Changes

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

==Translation=====Enjoyment==='''''[[Jouissance]]'', and the corresponding verb, ''' is a [[French language|Frenchjouir]] term which translated means "'', refer to an extreme [[enjoymentpleasure]]" and . It is contrasted with ''not possible to translate this French [[plaisirword]], ''jouissance'', precisely. In every sense of the word Sometimes it is whatever "gets you off". Something that gives the translated as '[[subjectenjoyment]] ', but enjoyment has a way out of its [[normative]] subjectivity through [[transcendent]] [[Bliss (feeling)|bliss]] whether reference to pleasure, and ''jouissance'' is an enjoyment that bliss or [[orgasmic]] [[rapture]] be found in [[text]]salways has a deadly reference, [[film]]sa paradoxical pleasure, works reaching an almost intolerable level of [[artexcitation]] or [[sexual]] spheres; [[excess]] as opposed . Due to [[utility]]. It is a popular the specificity of the French term in [[postmodernism]] and [[queer theory]] used by [[Roland Barthes]], it is usually [[Jacques Lacan]], [[Judith Butler]], and others. [[Leo Bersani]] considers ‘‘[[jouissanceleft]]’’ as intrinsically self-shattering, disruptive of a 'coherent [[self]]'untranslated.

For Barthes (1977<!-- There is no adequate [[translation]] in [[English]] of the word ''[[jouissance]]''.<ref>It is therefore left untranslated in most English editions of [[Lacan]].</ref> "[[Enjoyment]]" does convey the [[sense]], contained in ''[[jouissance]]'', of ''enjoyment of rights'', of ''property'', etc., pbut it [[lacks]] the ''[[sexual]] connotations'' of the [[French]] word.9) (''plaisirJouir'' is, slang for "to come"a .) --><!-- But it also refers to those moments when too much pleasureis pain...linked to cultural --><!-- The term signifies the ecstatic or orgasmic [[enjoyment ]] - and identityexquisite [[pain]] - of something or someone. In [[French]], to ''[[jouissance]]'' includes the cultural [[enjoyment ]] of identityrights and property, but also the slang verb, ''[[jouissance|jouir]]'', to come, and so is related to a homogenising movement the [[pleasure]] of the ego[[sexual relationship|sexual act]].--><br>===Pleasure===<!-- Lacan develops this opposition in 1960, in the context of his seminar [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]." As --><!-- In 1960 [[Lacan]] develops an opposition -->[[Lacan]] makes an important [[distinction]] between ''[[jouissance]]'' and ''[[Richard Middletonplaisir]] '' (1990[[pleasure]]). [[Pleasure]] obeys the [[law]] of [[homeostasis]] that [[Freud]] evokes in ''[[Beyond the Pleasure Principle]]'', pwhereby, through [[discharge]], the [[psyche]] seeks the lowest possible level of tension.261) puts The [[pleasure principle]] thus functions as a [[limit]] imposed on [[enjoyment]]; it, commands the [[subject]] to "enjoy as little as possible."''Plaisir[[Jouissance]]'' resultstransgresses this [[law]] and, thenin that respect, it is ''beyond'' the [[pleasure principle]].<!-- ''[[Jouissance]]'' goes beyond ''[[plaisir]]''. --><!-- However, from the operation result of transgressing the structures [[pleasure principle]] is not more [[pleasure]], but pain, since there is only a certain amount of signification through which [[pleasure]] that the [[subject knows himself or herself; ]] can bear. Beyond this limit, [[pleasure]] becomes [[pain]], and this "painful pleasure" is what [[Lacan]] calls ''[[jouissance]]'' fractures these structures."''Jouissance'' is [[suffering]]."<ref>{{S7}} p. 184</ref> The term ''[[jouissance]]'' thus nicely expresses the paradoxical [[satisfaction]] that the [[subject]] derives from his [[symptom]], or, to put it [[another]] way, the suffering that he derives from his on [[satisfaction]]. -->

