1.- Introduction The topic I will address was dealt with by Néstor Braunstein in his book Jouissance: A Lacanian Concept (originally published in Mexico by Siglo XXI, in 2006),[1]  specifically chapter 8 entitled, “Jouissance and Ethics in Psychoanalytic Experience,” section 8: “For Three Jouissance(s), Three Superegos.” My text responds to some of the author's concerns in the aforementioned book and invites you to read it. I had many exchanges and talks with Néstor regarding the topic that I have been elaborating for more than 30 years. Today I continue with you, the readers, taking the aforementioned text as my central reference. Perhaps it is a debt I owe to the author who was very generous to me, for he cited my books on the superego in a footnote in Jouissance: A Lacanian Concept (Braunstein, 2020, p. 266). Perhaps it was his way of repaying me for the many conversations we had about the relationship between the various jouissance(s) and the superego. Precisely a few days before his Addio,[2] we spoke on WhatsApp and again we had a very rich exchange on the subject that I address today which is based on a text that I dedicated to him about the Superego and Death Drive. In response to this text, which Néstor was kind enough to comment on, expand, and correct, we deepened the debate on the relationship of the various jouissance(s) and the superego. We agreed on most, but not all of the issues. Those who knew him—having read him or worked with him—know that Néstor always left us with an enigma to work on. That is what we are doing today with the reading of this contribution. I now come to the heart of the matter.   2.- The Hypotheses I would like to highlight two of Néstor's crucial hypotheses indicated in the book Jouissance: A Lacanian Concept, found in Chapter 8, Section 8 subtitled, “For Three Jouissance(s), Three Superegos”: One says, "I propose that Lacan’s rich formulation that the superego orders jouissance can be understood only by paying attention to the ambiguity of this statement, which acknowledges the polysemy and polyvalence of jouissance" (Braunstein, 2020, p. 266), which intersects with another hypothesis held in the same chapter: "Having earlier differentiated between the three jouissance(s), the question is what the commandment to experience jouissance means, given that the three jouissance(s) are so different from a clinical and topological consideration that make[s] them mutually exclusive” (Braunstein, 2020, p. 266). My contribution will therefore deal with the interweaving of these two hypotheses. I will try not to be solemn in this journey, something very alien to the Braunsteinian style, which combined logical and clinical rigor with humor and irony. Borne from this sensibility, he nominates me the “culpologist” in one of his books, a nomination that I accepted and celebrated. Now then, this culpologist proceeds with the author's hypotheses mentioned under the subtitle “For Three Jouissance(s), Three Superegos.” I hope I don't get lost in its labyrinths only to end up stuck in the resonance of lalangue and its sayings. First of all, I want to point out that in order to move forward with the proposed hypotheses, I had to rearrange the map of the aforementioned chapter—and of Chapter 2 entitled, “Jouissology, Logic of Jouissance”—removing terms that overshadowed it, since it is a chapter that has its complexities. What I am doing is very daring, because I will try to re-order something precisely on the subject of the superego... which is always a fearsome computer,[3] with which I run the risk of altering the author's claims, but it is a risk that I decided to take, both because the situation deserves it and also because Néstor always encouraged me avoid retreat from desire. I tried to unravel the complexities of the quoted text to find a cutting statement by Néstor about the superego, which was long awaited and, eureka! I discovered it at the end of the chapter. I want to highlight it because it will serve as a beacon of reference for the exploration I propose. There at the end of and after several turns, Braunstein (2020) formulates the colophon that closes the chapter: "The superego is jouissance without desire, outside or instead of desire" (p. 269). I understand that this is his most forceful position, and that it allows us to advance on the relation between the various jouissance(s) and the superego. With this formulation in hand, I now take an inverse path and return to the opening of chapter 8. Enigmatically, the author prefigured it by saying:

It is worthwhile recalling Freud’s astute clinical observations here: obedience to the superego, sacrificing phallic jouissance in order to satisfy its demands, does not result in peace of mind. On the contrary, the subject is besieged by scruples of guilt and more “virtuous” he is. The renunciation of the drives increase discontent in people and culture." (Braunstein, 2020, pp. 265–266)

