Jouissance Puns

J'ai jamais été jaloux de mes collègues ou amis avec des enfants, mais là, depuis 2 ans , sérieux c'est juste jouissif d'être un célibataire solitaire sans progéniture. Ok , peut-être que personne viendra me voir quand jvais croupir en CHSLD, mais JE M'EN BAT LES COUILLES.

Voir mes collègues faire des pieds et des mains pour tout ce qui a attrait à la Covid, les activités, les repas, les devoirs etc. Ca semble complètement exténuant.

Avec la vaccination des enfants et la guerre de la vertu parental qui s'annonce, j'adoooooooore mon statut de spectateur.

Je suis peut-être égoiste, mais it what it is.

I know simply put jouissance is transgressive, however in a book about lacan the author wrote how eating a specific food is "justified by need" but in the end caused by oral drive and leading to jouissance

So, is jouissance a result from drives exlusively? In this example no transgression is involved so is jouissance only connected to death drive? What causes a drive to become the death drive, given all different drives we usually have?

( the irony here is ive heard how drives are what is the foundation of psychoanalysis yet in most books about lacan drives are exmplained in 3-4 sentences)

I'm thinking through some of the intricacies of jouissance and am noticing what seem to me like potential connections with nietzche's ressentiment.E.g. in each case the object of desire is unattainable and the desire is not experienced as desire

I was hoping to hear you good people's thoughts?

"What really counts is the strength we feel every time we don’t bow our heads, every time we destroy the false idols of civilization, every time our eyes meet those of our comrades along illegal paths, every time that our hands set fire to the symbols of Power. In those moments we don’t ask ourselves: ‘Will we win? Will we lose?’ In those moments we just fight.”

-CCF (Btw I don’t support the terrorism the CCF does, it is just a good quote for this)

***

They had repelled the state once again! They had repelled them from the commune. Yet it left an aftertaste. They wanted more. They had already liberated the city, but not the suburbs, not the surrounding metro area, nor the people who had been arrested, both during the two battles fought, but also simply before the commune. They needed to liberate all their comrades, they needed to liberate everyone. And they take fun in it. The weird feeling when you burn down what has oppressed you, oppressed your parents, their parents, and their parents, back thousands of years, and, if you don’t do this, will oppress your children, they took joy in that feeling. It was like a drug. Most of the people in the commune hadn’t felt that feeling of extreme power until they went to aid their comrades in their attempt to push back the states soldiers. When they did that, they got hooked on that drug. They anarchists who originally liberated the city had the inability to frolic in that feeling after liberating the city, as they, and Buenos Aires as a whole, were reeling from the effects. But now they were able to join most of the populace, as they resurged. Being able to revert back to being on that drug. That drug of Jouissance, of uncivilized desire.

Many, many citizens of the commune, now soldiers, warriors, “savages”, surged over the newly created barricades, carrying Kalashnikovs, machine guns, Molotovs, and other weapons of war. They didn’t care if they won or lost, they were enjoying their assault. They would win in their minds, regardless of what happened. Those several thousand people assaulting the government.

***

He simply serving his time as a soldier – two years minimum for all citizens of Argentina unless they have a written note from a college or other institution giving them an exempt status, when they turn 18. Juan had six months left on his deployment, after having already served a year and a half. His first year had been extremely calm. He spent the entire time simply going from military base

Just wanted to check if it’s known for being inaccurate or otherwise has a bad reputation, I’m not clued into the discourse around psychoanalysis

Not to sound too much like Darian Leader's PR team, but he's a very lucid writer and there's a new short book out from him today on the subject of jouissance that some of you might be interested in: https://politybooks.com/bookdetail/?isbn=9781509548835

Not to sound too much like Darian Leader's PR team, but it's a steal at £15.99!

From the blurb:

>Although the term jouissance is common currency in psychoanalysis today, how much does it really tell us? Whilst often taken to designate a fusion of sexuality, suffering and satisfaction, the term has fallen into a purely descriptive use that closes down more questions than it opens up. Although assumed to explain the coalescence of pleasure and pain, it tends to cover a range of quite different issues that should be distinguished rather than coalesced.

Hi there,

Really need some help for my thesis project with understanding this element of jouissance.

My current understanding is roughly:

- jouissance or enjoyment is a “paradoxical phenomenon of deriving a kind of satisfaction through suffering, or pleasure through pain” (Butler 2015: 80).

