Some Moral Failings Called
Depressions
by Pierre
Skriabine
Translated
by Jack W. Stone
The
psychoanalytic clinic refutes any idea of an entity that could be named
"depression."
This
refutation has today more than ever an ethical urgency, in view of the
degradation of the subject to the consumer of so-called "happiness
piIIs"1 faced with the obscenity of a psychologizing
discourse that covers certain particular sufferings with the
non-differentiating cloak of depression, and with the contemporary extension of
the term depression which is no more than one of the symptoms of the discontent
in civilization resulting from its invasion by the discourse of science and
from the precariousness, stressed by Lacan, of our mode of jouissance. It is ethically
urgent, finally, because it concerns the function of psychoanalysis in regard
to certain effects of regression undergone by medicine and psychiatry,
resulting from their progress itself toward science: for if pharmacology works
- and it is at times indispensible - it only works on somatic processes, and
its effectiveness itself occults what is at issue. The psychoanalytic clinique
works on the slope of the cause, which is the province of the subject, and thus
accounts for every depression.
Two
References
The
two major references that orient us in this clinic of depressions, for Freud
and for Lacan, bring into play the relationship of the subject with jouissance.
Freud
takes up the question in "Mourning and Melancholia."2 Depressive affects accompany the work
of mourning, which has for its function the symbolization of the loss of the
object and the working of a new distribution of the libido. The end of the work
of mourning relieves the subject of the weight of the object, with an effect of
elation. But as the subject labors to realize this loss, he experiences some depressive
effects. Freud presents this struggle between the ego and the object thusly:
either the ego triumphs, through mourning, or the shadow of the object falls
over the ego, and there is melancholia. The subject then finds himself
identified as trash, as refuse, with an object of a jouissance from which he cannot separate himself,
and not as an object cause of desire.
Lacan,
in Television, approaches
the question of affect with the series: anxiety, sadness, and gay sçavoir. Sadness,
qualified, he says, as depression, "is simply a moral failing, a moral
cowardice, which is, ultimately, only situated by thought, that is, by the duty
to speak well (de bien dire) or to find oneself again in the
unconscious, in structure." And he adds: "if this cowardice, as rejection
of the unconscious, ends in psychosis, there is the return in the real of what
is rejected, of language; there is the manic excitation through which this
return becomes fatal.3 In other words, at issue is an escape,
a symbolic failing, a renunciation by the subject who gives up on his desire
confronted with jouissance,
who lets go of the symbolic to give in to jouissance,
which affects him in a depressive mode.
Diversity
and Structures
These
points of reference orient us in the diversity of depressive manifestations
reflected by the diffraction of the signifier "depression"4 in the Freudian and Lacanian clinic:
mourning, anxiety, inhibition, passage to the act, rejection of the
unconscious, melancholia, dereliction, sadness, moral cowardice, self disgust,
pain of existence.
The
psychoanalytic clinic thus has to account for each of these very different
forms of depression by elaborating how each subject is inscribed, with his
suffering, in an articulable structure. Let us offer some insights.
Before
castration, depression can constitute a form of defence, an attempt at
occultation. This, for example, is the choice of the neurotic who, rather than
assume his castration, prefers the guilt, the failing, the self-deprecation, as
a price for hisdenegration [denial]
of the reality of this castration. But when castration does not function for a
subject's good, there is, among other possibilities, melancholic depression.
For
the hysteric subject, these are the depressive affects which accompany the
effect of phallic deflation, when she finds herself, in analysis or outside of
analysis, destituted of her position of imaginary identification with the
phallus. In a wholly other perspective, she can also wholly utilize depression
- as a state over which the signifier is found without hold and without effect
- to disempower (mettre en défaut) the master, the master-signifier, the
hiding place for the poverty, the impotence of the phallic signifier which the
hysteric busies herself at demonstrating.
In a
differential clinic, depression can also be referred to the Other, in
identification as in alienation. The fall of ideal identifications make appear
to a subject his tie with the object a they veiled; and he perceives that what
interests the Other is not the ideal but the object itself. The depressive
affects this discovery produces are not in any way to be confused with
depression as a trait of identification, when a subject is identified with a
beloved object found to be another depressed subject from whom he borrows this
trait.
Depressive
effects can in a very general way be related to alienation: the subject suffers
precisely from his status as mere puppet at the mercy of an omnipresent Other.
