning.

The Superego and the Command to Enjoy

Lacan radically refigures the Freudian concept of the superego. In the late Lacanian model, the superego is not primarily a prohibitive agency that says "Thou shalt not." Instead, it is an obscene and ferocious agency whose fundamental command is precisely the opposite: "Jouis!" ("Enjoy!").[10] This injunction is profoundly paradoxical; because jouissance is, by definition, a surplus that transgresses the regulated economy of pleasure, it cannot be achieved through a direct command. The more the subject tries to obey the command to enjoy, the more enjoyment eludes them, resulting only in guilt.

"Jouis-sens" emerges as the subject's pathological solution to this impossible demand. Unable to attain the pure, unmediated jouissance commanded by the superego, the subject instead generates a substitute: the enjoyment of meaning. As Slavoj Žižek has extensively argued, the symptom is a formation that allows the subject to obey the superego's imperative in a displaced manner.

The ultimate support of the Law is the obscene superego command 'Enjoy!', and the subject finds a way to obey this command by constructing a symptom which is nothing but a certain formation of 'enjoy-meant' [jouis-sens]... The subject enjoys his symptom; this is the ultimate secret of the Lacanian superego.[11]

The repetitive and self-defeating nature of neurotic symptoms can be understood from this perspective. The subject is not simply suffering but is also, at an unconscious level, extracting a small, consistent "fix" of "Jouis-sens" from the very meaning of their suffering. This secret enjoyment is what makes the symptom so intractable and is what the analytic process must ultimately confront.

Poetry, the Pun, and the Witz

While the symptom is the primary pathological example of "Jouis-sens," Lacan points to poetry, puns, and jokes (the Freudian Witz) as common, non-pathological manifestations of the same phenomenon. These linguistic formations are paradigmatic examples because they foreground the enjoyment of the signifier's materiality and ambiguity over its purely communicative, instrumental function.

  • **Poetry:** Poetic language functions by disrupting ordinary syntax and meaning, focusing attention on the sound, rhythm, and texture of words. The pleasure of a poem often derives from an unexpected rhyme or a polysemic image—in other words, from the way sense itself is created, stretched, and multiplied. This is a direct experience of "Jouis-sens."
  • **The Pun:** A pun is a perfect, economical instance of "Jouis-sens." It involves a single signifying utterance that yokes together two disparate chains of meaning. The pleasure it produces—whether a laugh or a groan—is the bodily effect of this semantic "short-circuit." The enjoyment comes not from either meaning alone, but from the spark generated by their forced collision in one signifier.
  • **The Joke (Witz):** Building on Freud's analysis in Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious, Lacan sees the punchline of a joke as a moment that retroactively creates a new, surprising sense for the narrative that preceded it. The burst of laughter is the bodily correlate of this sudden flash of "Jouis-sens"—the enjoyment of a meaning that appears where it was not expected.

In all these cases, language is detached from its pragmatic goal of transparent communication, allowing the subject to enjoy the very process of sense-making itself. They demonstrate that "Jouis-sens" is not confined to the clinic but is a fundamental dimension of the speaking being's relationship to language.

Interpretations and Applications in Post-Lacanian Thought

While "Jouis-sens" was developed within the specific clinical context of Lacan's later teaching, its explanatory power has proven to be far-reaching. The concept provides a robust tool for analyzing the libidinal attachments that underpin social and cultural formations, extending its relevance well beyond the psychoanalytic clinic. Thinkers in critical theory, feminist theory, film studies, and cultural studies have utilized the logic of "Jouis-sens" to dissect how subjects become invested in ideologies, aesthetic objects, and systems of meaning, often in ways that are counter-intuitive or run contrary to their apparent self-interest.

Feminist Theory and Queer Theory

In feminist and queer theory, "Jouis-sens" offers a way to understand the paradoxical enjoyment subjects can derive from the very discursive norms that subordinate them. Rather than viewing subjection to patriarchy or heteronormativity as a simple matter of false consciousness or external coercion, the concept allows for an analysis of the libidinal economy at play. Judith Butler's theory of gender performativity, for instance, describes gender as the effect of iterated and cited bodily practices.[12] "Jouis-sens" helps explain the tenacity of these iterations: the subject derives a certain satisfaction from successfully inhabiting—or even failing to inhabit—these norms. The sense of coherence provided by a stable gender identity, however restrictive, is a source of "Jouis-sens."

Furthermore, queer theory's focus on the resignification of oppressive terms can be seen as a political harnessing of "Jouis-sens." The act of re-appropriating a slur like "queer" and turning it into a term of solidarity and pride is a powerful act of creating new sense. The enjoyment produced by this defiant act of meaning-making—a subversive "Jouis-sens"—becomes a potent force in the construction of collective identity and political resistance. It is the enjoyment found in seizing the master's language and making it signify something new.

