McGowan, Todd Enjoying what we don't have _ the political project of psychoanalysis-University of Nebraska Press (2013)

8/15/2019 McGowan, Todd Enjoying what we don't have _ the political project of psychoanalysis-University of Nebraska Pres…

1/362


2/362

’


3/362

ē

Series edior: Jeffrey R. Di Leo


4/362

Enjoying

What WeDon’t HaveThe p o l i t i c a l projec t

of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s

Todd McGowan

Universiy o Nebraska Press / Lincoln and London


5/362

© 2013 by he Board o Regens ohe Universiy o Nebraska

Acknowledgmens or he use o copyrighed

maerial appear on page ix, which consiuesan exension o he copyrigh page.

All righs reservedManuacured in he UniedSaes o America

Se in Arno by Laura Wellingon.

Designed by Nahan Puens.

Library o CongressCaaloging-in-Publicaion DaaMcGowan, odd.Enjoying wha we don’ have: he poliical

projec o psychoanalysis / odd McGowan.pages cm. (Symploke sudiesin conemporary heory)Includes bibliographical reer-ences and index. 978-0-8032-4511-2 (pbk.: alk. paper)1. PsychoanalysisPoliicalaspecs. 2. Loss (Psychology)3. Psychoanalysis and culure. I. ile.175.4.6525 2013

150.19'5dc23 2012049860


6/362

For Sheila Kunkle, who

maniess or me he paradox

o a psychoanalyic poliics

and he generosiy i requires


7/362


8/362

Contents

Acknowledgmensix

Inroducion: PsychoanalyicHosiliy o Poliics

:

1. Te Formaion o Subjeciviy

2. Te Economics o he Drive

3. Class Saus and Enjoymen

4. Susaining Anxiey

5. Changing he World


9/362

:

6. Te Appeal o Sacrice

7. Agains Knowledge

8. Te Poliics o Fanasy

9. Beyond Bare Lie

10. Te Necessiy o Belie

11. Te Case o he Missing Signier

Conclusion: A Sociey o he Deah Drive

Noes

Index


10/362

ix

Acknowledgments

Tis book developed over a number o years, and many people helped wihhe ideas and heir presenaion. Chapers 10 and 11 conain work revised rom earlier publicaions. Tankso he Inernaional Journal o Žižek Sudies or permission o publish maerialha appeared as “Te Necessiy o Belie, Or, he rouble wih Aheism,” Inernaional Journal o Žižek Sudies 4, no. 1 (2010), htp://zizeksudies.org/index.php/ijzs/aricle/view/226/324. Tanks also o Palgrave Macmillanor permission o publish maerial ha appeared as “Te Case o he Miss-ing Signier,” Psychoanalysis, Culure & Sociey 12, no. 1 (2008): 48–66. I appreciae he suppor o Krisen Rowley a he Universiy o NebraskaPress and Jeffrey Di Leo rom Symplok. Wihou heir effors, he book would no have come o ligh. Te lm sudens a he Universiy o Vermon played a decisive role inhelping me o work hrough he poliical implicaions o psychoanalysis in

various courses and seminars. Jason Clemence and Adam Cotrel especiallyhelped, as did Kelly Samaris. My lm sudies colleagues a he Universiy o Vermon Deb Ellis,Dave Jenemann, Hilary Neroni, Sarah Nilsen, and Hyon Joo Yoo have allprovided a simulaing inellecual eld in which o work. Ouside o lmsudies, Joseph Acquiso, John Waldron, Eric Lindsrom, Andrew Barnaby,Emily Bernard, and Ching Selao have helped o creae a universe, i no auniversiy, in which hough is valued above all else. And Bea Bookchin

has consanly insised, despie my resisance, ha I place poliics aheado psychoanalysis in my atemp o bring hem ogeher.


11/362

x

I appreciae he houghul readings o he manuscrip provided by Paulaylor and Heiko Feldner. Boh helped me o advance he argumen in newdirecions and o correc is mos embarrassing momens.

Anna Kornbluh read hrough chapers o he manuscrip and offeredinvaluable suggesions along he way.Tanks o Jonahan Mulrooney or his indeaigable inellecual energy,

which has uncioned as a reservoir or me. Frances Resuccia has provided a way or me o hink hrough ideas hadid no ye meri any ariculaion. I owe a grea deb o Fabio Vighi, who has become a rue comrade andphilosophical ally.

Tanks o Rob Rushing, Hugh Manon, and Danny Cho, who haveadvanced my hinking abou he philosophical implicaions o psycho-analysis and who have demanded an unceasing engagemen wih heory. Jennier Friedlander and Henry Krips were insrumenal in helping meo see how a poliical posiion migh emerge ou o psychoanalysis. Tanks o Quenin Marin or his skepical reading o several chapers.He has consisenly kep many o my misakes rom becoming more widelyknown. Jean Wyat also provided a conscienious reading ha enabled a reex-aminaion o many pahs. I owe a deb o Ken Reinhard, who invied me o presen ideas ha begannew hreads in he book. Ken has also been a crucial heoreical resource. I would like o hank Jill Delaney-Shal or being a reminder o he pos-sibiliy ha inheres in impossibiliy and or her coninued belie in me,despie my incessan ailures o earn ha belie.

Tanks also o Slavoj Žižek or his innie suppor and his effor o bringhe poliical dimension o psychoanalyic hough o he ore. Sheila Kunkle has been my longime collaboraor in his projec. Shehas read many o he chapers and provided oo many poins o revision oacknowledge. Finally, his book would be unhinkable wihou he collaboraion o Waler Davis, Paul Eisensein, and Hilary Neroni. Tey have all susained aconronaion wih loss and have demonsraed ha here is no enjoymen

ouside o his conronaion.


12/362

’


13/362


14/362

1

Introduction

Te Poliics of a Nonpoliical Teory

Psychoanalysis begins wih individual subjecs and heir suffering. Byallowing subjecs o speak reely in he analyic session and by offering aninerpreaive inervenion in his speech, psychoanalysis aims o reducehe impairmen ha heir psychic disorder creaes in heir lives. In conraso Marxism, which also atemps o ameliorae human suffering, psycho-analysis has no explici poliical program designed o lessen he misery haFreud and his descendans nd in heir paiens. Tere is no revol o hepaiens ha would correspond o he revol o he prolearia. When Freudmakes poliical pronouncemens, hey end o be negaive ones, expressinghis skepicism abou plans or social betermen. Bu i is my conenionha a viable poliical projec does inhere wihin psychoanalyic heoryand ha his projec provides an avenue or emancipaory poliics afer heend o Marxism in he wenieh cenury. Tere are poins a which his

psychoanalyic poliics remains proximae o Marxism, bu i represens agenuine alernaive ha has he virue o explaining he later’s ailures. Teask o his book will be o lay ou he conours o his poliical projec, oneha has never been ully developed despie numerous atemps a bringingpsychoanalyic hinking o bear on poliics. Unlike mos previous ormulaions o a psychoanalyic poliics, whaollows will ake as is poin o deparure no he early Freud o he sexualdrive bu he laer Freud o he deah drive (and is developmen in he

hough o Jacques Lacan and his ollowers). I will conspicuously ignoreall psychoanalyic hinking ha deviaes rom Freud and rom his specic


15/362

2

rendering o he deah drive. Tis means ha psychoanalyic luminariessuch as Alred Adler, Carl Jung, Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicot, WilredBion, and even Freud’s own daugher Anna Freud will have no role o play

in his accoun o he psychoanalyic poliical projec. Te deah drive has hisorically aced as a sumbling block or psycho-analyic poliics because i involves our sel-saboage. I leads us o workunconsciously agains social betermen. Tis is why, afer is discovery in1920, Freud becomes so much more pessimisic as a hinker. Bu jus as hedeah drive leads o sel-saboage, i also acs as he source o our enjoymen,and by shifing he errain o emancipaory poliics o ha o enjoymen,psychoanalysis offers wha Marxism’s poliical program could no. Te

poliics o psychoanalysis afer Marxism is an emancipaory projec basedon he sel-sacricing enjoymen locaed in he deah drive. Marxism isable o heorize sacrice as necessary or uure pleasure, bu i is unableo conceive sacrice as an end in isel, as a source o enjoymen. Tisrepresens is undamenal limiaion. Te effors o marry psychoanalysis and a poliical program since Freud’sdiscovery o he unconscious have come rom boh sides o he aisle. Marx-is hinkers such as Teodor Adorno and Louis Alhusser have urned opsychoanalysis in order o supplemen Marxism wih a mode o houghha would address he complexiies o subjeciviy, while psychoanalyichinkers such as Erich Fromm and Wilhelm Reich have urned o Marxismas a way o giving a sociohisorical imporance o heir undersanding ohe suffering ha hey discovered in psychoanalyic pracice. oday hisinersecion animaes he hough o many o he mos compelling voicesin conemporary poliical hough: Alain Badiou, Éienne Balibar, Erneso

Laclau, Chanal Mouffe, Jacques Rancière, and Slavoj Žižek, o name jusa ew. Bu he relaionship beween psychoanalyic heory and poliics hasnever reed isel o he undamenal divergence ha animaes i. Somehingabou psychoanalyic hough inherenly resiss appropriaion by a programaimed a he common good. Raher han helping wih such a program,i almos ineviably esies o he reasons or is ailure. Te atemp ogive poliical relevance o he insighs o psychoanalysis seems a hopeless

one, and ye his is precisely he aim o his book. Wihou minimizing hepsychoanalyic criique o progress and he common good, i lays ou he


