{"id":1612,"date":"2021-02-24T14:38:21","date_gmt":"2021-02-24T13:38:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/"},"modified":"2021-02-26T20:07:35","modified_gmt":"2021-02-26T19:07:35","slug":"la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/","title":{"rendered":"Jouissance in all its states \u2013 Damien Guyonnet"},"content":{"rendered":"

The term \u201cdisruption,\u201d which orients our rubric, means, according to Littr\u00e9<\/em>, \u201crupture,\u201d \u201cfracture.\u201d[1]<\/a> Having become a master signifier of our time,[2]<\/a> it has fallen to Jacques-Alain Miller to have introduced it into our field on at least two occasions.<\/p>\n

In his commentary on Seminar 10, Anxiety<\/em>, using the adjective, he speaks in respect of anxiety as \u201cdisruptive irruption of the little object a,<\/em>\u201d[3]<\/a> with an \u201cintrusion posed as anxiety-inducing.\u201d[4]<\/a> Thus the paradigm of jouissance is introduced here – in the guise of the object a<\/em>, grasped as intrusive and disruptive.<\/p>\n

In his 2011 course The One all alone, the <\/em>term \u201cdisruption\u201d is used to refer to \u201cthe mode of entry into the unforgettable experience of jouissance that will be commemorated by repetition.\u201d[5]<\/a> Paradigm of jouissance once again, like that which is experienced in the body as well, but this time taken at its root (it is no longer circumscribed to the object a<\/em>). Concerning this experience, J.-A. Miller specifies that it is an \u201ceffraction\u201d against a background of \u201crupture\u201d in \u201crelation to a prior order,\u201d[6]<\/a> and we should add, that an approach to jouissance beyond Oedipus and castration (whatever the approach to the latter) emerges here. Enriched by these two references that place an emphasis on jouissance, we can now question and problematise our theme: \u201cWanting a Child.\u201d<\/p>\n

The child as object a<\/em><\/h3>\n

Taking the object a<\/em> as a compass – concerning the status of the child, it is then to orient oneself beginning from anxiety, as we have seen, but also from fantasy. And if we had to choose a single text by Lacan concerning his approach to the child as an object, it would evidently be the Note on the Child.<\/em>[7]<\/a><\/p>\n

This very short 1969 text is both a continuation and a discontinuity of the 1958 reference to the paternal metaphor. As we know, the latter is based on the father as name (the Father’s Name) replacing the mother as desire (the Desire of the mother) – both are signifiers, metaphorically speaking, the result being the emergence of phallic meaning (the meaning of castration). The child will then pass from identification with the mother’s phallus (when the mother’s desire responds well to the Freudian equation penis (phallus for Lacan) = child) to its de-identification.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n

In the \u201cNote on the Child,\u201d the child is no longer approached in terms of the phallus (also called \u201cimaginary object\u201d in Seminar IV, The Object Relation<\/em>) but from the perspective of the object itself. <\/em>From then on, if it is still a question of the mother’s desire, the latter is then apprehended from her fantasy. The important point is to know if phallic signification is at play (we can again take up the 1958 reference), as well as if the child object does not totally cork the mother’s desire; in short, does she still lack? The reference to the father (to his function) is also present, always operating as ‘mediation’ (even if the term Nom-du-P\u00e8re is absent). We won’t go into detail, but just point out that Lacan evokes the case where the child is equivalent to a real object for the mother (in the absence of mediation);[9]<\/a> an object which does not include the void of castration (minus-phi<\/em>) and cannot therefore serve as a \u201ctransitional object for the mother,\u201d[10]<\/a> or as a \u201cnormal fetish.\u201d[11]<\/a> She is in a way \u201call mother.\u201d In his text, Lacan evokes the case where the child as an object ‘saturates’[12]<\/a> the mother’s lack. A certain number of consequences can be deduced from this: anxiety – for the mother as well as for the child, since it arises when there is a lack of lack.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n