The French ‘’jouissance’’ <!-- ==Masochism== There is an important [[difference]] between [[masochism]] and [[jouissance]]. In [[masochism]], [[pain]] is a means basically ‘’enjoyment’’to [[pleasure]]; [[pleasure]] is taken in the very fact of [[pain|suffering]] itself, but so that it has a sexual connotation (ibecomes difficult to distinguish [[pleasure]] from [[pain]].e. ‘orgasm’) lacking With ''[[jouissance]]'', on the other hand, [[pleasure]] and [[pain]] remain distinct; no [[pleasure]] is taken in the English word ‘enjoyment’[[pain]] itself, and but the [[pleasure]] cannot be obtained without paying the price of [[pain|suffering]]. It is therefore left untranslated thus a kind of ''deal'' in most English editions which "[[pleasure]] ''and'' [[pain]] are presented as a single packet."<ref>Seminar of 27 February 1963. J. Lacan, [[The Seminar]]. Book VII: The [[Ethics of psychoanalysis|Ethics of Psychoanalysis]]. p. 189.</ref> -->

Lacan develops an opposition between ‘’jouissance’’ and <!-- <blockquote>"Castration means that ''jouissance'' must be refused so that it can be reached on the inverted ladder (''l'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 thus, paradoxically, the [[prohibition]] of something which is already [[impossible]]; its function is therefore to sustain the [[neurotic]] [[illusion]] that [[pleasureenjoyment]]would be attainable if it were not forbidden. The very prohibition creates the [[pleasure principledesire]] functions as a limit to enjoyment; [[transgress]] it , and ''[[jouissance]]'' is a law which commands the subject to ‘enjoy as little as possibletherefore fundamentally [[transgressive]].<ref>{{S7}} Ch.’15</ref>

At ==Development=====Sigmund Freud========Death Drive=====The [[death drive]] is the same time, [[name]] given to that constant [[desire]] in the [[subject constantly attempts to transgress the prohibitions imposed on his enjoyment, ]] to go ‘beyond break through the [[pleasure principle]] towards the [[Thing]] and a certain [[surplus|excess]] ''[[jouissance]]''; thus ''[[jouissance]]'' is "the path towards [[death]]".<ref>{{S17}} p.’17</ref>

However, Insofar as the result of transgressing [[drive]]s are attempts to break through the [[pleasure principle is not more pleasure]] in [[search]] of ''[[jouissance]]'', but pain, since there every [[drive]] is only a certainamount of pleasure that the subject can bear[[death drive]].

Beyond this limit, pleasure becomes pain===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 this ‘painful pleasure’ is what referred to in some other works (''[[LacanÉcrits]]'', 1977). In these early years ''[[jouissance]] calls ‘’jouissance’’: ‘’’jouissance’’ '' is sufferingnot 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.”<ref>S7 184</ref>

The term ‘’jouissance thus nicely expresses =====Sexual Reference=====From 1957 the sexual reference of ''jouissance'' as [[orgasm]] emerges into the foreground. This is the paradoxical satisfaction that more popular use of the subject derives from his symptom, orterm ''jouissance'', with ''jouir'' [[meaning]] `to put it another way, the suffering that he derives from his own satisfactioncome'.

=====''The prohibition Ethics of ‘’jouissance’’ (Psychoanalysis''=====In his [[seminar]] of [[Seminar VII|1959-60]], [[Seminar VII|The Ethics of Psychoanalysis]], Lacan deals for the first [[time]] with the [[Real]] and ''jouissance''. Although the pleasure principle) [[Real]] of the 1960s is inherent not the same as his use of [[the Real]] in the symbolic structure 1980s, the first [[concepts]] emerge in this seminar. Here ''jouissance'' is considered in its function of language[[evil]], that which is why ‘jouissance’’ is forbidden ascribed to him who speaksa neighbour, as such.”<ref>E 319</ref>The subject’s entry into but which dwells in the symbolic Is conditional upon a certain initial renunciation most intimate part of ‘’jouissance’’ in the castration complex[[subject]], when [[extimate|intimate]] and [[alienated]] at the same time, as it is that from which the [[subject gives up ]] flees, experiencing [[aggression]] at the very approach of an [[encounter]] with his attempts to be /her own ''jouissance''. The chapters in this seminar address such concepts as the imaginary phallus for ''jouissance'' of [[transgression]] and the mother[[paradox]] of ''jouissance''.