16/362

3

conours o a poliical heory and pracice derived rom psychoanalyichough. In doing so, i challenges he very hisory o psychoanalysis isel. While Freud expresses sympahy wih he Russian Revoluion and con-

ends ha i seemed “like he message o a beter uure,” he coninuallyemphasizes he inracable barriers ha any projec o emancipaory poliics would encouner. Abou he Sovie Union in paricular, he speculaivelygrasps he incipien horrors o Salinism a a ime when no one in he Weshad any direc knowledge o hem (and he wors had ye o occur). InCivilizaion and Is Disconens he noes, “One only wonders, wih concern, wha he Sovies will do afer hey’ve wiped ou heir bourgeois.” Tis is apsychoanalyic insigh ino he naure o he emancipaory poliical proj-

ec ha pursues he good sociey. For Freud, he Sovie atemp o creaea beter uure no only chases an impossible goal, bu i also exacerbaesexising human suffering. I is no simply Freud’s personal judgmen orprejudice ha renders his verdic and insalls an incompaibiliy beweenpsychoanalyic hough and progressive poliical programs; his incompa-ibiliy inheres wihin he very psychoanalyic approach o he world. On he ace o i, his claim appears counerinuiive: one can imagine,or insance, a psychoanalyic undersanding o he naure o desire aidingpoliical heoriss in heir atemps o ree desire rom ideology, which ishe recurring diffi culy o lefis poliics. Tere are even hisorical exampleso his heoreical assisance a work. Louis Alhusser develops his heoryo ideological inerpellaion hrough his acquainance wih Jacques Lacan’sconcepion o he subjec’s enrance ino language, and Julie Michell elabo-raes her criique o he srucural effecs o pariarchy hrough her experi-ence wih Freudian concepions o masculiniy and emininiy. In each

case, psychoanalysis allows he heoris o undersand how a prevailingsocial srucure operaes, and his provides a oundaion or imagining a way o challenge his srucure. As Michell claims, “Psychoanalysis is noa recommendaion or a pariarchal sociey, bu an analysis o one. I we areineresed in undersanding and challenging he oppression o women, wecanno afford o neglec i.” Precisely because she sees psychoanalysis as auseul ool or poliical sruggle, Michell here dismisses eminism’s long-sanding quarrel wih psychoanalysis or is compliciy wih pariarchy.

Underlying a posiion like Michell’s (which almos all poliical heoriss who urn o psychoanalysis embrace) is he idea ha he poliical useulness


17/362

4

o psychoanalysis sems, ironically, rom is lack o a poliical commimen.Ta is o say, psychoanalysis aims o discover he unconscious ruh o hesubjec and he sociey in which he subjec exiss, no o change his ruh.

I is hus a he mos basic level a descripive raher han a prescripive ar.Even he psychoanalyic cure isel does no porend radical change orhe subjec who accomplishes i. Tis subjec simply recognizes, in JacquesLacan’s words, “I am ha.” Te cure is more a recogniion o who one israher han a ransormaion o one’s subjeciviy. Tough psychoanalysisdoes view his recogniion as he mos radical kind o revoluion, he revolu-ion changes how he subjec relaes o is aciviy, no he aciviy isel. Inhis sense, psychoanalysis has no poliical axe o grind, which allows i o

devoe is energies o he projec o inerpreaion and undersanding. Teundersanding i produces can hen orm he basis or he differen sors olefis poliical conesaion ha may appropriae i. Te problem wih his appropriaion is he poin a which i arress hedescripive process o psychoanalyic inerpreaion. Psychoanalysis does nomerely describe he srucure o one culure or socioeconomic ormaion(such as pariarchy or capialism); i insead insiss on a undamenal validiyacross culural and socioeconomic boundaries. I also insiss on his validiyacross differen hisorical epochs. I is, in shor, a universal heory concern-ing he relaionship beween he individual subjec and sociey. O course,Freud discovered psychoanalysis in a paricular hisorical siuaion hashaped how he presened his insighs and even he ideas he could ormulae.Bu one can separae he paricular elemens (like he Oedipus complex orhe labeling o homosexualiy as a perversion) rom he universal ones (likehe anagonisic naure o sociey or he ac o casraion as he requiremen

or enrance ino sociey). Te challenge or he psychoanalyic heoris isdiscovering he universaliy in Freud’s discoveries, bu i is his universaliyha presens an obsacle or any poliical projec. I he anagonism beweenhe subjec and he social order is irreducible, hen he sumbling block isno jus capialism or pariarchy bu human sociey isel. Te insighs o psychoanalysis, i valid a all, apply no simply o hepas and he presen bu also o whaever uure sociey we migh envisionor even realize. Tough Freud developed he insighs o psychoanalysis

in a paricular hisorical siuaion, his siuaion enabled him o discoveruniversal srucures o subjeciviy and o he social order, even i his way


18/362

5

o concepualizing hese srucures iniially reeced he consrains o hishisorical siuaion. Te insighs apply no only o conemporary pariarchalsociey bu also, pace Julie Michell, o he uure sociey ha rees isel

rom pariarchy. Tis is no o say ha we will always have he same ormso neurosis and psychosis ha we have now bu ha we will no surmounhe undamenal anagonism beween he social order and he individualsubjec ha produces hese specic disorders. As a resul, or psychoanalysishe good sociey becomes an unatainable cion.

You’re No Good

Te grea challenge ha psychoanalysis poses or emancipaory poliics andor poliics as such is is absolue rejecion o he good or he good sociey.In he opening o he Poliics , Arisole describes he good as he basic aimo poliical aciviy, and his aim has remained consan in he inervening2,500 years. Arisole never atemps o prove his consiuive remark in hisreaise bu simply akes i as an unassailable posulae o poliical hinking.For subsequen poliical hinkers, he quesion does no concern Arisole’sclaim abou he good bu in wha he good consiss. Tere is unanimiyabou he poliical pursui o he good no jus among poliical heoriss bu among almos everyone who hinks abou poliics a all. From he perspecive o psychoanalysis, however, here is no good aall. Te good sociey is unatainable no jus as a resul o he compeingdesires o he individuals wihin he sociey. Te heory ha aligns socialconic wih he coexisence o compeing individual desires ails o go arenough in envisioning he anagonisic naure o he social order. No mater

how divergen individual desires are, one could always imagine reconcilinghem wih each oher hrough some sor o compromise. A hinker such as John Rawls can imagine a jus sociey despie posiing a sociey divided byinnumerable compeing desires on he level o he individual. Jusice here would consis in he idea o airness using one’s imaginaion o envisionsociey hrough wha Rawls labels a “veil o ignorance” ha allows one omake decisions abou jusice wihou aking ino accoun one’s individualineress or desires or social posiion. Tis would aciliae a good sociey in

which any inequaliy would be socially jusied, and i would hus reconcilecompeing individual desires wih each oher.


19/362

6

Bu he barrier o he good sociey runs deeper han his. I derives romhe very idea o he good, which Freud sees as undamenally a odds wihisel. Te good isel, no our ailures o achieve i, is he problem. Tis is

he undamenal poliical insigh ha psychoanalysis brings o he able. I isa once he challenge ha i poses o emancipaory poliics and he basis oris implici projec or emancipaion. As we ge closer o he ideal o a goodsociey, we simulaneously approach he empiness concealed wihin heideal. Te noion o he good does no emerge simply rom moral reason-ing and speculaion abou he proper arrangemen o sociey. We develophis noion only hrough he experience o is prohibiion. Ta is o say,he prohibiion o he good doesn’ orm an obsacle o a preexising ideal

bu consiues he ideal as such. Te good has no exisence ouside o he barriers ha we erec aroundrealizing i. As Jacques Lacan poins ou in one o his mos imporan poliicalsaemens, “Te sep aken by Freud a he level o he pleasure principleis o show us ha here is no Sovereign Good ha he Sovereign Good, which is das Ding , which is he moher, is also he objec o inces, is a or- bidden good, and ha here is no oher good. Such is he oundaion o hemoral law as urned on is head by Freud.” Te oundaional link beweenhe good and prohibiion renders is pursui compleely conradicory.Every sep oward he good occasions a corresponding sep away rom i.Te closer we come, he more we undermine he social sabiliy ha wehoped o achieve. Tis occurs no jus among he many uopian socialisprojecs ha have ailed bu across all ypes o social srucures. For psychoanalysis, he good is no jus an unrealizable ideal bu a decep-ion incapable o oriening a coheren and susainable poliics. Tis criique

hreaens o undermine he very idea o a poliical projec because poliicalheoriss wrie in order o help bring abou change, which means movingsociey in he direcion o he good (even i hey admi ha he ideal iselis no realizable). Conservaive heoriss seem immune o his criique, buhey envision a reurn o he good or he creaion o a social sabiliy hahey associae implicily wih he good. Poliical heoriss o all sripes wrie o change he world and assis is progression (or is reurn o a be-er sae), whereas psychoanalysis inerpres he world and uncovers he

repeiion a work where i seems o be progressing. For his reason, Julia Kriseva heorizes he poliical projec inheren in


20/362


21/362

8

poliical hinkers). Jus as hey view sociey as whole, hey also view eachconicing posiion wihin sociey as unied and idenical wih isel. Noso wih Marx and Freud. For Marx, he conic beween he bourgeoisie

and he prolearia is a he same ime he indicaion o an inernal conic wihin he bourgeoisie isel. In ac, he bourgeoisie produces he proleariaou o isel hrough he conradicions o he capialis mode o producion.For Freud, he conic beween he individual and he social order is alsoan inernal conic wihin he individual and wihin he social order. Even socieies ha lack he concep o an individual mus nonehe-less reckon wih his universal anagonism. Ta is, hey mus atemp oreconcile he coninued exisence o he social order wih he enrance

o new subjecs ino ha order. Tough he individual may be a Wesernidea, he social anagonism resuling rom he subjec’s enrance ino hesocial order is no. Te elaborae marriage rules ha Claude Lévi-Sraussuncovered in various socieies ates o he problem o his anagonismsuracing universally. Te individual emerges as a disinc being becausehe social order canno reproduce isel wihou producing a remainder,even i his remainder doesn’ ake he orm o he individual ha is amiliar

o he Wesern world. Te idea o anagonism allows Marx and Freud o auhor heir radicalsocial criiques. I allows hem o see how he prolearia or he individualinvess isel in is own oppression, or how he bourgeoisie or he socialorder conribues o is own subversion. Anagonism is boh he cause osocial sasis and he possibiliy or revoluionary change. For Marx andFreud, inerpreaion mus ake anagonism as is poin o deparure, houghMarx sees, in he las insance, he possibiliy o overcoming anagonism

hrough he vicory o he prolearia and he consequen eliminaion oclass sruggle. Marx envisioned a sociey in which producion would ake place or hegood o he sociey raher han or he sake o he accumulaion o capial,a change ha would allow producion o develop wihou limi. Wihin hecapialis mode o producion, according o Marx,

he rue barrier o capialis producion is capial isel . I is ha capial

and is sel-valorizaion appear as he saring and nishing poin as hemoive and purpose o producion; producion is producion only or


22/362

9

capial , and no he reverse, i.e. he means o producion are no simplymeans or a seadily expanding patern o lie or he sociey o he produc-ers. . . . Te means he unresriced developmen o he social orces

o producion comes ino persisen conic wih he resriced end,he valorizaion o he exising capial. I he capialis mode o produc-ion is hereore a hisorical means or developing he maerial powerso producion and or creaing a corresponding world marke, i is a hesame ime he consan conradicion beween his hisorical ask andhe social relaions o producion corresponding o i.