A few years later, in the Seminar Encore, <\/em>Lacan takes up this equivalence of child – object a<\/em>, thus putting in tension the doubling of woman\/mother and openly evoking the register of jouissance – a term strangely absent from the Note<\/em>: \u201cShe finds the cork for this jouissance [based on the fact] that she is not-all – in other words, that makes her absent from herself somewhere, absent as subject – in the a<\/em> constituted by her child.\u201d[14]<\/a> A relative cork of course! So let us take this last indication as a compass for our theme, where we find a double reference – to fantasy and jouissance, at the same time.<\/p>\n

A final word on the theme of the Family, which is also dealt with in this text: we are familiar with the term \u201cresidue\u201d[15]<\/a> that Lacan evokes about it and which was brought to prominence in our field by the pass.[16]<\/a> Lacan precisely points out the \u201cfailure of communitarian utopias\u201d which propose models which are \u201cbeyond the family circle.\u201d[17]<\/a> He then reminds us of the vitality of the \u201cconjugal family\u201d – in other words of a union between two, husband and wife, a nuclear family, as Lacan puts it, from which Lacan draws out the \u201cfunction of residue […] in the evolution of societies.\u201d[18]<\/a> And it is precisely because it is \u201cin the state of object a <\/em>that it will be maintained,\u201d[19]<\/a> as J.-A. Miller specifies. Then Lacan evokes the \u201csubjective constitution\u201d of an \u201cirreducible of transmission,\u201d on the condition however, that the relationship to \u201ca desire that is not anonymous\u201d is maintained – an important clinical precision, followed by two other, very well-known ones: a \u201cparticularised interest\u201d on the mother’s side, an \u201cincarnation of the Law in desire\u201d[20]<\/a> on the father’s side; conditions noted by D. Holvoet in his argument and which can be re-evaluated in relation to the mode of \u201cparenting\u201d in question. Let us not go any further on this point, but let us note that it is through these conditions that Lacan basically delivers the logic of the nuclear family, which, let us repeat, would always be at work since it would resist societal evolution. Finally, let us note finally that these two dimensions relating to mother and father essentially emphasise the need for their presence and incarnation.<\/p>\n

The Child Event<\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s orient ourselves here from the second J.-A. Miller reference concerning the term \u201cdisruption,\u201d the reference becomes the body event and implicitly the sinthome. Two propositions therefore.<\/p>\n

After having posed the equivalence child\/phallus, then child\/object a <\/em>– otherwise called by Lacan \u201ccork object\u201d as we have seen, let us propose a third declension by evoking the sinthome child. Another modality of partner, in short, captured in the register of jouissance – without benefit of castration and the oedipal drama – and from the angle of the knotting that would then take place, taking up the three Lacanian registers (RSI). Modality of partner on occasion ravages, to use the term used twice by Lacan: to evoke a modality of mother-daughter relationship (with a maternal-ravage)[21]<\/a>or of man-woman relationship (with a man-ravage).[22]<\/a><\/p>\n

Our second proposal invites us to consider the \u201cevent\u201d dimension which constitutes the child from in terms of moments in time: the moment of the decision to have a child, the moment when the pregnancy is announced, and finally the moment of the birth of the child. Each time we have a moment of rupture with a before and an after.<\/p>\n

A last word on the theme of the Family as this perspective invites us to approach it, in connection with the last and the very last Lacan. Among Marie-H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Brousse’s indications concerning the new modalities of the expectation of a child as One-all-alone, as a speaking body, let us note the one where she points out that the term \u201cparent\u201d has replaced the distinction of the binary father\/mother,[23]<\/a> that the social order has replaced the family order (with its semblants); where we finally have knotting rather than transmission, rights rather than law\/authority.[24]<\/a><\/p>\n

Let’s put it this way:<\/p>\n

\"\" \"\" \"\" \"\"<\/p>\n

Wanting a child at all costs!<\/h3>\n

Let’s continue to problematise our theme, always having as a compass the concept of jouissance, which certainly goes hand in hand with the concept of \u201cwanting.\u201d Whereas with fantasy (the mother’s desire) we are on a border between desire and jouissance, let us say that here it is only the dimension of the drive that we are bringing in.<\/p>\n

