Jouissance (7 of 7) : The only substance
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 июл 2024
- We juxtapose a section of Freud's 'Totem and Taboo' (Freud's discussion of the 'obligatory excess' of festivals) with amateur anthropologist Bruce Parry's TV show 'Tribe' so as to stress how jouissance and the law re-affirm one another. Freud's reference to 'participation in the same substance' is echoed in Lacan's assertion that 'jouissance is the only substance recognized by psychoanalysis'. Returning to questions posed in the first lecture, we note that jouissance is NOT unconscious, even though it is organized, given narrative form, by fantasy. Frantz Fanon's theory of racism helps illustrates this point. Jouissance, like sexual enjoyment itself, always needs fantasy. What though about the 'war on drugs', and the hatred toward jazz linked to the emeregence of this 'war'? Lastly: what three different modes of jouissance can be identified in racism?
Link to board:
drive.google.com/drive/folder...
Brilliant series - thank you so much for making this! Truly a joy to listen to
Great videos. I am reminded of an example from Žižek that I think succinctly brings together some of the points that you have made and which alludes to your three points at the end of the video. :)
He asks the question - why have gay men historically been banned from the army and their presence seen as a ‘threat’, despite their physicality, strength, fitness etc.? IIRC he remarks that the army has as integral to its practises of ‘bonding’ (for morale, group identity etc.) an underside of various ‘homoerotically’ pleasurable acts or rituals which are not perceived as such, but rather exist within the fantasmatic ‘armature’ (as you put it) of codes and rules of initiation rites and similar practises that regulate enjoyment and are coextensive with jouissance eg naked men showering together whipping towels inflicting pain / experiencing pleasure; initiation rites involving nudity / sexually innuendo practices, public shaming etc. The ‘intrusion’ of a gay male gaze within this scene not only exposes the underside that supports the fantasy - the homoerotic reading of pleasure intrinsic to it - but also results in the participants ‘projecting’ onto the (gay) Other an obscene enjoyment ie that they ‘enjoy’ the scene sexually, whilst also denying that it is homoerotic (that’s not what it really is about’) - hence the gay gaze must be removed. In other words, in order to sustain the fantasy that regulates jouissance and which is tied to the unwritten rituals and codes regulating their inter subjectivity and identity, the Other must be excluded from the scene, because, in a sense, the Other would be perceived as enjoying it too much (the transgression).
I was reading Zezik's Sublime Object of Ideology and kept on coming up the term Jouissance. Came for a definition, stayed for the analysis. Nice series of of videos here. Best to you.
So incredibly grateful to you for this, Derek. This is such a wonderful series.
great series thanks Dr Hook
hope you'll continue to spend time talking about this topic/these ideas: enflamed pleasure of hating, repulsion of some others doing something too much, the threat to my own libidinal treasures and how fantasy functions in terms of narrativizing around racial/others' jouissance.
This is an overarching theme of my research. Two journal articles you might find interesting : Political Psychology entitled 'What is enjoyment as a political factor?' and Psychoanalysis Culture and Society on the idea of racism as the theft of enjoyment.
I noticed this kind of imperative enjoyment in britain where one has to get shitfaced every weekend
After traversing the fantasy, don't we actually have what is nothing more than the return of the signifier -- more specifically: a new phallic signifier? This conclusion seems to be the logical conclusion of both Lacan and Zizek but the step they are not willing to take. It also seems to be a helpful way of understanding the new form of world leaders that have been emerging all over the world and a return of what felt like it was lost or forgotten.
Kind of an abrupt ending on this one... reference to the Lacanian interrupted session?
Prof. Derek Hook, thank you so much for your brilliant lectures on jouissance. Can I ask you to extend your lectures to Feminine Sexuality? I am struggling with such concepts as jouissance of the phallus, jouissance of the Other, masculine structure, and feminine structure.
discourseunit.com/annual-review/7-2009/
"Restoring universality to the subject: Lacan’s Kantian logic of sexuation by Derek Hook"
You are not alone in struggling with these concepts. I think the notion of feminine jouissance is one of the least understood of all Lacanian concepts. The best I can do regards an introduction to ideas of sexuation is the above journal article.