Included in his criique o he capialis mode o producion is he idea o a

sociey in which he means and he end would no longer be in conic wiheach oher. For Marx, “he unresriced developmen o he social orces oproducion” a sociey wihou anagonism represens a genuine hisori-cal possibiliy. Tis is a possibiliy ha Freud rejecs because he conceiveso anagonism as consiuive o he social srucure isel.

Unproeced Sex

Beore wriing Beyond he Pleasure Principle in 1920, Freud did no ye seeanagonism in his way. Tough never a uopian believing ha sociey mighsomeday overcome he need or repression alogeher, early in he develop-men o psychoanalysis he does argue agains he excesses o conemporarymoral resricions on sexual aciviy. While he preaces his saemen byadmiting ha “i is cerainly no a physician’s business o come orward wihproposals or reorm,” he noneheless claims ha “i seemed o me ha Imigh suppor he urgency o such proposals i I were o ampliy [Chrisian] Von Ehrenel’s descripion o he injurious effecs o our ‘civilized’ sexualmoraliy by poining o he imporan bearing o ha moraliy upon hespread o modern nervous illness.” Freud made his claim in 1908, whenhis ocus remained almos wholly on he sexual drives. A his ime he sawa conic beween hese drives and he ineress o he ego because “he‘ego’ eels hreaened by he claims o he sexual insincs and ends hemoff by repressions.” Tough no one can deniively overcome his conic,

Freud saw i as ameliorable, which allowed him o suppor a program orhe reorm o resricions on sexual aciviy. We can lessen he bie ha he


23/362

10

ego akes ou o he sexual drives on a socieal level and hereby improvehe relaive saisacion o subjecs living wihin sociey. When Freud discovered he deah drive in 1920, his opimism became

heoreically unenable and disappeared rom Freud’s wriings. While Freud’sdiscovery o he unconscious disruped he hough o ohers, he discoveryo he deah drive disruped his own and ha o his ollowers and hisdisrupion makes isel el in he haling and backracking syle o Beyondhe Pleasure Principle. Tough he coninues o posi sexual drives and husreains his psychic dualism (albei in a compleely modied orm), Freudcomes o see he deah drive or he compulsion o repea as he predominanorce wihin he psyche and wihin sociey a large. He believes ha i is

more powerul han he sexual drives, jus as beore he saw he sexual drivesas having more power han he drives associaed wih he ego. Despie hisconinued dualism, he discovery o he deah drive radically alers Freud’sabiliy o accep he possibiliy o reorm or progressive poliical change oany sor. When he sexual drives remained a he basis o Freudian hough, posi-ive change exised as a possibiliy because dissaisacion was no inher-en wihin he sexual drives hemselves. Psychic illness such as neurosisdeveloped hrough a conic beween he sexual drives and oher orcesaligned wih he ego (which also embodied he resricive moraliy imposedon he subjec by sociey). Even i we could no compleely ree he sexualdrives rom he repression associaed wih he ego, we could nonehelesslighen he burden and esablish a degree o reedom. Seen in his way, wecan imagine a Freudian poliics o sexual liberaion. Tis is he projec olefis psychoanalyic hinkers such as Oto Gross, Wilhelm Reich, and

Erich Fromm, each o whom atacks repressive sociey and ocuses onsexual liberaion. For hese heoriss, he early Freud beore he discovery o he deahdrive is he more poliically viable Freud. Gross, Reich, and Fromm developdisparae heoreical perspecives, bu Reich and Fromm Gross died in1920, hough he undoubedly would have adoped heir opposiion as wellhad he lived see he concep o he deah drive as an unorunae devia-ion on Freud’s par. Each ries o marry psychoanalysis wih some orm o

Marxis or socialis hough, and by doing so, hey ake up Marx’s belie hasociey can overcome anagonism, ha sexual liberaion is possible wihin


24/362

11

he social order. Repression, or hese psychoanalyic hinkers, is no henecessary cos o social lie bu a ac o wha Reich calls auhoriarian rule. Even beore Freud comes up wih he deah drive, he insiss ha he

sexual drive does no uncion smoohly bu raher is consanly a odds wih isel. His sel-proclaimed dualisic concepion o he drives rs hesex drive and he sel-preservaive drive, hen he lie drive and he deahdrive is acually a dialecical concepion in which a single drive producesan anagonisic sruggle. Te psychoanalyic lefiss do no see hings his way. From heir perspecive, he sexual drive doesn’ run aground on isown bu his an opposing orce social resricion. As a resul, he poliicalprojec o psychoanalysis becomes perecly clear: lif social resricions

and allow he ree play o he sexual drive. Wilhelm Reich gives his poliics is mos deailed early ormulaion. As boh a commited Marxis and a psychoanalys, he aligns he prolearianrevoluion wih sexual liberaion. Reich visied he Sovie Union in 1927and ound he realizaion o his heoreical alignmen, hough he wouldlaer ates o he Sovie rerea rom sexual liberaion and reurn o heconservaive ideology o he amily. By reeing subjecs rom repressiveresricions on sexualiy, he social order can allow he subjec’s naural

libido o ourish. Te sruggle, as Reich sees i, is enirely sraighorward. An auhoriarian rule imposes resricions on naural sexualiy, and heseresricions creae he neuroic disorders ha psychoanalysis reas. Reichconends ha Freud ails o ake up a criical posiion relaive o socialresricions and hus blames he vicims o sociey or he problems creaed by an oppressive auhoriarian srucure. Erich Fromm akes a posiion similar o ha o Reich, hough he never

associaes himsel direcly wih he Communis revoluion. Unlike Reich,Fromm does accep a version o he deah drive. He believes ha a deahdrive can orm, bu he doesn’ gran i any independen saus. Te deahdrive, which is a drive o desroy onesel and ohers, emerges wih herepression o he lie drive. I lie successully expresses isel, he subjec willno urn agains isel and will insead develop loving relaions wih ohersand wih he sel. Despie his modicaion o Reich, he psychoanalyicpoliical projec is basically he same or boh Reich and Fromm. Psycho-

analysis akes he side o he naural libido or sexual drive and argues or isliberaion. Raher han acceping he psychoanalyic criique o he good,


25/362

12

hey see a sexually liberaed sociey as a good sociey ha psychoanalyichough and herapy can help o produce. Tough Gross, Reich, and Fromm develop he poliical dimension o

psychoanalysis, hey do so as pracicing psychoanalyss. Tis invesmen inpsychoanalyic reamen resrics he exen o which hey are able o con-sruc a poliical heory. Tey are psychoanalyss rs and poliical hinkerssecond. Tey also collecively reuse o accoun or he laer Freud’s urno he deah drive, even i only o see i as a necessary obsacle wih whichpoliical sruggle mus conend. Herber Marcuse suffers rom neihero hese limiaions. He is a philosopher and culural heoris who comeso psychoanalysis o assis in hinking hrough poliical diffi culies, and

he recognizes ha any poliical projec has o incorporae he deah drive.Marcuse announces his own unique marriage o Marx and Freud in Eros andCivilizaion , one o he wo grea atemps o consruc a poliics groundedon psychoanalysis. I is a book ha bears he subile A Philosophical Inquiryino Freud. Marcuse envisions a sociey ha would eliminae scarciy o such anexen ha i would no longer require he repression o our sexual drives,or eros. In his ype o sociey, he need or labor would disappear, andhe predominance o he realiy principle (or he delaying o saisacion)could give way o an unleashing o he pleasure principle (or he direcpah o saisacion). While Marcuse admis ha up o his poin in his-ory progress has increased he amoun o repression, he believes he endo labor and he socialis revoluion necessary o accomplish i wouldoccasion a dialecical reversal in which progress suddenly liberaed erosraher han augmening is repression. Tis vision allows us o imagine a

world in which even deah loses is raumaic dimension because individualsubjecs would be reconciled wih he social whole ha would survive hem. In consrucing his vision o a beter uure, Marcuse does no lose sigh ohe principle ha opposes eros he deah drive, or wha he calls hanaos.He views hanaos as an aggressive insinc, an insinc oward desrucionha, unlike eros, demands repression in order or sociey o uncion. Buhere is a way o miigae he power o his insinc or desrucion: by elimi-naing he repression o eros, a sociey lessens he aggression ha subjecs

experience because much o his aggression arises in response o a lack oeroic saisacion, hough his aggression would no disappear alogeher.


