In this episode, William Gomes explores jouissance, one of the most challenging and essential concepts in Lacanian psychoanalysis. Neither simple pleasure nor straightforward pain, jouissance names a paradoxical form of enjoyment that exceeds the pleasure principle, transgresses symbolic limits, and reveals the unconscious structures that drive human behaviour. By examining how we pursue satisfaction that simultaneously overwhelms and destroys us, this episode illuminates why understanding jouissance is crucial to grasping desire, addiction, repetition, and the limits of rational self-control.
Understanding Jouissance: Beyond Pleasure and Pain
Jouissance as Excessive Enjoyment
Jouissance occupies a unique and paradoxical place in Lacanian theory. The French term itself resists straightforward translation into English. Often rendered as “enjoyment,” this translation fails to capture the darker, more excessive dimensions of the concept. Jouissance is not the same as pleasure. Pleasure, in the Freudian framework, operates according to the pleasure principle: the psyche seeks pleasure and avoids pain, maintaining a regulated economy of satisfaction.
Jouissance, in contrast, exceeds this economy. It is a form of enjoyment that goes beyond pleasure, that violates the limits established by the pleasure principle, that involves suffering and destruction even as it is pursued. The subject experiences jouissance as something overwhelming, excessive, something that cannot be integrated into the normal functioning of psychic life. Yet despite this, or perhaps because of this, jouissance exerts a powerful attraction. The subject returns to it compulsively, even when doing so causes harm.
Lacan articulated this paradox with precision: jouissance is pleasure in pain, or pain in pleasure. It is the satisfaction that comes from transgression, from exceeding limits, from violating the symbolic order. It is what drives the subject beyond the boundaries of regulated desire into territory that is dangerous, destructive, and yet intensely compelling.
The Distinction Between Pleasure and Jouissance
To understand jouissance, one must first understand its relationship to pleasure. In psychoanalytic theory, pleasure operates according to homeostatic principles. The psyche seeks to maintain equilibrium, to satisfy needs and desires in ways that preserve stability. Pleasure is the feeling that accompanies this satisfaction. It signals that the organism is functioning well, that needs are being met, that the world is as it should be.
Yet this regulated economy of pleasure has limits. Beyond a certain threshold, pleasure becomes pain. Too much stimulation overwhelms the system; the organism seeks to withdraw, to restore equilibrium. The pleasure principle, then, is fundamentally conservative. It maintains boundaries, establishes limits, prevents excess.
Jouissance, however, refuses these limits. It is precisely what happens when the subject transgresses the boundaries established by the pleasure principle. The subject pursues satisfaction beyond the point where pleasure becomes pain. This might seem irrational, pathological, something that should be avoided. Yet Lacan’s insight is that jouissance is fundamental to human subjectivity. It is not an aberration or a pathology; it is constitutive of how desire itself operates.
The subject is drawn to jouissance precisely because it exceeds the regulated economy of pleasure. Jouissance promises something more, something beyond the mundane satisfactions available within the symbolic order. Yet this promise is also a trap. Jouissance cannot be fully attained; the attempt to reach it leads to suffering, destruction, and the dissolution of the subject itself.
Jouissance and the Death Drive
Freud introduced the concept of the death drive in his later work, proposing that alongside the life drives, there exists in the psyche a fundamental tendency toward destruction, toward dissolution, toward a return to an inorganic state. This concept was controversial and remains contested within psychoanalysis. Yet Lacan saw in the death drive something essential to understanding jouissance.
For Lacan, jouissance is intimately connected to the death drive. The subject’s pursuit of jouissance is a pursuit of something that exceeds life, that transgresses the boundaries that maintain the subject’s existence within the symbolic order. Jouissance drives the subject toward dissolution, toward the breakdown of identity and meaning, toward a state that can only be described as a kind of psychic death.
Yet this does not mean that jouissance is simply destructive or that the subject consciously desires death. Rather, jouissance represents the limit point of desire, the point where desire encounters something that cannot be symbolised or integrated. The death drive, in this framework, is not a desire for actual biological death. It is the compulsion to repeat, to return to something traumatic, to pursue satisfaction beyond the point where it becomes destructive.
