Changes

<!-- {{Top}}| align="[[right]]" style="line-height:2.0em;text-align:right;background-color:#fcfcfc;border:1px solid #aaa" | [[English]]: ''[[enjoyment]]''|jouissance{{Bottom}}-->[[Image:Kida_j.gif |right|frame|[[Kid A In Alphabet Land - Jouissance]]]]

==Translation===Translator's Note==Enjoyment===There ''[[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 no adequate translation in an enjoyment that always has a deadly reference, a paradoxical pleasure, reaching an almost intolerable level of [[Englishexcitation]] . Due to the specificity of this wordthe 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> "[[jouissance|Enjoyment]]" conveys 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".) --><!-- But it also refers to those moments when too much pleasure is pain. --><!-- The term signifies the ecstatic or orgasmic [[enjoyment ]] - and exquisite [[pain]] - of something or someone. In [[French]], ''[[jouissance]]'' includes the [[enjoyment]] of rightsand property, but also the slang verb, ''[[jouissance|jouir]]'', to come, and so is related to the [[pleasure]] of the [[sexual relationship|sexual act]].--><br>===Pleasure===<!-- Lacan develops this opposition in 1960, in the context of his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. --><!-- In 1960 [[Lacan]] develops an opposition -->[[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]].<!-- ''[[Jouissance]]'' goes beyond ''[[plaisir]]''. --><!-- However, the result of propertytransgressing 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, etcthe suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfaction]].-->

Unfortunatly<!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means to [[pleasure]]; [[pleasure]] is taken in modern Englishthe very fact of [[pain|suffering]] itself, so that it becomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from [[pain]]. With ''[[jouissance]]'', on the word has lost other hand, [[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the sexual connotations it still retains [[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 [[FrenchEthics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]].p. 189.</ref> -->

<!-- <blockquote>"Castration means that ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (''Jouirl'échelle renversée' ') of the Law of desire."<ref>{{E}} p. 324</ref></blockquote> -->The [[symbolic]] [[prohibition]] of [[enjoyment]] in the [[Oedipus complex]] (the [[incest]] [[taboo]]) is slang for "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 come"[[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 [[Pleasuredeath]]".<ref>{{S17}} p. 17</ref> Insofar as the [[drive]]s are attempts to break through the [[pleasure principle]] in [[search]] of ''[[jouissance]]'', on every [[drive]] is a [[death drive]]. ===Jacques Lacan=======1953 - 1960=========Master-Slave Dialectic=====''Jouissance'' is not a central preoccupation during the first part ofLacan's teaching. ''Jouissance'' appears in Lacan's [[work]] in the [[seminars]] of [[Seminar I|1953-54]] and [[Seminar II|1954-55]], and is referred to in some other handworks (''[[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. =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm]] emerges into the foreground. This is prethe more popular use of the term ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[meaning]] `to come'. =====''The Ethics of Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-empted 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 of desire in the Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of ''jouissance'' is first given in connection with the [[subject]]'s entry into the [[symbolic]] (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 operation remains as a ''jouissance'' around the [[erotogenic zones]], that to which the [[drive]] is articulated. What 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-body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the level of the [[lost object]], [[object a]], there is a 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 the [[Other]]. =====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]]. =====Law and Prohibition=====The [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the [[father]] prohibiting access to the [[mother]], that is, the [[law]] prohibiting ''jouissance''. Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one who speaks, but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[structure]] itself of such a ''jouissance'', that is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of 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 ''jouissance'', creates a [[place]] where lost objects come, standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[order]] and ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is in the [[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]. Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the lost [[object]]. Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This can be seen in [[plaisirThe Subject|the subject]][[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'" ', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the push of the [[drive]]. =====Drive=====''[[Plus-de jouir]]'' can mean both more and no more; hence the ambiguity, both more ''jouir'' and no more ''jouir''. The [[drive]] [[turning around]] this [[Lost Object|lost object]] attempts to [[capture]] something of the lost ''jouissance''. This it fails to do, there is always a loss in the circuit of the drive, but there is a ''jouissance'' in the very [[repetition]] of this movement around the [[object a]], which it produces 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 ''jouissance'' comes to operate as a [[cause]], as seen in the function of [[object a]], the ''[[plus-de jouir]]''. =====Desire=====''Jouissance'' is denoted, in these years, in its [[dialectic]] with [[desire]]. Unrecognised [[desire]] brings the [[subject]] closer to a destructive ''jouissance'', which is often followed by retreat. This destructive ''jouissance'' has a [[Freudian]] illustration in the account of the [[case]] of the [[Ratman]], of whom Freud [[notes]] `the [[horror]] of a pleasure of which he was unaware' (Freud, S.E. 10, pp. 167-8). ====1970s====[[Seminar XX]], [[Encore]], given in 1972- 73, further elaborates Lacan's [[ideas]] on ''jouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''jouissance'', ''[[feminine jouissance]]'', also known as the ''[[Other jouissance]]''.  The [[speaking being]] is alone with his/her ''jouissance'' as it is not possible to share the ''jouissance'' of the Other. The axiom that Lacanhas already given in earlier seminars, [[there is no sexual rapport]], comes to the foreground in Encore as [[male]] and [[female]] coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. It is a difference in the relation of the speaking being to ''jouissance'' which determines his being man or woman, not [[anatomical]] difference. =====Phallic ''Jouissance''=====Sexual ''jouissance'' is specified as an [[impasse]]. It is not what will allow a man and a woman to be joined. Sexual ''jouissance'' can follow no other path than that of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' that has to [[pass]] through [[speech]]. The ''jouissance'' of man is produced by the [[structure]] of the [[signifier]], and is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is the [[structure]] uses of the two terms quite differently[[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]]. 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 erotics embodied in [[Pleasureobject a]]" obeys is the ''jouissance'' that belongs to [[lawfantasy]] , aiming at a piece of '''homeostasis'' that the [[Freudbody]] evokes in '', and creating an illusion of a union linking [[Beyond The Subject|the Pleasure Principlesubject]]with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus '', whereby, through discharge, the psyche seeks jouissance''. This is linked to his ideas of the lowest possible level of tension1960s outlined above.