26/362

13

Marcuse’s ideal sociey appears o gure a way ou o he anagonism haFreud sees animaing he relaion beween he individual subjec and hesocial order. He does so, despie borrowing erminology rom he laer

Freud, by ocusing on he liberaion o he sexual drives in he way ha heearly Freud and he lefis Freudians advocae. Bu such a program is consiuively incapable o admiting he idea o hedeah drive wih all o is heoreical orce. Marcuse acknowledges he deahdrive in order o show how an ideal sociey migh minimize is power, buhe exisence o he deah drive saboages he poliical program as such. Ileads Freud o say, oward he end o Civilizaion and Is Disconens , “I haveno he courage o rise up beore my ellow-men as a prophe, and I bow

o heir reproach ha I can offer hem no consolaion.” Te deah driveeliminaes he possibiliy o offering consolaion in he orm o a radiionalpoliical program because i erecs a undamenal barrier o progress oan exen ha Marcuse canno ully recognize due o his Marxis poliicalcommimen.

Deah a he Botom of Everyhing

Te deah drive is neiher (conra Marcuse) aggressiveness nor an impulseo reurn o an inorganic sae (as Freud’s meaphor in Beyond he Pleasure

Principle migh imply) bu an impeus o reurn o an originary raumaicand consiuive loss. Te deah drive emerges wih subjeciviy isel ashe subjec eners ino he social order and becomes a social and speaking being by sacricing a par o isel. Tis sacrice is an ac o creaion haproduces an objec ha exiss only insoar as i is los. Tis loss o wha he

subjec doesn’ have insiues he deah drive, which produces enjoymenhrough he repeiion o he iniial loss. Subjecs engage in acs o sel-sacrice and sel-saboage because heloss enaced reproduces he subjec’s los objec and enables he subjec oenjoy his objec. Once i is obained, he objec ceases o be he objec. Asa resul, he subjec mus coninually repea he sacricial acs ha producehe objec, despie he damage ha such acs do o he subjec’s sel-ineres.From he perspecive o he deah drive, we urn o violence no in order o

gain power bu in order o produce loss, which is our only source o enjoy-men. Wihou he los objec, lie becomes beref o any saisacion. Te


27/362

14

repeiion o sacrice, however, creaes a lie worh living, a lie in whichone can enjoy onesel hrough he los objec. Te repeiion involved wih he deah drive is no simply repeiion o

any paricular experience. Te repeiion compulsion leads he subjec orepea specically he experiences ha have raumaized i and disurbedis sable uncioning. Te beter hings are going or he subjec, he morelikely ha he deah drive will derail he subjec’s aciviy. According o heheory implied by he deah drive, any movemen oward he good anyprogress will end o produce a reacion ha will undermine i. Tisoccurs boh on he level o he individual and on he level o sociey. Inpsychoanalyic reamen, i akes he orm o a negaive herapeuic reac-

ion, an effor o susain one’s disorder in he ace o he imminence o hecure. We can also hink o individuals who coninue o choose romanicrelaionships ha ail according o a precise patern. Poliically, i meansha progress riggers he very orms o oppression ha i hopes o combaand hereby incessanly undermines isel. Tere is a backlash writen inoevery progressive program rom he ouse. Te deah drive creaes an essenially masochisic srucure wihin hepsyche. I provides he organizing principle or he subjec and oriens hesubjec relaive o is enjoymen, and his enjoymen remains always linkedo rauma. Tis srucure renders diffi cul all atemps o promp subjecso ac in heir own sel-ineres or or heir own good. Te deah drive leadssubjecs o ac conrary o heir own ineress, o saboage he projecs ha would lead o heir good. Common sense ells us ha sadism is easier o undersand han mas-ochism, ha he sadis’s lus or power over he objec makes sense in a

way ha he masochis’s sel-desrucion does no. Bu or psychoanalysis,masochism uncions as he paradigmaic orm o subjeciviy. Consideringhe srucure o he deah drive, masochism becomes easily explained, andsadism becomes a mysery. Masochism provides he subjec he enjoymeno loss, while sadism seems o give his enjoymen o he oher. Tis is exacly he claim o Jacques Lacan’s revoluionary inerpreaiono sadism in his amous aricle “Kan wih Sade.” Tough mos readers ocuson he essay’s philosophical coupling o Kanian moraliy wih Sadean

perversion, he more signican sep ha Lacan akes here occurs in hisexplanaion o sadism’s appeal. radiionally, mos people viliy sadiss or


28/362

15

ransorming heir vicims ino objecs or heir own saisacion, bu Lacanconends ha hey acually urn hemselves ino objecs or he oher’senjoymen. He noes: “Te sadis discharges he pain o exisence ino he

Oher, bu wihou seeing ha he himsel hereby urns ino an ‘eernalobjec.’” Tough he oher suffers pain, he oher also becomes he solegure o enjoymen. Wha he sadis enjoys in he sadisic ac is he enjoy-men atribued o he oher, and he sadisic ac atemps o bring abouhis enjoymen. In his sense, sadism is nohing bu an invered orm omasochism, which remains he undamenal srucure o subjeciviy.Sel-desrucion plays such a prominen role in human aciviies becausehe deah drive is he drive ha animaes us as subjecs.

Unlike Herber Marcuse, Norman O. Brown, anoher celebraed propo-nen o psychoanalyically inormed poliical hough, atemps o consruca psychoanalyic poliical projec ha ocuses on he deah drive. He doesno simply see i as he unorunae resul o he repression o eros bu as apowerul caegory on is own. In Lie agains Deah Brown conceives o hedeah drive as a sel-annihilaing impulse ha emerges ou o he humanincapaciy o accep deah and loss. As he pus i, “Te deah insinc is hecore o he human neurosis. I begins wih he human inan’s incapaciy oaccep separaion rom he moher, ha separaion which coners individuallie on all living organisms and which in all living organisms a he same imeleads o deah.” For Brown, we pursue deah and desrucion, paradoxically,

because we canno accep deah. I we possessed he abiliy o accep our owndeah, according o Brown’s view, we would avoid alling ino he deah driveand would hereby rid ourselves o human violence and desruciveness. Like Marcuse, Brown’s socieal ideal involves he unleashing o he sexual

drives and he minimizing or eliminaion o he deah drive. He even raiseshe sakes, conending ha unless we manage o realize his ideal, he humanspecies, under he sway o he deah drive, will die ou like he dinosaurs.Despie making more allowances or he deah drive (and or deah isel)han Marcuse, Brown noneheless canno avoid a similar error: he belieha he deah drive is a orce ha subjecs can overcome. For Freud, inconras, i is he orce ha revenges isel on every overcoming, he rep-eiion ha no uopia can ully leave behind. An auhenic recogniion o

he deah drive and is primacy would demand ha we rehink he idea oprogress alogeher.


29/362

16

Progressing Backward

And ye some idea o progress seems essenial o poliics. Wihou progressas a possibiliy, i seems obvious ha one would have no reason o involveonesel in poliical conesaion. All poliical aciviy would become uile, which is why ew dispense wih i alogeher. Even a hinker such as JacquesDerrida who sruggles incessanly agains he ideology o progress nonehe-less implicily reains some noion o auhenic progress wihin his hough. Wihou i, he would have no posiion rom which o criicize he idea whilesill endorsing poliical aciviy. Te problem wih progress as an idea, according o someone like Derrida,

lies in he way ha i places a eleology on he movemen o hisory andhereby prescribes a cerain uure ha will serve o consrain our poliicalaciviy. Raher han helping o increase our reedom, he idea o progressdiminishes i by closing down he opening ha he uure represens. Despiehis deconsrucion o progress, Derrida aligns deconsrucion wih hope ora beter uure wih wha he calls an “emancipaory promise.” In Specers o Marx he elaboraes: “Well, wha remains irreducible o any deconsrucion, wha remains as undeconsrucible as he possibiliy isel o deconsrucion

is, perhaps, a cerain experience o he emancipaory promise; i is perhapseven he ormaliy o a srucural messianism, a messianism wihou religion,even a messianic wihou messianism.” Tough deconsrucion leavesis emancipaory promise always o be ullled and reuses o acualize i,Derrida acily conceives he movemen oward i as progressive. Te poliical dimension o deconsrucion is ounded on he belie haa beter world is possible: by deconsrucing hierarchies, by insising on a

jusice o come, and by sruggling agains illusions o presence, we can lessenhuman suffering and help o orge a more egaliarian world. Tere is a good,even i ully realizing his good would ransorm i ino is opposie (whichis Derrida’s conenion). One mus ensure ha he good sociey alwaysremains o come, or arrivan , as Derrida pus i, bu ar rom minimizinghe saus o he good or denigraing he good, giving i a uural saus inac elevaes i and ensconces jusice o come as he one idea ha we cannodeconsruc he ulimae or sovereign good. Even in deconsrucion,

some idea o progress as a possibiliy mus exis in order or he heoris omake any normaive appeal whasoever.