- it is linked to the big Other insofar as the symbolic order defines what is allowed/socially accepted and what is not

- jouissance is trespassing those boundaries and finding enjoyment in something you may consciously disavow but nonetheless find satisfying

Where I am confused however is:

“A nation exists,” Žižek writes, “only as long as its specific enjoyment continues to be materialized in a set of social practices and transmitted through national myths or fantasies that secure these practices.” (Žižek 1993: 202)

My question is thus:

How is enjoyment produced in fulfilling institutionalised practices? Where is the pain/taboo in that? Is it just that jouissance is produced in identification with a nation because it necessitates the exclusion of others?

If others are 'thieves' of my enjoyment (performance of a certain identity, neoliberal say), what am I currently enjoying that the other would steal?

Any help or pointers to good text would be much appreciated

Jouissance Vampires with @mcrumps), Daniel Tutt (@DanielTutt) https://directory.libsyn.com/shows/view/id/jouissancevampires

Why Theory with Todd McGowan & Ryan Engley https://soundcloud.com/whytheory

Lacast (for germain speakers) http://lacast.de/

Žižek and So On https://open.spotify.com/show/7EhW6vsejcBsS66LeeCY8O

I'd also recommend talks and texts from ML friendly post-Zizeckians Gabriel Tupinambá, Jodi Dean and Samo Tomšič

Title^

I’m looking for good texts by Derek Hook or Zizek on either the death-drive or Joiussance.

Also, are these synonymous concepts?

Is it related to the object a and the big Other?

Hi all, I am writing a term paper on Lacanian jouissance and I was wondering what are the best sources I should seek out.

By this I mean, primary sources from Lacan himself (seminars, etc) and books and essays concerning jouissance.

I need as many as possible, so I will take any and all suggestions.

Does somebody have a take on how believing in conspiracy theories in general, but especially felling prey to social media echo chambers organised around them like in the case of QAnon can be interpreted in terms of the lacano-zizekian concept of jouissance (surplus-enjoyment)?

Thanks.

Zizek often talks about the big Other. From what I understand, it means, social authority, the subject supposed to know, etc.. but he also says that this has a gap with jouissance. Jouissance, in Lacanian terms, means pleasure in pain and if this is the case, how does the big Other relate to jouissance?

Is this to mean that the masochist's objet a is to be found in the Other's being barred (the master isn't truly the master; there is no big Other)? That the masochist makes contact with the Real in their sadistic tormentor's failure to truly assume the role of the sadist? Or is there something I'm missing.

I've seen a few explanations but it doesn't quite make sense.

Hi all! I've been researching Freud's notion of Narcissism and identity formation to compare with Lacan and Butler, as part of my research in ancient/classical literature. I was redirected here from /r/psychoanalysis.

In his essay on Narcissism, Freud outlines two such structures: primary Narcissism which is self-infatuation (associated with women and homosexuals), and secondary Narcissism where self-desire is displaced onto other objects of desire. This mirrors Lacan's account of Narcissism in Ecrits, where he focuses more on the second type which constitutes phallic jouissance (instantiated through the mirror stage etc). I don't think Lacan makes this comparison explicitly, but it sounds as though primary Narcissism maps to perversion while secondary Narcissism maps to neuroticism, since self-desire/perversion is predicated on the perceived desire from the Other, and that neuroticism deals precisely with the subject's impotence to please the Other.

To my understanding, masculine jouissance is phallic while feminine jouissance is non-phallic. Whereas the masculine subject possesses the symbolic phallus because they are really impotent, the feminine subject must be the phallus for the masculine subject (and I think is said to derive enjoyment from being the phallus). This sounds like a clear link between neurotic/perverse fantasy and masculine/feminine jouissance, but I've never seen that made clear. My research aims to analyze the Echo and Narcissus myth, and although my initial hunch was to read it in terms of asymmetric gendered jouissance, I don't seem to be the only one who reads perverse fantasy into the myth either:

In her article "Echo", Spivak contrasts Echo from Narcissus because the latter forms an identity and desires for himself, while Echo “is obliged to be imperfectly and interceptively responsive to another’s desire, if only for the self-separation of speech” (Spivak 27). Spivak even identifies Echo with the figure/discourse of the analyst a, who represents knowledge S2 to the split subject $. By reducing herself into a mere semblance of another's speech, doesn't Echo identify directly with Narcissus' enjoyment? (Although the phallus S1 and the objet a are diametric in Lacan's discourse algorithms, so I would expect someone who identifies with a to not also identify with S1).

Am I reading either or both structures of fantasy and jouissance wrong, or am I making the right connection? Thank you!

