This summary provides the key points from the document in 3 sentences: The document discusses psychoanalytic theories of jouissance and how fully experiencing jouissance requires defying social norms and contracts. It argues that Nazis who committed atrocities during the Holocaust obtained the highest form of jouissance through their extreme defiance of social standards by torturing and killing. The document also analyzes a short story to show how characters experience jouissance through more minor acts of disobedience, suggesting jouissance is an inherent human desire to abandon social rules.

1. Larrea 1
Bryanna Larrea
Sigler
English 511
October 2, 2012
Defiance as a Means of Obtaining Jouissance
Historically, psychoanalysis is familiar with the idea of jouissance1 and its complexities.
More specifically, psychoanalytic theory ascertains the impossibility of the human being to
obtain such pleasure in authentic form without repressing desires or making substitutions; and
therefore never truly reaching the pinnacle of their jouissance. In simplified terms, we are, under
psychoanalytic barriers, only the subjects of the signifier and therefore powerless in terms of our
desires and outcomes (Lacan). In this essay I will be negating the idea that jouissance is not a
palpable possibility, offering two examples in which, when one is willing to extend past and defy
all social norms and regulations, regardless of consequence, therefore abandoning any social
contract, he or she will obtain jouissance at its most authentic form.
For years, scholars and academics have tried to establish some sort of reasoning as to
why the brutality in Nazi Germany occurred. ________ offered multiple accounts in
psychoanalytic theory. From Slavoj Žižek’s chapter “Love Thy Neighbor? No, thanks!” we get
an interesting exploration of the jouissance of the Nazi, forcing us to question the levels of
jouissance in which he _______—whether or not the justification in the Holocaust of authority
made the act of killing and torture for the Nazi more or less enjoyable, whether the fraction of
jouissance obtained was altered if shame was involved, etc. Another psychoanalytic argument by
Klaus Theweleit explores the jouissance of the specific group of post World War I Nazis, the
1 French term literally meaning:pleasure,sexual pleasure,orgasm(Webster).

2. Larrea 2
Freikorps2 in his book Male Fantasies. In the foreword, Barbara Ehrenreich summarizes
Theweleit’s claims about this specific group of men: “As a theory of fascism, Male Fantasies
sets forth the jarring—and ultimately horrifying—proposition that the fascist is not “doing
something else,” but doing what he wants to do.” For Theweleit, there are no deeper meanings.
Torture happens simply because humans obtain pleasure—obtain jouissance—from torture.
The Freikorps members’ pursuit of the “bloody mass” cannot, for Theweleit, be defined by the
Oedipal triangle or infancy issues. The gruesome truths carried out by the members of the
Freikorps are rooted in basic human desire.
Let us examine the Nazi further. To take this argument into even more terrifying territory
was not Theweleit’s intention; he specified the horror only within the realm of the Freikorps.
However, I will explore the jouissance obtained by all Nazis willing to defy social normality—
all Nazi soldiers willing to kill and torture. As is human nature, man is wolf to man or, homo
homini lupus. In Hobbes’ Leviathan, we are introduced to the idea of man’s state of nature,
which encompasses an understanding that all men are ultimately and inherently evil as to
preserve one’s life. Because of the formation of societies, however, and out of fear, humans are
bound to social norms, rules, regulations, by the unwritten social contract (Hobbes).
This social contract imposed upon the human offers the original point at which we give
up our jouissance. This moment is by no means within the realm of the symbolic (Lacan)—it is
not a conscious effort—we do this unknowingly and unwillingly. When one recognizes or is
reintroduced to his or her Hobbesian state of nature, a path will be taken to reclaim the
2 “…the volunteer armies that fought, and to a largeextent, triumphed over, the revolutionary German working
class in theyears immediately after World War I.The Freikorps were organized by officers returning from the war,
in which many of their leaders had commanded “shock troops,” trained to penetrate the lines of trench warfare
with sudden, daringassaults”(Theweleit).

3. Larrea 3
jouissance that was once possible before a social contract was formed. For instance, in the case
of the Nazi, we see an alarming force of brutality the moment the soldier realizes his power to
step outside of the boundaries of this contract. This does not have to do with the enabling force
of the regime, as Žižek claims (Love of One’s Neighbor), but instead with the realization of the
Nazi’s power to extend past and defy social norms in order to participate in the reclamation of
his her authentic jouissance. This sudden realization of ability—and therefore independence from
the confines of the contract—is represented in the real accounts of the Nazi soldiers.
Nazi tapes recently discovered offer examples of the pleasure obtained by the Nazi
Soldiers. Not knowing they were being recorded, here are a few accounts caught on tape,
according to the Daily Mail:
'I used to shoot at everything, certainly not just military targets. We liked to go
for women pushing prams, often with children at their sides. It was a kind of
sport really.....'
The use of “sport” implies pleasure and the casual tone offers a sense of shamelessness and
disregard for the social contract in place. An even more haunting quote occurs here, “from
another unnamed Oberleutant of the Luftwaffe”:
'It became a need in me to drop bombs. It tingles me, gives me a fine feeling. Just
as beautiful, in fact, as shooting at someone.'
“Tingles” implies a deep sense of sexual pleasure. The juxtaposition of this intense pleasure and
something as socially unacceptable and morbid as dropping bombs/shooting someone represents
this jouissance that is only obtainable if one is willing to defy, with gusto, all social norms and
contracts. The fact that the speaker experienced a “need” in himself to drop bombs refers to this
craving of jouissance, something that is widely accepted in psychoanalytic theory. A constant