30/362

17

Bu he inescapabiliy o he idea o progress goes sill urher. I is no jus he normaive appeal ha implies his idea; any sysem o hough, evenone ha connes isel o pure descripions, ineviably poins oward he

possibiliy o progress. Te ac o ariculaing a sysem o hough implieshe belie ha a beter world is possible and ha he knowledge he sysemprovides will assis in realizing his beter world. I I didn’ believe in hepossibiliy o improvemen, I would never boher o ariculae any sysema all. Te very ac o enunciaing even he mos pessimisic sysem atesso a undamenal opimism and hope or progress beyond he saus quo.Tis is rue or an exreme pessimis like Arhur Schopenhauer as much asi is or an avowed uopian like Charles Fourier. Te posiion rom which

one enunciaes he pessimisic sysem is he posiion invesed in he ideao progress, even when he enunciaed conen o he sysem compleelydenounces he idea. Tough he good may be impossible o realize, i isalso impossible o abandon enirely. Te producion o knowledge iselpoins, ofen despie isel, oward a beter uure. Tis link beween knowledge and progress is he conrolling idea o heEnlighenmen. In his essay “Wha Is Enlighenmen?” Kan emphasizesha Enlighenmen requires a siuaion where one is ree o gain knowledge,

where one has “reedom o make public use o one’s reason in all maters.” Inhe ac o gaining knowledge hrough reasoning, subjecs aciliae progressas hey pu his knowledge ino use by resrucuring sociey. Knowledge,or Kan and or all Enlighenmen hinkers, has an inherenly progressiveleaning. I rees us rom he yranny o he pas and rom he drudgery orepeiion. Progress is only possible because we have he abiliy o know hepas and o learn rom i. Te Enlighenmen’s belie in progress derives

rom is concepion o he human subjec as a subjec o knowledge, asubjec who undamenally wans o know. For psychoanalysis, he link beween knowledge and progress dooms hepossibiliy o progress. Raher han desiring o know, he subjec desires noo know and organizes is exisence around he avoidance o knowledge. In“Le séminaire XXI” Lacan saes his sraighorwardly: “Tere has been nodesire or knowledge bu . . . a horror o knowing.” Te knowledge ha weavoid is knowledge o he unconscious because his knowledge conrons

us wih he power o he deah drive and he inescapabiliy o repeiion. Wha we don’ know our paricular orm o supidiy allows us o move


31/362

18

orward, o view he uure wih hopeulness. Wihou his undamenalreusal o know, he subjec simply could no coninue. Freud’s grea revoluion in he hisory o hough sems rom his concep-

ion o he subjec as a subjec o desire raher han as a subjec o knowl-edge. Where hinkers rom Plao o Kan consider an inheren sriving oknow as essenial o subjeciviy, no only does Freud envision a differenessenial drive, he conends ha he subjec wans no o know in order oconinue o desire. Te subjec acs no on he basis o wha i knows buon he basis o how i desires. We migh imagine linking hese wo ideas ohe subjec i we could link he ac o knowing and he ac o desiring.

Bu knowledge and desire are a odds: he subjec doesn’ wan o know

wha i desires or how i enjoys. Is knowledge remains necessarily incomplee,and he gap wihin knowledge is he rigger or he subjec’s desire and hepoin a which i enjoys. Te unconscious emerges ou o he subjec’s inca-paciy or knowing is own enjoymen. Conscious knowledge is no simplyunable o arrive a he knowledge o enjoymen and is raumaic origin;i acively uncions as a barrier o his knowledge. Conscious knowledgehwars access o he unconscious, and, as a resul, he conscious effor oknow coninually deeas isel.

Psychoanalysis atemps o ll his undamenal lacuna in he projec oknowledge by demanding ha he subjec abandon he projec in is radi-ional maniesaion. I consrucs a space ha brackes conscious knowledgein order ha he subjec migh discover he unconscious. Te undamenalrule o psychoanalysis one mus reveal no wha one knows bu he wordsha come o mind aims a bringing o ligh wha he subjec doesn’ wano know. A gap exiss beween wha he subjec knows and wha i says. In

he ac o speaking, he subjec says more han i consciously knows, andhis excess is he unconscious a knowledge ha he subjec has wihouknowing i. Te paradox o his knowledge is ha one can access i only when no seeking i and ha once one has i, one has los i. Adherence o he undamenal rule o psychoanalysis insoar as i is pos-sible allows subjecs o recognize wha hey don’ know when i surpriseshem. Bu i doesn’ hereby permi subjecs o make progress hroughhe acquisiion o knowledge. Te recogniions ha one makes in psycho-

analysis do no have he saus o knowledge in he radiional sense o heerm; insead, hey mark an irreducible gap in he eld o knowledge. One


32/362

19

recognizes onesel in an unconscious desire ha remains oreign, and oneakes responsibiliy or i despie is oreignness. By doing so, one does nochange or progress as a subjec bu becomes wha one already was. One sees

he deah drive as he ruh o one’s subjeciviy raher han as an obsacleha one migh ry o progress beyond in order o reach he good.

Inerminable Repeiion

I we accep he conradicory conclusion ha some idea o progress inheresin every sysem o hough and ha he psychoanalyic concep o hedeah drive shows he impossibiliy o progress, his leaves psychoanalyic

hough and especially a psychoanalyic poliical projec on diffi culground. I migh explain he seemingly absolue pessimism o he laerFreud, Freud afer 1920, who appears o have abandoned his belie in heeffi caciousness o he psychoanalyic cure. One o his nal essays, “Analysiserminable and Inerminable,” writen in 1937 (jus wo years beore hisdeah), lays bare Freud’s doubs concerning our abiliy o break rom hepower o repeiion. Here, Freud conceives o subjecs’ reusal o abandoncasraion anxiey and penis envy as emblemaic o he inracabiliy orepeiion. He noes: “A no oher poin in one’s analyic work does onesuffer more rom an oppressive eeling ha all one’s repeaed effors have

been in vain, and rom a suspicion ha one has been ‘preaching o he winds,’ han when one is rying o persuade a woman o abandon her wishor a penis on he ground o is being unrealizable or when one is seekingo convince a man ha a passive atiude o men does no always signiycasraion and ha i is indispensable in many relaionships in lie.” Ta

is, he repeiion ha ceners around raumaic loss acs as a barrier ha we canno progress beyond. In ligh o his barrier, he ormulaion o a psychoanalyically inormedpoliical projec demands ha we dissociae poliics rom progress as iis usually conceived. We canno escape progress, and ye he radiionalconcepion o progress always runs aground. Tis paradox mus becomehe oundaion o any auhenic psychoanalyic poliics. I demands haraher han rying o progress oward overcoming he barrier ha separaes

us rom he good sociey, we begin o view idenicaion wih he barrier ashe paradoxical aim o progress. Te barrier o he good sociey he social


33/362

20

sympom is a once he obsacle over which we coninually sumble andhe source o our enjoymen. Te ypical poliics o he good aims a a uure no inhibied by a limi

ha consrains he presen. Tis uure can ake he orm o a ruly repre-senaive democracy, a socialis uopia, a sociey wih a air disribuiono power and wealh, or even a ascis order ha would expel hose whoembody he limi. Bu he good remains ou o reach despie he variouseffors o reach i. Te limi separaing us rom he good sociey is he veryhing ha consiues he good sociey as such. Overcoming he limi sha-ers he idea o he good in he ac o achieving i. In place o his pursui, apsychoanalyic poliics insiss on idenicaion wih he limi raher han

atemping o move beyond or eliminae i. I here is a concepion o prog-ress in his ype o poliics, i is progress oward he obsacle ha bars usrom he good raher han oward he good isel. Idenicaion wih he limi involves an embrace o he repeiion o hedrive because i is he obsacle or limi ha is he poin o which he drivereurns. No one can be he perec subjec o he drive because he drive is

wha undermines all perecion. Bu i is noneheless possible o change one’sexperience wihin i. Te undamenal wager o psychoanalysis a wagerha renders he idea o a psychoanalyic poliical projec hinkable is harepeiion undergoes a radical ransormaion when one adops a differenatiude oward i. We may be condemned o repea, bu we aren’ condemnedo repea he same posiion relaive o our repeiion. By embracing repei-ion hrough idenicaion wih he obsacle o progress raher han ryingo achieve he good by overcoming his obsacle, he subjec or he socialorder changes is very naure. Insead o being he burden ha one seeks

o escape, repeiion becomes he essence o one’s being and he modehrough which one atains saisacion. Conceiving poliics in erms o he embrace o repeiion raher hanhe consrucion o a good sociey akes he movemen ha derails radi-ional poliical projecs and reverses is valence. Tis idea o poliics lackshe hopeulness ha Marxism, or insance, can provide or overcominganagonism and loss. Wih i, we lose no jus a uopian ideal bu he ideao an alernaive uure alogeher he idea o a uure no longer bese by

inransigen limis and his idea undoubedly mobilizes much poliicalenergy. Wha we gain, however, is a poliical orm ha addresses he way


34/362

21

ha subjecs srucure heir enjoymen. I is by abandoning he errain ohe good and adoping he deah drive as is guiding principle ha eman-cipaory poliics can pose a genuine alernaive o he dominance o global

capialism raher han incidenally creaing new avenues or is expansionand developmen. Te deah drive is he revoluionary conribuion hapsychoanalysis makes o poliical hough. Bu since i is a concep relaivelyoreign o poliical hough, I will urn o various examples rom hisory,lieraure, and lm in order o concreize wha Freud means by he deahdrive and illusrae jus wha a poliics o he deah drive migh look like. Te chapers ha ollow race he implicaions o he deah drive orhinking abou he subjec as a poliical eniy and or conceiving he poliical

srucure o sociey. Par 1 ocuses on he individual subjec, beginning wihan explanaion o how he deah drive shapes his subjeciviy. Te variouschapers in par 1 race he implicaions o he deah drive or undersand-ing how he subjec enjoys, how he drive relaes o social class, how hedrive impacs he subjec as an ehical being, and how he subjec becomespoliicized. Te discussion o he impac o he deah drive on he individualsubjec serves as a oundaion or ariculaing is impac on sociey, whichpar 2 o he book addresses, beginning wih he impac o he deah driveon he consiuion o sociey. Par 2 hen examines how he concepion ohe deah drive helps in navigaing a pah hrough oday’s major poliicalproblems: he ineffi caciy o consciousness raising, he seducive power oanasy, he growing danger o biological reducionism and undamenalism,he lure o religious belie, and he ailure o atemps o lif repression. Tewo pars o he book do no atemp o skech a poliical goal o be atainedor he subjec or or sociey bu insead o recognize he srucures ha

already exis and silenly inorm boh. Te wager o wha ollows is ha herevelaion o he deah drive and is reach ino he subjec and he socialorder can be he oundaion or reconceiving reedom. Te recogniion o he deah drive as oundaional or subjeciviy is wha occurs wih he psychoanalyic cure. Trough his cure, he subjecabandons he belie in he possibiliy o nding a soluion o he problemo subjeciviy. Te loss or which one seeks resiuion becomes a consiu-ive loss and becomes visible as he key o one’s enjoymen raher han a

barrier o i. A poliical projec derived rom psychoanalyic hough would work o broaden his cure by bringing i ouside he clinic and enacing