We all remember Lacan’s statement about women and J.-A. Miller’s reminder that: \u201cthey all want to calve [elles veulent toutes v\u00ealer<\/em>].\u201d[25]<\/a> This \u201caffliction\u201d for Lacan takes account of the fact that \u201cbecoming a mother and being a woman in no way overlap,\u201d[26]<\/a> leading him to \u201cregret, to deplore the fact that they are so many mothers.\u201d[27]<\/a> Hence these two questions asked by J.-A. Miller: \u201cIs there no other way for a woman than the ‘desire for a child’, the will for motherhood?\u201d [28]<\/a> And \u201cIs the child the most authentic path for femininity?\u201d[29]<\/a>\u00a0 Of course, we know the answer: no. \u00a0In any case, let us remember that we do \u00a0not equate here the term \u201cwill\u201d with that of \u201cdecided desire.\u201d It is not a question of opposing them, but of noting that \u201cdesire comes to dress a particular want to enjoy [vouloir jouir<\/em>]\u201d[30]<\/a> as D. Holvoet points out in his Argument.<\/p>\n

No doubt we can relate this verb \u201cto want\u201d to the term \u201ccaprice,\u201d which also introduces the register of jouissance. It is a term from which J.-A. Miller has developed a theory, proposing to answer the famous Freudian question: \u201cWhat does a woman want?\u201d (They all want to calve, Lacan replied somewhat ironically, as we have just seen). In answer to this question, firstly, J.-A. Miller indicates that she \u201cwants to want,\u201d confirming that: \u201cTo want, the act of will, to consider it closely or from our bias, is an act of jouissance.\u201d[31]<\/a> There is the want of the subject and that of the Other, but we can undoubtedly advance that in matters of the child, in the 21st<\/sup> century, it is the former that prevails. This is how he introduces the term \u201ccaprice:\u201d \u201cit is on the woman’s side that the will stands out with an absolute, infinite, unconditional character, and it manifests itself best in caprice.\u201d[32]<\/a> It is the unconditional of the demand, precisely the demand of the drive.<\/p>\n

This dimension of caprice is present in Lacan very early on, precisely in the paternal metaphor which we have briefly evoked in relation to the Desire of the mother[33]<\/a> – here again, one might add, a formalisation which opposes the Law (the Name of the Father) with caprice and we could add with the lawless (and therefore the real). From then on, among the consequences of the decline of authority, of the law, of the father, in short, of the symbolic order, is the \u201crise to the social zenith of the object\u201d[34]<\/a> that of caprice. And of course, the new and numerous procreation techniques offered by science can satisfy this caprice.<\/p>\n

From amongst the definitions to which J.-A. Miller refers, given by Littr\u00e9<\/em> for the term \u201ccaprice,\u201d let\u2019s just retain this one: \u201c[t]he first meaning is caprice<\/em> as ”sudden will that comes without any reason. [He specifies:] This is very well said, and it highlights the unforeseen character of caprice. It is will as a sudden, unforeseen and irrational event.\u201d[35]<\/a> Here, to a certain extent, we find the logic of disruption. Then, J.-A. Miller goes on to specify the connection between caprice and the Kantian categorical imperative, where we find \u201cthe absoluteness of the \u2018I want:’[36]<\/a> a true caprice is not debatable, nor is the categorical imperative. Keep your good reasons.\u201d[37]<\/a> Thus it manifests itself as \u201cwithout reason,\u201d as a statement \u201cwhich is a detached object,\u201d without the possibility of any logic being summoned, and J.-A. Miller concludes: \u201cThe formula that would best respond to this is less that of fantasy than that of the drive, that is to say of a properly acephalous will, where the subject disappears as it is acted upon (…) it is an ‘I want’, not ‘what can be the law for all’, but ‘I want what impels me.’\u201d[38]<\/a> No doubt it is important then that the dimension of the subject, totally evacuated, can be reintroduced on the occasion of an encounter with a psychoanalyst, and, correlatively, that of desire; thus to return to the singular coordinates which saw the emergence of this \u201cI want\u201d which manifests itself as \u201cwithout reason!\u201d<\/p>\n