4. Larrea 4
need to please one’s self to the extreme is human nature, and situation permitting can assist one
in achieving that full jouissance.
Historically speaking, we do not see a slow progression of brutality within the years of
the Third Reich, but rather, an immediate acceptance on the German soldiers’ part to partake in
the enjoyment of that which is murder, torture, etc. We see increasing numbers in the genocidal
efforts as the war progresses (Marrus), and in the case of the Freinkorps, an exponentially larger
number of volunteer soldiers by the outset of the war (Theweleit). This representation of data can
be attributed to the inevitable human desire to return back to the state of nature in order to obtain
his or her jouissance. Kristin Renwick Monroe attempts to answer psychological questions
regarding genocide. The first question she explores is, “What causes ordinary people to become
genocidalists” (Monroe 2)? Perhaps the solution is not that people become genocidalists, but
rather are inherently born such; and when given the opportunity to break out of the social norms,
do so at full force.
The idea of jouissance resulting from something as large and incomprehensible as people
being murdered is uncomfortable for those of us who have not experienced the outside of the
social contract at such an extreme level. Everyday contact with this outer realm exists and we are
constantly exposed to a lower level of that authentic jouissance. Although total defiance of social
norms is required in order to obtain full jouissance, simpler actions of defiance can achieve a
similar affect. We must understand the act itself (killing, for example) is not the perpertrator of
jouissance, but rather a vehicle for the human being to defy social standards. In Lacan’s seminar
VI, Love of One’s Neighbor, he states:
In other words, it is enough for jouissance to be a form of evil, for the whole thing
to change its character completely, and for the meaning of the moral law itself to

5. Larrea 5
be completely changed. Anyone can see that if the moral law is, in effect, capable
of playing some role here, it is precisely as a support for the jouissance involved;
it is so that the sin becomes what Saint Paul calls inordinately sinful (Lacan).
Although the psychoanalytic theory does not support the idea proposed of reaching a full
jouissance, this Lacanian argument does strengthen my point. The moral code and social contract
must exist for one to break the barriers and obtain jouissance. The actual act itself is not as
significant as the status quo barricade that the person is willing to overcome. This inherent
human desire to, not only demonstrate apathy toward, but rather defy all social contracts can be
seen in an example as simplistic as a child. After being told the rules (sometimes on multiple
occasions) the child gets a certain pleasure still from breaking them. There may even be
consequences, but the child disregards them the first few times. To the dismay of his parents, he
tests the theory again and again, touching things he shouldn’t and sneaking into the collapsible
den, etc. This doesn’t stem from innocent child-like curiosity, but rather from a promise of
pleasure at the very act of breaking his social contracts. His desire to be disobedient comes from
a deeper desire to obtaining real jouissance, even if this for the child is unknown. These
simplistic terms of societal norms can be applied to a larger scale as well. In terms of the Nazi,
the sadist pleasures obtained from torturing other human beings touches the limits jouissance, but
the actual act of the reclamation of the state of nature—defiance of the social contracts,
acceptance of evil—is the reason for the full pleasure to be obtained.
This constant search for jouissance outside of societal norms is understandably looked
down upon; it is sometimes incomprehensible, even. I will offer a more tangible understanding
of this inherent defiance which exists in a literary example in Tobias Wolff’s short story The
Liar. Wolff gives subtle examples of this pleasure theory. Throughout the story, when extending