====1960s=========Symbolic Castration=====It is in the [[text]] '[[The symbolic prohibition subversion of enjoyment in the Oedipus complex (subject and the incest taboo) is thus, paradoxically, dialectic of desire in the prohibition Freudian unconscious]]' that a [[structure|structural]] account of something which ''jouissance'' is already impossible; its function is therefore to sustain first given in connection with the neurotic illusion that enjoyment would be attainable if it were not forbidden.The very prohibition creates [[subject]]'s entry into the desire to transgress it[[symbolic]] (Lacan, and ‘’jouissance’’ is therefore fundamentally transgressive1977).

The What is left over after this negativization (—) of ''jouissance'' occurs at two levels. At one level, ''jouissance'' is redistributed [[death driveoutside]] is the name given to that constant desire [[body]] in [[speech]], and there is thus a ''jouissance'' of [[speech]] itself, out-of-the subject to break through -body ''jouissance''. On another level, at the pleasure principle towards level of the Thign and [[lost object]], [[object a]], there is a plus (+), a certain excess ‘’jouissance’’; thus ‘’jouissance’’ little [[compensation]] in the [[form]] of what is ‘the path towards death.”<ref>s17 17</ref>Insofar as allowed of ''jouissance'', a compensation for the drives are attempts to break through minus of the pleasure principle loss which has occurred in search the forbidding of ‘’jouissance,’’ every drive is a death drive''jouissance'' of the [[Other]].

There are strong affinities between Lacan’sconcept of ‘‘=====Law and Prohibition=====The [[Freud]]ian [[Oedipus]] refers to the [[father]] prohibiting access to the [[jouissancemother]]’’ and Freud’s concept of , that is, the Libido[[law]] prohibiting ''jouissance''.In keeping with Freud’s assertiont hat there is Lacan refers not only to a ''jouissance'' forbidden to the one libido, which is masculinewho speaks, but the [[impossibility]] in the very [[Lacanstructure]] states itself of such a ''jouissance'', that ‘‘is, a lack of ''jouissance'' in the essential of the [[jouissancestructure]]’’ . Thus, what is essentially phallic; “Jouissance, isnofar as it prohibited is sexual, is phallicin fact, which means that it does not relate to the Other as suchalready impossible.”<ref>S20 58</ref>

However =====''Plus-de jouir''=====The [[lack]] in the [[signifying order]], a [[lack]] in 1973 the [[LacanOther]] admits that there is , which designates a specificially feminine lack of ''jouissance'', creates a ‘supplementary jouissance’[[place]] where lost objects come, which standing in for the [[missing]] ''jouissance'' and creating a link between the signifying [[order]] and ''jouissance''. What is allowed of ''jouissance'' is beyond in the pahllus’. A ‘‘[[surplus]] ''jouissance'' connected with [[object a]]’’ of . Here ''jouissance'' is embodied in the Otherlost [[object]].<ref>S20Although this object is lost and cannot be appropriated, 58, 69)</ref>it does restore a certain coefficient of ''jouissance''. This feminine ‘‘can be seen in [[The Subject|the subject]] [[repeating]] him-/herself with his/her surplus ''jouissance'', ''[[plus-de jouir]]'', in the push of the [[drive]]’’ is ineffable.

In order =====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 differentiate between these two forms [[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 [[Lacanrepetition]] introduces different algebraic symbols for each; Jd designates phallic 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]], whereas JA designates as seen in the ‘‘function of [[jouissanceobject a]]’’ of , the Other''[[plus-de jouir]]''.

==Dictionary==1970s====In his [[seminarSeminar XX]], [[Encore]] of 1959, given in 1972-196073, <i>further elaborates Lacan's [[The Ethics of Psychoanalysisideas]]</i> (on ''Ljouissance'' already outlined, and goes further with another aspect of ''éthique de la psychanalysejouissance''), [[Lacan]] developed the concept of ''[[feminine jouissance]]'' (, also known as the ''enjoyment'') while discussing <i>[[Civilization and Its DiscontentsOther jouissance]]</i>''.<ref>Freud, 1930</ref>