35/362

22

on sociey isel. Te poin is no, o course, ha everyone would undergopsychoanalysis bu ha psychoanalyic heory would uncion as a poliicalheory. Poliically, he imporance o psychoanalysis is heoreical raher

han pracical. Poliically, i doesn’ mater wheher people undergo psycho-analyic herapy or no. Tis heory would inaugurae poliical change byinsising no on he possibiliy o healing and hereby ataining he ulimaepleasure bu on he indissoluble link beween our enjoymen and loss. We become ree o enjoy only when we have recognized he inracable naureo loss. Tough psychoanalyic hough insiss on our reedom o enjoy, i under-sands reedom in a counerinuiive way. I is hrough he deah drive ha

he subjec atains is reedom. Te loss ha ounds his drive rees hesubjec rom is dependence on is social environmen, and he repeiiono he iniial loss susains his reedom. By embracing he inescapabiliyo raumaic loss, one embraces one’s reedom, and any poliical projecgenuinely concerned wih reedom mus orien isel around loss. Raherhan looking o he possibiliy o overcoming loss, our poliical projecsmus work o remain aihul o i and enhance our conac wih i. Onlyin his way does poliics have he opporuniy o carve ou a space or hereedom o enjoy raher han resricing i under he banner o he good.


36/362

I


37/362


38/362

25

1Te Formation of Subjectivity

Te Imporance of Losing

Te poliics o he deah drive begins wih he revoluionary idea o subjec-iviy ha Freud uncovers: his undersanding ha he subjec doesn’ seekknowledge bu insead desires. Following rom his idea, he radiional noiono progress becomes unenable, and he subjec becomes sel-desrucive.On he one hand, earlier hinkers like Arhur Schopenhauer and FriedrichNiezsche anicipae Freud’s revoluionary urn rom he subjec o knowl-edge o he subjec o desire. Schopenhauer and Niezsche emphasize howour ques or knowledge serves as a guise or a more undamenal quesor saisacion, and in his way hey overurn he radiional philosophicalconcepion o subjeciviy. Bu on he oher hand, boh Schopenhauerand Niezsche ail o grasp he signicance o he human animal’s enranceino he eld o knowledge or language. For boh, will exiss on one sideand knowledge (or represenaion) on he oher, and will is nohing bu a

biological ac. Freud’s concepion o desiring subjeciviy recognizes hahe subjec is he resul o insinc being deormed hrough is submissiono he realm o knowledge. Tough we ac on behal o desire raher hanknowledge, we do so, paradoxically, because our insincs are mediaed byknowledge. Freud’s subjec, in conras o Schopenhauer’s and Niezsche’s,never experiences pure biological insincs bu raher a desire ha remainsunconscious. Auhenically prioriizing desire requires an idea o he unconscious no

simply as he sie o a will or insinc associaed wih human animaliy bu as aradically differen psychic scene undamenally irreducible o consciousness.


39/362

26

For Freud, he subjec doesn’ know is unconscious desire no because ois ailure o grasp is coninued animaliy bu because unconscious desiregives birh o he subjec and always remains in ron o every projec o

knowledge. Freud’s revoluion is a genuine one ied o a unique visiono how subjeciviy emerges. Te poliical implicaions o psychoanalyichough begin wih is undersanding o he genesis o subjeciviy, an under-sanding ha ses psychoanalysis apar rom oher poliical heorizing oall sripes. Te oundaional saus o loss or he subjec enails a poliicscenered around he repeiion o loss raher han he achievemen o hegood. Psychoanalyic hough sees us as condemned o he repeiion oloss, bu i aims a reeing us o ake up a new relaion o his repeiion.

Tis new relaion is he emancipaory projec o psychoanalyic poliics. Iniially, as Freud conceives i, he human animal is an auoeroic beingha has no objec world. Te disincion beween sel and oher (or subjecand objec) is no a ac o birh bu a psychical achievemen. Te inan’sauoeroic mode does no ye differeniae beween isel and objecs, andhe being nds some degree o saisacion in is undiffereniaed exisence.Tis auoeroicism is no ye even narcissism. Te narcissisic relaionshipo he subjec wih is own ego requires he ormaion o an ego, which

can only orm hrough a break in he auoeroic circui. As Freud pus i in“On Narcissism: An Inroducion,” “A uniy comparable o he ego cannoexis in he individual rom he sar; he ego has o be developed. Teauo-eroic insincs, however, are here rom he very rs; so here mus be somehing added o auo-eroicism a new psychical acion in ordero bring abou narcissism.” Because he ego is jus a special sor o objec(one ha compees wih oher objecs or he subjec’s libido), i can orm

and he subjec can become narcissisic only afer he subjec has creaedhe division beween subjec and objec. Tis creaive ac wha Freud calls“a new psychical acion” produces a division ou o he undiffereniaedauoeroicism o he human animal. Te subjec as such emerges hrough he experience o loss. I is heloss o a par o he subjec an iniial ac o sacrice ha creaes bohsubjec and objec, he objec emerging hrough his ac as wha he subjechas los o isel. Te subjec akes an ineres in he objec world because i

orms his world around is los objec. As Jacques Lacan noes, “Never, inour concree experience o analyic heory, do we do wihou he noion o


40/362

27

he lack o he objec as cenral. I is no a negaive, bu he very spring orhe relaion o he subjec o he world.” Te loss o he objec generaes a world around his loss o which he subjec can relae.

Obviously, no one lierally creaes objecs hrough an iniial ac o sacriceo an acual body par. Tis would be oo much o ask. Bu he psychical aco sacrice allows or a disincion o develop where none exised beore andsimulaneously direcs he subjec’s desire oward he objec world. In his breakhrough essay “Negaion,” Freud describes his process as ollows: “Teanihesis beween subjecive and objecive does no exis rom he rs. Ionly comes ino being rom he ac ha hinking possesses he capaciy o bring beore he mind once more somehing ha has once been perceived,

by reproducing i as a presenaion wihou he exernal objec having sillo be here. Te rs and immediae aim, hereore, o realiy-esing is, noo nd an objec in real percepion which corresponds o he one presened, bu o rend such an objec, o convince onesel ha i is sill here.” ToughFreud doesn’ use erms rom linguisics, i is clear ha he is making reer-ence o he subjec’s alienaion in language and ha he sees his alienaionas he key o he emergence o boh he subjec and he objec. When he subjec submis o he imperaives o language, i eners ino anindirec relaion wih he objec world. Te speaking being does no relae o books, pencils, and paper bu o “books,” “pencils,” and “paper.” Te signierinervenes beween he subjec and he objec ha he subjec perceives. Tesubjec’s alienaion ino language deprives i o immediae conac wih heobjec world. And ye, in he above passage rom “Negaion,” Freud conceiveso he subjec’s enrance ino language is “capaciy o bring beore hemind once more somehing ha has once been perceived, by reproducing

i as a presenaion wihou he exernal objec having sill o be here” ashe even ha produces he very disincion beween subjec and objec. Tismeans ha he indirecness or mediaion inroduced by language depriveshe subjec o a direc relaion o he objec world ha i never had.

Prior o is immersion in he mediaion o language, he subjec had noobjec a all no a privileged relaion o objecs bu a complee absenceo relaionaliy as such due o is auoeroicism. In his sense, he subjec’s willingness o accede o is alienaion in language is he rs creaive ac, a

sacrice ha produces he objecs ha he subjec canno direcly access.Language is imporan no or is own sake bu because i is he sie o our


41/362

28

ounding sacrice. We know ha he subjec has perormed his ac osacrice when we winess he subjec uncioning as a being o language, bu he sacrice is no an ac ha he subjec akes up on is own.

Ohers always impose he enry ino language on he subjec. Teirexhoraions and incenives o speak promp he emergence o he speakingsubjec. Bu he subjec’s openness o alienaion in language, is willingnesso sacrice a par o isel in order o become a speaking subjec, suggess alack in being isel prior o he enry ino language. Ta is, he ac hrough which he subjec cedes he privileged objec and becomes a subjec coin-cides wih language bu is irreducible o i. Te subjec engages in he aco sacrice because i does no nd is iniial auoeroicism perecly sa-

isying he uniy o he auoeroic being is no perec and his lack ocomplee saisacion produces he opening hrough which language andsociey grab ono he subjec hrough is alienaing process. I he iniialauoeroic sae o he human animal were perecly saisying, no one would begin o speak, and subjeciviy would never orm. Speaking as suchesies o an iniial wound in our animal being and in being isel. Bu subjeciviy emerges only ou o a sel-wounding. Even hough ohersencourage he inan o abandon is auoeroic sae hrough a muliude oinducemens, he iniial loss ha consiues subjeciviy is always and neces-sarily sel-iniced. Subjeciviy has a undamenally masochisic orm, andi coninually repeas he masochisic ac ha ounds i. Te ac o sacriceopens he door o he promise o a saisacion ha auoeroic isolaionorecloses, which is why he incipien subjec abandons he auoeroic saeand accedes o he call o socialiy. Bu he erm “sacrice” is misleadinginsoar as i suggess ha he subjec has given up a wholeness (wih isel

or wih is paren) ha exiss prior o being los. In he ac o sacrice, he incipien subjec gives up somehing ha idoesn’ have. Te iniial loss ha ounds subjeciviy is no a all subsan-ial; i is he ceding o nohing. Trough his dening gesure, he subjecsacrices is los objec ino being. Bu i he subjec cedes nohing, hisiniial ac o sacrice seems prooundly unnecessary. Why can’ he subjecemerge wihou i? Why is he experience o loss necessary or he subjeco consiue isel qua subjec? Te answer lies in he difference beween

need and desire. While he needs o he human animal are no dependenon he experience o loss, he subjec’s desires are.