This helps explain certain forms of behaviour that seem paradoxical from the perspective of rational self-interest. Why does the subject return to relationships that cause suffering? Why does the addict continue to use substances that are destroying their life? Why does the trauma survivor repeatedly expose themselves to situations that recall the original trauma? The answer lies in jouissance: the subject is pursuing a form of enjoyment that exceeds pleasure, that involves suffering, but that exerts an overwhelming compulsion.
The Symbolic Order and Its Limits
Jouissance also reveals something fundamental about the symbolic order and its limitations. The symbolic order, as discussed in previous episodes, is the realm of language, law, and meaning. It is what structures human subjectivity, what allows the subject to enter into culture and relationship. The symbolic order establishes limits, prohibitions, boundaries. It tells the subject what can and cannot be done, what can and cannot be desired.
Yet the symbolic order is not complete. There are always points where it breaks down, where meaning fails, where language cannot capture experience. Jouissance emerges precisely at these points of failure. It is what remains outside the symbolic order, what cannot be fully integrated or represented.
In this sense, jouissance is related to what Lacan calls the Real. The Real is that which resists symbolisation, which cannot be captured by language or meaning. Jouissance is the subject’s encounter with the Real, the moment when the symbolic order proves inadequate and something excessive, overwhelming, and traumatic erupts into experience.
This helps explain why jouissance is both attractive and terrifying. It promises access to something beyond the symbolic order, something more real, more intense, more authentic. Yet this promise is also a threat. To move outside the symbolic order is to risk the dissolution of meaning, identity, and subjectivity itself.
Jouissance and Desire
How Jouissance Structures Desire
Desire, in Lacanian theory, is fundamentally structured by lack. The subject desires because something is missing, because satisfaction is incomplete, because the symbolic order cannot provide full meaning or complete identity. Desire is the endless pursuit of an object that would fill this lack, that would bring complete satisfaction.
Yet this object does not exist. What the subject encounters instead is jouissance: a form of enjoyment that exceeds desire, that goes beyond what the subject consciously wants, that involves suffering even as it is pursued. Jouissance, then, is not the fulfilment of desire. Rather, it is what desire encounters when it transgresses the boundaries established by the symbolic order.
This creates a paradoxical relationship between desire and jouissance. Desire seeks satisfaction; jouissance is what happens when satisfaction exceeds its proper limits. Desire operates within the symbolic order; jouissance marks the point where the symbolic order breaks down. Yet desire is always driven, unconsciously, toward jouissance. The subject desires what they cannot have, what would destroy them if they attained it.
This is why Lacan famously stated that desire is the desire of the Other. The subject does not know what they truly desire. Conscious desire is always mediated by the symbolic order, by language and culture, by what the subject has been taught to want. Yet beneath conscious desire lies something more fundamental: the drive toward jouissance, toward an impossible satisfaction that would dissolve the subject itself.
Jouissance and the Objet Petit a
The relationship between jouissance and the objet petit a is complex and essential. As discussed in Episode 9, the objet petit a is the object-cause of desire, the object that sets desire in motion whilst remaining forever unattainable. It is not an actual object in the world but rather a structural position, a placeholder for what is missing.
Jouissance is what the subject imagines they would experience if they could attain the objet petit a. It is the promised satisfaction that keeps desire moving, that prevents desire from ever being fully satisfied. Yet precisely because jouissance is impossible, because it would dissolve the subject who attained it, the objet petit a must remain out of reach.
This explains the structure of fantasy, which was discussed in Episode 10. Fantasy stages a scenario in which the subject imagines attaining the objet petit a, experiencing jouissance, achieving complete satisfaction. Yet fantasy also protects the subject from actually encountering jouissance. It maintains the objet petit a at a safe distance, allowing the subject to desire without confronting the destructive reality of jouissance itself.
When fantasy breaks down, when the subject actually encounters something approaching jouissance, the result is traumatic. The symbolic order cannot contain this experience; meaning collapses; the subject is overwhelmed. This is why certain experiences, particularly traumatic ones, resist integration into narrative or meaning. They involve an encounter with jouissance that exceeds what the symbolic order can accommodate.
The Impossible Nature of Complete Satisfaction
One of the most important insights of Lacanian theory is that complete satisfaction is structurally impossible. The subject is constituted through lack; to fill this lack would mean the dissolution of subjectivity itself. Yet the subject continues to pursue satisfaction, continues to desire, continues to seek what would complete them.
