Subject: Re: Jouissance in the Dark
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 19:10:25 -0400 (Eastern Daylight Time)



On Thu, 26 Oct 2000 10:25:57 -0400 christopher brittain 
<chris.brittain-AT-utoronto.ca> wrote:

> At 01:46 AM 25/10/00 -0400, Ken wrote:

> >We should be clear that Zizek is not advocating a *praxis* which pushes 
> >ideology to its extremes.

> Is he not? If not, then I am guilty of misreading him.

No one would agree that BtW has a happy ending. Or am I wrong about that.

> However, what am I to make then, of his celebration of Bess' act of 
'subjective destitution' in BtW?

Bess inverts the phallic economy by illustrating that it is possible to 
renounce every remnant of anything remotely inaccessible. There is nothing 
beyond Bess's "sacrifice" - it is "unconditional." The entire phallic economy 
rests on the premise that there is something Beyond - that Bess does have 
something that remains hidden, some secret. Without this kernel of mystery, the 
phallic economy (masculine desire) disinegrates. BtW illustratest he excessive 
realization of the masculine fantasy of feminine sacrifice for masculine 
jouissance. Jan's fantasy *is* the blood of Bess's blood (which is why Zizek, 
in another place, will describe the Christian god as blood thirsty).

>  But, this perspective is what leads Zizek to advocate his idea of subjective
> destitution, which, as I continue to annoyingly repeat, seems to suggest a
> certain kind of praxis which I am not comfortable with (I know you don't
> agree here).

Subjective destitution is the identification with the object-cause of desire, 
characteristic of the position of the analyst. It is impossible "to be" the 
analyst - in the same way that Adorno argues it is never possible to remain 
with the non-identical (it is only a "flash of lightning") - all one can do is 
function as such for someone for a limited period of time. This impossible 
relationship from object a to divided subject is the basis for the development 
of transference, through which the subject is able to circumscribe their 
object. The discourse of the analyst, then, inverts the discourse of the master 
- from impotence to impossibility, with the difference that it is an 
impossibility whose effects can be explored. The product of this discourse is 
the master signifier or, in Freudian terms, the Oedipal determinant particular 
to that subject ("subjectivization" or "traversing the fantasy").

Does Zizek use the term "subjective destitution" in the BtW essay? I've tried 
looking for it but can't find it....

ken