{"id":4380,"date":"2009-10-30T14:03:54","date_gmt":"2009-10-30T18:03:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/?p=4380"},"modified":"2014-05-13T14:05:31","modified_gmt":"2014-05-13T18:05:31","slug":"zizek-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/2009\/10\/30\/zizek-3\/","title":{"rendered":"\u017di\u017eek desire drive review of Fink 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"

On the web here at lacan.com<\/a><\/p>\n

This paper was first published in the Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society<\/em> 1 (1996), 160-61, as a review of Bruce Fink’s The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance<\/em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995).<\/p>\n

Insofar as, according to Lacan, at the conclusion of psychoanalytic treatment, the subject assumes the drive beyond fantasy and beyond (the Law of) desire<\/strong>, this problematic also compels us to confront the question of the conclusion of treatment in all its urgency. If we discard the discredited standard formulas (“reintegration into the symbolic space”, etc.), only two options remain open: desire or drive.<\/strong><\/p>\n

– That is to say, either we conceive the conclusion of treatment as the assertion of the subject’s radical openness to the enigma of the Other’s desire no longer veiled by fantasmatic formations,<\/p>\n

– or we risk the step beyond desire itself and adopt the position of the saint who is no longer bothered by the Other’s desire as its decentred cause.<\/p>\n

In the case of the saint, the subject, in an unheard-of way, “causes itself”, becomes its own cause<\/strong>. Its cause is no longer decentred, i.e., the enigma of the Other’s desire no longer has any hold over it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

How are we to understand this strange reversal on which Fink is quite justified to insist? In principle, things are clear enough: by way of positing itself as its own cause, the subject fully assumes the fact that the object-cause<\/strong> of its desire is not a cause that precedes its effects but is retroactively posited by the network <\/strong>of its effects: an event is never simply in itself traumatic, it only becomes a trauma retroactively<\/strong>, by being ‘secreted’ from the subject’s symbolic space as its inassimilable point of reference.<\/p>\n

In this precise sense, the subject “causes itself” by way of retroactively positing that X which acts as the object-cause of its desire. This loop is constitutive of the subject.<\/strong><\/p>\n

That is, an entity that does not ’cause itself’ is precisely not a subject but an object. However, one should avoid conceiving this assumption as a kind of symbolic integration of the decentred Real, whereby the subject ‘symbolizes’, assumes as an act of its free choice, the imposed trauma of the contingent encounter with the Real.<\/p>\n

One should always bear in mind that the status of the subject as such is hysterical: the subject ‘is’ only insofar as it confronts the enigma of Che vuoi? -“What do you want?”- insofar as the Other’s desire remains impenetrable, insofar as the subject doesn’t know what kind of object it is for the Other.<\/strong> Suspending this decentring of the cause is thus strictly equivalent to what Lacan called “subjective destitution”<\/strong><\/span>, the de-hystericization by means of which the subject loses its status as subject.<\/p>\n

The most elementary matrix of fantasy, of its temporal loop, is that of the “impossible” gaze by means of which the subject is present at the act of his\/her own conception. What is at stake in it is the enigma of the Other’s desire: by means of the fantasy-formation, the subject provides an answer to the question, ‘What am I for my parents, for their desire?’ and thus endeavours to arrive at the ‘deeper meaning’ of his or her existence, to discern the Fate involved in it.<\/p>\n

The reassuring lesson of fantasy is that “I was brought about with a special purpose”. Consequently, when, at the end of psychoanalytic treatment, I “traverse my fundamental fantasy”<\/span>, the point of it is not<\/span> that, instead of being bothered by the enigma of the Other’s desire, of what I am for the others, I “subjectivize” my fate in the sense of its symbolization, of recognizing myself in a symbolic network or narrative for which I am fully responsible, but rather that I fully assume the uttermost contingency of my being.<\/strong>The subject becomes ’cause of itself’ in the sense of no longer looking for a guarantee of his or her existence in another’s desire.<\/span><\/p>\n

Another way to put it is to say that the “subjective destitution”<\/span> changes the register from desire to drive. <\/strong>Desire is historical and subjectivized, always and by definition unsatisfied, metonymical, shifting from one object to another, since I do not actually desire what I want. What I actually desire is to sustain desire itself, to postpone the dreaded moment of its satisfaction.<\/p>\n

Drive<\/span><\/strong>, on the other hand, involves a kind of inert satisfaction which always finds its way. Drive is non-subjectivized (“acephalic”); perhaps its paradigmatic expressions are the repulsive private rituals (sniffing one’s own sweat, sticking one’s finger into one’s nose, etc.) that bring us intense satisfaction without our being aware of it-or, insofar as we are aware of it, without our being able to do anything to prevent it.<\/p>\n

In Andersen’s fairy tale The Red Shoes,<\/em> an impoverished young woman puts on a pair of magical shoes and almost dies when her feet won’t stop dancing. She is only saved when an executioner cuts off her feet with his axe. Her still-shod feet dance on, whereas she is given wooden feet and finds peace in religion.<\/p>\n

These shoes stand for drive<\/strong> at its purest<\/strong>: an ‘undead’ partial object that functions as a kind of impersonal willing<\/strong>: ‘it wants’, it persists in its repetitive movement (of dancing), it follows its path and exacts its satisfaction at any price, irrespective of the subject’s well-being<\/strong>. This drive<\/strong> is that which is ‘in the subject more than herself’: although the subject cannot ever ‘subjectivize’ it, assume it as ‘her own’ by way of saying ‘It is I who want to do this!’ it nonetheless operates in her very kernel<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

As Fink’s book reminds us, Lacan’s wager is that it is possible to sublimate this dull satisfaction. This is what, ultimately, art and religion are about.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On the web here at lacan.com This paper was first published in the Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society 1 (1996), 160-61, as a review of Bruce Fink’s The Lacanian Subject: Between Language and Jouissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995). Insofar as, according to Lacan, at the conclusion of psychoanalytic treatment, the subject … Continue reading “\u017di\u017eek desire drive review of Fink 1996”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[111,125,21,24,142,72,76,15,41,20],"tags":[109],"class_list":["post-4380","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-desire","category-drive","category-jouissance","category-lacan","category-nightworld","category-objet-a","category-sub-destitute","category-subjectivity","category-the-real","category-zizek","tag-whoa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4380","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4380"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4380\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12842,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4380\/revisions\/12842"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4380"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4380"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4380"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}