Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In Lacan's perspective on Kant's example, two choices have an equal logical possibility
for the man standing before both the gallows and the bedroom door. The choice not to
gratify one's lust is dictated by the pleasure principle, given its role in negotiating
between the impulses of id and the external series of trade-offs in reality (the
empirically-conditioned "well-being" of the ego is taken into account by the economic
speculations of the pleasure principle). The ego experiences pain precisely when the
orderly cost-benefit homeostasis of the pleasure principle is abandoned. This pain is what
happens in the instance where the individual, for whatever reason, chooses to copulate in
the face of imminent death (no doubt, when the noose is fitted around the sensualist's
neck, the ego of this subject will experience a mild degree of anxiety).6 This "living out
of the drives" in utter disregard of the consequentialism of the pleasure principle is
jouissance. Miller states, "jouissance in itself is a certain destruction, and precisely in
this it differs from the pleasure principle, in its sense of a certain moderation and a
certain well-being. The very name jouissance fundamentally translates what resists the
pleasure principle's moderation" (Jacques-Alain Miller, "Ethics in Psychoanalysis,"
Lacanian Ink, no. 5, Winter, 1992, pg. 26). Or, as Lacan phrases it in his seventeenth
seminar, "ce que le principe du plaisir maintient, c'est la limite quant la jouissance"
(Jacques Lacan, Le Sminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre XVII: L'envers de la
psychanalyse, 1969-1970 [ed. Jacques-Alain Miller], Paris: ditions du Seuil, 1991, pg.
51).
Thus far, in part due to Lacan's own pronouncements on the topic, jouissance appears to
be a mode of pure enjoyment, an absolute pleasure undiluted by the subliminatory
compromises struck by the pleasure principle with the reality principle. jouissance is the
"Real thing," an ecstatic release without hindrance. Although it may seem that the
pleasure principle avoids what Lacan designates as das Ding and settles for substitutive
objects while jouissance unreservedly seizes das Ding, such is not the case. As with
desire, the refrain of jouissance is "Ce n'est pas a." In the twentieth seminar, Lacan
claims:
'That's not it' is the very cry by which the jouissance obtained is distinguished from the
jouissance expected... Structure, which connects up here, demonstrates nothing if not that
it is of the same text as jouissance, insofar as, in marking by what distance jouissance
misses - the jouissance that would be in question if 'that were it' - structure does not
presuppose merely the jouissance that would be it, it also props up another (pg. 111-112).
(Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XX: Encore, 1972- 1973 [ed.
Jacques-Alain Miller; trans. Bruce Fink], New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998)
The "jouissance expected" is an illusory, mythicized "full satisfaction," namely, the refinding of das Ding, the decisive, final quelling of the incessant clamoring of the drives.
However, what the subject always gets (i.e., the "jouissance obtained") is, at best, a
pleasure that falls short of the idealized standard. Even worse, in most cases, jouissance
manifests itself as a "pleasure-in-pain" (as with Freud's position that the ego experiences
the success of repressed drives as pain [i.e., disavowed pleasure, or pleasure which
cannot consciously be experienced as such], the Lacanian ego too cannot fully enjoy
jouissance). Furthermore, if the gap were ever to be closed between expected and
obtained jouissance, the repeated resurgence of jouissance would cease (that is, the "Ce
n'est pas a" effect is required for repetition). Full satisfaction implies a kind of
"psychical death," an evacuation of the tension of dissatisfaction that perpetually drives
the libidinal economy.