Not wanting a child<\/h3>\n

At the opposite end of the spectrum is the dynamic of those who absolutely do not want a child and who want to make it known. This movement has a name: childfree <\/em>(without children by choice) to be clearly differentiated from childless <\/em>(without children by constraint). The initial choice is then transformed into a real way of life, of jouissance. There is a worldwide network of men and women who share this choice and identity, with the aim of defending their rights.[39]<\/a><\/p>\n

Let us distinguish this position from that which relates to not wanting a child, with an unclaimed choice as such. The reasons are, of course, multiple and must be examined one by one and relative to the dimension of the unconscious (an unconscious refusal to have a child)[40]<\/a> nevertheless let\u2019s try to situate them (always on the woman’s side). The questions which then arise are multiple: the refusal of motherhood as a cause, or as a consequence of, a sought-after femininity? Do we then have an authentic femininity? And while the previous approach (a child at all costs!) could represent the paradigm of the mother’s withdrawal from the woman, would the childfree <\/em>paradigm consist of the inverse withdrawal? And how can we think of the dialectical relationship between mother and woman when the latter wants children? In any case, let us consider that the refusal to have children, the refusal to be a mother, short-circuits the symbolic equation already mentioned by Freud (penis = child) – an equation which we take up again here in order to interrogate the desire of the woman and not that of the child in her confrontation with the DM (Desire of the mother).[41]<\/a> And concerning the question of the solution with respect to feminine desire, we could evoke, with J. -A. Miller, an attempt to \u201cwant to be the Other woman,\u201d[42]<\/a> to be a \u201cwoman-woman,\u201d in short the \u201cwoman-phallus who devotes herself to jouissance, [and] exchanges her lack for the great signifier capital Phi, \u03a6, of jouissance.\u201d[43]<\/a> But then, doesn\u2019t in truth open up the way to the beyond of the phallus\u2026<\/p>\n

Extensions<\/h3>\n

Let\u2019s end this presentation of the rubric which has jouissance as a common thread with a proposal of Lacan\u2019s from Seminar XVI, From an Other to the other<\/em>, that we might approach the family logically, let us say, from the point of view of its mathemes. Indeed, remarks that the \u201cthe tensional infantile relations that have been established from the subject to a certain number of terms, the father, the mother, the birth of a brother or a little sister\u201d[44]<\/a> should not be considered ‘primitive’ because \u201cthey only take on meaning and weight because of the place they hold in the articulation of knowledge, of jouissance and a certain object.\u201d[45]<\/a> Thus Lacan relativises our interest in the biography or history of the subject, which, although of infancy, is not original. What counts above all is the \u201cmode of presence under which each of the three terms [S2<\/sub>, J, object a<\/em>] was offered to him [the child];\u201d wherein lies, he adds, \u201cwhat we improperly call the choice of neurosis.\u201d[46]<\/a><\/p>\n

The term \u201cpresence\u201d refers to the desire of the father and mother, and thus to the way in which \u201cthey have effectively offered the subject knowledge, jouissance and the object a.<\/em>\u201d[47]<\/a> J.-A. Miller draws the following conclusion: \u201cone must thus ask oneself, for family functions understood in the broadest sense, what has made the family for the child and the place it holds in relation to its fundamental relationships.\u201d[48]<\/a> Let’s retain this syntagm: \u201cmaking family,\u201d to be problematised on a case-by-case basis using the three terms proposed here by Lacan. This is how, for a given subject, the basis on which his \u201cparticular family\u201d is constituted can appear.[49]<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Translation: Raphael Montague<\/em><\/p>\n

Review: Caroline Heanue<\/em><\/p>\n

Photography: \u00a9Silski Rachel – Facebook<\/a> \/ Instagram<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

[1]<\/a> \u2018Disruption\u2019 stems from the Latin disruptus<\/em>, a past participle of the verb disrumpere <\/em>or dirumpere <\/em>meaning to break into pieces, to burst, to break, to destroy.<\/p>\n