Depression as a defence against being crushed under the weight of this Other
translates as a kind of putting oneself out of the service of the Other: the
Other no longer responds, the subject no longer associates, no knowledge is
worth anything to him, interpretation no longer works.
Jouissance and Depression
The
relationship with the object accounts, from another angle for the nature of
depressive manifestations. We will develop this approach in what follows, beginning
with this question: how are jouissance and depression connected, as appears
especially manifest in the contemporary world?
If
depression is, as it seems, a modern phenomenon, at least in the extension
taken by its signifier from the time of the birth of psychoanalysis, depressive
affects have nonetheless always existed, and not only in societies touched by
the discourse of science.
Would
the speaking-being then be structurally disposed to depression, simply because
he lacks - in the signifier and in being - or is this solely the province of
the modern subject? Is it not rather in the way of dealing with this lack that
the question of depression is brought into play? Does not the subject of lack
have in fact two ways of situating his relation to jouissance: acting with this
lack, advancing its creative, structuring function, in other words, assuming
castration and making himself a desiring subject - the way of desire; or, on
the other hand, filling up this lack, finding for himself a stop-gap (bouchon)
at the cost of renouncing his desire, of renouncing the pulsional in exchange
for an accumulation of jouissance - the path of depression?
If
Lacan notes that the subject is happy in all the modalities of his encounter
with the object, whether under the sign of anxiety, of sadness, or of gay sçavoir, it is because this
object presents the pIus-de-jouir by which the subject is supported, the
lost object it seeks in repetition. Is not the sensitivity of subjects, in our
society, to the depressive affect, one of the modalities of the encounter with
the object, and thus with the jouissant mode,
owed to the estrangement and precariousness which characterize, according to
Lacan in Television, their
mode of jouissance, which
henceforth is only situated by the plus-de-jouir"?5
Lacan
has taught us that for the speaking-being, simply because it speaks, jouissance finds itself outfitted by the
signifier: the corollary of this is the forced renunciation of a jouissance from then on mythic, the sexual jouissance that escapes the defiles of the
signifier - a Lacanian formulation of castration. But a residual jouissance continues to pass through language:
the puisional jouissance6 that misses the object but bears its
mark. This is what Lacan designates the plus-de-jouir,
ajouissance in addition (en
plus), which fills in the loss and compensates for it.
This plus-de-jouir animates the subject; it is necessary
for the turning of the mechanism, Lacan notes in Radiophonie, 7 but there must not be too much of it:
if there is, the subject finds himself delivered up to the gourmandise8 of a ferocious superego that requires
him to renounce this pulsional satisfaction and thus give up on his desire.
This is precisely the source of tile discontent in civilization analyzed by
Freud: a "giving up on desire" that does not go without depressive
effects. Moreover, the renunciation of the jouissance of the drive required by this
superego, far from alleviating this requirement, reinforces it: despite the
renunciation, Freud says, desire persists and cannot be hidden from the
superego--hence the developing sense of failure.9
Conjoined
with this are the effects of a science, which, in its collusion with capitalist
liberalism, saps the foundations of the master discourse. This indication by
Lacan, which figures particularly in his Note
italienne,10 has been developed by Jacques-Alain
Miller.11 The subversion introduced by the
subject coming into the position of the master has as a consequence the
collapse of the regulation of jouissance by the master discourse. The master
conceals the plus-de jouir from the subject, thereby creating a
barrier to jouissance.
This function of guard rail (garde-fou), when disempowered (mise en
défaut) by the alliance of science and liberalism, allows the subject to
recover the pIus-de-jouir,
a pIus-de-jouir itself attained to by this science,
which makes the fantasy enter into the real, and in the same movement
deregulates it.
Hence
the precariousness of our mode of jouissance from here on only situated by a
plus-de-jouir, by an unregulated increase. What Lacan indicates, particularly
in Television, is that
contemporary jouissance,
indexed by the bar over the Other, no longer situates itself by castration:
with the fall of ideals, it is no longer by the master signifier, which
regulates jouissance, thatjouissance can henceforth be situated; it is no
longer situated except by a plus-de-jouir reduced to the object of consumption.
Nothing more remains for the subject, Miller has noted recently, but his
identification as consumer, in the mode: "You have the right to the plus-de-jouir, even if it no
longer does you any good."