One consequently arrives at a paradoxical point in Lacanian theory: jouissance is an
enjoyment that is enjoyable only insofar as it doesn't get what it's allegedly after.7 How
does this interpretation of Lacan affect what has been said thus far? What about Kant's
example of the man choosing between sexual abstinence and execution? Kant takes it for
granted, on the basis of empirical assumptions, that no man will choose the woman given
the threat of death-by-hanging. Lacan, on the other hand, contends that some individuals
not only would consider trading their lives for a night of sex with the "lady of their
dreams," but that this very threat of death can serve as a requisite precondition for sexual
enjoyment (for example, a man who is impotent unless the shadow of a "gallows" is cast
over the bed). However, it would be interesting to go even further and imagine the man
who accepts the exchange of sex-for-life caught in the midst of the long-awaited sexual
intercourse for which he sacrificed himself (note that, in both Kant and Lacan's
description of the example, the woman whom the man is offered is someone he has
already lusted over; namely, the man has expected/anticipated sex with her). What
happens if, while actually caught in the throes of physical passion, the man experiences
one of those moments when sex is no longer "sexy," so to speak? What occurs when the
seductive aura of his object of desire (an aura sustained in part by the previous
inaccessibility of the woman) dissipates in the close proximity of the sexual act? The
man might not only find that this sexual encounter isn't as good as he imagined it would
be when fantasizing about this particular woman (i.e., the semblance of "jouissance
expected" isn't the substance of "jouissance obtained"), but that the sexual act itself is
transformed from a titillating fantasy into a disgusting, mechanical activity: two
sweating, grunting heaps of flesh rubbing against each other and secreting fluids.8
In this case, especially since this activity is what he exchanged his life for, the sensualist
would be crushed by a mixture of revulsion and horror (he would undergo what Lacan
sometimes refers to as "subjective destitution"). He "lived out his drive," only to find that
even transcending the sober calculations of the pleasure principle doesn't provide a pure
"enjoyment in the Real." This man would be traumatized by the fact that the "expected
jouissance" for which he traded his life (i.e., the most intensely pleasurable sex with the
woman of his fantasies) is transubstantiated into the ugliness of an "obtained jouissance"
(i.e., the encounter with a repulsive Real, in which the arousing image of the love-object
seen at a distance becomes, when approached too close, a mere "pound of flesh" not
worth dying for). As Zizek has frequently noted, the Real (more specifically here, das
Ding as the ostensible goal of Trieb) only appears desirable when coated by a thin layer
of fantasizing, by a veil woven of Imaginary and Symbolic threads (and, this veil is
functional exclusively insofar as the drive-object is kept at a certain distance or is
somehow "out of reach").9 Once das Ding is placed behind the cloth of this screen, any
subsequent lifting of the veil reveals not the expected sublime Thing nostalgically prized
by the drives, but, as Lacan puts it, an ugly "gift of shit." 10 Or, even better is Lacan's
example of the voyeur who fantasizes about a beautiful girl whose shadow he can see
moving about on the other side of a drawn curtain. As long as the curtain is situated
between the gaze of the voyeur and the "real person" behind the curtain, exciting
fantasies can be spun around the shadow - "What the voyeur is looking for and finds is
merely a shadow, a shadow behind the curtain. There he will phantasize any magic of
presence, the most graceful of girls, for example, even if on the other side there is only a
hairy athlete" (Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI, pg. 182). The Real is the
"hairy athlete" revealed by the raising of the Imaginary-Symbolic curtain sustaining the
constituted "reality" of desire. In the crits, Lacan speaks of the fantasmatic shadow of
the Real object as a "lure," a false point of anticipated full jouissance that, due to its
fundamental inaccessibility, sustains the dissatisfaction that itself is the motor of the
drives. And, in the seminars, he frequently describes the structure of fantasy as a "screen"
or "frame" (the Real thing framed or screened by fantasy is objet petit a; das Ding,
Lacanian theory raises questions about exactly how external prohibition relates to the
structural dynamic of the drives. What does the reality principle (whether as the paternal
function or the more general authority of civilization's rule of law) actually do if its
traditional Freudian task of restricting the individual's libidinal economy is complicit in
maintaining the illusion of an expected form of jouissance capable of being obtained?
Freud makes it seem as if prohibition is strictly opposed to the enjoyment of the drives.
In fact, quite the opposite is the case. External prohibition secretly sustains fantasies in
which full jouissance is possible (for instance, fantasies of, as Lacan calls it, the
"jouissance of the Other"). External barriers to impossible jouissance relieve the subject
of the burden of having to discover that enjoyment fails, that drives are constitutively
dysfunctional, being caught-up in an ineliminable antagonism plaguing the very essence
of enjoyment itself. The Kantian sensualist is able to continue believing that sex with the
woman behind the bedroom door would have been fantastic... if only the gallows weren't
standing outside the house.