[2]<\/a> Cf. article in Lib\u00e9ration: \u201cQue signifie vraiment \u00abdisruption\u00bb ou \u00abdisruptif\u00bb et pourquoi tout le monde en parle maintenant? [What does ‘disruption’ or ‘disruptive’ really mean and why is everyone talking about it now?]\u201d (Available on the internet<\/a>).<\/p>\n

[3]<\/a> Miller J.-A., \u00a0Introduction au s\u00e9minaire L\u2019angoisse<\/em>\u00a0, La Cause freudienne<\/em>, n\u00b059, 2005, p. 85. Unpublished in English.<\/p>\n

[4]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[5]<\/a> Cf. Miller J.-A., \u201cL’orientation lacanienne. L’Un-tout-soul,\u201d teaching delivered under the framework of the department of psychoanalysis University of Paris viii, Course of the 23rd of March 2011, Unpublished.<\/p>\n

[6]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[7]<\/a> Lacan J., \u201cNote on the Child,\u201d in Analysis No. 2 1990, <\/em>Transl. R. Grigg, <\/em>Melbourne Centre for Psychoanalytic Research, Deakin Printery, Australia.<\/p>\n

[8]<\/a> The phallus then changes its status. In short: from mother to father, it goes from the status of being to that of having.<\/p>\n

[9]<\/a> Lacan J., Note on the Child<\/em>, op. cit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[10]<\/a> Cf. Lacan J., Address on Child Psychoses, Transl. A. Price & B. Khiara-Foxton, in Hurly-Burly<\/em>, Issue 8, October 2012, p. 269-277.<\/p>\n

[11]<\/a> Cf.\u00a0 Miller J-A., L’enfant et l’objet<\/em>, La petite girafe, <\/em>No. 18, p. 8. He states: \u201cThe child fetish is only normal if the child is not all for the mother’s desire.\u201d<\/p>\n

[12]<\/a> Lacan J. Note on the Child<\/em>, op. cit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[13]<\/a> Cf. Laurent E, L’enfant \u00e0 l’envers des familles, in \u00a0La Cause freudienne, <\/em>No. 65, March 2017, p. 53. \u00a0He introduces the syntagm \u201cenfant de l’angoisse\u201d (child of anxiety) and evokes a case where the child is caught up in \u201cjouissance, his own and that of the parents.\u201d<\/p>\n

[14]<\/a> Lacan J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XX,<\/em> Encore, <\/em>London & N.Y., W.W. Norton & Co., 1998, P. 35.Seuil, 1975, p. 36. Lacan continued along this path in 1975, describing children of object a <\/em>(for a woman). Cf. Lacan J., Le S\u00e9minaire, <\/em>livre XXII, RSI<\/em>, lesson of 21 January 1975, Unpublished.<\/p>\n

[15]<\/a> He tells us: \u201cThe function of residue that the conjugal family supports (and at the same time maintains) in the evolution of societies, highlights the irreducibility of a transmission…. \u201cCf. Lacan J., ‘Note on the child’, op. cit.<\/em><\/p>\n

[16]<\/a> The theme of the 35th ECF Journ\u00e9e was \u201cL\u2019envers des familles\u00a0[The Other Side of Families],\u201d (21-22 Oct. 2006). Cf. La Cause freudienne, <\/em>n\u00b065, May 2007 on this subject. \u00a0Particularly to two articles: Cottet, S, \u201cLe family romance of parents\u201d & Laurent, E., \u201cL’enfant \u00e0 l’envers des familles [The Child as the Other Side of Families].\u201d<\/p>\n

[17]<\/a> Miller J.-A., \u201cVers les prochaines journ\u00e9es de l’ECF,\u201c La Lettre mensuelle, <\/em>n\u00b0247, April 2006, p. 6.<\/p>\n

[18]<\/a> Lacan J., \u201cNote on the child,\u201d op. cit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[19]<\/a> Miller J.-A., \u201cVers les prochaines journ\u00e9es de l’\u00c9cole,\u201d op. ci<\/em>t<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[20]<\/a> Lacan J., \u201cNote on the child,\u201d op. cit. <\/em><\/p>\n