Literary and Film Studies

The application of "Jouis-sens" to literary and film studies is particularly direct, as these fields are explicitly concerned with objects designed to produce meaning and aesthetic pleasure. The work of James Joyce, whom Lacan himself analyzed as the exemplary figure of the sinthome, stands as the primary case study. The reader who tackles Finnegans Wake is not seeking a straightforward narrative but is engaging in the very work of wrestling with the materiality of the signifier. The pleasure derived from deciphering a pun or tracing a motif through Joyce's dense web of language is a pure form of "Jouis-sens."[9]

In film studies, the concept is crucial for analyzing works that challenge conventional narrative logic. The films of directors like David Lynch or Alain Resnais often function by creating a powerful atmosphere and a sense of profound, elusive meaning. As Lacanian film theorist Todd McGowan argues, the enjoyment of such films does not come from "understanding the plot" but from the pleasure of being caught within a signifying system that gestures towards a deeper, inaccessible Real.[13] The viewer enjoys the ambiguity itself, the process of trying to make sense of a cinematic language that constantly produces enigma. This is the "Jouis-sens" of the cinematic text, the enjoyment of the symptom-like quality of the film.

Cultural Critique

In the broader field of cultural critique, "Jouis-sens" provides a powerful lens for understanding ideological attachment. Slavoj Žižek, in particular, has built much of his work on the premise that ideology is not a simple veil of illusion but a structure that subjects actively enjoy. People cling to political ideologies, nationalist narratives, or even conspiracy theories because these systems provide a sense of coherence that is itself a source of jouissance. A conspiracy theory, for example, is a machine for producing endless "Jouis-sens." It allows the believer to find meaning in random events, to connect disparate dots into a satisfying, all-encompassing narrative. The enjoyment is not in the truth of the theory, but in the power of the theory to make everything "make sense."

Ideology is not a simple 'false consciousness', an illusory representation of reality; it is, rather, this reality itself which is already to be conceived as 'ideological' ... It is a social reality whose very existence implies the non-knowledge of its participants as to its essence - ... a semblance that is enjoying itself (jouit de soi).[10]

This logic also applies to consumerism. Advertising functions by creating a "Jouis-sens" that attaches to a commodity. A catchy jingle or an evocative slogan is a fragment of lalangue that imbues a product with a surplus enjoyment, promising a satisfaction that goes far beyond its use-value. The consumer buys not just the object, but the little piece of "enjoy-meant" that has been sutured to it by the signifying apparatus of marketing.

Controversies, Debates, and Scholarly Critique

Like many concepts from Lacan's final period of teaching, "Jouis-sens" has been the subject of significant debate, both among his followers and from external critics who question its theoretical coherence and clinical value. The concept's density, combined with its reliance on untranslatable wordplay, makes it a focal point for larger arguments about the legacy and utility of late Lacanian thought.

Debates on Interpretation

Within the post-Lacanian psychoanalytic community, disagreements have arisen concerning the precise utility and theoretical weight of "Jouis-sens." The "standard" interpretation, largely developed by Jacques-Alain Miller and the World Association of Psychoanalysis, rigorously situates the concept within the formal topology of the Borromean knot and emphasizes its application in the late Lacanian clinic of the sinthome. This reading prioritizes the concept's structural function as the point of suture between the Symbolic and the Real.[14] However, some other Lacanian schools and independent scholars have approached this formalization with caution, arguing that it risks turning a fluid, suggestive concept into a rigid algebraic formula. These debates often hinge on the question of clinical application: whether "Jouis-sens" is a practical tool for listening to an analysand's unique mode of enjoyment in speech, or a highly abstract theoretical entity with limited use outside of metapsychological commentary.

Criticisms of Obscurity

From outside the field of psychoanalysis, "Jouis-sens" is frequently cited as a prime example of what critics view as the willful obscurity and untranslatability of late Lacanian theory. Thinkers from the traditions of analytical philosophy and cognitive science have often dismissed such neologisms as unfalsifiable and clinically impractical. The use of topological figures to define concepts like "Jouis-sens" has been a particular point of contention. In their influential critique of what they saw as the misuse of scientific concepts in postmodern thought, physicists Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont famously targeted Lacan's late work. They argued that his use of mathematical concepts served not to clarify but to create a misleading veneer of scientific rigor for obscure assertions.

