Lacan on Perversion (1/3) : Derek Hook interviews Meera Lee - Perversion from Freud to Lacan

Meera highlights several important conceptual coordinates in the work of Freud and Lacan in relation to the theorization of perversion. Within Freud’s work, the ideas of infantile sexuality, polymorphous sexuality, the Oedipal drama and the sadistic superego prove vital. In Lacan, the ideas of the mother as the holder of the phallus, of perversion as linked to universal law (as in ‘Kant with Sade’) to universal law, and perversion at the level of language are all crucial. Meera also reflects on Lacan’s formula according to which the perverse subject is “the instrument of the Other’s jouissance”.

[@endadeburca8470]

hi Derek and Meera, thanks for this interesting talk. I think a great way to read the complex dynamic of perversion and its paradoxical relation to the law might be in the understanding that the masochist draws up a contract that the sadist is bound to. Deleuze writes a beautiful book on Sacher Masoch called Coldness and Cruelty and describes this crucial dynamic very well. Lacan was a great admirer of Deleuze's take here. Deleuze also emphasises that it is not pain but the moment of suspension of being, say that suspended moment of exquisite anticipation before e.g. the whip hits the skin, that the masochist pursues. This reading might perhaps signal a side to perversion ( the moment of non being, suspendion) that is not as conservative as the orthodox Lacanian/Zizekian interpretation.

[@corneliabarber5136]

Looking forward to the rest! Thanks Meera and Derek.

[@TheDangerousMaybe]

I'm currently preparing a lecture on Lacan's 'Kant avec Sade' and this video series has been of great help to me! Thanks for that!

[@yungsida739]

Enlightening explanation. Thanks Meera

[@theoryismypraxis3538]

I believe that there is a fundamental degree of antagonism in the Pervert's enjoyment of their instrumentality. Saying that the Pervert is an à instrument of the Other's desire does not paint the full picture of the jouissance of the pervert. the Pervert seems to be the instrument of the Other's desire, by reacting, in sexual repetition compulsion, to the normative injunction of the super ego. Thus he becomes the instrument by disavowing the normative injunction by the performance of his perverse act. But he is an antagonist of the Other's jouissance as well, he saps it, by overtly breaking the norm and having the Other witness it. the pervert is always objectifying himself in the eyes of the Other. he does what is disgusting, outrageous. He wants to make the other jealous of his enjoyment, he loves the disapproval. So, I don't think he is merely an instrument. Symbolically , he fulfills that function in the discourse. Subjectively , his enjoyment lies in the disavowal of that instrumentality, he thinks he spites the Other. Boy, is he wrong!

[@theoryismypraxis3538]

and that's the surplus. the jouissance of the Other is spliced into the perverts own jouissance, without the latters acknowledgement of the fact. that he is merely the surplus in discourse

[@nikitakozubenko]

I always remember the quote from marcus aurelius meditations 6.34 where he laments "How many pleasures have been enjoyed by robbers, patricides, tyrants." I find this approach from the side of visible normie envy of pervert's enjoyment a lot easier. I don't find plausible the idea that pervert is following some kind of perverted law, the inversion or "the other side" created by establishment of law itself. How would you enjoy transgression from the position of a subject of any law? I don't think anyone does that, the enjoyment I think comes exactly by identifying with the gaze of the law itself or with this shared fantasmatic envious position? Or I don't know, anyhow reading this quote from aurelius only makes me want to do horrible things and for him to be there watching it - that's the enjoyment.

[@afs4185]

Excellent elucidation! Thank you both! Eager to listen to the second and the third parts!

[@mc9851]

This is so informative and clear. Fascinating discussions.

[@nyongl8198]

Thanks for the interesting videos. Looking forward to reading the book.

[@gonzogil123]

The will of the Other in Sade is isomorphically related to the moral law in Kant. In Kant the Other "you must not exploit others" is that maxim/axiom to which one identifies above all other axioms. They are not negotiable ways of relating/identifying. It applies universally for all cases. In Sade the voice of the moral law/axiom as not equal to myself, but the ideal to which I must adhere as a psychopath if I am to approximate an adequate relation to the psychopath ideal is "...Anyone can say to me" that is to say anyone must be exposed to the injunction of this law if the psychopath is to attain satisfaction. The "anyone can say to me" is the generalization of the Sadean version of the Kantian Law/n.o.f., but in practice (logic of our daily interactions) such axiom cannot be generalized since no one would be here to talk about it. It would entail instant extermination (Freud on the reality principle and incestuality. It relates to it) and the cessation of the human race & with it further applications of this Sadean, as opposed to Kantian, Other-law.

[@g_paim]

hello derek! is this part of an online class/course?

[@gonzogil123]

No, that's totally wrong. There cannot be a masochistic relation where the victim controls & gives access to the psychopath to serve the beyond the pleasure principle of the victim. If such was the case the psychopath could not become the object of anxiety for the victim & there would not be victims.

[@endadeburca8470]

no one has mention the psychopath.