Talk:Jouissance/Archive 1

Typo

There's a typo in the word movement toward the end of the article ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.170.39.35 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 19 January 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Certainly as regards the meaning of the word jouissance in the work of Lacan, who is cited in the text, the current wiki-definition leaves something to be - as it were - desired.

Any definition of the term Jouissance as used by Lacan highlights the fact that 'the subject' in Lacan is not to be understood as another way of saying 'the individual', the 'person', the 'citizen', or you, me or him.

The main thing worth pointing out is that jouissance (& there's no good reason not to translate it as 'enjoyment' but keep reading) is an enjoyment for the subject (as distinct from the individual). And, while the enjoyment of the subject might be felt as agreeable or delightful by the individual, certainly as far as Lacan is concerned, this enjoyment (of the subject) is also experienced by the individual as anything from persistantly irritating to keenly agonising.

This is absolutely consistent with Freud: In the case of 'The Rat Man' there is a crucial episode where the Rat Man, after much hesitation, describes the image of the appalling torture that he is obsessed with and which relentlessly forces its way into his consciousness (I won't describe it here since it's not impossible for kids to read this page). Freud notices that, while the Rat Man is horrified and disgusted by the image of which he speaks, he is also - and unmistakably - excited by it.

So 'jouissance' may be fun, but it may also - and the sense is better conveyed I think - be understood as an excitation around which the subject is constructed and towards which the individual may feel both longing or loathing.

--Peter Owen 20:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The current definition of jouissance in the work of Lacan does indeed leave something to be desired. My understanding is that jouissance relates to a loss of subjectivity in experiences where the relation to the symbolic order is disrupted. Bruce Fink's book, "The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance" (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995) goes into great detail on the subject, here is his definition:

"Jouissance is thus what comes to substitute for the lost "mother-child unity," a unity which was perhaps never as united as all that since it was a unity owing only to the child's sacrifice or foregoing of subjectivity. We can imagine a kind of jouissance before the letter, before the institution of the symbolic order (J1)--corresponding to an unmediated relation between mother and child, a 'real' connection between them --which gives way before the signifier, being canceled out by the operation of the paternal function. Some modicum or portion of that real connection is refound in fantasy (a jouissance after the letter, J2), in the subject's relation to the leftover or byproduct of symbolization (table 5.1): object a (that which is produced as S2 retroactively determines S1, and precipitates out a subject, as we shall see).

J1 --> Symbolic --> J2" p. 60

-Anon. 05-04-2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.164.11 (talk) 05:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Transition

This page could really use a short transition paragraph from discussing the common-use meaning of the French word to the specific usage and significance in the works of Lacan and Zizek. Also, some of the commentary in the first paragraph, such as the purpose of life being to suppress jouissance, belongs in the analysis, not the description of common meaning. --66.188.231.225 (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources/agreement

This article needs to source its claim regarding Lacan's interpretation of the pleasure principle. The description of the pleasure principle given here does not agree with that given in the pleasure principle article. While it is likely that Lacan's interpretation of the pleasure principle differs from Freud's, a more definitive source for this discrepancy needs to be found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.66.25 (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Some one needs to provide a source citation for the claim that Filipino babies are often named Jouissance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.91.247 (talk) 02:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Clarity

Have clarified as far as I can, but have not detagged: can article be improved, or is the subjectmatter inherently opaque, like much French thought of that era? Jacobisq (talk) 10:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)