"=====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is [[Jouissancephallic]]''" transgresses this jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[lawuniversal]] anddefinition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, in that respectthrough the signifier. However, it not all of woman is subjected to the signifier. Woman thus has the possibility of the experience of a ''jouissance''which is not altogether phallic. This Other 'beyond'jouissance' ', another kind of satisfaction, has to do with the [[pleasure principle]]relation to the Other and is not supported by the object and fantasy.

=====Translation''Lalangue''=====The motor of the unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[Frenchlalangue]] word '', 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 `[[jouissanceknowing]]how to do things'with ' means basically "'lalangue''. The practice of psychoanalysis, which promotes free [[enjoymentassociation]]", but it has a sexual connotation (i.e. "orgasm") lacking in aims to cut through the English word[[apparent]] coherent, and is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of complete [[Lacansystem]]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.

As Jane Gallop observes''Jouis-sens'' also refers to the [[super-ego]]'s [[demand]] to enjoy, whereas orgasm is a countable noun, cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[The Subject|the term ''subject]] will never be able to [[satisfy]]. The [[jouissanceSuper-Ego|super-ego]]promotes the ''jouissance'' is always used in that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to the singular by [[LacanSuper-Ego|super-ego]] and is always preceded by one of a definite article.<ref>Gallopparadoxical functioning, Janesecretly feeding on the very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the [[Super-Ego|super-ego]] is therefore a vehicle for ''Feminism and Psychoanalysis: The Daughter's Seductionjouissance'', London: Macmillan, 1982.</ref>

=====Jacques 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 term does not appear [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a topos in which the [[logical]] and [[Lacanclinical]]dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s work until 1953are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', but even then it that is not particularly salientthe ''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.<ref>{{E}} p It is the [[object a]] that holds the central, irreducible place between the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary. 42, 87</ref>