[21]<\/a> Cf. Lacan J., \u201cL’\u00e9tourdit,\u201d Autres \u00e9crits, op. cit. p. 465.<\/em> Unpublished in English.<\/p>\n

[22]<\/a> Cf. Lacan J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book XXIII, The Sinthome<\/em>, Transl. A.R. Price, UK & USA: Polity Press, 2016, p. 84.<\/p>\n

[23]<\/a> A term that Lacan himself uses of course, for example in 1977 when he reminds us that the analysand speaks only of this: ‘his more or less immediate relationship with his parents.’ Cf. Lacan J., Le S\u00e9minaire<\/em>, Book XXIV, L’insu que sait de l’une-b\u00e9vue s’aile \u00e0 mourre, <\/em>Lesson of the 19th of April 1977, Ornicar? <\/em>Also Cf. Cottet, S., \u201cLe roman familial des parents [The Parents Family Romance],\u201d La Cause freudienne, no. <\/em>65, March 2007, pp. 39-44.<\/p>\n

[24]<\/a> A number of extracts are cited from the chapter \u201cEmptying the mother:\u201d Brousse, M.-H., Mode de jouir au f\u00e9minin, <\/em>Navarin \u00e9diteur, 2020, p. 19-55.<\/p>\n

[25]<\/a> It was in his 1991-92 Course that Jacques-Alain Miller recalled \u201cthe affliction that Lacan expressed in a slightly colourful language: they all want to calve.\u201d Cf. Miller J.-A., L’orientation lacanienne. De la nature des semblants<\/em>, Teaching delivered under the framework of the Department of Psychoanalysis University Paris VIII, Course of 20 November 1991, Unpublished. Taken up (slightly modified) in the text M\u00e9d\u00e9e \u00e0 mi-dire<\/em>, La Cause du d\u00e9sir, <\/em>n\u00b0 89, March 2015, pp. 113-114. Unpublished in English.<\/p>\n

[26]<\/a> Miller J.-A., M\u00e9d\u00e9e \u00e0 mi-dire<\/em>, op. cit. <\/em>p. 114.<\/p>\n

[27]<\/a> Cf. the version of the course, op. cit.<\/p>\n

[28]<\/a> Miller J.-A., M\u00e9d\u00e9e \u00e0 mi-dire<\/em>, op. cit<\/em>.<\/p>\n

[29]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[30]<\/a> Cf. Argument on the Pipol Website.<\/p>\n

[31]<\/a> Miller J.-A., Th\u00e9orie du caprice<\/em> , Quarto, <\/em>Revue de la cause freudienne, ACF en Belgique, n\u00b071, p. 6.<\/p>\n

[32]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[33]<\/a> Cf. Lacan J., The Seminar of Jacques Lacan Book V, The Formations of the Unconscious, <\/em>Transl. R. Grigg, UK & USA: Polity Press, 2017,\u00a0 Chapter 10.<\/p>\n

[34]<\/a> Cf. Lacan J., Radiophonie<\/em>, Autres \u00e9crits<\/em>, op. cit. <\/em>p. 414. Unpublished in English.<\/p>\n

[35]<\/a> Miller J.-A. Th\u00e9orie du caprice<\/em>, op. cit. <\/em>p. 7.<\/p>\n

[36]<\/a> Ibid. p. 10.<\/p>\n

[37]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[38]<\/a> Ibid. p. 11.<\/p>\n

[39]<\/a> Initially the national organisation of Non-Parents in the USA (1972), then the organisation No Kidding! International, in Canada (1984) and finally the Union of chilfree <\/em>francophones in 2014 (source Wikipedia).<\/p>\n

[40]<\/a> Cf. in this regard, the very clear text by J.-.A. Miller, M\u00e8refemme<\/em>. He proposes at least three ways to approach this non-desire for a child. Cf. Miller J.-A., M\u00e8refemme<\/em>, in La Cause du d\u00e9sir, <\/em>n\u00b0 89, 2015.<\/p>\n