At what does Néstor want to get at with this affirmation? I understand that in this way, he comes close to highlighting the Freudian paradox about the superego: the more its demands are satisfied, the crueler it becomes, insatiably asking for more sacrifices and potentiating guilt. It’s that in the theory and the clinic, it’s only possible to approach the superego through its paradoxes. This is what Freud and Lacan do, like our fellow traveler Néstor Braunstein, for it is only by addressing these paradoxes that it is possible to clarify the proposed question: the relationship of the various jouissance(s) with the superego. Thus, I will have clarified two questions so far: Braunstein's (2020) formulation of the superego: "is jouissance without desire, outside or instead of desire" (p. 269) and the proposal he makes to address it: to appeal to its paradoxes.   3.- The Varied Jouissance(s) I am now going to look at the other variable at play in the question that I seek to clarify, which is that of the various jouissance(s) addressed by Néstor. He distinguishes three forms of jouissance, and from these varied jouissance(s) he tries to determine what is meant by the superegoic injunction to "enjoy," since he considers that "the three jouissance(s) are so different from a clinical and topological consideration that makes them mutually exclusive" (Braunstein, 2020, p. 266), though he does not cease to insist that these jouissance(s) are organized according to a Moebian logic: in opposition and indistinguishably. Once this contrast of the various jouissance(s) has been raised, Braunstein (2020) asks himself: "Is it a question of experiencing jouissance before, instead of, or after castration?” (p. 266); he responds: "Are we inclined toward jouissance of being, phallic jouissance or jouissance of the Other" (p. 266). I now allow myself to propose the relationship of these jouissance(s) to castration and their coordination with the three forms of jouissance according to Nestor's proposal:

1) Jouissance before castration: this would correspond to the jouissance of being

2) Jouissance instead of castration: this would correspond to phallic jouissance

3) Jouissance after castration: this would correspond to the jouissance of the Other

Néstor says: "before speech there is the jouissance of being and after, Other jouissance of the jouissance of the Other (sex). Between the one and the other, semiotic jouissance, the one linked to the phallus and speech that separates the body" (Braunstein, 2020, p. 129). According to my reading, for Braunstein, the complexity of the Lacanian formulation of the superegoic imperative of jouissance can only be addressed if one takes into account the paradoxical statements of Freud and Lacan about the superego in correspondence with the various jouissance(s): jouissance of being, phallic jouissance, and jouissance of the Other (Other sex). I understand that, if this proposal is accepted, as proposed by the author, a superego triplicity will have to be recognized between:

1) “A primitive superego, ferocious and obscene, demanding unrestrained jouissance” (Braunstein, 2020, p. 267), alien and prior to language: which would correspond to the jouissance of being.

2) “A Freudian superego that follows from the first: pacifying (and not to be trusted, passi fiant); it promises a reward for obedience to the Ideal ego (derived from identifications with the signifiers of the Other” (Braunstein, 2020, p. 267). This superego would correspond to phallic jouissance and the enhancement of meaning.

3) And a Lacanian superego, as he calls it, which impels us to enjoy, but with an essential difference from the other two:

In this superego, jouissance must pass through discourse and the semblant, which aspires to recover the lost jouissance (recherche) beyond prescriptions and barriers, confronting the subject with a limit (nec plus ultra), the impossible against which the subject stumbles as the effect of the inexistence of the sexual relation (S XVIII and CS). (Braunstein, 2020, p. 267)

This third Lacanian superego would correspond to the jouissance of the Other (sex).