In The [[speaking being]] is alone with his/her ''jouissance'' as it is not possible to share the ''jouissance'' of the Other. The axiom that workLacan has already given in earlier seminars, [[Freudthere is no sexual rapport]] had articulated a contradiction inherent , comes to the foreground in the Encore as [[conceptmale]] of and [[pleasurefemale]]: <blockquote>This endeavor [of striving for happiness] has two sides. . . coming from a very different ''jouissance''; different and not complementary. It aims, on is a difference in the one hand, at an absence relation of pain and unpleasure, and, on the otherspeaking being to ''jouissance'' which determines his being man or woman, at the experiencing of strong feelings of pleasure. . . . The task of avoiding suffering pushes that of obtaining pleasure into the backgroundnot [[anatomical]] difference.<ref>1930, pp. 76-77</ref></blockquote>

For =====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 [[Lacanpass]] through [[speech]], these two aspects . The ''jouissance'' of man is produced by the [[pleasurestructure]] were of the [[irreconcilablesignifier]], and he argued that is known as [[phallic]] ''jouissance''. The [[structure]] of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' is the [[Freudstructure]] connected of the [[pleasure principle|pleasuresignifier]]. Lacan proposes a precise definition of man as being subject to [[castration]] and [[reality principlelacking]]s under a no-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 [[displeasure|displeasure principleOther]]. This His partner is thus not the very principle that blocks Other sex but an object, a piece of the path to body. Man looks for a little surplus ''jouissance'', that linked with [[Object A|object a]], which has phallic [jouissance[value]] ''.

The erotics embodied in [[Lacanobject a]] asks:<blockquote>Who is there who in the name of pleasure doesn't start 'jouissance'' that belongs to weaken when [[fantasy]], aiming at a piece of the first half-serious is taken step toward jouissance?<ref>1959-1960/1992[[body]], p. 185</ref> Even and creating an animal, he added, “has an economy: it acts so as to produce illusion of a union linking [[The Subject|the very least possible subject]] with a specific object. The ''jouissance'' of man is thus phallic ''jouissance'' together with surplus ''jouissance''. That's what we call This is linked to his ideas of the pleasure principle.”<ref>1969-70/1991, p1960s outlined above. 88</ref>

It =====Other ''Jouissance''=====[[Woman]] is true that once we start down the path of [[phallic]] ''jouissance'' with something more, a supplementary ''jouissance''. There is no [[jouissanceuniversal]] definition of woman. Every woman must pass, like man, through the signifier. However, 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 ''jouissance'', we another kind of satisfaction, has to do with the relation to the Other and is not know where it will lead: "It starts with a tickle supported by the object and ends up bursting into flames" (Lacan, 1991, p. 83)fantasy.

Increasingly, in his works of the 1970s, Lacan points to the fact that language, in addition to having a signifier effect, also has an effect of ''jouissance''. In <i>[[Beyond the Pleasure PrincipleTelevision]]</i>, he equivocates between ''jouissance'', ''jouis-sens'' (enjoyment in sense) and the ''jouissance'' effect, the enjoyment of one's own unconscious, even if it is through pain (Lacan, 1990). The [[Freudunconscious]] had already noted that "the most painful experiences . . . can yet be felt . . . is emphasized as highly enjoyable.”<ref>1920enjoyment playing through [[substitution]], pwith ''jouissance'' located in the [[jargon]] itself. 17<''Jouissance'' thus refers to the specific way in which each subject [[enjoys]] his/ref>her unconscious.

On =====''Lalangue''=====The motor of the basis of this text, unconscious ''jouissance'' is ''[[Lacanlalangue]] '', also described as babbling or mother tongue. The unconscious is made a connection between ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ and [[repetition]]of ''lalangue''. He drew support for his argument from Lacan writes it as ''lalangue'' to show that language always intervenes in the [[hysteria|hysterical]] [[symptom]] form of [[repetition]] lallation or mother tongue and defined [[repetition]] as that the unconscious is a `[[traceknowing]], a kind how to do things' with ''lalangue''. The practice of [[writing]]psychoanalysis, that commemorates "an irruption of jouissance.”<ref>1991, p. 89</ref> ‘‘which promotes free [[jouissanceassociation]]’’ (<i>Genuss</i>) is involved when the pleasure principle yields not necessarily to pain, but aims to unpleasure. The term was already present in cut through the [[Freudapparent]]coherent, but complete [[Lacansystem]] developed it as a concept. Still, he complained of never having had language in order to emphasize the time to outline its parameters, inconsistencies and holes with which he would have likely called "the Lacanian field.<ref>1991, pspeaking being has to deal. 93</ref>In <i>[[The Ethics ''lalangue'' of Psychoanalysis]]</i>the unconscious, [[Lacan]] emphasized that [[Freud]] posed the question of ‘‘[[which blurts out when least expected, provides a ''jouissance]]’’ '' in terms of [[drive]]its very play. Every ''lalangue'' is unique to a subject.

