I want to talk to you about something which I have struggled with for months to
understand, but is really important. What Lacan termed Jouissance cannot be
contained within the language, as we know it. Jouissance is the engine and the tension,
which drives our relentless, restless and often irrational desires. Jouissance
cannot be defined without using words that already have other meanings, which
is confusing, so I will stick to calling it Jouissance. It is as if a new way
of thinking requires a new language. So let me try to make my
language reach beyond its usual uses, to help you recognise something previously
un-articulable. And trust me, I am getting somewhere with this.
Jouissance drives desires
for pleasures beyond what comes out of just fulfilling our basic needs.
And why is this so
important for me to talk about Jouissance? Our Jouissance is a constant tension,
a desperate energy; a willingness to act and repeat acts with an effort, which may
not stand in a rational proportion to the reward to be expected. Jouissance is
the engine behind our ideological fervors, our erotic desires, what drives us
to stay up at night to create or seek something or someone. So, the reason I
want to talk about Jouissance is that it has implications for how we understand
love, sex and politics. Understanding the power that Jouissance has over us is
essential for understanding ourselves and how we interpret the actions of
people around us, beyond a simple doctrine of utility maximization (or the balancing of pleasures versus pains as in the pleasure principle).
What I will try to convey
is obviously none of my own, but has all been conceptualized by Freud, Lacan
and the interpreters of Lacan. My need to reformulate my own understanding of Jouissance
comes from the struggle I have had to make sense of their language, the language
of the psychoanalysts and the philosophers. To me it is impenetrable and instead
I have understood Jouissance from a scientific paper written by Ariane Bazan
and Sandrine Detandt 2013 in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience: "On the physiology of jouissance: interpreting the mesolimbic dopaminergic reward functions from a psychoanalytic perspective."
Unfortunately this paper, though extremely rich in thoughts and references, was
also more or less unreadable (took me weeks). Still I think it is possible to
understand the Lacanian concept of Jouissance without understanding neither psychoanalysis nor neuroscience, which is why I try here. Jouissance can be felt from our experience of being humans, with all
our memories of our inexplicable desires, urges and obsessions.
So, Jouissance is the
restless willingness to act, a tension in the body, an impatience and a longing,
which is in itself both pleasurable and painful. Sometimes we are fixed firmly
on something or someone that we have identified as the release of this tension,
sometimes the longing is for something diffuse, conceptual or religious. Whatever our Jouissance hooks onto it has at some point in the past given an unexpected, surprising
pleasure (or sudden release from pain). We are then doomed to repeat the
behavior that got us to that initial satisfaction. But whenever we manage to get
it again, the reproductions will be compared to an idealized memory of what we had that first time. And the reproductions always turn out to be somewhat disappointing.
Instead we find a compulsive pleasure in reproducing the act (or the search)
itself, even without the reward. We might even fear the reward or we savor the
painful pleasure of an unfulfilled wish.
That’s it.
Did you get it? Then we can cut to the chase.
I will follow up this
blog-post with one on the importance of Jouissance for sexuality and love,
drawing from the thoughts of Bataille. I will also follow up with a blog-post
on the implications of Jouissance for politics and ideology, because only then does Slavoj Žižek start to make sense to me (and that’s a
startling thing in itself). To tap our Jouissance is of utter political
importance and companies try all the time in their PR. To fix our Jouissance to an
idea of a future (which we then imagine will be satisfying) is the essence of
all opinion formation and what ultimately determines citizens willingness to
organize and act. The energy released from capturing our Jouissance can recently be
exemplified by the mobilization of volunteers in the #refugeeswelcome movement.
The author of the article replied to me in the comment-section of the journal. Since one must be logged in to see this reply in the journal, I repost it here:
SvaraRadera"Ariane Bazan "So, Jouissance is the restless willingness to act, a tension in the body, an impatience and a longing, which is in itself both pleasurable and painful. Sometimes we are fixed firmly on something or someone that we have identified as the release of this tension, sometimes the longing is for something diffuse, conceptual or religious. Whatever our Jouissance hooks onto it has at some point in the past given an unexpected, surprising pleasure (or sudden release from pain). We are then doomed to repeat the behavior that got us to that initial satisfaction. But whenever we manage to get it again, the reproductions will be compared to an idealized memory of what we had that first time. And the reproductions always turn out to be somewhat disappointing. Instead we find a compulsive pleasure in reproducing the act (or the search) itself, even without the reward. We might even fear the reward or we savor the painful pleasure of an unfulfilled wish.".... thank you so much Asa! ....in fact when you say "whenever we manage to get it again, the reproductions will be compared to an idealized memory" etc: if I may correct with how I/we view it: once we had the event registered in our system, and an internal or external stimulus is able to activate this body memory, there will be body tension until we do the action again. So, you see it is an infernal system: the first time it is a big party, and all the times after that engaging in the same experience is just needed if we want to discharge the tension built up by the expectation.... It is all in the shift of Shultz's dopamine peaks: the first time, the reward is unexpected, and the dopamine peak follows the reward: wow, we are blown out of our mind! And the second time already, the dopamine peak appears triggered by a stimulus - I'd say both an internal or an external - it is before the reward! So if the first time the party was shear bonus, the second time, the reward has to come if we don't want to be disappointed (and feel frustrated)! ... rot damn (human) condition :) And jouissance in this story is the pure building up of tension in the body, a destined form of tension, a tension with a particular form, a tension bound in a dischargeable motor program."
After a recent diskussion with @perkohler, I asked Ariane Bazan the following question on Facebook. Since her timeline is closed for non-friends, I repost my question here:
SvaraRadera"I had an interesting conversation on Twitter regarding your article http://journal.frontiersin.org/…/10.3…/fnhum.2013.00709/full with my friend Per Köhler recently. He is quite critical to that you dismiss Opponent process theory. I dont see that you do that, but maybe I am wrong? He also wonders if you have defined neural representation, which he thinks is unclear. Since this is not my field of research, I can not fully appreciate his criticism, so, maybe you can clarify this?"