The author recognizes the differences between his proposals and those formulated by Lacan at the third conference in Rome in 1974 and considers that he does not force them, though he transgresses them. I understand that he is referring to the phallic jouissance located by Néstor in the field of meaning, which excludes the real.   4.- The Trefoil of the Superego According to My Proposal Finally, and after developing Braunstein's version of the various jouissance(s) and their possible correspondence with the paradoxical formulations of the superego, I now give my version of the triplicity of the superego that I pointed out with the trefoil knot of the superego in my book Imperativos del superyó [Imperatives of the superego]. I can then answer about the relation of the various jouissance(s) to the superego, according to Braunstein's version, to which I now add my version, which is the following: – The primitive, obscene and ferocious superego, which demands an unbridled jouissance: it corresponds to the jouissance of being according to Braunstein and to my version of the superego as an echo of the drive, which I locate in the trefoil knot of the superego that knots the Real and Imaginary. I highlight what is clinically observable: need for punishment, nightmares, negative therapeutic reaction, among others.  – Regarding the Freudian superego, which would correspond to phallic jouissance according to Braunstein, I trace my version of the superego as an Echo of the prohibition and locate it in the trefoil knot of the superego that links the Symbolic and the Imaginary. I highlight what is clinically observable: feelings of guilt, self-reproach, unfounded complaints, among others. –  And with respect to the Lacanian superego, which commands us to jouissance with a jouissance that will have to pass through the discourse, that is, through the semblant that would correspond to the Jouissance of the Other (sex) according to Braunstein, I trace the version of the superego as the Echo of Oedipus and correlate the castration that I locate in the trefoil knot of the superego that links the Symbolic and the Real. I highlight what is clinically observable: unconscious guilt, punitive dreams, sacrificial symptoms, among others. Finally, I place the voice object as object a, trapped among the three, in the hole itself of the knot. Figure 1: Trefoil of the Superego   To substantiate my assertions I can say: The paradoxical formulations of the superego do not hinder its approach, on the contrary, they enrich it. A harmonious version of the superego would impede us from analyzing its inevitable opacity and its diverse correspondences to the various jouissance(s). Hence, in order to dialectize the paradoxes of the superego in Lacan, I appeal to the simplicity of the trefoil knot, that knot that according to Lacan—in Seminar XXIII—comes from the Borromean knot, a topological resource that knots: – Real and Imaginary: from which results the Echo of the drive as Imperative of jouissance. – Symbolic and Imaginary: from which results the Echo of the prohibition as Mandate. – Symbolic and Real: from which results as the Echo of Oedipus, and correlate of castration Three superegos and three echoes: echo of the drive (terrible), echo of prohibition (gentle), echo of Oedipus and castration (moderate). The object a as a voice is caught between the three, in the hole of the knot. Thus, I make the three jouissance(s) proposed by Néstor: jouissance of being, phallic jouissance, and jouissance of the Other (sex) correspond to the three echoes of the superego of my labor: of the drive, of the prohibition, and of Oedipus-castration. Three varied echoes that haunt subjectivity and social ties according to what is most extimate.   5.- To Conclude Two considerations I would like to highlight: 1st:      The paradoxical configuration of the superego requires taking into account both the echo of the Id as much as the echo of Oedipus. Of the first, Lacan (2018) says in Seminar XXIII "The drives are the echo in the body, in fact that there is a saying" (Lacan, p. 9); of the second as echo of Oedipus–castration, it presupposes the resonance of unconscious enunciation, as semblant. This is what I conveyed to my dear friend Néstor Braunstein on the occasions when we talked and discussed the subject that I have just developed and that constitutes the last chapter of my book Imperatives of the Superego, whose 4th edition includes an incomparable and ironic epistolary prologue by Néstor that alludes to the questions specified here. Sadly, it was published after his Addio. I share with you that the one who caused it is the same person commemorated at the International Meeting held in Mexico City, where this contribution was read. Néstor Braunstein's work, his writing and sayings still circulate as “open work” according to Umberto Eco's formulation, and it is necessary that we sustain that circulation. 2nd:     To conclude, I would like to emphasize that the varieties of jouissance(s) and paradoxes of the superego can be observed in the clinic and in contemporary life. The current times of predatory neo-capitalism devastate the social bond and therefore give preeminence not to the subject of desire, of the word, but to the de-subjectivized individual, now converted into a robotic consumer, now an object of consumption itself. Primacy of the wager on mortiferous jouissance and sacrificial torture. The voice of the master—as Lacan (1988) states in Seminar XI—"partly planetarized, even stratosphericized, by our machinery" (p. 247), impels jouissance. Its results are plain to see: the atrocious subjugation of masses, peoples, groups and individuals, tempted by the fascination of sacrificial torture and the imperative of jouissance: war, terrorism, collective impoverishment and climate catastrophe on the horizon keep the inhabitants of the planet suspended, as passive or active accomplices to its advances. From Freud's Mass Psychology I want to emphasize that today, the consolidation of the masses lacks a vertical identification with the symbolic authority of the leader, and for that reason they open themselves to the danger of being subjugated by the figure of an obscene and ferocious Master who embodies the specter of the uncastrated Real Father: Once again, submission to the imperative of the superego that only responds to the mandate to “enjoy!” with the obscene: “I hear you! At your command!” Do you want proof of this?: millions of Argentines voting for the one who proposed to make their lives worse, to make their lives a living hell. And he did it. No, he didn't fool anyone, he said he would commit the atrocities and he’s doing it. And they voted for it, they submitted. I speak of Argentina and I write from Argentina, the country where Néstor Braunstein was born and from which he had to go into exile when, once again in our sad history, genocidal military men assumed power. Mexico welcomed him, as it did with so many exiles from different countries and thousands of Argentines. My recognition to Mexico and the Mexicans for having sheltered Néstor Braunstein with affection and respect and for having held in Mexico 2024 the international meeting, "Néstor A. Braunstein: Writings of Psychoanalysis."[4] Translation from the Spanish by Thomas Marchevsky

