You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
The theory of the drive is heralded as the Lacanian pièce de resistance formulation of sexuality, suffering, and bodily enjoyment. However, tenets of Lacanian drive theory often go unquestioned. This risks theoretical and clinical reification. Here, I follow Darian Leader’s call to revisit Lacanian drive theory. Specifically, I question the status of rim-like erotogenic zones as drive-sources. Via the basic emotions in affective neuroscience, Mark Solms has reclassified the drives as multiple categories of felt uncertainty (jouissance, in Lacanian neuropsychoanalysis). On this view, erotogenic zones are not drive-sources; they are drive-objects. Drive-sources are internal to the body and central nervous system. Formulating erotogenic zones as drive-objects clarifies their multifaceted plasticity: basic emotional drives lean upon (Anlehnung) each other when the same bodily zones become means for dealing with jouissance. Objets a (breast, feces, gaze, voice, phallus) correspond to surplus uncertainty condensed in declarative representations cathected by multiple basic emotional drives. The corporeal partial objects (breast, feces, eye, ear, penis) are among the first of such representations, which must be repressed during development as the subject reckons with questions around the Other’s desire. Contrary to antinaturalist Lacanian positions, biology therefore is fundamental to sexuality and gender but not in a deterministic fashion. Biology contributes a complex array of felt uncertainties—distinct, conflicting affective pressures—the bodily zones and symbolic elaborations of which are soldered and negotiated via the Other.