Subject: Re: Jouissance
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:41:26 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)


On Sun, 22 Oct 2000 12:02:08 -0400 OY <oyojonigirl-AT-netzero.net> wrote:

>          But, in this age of consumer desire what is "my" desire?  In other  
words, aren't we all encouraged to be consumers, to endlessly desire  product, 
and to keep buying product in the insatiable effort to satisfy  that desire?  
So, how do I (if I can) separate "my" desire from  manufactured desire (like 
Chomsky's "Manufactured Consent"?)?  I agree with  the taking responsibility 
bit, but how does one make/create that distinction?

With consumerism, it isn't so much a question of "my" desire as it is the 
desire of the Other. By consumerism I mean the ideological enjoyment of 
shopping whereby shopping / consuming in itself is understood as a 
"meaning-full" experience. The shift in advertising, around the 1910s I 
believe, moved from advertising or outlining the details of the product to 
selecting faults of the consumer (ie. from "contains mint flavouring" to "Do 
you have stinky breath? Have we got a gum for you!"). I think we can detect 
here the not-so-subtle shift in emphasis. Consumer goods are marketed so as to 
fill the "lack" that is constitutive of modern subjectivity - by which I mean 
the gaps that are manifest *between* subjects: "I stink... which 'the Other' 
will find repellent, so I'll buy this gum and fix the problem..." There is 
always the danger, however, that this approach paints consumers merely as 
dupes, which I strongly think we need to avoid. Rather, this lack, the lack 
which actually fuels desire, is not so much a dupe as it is inherent to 
desiring itself. The problem being that in a consumer driven market economy we 
actually end up identifying directly with the means of exchange (which is 
reinforced through labour and the means of production). In effect, one does not 
desire a commodity or consumer good for oneself, but for the Other - which the 
consumer good is supposed to satiate --> I buy a book for my Library (so my 
Library can enjoy it or I tape a TV show that I never intend to watch so my VCR 
can enjoy watching it for me). If we are going to talk about "my desire" this 
has to do with fantasy - the way in which a subject (uniquely) organizes their 
enjoyment. So I'd make that distinction: desire is always the desire of the 
Other, but enjoyment is always *my* enjoyment. In Lacan, this plays out in 
different ways according to the various philosophical or subjective attitudes 
(hysteric, obsessional, psychotic, paranoid, and so on). The Lacanian insight 
here is to recognize that the Ikea duvet does not cover over the lack which is 
constitutive of both the subject qua subject and the object... and that the 
promise of wholeness is, in fact, nothing more than a fantasy. In effect: 
"there is no consumer relationship" - no particular good can 'fix' the subject. 
As far as I can see, the power of Capitalism has to do directly with its 
capacity to mimic the way in which we desire - in the form of reproducing 
itself. Ironically, the logic of Capitalism contains its own seeds of 
disintegration. The only "real thing" which can satisfy the consumer is 
"No-thing." In short: if we take consumerism at its word, that products satisfy 
our desires, then we should buy nothing.


>         I haven't been but will probably see this film.  Though, I  
absolutely detested "Breaking The waves" and I hear this one is even more  
provocative in exactly the same way, female sacrifice.

I think there is an archived debate about BtW for the M&T list. Zizek's review 
of BtW can also be found in The Zizek Reader and Chris Brittain has published 
an article on it (a critical review) which can be found somewhere on the net 
(google search Brittain and Zizek might work). Of course, my position defends 
the film (along Zizekian lines) - not in terms of feminine sacrifice - but as 
revealling and illustrating (and therefore providing a critique of) the 
psychotic demands of masculinist desire.

ken