Examen corrigé Université de Montréal Thèse numérique Papyrus ...

31966 In his analysis of the Lacanian objet a, Žižek argues that “objet a is the reef, the obstacle whichinterrupts the closed circuit of the ‘pleasure principle’ and derails its balanced movement … the objeta prevents the circle of pleasure from closing, it introduces an irreducible displeasure, but the psychicapparatus finds a sort of perverse pleasure in this displeasure itself, in the never ending, repeatedcirculation around the unattainable, always missed object” (Enjoy your Symptom 48; emphasisoriginal). In other words, objet a is associated with the Real as lack. As explained by Lacan, “Theobjet a is something from which the subject, in order to constitute itself; has separated itself off asorgan. This serves as a symbol of the lack, that is to say, of the phallus, not as such, but in so far as itis lacking. It must, therefore, be an object that is, firstly, separable and, secondly, that has somerelation to the lack (The Four Fundamental Concepts 103).67 Historicizing here means contextualizing not normalizing. The challenge of historicizing themissed encounter is reminiscent of the problems of historicizing the trauma of the Holocaust. TheHolocaust was considered as an event that is outside history, an event that goes beyond the limits ofrepresentation. For more on the debate on the uniqueness of the Holocaust, see LaCapra’sRepresenting the Holocaust: History, Theory, Trauma (1994).68 Influenced by Paul de Man’s deconstructive thinking, Yale scholars such as Shoshana Felman,Dori laub, and Cathy Caruth laid the ground for a new understanding of trauma theory. Their theoryis predicated upon the impossibility to represent trauma because of the inadequacy and limitation oflanguage to represent reality. This approach engages with the study of the ineffable, the void indiscourse, the unassimilable, and the Real.