Jouissance represents what this complete satisfaction would be: not pleasure, not happiness, not contentment, but rather an overwhelming experience that would dissolve the boundaries of the self. This is why jouissance is both attractive and terrifying. It promises an end to desire, an end to lack, an end to the endless dissatisfaction that characterises symbolic existence. Yet this end would also be the end of the subject.
This paradox structures much of human behaviour. The subject pursues goals, achieves them, and discovers that achievement does not bring the satisfaction that was promised. The subject then pursues new goals, imagining that this time, satisfaction will be real. Yet the pattern repeats. This is not because the subject is choosing the wrong objects or pursuing the wrong goals. Rather, it is because complete satisfaction is impossible by definition.
Jouissance is the name for what complete satisfaction would be. It is what the subject unconsciously pursues, even whilst consciously seeking pleasure, happiness, contentment. And because jouissance is impossible, because it would destroy the subject who attained it, desire continues endlessly, searching for satisfaction that can never be found.
Forms of Jouissance in Everyday Life
Addiction and Compulsion
Addiction provides one of the clearest examples of jouissance in operation. The addict pursues a substance or behaviour that produces pleasure initially but quickly becomes destructive. The rational observer asks: why does the addict continue? Why not simply stop?
Yet this question misunderstands the nature of addiction. The addict is not pursuing pleasure in any simple sense. Rather, they are caught in the compulsion of jouissance. The substance or behaviour produces an excessive enjoyment that goes beyond pleasure, that involves suffering and destruction, yet that exerts an overwhelming attraction.
The addict knows that continued use will cause harm. This knowledge does not stop the compulsion. Indeed, the harm itself becomes part of what is being pursued. The suffering, the destruction of relationships, the deterioration of health: these are not merely unfortunate side effects. They are integral to the experience of jouissance that the addiction provides.
This is why addiction is so difficult to treat. Simply removing access to the substance or behaviour does not address the underlying structure. The addict is not pursuing the substance itself; they are pursuing jouissance, and the substance is merely the means. If one route to jouissance is blocked, the subject will often find another. This is why addiction can shift from one substance to another, from substances to behaviours, in a process sometimes called cross-addiction.
Effective treatment must address the subject’s relationship to jouissance itself. This does not mean eliminating jouissance, which is impossible. Rather, it means helping the subject recognise the structure of their pursuit, the ways in which they are seeking something that cannot be attained, the impossibility of the satisfaction they imagine.
Repetition Compulsion and Trauma
Freud observed that trauma survivors often repeat behaviours or expose themselves to situations that recall the original traumatic event. This seemed paradoxical: why would someone seek out experiences that caused them suffering?
Lacan’s concept of jouissance provides an explanation. The traumatic event involves an encounter with something that exceeds the symbolic order, something that cannot be integrated into meaning or narrative. This encounter is with jouissance: an overwhelming experience that dissolves the boundaries of the self.
Yet precisely because this experience cannot be symbolised, it returns. The subject repeats behaviours or seeks situations that recall the trauma, attempting unconsciously to master what cannot be mastered, to integrate what cannot be integrated. This repetition is not a desire for the trauma itself. Rather, it is a compulsion driven by the encounter with jouissance that the trauma involved.
This helps explain why trauma is so difficult to process. The subject cannot simply “get over” the traumatic event through talking or understanding. The event involved something that exceeds language and meaning. Therapeutic work with trauma must therefore involve more than creating a narrative or finding meaning. It must help the subject establish a different relationship to the jouissance that the trauma involved.
Transgression and Taboo
Transgressive behaviour provides another window into jouissance. The subject is drawn to what is forbidden, to what violates social norms, to what transgresses the boundaries established by the symbolic order. This might involve sexual practices that are taboo, behaviours that are illegal, or simply thoughts and fantasies that violate moral codes.
From the perspective of the pleasure principle, transgression seems irrational. Why would the subject pursue something that causes social sanction, moral guilt, or legal punishment? Yet from the perspective of jouissance, transgression makes sense. The forbidden precisely because it is forbidden exerts an attraction. The violation of limits, the transgression of boundaries: this is where jouissance emerges.
This does not mean that all transgression should be celebrated or that limits serve no purpose. The symbolic order establishes limits for reasons: to protect individuals, to enable social cooperation, to maintain the conditions for meaningful existence. Yet the fact remains that these limits generate their own violation. The subject is drawn to transgress precisely because transgression offers access to jouissance.