What is at stake is not the use of words of scientific origin in a metaphorical context. [...] Rather, we are criticizing the abuse of these concepts, either by brandishing them as proof of the scientificity of a discourse that is anything but, or by exploiting the prestige of science to give an impression of depth.[15]

For these critics, "Jouis-sens" is not a useful theoretical tool but a symptom of a theoretical system that has become detached from empirical grounding and clear expression, functioning more as a private language for initiates than as a genuine contribution to knowledge. Defenders of Lacan, conversely, argue that such difficult concepts are necessary to describe the equally difficult and paradoxical nature of the human psyche, and that their "obscurity" is a feature, not a bug, designed to disrupt the reader's own ingrained assumptions about meaning and enjoyment.[2]

See Also

  • Jouissance: “Jouis-sens” is a specific modality of jouissance—jouissance that is generated by, and sticks to, meaning/sense as produced in language.
  • Signifier and the letter: “Jouis-sens” is enjoyment “of the signifier,” often tied to repetition, materiality, and the letter’s insistence (puns, writing, homophony).
  • Lalangue: The jouissance-laden sonic/material substrate from which “sense” gets extracted; “Jouis-sens” names the enjoyment produced in (and by) that extraction/ordering.
  • Symptom and sinthome: The symptom persists because it yields “enjoyed-meaning”; the sinthome is the stabilized, singular support of that “Jouis-sens” (often conceived as a knotting function).
  • Parlêtre (speaking being): “Jouis-sens” is paradigmatic of the parlêtre—a being whose enjoyment is structurally mediated by speech and signification.
  • Superego (the injunction to enjoy): “Jouis-sens” often functions as a substitute formation—an obtainable “enjoyment of meaning” in response to the impossible command to enjoy.
  • Drive and repetition/compulsion: “Jouis-sens” helps explain why repetitive signifying formations (ruminations, rituals, narratives) can be tenacious: they deliver a repeatable “fix” of enjoyed-meaning.
  • Real, Symbolic, Imaginary (RSI) and Borromean knot: In Lacan’s topological articulation, “Jouis-sens” is typically located at the Symbolic–Real interface (enjoyment produced where symbolization “hooks” the Real).
  • Phallic function / Phallic Jouissance: Closely related by contrast and regulation—“Jouis-sens” is often discussed as enjoyment regulated by (or articulated through) the phallic function, but sourced in signifying consistency rather than the organ.
  • Other Jouissance (Feminine jouissance): A key comparator—“Jouis-sens” is enjoyment of what can be said/written/repeated, whereas Other jouissance is framed as beyond the signifier.
  • objet petit a: Not identical, but frequently adjacent in late Lacan: where “Jouis-sens” concerns enjoyed-meaning in the symptom/letter, a concerns the leftover/cause of desire and the lure that organizes it.
  • Witz, pun, and poetry: Privileged non-clinical sites where enjoyment attaches to equivocation and signifier-play—i.e., where sense is produced as something to be enjoyed.


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 Evans, Dylan. An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis. Routledge, 1996, pp. 91-93.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Fink, Bruce. A Clinical Introduction to Lacanian Psychoanalysis: Theory and Technique. Harvard University Press, 1997, p. 206.
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Encore, On Feminine Sexuality, The Limits of Love and Knowledge, 1972-1973. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, translated by Bruce Fink, W. W. Norton & Company, 1998, pp. 74-77.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Lacan, Jacques. Le séminaire, livre XIX: ...ou pire. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, Seuil, 2011.
  5. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "Television." Translated by Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss, and Annette Michelson, in October, Vol. 40, Spring 1987, p. 33.
  6. ↑ Lacan, Jacques. "La troisième." in Lettres de l'École freudienne, No. 16, 1975, pp. 177-203.
  7. ↑ Regnault, François. "Lacan's 'La Troisième'." In Reading Seminars I and II: Lacan's Return to Freud, edited by Richard Feldstein, Bruce Fink, and Maire Jaanus, SUNY Press, 1997, pp. 297-306.
  8. ↑ Fink, Bruce. Lacan to the Letter: Reading Écrits Closely. University of Minnesota Press, 2004, pp. 88-92.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Lacan, Jacques. The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XXIII: The Sinthome, 1975-1976. Edited by Jacques-Alain Miller, translated by A. R. Price, Polity Press, 2016.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Žižek, Slavoj. The Sublime Object of Ideology. Verso, 1989, pp. 113-114.
  11. ↑ Žižek, Slavoj. For They Know Not What They Do: Enjoyment as a Political Factor. Verso, 1991, p. 235.
  12. ↑ Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge, 1990.
  13. ↑ McGowan, Todd. The Real Gaze: Film Theory after Lacan. SUNY Press, 2007, pp. 65-68.
  14. ↑ This interpretation is primarily developed through Miller's edited compilations of Lacan's seminars and his own influential annual course, L'orientation lacanienne. See, for example, Miller, Jacques-Alain, "The Last Lacan." In The Lacanian Review, No. 5, 2018.
  15. ↑ Sokal, Alan, and Jean Bricmont. Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals' Abuse of Science. Picador, 1998, p. 159.
Retrieved from "https://nosubject.com/index.php?title=Jouis-sens&oldid=67669"