6. Larrea 6
outside of what is deemed “normal,” the character in action experiences a deeper sense of
pleasure than if he or she were simply abiding by status quo.
The main character in The Liar offers us an account of the delicate relationship he has
with his Mother. The reader senses uncomfortable tension within the tone; the mother is
constantly attempting to get the boy to follow the rules, while he is simultaneously resisting—
defying—her wishes. After being reprimanded for keeping his eyes closed all day at school
(another act of social normality defiance) the boy comes home and cries to his mother. “Then she
put me on the couch and played the piano to me all afternoon. Finally I opened my eyes. We
hugged each other and I wept. Mother did not really believe my tears, but she was willing to
accept them because I had staged them for her benefit” (Wolff). His challenge of her authority at
the end of the passage represents his inclination to disobey. On the other hand, the mother’s act
of sitting him on the couch represents society’s also inherent habit of trying to “cure” the
pleasure-seeking citizen. Earlier in the story, a conversation between the boy’s doctor and
mother explains this more clearly:
Dr. Murphy listened to Mother’s account of the letter and what she had done with
it. He was curious about the wording I had used and became irritated when
mother told him she had burned it. “The point is,” she said, “he was supposed to
be cured, and he’s not.” “Magaret, I never said he was cured”
“You certainly did. Why else would I have sent over a thousand dollars to the
Thomasite Mission?”
“I said that he was responsible. That means that James knows what he’s doing,
not that he’s going to stop doing it.”

7. Larrea 7
This passage demonstrates two things coherent to this argument. First, we see the mother trying
tirelessly to “fix” her pleasure seeking son. She has exhausted limits (financially and
emotionally) to attempt this cure. She sought the help of an expert, who leads us into the
argument most important to this theory: that the boy is exceeding the societal boundaries
knowingly and willingly in order to obtain jouissance. “Responsible” implies that he is liable for
some sort of crime against society, some sort of defiance of the social contract. We also, after
hearing from the doctor, “he’s not going to stop doing it,” can visualize the constant craving of
jouissance that we explored earlier in the Nazi example.
The boy obtaining pleasure from telling “morbid” lies is less obvious in his response
when directly asked by Doctor Murphy,
“Why do you do it?”
“I don’t know,” I said, and that was the truth.
Dr. Murphy nodded, not because he had anticipated my answer but because he
accepted it. “Is it fun?”
“No, it’s not fun. I can’t explain it.”
This may seem, at first, to counteract the argument. However, when examining the true
definition of jouissance in psychoanalytic terms, we know that it is just as much pain and
suffering as enjoyment and pleasure, it is the phamarkon3 of the pleasure seeker. It is the
pinnacle of pleasure, which often translates into something more raw—something more
inexplicable. For the first time, the passage offers a hint of the liar’s shame. He uses short,
3 Refers to Plato’s interpretation of the word, which is defined as both poison and cure.

8. Larrea 8
fragmented sentences when being approached directly and the reader can empathize immediately
with his confusion. This may seem like a lack of jouissance. However, Žižek offers an insightful
explanation of this, attributing shame to a proof of “surplus enjoyment” (Zizek 72). In terms of
shame, and in regard to the Nazi soldiers, he argues, “The feeling of shame thus, again, in no
way proves that the executioners were ‘not wholly corrupted,’ that a ‘minimum of decency
persisted in them’: on the contrary, this shame was the unmistakable sign of the excess of
enjoyment they got from their acts” (Zizek 72). The boy’s shame only confirms that his acts of
disobedience provide him a higher level of jouissance than if he were to simply comply with
status quo.
Both the Nazi and the boy are experiencing the need, as humans, to step outside of the
confines of our social contract. They both, at different levels, must destroy in order to obtain
jouissance. Can we argue that they are inherently the same? That both a Nazi soldier and an
adolescent boy have the same intentions? On the most basic level—pleasure—yes. Both the Nazi
and the Liar have similar end goals; they are both striving to obtain jouissance. However similar
or different otherwise, we can conclude, after examining both sets of social defiance of the two
parties, that we are not dealing with only a fraction of jouissance when breaking the laws of the
social contract, as psychoanalytic theory would argue. But that, in defying and exceeding all
social norms and regulations set the preserve human nature, we are truly reaching the pinnacle of
jouissance, the surplus enjoyment. The factor of success (in obtaining jouissance) is dependent
upon whether one is willing to break his or her social contract (regardless of consequences) to
seek his or her most authentic and raw pleasure: jouissance.

9. Larrea 9
Browning, Christopher R. Collected Memories: Holocaust History and Postwar Testimony.
Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003. Print.
Monroe, Kristen R. "Cracking the Code of Genocide: the Moral Psychology of Rescuers,
Bystanders, and Nazis During the Holocaust." Political Psychology. 29.5 (2008): 699-736. Print.
Theweleit, Klaus. Male Fantasies. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1987. Print.
Carver, Raymond, and Tom Jenks. American Short Story Masterpieces. New York: Delacorte
Press, 1987. Print.
Hobbes, Thomas, and Richard Tuck. Leviathan. Cambridge [England: Cambridge University
Press, 1991. Print.
Lacan, Jacques. The Ethics of Psychoanalysis, 1959-1960. New York: Norton, 1992. Print.
Marrus, Michael R. The Holocaust in History. Hanover, NH: Published for Brandeis University Press by University Press of
New England, 1987. Print.