Bibliography

Braunstein, N. (2020). Jouissance: A Lacanian Concept (S. Rosman, Trans.). State University of New York Press. (Original work published 2006).   Lacan, J. (1988). The Four Fundamentals of Psychoanalysis: Book XI. (J.A. Miller, Ed., A Sheridan, Trans.) W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1973)   Lacan, J. (2018). The Sinthome: Book XXIII (J. A. Miller, Ed.,  A.R. Price Trans.). Polity Press.     (Original work published 2005)

Notes

[1] Eds. Note: For a full explanation of the book’s publication history, see Braunstein’s article in the EJP symposium on the occasion of the book’s English translation, 2021: https://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/articles/jouissance-a-lacanian-concept-symposium/   [2] Addio refers to Néstor Braunstein’s farewell note sent on September 7th, 2022. For the complete text, see: https://diecisiete.org/actualidad/addio   [3] Eds. note: Ambertin plays on the Spanish term “ordenador” for computer, closely related to “ordenar” which means to put in order.   [4] The colloquium in honor of the life and work of Néstor Braunstein took place on January 25th–27th, 2024.

Bio

Marta Gerez Ambertin, Psychoanalyst – Executive Director S. Freud Psychoanalytic Foundation (Argentina) – Master in Psychoanalytic Theory – PhD in Psychology – Postdoctoral in Clinical Psychology – Doctor Honoris Causa Univ. Nac. Mar del Plata – Member of the Academic and Teaching Committee: Doctorate in Psychology (National University of Tucumán) – Master in Psychoanalysis (Univ. del Aconcagua) – Specialization in Psychoanalysis – (FLACSO – Bs. As).

Translator Bio

Thomas Marchevsky, Ph.D. is a psychoanalyst in private practice, licensed clinical psychologist, and supervising analyst in California. He is an editor-in-chief of the European Journal of Psychoanalysis (EJP), Clinical Director of The Clinic Without Walls, and Adjunct Faculty Member of the California Institute of Integral Studies (CIIS). His current research areas are psychoanalysis, subjectivity, topology, jazz, and Tibetan Buddhism. [Website: www.drthomasmarchevsky.com] [Phone: 415-413-0631] [Email: drmarchevsky@gmail.com]

Publication Date

September 20, 2024