This creates a paradox for ethics and politics. Simply establishing stricter prohibitions does not eliminate transgressive desire; it may intensify it. The forbidden becomes more attractive precisely because it is forbidden. Yet eliminating all prohibitions does not solve the problem either. Without limits, there is no transgression, but also no clear structure for desire and meaning.
Jouissance and the Body
The Body as Site of Jouissance
Jouissance is not merely psychological; it is intimately connected to the body. The body is the site where jouissance is experienced, where the excessive enjoyment that exceeds the pleasure principle manifests itself. This is why certain bodily experiences, particularly those involving pain, intensity, or overwhelming sensation, can become sites of compulsive return.
Sexual experience provides an obvious example. Sexuality involves the body in ways that can exceed the regulated economy of pleasure. Sexual practices can push boundaries, involve pain, transgress taboos. The orgasm itself is a moment of overwhelming sensation that briefly dissolves the boundaries of the self. In this sense, sexuality is always potentially connected to jouissance, to an enjoyment that goes beyond pleasure into territory that is excessive and transgressive.
Yet jouissance is not limited to sexuality. Any bodily experience that involves intensity, excess, or the transgression of limits can become a site of jouissance. This includes pain, hunger, exhaustion, intoxication. These experiences push the body beyond its comfortable functioning, into states that involve suffering yet that can exert a compulsive attraction.
This helps explain certain forms of self-harm, eating disorders, and extreme physical practices. The subject is not simply seeking pain or discomfort. Rather, they are pursuing a form of jouissance that the body makes possible, an experience that exceeds the symbolic order and provides access to something more real, more intense, more authentic than ordinary regulated existence.
Suffering and Masochism
Masochism presents a particular puzzle for theories of pleasure. Why would the subject seek out pain, humiliation, or suffering? Surely the psyche seeks pleasure and avoids pain?
Yet masochism reveals that the relationship between pleasure and pain is more complex than this simple model suggests. The masochist does not simply desire pain in place of pleasure. Rather, the masochist has discovered a route to jouissance through suffering. The pain, humiliation, or degradation produces an excessive enjoyment that goes beyond the pleasure principle.
This is not the same as sadism, though the two are often conflated. The sadist pursues jouissance through the suffering of another; the masochist pursues it through their own suffering. Both involve transgression: the sadist transgresses by inflicting harm; the masochist transgresses by accepting it. Both reveal that jouissance emerges at the limits of the symbolic order, where regulated desire breaks down.
Understanding masochism requires recognising that suffering can provide a route to jouissance. This does not mean that all suffering involves jouissance or that suffering should be celebrated. Rather, it means acknowledging that some forms of suffering are unconsciously sought, that they provide something the subject desires even whilst consciously rejecting it.
Jouissance and the Other
Jouissance of the Other
Lacan distinguished between jouissance of the subject and jouissance of the Other. The subject’s own jouissance is what we have been discussing: the excessive enjoyment that the subject pursues, often unconsciously, often at great cost. Yet there is also the question of the Other’s jouissance: what does the Other enjoy? What does the Other want from me?
This question haunts the subject. The child asks: what does mother want? What would satisfy her desire? The adult asks similar questions of lovers, employers, authority figures. The subject seeks to position themselves as the object that would bring jouissance to the Other. Yet this is a trap. The Other’s jouissance, like the subject’s own jouissance, is excessive, overwhelming, potentially destructive.
When the subject imagines that they are the cause of the Other’s jouissance, that they are what the Other desires absolutely, anxiety results. To be the object of the Other’s jouissance would mean being consumed, overwhelmed, dissolved. This is why the question “What does the Other want?” is so troubling. The subject fears that what the Other wants is too much, that it would destroy the subject to provide it.
This structure is particularly visible in certain forms of relationship dynamics. The subject who believes they must satisfy the Other’s every desire, who cannot bear to disappoint, who sacrifices themselves endlessly: this subject is caught in a fantasy about the Other’s jouissance. They imagine that the Other’s satisfaction depends on them, that they must provide what the Other lacks. Yet this fantasy is itself a form of jouissance for the subject. The endless self-sacrifice produces its own excessive enjoyment.
Superego and Obscene Enjoyment
The superego, in Lacanian theory, is not simply the internalised voice of parental or social authority. It is also the agency that commands jouissance. The superego does not simply say “you must obey the law.” It says “you must enjoy!” It demands that the subject pursue satisfaction, that they achieve, that they excel, that they never rest.