1. "...I was at a conference in Los Angeles with people from all over the United States,
and everyone said 'Jouissance, jouissance, jouissance.' [laughter] I suppose that it won't
be translated. The difficulty is that the defeat of translation is taken in a movement of
spreading outward - now people feel that 'knowledge' doesn't really translate the
Lacanian 'savoir' - so now they say 'savoir.' If it continues a sufficiently long time, then
English will transform itself into French" (pg. 18). (Jacques-Alain Miller, "Did You Say
Bizarre?," Lacanian Ink, no. 15, Fall, 1999)
2. "The opposition between jouissance... and pleasure also involves a revised
understanding of the latter term. Pleasure now signifies on the one hand the sensation of
pleasure and on the other hand the pleasure principle. The pleasure principle is one of the
'two principles of mental functioning' which Freud discusses in his metapsychological
writings (the other being the reality principle). It is the innate tendency of the subject to
govern his actions on the basis of avoiding pain and obtaining pleasure. Now, it should
be clear that whereas pleasure in the former sense is synonymous with the earlier
meaning of jouissance, pleasure in the latter sense is actually opposed to the later
meaning of jouissance" (pg. 7).
3. (Dylan Evans, "From Kantian Ethics to Mystical Experience: An Exploration of
Jouissance," Key Concepts of Lacanian Psychoanalysis [ed. Dany Nobus], New York:
Other Press, 1999)
"...enjoyment (jouissance, Genuss) is not to be equated with pleasure (Lust): enjoyment
is precisely 'Lust im Unlust'; it designates the paradoxical satisfaction procured by a
painful encounter with a Thing that perturbs the equilibrium of the 'pleasure principle.' In
other words, enjoyment is located 'beyond the pleasure principle'" (pg. 280).
(Slavoj Zizek, Tarrying with the Negative: Kant, Hegel, and the Critique of Ideology,
Durham: Duke University Press, 1993)
4. "Suppose that someone says his lust is irresistible when the desired object and
opportunity are present. Ask him whether he would not control his passion if, in front of
the house where he has this opportunity, a gallows were erected on which he would be
hanged immediately after gratifying his lust. We do not have to guess very long what his
answer would be" (pg. 30).
(Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason [trans. Lewis White Beck], New Jersey:
(Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XI [ed. Jacques-Alain Miller;
trans. Alan Sheridan], New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1977)
11. "It is to this object that cannot be grasped in the mirror that the specular image lends
its clothes. A substance caught in the net of the shadow, and which, robbed of its
shadow-swelling volume, holds out once again the tired lure of the shadow as if it were
substance" (pg. 316).
(Jacques Lacan, "The subversion of the subject and the dialectic of desire in the Freudian
unconscious," crits: A Selection [trans. Alan Sheridan], New York: W.W. Norton and
Company, 1977)
"The illusion that pertains to a qua surplus-enjoyment is therefore the very illusion that,
behind it, there is the lost substance of jouissance. In other words, a qua semblance
deceives in a Lacanian way: not because it is a deceitful substitute of the Real, but
precisely because it invokes the impression of some substantial Real behind it; it
deceives by posing as a shadow of the underlying Real" (pg. 36-37).
(Zizek, Tarrying with the Negative)
12. "Now, what our experience, the analytic experience, brings us is centered on the
phenomenon of the screen. Far from the inaugural foundation of the dimension of
analysis being something where at some point the primitiveness of light, by itself, makes
there emerge everything that is darkness in the form of what exists, we have first of all to
deal with this problematic relationship which is represented by the screen.
This screen is not simply what hides the real, it surely is that, but, at the same time, it
indicates it. What structures carry this frame of the screen in a way that strictly integrates
it into the existence of the subject, this is the turning point starting from which we have,
if we want to account for the least terms that intervene in our experience as connoted by
the term scopic, and here, of course, we are not only dealing with screen memories, we
are dealing with something which is called phantasy: we have to deal with this term that
Freud calls not a representation but a representative of representation."
(Jacques Lacan, The Seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book XIII: The Object of
Psychoanalysis, 1965-1966, session of May 18th, 1966)
13. "Ce qu'on peut dire de Freud, c'est qu'il a situ les choses d'une faon telle que a ait
russi. Mais ce n'est pas sr que ce dont il s'agit, c'est une composition, une composition
telle que j'ai t amen, pour rendre tout a cohrent, donner la note d'un certain
rapport entre la pulsion et l'inhibition, et puis le principe du plaisir et le savoir - le
savoir inconscient, bien entendu. "
(Jacques Lacan, Le Sminaire de Jacques Lacan, Livre XXV: Le Moment de Conclure,
1977-1978 [unpublished typescript], session of December 20th, 1977)