42/362

29

I is he iniial ac o sacrice ha gives birh o desire: he subjec sacri-ces nohing in order o creae a los objec around which i can organizeis desire. As Richard Boohby pus i in his unequaled explanaion o he

psychoanalyic concepion o he emergence o desire, “Te desrucionand loss o he objec . . . opens up a symbolic dimension in which wha was los migh be recovered in a new orm.” He adds: “Sacrice serves oconsiue he very marix o desire. Te essenial uncion o sacrice isless do u des , I give so ha you migh give, han do u desidero: I give inorder ha I migh desire.” Te subjec’s desire is oriened around his losobjec, bu he objec is nohing as a posiive eniy and only exiss insoaras i is los. Tis is why one can never atain he los objec or he objec ha

causes one o desire. Te coming-ino-being o his objec originaes hesubjec o desire, bu, having no subsance, he objec can never become anempirical objec o desire. We may see an objec o desire as embodying helos objec, bu whenever we obain his objec, we discover is empiness.Te los objec is consiuively raher han empirically los.

Eaing Nohing

In his ligh, we can see he anorexic as he model or all desiring subjeciviy.Mos culural criics jusiably see anorexia as he produc o oppressivedeniions o emininiy ha abound in conemporary sociey and orce women o sarve hemselves in order o he ideals o eminine beauy. According o Naomi Wol ’s classic popular accoun in Te Beauy Myh , heideal o hinness became a way o conrolling women disciplining heir bodies afer he idea o naural emale inerioriy began o evanesce. Te

anorexic embodies emale vicimizaion: she has inernalized a pariarchalideal and does violence o her own body in order o live up o his ideal. Bu he problem wih his analysis is ha he anorexic doesn’ jus ryo embody he ideal o eminine beauy. She goes oo ar in her pursuio hinness and comes o inhabi a body ar rom he ideal. Even wheneveryone ells her ha she no longer looks good, ha she is oo hin, heanorexic coninues o lose weigh. I is or his reason ha many eminisshave seen her as a subversive gure. As Elizabeh Grosz pus i, “Neiher a

‘disorder’ o he ego nor, as popular opinion has i, a ‘dieing disease’ goneou o conrol, anorexia can, like he phanom limb, be a kind o mourning


43/362

30

or a pre-Oedipal (i.e., pre-casraed) body and a corporeal connecion ohe moher ha women in pariarchy are required o abandon. Anorexia is aorm o proes a he social meaning o he emale body.” Grosz accouns

or he excessiveness o anorexia by aligning i wih eminis resisanceo pariarchy raher han obsequious submission o i. Bu she aligns heanorexic wih wholeness and he maernal bond raher han wih he losobjec. In his sense, she misses he rue radicaliy o he anorexic, a radical-iy ha sems rom he power o he anorexic’s desire. Te anorexic doesn’ simply reuse o ea bu eas nohing, he nohingha is he los objec. While all posiive orms o ood ail o address hesubjec’s lack, nohing does speak o he subjec’s desire and allows ha

desire o susain isel. Te anorexic sarves no because she can’ nd, in hemode o Kaa’s hunger aris, any ood ha would saisy her bu becauseshe has ound a saisying ood, a ood ha nourishes he desiring subjecraher han he living being. Te logic o anorexia lays bare he hidden work-ings o desire ha operae wihin every subjec. Subjecs believe ha heypursue various objecs o desire (a new car, a new house, a new romanicparner, and so on) and ha hese objecs have an inrinsic atracion, buhe real engine or heir desire resides in he nohing ha he subjec hasgiven up and ha every objec ries and ails o represen. Objecs o desireare desirable only insoar as hey atemp o represen he impossible losobjec, which is wha he anorexic reveals. Sill, he anorexic is excepional;mos nonanorexic subjecs imagine ha heir los objec can be ound insomehing raher han nohing. Despie is resonances wih he srucure o desire, anorexia canno bedissociaed rom he imposiion o he ideal o hinness as a mode o conrol-

ling emale subjeciviy. Tough his ideal disors he anorexic’s relaionshipo her own body, i also renders he naure o desire isel apparen. Teimpossible ideal o perec hinness allows he anorexic subjec o avow,albei unconsciously, he srucural impossibiliy o desire isel. Unlikemale subjecs (or oher emale subjecs who manage o disance hemselvesrom he ideal), he anorexic canno avoid conroning he impossibiliyo her objec. Te oppressive ideal o perec hinness allows he anorexico bear winess wih her body o he ruh o desire.

Undersanding he impossible naure o he los objec wha he anorexicmakes clear allows us o rehink he naure o he poliical ac. Raher han


44/362

31

being he successul achievemen o some objec, he accomplishmen osome social good, he poliical ac involves insising on one’s desire in heace o is impossibiliy, which is precisely wha occurs in he deah drive.

Te key o a poliics o he deah drive is grasping, in he ashion o heanorexic, he nohingness o he objec and hereby nding saisacion inhe drive isel. Bu he subjec’s relaionship o is objec inherenly creaesan illusion ha makes his possibiliy almos impossible. Tough he los objec ha iniiaes subjeciviy has no subsance, issaus or he subjec belies is nohingness. For he subjec, he originarylos objec is he objec ha seems o hold he key o he subjec’s veryabiliy o enjoy. Subjecs inves he los objec wih he idea o heir own

compleion: he loss o he objec reroacively causes a prior sae o comple-ion o arise a sae o compleion ha never acually exised and heobjec isel bears he promise o inauguraing a reurn o his imaginaryprior sae. In shor, i promises o ll in he subjec’s lack and answer isdesire. As a resul o his invesmen on he par o he subjec, he iniiallos objec becomes he engine or all he subjec’s subsequen desiring. Wihou he iniial ac o sacrice, he would-be subjec neiher desiresnor enjoys bu insead suffocaes in a world o sel-presence, a sel-presencein which one has no reedom whasoever. Trough he loss o he privilegedobjec, one rees onesel rom he complee dominaion o (parenal orsocial) auhoriy by creaing a lack ha no auhoriy can ll. Ceding heobjec is hus he ounding ac o subjeciviy and he rs ree ac. Everysubsequen effor by auhoriy o give he subjec wha i lacks will come upshor or, more correcly, will go oo ar, because only nohing can ll hegap wihin he subjec. For his reason, dissaisacion and disappoinmen

are correlaive wih reedom: when we experience he auhoriy’s ailureo give us wha we wan, a ha momen we also experience our disancerom he auhoriy and our radical reedom as subjecs.

Suffering as Ideology

Te poenial problem wih ideniying reedom and loss is ha ideologyofen operaes hrough his same idenicaion. Te apoheosis o suffering

is one o he undamenal modes ha ideology adops in order o convincesubjecs o adap o he demands o he social order. Tis is nowhere more


45/362

32

apparen han in Chrisianiy, which ells subjecs ha hey mus accepearhly suffering in order o gain he enjoymen o a heavenly paradise. Tesubjecs who accep his exchange endure heir misery quiely raher han

revoling agains i and oppling he oppressive ruling class. One o Marx-ism’s primary claims is ha here is no virue in suffering under he yoke ocapialis oppression, ha here is no oherworldly paradise awaiing hose who suffer he mos here. For Marxism, any atemp o privilege sufferingnecessarily aligns one wih he oppressing class raher han he oppressedclass. Liberaion means rs o all liberaion rom unnecessary suffering. Bu Marx does allow ha we canno compleely overcome wha he callshe realm o necessiy. Even in a socialis sociey, here will always be some

necessary suffering ha we mus endure, hough i will undoubedly beminimal. As Marx pus i in he hird volume o Capial , “Te rue realm oreedom, he developmen o human powers as an end in isel, . . . can onlyourish wih his realm o necessiy as is basis.” Noneheless, suffering,in Marx’s accoun, represens wha we srive o avoid. Te enire effor ohis hough consiss in enhancing he realm o reedom a he expense ohe realm o necessiy. Te pleasure ha we will experience in a socialissociey is a pleasure opposed o suffering, no an enjoymen inseparablerom i. Tough i clearly depars rom Marx, he psychoanalyic idea ha ourenjoymen is linked o an iniial experience o loss and ha we derive enjoy-men when we repea his experience has litle in common wih Chrisianideology or wih any ideology ha privileges suffering. Privileging loss ashe source o our enjoymen means, i one can pu i his way, ha loss is isown reward. We don’ experience loss now in exchange or pleasure laer

bu insead enjoy loss because i allows a privileged objec o emerge. Inhis landmark sudy Te Philosophy o Money, Georg Simmel makes exaclyhis poin abou he value o objecs. He claims: “Value is deermined no by he relaion o he demanding subjec, bu by he ac ha his relaiondepends on he cos o a sacrice.” We can value only wha coss us somesacrice because sacrice o money, o ime, o possessions producesdesirabiliy. Tough we may need objecs ha don’ require sacrice, wecanno desire hem.