=====Master and SlaveFeminine ''Jouissance''=====In the <!-- There are strong affinitites between [[Lacan]]'s [[seminarsconcept]] of 1953-4 ''[[jouissance]]'' and 1954-5 [[LacanFreud]] uses 's concept of the term occasionally[[libido]], usually in the context as is clear from [[Lacan]]'s description of the ''[[jouissance]]'' as a "[[bodily]] substance."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref> In keeping with [[Freud]]'s assertion that there is only one [[Hegellibido]]ian , which is [[dialecticmasculine]] of the , [[masterLacan]] and the states that ''[[slavejouissance]]: the '' is essentially [[slavephallic]] ; <blockquote>''Jouissance'', insofar as it is forced to work sexual, is phallic, which means that it does not relate to provide objects for the Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref></blockquote> However, in 1973 [[masterLacan]]'s admits that there is a specifically [[enjoymentfeminine]] (''[[jouissance]]''), a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p.58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S1S20}} p. 223; 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. This [[jouissance|feminine jouissance]] is ineffable, for [[women]] experience it but [[know]] [[nothing]] [[about]] it.<ref>{{S2S20}} p. 26971</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]]. -->

=====Enjoyment=====Upt to 1957[[Lacan]] states that "''[[jouissance]]'', theninsofar as it is sexual, the term seems to mean no more than the is [[enjoymentphallus|enjoyable sensationphallic]] , which means that accompanies it does not relate to the [[satisfaction]] of Other as such."<ref>{{S20}} p. 14</ref> However, he argues that there is a specifically [[biologicalfeminine]] ''[[needjouissance]] such as hunger'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p.58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S4S20}} p. 12569</ref>a ''jouissance'' of the [[Other]]. In order to differentiate between these two forms of ''[[jouissance]]'', [[Lacan]] introduces different [[algebra|algebraic]] [[symbol]]s for each; '''Jφ''' designates [[phallus|phallic ''jouissance'']], whereas '''JA''' designates the ''[[jouissance]]'' of the [[Other]].

<!-- =====Sexual Connotations===Master and Slave==Soon after, In the sexual connotations become more apparent; in 1957, [[seminars]] of 1953-4 and 1954-5 [[Lacan]] uses the term to refer to occasionally, usually in the context of the [[enjoymentHegel]]ian [[dialectic]] of a the [[master]] and the [[sexuality|sexualslave]] : the [[objectslave]],<ref>{{Ec}} p.453</ref> and is [[forced]] to work to provide objects for the [[pleasuremaster]]'s of masturbation.<ref>{{S4}} p.241</ref>, and in 1958 he makes explicit sense of [[enjoyment]] (''[[jouissance]]'' as orgasm).<ref>{{EcS1}} p. 727223; {{S2}} p. 269</ref> -->

=====''Jouissance'' and Pleasure===the Clinic==It is only in 1960 that [[Lacan]] develops his classic opposition between ''s contribution to the [[jouissanceclinic]]'' and is paramount in [[pleasureregard]], an opposition which alludes to the [[Hegel]]ian/[[Kojève|Kojevian]] distinction between operation of ''Genußjouissance'' (in neurosis, perversion and psychosis. The three [[enjoymentstructures]]) and can be viewed as strategies with respect to dealing with ''Listjouissance'' ([[pleasure]]).

=====Pleasure PrincipleNeurosis=====The [[pleasure principleneurotic]] functions as a limit [[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 [[enjoymentbelief]]; 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 a demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[lawseeing]] which commands the [[subjectlack in the Other]] to "enjoy as little as possiblethe neurotic sees the Other's demand of him/her."

At =====Perversion=====The [[Pervert]] imagines him-/herself to be the Other in order to ensure his/her ''jouissance''. The [[perverse]] subject makes him-/herself the same time, [[instrument]] of the Other's ''jouissance'' through putting the [[Object A|object a]] in the place of the [[subjectbarred]] constantly attempts Other, negating the Other as subject. His/her ''jouissance'' comes from placing him-/herself as an object in order to transgress procure the prohibitions imposed on ''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 [[enjoymentpère]]-version, to go "beyond demonstrate the pleasure principleway in which the pervert appeals to the father to fulfil the [[paternal function]]."