This command to enjoy is paradoxical. Enjoyment cannot be commanded; it emerges spontaneously or not at all. Yet the superego insists. The subject must be happy, must be satisfied, must achieve fulfilment. And when the subject fails, as they inevitably do, the superego punishes them with guilt.
This superego command is itself a form of obscene jouissance. The superego enjoys the subject’s failure, enjoys their guilt, enjoys their suffering. The more the subject tries to satisfy the superego’s demands, the more impossible satisfaction becomes. This creates a vicious cycle: the subject pursues jouissance in response to the superego’s command, fails to attain it, suffers guilt, and the superego’s command intensifies.
This structure is visible in contemporary culture’s emphasis on happiness, success, and self-optimisation. The subject is told they must be happy, must achieve their potential, must optimise every aspect of life. Yet this very demand makes satisfaction impossible. The subject is never happy enough, never successful enough, never optimised enough. The pursuit itself becomes a form of suffering, yet one that the subject cannot abandon because the superego continues to command: enjoy!
Jouissance and Contemporary Culture
Consumer Culture and the Promise of Jouissance
Consumer capitalism operates by promising jouissance whilst delivering only regulated pleasure. Advertising tells the subject that this product, this experience, this lifestyle will bring complete satisfaction. Yet when the product is purchased, the experience consumed, the lifestyle adopted, satisfaction remains elusive. The subject then pursues the next promise, the next product, the next fantasy of fulfilment.
This is not a failure of consumer culture; it is precisely how it functions. Consumer culture must promise jouissance whilst ensuring that jouissance is never actually attained. If satisfaction were truly achieved, consumption would cease. The economy depends on the endless pursuit of what cannot be had.
Yet this creates genuine suffering. The subject experiences the gap between what is promised and what is delivered as personal failure. They imagine that others are achieving satisfaction, that they alone are failing to find what consumer culture promises. This generates shame, anxiety, and the compulsion to consume more intensely, to pursue satisfaction more desperately.
Understanding jouissance helps reveal this structure. Consumer culture is not offering products; it is offering access to jouissance. Yet jouissance cannot be purchased. It emerges at the limits of the symbolic order, where regulated desire breaks down. No product can provide it, no experience can capture it, no lifestyle can contain it.
Digital Life and Excessive Enjoyment
Digital technology has created new forms of jouissance. Social media, pornography, gaming, and endless content consumption all offer experiences that can become compulsive, that exceed the pleasure principle, that involve suffering even as they are pursued.
The subject scrolls endlessly through social media, experiencing neither pleasure nor satisfaction, yet unable to stop. The subject consumes pornography in ways that become increasingly extreme, chasing an intensity that cannot be reached. The subject games for hours, neglecting health, relationships, responsibilities, pursuing victory or progression that provides no genuine satisfaction.
These behaviours reveal jouissance in operation. The subject is not seeking pleasure in any simple sense. Rather, they are caught in a compulsion that exceeds rational self-interest, that produces its own form of excessive enjoyment even whilst causing harm.
Digital technology intensifies jouissance by removing physical and temporal limits. There is always more content to consume, always another level to reach, always another image to view. The endless availability creates an endless compulsion. The subject pursues satisfaction that is always one click away, yet never actually arrives.
The Politics of Jouissance
Jouissance also has political dimensions. Political movements, particularly those involving transgression or revolutionary change, often tap into jouissance. The promise of revolution, of overthrowing the existing order, of creating something radically new: this promise involves jouissance. It offers access to something beyond the regulated politics of the symbolic order, something more intense, more authentic, more real.
Yet this political jouissance is also dangerous. Revolutionary movements can become captured by the very excess they promise to unleash. The transgression of limits, the violation of norms, the pursuit of radical change: these can lead to violence, to the dissolution of meaning and order, to outcomes that are destructive rather than liberating.
This does not mean that political change is impossible or undesirable. Rather, it means recognising that political movements must navigate the relationship to jouissance carefully. Pure transgression, pure excess, pure revolution: these lead to destruction. Yet politics that entirely forecloses jouissance, that offers only regulated administration within existing structures, fails to mobilise the energies necessary for genuine change.