[41]<\/a> Recall that Freud tells us: \u201cBut now the girl\u2019s libido slips into a new position along the line – there is<\/p>\n

no other way of putting it – of the equation \u2018penis-child\u2019\u201d (Cf. Freud, S. (1925). Some Psychical Consequences of the Anatomical Distinction between the Sexes<\/em>. The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume XIX (1923-1925): The Ego and the Id and Other Works<\/em>, pp. 241-258. Thus the penis envy, the desire for the penis becomes the desire for a child. There is substitution, hence this writing proposed by J.-A. Miller: E \/ – \u03c6 (\u201cChild as a metaphor for minus- phi\u201d)<\/em> Cf. Miller J.-A., L’orientation lacanienne. Donc<\/em>, Teaching delivered under the framework of the Department of Psychoanalysis University Paris VIII, Course of the 26th of\u00a0 January 1994, Unpublished.<\/p>\n

[42]<\/a> Miller J.-A., M\u00e8refemme<\/em>, op. cit<\/em>. p. 121.<\/p>\n

[43]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[44]<\/a> Lacan J., Le S\u00e9minaire, <\/em>livre XVI, D’un Autre \u00e0 l’autre<\/em>, Paris, Seuil, coll. Champ Freudien, 2006, p. 331-32. Unpublished in English.<\/p>\n

[45]<\/a> Ibid, p. 32.<\/p>\n

[46]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[47]<\/a> Ibid.<\/p>\n

[48]<\/a> Miller J.-A., Une lecture du S\u00e9minaire d’un Autre \u00e0 l’autre<\/em>, La Cause freudienne<\/em>, n\u00b066, May 2007, p. 88.<\/p>\n

[49]<\/a> Syntagms of Lacan. Cf. Lacan J., Conf\u00e9rences et entretiens dans les universit\u00e9s nord am\u00e9ricaines<\/em>, Scilicet, <\/em>n\u00b0 6-7, Paris, Le Seuil, 1976.<\/p>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The term \u201cdisruption,\u201d which orients our rubric, means, according to Littr\u00e9, \u201crupture,\u201d \u201cfracture.\u201d[1] Having become a master signifier of our time,[2] it has fallen to Jacques-Alain Miller to have introduced it into our field on at least two occasions. In his commentary on Seminar 10, Anxiety, using the adjective, he speaks in respect of anxiety […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1595,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[71],"tags":[],"yoast_head":"\nJouissance in all its states \u2013 Damien Guyonnet - Pipol10<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jouissance in all its states \u2013 Damien Guyonnet - Pipol10\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The term \u201cdisruption,\u201d which orients our rubric, means, according to Littr\u00e9, \u201crupture,\u201d \u201cfracture.\u201d[1] Having become a master signifier of our time,[2] it has fallen to Jacques-Alain Miller to have introduced it into our field on at least two occasions. In his commentary on Seminar 10, Anxiety, using the adjective, he speaks in respect of anxiety […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Pipol10\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2021-02-24T13:38:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-02-26T19:07:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Guyonnet.Silski.1140.jpeg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1140\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"769\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Est. reading time\">\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"15 minutes\">\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/\",\"name\":\"Pipol10\",\"description\":\"Un site utilisant WordPress\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/#primaryimage\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/Guyonnet.Silski.1140.jpeg\",\"width\":1140,\"height\":769,\"caption\":\"\\u00a9Silski Rachel - https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/rachel_peintre_a_bruxelles_\/\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/\",\"name\":\"Jouissance in all its states \\u2013 Damien Guyonnet - Pipol10\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/#primaryimage\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-02-24T13:38:21+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-02-26T19:07:35+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/#\/schema\/person\/f8cb217f45103fcb436f14acee2b5b9b\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/2021\/02\/24\/la-jouissance-dans-tous-ses-etats-damien-guyonnet\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/#\/schema\/person\/f8cb217f45103fcb436f14acee2b5b9b\",\"name\":\"PIPOL TEAM\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/0eb3136ac61cb005f2ca6aef466d1dda?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"PIPOL TEAM\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","amp_validity":null,"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1612"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1612"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1612\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1768,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1612\/revisions\/1768"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1612"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1612"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pipol10.pipolcongres.eu\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1612"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}