=====TransgressionPractice=====However, The [[practice]] of [[psychoanalysis]] examines the different ways and means [[The Subject|the result subject]] uses to produce ''jouissance''. It is by means of transgressing the bien [[pleasure principledire]] is not more , the well-spoken, where the subject comes to [[pleasurespeak]]in a new way, but paina way of speaking the [[truth]], since there that a different distribution of ''jouissance'' may be achieved. The [[analytic]] act is only a cut, a break with a certain amount 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''. [[pleasureThe Cut|The cut]] of the analytic act leaves the subject having to make his/her own something that the was formerly [[subjectalien]] can bear. This produces a new stance in relation to ''jouissance''.

Beyond this limit, =====Psychosis=====In [[pleasure]] becomes [[painpsychosis]], and this "painful pleasure" ''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 [[Lacan]] calls 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 [[jouissancedrives]]''.

<blockquote>"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 ''Jouissancejouissance'' that is suffering."<ref>{{S7}} pascribed to the ''jouissance'' of the [[Other, the]] ''jouissance'' of God.184</ref></blockquote>

=====Symptom=====The term ''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'' thus nicely expresses , where the paradoxical Uncontrolled [[satisfactionaction]] that of the [[subjectDeath Drive|death drive]] derives from his 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 [[symptomchain]], or, to put it another waythe isolated, the suffering that he derives from his on persecuting [[satisfactionsignifiers]]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''.

=====Prohibition===In the work of Slavoj Žižek ==The prohibition of ''Jouissance'', or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the Freudian sense, enjoyment is located beyond the pleasure [[jouissanceprinciple]]. In his clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[self]]'' (-harm and the strange [[pleasure principlecompulsion]]) is inherent in the certain [[symbolicpatients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[structuretraumatic]] of for [[languagethem]]. Th is paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, or pleasure through pain, which is why "what Lacan designates as ''jouissance'' . If pleasure functions in [[terms]] of [[balance]], achieving discrete objectives and so on, enjoyment is forbidden 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 him who speaksdestroy them. In this regard, as suchenjoyment is always both before and beyond [[the symbolic]] field; it drives the symbolic but can never be fully [[captured]] by it."<ref>{{E}} pIf 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. 319</ref>

The 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 [[subjectanalysand]]but rather to get at their “perverse enjoyment” (''SVII's entry into ': 4–5): the excessive forms of investment in [[symbolicguilt]] is conditional upon that are themselves symptomatic of a certain initial renunciation [[particular]] mode of ''[[jouissance]]'' rooted in the Real. This is why Lacan characterizes the [[castration complexsuperego]], when – the inherent [[subjectagency]] gives up his attempts to be the of guilt that constantly recycles [[imaginaryfeelings]] of inadequacy and makes impossible [[phallusdemands]] for of the subject – in terms of a primary [[motherinjunction]]: namely, enjoy! (''SXX'': 3).

<blockquote>"Castration means Although ''jouissance'' is viewed as a (non-discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''jouissanceJouissance'' musst be refused so is something that it can be reached on signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the inverted ladder pleasure principle (''lSXVII'': 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 (''échelle renverséeLN'': 308) . This is why ''jouissance'' cannot be directly targeted or apprehended (despite the [[ambition]] of the Law “[[politics]] of desireenjoyment” and its various incarnations)."<ref>{{E}} pAt the same time, it cannot be directly eliminated. ''Jouissance'' is something that always sticks to the subject. 324</ref></blockquote>

The 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 [[symbolicsadistic]] manner. He seeks to punishexecute his victims not because of any [[prohibitionlegal]] of transgression but because they do not conform to [[enjoymentthe imaginary]] in the [[Oedipus complexunity]] (, the homeostatic ego-[[incestideal]] [[taboo]]) is thus, paradoxically, the of a God-fearing [[prohibitioncommunity]] of something which is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain the . Here we might say that Doe becomes a [[neuroticSuperEgo|superego]] manifestation who [[illusionacts]] that beyond the law on behalf of the law, fi lling in for its failures (something similar could be said about [[enjoymentBatman]] would be attainable if it were not forbiddenand various other super(ego)-heroes).