Psychoanalysis and the Ethics of Jouissance
The Analyst’s Position Relative to Jouissance
The psychoanalyst occupies a particular position relative to the analysand’s jouissance. The analysand comes to analysis with complaints: they suffer, they are unhappy, something is wrong. Yet beneath these conscious complaints lies a relationship to jouissance that the analysand does not recognise.
The analyst’s work is not to eliminate jouissance or to help the analysand achieve satisfaction. Rather, it is to help the analysand recognise their relationship to jouissance, to see how they are pursuing forms of enjoyment that cause suffering, to understand the unconscious structures that drive their behaviour.
This requires the analyst to occupy a position that does not gratify the analysand’s demand. If the analyst promises to provide satisfaction, to solve problems, to make the analysand happy, they are perpetuating the fantasy that jouissance can be attained. Instead, the analyst must help the analysand confront the impossibility of complete satisfaction, the ways in which they are pursuing what cannot be had.
This is why psychoanalysis is frustrating. The analysand wants the analyst to provide answers, to make suffering stop, to deliver satisfaction. Yet the analyst refuses these demands. This refusal is not cruel; it is ethical. It maintains the space in which the analysand can discover their own relationship to jouissance, can recognise their own desire, can take responsibility for their own enjoyment.
Traversing the Fantasy
Lacanian psychoanalysis aims ultimately at what Lacan called “traversing the fantasy.” This means moving through the fantasy structures that organise the subject’s relationship to jouissance, recognising them as fantasy, and establishing a different relationship to desire.
Traversing the fantasy does not mean eliminating fantasy or achieving some state beyond desire. Rather, it means recognising that the objects pursued in fantasy, the scenarios staged in fantasy, are attempts to access jouissance that cannot succeed. The objet petit a that fantasy promises to deliver does not exist; jouissance cannot be attained; complete satisfaction is impossible.
Yet this recognition is not depressing. Rather, it is liberating. When the subject recognises that the satisfaction they pursue is impossible, they are freed from the compulsion to pursue it. They can then invest their energy differently, can desire without the fantasy of complete fulfilment, can engage with others and the world from a position that accepts lack rather than trying endlessly to overcome it.
This is what Lacan means by subjective destitution: the subject accepts that they are not who they imagined themselves to be, that the objects they pursued do not exist, that the Other does not hold the answers. This acceptance is painful. It involves a kind of death: the death of the ego’s fantasies, the death of imaginary identifications, the death of the fantasy of completeness. Yet through this death, a different form of existence becomes possible.
Living With Jouissance
The goal of psychoanalysis is not to eliminate jouissance but to establish a different relationship to it. Jouissance cannot be eliminated; it is constitutive of human subjectivity. The subject will always be drawn to what exceeds the pleasure principle, to what transgresses limits, to what promises satisfaction beyond the symbolic order.
Yet the subject can recognise this structure. They can understand that the compulsions they experience, the addictions they develop, the transgressions they pursue, are all attempts to access jouissance. And they can choose, to some degree, how they relate to these attempts.
This is not a matter of willpower or rational control. The subject cannot simply decide to stop pursuing jouissance. But they can recognise the patterns, can understand the costs, can see the ways in which their pursuit of excessive enjoyment is causing suffering. And with this recognition, some space for choice emerges.
Living with jouissance means accepting that complete satisfaction is impossible, that desire will never be fully satisfied, that the symbolic order will always have limits. Yet it also means recognising that within these limits, meaningful existence is possible. The subject can pursue projects, can engage in relationships, can create and enjoy without the fantasy that doing so will bring complete fulfilment.
Related Episodes in The William Gomes Podcast Series
Episode 1: Why Lacan Still Matters Today Episode 6: The Real: Lacan, Trauma and What Lies Beyond Words Episode 9: Objet Petit a and the Quiet Engine of Desire Episode 10: Fantasy and Desire in Emotional Life Episode 13: The Name of the Father: How Symbolic Authority Takes Shape Episode 14: The Phallus: A Symbol of Desire, Value and Meaning in the Psyche Episode 15: Castration: Why Limits Shape Desire and Identity Episode 17: [Next episode in series]
Listen to the Full Episode: Available on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, YouTube, and at williamgomespodcast.com
This article is part of The William Gomes Podcast’s ongoing exploration of Lacanian psychoanalysis and neurodevelopmental psychology. For more information, visit williamgomespodcast.com or connect with William Gomes on LinkedIn.