The [[energy]] of ''Jouis-sens'' also refers to the [[superegosuper-ego]] derives from the 's [[libidodemand]] of this to enjoy, a cruel imperative - enjoy! - that [[satisfactionThe Subject|unsatisfiedthe subject]] will never be able to [[drivesatisfy]]; the more the . The [[subjectSuper-Ego|super-ego]] fails to feel promotes the ''[[jouissance]]'', the more libido]] there is that it simultaneously prohibits. The Freudian reference to feed the [[superegoSuper-Ego|super-ego]]is one of a paradoxical functioning, and secretly feeding on the more very satisfaction that it commands to be renounced. The severity of the [[superego]] will [[demand]] new [[renunciationSuper-Ego|super-ego]]s. [[Lacan]] believed that in <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Freud]] was stating that "everything that is transferred from ‘‘[[therefore a vehicle for ''jouissance]]’’ to [[prohibition]] gives rise to the increasing strengthening of prohibition."<ref>Lacan, 1992, p''. 176</ref>

Thus 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 [[guiltBorromean knot]] triggered by . He locates the [[masturbationthree]] can be understood as an increase ''jouissance''s in relation to the intersections of the three circles of the [[libidoknot]] in , the circles of the [[superegoReal]], brought about by the [[Symbolic]] and the [[Imaginary]]. The [[Borromean Knot|Borromean knot]] is a short circuit topos in which the [[masturbationlogical]] and [[clinical]] dimensions of the three ''jouissance''s are linked together: the Other ''jouissance'', that achieves only a brief is the ''jouissance'' of the body, is located at the intersection of the Real and stifled [[satisfactionthe Imaginary]]; phallic ''jouissance'' is situated within the common [[space]] instead 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.

What =====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 involved here 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 [[satisfactionfeminine]] ''[[jouissance]]'', a "supplementary ''jouissance''"<ref>{{S20}} p. 58</ref> which is "beyond the phallus,"<ref>{{S20}} p. 69</ref> a ''jouissance'' of needthe [[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 [[driveOther]]. -->

[[Lacan]] posits 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 basic opposition 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 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 ''[[needjouissance]] and '' of the [[driveOther]].

In fact, =====Neurosis=====The [[neurotic]] [[subject]] does not [[Lacanwant]] placed to sacrifice his/her castration to the ''jouissance'' of the two Other (Écrits, 1977). It is an imaginary castration that is clung to in radical opposition order not to one another: "And if have to acknowledge Symbolic castration, the social bond is established by renouncing 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 satisfaction of Other?' Here we encounter the drive, 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 because this satisfaction implies demanding his/her castration. Instead of [[seeing]] the [[lack in the enjoyment—in Other]] the juridical sense of neurotic sees the term—of objects that could either belong to others or deprive them Other's demand of their jouissancehim/her."