There are two especially perceptive insights in this [[film]]. The very prohibiton creates 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 [[desireduty]] . 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 transgress ithide 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 [[jouissanceessence]]of the matter is not so much the “banality of evil”, but rather the evil/excessive ''jouissance'' is therefore fundamentally transgressivecontained and nurtured within the banality itself.<ref>{{S7}} ch.15</ref>

=====Death Drive=====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 [[death drivemurder]] (her decapitated head is delivered in a package) and is consequently seized by the name given sin of wrath: he “over-kills” Doe in an act of desperate rage. Prior to this, Doe confesses to that constant a powerful [[envy]] of Mills and his [[married]] [[desirelife]] in the . By declaring (and demonstrating) this excess, Doe [[subjectstages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to break through death – thus completing the circle. From a [[pleasure principleLacanian]] towards perspective, what this reflects is the way in which ''jouissance'' functions in terms of its “[[Thingextimacy]] ”. Extimacy is a hybrid word that combines the terms exteriority and a certain excess intimacy. For 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 [[jouissancehatred]] 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 ''; thus jouissance''bears [[witness]] to is not the unbearable difference of the Other but, on the contrary, an unbearable sameness – that is, the very [[jouissancefascination]] 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 path towards deathopposite of what Lacan means by an act. We see a similar type of [[logic]] at play in the phenomenon of stalking."<ref>{{S17}} pIn 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. 17</ref>

Insofar as the [[driveIdeology]]s are attempts derives its potency from its ability to break through manipulate economies of enjoyment. Th rough its repressive mechanisms, the [[pleasure principlesocial]] 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 search fantasmatically translating this sense of ''lost enjoyment into the theft of enjoyment (Miller 2008). From a racist perspective, the [[jouissanceimmigrant]]'', every is someone with perverse forms of excessive enjoyment (they are idlers [[driveliving]] is a off “our” [[death drivestate]]benefits and they work too hard, taking “our” jobs, etc.) and who thereby steals and/or corrupts our enjoyment (our “way of life”). And thus 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 (''JouissanceTN'' and Libido=====There are strong affinitites between : 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 today’s (Western) ideology – basically a [[Lacancapitalist]]'s concept 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]] [[jouissancevision]]'' and or with definitive objectives. Contemporary ideology consists rather in assigning demands for [[Freudchange]]'s concept to the realm of “impossibility” (as so much “ideological fantasy”). What ideology offers the subject is the fantasy of change (“[[libidofreedom]]of choice”, “opportunities”, etc.) precisely as a means of avoiding any real (or Real) change. Change is clear from 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 [[Lacanfilms]]like ''s description of Bruce Almighty''where the hero actually becomes God, capable of anything, but whose own [[jouissanceworld]]'' falls apart as a "bodily substanceresult – and so he returns to a more humble “mature” [[existence]]."<ref>{{S20}} p. 26</ref>

In keeping with One of the central lessons of psychoanalysis is that while enjoyment is experienced as Real, it is ultimately an empty [[Freudspectre]]'s assertion that there is only one , a kind of anamorphic effect of symbolic circumscription. Against its numerous ideological manipulations, we [[libidoneed]]to find ways of accepting, and living with, which is this traumatic [[masculineknowledge]], . Extemporizing on an old [[LacanMarxist]] states that maxim, when it comes to ''[[jouissance]]'' is essentially [[phallic]]we have nothing to lose but the myth of loss itself.

<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><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. * Lacan, J. (1990) Television. New York: W.W. Norton. (note 5), p. 325. Carmela Levy-Stokes</div>

[[Category:TermsZizek_Dictionary]]{{OK}} __NOTOC__ {{Encore}}:* ''[[Jouissance]]'', 1-11, 24-25, 35, 50, 70, 71, 76, 97, 107, 111-16, 121, 126, 131, 137, 145 :: [[discourse]] and, 39, 51, 54, 58-63, 83, 105, 126-27 :: [[fantasy]] and, 86 :: of the idiot, 81, 94 :: [[law]] and, 2-3, 92 :: [[mother]]'s, 35 :: the ''[[jouissance|Other jouissance]]'', 4, 7-8, 17, 24, 38, 39, 73, 74, 75, 76-77, 83-84, 87, 137, 144 :: ''[[jouissance|phallic jouissance]]'', 7-9, 24, 35, 59-60, 64, 73, 74, 81 :: ''[[jouissance|surplus jouissance]]'' (''[[jouissance|plus-de-jouir]]''), 16-17, 131