Jacob Newman77 said:I’m actually pretty deep into all this gender theory stuff myself, which is why I feel like I need to grind through Lacan before I can even tackle feminism properly. Thanks for posting about this, 🙂 I was just talking to my boyfriend yesterday about how much of feminist theory was basically forged in direct conflict with Lacan—it’s a fascinating lineage to trace. Right now, I’m wading through Romulo Lander’s *Subjective Experience and the Logic of The Other*, and he treats the bisexual position as something pathological. But why? Why should it be? Why can't it just be another variation of sexuality? And honestly, what does "pathological" even mean in a modern context? Is it just the sheer amount of pain the subject feels? Or just deviating too far from some arbitrary social norm? To be blunt, the book isn't great. There are much better texts out there. I’m itching to get to some more contemporary authors; even though this was published in 2006, it clings to Lacan so heavily—and not even particularly successfully, if you ask me—that it feels like a relic from the sixties.
Regarding the distinction between masochism and jouissance, I tried translating a section from that book that tackles the difference... But honestly, you can boil what’s written down to this: masochism is driven by an underlying sense of guilt. Masochistic behavior acts as a sort of remedy for that guilt, allowing the individual to experience sexual pleasure despite the internal friction caused by feeling guilty. In the case of jouissance, however, you can't simply use analysis to pin down whether guilt exists in the unconscious. At the end of the process, the person just learns to live with it (unlike that manageable sense of guilt, where one might break free from masochistic compulsions) and functions better on various levels. Jouissance is baked into the personality structure; it’s constant, and its job is to maintain psychic equilibrium. (I don't quite grasp the "how" or "why" yet—autoicon, any thoughts on the autoicon?)
It sounds incredibly bleak, suggesting that *everyone* is burdened by this cursed jouissance, that it’s just part of being human. But when you look at the people around you—and even look inward—it seems like an inescapable reality...
And just to add a bit more on the split between pleasure and jouissance... Pleasure reduces tension and drains energy from the system, whereas jouissance builds it up. Pleasure is fleeting; it happens and then it’s gone. Jouissance, on the other hand, is always there.
autoicon, you say:
Take theorist Luce Irigaray, for example. She argues that all these theories are merely products of the patriarchal system and claims we need to construct a symbolic representation for women. Personally, I disagree with her. I’d argue it’s impossible to "construct" symbolization; rather, symbolization is what constructs us. Such a "liberation" would essentially be a psychotic break from the symbolic order.
Wait, how is it that we can't build symbolization? Aren't we building it constantly? I mean, aren't revolutions just instances of that fundamental process happening at high speed? And what exactly makes that "psychotic"?
Honestly, it’s a relief to stumble upon someone else who actually gives a damn about this stuff. 🙂I haven't gotten around to that book you mentioned yet—it's still sitting on my nightstand. Let me know if it's actually worth the time once you finish it.
When it comes to the whole heterosexual framework, Simone de Beauvoir is my go-to—you probably know her for that line about how a woman isn't born, she becomes one. Give her some reading time; you'll find it pretty gripping.
When it comes to *jouissance*, I think we’re all carrying it around inside us—it's that core fracture where a subject actually begins to define itself. That split is essentially the Oedipus complex, our very first point of identification. It proves that sexuality isn't some pre-set, fixed blueprint; the whole idea of a "heterosexual matrix" is far from destiny. In reality, gender and orientation are shaped by the choices we make during that initial process of identification.
Regarding that idea about Jouissance helping maintain a subject's psychic balance—I’ve always viewed it through the lens of how symptoms actually function. You know Lacan’s whole "enjoy your symptom" bit? I think that's the core of it. A subject uses their symptom to hold their ground within the symbolic order. As much as those symptoms are a total nightmare to live through, they’re—in a weird way—absolutely necessary.
That whole approach basically lays out the groundwork for tearing down that patriarchal system. It’s why the role of the hysterical subject—and other marginalized groups, mostly women—is so vital. These subjects aren't willing to just act as a mouthpiece for symbolic authority. Look at all the idiots you see strutting around with their fancy titles, luxury SUVs, or whatever status symbols they use to flex power and suppress others—once you strip away those props, what’s actually left of them? Nothing. It’s the same deal when you expose the phallus. *Jouissance* exposes the lie of fixed subject positions because we always end up circling back to that primal desire buried in the unconscious—the one that can never truly be satisfied. According to Lacan, anything that slips through the cracks of symbolization becomes that traumatic "Real." That's essentially the hysterical position. But it isn't absolute; hysterics still exist within the symbolic order, which gives them a way to resist the demands of the Other. Psychosis, on the other hand, is a total break from that order entirely. In Lacanian terms, the symbolic order is already established, and we emerge through it—not the other way around. The structure is just a single signifier stepping in to take the subject's place in service of the Other. I find Luce Irigaray’s argument about creating a female symbolic representation a bit fuzzy—I’m more drawn to the potential of the hysterical position. To me, it feels like it actually breaks that binary setup—male vs. female, culture vs. nature, day vs. night...
Honestly, I’ve never been a fan of the term "feminism." It feels too restrictive, like it's trying to box everyone into a specific group again—even if you could technically categorize these theories under a post-feminist umbrella.