@@derekhookonlacan Thank you so much for your kind answer, and I will read your article carefully. But I am afraid I cannot understand it. I am a very novice on psychoanalysis. Actually, I am a Shakespearean who has read some chapters of Lacan including the Signification of the Phallus, the Graphs of Desire, Desire in Hamlet, etc. I am currently engaged in applying Lacanian psychoanalysis to the interpretation of Shakespeare’s plays such as Troilus and Cressida, The Merchant of Venice, The Comedy of Errors, and so forth. Particularly, I am interested in developing a so-called New Economic Criticism on Renaissance dramatic texts. As part of an economic approach to literary texts, I want to synthesize the Marxian concept of world money (suggested in the Chapter 3 of Capital, vol. I) with the Lacanian concept of the Phallus (or the Name of Father). But I am not sure that I can produce a convincing argument on such an enormous project.
@@derekhookonlacan Fortunately, I found a book entitled by Jean-Joseph Goux. This book includes a chapter: . I expect Prof. Goux would do exactly what I wanted to do. I am relieved of the daunting task of synthesizing the Marxist concept of world money with the Lacanian concept of the name of father. At the same time, however, I have lost the chance to contribute to the existing scholarship. My remaining task might be just how to ingeniously apply his ideas to interpreting Renaissance literary texts.
Thank you. I am a novice when it comes to Freudian psychoanalysis and jouissance was a topic of incredible interest for me. I am selfish in a way that I particulary interested in my own psychic events and this has helped me raise so many questions about the state of my own current existence. I have recently been confronted with my own limits and mortality and now I know I cant roll the boulder to the top in one step. This allows me to take multiple steps in what is a more enlivening human experience.
What brings jouissance for me?
In what ways I have been afraid of castration and unconsciously sabotaged the jouissance of people around me?
In what ways have I sacrificed my jouissance for others?
Am I meant to build up structures for the super ego that I later destroy to enact jouissance or do I dare todestroy the established sociatal, social structures?
Will the enlivement as well as endagerement that comes out of jouissance worth the cost of security?
If i construct my own fantasies can that lead to jouissance that is directed in a certain direction?
In what areas of my life do I enjoy suffering more than the potential return of change?
Fantasies can indeed direct jouissance. I really admire the way you are engaging with this material. Keep it going.
dope
Well, there are many names for it. Once, in doing a children's storybook reading, I realized that one name for it is 'booty', otherwise known as 'pirate's treasure'. Why else spend all that time and effort on the typically deathly campaign of trying to get it all to yourself....?
Hi Derek, I am not sure if you have watched the movie- The Dark Knight. I want to discuss a particular scene. ruclips.net/video/c0EyFBPPuuY/видео.html
You can go to the link to watch the scene. Watch it till 0:51. It is the scene where Joker blows up the hospital. In this particular scene, the joker is not looking back when he hears the loud bursts of bombs blowing up the hospital but only looks back at the hospital to see if it (the hospital) has blown up completely. I do see jouissance in joker. There is obviously an excess. So here is my question now (1) Do you think he has reached the stage which probably beyond jouissance? Also, would you consider there is a symbolic law for joker here? Because if there is no symbolic law then he would have felt so much anxiety to even commit the act [?] I am not sure. Hoping for answers. :)
I wonder here if it might be worthwhile making a distinction between jouissance and drive. Joker seems in many respects more of an embodiment of drive than jouissance. As it turns out, I have watched the film fairly recently and I agree that there is a sense in which it is not just about jouissance for Joker. There is a sense in which Joker does not seem at all to be ego motivated. His actions don't seem to be motivated by libidinal gain (remember the scene where he burns all the money). Joker seems embodiment of the relentless striving to constantly repeat and expand upon a goal which is not reducible to a type of ego gain or object. Indeed we could say in this respect Joker embodies death drive.