Tis is why i is impossible o enjoy objecs ha are given away or ree.Te ac o paying money imbues he objecs purchased wih sacrice and


46/362

33

loss, and his gives hem heir value. Te problem wih ree objecs is noha one ges wha one pays or hough his is ofen he case bu hahey ineviably appear as simply empirical objecs raher han as objecs

imbued wih he elevaing qualiy o he privileged objec, which is a produco he associaion wih loss. Loss is he creaive ac, he source o value. I is as i psychoanalysis acceps he Chrisian noion o original sin wihouhe corresponding idea o a uure recompense. I is Paradise Los wihou Paradise Regained and wih an undersanding ha he loss is also salvaion. According o his homology, original sin would be a once he source o oursuffering and our reward. raumaic loss hurs, bu i hurs in a way ha weenjoy (or, a leas, can enjoy). Te ideological gesure wheher Chrisian,

capialis, or whaever does no consis in proclaiming he necessiy orhe virue o suffering bu in holding ou he promise o uure respie orin mobilizing ha suffering around an idea ha redeems i. Ideology develops in order o convince subjecs ha loss is no absolueand ha i can become proable. No subsequen acquisiion or rewardcan redeem he loss o he privileged objec ha ounds subjeciviy; i isa loss wihou he possibiliy o recompense. And ye, ideology proclaimsha every loss has a producive dimension o i. In his sense, ideology issingular: all ideologies are nohing bu orms o ideology as such. Accordingo Chrisian ideology, our suffering on earh nds is reward in heavenly bliss. According o capialis ideology, our labor oday has is reward inomorrow’s riches. According o Islamic undamenalis logic, our suicidalsacrice resuls in an eerniy in paradise.

No ideology can avow a compleely unproducive loss, a loss ha doesn’lead o he possibiliy o some uure pleasure, and ye an unproducive loss

is precisely wha denes us. One challenges ideology no by proclaimingha loss or sacrice is unnecessary ha we migh live lives o pleniude bu by insising on he unproduciviy o loss. Once a subjec graspsha no uure gain can redeem he iniial loss, ideology loses is abiliy oconrol ha subjec. In his sense, one o he grea ani-ideological workso philosophy is Hegel’s Phenomenology o Spiri . Hegel dedicaes he enirey o his Phenomenology o illusraing he ideaha loss is is own reward. Te Phenomenology races various philosophi-

cal posiions as hey undermine hemselves hrough ollowing heir ownlogic o is endpoin. In each case he philosophical posiion ends oward


47/362

34

is own annihilaion. Hegel shows ha loss or sel-sacrice is engrained inhe logic o every philosophy (and hence o every subjec). Raher han being a coningen oucome, loss becomes he cener around which he

posiion organizes isel. Tis is eviden in he rs atiude ha Hegel iner-rogaes sense cerainy, or he belie ha our immediae sense experienceis he ulimae ruh. By immersing himsel in he logic o his posiion, Hegel demonsraesha despie sense cerainy’s proesaions on behal o he value o imme-diacy, i acually relies on a complex web o mediaion in order o ariculaeis ruh claims. In shor, in he process o puting orward is ruh claims,sense cerainy undermines isel as a coheren philosophical posiion. Tis

sel-sacrice is no, according o Hegel, a coningen problem wihin sensecerainy bu he necessary cener o every ype o philosophy. Whaeversabiliy one nds in a philosophical posiion marks a rerea rom heposiion’s own undamenal logic, a rerea rom he posiion isel. Whenone akes up a philosophical posiion, one mus simulaneously grasp issel-desrucion and ideniy onesel wih his loss. Bu according o he sandard reading o Hegel, his insigh ino oherphilosophical posiions reaches a dead end in Hegel’s own philosophy,especially in wha he calls absolue knowledge, which is he posiion haconcludes he Phenomenology. Absolue knowledge, as mos commenaorssee i, marks he vicory over loss, he poin a which Hegel himsel redeemsloss, renders i producive, and achieves masery o i. Bu his reading, per-haps misled by he erm isel, ails o pay atenion o how Hegel acuallycharacerizes absolue knowledge. He concludes he Phenomenology wihabsolue knowledge in order o indicae he inescapabiliy o a ounding

sacrice. o reach absolue knowledge is o come o his insigh. As Hegel pus i,“Te sel-knowing Spiri knows no only isel bu also he negaive o isel,or is limi: o know one’s limi is o know how o sacrice onesel.” Whenone reaches absolue knowledge, one recognizes ha loss is consiuiveo whaever posiion one holds. Tis recogniion allows one o embraceloss or is own sake and o enjoy i raher han rereaing rom i or ryingo overcome i. Conrary o wha even his own proponens say, Hegel’s

achievemen o absolue knowledge marks philosophy’s vicory over heatemp o maser loss, no he nal sep in he process o ha masery. Hegel


48/362

35

leads philosophy o he posiion a which i can resis ideology’s effor orecuperae loss and convince subjecs ha he saus o loss is empiricalraher han consiuive.

As i offers an image o he recuperaion o loss, he ideological manipula-ion o human suffering also locaes he source o suffering and loss exernally:he violence and scarciy o he world produce he suffering o he individualsubjec. Cold War American ideology, or insance, envisioned he SovieUnion as he exernal orce ha necessiaed sacrice. oday Islamic unda-menalism plays a similar role. Te hrea o Islamic undamenalism jusieshe sacrices o civil liberies ha Americans make, and his jusicaionakes on a broader resonance as i ransorms how Americans relae o all

heir suffering. Locaing he source o one’s suffering in an exernal hreauncions precisely like imagining a uure recompense or ha suffering. In boh cases, loss becomes a coningen ac ha one migh overcome raherhan he oundaion o one’s subjeciviy. o avow he srucural necessiyo loss would deprive ideology o is mos powerul incenive, which is whyno ideology akes up his relaion o loss. Or, o pu i in oher erms, whano ideology can acknowledge is he deah drive. A psychoanalyic poliicso he deah drive produces a horoughgoing criique o ideology in all heorms ha i akes up, and a closer examinaion o he deah drive will layou precisely how i leads o his criique.

Te Joy of No Surviving

Te deah drive, despie he implicaions o he erm isel and Freud’sown suggesions in his direcion, is no a drive o die and hereby reurn

o an inorganic sae. Raher han he deah ha occurs a he end o lie,he deah drive comes ou o a deah ha occurs wihin lie. I is a drive orepea he experience o he loss o he privileged objec ha gives birh ohe desiring subjec. Tis experience is deah in lie insoar as i marks hemomen a which deah insalls isel in he subjec and rips he subjec ouo he cycle o lie. Te loss o he privileged objec derails he subjec anddisors he subjec’s relaionship o lie isel. From his momen on, raher han simply rying o survive or o increase

is vialiy, he subjec will coninually reurn o he loss ha denes hesrucure o is desire. Tis disrupion o lie ha ounds he subjec as


49/362

36

such renders insuffi cien any recourse o an organicis or biological explana-ion o subjeciviy. Te subjec o desire is never jus a living subjec; i is asubjec ha holds wihin i a orm o deah, a loss ha shapes every relaion

ha i subsequenly adops o he world. In ac, his loss pulls he subjecou o he world and leaves i compleely alienaed rom is environmenor lieworld. Because o he raumaic loss ha ounds subjeciviy, he subjec neverhas a world. I does no exis as a being-in-he-world in he way ha Mar-in Heidegger describes. Heidegger, who rejecs he idea o subjeciviy,considers our being in erms o wha he calls Dasein, or being-here. ForHeidegger, Dasein is always a being-in-he-world and is unimaginable ouside

is worldliness. We canno speak o subjeciviy when alking abou Daseinprecisely because subjeciviy implies a separaion beween Dasein and is world. Dasein experiences alienaion rom is world, bu i remains unda-menally a par o ha world: is world is he limi ha conains Dasein andha Dasein canno go beyond. Bu Heidegger assumes raher han deducesDasein’s worldliness and is relaionship o objecs. In ac, Heideggerlampoons much o he hisory o Wesern philosophy or casing doubon he exisence o he exernal world and or suggesing ha one mighneed o prove is being. Dasein’s world did no come ino being hroughan ac o sacrice; his world, according o Heidegger, is he horizon haaccompanies and consiues Dasein’s very exisence. By privileging he oundaional experience o raumaic loss, Freudatemps o apprehend he birh o his relaionship beween he subjecand is world raher han aking i or graned. He implies ha one can’simply assume ha a world in which one can disinguish objecs as disinc

rom onesel is given a priori. Raher han always experiencing a world, hesubjec as Freud conceives i begins in he unworldly sae o auoeroi-cism, where disincions do no exis. Wihou some ac o negaion heiniial sacrice o nohing objecs canno emerge ou o his undiffereni-aed exisence. Bu even afer his primordial sacrice, he subjec does noatain he worldliness ha Heidegger idenies wih Dasein’s experience.Because i is born hrough he ac o loss, he subjec never has and nevercan have a world. I remains alienaed and ou o ouch rom he world,

relaing o he world and he objecs in he world hrough he mediaiono he los objec. Te subjec, in oher words, experiences he presence


50/362

37

o he world hrough he absence o he privileged objec. Te empiricalobjecs in he world canno bu dissaisy he subjec insoar as hey ail o be he objec. Te los objec srucures every relaionship ha he subjec

akes up wih he world. Te experience o raumaic loss has such a hold on he subjec hesubjec coninually reurns o i, re-creaes i because his experience iselengenders desiring and he objec o desiring. Tis oundaional experienceprovides insigh ino he oherwise inexplicable srucure o he celebraedor/da game ha Freud discusses in Beyond he Pleasure Principle. Teanalysis o he or/da game is no simply one example o many concern-ing he pleasure principle going awry in he 1920 book. I is raher he key

philosophical momen in all o Freud’s work. Trough he observaion ohe or/da game, Freud recognizes he prioriy o loss in human aciviy. As everyone acquained even slighly wih Freud’s work knows, herecouns waching his grandson play a game wih a reel on a sring, a gameha consiss o hrowing he reel so ha i disappears (while saying “or”[gone]) and hen pulling he reel back (while saying “da” [here]). Whasurprises Freud abou he game is ha even hough “here is no doubha greaer pleasure was atached o he second ac . . . he rs ac, hao deparure, was saged as a game in isel and ar more requenly hanhe episode in is enirey, wih is pleasurable ending.” Te quandaryha his game presens or Fre

Documents

McGowan, Todd Enjoying what we don't have _ the political project of psychoanalysis-University of Nebraska Press (2013)