I know that the death drive is a radical compulsion to repeat which persists beyond life and death; also, a libidinal force to counter nihilist entropy. How does it differ from the death drive? (knowing that jouissance is intense pleasure without the guarantee of death)

PS. Sorry if I'm not making sense, I'm relatively new

I've just finished George Bataille's Eroticism, I understand he was a foundation for a lot of post-modern orientated philosophers, I can definitely see this in the push on the pleasure principle. I really enjoyed his prose. Anybody have any views on his theories?

i've been reading a few nihilist texts recently and this idea of jouissance comes up a lot. i've never encountered the term before, and while i've read several definitions i'm finding it difficult to understand on a visceral level.

for example:

> It is useful, in understanding this concept of jouissance, to follow Edelman in thinking the elements of queer reality which escape representation: the remainders, as he’d term them. These remainders are what is left over after capital colonizes the positivities of queerness—its fashions, parties, academic pursuits, aesthetics, labors, social networks—and after politics integrates intelligible queerness into its symbolic order. And so what is this remainder? What remains after one subtracts the progressive ideology of inclusion, the humble victim, the upstanding citizens, the eccentric selling points, the fluid permutations of Identity, the volumes of theory? What remains is jouissance.

> Edelman describes jouissance as a supersession of the boundaries of pleasure and pain, a shattering of identity and law. We should analyze this distinction between pleasure and pain as being an inscription of the social order into our bodies. And in the same way, it is the mundane and miniscule pleasures produced through contemporary power arrangements which keep us dependent on those arrangements for our well-being. Jouissance, in abolishing both sides of this distinction, severs us from pain as a self-preservation instinct and from pleasure as the society’s alluring bribe. It is the process that momentarily sets us free from our fear of death (literal or figurative) which is such a powerful inhibitor.

> We can locate this jouissance in the historic moments of queer riot: Compton’s cafeteria, Dewey’s, the White Night, Stonewall, and countless other moments where queer bodies participated in rupture—throwing bricks, setting fires, smashing windows, rejoicing in the streets. But more to the point, jouissance is located in precisely the aspects of these moments (and of others unknown to us) which elude historians, the ones which cannot be captured in a textbook or situated neatly within narratives of progress for queer people, or of rational political struggle for a better future. Jouissance is the rage which boils over in the first queen to set a fire; the hatred of an entire social order which flows through one’s veins while they set a dozen San Francisco police vehicles on fire. It is the ecstatic bliss that must

Hi all! I've been researching Freud's notion of Narcissism and identity formation to compare with Lacan and Butler, as part of my research in ancient/classical literature.

In his essay on Narcissism, Freud outlines two such structures: primary Narcissism which is self-infatuation (associated with women and homosexuals), and secondary Narcissism where self-desire is displaced onto other objects of desire. This mirrors Lacan's account of Narcissism in Ecrits, where he focuses more on the second type which constitutes phallic jouissance (instantiated through the mirror stage etc). I don't think Lacan makes this comparison explicitly, but it sounds as though primary Narcissism maps to perversion while secondary Narcissism maps to neuroticism, since self-desire/perversion is predicated on the perceived desire from the Other, and that neuroticism deals precisely with the subject's impotence to please the Other.

To my understanding, masculine jouissance is phallic while feminine jouissance is non-phallic. Whereas the masculine subject possesses the symbolic phallus because they are really impotent, the feminine subject must be the phallus for the masculine subject (and I think is said to derive enjoyment from being the phallus). This sounds like a clear link between neurotic/perverse fantasy and masculine/feminine jouissance, but I've never seen that made clear. My research aims to analyze the Echo and Narcissus myth, and although my initial hunch was to read it in terms of asymmetric gendered jouissance, I don't seem to be the only one who reads perverse fantasy into the myth either:

In her article "Echo", Spivak contrasts Echo from Narcissus because the latter forms an identity and desires for himself, while Echo “is obliged to be imperfectly and interceptively responsive to another’s desire, if only for the self-separation of speech” (Spivak 27). Spivak even identifies Echo with the figure/discourse of the analyst a, who represents knowledge S2 to the split subject $. By reducing herself into a mere semblance of another's speech, doesn't Echo identify directly with Narcissus' enjoyment? (Although the phallus S1 and the objet a are diametric in Lacan's discourse algorithms, so I would expect someone who identifies with a to not also identify with S1).

Am I reading either or both structures of fantasy and jouissance wrong, or am I making the right connection? Thank you!