Increasingly you hear analysts express dismay that traditional forms of the analytic act (interpretation) no longer produce any subjective effects. If I’m right, we here have an explanation as to why this is taking place. First, unlike the subject in the universe of mastery, the relation of the subject is no longer a relation to an Other to which the symptom is addressed in the form of a veiled demand. Rather, the subject’s symptom is now organized around solipsistic jouissance that resembles masturbation in a number of respects. Second, this jouissance doesn’t have a signifying structure in the universe of capitalism, but actively functions– as in the case of addiction –to foreclose the Other. If this is the case, then one question of treatment would be that of how to establish a relation to the Other where a demand (rather than the forgetfulness of jouissance) might begin to be articulated.
Interesting development of the idea of the post-Oedipal subject here. I like it when Bryant gets back to his Lacanian roots.