This situates ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in another field and simultaneously introduces the question of [[religion]], moral precepts, and the [[law]].=====Perversion=====In <i>The [[The Ethics of PsychoanalysisPervert]]<imagines him-/i>, [[Lacan]] based ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ on the [[law]]. If ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ consists in breaking the barrier of the [[pleasure principle]], if it can only herself to be attained through a [[transgression]], then only a [[prohibition]] opens the path toward it. As for the "[[other]]," he is already implicated Other in [[Freud]]'s analysis of [[sadism]]: when we inflict pain on others, "we enjoy by identifying with the suffering object." From order to ensure his reading of <i>[[Civilization and Its Discontents]]</i>, [[Lacan]] concluded, "Jouissance is evil . . . because it involves suffering for my neighbor" (1992, p. 184). Moreover, he noted that love of oneher ''s neighbor seemed absurd to Freud. Each time that this Christian ideal 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 to me than this heart within which 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), [[Lacanperverse]] inscribed ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ in subject makes him-/herself the topography of his graph of desire. At the upper level of the graph, ‘‘[[jouissanceinstrument]]’’ is indicated by signifying lack in the Other, 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 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. Thus ‘‘[[''jouissance]]’’ is "of the Other" and at the same time operates on the level of the drive. Recognizing the Other'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, through putting the mother, as primordial Other, is prohibited from making up for her lack with her child. Thus the Other remains prohibited. In his diagram, [[LacanObject A|object a]] located ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ at in the place of the barred Other, S(A̷) this is also where [[Lacanbarred]] inscribed the superego that orders the subject to enjoy, "Jouis!" To this commandOther, negating the Other as subject can only respond, "J. His/her ''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 ' comes from placing him-/herself as an experience of ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ does not seem to be prohibited.The Other is barred object 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 the phallic order, 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 procure the phallic function designates by way of ''jouissance. . . . Y]ou need but go to Rome and see the statue by [Gianlorenzo] Bernini [the Ecstasy of St. Teresa] 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 supplementaryphallus, nonphallic jouissance? With the "formulas of sexuation," even though he proposed dividing subjects not according /she doesn't know to their biological sex, but according to their relation to the whom this phallusbelongs. On Although the masculine side would be those subjects who take object <i>a<pervert presents him-/i> herself as the cause of their desire and depend upon their phallic nature to attain it. Subjects on the feminine side have one eye on the phallus and one eye on the ‘‘[[completely engaged in seeking ''jouissance]]’’ of the Other'', S(A̷). The male or female mystic—a designation independent one of biological sex—is situated on the feminine side. Supplementary jouissance, strictly speaking, his/her aims is feminine. But to attain it, make the subject must stop looking both ways—toward phallic ‘‘law [[jouissance]]’’ and ‘‘[[jouissancepresent]]’’ of the Other—and become devoted only to the latter. Such an experience was attained by St. John of Lacan uses the Cross, for example, who was familiar with a mystical ‘‘term [[jouissancepère]]’’ "outside sex-version," and thus beyond to demonstrate the mark of difference and beyond lack. The moment of ecstasy arrives when way in which the mystic, entirely desubjectified and merged with object <i>a</i> of the Other's desire, becomes one with the Other, who in turn no longer lacks. The result is that pervert appeals to represent the Other's jouissance, "A" is rewritten as unbarred, S(A). In <i>Civilization and Its Discontents</i>, [[Freud]] referred father to fulfil the "oceanic feeling" of being at one with the greater Whole. Such is the feeling of mysticism, and also of trances and ecstasy.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. If certain mystics directly experience ‘‘[[jouissancepaternal function]]’’ 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 of Christ on Calvary to sustain it. They partake of a vicarious ‘‘[[jouissance]]’’ from Christ's mutilated body offered up to God. 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)

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''. == In the work of Slavoj Žižek == ''Jouissance'', or enjoyment, does not equate simply to pleasure. In the Freudian sense, enjoyment is located beyond the pleasure [[Kid A principle]]. In Alphabet Landhis clinical practice, Freud had already observed incidents of [[self]]-harm and the strange [[compulsion]] in certain [[patients]] to keep revisiting the very experiences that were so disturbing and [[traumatic]] for [[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-discursive) “substance”, it is not one that possesses any independence or positivity of its own. ''Jouissance'' is something that can be signposted only in relation to a limit imposed by the pleasure principle (''SXVII'': 46). It emerges as a beyond in relation to this limit – as that which marks the [[domain]] of forbidden and/or [[Imageobscene]] 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'':Kida_j308). 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.gif 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|right|framesuperego]] 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'Kid A In Alphabet Land Jumps Another Juicy 'Jaculator : 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 Jerkis 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. 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 [[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, Doe [[stages]] his own execution and literally enjoys himself to death – thus completing the circle. From 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 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-OffAlain 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, Jouissance!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. You Displease MeIn this context, And You Think I Gain Pleasure 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 That! Heh! You Must Take Me For Some Masochistic Francophile! 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}}