Certainly,
the subject can refuse this plus-de-jouir by making the ethical choice to
abstain from despair, as Collette Soler has noted in evoking "those
depressed... the anorexics of the year two thousand - those nauseated with the ready made plus-de jouirof
their time ." Genevieve Morel reminds us of the term coined by Lacan in L'Envers de la psychanalyse - the word lathouse, to name those objects
produced by modern science and the universal power of its formulas: those
universal ready made objects - the same for everyone -
lodge themselves at the place of the object a for the subject; they constitute
a contemporary category, that of the object "ready-to-enjoy" (pret-a-jouir),
but have nothing to do with the particularity of each subject's fantasy and of
the desire this fantasy supports. These universal objects, bad Ersatz, can only make the void
of the drive echo, and create sadness and ennui (all the same, a jouissance). Thus they go
hand-in-hand with depression.
Therefore,
if the subject chooses to recover this modern plus-de-jouir thus separated from the drive, if he
makes this choice at the cost of desire, depressive affects, again, will be the
index.
Extracting
Oneself from the Universal Stereotype
Here,
the superego unveils itself. at the same time requiring the renunciation of jouissance insofar as it is pulsionaljouissance,
and pushing us into jouissunce as soon as it can be separated from the drive,
no more than a jouissance of a covering over of castration; the
commandment of a jouissance of the superego, "Jouis the renunciation of jouissance!" is its
paradigm: the renunciation of pulsional jouissance is in fact, in itself, a universal
ready-to-enjoy; religion did not wait for science to discover this.
"I
have the impression of being in a very deep abyss, I can no longer do anything,
places become sad, it pulls me back": this is how a young woman describes
the moments of depression and inhibition she never fails to be plunged into by
her encounters with a mother who rules her life. A series of dreams show how
phases when she is "the life of the party," when she sees herself in
a kind of enthusiastic erection, are succeeded by periods of disappointment and
depression where, in the depreciated and naive form of inverted masculine
genitalia, the feminine organ is figured. She immediately defends herself
against tile anxiety that lays hold of her at the opening of the abyss by
plugging it up with objects of consumption available in profusion, incapable of
restraining herself: bags of cookies, channel-zapped T.V. images, rosewater
romances from the Harlequin series, stereotyped, industrialized objects, with
which she stuffs herself, and which make her guilty and sad as she gives in to
an insipid and lonelyjouissance that
freezes her in inhibition.
Contemporary
society thus becomes the nest of depression, willingly furnishing the subject
with an antiseptic plus-de-jouir,
a pure stop-gap for the void of the drive. Renouncing this ready-to-enjoy is
the price for any possible access to the risk of desire, and it is what permits
the work of analysis.
Notes
1. Sigmund Freud, "Mourning and
Melancholia" (1915), SE. XIV- 243-258."
2. Jacques Lacan, Television (1973) (Paris: Editions du Seuji, 1973) p. 39.
Translator's note: for the sake of~greater precision, I have diverged slightly
from the generally excellent translation by Denis Hollier, Rosalind Krauss, and
Annette Michelson in "Television: A Challenge to the Psychoanalytic
Establishment", ed. Joan Copjec (New York: W.W.Norton & Company,
1990), p. 22.
3. Television, p. 54.
4. Translator's note: pulsional, or pulsionelle, is the adjectival
form of pulsion, the
standard French translation of Trieb, or drive. In this text, Scriabine refers
both to this jouissance pulsionelle and a jouissance de la pulsion. I
have translated the latter expression, where it occurs, as "jouissance of the drive."
5. Jacques Lacan, Radiophonie, Silicet 2/3 (Paris: Edilions du Seuil, 1970), p.
86.
6. Television, p. 48.
7. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents.
8. Jacques Lacan, Note aux Italiens (1974), Ornicar?, 25 (Paris: Navarin editeur, 1982), p.8.
9. Jacques-Alain Miller, Le banquet des analystes (1989-90), lesson of 4/4/90,
unpublished course transcript.
10. Eric Laurent and Jacques-Alain Miller, L'Autre qui n'existe pas et ses
comites de ethique (1996-97),
lesson of December 4, 1996, unpublished except for the meeting of November 20,
1996, in La Cause freudienne,
35 (Paris: Navarin/Seuil,
1997), pp. 3-20.
11. In English in the original.
No comments:
Post a Comment